|
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. |
23rd August 2009, 11:26 AM | #121 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, yes, but nobody is being called a CTer (yet) for questioning this one. Every time it comes up, there's a lot of mainstream voices saying the conviction is unsafe. The trouble is that the longer the evasions and suppression of evidence go on, the more it's open to CTers to complicate the issue with irrelevant and fabricated complications.
I think an important thing to remember is that in all the miscarriage of justice cases there have been so far, there has never been any serious suggestion that the police were turning a blind eye to the real culprit, or that they thought the person they were fitting up was innocent. Time and time again, they manage to convince themselves that some random bystander is the culprit, and all the dirty tricks that happen after that are just how they try to make sure the right person is convicted. The Damilola Taylor case is a good parallel again. There was evidence pointing to the real culprit. It was overlooked. Nobody thinks the police were deliberately trying to shield this person, or that they deliberately ignored that bloodstain. They went after the first set of defendants because they seemed like the best bet at the time. There have been so many. Barry George. The Guildford Six. Several recent cases where re-examination of old DNA evidence has resulted in innocent people being released. Nobody calls it a conspiracy. It's incompetence, in a way, but really it's a problem of police culture. And it's compounded by a tendency, once the favoured suspect has been identified, to start ignoring evidence that suggests they might not be guilty. Especially if all it does is throw the case back into confusion, rather than identify another probable suspect. I think that may be behind the reluctence to look at stuff like the Heathrow breakin. Look, we've got this case put together that the bomb went on board at Malta. Don't spoil it now! However, it was never proved where the bomb actually got on board. It could have been Malta (or maybe another feeder flight, who knows), or Frankfurt, or Heathrow. That's why I'm interested in the odd logic of the timing device - why the pressure sensor was necessary at all, and why the explosion went off so early even given that the plane was late. This doesn't have to be any more of a conspiracy than the Jill Dando case was, or the Damilola Taylor one, or the Guildford pub bombings, or any of the others. Even the US bribery of witnesses could easily be explained by excessive enthusiasm to convict someone they believed had done it. By the way, here's what the priest who lived in the only house left standing in Sherwood Crescent after the crash said in today's paper (and yes, he was in the house at the time, you don't get much closer than that).
Quote:
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
23rd August 2009, 05:23 PM | #122 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
It's a pity about the quote laws around here, because one hardly knows where to start with this one. The caveat is that it's from the Sunday Mail, with is a tabloid rag, nevertheless it's interesting. Like Krakatoa is interesting....
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sco...8057-21618329/
Quote:
Well well. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th August 2009, 04:58 AM | #123 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 117
|
I was in a conversation I had last week, my friend could have been joking but I can be very touchy about being associated with CT/Truthers etc.
If the bomb was put on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt and then Heathrow would the luggage get rechecked when it is transfered internally? Or are X-rays/metal detectors only used to check luggage at the first leg of the journey? |
24th August 2009, 05:14 AM | #124 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
The bomb was disguised as a radio-casette player. At the time, it's very doubtful that routine airport security scans would have realised there was something fishy about it. The operatives weren't given detailed instructions about looking for excessive electronic components in these things, or checking them to see if they actually worked. It was only after this incident that operatives were supplied with wiring diagrams to check these items against, and told to check whether they would play.
We've got used to attention being paid to electrical items in our luggage. But remember, this happened in 1988. This is why they pay particular attention to electrical items now. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
28th August 2009, 06:13 PM | #125 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
|
29th August 2009, 05:13 AM | #126 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
In 1989 Air Malta apparently stated that the number of baggage items loaded into the hold was equal to the number checked in by passengers. i.e. there was no unaccompanied suitcase at the Malta end.
It also strikes me as bizarre that a timed bomb would have been put through a baggage transfer system involving three flights, a delay to any of which could have thrown the timing way out. 'Argument from incredulity' I suppose, but it would have been a strange way to go about it. |
29th August 2009, 05:43 AM | #127 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
If you want to hear what the man himself says about it all, here's the interview.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...-home-1.825148
Originally Posted by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th August 2009, 12:42 AM | #128 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Further - Air Malta ended up suing UK tv company Granada for libel after yet another suggestion that the case went on in Malta. The case was settled out of court in Air Malta's favour.
Meanwhile, only 2 weeks after the bombing, strong testimony emerged stating that the case went on Pan Am 103 at Heathrow. |
30th August 2009, 03:26 PM | #129 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm half way through the Private Eye report you recommended. https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.u..._downloads.cfm It seems to be relating the standard "CT" that I've heard piecemeal from so many sources. It's impossible to tell how sound the journalism is, but it's not exactly just the Eye, is it? It seems to me that a lot of that was the basis for the appeal application that was lodged with the SCCRC. The SCCRC press release claims to have investigated various points and found no evidence to support them - such as the suitcase with the hole in it, or the suitcase full of what might have been drugs. The grounds for appeal that were granted were all to do with Gauci's dodgy identification I think. On one hand, it's easy to dismiss all the detail as CT, and suspect that in fact the investigation simply didn't find the evidence necessary to pin the crime on the Palestinians, so they just went after the Libyans who happened to be handy. Compare Barry George and the Jill Dando murder. On the other hand, this isn't a bunch of misfits in their Mum's basement "just asking questions" based on laughably preposterous premises. This is a lot of serious journalists writing in respected publications (no, I don't necessarily include Private Eye in that but I do include the Herald). It's not reasonable just to dismiss it as a "CT" in the 9/11 mould simply because "debunking is what we do". I do think it's unreasonable to believe that the CIA or whoever has subverted the SCCRC and who knows how many investigators and so on. What I don't know is just how well it might have been possible to "disappear" evidence so that a subseqent investigation wouldn't find it. I'd really love to see this lot given the Gravy treatment, and then see whether anything was left standing. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th August 2009, 04:58 PM | #130 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
OK, finished it. The sting is in the tail. Appendix 3.
Quote:
Quote:
That is just so much dynamite. Not only that, it gives more credibility to the case as presented by Private Eye. I find their points regarding the timer device absolutely fascinating, putting a point of view I hadn't previously heard explained. I've always known the verdict was unsound, but really just because a number of people I respected who were familiar with the details said so. My previous main attempt to understand the details (the Rollo book) was a bust because that book is rubbish. The Private Eye account was what I was really looking for. I can feel myself turning into a Twoofer as I type. I'd really like to see Gravy tackle this one. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 03:15 AM | #131 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Going by the Private Eye account of the trial, which I think must be factually accurate, there was no evidence at all that the bomb was put on board at Luqa. I listened to the radio dramatisation of part of the trial and there was an attempt to show that it was possible to get round the checkin at Luqa, that there was a route round the back (I think through the Ladies' toilets) that Fhimah had used in the past to get diplomatic baggage on to planes. However, there was no evidence that Fhimah had been anywhere near the place on that particular day, and no evidence that any suspicious baggage was present on that flight. (Oddly, the Luqa checkin girl, who knew Fhimah very well, was not asked in court whether she'd seen him that day.) In fact there seemed to be watertight evidence that only 15 bags were checked on at Luqa, all were matched with passengers who actually flew, all 15 were checked off at Frankfurt with no discrepancies, and none of these was booked to travel on the the USA. Which is why Air Malta won its libel action, one assumes. However, things were a bit murkier at the Frankfurt end. The timing and records from the baggage clerks were unclear, and it couldn't be shown that it was impossible for a bag which had magically materialised from the Luqa flight to have been checked on at Frankfurt. It wasn't the sort of evidence you'd give anyone a parking ticket on, though. What was impressive was the evidence of the man who did the x-ray screening of the luggage going on to Pan Am 103A at Frankfurt. He had been specifically warned to look out for bombs disguised as radio-cassette recorders, because of the warning which had been received earlier that month, describing a plot to do exactly that. (Which was dismissed by the security services as "coincidence".) He said he was confident that there was nothing of the sort on any of that luggage, because he was looking out for it, and if he'd seen anything at all suspicious he'd have called security and had the case opened. (He could have been lying to cover his back, I suppose, but nobody seems to have suggested this.) The Heathrow location was where the most likely hole in security existed. One baggage handler gave evidence that when he came back from his break, while luggage for Pan Am 103 was being loaded, two new pieces of luggage had materialised from somewhere that he hadn't seen before. One was a brown Samsonite suitcase. It then got confused, because he claimed to have discussed this with a colleague, whose account differed. However, it seems to be the only credible mention of a Samsonite suitcase anywhere in the evidence. I remember hearing in one account that the judges were dismissive of the idea that terrorists would even try to breach security at Heathrow "because that is well known to be very tight". Uh, no not really, and part of the new evidence that's being taked about is evidence of a breakin at Heathrow the evening before the disaster. Another point made in the Private Eye account was that the luggage scrutiny at Heathrow wasn't anything like as rigorous as at Frankfurt, because Heathrow hadn't had the warning about a possible radio-cassette bomb passed on to them that Frankfurt knew about. So I can see why the argument is being made that Heathrow is the most probable location for the bomb to have been introduced into the baggage system. The judges seem to have decided that the relatively small disagreement between the two Heathrow baggage handlers was enough to dismiss that account of a brown Samsonite suitcase, nevertheless the confused accounts of baggage going every which way at the Frankfurt checkin was enough to decide that it had come on there from the Malta flight, even though there were no discrepancies in the Air Malta records, and the Frankfurt x-ray scrutiny appeared to have been very much more rigorous than the Heathrow scrutiny. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 03:51 AM | #132 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Rolfe, just wanted to say kudos on this slab of useful research. I really should know this story better, and add something, but it looks like the injustice is correcting itself a bit at the moment and some very smart people are looking at it.
|
31st August 2009, 04:12 AM | #133 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
I too have nothing useful to add to the thread, but I'm following it because it's fascinating. Kudos, Rolfe.
|
31st August 2009, 04:54 AM | #134 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Of key witness Tony Gauci (the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold a strange assortment of clothes - and an umbrella, a subject well worth discussion in itself - to the suspect. Clothes which included types found at Lockerbie) :
* " In all the interviews with police on this subject Mr Gauci was quite consistent on two points. The man was about fifty years old and more than six feet tall. During these interviews the police were hoping for an identification of their suspects, Abu Talb and Mohammed Salem, a Palestinian based in Malta. Later in the proceedings, as we have seen, their suspect changed, though the two basic descriptions by Gauci did not change at all. It was only when he came to give evidence that the shopkeeper became vague. Q. What age would you say he was? A. I said before – below six... , under 60. I don’t have experience. I don’t have experience on height or age. In 1989, he was quite prepared to estimate the height and age of the man, but when he came to the trial he was not so sure about either." Megrahi is 5'8" and was 37 at the time. * from the Private Eye report by Paul Foot. |
31st August 2009, 05:17 AM | #135 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
The Private Eye account says stuff that makes better sense of that. The complications surrounding the alleged use of the MEBO timer and the pressure sensor that could count weren't really explored in that article. Just why any plotter would go for such a complicated scenario doesn't seem to have been explained by anyone. An alternative explanation that made a lot more sense was laid out though. Going back to the Palestinian connection, apparently Palestinian terrorists had a history of using something called a "sugar-cube" timer which, for reasons not wholly explained was very restricted in what it could do. Essentially the sensor would detect the drop in pressure occurring when the plane reached cruising altitude, and then the timer would trigger the bomb 43 minutes later. No counting of pressure-rise incidents at all. Guess what, Pan Am 301 exploded practically bang on schedule for 43 minutes after such a pressure device would have been triggered following the Heathrow take-off. The article didn't explain why the 43-minute restriction. However, assuming that was built into the device, it would explain the odd timing of the explosion - much too early for an attempt to get the plane to disappear over the Atlantic whichever way you slice it. It was just a device to make sure the plane had taken off and was on its way before triggering the bomb, and there was no particular attempt to delay this until it was over the ocean. This is where the CT starts to get complicated. The reason the MEBO timer was implicated was that a small fragment alleged to be a part of one was found in the wreckage. That's the bit of evidence that attracts the CTers. The provenance seems to be questionable, according to the Eye. It was found in the collar of a bit of a shirt that was retrieved from the ground, however that piece of evidence had its label altered by a policeman. There's also an oddity surrounding the page numbering of the notes of the forensic expert who was looking at the exhibits, just when that piece of evidence came up. This is the piece of evidence that was spirited away to America, and was never tested for explosive residues (something about cost, or resources, though that seems ridiculous). If there's actually any significance to any of that, rather than just general bungling, it does point to conspiracy rather than cock-up. As far as I can make out, that little fragment is all that was ever found of the actual bomb. Even if the suggestions that it was planted are unfounded, it's hard to know how sure anyone can be that it was a part of the device it was alleged to be part of, given how small it was. Also, there was evidence that devices of that nature were supplied to the East German Stazi as well as Libya, which could then have found their way into the hands of Palestinians. All very confusing, really. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 06:44 AM | #136 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
31st August 2009, 06:47 AM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Of course, the real conspiracy theory is that al-Megrahi is in fact Scottish. His real name is the giveaway - Ally McGrachey.
|
31st August 2009, 07:05 AM | #138 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, he apparently now speaks "English" with a pronounced Glasgow accent!
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 07:25 AM | #139 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I had a very fragmented idea of this whole tale, gleaned from numerous individual articles focussing on various different aspects of the puzzle. The Private Eye article pulls most of that together, and makes the anomalies and question marks a lot easier to understand. (Nevertheless there are still several aspects it didn't cover, such as a babygro that is said to have been recovered intact but was later presented shredded at a later date.)
My understanding that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe was always separate from my thoughts about the CT. It's so much easier to assume that it was cock-up rather than conspiracy, and that failing sufficient evidence to bring the Palestinian suspects to trial, all concerned had simply gone after the Libyans who happened to have been in Malta at the wrong time, because it looked as if it might be possible to build a case against them to come to court. Some of what the Eye reports is almost certainly barnacle. Extra bits growing on the factual skeleton, and obscuring it. However, the suggestions of a deliberate cover-up of the evidence against the Palestinians are quite wide-ranging. On the one hand, this all has something of the air of "no smoke without fire" about it. On the other hand, just how many people is it being suggested were actually pressurised by the CIA to conceal/change evidence? I'm not sure, but I've a feeing it might be getting up there with the 9/11 NWO theories, which would make it just a tad unlikely. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 08:02 AM | #140 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
And as a person with a track record (or 'form' as it's known in UK crimespeak ) for over-enthusiasm for CT's, I'm trying to tread more carefully than usual.
However - a question for you Rolfe. One where you can act as theoretical debunker-in-chief here : As a student of this subject, can you point to just one substantial piece of evidence that incriminates Megrahi to the confidence level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' ? And I don't mean that piece of evidence should - in itself - be sufficient to secure a conviction in court, merely that it should be solid enough to reach (say) an 80% chance of actually being true ? Then, perhaps, any such evidence could be analysed piece-by-piece to see how it adds up? Cheers |
31st August 2009, 09:42 AM | #141 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think it's overstating the case to label me as "a student of the subject". As I said in the OP, I've been aware that there were huge doubts over the conviction since Camp Zeist in 2001. However, my information was piecemeal, from many different articles read over the years since the tragedy, many of which assumed basic knowledge that I either didn't have or had forgotten. I came to the CT section here looking for more information, and was a bit stunned to find nothing. Given that here we have an exploded airliner full(ish) of American citizens, middle eastern terrorism, obvious problems with the "official version" and some pretty well-grounded undebunked claims of a CIA coverup, I'm still astonished that the Twoofers aren't all over it like a rash. Anyway, I'm not aware of any credible evidence to link Megrahi to the crime. Giaka made a number of allegations, however his evidence was thrown out by the court as having been quite obviously fabricated to placate and curry favour with the CIA. Now, there are various allegations flying around that as well as keeping him on the payroll and supplying him with goodies, the CIA also offered him $4 million if he gave evidence that led to a conviction. If Private Eye is even close to accurate, Giaka just made it all up to please the CIA, who wanted him to implicate Megrahi and Fhimah. (Since Giaka's evidence was the only thing connecting Fhimah to the crime, Fhimah was duly acquitted. And that was a "not guilty", by the way, not a "not proven".) A connection has been alleged between Megrahi and Bollier, who worked for the company that produced the MEBO timing devices. I'm fairly sure Megrahi had a strong connection with the company, at least. I'm not wholly clear about what has been proved about this, but I don't think it was ever shown that Megrahi took delivery of such a timer. And then of course that line of enquiry runs into the questionable provenance of the timer fragment. Then we have Tony Gauci. Tony Gauci said that he sold the clothes found in the suitcase with the bomb to a man who was at least 6 feet tall and over 50 years old. He tried to pinpoint the day by saying that it was raining (he remembered the purchaser also buying an umbrella for that reason), and he was alone in his shop because his brother Paul had gone home to watch the football. He also said that this happened before the Christmas decorations were put up. Paul Gauci looked at dates of football matches and said he thought this was probably 23rd November, but 7th December was also a possibility. Meteorological data showed a light shower on 23rd November, but no evidence of rain on 7th December. However, when pressed, the met office said that while there was definitely no rain at Luqa that day, they couldn't completely exclude "a few drops" possibly having fallen in Sliema, which is three miles away. One of the points stated in the SCCRC report which was grounds for the appeal was in relation to the Christmas lights. At the trial, it was asserted that the lights were either not yet up, or were in the process of going up, on the day the clothes were sold. It was said they were habitually put up "15 days before Christmas", which would be 10th December. However, it appears there is actually evidence they went up a month before Christmas, in late November, which would again push the date of the sale to the 23rd November rather than 7th December. The problem is that Megrahi had an unbreakable alibi for 23rd November. It seems to be absolutely agreed that without Gauci's evidence, there is nothing that would come even close to standing up in court. And it was precisely Gauci's evidence that the SCCRC said was grounds for appeal. Now, as well as the allegations that Giaka was offered $4 million if he gave evidence to secure a conviction at Camp Zeist, there are allegations printed in respected media that Tony Gauci was given $2 million and Paul Gauci $1 million. I understand the brothers are now living in Australia, though whether there is evidence of them having that sort of money I don't know. The move to Australia seems to have been recent. Megrahi was a senior officer in the Libyan secret service. His work took him to Malta fairly frequently. He had connections with the company that made the timing devices, a fragment of which was allegedly found in the wreckage of flight 103. He was in Malta using a false passport on the morning of the crash. He was also in Malta on 7th December, and could have purchased the clothes if that was the day they were sold. However, he was never shown to have possessed one of the timing devices, it appears impossible for anyone to have got that suitcase bomb on board the plane at Malta, and it appears that 7th December was not the day the clothes were sold. He is also nowhere near 6 feet tall, and was 36 at the time. Gauci never identified him with any degree of certainty, he only said he was quite like the purchaser, but 10 years too young. And a Libyan intelligence officer swanning around with a false passport is not exactly uncommon. This has all the hallmarks of someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and quite possibly up to no good in some other respect unconnected with Pan Am 103. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 01:44 PM | #142 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Here is the link to the "listen-again" of the Saturday Play "Lockerbie on Trial", broadcast on 29th August (repeated from 2001). It's available till mid-afternoon on Saturday 5th September. I don't know how to save it as a file - I should have recorded it on casette tape when it was broadcast!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rbie_on_Trial/
Quote:
Not that the first few minutes of the file are actually the end of the previous programme - "Any Answers". Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 02:07 PM | #143 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
My bad. Not a "sugar-cube" timer, an "ice-cube" timer. No wonder I couldn't find anything when I googled it! Here is an article from the Independent dated 2003, which covers the issue.
Quote:
This article by Dr. Ludwig de Braeckeleer appears on more than one site. It's dated 2008, and takes the SCCRC report into consideration also.
Quote:
It's all very, very confusing. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 02:29 PM | #144 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Two more very useful pages here.
The original 90-paragraph judgement from the 2001 trial. A site covering the original 2002 appeal. Also, once more.... The press release outlining the grounds for appeal determined in 2007. One thing I'm confused about is the credibility of Jim Swire. He's widely respected, he's obviously intelligent, and he knows the case inside out. The thing that makes me wonder, is the web site of his campaign. http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ There's buggerall there. A front page, three short supplementary pages with stuff three people involved said about it, and a page taking pre-publication orders for a book he can't seem to find a publisher for. Hmmmmm. If you can't find a publisher these days, then you have two options. Self-publish, using a site like this. http://www.printondemand-worldwide.com/ This ought to circumvent any reservations a conventional publisher would have about legal ramifications. Or put the damn thing up on the internet, and if you're really keen to make a buck from it, put it behind a pay-wall. The site just seems to have "CT" all over it. And Jim Swire seems to be the main proponent of the "ice cube" theory. There are an awful lot of people who have taken a lot of interest in all this, and nobody's really sure about anything. However, I certainly can't see where the evidence is that Megrahi did it "beyond reasonable doubt". And listening to the dramatised version the BBC broadcast only two weeks after the verdict, neither can the editors of that little lot. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 02:51 PM | #145 |
not a camel
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 85,734
|
'I'll Reveal True Identity Of Bomber'
"AN AMERICAN citizen is to be named by the Lockerbie bomber as the man who really carried out the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103. Megrahi’s early release from prison on compassionate grounds. Lawyers for the bomber were to argue that an 'elusive' terrorist codenamed Abu Elias planted the bomb in December 1988, causing the deaths of 270 innocent people. Megrahi is now expected to identify the man behind this alias. The Scottish Sunday Express tracked this man down to his home in the US, and he strongly denied having anything to do with the atrocity. However, we can reveal that he has connections to at least two international terrorists and a Palestinian terror group, as well as links to the US intelligence services." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...tity-of-bomber |
__________________
empty void in space epic wasteland so dark you have no direction and die in sensory deprivation madness all your fault anyway jerk ~ Hlafordlaes |
|
31st August 2009, 02:59 PM | #146 |
Chief Punkah Wallah
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
|
I can tell you're not familiar with the Express, but you never know - it could be right.
|
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party |
|
31st August 2009, 03:41 PM | #147 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
I'd suggest this is because Megrahi was so obviously fitted-up that it's an unattractive propostion even for a dedicated CTist. Just too mundane?
Me neither. I'd be very interested, though, to hear otherwise from anybody. Incidentally I totally agree with your description of the "barnacles" attached to the case presented by Paul Foot. Why do people do that? It's not as if he needed to sex it up to sell it to Sun readers. They were never going to be in sight anyway. |
31st August 2009, 04:04 PM | #148 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 73
|
Paul Foot (RIP) was not the biggest fan of the US, and that may some go way to explain the "barnacles", though, with respect to the possibility of there being a US sponsored drug smuggling operation involved, the farmer stating that he found a suitcase full of "white powder" and the CIA officers on board the flight, might, to some, suggest there's more to it that pure speculation...
|
31st August 2009, 04:07 PM | #149 |
not a camel
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 85,734
|
|
__________________
empty void in space epic wasteland so dark you have no direction and die in sensory deprivation madness all your fault anyway jerk ~ Hlafordlaes |
|
31st August 2009, 04:21 PM | #150 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Depends which view you take. If you think they just fitted up Megrahi in order to "get a conviction", then that is probably too mundane. Might make an episode of Ashes to Ashes, that's about all. On the other hand, there's plenty meat on the story that the CIA fitted up Megrahi specifically to draw attention from Iran, the real culprit. Because Desert Storm was beginning, and Bush Snr needed Iran onside against Iraq, their ancient enemy. And that one might actually fly. Then if you're a full-on twoofer, you can take in the barnacles as well. Cases full of drugs. Two CIA operatives on the flight. CIA sponsoring a drug-running operation, and I can't actually remember the details of where that one goes, but it's sanity itself compared to thermite and holographic planes and skyscrapers wired for demolition when nobody was looking. I wonder if it's because if you start looking for Lockerbie analyses, you find quite sensible, mature, well-educated, knowledgeable people with serious doubts about it all, and maybe the twoofers don't fit in that sort of social circle? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 04:24 PM | #151 |
not a camel
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 85,734
|
Funny how paranoid of being labelled CTs ya all are! Hee hee!
|
__________________
empty void in space epic wasteland so dark you have no direction and die in sensory deprivation madness all your fault anyway jerk ~ Hlafordlaes |
|
31st August 2009, 04:42 PM | #152 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I also found this page, an article by a Maltese journalist who attended the trial at Camp Zeist. This seems to have been written during the trial, before the verdict.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/news1/lockerbie/gauci.htm
Quote:
The index page for that citation looks seriously interesting too. News accounts and other material coming out actually during the trial. http://www.mathaba.net/news/news1/lockerbie/ Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st August 2009, 05:50 PM | #153 |
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
|
Is there a primary source for this "security services" dismissal? Given the raid of a terrorist cell in Frankfurt several weeks before Lockerbie, in which a bomb concealed in a radio went "missing," it's a little had to tell what "dismissed ... as coincidence" means without context (not to mention, which security service?)
|
31st August 2009, 06:32 PM | #154 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 73
|
I'd step back from suggesting Paul Foot was a twoofer. A leftist? Beyond doubt, but more in the Noam Chomsky model, i.e. a critic of US foreign policy, but not one to believe the US would initiate terrorist attacks against its own citizens. WRT CIA drug smuggling, back in the late 80s and early 90s it wasn't that far fetched to believe the CIA would provide aid and assistance to drug smugglers, at the very least it turned a blind eye to its Contra assets affiliations with drug smugglers, and this may have fed into Foot's barnacles ...
As you say, the barnacles are sanity compared to thermite, etc, given that the farmer saw the case of powder, there were CIA operatives on board the plane and the mysterious disappearing body. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation to it all, but on the surface it's odd. But these details are barnacles when it comes to the guilt or otherwise of Megrahi. |
1st September 2009, 01:06 AM | #155 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
JihadJane illuminates, as ever.
The label is no worry at all. But I was a CTist once upon a time, and I find it useful to consider whether I'm slipping into that mode of thinking again. So if it turns out that Megrahi is much taller than 5'8" or Gauci never actually stated the customer was at least 50, that's fine. Even though it puts a huge dent in the position I'm currently holding. |
1st September 2009, 06:38 AM | #156 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st September 2009, 07:44 AM | #157 |
Scholar and a Gentleman
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
|
Soooo..... the government fitted up the wrong people, and then made sure lots of people *kinda* think it *may* have been a miscarriage of justice, in order to later drum up rumoured suspicion for another fabricated culprit. While doing this, they will prevent the original patsy from being properly exonerated, and will maintain, at the highest levels of diplomacy, that they are convinced that his conviction is safe.
That's definitely what happened. Crazy triple-bluff! Those sneaky government BASTARDS! |
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'. |
|
1st September 2009, 01:04 PM | #158 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Not sure. The range of speculation is impressive. I think that one is citing David Shayler, asserting that the Libyans are genuinely guilty and all the stuff about Iran and the Palestinians is disinfo.
Here's another on the same page.
Quote:
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st September 2009, 01:18 PM | #159 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm watching The Maltese Double Cross, the 1994 film that was banned in the USA.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...54996287567609 I noticed one discrepancy with the Private Eye account. Dr. Fieldhouse is interviewed in the film, and complains that he labelled 58 bodies, and later all but two of his labels were removed and replaced by others. He says nothing at all about having labelled a 59th body that disappeared. There's so much hearsay you just don't know where to start. However, Martin Cadman does give his account of having been told by a US official that both governments know who did it but they'll never tell. I'd read that, but it underlines it seeing him actually relate it to camera. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st September 2009, 01:53 PM | #160 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I found the explanation of the Baby-gro inconsistency (it was blue not pink).
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/her...494316.0.0.php
Quote:
So that's what they one is about. I can't see how it relates to the price of fish. If the baby-gro was bought in Malta, and the rest of the evidence shows that the clothes bought in Malta were in the suitcase with the bomb, then where exactly would this be going? Here's another take on the timing of the explosion. http://www.indopedia.org/Pan_Am_flight_103.html
Quote:
I still don't see why they would aim for the Irish Sea rather than the middle of the Atlantic. This account does acknowledge that the delay was relatively short and there was no way the plane would have been over the Atlantic at the time of the explosion even if it had been bang up to time. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|