[This is the headline over a report published today on the ITV News Border website. It reads as follows:]
Campaigners who say that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi did not get a fair trial are to meet with the chief investigator in the Lockerbie bombing inquiry today. Two members from Justice For Megrahi [RB: secretary Robert Forrester and committee member Iain McKie] will speak with former chief constable, Pat Shearer.
[A further report on the same webpage bears the headline Lockerbie bomber campaigners to meet with investigators and reads as follows:]
Campaigners who believe the Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi didn't get a fair trial are to meet with the man in charge of the investigation.
Former chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police Pat Shearer will speak to members of the Justice for Megrahi campaign in Dumfries today.
[The purpose of the meeting is to allow the investigators to explain how they intend to conduct the investigation into Justice for Megrahi's allegations of criminal misconduct in the course of the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial.
A television report following the meeting, including an interview with Robert Forrester, can be viewed here on the ITV News Border website. Because of internet connection difficulties in the Roggeveld Karoo, I have not myself been able to watch it.]
Good luck with that one - if Pat Shearer is the former Chief Constable what is he now?
ReplyDeleteIf JfM are bringing up allegations of Criminal misconduct I suggest they study chapter 7 of the SCCRC's statement of findings, in particular relating to the ESDA tests.
I note that the FBI under the sterling leadership of Robert Muller are investigating the Boston Marathon bombing. I suspect that this may be a (lunatic) case of "state-sponsored terrorism". There was some woman on TV on Sunday threatening fire and explosions against her country's enemies. Perhaps this was supposed to send a message to the Secretary of State! Would the Americans go to war over this or will Muller come up with a politically convenient solution?
I hope they will also be drawing Mr Shearer's attention to the facts that
ReplyDelete(1) There was no mysterious unaccompanied item of baggage loaded onto flight PA103A at Frankfurt: all 25 transfer bags can be accounted for. It follows that tray B8849 did not contain an unaccompanied item from Malta.
(2) The IED which brought down Pan Am 103 must have been contained in the brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase which was added to AVE4041 in John Bedford's absence. The Crown's theory is a logical impossibility.
Rolfe was able to prove these results by a careful examination of the baggage records from Heathrow and Frankfurt, together with the recorded explosion damage to items in container AVE4041. If the D&G police had made the same effort during the original investigation; if, maybe, they had thought to ask RARDE which bag had been where in AVE4041 and supplied the necessary documents and witness statements; and if those at the top of the food chain had not sat on vital information, then the investigation might not have gone so badly astray.
Nah, sorry about that last part, but the baggage reconciliation only held up for about 48 hours. I found some lost luggage reports in the paperwork that showed two of the suitcases I believed were on PA103A didn't get to Heathrow until another PA flight the next morning.
ReplyDeleteSo, back to square 98, I think.
Bummer! :(
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed by the documents linked to in Robert Forrester's piece, though. They are giving due prominence to your findings re Heathrow, and it's these after all that really put the kybosh on the Crown's case. As for the PA103A baggage reconciliation, we still have your finding that anomalous items were not uncommon, meaning that the apparent record of an unaccompanied item unloaded from KM180 and destined for PA103 is outweighed by both the evidence from Heathrow and that from Luqa.
While I agree completely that the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow (having pointed it out to the Crown Office in 1996) it follows that the authorities had to fabricate evidence in order to "prove" a version of events that was untrue..
ReplyDeleteWhile I suspect the negative depicting exhibit PT/35(a) - (d) (photograph 117) was simply switched with an innocuous negative (apparently simplicity itself)it appears to me that even from the SCRRC's slanted representation of the Forensic Document Examiner's statement (which is not in the public domain) pages 50 & 51 of Dr Hayes notes (dated 12th May 1989) are forgeries. It may well be that Dr Hayes was not even at Fort Halstead on that day.