Do you think Megrahi did it?

[Soapy Sam]

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?

I did not trouble to follow the Hague travesty, as it seemed from the start to be the biggest fit-up since the trial of James of the Glens in 1752.
If anyone in Libya was responsible for the bombing, it would be Gadaffi, but frankly, I've never even been convinced he was involved.
I'm intrigued by Tam Dalyell's comments. I've always had a lot of time for auld Tam the Bam.
No, I don't think Megrahi did it - and if he did , I can't bring myself to care. If the conviction was safe, he should have been hanged in my opinion, but from what I can see the only safe verdict was "Not Proven".
For once, (and there's a first time for everything), I agree with Mcaskill, if for no better reason that I see no cause to feed foreigners at taxpayers' expense.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by volatile

The BBC often seem to wheel out an American guy "representing the families" of the victims (who is, one imagines, cognisant of the evidence) to vehemently defend the court's findings...

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen. Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.

Quote:

"I cannot imagine having compassion for a mass murderer and terrorist who killed 270 people," said Susan Cohen ... "My daughter is dead. She is the one who deserves compassion."

"The Scots have folded very cowardly," she said. "The only sliver of justice we had was al-Megrahi — and now we don’t even have that."

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?

No and no and no. To be fair, it was an accident. But then, on the other hand, the captain of the other US ship in the area was telling the Vincennes that the plane was climbing and not a threat, but the Vincennes captain fired anyway. He had a reputation for being trigger happy.

But you still ought to apologise for accidents, not lie about what happened so as to blame the victim. And not giving the captain a medal might have been a tactful move too.

Some of the documentaries have footage of the bodies being fished out of the Gulf. Many of them were children. It's as bad as Lockerbie, easily. I now work beside someone who served on the York, which did the body-fishing after the two US ships promptly sailed away after the crash. I've had some pretty graphic details, first-hand.

Dead Iranians don't count, or something.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I did not trouble to follow the Hague travesty, as it seemed from the start to be the biggest fit-up since the trial of James of the Glens in 1752.

Uh, exactly. The verdict had been decided ten years before.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

If anyone in Libya was responsible for the bombing, it would be Gadaffi, but frankly, I've never even been convinced he was involved.

Which is why all the screaming hate against Megrahi while shaking hands with Gadaffi was completely nauseating.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I'm intrigued by Tam Dalyell's comments. I've always had a lot of time for auld Tam the Bam.

Tam has been crusading on this one from the beginning. I was surprised by the up-front assertion of a LIHOP that was almost a MIHOP, but he is in a position to know more than the rest of us. (It wasn't quite the LIHOP I was contemplating, actually - the one involving the release of Khreesat seems more plausible.)

Geni said he'd gone a bit odd since the (second) Iraq war, but a lot of his comments on Lockerbie pre-date that.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

No, I don't think Megrahi did it - and if he did , I can't bring myself to care. If the conviction was safe, he should have been hanged in my opinion, but from what I can see the only safe verdict was "Not Proven".

I think that's why we don't have the death penalty. We can so seldom be sure that an accused really is definitely guilty.

I don't think it would have been politic to use the "not proven" verdict. You know and I know that simply means the case has not been proven. Many people think it means the accused is guilty, but the evidence hasn't quite achieved some technical standard. To have sent Megrahi off as "not proven" would have started an absolute storm.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen. Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.

To be honest, I could be wrong, but I wonder how closely the US families really did follow the evidence. We had all been told from 1990 that it wos Libya wot done it, and that the evidence against Megrahi and Fhimah was "overwhelming".

The US families were shepherded and quarantined by the security forces during the trial. Which went on for ages and by all accounts was very very boring for about 95% of the time.

If you really, really want these guys to be guilty, and you've believed in their guilt for ten years because you were told the evidence was incontrovertible, is it really so hard not to notice that the evidence is actually thinner than tissue paper?

Rolfe.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen. Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.

Oh yes... he's the chap. His daughter's dead; I understand why he's bitter and vitriolic. But Rolfe's right - I only ever heard him assert that the evidence is overwhelming, never actually explain his reasoning.

[Ambrosia]

I agree. I feel for the guy, no ones daughter should get blown up, not his, not Gadaffi's, not any of the parents bereaved by the Vincennes disaster, no one.

I am assuming that some of his reasoning is explained in his book. I can quite understand his point of view though.

[Rolfe]

There was something peculiarly horrible about Pan Am 103. The plane blew apart, not up. Probably nobody was killed by the explosion. Most people probably saw the cabin disintegrate around them and realised they were falling through space before they blacked out due to the decompression.

Even worse, it's believed that a number of victims came round while they were still falling, as they fell into breathable air. They were conscious and uninjured, and didn't die till they hit the ground. One was even found alive, although she died very soon afterwards. Some seats fell still linked together, and people were found holding hands. Someone else was holding a cross that was round their neck.

For all I know the same thing happened to some people on the Airbus, though the ditching into the sea means the evidence wasn't there.

I wouldn't blame anyone for being absolutely blind with hatred, knowing that had happened to their son or daughter. If anything, it's Swire and Cadman and Dix who are the anomalies, in that they don't believe Megrahi was the culprit.

Rolfe.

[GlennB]

Polls tend to have inherent biases and flaws. Rolfe's poll, while pretty well devised, has a flaw. It will tend to attract those who have not studied the evidence in depth - as presented at the court - but who are still angry and aggrieved at the whole Lockerbie atrocity into voting for the second option. Which, putting it harshly, is a form of denial. I read that G.Bush Snr, after the Iranian airliner downing stated "I will not apologise for the USA, no matter what the facts" or very similar words. That kind of thing.

It would be interesting, still, if anyone who chose the second option would be willing to try to reconcile the evidence with the verdict. And I don't mean "well, if the evidence is crap it should have gone to appeal' which is merely a reflection on the interminable procedure rather than evidence itself.

I simply cannot help but look at the evidence and conclude that the verdict is perverse.

[Rolfe]

Yes, that's the conclusion I've come to.

Silly me, I assumed people would vote honestly, and those who didn't know about the rainfall statistics for Sliema on these two days in 1988, or the date a certain football match was played, or that Gauci did not in fact identify Megrahi, or the details of the baggage loading of KM180 out of Luqa, or the matter of the orphan luggage loaded on to PA103 at Heathrow, and so on, would go for option 4 if they thought Megrahi was guilty.

I wish now I'd made the polling public, so that we could ask those who ticked the second option why they hold that opinion. As it is, I think the fact that not one of them has posted to explain their position, says it all.

Rolfe.

[Giz]

Hmmm, intersesting snippit from today's Telegraph:

"But Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister who freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, has repeatedly stressed that the bomber did not have to drop his appeal before being allowed home. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...i-website.html


I have to confess, it had been my understanding that Megrahi had had to drop the appeal before being allowed home. Does anyone have more detail on which is correct?

[Darat]

If there were ongoing appeals he couldn't be released under the terms of the "prisoner release scheme", that's not the case for release under compassionate grounds.

[Rolfe]

More evidence/information posted today, though I think there may be nothing new in this batch.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Does this add anything to proceedings?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Big Les

Does this add anything to proceedings?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

Dunno, haven't read it yet. But since it's what was argued before the court before they ajourned the appeal because one of the judges was ill, I suspect we may have heard it already.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Ha! We posted at bang on the same time. Sorry. I've not read it yet either.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wish now I'd made the polling public, so that we could ask those who ticked the second option why they hold that opinion. As it is, I think the fact that not one of them has posted to explain their position, says it all.

Rolfe.

I'll be glad to

This was a case of state sponsored terrorism rather than an isolated group or individual.

There were also a lot of things discovered regarding other people and activities that never went into the public view.

He was a part of the function of the bombing and thus guilty.

There was also circumstantial evidence ( his false passport and his never fully explaining things about another trip) that makes hin suspect.

That said, more likely than not, he didnt directly plan it, build it and probably wasnt the mole at the airport who loaded it- I'm reasonably sure it was a group effort.

Honestly- as far as the literal whodunnit- even from intelligence gathered that I personally know to be true- a lot of people ( myself included) believe the actual plan and execution was done by Abu Nidal and his group merely under the auspices of Libya but then they realized there might be military ramifications- they sacrificed their officers for trial. I dont have enough information to say for certain he is the "true" guilty party ( or one of his guys actually) but it would shock me if he wasnt deep into it somewhere.

[Jungle Jim]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Here's some other articles by people who actually understand the issues, some of whom have been involved from the beginning.

The truth about Lockerbie - that's the last thing the Americans want the world to know
I saw the Lockerbie trial, and the verdict made no sense
Compassionate release in Scotland: the actual policy and the law
Why Libya welcomed Megrahi
Megrahi's release: how Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing

I'd still like the people who have studied the evidence and believe Megrahi to be guilty to come and explain the grounds for that belief.

Rolfe.

The first link above is a story by a bloke who contends that the Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim

The first link above is a story by a bloke who contends that the Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive?

Like most things, theres some truth to that- back when this was happening, I was fully in the system and operating in this theater

Quote:

Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive

You get information on these plans "most' of the time- its a question of how much of it is an empty threat ( wishful thinking) or an actual operation. Then theres the question of what exact flight.

Its always an educated guess so it shouldnt surprise anyone that if there was a potential risk- people would be rerouted. Doesnt mean anyone "knew" this flight would go down but there was reason to expect "A" flight would.

I cant go into great detail without violating security statements but regarding this particular bombing

I would be surprised if Libya and Daffy KaDaffy or any of his people thought it up, planned and executed it- it wasnt his style and it didnt directly benefit him. Its no secret he had a boner for Reagan personally and the US specifically but ( unlike most terrorists) he knew his place in the world stage and greatly feared a US military reprisal plus he was focused on building his country and personal power.

He also was and still is a conduit, place of refuge and assists in everything he can for other groups.

I have little doubt he was in on it but I doubt seriously he was an actual participant in it.

His guys were most likely sacrificial lambs- their hands were dirty but maybe not fully bloodstained. ( depending on your point of view)

[applecorped]

http://megrahimystory.net/

[Big Les]

^Er, look up

[geni]

Elish Angiolini's reaction is entertaining:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8264119.stm

[Uzzy]

I took the fourth option, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice, if the evidence is as clear cut as those who believe Megrahi's innocent keep putting forward. The fact Megrahi dropped his second appeal, despite not needing to in order to get compassionate release, is rather odd too. Add in the stench of conspiracy theory from those who think Megrahi's innocent, and it all adds up to me giving the benefit of the doubt to the legal system.

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

I'll be glad to

This was a case of state sponsored terrorism rather than an isolated group or individual.

There were also a lot of things discovered regarding other people and activities that never went into the public view.

I'd certainly agree with this.

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.

Quote:

There was also circumstantial evidence ( his false passport and his never fully explaining things about another trip) that makes hin suspect.

Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)

Quote:

That said, more likely than not, he didnt directly plan it, build it and probably wasnt the mole at the airport who loaded it- I'm reasonably sure it was a group effort. ... I dont have enough information to say for certain he is the "true" guilty party ( or one of his guys actually) but it would shock me if he wasnt deep into it somewhere.

It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice...

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.

They didn't, they got it wrong once.

The first appeal was thrown out on a legal technicality. After which the SCCRC took an inordinate amount of time to refer the case back to the appeal courts.

The UK has a developed legal system with sound legal courts, and there are many instances of miscarriages of justice where it was got wrong several times.

As far as "the stench of conspiracy theory" - just because most CTs are bunk it does not follow that all of them must be bunk.

For 9/11 for example much evidence has been released about it from government sources, evidence which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 9/11 CTs are bunk.

The UK blocked an independant enquiry at the Prime Ministerial level into Lockerbie from early 1989 onwards, and the US continually refuses to release evidence on it which it holds, even when ordered to do so by the courts, citing state secrets. Investigation into Lockerbie has been thwarted by the highest levels of government for over 20 years.

[fuelair]

Do you think Megrahi did it?

Yes, I do think Megrahi had sex with a pig and then barbecued and ate it.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No and no and no.

Compensation was paid, in 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Originally Posted by wiki

In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,[26] together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.[5] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner). It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned. Further compensation was paid for the 38 non-Iranian deaths. The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what had occurred.

That's interesting.
I think I'll start a court case against America and, if I nag them enough, they'll pay up even if they aren't liable for whatever I blame them for.



As for the OP, I think he didn't do it. But, if I'm wrong, I blame Rolfe -- who convinced me that there is more than reasonable doubt after all the evidence is considered. I haven't looked all that deeply at the evidence on my own, and I haven't seen any serious challenges to Rolfe's research on this forum.

So it's all on Rolfe's shoulders.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I'd certainly agree with this.

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.



Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)



It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy.

Quote:

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.

I can tell you that the Intelligence community as a whole is anally secretive with everything. Its sometimes difficult for "US" ( the military and civilian LE) to get information from them and we are on the same side.

I can assure you they dont give a tinkers damn about a civilian lawsuit and wouldnt have lifted a finger even if the alleged information was declassified.

In this case specifically ( based on the information floating around in the day- this was a hot topic) I'm certain they witheld evidence and VERY possibly fabricated/planted some. I cant prove that but I would bet you a weeks pay on it.

Quote:

Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

If they waited that long- operatives who compromise "the business" generally have very short life spans or their families.

Quote:

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)

I personally dont buy that whole line either. I've done too many operations in my day and done my share of explosives/demolitions.

If the story happened like the "witnesses" allege- this guy would qualify for the Darwin Award for Intelligence types.

And the bomb theory? Thats a sick joke. Contrary to Hollywood representations. bombs like this are made by specialists, they are SIMPLE and made from COMMONLY available materials. They are the charge, detonator and trigger/fuse- thats what makes them reliable.

My mind will not allow me to even believe ( much less accept) that PROFESSIONALS ( which these people were) who had ACCESS to everything needed would go to the effort ( not to mention leave the potential for identification should parts be discovered or the bomb itself disarmed) for such a "special" timer and set up when your basic hobbyist could go to Radio Shack and buy/build it for about $10.

Then they want me to believe such a weapon ( which could be discovered, detonate prematurely, get lost, miss its target and a whole lot of things) went around the world in 80 days UNESCORTED?

I dont know what the truth is- but the story as told aint it.

Thats what makes me believe theres a whole lot more known but never released and the guys convicted probably "knew" about it and had a role but not a direct role.

Quote:

It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

There is no doubt about it. Thats also assuming the evidence surrounding the "bomb" isnt itself a red herring. ( which I believe to be a STRONG possibility)

Quote:

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.

It doesnt work that way in the real world tho despite the fact i agree with you in principal.

It was a circumstantial case- many people have been convicted in the same manner with a whole lot less ( as far as trials go). Also, there is the factor that evidence and information does exist that was witheld and possibly even manipulated. ( you also will never see an intelligence agency trust a courts level of security with sensitive information- courts have no real security)

Also, this guy ( by virtue of position and location) probably was involved at some level he bears responsibility whether he physically did it or not since this was a state sanctioned group act.

Quote:

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy

I've heard that version many times- I just dont buy it for a variety of reasons but the main one being that if they had done it, they wouldnt have involved anyone but their group( especially Libya as a security risk). I do believe it was the preferred cover story.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

I took the fourth option, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice, if the evidence is as clear cut as those who believe Megrahi's innocent keep putting forward. The fact Megrahi dropped his second appeal, despite not needing to in order to get compassionate release, is rather odd too. Add in the stench of conspiracy theory from those who think Megrahi's innocent, and it all adds up to me giving the benefit of the doubt to the legal system.

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.

That's not an unreasonable position, however you overestimate the quality of the Scottish legal system I'm afraid. The proceedings at Camp Zeist were little short of a national disgrace, and the official UN observer was scathing about the conduct of both the original trial and the first appeal - which was dismissed on a technicality.

Report on original trial
Report on 1st appeal

The Scottish legal system does not have a spotless record. Look up the case of Shirley McKie, which is tangentially related to the Megrahi affair - once it makes a mistake and starts covering its backside, heaven help you.

And I live in the place.

The dropping of the sevond appeal is being discussed in the thread in the CT forum, so I won't repeat it all in this one.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Number Six

[....] if he didn't do it then release him because he didn't do it.

Originally Posted by geni

Elish Angiolini's reaction is entertaining:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8264119.stm

I hope Eilish gets slated in the letters columns tomorrow for that lot. Number Six obviously doesn't know about the history of the court case, but Eilish has no excuse. I thought she was an improvement on the pernicious Boyd, but I'm beginning to wonder.

2001 - Megrahi convicted, with Kochler stating he believed it was a miscarriage of justice.
2002 - First appeal dismissed on "the most technical of technicalities", with Kochler even more condemnatory of the procedure.
2003 - Megrahi files for leave to mount a second appeal.
2003 to 2007 - deathly silence.
2007 - SCCRC grants leave to appeal, citing no less than six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice might have occurred (but oddly, only naming four of these).
2007-2009 - Sterile wrangling about certain documents the defence wishes produced in evidence which the UK government slaps a "public interest immunity certificate" on to keep them secret. Megrahi and his legal team denied access to these documents.
2008 - Megrahi diagnosed with metastatic prostate carcinoma.
April 2009 - Appeal finally gets to court.
May 2009 - Appeal adjourned, because one of the judges is ill. To be recommenced in November. No consideration given to replacing the sick judge, even though the appellant is terminally ill, may have only a short time to live, and it is already six years since leave to appeal was first sought.
July/August 2009 - Megrahi withdraws his appeal, and is granted compassionate release.

Let's leave the question of why he withdrew the appeal for the CT section. However, Eilish is saying his only recourse was to leave the appeal underway, to proceed at its glacial speed, in the hope that he might be acquitted posthumously.

Has she never heard the bit about justice delayed being justice denied?

Can anyone really blame Megrahi if in fact his decision to withdraw the appeal was based on the fact that the material would then no longer be sub judice, and he could put it to the court of public opinion during his lifetime?

If Eilish has some killer evidence to show that he was actually guilty, it's a pity her predecessors never produced it at Camp Zeist.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

He was a part of the function of the bombing and thus guilty.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

I would be surprised if Libya and Daffy KaDaffy or any of his people thought it up, planned and executed it- it wasnt his style and it didnt directly benefit him. Its no secret he had a boner for Reagan personally and the US specifically but ( unlike most terrorists) he knew his place in the world stage and greatly feared a US military reprisal plus he was focused on building his country and personal power.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

In this case specifically ( based on the information floating around in the day- this was a hot topic) I'm certain they witheld evidence and VERY possibly fabricated/planted some. I cant prove that but I would bet you a weeks pay on it.

[....]

And the bomb theory? Thats a sick joke. Contrary to Hollywood representations. bombs like this are made by specialists, they are SIMPLE and made from COMMONLY available materials. They are the charge, detonator and trigger/fuse- thats what makes them reliable.

My mind will not allow me to even believe ( much less accept) that PROFESSIONALS ( which these people were) who had ACCESS to everything needed would go to the effort ( not to mention leave the potential for identification should parts be discovered or the bomb itself disarmed) for such a "special" timer and set up when your basic hobbyist could go to Radio Shack and buy/build it for about $10.

Then they want me to believe such a weapon ( which could be discovered, detonate prematurely, get lost, miss its target and a whole lot of things) went around the world in 80 days UNESCORTED?

I dont know what the truth is- but the story as told aint it.

Thats what makes me believe theres a whole lot more known but never released and the guys convicted probably "knew" about it and had a role but not a direct role.

I realise I've only excerpted a few snippets of what you say, but I don't really follow you.

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court. Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?
Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

Because, frankly, I can't see any other evidence available to ordinary mortals, and that includes any jury that might hypothetically have been involved, that would indicate Megrahi's guilt.

If he did buy the clothes, he's almost certainly guilty. However, Gauci's identification was never better than tentative, he was prompted shamelessly, and bribed, and his original description of the purchaser was of someone 20 years older and significantly taller than Megrahi.

If the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa, then we have to note that Megrahi was in Luqa that day. (I don't rate the coded passport very strongly, because he was a security officer.) It doesn't prove he put the bomb on the flight, or knew it was going on, but it's at least a connection. But the evidence that there was no stray luggage on KM180 seems watertight.

Beyond that, what do we have against Megrahi? That he had business dealings with MeBo, and it was a fragment of a MeBo timer found in the wreckage. Even if the timer fragment is genuine, the timers were sold to Libya two years before the bombing, and you already said you didn't think this was a Libyan operation. This really doesn't seem a close enough connection to pin guilt on Megrahi.

Is anything left? Do you perhaps believe Giaka? I got the feeling the court would have loved to have believed Giaka, but the evidence that he was a lying toad was simply too strong to ignore.

So with all due respect, I can't see what you're saying. It wasn't a Libyan operation, and it didn't happen the way the Official Story relates, and the evidence was interfered with and manipulated, but nevertheless you have inside information that Megrahi was guilty anyway.

Maybe you need to write a book about this version, everybody else seems to have their book coming out to explain it, so why not?

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I'm presuming the other 13 people voting for Megrahi's guilt on the basis of knowing the evidence are only aware of what the rest of us are aware of. Maybe some of them would like to come up with a straightforward explanation?

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I realise I've only excerpted a few snippets of what you say, but I don't really follow you.

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court. Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?
Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

Because, frankly, I can't see any other evidence available to ordinary mortals, and that includes any jury that might hypothetically have been involved, that would indicate Megrahi's guilt.

If he did buy the clothes, he's almost certainly guilty. However, Gauci's identification was never better than tentative, he was prompted shamelessly, and bribed, and his original description of the purchaser was of someone 20 years older and significantly taller than Megrahi.

If the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa, then Megrahi was in Luqa that day. (I don't rate the coded passport very strongly, because he was a security officer.) It doesn't prove he pput the bomb on the flight, or knew it was going on, but it's at least a connection. But the evidence that there was no stray luggage on KM180 seems watertight.

Beyond that, what do we have against Megrahi? That he had business dealings with MeBo, and it was a fragment of a MeBo timer found in the wreckage. Even if the timer fragment is genuine, the timers were sold to Libya two years before the bombing, and you already said you didn't think this was a Libyan operation. This really doesn't seem a close enough connection to pin guilt on Megrahi.

Is anything left? Do you perhaps believe Giaka? I got the feeling the court would have loved to have believed Giaka, but the evidence that he was a lying toad was simply too strong to ignore.

So with all due respect, I can't see what you're saying. It wasn't a Libyan operation, and it didn't happen the way the Official Story relates, and the evidence was interfered with and manipulated, but nevertheless you have inside information that Megrahi was guilty anyway.

Maybe you need to write a book about this version, everybody else seems to have their book coming out to explain it, so why not?

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I'm presuming the other 13 people voting for Megrahi's guilt on the basis of knowing the evidence are only aware of what the rest of us are aware of. Maybe some of them would like to come up with a straightforward explanation?

Rolfe.

OK, let me try a little different way

Quote:

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court.

Let me define guilt- I think he is guilty of being a participant in the mission with culpability- I do NOT specifically believe he was the "hands on" guy. Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all) but other ops I was involved with and information in "other areas".

Quote:

Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

I'm offering it as information- I'm not attempting to sell it nor am I "certain" its complete.

Quote:

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Me personally, I'm convinced the official version is "created" regarding the bomb and its details. ( speaking from a great deal of knowledge on those areas) so I have no problem believing the rest is equally "sanitized" as well. Thats all. ( Having seen it done personally in other places)

My reference to "guys" was in reference to Daffy KaDaffy releasing them for prosecution not their conviction. I'm certain he waited long enough for everyone to get their stories straight.

My reference to his guilt is again- he had a role in it thus culpability.

Quote:

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?

Dont know but since I personally believe the whole story is a red herring- it wouldnt matter whether he bought them or not.

Quote:

Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

No, I refuse to believe that from reasons of experience. If you believe the "story" regarding its design and construction ( which I dont for a second) I cannot accept that professionals would take so many risks. ( they aint stupid) Too much room for discovery and mission failure or malfunction.

Quote:

You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.

Thats not quite how it works over there ( then or now) Daffy and his ducks as well as other countries have a direct support role in terrorism.Everything from intelligence, training,support,money,alibis and the whole shebang.

They do that as insulation from military reprisal. ( him having good reason since he had experienced it)

Quote:

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I think you misunderstood me- I didnt say that

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

OK, let me try a little different way

Let me define guilt- I think he is guilty of being a participant in the mission with culpability- I do NOT specifically believe he was the "hands on" guy. Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all) but other ops I was involved with and information in "other areas".

I'm offering it as information- I'm not attempting to sell it nor am I "certain" its complete.

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Me personally, I'm convinced the official version is "created" regarding the bomb and its details. ( speaking from a great deal of knowledge on those areas) so I have no problem believing the rest is equally "sanitized" as well. Thats all. ( Having seen it done personally in other places)

I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

For a start, I would have thought this was reasonably convincing as regards involvement of that luggage container.

http://admatch-syndication.mochila.c...eslideshow.jpg

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

My reference to his guilt is again- he had a role in it thus culpability.

But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Dont know but since I personally believe the whole story is a red herring- it wouldnt matter whether he bought them or not.

But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

No, I refuse to believe that from reasons of experience. If you believe the "story" regarding its design and construction ( which I dont for a second) I cannot accept that professionals would take so many risks. ( they aint stupid) Too much room for discovery and mission failure or malfunction.

No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

I also wonder why the entire appearance of the incident, right down to the make and model of the radio-cassette player, and the time of explosion (38 minutes after takeoff) was exactly according to the modus operandi of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt - except for the fragment of the timer. If it wasn't Jibril and his cronies, then how come the Toshiba bom-beat, and the 38-minute detonation? If it was them, then why the MST-13 fragment?

The rest of that train of thought really belongs in the CT section.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

I think you misunderstood me- I didnt say that

Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.

If he didn't buy the clothes, and he wasn't at the airport where the bomb was loaded on the day it was loaded, and you don't believe Giaka (or do you? - you didn't say), and you don't even believe that Libya was the prime mover, then there is no evidence that we know of to link him to the incident.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.




I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

For a start, I would have thought this was reasonably convincing as regards involvement of that luggage container.

http://admatch-syndication.mochila.c...eslideshow.jpg

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.




But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.




But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.




No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

I also wonder why the entire appearance of the incident, right down to the make and model of the radio-cassette player, and the time of explosion (38 minutes after takeoff) was exactly according to the modus operandi of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt - except for the fragment of the timer. If it wasn't Jibril and his cronies, then how come the Toshiba bom-beat, and the 38-minute detonation? If it was them, then why the MST-13 fragment?

The rest of that train of thought really belongs in the CT section.




Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.

If he didn't buy the clothes, and he wasn't at the airport where the bomb was loaded on the day it was loaded, and you don't believe Giaka (or do you? - you didn't say), and you don't even believe that Libya was the prime mover, then there is no evidence that we know of to link him to the incident.

Rolfe.

Quote:

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.

Thats because theres a limit to what specifics I can go into without violating my NSA statement. Sorry

Quote:

I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

I'll be direct there. I dont accept it in any part

Quote:

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

Thats possibly because I have field experience in that specific area and you may not. I'll just say the evidence and its reliability are highly suspect.

Quote:

But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.

No and thats why I'm not pressing the point past casual discussion.

Quote:

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

Option 3- simply fooled. In the intelligence community bribes and threats carry a high risk of exposure.

Quote:

Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.

I assign him guilt and have no problem with it for the same reason it was a state sponsored act thus culpability attaches. Its no different when "I" give an order to fire or authorize the action. I have the attached responsibility even tho I didnt pull the trigger.

Quote:

But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.

Yes, it would be relevant IF you believe the states theory- I dont

Quote:

No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

Now you are catching on. If this was a "mom and pop" cell doing this as an independant- I could see that and relying on blind luck. Not people at this level

[Rolfe]

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

Yeah, and all the threads protesting about Megrahi's release were started for no other reason than to piss off Scottish posters. Two can play at that game.

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

On the other hand, if it was fabricated, then the whole thing becomes much stranger, just as you suggest - who had motive, means and opportunity to do that? What, precisely, is being covered up?

Lack of political will to foster enmity with Iran in the run-up to Desert Storm?
Failure of intelligence to identify a threat?
Misjudgement in underestimating the threat posed by the PFLP-GC?
Some sort of LIHOP relating to protecting sources?
A MIHOP connected to the South African delegation?
A MIHOP connected to a drugs-for-hostages operation?

I've heard all of these advanced as possibilities. If at least some of the evidence is reliable, then it's possible to make some conclusions. However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

And I still have no idea why you think Megrahi is guilty, if you disbelieve all the evidence in the case including that which links him to it, and don't believe that Libya was even the main operator.

If this is no more than saying, "I think Libya knew about the plot, and Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer, therefore he is guilty", then I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all)

So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

O.... K....

I'm sure there's a book in there somewhere.

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

Yeah, and all the threads protesting about Megrahi's release were started for no other reason than to piss off Scottish posters. Two can play at that game.

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

On the other hand, if it was fabricated, then the whole thing becomes much stranger, just as you suggest - who had motive, means and opportunity to do that? What, precisely, is being covered up?

Lack of political will to foster enmity with Iran in the run-up to Desert Storm?
Failure of intelligence to identify a threat?
Misjudgement in underestimating the threat posed by the PFLP-GC?
Some sort of LIHOP relating to protecting sources?
A MIHOP connected to the South African delegation?
A MIHOP connected to a drugs-for-hostages operation?

I've heard all of these advanced as possibilities. If at least some of the evidence is reliable, then it's possible to make some conclusions. However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

And I still have no idea why you think Megrahi is guilty, if you disbelieve all the evidence in the case including that which links him to it, and don't believe that Libya was even the main operator.

If this is no more than saying, "I think Libya knew about the plot, and Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer, therefore he is guilty", then I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.




So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

O.... K....

I'm sure there's a book in there somewhere.

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

Rolfe.

Quote:

So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

Thats not it at all. All I said was I didnt have an active role in THIS investigation in any capacity. There were many ops that went along side this one that the information never got over the line.

Quote:

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

I read CT's at times but find most of them too silly to comment on. They have some entertainment value but nothing I'm going to invest any great deal of time with.

Quote:

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

I dont see you that way at all- just somebody digging to the bottom of it- if it pisses them off, they will get over it

Quote:

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

not fabricated in the sense that the investigators did it- but planted/tainted to lead down a preconstructed road to an alternate conclusion. ( done all the time)

Quote:

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

I believe it to be. For a multitude of reasons

Quote:

However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

Its a different set of objectives. A court is interested in bringing criminals to justice. The intelligence community understands that if you take one out- another steps in and you may not find that one.

Also, theres the problem about getting to them

This smells of a sacrificial lamb operation

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

A court is interested in bringing criminals to justice. The intelligence community understands that if you take one out- another steps in and you may not find that one.

So you're basically saying, that on the basis of work you have done on other ops, and the things you have seen on those lead you to believe that:

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Please correct me where I am wrong.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

So you're basically saying, that on the basis of work you have done on other ops, and the things you have seen on those lead you to believe that:

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Please correct me where I am wrong.

Thats essentially correct with a few very minor additions

Quote:

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

I wont go as far to say "know" ( defined as absolute certainty) because getting accurate/reliable and ENOUGH information out of those groups is almost impossible under the best of circumstances but otherwise yes to a high degree of reasonable certainty.

As to knowing in advance and allowing it- no. They are worthy of most of their reputation but they are "the good guys" and mass murdering isnt something they do. A few select individuals, maybe and probably- random mass casualties like in this case- not a chance. If they really do know about it in advance- it wouldnt have happened. ( as evidenced by all the plots discovered and avoided since 9-11)

Quote:

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

Thats yes and no depending on the specific circumstances.

If its a small "mom and pop" group operating independantly or rogue faction then yes. Those are finite entities and when they are done- they are done. They will normally allow LE and the courts to have their way with them.

In the event of state sponsored or complex groups- more than likely no. Even tho I personally dont always like that view- a court and civilian LE simply isnt designed or equipped for things of that nature especially when it directly involves sovereigns, politics and multi national operations.

Quote:

That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

see above- I answered Rolfe in the CT thread about the timer issue and why I feel IN THIS CASE the evidence is in fact fabricated.

Quote:

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

That is the best method. The first goal is always to protect the public. If that means they "get away" at the cost of a no "body count"- thats a win

Quote:

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Thats how I see it. I have never seen or heard of anyone being "framed" that was a true innocent ( of everything). It would be difficult to do and hard to prove.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Thats how I see it. I have never seen or heard of anyone being "framed" that was a true innocent ( of everything). It would be difficult to do and hard to prove.

Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.

This from yesterday's Sunday Times.

Originally Posted by Jason Allardyce

A report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), due to be published later this year, is said to suggest that the testimony of Abdul Majid Giaka, a paid informer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should have been discounted by judges at Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s trial in the Hague in 2001.

Giaka testified that Megrahi was an agent for the Jamahiriya Security Organisation (JSO), the Libyan intelligence service. He claimed to have seen Megrahi carrying a suitcase containing the bomb used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie in December 1988 killing 270 people, and to have discussed the plot with him.

[....]

The judges at Camp Zeist in The Hague discounted most of Giaka’s testimony on the grounds that his co-operation with the American authorities was “largely motivated by financial considerations”. However, they accepted his testimony that Megrahi was a member of the JSO, a suggestion the accused denied.

[....]

A source who has seen the SCCRC document, told The Sunday Times: “The report says there was no sufficient explanation made of why the court discounted him as a credible witness yet seemed to accept elements within his evidence which asserted that Megrahi was a senior member of the Libyan intelligence service and was involved in the wider conspiracy.

“There was no actual evidence to support that, but the court accepted it. It undermined [probably a typo for "underlined"] the Crown’s narrative of the offence — that Megrahi was acting on behalf of Libyan intelligence. That information came from Giaka and all his other evidence was utterly discredited — yet they accepted that element.”

[....]

At the trial, Megrahi’s defence team denied their client was employed by the JSO and dismissed Giaka’s testimony as “pure fantasy”.

Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. On these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.

This article, however, calls that into question. It asserts that the only place that information came from was Giaka. Giaka, who had been a humble motor mechanic who helped maintain JSO vehicles, but who thought he could feather his nest by pretending to the CIA that he was a senior JSO official willing to pass on information to them. Giaka, whose subsequent job was a station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, and who would naturally have known Megrahi (Head of Airline Security) and Fhimah (a Libyan Arab Airlines manager at Luqa). Giaka needed someone to make up stories about, and seems to have picked on Megrahi and Fhimah.

Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.





Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. In these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.


Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

Rolfe.

Heres where the "we will never know for sure" part comes in

Quote:

Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

No, framing is a risky business. Theres always the possibility the frame will be discovered ( worst scenario) and expose operatives or the alibi ( which a real innocent person will probably have to some degree since they in fact are innocent) will carry the day. If you intend to frame with the expectation it will work- you had damn well better start from the premise that there is already reasonable suspicion and you just "prod" it along.

Quote:

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.

This is where the rules change and the "evidence" ( as defined by legal standards) cannot carry the day. Contrary to Hollywood- real intelligence operatives( in the field) almost always have "day jobs", careers, families and so forth. This builds in plausible denial as well as it makes them "fit" in the community. You "always" notice a "new guy".

I wouldnt expect him to admit it ( that would get him killed by his own probably) or deny it either.

You cant go by the "evidence" either because its common for operatives to have detailed ( government supported) false life histories ( I mean that would pass any background check and YES the bad guys use them too and run background checks) that are detailed and go from birth to present. Those things are THERE to be found.

Then of course you have the "non employee" sympathisizers who do it part time ( the hardest ones of all to identify because unless you have access to top secret information- they arent in the system)

Dont look for proof positive from the intelligence community

Quote:

Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. In these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.

That alone would make him a prime candidate

Quote:

Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

all I can say that I know to be true ( and it aint much) is that he has come up before.

The biggest thing that leads me to believe his hands are dirty ( without debating degrees of dirt) is Libya's actions. They refused to extradite him for a long time then after negotiations did. Thats plenty of time for sterilization and dirty deals done dirt cheap.

If he was truly innocent ( which would mean he would also be wholly ignorant of everything and couldnt spill any beans) then theres no reason to protect him because the state wouldnt have much of anything.

If he was dirty as mud- releasing him would be a death sentence plus run the risk of him dealing to save his neck and compromise "other" things.

They met in the middle- that tells me more likely than not the events were altered and he stood his own. To me, that smells of a lot of behind the scenes activities.

Quote:

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

if by frame- you mean an "out of the blue" frame- thats doubtful- a "prodding" frame is a different story

[Rolfe]

I honestly don't know. I agree that Head of Airline Security would be a reasonable cover for a JSO operative. I simply hadn't been aware that this had been consistently denied, or that Giaka was the only source for the allegation.

I'd agree that if Libya really did have some involvement in the bombing, then it's not an unreasonable inference that he knew something about it. I'm not entirely convinced that Libya did in fact have any significant role, however. And I still believe that the evidence as presented at Camp Zeist was wholly inadequate to support a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt".

The single piece of evidence that has made me a little suspicious about all this comes, ironically enough, from Saif Gadaffi.

Quote:

INTERVIEWER (BBC)
What do you believe?
INTERVIEWEE (Saif Gadaffi)
I believe in one thing, that someone bombed Pan Am 103?
INTERVIEWER
Was it - was it your intelligence agent, Mr Megrahi?
INTERVIEWEE
I think that there was – there was a crime, and I’m sure there are criminals, who they are I don’t know.
INTERVIEWER
In your view, though, was Mr Megrahi one of them?
INTERVIEWEE
I don’t think so.
INTERVIEWER
You don’t think so?
INTERVIEWEE
I don’t think that – that poor guy is – is behind that sophisticated operation, don’t think so.
INTERVIEWER
The prosecution said that he was part of that conspiracy to bomb, because he was the man who had actually planted the suitcase with the bomb inside.
INTERVIEWEE
And a prosecutor is a prosecutor, his job is to find him guilty and he can, he can – he can say whatever he wants. But I’m sure that that poor guy he is not sophisticated and clever, and clever enough to carry out that job.
INTERVIEWER
Do you think the real story will ever come out?
INTERVIEWEE
One day.
INTERVIEWER
And do you think it has anything to do with Libya?
INTERVIEWEE
Again I hope not, I think not. But one day we’ll get the real story.

I don't recognise that characterisation of Megrahi. Fhimah, perhaps, but not Megrahi.

Rolfe.