Khadaffi ordered al Megrahi to carry out Lockerbie Bombing? / al-Megrahi dies

[Rolfe]

Alongside articles unthinkingly referring to "the Lockerbie bomber" (Colette Douglas-Home, I'm talking to you....) there seem to be more and more where the journalists have been paying attention.

This from yesterday. Not exactly Entebbe, is it?

Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens

But how ridiculous it all is. Supposedly we are now terribly moral about the wicked Libyan regime, denying diplomatic immunity to its leaders, freezing its assets, refusing to print its banknotes. Tough, eh? This Libyan wickedness does not seem to have troubled the existing British government (or its predecessor) at all until about two weeks ago, or why was a British firm printing those banknotes and why were there so many British personnel in Libya in the first place?

By the way, please don't go on at me about the supposed 'Lockerbie Bomber'. There is absolutely no evidence that the Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi had anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing, almost certainly carried out by terrorists under Syrian control, at the behest of Iran.

The truth is that Colonel Gadaffi's government is being punished not because it is wicked (so is Syria's, for instance, as I keep needing to mention) but because it is weak and tottering. How embarrassing all this will be if the Gadaffi family manage somehow to regain control of the country. Terribly sorry, your colonelship, sir. Hope you understand we were only going through the motions? Can we have our printing contract back? No hard feelings, eh?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Has nobody else picked up on this? Jalil has come clean on the nature of the evidence he has (oh, sorry, Musa Kusa actually has the "irrefutable proof") that Gadaffi ordered Megrahi to bomb Pan Am 103.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_01_04_2011/

The proof?

That Gadaffi spent a lot of money "supporting" Megrahi, and on trying to have him returned to Libya from Greenock jail. That's it folks. Musa Kusa has all the documentation.

For God's sake, we know Gadaffi threw quite a lot of money at the project of making Megrahi's life a bit more bearable. His plasma TV screen was the talk of every prisoner who was released from that prison, and who watched football matches on it. The £450,000 house that was bought for Megrahi's wife and children to live in, to be close to their husband and father, was well-known - I'm sure someone will post a link to the actual address. The family had their very own Libyan "social worker" stationed in Glasgow to look after them.

We know Gadaffi was real keen that Megrahi should be released. That he paid Karol Sikora to produce a medical report that nobody paid any attention to. That he dragged in every influence he could think of to sway the decision in the direction of getting Megrahi on a plane for Tripoli.

And I forgot about the legal fees, and the squadrons of lawyers Gadaffi was paying for - for a time. There was a big problem when that money dried up a few years ago, though I don't really know why that happened.

Anyway, the amount of money Gadaffi was throwing in that direction was hardly a secret. We know all about that, Mr. Jalil.

And that proves Gadaffi ordered Megrahi to put a bomb on a plane, how?

Rolfe.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised. However, you have to make Megrahi 1000 miles from where he actually was that day for the Official Version of Lockerbie to fly.

I don't know. Some of us spend a couple of years poring over the actual evidence in excruciating detail, and you won't come near the debate. Then a thug trying to dissociate himself from Gadaffi's collapsing regime makes a completely unsupported statement, and you grab it like it's a divine revelation.

Not very sceptical, methinks.

Rolfe.

There is a difference between judicial standard of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, and being pretty damn sure that someone did it. That is how judicial systems work and were designed to work.

[Rolfe]

And?

In this case, there is neither standard against Megrahi. The court verdict was perverse in the extreme, driving a coach and horses through the rules of evidence, and handwaving away shedloads of extremely reasonable doubt.

And nobody who claims to be "pretty damn sure he did it" has been able to come up with even a shred of extra evidence beyond what was presented in court - which as I say places him 1000 miles from the scene of the crime, and presents nothing else incriminating either.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I dunno if this one thread will suffice to cover all the defection/admission nonsense so far, or to come. Rolfe, could you start a new thread maybe so I don't have to?

But this I just saw would fit here and there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...kerbie-apology

Quote:

Libya's rebel administration has said that it signed an apology for the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government, and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding".

After initially denying that the document existed, the revolutionaries' governing council acknowledged that its chairman, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, had indeed signed an apology on behalf of the Libyan people for Gaddafi's provision of semtex used in IRA bombings and for the blowing up of the Pan Am flight in 1988. It also promised compensation.

Amid division and confusion over the declaration, which some blamed on a translation mix-up, council officials said that the issue of the Libyan government's responsibility for attacks in the UK came up only because it was pressed on the revolutionary administration by the British.

Officials in the rebel government say the Lockerbie and IRA issues are not a priority for them given that they are fighting a military campaign to overthrow Gaddafi while trying to administer the rebel-held areas. They say that there are few Libyans who believe they are responsible for Gaddafi's acts or that they should apologise for him.

[Rolfe]

Oh, pass. This is so far into bizarro-land, I have no freaking idea what's going to happen next.

We don't know who put the bomb on Pan Am 103 in London. Could Gadaffi have been behind it? Who the hell knows! And it's going to stay a mystery as long as the PtB insist that Megrahi levitated an invisible magic suitcase into KM180 at Luqa, and only demand confirmation of what they want to believe.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

On the 25th February Abdel Rahman Shalgam, delivered a speech at the UN wholly denouncing the Gaddafi regime. Until a few weeks ago he was Libya’s representative to the UN Security Council and served as Foreign Minister from 2000-2009.

Making an appearance on BBC’s HARDTalk for a 30min interview tonight he stated quite categorically, several times, that neither he nor most likely Mousa Kousa, had any information about the ‘Lockerbie issues’ and the bombing of PanAm 103. Although he reveals he has had discussions with Sir John Sawers, head of MI6, about the “complications of Lockerbie”.


.

[Caustic Logic]

Some semi-relevant background on Abdel-Jalil, speaking to the ambassador in January 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wiki....2-OF-002.html

Quote:

2. (C) On January 25, the Ambassador (accompanied by econoff) met for the first time with Mustafa Mohammad Abduljalil, Secretary of the General People's Committee for Justice (Minister of Justice-equivalent). The Ambassador stressed the importance of a sound commercial legal environment to Libya's economic development
[...]
While Abduljalil has given the green light to his staff to work with us, he noted that many Libyans are still "concerned" about the USG's support for Israel, and that terrorism stems from the perception that Europe and the U.S. are "against" Muslims. End Summary.
[...]
6. (C) Abduljalil was named Secretary of the General People's Committee for Justice in January 2007. He does not speak English, and spoke only Arabic in our meeting. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), he has expressed reformist ideas about eliminating corruption within the GOL and bringing security organizations in line with the rule of law. In HRW's assessment, Abduljalil's drive to change the system is driven more by his conservative point of view rather than a reformist agenda. According to his staff and several judges, he is well-regarded and considered to be fair. The Ambassador's initial meeting with Abduljalil was positive and encouraging.

Through his staff, including Director of International Cooperation Kamal al-Bahri, Abduljalil has demonstrated an interest in working with us on the Commercial Law Development Program over the past year and a willingness to allow his staff to communicate with emboffs outside of official channels. This was evidenced by his securing visa approvals for visiting CLDP officials. (Note: His organization seems to have a parallel track in securing visa approvals, bypassing Protocol and the MFA, as the Embassy received the approval numbers for the CLDP visitors directly from the GPC for Justice and not through the MFA as usual; in fact, the visas for the two CLDP visitors are among the very few USG visas we have received in the past few months. End note.)

The next step will be to continue the discussion of how we can work with the GPC for Justice in other, more sensitive areas, such as the Human Rights Dialogue. [...]

And boy did the conversation take off from there a year later. And here's the fair-minded, conservative/reformist minister swearing proof of a plot (Lockerbie) there's not even credible evidence for, offering a lame observation as that proof, and groveling with promises of more Gaddafi's money, once he gets his hands on it.

Tasty. They love these guys, from Giaka to Musa Kusa.

This guy too. He didn't so much defect, but he's a full time Brit and shrill media whore and the rebels' top something in Europe who helped plan the protests that started all this. Watch him storm off a "discussion" show where questions were included. Note he runs off before letting the question (whether 10,000 killed is accurate) be explained. Reason: tons of other news shows to talk to that don't allow questions like that.

[Rolfe]

I wish I could say I'm astonished by the blanket media coverage (and marked forum interest) when Jalil said he had proof Gadaffi was behind Lockerbie, compared to the complete media (and forum) silence now it has become clear he has nothing of the sort - but actually, I'm not even faintly surprised.

It all started to go a bit sour when the statements given by Jalil and Abu Bakr were analysed in detail, and it became obvious they were saying Megrahi didn't put an unaccompanied suitcase on KM180 that morning. Nothing but vague hints about Megrahi maybe having been involved in a completely different, minor role, performing actions he was never charged with. This was not what the authorities wanted to hear at all.

Did that get any media coverage? No, actually.

Then Jalil comes out in live TV, and explains the nature of this killer evidence for Gadaffi's involvement in a Lockerbie plot (that specifically wasn't what the investigators believed it to have been). Just that Gadaffi spent a lot of money supporting Megrahi and trying to have him returned to Libya. Which we all knew already.

Does this get even half a sentence in the newspapers or subsequent news bulletins? Not as far as I saw. And the footage of him saying it will be unavailable now, as the BBC only keep these things up for a week.

Now the Scottish cops have interviewed Musa Kusa. I wonder what he said?

What might he have said? "Look you idiots, the entire Arab world knows Ahmed Jibril's gang brought that plane down by smuggling a bomb into a baggage container at Heathrow. And you should know too because the baggage handler saw the case and reported it to the police and gave evidence about it in court. Not my problem if you can't see what's in front of your faces."

If he said that, are they going to tell?

There's only one story the authorities are going to listen to, and that's Megrahi levitating the invisible magic suitcase on to KM180 at Malta. You could give them conclusive proof of how it was done and who did it, and nobody would pay any attention because it didn't fit that preconception.

Rolfe.

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wish I could say I'm astonished by the blanket media coverage (and marked forum interest) when Jalil said he had proof Gadaffi was behind Lockerbie, compared to the complete media (and forum) silence now it has become clear he has nothing of the sort - but actually, I'm not even faintly surprised.

Same can be said for zero media on JREFers and JFM petition. But the latter is for another forum. Not trying to derail. Just commenting on the above.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Just that Gadaffi spent a lot of money supporting Megrahi and trying to have him returned to Libya. Which we all knew already.

Well sort of, but not really. What we knew was that Gaddaffi financed Megrahi's trial, posh prison environment and (we learned after he was released) Megrahi's "3 months to live" diagosis. What we didn't know was that Megrahi was going to live for another year and a half (and then some, most likely), and be supported with a red Ferrari and funds to build another home about which to visit the construction, when he is supposed to be in hospital or in the home to which the scots sent him, a CONVICTED MASS MUDERER "to DIE" ... according to Kenny McASSkill.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What might he have said? "Look you idiots, the entire Arab world knows Ahmed Jibril's gang brought that plane down by smuggling a bomb into a baggage container at Heathrow. And you should know too because the baggage handler saw the case and reported it to the police and gave evidence about it in court. Not my problem if you can't see what's in front of your faces."

Booo hooo. You have no press. Nor evidence that Jabril did it, outside of possible involvement in helping the Libyans carry it out. Blame Megrahi's solicitors, paid for by Gaddaffi for not admitting that the potato got too hot in the Autumn leaves sting, so it was handed over to the LIbyans, who were trained by the previous hot potoato tossers, and the Libyans carried it out. Blame Megrahi's solicitors, paid for by Gaddaffi, blame the Scots, Blame the UK, blame Megrahi and the Libyan murderous regime. Really, you're transparently grasping at pathetic straws to blame the media for this mess.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

There's only one story the authorities are going to listen to, and that's Megrahi levitating the invisible magic suitcase on to KM180 at Malta. You could give them conclusive proof of how it was done and who did it, and nobody would pay any attention because it didn't fit that preconception.

Hey, they listened to the "levitation" that Megrahi had three months to live, and released him. Who knows what the scots and their masters might do next. Stay tuned for more lively and sickening whoring entertainment from the jokers and fools in Scotland and the UK. Maybe even JREFers and JFMers can get into the mix. Maybe they'll air Robert Black's pouring rain story and maybe, just maybe CL will finally get his15 minutes of fame whilst they play a clip of him exclaiming "but there was no rain!! whilst the clip of Black in front of Parliament runs with Black vehemently stating the rain was pouring so hard that Megrahi had to go get a cab so as not to melt in the downpour whlst loading the clothing purchased for which to wrap the bomb.

You want media? You better be prepared for media darling.


~B.

[Rolfe]

So, still no actual evidence relating to Lockerbie forthcoming from any of these "insider" sources then.

That we know about, anyway.

Rolfe.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Alongside articles unthinkingly referring to "the Lockerbie bomber" (Colette Douglas-Home, I'm talking to you....) there seem to be more and more where the journalists have been paying attention.

Robert Parry of Iran-Contra fame is on "your" side and has written a series of articles sticking it to the NYT and WP for endlessly repeating the "conventional wisdom" as "flat facts". Heard about it in an excellent interview with him and unembedded front reporter Pepe Escobar.

Originally Posted by Robert Parry

[...] However, since Ahmadinejad is designated an American villain, stories are routinely slanted against him. Thus, his election will always be “disputed,” just as the opposite rule will apply to doubts about Libya’s or Megrahi’s guilt on Pan Am 103. That will never be “disputed.”

In a similar way, when a designated enemy sends troops across a border – whether invited by the existing government or not – it is an “invasion.” However, when a U.S. ally like Saudi Arabia sends its troops into Bahrain to help crush a popular uprising, the word “invasion” disappears. Neutral words apply like “troop movement” or “intervention.”

It is through the media's distorted lens darkly that Americans must discern facts and draw conclusions.

[Rolfe]

That article is very good, even though it says nothing about Giaka, and the obvious CIA attempt to frame both Megrahi and Fhimah by pressurising him to invent false evidence against them. It's jawdropping that nobody was ever held to account for that blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice.

However, note that his statement about Dirk Vandewalle is denied by the judges.

Rolfe.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas

Same can be said for zero media on JREFers and JFM petition. But the latter is for another forum. Not trying to derail. Just commenting on the above.


Well sort of, but not really. What we knew was that Gaddaffi financed Megrahi's trial, posh prison environment and (we learned after he was released) Megrahi's "3 months to live" diagosis. What we didn't know was that Megrahi was going to live for another year and a half (and then some, most likely), and be supported with a red Ferrari and funds to build another home about which to visit the construction, when he is supposed to be in hospital or in the home to which the scots sent him, a CONVICTED MASS MUDERER "to DIE" ... according to Kenny McASSkill.

Booo hooo. You have no press. Nor evidence that Jabril did it, outside of possible involvement in helping the Libyans carry it out. Blame Megrahi's solicitors, paid for by Gaddaffi for not admitting that the potato got too hot in the Autumn leaves sting, so it was handed over to the LIbyans, who were trained by the previous hot potoato tossers, and the Libyans carried it out. Blame Megrahi's solicitors, paid for by Gaddaffi, blame the Scots, Blame the UK, blame Megrahi and the Libyan murderous regime. Really, you're transparently grasping at pathetic straws to blame the media for this mess.


Hey, they listened to the "levitation" that Megrahi had three months to live, and released him. Who knows what the scots and their masters might do next. Stay tuned for more lively and sickening whoring entertainment from the jokers and fools in Scotland and the UK. Maybe even JREFers and JFMers can get into the mix. Maybe they'll air Robert Black's pouring rain story and maybe, just maybe CL will finally get his15 minutes of fame whilst they play a clip of him exclaiming "but there was no rain!! whilst the clip of Black in front of Parliament runs with Black vehemently stating the rain was pouring so hard that Megrahi had to go get a cab so as not to melt in the downpour whlst loading the clothing purchased for which to wrap the bomb.

You want media? You better be prepared for media darling.


~B.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

[Rolfe]

What, you mean because the tabloid "rag" that printed the unsubstantiated story about the sports car said it was a Lamborghini?

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas

You want media? You better be prepared for media darling.

Do you mean the Scottish media, which highlights the problems with the case against Megrahi, or the mainstream US media which appears to gloss over such issues?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas

Nor evidence that Jabril did it, outside of possible involvement in helping the Libyans carry it out.

This point is worth picking up on though. I and others have suggested Ahmed Jibril's group probably carried out the bombing, naming other names like Elias, Khreesat, Talb and Dalkamoni from time to time. However, Bunntamas is correct about the above. There is no conclusive evidence linking these people to the actual insertion of the bomb (though indeed there was none such against Megrahi either), although there is a lot of suggestive, circumstantial evidence pointing to their culpability (indeed, far far more than against Megrahi, again).

The essence of the argument isn't whether Jibril or anyone else in particular did the deed, but what the deed was that was done. It's not impossible that the introduction of the bomb into the baggage container at Heathrow was a Libyan operation. Just not one Megrahi could have carried out, being as he was a thousand miles away at the time.

So if one or more of these defectors really does have evidence that Gadaffi was behind the bombing, and that he set in motion the operation to get the brown Samsonite suitcase into the baggage container in the interline shed, how is this likely to play out with the Western powers? Or with the Scottish police? Who are wedded to the idea that the bomb travelled on KM180 beyond all else.

Rolfe.

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This point is worth picking up on though. I and others have suggested Ahmed Jibril's group probably carried out the bombing, naming other names like Elias, Khreesat, Talb and Dalkamoni from time to time.

in cooperation with the Libyans, including Megrahi. Recall those Libyan desert timer tests for blowing up airliners? I can see the hand waving already about Bollier, but it's not just his testimony, there are other records of this as well.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

However, Bunntamas is correct about the above.

Wow. I think that may be a bit of a schmooze, but whatever. I agree Bunntamas is correct about the above. Indeed.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

There is no conclusive evidence linking these people to the actual insertion of the bomb (though indeed there was none such against Megrahi either), although there is a lot of suggestive, circumstantial evidence pointing to their culpability (indeed, far far more than against Megrahi, again).

Beg to differ w/ you there. If there is so much less evidence toward Megrahi (presented in a court of law, resulting in a guilty verdict), and so much more toward others, where is it??? (outside of CTs - which is NOT evidence).

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The essence of the argument isn't whether Jibril or anyone else in particular did the deed, but what the deed was that was done. It's not impossible that the introduction of the bomb into the baggage container at Heathrow was a Libyan operation.

WOW again, but.... Where's your "evidence" (REAL evidence, not repeated for years on end CT blatherings in forums and blogs and dead end JFM petitioning) that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow????

Originally Posted by Rolfe

So if one or more of these defectors really does have evidence that Gadaffi was behind the bombing, and that he set in motion the operation to get the brown Samsonite suitcase into the baggage container in the interline shed, how is this likely to play out with the Western powers? Or with the Scottish police? Who are wedded to the idea that the bomb travelled on KM180 beyond all else.

PROVE in a court of law with REAL evidence beyond that which has already been judged, appealed, lost, appealed again and dropped, (and spare me the laughable dropped appeal because Megrahi was on his death bed argument, lest you choose to go down the Scots whoring to UK / Oil path rat hole) and maybe someone will listen, and or read your posts (beyond my popping in for silly amusement from time-to-time).

And speaking of that; Time will tell. Speaking of rats, I have no doubt that they continue to flee the sinking Libyan ship, and tell their tales of 40+ years of murder under the Gaddafi Regime, in which Megrahi clearly was a player.

....I wonder if that red Ferrari will float. Hmmmm.....

~B.

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What, you mean because the tabloid "rag" that printed the unsubstantiated story about the sports car said it was a Lamborghini?

Rolfe.

Sorta like the unsubstantiated story that the bomb was planted at Heathrow? Or the "pouring" rain story in front of Parliament by Robert Black, whilst CL continues to repeat "THERE WAS NO RAIN!! ????

[Architect]

Bunntamas

All I see is appeals to incredulity and emotion in your arguments. Do you have any substantive rebuttal to the highly detailed points brought up bu ROfle and other before, or just more sticking of fingers in ears?

A.

[Rolfe]

It seems that Bunntamas is asking again for the evidence that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. I present it more for the interest of others reading the thread, than out of any hope that she'll take it on board, but here's a summary.

• There were about ten items of luggage already on the bottom of the container, loaded at Heathrow before the Frankfurt baggage was added.
• One of these items was described as "a maroony-brown hardshell suitcase, the type Samsonite make".
• Neither of the legitimate baggage staff remembers putting that item into the container, and the man whose specific job it was to load the container is adamant he did not put it there, stating that it appeared mysteriously while he was on his tea break.
• The explosion occurred only 10 inches from the floor of the container, and only about two inches from the position where the "mystery Samsonite" was seen.
• It is probable the baggage loader dealing with the tarmac transfer from the feeder flight would not have moved the original items very far, if at all, because the luggage was not sorted at this stage, and the transfer had to be done in less than 15 minutes because the feeder flight landed 45 minutes late.
• The suitcase containing the bomb was a hardshell Samsonite, variously described by the forensic examiners as brown, maroon, burgundy and bronze.
• No other luggage fitting the description of "a maroony-brown hardshell suitcase" was recovered at Lockerbie, damaged or undamaged.
• None of the fifteen passengers whose luggage was or might have been in the container before the feeder flight landed was known to possess a brown or maroon hardshell case, and nobody who had had contact with these passengers before they boarded remembered seeing any of them with such a case.**
• The Heathrow security was abysmal and known to leak like a sieve, with hundreds if not thousands of airside passes unaccounted-for and wholly inadequate checks. Baggage was not counted or reconciled to passengers.
• A break-in into the airside area of Heathrow airport in question was reported as having occurred 16 hours before the mystery suitcase was sighted, with a padlock described as being "cut like butter".**
• The timing of the explosion, only 38 minutes into an on-time 7½-hour flight and well before reaching the open ocean, makes no rational sense in the context of its being triggered by an electronic timer, which might have been loaded anywhere. It is entirely consistent with the use of a barometric trigger, which would have had to have been loaded de novo at Heathrow.

All these points have been presented in legal hearings in the case. The two marked ** were concealed from the Zeist trial court, the first being testified to at the FAI and then buried, and the second being concealed until the Zest appeal.

I regard this evidence, presented in its entirety, as compelling. Bunntamas would have us believe that it counts for nothing because the Zeist judges didn't appreciate its significance. Judges, however, are only human, and have no special infallibility denied to scientists and engineers and even architects. A legal ruling that the sky is green does not make it so, in fact.

Shall we compare the strength of the evidence for the Malta introduction theory?

• Strong security system in place at Malta which counted bags and reconciled them to the passengers, with complete records available.
• No evidence that an unaccompanied bag could have been or was snuck through the Malta security system.
• No evidence that there was an unaccompanied bag on KM180, in fact pretty watertight evidence that there wasn't.
• Baggage records at Frankfurt "lost" wholesale in the days immediately following the disaster, meaning that accurate tracking of luggage movements through Frankfurt airport was impossible.
• The anomalous computer record (which surfaced in isolation eight months later) that suggested an item of luggage heading for the Frankfurt-Heathrow flight from KM180 is easily explained as a stray bag from almost anywhere not being correctly coded.
• The x-ray operator at Frankfurt x-rayed whatever was in the anomalous tray, and saw nothing untoward, even though he was on specific alert for bombs disguised as Toshiba radiocassette recorders.
• No sighting of anything described as a brown or bronze hardshell suitcase anywhere in Malta or Frankfurt or indeed before Heathrow.
• The entire Malta plot is verging on the brain-dead, including the easily-traceable clothes, the high chance of lost or delayed baggage, and the inexplicably early setting of the timer - it is assumed this plan, as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, simply worked by multiple strokes of incredibly good luck.

Judges operating to a political agenda and pronouncing a perverse verdict don't alter the balace of the evidence as it stands, and this is where it stands.

So yes, if anyone has more information or proof to bring forward about the Lockerbie bombing, I expect it to relate to Heathrow airport, not Malta. Whether the authorities would ever let such information into the public domain is another story though, as they are heavily invested in the Malta fantasy - even conclusive proof that Gadaffi personally ordered his agents to put the bomb on board at Heathrow could be something they would fight to cover up.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The obvious question arises, looking at the above, "how did that happen?" With "that" of course being the singleminded concentration of the investigation on the Maltese fantasy, while steadfastly ignoring the Heathrow evidence.

I can't explain it. ALL that Heathrow evidence was in the hands of the police by about March 1989. They had no other leads at all at that time. But they appear not to have followed this up, preferring to base the investigation on the theory that the bomb must have come from Frankfurt because the bulk of the luggage (75-80%) in the container was from the feeder flight (and, ironically from the point of view of Bunntamas's position, because Jibril's group was at that time the prime suspects, and they were based in Frankfurt).

Then in August, when the bizarre computer printout surfaced, they became irrationally convinced that the anomalous tray B4489 must have contained the bomb, in spite of a great deal of evidence emerging that it was extremely unlikely to have been anything of the sort. Singleminded concentration on this theory from then on led, eventually, to Megrahi being fingered as a suspect 18 months later.

PhantomWolf had an observation in another thread, which is also highly relevant to this case. He was replying to the question "why do cops like to frame people?"

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I don't think that it is a case of liking to frame people. I believe that they genuinely believe that the person is guilty, in fact they believe it so much, that soon the only evidence that they can see either fits, or is made to fit the puzzle and as such further confirms their belief.

We see it a lot in the CT crowds, evidence is weighted with the bias of the viewer and even evidence that totally opposes the beliefs of the viewer are twisted about in such a way that they can be fitted into the narrative to support the beliefs.

Apparently once upon a time when gold was found in streams and many flocked to find their fortune, it was noted that as a prospector became more convinced that there was a vein of gold nearby he would switch from a position of looking for evidence of a vein being there to one where everything he looked at became evidence of the vein being there. This was termed "marrying the vein." This seems to be built into us and as scientists and skeptics we have to fight very hard against it, as even what we believe get skewed by our own beliefs and biases.

Unfortunately because it seems to be an inbuilt thing, all us humans suffer from it, including Policemen and Prosecutors. Also unfortunately, it would seem that in some cases there are people in these jobs who are willing to take shortcuts or push the results in the direction of their beliefs, after all, if you believe with absolute certainty that someone is guilty, where is the harm in pushing a DNA result, or covering up contamination, or planting a bullet casing that will shore up a poor prosecution. The person is clearly, in your mind, guilty, so a bit of extra help for the jury will help them out and get the guilty party off the street and in jail where they belong, especially when there is a lot of pressure to perform and get the person that did it.

Of course the harm comes when a person is in fact innocent and the police/prosecutor's beliefs have prevented them from seeing what might be obvious to a fresh set of eyes. Unfortunately this doesn't happen except for a few high profile cases, and often the legal system just carries on through the motions refusing to look outside the box that the prosecution built.

[....] As such, even if the court does say “Not Guilty” this time around, you can be sure that the prosecution and police will still declare that they had it right and that the Appeals Court got it wrong.

That was talking about the Meredith Kercher murder of course, where there is an appeal before the court at the moment. However I think the Lockerbie situation is another example of PhantomWolf's point. Not only the investigators and the prosecution, but the judges, became "married to the vein" of the Malta ingestion theory - latterly, I believe, because it had had so much publicity and so much was riding on this being the correct solution to the crime. As PhantomWolf observed, they refused to look outside the box the prosecution presented.

I think they're still married to that vein, to the point that even if Jalil or Kusa or whoever was able to provide incontrovertible proof of a particular terrorist (Libyan, Palestinian, whatever) introducing the bomb at Heathrow, it would be handwaved away.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

An extraordinarily good article has been published today on this issue. The Plot Thinnens.

Quote:

Three main elements to theses shenanigans have thus far emerged into the public domain: Abdel-Jalil’s ‘evidence’ of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, what Mr Koussa may know about it, and finally, the recent attempts of a British lawyer to persuade the rebel leaders to incriminate Libya for involvement in a range of terrorist activities.

From the earliest days of the Libyan rebellion, Abdel-Jalil claimed that he had incontrovertible proof that Mr al-Megrahi had done the deed and that Colonel Gaddafi had been behind it. This, of course, generated much enthusiasm in Westminster as it provided a moral platform for the military action. Then on April Fools Day no less, we were treated to the stunning revelation from Abdel-Jalil that his proof amounted to no more than the fact that he knew that Colonel Gaddafi had supported Mr al-Megrahi throughout his incarceration.

Oh dear. [....]

If The National Transitional Council and the reports in the press are to be believed, the story seems to be the following. Abdel-Jalil reveals that his proof of Gaddafi’s involvement in Lockerbie turns out to be nothing more than an embarrassing joke. It is also likely that Moussa Koussa has added little or nothing to bolster the Zeist conviction of Mr al-Megrahi, something which was doubtless known all along. So, what to do? The National Transitional Council rebels have presented the UK and others with the best opportunity in years to give Gaddafi a bloody nose and get their hands on the Libyan mineral wealth, unfortunately however, they are in a desperate situation. Solution: kill two birds with one stone. Send in McCue to promise them that we will do everything we can to free up Libyan assets abroad thus allowing them to get hold of much needed essentials just so long as they sign a document admitting that Libya was responsible for Lockerbie and other sins. And the person doing the signing, of course, is the very man who has just recently demonstrated publicly that he has no actual proof that Gaddafi or al-Megrahi were in fact behind Lockerbie. [....]

This really is by far the best article I have seen on the current Libya situation as it pertains to the Lockerbie investigation. It's long, but it's very well worth a read.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I swear I heard on the radio this morning that Jalil had given a sworn statement asserting that Gadaffi had "personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing". I thought they were presenting new news, but since then, not a cheep. I couldn't find it on the BBC web site.

My reaction was that he could give a sworn statement asserting to anything he damn well pleased, but that was hardly evidence. And that if all he could come out with as evidence was that Gadaffi looked after Megrahi and his family while he was in jail, then it wasn't very impressive.

But I'm now beginnig to wonder if I completely misheard.

Rolfe.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I swear I heard on the radio this morning that Jalil had given a sworn statement asserting that Gadaffi had "personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing". I thought they were presenting new news, but since then, not a cheep. I couldn't find it on the BBC web site.

My reaction was that he could give a sworn statement asserting to anything he damn well pleased, but that was hardly evidence. And that if all he could come out with as evidence was that Gadaffi looked after Megrahi and his family while he was in jail, then it wasn't very impressive.

But I'm now beginnig to wonder if I completely misheard.

Rolfe.

No, you didn't mishear it:

Quote:

A tabloid in Sweden quotes a former Justice Minister of Libya in alleging that Moammar Gaddafi personally ordered the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people in the air and on the ground in Scotland. Mustafa Abdel-Jalil also says that Gaddafi demanded the return of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in order to keep the cover-up in place.

But yes, as of now, no real evidence to back this up.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/2...on-pan-am-103/

[Rolfe]

Oh dear.

Quote:

posted at 10:55 am on February 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

If that's all you can find, then I must have misheard. Please consult the OP of this thread, and note the date. Also note the intervening 100-post discussion, particularly the revelations of 1st April.

Jalil said on 23rd February that he had evidence that Gadaffi ordered the bombing. He provided no details, but the press went into a feeding frenzy, and Wildcat started this thread. On 1st April he revealed that his killer evidence was proof that Gadaffi had spent a lot of money supporting Megrahi and his family while he was in jail, and on attempts to have him repatriated to Libya. Which of course was common knowledge and had been all along. The press, for some inexplicable reason, ignored this completely.

What I thought I heard this morning was that Jalil had signed some sort of affidavit, presumably late yesterday if it was hitting the morning news bulletins, again swearing that he knew Gadaffi had ordered the bombing.

I must have been mistaken.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Funny. Ian Bell seems to imply the same thing, but I still can't find a primary source.

Quote:

Meanwhile, our old friend Mustafa Abdul Jalil is back in business with a “sworn statement” – worth all the paper it was written on – to (oddly) the English Bar’s Human Rights Committee. Once again he offers to prove that, as to Lockerbie, Gaddafi did it, with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi as his one and only instrument.

No proof as yet – yet again – however. Instead, the assertion, hardly a secret in any case, that the Colonel recompensed al-Megrahi with quantities of money. In Jalil’s previous version, as I recall, this was “a slush fund”, offered up not for lawyers and such, but under the threat that the lone agent would spill the beans.

There's some very weird manoeuvring going on here.

Rolfe.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by WildCat

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...81da8fddbf2b6b

Also:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...1298471859869A

Lots more interesting things may come to light about Libya's involvement in supporting terrorism once Moammar is gone.

This is why he will no longer be head of Libya.

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It seems that Bunntamas is asking again for the evidence that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. Rolfe.

Bunntamas is asking for nothing from you. Please stop making insinuations upon Bunntamas' comments.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas

Bunntamas is asking for nothing from you. Please stop making insinuations upon Bunntamas' comments.

Are you going to actually the address the evidence? And why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Are you going to actually the address the evidence?

If you're referring to the CTs spewed here, which are deemed by CTers as "evidence", no. I don't consider it evidence, nor worth addressing, outside of kicks and giggles comments I choose to make about said non-evidence here & there.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

What / why do you care how I talk about myself (in first or third person)? Nitpick / derail much?

~B

[Architect]

Bunnttamas, do you intend to bring any substantive discussion to the forum at some stage or just hand-wave away clear problems regarding the evidence for conviction? You've been wholly unable to address very detailed points put to you beyond claiming that they are conspiracy theories, all the while using language such as "spewed" and "giggles". It's hard to see your position as anything other than an emotional response (albeit that there are good reasons for that, in your case) and I really don't see what you hope to achieve other than making it clear that you think the word "conviction" is some sort of magic spell.

[Rolfe]

I've been very disappointed by the quality of the discussion on this issue, in many respects. If it's so self-evident that Megrahi carried out the bombing, it should be possible for someone who believes that to present the case in a rational manner. Nobody has stepped forward to do that. There isn't even an Amanda Knox level of discourse.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem is the extraordinarily one-sided nature of the evidence - there just isn't anything to discuss, once you've taken the facts on board. There's no rational case to be made for believing that Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the clothes purchaser is anywhere close to "beyond reasonable doubt", and that's before you even start on the evidence that he wasn't anywhere near Gauci's shop on the day the clothes appear to have been sold.

There are three expert witness reports in existence, all rubbishing the idea that Tony either did or could have picked out the real customer after a gap of over ten years. There are no expert witness reports supporting the identification, and I don't expect one to be produced. It's ridiculous.

If anything about this case is a conspiracy theory, it's the proposition that the bomb suitcase was somehow magically introduced at Malta that morning, not only without being spotted at the time, but without anyone being able to find any evidence of that after the event. Of course, if the bomb wasn't introduced at Malta at all, but elsewhere (Heathrow), we then have to concede that Megrahi actually had an alibi for the crime.

Considering that there is no other evidence at all linking him to the Lockerbie bombing, that seems to be that. All we're left with is the perverse "we see a pattern here, therefore guilty" verdict - and even that is fatally undermined by the SCCRC report, as yet untested in court, meaning that the case was never allowed to complete its passage through the legal process.

So to relate this back to the original issue of Jalil's assertions, then the whole thing is nonsense. Jalil claims to have evidence to show that Gadaffi was behind something that didn't actually happen. Then when he reveals this evidence, it turns out to be irrelevancies that everybody knew about already.

And suddenly nobody wants to discuss it any more.

Rolfe.

[Bunntamas]

Originally Posted by Architect

Bunnttamas, do you intend to bring any substantive discussion to the forum at some stage or just hand-wave away clear problems regarding the evidence for conviction? You've been wholly unable to address very detailed points put to you beyond claiming that they are conspiracy theories, all the while using language such as "spewed" and "giggles". It's hard to see your position as anything other than an emotional response (albeit that there are good reasons for that, in your case) and I really don't see what you hope to achieve other than making it clear that you think the word "conviction" is some sort of magic spell.

I tried when I first joined JREF to address specific points. here and here and here and many other places in forums on JREF (which I have finally decided I have neither the time nor interest any more, to engage in the over and over again reguritation of the same nonsensical CTs, as you all do). Above are just a few of my earlier attempts at failed consideration for what I thought would be cordial conversation about this topic. Yet my comments, from the get go, were "handwaved", as you say e.g. here (I especially like the accusation of me CTing on that one - Pot calling the kettle black? HA! And here and here . And heaven forbid, we not acknowledge the epitomy of hand waving that went on around Robert Black's total LIES in front of Parliament, no less about the pouring rain on the date of purchase of clothing.
As I said, THere are a LOT more posts here on JREF, for those who choose to parse through all the past posts by me, and handwaving (repetitive walls of text for years on end with ZERO result / productivity outside of filling JREF's Conspiracy Theroies fourms - which, again, do not equal REAL EVIDENCE, PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW, AT ORIGINAL CLAIM AND AT APPEAL RESULTING IN A GUILTY VERTICT. And spare me the SCCRC, which has resulted in little more than JREF Forum CTs as well.

I have little desire / time to spend on re-hashing, as you all seem to have. But once in awhile, I pop in to post a "wall of text" as one of you seems to have time to do on a daily baisis.

So, in conclusion, please don't accuse me of not presenting detailed points and "handwaving", just because (after years of repeating yourselves and running out of your silly material you begged me to do so ) I tried a few times to post some detail, and then gave up on your sad and baseless CTs and hand waving. It's time for you to stop begging in your off handed / slap in the face manner for more material from me. It is obvious from the reptitive posts of photos and same old stuff that you have nothing, and no one is listening to you, nor reading your blather. And I have no intent on contributing to said blather.

BUt guess what. Those who mater; they're listining to the families. Too bad you're not privy to that. Justice and truth has an interesting way of making itself known in the universe. Too bad for you that universe does not include silly little CTs posted over and over again on JREF.

CHEERS.

~B.

[quixotecoyote]

Just to save Rolfe the trouble posting the same stuff yet again:

That's not a positive case for your side.
Rehashing the fact that he was found guilty does nothing for you.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Posted By:Locknar

[Rolfe]

First link of Bunntamas's is to a post claiming that Megrahi had refused treatment for his prostate cancer. That cannot be evidence of guilt in any case. However, it turned out to be reference to a particular day when he refused to see a particular doctor for a particular reason, because he was pissed-off with the way the justice system was treating him. As someone posted in reply "prisoner wants out of prison: shock revelation!"

Second link is about the handling of the application for compassionate release, and seems to have no relevance to the evidence on the case.

Third link is to a long post mainly going on again about the circumstances in 2009. The only piece of evidence relating to the case is the link to the CIA cable which wasn't even considered reliable enough to present in court, by a prosecution that was desperate enough to present Giaka for God's sake! That cable details an allegation by an informant that Megrahi travelled to London with the bomb suitcase and armed the device at Heathrow. We know he didn't do that. The whole thing is simply made up in the hope of netting the $4 million reward that was on offer at the time the allegation was made.

The fourth link is to a post of mine where I deal with Bunntamas's assertion that she believes the Malta ingestion of the bag could have happened despite no evidence ever being found for that by investigators desperate to find such - and in fact "considerable and quite compelling evidence that that could not have happened". She began from a false premise, that Libyan Arab Airlines was in charge of security at Luqa airport, and continued with a completely skewed and unrealistic impression of Maltese people in general. It was a detailed rebuttal, but to Bunntamas it's "handwaving" so she doesn't have to address it. I repeat, asserting that a large number of ordinary Maltese people were involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify records wholesale in order to expedite and cover up an atrocity by Libyan agents is a conspiracy theory.

Next link is just to Caustic Logic talking about updating his blog.

Last one is to a detailed rebuttal of that CIA cable I posted.

So it comes back to that single cable which is obviously a complete fabrication because it describes something that is known not to have happened. As I said, it wasn't even deemed credible enough to form part of the evidence led in court. And an assertion that a bomb could have been introduced at Malta if the entire Maltese ground staff were in the pay of Libya and falsified all the documentation. And did it so well that no discrepancy was ever discovered despite extraordinarily intense scrutiny, and not a single one of these devoutly Catholic westerners ever cracked and blew apart the conspiracy.

If that's the sum total of the evidence Bunntamas is basing her belief system on, no, I'm not impressed I have to say.

Rolfe.

[Bunntamas]

Never mind. SO not worth it.

[Architect]

Bunntamas, I've not taken a side in this argument particularly beyond pointing out that there are, on a fair reading, some serious questions around the quality of the evidence presented in the court.

I therefore hope that you'll listyed to me when I say that your conduct here - and in the injured tone of your most recent post - are in appropriate. You've failed to produce anything like a cogent, argued reply. Simply referring to the guilty verdict, of accusing those you argue with as "spewing" or conspiracy theorists is simply unhelpful. Likewise your rubbishing of anyone who disagrees with the US authorities - Black, Swire - suggests a lack of critical anaylsis that ill behoves an educated person.

As I've said before, if you're not prepared to debate the matter in a productive and appropriate manner then you should desist - for your own peace and mind, if nothing else. You're wasting your time here.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas

[PLFP-GC, Ahmed Jibril acting] in cooperation with the Libyans, including Megrahi.

See thats plausible. Libya had an axe to grind against the West, they did indeed have a motive to carry out the attack.

There's no evidence to support that though. If there was better evidence supporting a link between Libya and PA103 why wasn't it brought up at the Zeist trial. Or why has it not come to light in the subsequent years since the trial?

Quote:

If there is so much less evidence toward Megrahi (presented in a court of law, resulting in a guilty verdict), and so much more toward others, where is it??? (outside of CTs - which is NOT evidence).

In many threads that are in the CT forum we've carefully looked through all of the evidence we can find. There's a report on the accident from aircraft investigators. There are transcipts of the trial. There are photographs and reports from forensic scientists. There's a big pile of evidence. Sticking your fingers in your ears and wailing that it's baseless conspiracy theory becuase the discussion is in a subforum labelled 'Conspiracy Theories' doesn't make it not evidence.

Arguing that because Megrah was convicted so he must have had something to do with it is just a very poor argument. There have been cases of miscarriages of justice, some of them high profile cases.

Quote:

Where's your "evidence" (REAL evidence, not repeated for years on end CT blatherings in forums and blogs and dead end JFM petitioning) that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow????

The discussion about that is in the appropriate thread in the CT forum.



I'd like to see this new Jalil evidence. Sounds to me as though it's just (more) politically spun nonsense and newspaper hypemongering.

I think that if Megrahi did have anything to do with it he was at best a behind the scenes facilitator type, if Libya was involved at all. There's evidence to suggest that because around this time that Libya pulled it's funding from the coffers of the PFLP-GC that Jibril went looking for a new employer, and Iran paid him to blow PA103 out of the sky.

There remains vanishingly little evidence that Libya was involved at all, beyond having the motive, and presumably the means, to do so. All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change that.

I have a very hard time believing Libya has a hand in the bombing though on the basis of what the evidence shows thus far. Jalil is going to have to pull some extraordinary rabbits out of somewhere to support his extraordinary claims.

[Rolfe]

Ambrosia, Jalil was on TV (Newsnight) and spilled the beans, a couple of weeks ago. His killer evidence that Gadaffi ordered the bombing seems to be confined to proof that he spent a lot of money supporting Megrahi while he was in jail, and tried very hard to get him repatriated to Libya.

That really does seem to be it. It just didn't get reported, I suspect because it was too embarrassing after all the headlines his original claims had sparked off.

He knows that the UK and US governments are extremely keen that the charade that Libya was behind that atrocity should not be exploded. He knows that one of the things that's desired from the current Libyan unrest is that somehow proof should appear that has been lacking up to now. He knows that anyone who produces such proof (fabricated or not) will earn the good graces of these governments.

He wants into the good graces of these governments. And that was the best he could come up with.

Rolfe.