Week 1: The start of the Lockerbie
Trial was heralded not by intelligent comments from learned counsel as
you might normally expect, but by a blast of carefully-orchestrated
emotion from the western media. Any concept of "media balance" fell by
the wayside as network vied with network to gain the most brownie points
from the lobbies. Winner for the week was probably an Australian
reporter who not only managed to interview four weeping relatives of the
dead, but then went on to state the two Libyans were "...on trial for
placing explosives on an Air Malta flight". No "allegedly" about it.
This was a defining moment in the Lockerbie Trial, which is not about
guilt or innocence at the public level, but about the media's ability to
work miracles with the human mind on behalf of the lobbies. Over the
year to come we can confidently expect every dirty trick the media can
muster, designed to finally convince readers that the Libyans must have
done the job, regardless of the findings of the Scottish judges. If the
Scottish judges find "Not Guilty" or "Not Proven", we will then be
bombarded with shrieks of outrage from the western media, and shrill
demands for a retrial.
There is simply too much at stake to allow the Libyans to fly home with
a pat on the back, and a "thank you" for agreeing to turn up at Camp
Zeist in the first place. Those readers who have managed to research the
real scientific evidence on Lockerbie, will already be aware that most
of it points towards America and Israel, rather than towards Libya and
Syria. This of course raises the prospect of Zionist terrorists being
directly responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103, a shocking though
realistic scenario the media will sweep under the carpet in seconds.
One of the most disturbing events this week was the defence (allegedly)
stating the two Libyans knew ten people connected with the bombing, and
would name them. Hopefully this was yet another media distortion which
omitted the critical word "thought they knew ten people..." Certainly
back in 1996 the Libyan suspects knew nothing of these people at all,
and it would be reassuring if their legal defence team would make this
important point very clear to media observers.
Finally this week, the biggest threat to the entire concocted Lockerbie
story came not from within the Court itself, but from Swiss company MEBO
AG. On Tuesday MEBO quietly posted a report stating it had sent a
16-page report to the Scottish Crown Office/Lord Advocate, proving that
the explosion which destroyed Pan Am 103 was not in a Samsonite suitcase
as claimed, but "directly on the [fuselage] skin" of the Boeing 747. The
author first researched this harsh scientific reality and reported it to
a senior British Member of Parliament, before publishing detailed
findings in the Australian Strategy newspaper during September 1999. A
condensed version of my original report can be read on this website
under "Setting Up The Libyans, Page Two".
Week 2 This week it was the turn of police officers present at
the Pan Am 103 crash site to give evidence to the Scottish Court at Camp
Zeist. Things are certainly not going the way the prosecution would have
liked, which is probably why the western mainstream media has discreetly
avoided reporting trial progress this week.
Scottish Detective Gilchrist conceded that not every piece of evidence
[recovered from the crash site] could be properly labeled, the task was
simply too huge. Defence lawyer Richard Keen questioned Gilchrist about
a police label attached to a piece of cloth, and circuit board.
Detective Gilchrist confirmed the writing on the label was his own, then
became visibly upset when shown an enlarged photo of the label, which
revealed the description [on the label] had been altered from "cloth" to
"debris", in violation of the law and police procedures.
The team of defence lawyers is demonstrating, in no uncertain terms, how
determined it is to prove the innocence of the two indicted Libyans. The
forethought and attention to detail shown in the case of this single
evidence label, proves that little (if any) forged American "evidence"
will be allowed at the Lockerbie trial.
By Thursday the defence had effectively dispatched so many witnesses,
the prosecution felt obliged to ask for an adjournment while it arranged
the next phase of its attack, comprising mainly technical evidence. The
prosecution's request for an adjournment was grudgingly granted by the
presiding judge, and the trial will recommence on the morning of 23 May
Week 4: There was no week three.
After being adjourned for twelve days, the Lockerbie trial recommenced
at Camp Zeist on Tuesday 23 May, but only for a little while. Problems
with special equipment used to relay instant transcription to screens,
forced an adjournment till Wednesday.
Once again police officers were interviewed about procedures used to
search the crash site, and once again confirmed they had no specialist
knowledge for this task, although forensic scientists had briefed them
on what to look for, in particular "any sign of printed circuit boards."
On Thursday 25 May, Senior Air Accident Board (AAIB) Inspector
Christopher Protheroe, delivered a bombshell to the Court. Mr Protheroe
was obliged to admit that on the previous Monday he had advised
prosecution lawyers that a complex formula used to calculate blast wave
effects after an initial explosion [Mach Stem Effect], had been
incorrectly applied in the official 1990 AAIB report on the crash of Pan
Am 103. This was a potentially catastrophic admission for the team of
prosecutors, who claim the bomb was concealed in a suitcase in a baggage
container, at least 25 inches inboard of the fuselage skin.
Put briefly, "Mach Stem Effect" is created when the incident shock wave
from a blast collides with the reflected shock wave, in combination
creating an increase in overpressure greater than the incident shock
wave by itself. Protheroe admitted the correct calculation showed a
maximum distance from the fuselage skin for this shock wave collision
not at 25 inches, but 12 inches, i.e. the bomb could not have been in
the baggage container, but was close against the fuselage skin itself.
This latter reality was reported by the author during mid-1999, with a
condensed version of the text shown here on this website in "Setting Up
Libya for the Lockerbie Bombing". This crucial AAIB admission has the
potential to destroy the case against the Libyan accused.
There was then another adjournment until Tuesday 30 May, brought about
by the need to display the complete reconstructed baggage container in
the Court. The container is too large to pass through the door into the
Court, so will probably have to be taken apart and reassembled inside -
hence the delay.
The trial was completely overshadowed this week by breaking news that
the Deputy Director of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, was formerly a
high-ranking member of the British external intelligence service SIS,
commonly referred to as "MI6". Professor Andrew Fulton, former MI6 Head
of Station in Washington, DC, was exposed in a Sunday Herald report on
21 May, and did not deny the claim. Since then Professor Fulton has been
dismissed from the Lockerbie Trial Unit, which has now lost all
credibility as an "impartial" body providing information to the media
about Lockerbie and Pan Am 103.
Deliberate interference by MI6 should come as no great surprise to
anyone, with its known close links to the CIA. Furthermore, like the
CIA, MI6 was long ago deeply penetrated by agents of the State of
Israel, prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. This was commented on
earlier by the author in the investigation into WPC Yvonne Fletcher's
murder outside the Libyan Embassy during 1984.
Week 5: The trial opened this week with the damaged baggage
container from Pan Am 103 displayed in the courtroom. The reconstructed
container is important in determining the guilt or otherwise of the two
accused Libyans. If 100% proof exists that the bomb was inside the
container, there may be a case to continue the trial. However, if
reasonable doubt exists over the actual location of the bomb, then the
two Libyans effectively have no case to answer.
Air Accident Investigations Branch inspector Peter Clayton, described
how he found a small fragment of circuit board "wedged into a warped
metal tag used to identify the manufacturers of the aluminium
container". In further evidence, Clayton said a fairly cursory
examination of a data plate [the manufacturer's identification plate]
from the aluminium container revealed "debris lodged in a fold."
Clayton's evidence, like Protheroe's in week four, is crucial. The
manufacturers' data plate is positioned on the outside of these baggage
containers, meaning that if it had been literally "wedged into the
warped metal tag", the explosion must have occurred outside the baggage
container, in order to drive the fragment of circuit board into the data
plate. If the explosion has occurred inside the container, the fragment
of circuit board would have been driven into the inside aluminium wall
of the container, behind the manufacturer's data plate. Clayton's
evidence does not appear to support the prosecution claim that the bomb
was inside the container, but contradicts it.
For absolute clarity here, we need to know whether the fragment was
"wedged into" the side of the plate with writing on it, i.e. the
outside, or on the reverse, i.e the inside. Professor Peel of the
government Defence Research and Investigation Agency (DERA), told the
court how he had applied algebraic equations to data describing damage
to the aircraft fuselage, to determine the location and weight of the
bomb. Prof Peel claimed that only a unique combination of charge size
and distance could have caused the damage he observed. While Peel is
right to claim that only a "unique combination of charge size and
distance" could have caused the damage, there is no hard evidence that
his personal interpretation is the correct one.
In this regard, defence lawyer Richard Keen, QC, told Professor Peel
"you have not simply developed an analytical model, but gone back and
altered your view of the facts to apply that analytical model." Prof
Peel denied Keen's suggestion.
Week 6: Judges at the trial in Camp Zeist have decided to ignore
claims from Iranian defector Ahmad Behbahani that he ordered the bombing
of Pan Am 103 in 1988, using Syrians and Libyans to do the job. A worthy
decision by the judges. At the time of the Lockerbie crash, Behbahni had
just celebrated his 20th birthday. A trifle too young to be the
mastermind of Iranian Intelligence..
This week, British agencies tasked with the scientific evaluation of the
Lockerbie crash site and debris, confirmed their appalling track record
of failing to properly test vital components of "the bomb", or what they
claim was the bomb. Scientist John Douse of DERA admitted that scraps
from "the bomb's electronic timer or the tape player and suitcase it was
allegedly found in", were not tested for explosives residue.
How very convenient! Scraps of metal from the baggage container alleged
to have housed the bomb apparently showed minute traces of explosive
compounds "sometimes used in the manufacture of Semtex." The explosive
substances named were RDX and PETN. Most readers will appreciate that
fragments from the container walls would show traces of explosives,
whether the bomb was positioned inside or outside the container.
With its credibility in tatters, the prosecution resorted to the old
"Screened Witness" trick, allowing two CIA operatives to appear behind a
curtain, their voices screened electronically. Kenneth Steiner and
Warren Clemens explained how they had examined a briefcase seized in
Dakar during February 1986 which included electronic timers. Then it was
the turn of the BATF. Agents Richard Sherwood and Edward Owen described
examining a captured arms cache in Togo, which also included electronic
Photographs of the Dakar and Togo timers shown to the court showed the
lettering "MST-13", the batch number allocated by Swiss firm MEBO AG to
its own series of electronic timing devices! So what? Unless and until
those arrested and charged for "carrying" the timers appear at Camp
Zeist (which I assure you will not happen), this entire episode can be
put down as intelligence agency manipulation of the Scottish Court.
Next week the court will probably be packed, and the prosecution
extremely nervous. On Tuesday the Chairman of Swiss company MEBO AG,
Edwin Bollier, is due to appear to give evidence. He will be carrying a
load of extremely credible evidence proving that the bomb on Pan Am 103
was positioned next to the fuselage skin, and not in the baggage
container as claimed by the prosecution.
Most of Bollier's claims have the written backing of Professor Hitmar
Schubert, of the Fraunhofer Institute in Munich, Germany. Prof Schubert
is a world expert in this area, and the Fraunhofer Institute's principal
client is the German Federal Defence Ministry. Mr Bollier has written a
report detailing his latest claims on Pam Am 103, and posted it on the
internet. Those interested can read his report here.
Also this week, Maltese journalist Joe Mifsud posted an authenticated
copy of a warning telex circulated by Interpol on 15 November 1988, just
weeks before the bombing of Pan Am 103. The author has written a report
based on this telex, explaining that the bomb mentioned by Interpol was
Week 7: DERA scientist Alan Feraday
presented the Court with a "reconstructed" bomb based on black Toshiba
RT SF 16 Bombeat radio cassette. This despite the fact that under
cross-examination by defence counsel Keene, Feraday concurred that his
original notes specified a white Toshiba 8016 or 8026 type cassette
recorder. Mr Keene paid particular attention to Feraday's earlier
"expert" tesimony in the case of R v Berry, where the guilty verdict was
subsequently reversed on appeal, and the term "dogmatic" used in
reference to Feraday's evidence.
Feraday's "reconstructed bomb" highlights the flawed way in which the
prosecution intents to convict the Libyan accused. Not by use of hard
scientific evidence, but by a series of mind-games and charades. Most
readers would assume "reconstructed bomb" means the actual components of
a real bomb put back together again, after proper testing for explosive
residue etc. So far as the Oxford Dictionary is concerned, the reader
would be correct in his or her assumption, but that is far from the case
where Mr Feraday's "bomb" is concerned.
In reality, Mr Feraday manufactured a "simulated bomb" based on
guesswork, containing not a shred of the original material allegedly
recovered from the crash site at Lockerbie. He claims to have managed
this after "examining" several plastic pieces recovered from the site,
and scraps of paper said to have been part of a Toshiba instruction
manual, also recovered from the crash site.
So were the fragments Feraday "examined" properly tested for explosives
residue in order to establish a scientific connection to his claims?
Well, no they were not! This is pure Alice in Wonderland stuff, so far
removed from scientific reality that the Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency in Kent, UK, should be closed forthwith.
Late in the week Erwin Meister, the co- founding member of MEBO AG ,
confirmed knowing Said Rashid and Ezzadin Hinshri [cited in the
indictment] and further confirmed MEBO supplied them with approximately
20 MST-13 timing devices. Meister also identified the first accused,
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Mr Meiser clarified a number of points
on the sale and distribution of MST-13 timers, including a number to the
East German Stasi.
The prosecution asked Meister if his co-founder Mr Edwin Bollier had
visited Libya during 1993. Mr Meister claimed this as true, and that the
trip was regarding a loan of 1.8 million Swiss francs. However, the
alleged loan was never made. MEBO co-founder Mr Edwin Bollier will take
the stand next week.
Week 8: MEBO co-founder Mr Meister continued testimony, and after
identifying Mr Al Megrahi as a former business contact, repeated several
times that his memory was poor and getting worse. Mr Meister agreed his
identification of Al Megrahi might have resulted from press photos
rather than his own recollections. Under cross examination, Meister
admitted he had not earlier mentioned a business trip to Syria in 1984,
during which he unsuccessfully attempted to sell telephone equipment.
Apparently the defence is focusing on this obscure point because it
wishes to prove the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine-General Command (PLFP-GC), then based in Syria, and another
Palestinian group, was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103.
This is an extremely reckless defence approach. Just as it is impossible
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the Libyan accused are guilty, it is
equally impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that members of the
PLFP-GC are guilty. Readers might like to speculate on who instructed
defence solicitors to take this hazardous course of action, which in the
end will at least "point the finger" at one Arab state or another, using
the same fatally flawed evidence provided by current US prison inmate
Lester Coleman, alias Thomas Leavy.
Edwin Bollier, the second founding member of MEBO, provided general
background company details, and later stated his company fitted
briefcases with the technology to radio-detonate remote controlled
bombs. Based on Swiss Telekom and Motorola pagers, these devices were
sold to the East German Stasi. This simple confirmation made the
national news in Australia, where there has been a total black-out since
the start of the Lockerbie trial. But oh how the facts were changed
before they hit the television screens here! According to a national
Australian network, MEBO admitted selling briefcase radio detonators to
the Libyans, one of which was then used to destroy Pan Am 103!
Blatantly manipulated reportage of this kind has been commonplace in the
Lockerbie Case since 1988, showing very clearly who is really trying to
convict the Libyans, or Syrians, or perhaps the Iranians. At no time has
the Australian media mentioned the realistic probability that the
Israelis and Americans ordered and conducted the operation. Like used
car salesmen with only three models in stock, the media has already
demonstrated its willful intent to ensure that one of these three "Dirty
Ayrab" states will act as "fall guy" for the 270 dead at Lockerbie.
On Tuesday Mr Bollier confirmed MEBO sold electronic timers to the
Libyans. In 1985 he visited Tripoli to deliver 20 such custom-made
devices. Mr Bollier told the court he later saw the timers being tested
at the special forces training area at Sabha, Libya, and told the court:
"I was present when two such timers were included in bomb cylinders."
The 62-year-old added: "They were military aircraft bombs." This caused
a bit of a stir among members of the media down here in Australia,
because "Aircraft Bombs" sounded just like the bomb on Pan Am 103.
Wrong! The devices in question were free-fall bombs of the kind carried
and dropped from the bomb bays or wing pylons of military aircraft.
On a more serious note, Mr Bollier claimed that the fragments of MST-13
timer shown to him in the Camp Zeist Court, had been altered since he
was first allowed to examine them in Scotland during September 1999.
During that visit Mr Bollier was considerably concerned that his lawyer
was barred by authorities from viewing the evidence at the same time,
thus preventing corroboration at the time of examination. "They [the
fragments] have been modified, I swear they have been modified,'' Mr
Bollier told the Court at Camp Zeist, adding his firm did not
necessarily supply the timer, and the fragments could have come from
Bollier did identify the two fragments as appearing to come from a
MST-13 circuit board. But he said the pieces seemed to have been burnt
since he first saw them at a Scottish police office in 1999, and one was
slightly smaller than a photo taken shortly after it was found. Mr
Bollier insisted that several versions of the fragments might be
floating about, without giving further details. The fragments he viewed
could have come from timers he sold to Libya or to East Germany or might
even be counterfeit copies since the blueprints Mebo used to make the
circuit boards had mysteriously disappeared, he said. ``It could be
counterfeit,'' Bollier said when asked where a fragment could have come
Mr Bollier confirmed several sales by MEBO to Libya in 1985 including
mobile radio equipment, timers, radio controls, Motorola receivers and
"transmitters in suitcases". Bollier said it was made clear the timers
had to be stable and heavy and able to operate over a long period of
time. He said Mebo solved the problem by creating timers which could
deal with a period of 9,999 minutes or 9,999 hours. Mr Bollier said his
MEBO technician developed the timer on the basis of the specifications
received from Tripoli. His technician produced two sample timers and
these were delivered to Libya in the summer of 1985.
Bollier claimed that only about 20 timers total were sent to Libya. The
first five were provided as samples, five were sent via the Libyan
Embassy in East Berlin and the last 10 were taken to Libya personally by
Mr Bollier. He said that the timers were for the purpose of detonating
explosive devices, and had been told Libya needed these devices because
of the Chad war. They wanted to leave explosive charges in military
camps when they left these camps.
Later in the week Mr Bollier was savaged by prosecution and defence
alike, who concentrated on a letter sent by him to the CIA in 1989. At
one stage in the proceedings Mr Bollier was accused of working for the
East German Stasi, with suggestions he sent the letter in order to
deflect attention away from the PFLG-GC, who the prosecution are trying
to prove were really responsible for the bombing on Pan Am 103. Things
are rarely as they seem at Camp Zeist, however, and a proper analysis of
the chain of events will be posted on this web site shortly. Those
interested should check the "Updates" page during the next few days.
Week 9: Former Stasi employee Joachim Wenzel claimed to have been
Mr Edwin Bollier's "handler" between 1982 and 1985, though it is
impossible to say with certainty whether Wenzel's claims are true or
false. In traditional intelligence agency fashion, Wenzel was hidden
behind a screen, his voice altered digitally to protect him. Protect him
from what exactly? Unless and until Bollier is prepared to sign a
confession stating that this man was indeed his handler, or unedited
video tapes of physical meetings between the two men are played to the
Court, "Wenzel" is just another example of unsubstantiated hearsay
evidence not admissible in a Scottish Court of Law.
Swiss firm MEBO has never tried to deny selling equipment (including
MST-13 timers) to the East Germans during this period, but as suppliers
there is no way Meister or Bollier could possibly know the end point of
their products. For example, though British MI6 purchases electronic
equipment from Marconi (UK), no-one but a fool would try to suggest
Marconi has the slightest idea where or when this equipment is used.
"Wenzel "said Bollier supplied "receivers, recognition devices,.
everything to do with radio technology," for the Stasi, including timers
with digital and rotary switch displays, plus radio equipment to listen
to NATO military broadcasts.
Radio equipment to listen to NATO military broadcasts? Shock horror!
Surely this must mean that Mr Bollier was pro-communist, anti-NATO, and
therefore not to be trusted. Yet another example of the sleazy way this
case is being conducted at the pseudo subliminal level. Just about
anyone could make a radio capable of receiving NATO military broadcasts,
including the author.
Attempting to put the boot in further, David Burns QC, for Mr Al Megrahi,
asked: "Did you suspect because of his various journeys to London and
Paris that Bollier had connections with other terrorist organizations?"
Mr Wenzel said: "We made certain assumptions because we were not sure
that possibly there were such connections but we were never able to
prove these." Mr Burns asked: "And these I think included ETA and the
IRA?" The witness replied: "Yes." Oh dear! "Wenzel" had provided more
unsubstantiated hearsay slander that Mr Bollier could not rebut, because
he had already been dismissed by the Court. It will take a great deal
more than this rubbish to draw a link between the Palestinians and Pan
The defence is currently showing all the signs of a team that has
completely lost the plot, and is endangering its clients in the process.
The defence is reminded again here that all it needs to do is show
"reasonable doubt" its clients placed a bomb on Pan Am 103. There is
currently so much doubt swilling around the Camp Zeist Courtroom, it is
truly amazing the judges have not already shut the show trial down, and
ordered the return of the two Libyans to Tripoli.
Ueli Lumpert, a former employee of MEBO, confirmed he had manufactured
MST-13 timers. He said the fragment shown to him in court "could be"
from an MST-13 timer. Initially when shown a letter dated 4 October
1993, Lumpert said he did not remember it, but confirmed his signature.
The letter states there was a technical problem with the prototype
MST-13 timers which necessitated that he worked on a Saturday to correct
the problem in 1985. It went on to say that at the beginning of 1993 Mr
Bollier began to check if there were any MST-13 circuit boards still in
the company and it was then that GDR documents were found. When asked if
he first remembered about the timers being supplied to the GDR just
before the letter in 1993, he said yes. During his evidence Lumpert
maintained that at the time of production he did not know who he was
making the timers for, but later realized they must have been for the
GDR as Bollier took them to Berlin.
At this point the pseudo subliminal nature of the Camp Zeist Court
"evidence" kicks in again. Lumpert was an employee of the Swiss firm
MEBO, an electronics engineer responsible for designing equipment to
specifications dictated by his employers Meister and Bollier. There is
absolutely no reason why Lumpert should be privy to information on end
points or end users, and it is entirely unreasonable for the prosecution
or defence to press him on this point. When these prosecution and
defence lawyers were promoted to QC, did any of them challenge higher
authority and ask "why?" Of course not, it was a management decision.
On 29 June the suspects' passports were examined. Arabic translator
Djelloul Hamaz told the court on Thursday that the passports contained
various stamps from Tripoli international Airport in December 1988.
Prosecutor Alastair Campbell QC pointed out a green-colored stamp in Mr
Fhimah's passport which he said suggested the defendant had traveled
through Tripoli airport on 18 December, 1988 - three days before the
explosion. Other stamps showed movements on 20 and 29 December. The
court was also shown a passport in the name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad,
which the indictment alleges was a false name used by Al Megrahi.
Pseudo subliminal again. Of what relevance are the movements of the two
Libyans to the bombing of Pan Am 103? None, of course. Even if both
accused flew from Tripoli to Malta on the day of the bombing, in
isolation this information is worthless. What the prosecution is trying
to replicate is a procedure much-loved in Australian courts: Stitch the
defendants up with a chain of unconnected and uncorroborated events,
sufficient to swamp the judges and make them see it "their way". It is
perhaps fortunate the Libyans are on trial in a Scottish Court of Law,
where tricks like these are simply not permitted. The trial is now
adjourned until 12 July to allow the Crown time to consider the
precognitions of the additional witnesses contained within a list lodged
by the Defence.
Week 11: At the start of this week, MEBO AG lawyer Dieter Neubert
(Neubert & Partners, Zurich), filed an official criminal complaint
against the Crown in the Lockerbie case for falsification of evidence.
In his letter to the Office of the Procurator Fiscal, Mr Neubert accuses
the Crown of using a forged fragment of an alleged [MEBO] MST-13 timer.
Full details of the letter will be released in due course, but Mr
Nuebert has apparently also accused the Crown of having manipulated and
disfigured the alleged timer in order to obscure the true shape and
colour of the fragment, in order to prevent accurate identification.
Readers may remember that during late 1999, Mr Edwin Bollier of MEBO was
finally allowed to view the alleged MST-13 timer fragment in Scotland,
and found the colour was not the same as that shown in photos presented
to him during 1991. Mr Bollier was so concerned that he made a further
statement detailing the irregularities, which were also noted at that
time by the Procurator Fiscal, and by a Scottish Police Detective
From the outset, the Crown really only had two straws to grasp at in
terms of a "credible" prosecution. First there was the famous timer
fragment, now doubly in doubt because of alleged Crown forensic
tampering, and the dismissal of the FBI's top man for "tampering with
evidence" in cases which may have included Lockerbie.
The second straw is the now-famous media beat-up about a Maltese
shopkeeper positively identifying one of the two Libyan accused at Camp
Zeist. According to the mainstream media, prodded on ruthlessly by the
Israeli Lobbies, Tony Gauci of "Mary's House" in Malta, positively
identified defendant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi during 1989 as the
man who bought baby clothes from his store. As is customary in all
matters concerning the "National Security" of the State of Israel, this
media story was a complete and utter lie.
Tony and Paul Gauci [joint owners of Mary's House in Sliema] left Malta
for Camp Zeist at 2245 hrs on Sunday, accompanied by a Scottish officer
and a Maltese policeman aboard Transavia Flight 786. According to
journalist Joe Mifsud of the newspaper Kullhadd, Mr Gauci has made a
total of 19 statements about the incident to various authorities over
the years, not one of which provided a positive identification of al-Megrahi.
According to Reuters, in the court Gauci tried to recall events. It was
shortly before Christmas, I can't remember the exact date, maybe a
fortnight before Christmas"..."eleven years are a long time for me, but
in those days I told them everything exactly.'' Gauci said the man had
black hair, wore a blue suit and was less than 6 feet tall. He confirmed
a series of mug shots and artists impressions that he had been shown by
Scottish investigators during several meetings at Malta police
headquarters in the fall of 1989. Later: Gauci continued his testimony.
He said the man looked around and when Mr Gauci invited him to try on
some trousers he said they were for someone else. The man then bought
two pairs of trousers, two shirts, two cardigans, two pairs of pajamas,
a blue romper suit and, because it was raining slightly at the time, an
umbrella. "He left the shop to go to the taxi rank to get a taxi. He
came back in the taxi to collect the clothing, which I took out to the
"That is the one who resembles the man who came into my shop,'' Gauci
said, pointing to al-Megrahi sitting next to his bespectacled co-accused
Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima in the witness box., "the one without glasses."
Unfortunately, Gauci used exactly the same phrase to describe a
newspaper photograph of Mohammed Abu Talb, a Lebanese member of the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).
The grainy, black and white photograph of Abu Talb, who is in jail for
terrorism in Sweden and has been named as a prosecution witness, was
first shown to Gauci by his brother and then later referred to by Gauci
in police statements as bearing a close likeness to the man he served in
his shop. Readers may ask why on earth Gauci was summoned to the Court
at all. other than as a desperate measure by the Crown to keep the "Show
Trial of the Century" going for a little longer.
On Tuesday 12 July the Court was adjourned yet again, because several
prosecution witnesses from Malta refused to appear. The prosecution had
in fact known about their unwillingness to attend for months, but was
either incompetent, or unwilling to call forward substitutes in time to
keep the trial rolling seamlessly. Exactly why the witnesses refused to
appear has not been stated, but a strong pointer to their reasoning was
provided by one Maltese prosecution witness who did: Mr Manuel Ferrugia,
a rather flamboyant gentleman with four earrings in his left ear, told
the Court how he had traveled from Malta to Frankfurt aboard Air Malta
Flight KM180 on the day of the crash.
Was Mr Ferrugia booked to travel from Frankfurt to London on the Pan Am
103 feeder flight? No, he was not. Well then, was Mr Ferrugia's baggage
lost en-route, or did he perhaps have critical information about the
accused Libyans? No on both counts. The bottom line is that Mr Ferrugia
was flown to Holland and accommodated at British taxpayer expense,
simply to tell the court that he flew out of Malta aboard an Air Malta
Boeing 737 on the day of the Pan Am Crash. Fascinating travel
information of course, rather like the author's flight out of Calcutta
for London during 1984 aboard a British Airways jet, but neither journey
is of any possible relevance to the Trial of the Century at Camp Zeist.
Hopefully Mr Ferrugia enjoyed the Air Malta in-flight service on 21
December 1988, and hopefully British taxpayers will understand the
prosecution's need to "construct" a connection between Malta and Pan Am
103 using irrelevant information. Thanks should therefore be extended to
the majority of Maltese witnesses who refused to attend this pathetic
game of charades, thereby saving British taxpayers a small fortune.
On Friday Mr Wilfred Borg, Ground Operations Manager for Luqa Airport in
Malta, was asked a wide range of questions about baggage check-in
procedures and baggage tags. Mr Borg appeared to stand up to the
questions very well, giving the impression that shoving pieces of
unaccompanied baggage onto an Air Malta flight unnoticed, would be
extremely difficult. Indeed, the efficiency of Luqa Airport security
during December 1988 was demonstrated quite clearly earlier in the week,
when a German passenger boarding KM 180 told the Court that Airport
security discovered he had retained his hotel key, which was then
returned to its rightful owners.
If Luqa authorities managed to detect the small concealed hotel key, it
is more than reasonable to assume they would also have detected the
large brown Samsonite suitcase, allegedly being dragged across the
airport tarmac by the two Libyan "Secret Agents". The famous Maltese
clothes shop, alleged provider of the clothing allegedly bought to wrap
"the bomb" in. Owner Tony Gauci has already formally identified two
entirely different men as the supposed purchaser.
Week 12: Having failed to convince a large number of skeptical
Maltese "witnesses" to attend the Court last week, the Crown was not
prepared to give up on its vital quest to draw completely irrelevant and
spurious links between Malta, and the bombing of Pan Am 103 more than
1,000 nautical miles to the north in Scotland.
German witnesses Birgit Seliger and Evelin Steinwandt took the stand to
testify they both checked in baggage and boarded Air Malta Flight KM 160
at Luqa on 21 December 1988, then disembarked at Frankfurt and collected
their baggage. Were the ladies booked to travel from Frankfurt on the
Pan Am 103 feeder flight? No, they were not. Well then, was Ms Seliger
or Ms Steinwandt's baggage lost en-route, or did one or both perhaps
have critical information about the accused Libyans? No on both counts.
Just like poor Mr Ferrugia last week, the bottom line is that Birgit
Seliger and Evelin Steinwandt were flown to Holland and accommodated at
British taxpayer expense, simply to tell the Court they flew out of
Malta aboard an Air Malta Boeing 737 on the same day as the crash of Pan
Am flight 103 at Lockerbie.
Those readers believing that the prosecution lawyers have finally lost
their marbles, would only be partly correct. Though calling Ferrugia,
Seliger and Steinwandt has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or
innocence of the two Libyan accused, or with due legal process, the
bizarre procedure has everything to do with neuro linguistics and
In the twilight world of the establishment media and intelligence
agencies, reality can be turned on its ear and even reversed by
"flooding" the Court and public alike with so much inaccurate
information about a single subject, all eventually believe it to be
true. The harsh reality is that there are no proven links between Malta
and Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie at all, but who would believe this to be
true with Ferrugia, Seliger and Steinwandt being paraded before the
There is an odds-on chance the prosecution knew in advance that many of
the Maltese witnesses would probably refuse to attend. So why call them?
The answer lies in human perception. The prosecution hoped the Court and
public would perceive that the Maltese witnesses refused to attend
because they have something to hide, and those who have something to
hide are automatically guilty! Those readers interested in pursuing
these disgusting techniques, should read Professor Noam Chomsky's
excellent book "Manufacturing Consent", a vivid and comprehensive expose
of media and other social engineering methods.
Court attention was then switched from Malta to Frankfurt in Germany,
with a range of witnesses called to explain airport security and the
baggage handling systems. Principal witnesses were Martin Huebner, Pan
Am's security chief for Eastern Europe, and Joachim Koscha, who worked
for the Frankfurt Baggage Section during 1988. Koscha described how the
baggage system worked, and described the journey of baggage from various
coding stations. At this stage the attention of informed observers is
once again drawn to the irrelevant nature of the prosecution testimony.
The Crown is attempting to show that a piece of baggage, the suitcase
containing the bomb, was transferred from Flight KM 180 arriving from
Malta on to Pan Am 103a, the first leg of the doomed 103 flight which
blew up over Lockerbie, but how can general statements about Frankfurt
security and baggage handling help in proving (in any way at all) that
the two Libyan accused are guilty of bombing Pan Am 103?
The Scottish Court is not a rerun of "The Holocaust", where emotional
and sometimes hysterical 50 year-old eyewitness testimony alone can be
used to imprison "suspects" for life. Fortunately for the two accused
Libyans, under Scottish Law the prosecution is required to produce hard
evidence of guilt, which to date it has completely failed to do. Does
the prosecution have verified video footage of the Libyans constructing
the bomb? No it does not.
Does the prosecution have verified photographic or written evidence (in
their own handwriting) proving the two Libyans were in any way connected
with the bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie? No it does not. All the
prosecution has is unsubstantiated hearsay from a number witnesses, many
with vested interests, especially American double-agent Jiacha, who is
personally set to become eight million dollars richer if he can stitch
up Megrahi and Fhimah. he Show Trial of the Century trial will resume
next Tuesday at 9.45 a.m.
Week 13: As before, the prosecution continued to try and convince
the court that there really was a flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt
on 21 December 1988. Having finally persuaded some of the (mostly
reluctant) Maltese to take the stand, the prosecution produced witnesses
Bonello, Camilleri, Co, Fricke, and later Iaia, with a flourish. All
agreed they had flown from Malta to Frankfurt that day, so the flight
really did take off as listed in the Air Malta timetable, Luqa
International Airport Air Traffic Logs etc etc. Great news! Of course
none of these witnesses knew or were questioned about either of the two
accused Libyans, but what the heck, it's only British taxpayers money
being squandered at Camp Zeist, isn't it?
Enter a slightly bemused Khalil Lahoud, captain of the mysterious Air
Malta Flight KM 180. Perhaps the good Captain knew the accused Libyans?
Well, no, actually he did not. Captain Lahoud was then asked what
altitude he flew KM 180 at en-route to Frankfurt, and he responded it
was either 31 or 35 thousand feet. Sensing that a pilot who couldn't
remember exactly where he was 4,230 days ago probably had something to
hide, the prosecution pounced. Poor Captain Lahoud was then asked a
large number of questions about his actual altitude and time to climb.
Riveting stuff with plenty of flair from the highly-paid lawyers, but of
absolutely no relevance to the guilt or innocence of accused Libyans
Megrahi and Fhima. On a more sinister note, witness Albert Camilleri
testified to examining Semtex explosive found at Ghallis Tower in Malta
during 1986. Aha! This explosive was covered with the fingerprints of
the Libyan accused? Well, no it was not. The Semtex was just Semtex
found in Malta two years before the crash of Pan Am 103, thereby
artfully roping Malta into the loop as a "Guilty Terrorist State"
alongside Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Just to set the record straight and to prove that Malta is not unique in
terms of its covert stock of Semtex, perhaps the prosecution will now
consider calling a few witnesses from the Metropolitan Police Service in
London. All will cheerfully attest that Semtex has also been found in
Britain on a number of occasions.
For any such even-handedness we will have to wait for a while. Exhausted
by its endeavors, the Court will now adjourn so that everyone can go and
play a round of golf at Saint Andrews. Well, everyone apart from the two
accused Libyans of course, who will be forced to remain in the cells at
Camp Zeist, despite the fact that not one iota of hard evidence has been
presented against them. The Trial of the Century resumes on 22 August
Week 17: After ten years in exile as a paid guest of the American
Central Intelligence Agency, the time is fast approaching for double
agent Jiacha to start earning his elaborate room and board. But this
prosecution star turn of the "Trial of the Century", is already causing
severe heartburn at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
As may be expected the CIA is trying to beat this event up for all it is
worth, and is currently in the throes of psyching-up the defence team
with "blacked out" sections of memos from its field agents in Malta to
Langley Headquarters in Virginia. The Crown team has seen the full
content of the memos of course, and says the blacked-out bits are
nothing for the defence to worry about. They are certainly correct in
stating there is nothing in the memos for the defence to worry about,
but there is a principle at stake here. The defence has demanded to see
the blacked-out bits and the Judge has agreed - leading to frantic
activity in Langley designed to look like reluctant consent on the part
of the CIA to let the defence view American "National Security" secrets.
Bravo! Lawyer performance to date is the equal of anything ever produced
in Hollywood, though Jiacha may wish to secure the Oscar for "Best
Clown". When required to confront the defence lawyers, Jiacha did so
wearing dark sunglasses and a long (rather sexy) Shirley Bassey wig. But
who am I to be critical? This double agent is playing the Camp Zeist
Casino for a US$4,000,000 jackpot, and protecting his identity is
probably important for the future - if Jiacha actually has a future of
course, which seems doubtful..
Bearing in mind that Jiacha is already on the record as "never having
overheard any actual plans for the accused to blow up an airplane", just
what could the sinister blacked-out sections of the CIA memos contain?
There are rumors that one contains an order from an American agent for a
Pastrami on Rye from a local Maltese sandwich shop, but it doesn't
really matter what the memos say, not one of them can provide a trace of
hard evidence linking the accused to (a) a bomb and (b) to Pan Am 103.
The entire reason for the memos is identical to so much of the other
fatally flawed "evidence" in this case - a psychological ploy designed
to convince the media and casual observers that the memos are actually
important. After all, would high-powered lawyers fight each over this
material if it was not of critical importance to the case? Sadly the
answer is yes they would, in fact yes they are, despite the reality that
the memos are of absolutely no relevance to the bombing of Pan Am 103.
To fill in court time, a Maltese police inspector took the stand to
again recount the story of some standard Semtex high-explosive found at
Ghallis Towers, Malta, during 1986. This was not of any relevance to the
current case, but allowed the prosecution to once more hint that Malta
might be a "guilty terrorist state". The crucial new scientific proof
presented on the Semtex-high explosive is that (wait for it, wait for
it.......!!) the explosive was found wrapped at Ghallis Towers in LIBYAN
newspapers printed during November and December 1980. Nail-biting
Well that's it then, isn't it? Clearly only Libyans could possible
purchase Libyan newspapers, meaning Libyans must have planted the
anonymous Semtex at Ghallis Towers in 1986, meaning in turn the Libyans
intended to blow up Pan Am 103 with a different batch of Semtex sometime
during late 1988, perhaps. Very tenuous I agree, but how else is an
increasingly desperate prosecution team supposed to stitch up two
Mid week saw the defence trying to deflect attention away from Malta and
Germany by seeking to demonstrate flaws in the Heathrow security system,
the implication being that the bomb may have been loaded there instead.
While this is probably a legitimate technique in terms of casting doubt
on the official story (that the accused bombed-up KM 180 in Malta), it
can never prove that a bomb was placed aboard Pan Am 103 in London.
Once again we are concentrating on Samsonite suitcases and baggage
handlers, when it has already been proved in court that the Mach Stem
Effect was miscalculated by the British authorities after the crash. For
those readers who have forgotten or not heard about this critical
evidence, proper calculations carried out in Munich later proved the
Centre of the blast was very close to the aircraft fuselage skin,
certainly not inside a suitcase placed inside a baggage container.
In order to place the explosive charge close up against the fuselage, it
is first necessary to strip away the wall lining of the forward cargo
hold, a task that can only be carried out at second-line servicing
level, certainly not on the ramp at LHR or any other airport. So why all
of this expensive timewasting with Samsonite suitcases, London Airport
Heathrow and "security experts"? The only reasonable assumption is that
"the show must go on" regardless, and in spite of terminal damage to
Later in the week the prosecution once more provided multiple
confirmations that Air Malta KM 180 actually did fly between Malta and
Frankfurt on 21 December 1988. Witnesses Poke, Klauss, Backman and
Greasefeller all testified they checked in at Malta and flew to
Frankfurt. Did any then transfer to Pan Am 103a (the feeder Boeing 727)
or Pan Am 103? No they did not. Did any of them know the accused or have
any relevant information pertaining to the accused? No they did not. One
would think by now that the entire world believes KM 180 actually did
fly from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and there is no need
for the Crown to waste further taxpayer funds trying to draw a
mischievous connection between an innocent airline and country, and the
bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie in Scotland.
Week 18: Court in a complete bugger's muddle. Nothing of
substance to report. Court adjourned, no weeks 18, 19 or 20.
Week 21: Another wasted week with lawyers fighting each other
over trivialities. Outside the Court, the media starts to highlight the
"Palestinians might have done it" theory, courtesy of the Mossad. The
Jewish State likes to have an extra suspect "Moslem Sponsor of
Terrorism" in the bag wherever possible.
Week 22: After arriving at Camp Zeist surrounded by enough
security escorts to do credit to an American President, double agent
Jiacha (Giaka) was quickly shown up to be the liar he was long assumed
to be. Unable to look the two accused Libyans in the eye, Jiacha
stumbled through his "evidence" with almost indecent haste, before
scuttling back to his American hideaway to lick his wounds.
The fact Jiacha was ever taken into the Witness Protection Program at
all, proves American authorities never expected Libya to release its two
citizens for trial. As this week in court showed only too well, the CIA
knew the man completely lacked credibility, had no hard evidence to
present, and at best served as a mute threat designed to direct
hostility towards Libya. For so long as the heavily-protected Jiacha
could be mentioned at American press conferences, the western public was
persuaded to believe that Libya might have been involved in the bombing
of Pan Am 103. After all, who would spend all of that money protecting a
witness if he was worthless?
Evidently the CIA and FBI decided this was a worthy way of spending
taxpayer funds, but their carefully manufactured illusion of Jiacha's
worth was finally destroyed at Camp Zeist in less than two days.
So what "evidence" did this star witness at the Trial of the Century
produce? Well, apparently the two accused showed him some blocks of TNT
is a desk drawer in Malta, though of course Jiacha has no independent
confirmation of this. And most damning of all, Jiacha claimed to have
seen one of the accused carry a brown hard-shell Samsonite towards Air
Malta Flight KM 180 on the day of the Pan Am crash. Surprise! Both
accused worked for Libyan Arab Airlines and carrying suitcases went with
the territory. Even if one of the accused did in fact handle a suitcase
of this description on the day, so what? Brown hard-shell Samsonites
were probably the most common of all suitcases during the early
eighties, and my family alone has three of them here at the house.
I could ramble on for pages detailing the way in which both the CIA and
FBI tried to sway public opinion and deceive the court, but cannot see
any point in doing so. As an observer, it seems to me that Jiacha's
physical appearance in the court has finally brought home to the Trial
Judges the way in which certain elements of the American and British
establishments have tried to use the judicial system for their own ends.
Hopefully then, Jiacha's appearance at Camp Zeist marks the beginning of
the end of this incredibly expensive farce.
Jiacha has passed his use-by date and the American authorities will have
to decide what do with him. Perhaps like so many in the past Jiacha will
have an unfortunate fatal accident, or perhaps his rumoured departure
for Cairo will become reality. Whatever happens, it seems most unlikely
Jiacha will be a burden on American taxpayers for very much longer.
Week 23: Another wasted week. Media speculation that Mohammed Talb might
take the stand. Further explanation of the "Palestinian Connection".
Week 24: Prosecution asks for an adjournment to examine exciting
new evidence from a third party country (not America). The identity of
this "country in the Middle East" is very obviously too secret to pass
on to the public.
Week 25: Another adjournment, no kidding! Lawyers disappear to
Week 26: Court once again adjourned with taxpayer meter running.
Lawyers still playing golf, Libyan suspects locked in cells.
Week 27: Just when you thought the whole thing was over and the
minstrels were packing their instruments away at Camp Zeist, the
prosecution suddenly pounced. Pounced on exactly what you ask? Well
no-one really knows just yet, but whatever it is requires the use of
Serb-Croat translators and the apparent involvement of at least one more
country in the middle east. The BBC, never a very reliable (or accurate)
source put it this way:
"More time for Lockerbie defence"
"The Lockerbie trial has been adjourned for another week to allow
inquiries to continue into new evidence which could be highly
significant to the outcome of the case. The Scottish Court in the
Netherlands reconvened for a short time on Tuesday morning before rising
again, the fourth such postponement. The adjournment will give the
defence team more time to investigate a dossier of material handed to
the prosecution by an unnamed government on 4 October.
William Taylor QC, representing Al Megrahi, told the judges another week
was needed to continue the investigation. He said this included
inquiries into allegations of links between the bombing of Pan Am Flight
103 and a country in the Middle East not so far linked to the case.
Lawyers in Tripoli were now opening lines of inquiry in "another Middle
Eastern state" in an attempt to secure access to evidence there.
Inquiries were also going on in "another European country", which has so
far been unconnected with the Lockerbie inquiry. These required the
assistance of Serbo-Croat translators, he disclosed. Mr Taylor said that
the new information established links, unknown until now, between German
intelligence services and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine General Command, an organization which was originally high on
the list of Lockerbie suspects."
This is getting really exciting, right? Wrong! With entire western
governments and media outlets slagging off every Arab and/or Moslem
country in the Middle East as a "Sponsor of Terrorism", how long do you
really believe the prosecution would keep the lid on the identity of
this splendid new disinformation source. Five minutes, perhaps ten?
Certainly not any longer.
So what we are looking for is "another Middle Eastern state" which is
credible to western governments and media, and can remain anonymous for
more than three weeks during the Trial of the Century at Camp Zeist.
Apart from good old Israel I can't think of a single one. The Serb-Croat
connection is a nice touch - perhaps the Mossad has suddenly decided to
go multicultural and multilingual, a complete break with its normal
racist policies. Oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures!
Serb-Croat translators suddenly needed in the Court. Really stirring
stuff! Why? To speak to some of the Mossad's snouts, apparently.
Week 28: Lawyers huddle over "new" Mossad Lockerbie evidence.
Fancy that! the Jews had crucial evidence hidden away for 12 years until
the prosecution team was flat on its face and grasping at straws, then
they decided to help out a bit. Nice people...
Week 29: First we had American double agent Jiacha peddling lies
or order to qualify for a $4 million cash reward, and now we have the
notorious Abu Talb, allegedly promised a shorter prison sentence in
Sweden if he helps to stitch up the Palestinians. Ye gods, court
credibility has sunk to an all time low, hasn't it?
Just about every "expert" in the west has dutifully filed through the
court and failed to nail any "Arab Terrorist State" for the bombing of
Pan Am 103, so now you are all expected to take the word of a convicted
criminal instead. From Reuters:-
" Defence lawyers at the Lockerbie bombing trial tried to chip away at
the prosecution case against two Libyans on Tuesday when they
cross-examined a key witness with links to a radical Palestinian group.
Defence attorney William Taylor asked Mohammed Abu Talb, an
Egyptian-born Palestinian serving a life sentence in Sweden for
terrorism, whether Palestinians believed the United States was the
greatest ally of Israel, Talb replied: "That's correct and we still
believe that." "All groups strive to liberate Palestine and create a
When he took the stand on Friday, Talb said he was babysitting his
children at the time of the bombing. He acknowledged he had links with
one of the groups implicated by the defence, the Palestinian Popular
Struggle Front (PPSF). The defence has also accused the Syrian-backed
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command (PFLP-GC)
of involvement in the attack, for which Libyans Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima
and Abdel Basset al-Megrahi are standing trial. The defence questioned
Talb about his family background and revealed that members of his wife's
family had links to the Palestine Liberation Organization and
Palestinian President Yasir Arafat. Well that's it then, isn't it?
Talb belonged to a Palestinian organization dedicate to removing heavy
Jewish boots from the necks of Palestinian women and children, and worse
still, members of his wife's family indirectly knew Yasir Arafat.
Condemned out of his own mouth, so to speak...
What pathetic rubbish! As with the Libyans, there is absolutely no hard
evidence of any kind linking the Palestinians to the bombing of Pan Am
103, and there never will be. If Abu Talb were to make some sort of
"confession" (which seems most unlikely), it would unquestionably be a
fairly desperate attempt to gain his freedom and return to his wife and
children. None of us could or would blame him for trying, but equally we
must not allow any statements made under applied pressure to be regarded
There should also be grave doubts about Abu Talb's conviction in Sweden,
which was achieved without any hard evidence being presented. What
evidence (sic) there was in the Swedish court, relied exclusively on the
spoken testimony of others. Curiously, Talb was convicted on only one
charge, that of bombing a Jewish synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark, as
illustrated by the short extract from the Camp Zeist transcript shown
Defence Lawyer: Well, I am puzzled by that answer, you see,
because you told me at the beginning that the reason you were in prison
just now was in respect of bombing attacks which had taken place in
Copenhagen, in Stockholm, and in Amsterdam for which you were
responsible in the period of 1985 and 1986.
Abu Talb: That is not correct. The fact that I was charged
doesn't mean that I was necessarily there or that I committed these
acts. I said that I was charged with committing them.
Defence Lawyer: Well, you were convicted of them, weren't you,
and sentenced to life imprisonment?
Abu Talb: That is correct.
Defence Lawyer: And these were in respect of bombings which took
place in the years 1985 and 1986, a point at which you say was some
three years after you had ceased to be a member of any Palestinian
Abu Talb: I was convicted on one charge only, a bombing in
Denmark of a Jewish site, not of anything else. I was convicted even
though I was not there, and I did not confess to the crime.
Defence Lawyer: Can you tell me when that bombing of the
synagogue was, please.
Abu Talb: If I remember correctly, it was in 1985.
Most of the rest of the transcript shows the lawyers trying to put words
into Talb's mouth, which should come as no great surprise to anyone.
What is a surprise, however, is the almost desperate way in which the
lawyers attempted to force Abu Talb to admit he attended a course in
Surface to Air missiles in Russia, long before Pan Am 103 was bombed at
Lockerbie. Talb refused to admit any such thing, stating correctly the
question was not relevant to the case in hand.
But why oh why Surface to Air missiles? Perhaps one days the defence
lawyers will explain their irrational but clearly overwhelming obsession
about missiles with the rest of us mere mortals. Super terrorist Abu
Talb takes the stand. Lawyers pounce and artfully manage to get Talb to
admit he doesn't like Israelis, and thinks they should be kicked out of
Palestine. Big deal, so Talb shares a common view with about three
million other Palestinians! No hard or even corroborating evidence about
anything of course, but there has been no hard or corroborating evidence
since the beginning of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Week 30: The prosecution concluded its case against two Libyans
accused of the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing on Monday as one of the
defence lawyers appealed for the case to be dropped. The prosecution
ended after the court had seen footage of an interview with each of the
accused by a U.S. television reporter. A court official read out the
transcript of the accused's judicial examination in April. Then Lord
Advocate Colin Boyd, the head of the prosecution team, ended his side's
arguments with the words "I now close the case for the Crown".
Richard Keen, counsel for Fahima, immediately asked the three Scottish
judges to dismiss the case against his client, saying there was in fact
no case to answer. The lawyer for Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah is going to
argue at the Scottish court in the Netherlands that insufficient
evidence has been presented against his client. Next week the court will
hear Keenīs motion that there is no case to answer against Mr Fhimah.
The judges will be asked to decide on the weight of evidence against
him, rather than the quality of the Crown case. There has been no
similar move from Megrahi, and there is now speculation he will be the
first witness when the defence case begins next week.
Week 31: The defence at the Lockerbie trial went through the
indictment with a fine tooth comb on Tuesday, saying there was
insufficient evidence to convict one of the two Libyans accused of the
1988 bombing. Richard Keen, Fahima's lawyer, said on Tuesday his client
had no case to answer.
"In my submission the crucial fact for your lordships to consider is:
was the second accused aware that there was an intention to use an
explosive device for the destruction of a civil aircraft and the murder
of its occupants?" Keen said. "If the second accused was not aware of
that objective then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he cannot be
guilty of murder and he cannot be guilty of the alleged breach of
section two of the Aviation Security Act 1982," he said.
Dressed in a navy cap, checked shirt and blue waistcoat, Fahima sat
impassively, as he has done throughout the trial, a Scottish police
officer to his left, Megrahi to his right as Keen sought to knock down
the charges in the indictment. Keen's task is not to challenge the
reliability of the evidence, but to demonstrate that, even if credible,
it is purely circumstantial and would not link his client to the
Lockerbie bombing. If the judges agree that there is no case to answer,
Fahima will be acquitted.
Keen listed all the areas of the indictment referring to Fahima and
argued there was no evidence whatsoever to show his client ordered
timers for use in the bomb, tested explosives in Libya or flew to Malta
with a suitcase containing a bomb. Mr Keen referred point by point to
the lengthy list of charges against Fhimah, adding there was no evidence
to bear out the allegation that he conspired to obtain 20 electronic
timers capable of detonating explosive devices from the Swiss firm MEBO.
Likewise, there was "not one jot of evidence" that he was involved in
testing the detonators on a special forces exercise in Libya, as alleged
in the next part of the indictment, Mr Keen said. "There is not one
single piece of evidence to bear out that libel as far as the second
accused is concerned in any respect whatsoever...One wonders how he came
to be mentioned in that paragraph," Keen said repeatedly as he listed
Entries in Fhima's diary indicating he had taken luggage tags from Air
Malta did not prove a thing, Keen said. The prosecution say the bomb
began its journey in Malta's Luqa airport and that the two accused used
false luggage tags to load it on a plane bound for Frankfurt. They also
allege the two posed as employees of Libyan Arab Airlines and were in
fact members of the Libyan intelligence services, assertions also not
backed up by evidence, Keen said. There was no evidence to show his
client was in Malta on the day of bombing, nor did evidence that Fahima
kept explosives in his desk at Luqa airport link him to the blast.
Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka claimed earlier in the seven-month trial
that Fhimah had 10 kilos of TNT explosive in his drawer at the airline
offices which were later moved to the Libyan Consulate in Malta. Mr Keen
told the special court at Camp Zeist in Holland: "Any explosive had
ceased to be in the possession of Fhimah three months or more probably
five months before December 21 1988. There is no evidence whatsoever to
suggest that the second accused was a member of the Libyan intelligence
services at any time or in any way associated with such a service."
Keen concentrated on disputing evidence relating to the conspiracy
charge. Legal experts say there is almost certainly insufficient
evidence to convict his client on the murder or aviation security charge
-- both of which carry a mandatory life sentence.
Richard Keen QC said: "The crucial fact for consideration is was (Fhimah)
aware that there was an intention to use an explosive device for the
destruction of a passenger aircraft and murder its occupants? "If he was
not aware of that objective, then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he
cannot be guilty of murder, and he cannot be guilty of the alleged
breach of the Aviation Security Act.
Keen said they had to consider one crucial question: "It is not
sufficient for guilt to be a rational inference (from the circumstances)
if there are other rational hypotheses as well. "If you left a jury to
choose between two inferences, they would have to speculate, and that
they cannot do," said Mr Keen. Keen and the Prosecutor Alastair Campbell
concentrated on evidence relating to the conspiracy charge on the basis
that if that failed, the murder and aviation security charges would
probably fail as well.
Campbell said Fahima was an ideal ally for Megrahi because of his inside
knowledge and access to Luqa airport. He worked as a station manager
there for more than five years. "I have identified Fahima's involvement
over the period... he was knowingly involved in the completion of a
plan," he said. Keen however, disagreed. "What you are being asked to do
is infer that a man who wasn't there did, by means we do not know,
smuggle a bomb into Luqa airport."
This accurate Reuters account shows the pure futility of the Trial Of
The Century, and the continuing shocking waste of vast sums of British
taxpayers' funds. But we must muddle on it seems, if only to try and
circumstantially fit-up one "Guilty Arab Terrorist State" or another, in
a continuing attempt to protect the guilty. Defence rebuts the
prosecution, for the first time quite effectively.
Week 32: Lord Sutherland getting visibly annoyed that the
documents Mossad claimed were in Syria, had not been delivered to the
Court. No big surprise. When Mossad tells you something, invariably the
opposite is true. No weeks 33, 34, 35 or 36
Week 37: No magic documents from Syria, so the accused do not
take the stand. The prosecution suddenly drops two of the three charges
against the accused, and the defence rightly claims they have no case to
Week 38: Defence argues bomb must have been inserted at London
Airport Heathrow, thereby neatly sidestepping the obvious probability of
insertion at American servicing facilities. Judges retire with truckload
of prosecution evidence (sic) to consider verdict. No week 39.
Week 40: Megrahi found guilty. My personal response is best
summed up by Professor Robert Black, principal architect of the
Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist: "I am amazed ! Astonished ! I cannot
express my reaction in words. I am stunned. The entire verdict hangs on
the edge, upon Gauciīs recognition of Megrahi. They (the judges) have
taken the assumption the suitcase came from Malta. They have chosen to
ignore all the contradictive evidence and passed on this judgment. This
was not the verdict that anyone expected. "