tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post7469095982536325975..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: CIA evidence 'clears Libya' of LockerbieRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-7709949681951638312015-02-17T15:16:06.605+00:002015-02-17T15:16:06.605+00:00My own opinion is that this lot is by and large al...My own opinion is that this lot is by and large all true. However that's a different matter from there being evidence that would actually have stood up in court in 2002. But you know what, it shouldn't have mattered. Nobody needed to delve into the murky dealings of a bunch of middle-eastern thugs to know that Megrahi was innocent.<br /><br />Sometimes I despair of the entire boiling of them. I mean, how hard is it to look at the provenance of the case Bedford saw, ask how that was ruled out of contention, and find out that it never was save by the assertion that it was on the floor of the container and Allen Feraday was "adamant" that the exploding case hadn't been the one on the floor? At that point, do you have to be any sort of genius to wonder why the prosecution seem to be conceding the very vital point that the Bedford case hadn't been moved from that position, without firing a shot? I'd have said not, really.<br /><br />Never mind the evidence that was withheld, look at the evidence that was in the public domain. That includes the fact that Sidhu was adamant that he didn't move that suitcase, and that this point was absolutely central to the thinking of the investigators throughout the entire period of the inquiry. If there had been any serious suggestion that he had moved that case, it could never have been excluded in the way it was.<br /><br />So why was the prosecution prepared to concede that point in 2000, without a fight? Why did they decline to call Sidhu, and decline to adduce any evidence suggesting the case hadn't been moved? Why were they completely relaxed about Hayes's creative reinterpretation of his garbled notes to suggest the case <i>had</i> been moved?<br /><br />To me, this sticks out like a sore thumb. The defence simply saw the opportunity to capitalise on the opportunity to declare that if the Bedford case had been moved then it might have been the bomb. Which was OK as far as it went, but did <i>nobody</i> ask themselves why the prosecution had handed them this free gift on a plate?<br /><br />Hypothesis. The prosecution have realised that if the Bedford case wasn't moved, and you have all the rest of the information about baggage transfers and identification and so on, then it reconciles as the bomb suitcase, end of story. Testing the hypothesis demonstrates that it is correct.<br /><br />Baer, Hungarian banks, Abu Talb.... God give me strength.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-54823228379930685222015-02-17T13:58:45.923+00:002015-02-17T13:58:45.923+00:00In 2002 Tam Dalyell MP had pursued the rumoured mu...In 2002 Tam Dalyell MP had pursued the rumoured multi-million dollar payments by Iran to the PFLP-GC, and took things to a British parliamentary adjournment debate. <br /><br />He asked of Under-Secretary of State to the Foreign Office Mike O'Brien: "Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have any knowledge of an $11 million payment to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command on or about 23rd December 1988, evidenced by a credit to a bank in Lausanne, and moved from there to an account at the Banque Nationale de Paris, and from thence to the Hungarian Development Bank? Or does it have knowledge of a payment of $500,000 made on or about 25th April to the Degussa Bank of Frankfurt and Mohammed Abu Talb, a convicted murderer, incriminee of the Lockerbie trial and a long term suspect in the Pan Am 103 bombing?"<br /><br />To this O'Brien replied: "The intelligence agencies investigated all those reports. Indeed, I have been told that the intelligence services are not aware of any payment that corresponds with the details given in the question." O'Brien always seemed an honest man. The intelligence officers who supplied his brief were lying through their teeth. <br />About us ...https://www.blogger.com/profile/10861835905210461367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-49248883307024098192015-02-17T10:32:59.972+00:002015-02-17T10:32:59.972+00:00Is this not the tale followed up by Aljazeera in t...Is this not the tale followed up by Aljazeera in their latest documentary? The one where they tracked down Marwan Khreesat from his Facebook page and were trying to get him to confess?<br /><br />As I understand it, the defence looked at the material and decided it would never stand up in court. Not that it was demonstrably false, but that it was all uncorroborated hearsay being over-hyped by its proponents.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.com