Tony Gauci expressed an interest in receiving money

[On this date in 1991, DCI Harry Bell wrote a memorandum to the Chief Investigating Officer headed Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta. The memo is worth reading in full. What follows is a brief discussion of one part of it, taken from The Times of Malta:]

A document seen by the Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review Commission which reviewed the Lockerbie trial proceedings shows that star witness Tony Gauci had shown an interest in receiving money. (...)

The document was a memorandum dated February 21, 1991, titled Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta, that consisted of a report sent by investigator Harry Bell to Supt Gilchrist just after Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi from a photo-spread six days earlier.

The memorandum was never disclosed by the prosecution during the trial.

Mr Bell discusses the possibility of Mr Gauci’s inclusion in a witness protection programme. The final paragraph, however, makes reference to a different matter: “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.”

“At the meeting on 9 April, I proposed that US $2m should be paid to Anthony Gauci"

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in the the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times on 24 November 2013:]

The lead investigator in the Lockerbie bombing personally lobbied US authorities to pay two Maltese witnesses at least $3 million for their part in securing the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, documents published today in The Sunday Times of Malta reveal. (...)

In one of the documents, Detective Superintendent Tom McCulloch, from the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, wrote to the US Department of Justice on April 19, 2002, making the case for Maltese witness Tony Gauci and his brother Paul to be compensated for their role in the trial from the US Rewards for Justice programme.

McCulloch wrote: “At the meeting on 9 April, I proposed that US 2 million dollars should be paid to Anthony Gauci and US 1 million dollars to his brother Paul. However, following further informal discussions I was encouraged to learn that those responsible for making the final decision retain a large degree of flexibility to increase this figure.”

The letter followed on from a meeting with the Justice Department and the FBI and another letter sent a year earlier in which Mr McCulloch first made his plea on behalf of the Gaucis.

In this first letter, he wrote: “There is little doubt that (Tony Gauci’s) evidence was the key to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi. I therefore feel that he is a worthy of nominee for the reward...”

Mr McCulloch said he had discussed the reward with the Crown Office (the prosecution) but they would not offer an opinion on whether the Gaucis should be paid as this was deemed “improper”.

“The prosecution in Scotland cannot become involved in such an application,” Mr McCulloch wrote. (...)

Mr Gauci himself gave evidence before the commission and stressed that he had never shown any interest in receiving payment. To sustain his point, he underlined the fact that he had turned down various offers for payment by journalists, who had been hounding him and his brother for an exclusive, over the years.

He had also turned down an offer made by an unidentified Libyan man for compensation from the Libyan regime.

However, extracts from a diary kept by Dumfries and Galloway Inspector Harry Bell give a different picture. In a note dated September 29, 1989, early into the investigation, Mr Bell noted that FBI Agent Chris Murray had told him he had “the authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci” and that he could arrange for “$10,000 immediately”.

Moreover, there are also various entries in the classified documents in which Scottish police describe Paul Gauci as being very forceful about seeking some sort of financial gain and also that he influenced his brother greatly.

“It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have...” (...)

Robert Black, an emeritus professor of Scots law, who is widely credited as having been the architect of the non-jury trial at the neutral location of Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said he found one of the documents shocking.

In this document, dated January 12, 2001, the officer, whose name was redacted, writes: “(the Gauci brothers) will maintain their current position and not seek to make adverse comment regarding any perceived lack of recognition of their position. Nor is it anticipated would they ever seek to highlight any remuneration perceived”.

Reacting to this passage, Prof Black said: “It is no part of an investigator’s or prosecutor’s function to seek to secure that a witness maintains his current position.

“To try to influence a witness, or secure benefits for him, to achieve this result is grossly improper. The passage also recognises that it is important that the remuneration arrangement should not be ‘highlighted’. This manifests a clear, and correct, understanding that the arrangement is not one that would meet with legal or public approbation.”

The act itself of paying out money to a witness is no longer illegal under Scottish law, although it once was. However, Prof Black insisted, it is something that should always be disclosed to the defence.

“In this case, the authorities did everything in their power to conceal it, including ‘mislaying’ Harry Bell’s diary until it was eventually unearthed by the SCCRC in the course of their investigation of the Megrahi conviction.”

A selection of the Crown's misdeeds

[On this date in 2009 Abdelbaset Megrahi was released from HMP Greenock and flew back to Libya. The report on the BBC News website can be read here.

Two years later, on 20 August 2011, an article by Marcello Mega appeared in the Scottish edition of The Sun. It reads in part:]

The Scottish Sun today lifts the lid on a top-secret dossier that accuses Scots cops and prosecutors of suppressing seven key areas of evidence that cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction. (...)

Seven key flaws

Denied fair trial

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission says Megrahi WAS denied a fair trial in their damning report.

They said the Crown suppressed from Megrahi's defence team statements showing how much key witness Tony Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.

Maltese shopkeeper Gauci's evidence fingered Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop on the Mediterranean isle that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103.

The SCCRC report says Gauci was an "unreliable" witness but this was not shown to be the case in court.

They said: "The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial."

Cop lies

The SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8.

The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."

The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.

Diary dispute

In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde DCI Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci.

The commission found that events recorded in Bell's diaries didn't always match what he said in evidence.

The commission noted that Bell claimed the Megrahi photo shown to Gauci on September 14, 1989, was the first one. This was not true.

It also reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a "striking similarity" between Megrahi and the buyer.

But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years.

The report says: "This is different to DCI Bell's evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear."

Cash for answers

The commission obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worth MILLIONS.

This contradicted evidence given by Scots and US investigators at Megrahi's trial.

One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".

If a judge was made aware of this in another case, they'd tell a jury to discount the evidence.

Xmas lights lies

In court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought.

The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was.

Gauci said Christmas lights were NOT on yet in his hometown Sliema when the suspect visited his shop.

Cops said they could not find out when the lights were switched on.

But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 - a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer.

The commission's report says: "It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection." It adds "no reasonable court" could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci's shop.

Defence in the dark

It appears efforts were made to cover up key evidence that would have been useful for Megrahi's defence team.

The commission noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them.

The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.

Evidence supressed

The SCCRC claims Colin Boyd QC, who was Lord Advocate at the time of Megrahi's trial and conviction in 2001, suppressed key evidence.

The trial judges maintained Gauci was "entirely reliable" on the list of clothing he claimed the buyer suspect purchased.

Yet a statement he made in 1999, and discovered by the SCCRC, saw him produce "a wholly different list of items and prices". This, along with many other files that could damage the Crown case, was suppressed. The report says Mr Boyd failed in his duty of disclosure to the defence.

A murky web of lies

[Today marks the fifth anniversary of the release from HMP Greenock of Abdelbaset Megrahi.  

On this date three years ago he was still alive, to the annoyance of much of the media. However, The Scottish Sun published a long article by Marcello Mega headlined The dossier of doubt over Lockerbie. The following are excerpts from the article, as reproduced on this blog:]

The Scottish Sun today lifts the lid on a top-secret dossier that accuses Scots cops and prosecutors of suppressing seven key areas of evidence that cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission looked into the evidence against Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi - and found a murky web of lies.

The SCCRC's explosive report suspects the Scots authorities are behind a deliberate cover-up over the trial that saw Megrahi jailed for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Dumfriesshire town.

Now on the second anniversary of cancer-stricken Megrahi's controversial release from a Scots jail, we can reveal the commission has grave concerns over the evidence against the 59-year-old following a multi-million-pound, four-year investigation.

In the dossier - seen by The Scottish Sun - Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who helped finger Megrahi as the bomber, is described as an "unreliable" witness.

Police are also accused of lying in court while prosecutors - including then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC - are suspected of suppressing bombshell evidence that would likely have seen Megrahi walk free.

Last night Robert Black QC, retired Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the Lockerbie trial, told how he believes Megrahi is innocent.

Mr Black said: "Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber and these revelations further underline that.

"I said after reading the daily transcripts of the evidence at the trial and before the judges delivered their verdict that there was no way Megrahi could be convicted on the evidence presented.

"That the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith on a number of crucial matters that had not been proven by the Crown, remains a matter of profound concern for all of us."

Mr Black said it was now vital that a top-level public inquiry is held to get to the truth.

He said: "We need strong leadership now. We need to admit publicly that we got it wrong, and set about putting right that injustice." (...)

Seven key flaws

Denied fair trial

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission says Megrahi WAS denied a fair trial in their damning report.

They said the Crown suppressed from Megrahi's defence team statements showing how much key witness Tony Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.

Maltese shopkeeper Gauci's evidence fingered Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop on the Mediterranean isle that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103.

The SCCRC report says Gauci was an "unreliable" witness but this was not shown to be the case in court.

They said: "The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial."

Cop lies

The SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8.

The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."

The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.

Diary dispute

In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde DCI Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci.

The commission found that events recorded in Bell's diaries didn't always match what he said in evidence.

The commission noted that Bell claimed the Megrahi photo shown to Gauci on September 14, 1989, was the first one. This was not true.

It also reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a "striking similarity" between Megrahi and the buyer.

But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years.

The report says: "This is different to DCI Bell's evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear."

Cash for answers

The commission obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worth MILLIONS.

This contradicted evidence given by Scots and US investigators at Megrahi's trial.

One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".

If a judge was made aware of this in another case, they'd tell a jury to discount the evidence.

Xmas lights lies

In court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought.

The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was.

Gauci said Christmas lights were NOT on yet in his hometown Sliema when the suspect visited his shop.

Cops said they could not find out when the lights were switched on.

But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 - a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer.

The commission's report says: "It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection." It adds "no reasonable court" could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci's shop.

Defence in the dark

It appears efforts were made to cover up key evidence that would have been useful for Megrahi's defence team.

The commission noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them.

The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.

Evidence supressed

The SCCRC claims Colin Boyd QC, who was Lord Advocate at the time of Megrahi's trial and conviction in 2001, suppressed key evidence.

The trial judges maintained Gauci was "entirely reliable" on the list of clothing he claimed the buyer suspect purchased.

Yet a statement he made in 1999, and discovered by the SCCRC, saw him produce "a wholly different list of items and prices". This, along with many other files that could damage the Crown case, was suppressed. The report says Mr Boyd failed in his duty of disclosure to the defence.

The dossier of doubt over Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a long article by Marcello Mega in today's edition of The Scottish Sun. It reads in part:]

The Scottish Sun today lifts the lid on a top-secret dossier that accuses Scots cops and prosecutors of suppressing seven key areas of evidence that cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission looked into the evidence against Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi - and found a murky web of lies.

The SCCRC's explosive report suspects the Scots authorities are behind a deliberate cover-up over the trial that saw Megrahi jailed for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Dumfriesshire town.

Now on the second anniversary of cancer-stricken Megrahi's controversial release from a Scots jail, we can reveal the commission has grave concerns over the evidence against the 59-year-old following a multi-million-pound, four-year investigation.

In the dossier - seen by The Scottish Sun - Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who helped finger Megrahi as the bomber, is described as an "unreliable" witness.

Police are also accused of lying in court while prosecutors - including then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC - are suspected of suppressing bombshell evidence that would likely have seen Megrahi walk free.

Last night Robert Black QC, retired Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the Lockerbie trial, told how he believes Megrahi is innocent.

Mr Black said: "Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber and these revelations further underline that.

"I said after reading the daily transcripts of the evidence at the trial and before the judges delivered their verdict that there was no way Megrahi could be convicted on the evidence presented.

"That the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith on a number of crucial matters that had not been proven by the Crown, remains a matter of profound concern for all of us."

Mr Black said it was now vital that a top-level public inquiry is held to get to the truth.

He said: "We need strong leadership now. We need to admit publicly that we got it wrong, and set about putting right that injustice." (...)

[Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny] MacAskill has wanted the SCCRC findings to be released for months.

First Minister Alex Salmond and his SNP Government insist the law will be changed to publish the commission's 800-page report - to end ongoing speculation about Megrahi's conviction.

Mr MacAskill declined to comment on The Scottish Sun's revelations but his spokesman said: "We do not doubt the guilt of Mr al-Megrahi."

Some relatives of Megrahi's victims also believe he is guilty. Pete Lowenstein, who lost his 21-year-old son Alexander, said: 'I have great faith in the Scottish investigators and FBI agents. They did an amazing job, and I have no doubt in Megrahi's guilt."

Last night a spokesman for the Crown Office said they had "supported the conviction vigorously and stood ready, willing and able to do so throughout the appeal process which Mr Megrahi abandoned".

A spokesman for the SCCRC refused to comment.

Seven key flaws

Denied fair trial
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission says Megrahi WAS denied a fair trial in their damning report.

They said the Crown suppressed from Megrahi's defence team statements showing how much key witness Tony Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.

Maltese shopkeeper Gauci's evidence fingered Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop on the Mediterranean isle that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103.

The SCCRC report says Gauci was an "unreliable" witness but this was not shown to be the case in court.

They said: "The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial."

Cop lies
The SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8.

The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."

The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.

Diary dispute
In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde DCI Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci.

The commission found that events recorded in Bell's diaries didn't always match what he said in evidence.

The commission noted that Bell claimed the Megrahi photo shown to Gauci on September 14, 1989, was the first one. This was not true.

It also reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a "striking similarity" between Megrahi and the buyer.

But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years.

The report says: "This is different to DCI Bell's evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear."

Cash for answers
The commission obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worth MILLIONS.

This contradicted evidence given by Scots and US investigators at Megrahi's trial.

One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".

If a judge was made aware of this in another case, they'd tell a jury to discount the evidence.

Xmas lights lies
In court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought.

The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was.

Gauci said Christmas lights were NOT on yet in his hometown Sliema when the suspect visited his shop.

Cops said they could not find out when the lights were switched on.

But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 - a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer.

The commission's report says: "It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection." It adds "no reasonable court" could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci's shop.

Defence in the dark
It appears efforts were made to cover up key evidence that would have been useful for Megrahi's defence team.

The commission noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them.

The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.

Evidence supressed
The SCCRC claims Colin Boyd QC, who was Lord Advocate at the time of Megrahi's trial and conviction in 2001, suppressed key evidence.

The trial judges maintained Gauci was "entirely reliable" on the list of clothing he claimed the buyer suspect purchased.

Yet a statement he made in 1999, and discovered by the SCCRC, saw him produce "a wholly different list of items and prices". This, along with many other files that could damage the Crown case, was suppressed. The report says Mr Boyd failed in his duty of disclosure to the defence.

[Long reports marking the second anniversary of Megrahi's compassionate release can be read on the BBC News website here, on the STV News website here, on The Herald website here, on The Scotsman website here, on The Independent website here, on The Telegraph website here, on the Newsnet Scotland website here and on The Times website here behind the paywall.]

Lockerbie: Report questions credibility of Maltese witnesses

[This is the headline over a report by Kurt Sansone in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads as follows:]

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.]