Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Lockerbie inquiry call responses discussed at Holyrood

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

A Holyrood committee is due to consider responses over a call for an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition seeking the action in October last year.

The petitions committee is to discuss submissions from the Scottish government and the JFM group.

Members of the group, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, are expected to attend.

About 1,500 people signed the petition [RB: actually 1646] seeking an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.

They claim it is "imperative" that the case be examined once more.

However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction".

[The Public Petitions Committee meets today at 2pm, though the Megrahi petition may not be reached until about 4pm. Its proceedings can be viewed live on the Committees section of the Scottish Parliament's television service.]


  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, doc. nr. 1039.rtf., only a google translation german/english

    * If the MEBO offer in an open letter dated, 7th of January 2011, by Edwin Bollier to the Scottish Parliament and a new study in the Lockerbie-Affäre, Justice For Megrahi (JFM) of the group handed over a petition seeking the action in October last year should be rejected, asked Edwin Bollier/ MEBO Ltd. the Scottish government to prosecute him for false accusation of Scottish officials; otherwise it is confirmed that the atrocities of Scottish official not to be revealed !
    By such a Court proceed could prove to be clarified likewise the manipulations and legally confirmed...

    The open letter from Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd.) to the Scottish Parliament, with the offer the evidence to the crucial evidence part "PT/35 (MST-13 timer fragment) clearly set should fall with great interest, when the Scottish Parliament in an honest solution in the unfortunate affair with Libya and Al Megrahi is interested ?

    *Re: Exonerating evidence in the "Lockerbie case":
    After 22 years of political problems with the "Lockerbie affair" and as an answer to "US Justice Undone", we would like to help the Scottish Parliament with a new forensic procedure of taking evidence to 100% rule out Libya and Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi from involvement in the PanAm 103 attack.

    As a manufacturer and supplier of (green) MST-13 timers, made from 9 layers of fibre glass and delivered to the military procurement in Libya between 1985-86 (two years before PanAm 103 crash) we could prove under the supervision of UK, EU and US experts in Edinburgh within 15 minutes that the original partial fragment DP/31(a) comes from a (brown) prototype MST-13 timer "circuit board", which was not delivered to Libya!

    On this occasion, once again Bollier's allegation against Scottish Officials:

    Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the Lockerbie Affair are responsible for manipulating evidence in the Lockerbie Affair and are still protected by the Scottish Justice ! (They are not involved in the PanAm 103 bombing, but responsible for the conspiracy against Libya).

    Notices the words from ex FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise, cordinator between FBI and CIA in the "Lockerbie-Affair":

    If someone manipulated evidence, if somebody didn't invesitgate something that should have been investigated, if somebody twisted it to fit up up Megrahi, or Fimah or Libya, then that person will go to jail. I mean that sincerely, that person should be prosecuted for that!

    by Edwin, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch

  2. As soon as the CIA was outed in Italian newspapers as targets for prosecution, this "orgy" story broke about Berlesconi. Now the story of Lockerbie is hitting the papers,and Ghadaffi is being thrown in the scandal. Watch for a growing list of "villains".

  3. From the above, "About 1,500 people signed the petition [RB: actually 1646]..."

    Prof. Black: There is a distinction between the number of signatures and the number of people who signed the petition. Unless it can be verified that there is a one-to-one correspondence between signatories and signatures, then your attempt at "correcting" the claim is nothing more than misinformation. I am sure it does not escape you that the same person, or even foreign agent, could sign the petition multiple times, but you overlook that self-evident fact--conveniently. Any claim about the number of people who signed the petition is nothing more than unverifiable bullshit.

    The readers can contrast the above deliberately pedestrian misinformation with the previous grandiose fluff that "JFM deals in verifiable facts only." Your little "facts" about the number of signatories are unverifiable. And the independence of JFM from the Gaddafi regime is unverifiable, in view of what is known about its founding and about Swire's consultation with Gaddafi just before launching the petition.

  4. @ Suliman
    "...then your attempt at 'correcting' the claim is nothing more than misinformation".

    Can you ever verify a count of people? E.g. that X% in reality voted for a politician? Vote fraud happens everywhere, and no country seems is above it. Try Google if you are in doubt.

    Now then, if A says that a politician got about 55% of the votes, and B says "59.4%, actually", you'd say B is 'misinforming'.

    I assume you'd say that B should add: "- provided that election fraud did not take place to an extent that would have changed this figure."

    RB could have added: "[...- provided that nobody signed the petition twice or more]" or written the longer "[RB: the number of form submissions as reported from the server provider were 1646]"

    I wonder why he didn't?

    Maybe because RB assumes his readers to be intelligent enough to think this themselves, based on the common understanding of the uncertainty in all such matters.

  5. SM: No need for the "intelligent" machinations you offer. Prof. Black could have said quite simply, "[RB: actually 1646 signatures]". The number of signatures is verifiable, signatories ain't, especially in an e-petition that was opened to the whole world only to be compromised by some "technical difficulties."

  6. To be even more nit-picky, it was 1,649 signatures before the petitions system did whatever it does to check on the signatories and reduced it to 1,646.

    And even before that, at least one obviously silly name was removed while the petition was still open.

    So maybe 1,650 after all, if you're not interested in excluding the dodgy ones.

  7. Rolfe: Greetings! I never agreed that "THE" dodgy ones are only those that were removed by whomever. Whatever the number at the end of the day, it is the number of signatures not signatories. Any attempt to spin that in any other direction is misinformation, particularly when it comes from people who make a point about the difference between being a bomber and being convicted of bombing. It is signatures, and the e-petition was subject to manipulation, including manipulation by foreign agencies. But I guess, in the interest of pretending to be a state, Scotland has no problem whoring its institutions to foreigners. But that is a different issue. The issue here is, when JFM claims to deal only in verifiable facts, the reader should take that with a grain of salt because it is nothing more than puffy, fluffy bullshit.