Monday, 26 October 2015

What do you say, Mr Linklater?

[What follows is the text of a letter to the editor of The Times by Len Murray (a committee member of Justice for Megrahi who has been described by a Scottish High Court judge as the most distinguished pleader of his generation) following Magnus Linklater’s most recent Lockerbie article in that newspaper. As with James Robertson’s letter, it has not been selected for publication:]

Why does Magnus Linklater insist in keeping his head buried in the sands of Libya?  Why does he not face up to the facts of the scandalous conviction of Abdul Basset Al-Megrahi?

The judges found that the unaccompanied suitcase containing the bomb was put on a flight to Frankfurt from Malta when there was not even a scintilla of evidence to justify that finding.  What made that finding worse (if that were possible) was the fact that the records at Luqa Airport accounted for every single piece of luggage and there was none which was unaccompanied.

Their Lordships also held also that this same suitcase managed to make its way, still unaccompanied, from Frankfurt to Heathrow when there was no adequate evidence to justify that conclusion.

Gauci, without whom the Crown had no case, never positively identified Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothing wrapped around the bomb.  His earlier descriptions of the purchaser were so far out in age, height and colouring that they surely constituted proof that Megrahi was NOT the purchaser.

What do you say, Mr Linklater, about the $2 million dollars paid to Gauci by the CIA and which was never mentioned at the Trial?  Or the break-in at the Pan Am hangar right next door to Air Iran only 16 hours before Pan Am 103 took off?

Or what does he make of the finding that the purchase was made on 7 December when Megrahi was on Malta when the preponderance of the evidence was that the purchase was made on 23 November when he was not?

What do you say, Mr Linklater, of the subsequent discrediting of the forensic scientists who gave evidence at Megrahi’s trial?

Why was it that every single inference unfavourable to Megrahi was drawn when there were so many innocent explanations available?

These are the facts of the disgraceful conviction of Megrahi, a conviction utterly condemned by, amongst others, the UN observer at the trial.

But Mr Linklater does not stop at ignoring the facts.  He goes on to say something that is nothing short of astonishing.  He says:  “….every thread of evidence has been examined to distraction and has led nowhere.”  An astoundingly misleading assertion.  Examined where and by whom?
Certainly not the Appeal Court who have never had the opportunity of looking at Megrahi’s conviction.  The first appeal was taken on the wrong grounds and so the evidence was never examined; the second appeal was abandoned before any hearing and Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds.

The nearest the case got to a judicial tribunal was when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission examined the conviction and referred it to the Appeal Court since they detected no fewer than six possible grounds of a miscarriage of justice.

Even some of the relatives of the victims wanted SCCR to examine the case since they are unhappy about the conviction.

These are the facts of the Megrahi case.  May I respectfully suggest to Mr Linklater that he lift his head out of the sands of Libya and face up to the truth of this national disgrace.  We of Justice for Megrahi would welcome his considerable abilities.


    The legally verdict against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi had more holes in it than Swiss cheese !

    The Scottish "Lockerbie evidence fraud; as a reminder: The former Scottish SIO Chief Superintendent STUART HENDERSON (Crown witness number 696) - visited in June 1990 – accompanied by Chief Inspector, William Williamson and Forensic expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) - the FBI Criminal Laboratory in Washington lead by FBI Expert Tom Thurmann. Their task was to compare a manipulated MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) with a MST-13 Timer (K-1) in possession of the CIA. The K-1 Timer timer was allegedly found in Togo.

    The results of the investigations and comparison have been documented in a secret FBI-Report in Washington on August 20th, 1990. Dok. Nr. 262-23. The document is now declassified. Link to FBI declassified FBI-report:…/…/fbi-investigation-of-mst-13/

    Based on research by Edwin Bollier & MEBO Ltd. the presented fragment (PT-35) to the FBI lab cannot be the original MST-13 fragment as allegedly found in Lockerbie. The reasons for this allegation:

    1) At the time of the presentation of the (PT-35) fragment at the FBI laboratory on June 22nd,1990, the original „carbonised“ MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) consisted already of two pieces. The PT-35 fragment was cut by Siemens Germany on April 27th, 1990 into two pieces, 2 (two) months before the visit by Henderson & Co at the FBI laboratory in the USA. After the Siemens cutting session, the larger part was marked as (PT-35/b) and the smaller part was marked as (DP-31/a.

    2) The FBI laboratory report confirms, that the examined (PT-35) timer fragment was covered on both sides with solder masque.

    3) The FBI laboratory report confirms, that the colour of fragment was green and consisted of 9 layers of fibreglass. >> (NOT BLACK CARBONIZED)!

    All those characteristics confirm that they did not examine and compared the original black carbonized (PT-35) fragment as found alleged in Lockerbie.
    A long time after the court verdict in Zeist - a secret kept fax by expert Feraday to SIO Chief Stuart Henderson – unveiled that the (PT-35) fragment was found on January 20th, 1990 in a Slalom Shirt !

    continued below >>>

  2. continued >>>

    The original fragment on the photo (red circle) showed - on a second look - 3 handmade scratches and the letter “M”. (short form for “Muster” = sample” in the German language).

    At the court in Zeist, witnesses as, Scottish Chief Inspector, William Williamson, Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) and expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) made under oath, false statements. For example it was testified that the MST-13 timerfragment, registered on the additional manipulated page 51, was found already on Mai 12th, 1989 in a Slalom shirt...

    All those “flops” lead to a slowdown of a possible new review of the Lockerbie case. False statements – especially by high-ranking police officers and forensic experts - should be taken serious...

    Notabene: What confirm us (2009) the former FBI Special Agent RICHARD MARQUISE, task force chief and cordinator, between FBI and CIA in the "Lockerbie affair" -- in the documentary film "Lockerbie Revisited" by Gideon Levy?
    RICHARD MARQUISE, answered Gideon Levy's question:

    G.L.: Would you have a case if you wouldn't have these evidence (MST-13 timer)?

    Would we have a case. It would be a very dificult case to prove. It would be a very dificult case to prove ... I don't think we would ever had an indictment.
    And he said also: But I can tell you that now money was paid to any witness, any witness prior to the trial. No promise of money was made to any witness prior to the trial.

    G. Levy: And was there paid any money after he trial?

    I'm not gonna answer that.
    And he said: If someone manipulated evidence, if somebody didn't invesitgate something that should have been investigated, if somebody twisted it to fit 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 Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland. Webpage:

  3. [Mr. Linklater] says: “….every thread of evidence has been examined to distraction and has led nowhere.”
    [Mr. Murray:] An astoundingly misleading assertion. Examined where and by whom?

    I have googled the exact phrase "astoundingly misleading assertion" (by excluding the quotation marks) and yes, it is truly unique. I love it!
    Now, I was thinking: can such an expression be copyrighted?

    Because, down here some sell T-shirts with funny text to tourists on the street.
    I could have this produced:
    Front: "I never flatly lie. I just make..."
    Back: "... astoundingly misleading assertions!".

    Naturally I would pay royalties to Mr. Murray.
    And it would only be fair if I sent Mr. Linklater a handful of T-shirts to wear when he works, in return for his inspiration.

  4. Some time ago I badgered Magnus Linklater on Twitter to say whether he'd read my book or not. He finally said he had. I asked him to point specifically to the facts or the reasoning in the book that he disputed, or that had been disproved. He didn't reply.

    Quite honestly I don't think he has read it. I think he despises me too much as a "conspiracy theorist" to read the book, but doesn't want to say it to my face.

    I'm getting seriously tired of people either ignoring my work or declaring that it can somehow be discounted, but without ever pointing out an error or misunderstanding in the logic.

    1. Linklater is just nothing.
      Of course he has not read your book.
      The only thing that qualifies him in any way is the position somebody has given him, like the parrot being chained to the highest stick.