A key witness in the upcoming Lockerbie trial has watered down his testimony in the case against two Libyans accused of the 1988 airliner bombing, a Scottish newspaper reported on Sunday. Scotland on Sunday quoted sources close to the case as saying that Abu Maged Jiacha, who has been in the U.S. witness protection program for 10 years, had changed parts of his story when he was interviewed recently by defense attorneys. The newspaper said Jiacha would only tell the pair's defense lawyers that he may have seen one of the accused removing a suitcase from a luggage carousel, not loading it on, at Luqa Airport in Malta. The charges by British prosecutors state the bomb began its journey in Malta and continued via Frankfurt and London until its mid-air detonation over Lockerbie, the newspaper said. It said the new testimony was the latest setback for prosecutors in the case. A Maltese shop owner was flown to the Netherlands last year for an identity parade but failed to make a positive identification of the suspects. Lawyers for the accused have been travelling the world taking statements from witnesses who form the basis of the prosecution case. [Reuters]
A key witness in the upcoming Lockerbie trial has watered down his testimony in the case against two Libyans accused of the 1988 airliner bombing, a Scottish newspaper reported on Sunday. Scotland on Sunday quoted sources close to the case as saying that Abu Maged Jiacha, who has been in the US witness protection program for 10 years, had changed parts of his story when he was interviewed recently by defense attorneys. British authorities were not immediately available to comment on the report.
The newspaper reports that in a bizarre twist, Jiacha would only agree to meet defence lawyers in Washington DC while disguised in a Shirley Bassey wig and heavy stage make-up in the back of a constantly moving van. They were surprised that he would tell them only that he may have seen one of the accused removing a suitcase from a luggage carousel, not loading it on, at Luqa Airport in Malta. The charges by British prosecutors state the bomb began its journey in Malta and continued via Frankfurt and London until its mid-air detonation over Lockerbie, the newspaper said. It said the new testimony was the latest setback for prosecutors in the case.
Senior legal sources have indicated that the trial at Kamp Van Zeist in the Netherlands faces further delays, having already been postponed beyond an original starting date of March until May 3 with the consent of both defence and prosecution. Privately, some legal experts are speculating that if the date is not changed again, then the Crown may admit it has no viable case to make.
In Washington late last year defence lawyers were surprised that Jiacha had so little to say that might incriminate their clients. A source said: "They were blindfolded so they did not know where they were and put in the back of a van driving around the streets. When their blindfolds were taken off they saw Jiacha in what can only be described as a Shirley Bassey wig, and stage make-up." The scene was obliquely referred to at a preliminary trial hearing last month when the defence objected to some witnesses using disguises "Shirley Bassey wigs and plastered in make up" – to conceal their identity at the trial.
Last night, Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK victims' families, declined to comment. He said: "I will wait for the trial - that is the proper place."
"Last night, Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK victims' families, declined to comment. He said: 'I will wait for the trial - that is the proper place.'"
ReplyDeleteFine by Jim Swire - but we have now learned that in matters of international politics a trial is a tool to legitimize the conclusion you want, and the cases it considers are carefully selected.
One look at the pages of cases considered by the "International Criminal Court" gives a clear hint that the system has a bias.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/cases/Pages/cases%20index.aspx
Lockerbie is another star example.
A case that didn't even qualify for a trial, giving the conclusion wanted on an absurd basis (absurd witnesses, absurd long tirades and inferences), including the needed foul play.
Then SCCRC, but as it became clear that the verdict could never stand it stopped. Extreme delays and "not in the interest of justice".
No, neither the press nor a trial is the right place.
What is then? Your own research, reading everything you can find, and evaluating quality of sources, e.g. Kerr vs. Linklater, Black vs. Mulholland.
Be prepared to spend significant time.
A CIA agent discuised as Shirley Bassey. The Crown is desperate to get a conviction.
ReplyDeleteMust not let our American masters down on their regime change plans. Now we know how these peope work but we still go along with them. One wonders why?