[The following are excerpts from yet another breathless article in The Sunday Times.]
The Lockerbie bomber had £1.8m in a Swiss bank account when he was convicted eight years ago, it has been revealed.
The Crown Office, Scotland’s equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, has confirmed it refused to grant bail to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as recently as November last year because of concerns he might try to gain access to the money.
[Note by RB: At no time during the bail hearing, which I attended, did the Crown oppose interim liberation on the basis that Mr Megrahi had a bank account in Switzerland with large amounts of money in it. Nor was this one of the reasons for refusing bail given by the court in its judgment. Is the Crown Office being economical with the truth here, or did the ST journalist misunderstand what was being said to him?]
The existence of such a large sum in a personal account casts doubt on claims by the Libyan government that Megrahi was a low-ranking airline worker. (...)
[Note by RB: It has never been claimed by the Libyan government or by Mr Megrahi or his lawyers that he was "a low-ranking airline employee". He was Head of Security for Libyan Arab Airlines, a very high-level post. But that obviously does not fit the spurious case that The Sunday Times is trying to punt.]
Sources close to Megrahi’s defence team said they were aware of the bank account and had several explanations prepared ahead of his trial in the Netherlands in 2000.
They included the claim that he had been given the money by Libyan Arab Airlines, his employer, to buy aircraft parts abroad in breach of the western trade embargo in place against his country at the time of the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am plane over Scotland, in which 270 people died.
Another explanation would have been that Megrahi had been entrusted with the funds to finance an attempt to include Libya in the Paris to Dakar rally. The issue of the account was never raised by the prosecution because it came too late to be introduced as evidence at his trial. (...)
Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, which represents American families, said: “This new evidence shows one more reason why Megrahi was not willing to testify.
“It seems to me that he was never the little family man who was unjustly incarcerated, as he has portrayed. He was a lifetime terrorist. The latest revelations about the money in Megrahi’s bank account are devastating to those who still say he was an innocent, low-level airline employee.”
However, Martin Cadman, whose son Bill, 32, died in the bombing, said: “I believe the case wasn’t proved against Megrahi and the easiest thing to do was to ship him back to Libya before we could hear his appeal. The money doesn’t mean he carried out the bombing.” (...)
[The following is an excerpt from the High Court's judgment in Mr Megrahi's bail application:
" Another factor which can bear on release on bail is any risk of flight. The Advocate depute submitted that, although the Crown had no information to suggest that the applicant, if released on bail, had any intention of absconding, there were elements in his history, including his involvement with the Libyan intelligence services, which presented a possible risk of flight. He urged the court not to rely on the recent undertakings given by a senior official of the Libyan Diplomatic Corps to the effect that the applicant would not, if he were to attempt to abscond, be received into Libya.
" The Court is not persuaded that there is a material risk of the applicant absconding, particularly if any liberation ad interim was made subject to the kind of conditions which the Crown would seek or which the applicant would accept. The applicant's historical connection with security services, which at some time may have given him access to false passports and other like facilities, does not, standing the Libyan Government's assurances, appear to the Court to be of significant current relevance."
The Journalists blog has some harsh things to say about Mark Macaskill, the journalist responsible for this and other Lockerbie stories in The Sunday Times.]
The Sunday Times, the Sunday Times, the Sunday Times. My word, if you have a media manipulation budget, is it really wise to spend it all on one paper? (Outside the USA that is, where all papers will repeat the same tripe they always have for $1 more)ReplyDelete
So his says Megrahi had money in a bank in Switzerland. Oooooh-ahhhh. He was renting office space there too. I've heard it said he was a "sanctions-buster." Using nearby Malta and neutral Switzerland and some starter money to scare up some business in Europe in defiance of U.S. led sanctions. Maybe?
"to buy aircraft parts abroad in breach of the western trade embargo"
Well they can't say the possibility hasn't been mentioned. How did they blow it off? "Sources close to Megrahi’s defence team" offered them (suspicious). And Duggan takes it as evidence, and he's a "victim of 103 Inc." so his word carries more weight.
So this proves what? That he had other reason than bombing to be running around these places with - gasp! - money!
"claims by the Libyan government that Megrahi was a low-ranking airline worker."
I was going to comment, but RB caught it already. Head of the Center for Strategic Study is also no gas station-attendant work. Nor would JSO involvement, which is possible despite Giaka's nonsense. Also being a sanctions-buster is above "low-level" as well. In fact, that's millions-in-a-Swiss-account level work.
And none means he was the bomber, which was established already and only by "The Evidence" TM
To the 21st Anniversary of the Lockerbie-Tragedy.
*** With respect and condolences to the victims of the families from PanAm 103 ***
Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the "Lockerbie Affair": ex-forensic scientist Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) UK, ex-forensic expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) UK and three known persons of the Scottish police are responsible for manipulating evidence in the Lockerbie Affair and are still protected by the Scottish Justice! (They are not involved in the PanAm 103 bombing, but responsible for the conspiracy against Libya).
The large chance for Mr. Megrahi is coming to be cleared up with a complete investigation in the Lockerbie-Conspiracy against Libya. The honour of Mr. Megrahi and the prestige of Libya and MEBO Ltd, must be finally repaired. Libya, its Official Mr. Megrahi and MEBO Ltd., have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy!
The Scottish "Lockerbie-Trial" in Kamp van Zeist, was far from fair and proper!
Please visit the chronology no. 1 and 2 "The Fraud" on our website: www.lockerbie.ch
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
Unfortunately, we do not get information about when the money was transferred. That would have been very interesting. The day after the bombing? Long time before? Or after?ReplyDelete
"A source close to Megrahi said: 'The crown would have said that the money was being used to buy explosives and pay bribes to people.'"
Of course, nobody can know what the "crown" would have been arguing, but if so:
Used? I thought they were still there and that was why Megrahi was denied bail?
Weren't the explosives in the 88'-suitcase supposed to come from Libya? If so, why transfer money to a Swiss bank?
And who did Megrahi bribe in connection with Lockerbie? We still need even a theory of how he would get the suitcase on the plane. When that is provided, we need even an attempt to prove that the theory is true.
- - -
"Sources close to Megrahi’s defense team said they were aware of the bank account and had several explanations prepared ahead of his trial in the Netherlands in 2000..."
"They included the claim..."
OK, "Sources close to the defense team" - that's more than one person. So we have several people confirming this version of the story.
It must be true! OK, they are unnamed, unfortunately.
Sources close to the prosecution team has said that they were aware of Megrahis innocence, but was worried about the effect that a not-guilty verdict would have on their career.
Maybe I could get a job as journalist? Unfortunately I am traveling in the search of the truth, not propaganda. I admit I made the statement up.
Now, the defense team head had "several explanations prepared".
Anyone can hear something is wrong if a defendant needs to prepare "several explanations".
The whole article is a school example of smear.
Never forget to mix in some verifiable statements, also from the other side, just to look balanced and fair.
- - -
“This new evidence shows one more reason why Megrahi was not willing to testify.”
Don't get that one at all. The information came to late to be brought up at the trial.
And the 2M USD on Gauci's account did not stop him from testifying.
If I am not wrong, it was the defense team's recommendation, that Megrahi should not testify, because the case were already so weak.
“It seems to me that he was never the little family man who was unjustly incarcerated, as he has portrayed."
He is proven to be a family man, at least until he was thrown in jail.
Whether he was "little" depends on how you apply the word.
"He was a lifetime terrorist."
That remains to be proven.
What is already amply proven is, that Mr. Duggan is an ill-informed temperamental fellow, who throws ill-founded statements around. I have earlier provided a link.
"The latest revelations about the money in Megrahi’s bank account are devastating to those who still say he was an innocent, low-level airline employee.”
Correct: as said, he was not low-level. In fact he has clearly stated that he was in the business of breaking the embargo against Libya, something very natural for a Libyan.
Here Mr. Duggan's and my view probably differ. I assume Mr. Duggan think that breaking this embargo is a crime and associated with what Americans call "terrorism".
I think the embargo itself was a crime, like the vast majority of embargoes that US establishes against political opponents for whatever reason they can dig up - a WMD that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. This link contains estimates for Iraq alone.
But in any case: maybe Mr. Duggan would explain how Megrahi would have been supposed to do this job without have access to anonymous funds outside Libya?
"Will you accept a check from my bank in Tripoli" probably wouldn't do it.
Who would Megrahi bribe? Are you serious? There's evidence of bribery all around this case. Mr. Giaka, Mr. Gauci, Mr. Bollier, whoever helped breach security at Heathrow, ...ReplyDelete
Just a little point of contrast from left field, as the European Crocodile tears flow on and on...ReplyDelete
In the above post, Prof. Black notes that Megrahi "was Head of Security for Libyan Arab Airlines, a very high-level post. But that obviously does not fit the spurious case that The Sunday Times is trying to punt."
Fascinating, right? Megrahi is a big shot, and not just any big shot, but a high-ranking administrator in the security branch of the Libyan syndicate. Now, a little flash back to Prof. Black's older (repeated) recollections about his entry onto the Lockerbie stage. On multiple occasions, Prof. Black volunteered the following testimony
I am able personally to testify to how much of a surprise and embarrassment it was to the Libyan government when the outcome of the meeting of the defence team was an announcement that the accused were not prepared to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland.
There you have it. Megrahi holds a very high post in Libyan security, but his decision about the biggest case ever faced by Libya came as a surprise, and an embarrassing one, for his employer. OK?
Here is my take on Megrahi's money. Back in the days of Lockerbie trials, Dr. Ibrahim Legwell, who was then heading up the defense team, was asked once who was funding the legal effort. He said it was funded by a private legal consortium. Later on, you might recall, the Libyan government also said the Lockerbie compensations were forked out by a group of Libyan business men not the state. Sure! But taking things at face value, as lawyers would like us to do, I guess the consortium stuffed a couple of million in Megrahi's pocket as spending money. How else was he going to cover the expenses of all those international legal experts?