Where in the world is "Abu Elias?"

[Caustic Logic]

Yet another fascinating wrinkle to the Lockerbie saga - not a new one really, but one I'm only now looking at.

To introduce "Abu Elias," I'll start with the report FBI's Ed Marshman made from interviews in November 1989 with double-agent bomb maker Marwan Khreesat. (read into record at Camp Zeist, day 76, Dec 5 2000
“Khreesat never saw Abu Elias in Germany, but was told by Dalkamoni that Abu Elias had arrived. (This occurred on October the 22nd, 1988)”
The same day Khreesat set to work on his bombs. I don't have my transcripts handy for fresh quotes... The alleged role of "Elais" varies - supplying parts, supplying a made radio bomb, monitoring Khreesat's work, sneaking one of the bomb onto an airplane. Khressat says he was to do the latter, circumvent airport security, his area of expertise. He and Dalkamouni were on their way to deliver a bomb to "Elias" when they were arrrested. Khreesat later complained the BKA had moved too soon and missed its chance to catch this chimera.

But one bomb (perhaps the one built by Elias himself, modified by Khreesat, it's confusing) had already disappeared, leaving Khreesat with the impression Dalkamouni had already taken it (back?) to Elias. So when he got away, it may have been with a Khreesat rigged bomb.
“Abu Elias was the big centre of the investigation, but he was very elusive,” says former-CIA big-mouth Robert Baer. [source]He remained highly sought after until after until the clues turned to Libya, and by the Nov 1991 indictments of Megrahi and Fhimah "Abu Elias" was forgotten.

Revisionism centered around Elias anyway, starting right away with a PLO report that cited him, not the Libyans, as the bomb builder and a PFLP-GC bigwig. Time magazine’s controversial “Why Did They Die?” cover story in April 1992 included “last month the Palestine Liberation Organization reported that [the bomb] was built by Khaisar Haddad (a.k.a. Abu Elias).”

Coleman/Goddard's Trail of the Octopus describews him as 25-years old, blond with blue eyes, and CHristian from Lebanon. The book says he handed this bomb, that he made, to a contact in Lebanon (ch 13). Mobdi Goben's famous deathbed confession says Elias sneaked it into Khalid Jafaar's luggage in Frankfurt. And then there's reason the believe he placed the bomb at London, in that it blew up like Khreesat''s would if loaded there. Also the evidence for any bomb coming from Frankfurt is weak and evidence of it coming from Malta (where the Libyans were) is about dead in the water.

So if we wondered where he got to after Germany - we don't know. On his release last year, Megrahi said Mr. "Elias" was living safely in the suburbs of Washington D.C., and promised to reveal his true name. It doesn't seem he has yet, nor has anyone but "Aangrifan" identified the guy Megrahi has fingered as Khaiser Haddad.

But the Megrahi threat was reported in a detailed piece by the UK Express, August 23 2009. Some excerpts:

"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."
[...]
Last night the man, who we have chosen not to name, said: “Sorry, I don’t think that I can help in this case. It is a clear case of either mistaken identity and/or fabrication. I don’t wish my name to be mentioned in any capacity in the press. I am sure you understand the sensitivity of this matter since I have a family and children.” However, Christine Grahame MSP, who visited Megrahi in Greenock prison and campaigned for his release, is believed to be considering naming the man in the Scottish Parliament chamber.

She said: “It is apparent that US intelligence has known or must have known the primary suspect of the Lockerbie bombing was alive and living safely in Washington. “There has been a suggestion made that he is in some way an ‘intelligence asset’ for the US and that is why he has been allowed to live in peace. “He must be deeply relieved that Megrahi was forced to drop his appeal and that he will never face justice for this atrocity.”
[...]
The man Megrahi believes was Abu Elias now lives in a suburban neighbourhood near Washington’s Dulles airport, just a few miles from the White House and the Lockerbie memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. He even has his own Facebook social network page. ... He is the nephew of Syrian terror warlord Ahmed Jibril ... works as a schools engineer for the US government ...
[...]
A document submitted to the appeal court by Megrahi’s lawyers states:
“The FBI had apparently investigated ‘X’ and knew he was the nephew of Ahmed Jibril. ‘X’ had met with FBI special agents [an appointment was in his diary for August 1988] but neither ‘X’ nor the Department of Justice would disclose who the agents were or the precise purpose of the recorded meeting. ‘X’ admitted the meeting had taken place. It is inconceivable that he did not produce his Syrian passport for examination. Only extracts from his US passport were revealed. Once again, the hand of the US government appeared to be guiding matters behind the scenes.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...er%20UK%20NEWS

Let's discuss.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Let's discuss.

Or not, as the case may be. I've heard of people even within the 'Lockerbie Truth movement' and certainly those without, say this is a misunderstanding, hoax, or misdirection. Others seem to think its an amazing clue of the United States covering up the truth. If the bomber wound up living so close to the President and his forces, makes one wonder why if not to keep him quiet. I'm not sure what to make of it, but we've got quite a few alleged features to this "Abu Elias." Nephew of Jibril pops to the top as a "whaaaa?"

Wikipedia has no page for Abu Elias. Nor Khreesat either. (!!)

If this is the same Elias mentioned by the PLO, and his name is Kaisher Haddad, his Facebook page is down now. ("Kaisar Haddad" is a different older guy who taught in Lebanon and is now dead. Perhaps related.)

[Rolfe]

Look, I haven't a freaking clue about this bit. It's going to take time to assimilate your OP. And I got other fish to fry for a bit.

I was musing on when (and why) the investigators actively abandoned the idea of pinning this on the PFLP-GC, and wondering which thread to clutter up with the subject. Might get to it in this one.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Look, I haven't a freaking clue about this bit. It's going to take time to assimilate your OP. And I got other fish to fry for a bit.

I was musing on when (and why) the investigators actively abandoned the idea of pinning this on the PFLP-GC, and wondering which thread to clutter up with the subject. Might get to it in this one.

Rolfe.

Oooh, when you start with "look," it seems I've annoyed you. Sorry.

Thanks for the response though. It gets awkward starting a thread alone. Buncrana, Dan O., anyone else? I'd glossed over this before as too tenuous/confusing, etc. But surprisingly Rolfe has remained uninformed on it as well. Does anyone have data on hand or a willingness to help sort out some of the details?

[Rolfe]

No, it's just you give it 11 hours after starting a completely new hare, and expect action?

It's an extremely interesting point, but I don't have any instant responses.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No, it's just you give it 11 hours after starting a completely new hare, and expect action?

It's an extremely interesting point, but I don't have any instant responses.

Rolfe.

Well, a quick post like that would have eased my anxiety. Not that anyone has any responsibility to do that.

I didn't intend that first post to be easy or wortwhile to absorb. It was more of a "whoa, this is crazy" intro to stimulate the slower exploration and absorption then.

Quote:

I was musing on when (and why) the investigators actively abandoned the idea of pinning this on the PFLP-GC, and wondering which thread to clutter up with the subject. Might get to it in this one.

That's maybe its own thread if it's to get real detailed, but delving into it would fit here, as the Abu Elias angle feeds into that larger picture.

For some quick reasons why, we have the motive and its grievance being so darn good and awkward for the U.S. It would be best to NOT be in a tit-for-tat with Iran where the IA655 incident was answered with Lockerbie. That leg needed amputated, and a new one would have to be grown.

For reasons closer to the issue at hand, we've already been aware of the embarrassing fact that the bomb maker did his work on Jordanian intelligence's payroll. He enjoyed protection from them and the CIA, etc. Nobody wants that to be the maker of THAT bomb.

As a side note, another close associate in the group, "Ramzi Diab," was reportedly responsible for bringing in the Semtex for the bombs from Yugoslavia (IIRC). He was arrested in the big bust, released, and fled to Syria where Jibril reportedly had him killed, following a tribunal, for being a mole for Mossad within that important Neuss cell.

Back to Jordanian mole within the same cell - previously I had a hard time reconciling Khreesat's supposed orders to not arm any of his bombs with the fact that all four of those found were armed to the teeth. According to some sources, "Abu Elias" is the reason for that. Ludwig deBraeckeleer:

Quote:

] The 25 years old blond Palestinian heads the military section of the PFLP-GC in Damascus. The presence of Elias in Germany will force Khreesat to make functional bombs contrary to the instructions he received from his Jordan Intelligence handlers.

"Elias" had reportedly inspected Khreesat's work before, when he made five Bombeat IEDs for Jibril in 1985 (just to practice, he says to Marshman).
And according the Khreesat, he was also to handle getting the bomb onto a plane. Both he and one (or two?) of the bombs disappeared. Two brown Samsonites wound up in the lower left corner of AVE4041 before the German feeder, and some kind of brown Samsonite blew up in that corner 38 minutes after takeoff from Heathrow.

And reportedly, the guy who was supposed to have done that was given assylum and a government job in Washington DC. This is an amazing allegation, and one worth looking at closer. If it can be debunked, it should be. For the moment though I have to be on the proponent side.

[Buncrana]

Sorry folks, I've been really busy recently and so thoughts and opinions etc have been scarce. Not that I've not been giving the issue on Gauci and other related topics some thought, just not anything really new or worthwhile. Hopefully, things will settle somewhat soon, and I can give some areas a little more time to examine fuller and discuss.

I've definiitely heard and read about Elias before CL, and yes, it's another interesting point which is sufficiently important to be discussed further. Sadly, together with the other mountainous amounts of theories and strange tales associated around 103, the aspects surrounding Elias's possible/probable involvement with Khreesat and intelligence agencies (not to mention Jaafar supposedly) and it's finer details, is not something I'm that familiar with. Certainly not enough (yet) to provide a reasoned and objective reply to your interesting OP.

Hopefully I can add something more substantial to this and the other related discussions very soon.

[commandlinegamer]

I thought I read about this guy a couple of months back from one of the links on Robert Black's blog. But the claims that he was linked the bombing and he's now living comfortably in Washington seem to take it into the realms of CT territory.

[Rolfe]

There are quite a few CTs surrounding the Lockerbie disaster. That's sort of why we're discussing it in this section.

The basic, obvious conclusion from the evidence is that they got the wrong guy for the bombing. That doesn't make it a CT, any more than any other wrongful conviction is a CT. What makes it a CT is firstly, any suggestion that the miscarriage of justice was a deliberate frame-up, as opposed to simply pinning it on someone who happened to be handy in order to get a conviction, and secondly, the resulting speculation about well, who did do it then?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Buncrana, CLG, thanks for the quick comments yourself. Sorry to make anyone say sorry. It's definitely interesting, but the rest of the world is always taking time and energy. I've been somewhat the same lately, and a little burnt out on it all. But I managed to grab this one firmly enough to get excited again, though still under (a few) other pressures.

Quote:

I thought I read about this guy a couple of months back from one of the links on Robert Black's blog. But the claims that he was linked the bombing and he's now living comfortably in Washington seem to take it into the realms of CT territory.

Indeed, this is more wacked out and a little more convoluted/unclear than most of the other points we've covered. I skipped it before because I'm not as good with "human intelligence." Terrorist names, aliases, alleged connections, confessions and false ones, intrigue, mystery, annoyance... I'd rather look at scorched metal and timer chunks and printouts...

So I was hoping someone had half a book written up already on this alleged guy who, as Baz echoed, really reminds one of Keyser Soze of the Usual Suspects for mystery. Otherwise, I'm not going totally ape myself, but digging for more on that 1992 PLO report. Maybe a way to get an actual copy as primary source evidence.

Alright, thanks for taking a minute, each of yas. I'll be back with something.

ETA: Which ministry would be the best to ask?
http://www.un.int/palestine/PAinstitutions.shtml

[Caustic Logic]

Hello, all. I've finally got a blog post up about this:

http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...abu-elias.html

Soooo, if I'm reading all this right, and it's a big if at this point, the Jordanian double-agent tried to make fake (unarmed) bombs, but was squeezed to make them real by (eventual) American asset "Abu Elias" and armed the Semtex supplied by an alleged Mossad mole. ...

Oh, and the original PFLP-GC contact Ramzi Diab went to for the explosives was Mobdi Goben, who seems legit enough (no double-agenting I'm aware of), but later spouted some distracting nonsense about Elias as doing, essentially, just what Trail of the Octopus said happened.

I'm curious about this supposed deathbed confession. There's no info on Goben around. He was arrested in Yugo along with Autumn Leaves. Don't know if he died. Or when. The memo only makes news AFAIK during the trial in later 2000. Seems to have stalled procedings while the defense tried to get a copy, but never did.

But by now we have sooo many reasons to suspect the man to have left town and sidled into London for the deed. And he skipped the chance elements and placed the bomb(s) directly in the lower outboard corner of a luggage container AVE4041.

(or so it seems)

Now he does parent-teacher meetings and dines his wife at Olive Garden on Fridays?

ETA: And there I'll let it sit for a bit. I'll be doing other stuff tomorrow or so. Might be a good time for anyone to help remind us what's speculation vs. proof and how we know Megrahi did it, any valid questions about these amazing but tenuous allegations, etc.

---

[Rolfe]

Ahmed Jibril, Abu Talb, Marwan Khreesat, Hafez Dalkamoni, Mobi Goben, Abu Elias, Khaisar Haddad....

I can't keep them straight.

D'you think that's why they want after Megrahi? Easier?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Ahmed Jibril, Abu Talb, Marwan Khreesat, Hafez Dalkamoni, Mobi Goben, Abu Elias, Khaisar Haddad....

I can't keep them straight.

D'you think that's why they want after Megrahi? Easier?

Rolfe.

They didn't even need Fhimah. Just Megrahi, a little wine, moonlight and magic, and suddenly they've almost got Col. Ghaddafy himself.

I've got a few minutes, since it's clearly interesting but still confusing. I'm good with names, but not so much people and sorting them out, or believing or caring what we read about them. Nonetheless, I've got the main parts of the group down - my sources are varied, hard to cite, a few details, feel free to double-check.

PFLP-GC: Popular Friggin Longname Palestinians - General Command, tasked with carrying out the bombing. They set up a cell in Neuss, West Germany in early October 1988 to arrange it from.

Ahmed Jibril - terrorist visionary and leader, PFLP-GC founder, head honcho. Wanted an American plane downed to fulfill the contract with Mohtashemi and the Iranians.

"Abu Elias" - Jibril's nephew (?) and (???) see above and below. Avoided arrest, obviously. To add, he had been based in Sweden I hear, and had some links to Abu Talb. Quite important.

Abu Talb - Mohammed Abu Talb - supposed reformed terrorist, PFLP-GC links, somehow linked to "Abu Elias." Jailed in Sweden for minor unrelated bombings, onetime Megrahi stand-in (had Maltese clothes, an ID by Tony Gauci, links to the Neuss gang, etc.) He may have supplied the clothes in the bomb suitcase, but was probably not Gauci's mystery shopper, who might just not exist.

Hafez Dalkamouni - Jibril's high-level deputy in charge of the Neuss operation. Arrested in Frankfurt with Khreesat and a bomb. Held in jail for plotting. Later, I don't know... he's a little peripheral here so far.

Marwan Khreesat - PFLP-GC's contracted bomb-maker. It seems likely that none of his bombs were used, and only his altimeter modifications on a device already made by "Abu Elias." Khreesat was working for Jordanian intelligence, but didn't seem to help stop anything. Arrested in Frankfurt with Dalkamouni and one airliner bomb, released to Jordan, there since.

"Ramzi Diab" - alias for Salah Kwikas, b. 1959, Nazareth. Brought the Semtex from Goben in Yugoslavia. Arrested in Frankfurt, released for lack of evidence. Returned to Syria, tried and executed by Jibril on suspicion of Israeli mole. Others also thought that, and that he called in the Oct 26 raid. (Emerson and Duffy, p 262)

Mobdi Goben - aka Abu Fouad, "The Professor." b Haifa, 1943. PFLP-GC safe house operator, Krucevac, Yugoslavia, and doled out locally-made Semtex-H. I think Khreesat passed through it prior to Germany. Diab picked up the explosives in mid-October for Khreesat's work. Goben was arrested at the safe house in November 1988. Not sure from there, died maybe mid-2000? His memo is not on the level, I suspect.

Others while we're at it:
Abdel Ghadanfar - responsible for the huge weapons cache found on the arrests in Frankfurt. These were for training he said. Largest ever weapons bust in Germany. He was not released right away - they had evidence.

Martin Kadourah – arrested later in Yugoslavia, released after questioning in Germany. Role unsure.

Adnan Younis - one-eyed pizza maker, terrorist, exploding pens. Arrested in Frankfurt, released for lack of evidence.

Hope that helps a little more than it confuses.

[Rolfe]

Um, sort of helps....

One of the odd things about the Camp Zeist trial was that beforehand we were all told that it would be revealed in court "in excruciating detail" exactly how the bomb was sourced and constructed, where and when and how and by whom, as well as how it was smuggled on board the plane. None of that was mentioned at all though. The prosecution simply asserted "he must have done it", and that was that.

The diffculty they had was that Malta is an island, so was the bomb constructed on the island? If so, where, how and by whom, and where did the materials come from? Smuggling materials is obviously possible, but it all does rather imply a bomb-making factory of some sort on the island itself. That's Malta, you know, a developed Christian western European country, part of the British Commonwealth and now a member of the EU. Lots of assertions that the authorities of the entire island were nevertheless in the pocket of Libya, but no evidence led to that effect.

Alternatively, could the entire shebang have been built in Libya and smuggled intact into Malta? Maybe so, though air smuggling would be risky even if the bomb was disarmed. Presumably there are ships....

However, the assertion was that Megrahi and Fhimah built the bomb in the LAA offices in Malta. The Maltese Double Cross showed the offices, and Fhimah pointed out that there were Maltese employees in and out all the time and there was no real privacy there, where were they supposed to have built this bomb anyway? And neither of them were ever shown to have any form in handling explosives of building bombs or anything like that. And frankly Megrahi was high enough up the pecking order you'd not have expected him to be doing that himself.

Oh but of course he wasn't acting alone, was he? Well, no, but in spite of the assertions that if we convicted him he'd lead us to the rest of the gang, no other possible suspect has ever even been named.

Then compare the PFLP-GC. A fair-sized gang all with form as long as your arm, previous successes in blowing up airliners and so on. We know where the bomb-making factory was, we know who the bomb-maker was (and when he took a shower!). About the only thing we don't know is who smuggled the bomb on the plane and how. And we don't know that about the Megrahi theory either.

Of course, part of Megrahi's original defence was a "special defence of incrimination", meaning that he's going to lead evidence to show that someone else did it. I don't know how definite this evidence has to be, but I'd assume it just has to be a "balance of probabilities" thing.

So they brought Abu Talb to Camp Zeist, and put him in the witness box, and he said "it wisnae me". They had someone interview Marwan Khreesat, safe in his no-extradition zone (even though he was a CIA asset), and he said "it wisnae me". Didn't Mandy Rice-Davies have a pertinent comment on that?

However, the defence apparently dropped the special incrimination thing, amid major recriminations and one of the Scots advocates quitting the case. Something to do with Libyan interference. One of Kochler's criticisms of the court proceedings was something about pressure on the accused to drop that part of his defence.

Odd, that.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry for the delay. Now it's me flaking out. But I got my main computer back yesterday, and then threw my back out. (probable relation - it's a heavy machine). So I'm getting back on track slower than I meant to.

On the above, totally. I've never wanted to believe Dallyal's "Faustian Bargain" theory, but ... well,as you say, we've got a list of suspects, motive, means, opportunity (the break-in and permeability of interline sheds at Heathrow), forensic matches, etc. Heck, even with the wrinkle I added by recognizing a likely matching set in Bedford's report might fit the evidence fine, even with the second one holding another bomb.

The offical story, on the other hand, does nothing with time and scrutiny but fall apart like soggy corn flakes.

On "Abu Elias," I also put up a post about the Goben emo. There's not a whole lot else I could find outside the transcripts, but now that I've got all my files and projects back, I'm compilling the instances I find and will be back with that later.

Oh, and the appeal docs I looked at also don't mention "Elias." I thought it was supposed to be a key plank? Hmmm...

[Caustic Logic]

Well, most of the talk of Elias and the Goben memo in the transcripts is the Defense asking for time to get a copy, over several days in late Nov/early Dec . That part is too boring to sort out ATM, but I might have an answer to who it was handed it over to the Court (unless I'm missing something else) - Pierre Salinger, who comes into this story but not our discussion here yet. I just now learned of Salnger syndrome... how appropos.

Anyway, here's just a huge chunk of his sort of amusing discussion on Abu Elias - Day 72, Pierre Salinger, witness 1039, who has interviewed Khreesat around the same time FBI was able to do the same. First under exam by the defense.

Little clues: Yugoslavia, Sandy Berger, holding papers, etc...

Quote:

Q All right. There is just one matter I want to raise with you concerning that interview. In 1989, during the course of this interview, is it correct that Marwan Khreesat referred to someone by the name of Abu Elias?
A Yes, he did.
Q And did he refer to him in connection with the activities of a Mr. Dalkamoni in Germany in late 1988?
A Dalkamoni was in Germany, but Dalkamoni was the first person that -- when Ahmed Jibril was told by the Iranians that he had to bomb an American
8884
plane, that Dalkamoni went to Iran to meet with that group and then come back and get them going.
Q I see. But is it correct that Abu Elias was referred to by Marwan Khreesat in connection with the activities of Mr. Dalkamoni?
A Well, Mr. Dalkamoni was in touch with Mr. Khreesat when he was doing some work on bombing in Syria, and that was something that that name came up with because he was going to come and do a test on what Khreesat was doing.

Q I see. Now, were you given any information --
A Abu Elias.
Q Were you given any information as to where Abu Elias was going to be coming from?
A I don't know where he was from, but at one point, when Marwan Khreesat was in Germany, he was told by -- that Abu Elias was coming to Germany to see him. That's -- Dalkamoni did that. But that didn't work. And so when all these people got arrested -- you remember that?
Q Well, before you go any further, I don't want to explore hearsay. I just want to be clear: The name "Abu Elias" was mentioned by Marwan Khreesat at
8885
the time you interviewed him in November 1989; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q And it was mentioned in connection with the activities of Dalkamoni, amongst others?
A Correct.

Q Did you subsequently make inquiries in Yugoslavia with regard to Abu Elias?
A Did I make a request in Yugoslavia?
Q Did you subsequently make inquiries in Yugoslavia in connection with Abu Elias.
A No. But I -- this is something very interesting.
Q Well, before you go further, again, I just want to stick to your direct knowledge. You don't recollect making any inquiries in Yugoslavia concerning Abu Elias?
A I made questions in Yugoslavia. I've got papers that were given to the National Security Council and -- by Sandy Berger. That's the most important thing that I gave him. And when these lawyers came to Washington and asked me to get those papers back, they refused to give them.
Q I see. So you say that you recovered certain papers from Yugoslavia which you handed over to
8886
the National Security Council?
A Correct.
Q And they still have those papers?
A They still have those papers.
Q Thank you. No further questions, My Lords.

Quote:

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. TURNBULL:
Q Can I just ask you, please, one other thing about your interview with Mr. Khreesat.
[…] Did Mr. Khreesat tell you that he went to Germany and met up with Dalkamoni and others?
8887
A Well, that was something that – when they were moving to do something very strong, Dalkamoni first had him go to Yugoslavia. But then that person was not there at that time, so that --

Q Mr. Salinger, do you have something in your hands at the moment?
A Well, I don't -- I forget names.
Q What do you have in your hands? Are you looking at some notes or something?
A Well, I've got huge papers here, but --
Q I think, perhaps, if you just put those to one side for the moment.
A Yeah. But I am just giving that name that you told me. That name that you asked me, to meet with him.
Q Well, just put the papers to one side and listen to the questions I am about to ask you, please.
A Yes. What's the question again?
Q The question is, did Mr. Khreesat explain to you that he went to Germany and met with Mr. Dalkamoni and others?
A Yes, he did go to Germany --
Q Thank you?
A -- with Dalkamoni, but he was going to
8888
go to Yugoslavia first.
…

MR. TURNBULL:
Q Did he tell you if he was reporting back to Jordanian intelligence, Mr. Salinger?
A Yes, because you see, what happened was
8889
he became working for Ahmed Jibril in 1967, you know that war, that Six Day War, because --

Q Let's just stop there for a moment. All I want to know is if he told you that he was reporting back to Jordanian intelligence. And is the answer to that yes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Thank you.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Salinger. That's all.
A That's all? You're not letting me tell the truth. Wait a minute. They're not letting me tell the truth. I know exactly who did it. I know exactly how it was done. You have to do that here.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Mr. Salinger, we will run the court in accordance with our normal principles. We rely upon counsel in this court to ask the questions that they think are relevant, and we will deal with that information. If you wish to make a point somewhere, you may do so elsewhere, but I'm afraid you may not do so in this court. All right?
A Okay.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you. Advocate Depute.

[Caustic Logic]

Well there must be more info out there, as I just found another name that was mentioned last year Baz tipped me off that Grahame had dropped a name already for Elias/Haddad's new identity, and then I found it: Basel Bushnaq. Here'sone article. Anyone else feel free to google it, and so on.

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...bomber/3329697

Again, it could be a huge mix-up, a pusposeful distraction, or massive festering clue of the US acquisition and re-branding of the PA103 plot.

[Caustic Logic]

Bump.

Also, for those who haven't, please check the link in the post abpvethis and watch the video. It's good stuff.

Also, above I was mixed up on at least one point - Ramzi Diab. I’d thought he had come in from Yugoslavia with the Semtex but that doesn’t seem to be supported by anything. Instead:
"Dalkamouni said the explosives had been smuggled into West Germany from a ‘safe house’ in Yugoslavia by Martin Kadorah, a Palestinian who lived in Frankfurt.” [Leppard p 10]

Diab rather seems to have been involved in bringing in one of the Toshiba radios and, more tenuously, leaving with one. That is, similar to what Abu Elias was supposed to be doing.
"Dalkamouni said he was given the second Toshiba on about 18 October by a man called Ramzi Diab in Frankfurt. It also contained two pressure boxes, two clocks and two platinum lates. Diab, Dalkamouni said, was a member of the military section of the PFLP-GC." [Lep p 10]
“One witness, a student called German Hock, said he had seen Diab leaving Frankfurt on a train to Vienna. Under his arm was a Toshiba radio.” [Lepp p 13]

That last is problematic - Hock is actually Hoch, Diab's German teacher (perhaps also a student). It's an unusual thing to see unless one was involved closely. Oh... according to the transcripts (day 76, p 9358) Hoch was close enough to be arrested in the Autumn Leaves raid, like Diab and nine others, released the following day, October 27.

Hmmm...

[Rolfe]

Sorry I haven't been responding to this - it's a very interesting aspect, but I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment. It would be good if anyone else could chip in with any information they have.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Sorry I haven't been responding to this - it's a very interesting aspect, but I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment. It would be good if anyone else could chip in with any information they have.

Rolfe.

Well, I wish someone else would offer something, too. But in the meantime, I've been gathering more info and sorting it out.

Analysis of names Abu Elias, Khaisar Haddad and Basel Bushnaq.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...s-in-name.html
In short, Bushnaq means "Bosnian" in Arabic, and the only Arabic name I've ever seen with "Bush" in it. Basel can mean brave in Arabic, or in English a variant of Basil, or kingly. Interesting given that his previous name was almost Kaiser. Little clues... Interesting patterns, but quite subjective, not far above reading horroscopes.


Khreesat, Abu Elias, and the fifth device:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...-and-rest.html
from Marshman's report on Khreesat, to sort out the alleged relation between these two. It seems likely that Abu Elias did build the fifth device, not Khreesat, and it seems Khreesat believed at the time that bomb blew up PA103.

Some other bits I'm not ready to publish yet. It gets spooky at times. Basel's been posting online with that name since May 2004 at the latest. Some weird patterns in what he discusses and how...

Anyone else care to weigh in on what we've covered here? What is and isn't proved, what should I be doing with this besides blogging? Debunker-type insights would be helpful at this point. Lockerbie bomber possibly living in Reston, VA. What's wrong with that?

[Rolfe]

This is making a lot of sense. But given that the investigation had that information, why would they have discounted it?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I think where I'm conflicted on this is the split between the simple conclusion of "they got the wrong guy", and the actual conspiracy theory.

It's perfectly possible they got the wrong guy simply because of a coincidence of facts - principally the Erac printout appearing to implicate KM180, while Megrahi really was at Luqa airport when KM180 left. And that this coincidence weighed very heavily with investigators who hadn't been able to pin anything on Jibril's crowd despite their best efforts. Marquise certainly seems to come across quite sincere in that department, if a bit blinkered.

If that's what happened, none of this really belongs in Conspiracy Theories. Cops get the wrong guy all the time. It's called wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice, and it doesn't need a conspiracy. However, we can't get away from the persistent implication and indeed accusations that Megrahi was actually fitted up.

That, I suppose, would make it a conspiracy one way or another. But even then, there are degrees. Was it just a question of taking advantage of that coincidence to get a conviction, any conviction, and avoid looking like a bunch of prize chumps in connection with one of the highest-profile terrorist atrocities of all time? Or was this a deliberate avoiding of the PFLP-GC for some reason, even though they could have made a case against them? That's the political theory, that Iran was essentially untouchable on the subject because of wider middle-east political issues, and Libya made a handy scapegoat. Or was there indeed an element of CIA involvement in the affair? Possibly an operation that went massively wrong?

I don't subscribe to the notion that there can be no such thing as a conspiracy. Just because Oswald was indeed a lone gunman, and a bunch of Arab suicide terrorists really did hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11, and Armstrong & Co. really did set foot on the moon, doesn't mean it's a logical impossibility for there to have been any underhand dealings over Pan Am 103. And I don't really know which way to jump.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is making a lot of sense. But given that the investigation had that information, why would they have discounted it?

Rolfe.

I'm not sure which information you mean, so can't really offer a thought. And as far as what the investigation, ca. 1988-1991, Marshman's report is all I know that they had on this character. I doubt the name Basel Bushnaq existed yet.

But in general, why they didn't follow up on whatever they had, I'll answer that question mark with: anything leading to the truth was, by some point anyway, rejected reflexively. Abu Elias is actually blahblah means nothing, after all, when so much *amazing* evidence all but proves Megrahi dunnit, right?

You touch on this in the next post:

Originally Posted by Rolfe

... But even then, there are degrees. Was it just a question of taking advantage of that coincidence to get a conviction, any conviction, and avoid looking like a bunch of prize chumps in connection with one of the highest-profile terrorist atrocities of all time? Or was this a deliberate avoiding of the PFLP-GC for some reason, even though they could have made a case against them? That's the political theory, that Iran was essentially untouchable on the subject because of wider middle-east political issues, and Libya made a handy scapegoat. Or was there indeed an element of CIA involvement in the affair? Possibly an operation that went massively wrong?

I can only say it was clearly a frame-up. Impossible evidence pointing to Libya doesn't just appear by accident. I could try to be more 'level-heaaded,' if someone gave me a good reason, but otherwise...

There's much debate about THE reason for the investigation going off the true path. Gulf War politics doesn't cut it for me - too late to explain the worst of the 'wrong turns' and weird evidence, and lacking in other ways as a good enough cause for such duplicity. Iran being too big to tackle isn't enough either - the U.S. has always found some way to show its displeasure there, and could just do more of the same. OTH no grudge against Libya, by itself, could have de-blamed Abu Elias and co. if Washington otherwise wanted to go after them.

Embarrassment over the IA655 incident causing this blowback is a compelling reason IMO, but not obvious enough it was discounted immediately anyway (like London ingestion was). Media and investigators took as FACT that the "Vincennes accident" was the cause for years. It was acceptable enough, for a while anyway.

The embarrassment that a Jordanian agent sent to stop the plot had actually built the bomb might be a good reason, but they could have dug into Marshman's report and noted the Khreesat didn't actually build THE bomb. Abu Elias did (sez Khreesat). Sure it's embarrassing how the agent was played, or how unclear it was just what the hell really did happen, but we know that anyway (it just 'doesn't matter' now).

Now each of these reasons kept popping up along the way. Pliable witnesses like Gauci, Gauci, Giaka, and Bollier were surely noted too as they appeared. As we've seen, there's no one clear moment the gears shifted, and I say no one precise reason. But taken together, these factors plus others were plenty cause for the investigation to shift, mostly by repetition I would guess, wearing down logical resistance into 1991 until enough consensus was reached to proceed with indictments, etc. So somewhere in there, based on the evidence they believed, as it appeared, and within each investigator's own mental context. I would suspect it's a more complex system even than the weather and harder yet to predict.

Thing is, we're looking back here, not predicting, and we know the outcome. It's really not that tricky, folks.

Also, I made it sound more random than it probably was - that would be the backdrop into which certain select actors would consciously order lines of inquiry cut off, witnesses secreted away, fragments planted... those who read and follow the winds sail well and see it through and defend the route they steered to this day.

Sorry went off a bit.

[Caustic Logic]

Another bump. No skeptics here have even really tried to debunk any of this material. Not even an attempted duh-bunking yet on this thread.

I admit that even with such hard and precise clues, I haven't personally cracked the case yet. Would you? It's enough for me to have helped bring others up to the holding position where the truth copter is hovering.

If that's too abstract, sorry. This Abu Elias thread makes a little more nervous and a little less clear than usual.

Anyway, some tidbits I don't think we've covered yet, from Express again. Link it's giving me, with title repeated 9 times
fixed so normal, does that work? (weird)
Anyway:

Quote:

A document submitted to the appeal court by Megrahi’s lawyers states: “The FBI had apparently investigated ‘X’ and knew he was the nephew of Ahmed Jibril.
“‘X’ had met with FBI special agents [an appointment was in his diary for August 1988] but neither ‘X’ nor the Department of Justice would disclose who the agents were or the precise purpose of the recorded meeting. ‘X’ admitted the meeting had taken place. It is inconceivable that he did not produce his Syrian passport for examination. Only extracts from his US passport were revealed.
“Once again, the hand of the US government appeared to be guiding matters behind the scenes.”

Four months later we learned what those funds were for.

Can anyone illustrate that this person X cannot be the same one that Christine Grahame says is now called Bushnaq? That would be comforting, thanks.

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Another bump. No skeptics here have even really tried to debunk any of this material. Not even an attempted duh-bunking yet on this thread.

I admit that even with such hard and precise clues, I haven't personally cracked the case yet. Would you? It's enough for me to have helped bring others up to the holding position where the truth copter is hovering.

If that's too abstract, sorry. This Abu Elias thread makes a little more nervous and a little less clear than usual.

Anyway, some tidbits I don't think we've covered yet, from Express again. Link it's giving me, with title repeated 9 times
fixed so normal, does that work? (weird)
Anyway:

Four months later we learned what those funds were for.

Can anyone illustrate that this person X cannot be the same one that Christine Grahame says is now called Bushnaq? That would be comforting, thanks.

The problem with 'de-bunking' this is that the 'de-bunk' angle, is a confused mess in its own right. Here's an example;

"More damaging still, an unnamed senior British police officer – known to be a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS), which implies that his rank is assistant chief constable or higher – has testfied to al-Megrahi’s defence team that crucial evidence at the trial was fabricated."^{1http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/hugh-mi...venient-truths}

So, it becomes difficult to de-bunk when the Occam's Razor version is as convoluted as the alternatives.

[SnidelyW]

I think that Dr. Richard Fuisz is one person who can shed a great deal of light on the situation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

The problem with 'de-bunking' this is that the 'de-bunk' angle, is a confused mess in its own right. Here's an example;

"More damaging still, an unnamed senior British police officer – known to be a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS), which implies that his rank is assistant chief constable or higher – has testfied to al-Megrahi’s defence team that crucial evidence at the trial was fabricated."^{1http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/hugh-mi...venient-truths}

So, it becomes difficult to de-bunk when the Occam's Razor version is as convoluted as the alternatives.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. This is "the Golfer," right? Another slice I'm not as familiar with, but it could mean the "simple," non-CT official story is so full of allegations, impropriety, contradictions, etc... If so, then I say indeed. The "alternative" lacks only in legal standing. The wacky official story should by rights be the convoluted and dismissed conspiracy theory.

However, to complicate the Golfer angle, I Just saw someone (Marquise?) insist this parson was someone low-level:
"The second point to which you took issue was the identification of the Scottish police officer. Just because the officer was identified in the "press" as high ranking does not make it so. The man's testimony has already been discredited and I can assure you--he is not a chief, deputy chief, Chief Supt, Supt etc. He is a man who had little knowledge of the inner workings of the investigation and not at all a high ranking official. I would be hesitant to use the media as the definitive source for everything."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...ink/comments/2
If that's the same person, something tells me (Marquise?) might be right. I dunno.

On Dr. Fuisz, I just did a pan of his contributions:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...ing-fuisz.html
It might be off-base, but if he had something amazing to share, I really wish he'd just said it before that separate gag order (over his knowledge of weapons transfers to Iraq) went into effect. Now I doubt he'll be able to, and we'll have to do without one way or another. I could agree that it's probably amazing stuff we're missing, if that avoids a useless squabble. Also, check the comments from Susan Lindauer there and at part three (linked at bottom and in comments)

Such an iconoclastic loner I am...

[SnidelyW]

I am really wary of Lindauer, as she turns up in the most interesting of places, and she has too many vowels in her surname for my liking.

[SnidelyW]

I think Marquise came into things a bit late, and was the guy hired to wrap things into whatever package fit.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Another bump. No skeptics here have even really tried to debunk any of this material. Not even an attempted duh-bunking yet on this thread.

Debunking, within this subsection, tends to mean supporting and substantiating the Official Version. I don't think it can be done.

I was tempted to start a thread looking specifically at evidence for Megrahi's guilt, and I may still do. There's not a lot there. The thing is though, that Megrahi's guilt is essential for the Malta -> Frankfurt -> Heathrow route of introduction to stand. If that doesn't, then you can still try to blame Libya if you like, but you're back at square one as regards who, where and how.

I don't know how this works. Do other posters still believe Megrahi did it? If so, why not come and explain the reasoning behind that! Or have people mostly accepted that the Official Story is a pile of dingoes kidneys, and they just don't care very much either what really happened, or how come Megrahi came to be convicted?

It does raise the point that this section is all about defending the Official Version of whatever is under discussion, and "debunking" alternative theories. Come a situation where it seems likely there was a genuine conspiracy, and nobody wants to play.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Anyway, some tidbits I don't think we've covered yet, from Express again. Link it's giving me, with title repeated 9 times
fixed so normal, does that work? (weird)
Anyway:

Four months later we learned what those funds were for.

If there's one thing guaranteed to make me think maybe Megrahi was involved in the bombing after all (even if he didn't himself put the bomb on the plane), it's his claiming to know who actually did it. I think it's just the fruits of his own and his lawyers' research into the affair, but honestly, he'd do better to keep his mouth shut (which he has been doing recently, to be fair, though maybe that's just a function of being on palliative care).

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Can anyone illustrate that this person X cannot be the same one that Christine Grahame says is now called Bushnaq? That would be comforting, thanks.

Christine can be a bit ditzy, and I'm not convinced she's that au fait with all this. She has an aide/researcher who might be the brains behind it all though.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

The problem with 'de-bunking' this is that the 'de-bunk' angle, is a confused mess in its own right. Here's an example;

"More damaging still, an unnamed senior British police officer – known to be a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS), which implies that his rank is assistant chief constable or higher – has testfied to al-Megrahi’s defence team that crucial evidence at the trial was fabricated."^{1http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/hugh-mi...venient-truths}

So, it becomes difficult to de-bunk when the Occam's Razor version is as convoluted as the alternatives.

The Golfer, right? I'm with you as regards Marquise, who really lacks insight into a lot of what he says. However, The Golfer was said to have given evidence to the SCCRC and to have repeatedly contradicted himself. They apparently were not impressed.

It's possible the SCCRC's intention was to pass the evidence that Gauci's identification was unreliable and essentially allow the appeal on that ground, so that anything else embarrassing could be glossed over. On the other hand there were two allowed grounds of appeal that were never made public.

Whichever way you take it, it seems The Golfer didn't manage to convince the SCCRC of anything much.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

I think that Dr. Richard Fuisz is one person who can shed a great deal of light on the situation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

If all the people who have told someone they know exactly what happened and who bombed that plane were placed end to end, they'd stretch from Heathrow to JFK.

We can't of course discount that one or more of them might know exactly that, but we can't tell who, and it is slightly odd that nothing has come out in the past ten years on this. The gagging order was supposed to be 1994, and that article dates from 2000, before the Camp Zeist trial.

The possibility that the US government kows exactly what happened and are extremely anxious not to tell is always present of course. That's what Martin Cadman says he was told. I don't know how we find this out though.

Rolfe.

[SnidelyW]

The issue with the 'official' version of events, that the bomb began its passage in Malta, cannot be sustained, plus we have two different versions of events propogated by the Americans.

On the 'official version' we have VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former CIA Head of Counter Terrorism), arguing that BECAUSE all the documentation was in order in Malta, the entire Maltese baggage handling system was 'suborned' by Megrahi and Fhimah.

"DENIS PHIPPS (Former Head of Security British Airways): It is my personal opinion that the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 did not originate from the airport at Malta.

SHELLEY: While it might have been expected that security at a small airport on a holiday island like Malta would not rival that of a large international airport like Frankfurt, Denis Phipps discovered that quite the opposite was true.

DENIS PHIPPS: At Luqa there was a complete set of records of what had occurred, and that from those records and from questioning the staff involved, that there had been a complete chain of supervision and care over the baggage from the point it was checked in to when it was loaded. Now if we try to follow the same trail at Frankfurt what was not available were records of who had been responsible for looking after those same bags once they arrived at Frankfurt, or indeed how many bags had arrived and been handled and where they'd gone and what happened to them. Did the bag containing the bomb go on during this period of time.

VINCENT CANNISTRARO: They have vindicated themselves on paper in terms of the security procedures, but if their security personnel are suborned by hostile intelligence service, and they are completely vulnerable to whatever that hostile service would want to put on their aircraft, with baggage tags, without baggage tags. Once you have basically infiltrated the security apparatus there is no barrier to doing exactly what Fhimah and Megrahi did.

SHELLEY: According to the US State Department fact sheet Fhimah played a key role in getting the bomb suitcase on KM180. It's claimed he used his official status as station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport to bypass security.

DENIS PHIPPS: I'm satisfied that the aircraft was kept under proper supervision by Air Malta staff while it was being loaded, that the head loaded supervised the closing of the doors and I do not believe that for one moment that the loading staff would have permitted such a thing to happen.

SHELLEY: Air Malta may very well produce screeds and screeds of documentation which proves on paper that no unaccompanied bag left on flight KM180, but if, as Vincent Cannistraro argues, the system was suborned then that argument really doesn't matter at the end of the day, does it?

MICHAEL MANSFIELD QC: Well it's an extraordinary argument that Cannistraro is putting forward. If on the one hand you show by documentation, by interviewing baggage handlers, which I understood happened here, by examining the person who was supervising the whole of the baggage handlers….you're able to show it's a watertight case, then they say 'oh, it could have been suborned'. If you on the other hand have no documentation, and you aren't able to show what cases went on….they say 'ah, ah, very suspicious, why haven't you got the documentation?', so it seems on the CIA approach to life, you can't win unless you've got a particular hypothesis which is theirs, namely the Libyans did it therefore everything else flows from it.

And I think one has to be extremely careful about this, because if essentially on that thesis it would mean that the documents in Malta have all had to have been forged, it would also mean that the chief supervisor obviously has been paid off and so on, and they have no evidence, it's all very well to say all this, what are they saying, that the head supervisor of Air Malta is in the Libyan pocket, is being paid, there's no evidence of this at all. These are accusations it seems to be without any foundation at all."¹

So, here we have the version where the 'Libyans did it through Malta' being completely castrated through the official records, interviews and such.

I think a responsible person owes it to themselves, let alone the innocent victims, to question the official version of events.

1. http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/silence.html

[Rolfe]

There's a couple more problems with the Malta-was-suborned theory.

First, Fhimah wasn't working as station manager for LAA at the time of the bombing. He'd changed jobs. He still had his airside pass and could have gone airside, which is how he was alleged to have done the deed at Camp Zeist. But he could scarcely have orchestrated this baggage leger-de-main after he'd left that employment and when he wasn't even there. I think Giaka may not have realised Fhimah had changed jobs when he started making up these taradiddles.

And that's another problem they have. Fhimah didn't go to the airport that morning. Of course the accusation was that Megrahi had taken the bag to the airport, then Fhimah had given it the VIP treatment he quite often gave to high officials bags' and whisked it through security on the fast track - but instead of putting it on Megrahi's flight, he'd put it on KM180 with fake tags. However, they couldn't produce a single person who saw Fhimah at the airport that morning - and he was well-known among all the staff. There was supposed to be some route (through the Ladies toilets?) to get airside without passing security, but no evidence that Fhimah was even there, never mind actually took that route. Megrahi didn't go airside at all, so how was the thing done, even if the bag-counting wasn't so airtight?

Then again, how many different baggage handlers would have had to have been in on the plot? Are we supposed to believe that the entire Maltese baggage staff were in on this and covered it up, even knowing that an atrocity had resulted? The prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to find evidence the baggage crew had been suborned, and found nothing. All they did was annoy the staff, who got in a bit of a paddy because they realised their private telephone calls were being bugged. You know, this is the sort of conspiracy theory that usually gets sneered at in this forum, but this time it's being advanced (apparently in all seriousness) as part of the Official Story.

And finally, Malta is a Christian country, and the Maltese, by and large, devout Catholics. They're not that fond of Moslems on the whole. Gauci said quite a few anti-Libyan things. We're supposed to believe that the entire baggage crew, as I said, was prepared to cover something like this up, for ten years and more, in the face of a terrible atrocity? Did they just go to confession and the priests never said anything, or what?

Cannistraro is an embarrassment.

Rolfe.

[SnidelyW]

So, again, this leads us to severely doubt the 'official' explanation. In addition, the PFLP-GC were the prime suspects for the first two years, until American political expediency caused Prime Minister Thatcher to roll over like a good pal, and all of a sudden, the integrity of getting the truth out for the families evaporates.

Thatcher is an embarrassment.

[Caustic Logic]

Excellent passage above from Frontline Scotland. I'd love to find a copy of that video. I've quoted Vince's stupid line before. It is embarrassing to come out and say something so preposterous when everyone else knows you just quietly imply it and then move on. Mansfield is awesome there.

They have nothing, found nothin, at all from the Malta end. A weird-ass piece of paper seems to point that way is all. Aside from there being Libyans there, at one point with a brown Samsonite and such... This is another excellent angle.

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

So, again, this leads us to severely doubt the 'official' explanation. In addition, the PFLP-GC were the prime suspects for the first two years, until American political expediency caused Prime Minister Thatcher to roll over like a good pal, and all of a sudden, the integrity of getting the truth out for the families evaporates.

Thatcher is an embarrassment.

Yes, in substance. However, she's got a certain grace to it I can respect. She's the anti-Vince! She keep quiet and not such an embarrassing yakker!

“December 21 - Lockerbie bombing” The entire reference to the event in Thatcher’s 914-page memoir The Downing Street Years (1995).
"We wish to add nothing to the text". Her response when asked, by a British PA103 relatives' group, about the book’s silence. (source)
"'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about." - Response when asked by Tam Dalyell. (source)

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

So, again, this leads us to severely doubt the 'official' explanation. In addition, the PFLP-GC were the prime suspects for the first two years, until American political expediency caused Prime Minister Thatcher to roll over like a good pal, and all of a sudden, the integrity of getting the truth out for the families evaporates.

Thatcher is an embarrassment.

Maggie Thatcher is a wicked, vicious woman, who no longer knows what day of the week it is, so not much point getting annoyed with her at this stage.

However, your timing is a bit off. The date of Thatcher calling off the dogs on the PFLP-GC is mid-March 1989. Indeed, they remained the prime suspects for most of the press (except the Sunday Times seems to be in on some of this because it changed its stance quite early I think), and even as far as the rank and file investigators are concerned. However, in March 1989 there was a phone call between Thatcher and Bush where it is alleged they agreed to back off on the PFLP-GC for political reasons.

What were those political reasons? It was politically expedient not to cause an incident with Iran, essentially. Realpolitik in the middle east was such that fingering Jibril would have thrown a serious spanner in the works. Hostages, Terry Waite and John McCarthy and Brian Keenan, other considerations.

And that's completely ignoring the possibility that the atrocity was actually an American operation that went badly wrong. That Khreesat (who was a CIA asset) made the bomb and it was all being monitored, but then somehow the tails were thrown off the scent and the sabotage actually happened. If that's the case, oh dear, we really don't want to bring these guys to court.

March 1989 fits quite well with the case against the Libyans having been put together over the summer of 1989, as it seems to have been. The Erac printout shows up in August, and Feraday starts getting excited about this little bit of green circuit board in September.

This all seems to have been fairly low key though, and nobody made any real attempt to stop the press writing stories about how it was Abu Talb wot done it. The Scottish investigators who first interviewed Gauci were trying to get him to identify Abu Talb at first. The rank and file still seemed fairly certain the PFLP-GC would be indicted for the atrocity in due course.

It took at least a year for the investigation as a whole to swing round to Libya, and Gauci wasn't questioned about Megrahi until February 1991. This of course coincided with Desert Storm and it was all terribly convenient. But the brakes went on to the PFLP-GC investigation less than three months after the crash, and the case against Libya was being laid only a few months after that.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

It's time to bump this weird old thread. I've added two more blog posts, probably the last, to my Abu Elias / Basel Bushnaq series.

http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...-by-power.html

http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...issi-link.html

The first focuses on online commentary, the "Bush" in his name issue, and especially his first reaction to being named as "alias Abu Elias" - he joins a site called "MePeace," posts a photo of US naval power, and the caption "peace must be guarded by power."

How in the hell can I not find that eyebrow raising?

The second covers the name-based possibility that the alleged PFLP-GC terrorist, who took the name Basel Bushnaq around 2001, around the same time married the daughter of PFLP terrorist named Basil Kubaissi. I try to debunk that one as I go, but...

I've gotten hardly any comment from this thread, my posts, or elsewhere, on the whole angle. Dr. Swire showed a little interest. But the silence is driving me nuts. Is it too spooky to comment on? Too potentially legal? Or too nuts to say anything other than "dude, that's nuts?" Either way, I'd rather hear some feedback.

[Caustic Logic]

holy crap again. Just scanning the above, the Salinger part I'd forgotten about. Says he got papers about "Abu Elias" from the Yugoslav authorities. So he was down there at some point, perhaps when fighting was going on in Bosnia, like in May 1992 when the Hadji-Ahmed aga Lakisic Mosque in Mostar was damaged.

So this can't be our Basel, as he's only Bosnian by ancestry, never having been there himself. But he has roots in the Lakisic clan, and a grandfather whose mosque is a famous landmark down there in Mostar.

Can anybody else see these holographic patterns popping out with alarming density?

(ETA: That is, after first taking a look at the source material, which I don't know if anyone else has yet, but I think all the links are here on this page somewhere)

[Buncrana]

Sorry for not much comment, but I am following you, I think, and yes, the apparent coincidences, just like on first appearences, can be deceptive. It is a murky world, and if I'm following you correctly, then the at first seemingly coincidences, when tied with what is known on Autumn Leaves, does imply something more substantial...

I would also think that for a MSP to take what could be reasonably viewed as a relatively unrestrained by usual conventions or propriety, and make such an accusation of an individual whilst also naming them, (although probably exempt from prosecution by parliamentary privilege - legal immunity) would have to supported by some pretty strong and damning evidence. And most likely information not in the public domain. Have you emailed her?