tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post373546453949898653..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Lockerbie, and the mangled logic of Magnus LinklaterRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-67481659271187363582014-02-01T13:10:09.707+00:002014-02-01T13:10:09.707+00:00ps. I do so agree with Eddie's comments about ...ps. I do so agree with Eddie's comments about Majid Giaka but not just from the perspective of Camp Zeist. Giaka's (unchallenged) Grand Jury evidence was the pretext for the Indictment which in my view was far more important than the Trial. Indeed there may never have been a trial. I pointed out to the Crown Office in June 1996 that the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow. Their response was to admonish me to wait and see the evidence at Trial!<br /><br />Where is Giaka now and why hasn't he published his memoirs? bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-54384150009826499982014-02-01T12:58:57.597+00:002014-02-01T12:58:57.597+00:00John Ashton's "expanded version" sta...John Ashton's "expanded version" states "what the SCCRC actually said was that it did not examine the Heathrow evidence because it received no submissions on the matter". I cannot find this in the Statement of Reasons and I presume at least two persons did make submissions on this subject (albeit in conjunction with other crackpot claims.) <br /><br />Does he mean Mr Megrahi's Legal representatives made no such submission? <br /><br />I understand that despite being employed by Megrahi's defence teams as researcher Mr Ashton made his own separate submission to the SCCRC. As he claims to want an open debate (although he threatened to sue me for criticising his book) perhaps he should publish his own submission. bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-23783627700040207642014-01-31T15:38:55.762+00:002014-01-31T15:38:55.762+00:00Or a Malteser?Or a Malteser?bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-14143714617074646432014-01-30T14:04:35.621+00:002014-01-30T14:04:35.621+00:00Would that be a Milk Tray?Would that be a Milk Tray?bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-84572423206798170132014-01-30T10:23:47.741+00:002014-01-30T10:23:47.741+00:00Abu Talb. I don't think he was Gauci's cl...Abu Talb. I don't think he was Gauci's clothes purchaser either. Just like Megrahi, he was too young and didn't fit the description in other ways. Also, he had a marked limp, which Gauci would surely have noticed.<br /><br />I'm not sure where he got his Maltese clothes from, but I think it was from the manufacturers, not a retail outlet. But the Yorkie trousers in the bomb suitcase were definitely bought from Gauci by the tall dark stranger. It's all very peculiar.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-9223217070976964912014-01-30T10:13:19.259+00:002014-01-30T10:13:19.259+00:00Turning that on its head, you might equally well (...Turning that on its head, you might equally well (or indeed, with more justification) observe that for a terrorist to draw attention to Malta by using traceable clothes manufactured and sold on the island was completely insane. According to the prosecution, the Libyans had devised a plan so perfect that not only did they manage to penetrate Luqa airport's excellent security system, they managed to do it in such a way that even after the event there was no evidence that it had been done at all. Why would anyone who had devised such an undetectable crime then deliberately go out of his way to buy traceable clothes in a small shop only three miles from the same airport?<br /><br />The very strange circumstances of that clothes purchase look for all the world like "a trail of sweeties leading the cops to Malta" as another poster so eloquently put it. And presumably, leading them to Malta, <i>away</i> from the actual scene of the crime. Maybe it was just an afterthought. A little extra flourish. Whatever, I think it worked beyond someone's wildest dreams.<br /><br />I wonder if the clothes were the only sweeties in that trail though. What about tray 8849?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-88035609927128185792014-01-29T20:09:21.037+00:002014-01-29T20:09:21.037+00:00An unnamed member of the defence team added the su...<i>An unnamed member of the defence team added the suggestion that the bomber had bought clothes in Malta then planted the bomb at Heathrow: 'just doesn’t stack up'.</i><br /><br />Bill Taylor & co have a short memory: wasn't part of their defence at Zeist the fact that Abu Talb had a stash of clothing of Maltese origin in his flat in Sweden?petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831322202596781171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-44771775723749857572014-01-29T17:28:28.710+00:002014-01-29T17:28:28.710+00:00As we have been told often enough that without Maj...As we have been told often enough that without Majid Giaka there would have been no trial of ‘the Libyan’s’.<br /><br />It was this omission from Mr Linklater’s article which was noteworthy, and amid the broad brushing of those he seeks to discredit and undermine, prompted irk. <br /><br />How could anyone who has pledged to uphold the decisions and behaviour of various officials during, and subsequent to, the Lockerbie trial, fail to address such a critical part of the apparent judicial triumph? That is a rhetorical question since anyone to do so, does with obvious and good reason, however abject and shameless.<br /><br />The Scottish judiciary might not be accused of offering the Gauci brothers the rewards they collected; the Scottish judiciary could not be accused of presenting the convoluted opinions of the MST manufacturer. However, the Scottish judiciary, and the Crown office and its officials in particular, can most certainly be accused of shameless behaviour in the episode of Mr Giaka.<br /><br />They were said to have been denied access to Mr Giaka by their US associates, and had only been in a position to examine the full range of his evidence prior to the trial at Zeist. Perhaps, such insincere guile by our American friends was only coming to light during Mr Giaka’s fitting for a wig and dark glasses? <br /><br />However, while ignorance is no excuse, the behaviour of these same officials when made aware of Mr Giaka’s unreliability, falsity, distortion and conjuring of non-existent events, is as shocking as it is reprehensible. Officials actively sought to suppress the damning CIA cables from the court. Not for a day or two, but for weeks and weeks Crown officials (with DOJ advice over their shoulders) fought strenuously to deny the court, and the defence, access or sight of highly relevant portions of the cables which they were already fully aware of. <br /><br />Once revealed, the full cables demonstrated the prosecutions much trumpeted star witness and stool pigeon, despite much recompense, was regarded a fraud and fantasist from the very beginning.<br /><br />Mr Linklater is just another in a long line of drive-by assertions, with added pomposity granted, in support of the conviction. You don’t need to be a Philadelphia lawyer, nor have 4 decades in the ‘business’, to know exactly why the Giaka episode might be omitted from some writers opinions.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17525753216455565588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-89557682376989640122014-01-29T12:37:38.725+00:002014-01-29T12:37:38.725+00:00It is extraordinarily difficult to find anyone pre...It is extraordinarily difficult to find anyone prepared to debate this issue on the side of guilt, who will confront the fundamental facts. Magnus Linklater is no exception.<br /><br />He's all over the place. The idea that clothes bought weeks before the bombing prove that the bomb must have been introduced at the airport next-door to the shop in question is clearly ludicrous. Even the prosecution appear to have postulated that the clothes were taken to Libya and back in the interim!<br /><br />The idea that the use of a common brand of suitcase and a timer of some sort proves that two aircraft bombings were carried out by the same group is equally preposterous.<br /><br />Megrahi is said to have had a lot of money. A great many people have a lot of money, and some of them might be hard-pressed to explain how they came by it, too. May we convict all of them of the bombing of PA103?<br /><br />Indeed, the present Libyan government is offering co-operation to the Scottish investigators trying to track down Megrahi's alleged accomplices. They have little choice, let's face it. Proof that they accept that Megrahi was the bomber? Who knows. Proof that they have <i>evidence</i> that Megrahi was the bomber? I think not, or we might have heard about it.<br /><br />In common with some others who have debatied this issue from the same standpoint, Magnus's stock-in-trade is the bald assertion of the very facts that his opponents dispute. He then obfuscates the argument by dragging up matters which are completely irrelevant if indeed these disputed facts are disproved.<br /><br />Those of us who believe this was a serious miscarriage of justice do not believe that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes in the bomb suitcase, and we are prepared to explain why we believe that, in great detail. Magnus merely asserts it. If pressed, he will acknowledge that the SCCRC is on our side on this point, but then side-steps with some flannel about this not being tested in court. That's kind of the point. This <i>should</i> be tested in court.<br /><br />Magnus points out that Megrahi was on Malta on the day of the bombing, as if this is somehow incriminating. He does this after (so he has said) reading an entire book that shows that the bomb was nowhere near Malta that day, and Megrahi's presence there in fact gives him an unbreakable alibi. He references the book - but only to disparage it as "cavalier". Not a single word of acknowledgement of the main argument, never mind any counter-argument.<br /><br />This is intellectually lazy to the point of dishonesty. I'm pleased to see John Ashton skewer him so effectively.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.com