ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Lockerbie bombing , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 1st July 2011, 02:18 AM   #441
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,485
Originally Posted by CTB View Post
I hadn't noticed the highlight until you pointed it out. I'll go with printing anomaly for now, thanks.

I just got back to Richard Marquise's book, and dammit the photo has the odd highlight in the reproduction used there too! Surely, surely it can't have been in the production shown to Tony! I mean, it's practically waving its hand in the air shouting "pick me! pick me!"

Originally Posted by CTB View Post
I've just read through the Valentine report and was entirely floored by Mr Gauci's ID of Mr Megrahi in court. I'm fine with the standard OP of it being a way to determine if a witness is willing to give evidence against the accused, but how on earth is it acceptable, just before that ID, to show Mr Gauci a magazine article about the trial which has a picture of Mr Megrahi in it?

I mean, fer effsake.

The judges are okay with this?

A CT on drinking water rides into view ( on the back of a Unicorn, natch.)
ps apologies if this has been discussed already ( the magazine, not the unicorn ) but I haven't got to Mr Gauci's testimony in the trial transcripts yet.

I just checked the transcript, and it is exactly as you say. I don't know which photo is was that was in the magazine, but since Megrahi is wearing glasses in it, it's possible it was the one from 1992 that has sometimes been misattributed to 1999. That's a good likeness, and looks absolutely nothing like the photo in the photospread.

Dock identifications are ridiculous other than, as you say, checking that this is indeed the person we think we're talking about. (Like, you're not in the wrong court, are you?) Considering Megrahi and Fhimah look nothing like each other, and they were in the dock, it's not exactly an identification parade, is it? The witness knows who he's supposed to pick, it's just a question of agreeing. And even then, Tony had to be prompted shamelessly. It reads to me as if he was very uncomfortable with what he was doing. But then people will do things they're very uncomfortable with, if you offer them enough money.

If I'm reading the text correctly, it sems that the magazine photo shown then was the same one as was taken from Tony just four days before the identification parade exercise. It's interesting what he says about it. "His hair was much shorter and he didn't wear glasses." Megrahi's glasses are a bit off-on so that's neither here nor there, but I see no evidence that he had his hair shorter than that in the 1980s. Indeed, in the picture in the photospread, his hair is even longer (and again Tony says it's much longer than the customer's hair).

And does that 1992 photo look in any way like a man who could be described as about 50 years old? Or "dark-skinned"?

So, he has the magazine in April 1999, and he seems at that time to have had it for a few months. Well enough time to learn what the face looks like. (And he had other pictures too - his brother was collecting them.) Only four days after he gave the magazine to Inspector Busuttil, he picked Megrahi out of the ID parade (at which there was possibly only one plausible "foil" in any case).

Then he's shown the magazine again in court, and only about four minutes later he points to Megrahi in the dock, although only after much prompting.



IF there was other reliable evidence, we might at a push decide that it might have been Megrahi in that shop that evening. At a stretch. Although we'd have to conclude that Tony had been wrong about almost every aspect of the customer's appearance in his initial descriptions. And fortuitously picked out the "right" photo even though it was one that didn't resemble its subject at all.

But there isn't any other evidence. That was the only evidence connecting Megrahi to the crime. Everything else was only agreed to be significant because of the identification.

I'm just going to go away and cry, now.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 1st July 2011 at 03:17 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2011, 03:15 AM   #442
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,485
I guess, looking at the recent discussion, I've got a couple more points I should maybe work into the article.

First, it's possible the photospread actually had that weird highlight on the photo of Megrahi when it was shown to Tony. This is officially shocking, if it is indeed the case.

Second, it seems as if it's the photo from 1992 that was the subject of the "Dans hu!" remark. (I hadn't considered that originally, because Paul Foot erroneously attributed that photo to April 1999, which was several months after the magazine in question was published.) That photo is absolutely nothing like the picture in the photospread.

again.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2011, 03:57 PM   #443
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,485
Look at this, guys.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...Lockerbie.html

Originally Posted by Marcello Mega
THE SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8. The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."
The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.

The article has made a major boo-boo about the date the photospread was shown to Tony Gauci. The date of the "Clever Hans" exercise was 15th February 1991. I have no idea where 14th September 1989 came from - that's the day after he made the photofit image. So I hope that doesn't mean the entire thing is unreliable.

However, if we assume it's just a simple mistake on the date, this is interesting. Mega says Gauci was also shown a photo six days before that. If this is correct, which photo do we think he was shown?

Could this be the reason for the fuzzy bad likeness being shown on the 15th? Because Tony had failed to pick out the decent colour image the previous week?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th August 2011 at 03:59 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2011, 05:20 AM   #444
CTB
Thinker
 
CTB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 203
yup, that certainly confuses things a bit.

The Scots' police, I thought, were much more interested in Abu Talb as the main thrust of the initial Malta investigating ( September 1989 ). ie Made in Malta clothing in the bomb suitcase, Talb has Made in Malta clothing in his flat, etc.

I think the journalist has made a mistake. Gauci doesn't find a resemblance to any suspect for a while to come yet.



CTB
CTB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2011, 01:39 AM   #445
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,485
Yes, I think he's just made a mistake. It doesn't seem to fit into the known narrative at all. Pity, really. I'd like to know if there is any truth in the rumours that Gauci was shown the colour photo and didn't pick it out, but I don't think this article is helpful in that respect.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.