Saturday, 31 December 2011

Scottish police trying to prevent publication of SCCRC report

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]

One of the important features of the Lockerbie case is that a three year investigation (2004-2007) by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission proved that a miscarriage of justice occurred.   The SCCRC discovered that the two principal identification  witnesses (the CIA's Majid Giaka and Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci) were secretly paid huge amounts, each receiving $2m for their evidence. The police concealed these payments from the judges and defence. 

Even as this webpage is being updated, the Scottish police are trying to hide this fact from public scrutiny.  In a briefing note unearthed by the SCCRC inquiry, on 15th May 2007 DI Dalgliesh advised his colleagues "The SCCRC's statement of reasons is likely to question the integrity of Gauci's evidence ... there is a real danger that if the SCCRC's statement is leaked to the media, Gauci could be portrayed as having given flawed evidence for financial reward..."

So now we know why desperate attempts are being made behind the scenes to prevent publication, using the specious excuses of "protect our human rights, protect our personal data etc etc".  

Only an inquiry by an independent senior judge can restore confidence in a legal system today widely regarded as untrustworthy and tainted.  

The two key elements of the conviction of al-Megrahi are:

1. The identification of Al-Megrahi: In an extraordinary development in 2005, Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci was exposed as an unreliable witness by the man who in 1991 indicted Megrahi, former Scottish Lord Advocate Peter Fraser.  In Fraser's words, Gauci was "an apple short of a picnic."  The judges had trusted Gauci's confused evidence, unaware of the existence of several other contradictory statements kept secret by the police.  The police also failed to reveal that another witness had proof that Al-Megrahi was not the culprit. The police also kept secret the US offers of unlimited rewards to Gauci if Al-Megrahi was convicted.  It is now proven that Gauci received $2 million and his brother Paul $1 million.

2. A fragment of a printed circuit board:  Found by Dr Thomas Hayes, its label had been altered by unknown persons' and the entry concerning that finding  in Hayes' notebook remains to this day highly suspicious.

To re-establish the reputation of Scottish justice it is imperative that an independent inquiry take place into the undisclosed evidence and its effect upon the course of the trial. 


  1. The amazing thing is that the Zeist show trial was ever held.

    Judge, prosecution and defence all failed in their duty to justice, but presumably not to Crown!

    No wonder they excluded a jury, who could have laughed the case out of court.

    But of course its worse, because another jury, the public, remained uninformed because the mass media colluded with the farce.

    But the times they are a changing. The SNP victory, the Heralds call for a Public Inquiry and the Ron Paul campaign, are bringing the truth closer.

  2. Why did Peter Fraser decide to call Gauci what he did? He may have believed it to be true, but why say it at all?

  3. Once again—falsehoods and half truths are being passed off as fact.
    The Swire-Biddulph site said the SCCRC “proved” a miscarriage of justice had occurred when in fact, they have no way to “prove” that. Their statement was that that a miscarriage “may have occurred” and that is a far cry from proven. One thing to note is that none of the Commission members had the opportunity to observe any witness under direct and cross examination, something three senior court judges could do and make judgments for themselves.

    The issue of payments to witnesses being withheld from defense counsel and the court is absolutely false. At trial there was no issue as no witness had been paid or offered to have been paid for testimony. Therefore the statement that the police “concealed these payments from the judges and defense” is a flat misstatement.

    The Swire Biddulph site also allegedly posted that the former Lord Advocate said that Tony Gauci was “an apple short of a picnic.” What Peter Fraser actually said was “…I have no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci’s evidence.” He went on to say, “Indeed such was the thoroughness of the investigation and the way in which it developed that I probably would place greater emphasis and credibility on Mr. Gauci’s evidence than any of my successors as lord advocate.” He further said that any view of his was not relevant as all that mattered was the view of the judges. “Three of Scotland’s High Court judges heard him give evidence properly subject to cross examination and they were specific in their conclusion that he was entirely credible.”

    It is also a travesty that while particular people continue to rely on certain findings of the SCCRC, they ignore other findings. The last paragraph of this post indicates a concern with the timer fragment. The SCCRC found nothing to prove that that fragment was other than what it was claimed to be—a piece of a timer manufactured by a Swiss company. Only 20 were ever made and all given to Libyan intelligence.

    It is unfortunate that these falsehoods continue to be propagated. It may be time to resurrect the “Golfer”—another person whose position and credibility were grossly overstated in the past, but seems we have forgotten that.

  4. Mr. Marquise,

    I agree with you that the SCCRC report would not "prove" that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. Any such proof could only be decided by court.

    You write:
    "At trial there was no issue as no witness had been paid or offered to have been paid for testimony. "

    How would you know about that? Are you saying that it couldn't have happened without your knowledge?

    You are asking me to believe that Guaci makes his statements in court with no promises and expectations raised by any.

    But afterwards you send several millions of dollars to this trial witness, and his brother?

    Did you just happen to like Gauci a lot?
    Maybe you can explain me under which US legislation you sent the money? Is there a "Post-payment to trial witnesses, that just happened to be speaking in US favor?"

    Unless you can provide an answer to this, your case is resoundingly lost, Mr. Marquise.

    Just as well as if somebody transfers money to a drug syndicate or a hired killer. Regardless if it happens before or after the delivery of drugs or the murder. Unless you have a damn good explanation of why the money was transferred, any jury will need no further proof.

    And so, yes, there was an issue already at trial time, and the police chose not to inform about this little detail.

    And if this could not have happened without your knowledge, Mr. Marquise, you were involved in the most despicable crime of bribing a trial witness.

    In a case where a hundreds of people were murdered, and relatives waiting for justice.

  5. The viewers of this blog are much more aware of issues in reference to Lockerbie than I. Still i offer a new perspective.

    My name is Sharyn Bovat and I'm an American who a long time ago was a low level researcher: I've been silent for 17 years BUT after I was arrested 3 times on a "trumped up" misdemeanor I felt compelled to speak out.

    I've had a blog since June 2009 that has almost 2 million hits and over 450,000 page views.

    Everything I know in reference to the Lockerbie cover up is on my blogs and it's just a "little" bit.

    I have a child and I've been bullied and harassed.

    All this happened because I whistle blew about bad spending of taxpayer money being done by people that were connected to Iran Contra.

    When they realized who I was they 'swore out' warrants and had me arrested. In America people are not free to speak. Especially when words are about people that were connected to the CIA. FYI- I'm proud of the fact that I come from a family with CIA connections. Not all are bad, many are honorable people that love America.
    This blog has been a wealth of inspiration: In America people believe that Libya is the sole aggressor. The media is very biased.


    Richard Marquise, either Gauci was promised money pre-trial or he wasn't. Previously you have hidden behind your own, alleged, ignorance of any such arrangement saying that if it happened you were unaware of it. Peter Fraser took the same line but has now admitted that it did happen and shouldn't have. Fraser is in no position to say that the payment of money to a witness is evidentialy irrelevent in this or any other case and neither are you. That can only be judged in a public court where "justice" can be seen to be done but I doubt there are many other people in this world who could "have no aspersions to cast" on the evidence of a bribed witness.
    If Gauci was paid millions of dollars then Megrahi is innocent in law. No amount of subterfuge by you or other "investigators" can change that.
    In spite of the shameful attempts to suppress the facts about Lockerbie, the truth continues to trickle out. Your statements on this site about the case over the years leave us no wiser about where you really stand on the issue of the Gauci bribe. So please answer the questions: Do you now accept that, since the Lockerbie trial, Gauci received a large payment(s) of money? If you do who paid that money and why?

  7. The Gauci thing is weird. Who on earth imagines anyone could be reasonably certain of identifying someone they met only once for a short time ten years earlier? Especially when the original meeting was a commonplace encounter among many such fleeting encounters?

    There have been many TV exposes of the unreliability of eye-witness identifications of this nature. Not to mention the scientific research that suggests after less than ONE year, any subsequent identification is no more reliable than a random guess.

    And indeed, Tony never said he was sure Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes. On the contrary, he said "NOT the man I saw in my shop...." before going on to say that he resembled the man. It was the judges who put this together with the astonishing leap of illogic of deciding that tray 8849 was definitely the bomb coming through from Malta, to make the utterly unsupportable assumption that "resembles" was good enough for them.

    Bear in mind that Tony's original, unprompted description of the clothes purchaser was of a man over six feet tall, heavily built, dark-skinned, and about fifty years old. Megrahi is 5 feet 8 inches tall, of medium build, light-skinned, and was 36 years old at that time. Bear in mind that Tony originally dismissed ALL the pictures in the 14th February photospread as "too young", when some of these are clearly of men in their forties.

    Bear in mind also that the photo of Megrahi Tony actually picked out of that photospread was such an extraordinarily poor likeness that few people can recognise it as Megrahi even when they know it's supposed to be him. It's also fuzzy and blurry. It also stood out like a sore thumb in the photospread, so that once Tony had been in effect told to go back and pick someone, that was by far the likeliest picture he was going to choose.

    The two picks Tony made - that blurry, unrecognisable picture in 1991 and the 47-year-old Megrahi in 1999 - don't look anything like EACH OTHER, for God's sake.

    What was that all about? Why was Tony paid all that money? Not to say "that's the man, I'm sure of it". He didn't say that. It's pretty clear the money was the inducement to stop him telling the truth - that after more than ten years, plus being thoroughly confused by the investigators showing him scores of pictures of potential suspects, he had no clue at all what the original purchaser looked like.

  8. Rolfe wrote:
    "It's pretty clear the money was the inducement to stop him telling the truth - that after more than ten years, plus being thoroughly confused by the investigators showing him scores of pictures of potential suspects, he had no clue at all what the original purchaser looked like."

    Exactly. So Guici did what he could, telling only a weakened lie on the trial: pointing to Megrahi, saying he “resembles him a lot”.

    That was enough for the trial judges and Guaci got the money.

  9. I have deleted a comment from Patrick Haseldine, just as I will delete any other comment from that source.

  10. I understand Majid Giaka's reward was witheld - no beacuse he was lying but because his evidence wasn't believed. Curious he never published his memoirs!

    (p.s.Dave - it was people purporting to act in Mr Megrahi's interests who thought getting rid of a Jury was a fantastic idea - not grasping the Judges loathing of "Camp Zeist")

  11. Mr Marquis

    "Once again—falsehoods and half truths are being passed off as fact."

    And now we know for sure that Americans REALLY don't do irony!

  12. The fact is money WAS paid post-trial in the form of millions of dollars to the Gaucis. Had the Scottish court at Zeist known of the payments the US intended to make to certain witnesses their testimony would not have been considered valid. End of.

    Re earlier posts here the SCCRC did not claim to prove anything but it did raise SIX grounds to suggest a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. Those findings should have been tested in a court of law. What happened was the Scottish Judiciary delayed hearing the appeal, the Scottish Government (couching its decision under the cloak of "compassion") got Megrahi home to Libya without scaring the horses and without the appeal being heard.