Sliema
shopkeeper Tony Gauci was always going to be the prosecution’s most important
asset in pinning guilt for the Lockerbie bombing on Libyan Abdelbaset Ali
Mohmed Al Megrahi.
He was the
only one to directly link Mr Megrahi to shards of clothing found at the bombing
scene by identifying him as “the Libyan man” who went to buy clothes from his
shop at around 6.30 p.m. on December 7, 1988.
Lockerbie
investigators had concluded that the bomb on Pan-Am flight 103 was placed in a
suitcase that contained clothing produced by Yorkie, a clothes manufacturer in
Malta, and sold by Mary’s House in Sliema, which belonged to Mr Gauci and his
brother Paul.
And Mr
Gauci’s testimony proved to be the single most important element at the
Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist, The Netherlands, to help judges deliver a guilty
verdict in January 2001.
But a fresh
investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a body which
investigates potential miscarriages of justice, has shed serious doubts on the
credibility of Mr Gauci’s testimony.
The report,
published for the first time in Scotland on the Sunday Herald’s website, provides an in-depth analysis of the
evidence produced in Mr Megrahi’s trial and information that was withheld from
the defence that could have been used to challenge Mr Gauci’s credibility.
The report
also confirms media reports over the years, which were never challenged, that
Mr Gauci and his brother Paul were compensated by the US State Department for
the evidence that helped bring Mr Megrahi to justice.
It highlights
excerpts of entries in a diary by Scottish police inspector Harry Bell, who
took charge of the investigations in Malta, noting Mr Gauci’s interest in
monetary compensation.
The
commission found that none of the diary entries and memorandums Mr Bell
authored, in which witness compensation was mentioned, were ever passed on to
the defence.
Of particular
interest was a memorandum Mr Bell drew up on February 21, 1991 for his
superiors, six days after Mr Gauci had, for the first time, positively
identified Mr Megrahi from a photo.
“During
recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It
would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported
in the press,” Mr Bell wrote.
In a
statement to the commission in 2006, Mr Gauci denied ever discussing
compensation with the police, although he did admit awareness of the US reward
money. He also alleged that former Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi had also
offered him a handsome reward, which he refused.
But the
compensation issue also cropped up in 1999 in an assessment report by the
Scottish police on including Mr Gauci and his brother Paul in a witness
protection programme. It speaks of Mr Gauci’s “frustration” and Paul’s
pushiness to get some form of compensation for the troubles they endured.
Without
delving into the merits of whether talk of compensation could have influenced
Mr Gauci’s testimony, the review commission said the information should have
been disclosed to the defence. It concluded that the information could have
been used to question Mr Gauci’s credibility and put into serious difficulty
the prosecution’s case against Mr Megrahi.
But it is in
Mr Gauci’s confusion over Mr Megrahi’s identification where the commission
feels “a miscarriage of justice” may have occurred.
Pinpointing
December 7, 1988 as the day when the clothes sale happened was crucial for the
prosecution because it placed Mr Megrahi in Malta. Any other day before this
would have exonerated the Libyan.
Mr Gauci’s
testimony in this regard is anything but clear. The only consistent
recollection is that on the day he was alone at the shop because his brother
Paul was at home watching football.
The only
football matches on TV at the time would have been transmitted on RAI, the
Italian state television, and would possibly have been linked to European club football
matches, putting the day down to a Wednesday.
The
prosecution was dilly-dallying between December 7, a Wednesday, and a second
day, November 23 – also a Wednesday. But Mr Gauci had also spoken of seeing
Christmas decorations “being put up” in the street “a fortnight before
Christmas”.
Subsequent
research by the defence team, which was never used in the appeal for tactical
reasons, revealed that in that year Christmas lights were lit up by then
Tourism Minister Michael Refalo on December 6, which means the lights had been
“put up” in the preceding weeks.
The court had
believed Mr Gauci’s version, even if not solid, as pointing towards December 7
and so incriminating Mr Megrahi.
However,
after considering all the evidence before the court on this matter, the review
commission concluded there was “no reasonable basis” for the conclusion that
the purchase took place on December 7.
The only
evidence which favours that date over November 23, the commission said, was Mr
Gauci’s account that the purchase must have been about a fortnight before
Christmas and his confused description of the Christmas lights going up at the
time.
“In light of
the difficulties with those two pieces of evidence the commission does not
consider that a reasonable court, properly directed, could have placed greater
weight upon them than upon evidence of the weather conditions and of Mr Gauci’s
statements – in which he said that the purchase had taken place in “November,
December 1988”, “November or December 1988” and “at the end of November”. In
the commission’s view, those factors taken together point, if anything, to a
purchase date of November 23.”
But another
question mark hangs over Mr Gauci’s visual identification of the bombing
suspect and his early description in police statements of the Libyan as a man,
aged “about 50” and of a height that is “about six foot or more”.
In December
1988 Mr Megrahi was 36 years old and measured five feet eight inches, marked
discrepancies from Mr Gauci’s man.
But Mr Gauci
had consistently, on various occasions in 1989 and 1990, when shown photos of
potential suspects by the police, identified two different people: Abo Talb and
Mohammed Salem.
It was only
in February 1991 that Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi as the man who bought
clothes from his shop but the prosecution rested heavily on an identification
parade held in April 1999, in the months before the trial, when Mr Megrahi was
officially indicted.
In the
Netherlands, Mr Gauci had pointed to Mr Megrahi and in broken English told
investigators: “Not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him,
but the man who look a little bit like exactly is the number 5.”
The
commission noted that an “extraordinary length of time” had passed between the
date of purchase and the parade but of more significance was the fact that
prior to the parade Mr Gauci was exposed to Mr Megrahi’s photograph in Focus
magazine. This “raises doubts as to the reliability of Mr Gauci’s
identification” of Mr Megrahi at that time, the commission said.
It did note
though that in February 1991, there was no risk of Mr Gauci being influenced by
media exposure of Mr Megrahi since no indictments had been issued yet.
“However,
like those other identifications, the identification by photograph in 1991 was
one of resemblance only and was qualified and equivocal.”
The
commission concluded that in the absence of “a reasonable foundation for the
date of purchase” and bearing in mind “the problems with Mr Gauci’s
identification” of Mr Megrahi, it was of the view that “no reasonable trial
court could have drawn the inference” that the Libyan was the buyer of the
clothes.
The
significance of this conclusion, the commission said, lay in the fact that such
a finding “might be capable of undermining” the weight of other evidence
against Mr Megrahi such as that relating to his presence at Luqa airport on the
morning of December 21, 1988.
Investigators
had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing the
incriminating clothing was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt,
where it eventually made it to Heathrow before being loaded on to the fatal
Pan-Am flight.
[Accompanying articles in the same newspaper can be read here and here.
Because of my Gannaga Lodge responsibilities, it is likely that over the next few days posts to this blog will be at best sporadic.]
Because of my Gannaga Lodge responsibilities, it is likely that over the next few days posts to this blog will be at best sporadic.]
Well now, journalistic licence has gone a little far. Tony Gauci was NOT "always going to be the prosecution’s most important asset". Let's not forget Giaka.
ReplyDeleteThe indictments weren't issued until after Giaka had come out with his fairy-story about seeing Megrahi and Fhimah at the airport with a Samsonite suitcase. Tony's vague (and prompted) comments that a blurry unrecognisable passport photo resembled the purchaser of the clothes would never have been grounds for a prosecution, without anything else. They needed Giaka.
So they got Giaka and they got their indictments and they got their prosecution. And then in 1999 Tony was again induced to pick Megrahi out of a pretty biassed ID parade. And then he was induced to point to him in court. And he changed and fudged his evidence in the witness box to fit better with the prosecuftion case.
So when they lost Giaka after he was discovered to have made the whole thing up to please the Americans, Tony turned into the star witness by default.
Worth $3+ million? You betcha.
There is a lot of merit in Rolfe's comment. But where is Giaka now and why hasn't he published his memoirs? Is he still in "the programme" being protected from Gaddafi's revenge?
ReplyDeleteI think the Americans had another witness, as credible as Giaka, who supposedly fled Beirut in 1989 and was in "the programme" when he died supposedly committed suicide having supposedly murdered his family.
As they say dead men tell no tales.