From Lockerbie to Zeist

A slightly revised edition of an article by me with this title - originally published in Malta in 2000 in a book edited by Joe Mifsud - now appears on Caustic Logic's The Lockerbie Divide blog. It can be read here.

A Lockerbie nightmare that keeps coming back

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads in part:]

Lockerbie is a nightmare Dennis Vella wants to forget but, more than two decades after Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the Scottish town, the bad dream keeps resurfacing.

Mr Vella, 60, was a manager of the Valletta-based sales office of Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. His desk was located opposite that of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the second Libyan man accused of the bombing but who was acquitted by an international court. [RB: the court was a Scottish, not an international, one even though it sat in the Netherlands.]

Mr Vella speaks highly of Mr Fhimah. “He was a gentleman and a good office friend.”

Despite being described as a computer expert by investigators, he adds, Mr Fhimah never seemed like a tech-savvy individual. “He used to ask me to input the passenger lists on the computer.”

But it is the latest instalment of the Lockerbie saga involving the alleged escapades in Malta of Mr Fhimah and Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the bombing, that prompts Mr Vella to speak out.

A news report featured by the BBC last week purported to reveal how the two Libyan men had Maltese girlfriends whom they met regularly at the now defunct Central Hotel in Mosta.

It transpired that the news was not new and details of the clandestine relationship between the two Libyan men and their Maltese girlfriends had already featured in official documents published in the book Lockerbie: Qabel Il-Verdett by journalist Joe Mifsud 12 years ago.

The girls were reported to have worked with Libyan Arab Airlines and it is this that Mr Vella feels should be corrected not to shed a bad light on the female employees who worked for him.

“There were only a handful of women who worked at the Libyan Arab Airlines head office and sales office in Malta and they were all decent and definitely never had any relationship with Fhimah or Megrahi,” he insisted.

The two women might have been employed as air hostesses and could have been based in Libya or else might have worked with other Libyan companies, he added. “If this is the case I would not know them but they definitely did not work for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta.”

Mr Vella said Lockerbie cost him numerous sleepless nights as British and Maltese investigators questioned him and other office workers in the aftermath of the bombing.

“It is already horrible to think of all those dead people but in the years that followed we kept being questioned by investigators about Fhima and Megrahi. Lockerbie would not go away. We were dragged into the affair but we were only trying to earn a living with the airline.”

Mr Vella, who worked for more than 15 years with Libyan Arab Airlines, said Mr al-Megrahi was never employed by the airline, although he did not know whether the Libyan Embassy had listed him as a company employee. (…) [RB: Mr Megrahi was employed by Libyan Arab Airlines and eventually became their head of security.  However, it appears that he was never stationed in Malta.]

“I only saw him once or twice when he came to buy an airline ticket and Fhimah never mentioned his name to me,” Mr Vella said of Mr al-Megrahi.

This is as far as Mr Vella goes when speaking about Mr al-Megrahi, the man some believe was wrongly convicted of the bombing.

Al-Megrahi sexcapades ‘distract’ from the truth

[This is the headline over an article by Kurt Sansone published today in the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads as follows:]

It may seem like a revelation but a UK news report that Libyan Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, travelled to Malta regularly to have sex was well documented 12 years ago.

The information, including the names of two women alleged to have been Mr al-Megrahi’s and co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah’s mistresses, formed part of the Libyan men’s defence arsenal but was never used during the Camp Zeist trial.

The link between the two Libyan men and the Maltese women was well-documented in the book Lockerbie: Qabel il-Verdett [“Before the Verdict”] by investigative journalist Joe Mifsud more than a decade ago. [RB: Incidentally, I contributed a chapter – in English – to this book.]

Referring to documents in the hands of defence lawyers, the book highlighted the fact that the two Libyan men used to “meet” the women at the now defunct Central Hotel in Mosta. Mr al-Megrahi was the only one convicted of the Pan-Am flight bombing on December 21, 1988 that killed 270 people over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. He continues to claim innocence.

But Jim Swire, the father of Flora, one of the Lockerbie victims, believes the most recent attempt to dig out salacious information about Mr al-Megrahi is nothing more than “a spoiler” to detract attention from a book showing how “fatally flawed” the prosecution’s case against the Libyan was.

Talking to The Times yesterday, Dr Swire, who has long believed in Mr al-Megrahi’s innocence, said the recently published book Megrahi: You Are My Jury by John Ashton revealed how detailed metallurgy tests of the fragment of a circuit board believed to have formed part of the bomb “never could have matched” the bomb timer circuit boards.

The BBC, the UK’s public broadcaster, reported that previously secret documents, seen by BBC Scotland, gave details of Mr al-Megrahi’s explanations for being in Malta.

Scottish investigators who interviewed the Libyan in Greenock Prison, where he was jailed for life before being released on compassionate grounds in 2009 – he is suffering from cancer – discovered he had a mistress in Malta.

Mr al-Megrahi may have visited her twice in December, 1988, including the night before the bombing. He told investigators he could not have sex with his wife and the clandestine relationship lasted several years until 1989 or 1990. “It was possible therefore that the reason for his visit to Malta on December 20 was to meet a woman for this purpose,” the investigators’ report said.

The same woman was the one he had suggested he might have met during his visit to Malta on December 7.

Mr al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah were Libyan secret service agents, doubling up as employees of Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta, at the time of the Lockerbie tragedy. [RB: So the fantasist Abdul Majid Giaka said.  There was no other evidence at Zeist that supported this.] The women also worked at the Libyan Arab Airline offices in Malta.

But these news reports have done nothing to change Dr Swire’s friendship with Mr al-Megrahi.

“Megrahi was an aspiring entrepreneur with business interests in Malta. He was a seeker after sanction-busting spare parts for his country and it now seems he was deceiving his wife as to what he was up to abroad. Does any of that justify what we did to him?” Investigators had concluded the suitcase containing the bomb that exploded over Scotland was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage on an Air Malta flight to Germany before making its way to London. Malta has always denied any link with the case.

The luggage was traced back to Mr al-Megrahi and the crucial evidence to convict him was provided by a Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, from Sliema, who identified him as the person who bought the clothes that were found in the luggage.

However, serious doubts have been shed on the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper. Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for cooperating. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.

In the path of terrorists

[This is the heading over an article published on this date in 2000 on The Lockerbie Trial website, curated by Ian Ferguson and me during the Zeist trial and Megrahi's first appeal. The author is Joe Mifsud, a journalist and writer who covered the trial for various Maltese news media and who is now a judge in Malta. It reads as follows:]

A terrorist, like any other criminal, will do what he can to cover his tracks.  The Maltese origin of clothing in the bomb suitcase does not establish that either the suitcase or the bomb was once in Malta.

The clothing in the bomb suitcase, which was identifiable as having been manufactured in Malta, bore labels to this effect, enabled Royal Armament Research and Development (RARDE) to determine the country of origin as Malta.  So these labels had not been removed by the terrorists.

The Lockerbie investigators established that six items of the clothing and an umbrella, which originated in Malta were new and had been purchased new from the same shop in Malta on the same occasion.

These items of clothing had been purchased from Mary’s House in Sliema, weeks not day's before 21 December 1988.  The prosecution is claiming that the clothes were bought on  7 December, while the defense is suggesting 23 November 1988 as the date.

In my opinion the facts and matters set out above are consistent with an attempt by the terrorists to distract the attention of the investigating authorities away from Frankfurt or Heathrow to Malta in the event of the bomb being detected or as in fact happened of the bomb exploding above land and debris from the bomb and the bomb suitcase being recovered.

It is inherently unlikely that terrorists would have tried to place the bomb suitcase on board Air Malta KM 180 on 21 December 1988 for the following four reasons.

1.  Terrorists do not expose themselves and their plans to any unnecessary risk of detention or of error;

2.  Accordingly the terrorists responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 would not have routed the bomb suitcase through Frankfurt and chosen to run the risk of it passing undetected through the security systems of three different airports on two different airlines when Air Malta during that period flew only three flights each week to Frankfurt but ten flights each week to Heathrow.

3.  Further if the bomb consisted of a timer device, terrorists would not have run the unpredictable risk of the passage of the bomb suitcase being delayed in one or more of the following ways:

a)  on the ground at Luqa as a result of mechanical failure, poor weather, security alert, air traffic control or any other reason;

b)  by being diverted away from Frankfurt for any of the reasons at above;

c)  above Frankfurt as a result of air traffic control delays for incoming flights (as in fact happened);

d)  by missing the interline connection at Frankfurt as a result of the bomb suitcase being lost, mishandled or detected in the course of x-ray or baggage reconciliation procedures;

e)  on the ground at Frankfurt for any of the reasons at (a) above;

f)  by being diverted away from Heathrow for any of the reasons at (a) above;

g)  above Heathrow as a result of air traffic control delays for incoming flights;

h)  by missing the interline connection at Heathrow for any of the reasons at (d) above;

i)   on the ground at Heathrow as a result of the connecting transatlantic aircraft being delayed, mechanical failure, poor weather, security alert or any other reason.

4.  Further if the bomb consisted of a barometric pressure device triggered by altitude which itself triggered a timer, terrorists could not have avoided (alternatively would not have risked) the bomb being prematurely triggered on board KM 180 or on board PA 103A from Frankfurt to Heathrow, and then detonating on board either of these flights or on the ground at Frankfurt or at Heathrow.

No terrorist could have predicted in advance the exact altitude at which either flight would have flown or, if such a prediction had been made, no terrorist could have guaranteed that the aircraft would have remained at that altitude and would not have been ordered away from it by air traffic control.  The bomb on board Pan Am 103 exploded approximately 35 minutes after take-off from Heathrow.

It is not clear for me why the Lockerbie investigators choose to blame Malta and Air Malta in this case, when it is so clear that we are the scapegoats for others that lacked security at their airports.

"He has a desire to gain financial benefit..."

[Today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times contains a long article about the dealings of Lockerbie investigators with Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who “identified” Abdelbaset Megrahi as the purchaser of the items that were in the Samsonite suitcase along with the bomb. It reads as follows:]

Lockerbie detective: give $3m to Maltese witnesses

Gauci maintains his silence

The lead investigator in the Lockerbie bombing personally lobbied US authorities to pay two Maltese witnesses at least $3 million for their part in securing the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, documents published today in The Sunday Times of Malta reveal.

The documents are salient to the case not only because they could potentially cast doubt on the motivation of star witness Tony Gauci’s crucial testimony that convicted Mr Megrahi, but also because the information about the payment, and the discussions the police entertained with the Gaucis on the compensation, were withheld from the defence.

The former Libyan secret service agent had lost his appeal against his life sentence for his role in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people in December 1988.

Mr Gauci provided key evidence at the 2001 trial because he identified a number of clothes fragments found at the crash site as having been bought from his shop in Sliema. He later identified Mr Megrahi as the person who bought those clothes.

This evidence tied together the prosecution’s thesis, that the bomb loaded on to the doomed Pan Am flight at Heathrow Airport had first left from Malta before being transferred via Frankfurt. But serious doubts were raised about Mr Gauci’s testimony over the years.

The Sunday Times of Malta is in possession of dozens of documents annexed to a damning 2007 review report which showed there could have been a miscarriage of justice.

‘He is worthy of reward’

In one of the documents, Detective Superintendent Tom McCulloch, from the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, wrote to the US Department of Justice on April 19, 2002, making the case for Maltese witness Tony Gauci and his brother Paul to be compensated for their role in the trial from the US Reward for Justice programme.

McCulloch wrote: “At the meeting on 9 April, I proposed that US 2 million dollars should be paid to Anthony Gauci and US 1 million dollars to his brother Paul. However, following further informal discussions I was encouraged to learn that those responsible for making the final decision retain a large degree of flexibility to increase this figure.”

The letter followed on from a meeting with the Justice Department and the FBI and another letter sent a year earlier in which Mr McCulloch first made his plea on behalf of the Gaucis.

In this first letter, he wrote: “There is little doubt that (Tony Gauci’s) evidence was the key to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi. I therefore feel that he is a worthy of nominee for the reward...”

Mr McCulloch said he had discussed the reward with the Crown Office (the prosecution) but they would not offer an opinion on whether the Gaucis should be paid as this was deemed “improper”.

“The prosecution in Scotland cannot become involved in such an application,” Mr McCulloch wrote.

The Sunday Times of Malta tried to obtain Mr Gauci’s reaction to this latest development but he refused to comment outright, maintaining the media silence that has characterised his role in the whole affair.

The letters were referred to in a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which in 2007 sent the case back to the High Court and cast doubt whether Mr Al Megrahi was the Lockerbie bomber after all.

The commission’s damning conclusion was partly based on the content of these letters but the documents remained secret. The SCCRC report only saw the light of day last year when it was published by the Scottish Herald and investigative journalist John Ashton, who was engaged by Megrahi’s defence team.

Scottish police officers defended their actions before the SCCRC, insisting that the Gaucis were never offered money during the investigation.

Mr Gauci himself gave evidence before the commission and stressed that he had never shown any interest in receiving payment. To sustain his point, he underlined the fact that he had turned down various offers for payment by journalists, who had been hounding him and his brother for an exclusive, over the years.

He had also turned down an offer made by an unidentified Libyan man for compensation from the Libyan regime.

However, extracts from a diary kept by Dumfries and Galloway Inspector Harry Bell give a different picture. In a note dated September 29, 1989, early into the investigation, Mr Bell noted that FBI Agent Chris Murray had told him he had “the authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci” and that he could arrange for “$10,000 immediately”.

Moreover, there are also various entries in the classified documents in which Scottish police describe Paul Gauci as being very forceful about seeking some sort of financial gain and also that he influenced his brother greatly.

“It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have...”

In another document, it was also pointed out that Paul Gauci leveraged on a perceived loss of takings at the shop Mary’s House.

Paul Gauci’s testimony, which was relevant mostly because it corroborated Tony Gauci’s evidence, was never used at the trial.

It is not clear, therefore, why he was eligible for the reward programme, which awards money in exchange for information on major terrorism cases of interest to the US.

However, as Mr McCulloch pointed out in one of his letters: “...it should never be overlooked that his major contribution has been maintaining the resolve of his brother”.

In 2010, Mr Al Megrahi accused the Maltese witness of “betraying a fellow human being for money”.

‘Shocking document’

Robert Black, an emeritus professor of Scots law, who is widely credited as having been the architect of the non-jury trial at the neutral location of Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said he found one of the documents shocking.

In this document, dated January 12, 2001, the officer, whose name was redacted, writes: “(the Gauci brothers) will maintain their current position and not seek to make adverse comment regarding any perceived lack of recognition of their position. Nor is it anticipated would they ever seek to highlight any remuneration perceived”.

Reacting to this passage, Prof Black said: “It is no part of an investigator’s or prosecutor’s function to seek to secure that a witness maintains his current position.

“To try to influence a witness, or secure benefits for him, to achieve this result is grossly improper. The passage also recognises that it is important that the remuneration arrangement should not be ‘highlighted’. This manifests a clear, and correct, understanding that the arrangement is not one that would meet with legal or public approbation.”

The act itself of paying out money to a witness is no longer illegal under Scottish law, although it once was. However, Prof. Black insisted, it is something that should always be disclosed to the defence.

“In this case, the authorities did everything in their power to conceal it, including ‘mislaying’ Harry Bell’s diary until it was eventually unearthed by the SCCRC in the course of their investigation of the Megrahi conviction.”

Journalist Joe Mifsud, who covered the Camp Zeist trials said yesterday the documents were interesting because they provided further proof a payment had been made.

“There had been several reports over the years about whether there had been a payment but it was never really confirmed,” said Dr Mifsud, who wrote a book about the Lockerbie bombing.

“However, I never found Gauci’s testimony convincing irrespective of this information. I always felt that a number of things he had stated in the trial would have collapsed had they been tested properly with an onsite inquiry.

“Some of the things he said would come apart if only the judges placed his [statements] in their physical context in Malta – but they never did,” Dr Mifsud said.