[This is the headline over a report on the website of WSYR TV, a television station based in Syracuse, NY. The report features an interview with Richard Marquise before his appearances at Syracuse University. The interview can be viewed, and the report read, here. The text of the report reads in part:]
For only the second time since Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, the lead investigator is in Syracuse to talk about the disaster. Richard Marquise helped build the case that led to the only conviction in the bombing, and fought unsuccessfully to keep Abdul al-Megrahi in prison last year.
In an instant, the terrorist attack forever linked Syracuse, NY, and Lockerbie Scotland together. When Pan Am 103 blew up over the Scottish town, it killed 270 people on the plane. Among them were 35 Syracuse University students (...)
For years, lead investigator Richard Marquise sought justice. His crime scene was 845 square miles. "Its been part of my life for 22 years and you just can't discount something that has been that big a part of your life for such a long time," he said.
It took years for his team working with Scottish authorities to build a case that would lead to Abdul al-Megrahi's conviction 13 years after the bombing. "It was a circumstantial case and it took believing all the circumstances for the judges to convict."
Marquise says they got the right man, although he believes al-Megrahi wasn't the only one involved. al-Megrahi, Marquise says, was just the only one they could convict.
That is why Marquise and his Scottish counterpart fought so hard to keep al-Megrahi in prison before his 2009 release. "I think justice wasn't served because the only person convicted of this crime is home with his family, something the people who lost relatives on that plane will never have, their relatives home with them again," he said.
Marquise says he never has had a chance to speak to al-Megrahi, although he did say he was able to submit a question to Muammar Qaddafi during a lecture at Georgetown University in 2009. He says that through a translator the Libyan leader said Pan Am 103 was in the past. (...)
Marquise says his visit to the SU campus will not be easy for him, even though more than two decades have past since the bombing. "It's difficult just because the memories of the families and the people I've dealt with for over 20 years come back," he said.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Richard marquise. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Richard marquise. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday 12 November 2010
Monday 15 November 2010
Lead Pan Am 103 investigator recalls search for suspect
[This is the headline over the report of Richard Marquise's recent talk at Syracuse University, NY in the university's newspaper The Daily Orange. It reads as follows:]
Richard Marquise searched the 845 square-mile crime scene for a piece of circuit board that would link Libyan terrorists to the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.
"The piece of evidence that cracked the case could fit on the tip of my finger," Marquise said. "I said, ‘If someone sneezes, we're going to need to do another crime scene search for evidence.'"
Marquise is a former FBI special agent and lead investigator of the task force assigned to the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 35 Syracuse University students. Marquise, who spoke Thursday in the Life Sciences Complex, worked in the FBI for more than 30 years.
Marquise walked the audience chronologically through what he called the "10-year odyssey" of the investigation. The tiny piece of circuit board evidence eventually led Marquise's task force to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was eventually convicted as a Libyan intelligence officer and the man behind the bombings. Al-Megrahi was tried before a Scottish court in the Netherlands.
"It was an electric moment. They don't have commercials in situations like this. The judge just stood up and said that they found Mr. Megrahi guilty on all accounts," Marquise said.
Al-Megrahi was released from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds that terminal prostate cancer could end his life in three months. He remains alive today. New York senators and other U.S. leaders have called for al-Megrahi to be put back in prison after he survived nearly a year longer than expected and after questions arose about a possible backdoor deal between British Petroleum and the British government to have him released.
Marquise showed the audience a picture of a baby's shoe embedded in the ground after falling from the plane and another of the broken tail of the plane emblazoned with an American flag.
"It hits home here in Syracuse maybe more than in any other city in the United States," Marquise said.
Marquise finished the lecture with a short video that showed interviews with some family members of the victims of the tragedy.
In one video, the mother of a Syracuse student who died in the crash was directed to the imprint that her son's body had made in the ground after falling from the plane. She said she lay down in the imprint and was able to feel close to her son once again. Several audience members wiped their eyes at the end of the video.
Marquise retired from the FBI in 2002 but remains active in the intelligence community by teaching and consulting.
He said: "I'm going to keep doing this because I don't think man was meant to retire."
Richard Marquise searched the 845 square-mile crime scene for a piece of circuit board that would link Libyan terrorists to the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.
"The piece of evidence that cracked the case could fit on the tip of my finger," Marquise said. "I said, ‘If someone sneezes, we're going to need to do another crime scene search for evidence.'"
Marquise is a former FBI special agent and lead investigator of the task force assigned to the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 35 Syracuse University students. Marquise, who spoke Thursday in the Life Sciences Complex, worked in the FBI for more than 30 years.
Marquise walked the audience chronologically through what he called the "10-year odyssey" of the investigation. The tiny piece of circuit board evidence eventually led Marquise's task force to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was eventually convicted as a Libyan intelligence officer and the man behind the bombings. Al-Megrahi was tried before a Scottish court in the Netherlands.
"It was an electric moment. They don't have commercials in situations like this. The judge just stood up and said that they found Mr. Megrahi guilty on all accounts," Marquise said.
Al-Megrahi was released from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds that terminal prostate cancer could end his life in three months. He remains alive today. New York senators and other U.S. leaders have called for al-Megrahi to be put back in prison after he survived nearly a year longer than expected and after questions arose about a possible backdoor deal between British Petroleum and the British government to have him released.
Marquise showed the audience a picture of a baby's shoe embedded in the ground after falling from the plane and another of the broken tail of the plane emblazoned with an American flag.
"It hits home here in Syracuse maybe more than in any other city in the United States," Marquise said.
Marquise finished the lecture with a short video that showed interviews with some family members of the victims of the tragedy.
In one video, the mother of a Syracuse student who died in the crash was directed to the imprint that her son's body had made in the ground after falling from the plane. She said she lay down in the imprint and was able to feel close to her son once again. Several audience members wiped their eyes at the end of the video.
Marquise retired from the FBI in 2002 but remains active in the intelligence community by teaching and consulting.
He said: "I'm going to keep doing this because I don't think man was meant to retire."
Friday 8 August 2014
Lockerbie investigators "hand in hand ... praying for justice"
[Various Dutch newspapers are today running an article headlined De lessen van Lockerbie (The lessons of Lockerbie). What follows are excerpts taken from Dagblad van het Noorden, translated courtesy of Google Translate, as modified by me via my knowledge of Afrikaans. The original Dutch text is appended.]
The Pan Am flight 103 disaster on December 21, 1988 sowed death and destruction in the small village of Lockerbie. Exactly 38 minutes after the plane takes off from London Heathrow, at a height of 10 kilometers, something goes terribly wrong. The ‘Clipper Maid Of The Seas' explodes, falls into thousands of pieces, and destroys much of Lockerbie. Eleven residents and 259 passengers are killed.
Because there were 189 Americans on board, the FBI is also involved in the investigation. The leader of the team was Richard Marquise. With pain in his heart, he looks at what is happening in Ukraine. “We both have many compatriots lost in a foreign country. But we had one great advantage, and that was that the Scottish police did a very good job. Directly after the disaster there were thousands of police and soldiers on hand to help search for victims and wreckage."
Marquise calls the war in Ukraine a nightmare for the Dutch investigators who ultimately have to find the perpetrators. There are, according to him, so many people who have an interest in ensuring that there is no evidence to be found. International observers have already indications that wreckage has been tampered with. “It is hoped that these were people who did not know exactly where to go looking. So perhaps forensic experts with all their advanced techniques can still find something useful."
Yet there is one bright spot, according to Marquise. The Netherlands already knows that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was probably downed with a rocket. “The first few days we still had no idea why the Pan Am aircraft had crashed.” (...)
A piece of wreckage, however small, can be invaluable, as became clear in the investigation into the Lockerbie disaster. Investigators found a tiny chip from the timer that activated the bomb in a suitcase. By means of this, investigators eventually exposed the Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. He smuggled the bomb suitcase on board the Pan Am aircraft. But in the absence of this kind of hard evidence it will be a very tough job to identify the perpetrators, predicts Marquise. “Unless someone comes forward who says ‘It was him.’”
What Marquise would like to see is a “golden informant” such as they had in the Lockerbie investigation. (...) [RB: Presumably this is a reference to Abdul Majid Giaka. If that is so, it is interesting that he should still today be being referred to as “golden” after his performance at Zeist.]
If the Dutch - despite all the difficulties - find the perpetrators then a suspect can be arrested even after years of waiting, as the Lockerbie investigators have cause to know. Al-Megrahi, the man who placed the bomb suitcase in the Pan Am aircraft, was a Libyan. That country already had a reputation as a rogue state that was not cooperative. “Gaddafi simply denied that it had happened,” says Marquise.
Only after years of economic sanctions did Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi give in and two suspects were extradited in 1999. One of them was acquitted. Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in 2001 for life. So there was finally justice, thirteen years after the disaster.
Marquise remembers that day like yesterday. He was with the Scottish detectives at Camp Zeist, when the judges delivered judgment. Hand in hand they listened to the verdict, praying for justice. “All those years of hard work had led us to this man. But only when the judge pronounced the word "guilty", were we sure: ‘we got him’.”
De ramp met Pan Am-vlucht 103 zaait op 21 december 1988 dood en verderf in het kleine dorpje Lockerbie. Precies 38 minuten nadat het toestel is opstegen vanaf Londen Heathrow, gaat het op 10 kilometer hoogte vreselijk mis. De ‘Clipper Maid Of The Seas' explodeert, valt in duizenden stukjes uiteen en vermorzelt een groot deel van Lockerbie. Elf bewoners en 259 passagiers komen om het leven.
Omdat er 189 Amerikanen aan boord waren, wordt ook de FBI bij het onderzoek betrokken. Leider van het team was destijds Richard Marquise. Met pijn in zijn hart kijkt hij naar wat er nu in Oekraïne gebeurt. ,,Wij hebben beide veel landgenoten verloren in een vreemd land. Maar wij hadden één groot voordeel en dat was dat de Schotse politie heel goed werk verrichtte. Na de ramp waren er direct duizenden agenten en militairen op de been om te helpen zoeken naar slachtoffers en wrakstukken.''
De oorlog in Oekraïne noemt Marquise een nachtmerrie voor de Nederlandse onderzoekers die uiteindelijk de daders moeten zien te vinden. Er zijn volgens hem zo veel mensen die er belang bij hebben dat er helemaal geen bewijsstukken worden gevonden. Internationale waarnemers hebben al aanwijzingen dat er met de wrakstukken zou zijn gerommeld. ,,Het is te hopen dat de mensen die dat hebben gedaan niet precies wisten waar ze naar moesten zoeken. Zo kunnen forensische experts met al hun geavanceerde technieken misschien toch nog iets bruikbaars vinden.''
Toch is er volgens Marquise een lichtpuntje. Nederland weet al dat vlucht MH17 van Malaysia Airlines hoogstwaarschijnlijk naar beneden is gehaald met een raket. ,,Wij hadden de eerste dagen nog helemaal geen idee waarom het Pan Am-toestel was neergestort.'' (...)
Een wrakstuk, hoe klein ook, kan goud waard zijn, zo is duidelijk geworden in het onderzoek naar de ramp in Lockerbie. De minuscule chip die onderzoekers vinden, blijkt een deel van de timer waarmee de bom in een koffer is geactiveerd. Rechercheurs ontmaskeren hiermee uiteindelijk de Libische geheim agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Hij heeft de bomkoffer aan boord van het Pan Am-toestel gesmokkeld. Maar als dit soort harde bewijzen uitblijven, wordt het achterhalen van de daders een heel zware klus, voorspelt Marquise. ,,Of er moet iemand opstaan die zegt: hij was het.''
Wat had Marquise graag gezien dat er ook in het Lockerbie-onderzoek een gouden tipgever was opgestaan. (...)
Slagen de Nederlanders er – ondanks alle moeilijkheden – toch in de daders te vinden, dan kan het daadwerkelijk arresteren van een verdachte nog jaren op zich laten wachten, weten de onderzoekers van Lockerbie. Al-Megrahi, de man die de bomkoffer in het Pan Am-toestel plaatste, was een Libiër. Dat land had toen al de reputatie van een schurkenstaat waarmee niet viel samen te werken. ,,Gaddafi ontkende simpelweg dat het was gebeurd'', zegt Marquise.
Pas na jarenlange economische sancties zwichtte de Libische leider Muammar Gaddafi en werden in 1999 twee verdachten uitgeleverd. Een van hen werd vrijgesproken. Al-Megrahi kreeg in 2001 levenslang. Zo was er dertien jaar na de ramp eindelijk gerechtigheid.
Marquise herinnert zich die dag nog als gisteren. Hij zat samen met de Schotse rechercheurs in Kamp Zeist, waar de rechters het oordeel velden. Hand in hand luisterden ze naar de uitspraak, biddend voor gerechtigheid. ,,Al die jaren hard werken hadden ons naar deze man geleid. Maar pas toen de rechter het woord ‘schuldig' uitsprak, wisten we het zeker: we got him.''
Tuesday 9 September 2014
Recruitment of the FBI's Lockerbie "golden informant"
[What follows is taken from an article headed Richard Marquise and his "Golden Informant" Majid Giaka - An Extract from "Enemies - A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner posted yesterday on baz’s blog The Masonic Verses:]
Tim Weiner's recent book Enemies - A History of the FBI is a fascinating story of the creation of the FBI within the US Justice Department following American entry into the Great War, not for the purpose of criminal investigation but to counter the threat of radicals, anarchists and communists by means of dubious constitutionality. (...)
The author devotes six pages to an uncritical account of the Bureau's involvement in the Lockerbie case focusing on the role of the leader of the FBI taskforce (of 7 persons) Richard Marquise. (Tom Thurman is not mentioned.)
Marquise was recently quoted in the Dutch media in a story titled "The Lessons of Lockerbie" in relation to the shooting down of flight MH17 over the Ukraine. Marquise advocated the recruitment of a "Golden Informant" to solve the case just as he had done in the Lockerbie case (and by ignoring the actual evidence). Weiner's book gives a very interesting summary of how this "Golden Informant" Majid Giaka was recruited (page 372).
"Marquise needed to turn intelligence into evidence. He needed a witness who would link Megrahi to the Samsonite suitcase with the Semtex. He needed to find someone who knew that the suitcase carried the bomb from Air Malta to Pan Am 103. He went back to the CIA. The Agency told him, belatedly, that it had once had a Libyan informant named Abdul Majid Giaka. He had gone on the CIA's payroll four months before Lockerbie. He was on it the night Pan Am 103 was bombed. But the Agency had dropped him a few months later, deeming him a fabricator milking his interrogators for money.
Marquise was dying to talk to Majid, no matter how dubious he seemed to the CIA. In June 1991 the Agency flew him from a navy ship off the coast of Malta to give the FBI the chance to interview him in Virginia. Justly wary of its informant, the CIA imposed one condition: don't tell anybody." (Marquise immediately phoned Stuart Henderson.)
"Majid was debriefed for at least two weeks during September 1991. He insisted that he knew three facts. He identified Megrahi as an intelligence officer serving as Libya's airline security chief. He said that Megrahi's subordinate in Malta had a cache of Semtex. And he said he had seen Megrahi with a large brown suitcase at the airport in Malta during the weeks before the Lockerbie bombing. Majid was without doubt an unreliable witness. But the FBI had faith that he was telling the truth on those three points. Marquise thought he had the foundation of a case that would stand up in court."
Giaka's account did stand up unchallenged before a patriotic US Grand Jury leading to the November 1991 indictment. However, it crumbled before even the Mickey Mouse Camp Zeist tribunal when in the defence team's finest hour they had admitted in evidence a large number of CIA cables regarding Giaka. What is astonishing is that Megrahi was actually convicted despite Giaka being discredited, a fact not mentioned in Mr Weiner's book.
Perhaps some of the parties to the MH17 atrocity will, (or have already) recruited their own "Golden Informant".
Marquise's wrote his own account of the Lockerbie investigation in his book Scotbom. (Which I have never read.) Giaka of course never wrote his memoirs and has never been heard of since the close of the Camp Zeist trial.
I am afraid the only "Lesson of Lockerbie" for the families of those murdered on flight MH17 is how Governments fabricate evidence to suit their own political objectives regardless of the facts.
Sunday 3 April 2011
Richard Marquise on Moussa Koussa
[Today's edition of the Sunday Express has a report headlined Lockerbie: you must charge them all which quotes extensively from the FBI's head of the Lockerbie investigation, Richard Marquise. It reads in part:]
The US special agent who led the Lockerbie probe yesterday demanded Scottish authorities prosecute every Libyan official connected to the bombing – and not offer any deals just to capture Colonel Gaddafi.
Former FBI investigator Richard Marquise appealed to the Crown Office not to allow any high-ranking member of the regime to escape justice as a compromise for ensuring a conviction against the dictator.
While Prime Minster David Cameron has insisted Libyans defecting to Britain will not be granted diplomatic immunity, Mr Marquise said he fears charges could be waved if they help secure a showpiece trial. (...)
Speaking to the Sunday Express from Arlington, Virginia, Mr Marquise said: “In terms of Lockerbie, we know who was involved at the lower levels, but I’d like to know who was involved in the higher levels, how high up it went.
“We know there are more people who should be brought to justice. If Moussa Koussa, or anyone else with these facts, is going to come forward with documentary evidence so that we could make a case, then certainly all lower level officials should be prosecuted as well.
“Gaddafi has a lot to answer for which is one of the reasons he is staying put. He does not want to answer anything.
“Even if he was killed there are others in his administration that should be brought to justice.”
Mr Marquise said he believes the bombing was in retaliation for a 1986 US raid in Tripoli, which killed Gaddafi’s daughter.
He added: “Let’s say Gaddafi told Koussa, ‘I’d like something to happen,’ and Koussa orchestrated it. We can speculate and believe that it probably went to the highest level, but there is no evidence that I know of that could be brought to court.
“If I was in Moussa Koussa’s shoes I would want to say, ‘This was ordered by Gaddafi, I have proof and I can help. But Gaddafi’s got to be the only person who ends up being prosecuted.’
“It’s one of those catch-22 situations for him because I understand he’s not been granted immunity. So in his shoes, I wouldn’t say anything because I would be implicating myself.” (...)
[Attorney] Frank Duggan, president of the [US relatives' group] Victims of Pan Am 103, yesterday warned UK officials from striking any deals with defectors, particularly given the controversy still lingering over Megrahi’s release.
He said: “I think this is a golden opportunity. Moussa Koussa knows who ordered the bombing of that plane. He knows who made the bomb, he knows who paid for the bomb, he knows how it was transported to Malta, he knows how it was placed in the plane.
“It wasn’t just Megrahi – obviously other people were involved. Everybody has to account for their role. Now they could have proof. Now they could have that proof on a silver platter.”
[More from Mr Marquise can found in this report in Scotland on Sunday. A leader in the same newspaper headed "Moral maze" contains the following:]
One can only assume that the Lockerbie bombing is one of the issues being discussed. And from a Scottish point of view there is a sense of deja vu here. This is not the first time a British prime minister may have been tempted to use Scottish justice as a bargaining chip in his handling of Libya. Tony Blair's infamous "deal in the desert" raised the prospect of release for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in exchange for Gaddafi's assistance in the war against terror, plus some lucrative oil deals.
Now Cameron may be considering what price he is willing to pay - perhaps in immunity from prosecution - for useful information. This is a genuine moral dilemma. Yes, Koussa may well have had a role in the commission of a number of terrorist acts, from the arming of the IRA to Lockerbie in 1988 and the downing of a French airliner in 1989. (...)
An inconvenient truth needs to be mentioned here. The prime minister should be reminded that in the conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie bombing - the largest criminal act committed on British soil - he has no jurisdiction. All such decisions rest with the Crown Office, headed by the Lord Advocate, who as Scotland's senior prosecutor is appointed by the First Minister. That is not to say the relentless pursuit of every scrap of evidence on Lockerbie must take precedence over all other concerns, including the saving of lives in Libya and the future of the so-called Arab Spring in the Middle East.
But deals cannot be brokered behind closed doors in an MI6 safe house.
The strict rules surrounding our judicial system exist for a reason, and the Government has been quick to point out that as yet no evidence implicating Koussa in mass murder or terrorism exists. But the government has to position itself now to be ready to act correctly if such evidence emerges. If the Tripoli regime collapses, with many of its senior figures switching to the rebels' side, it is conceivable that an enormous amount of new evidence could become available.
Yes, there is such a thing as realpolitik and there is a difficlut balance between saving lives now and addressing issues in the past. But should evidence against Koussa emerge it would be outrageous if he should escape prosecution. No deals should be done with this man.
[The same newspaper also features a long article by Dani Garavelli entitled Moussa Koussa's defection: Dancing with the devil?]
The US special agent who led the Lockerbie probe yesterday demanded Scottish authorities prosecute every Libyan official connected to the bombing – and not offer any deals just to capture Colonel Gaddafi.
Former FBI investigator Richard Marquise appealed to the Crown Office not to allow any high-ranking member of the regime to escape justice as a compromise for ensuring a conviction against the dictator.
While Prime Minster David Cameron has insisted Libyans defecting to Britain will not be granted diplomatic immunity, Mr Marquise said he fears charges could be waved if they help secure a showpiece trial. (...)
Speaking to the Sunday Express from Arlington, Virginia, Mr Marquise said: “In terms of Lockerbie, we know who was involved at the lower levels, but I’d like to know who was involved in the higher levels, how high up it went.
“We know there are more people who should be brought to justice. If Moussa Koussa, or anyone else with these facts, is going to come forward with documentary evidence so that we could make a case, then certainly all lower level officials should be prosecuted as well.
“Gaddafi has a lot to answer for which is one of the reasons he is staying put. He does not want to answer anything.
“Even if he was killed there are others in his administration that should be brought to justice.”
Mr Marquise said he believes the bombing was in retaliation for a 1986 US raid in Tripoli, which killed Gaddafi’s daughter.
He added: “Let’s say Gaddafi told Koussa, ‘I’d like something to happen,’ and Koussa orchestrated it. We can speculate and believe that it probably went to the highest level, but there is no evidence that I know of that could be brought to court.
“If I was in Moussa Koussa’s shoes I would want to say, ‘This was ordered by Gaddafi, I have proof and I can help. But Gaddafi’s got to be the only person who ends up being prosecuted.’
“It’s one of those catch-22 situations for him because I understand he’s not been granted immunity. So in his shoes, I wouldn’t say anything because I would be implicating myself.” (...)
[Attorney] Frank Duggan, president of the [US relatives' group] Victims of Pan Am 103, yesterday warned UK officials from striking any deals with defectors, particularly given the controversy still lingering over Megrahi’s release.
He said: “I think this is a golden opportunity. Moussa Koussa knows who ordered the bombing of that plane. He knows who made the bomb, he knows who paid for the bomb, he knows how it was transported to Malta, he knows how it was placed in the plane.
“It wasn’t just Megrahi – obviously other people were involved. Everybody has to account for their role. Now they could have proof. Now they could have that proof on a silver platter.”
[More from Mr Marquise can found in this report in Scotland on Sunday. A leader in the same newspaper headed "Moral maze" contains the following:]
One can only assume that the Lockerbie bombing is one of the issues being discussed. And from a Scottish point of view there is a sense of deja vu here. This is not the first time a British prime minister may have been tempted to use Scottish justice as a bargaining chip in his handling of Libya. Tony Blair's infamous "deal in the desert" raised the prospect of release for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in exchange for Gaddafi's assistance in the war against terror, plus some lucrative oil deals.
Now Cameron may be considering what price he is willing to pay - perhaps in immunity from prosecution - for useful information. This is a genuine moral dilemma. Yes, Koussa may well have had a role in the commission of a number of terrorist acts, from the arming of the IRA to Lockerbie in 1988 and the downing of a French airliner in 1989. (...)
An inconvenient truth needs to be mentioned here. The prime minister should be reminded that in the conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie bombing - the largest criminal act committed on British soil - he has no jurisdiction. All such decisions rest with the Crown Office, headed by the Lord Advocate, who as Scotland's senior prosecutor is appointed by the First Minister. That is not to say the relentless pursuit of every scrap of evidence on Lockerbie must take precedence over all other concerns, including the saving of lives in Libya and the future of the so-called Arab Spring in the Middle East.
But deals cannot be brokered behind closed doors in an MI6 safe house.
The strict rules surrounding our judicial system exist for a reason, and the Government has been quick to point out that as yet no evidence implicating Koussa in mass murder or terrorism exists. But the government has to position itself now to be ready to act correctly if such evidence emerges. If the Tripoli regime collapses, with many of its senior figures switching to the rebels' side, it is conceivable that an enormous amount of new evidence could become available.
Yes, there is such a thing as realpolitik and there is a difficlut balance between saving lives now and addressing issues in the past. But should evidence against Koussa emerge it would be outrageous if he should escape prosecution. No deals should be done with this man.
[The same newspaper also features a long article by Dani Garavelli entitled Moussa Koussa's defection: Dancing with the devil?]
Monday 23 November 2009
Fragments of truth, continued
[The following exchange of e-mails involving Richard Marquise, Frank Duggan and Mark Hirst took place following the appearance on 17 November of Mark Hirst's article "Fragments of truth".]
1. From Richard Marquise to Mark Hirst, copied to Frank Duggan, dated 22 November
I have read your recent Lockerbie article entitled "Fragments of Truth" and I will tell you, that I believe your article was aptly named.
I can appreciate that Mr. Megrahi "steadfastly maintains his innocence" but I am certain you weighed that claim with all the other lies he has told in the past--"I am not a member of Libyan intelligence," and "I was not in Malta on 20-21 December 1988, I was here in Tripoli with my family." Those lies were proven at trial but somehow, you want to believe what he tells you today. I am incredulous. Is it the truth now or was it last time he spoke??
Your statement alleges that "many professionals involved in this case including US intelligence officers,legal experts and police investigators" share Mr. Megrahi's view. Who are they??? Former CIA agent Robert Baer should not count since he never worked on the case and has no idea what the evidence was or how it was collected or shared. Who are these other people? I do not count Gareth Pearce or Robert Black--they too know only what they "think?" As we who have been law enforcement professionals know--"thinking" is not admissible in court--facts and evidence are--even circumstantial evidence.
You speak of "new evidence" in this case but I have read his postings to date and have seen nothing which would change my mind about the righteousness of his conviction.
You talk about the "cover up" of the weakness of the investigation-- there was never a cover up--the evidence was the evidence and the three judges convicted him. You might call their reading the the evidence "shameful" but I think they came to the correct conclusion--Mr. Megrahi was guilty of murder the Libyan Government was responsible for the attack.
You believe we had pressure to secure the indictment. Yes, we did believe that a "timescale" was in place to announce something but we also recognized that without someone in Libya providing us information, there would probably never be any new evidence developed. This proved to be the case until 1999 when the Libyan Government was compelled to "cooperate" and some additional evidence was collected (which proved that Mr. Megrahi and Abdusamad were one in the same and that Mr. Megrahi was a Libyan agent. To me, these findings corroborated some of the things Mr. Giaka told us.
While it is true that intelligence agencies did provide the name of Mr. Megrahi (one of many), it was through the investigation that Mr. Fhimah was brought into the case. His name did not come from intelligence agencies and was a complete byproduct of "detective" work.
You (and others) continue to claim that witnesses at trial were motivated by money. While I will not be able to say what motivates each and every person who testifies at any trial, I have said it before and will say it again--no witness--none-- was ever promised money or asked to say anything at any interview or at trial in exchange for money. None!! In fact, it was Mr. Bollier who came to the US Embassy in January 1989 and attempted to implicate the Libyans, long before there was one shred of real evidence collected at Lockerbie. It would be nearly two years before he could even be identified as that person.
You continue to make allegations about Mr. Thurman and that he has no credentials to do "forensic" examinations. Would it shock you to know that not only does he have extensive experience as an explosives expert in the US military (pre FBI), he also has a masters degree in Forensic Science? I am certain that will be made clear in your next attempt to criticize him.
With regard to the "travel" of PT-35-- once again-- it was the sharing of information which led to the solution of this case. If the fragment had remained behind in Scotland, never shared, it would possibly be unidentified today. No one would ever have discovered it was a piece of one of 20 timers given to Libyan intelligence. It is clear no one ever attempted to "cover" that up-- I freely admitted it in my book, Mr. Henderson stated such in his precognition and I again said so to Mr. Levy. My "confusion" at Arlington last December over whether it had come to the US or not, was due more to the tone of the question, the setting and the allegation I may have lied to him when he first interviewed me. Unlike Mr. Megrahi, I do not tell lies when it comes to the evidence in this case. I said it right when Mr. Levy first interviewed me. We had nothing to hide because we did the right thing and there has never, never, never been one scintilla of proof that PT-35 was altered or changed in any way.
I was a bit disappointed that you chose to end your "treatise" using the vulgar quote from Ian Ferguson. I guess I expected better from someone who is involved in politics.
I would hope that in the future you cover "all" the facts when you write concerning Lockerbie.
2. From Frank Duggan to Richard Marquise, copied to Mark Hirst and Robert Black, dated 22 November
We greatly appreciate your continuing to present the facts to Mr. Hirst, Ms. Grahame, Prof. Black, Gareth Pearce and the rest of the shameless band of conspiracy mavens. They are no worse than holocaust deniers, who will not accept the facts before their faces.
Thanks for your continued efforts on behalf of 270 innocent souls murdered by Mr. Megrahi and his state sponsors of terrorism.
3. From Mark Hirst to Richard Marquise and Frank Duggan, copied to Robert Black, dated 23 November
I am at somewhat of a loss as to know where to begin as it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a huge intellectual void between us. You talk freely of "facts" yet seem utterly incapable of critically examining the facts that have come to light since the trial and indeed re-examine the supposed facts that were led during it.
I note, with some despondency, that US Governmental control of the doctrinal system may make it ultimately impossible for you to accept and consider the realities in this case and that American culture encourages an ideology that "hates" to lose and therefore it is extremely difficult for you to consider, even if you consciously knew it, that you may be entirely wrong.
Mr Duggan, it is apparent to me from your blatant right wing political agenda that your grasp of what facts there are is extremely limited. For information, unlike the United States of America, both my grandfathers fought for three consecutive the perpetrators of the holocaust before the US woke up to the danger of aggressive imperialist fascism, the same type of imperial cultural and political fascism which appears to be an integral part of US foreign policy today.
I suspect (although I have yet to see any evidence!) that at some base level both you and Mr Marquise are aware of the facts in this case, which is presumably why you have both consistently endeavoured to lower the arguments surrounding this case to concentrating on character assassination and failed to argue the substantive points in the case or answer the core questions at its heart.
Mr Duggan, despite what you may think, you clearly do not represent the 270 innocent souls who were murdered in December 1988, a fact that I fear has completely eluded you.
Turning to your comments Mr Marquise. I have been generous with you in the past and have stated to those I have met and discussed this with, including the Justice Minister at the time of the trial and others, that you may not have actively tried to deceive and that you simply reached the wrong conclusions on the limited evidence available and due to the enforced timescales imposed to secure an indictment. However it is clear that you have and are involved in a propaganda campaign to defend the conviction. I understand why on a personal level you would wish to do that. Your entire professional career and reputation and that of Henderson and other senior legal people here in Scotland depend on maintaining this unsafe conviction. That personal stake in this case has blinded you and those you have helped indoctrinate into ignoring the substantive pieces of information and evidence that has come to light since the kangaroo court proceedings in Holland.
I am willing to accept that there was a slackness in the investigation (in terms of failure to follow correct procedure), certainly in the Scottish police aspect of the case, because at that time no one seriously believed Libya would ever surrender the two accused. I can only imagine the sense of panic that ensued when it became evident that the Megrahi and Fhimah were prepared to come before what they were told, and believed would be a fair court process.
You seem to be trapped by the illusion that our certainty in Megrahi’s innocence is based solely on us meeting him in person and not by the conclusions of the SCCRC report, the discussions we have had with police officers involved in the case and very senior figures inside the Scottish legal system who are as appalled as us with the outcome of the investigation and conviction of an innocent man, whilst the real perpetrators go unpunished.
Regarding the cash reward received by witnesses I can only say if they were motivated by a civic or moral duty why would they need the money? In fact why would they actively seek financial reward, as you must know was the case? Another fact obscured by your visceral hatred of those who seek to objectively and critically examine the case you presented.
You claim that no money was ever offered or promised before trial. Presumably you mean "was never offered by the FBI" as you must know that money was discussed at length by US intelligence. I thought it was "us" who were the "deniers"?
You imply that I am behind the allegations that Mr Thurman is not properly qualified. That is not the case. It was the FBI’s Fred Whitehurst who makes that assertion although I appreciate it will not be a comforting experience to have fellow Americans undermine the determined indoctrination process you are involved with.
As I have previously stated I coincidentally worked as a Quality Inspector for the world’s biggest PCB manufacturer in the world, ironically a US owned company. I therefore happen to know a little about circuit boards. Having recently read the court transcript the identification of PT35 was done purely on a visual comparison of a complete board which the CIA happened to have and which Thurman acquired. As I have previously stated the board was NOT manufactured by MEBO, but by Thuring AG and then sold to MEBO to be "populated". I have made the point before, and this is evident in the court transcript, that there are design characteristics on PT35 which yes, could be present on a complete MST13 timer, but, which the Court failed to consider, equally present on any number of other circuits produced by Thuring. That is not just my view but a view shared by people I know who still work in the industry and presumably why none of the 55 PCB companies visited by investigators was able to give a categorical identification of the fragment before Thurman’s "miraculous" (I am being generous) ID in Washington.
As you have stated Mr Marquise, without PT35 there would be no indictment, let alone a conviction so this and the other serious questions regarding PT35 are significant. Incidentally you previously took me to task over whether the MST13 timers were sold or simply "given" to Libya and stated, as "fact", that they were "given" and not sold. If you would like I am happy to send you a recorded interview conducted in 2000 with your associate Robert Muller, who I believe runs the FBI today. He makes it clear then that the timers were "sold". Perhaps a conference call may be required to get your stories straight before you begin lecturing others on what constitutes "fact" and what does not.
I am sorry you took offence at the "vulgar" quote I used from Ian Ferguson. It seemed to fit the vulgar outcome of the manner in which this investigation and trial were conducted and underscore the sheer scale of the huge miscarriage of justice that has taken place. In that context I believe there are other more substantive and relevant apologies to be made.
As you are aware, I and many others (including those inside the US and UK intelligence services) hold the view that Iran was responsible for this attack. Our narrative of the crime which led to the murder of 270 people over Lockerbie is based on our belief that Iran carried out the attack in revenge for the terrorist atrocity which the US carried out against Iran when they shot down Flight 655, five months before Lockerbie.
As you will see later today, we are now calling for an international inquiry to be established to examine the broader context that led to the Pan Am 103 attack and which, if we lived in a non-hypocritical, fair and just world, would hopefully lead to the conviction of those who are really responsible for Pan Am 103 and those officers and crew who illegally entered Iranian waters and blew up 290 innocent victims on the Iranian flight five months before. These are two interrelated terrorist acts in which the perpetrators, on both sides, have yet to face justice.
I appreciate the real sense of angst that many US families will have regarding the Megrahi release and those who believe, as I do, that he is innocent of this crime. They have been, as one US family member told me "lied to from the outset by our own government and others". I understand too that the American sense of "justice" is very much based on the concept of an eye for an eye and why, therefore, it would be very difficult for Americans to accept the revenge attack which Iran sponsored in retaliation for the murder of 290 of their citizens. I also understand why, Mr Marquise, you are so passionate to defend your reputation in the face of facts that existed during the investigation and which have emerged subsequently. That is an entirely understandable human reaction.
As you must surely appreciate by now, this is not an issue that is going to slip away quietly. Because the real perpetrators have yet to face justice, it shouldn’t be allowed to.
It may be comforting for you, Mr Duggan in particular, to hide behind his metaphoric redoubt and sling entirely inappropriate comment at those who are challenging the official version of events that has been fed to you over the years. The holocaust comparison you make directed at me is presumably an attempt to align those of us who believe Iran was responsible for the attack on Pan Am 103 to the abhorrent comments of the current President of Iran who is on record as a holocaust denier. What a vulgar irony that truly is.
Given, Mr Marquise, you are blind copying in other people to your correspondence between us you will have no particular objection to Professor Black reporting this exchange on his blog?
4. From Frank Duggan to Mark Hirst, copied to Richard Marquise and Robert Black, dated 24 November
There is no intellectual void. It would be helpful to your advocacy if you would explain Mr. Megrahi's actions in Malta and elsewhere, as brought out in the court's decision concerning his guilt. Stating that there were other reasonable, legal explanations for his carrying a false passport and lying about it is not helpful. These are facts that you "seem utterly incapable of critically examining."
5. From Mark Hirst to Frank Duggan, copied to Richard Marquise and Robert Black, dated 25 November
I suspect this exchange could continue forever and with no resolution between our differing views. I think this issue has been debated many times, but I don't see how inverting the burden of proof really assists the case being made against Megrahi. There are any number of unrelated reasons (unrelated to the crime) that would explain why Megrahi could have been carrying a diplomatic coded passport and these are already in the public domain. It was for the Crown to demonstrate these issues were directly connected to the crime, not for Megrahi or anyone else to explain what other possible reasons he may have had for carrying such a passport or other business he may, or may not have had in Malta. I understand that some of Megrahi's own children were also carrying coded diplomatic passports. Were these children involved in the crime also?
The independent SCCRC has concluded that there are very serious issues around the identification by Gauci, not just the millions of dollars he and his brother solicited and received from the CIA. Without the identification there is no case against Megrahi. The fact that the three judges appear to have misdirected themselves by coming up with their own narrative of the crime, which differed significantly from the one the Crown presented, is somewhat of a red herring in terms of defending the conviction being the "considered conclusion of a Scottish court", with the implication that they did not make a monumental legal error in doing so. You must at least know that.
Yourself and Mr Marquise continually attempt to dismiss critical examination of the case as the work of "conspiracy theorists" and appear to believe, without foundation, there is some kind of active conspiracy between myself, Ms Grahame, Professor Black, Dr Swire, John Pilger, Professor Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Hans Kochler, Ian Ferguson, Gareth Pierce, Gideon Levy, Bob Baer, Fred Whitehurst and many others (including, most likely the SCCRC) who have looked at this case. Clearly the wide range of individuals, most, if not all, with exemplary professional credentials (despite your attempts at character assassination) demonstrates that beyond the three trial judges there remains, and is likely to remain, very serious doubts over the safety of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
That is one fact that I am confident we can both agree on.
1. From Richard Marquise to Mark Hirst, copied to Frank Duggan, dated 22 November
I have read your recent Lockerbie article entitled "Fragments of Truth" and I will tell you, that I believe your article was aptly named.
I can appreciate that Mr. Megrahi "steadfastly maintains his innocence" but I am certain you weighed that claim with all the other lies he has told in the past--"I am not a member of Libyan intelligence," and "I was not in Malta on 20-21 December 1988, I was here in Tripoli with my family." Those lies were proven at trial but somehow, you want to believe what he tells you today. I am incredulous. Is it the truth now or was it last time he spoke??
Your statement alleges that "many professionals involved in this case including US intelligence officers,legal experts and police investigators" share Mr. Megrahi's view. Who are they??? Former CIA agent Robert Baer should not count since he never worked on the case and has no idea what the evidence was or how it was collected or shared. Who are these other people? I do not count Gareth Pearce or Robert Black--they too know only what they "think?" As we who have been law enforcement professionals know--"thinking" is not admissible in court--facts and evidence are--even circumstantial evidence.
You speak of "new evidence" in this case but I have read his postings to date and have seen nothing which would change my mind about the righteousness of his conviction.
You talk about the "cover up" of the weakness of the investigation-- there was never a cover up--the evidence was the evidence and the three judges convicted him. You might call their reading the the evidence "shameful" but I think they came to the correct conclusion--Mr. Megrahi was guilty of murder the Libyan Government was responsible for the attack.
You believe we had pressure to secure the indictment. Yes, we did believe that a "timescale" was in place to announce something but we also recognized that without someone in Libya providing us information, there would probably never be any new evidence developed. This proved to be the case until 1999 when the Libyan Government was compelled to "cooperate" and some additional evidence was collected (which proved that Mr. Megrahi and Abdusamad were one in the same and that Mr. Megrahi was a Libyan agent. To me, these findings corroborated some of the things Mr. Giaka told us.
While it is true that intelligence agencies did provide the name of Mr. Megrahi (one of many), it was through the investigation that Mr. Fhimah was brought into the case. His name did not come from intelligence agencies and was a complete byproduct of "detective" work.
You (and others) continue to claim that witnesses at trial were motivated by money. While I will not be able to say what motivates each and every person who testifies at any trial, I have said it before and will say it again--no witness--none-- was ever promised money or asked to say anything at any interview or at trial in exchange for money. None!! In fact, it was Mr. Bollier who came to the US Embassy in January 1989 and attempted to implicate the Libyans, long before there was one shred of real evidence collected at Lockerbie. It would be nearly two years before he could even be identified as that person.
You continue to make allegations about Mr. Thurman and that he has no credentials to do "forensic" examinations. Would it shock you to know that not only does he have extensive experience as an explosives expert in the US military (pre FBI), he also has a masters degree in Forensic Science? I am certain that will be made clear in your next attempt to criticize him.
With regard to the "travel" of PT-35-- once again-- it was the sharing of information which led to the solution of this case. If the fragment had remained behind in Scotland, never shared, it would possibly be unidentified today. No one would ever have discovered it was a piece of one of 20 timers given to Libyan intelligence. It is clear no one ever attempted to "cover" that up-- I freely admitted it in my book, Mr. Henderson stated such in his precognition and I again said so to Mr. Levy. My "confusion" at Arlington last December over whether it had come to the US or not, was due more to the tone of the question, the setting and the allegation I may have lied to him when he first interviewed me. Unlike Mr. Megrahi, I do not tell lies when it comes to the evidence in this case. I said it right when Mr. Levy first interviewed me. We had nothing to hide because we did the right thing and there has never, never, never been one scintilla of proof that PT-35 was altered or changed in any way.
I was a bit disappointed that you chose to end your "treatise" using the vulgar quote from Ian Ferguson. I guess I expected better from someone who is involved in politics.
I would hope that in the future you cover "all" the facts when you write concerning Lockerbie.
2. From Frank Duggan to Richard Marquise, copied to Mark Hirst and Robert Black, dated 22 November
We greatly appreciate your continuing to present the facts to Mr. Hirst, Ms. Grahame, Prof. Black, Gareth Pearce and the rest of the shameless band of conspiracy mavens. They are no worse than holocaust deniers, who will not accept the facts before their faces.
Thanks for your continued efforts on behalf of 270 innocent souls murdered by Mr. Megrahi and his state sponsors of terrorism.
3. From Mark Hirst to Richard Marquise and Frank Duggan, copied to Robert Black, dated 23 November
I am at somewhat of a loss as to know where to begin as it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a huge intellectual void between us. You talk freely of "facts" yet seem utterly incapable of critically examining the facts that have come to light since the trial and indeed re-examine the supposed facts that were led during it.
I note, with some despondency, that US Governmental control of the doctrinal system may make it ultimately impossible for you to accept and consider the realities in this case and that American culture encourages an ideology that "hates" to lose and therefore it is extremely difficult for you to consider, even if you consciously knew it, that you may be entirely wrong.
Mr Duggan, it is apparent to me from your blatant right wing political agenda that your grasp of what facts there are is extremely limited. For information, unlike the United States of America, both my grandfathers fought for three consecutive the perpetrators of the holocaust before the US woke up to the danger of aggressive imperialist fascism, the same type of imperial cultural and political fascism which appears to be an integral part of US foreign policy today.
I suspect (although I have yet to see any evidence!) that at some base level both you and Mr Marquise are aware of the facts in this case, which is presumably why you have both consistently endeavoured to lower the arguments surrounding this case to concentrating on character assassination and failed to argue the substantive points in the case or answer the core questions at its heart.
Mr Duggan, despite what you may think, you clearly do not represent the 270 innocent souls who were murdered in December 1988, a fact that I fear has completely eluded you.
Turning to your comments Mr Marquise. I have been generous with you in the past and have stated to those I have met and discussed this with, including the Justice Minister at the time of the trial and others, that you may not have actively tried to deceive and that you simply reached the wrong conclusions on the limited evidence available and due to the enforced timescales imposed to secure an indictment. However it is clear that you have and are involved in a propaganda campaign to defend the conviction. I understand why on a personal level you would wish to do that. Your entire professional career and reputation and that of Henderson and other senior legal people here in Scotland depend on maintaining this unsafe conviction. That personal stake in this case has blinded you and those you have helped indoctrinate into ignoring the substantive pieces of information and evidence that has come to light since the kangaroo court proceedings in Holland.
I am willing to accept that there was a slackness in the investigation (in terms of failure to follow correct procedure), certainly in the Scottish police aspect of the case, because at that time no one seriously believed Libya would ever surrender the two accused. I can only imagine the sense of panic that ensued when it became evident that the Megrahi and Fhimah were prepared to come before what they were told, and believed would be a fair court process.
You seem to be trapped by the illusion that our certainty in Megrahi’s innocence is based solely on us meeting him in person and not by the conclusions of the SCCRC report, the discussions we have had with police officers involved in the case and very senior figures inside the Scottish legal system who are as appalled as us with the outcome of the investigation and conviction of an innocent man, whilst the real perpetrators go unpunished.
Regarding the cash reward received by witnesses I can only say if they were motivated by a civic or moral duty why would they need the money? In fact why would they actively seek financial reward, as you must know was the case? Another fact obscured by your visceral hatred of those who seek to objectively and critically examine the case you presented.
You claim that no money was ever offered or promised before trial. Presumably you mean "was never offered by the FBI" as you must know that money was discussed at length by US intelligence. I thought it was "us" who were the "deniers"?
You imply that I am behind the allegations that Mr Thurman is not properly qualified. That is not the case. It was the FBI’s Fred Whitehurst who makes that assertion although I appreciate it will not be a comforting experience to have fellow Americans undermine the determined indoctrination process you are involved with.
As I have previously stated I coincidentally worked as a Quality Inspector for the world’s biggest PCB manufacturer in the world, ironically a US owned company. I therefore happen to know a little about circuit boards. Having recently read the court transcript the identification of PT35 was done purely on a visual comparison of a complete board which the CIA happened to have and which Thurman acquired. As I have previously stated the board was NOT manufactured by MEBO, but by Thuring AG and then sold to MEBO to be "populated". I have made the point before, and this is evident in the court transcript, that there are design characteristics on PT35 which yes, could be present on a complete MST13 timer, but, which the Court failed to consider, equally present on any number of other circuits produced by Thuring. That is not just my view but a view shared by people I know who still work in the industry and presumably why none of the 55 PCB companies visited by investigators was able to give a categorical identification of the fragment before Thurman’s "miraculous" (I am being generous) ID in Washington.
As you have stated Mr Marquise, without PT35 there would be no indictment, let alone a conviction so this and the other serious questions regarding PT35 are significant. Incidentally you previously took me to task over whether the MST13 timers were sold or simply "given" to Libya and stated, as "fact", that they were "given" and not sold. If you would like I am happy to send you a recorded interview conducted in 2000 with your associate Robert Muller, who I believe runs the FBI today. He makes it clear then that the timers were "sold". Perhaps a conference call may be required to get your stories straight before you begin lecturing others on what constitutes "fact" and what does not.
I am sorry you took offence at the "vulgar" quote I used from Ian Ferguson. It seemed to fit the vulgar outcome of the manner in which this investigation and trial were conducted and underscore the sheer scale of the huge miscarriage of justice that has taken place. In that context I believe there are other more substantive and relevant apologies to be made.
As you are aware, I and many others (including those inside the US and UK intelligence services) hold the view that Iran was responsible for this attack. Our narrative of the crime which led to the murder of 270 people over Lockerbie is based on our belief that Iran carried out the attack in revenge for the terrorist atrocity which the US carried out against Iran when they shot down Flight 655, five months before Lockerbie.
As you will see later today, we are now calling for an international inquiry to be established to examine the broader context that led to the Pan Am 103 attack and which, if we lived in a non-hypocritical, fair and just world, would hopefully lead to the conviction of those who are really responsible for Pan Am 103 and those officers and crew who illegally entered Iranian waters and blew up 290 innocent victims on the Iranian flight five months before. These are two interrelated terrorist acts in which the perpetrators, on both sides, have yet to face justice.
I appreciate the real sense of angst that many US families will have regarding the Megrahi release and those who believe, as I do, that he is innocent of this crime. They have been, as one US family member told me "lied to from the outset by our own government and others". I understand too that the American sense of "justice" is very much based on the concept of an eye for an eye and why, therefore, it would be very difficult for Americans to accept the revenge attack which Iran sponsored in retaliation for the murder of 290 of their citizens. I also understand why, Mr Marquise, you are so passionate to defend your reputation in the face of facts that existed during the investigation and which have emerged subsequently. That is an entirely understandable human reaction.
As you must surely appreciate by now, this is not an issue that is going to slip away quietly. Because the real perpetrators have yet to face justice, it shouldn’t be allowed to.
It may be comforting for you, Mr Duggan in particular, to hide behind his metaphoric redoubt and sling entirely inappropriate comment at those who are challenging the official version of events that has been fed to you over the years. The holocaust comparison you make directed at me is presumably an attempt to align those of us who believe Iran was responsible for the attack on Pan Am 103 to the abhorrent comments of the current President of Iran who is on record as a holocaust denier. What a vulgar irony that truly is.
Given, Mr Marquise, you are blind copying in other people to your correspondence between us you will have no particular objection to Professor Black reporting this exchange on his blog?
4. From Frank Duggan to Mark Hirst, copied to Richard Marquise and Robert Black, dated 24 November
There is no intellectual void. It would be helpful to your advocacy if you would explain Mr. Megrahi's actions in Malta and elsewhere, as brought out in the court's decision concerning his guilt. Stating that there were other reasonable, legal explanations for his carrying a false passport and lying about it is not helpful. These are facts that you "seem utterly incapable of critically examining."
5. From Mark Hirst to Frank Duggan, copied to Richard Marquise and Robert Black, dated 25 November
I suspect this exchange could continue forever and with no resolution between our differing views. I think this issue has been debated many times, but I don't see how inverting the burden of proof really assists the case being made against Megrahi. There are any number of unrelated reasons (unrelated to the crime) that would explain why Megrahi could have been carrying a diplomatic coded passport and these are already in the public domain. It was for the Crown to demonstrate these issues were directly connected to the crime, not for Megrahi or anyone else to explain what other possible reasons he may have had for carrying such a passport or other business he may, or may not have had in Malta. I understand that some of Megrahi's own children were also carrying coded diplomatic passports. Were these children involved in the crime also?
The independent SCCRC has concluded that there are very serious issues around the identification by Gauci, not just the millions of dollars he and his brother solicited and received from the CIA. Without the identification there is no case against Megrahi. The fact that the three judges appear to have misdirected themselves by coming up with their own narrative of the crime, which differed significantly from the one the Crown presented, is somewhat of a red herring in terms of defending the conviction being the "considered conclusion of a Scottish court", with the implication that they did not make a monumental legal error in doing so. You must at least know that.
Yourself and Mr Marquise continually attempt to dismiss critical examination of the case as the work of "conspiracy theorists" and appear to believe, without foundation, there is some kind of active conspiracy between myself, Ms Grahame, Professor Black, Dr Swire, John Pilger, Professor Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Hans Kochler, Ian Ferguson, Gareth Pierce, Gideon Levy, Bob Baer, Fred Whitehurst and many others (including, most likely the SCCRC) who have looked at this case. Clearly the wide range of individuals, most, if not all, with exemplary professional credentials (despite your attempts at character assassination) demonstrates that beyond the three trial judges there remains, and is likely to remain, very serious doubts over the safety of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
That is one fact that I am confident we can both agree on.
Saturday 17 December 2016
Recent Richard Marquise interview about Lockerbie
A lengthy podcast interview with the FBI chief Lockerbie investigator, Richard Marquise, has just been made available. It can be accessed here. The text accompanying the podcast reads as follows:]
Retired agent Richard “Dick” Marquise served with the FBI for 31 years. He is an expert in the fields of counter terrorism and crisis management, both as an investigator and as a manager. Marquise is interviewed about Pan Am Flight 103, blown out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, four days before Christmas. Two hundred and seventy people were killed. Marquise was involved with the investigation from its inception and, after being named to lead the US Task Force which included the FBI, Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency, he managed the investigation through the return of indictments in 1991. He also played an active role through the court proceedings and in August 2001, with the successful resolution of the trial, he received the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service. Following the case, which had been code-named Scotbom, his Bureau career included the role of Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI’s Oklahoma City Division. He has provided training to law enforcement officials all over the United States and internationally and has appeared on television and radio talk shows and has given hundreds of speeches all over the world on the topic of terrorism. In order to document the facts of the investigation, Marquise wrote Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation a non-fiction account of the international terrorism case.
Friday 24 June 2011
Moolah For Memories…
[This is the heading over a post published today on bensix's blog Back Towards The Locus. It reads as follows (full references and links in the original, but omitted here):]
Richard Marquise, the FBI investigator into the Pan Am bombing, is, as far as I’m aware, the only public figure who’s tried to defend the prosecution. It’s interesting, then, that he does it rather badly.
Anyway, in an interview with OhmyNews, back in 2009, Marquise addressed the evidence that crucial (if unconvincing) witness Tony Gauci was rewarded for his testimony in the form of loadsamoney…
"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone…"
When he was interviewed for Gideon Levy’s documentary Lockerbie Revisited Marquise seems to have been more equivocal…
"Richard Marquise states categorically that no money was paid to any of the witnesses before the trial. In relation to witness Tony Gauci, Marquise refuses to say whether any money was paid out after the trial."
After the Al Jazeera documentary – which provided a sceptical view of the investigation – Marquise popped up in the comments at Robert Black’s blog and gave an even weirder response…
"I believe that I and any of my Scottish colleagues could well have testified in Zeist that no witness asked for, was promised or paid money in exchange for saying anything anything."
Let’s all play a game where we answer the relevant question! Was money offered? Given? It seems so…
"Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal – abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
"Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’."
Witness payments have typically been an issue when the media has offered witnesses moolah for their tales. It’s so controversial that the practice was nearly banned, and is subject to a host of regulations. (One of them, which might interest Lord Fraser, is that any payment or offer of payment must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence.) They’re concerned that the idea of cash might sway the witnesses’ judgements.
Hmm.
Seems like Mr Marquise has some ‘splaining to do.
Richard Marquise, the FBI investigator into the Pan Am bombing, is, as far as I’m aware, the only public figure who’s tried to defend the prosecution. It’s interesting, then, that he does it rather badly.
Anyway, in an interview with OhmyNews, back in 2009, Marquise addressed the evidence that crucial (if unconvincing) witness Tony Gauci was rewarded for his testimony in the form of loadsamoney…
"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone…"
When he was interviewed for Gideon Levy’s documentary Lockerbie Revisited Marquise seems to have been more equivocal…
"Richard Marquise states categorically that no money was paid to any of the witnesses before the trial. In relation to witness Tony Gauci, Marquise refuses to say whether any money was paid out after the trial."
After the Al Jazeera documentary – which provided a sceptical view of the investigation – Marquise popped up in the comments at Robert Black’s blog and gave an even weirder response…
"I believe that I and any of my Scottish colleagues could well have testified in Zeist that no witness asked for, was promised or paid money in exchange for saying anything anything."
Let’s all play a game where we answer the relevant question! Was money offered? Given? It seems so…
"Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal – abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
"Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’."
Witness payments have typically been an issue when the media has offered witnesses moolah for their tales. It’s so controversial that the practice was nearly banned, and is subject to a host of regulations. (One of them, which might interest Lord Fraser, is that any payment or offer of payment must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence.) They’re concerned that the idea of cash might sway the witnesses’ judgements.
Hmm.
Seems like Mr Marquise has some ‘splaining to do.
Sunday 10 May 2009
Reaction to the transfer application
Today's edition of Scotland on Sunday carries three articles on the Lockerbie case: a news report, a lengthy opinion piece by the Scottish Political Editor and a leader.
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
Tuesday 16 December 2008
A response to Richard Marquise
[I am deeply grateful to Peter Biddulph for allowing me to post the following response written by him to Richard Marquise's recent broadcast and print contributions to Lockerbie lore.]
1. It would appear that Mr Marquise never handled the fragment [of circuit board allegedly from the MST-13 timer that allegedly detonated the bomb], never saw the fragment. All his forensic information appears to have come from Thomas Thurman, proven to be a manipulator of prosecution reports by the US Department of Justice in 36 out of the 52 Thurman cases that they investigated.
And yet Thurman too never saw the fragment or handled it. When challenged by journalists, he admitted that he had worked solely on photographs supplied by the Scottish police and Thomas Hayes. And the evidence he gave on US TV about identifying the fragment was given as a voice-over using photographs of a sample from the CIA's own laboratory in Langley, Virginia.
Thurman, by resigning and "leaving" the employ of the FBI avoided being a witness at the trial, and his claims and record regarding the fragment were never tested in court. All references to Thurman in the trial transcript took "a priori" that he was on the team who found the fragment that proved Libya did it. His questionable history was never challenged by the defence. Were they negligent?
2. Mr Marquise's senior FBI colleague Oliver Revell never saw the fragment, never handled the fragment. In a televised discussion in 1995 on UK Channel Four TV he claimed :
". . . And we were operating on the premise that [Iran] was the responsible party. But we simply could not bring to bear all of the information we had, and the evidence, and make it fit. And then when the item – the microchip – was found and was identified – and by the way it was through both RARDE and Tom Thurman of the FBI laboratory – independently – that we found the other connection, and then we started working on that." (My italics).
So, whatever might be said by the FBI now, their case in 1991 centred entirely upon the provenance of the fragment of the bomb said to have been found in July 1989 by Dr Thomas Hayes. Should Hayes' evidence be in any way suspect, the case would collapse.
Mr Marquise has claimed elsewhere that the retirement of the CIA's Vincent Cannistraro took place before the key evidence was found. He has said that to for us to say otherwise is wrong.
Well, it's not wrong. Cannistraro was busy as head of the Lockerbie team when Hayes claimed to have found the fragment. Cannistraro retired a year and a half later, in November 1990.
3. The chief identification witness, Tony Gauci, was exposed in 2005 by the very man who - in 1991 - helped with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, former Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's own words, Gauci could not be trusted.
And now a Mr Clancy [Ronnie Clancy QC] of the Scottish Crown team has conceded in a recent Scottish High Court hearing in Edinburgh that even if Gauci's evidence is discredited, it would not significantly affect the prosecution case. A strange claim and admission indeed. Are they already conceding the case in total? [RB: What Mr Clancy said was that the Crown’s view was that there was sufficient evidence to justify Megrahi’s conviction even if Gauci’s evidence were discounted.]
4. Marquise's information regarding the British forensic tracing of the fragment came from Dr Thomas Hayes.
At the time of the trial, Hayes' record in the case of the IRA Maguire Seven (Guildford bombing) was never discussed in court. All that the judges heard was an oblique reference to "deliberate falsehoods" told by his former colleague and supervisor Dr Higgs in another IRA case, that of Judith Ward.
Since Hayes had not been part of that particular Higgs episode, he could - and did - deny all connection or knowledge of that particular Higgs conspiracy. The trial then moved on without further comment or question.
And yet Hayes was central to a Higgs conspiracy in another IRA trial, that of the Maguire Seven, in which the Hayes and Higgs were proved by Parliamentary investigation to have conspired to with-hold evidence that might assist the defence case.
But since the Maguire Seven story was not rehearsed in the Lockerbie trial, none of this could be considered by the Lockerbie judges.
I believe that if Hayes' history in the case of the Maguire Seven had been examined in court, his testimony in the case of Lockerbie would have been discredited in the same way as that of Majid Giaka, the double CIA and Libyan agent.
In his book Scotbom, and since, Mr Marquise gives the impression that American investigation was led and controlled by the FBI. In fact it was controlled overall by the CIA, and by certain people with much blood and lies on their hands. Among the White House team around that time were people proven by declassified documents to understand well the technique of the manufacture of evidence to destabilise Middle Eastern governments. These documents are now freely available. But nobody - including the media in both countries - seems to care any more. It's old news, unwelcome news. People die, so what? Life must go on etc.
All of this, naturally, never came to the attention of the Lockerbie judges. Hopefully the second appeal will offer a long overdue opportunity for the true back-story of Lockerbie to emerge.
If Mr Marquise wishes to challenge any of the above, I will gladly supply the document dates and references with appropriate quotations. I will also arrange for sections of the film and television records to be put on the web. And I will ensure that relevant sections of the trial transcript are also put on the web. People can then judge for themselves where this story might go over the next six months.
1. It would appear that Mr Marquise never handled the fragment [of circuit board allegedly from the MST-13 timer that allegedly detonated the bomb], never saw the fragment. All his forensic information appears to have come from Thomas Thurman, proven to be a manipulator of prosecution reports by the US Department of Justice in 36 out of the 52 Thurman cases that they investigated.
And yet Thurman too never saw the fragment or handled it. When challenged by journalists, he admitted that he had worked solely on photographs supplied by the Scottish police and Thomas Hayes. And the evidence he gave on US TV about identifying the fragment was given as a voice-over using photographs of a sample from the CIA's own laboratory in Langley, Virginia.
Thurman, by resigning and "leaving" the employ of the FBI avoided being a witness at the trial, and his claims and record regarding the fragment were never tested in court. All references to Thurman in the trial transcript took "a priori" that he was on the team who found the fragment that proved Libya did it. His questionable history was never challenged by the defence. Were they negligent?
2. Mr Marquise's senior FBI colleague Oliver Revell never saw the fragment, never handled the fragment. In a televised discussion in 1995 on UK Channel Four TV he claimed :
". . . And we were operating on the premise that [Iran] was the responsible party. But we simply could not bring to bear all of the information we had, and the evidence, and make it fit. And then when the item – the microchip – was found and was identified – and by the way it was through both RARDE and Tom Thurman of the FBI laboratory – independently – that we found the other connection, and then we started working on that." (My italics).
So, whatever might be said by the FBI now, their case in 1991 centred entirely upon the provenance of the fragment of the bomb said to have been found in July 1989 by Dr Thomas Hayes. Should Hayes' evidence be in any way suspect, the case would collapse.
Mr Marquise has claimed elsewhere that the retirement of the CIA's Vincent Cannistraro took place before the key evidence was found. He has said that to for us to say otherwise is wrong.
Well, it's not wrong. Cannistraro was busy as head of the Lockerbie team when Hayes claimed to have found the fragment. Cannistraro retired a year and a half later, in November 1990.
3. The chief identification witness, Tony Gauci, was exposed in 2005 by the very man who - in 1991 - helped with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, former Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's own words, Gauci could not be trusted.
And now a Mr Clancy [Ronnie Clancy QC] of the Scottish Crown team has conceded in a recent Scottish High Court hearing in Edinburgh that even if Gauci's evidence is discredited, it would not significantly affect the prosecution case. A strange claim and admission indeed. Are they already conceding the case in total? [RB: What Mr Clancy said was that the Crown’s view was that there was sufficient evidence to justify Megrahi’s conviction even if Gauci’s evidence were discounted.]
4. Marquise's information regarding the British forensic tracing of the fragment came from Dr Thomas Hayes.
At the time of the trial, Hayes' record in the case of the IRA Maguire Seven (Guildford bombing) was never discussed in court. All that the judges heard was an oblique reference to "deliberate falsehoods" told by his former colleague and supervisor Dr Higgs in another IRA case, that of Judith Ward.
Since Hayes had not been part of that particular Higgs episode, he could - and did - deny all connection or knowledge of that particular Higgs conspiracy. The trial then moved on without further comment or question.
And yet Hayes was central to a Higgs conspiracy in another IRA trial, that of the Maguire Seven, in which the Hayes and Higgs were proved by Parliamentary investigation to have conspired to with-hold evidence that might assist the defence case.
But since the Maguire Seven story was not rehearsed in the Lockerbie trial, none of this could be considered by the Lockerbie judges.
I believe that if Hayes' history in the case of the Maguire Seven had been examined in court, his testimony in the case of Lockerbie would have been discredited in the same way as that of Majid Giaka, the double CIA and Libyan agent.
In his book Scotbom, and since, Mr Marquise gives the impression that American investigation was led and controlled by the FBI. In fact it was controlled overall by the CIA, and by certain people with much blood and lies on their hands. Among the White House team around that time were people proven by declassified documents to understand well the technique of the manufacture of evidence to destabilise Middle Eastern governments. These documents are now freely available. But nobody - including the media in both countries - seems to care any more. It's old news, unwelcome news. People die, so what? Life must go on etc.
All of this, naturally, never came to the attention of the Lockerbie judges. Hopefully the second appeal will offer a long overdue opportunity for the true back-story of Lockerbie to emerge.
If Mr Marquise wishes to challenge any of the above, I will gladly supply the document dates and references with appropriate quotations. I will also arrange for sections of the film and television records to be put on the web. And I will ensure that relevant sections of the trial transcript are also put on the web. People can then judge for themselves where this story might go over the next six months.
Thursday 10 April 2014
John Ashton responds to Richard Marquise’s Scottish Review article
[John Ashton has today published on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website a response to the article by retired FBI agent Richard Marquise which appeared yesterday in the Scottish Review. Mr Ashton’s article reads as follows:]
The current issue of the Scottish Review carries an article by the head of the FBI’s Lockerbie investigation, Richard Marquise, which critiques the three recently broadcast Aljazeera programmes on Lockerbie. The second of the programmes was originally broadcast on the day Megrahi: you are my Jury was published. It presented evidence that, contrary to the Crown’s claims, the circuit board fragment PT/35b could not have originated from one of the 20 MST-13 timers supplied by Mebo to Libya. Mr Marquise writes as follows. My comments are in regular font:
[Programme] two was primarily dedicated to proving that a fragment of a timer (hereinafter called Pt-35 for the Scottish evidence designation) was not part of the timer that was provided to the LIS. The investigation had determined that PT-35 had been blasted into a piece of cloth which had been contained in the bomb suitcase. The British forensic examiner was criticised for not testing this fragment for explosive residue. It should be noted that PT-35 was found within a fragment of cloth which did have explosive residue on it.
No evidence was presented to the court that the cloth fragment PI995 was tested for residues and nothing in the forensic material disclosed by the Crown suggests that it was.
Once MEBO was identified as the manufacturer of the timer from which PT-35 had come, principals of that company verified this fragment had come from one of 20 timers they had manufactured for the LIS in 1985 and 1986.
In fact Mebo’s Bollier and Lumpert said that the fragment appeared to come from one of the timers. They never claimed to have proof that it did. (Bollier later claimed that it was from a prototype circuit board and not from one of the boards used in the Libyan timers, but this unlikely because the prototypes were grey/brown. Whereas the fragment was green.)
All of them were delivered to Libyan officials, in East Germany and Tripoli. No other timers of this sort were ever made or given to anyone but the LIS. The MEBO technician who had actually made these timers said that he first had to create, by hand soldering, a template for the timers. Once he created the solder lines he was then able to stamp out the 20 copies. Once these were made no other copies were ever made of this type timer.
Al Jazeera showed an interview of a forensic scientist who had allegedly (I do not know what specimens he actually compared) determined that the metallic composition of PT-35 did not match that found on the MEBO timers provided to Libya. He also claimed to have replicated in the laboratory the same or greater temperatures than the fragment would have been exposed to during an explosion to make this determination.
The expert, Dr Jess Cawley, compared PT/35b with DP/347a, which was a control sample one of the boards used in the Libyan timers. His work showed that PT/35b’s circuitry was coated with pure tin, whereas DP/347a’s was coated with a tin-lead alloy. The boards used in the Libyan timers were all made for Mebo by Thuring. During the preparations for Abdelbaset’s second appeal we established that Thuring only ever used tin-lead alloy and had never used pure tin.
It is difficult to exactly replicate the explosion in a laboratory setting. I am not a metallurgist and the FBI was not allowed to examine the composition of the fragment. However, the identification of the fragment was through comparison of the tracking (solder) lines which determined the MEBO timer was an exact match to it. Clearly, if the scientist interviewed for the programme had the requisite technical skills, there would be a disagreement among experts.
It might be difficult to replicate an explosion, but it is not difficult to create the same or even greater heat energy than is created by an explosion. This is what Dr Cawley did and his results showed that the heat of an explosion could not account for the metallurgical difference between the fragment and the Libyan timer boards. The tracking lines of the fragment were indeed virtually identical in pattern to the of the boards used in the Libyan timers, but Crown expert Allan Feraday went further, saying that, not only the tracking pattern, but also the material of the fragment was ‘similar in all respects’ to the Libyan timer boards. ‘Similar in all respects’ was a phrase used throughout his forensic report when describing items that were clearly of common origin.
There was no disagreement among scientists: Dr Cawley’s results merely replicated the results of tests overseen by Mr Feraday in 1991 (which the Crown failed to disclosed) and those done by scientists instructed by the police in 1992.
Many trials result in ‘dueling experts’. However, this is a matter for the court. Every day, in courtrooms around the world, ‘experts’ looking at the same evidence arrive at totally opposite conclusions. The prosecution, to counter, would offer ‘evidence’ that the solder tracking lines are microscopically identical to the other MEBO timers given to Libya and therefore the PT-35 fragment is identical to the other MEBO timers provided to Libya. That is the nature of expert testimony. It would have then been up to the judge or jury to reach a conclusion. Presenting one ‘expert’ opinion was a disservice to the viewers.
Again, there were no duelling experts. All the scientists’ work demonstrates conclusively that there was an irreconcilable metallurgical difference the fragment and the boards used in the Libyan timers. Crucially, the Crown fail to disclose Mr Feraday’s 1991 tests results, which directly contradicted his claim that the fragment and the control sample Thuring board were ‘similar in all respects’.
Mr Marquise does not mention the fact that the Scottish police knew from as early as March 1990, well before the fragment was linked to Mebo, that its pure tin coating was very unusual. In 1992 they commissioned tests that proved that the control sample Thuring board had a tin-lead coating, which begs the question: why did the Crown persist in running a case that was predicated on the claim that PT/35b originated from one of the 20 Libyan timers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)