Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Anonymous CIA officers say was evidence that supported fantasist Giaka

[What follows is excerpted from a report published today on the website of The Sun:]

CIA agents have revealed evidence that could have helped the controversial Lockerbie bombing prosecutions was withheld from trial, The Sun Online can reveal.
The revelation comes in an internal memo written by agents involved in the case following the 1988 bombing over Scotland that killed 270 people.
Campaigners say the document provides further evidence the plot was carried out by Libya and that the bomb was placed on the jet in Malta – not in Heathrow, as some have claimed.
It comprises interviews with seven anonymous CIA officers reflecting on the case and was published for one of the agency’s internal publications.
Much of it centres on Abdul Majid Gialka, a prosecution witness in the trial who had been nicknamed the CIA’s “Libyan asset” and “Puzzle Piece” because of his ability to link aspects of the plot.
Majid was a double agent who defected to the US from the Libyan intelligence service and leaked top secret information to the Americans.
His work with the CIA helped point the finger towards Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as the man who planted the bomb.
This was despite trial judges ruling they were “unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter”.
But the CIA memo reveals there were further intelligence cables not shown in trial that could have supported his testimony.
It states: “[REDACTED] the court didn’t believe Majid on a lot of his points because the justices never saw a second, more extensive, batch of redacted cables, which would have confirmed much of what he said in court.”
It does not specify which of his claims could have been supported but suggests the reason for this could have been an attempt to protect CIA methods and US state secrets.
Today controversy continues to swirl around the guilt of al-Megrahi. Some claim he was innocent, while others say the bomb could have been placed on the jet in London and not Malta, where he operated.
The memo also notes a number of CIA operatives were denied the opportunity to give evidence – this time a strategic decision taken by the lead prosecutor – in support of Majid’s claims.
It states: “We all felt that it was unfortunate that they did not testify. They felt frustrated that they did not appear, because, had they appeared, they probably would have been able to bolster Majid’s credibility.
“They would have been able to corroborate and expand on a number of things that Majid had testified about but on which he had been badgered and belaboured and picked apart by the defence.”
Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish MP who made the decision in 2009 to free al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds, told The Sun Online Majid had been rejected by the court as a “supergrass”.
“That he was, but it was clear he was telling the truth about a lot of what was going on by Megrahi and his co-accused.”
MacAskill, the author of the book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, added: “Moreover, it shows that the CIA had other informants not just in Libya but at the airport in Malta.
“That has never been put before the courts. All this shows Libya was responsible and Megrahi had a role in it.”
John Ashton, the author of a book that suggests al-Megrahi was innocent of the bombing, told The Sun Online the note about additional cables was “interesting, but I have trouble believing it”.
He added that Majid “was such a problematic witness that the CIA would have been keen to disclose anything that supported his testimony”.
[RB: It does not surprise me that CIA officers should try now to contend that the disaster that Giaka was for the prosecution case was not their responsibility and that, notwithstanding what his CIA handlers said about him in the notorious cables to Langley HQ, there was material that supported him. It does surprise me (but, alas, only slightly) that Kenny MacAskill should seek to lend weight to this blatant CIA self-justification attempt.]


  1. Trying to rehabilitate Giaka as a reliable witness seems really desperate. And Mr MacAskill's pick-and-mix attitude to evidence is contemptible. On the one hand he says that it is clear from CIA information that was never put before the court that Giaka 'was telling the truth about a lot of what was going on by Megrahi and his co-accused' and that this unseen, unverifiable information 'shows Libya was responsible and Megrahi was involved'. On the other hand, in his book, MacAskill demolishes the key parts of the evidence incriminating Megrahi, by stating that he was not the man who bought the clothes from Tony Gauci's shop. He writes in his book that 'what is certain is that [Megrahi and Fhimah] both arrived at the airport' in Malta on the morning of 21st December 1988 whereas the court found no evidence that Fhimah was at the airport on that day. So, evidence heard in court: forget it. Evidence not heard in court but 'revealed' by CIA agents 28 years after the event: believe it. Result: the right man was convicted for the bombing even though there are a host of other reasons, some of them accepted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, indicating that the conviction may have been wrong. And all this from a former Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice who also claims in his book that Scottish justice did a fantastic job but was, in the end, 'but a small part of a much wider picture driven by international commercial and security measures'.

  2. DOSSIER LOCKERBIE , 2070 > google translation, German/ English:

    Stop stop here - and no further! Now a defensive wall is set up at an early stage - why was the decisive MST-13 Timer fragment (PT35) not mentioned? The forthcoming verifiable truth about the central evidence fraud with the piece of evidence (PT35) - will bring down the still legally valid judgment of the Scottish judiciary to this day. (Miscarriage of Justice)...

    +++ German:

    Halt stop hier - und nicht weiter! Jetzt wird frühzeitig eine Abwehr Mauer aufgebaut - wieso wurde das entscheidende MST-13 Timerfragment (PT35) nicht erwähnt ? Die kommende belegbare Wahrheit über den zentralen Beweisbetrug mit dem Beweisstück (PT35) - wird das bis heute rechtsgültige Urteil der schottischen Justiz zu Fall bringen. (Miscarriage of Justice)

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage

  3. "Anonymous CIA officers ... Reflecting on the case". Hmm, after 28 years. More smoke and mirrors from the Masters of Deception.

    1. They (the CIA) must be getting a bit worried. What with all the evidence that has come to light since the atrocity clearly showing Megrahi was innocent they have to pull something out of the hat to support Megrahi(and Libya) What better than "anonymous" CIA agents posting in the Sun. Does any sane person take heed of these liars. Could they give the Courts a list of the evidence they removed from the crime scene plus an explanation of why they removed it. Who was behind the fabricating and planting of the timer evidence. Why did they switch the blame from Iran to Libya. Whose decision was that (Big Oil?)Why still no public inquiry? As for McAskill the man is beneath contempt. He has been part of the plot the same as many others. Why did he change the law to get rid of the SCCRC's findings and the fact it was clear he played a part in getting Megrahi to drop his appeal. Some good comments by RB again.

    2. Anonymous CIA officers publishing in the Sun. Does any sane person take notice of those liars.Perhaps they might help the investigation by giving the Courts a list of all the Evidence they removed from the crash scene and why they felt they had the right to do it. I thought Britain was a sovereign country. Clearly it is not just governed as i see it for the CIA's interests.Why still no public inquiry? Afraid it might ask arkward questions and want answers. Invoking secercy laws to avoid answering questions just won't do any more. Some good comments by RB (again)The truth will out of what the CIA was up to over PAM AM 103. Trying to silence whistle blowers from exposing their lucrative drug dealing exploits is my guess.

  4. " anonymous CIA officers..."
    Priceless. Makes my day!

    There are quite a bit of (non-anonymous) statements out there which gives us an impression of just how much we can trust CIA. Maybe FBI should do an internal review on them? Hmmm, another problem comes up, though.
    Googling for "CIA disinformation" or e.g. "CIA false flag operations" gives enough entertaining reading for, well, some days, I'd say.

    The press prints anything. Stranger it is, that there is precedence for judges actually trusting evidence provided by these organizations.
    Absurd, but of course, in some cases they have a monopoly on information, so it either that or nothing at all.
    And matters are confused by the fact that in cases where they for some reason might not oppose the truth, they may just deliver genuine evidence.