Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Row after Lockerbie film shown at Holyrood

[This is the headline over a brief report in today's edition of The Scotsman. The first Holyrood showing of the film took place in April. The account of that event on this blog can be read here. The film itself can be viewed through the Tegenlicht website. The Scotsman's report reads as follows:]

A row erupted last night when a controversial documentary claiming to challenge the evidence that led to the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber was shown at Holyrood.

Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP who believes Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is innocent, arranged a showing of Lockerbie Revisited, by Dutch documentary-maker Gideon Levy, that raises questions about evidence linking the bomb to Libya.

The film – never screened on mainstream British TV – suggests a fragment of the device left the UK without permission and was examined in the US – a move which could have led to contamination of evidence.

Last night Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the Lockerbie investigation questioned whether it was helpful to show the film.

"I'm still certain the evidence was righteous," Mr Marquise said.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court."

[The screening of the film most certainly is not helpful to Mr Marquise or the FBI or the Crown Office, amongst others. What it is helpful to, is the ascertainment of the truth regarding the propriety of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction.]



    NB: This is only a Babylon computer translation, german/english:

    Mr. Marquise,
    why you know that I could never see the original whole MST-13 timer- fragment, police No. PT-35, with the in-scratched letter "M" on it ? That makes you very suspect and supports my determined proofs!
    Question: Mr. Marquise, where is the original part of PT-35 (b) with in-scratched letter "M" ? (see the FBI proof photo at trial Kamp van Zeist).

    Now the missing facts about evidence linking the bomb to Libya is clear !

    After the published controversial documentary film "Lockerbie Revisited" from Gideon Lewy and the statement of ex FBI specially agent and task Force chief Richard Marquise, suggests the MEBO MST-13 fragment (PT-35) left the UK and was examined in USA.
    A comment on Professor Robert Black bloc 'The Lockerbie Case'; Marquise say:,"I do not think Mr. Bollier ever saw the real fragment--just pictures"!

    A part material of the MST-13 fragment PT-35 (b) with the "M" on it, brown colored is still missing and could be today stay at FBI!
    The real material MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) with the "M" on it was concoct from a non functional MST-13 prototype circuit board, and was on the 27th of April 1990, by officer Harrower, for forensic investigation, by Siemens company in Germany. After the visit by Siemens, Allen Feraday (RARDE) brought the two sawed material fragments PT-35(b) and DP-31(a) to the FBI expert Tom Thurman, in Washington. From this time, the real fragment PT-35(b) with the "M" on it, is MISSING !

    From 12th May 1990 the brown colored fragment PT-35(b) was re-placed with a green colored duplicate, without the "M" on it, and was used for conect Libya in the Lockerbie-tragedy ! Now only a FBI photo with the pictures of the real PT-35(b) exist !!!

    By the way, in the film "Lockerbie Revisited", confirmed Task Foce chief of UK , Stuart Henderson: " the MST-13 timer fragment never left UK"! Also a Lie!!!

    Please see evidences + pictures on our webpage:

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  2. When I read Tom Peterkin's headline in The Scotsman "Row after Lockerbie film shown at Holyrood", I expected his report to tell us about an eruption of violence - either physical or verbal in Committee Room number one. A predictably lame reaction from Richard Marquise and a Crown Office quote (made in relation to Elish Angiolini's backing away from the semtex challenge) hardly constitute what is generally reckoned to be a "row".

    Funnily enough, a real "row" did in fact break out over the first showing of Lockerbie Revisited at Holyrood in April 2009, but it actually took place on this blog.

    David Ben-Aryeah was taking Edwin Bollier to task by listing eight points of contention, the final one being:

    8: In 2008 Mr.Bollier, on camera, in a television documentary confirmed that he had 'expectations' of up to $400 million reward from Libya for 'his assistance' in obtaining Megrahi's release! He simply cannot be viewed as an impartial commentator or participant.

    To which, Edwin retaliated in high dudgeon:

    Dear Mister David Ben-Aryeah,

    I do not know if your attempts to discredit me as a key witness in the Lockerbie affair are politically motivated. At every opportunity you claim that Megrahi is innocent and you admit that the investigation of the MST-13 fragment was not properly carried out but concerning MEBO and me you make every effort to discredit my sincere and unchallengeable evidence about the key evidence. Or is jealousy the hidden motive of your slanderous comment on me given the prospect that my work for the truth in the Lockerbie case may be rewarded by the Libyans after Megrahi's release?

    I want to clarify only point 8. All other points are pure defamation.

    You mention reward up to US$ 400 million reward I would receive from Libya for my assistance in Megrahi's release.

    I answered the question in the BBC movie The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" with "Yes".

    Many TV spectators may have wondered why I answered that question, usually people don't talk about money publicly.

    The reason is that one sequence of my interview was cut out and my statement was only partially quoted leading so to a wrong connotation. I was asked by BBC: "Will Libya pay you for your work in the Lockerbie case?"

    My answer was: "No, if we win the case and the compensation for the victims (US$ 2.7 billion) is refunded I will get a success honorary of US$ 200 million."

    Then the BBC asked the next question: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get US$ 200 million?"

    What should I answer? Staying close to my first answer I said. "Yes."

    Better I should have insisted on my more precise first statement. But how could I know that my first statement was cut out later and my statement distorted?

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland

    26 April, 2009

    Isn't it amazing how well Edwin can write in English when he has his dander up?

  3. Maybe he had a helping hand somewhere to make it plain. That is not a crime.

  4. Isn't it amazing how well Edwin can write in English when he has his dander up?

    On such an important point if I had been Mr Bollier and not fluent in English I would most definitely have sought help.

    Patrick Haseldine's conclusion is stupid

  5. Having said that, if we are uneasy about Mr. Gaucci receiving cash for evidence, we should also feel uneasy about Mr Bollier doing the same.

  6. Correct, absolutely correct, Grendal!

  7. look at

    account champcompconsultant

    password roya123

    scan of cards from intelligence agencies, emails for Victims groups and from the Libyans.

    I was trraded away Twice.. Aug 31, 2000 when they made a deal that there would be no defence witness if the main witness was trashed...

    then May 2001 when Bush made a deal wit the Libyans to get on the UN security council for Human Rights

    [pan Am used to be called Pan Iran, The US and right wing Jewish groups were trying to install the Shahs son.. My father-in-law was involved.. The Shahs family was the largest shareholder in Pan Am

    Bollier, who made the timer for the bombs, wife was Iranian , accoridng to the Libyans

    The Libyans want the sanctions off and we told that if they embarassed the US or UK, that would never happen.. so they negotiated on everything..

    BP, Shell, Exxon and Total are now in Libya as they were in Iran

    They are put the sticks to me and I expect worse

    Barry Lanza

    00 44 1786 831 554

    wife is Hessaby, well know in Iran and my mother-in-laws family were Pakravans... SAVAK