Anonymous CIA officers say was evidence that supported fantasist Giaka

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

CIA agents have revealed evidence that could have helped the controversial Lockerbie bombing prosecutions was withheld from trial, The Sun Online can reveal.

The revelation comes in an internal memo written by agents involved in the case following the 1988 bombing over Scotland that killed 270 people.

Campaigners say the document provides further evidence the plot was carried out by Libya and that the bomb was placed on the jet in Malta – not in Heathrow, as some have claimed.

It comprises interviews with seven anonymous CIA officers reflecting on the case and was published for one of the agency’s internal publications.

Much of it centres on Abdul Majid Gialka, a prosecution witness in the trial who had been nicknamed the CIA’s “Libyan asset” and “Puzzle Piece” because of his ability to link aspects of the plot.

Majid was a double agent who defected to the US from the Libyan intelligence service and leaked top secret information to the Americans.

His work with the CIA helped point the finger towards Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as the man who planted the bomb.

This was despite trial judges ruling they were “unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter”.

But the CIA memo reveals there were further intelligence cables not shown in trial that could have supported his testimony.

It states: “[REDACTED] the court didn’t believe Majid on a lot of his points because the justices never saw a second, more extensive, batch of redacted cables, which would have confirmed much of what he said in court.”

It does not specify which of his claims could have been supported but suggests the reason for this could have been an attempt to protect CIA methods and US state secrets.

Today controversy continues to swirl around the guilt of al-Megrahi. Some claim he was innocent, while others say the bomb could have been placed on the jet in London and not Malta, where he operated.

The memo also notes a number of CIA operatives were denied the opportunity to give evidence – this time a strategic decision taken by the lead prosecutor – in support of Majid’s claims.

It states: “We all felt that it was unfortunate that they did not testify. They felt frustrated that they did not appear, because, had they appeared, they probably would have been able to bolster Majid’s credibility.

“They would have been able to corroborate and expand on a number of things that Majid had testified about but on which he had been badgered and belaboured and picked apart by the defence.”

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish MP who made the decision in 2009 to free al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds, told The Sun Online Majid had been rejected by the court as a “supergrass”.

“That he was, but it was clear he was telling the truth about a lot of what was going on by Megrahi and his co-accused.”

MacAskill, the author of the book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, added: “Moreover, it shows that the CIA had other informants not just in Libya but at the airport in Malta.

“That has never been put before the courts. All this shows Libya was responsible and Megrahi had a role in it.”

John Ashton, the author of a book that suggests al-Megrahi was innocent of the bombing, told The Sun Online the note about additional cables was “interesting, but I have trouble believing it”.

He added that Majid “was such a problematic witness that the CIA would have been keen to disclose anything that supported his testimony”.

[RB: It does not surprise me that CIA officers should try now to contend that the disaster that Giaka was for the prosecution case was not their responsibility and that, notwithstanding what his CIA handlers said about him in the notorious cables to Langley HQ, there was material that supported him. It does surprise me (but, alas, only slightly) that Kenny MacAskill should seek to lend weight to this blatant CIA self-justification attempt.]

Lockerbie revelations deserve inquiry

[This is the headline over a group of letters published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2011. Here are three of them:]

Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released.

Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.

However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: ie the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?

We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?

There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.

People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.

Jack Fraser

You note that Kenny MacAskill refused to use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Comment, 8 February).

In that case, why did he tell Megrahi that he could not be released under that agreement until he dropped his appeal? Megrahi promptly withdrew the appeal and was then released on compassionate grounds. One can only suspect that this was a ruse to bury the appeal and all it might reveal about the safety of Megrahi's conviction.

Steuart Campbell

As our deplorable politicians dive for cover for fear they are accused of moral courage, I prefer to recall the noble people who did seek freedom for Megrahi.

First among these is the GP, Jim Swire, whose daughter Fiona was a victim but who relentlessly campaigned for the unsafe verdict at Camp Zeist to be overturned.

He was joined by such seekers after justice as Nelson Mandela, Lockerbie's Robert Black, the UN observer Hans Kchler, Tam Dalyell and the leaders of the Scottish churches.

Even in the vengeful USA, there were brave individuals such as President Kennedy's valued adviser, Pierre Salinger, who protested the innocence of Megrahi.

He reminded Americans that, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not.

(Dr) John Cameron

Judge questions Maltese bomb link

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2002. It reads in part:]

An appeal court judge has questioned whether the evidence presented at the Lockerbie trial was sufficient to have convicted a Libyan secret service agent.

Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was appealing at a special court in the Netherlands against his conviction for mass murder.

One of the five judges hearing the case, Lord Osborne, said the bomb which brought down Pan-Am Flight 103 may not have been loaded in Malta as the trial had heard.

But Alan Turnbull QC, for the Crown, insisted that there was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the Maltese connection.

Al-Megrahi was found guilty last year of loading a suitcase bomb in Malta, which was then transferred via Frankfurt onto Pan Am Flight 103. (...)

During the appeal hearing, Al-Megrahi's defence team argued there was doubt that the bomb started its journey in Malta.

The defence suggested that it was more likely to have been loaded at Frankfurt or Heathrow.

Lord Osborne accepted there was evidence that Al-Megrahi had worked for the Libyan secret service in Malta and had bought clothes there, fragments of which were found in the Lockerbie wreckage.

But he said that despite this, it was another matter to suggest the bomb had got onto the flight in Malta.

He said: "It is quite difficult, rationally, to follow how the [trial] court took the steps it did in saying we don't know how it got on to the flight, but it must have been there."

However, Mr [Turnbull] said that documentation from Frankfurt appeared to suggest the carriage of an unaccompanied bag.

"All that is left is the reconcile two apparently contradictory portions of evidence," he said.

"This is a criminal act, not an act of negligence. Procedures exist at airports to prevent this event occurring.

"This event did occur, procedures were subverted, the only question is where those procedures were subverted."

Lord Osborne then asked if a terrorist was more likely to draw up a plan which minimised the risk of flights being delayed or the bag getting lost in the system.

"Surely if one is determined to effect a criminal purpose of this kind, one would wish to take all reasonable steps to ensure that venture succeeded?" he asked.

Mr Turnbull said: "It is in the nature of an act of terrorism that it implies the ability and desire to take risks, both of detection and of failure."

He also dismissed defence claims about Heathrow being a more likely point of infiltration as "entirely subjective comment."

[RB: Here is something that I wrote in May 2011 when Lord Osborne retired from the bench:]

The judge in question, Lord Osborne, asked many penetrating questions during the course of the appeal and had the Crown struggling to provide answers.  Regrettably, the restricted compass within which Megrahi's then legal team chose to present the appeal meant that the court could not give effect to the weighty concerns raised by Lord Osborne and his colleague Lord Kirkwood.

Legality of UN Security Council Lockerbie resolutions

[On this date in 1992 the International Progress Organisation submitted to the United Nations Security Council a memorandum signed by Professor Hans Kőchler contesting the legality of the requirement imposed on Libya by Security Council Resolution 731 (21 January 1992) to extradite the Lockerbie suspects to the United States or the United Kingdom for trial. The memorandum reads in part:]

1.     Security Council resolution 731 (1992) is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes between Member States. Article 33 requires that the parties "shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement ...".

2.  The Security Council - acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, as required - did not pay proper attention to the specifications of Article 36, paragraph 3, according to which the Council, when making recommendations, should consider "that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice".

3.  The procedure in adopting the above-mentioned resolution was not in conformity with the stipulation of Article 27, Paragraph 3, of the Charter according to which, in decisions under Chapter VI, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. This obligation in the present dispute clearly exists for the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and France.

4.  In its letter of 18 January 1992, Libya, in regard to arbitration of the present dispute, has formally invoked article 14 of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The Convention establishes and controls the legal obligations of Contracting Parties, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Libya, in connection with legal proceedings related to the destruction of PanAm flight 103 and UTA flight 772. Since all the members of the Security Council are parties to the Convention, they therefore have an obligation to do nothing that would interfere with or prejudice the arbitration process. As international relations within the United Nations framework are based on the rule of law, the countries concerned should fully apply the procedures of the Montreal Convention as the chosen way for addressing this international dispute.

5.  Libya, the United Kingdom and the United States have also ratified article 14 of the Montreal Convention according to which the present dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice by any of the parties if, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of arbitration. The United States and the United Kingdom are therefore obligated to proceed in accordance with the arbitration provisions of article 14. To date they failed to do so, thereby frustrating the treaty and the method provided by international law through the Montreal Convention for addressing acts of terrorism against international civil aviation. If they reject arbitration formally or de facto in violation of the treaty, then the matter should be submitted to the International Court of Justice as the legal and specific means of determining obligations of Parties under the Convention.

6.  Libya has performed its duties under the Montreal Convention, including its obligation under article 5, Paragraph 1. Libya immediately exercised its jurisdiction over the two alleged offenders, it notified the other Parties that the suspects were in custody and that immediate steps had been taken to institute a preliminary inquiry.

7.  All Parties required were notified of the initiation of the preliminary inquiry and requested to cooperate with the Libyan judicial authorities. These authorities made the same request in official communications to the Attorney-General of the United States of America, the Foreman of the Grand Jury in the District of Columbia in the United States, and the French examining magistrate. As of this date, although obligated under the Montreal Convention, all of the requested Governments and officials have failed to respond. Until their evidence can be assessed, Libya is unable to complete the analysis that the Montreal Convention requires. Therefore, the United States and the United Kingdom are frustrating the treaty. Under the circumstances, the insistence by Security Council members on the extradition of the two suspects is in violation of article 7 of the Convention.    

8.  For the Security Council to deal with the matter to which Council resolution 731 (1992) refers is unprecedented in the United Nations history. The question of extradition in relation to tragic incidents that are several years old is essentially legal in nature. For the Council to endeavor to adjudicate such matters is beyond its power and its capacity. Such matters must be dealt with in accordance with the relevant international legal instruments that apply, and not in a highly politicized context. The Montreal Convention has for 20 years governed unlawful acts against the safety of international civil aviation. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine violations of the Convention. The Security Council should take no action which would interfere with legal procedures and/or which could aggravate the present dispute among Member States.

The International Progress Organization expresses the hope that the Security Council will take no action that could be seen as justifying aggressive acts by Member States in connection with the present dispute.

Having taken note of the resolutions adopted by the League of Arab States and by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, we appeal to the Security Council not to take any measure which would jeopardize an independent legal investigation of the case, and to support a policy of constructive dialogue to contain the present crisis. Only this would be in conformity with the requirements of reviving the Charter of the United Nations as an instrument to establish a new world order of democracy, peace and justice for all nations, large and small.

[RB: Those interested in the legality of the resolutions of the UN Security Council regarding Lockerbie, can find a discussion by me here.]

A very, very weak circumstantial case

[What follows is excerpted from a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2001:]

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is due to reveal fresh evidence on Monday, which he says will clear the Libyan agent convicted last week of the Lockerbie bombing.

Colonel Gaddafi says the evidence will prove that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is innocent of the 1988 bombing in which 270 people died.

Libya's defence of Al Megrahi - a former Libyan intelligence agent who received a life sentence for the bombing of the Pan-Am aircraft over Lockerbie - received a boost after a Scottish legal expert said the verdict was obtained on "very, very weak" evidence.

A Libyan official said the opinion showed that the case was a "racist pretext" to prolong nine years of sanctions against the country.

The three Scottish judges who heard the case found Al Megrahi's alleged accomplice, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, not guilty.

Colonel Gaddafi said last week that the judges had three options - to acquit Al Megrahi, resign or commit suicide.

Libyans flocked to public meetings on Monday in anticipation of Colonel Gaddafi's statement, leaving the country at an almost complete standstill. (...)

Correspondents say two possible scenarios are being discussed in Tripoli:

• Colonel Gaddafi could produce evidence that Washington put pressure on the Scottish judges to convict Al Megrahi
• Or he could produce evidence that another non-Libyan perpetrator carried out the bombing.

However, there is scepticism outside the country that hard evidence will emerge at this late stage.

Robert Black, the Scottish law professor who devised the format of the Netherlands-based trial, was quoted on Sunday as saying he was "absolutely astounded" that Al Megrahi had been found guilty.

Mr Black said he believed the prosecution had "a very, very weak circumstantial case" and he was reluctant to believe that Scottish judges would "convict anyone, even a Libyan" on such evidence.

The view, published in British newspapers, echoes that of some of the families of UK victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who are calling for a public inquiry to find "the truth of who was responsible and what the motive was".

Wednesday's verdict sparked angry protests in Libya on Saturday, as Washington and London demanded the Libyan Government accept responsibility for the atrocity and pay compensation to the victims' families.

The protesters condemned what they called a "CIA-dictated" verdict and demanded compensation for the victims of the 1986 US air raids on Tripoli and Benghazi.

Al Megrahi's 15-year old son, Khaled, took part in a demonstration on Saturday, holding a placard reading: "My father is innocent."

The opposing camps - Washington and London on the one hand and Libya and its supporters on the other - have become increasing polarised since the Lockerbie verdict was issued.

London and Washington are demanding that Libya accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and pay compensation to the families of the victims before sanctions can be lifted. (...)

A BBC correspondent in Tripoli, Frank Gardner, says Libya is on tenterhooks, waiting to learn what the new evidence Colonel Gaddafi has promised to reveal could be. [RB: As far as I am aware this fresh evidence was never produced.]

The Libya press has continued to attack last week's verdict. The Libyan daily, Al Fatah, accuses the judges of yielding to political pressure from the United States. It says the judges were stricken with political Alzheimer's Disease.

In another paper, the Green March, the editorial referred to what it called Britain's history of imperialism, aggression and human suffering. The paper accused British newspapers of carrying out an organised campaign to harm Libya. It blamed what it called disturbed writers without loyalty to Britain, who were influenced, it says, by Zionist circles.

But in a note of conciliation, the Libyan editorial added that Anglo-Libyan relations were recovering. It said it felt sincerely that the British government was keen to reinforce those relations.

Lockerbie trial “not fair ... did not meet basic requirements of due process”

[What follows is the text of a press release issued on this date in 2001:]

Lockerbie Trial - Report of International Observer

Santiago de Chile,  4 February 2001/P/HK/17034c-is

In a comprehensive report forwarded yesterday to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr Hans Koechler stated that the Lockerbie Trial concluded earlier this week at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands was not fair and did not meet basic requirements of due process.

Dr Koechler is one of five international observers appointed by the United Nations to observe the trial. In the report consisting of twenty paragraphs specifically evaluating the legal quality of the trial in regard to generally accepted legal standards, Dr Koechler reached the conclusion that the verdict of the three judges was not comprehensible in view of the conflicting evidence, the series of vague inferences and conjectures on which it is based, and because of the lack of credibility of the key witnesses presented during the trial. The apodictic verdicts of "guilty" in the case of the first accused and "not guilty" in the case of the second accused are contradictory in view of the text of the indictment and in regard to the written Opinion of the Court.

Dr Koechler explained in his report that the verdict, in his analysis, is more of a political than of a legal nature. He expressed the hope that the search for the truth will continue and a Court of Appeals will correct the inconsistencies of the verdict passed by the three Scottish judges on 31 January 2001.

The full text of the report is available on the web site of the IPO Lockerbie Observer Mission: http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm.

[RB: The full text of Professor Köchler’s report can be read here.]

Libyan link to Lockerbie blast

[This is the headline over a report that was published in The Herald on this date in 1989. It reads in part:]

Investigators believe that employees of Libyan Arab Airways in Frankfurt planted the bomb which destroyed a PanAm Jumbo jet four days before Christmas, killing 270 people in and around Lockerbie, according to the American television network CBS News.

In a follow-up to its report on Wednesday night that the Palestinian terrorist Ahmad Jibril, sponsored by Syria and Libya, was believed to have built the bomb, CBS said this morning that the sophisticated device was in a suitcase which did not belong to any passenger aboard PanAm flight 103.

The CBS version contradicts a Radio Forth report, which said that an American agent of the Central Intelligence Agency unwittingly had the bomb in his luggage. Mr David Johnston, of Radio Forth, said last night police had given him until today to name his sources for his report which blamed a Palestinian group for the bombing.

He said he was ''completely confident'' he had been told the truth, and was prepared to face court moves if necessary. Mr Johnston said he was told by official agencies ''in Britain and elsewhere'' that the bomb was planted at Helsinki in the luggage of an American CIA agent returning from an unsuccessful attempt to release US hostages in Beirut.

Police gave him until today to approach his sources to ask if he could divulge them, he added. The officers said that if he did not want to disclose his sources to them, they would make available ''anyone in Britain, including the Prime Minister, for him to disclose them to.''

Mr Johnston said the police ''have said that if I don't tell them tomorrow where the story came from, it would be open to them to put me before a sheriff under precognition.''

CBS said that at least 100 Libyan airline employees are intelligence operatives under the command of Abdullah Senoussi, who is related to the country's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Senoussi reportedly has a printing plant which produces forged luggage tags, among other documents. The bomb, said by CBS to contain 20lbs of plastic explosives, was in a suitcase falsely labelled to fly to New York, via London, on flight 103. It was not searched, x-rayed, or even weighed-in at Frankfurt airport, where it was smuggled in through a ''back door,'' the TV report said, citing an American source.

CBS said the device was believed to be identical to a suitcase bomb found by West German police, in the days before the Lockerbie disaster, when they arrested 14 members of Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command. The report said the PFLP-GC wished to upset the peace initiative of the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing families bereaved in the Lockerbie disaster are to pursue their claims for compensation through the American courts. They will also press for a full accident inquiry to be held as soon as possible.

The first meeting of the lawyers' steering committee will be held in Glasgow today but its spokesman, solicitor Mr Michael Hughes, said last night it was virtually certain any compensation claims would be made to the American courts.

[RB: Caustic Logic has commented on this report on his blog The Lockerbie Divide. What follows is an excerpt:]

On February 3 1989, based on what someone had told them, CBS News reported that Libyans may have been behind the whole thing. The Herald (Scotland) reported on this, and I thank to JREF forum member Spitfire IX for the tip.

Libyan link to Lockerbie blast

“INVESTIGATORS believe that employees of Libyan Arab Airways in Frankfurt planted the bomb which destroyed a PanAm Jumbo jet four days before Christmas, killing 270 people in and around Lockerbie, according to the American television network CBS News.”

This is far too early for any of the bogus clues against Megrahi to have emerged. It’s also far too early to be motivated by Gulf War alliances mandating a blind eye to Syria, as some assess the motive. It doesn’t appear to be based on any evidence (see below), but it must have been based on something or it wouldn’t have been said.

“CBS said that at least 100 Libyan airline employees are intelligence operatives under the command of Abdullah Senoussi, who is related to the country's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Senoussie reportedly has a printing plant which produces forged luggage tags, among other documents.”

That certainly would not explain accused Fhimah’s later plot to flat steal Air Malta tags for the bombing, a "clue" that wouldn’t emerge for over two years. In fact, these sounds like hollow points of speculation, maybe just a handy occasion to again draw attention to Frankfurt while floating a novel solution to the embarrassing truth. Of course, only a few people would know this soon just how embarrassing that would be.

“The bomb, said by CBS to contain 20lbs of plastic explosives, was in a suitcase falsely labelled to fly to New York, via London, on flight 103. It was not searched, x-rayed, or even weighed-in at Frankfurt airport, where it was smuggled in through a ''back door,'' the TV report said, citing an American source.

CBS said the device was believed to be identical to a suitcase bomb found by West German police, in the days before the Lockerbie disaster, when they arrested 14 members of Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.”

There is no likeness, "identical" or otherwise, implied in the given description. Mot obviously, the ones seized were designed to blow up within 30-45 minutes or an hour (it's complicated) of leaving the ground, which has never fitted with an origin at Frankfurt or further out. Not with the blast 38 minutes after leaving London. Further, the only one of the PFLP-GC devices known of at the time contained 312 grams of Semtex-H, or well under one pound. Three found later were comparable, and the bomb used on 103 was at least that weight, and perhaps as high as 680 grams, based on the container damage. Again nowhere near this alleged 20 pound Libyan monster.

In fact, such small amounts of explosive could only work as fatally as happened on Soltice ’88 with the choicest placement within the luggage container - against the sloping outboard floor panel just two feet from the plane's skin. This is entirely possible by random baggage loading, but far less than a 50/50 shot. There’s still no guarantee, but at least a good 50/50, if the luggage is actually arranged by a terrorists who knows of the sweet spot. Someone else could then move it, or not move it. And of course that could only happen at Heathrow where the container was loaded, hundreds of miles from those dastardly Libyans at Frankfurt and their "back door" antics that still have never been elaborated.

That unspecified “American source” would have presumably been someone involved in an investigation. And we know the CIA’s probe into 103 was headed by Vincent Cannistraro, head of Agency’s counter-terrorism center. Previously, Cannistraro was one of Reagan’s make-s***-up-about-Libya men (See Maltese Double Cross – 42:40 mark). Along with Ollie North and Howard Teicher at the NSC, he used input from CIA and Deprtment of Defense to seed disinformation in the media to justify a policy of covert US harassment of Col Gaddafi up to coup plans and attempted assassination by Cruise missile, in 1986.

I’d bet money that Vincent Cannistraro was the source for this allegation. He’s friendly with the press, and always eager to tell them whatever’s convenient at the moment with some flair and no compunctions. The story had Libyan intel agents working through LAA at an airport connected to the Lockerbie bombing. The CIA at that time had Abdul Majid Giaka’s stories on file, mentioning both Megrahi and Fhimah as just such agents, but attached to LAA at Luqa airport on Malta.

Of course, no further moves were made for quite a while, as investigators spent all of 1989 and 1990 at least publicly pushing the PFLP-GC leads - and increasingly Malta leads. Even the suspicious, possibly backdated evidence pointing at Libya was dated around May ’89 and not generally understood for around a year. If this is indeed an early stirring of Vince’s Libya solution, it was too early after waking from the haze of no leads that can be pursued. Libyan guilt rather than PFLP-GC/Syria/Iran probably did look nice and comforting passing through the national news, but just six weeks after the bombing, it was clearly something to come back to after a cup of coffee and a fistful of planted clues.