Wednesday 11 April 2012

David Wolchover responds to a challenge

Barrister David Wolchover has returned to the Lockerbie case in a further article in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. It is a response to criticisms on this blog by Baz of one of his earlier articles. Unfortunately, access to Mr Wolchover's latest piece requires subscription to the magazine.  However, I shall provide further details once the full text becomes available and I have returned to South Africa from Namibia.

[Posted from an internet cafē in Lűderitz.]

I am grateful to David Wolchover for sending me a copy of the text of his article Lockerbie: The True Culprits - A Postscript on Proof. It can be read here.


  1. The State smokescreen around Lockerbie is to blame Arabs and Muslims for the ‘bomb’.

    This is based on the presumption of motive and seems plausible to many because of the coverage of the on-going conflict in the Middle East.

    But surely if motive was proof, then all the victims of American aggression would be guilty?

    Now that Libyan guilt is being debunked, we are getting more unfounded accusations of Iranian and Palestinian involvement?

    But if you doubt who did it, look beyond the smokescreen and ask again, what caused it! Was there really a bomb?

    Perhaps the answer explains why the Americans only agreed to a show trial, rather than a Public Inquiry into the air disaster?

  2. Well I can't read this either as I am not a subscriber. Perhaps Mr Wolchover could e-mail a copy of his article to

    I am sure it will be a very interesting article.

  3. To understand what happened to Pan Am 103 you need to look for the evidence that is not there!

    From the beginning the absence of a distress signal from the Captain told you the break-up of the plane was instantaneous.

    The records now show that the cockpit detached from the plane in 3 seconds!

    Could an elusive bomb have inflicted such damage, particularly one that allegedly leaves clothing that was wrapped around the bomb, in a fit condition to be identified?

    Perhaps the absence of a bomb explains why the AAIB report refers to an ‘Improvised Explosive Device’ and Megrahi’s charge sheet refers to a ‘Device’, rather than a bomb?

    Instead of just speculating about who did it, why not look again at the crash evidence and what caused it?

  4. This is pathetic. Supposedly a "Postscript on Proof" it is a three paragraph ramble on the "process of reasoning" by which Mr Wolchover deduces the existence of "Abu Elias".

    Do his articles not repeatedly criticise the Trial Judges for making inferences or deductions not actually based on the flimsiest of evidence? (Presumably as his articles are works of genius it is OK when he does it!)

    Khreesat claims he told by Dalkamoni (who denies this) that "Abu Elias" had arrived in Germany but Khreesat never actually met him there (although supposedly under his close supervision.) He (supposedly) assumes Dalkamoni has gone to meet Abu Elias twice but as the original article "Culprits of Lockerbie" admits he was actually meeting someone else!

    There is no a shred of evidence "Abu Elias" was a real person and I am not convinced in the slightest by the author's convoluted "process of reasoning".

    Incidentally in criticizing "the peremptory terms of his lambast"
    he wrote "(even going so far as to challenge the author's professional credentials)". I did no such thing. However while I would expect this sort of twaddle from others (and at least in this respect the "Lockerbie the Evidence" did not disappoint) I would have thought that a Barrister might have recognised that Khreesat's double or triple hearsay statement might have been self-serving both to himself and his masters.

    I suspect the reason Abu Elias "escaped detection" is because he didn't exist. If not the Kayser Soce of Lockerbie he may be the "Fat Les".

  5. Of course somebody managed to smuggle two of Khreesat's bombs onto Aircraft at Frankfurt Airport in 1970 and one onto a plane at Rome 1972 when "Abu Elias" was supposedly in short pants. Indeed in view of this hiatus I am curious as to how "Abu Elias" became an expert in Airport Security.

    Khreesat of course did not just make bombs. They were designed to evade Airport security so to describe him simply as a bombmaker is something short of the truth.

    Mr Wolchover wrote "assuming Khreesat was telling the truth" - well why would he? He knew perfectly well what happened to the various devices and I would not assume that the two devices recovered in april 1989 from the basement of Abassi's shop had been there since "Autumn Leaves".

    Mr Wolchover in his first article suggested that the bomb that destroyed PA103 was taken to the UK by Ferry from Gothenburg. there is no evidence of this but I made the same suggestion to the Crown Officd in 1996. It seemed to me curious that Martin Amandi would travel on this route when the Sedish Police were looking for him.

    Khreesat's statement may be presenting a false chronology in order to obscure a link with Abu Talb. On the 13/10/88 Imandi's brother and two other men visited the Isarstrasse flat in a car registered to Imandi. By coincidence or not this was the day Khreesat arrived in Germany.
    Imandi's associate Abu Talb was in Cyprus from the 3rd-18th October. (Why was he hanging around for so long?) and may have met Dalkamoni there (3rd-5th October).

    Perhaps Abu Talb was in possession of the "5th" device (perhaps actually the "1st") before he left Cyprus for Rome and then Malta following his ejection from a flight to Tripoli. He left Malta on the 26th October 1988 returning to Sweden by an unknown route on the day of the Autumn Leaves arrests.