|
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. |
9th October 2009, 03:51 PM | #321 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Yes. The story about the $3 million was around for most of the summer, but didn't seem to be corroborated. If it's in the Appeal papers, though, it's corroborated. I had also read that Tony and Paul are now living in Australia - I hadn't heard the "in luxury" part before, but I thought that must be the case.
The interest in these new papers is largely in the illumination of the Gauci family. Tony Gauci was described (by Peter Fraser) as "an apple short of a picnic". It's fairly clear he remembered something, but exactly what isn't as clear as I thought it was. (I thought his first statement was reliable, but even that is a bit dubious in places.) Paul Gauci and the father seem to have been the controlling influences, but unfortunately it was the rather simple one who actually made the sale and had to make the identification without direct prompting. So we have a picture of Tony having some idea of the circumstances of the sale, and a description of the purchaser. This is followed by a dozen or so more interviews where the police try to get him to remember more - specifically, to remember stuff about items they want him to remember about. Oh, and they want him to identify the purchaser. Specifically, they want him to identify Megrahi, so they downplay the age and height differences between Megrahi and his original description. Gauci does think the purchaser was Abu Talb, but doesn't pick him out when given the chance. When he identified Megrahi, he actually seems to have thought he was identifying a picture of Abu Talb. Mainly, Gauci is trying to please the police. He wants to give them what they want. So he didn't sell the man a shirt. Then he remembered selling him a shirt. He was over 50 and over 6 feet and heavy-set. Or maybe not. I'm not so good on ages (or heights? this from a man who reputedly could pick the right size out for a customer just by looking at him). The Christmas lights weren't up. Oh, they were just putting the Christmas lights up. No, didn't I say the Christmas lights were up when this happened? Does he really know what he remembers after this lot? I doubt it. And as for him picking out Megrahi in court, well, really. You'd have to be dimmer even than Tony not to know you're supposed to pick out the guy in the dock, and Fhimah looked quite different from all the descriptions he'd been rehearsing. Even then, he apparently had to be prompted a bit. And in any case, as a couple of people said, there had been so much publicity by this time, with a number of pictures of Megrahi in circulation, that anyone who had never clapped eyes on the guy could have picked him out by that time. A moderately bright person who wanted the reward would have been a lot clearer, and eventually given a much more confident identification. But a rather dim, slow, apple-short-of-a-picnic guy who was being pressurised by Big Brother to get it right for the money might come over exactly like that. I love the way they decided to give Paul $1 million of his very own for supporting Tony and getting him to step up to the mark. The Herald ran with this one day this week, on the front page and an inside page (I think it was Monday but I'd have to check the paper recycling basket). No letters (or maybe one short one) and no follow-up. It's not buzzing enormously. But I totally fail to see how that can be described as a reliable identification, given the contradictions, the changing of the story, the passage of time, and the uncertainty. Gauci never did say, that's the guy. He only ever said he resembled the guy. It looks as if Megrahi did look a bit like the purchaser, except he was younger, not so tall, and not so heavily built. That case should have been thrown out ten years ago. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
10th October 2009, 02:29 AM | #322 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Sorry to bump all these threads, just another thought I posted on the wrong one but here's hwere it belongs:
Quote:
See the poster for it as shown in Conspiracy Files, adapted by me. Clever. Suitcase bombers, we bomb back with cash, this cash could be yours if whatever. We're serious, these guys, we know it, support the war effort. Buy bonds. Offer false leads. We got filters... Okay, so point here is this legendary $4 million dollar offer was only put up in 1995. Now, what evidence that mattered had they not already secured by then? The Mebo chip, the baggage printout, both were secured and IDd and understood by mid-1990, and helped form the 91 indictment. Giaka was in protection and off Malta and cooperating by 91 I hear. When was gauci secured? That's less clear to me, but well before 95, right? Now, Giaka's gotta have been payed out of this, if grumbled over too. The Gaucis were paid $3 million we know of. Thurman was able to "retire" fine. I don't know about Erac. Marquise insists no one was offered money for their testimony. Only Bollier says he was offered the $4 million back in 91 IIRC. Meh. So... did this official offer ever get paid out for anything new after 95? If not, why no more evidence unless this was a ghost of a case? Was the offer in effect before 95? Was it just a smokescreen to post-facto explain any previously agreed payouts like those to the Gaucis? Oh no, that was all BEFORE 95, so it doesn't apply we didn't buy THAT... Really, after all the evidence they had by 91, why offer up any money for a few more tidbits unless you really expect to get no more? And why even then? Simply for a public relations "blitz?" To get those faces out there and show how serious they were? ETA: Another plea for debunk-like counterpoints! Cmon folks! I'm blogging this stuff. Many of you worry about conspiracy theorists spoutimg dangerous nonsense on the unternets, and here I am giving you an opportunity to stop the stuff at the gate and you're all just acquiescing. Shameful! |
10th October 2009, 12:57 PM | #323 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
That is interesting. I thought the reward was very strange all along. It's not so unusual to offer a reward for information that leads the police to identify the perpetrator, but offering a reward for help in convicting a named person is very unusual, surely. (That link is broken by the way.)
I think the indictment against Megrahi and Fhimah was in 1991. That's when Gadaffi refused to extradite them, and the UN sanctions were imposed. I'm sure at that stage the story was that there was "incontrovertible evidence" against them. And I'm not aware of any further evidence that was secured after that date. I think they stopped interviewing Gauci after late 1990. I can't understand what they hoped to achieve by the reward offer. They had their evidence, allegedly. They knew where the accused were, in Libya with no extradition. Were they advertising for someone to go and kidnap them or what? All we know about the reward is that the Gaucis allegedly got $3 million. Giaka's evidence was thrown out, and in any case his main reward was the witness protection programme and the salary the CIA was paying him. I don't see any reason to libel Mrs. Erac, as there's nothing against her except a rather unusual, coincidental story. Nobody has ever suggested she reveived any money, and I can't actually see any great motivation for anyone going to the trouble of subverting her and fabricating a link to Malta at that stage of events. I'd love to know the reason for that reward offer. Did I mention your link is broken? Rolfe. ETA: OK, found it, it's here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ward032495.htm According to the article, it was about trying to bribe Libyans or other Arabs who might have information about how the pair might be apprehended, possibly information about them occasionally having ventured out of Libya.
Quote:
Nevertheless, it's perfectly clear that the Gaucis, especially Paul, were very keen indeed to be paid for their evidence, and every reason to suspect they were trying to please the police for this reason. http://www.megrahimystory.net/downlo...%20Appeal.pdf? |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
10th October 2009, 11:32 PM | #324 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I s'pose actually reading the article would help.
Indeed, good catch: the reward (publicly at least) was about physically getting their men, rather than the evidence they needed to get them. Which they already had. So the suggestions I've seen around that this money might be tied to testimonies and evidence are misleading. Conspiracy Files did mention it in that context. The amount does simulate somewhat what the Gaucis finally got (up to 4, they got at least 3 we know of). Four million is the exact amount "ebol" claimed to be offered, itself good evidence they were not running around offering 4 million to all witnesses. There might be something to this of the smokescreen category, but it's not an in-the-open "of course we paid for information" type of deal. |
11th October 2009, 01:37 AM | #325 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
That appears about the closest thing they were looking for.
Quote:
Quote:
I did skim that, big document. It would be stupid to pay these guys by the terms of publicly announced reward system. However, having people believe it was that system, swindled or twisted by a moneygrubbing witness, might have been preferable to the real trade-off becoming public. Paying people money to show the bros "their position is recognised and they continue to receive the respect their conduct has earned." Conduct was to steer Tony into an increasingly Megrahi-implicating stance over the course of a dozen-plus re-interviews. That is hard work, not some simple task like telling clearly what you remembered and being done with it. Hard work deserves good pay, dontcha think? |
11th October 2009, 08:28 PM | #326 |
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
|
I'm continuing to follow this thread with no small amount of fascination.
Still a bit behind in digesting some of it but at least one question has popped into my head that I don't think I've seen addressed. Is there any evidence that PanAm 103 was specifically targeted? |
11th October 2009, 09:59 PM | #327 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Fascination, huh? Great, thanks!
Quote:
On this I love the BBC Conspiracy Files opening line:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't have a handy source where the presumed intent was stated clearest and most officially. You could check the Opinion of the Court PDF (2001), using searches for relevant words/phrases, like "tags" "interline" "routed" etc. Officially I know of no reason this flight was targeted in particular except that it fit the right criteria in general. Rolfe will certainly have more insights on that, and hopefully this will help you get a grip on some other questions, and so on... Side-note that ties in a bit, opinion of the court
Quote:
|
12th October 2009, 03:48 AM | #328 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Sorry, another tl;dr post coming up.... There are two answers to that, I think. One is that apart from a very isolated suggestion from one online source that the bomb was really intended for a direct Frankfurt to New York flight but was mis-directed, nobody has seriously claimed otherwise. If it had been a serious possibility, like with actual evidence, I would have expected the point to have been raised at least somewhere in the voluminous documentaries and discussions published by the serious investigators. What the suggestion does address is the blatant insanity of the timing of the explosion. (Actually, it's odd how infrequently this is mentioned.) Many discussions state blandly that the bomb was intended to explode mid-Atlantic, but because the plane was late, Lockerbie happened. This is nonsense. The plane was only about 15 minutes late. It was scheduled to leave the stand at 6pm, and it more or less did that. How long does it take a plane to leave the ground, from leaving the stand, usually? Ten minutes? PA103 left the ground at 6.25, due to rush-hour traffic at the airport. That's fifteen minutes late, which is frankly nothing. Even if it had been on time, on the route it took, it would barely have cleared the coast. If it had taken the more southerly route it apparently usually took, had it not been for a bad weather system, it might have ditched in the Irish Sea. Maybe. They had the whole bloody Atlantic out there. Four or five hours of it. WHY? There would have been no reasonable advantage to crashing the plane on land. Trying to cause additional ground casualties that way is a small chance. Once you've cleared Manchester, habitation is the exception. Lockerbie was really bad luck. All you achieve is to leave shed-loads of evidence (literally!) for the authorities to rake over. (If you really want the chance of a crash on a city, short of a suicide hijacking, your best bet is to aim for the destination city and hope the plane is up to time - that way, even if it's late, you still get your crash.) So, the 7.03pm explosion makes no sense in the context of PA103. It might make good sense in the context of a different flight that was supposed to be well out over the Atlantic at that time. However, if that was the case, show us the evidence, not just speculation. (And since there is no positive evidence of how the bag got on PA103, whose it was, or where it came from, you're struggling.) If there were such evidence, then we could dismiss the 38-minute explosion, which was bang on schedule for a Khreesat-make device loaded or activated at Heathrow, as just one more spooky coincidence to join all the others surrounding this flight. But I've not seen any such evidence, merely assertion and speculation. The second answer really hinges on whether many of the other spooky coincidences were really coincidences or not. We know there were various warnings floating around about a possible attack on a transatlantic Pan Am flight, some mentioning Frankfurt to New York (which would of course cover a direct flight as well). Evidence of people "in the know" about these warnings having changed their travel plans is usually attributed to a general avoidance of all flights in that category. However, there have been serious suggestions that those really in the know were aware that PA103 on 21st December was the specific target - even to the point that it was a LIHOP of some description. The plane appears to have been used for smuggling heroin. One of the dead passengers was a known drug courier. Some of the most persistent CTs hinge on the suggestion that a drug suitcase was taken off and the bomb suitcase substituted (see The Trail of the Octopus). The point being that the drug suitcases were being routed past the security inspections wholesale, which is why the bomb wasn't detected. If this is the case, then there is no question of a mistaken plane. There were a number of CIA operatives on the flight. One CT version suggests that these people were being specifically targeted. Some authors go further and link the CIA operatives to the drug smuggling, and a "drugs for hostages" deal parallel with the Oliver North "arms for hostages" affair. Which of course is one possible reason for a cover-up. There certainly seems to have been something on that flight that the US authorities didn't want to fall into the wrong hands, if even half the stories about US agents interfering with evidence on the ground from the very early stages are even close to true. There's even a suggestion that a body was spirited away. Then again, the South African part of the CT also implies specific knowledge that PA103 was the target. Pik Botha was booked on the flight, but inexplicably at the last minute his itinerary was changed so that he caught the earlier PA101 flying the same route. Conversely, Bernt Carlsson was originally intended to catch an earlier flight (to the same conference), but may have been deliberately delayed by SA authorities so that he ended up on PA103. There is a CT that says the South Africans knew the plane was the target, and simply took appropriate steps to make sure their own people weren't on it and someone they wanted rid of was. I haven't investigated these aspects in detail. There are certainly problems with some of these assertions, but I don't know how deep they run. It's a helluva lot of smoke to have absolutely no fire attached, but I don't know. What's the chances of any random transatlantic flight being that far up to its neck in intrigue? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
12th October 2009, 04:25 AM | #329 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Lol. Sorry I'm a jerk sometimes about things like that. I suppose a veneer of smartass is one of my shields. I actually did read that, thanks for the SA VIP summary. I think I get that part better now. Compelling, but could well be coincidental.
ETA: Right brain says: of course, South Africa did the bombing itself, and framed North Africa, for some super-Rhodesian Pan-White-African-Anglo-American arching axis psyop or... hmm, nevermind. Hmmm... Mandella has been really active in all this... |
12th October 2009, 12:53 PM | #330 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I got the link to this article from Robert Black's blog.
http://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/who-...erbie-1.632554 I note Marquise is again very active in the comments section. I feel he may be protesting too much. It's all a bit pointless, in a way. Perhaps he just wants to set the record straight, right enough. But then, it's very easy just to parrot the official line and announce that your sooper-seekrit inside knowledge allows you to pontificate any way you like. Who can say? I see another comment declaring that there was "overwhelming" evidence against Megrahi. Maybe he could show it to us, because I cannot find it anywhere in the Court publications. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
14th October 2009, 05:47 AM | #331 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
And the plot thickens even further. More from the Black blog.
Quote:
You couldn't make this up. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 05:23 AM | #332 |
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. |
|
19th October 2009, 07:55 AM | #333 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Tam Dalyell raised an important question in the Hiuse of Commons in 2002. He was concerned with the destruction of records pertaining to Lockerbie.
He stated, "Now that the appeal is over, what steps are being taken to preserve the productions amassed by the Crown for use in the Lockerbie trial? Can an assurance be given that they will not be destroyed in the same way as certain police note books have apparently been destroyed?" Dalyell went onto to the matter of police notebooks. Former Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, a thoroughly credible retired police constable had stated:
Quote:
Quote:
|
19th October 2009, 08:55 AM | #334 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
|
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
19th October 2009, 09:47 AM | #335 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Oh. Thanks. Every time you think you've begun to get your head round this, some other huge confounder emerges.
It's like a huge tangled ball of string, maybe several bits of string, and several ends dangling. Which end is the key to unravelling it? I have no clue! Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 02:33 PM | #336 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Frankfurt baggage records disappear. Police noteooks disappear.
I was tentatively thinking about one tiny piece of planted evidence. But just how big is this, and is it ridiculous to think it could be as big as some people suggest? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 03:53 PM | #337 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
|
19th October 2009, 04:02 PM | #338 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'd heard this mentioned, but only when I was at the stage of being totally overwhelmed by anomalous information.
Tell you what, Googling his name gets you nothing. Just pages repeating what Tam said, and lists of the victims, and other people of the same name. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 04:05 PM | #339 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
Apologies if this has already been linked to, I've lost track in trying to keep up with all of this. When searcing for references to Joseph Patrick Curry (again the reference comes as part of Tam Dayell's speech), I came across this collection of documents compiled by Hans Koechler - you can read some of it online:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X...age&q=&f=false |
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
20th October 2009, 12:08 AM | #340 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
20th October 2009, 01:51 AM | #341 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think you might find that most of these are available from Hans Kochler's own web site. http://www.i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
20th October 2009, 02:41 AM | #342 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Hey, Glenn's back! I did the searches now - I have to wonder just who would be telling random cops on the case that a US Special Forces guy was going to be blamed for this. Depends on who, and how they found out, etc.
I have always wondered about the suitcase and just what's known about it - were the tags blown off or what? I should know that...
Originally Posted by Opinion of the Court, point 9
Originally Posted by Opinion of the Court, point 25
I'm just not sure what to make of it. |
20th October 2009, 02:50 AM | #343 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I don't think we can conclude that Curry was going to be blamed for the bombing. He was killed, remember?
I was thinking more about the possibility that the bomb bag had been switched for his bag at some stage. But then, he travelled from Frankfurt, didn't he, and the Bedford suitcase was seen before PA103A landed from Frankfurt. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
20th October 2009, 03:50 AM | #344 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Sorry, I got two lines crossed there - but that a SF guy was specified as the suspicious point-of-entry person, perhaps the owner of the bag replaced with Bedford's samsonite, which raises questions. Then I see you think Curry came in from frankfurt after all, so apparently not... I guess what I'm saying is I'm a little suspicious when someone reveals that a major clue that will later unravel the whole case is just casually handed to low-level people to later reveal. Suspicious but open-minded.
|
20th October 2009, 05:16 AM | #345 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
But Boylan states:
"What he [the Procurator Fiscal] did say was that the owner of said suitcase was a Joseph Patrick Curry and that I would be hearing and reading a lot about him at the time of the trial." Well, that a member of US Special Forces was killed in the bombing would, perhaps, be briefly newsworthy. That Boylan would be 'hearing and reading a lot about him at the time of the trial' appears very unlikely from the p.o.v. of that time. Unless Curry was more than a coincidental victim. The CTist in me thinks that the Proc.Fisc. was maybe a little over-excited about how he saw things panning out and blabbed something to Boylan that he(?) should have kept under his hat. But then I constantly fight my own CTist tendencies and sometimes lose. p.s. I've been following virtually your every word, folks Excellent stuff it is too, though as mentioned this particular pile of spaghetti is growing and has more dangly ends almost by the day, it seems. As Dalyell said "There is a whole literature on this subject—one almost needs to be a professor of Lockerbie studies—" |
21st October 2009, 04:26 PM | #346 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I see there were reports earlier today that Megrahi has died, however this has been denied by his legal team. It does sound as if his condition is very poor, however.
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
22nd October 2009, 03:01 PM | #347 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Apparently he is not dead just yet, as there's no more news on it.
In other news, as calls for an inquiry into Megrahi's release seem to have paid off. MacAskill's "quasi-judicial" decision has led to speculation of a deal over his appeal (drop it and go), and others want to investigate oil deals with Libya and their affect on releasing a convicted mass-cal terrorisist:
Quote:
So I guess that may cover the possible oil deals with Libya only. ?? |
23rd October 2009, 02:22 PM | #348 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Dunno. I only know that there seems to be a huge political will to thwart that appeal, and then as soon as that is achieved to crow that Megrahi "will die a guilty man" and dismiss everything he says with "well you should have thought of that before you abandoned your appeal, so shut up, mass murderer."
I'd pay good money for a factual text that wasn't running with an agenda or theory, but merely presented what was known for sure, and what could be established regarding the credibility (or otherwise) of claims that can't be objectively verified. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th October 2009, 12:42 AM | #349 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
To clarify the above, they won't be able to examine any of the reasons or decisions, oil or no, sine the only thing that mattered was macAskill's reasons, and those won't be talked about. Since it's about 'the release of al Megrahi,' I presume they'll be looking at narrower questions like which door was he escorted out of, in what weather, taken to what airplane, etc. Should e historic.
On the bolded... how much? On dying a guilty man and not yet, your wonderful Scotman paper has dipped to a ghoulish level, counting his survival time compared to other compassionate releases under macAskill. As one commenter said, but spelled better, "What? Not dead yet? Sack MacAskill!" |
24th October 2009, 02:40 PM | #350 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Now that is quite disgusting. A new low has been reached. (I don't read the Scotsman, and the Herald hasn't printed that one that I noticed.) Of course the Hootsmon hates the SNP like poison, so I suppose it shouldn't be that much of a surprise, but really, have they no sense of decency at all?
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th October 2009, 11:44 AM | #351 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Every Single Time I sit down to post on one of the PA103 threads, a picture of the plane on the grass, or of Megrahi, comes on the TV.
Now, the police are re-opening the enquiry, and they are going to re-examine the forensic evidence. However, it seems as if they are taking Megrahi's guilt - or at least the "it was Libya" theory - as read, despite the SCCRC report. They're not going to look at Jibril or Abu Talb, but about Megrahi's supposed co-conspirators. Christine Creech/Grahame thinks this has more to do with stifling other enquiries such as her FoI requests than finding out any actual truth. Lockerbie Families Welcome New Inquiry Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th October 2009, 04:01 AM | #352 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Uh, here we go again. Every TV news bulletin I watch has footage of Maid of the Seas lying on the grass at Tundergarth, and Sherwood Crescent in flames. I wake up to the normal breakfast radio news team raking over the case One More Time. This is a seriously hot topic, and while I think our conversation is constructive and productive, I'm very surprised by how few people are participating.
Anyway, I sat down to eat breakfast, opened the dead-tree paper which had been delivered earlier in the morning, and here's what was in it. (This paper is probably the best source for the Pan Am 103 case, because it's the national Scottish paper covering that turf. And the Scotsman has just forfeited any right to be called a serious newspaper.) The front page (not headline). Lockerbie relatives' cautious welcome for review
Originally Posted by Torcuil Crichton
Inside article, page 9. Actually, the online version is quite a bit longer and more detailed than what is in the printed paper - as well as having a different headline. Oddly, there seems to be nothing in the printed paper about Henderson - the police point of view is solely represnted by Patrich Shearer. Quite a lot from Henderson online though. Police hunt for eight 'high level' Lockerbie accomplices
Originally Posted by Torcuil Crichton
Main editorial, page 12. This starts to ask some more searching questions. Lockerbie questions
Quote:
And that letter, on page 13 (scroll to last letter). Original suspect in Pan Am atocity should be the starting point for further examination of evidence
Originally Posted by Dr Jim Swire
Listening to the BBC reporting of the matter, it was clear that Megrahi's guilt is not to be questioned, despite the report of the SCCRC which stated that he might heve been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Rather, this is all about identifying his "co-conspirators". Duh? It was always contended that he had co-conspirators. And I don't just mean Fhimah. The question we should be asking is, why now? Why did this investigation ever sit on its laurels with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, right back in 1991 or whenever? Even more importantly, when Fhimah was acquitted ("no case to answer", remember?), and it was quite obvious that Megrahi could not possibly have done what he was alleged to have done on his own, why was this new investigation not launched then. In 2001? The first thing that happened last night was Christine Grahame on TV saying this was all highly convenient, as the "ongoing investigation" meant that her FoI requests could now be denied. And indeed, it does seem as if this is nothing but a ploy to prevent inquiry into the possibility that someone other than Megrahi put that bomb on the plane, by instituting an ongoing enquiry into who may have helped him. By reviving the case in this way, it ensures that official investigation doesn't go anywhere near any alternative explanations, while allowing any other investigations to be blocked. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th October 2009, 02:29 PM | #353 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Sinking feeling. Sounds like a lame investigation of the same old crap. Don't even bother investigating the MST-13 paperwork or missing Senegal timer, or the lack of BKA response over Frankfurt Airport's records. Looking for Megrahi's "bosses?" How much deeper will they insist on plunging into this delusion? Why not also look into who really sponsored the MacGuire family and gave them that gelignite chalk? That's worth asking after, isn't it? Surely they didn't act alone! To paraphrase the Conspiracy Files, "the big ones got away." Let's go for it, those Senegal arrestees and Gaddafi himself! Maybe Iran is involved too, paying Libya, there is a world of witnesses and clues to be found. Sanctions this time, or bombs?
Your first link above is broken, even from Google, guess they pulled or moved it. Another similar headline: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-1809424.html
Quote:
Sorry for the rant that adds no new information. |
26th October 2009, 02:37 PM | #354 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Originally Posted by Rolfe
Quote:
|
26th October 2009, 03:09 PM | #355 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Link not broken for me.
The official reason for reopening this case now is that Megrahi dropped his appeal so there are now no ongoing legal matters relating to it. It's news to me that ongoing legal proceedings stops the police investigating whether an accused person had accomplices. Nobody ever mentioned this as a problem over the past 17 years when no other suspects were being sought. They were wittering on about DNA on the radio this morning while I was getting dressed. Yeah right, they'll get meaningful DNA from the dregs of an explosion that happened over 21 years ago, after the evidence has been trawled over for explosives residues and all sorts - not. Robert Black has a bit more to say about this. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
27th October 2009, 03:16 AM | #356 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Mmm, maybe I was too hasty in dismissing the possibility of DNA evidence coming up with something. If the DNA of a suspect were to be found on any of the clothes packed in the bomb suitcase, that would certainly be pretty sensational. I only hope that stuff has been stored sufficiently well that DNA evidence would be preserved and contamination impossible.
Christine Grahame (blogged by Robert Black today)
Quote:
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
27th October 2009, 04:43 AM | #357 |
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 |
|
27th October 2009, 11:02 AM | #358 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think Occam would have had apoplexy over this one. It seems to be necessary to multiply hypotheses to an absolutely insane degree, and even then some anomalies are left dangling.
Of course we're suggesting agents of the state planted evidence. That's what about 80% of the people who've studied this incident seem to be asserting. Does anybody really think that has never, ever been done? The only question here is, is it a plausible suggestion? So far, we have a maybe. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
31st October 2009, 05:20 AM | #359 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
That is a pretty debunker-like statement, in a sense, as has swayed me over. Certainly if a conviction was handed down by Scottish Judges after hearing evidence put together by Scottish police and American FBI, the simplest explanation is that it was a fair and sound verdict.
What's that about explaining ALL the facts? Aw, c'mon! Okay, that was brief flip. In the news: Scottish authorities announce the investigation is not re-opened, it's just being reviewed as it sits, as has been done beofore to see if it should be officially re-opened. Henderson et al. are seeming keen to do so and go after Megrahi's BOSSES! The US ambassador to the UK stresses the two countries will NOT be getting a "divorce" over the release of Megrahi, as upset as they are he didn't die in writhing agony and loneliness in prison, and especially angry how his wife kids got to hug him one last time. If they had lnown, in fact, the US would have extradited the kiiller to a decent American prison where he'd be sure to die. Professor Robert Black explains why this is nonsense and wonders why the guy would say something so stupid. And finally, following suggestions by Dr Swire, et al, an investigation is (reportedly) opening - in Malta, of witness Tony Gauci's testimony. This is bound to be interesting one way or another.
Quote:
|
31st October 2009, 05:49 AM | #360 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 73
|
Welcome aboard. To my knowledge the conviction of Megrahi essentially boils down to eye-witness testimony that Megrahi was the purchaser of certain items of clothing. The eye witness concerned does not appear credible, or, at least, the manner in which his testimony was presented to the court was biased. It is clear that the defence was not provided all the details of the investigation (for instance they were not told of the break in at Heathrow), which makes it plausible to believe they were also not told that the eye witness had said another person looked more like the purchaser of the clothing than the accused. While this may be a challenge to authority, it's one that has been made on several different occasions wrt the British judicial system (unsafe convictions).
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|