Sunday, 1 April 2012

Lockerbie bomb did not leave Malta, Justice Minister insists

[This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads in part:]

Malta would continue to stick to its long-held stand that the Lockerbie bomb did not leave from Luqa airport, Justice Minister Chris Said has insisted.

“Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that, according to our records, the bomb did not leave Malta. We are still firm in that conviction,” Dr Said told The Times in view of fresh evidence released by the Scottish authorities.
However, the government does not seem to be interested in petitioning the Scottish auth­orities to re-open the Lockerbie investigation “at least to clear Malta’s name”, as requested by Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella.
Dr Said skirted the issue when asked but added: “We cannot ignore that there were two judgements on (Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi). The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded.”
A report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that was made public this week established that Mr Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing, may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
It also shed doubt on the credibility of a key Maltese witness, Sliema shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who had identified Mr Megrahi as the man he sold clothes to. Fragments of the clothes were found in the remains of the suitcase that contained the bomb.
The Scottish commission had initiated its investigation that laid the groundwork for a review of Mr Megrahi’s appeal but the matter never went beyond the extensive report because the Libyan national was released from jail – where he was serving life – on compassionate grounds in 2009.
Investigators had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing clothing bought from Mr Gauci’s shop was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it eventually made it to Heath­row before being loaded onto the fatal Pan-Am flight 103.
[A report in Thursday's edition of the same newspaper contains the following:]
As fresh evidence emerges on the Lockerbie bombing that sheds serious doubt on Malta’s link, Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella has urged the government to petition the Scottish authorities to reopen the investigation.
“The government should petition the Scottish authorities to reopen the Lockerbie investigation, at least to clear Malta’s name,” Dr Vella said when contacted yesterday, adding the report continued to confirm serious concerns raised over the past years over the guilty verdict.
But according to lawyer Giannella de Marco, who formed part of Mr Megrahi’s defence team at the time, Malta had nothing to clear because it was never accused of helping terrorists.
Investigators had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing clothing bought from a Sliema shop was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it eventually made it to Heathrow before being loaded onto the fatal Pan-Am flight 103. The aircraft exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.
Dr Vella expressed serious concern on the report’s assertion that a key Maltese witness was paid for providing incriminating evidence that led to Mr Megrahi’s conviction. The review commission shed serious doubt on the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Sliema shopkeeper who is supposed to have sold the clothes found in the suitcase to Mr Megrahi.
Mr Gauci, the report said, had also been paid by the US State Department for the important evidence he gave during the trial when identifying Mr Megrahi as “the Libyan” who bought clothes from his shop, Mary’s House, in December 1988.
“It shocks me to know that for money some people will be ready to send someone to jail,” Dr Vella said.
There were big international interests involved, he added, especially if it were true that “evidence was planted and witnesses paid to confirm the story that was created”.
Doubts over Mr Megrahi’s guilty verdict in 2001 have long been cast, especially by British doctor Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the terrorist attack.
Dr Swire has long believed Mr Megrahi is innocent and that Malta could not have been involved in any way. It is a sentiment shared by Dr de Marco.
She always had a suspicion that Mr Gauci was paid because his version and description of the man who supposedly bought clothes from his shop changed many times.
“By time, the description of the man Gauci sold the clothes to, which initially did not resemble Megrahi, grew to resemble him and I am glad that the Scottish review commission has seen his testimony for what it is,” she said.
Dr de Marco does not agree with those who argued Malta had to clear its name. She insisted there was never any conclusive evidence that the bomb had left from Malta and in no way was the country ever accused of aiding terrorists.
“On the contrary, Malta had helped investigators in all ways possible so the truth could emerge,” she said.


    Crucial message, unfortunately only in german language:

    Man muss sich heute fragen, aus welchem Grund wurde die Veröffentlichung des Sottish Criminal Cases Reappeal Commission- Reports, 5 Jahre lang vom 'Scottish Parliament' mit aller Macht blockiert ?
    Offensichtlich nicht wegen den juristischen Fehler die ein neues "Appeal" wegen "Miscarriages of Justice" in 6 Punkten zuliessen, da frühzeitig die entscheidenden Fakts bereits bekannt gemacht wurden !

    Das Ergebnis des 5 Jahre lang dauernden "Reappeal"- Verfahren (total Kosten von £ 1'108'536.00) ist absolut mangelhaft, teilweise naiv und ist vorsätzlich ein "Abklatsch" (spitting image) der fragwürdigen Prozess-Strategie von Kamp van Zeist !
    Die wirklich entscheidenden und entlastenden Beweise von mir, Ed. Bollier (MEBO Ltd) -- zugunsten Al Megrahi und Libyen-- wurden wie bereits im Gerichtsverfahren Kamp van Zeist (2000) ebenfalls vom 'SCCRC' pauschal als "Agent Fantasy" wie im Spionage Film "The Third Man", vorsätzlich als Behauptung ausgegrenzt.
    Gezielt wurden andere massgebende Beweise nicht mit der nötigen Sorgfaltspflicht von der "Scottish Justice" geprüft...

    Dazu gehören unter anderem, die forensische Untersuchung des MST-13 Timerfragments (PT/35) welche eindeutig beweist, dass mit dem "manipulierten Fragment" keine Verbindung mit den 20 Stück nach Libyen (1985-86) gelieferten MST-13 Timer besteht; sowie der Besuch bei MEBO Ltd am Freitag den 30 Dezember 1988, eines gut informierten westlichen Agenten, welcher Ed. Bollier nötigte, einen Brief an die CIA zu schreiben, der unter anderem über die Bestellung und Lieferung von 40 MST-13 Timer nach Libyen, am 18. Dezember 1988 informieren sollte.

    Wie der " Scottish Justiciary" bekannt war, wurde von Bollier am 19. Januar 1989 persönlich ein sogennanter "Fangbrief" im US-Embassy in Vienna (Austria) übergeben, welcher von der CIA nach 14 Tagen per Funk beantwortet wurde. Ich wollte wissen wer hinter dem "Third Man" stand.
    Hätte sich die "Justiciary" allein mit diesen beiden Angelegenheiten (1990-1991) seriös befasst, hätte ein Prozess gegen Libyen's offizielle "Statisten" Lamin Khalifa Fhimah und Abdelbaset al Megrahi, nie stattgefunden...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD Switzerland. URL:

    By the way:
    Shopkeeper Gauci would have to remember the day that the alleged sale of clothes did not take place on 7th December 1988, because the other day, 8th December, was a high holiday (8th December 'Immaculate Conception' - On this holiday all offices and most businesses in Malta are closed. 98% of the population im Malta is Roman Catholic, making the nation one of the most Catholic countries in the world.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL:

  3. That's all very well, saying Malta wasn't accused of anything, but how was the bomb supposed to have got on board? Cannistraro implied a wholesale cover-up and re-writing of the documentary evidence by the Maltese airport authorities, in the years before the trial.

    The first appeal court noted that there was no evidence to say how the bomb had got on board the plane or who put it there, but got over that by saying, we must bear in mind that the Crown case was that this had been accomplished by a criminal act. That absolutely takes me to the fair. Yes, we have no idea how it happened and can't prove that it happened at all but we say it was done by a criminal act so that's why we have no evidence. Er, what?

    But taking that finding into account, who was being accused of the criminal act? It would seem, the Maltese security operatives.

  4. We used to issue visitors passes ,issued by the army at that time from the gate opposite the barracks inside the airport , for gates 1 and 2 ,opps gate, main gate, arrivals and departures and gate 4. We used to log everything ,time in ,time out, name and surname, and signiture of the visitor, it was so easy to go on the apron the way the airport was build .i believe that megrahi had a permanent pass issued by the DCA. Did anybody ask to check the logbooks to see who went in and out on the specific dates?