tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post3044497793713673814..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Megrahi trial and first appeal lawyers defend their performanceRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-46563615211156422402014-01-03T20:05:43.450+00:002014-01-03T20:05:43.450+00:00Bored now. At least go find out who Alexander Cal...Bored now. At least go find out who Alexander Calleja is, why don't you?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-60006658187848839432014-01-03T18:32:18.617+00:002014-01-03T18:32:18.617+00:00We know the problems with the identification, but ...We know the problems with the identification, but can you explain the very clear strengths, before I answer your smokescreen question!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-19995004134843560442014-01-03T11:11:32.982+00:002014-01-03T11:11:32.982+00:00I think the identification had its problems, and a...I think the identification had its problems, and also certain very clear strengths. All of which can be appreciated from the full narrative of how the identifications came to be made.<br /><br />Dave, to assist readers, would you clarify why you keep ignoring the clear and irrefutable evidence of an IED having detonated inside a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-13240365911600783392014-01-03T10:34:57.703+00:002014-01-03T10:34:57.703+00:00Do I detect a reluctance to answer the question?
...Do I detect a reluctance to answer the question?<br /><br />Rolfe to assist readers, do you think a credible identification would involve Gauci identifying both the clothes sold and who they were sold too?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-69012899647064336462014-01-02T21:31:56.711+00:002014-01-02T21:31:56.711+00:00Go read about it.Go read about it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-67076105968982147482014-01-02T16:10:06.560+00:002014-01-02T16:10:06.560+00:00So not the person who sold the clothes?So not the person who sold the clothes?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18294876426941404242014-01-02T10:50:36.198+00:002014-01-02T10:50:36.198+00:00Alexander Calleja. Go read all about it, Dave.
F...Alexander Calleja. Go read all about it, Dave.<br /><br />For someone with such a fixation on the case, your lack of familiarity with the evidence is quite disconcerting.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-51819771941579220652014-01-02T08:05:24.058+00:002014-01-02T08:05:24.058+00:00Who by?Who by?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-20709947403635056672014-01-01T22:24:29.338+00:002014-01-01T22:24:29.338+00:00There was credible identification of the clothing,...There was credible identification of the clothing, at least some of it. God alone knows who bought it though.<br /><br />Dave, the information is all available. Do you like fiction, or something? You seem to invent a lot of it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-77451748370365562832014-01-01T18:03:32.171+00:002014-01-01T18:03:32.171+00:00And you still never answered the question!
Or do ...And you still never answered the question!<br /><br />Or do you think the need for a credible identification of both clothing and suspect is too broad brush?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-28877266926682115782014-01-01T16:16:06.919+00:002014-01-01T16:16:06.919+00:00Dave, "God is in the detail". You don&#...Dave, "God is in the detail". You don't do detail. You do broad-brush fantasy. Well, you need to focus in on the detail. And you need to be able to question your pet theory and abandon it if the detail doesn't match.<br /><br />You can only carry on as you are, by deliberately remaining aware of a shedload of important facts. Get up to speed, and wise up.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-8479849769131902532014-01-01T15:07:53.160+00:002014-01-01T15:07:53.160+00:00Dave, FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. It's not as sim...Dave, FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. It's not as simplistic as your internal narrative imagines.<br /><br />Of course his identification of Megrahi sucked asteroids. There is no getting away from the fact that some of the clothes in the bomb suitcase were supplied to his shop and sold by him to <i>someone</i>, though.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-80749974629373571122014-01-01T09:47:46.325+00:002014-01-01T09:47:46.325+00:00I appreciate you don’t want to answer because it b...I appreciate you don’t want to answer because it blows a hole in your pet theory, but a credible identification requires Gauci to identify both the purchaser and the clothes sold.<br /><br />But Gauci’s identification of Megrahi was suspect and he never identified the burnt scraps.<br /><br />Thus Rolfe, do you think he should have been asked to identify the clothing sold from the burnt scraps?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62686508153471234062013-12-31T15:20:25.392+00:002013-12-31T15:20:25.392+00:00Dave, you are Magnus, and I claim my £500.Dave, you are Magnus, and I claim my £500.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-57407341097495350042013-12-31T13:03:26.796+00:002013-12-31T13:03:26.796+00:00And you complain about Magnus not answering a stra...And you complain about Magnus not answering a straight question!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-83117835346415385012013-12-31T11:29:58.838+00:002013-12-31T11:29:58.838+00:00Dave, never mind what you think I imply. Find out...Dave, never mind what you think I imply. Find out for yourself what actually happened. It's an interesting story, far more interesting than the rubbish you're inventing.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33174947230370701572013-12-31T11:15:46.309+00:002013-12-31T11:15:46.309+00:00Libya, Iran, the CIA? From my perspective, that i...Libya, Iran, the CIA? From my perspective, that isn't really the point. We can't know the answer, we can only speculate.<br /><br />The point is that the forensics shows, categorically and conclusively, that the bomb suitcase was on the bottom layer of luggage, exactly where Bedford saw his mysterious brown Samsonite. You have to torture the data beyond reason to make it anything else.<br /><br />It's not even subtle. It is crashingly, demonstrably, staring-you-in-the-face obvious. I realised it the minute I saw the pictures of the McKee Samsonite and the lining panel of the Carlsson case. (The Schauble case took a little longer but not much.)<br /><br />What on <i>earth</i> was going on with this inquiry? How could these so-called forensic scientists have missed this? The entire boiling of them lined up to pontificate on the condition of the container floor, asserting that this somehow allowed the bottom-level case to be discounted. That was obviously an error. They had clear evidence to show it was an error, not just in the condition of the blast-damaged suitcases but in the condition of the airframe under the floor of the container. And they didn't even look at this.<br /><br />I could never understand that Claiden diagram, which has been in the public domain for years, in the context of a second-layer explosion. The damage to the airframe under the container seems self-evidently to point to a bottom-layer bomb suitcase. I thought there must be something in the forensic reports to explain that, because surely forensic scientists would never miss something that obvious. But they did.<br /><br />It's not even clear that any of this was deliberate. The sheer guilelessness of the memos and the reports, the open presentation of the crucial evidence which shows all the hallmarks of having been completely overlooked, and the distressing muddle and absence of clear thought that are revealed in the detail argue otherwise.<br /><br />To me, this is the real scandal of Lockerbie. Once this is investigated and explained, we can maybe move up to the higher levels of who did it and what was the CIA up to.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4258364125435199682013-12-31T10:41:56.137+00:002013-12-31T10:41:56.137+00:00You imply it is public knowledge that Gauci wasn’t...You imply it is public knowledge that Gauci wasn’t asked to identify the clothing he was alleged to have sold to Megrahi.<br /><br />Do you think he should have been asked?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-59197372525795240812013-12-31T10:05:51.278+00:002013-12-31T10:05:51.278+00:00Thanks Rolfe, I wondered why googling Bill Taylor ...Thanks Rolfe, I wondered why googling Bill Taylor Tory produced no results. I mis-remembered a story I had read.<br /><br />Libya, Iran, the CIA? Hopefully my completed review and comment on your wonderful book, will make my position clearer. But yes the bombing and the creation of the "Libyan solution" are essentially two different things rather clunkily meshed together (although obviously not in the official version.) I've touched ojn these issues before but I hope to bring most of it together in my review. bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-6472369184790607512013-12-31T08:55:56.235+00:002013-12-31T08:55:56.235+00:00You don't need to ask me any of that. The inf...You don't need to ask me any of that. The information is all in the public domain.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62636856923822295862013-12-30T22:25:12.095+00:002013-12-30T22:25:12.095+00:00So he identified the person he sold clothes to, bu...So he identified the person he sold clothes to, but not the clothes he sold?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-31263305612427156672013-12-30T11:02:19.986+00:002013-12-30T11:02:19.986+00:00Dave, Tony Gauci did not identify any "burnt ...Dave, Tony Gauci did not identify any "burnt scraps", and nobody has ever claimed that he did.<br /><br />I really wish you would go away and find out some facts about the case, instead of making stuff up off the top of your head.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-12527974300957307432013-12-30T11:01:12.608+00:002013-12-30T11:01:12.608+00:00Baz, my information is that Bill Taylor is Labour....Baz, my information is that Bill Taylor is Labour. I'm sure someone said he was a former Labour councillor or perhaps a council candidate. The "bit of a wheel in the Conservative party" is Richard Keen, Fhimah's lead advocate.<br /><br />I agree the bombing itself and the machinations to implicate Libya may be regarded as two separate things. As regards the timeline, bear in mind that Reagan went off on one blaming Libya within about four days of the disaster. He threatened to bomb some Libyan chemical installations in retaliation. He seems to have been cut short by the almost simultaneous revelation of a humungous quantity of circumstantial evidence pointing to the PFLP-GC.<br /><br />The CIA were on almost permanent "blame Gaddafi for anything we can possibly make stick" mode in the 1980s. Cannnistraro pretty much made a career out of it. So it's probably not surprising that the immediate knee-jerk response to the fall of Pan Am 103 was to do exactly that. Then, nearly three years later, when nothing could be proved against the PFLP-GC (possibly because the investigators had spent nearly three years looking in the wrong place), they reverted to type.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-83894658781341910202013-12-30T10:30:36.608+00:002013-12-30T10:30:36.608+00:00I see two distinct if inter-related aspects to Loc...I see two distinct if inter-related aspects to Lockerbie. The bombing itself and the creation of the "Libyan solution" for political motives largely unrelated to the bombing itself. But were the parties who created the "Libyan solution" (who were not in the normal sense of the word "terrorists" involved in the bombing itself (there is clear evidence they were) and did the plan to incriminate Libya even predate the bombing?<br /><br />Perhaps Bill Taylor's comments did not after all "beggar belief". I understand he is a bit of a wheel with the Conservative Tory party. With a referendum coming up perhaps he feels the need to head off Dr Kerr at the pass! Perhaps he fancies a seat on the bench himself? Either way criticising the Crown Office or the Judiciary is probably not a good move.<br /><br />What was the defence bill £200 million? bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30866632301197894362013-12-30T10:23:32.816+00:002013-12-30T10:23:32.816+00:00So Tony Gauci’s identification of the burnt scraps...So Tony Gauci’s identification of the burnt scraps was more compelling than his identification of Megrahi?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.com