Monday, 28 February 2011

Service interruption

I am experiencing horrendous internet connection problems. It took more than ten minutes for my blog to load. Trawling the internet and blogosphere is impracticable at present. It is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts for the next few days.


  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, doc. nr.1063.rtf. google translation in german/english language:

    Be careful, the media are now fed deliberately and systematically for publish Disinformation of Abdelbaset al Megrahi !
    Under the Prologue, "whoever digs a pit for others, falls in himself", the secret machinations of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, in the context of the "Lockerbie Affair" soon be revealed.
    Preliminary information: Mr Abdel Al Megrahi has been through a Miscarriage of Justice, in the "Lockerbie Case" incorrectly sentenced as guilty. Al Megrahi is innocent, because he in the real attack on PanAm 103, nothing may have to do !
    Conversely, Mr. Al Megrahi was blackmailed to let fall his promising Appeal...
    Achtung, die Medien werden jetzt über Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi, vorsätzlich und gezielt mit Desinformation gefüttert !

    Unter dem Prolog "wer anderen eine Grube gräbt, fällt selbst hinein" werden demnächst geheim gehaltene Tatsachen im Kontext mit der "Lockerbie Affäre" veröffentlicht.
    Vorab Information: Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi ist durch ein "Miscarriage of Justice", im "Lockerbie-Fall" falsch als Schuldig verurteilt worden.
    Al Megrahi ist unschuldig, weil er an der realen Attacke von PanAm 103, nichts zu tun haben kann !
    Reziprok, Mr. Al Megrahi wurde erpresst, sein Erfolg versprechendes Appeal fallen zulassen...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL:

  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, doc. nr.1064.rtf. google translation, german/english.
    Again, again --- Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi has nothing to do with the PanAm 103 bombing, because he unequivocally and for demonstrable fact, nothing could have to do can !

    First Minister Alex Salmond and Scottish Parliament at last opening you documents of the Scottish Criminal Cases Reappeal Commission (SCCRC) and the document under "National Security (PII), " before Al Megrahi's Dismiss Report is published!
    Klar Schiff:
    Nochmals --- Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi hat nichts zutun mit dem PanAm 103 Attentat, weil er zweifelsfrei und aus nachweislichen Fakts, nichts zutun haben konnte !

    First Minister Alex Salmond und Scottish Parliament öffnen sie endlich die Dokumente der Scottish Criminal Cases Reappeal Commission (SCCRC) sowie das Dokument unter "National Security (PII)", bevor Al Megrahi's Entlasstungs- Bericht veröffentlicht wird !

    by Edwin Bollier und Gruppe, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL:

  3. "It is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts for the next few days."
    If Kitchener had had that attitude we would have lost the garrisons at Ladysmith, Mafeking and Kimberley - the whole bloody lot.

  4. Never mind.

  5. Stating the Obvious

    Justice for Megrahi is fundamentally concerned with the issue of how the representatives of the Scottish criminal justice system, who were entrusted with its application, performed at Zeist. We question how it was possible to arrive at a guilty verdict based on the evidence led by the Crown in court. We have never speculated on whether or not Mr al-Megrahi, or anyone else for that matter, carried out the act of bringing down Pan Am 103. In fact, it is a binding article of our constitution that to use either the name of JFM or a JFM platform in order to speculate on responsibility for the act is unacceptable. To do so can result in expulsion from the group. It is our contention that Mr al-Megrahi was convicted of the crime he was charged with by a standard which did not conform to that of beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, we believe that, based on the evidence presented by the crown, no reasonable court could have convicted him since the rationale employed was not in keeping with what a cross section of 15 lay jurors would perceive to be a credible conclusion to reach. It is as pure and as simple as that.

    Whilst to some this may appear to be the rather indulgent product of a group of well-heeled gentlemen discussing the finer points of some exotic branch of philosophy over their brandy and cigars, it is in fact a matter which lies at the very core of our society and one which puts us apart from the law of the jungle and the lynch mob. If we decide to ignore it for the sake of political expediency, the preservation of reputations, the saving of money, or for whatever other reasons that are unconnected with the facts surrounding what took place at Zeist, we are inviting a return to the likes of the show trail. This is not a legacy which we wish to leave to our children and future generations. Our justice system symbolises our identity as a people. We neglect it at our peril.

    Nothing which is currently coming out of the political turmoil in Libya can ever change the fact of Zeist. Nothing. If anything, the so far unsubstantiated claims emanating from this upheaval do not detract from the need for an inquiry into Zeist, they support it.

  6. Incidentally since March 2003, Britain's Foreign Office and the MI6 intelligence service have received in addition to their knowledge, in an second attention from an trustworthy CONTACT, that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi (ESO member "CARA/F4") with the crash of Pan Am 103, can not be linked !
    by Edwin Bollier

  7. For the Scottish Government it is still the right time: Justice for Mr. Al Megrahi, apology to the Libyan people and for the media, open the 'SCCRC' documents and the document under 'National Security' (PII).

  8. Edwin, name and details of the TRUSTWORTHY contact, please.

  9. attn. Grendal:
    Mr. Musa Kusa, the former head of Libya's intelligenc agency, gave the facts for Al Megrahi's exoneration and its word of honour, on 21st of March 2003 around PM15:00, in a confidential meeting in Britain's Foreign Office and MI6 inelligence service.
    An Global Relief Story in favor for Libya at compile and remains provisionally stand by.
    best E.B.

  10. The Public Petitions Committee is scheduled to discuss the Justice for Megrahi petition PE1370 in Committee Room 1 of the Scottish Parliament, starting at 14:00hrs GMT today.

    PE1370 is the seventh item on the PPC agenda and proceedings can be viewed live by clicking on this link.

  11. I'd just like to endorse every word Robert said above. This goes to the absolute heart of the issue, and the rest of it is just fluff.

  12. At 13:45hrs GMT today, the Public Petitions Committee decided to put JFM petition PE1370 into its legacy papers with a suggestion that the PPC which takes office after the May 5th General Election in Scotland either takes up the petition or refers it to the new Justice Committee.

  13. Sorry, the PPC decision was at 15:45hrs GMT!

  14. Dear commentators,

    I am happy to announce, despite a couple of minor heart stopping moments for myself, that PE1370 has now won 3 out of 3 rounds at Holyrood. It was agreed today by the SPPPC to carry the petition over in their Legacy Paper to the next parliament which will follow the dissolution of the current parliament later this month and the general election to be held in early May of this year. This now means that those composing the SPPPC in the new parliament will have to decide whether or not to submit the petition to the Justice Committee to invite, in accordance with our recommendations, the Crown, the government and the SCCRC to testify before it regarding our call for an inquiry and other matters that we have raised, or to invite said representatives to give evidence directly before the newly formed SPPPC itself. The only other option available would be to close the petition, in which case, we would move to the next stage of our master plan. The contributions which swung today's decision in our favour concerned our accusation that the Crown had been misinforming the government on the status of the case and the current unsubstantiated allegations emanating from the upheaval in Libya.

    So far so good, as they say.

    Robert Forrester.

  15. At the risk of you all throwing your infidel shoes at me, I had a begrudging admiration for the leader of West Libya when watching the interview he gave in English (was that a John Galliano suriyah he was wearing?)
    The interviewer could not shake his confidence once, and he seemed believable when he said he will live on, and fight back. They're going to have to bomb him out, me thinks.

  16. Quincey: Is it is wise to take the stance, that events happening in Libya can be brushed off as being of little significance to the JFM campaign? Listening and agreeing to what you are saying, concerned though that a lot of the peripheral energy that JFM has been harnessing to further its objective has been based on the wider interest of a suspected conspiracy and the clandestine 'goings on' of the UK and US governments with their suspected framing of Libya for a crime that was not Libya's, and therefore not Megrahi's. And now it looks like you have been forced by events to clarify (even narrow) the JFM set of principles purely because the Libyan government, by its behaviour of resisting revolt, is not helping the cause.
    Therefore, is Megrahi, a possibly innocent man, of any real concern to JFM, or is he just a side character in what is really a parochial Scots Law debacle? Parochial, because a lot of people would not have 'signed up' if had not had that international dimension.
    If Megrahi's part in all of this is perceived to be expendable, a lot of the peripheral support may vanish. Worse still, if people begin to suspect he may even actually be implicated in something dodgy (as more officials 'tell all') - they will start to fail to distinguish between the finer points of the trial process that you question and the atrocity as a whole. They will just condemn the whole thing, feel duped and disengage.

  17. Blogiston .....Megraghi`s part in " all this"..... But what is " all this"? While I never liked the name "Justice for Megrahi", concentrating first on his conviction at Camp Zeiss is the correct strategy for anyone trying find the whole truth about Lockerbie. The Zeiss verdict will remain the fig leaf for these people who will dismiss the findings of any inquiry set up by the Scottish Government by simply saying "he was found guilty by a Scottish court after a fair trial."
    Of course, that inquiry would only have the information which Britain, America and, presumably, the government of the forthcoming "Free Libya" did not withhold for reasons of national security.
    That is not to say that the Scottish judiciary clearing Megrahi will automatically lead to the revelation of all the facts pertaining to Lockerbie but it seems to me the sine qua non.
    Had it not been for the fact that Megrahi was convicted by one of our parochial courts, the search for the truth would have taken a very different path.

  18. Blogiston I find the phrase "parochial Scots Law" offensive as a Scot. There is nothing parochial about it. Scotland has its own independent justice system. It is not a Community Council!

    There is a case to be heard on the verdict as outlined in the findings of the SCCRC. Those findings are what we should not allow anyone to bury.

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. And Blogiston, do you think those in Scotland who have been involved in this issue for so long will simply fall away as some terrified former Libyan officials "tell all" (but fail to provide proof to back up their claims)? Do you think we are THAT stupid and "parochial"?

    And are you saying the findings of the SCRRC regarding a particular trial are no longer relevant because of all these (so far groundless) revelations?

    I have said on a number of occasions that for me this was not about justice for Megrahi: for me it was about justice for Scotland and the path to the truth about Lockerbie. I have heard nothing so far to make me change my mind that publishing the findings of the SCCRC (another NON parochial body) is still the only way forward. And I will not stop working towards that outcome.

  21. Worse still, if people begin to suspect he may even actually be implicated in something dodgy (as more officials 'tell all') - they will start to fail to distinguish between the finer points of the trial process that you question and the atrocity as a whole.

    Over the years I've had a number of people say to me, "but you haven't proved he had nothing to do with it! I still think he was mixed up in it somehow!"

    The only reasonable reply to this is that any case that Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing would have to be a case put together completely de novo. And that given all the evidence pointing to the bomb having been introduced at Heathrow, it would have to take into account the fact that he was a thousand miles away at the time.

    What evidence do we have for these new hints that Megrahi was somehow involved in a back-room capacity? Absolutely none at all. Strikingly, the two sets of allegations are almost mutually exclusive, and equally strikingly, neither is accompanied by anything remotely resembling evidence.

    Can we say with certainty that Megrahi had no involvement in the bombing? Strictly speaking, no - just as you couldn't say with certainty that I had no involvement in the bombing! All we can say is that there is still no evidence.

    It's a difficult balance to strike. On one hand, we have no reason to believe there's a word of truth in any of this dreck. On the other, since we don't know what the basis for the allegations is, we can't refute them.

    JFM has always taken the stance that the conviction is unsafe based on the evidence presented at Zeist, not "Megrahi is innocent". Nothing new there. Should there be a firmer emphasis on the lack of evidence against him, which hasn't changed one iota in the past week? I don't know. However, it is always important not to over-state one's case.

  22. Dear Blogiston,

    If you wish to have a copy of JFM's constitution dating back to the time of the first member's expulsion (over a year ago), when it became clear to us that we could not trust certain individuals not to abuse the objectives of our group, I will be more than happy to provide you with a copy. For the record, two people over the last year have been expelled for abusing our constitution precisely because they insisted on using the name of our organisation to give kudos to their speculative theories on the downing of 103. I understand and accept that you have drawn your conclusions out of ignorance of the nature of JFM, its constitution and what it stands for. We have at all times been clear that we are a group that focuses solely on the quality of the Zeist judgement no more and no less. I challenge you to locate any statements made by myself, Robert Black, Iain Mckie and the others on our committee associating the name of JFM with anything other than the propriety of the Zeist judgement.

    If I may, for a moment speak entirely for myself and not as JFM's secretary. I am concerned exclusively and completely with fact. Not truth, but fact. If truth happens to coincide with the facts, well and good, that will be a bonus. The central reason that I, personally, became involved in this was because I perceived the simplicity of the facts surrounding it. Anyone that thinks that the central role of courts of fact is to establish the truth is, frankly, living in La La land. No judicial system can operate on that basis. Courts of fact are purely and simply precisely that: courts of fact. Their function is to manufacture fact out of ignorance. Whilst to many in the laity that could sound twisted or even bonkers, it is a fundamental and basic building block of our justice system. And that is why I became committed to this cause when we mutually founded JFM at the back end of 2008. So, my second challenge to you is this: devise a better system.

    Insofar as our membership decreasing or our support diminishing over the last few days whilst Libya comes to terms with itself, I am happy to inform you that our membership has increased and we are receiving the usual number of invitations for comment by the media.



  23. As always, Mr Forrester, your eloquence and force of argument are (ahem...) unassailable!

  24. Rolfe, the interesting thing tho is that for some reason, all hands are on deck, including those of the SNP, to make sure the SCCRC doesn't get to state ITS case, full stop.

  25. Quincey: Getting the impression you think I was prodding you with a pointy stick - which is not the case. And hence your riposte and challenges.
    I withdraw, unconditionally, the phrase, "And now it looks like you have been forced... (even narrow) the JFM set of principles" - if that is the offending phrase. I did think that was probably problematic under scrutiny.
    I am travelling right now, so when I get back home tonight, I'll address your comments.

  26. The fact is, any case that Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing would have to be made entirely de novo. If he didn't buy the clothes from Tony Gauci, there's nothing left. There's no evidence the bomb even travelled on KM180.

    You're left with a shed-load of evidence that the bomb was smuggled into Heathrow airport and introduced into that baggage container around 4pm, when Megrahi was verifiably in Tripoli.

    So you have to start again. Was it a Libyan operation in the first place? Even the evidence for that is pretty debatable. If it was, who carried out the plan? I think there are quite a few candidates more likely than Megrahi.

    It's nothing but tittle-tattle and fairly-stories being told by people trying to say what they think the western governments would like them to say.

  27. Dear Blogiston,

    Sounds like you too are a veteran of the piste.

    It's nothing personal, you understand. It has been pointed out to me many times before that I have an unfortunate tendency to treat polemics a bit like a cavalry charge. In fact, my sons, both politically very switched on as well as being highly experienced fencers, are of a similar disposition. One of the funniest comments a friend of one of theirs once made after witnessing one of our 'debates' went along the lines of: "What kind of family is this? I feel like I've just been an observer at The Battle of Kursk!"

    Toodle pip,