Merged: al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

[Rolfe]

This is really a trawl for information.

Recently, the matter of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, has been back in the news for two reasons. First of all there was the controversy over the matter of the "Memorandum of Understanding" Tony Blair signed with Col. Gadaffi, and whether or not it was designed to pave the way for al Megrahi to be returned to a Middle East country to serve the remained of his sentence (controversy being because prisoner release is a matter for the Scottish government, not Westminster, and Tony Blair had unaccountably failed to mention the matter to Alex Salmond). Second, a detailed review of the evidence is about to be published, which might trigger a second appeal in the case, or even a retrial.

This has increased the amount of comment and correspondence on the matter, and highlighted the number of people who express doubts or even outright disbelief on the subject of al Megrahi's guilt. I've come across several letters expressing the view that the identities of the real guilty parties are known (Syria seems to be mentioned in this context), and that al Megrahi is essentially a fall guy.

I've even read a book about all this, and I'm damned if I can remember a word it said!

I'm sure this has been discussed before in this forum, but I'm sure it could bear another airing. It would make a change from the incessant Twin Towers CT threads if nothing else.

Are there people here who are familiar with the points at issue and who could give a clear explanation?

Here's today's newspaper article on the subject.

Quote:

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said at the weekend: "I entered the court at Zeist at the beginning of the trial believing that this guy was responsible for killing my daughter. Having listened to the evidence, I came away convinced that Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted."

Rolfe.

[8den]

Interesting article in the observer

Quote:

The vital evidence that linked Megrahi to the bombing of Pan-Am 103 was a tiny fragment of circuit board found in a wooded area 25 miles from Lockerbie six months after the atrocity. Crucial to the prosecution's case was the use of expert witnesses to make the link between Megrahi and the circuit board timer which was said to have been part of the bomb's detonator.

Evidence considered by the commission cast doubt on the credibility of the three key forensic scientists used by the prosecution during the trial to make the connection between the timer and Megrahi. One of these, Allen Feraday, also gave evidence against defendants who have since had their convictions quashed. After one case, in July 2005, the Lord Chief Justice said Feraday should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics. Lord Woolf ruled that the conviction of Hassan Assali, 53, on terrorist conspiracy charges was unsound.

Another of the scientists who gave evidence in the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, was involved in the case of the Maguire Seven, imprisoned in 1976 for handling explosives shortly after the Guildford bombings. They also won their appeal after major flaws in forensic science.

The involvement of a third expert witness has also been called into question. The FBI's Thomas Thurman identified the fragment of circuit board as part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives and as manufactured by Swedish firm Mebo, which supplied the component only to Libya and the East German Stasi. At one point Megrahi was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm's headquarters. The testimony enabled Libya - and Megrahi - to be placed at the centre of the investigation. Thurman, however, has subsequently been accused of doctoring scientific reports.

[Rolfe]

Thanks, 8den, but I'm disappointed by the lack of response here. Anyone care to look at yesterday's newspaper report on the subject?

Fabricated evidence, evidence tampered with, missing statements, a vital identification which was apparently not actually made - all suggested to have been carried out by the prosecuting authorities out of a desire to protect those believed to be truly guilty but political hot potatoes as regards prosecution, and so to fit up an innocent man for the crime.

Nobody have any thoughts on this at all? Or even an earlier thread to link to?

OK, the bomb was planted in Europe and the explosion happened over Scotland, but the plane was heading for New York and a substantial number of its passengers were US citizens. So I'm surprised the forum doesn't have anyone interested in the affair.

Here we have a full-blown conspiracy theory being widely proposed by quality newspapers (and News of the World!) and supported by many apparently sane and rational individuals.

Nobody have any thoughts?

Rolfe.

[ktesibios]

One thing that has always struck me as odd about this case is the idea of a national secret service designing a bomb around a timer that's a special order which, if identified, will lead directly and inescapably back to them.

That's a dumb move just on G.P.; when you consider that designing a timer that's more than accurate enough for the application, from parts available off the shelf from ordinary electronics distributors, would be trivial for anyone with an associate-degree level of training, it becomes indescribably stupid.

IIRC, the disco bombing in Germany that was used by the Reagan administration as a pretext for bombing Khadafy's residence was later traced back to Syria, so it wouldn't be the first time the authorities got their bad guys mixed up; nor would it be the first time that they went off half-cocked on a politically attractive but dubious interpretation of evidence, e.g. "yellow rain".

We'll just have to see what, if anything, further examination turns up.

[Rolfe]

I'm just so surprised that, given the apparently good reasons to suspect a conspiracy to frame Megahi and a coverup to protect whoever actually did it, this one isn't being crawled over by the CTers just as much as the Twin Towers.

It was, after all, a plane heading for New York that was brought down, a plane with a lot of US citizens on board. Crime against the US? But by whom, and why?

I note in the comments following that newspaper article that the point about the plane being only about half full in spite of the notorious difficulty of getting a flight from Heathrow to NY in the week running up to Christmas is being aired again. I'm not even sure if that's true or not, but if it is, the implications are quite startling.

Is this just not getting an airing because it happened before The Internet was widely available?

Rolfe.

[8den]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm just so surprised that, given the apparently good reasons to suspect a conspiracy to frame Megahi and a coverup to protect whoever actually did it, this one isn't being crawled over by the CTers just as much as the Twin Towers.


Is this just not getting an airing because it happened before The Internet was widely available?

Rolfe.

Dunno look at Litveneko. Now theres a conspiracy thats got some meat to it, murdered spies, strange poison, an actual credible trail of evidence. But would the CTers touch it? Nah. Lets look at disorting the eyewitnesses testimonies instead.

Ditto Paris Hilton. They rage about a media that isn't interested in facts, yet start endless threads about her on LCF.

Honestly, kids these days.

[Rolfe]

That's a point. Litvenenko I mean.

Are you therefore implying that the CTers only get worked up about wildly implausible/impossible theories surrounding things which are actually pretty straightforward, and ignore genuine skullduggery where the evidence is plausible and it's staring them in the face?

Say not so!

Rolfe.

[8den]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's a point. Litvenenko I mean.

Are you therefore implying that the CTers only get worked up about wildly implausible/impossible theories surrounding things which are actually pretty straightforward, and ignore genuine skullduggery where the evidence is plausible and it's staring them in the face?

Say not so!

Rolfe.

I think when confronted with a genuine mystery that doesn't effect them (and them I mean non UK/Russian troofers) that they loose interest. A slow moving rigourous and meticulous police investigation is about as interesting, as a course in strutural enigneering, or even basic physics to the average troofer.

[Big Les]

And there's not the thrill or kudos associated with spotting pointless apparent inconsistencies and discrepancies - it's all been done before the UK CTists have even rolled out of bed at 2pm to start their day with an episode of "Trisha".

[Lyte Trip]

Quote:

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.

The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005

American intelligence framing a muslim for a terrorist attack involving an airliner?

........naaaahhh.

[scooby]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm just so surprised that, given the apparently good reasons to suspect a conspiracy to frame Megahi and a coverup to protect whoever actually did it, this one isn't being crawled over by the CTers just as much as the Twin Towers.

True, its almost like a mini 911.
I'd have expected more interest than this.

[BillC]

Private Eye did a fairly deep analysis a few years back. It's been a while, but I recall that they came to the conclusion that al Megrahi was a patsy. A couple of the points from the story I do remember were supposed discrepancies about the number of bodies found in one particular field; and that luggage was mysteriously retrieved from another field, a cover story fed to the press about looters in order to prevent others doing so. (I do remember from the news a story about looters in the fields).

It was a special edition, so it might be possible to obtain a back-copy.

[DGM]

Nobody's made a cheesy video yet and put it on youtube/google. Truthers don't want to go looking for things.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

American intelligence framing a muslim for a terrorist attack involving an airliner?

........naaaahhh.

And look! It's all coming out in court!! They couldn't keep it quiet!!!

So how did they pull off the great 911 conspiracy, which was many magnitudes larger (with all respect to the people of Lockerbie)?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Is this just not getting an airing because it happened before The Internet was widely available?

Rolfe.

It happened in 1988 so before a fair number of the current CT generation were paying much attention to the news.

The angle is also a problem. Sure you can have the cia out and out did it option but that is problematical. On the other hand "syria did it but was covered up" also ins't very apealing since it ultimately blames a known enermy of the US.

Not to say such CTs don't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterna..._Am_Flight_103

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's a point. Litvenenko I mean.

Are you therefore implying that the CTers only get worked up about wildly implausible/impossible theories surrounding things which are actually pretty straightforward, and ignore genuine skullduggery where the evidence is plausible and it's staring them in the face?

Say not so!

Rolfe.

The biggest reason is that nobody filmed the event. Only video counts. The Kennedy assasinations, 9/11, all of those have videos/film attached. They just have to be conspiracies--why else would all those cameras be there?
If it is not on film, or (preferably) a compressed to hell-and-gone youtube video, then it actually never occurred.
As proof positive of that, look only to our own Truthseeker1234, who's comclusion is that there were no airplanes at 911, because the video was, in his opinion, faked.
Eyewitnesses do not count, regardless of how many there are of them, or how cohesive their story may be.

[Architect]

As an aside, I sometimes wonder how Gravy (and others) get the energy to keep up their fight. But if I came across a bunch of clowns claiming that Lockerbie was faked (as opposed to a shady conspiracy possibly involving the Syrians), air traffic control in on it, police complicity, bodies planted, and so on then I would like to think that I'd be in their faces on a Saturday morning too.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm just so surprised that, given the apparently good reasons to suspect a conspiracy to frame Megahi and a coverup to protect whoever actually did it, this one isn't being crawled over by the CTers just as much as the Twin Towers.

It was, after all, a plane heading for New York that was brought down, a plane with a lot of US citizens on board. Crime against the US? But by whom, and why?

I note in the comments following that newspaper article that the point about the plane being only about half full in spite of the notorious difficulty of getting a flight from Heathrow to NY in the week running up to Christmas is being aired again. I'm not even sure if that's true or not, but if it is, the implications are quite startling.

Is this just not getting an airing because it happened before The Internet was widely available?

Rolfe.

I personally think this will get little airing in CT circles because there is very little they have to work with. They is no question this was a real plane, no question that there was a real bomb onboard it and no question it fell onto Lockerbie.

I live close to the town, although I wasn't here at the time many of my immediate neighbours were. In total one has spoken about the event to me and only for a brief time. He was walking his dog and glanced up and saw the fireball. This is the only time I have ever heard anybody from around here talk about it. It is unlikely cters would ever try to build up some magical conspiracy about this the way they have about 911, calling witnesses liars, no planes, space beams, prerigged buildings or controlled demolitions, etc. Of course as soon as anybody says the words CIA, planes and bombs in the same sentence all roads then lead to 911.

It does seem, though looking at what is coming to light, if true, there could be a miscarriage of justice here. I am sure or I would like to think, if that is the case it will be exposed by professionals that actually investigate this type of thing for a living rather than some you tuber.

Has as already been said I am sure that anybody who suddenly pitched up at Lockerbie with a placard saying “Lockerbie was an inside job" would quickly be put in their place. Although I naturally do not speak for all I simply speak for myself, I for one would welcome a full investigation and a complete discloser on all the facts and if there is anything new then it must be investigated.

For myself though I prefer not to speculate, I will wait and see how it develops.

[peteweaver]

This makes very interesting reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2211327.stm

A former aide to Abu Nidal claimed that the Abu Nidal group were responsible for the lockerbie disaster.

This is possibly the motive for the bombing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4678707.stm

3rd July 1988 a US naval warship shot down an Iranian Airbus A300, after mistaking it for a hostile radar signature on attack course.

Quote:

Iran has reacted with outrage, accusing the United States of a "barbaric massacre" and vowed to "avenge the blood of our martyrs".
President Reagan said the Vincennes had taken "a proper defensive action" and called the incident an "understandable accident", although he said he regretted the loss of life.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

American intelligence framing a muslim for a terrorist attack involving an airliner?

........naaaahhh.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by rwguinn

The biggest reason is that nobody filmed the event. Only video counts....

There are quite a lot of still pictures of bit of aircraft on the ground and obliterated houses and so on. I'd have thought a competent CTer (oops that's a real oxymoron!) could have made something with that.

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

I personally think this will get little airing in CT circles because there is very little they have to work with. They is no question this was a real plane, no question that there was a real bomb onboard it and no question it fell onto Lockerbie....

Look, as far as I can see, there is no question that there were real planes on 11th September, no question that there were Arab terrorists on board who hijacked the planes by terrorising the passengers and crew, and no question that the planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

So where's the difference?

I'm reading more now that Iran is the main suspect among the al Megrahi sceptics, though I had seen some mention of Syria. I don't have any firm views on the matter, but I'd like to be more familiar with the points at issue. I'd imagined there would be no shortage of people here who might be able to point me unerringly in the direction of the evidence as to whether or not the flight was only about half full, and whether or not the baby-gro was found intact and shredded later and so on, and I'm a bit surprised to trawl up so little.

I hope it will all come out in court, but recent experience is against that.

Shirley McKie, anyone?

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Exactly.


There are quite a lot of still pictures of bit of aircraft on the ground and obliterated houses and so on. I'd have thought a competent CTer (oops that's a real oxymoron!) could have made something with that.


Look, as far as I can see, there is no question that there were real planes on 11th September, no question that there were Arab terrorists on board who hijacked the planes by terrorising the passengers and crew, and no question that the planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

So where's the difference?

I'm reading more now that Iran is the main suspect among the al Megrahi sceptics, though I had seen some mention of Syria. I don't have any firm views on the matter, but I'd like to be more familiar with the points at issue. I'd imagined there would be no shortage of people here who might be able to point me unerringly in the direction of the evidence as to whether or not the flight was only about half full, and whether or not the baby-gro was found intact and shredded later and so on, and I'm a bit surprised to trawl up so little.

I hope it will all come out in court, but recent experience is against that.

Shirley McKie, anyone?

Rolfe.

Again, Rolfe:
There are no videos of the actual incident, therefore it couldn't have happened! You have to have actual videos of the plane blowing up in order for there to be an event. Anybody can fake still photographs (see: killtown).It takes a government and a conspiracy to generate videos

[Rolfe]

I've got a headache now....

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I've got a headache now....

Rolfe.

Welcome to the convoluted world of conspiracy theories...
Take 2 sugar pills and call a homeopath in the morning.

(Ducks and hides under desk)

[Kevin_Lowe]

I guess this means you get to be our resident Lockerbie expert, Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hell, I'd hoped for some actual insight into some actual evidence from all the experts here!

I've got a book about the affair, but it's somewhere in one of the many boxes in what I humorously call my study, i.e. I doubt very much I will be able to lay my hands on it any time soon.

Nobody even know if it's true that this plane (which one would expect to be a sellout given the route and the date) was only half full?

Rolfe.

[Travis]

Other factors that determine the unpopularity of this in CT circles are as follows.

Most of the current generation of Conspiracy Theorists are young and were either just toddlers when 103 blew up or weren't even born yet. They are thus uninterested due to them having either only vague memories of it or none at all.

No war was started over the event and thus the stakes in misidentifying the perpetrator are not as high. The wrongly accused is only subject to being prosecuted in court and not subject to an invasion, occupation and transition to a new form of government.

The US and UK governments of the time are no longer in power and thus not subject to a possible revolution and removal from power if they were found complicit. Along with being young Conspiracy Theorists desire action and thus look for conspiracies that, if true, would warrant immediate actions to "topple" the perpetrators.

Anyways, just my opinion on the matter.

[gumboot]

Travis has summed it up pretty well.

The reason the debunkers aren't interested is because there's no CTers interested, so no one to debunk. As it were.

A key thing, I think, is it's history. Conspiracy Theorists cling to an event that happens in their lives, and cannot move past it. Most of the moon hoaxers I have known or met were older people who were alive in the 1960's. CTers who eat the whole plate - like Alex Jones - will add it to the list of "examples of ebil gubmint" along with the Reichstag, JFK assassination, Liberty attack, Gulf of Tonkin, and so on, but unless they were actually alive when it happened, and actually bought the conspiracy theory soon after the event, they don't really care that much about it.

-Gumboot

[Rolfe]

One interesting point is the credibility of the CT in this case.

Recently, when Tony Blair's "memorandum of understanding" with Gadaffi caused such a furore, many of the letters to the press on the subject said something like, I have grave doubts about al Megrahi's guilt, however that's not the point here, TB ought to know that whether or not he is returned to the Middle East is a matter for the Scottish government, not for him, etc....

Now that the latest appeal is in the news again, many newspapers are taking the public line that they believe al Megrahi was framed, and presenting the evidence for this belief.

This is what happens when the evidence for the CT is at least somewhat credible, and stands up to at least a degree of scrutiny. Ordinary people talk about it, and express their doubts. The media pick up on the subject and write features and articles about it. Serious commentators take the subject on board.

Contrast that with the Twin Towers CT discussion. Nothing but a few adolescent paranoids self-abusing in a corner, as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Today's (very large) newspaper headline - "Lockerbie: will we ever know the truth?"

Quote:

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said there were no fewer than six grounds on which Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and granted him leave to launch a second appeal....

Despite Megrahi's conviction, there have been persistent claims that Libya was not responsible, that some evidence was rigged, and that the finger of suspicion pointed elsewhere - in particular to Palestinian terrorist groups....

The commission also concluded yesterday new evidence about the unreliability of key witnesses, and the non-disclosure to the defence of important and classified information, were strong grounds to refer the case back....

Sir Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, said he doubted whether the full facts of Lockerbie would ever be known. He told the BBC: "No court is likely to get to the truth, now that various intelligence agencies have had the opportunity to corrupt the evidence."

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said it was "in the interests of justice" that the case go back to court. "We must allow the independent legal process to take its course. Let us never forget that 270 men, women and children lost their lives in December 1988," he added.

The case will now go before five appeal judges, at a sitting likely to take place in Edinburgh next year.

See, that's what happens when there is genuine reason to doubt the official story, and suspect a conspiracy and a cover-up. Journalists make a fuss, people take notice, and the authorities in the end may be forced to respond.

So why aren't these same journalists making a huge fuss over the Twin Towers, if it's so darned obvous they were blown up in an inside job?






Oh sorry I forgot they're all in on it and the Lockerbie thing is part of it, designed to make it look as if they're independent.... Oh my sainted aunt!

Rolfe.

[boloboffin]

Over at DU, we've gotten a Bushco tie-in: Apparently two people on board, Charles McKee and Matthew Gannon, were about to reveal crucial information about the Iran-Contra affair. So Poppy iced an entire airliner and framed the Libyans.

[Rolfe]

Bump. Just because I find it very odd that this perfectly cromulent CT isn't getting any sort of an airing.

It's all over all the media here at the moment. Is Megrahi guilty, or was he framed?
Was Libya really behind it, or did Iran do it in retaliation?
If Iran did it, then why did Gaddhafi agree to shop megrahi?
Did the shopkeeper in Malta really identify Megrahi?
Were the clothes bought on a date when Megrahi was nowhere near Malta?
Was the bomb actually put on board at Heathrow?
Why was the plane half-empty, going from Europe to New York only 2 days before Christmas?
Is that even true?

What use is a CT section in August 2009 if you can't get at least three opinions on each of these points!

Rolfe.

Oh, and I don't know why this is under 9/11 CTs in the first place.

[bill smith]

I find it interesting that Al-M. is said to be dying of advanced prostate cancer. This is a slow growing, easily detectable cancer that the prison authorities clearly had a duty of care to screen for in such a long -term prisoner.
Given that prostate cancer is probably he most common cancer in men over 50 and that the symptoms lead to a simple early diagnosis and mostly successful teatment there is definitely culpable negligence involved.
....unless we are being led by the nose as usual.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I find it interesting that Al-M. is said to be dying of advanced prostate cancer. This is a slow growing, easily detectable cancer that the prison authorities clearly had a duty of care to screen for in such a long -term prisoner.
Given that prostate cancer is probably he most common cancer in men over 40 and that the symptoms lead to a simple early diagnosis and mostly successful teatment there is definitely culpable negligence involved.
....unless we are being led by the nose as usual.

Is there ANYTHING that you don't think is a conspiracy?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Is there ANYTHING that you don't think is a conspiracy?

Just an observation. A valid one unless you can tell me differently ?

[Rolfe]

And you know, I really didn't think there was an angle to this that somebody hadn't dredged up.

Ah well, we live and learn.

Rolfe.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And you know, I really didn't think there was an angle to this that somebody hadn't dredged up.

Ah well, we live and learn.

Rolfe.

This is an entirely new angle coming from the current news bulletins. It will be interesting if we see the prostate cancer story being entirely withdrawn or transmogrified into something else.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I find it interesting that Al-M. is said to be dying of advanced prostate cancer. This is a slow growing, easily detectable cancer that the prison authorities clearly had a duty of care to screen for in such a long -term prisoner.
Given that prostate cancer is probably he most common cancer in men over 50 and that the symptoms lead to a simple early diagnosis and mostly successful teatment there is definitely culpable negligence involved.
....unless we are being led by the nose as usual.

No CT! My grandfather died of prostate cancer and to infer it is some sort of negligence is the same as the negligence you display getting every single you post about 911 wrong. It happens. A conscience. You lack the knowledge and the complete story to propose your failed negligence delusion.

As valid as all your failed 911 posts

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Just an observation. A valid one unless you can tell me differently ?

Maybe he didn't report any symptoms?

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Is there ANYTHING that you don't think is a conspiracy?

Notice also how truthers think they KNOW EVERYTHING?
Of course if he died quick of prostate cancer the TM would find that odd.
They are playing the same game over at the LCF saying how odd one of the bodies looks that was pictured at the Pentagon.
Now they are experts in how a burned body should look.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Notice also how truthers think they KNOW EVERYTHING?
Of course if he died quick of prostate cancer the TM would find that odd.
They are playing the same game over at the LCF saying how odd one of the bodies looks that was pictured at the Pentagon.
Now they are experts in how a burned body should look.

Yea. Armchair investigators ROCK!