Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi Nearly Killed Journalist
IN Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, journalist Lynn Faulds Wood tells viewers of Sky News:
“I was actually on that plane. So I could not have been talking to you had it blown up a week earlier”
How close we came to disaster.
Meanwhile, 270 people did die and the man jailed for their murder is being welcomed back to his antive Libya as a hero – at least he is by the hundred of so Government wonks seconded to cheers his arrival.
Lockerbie Lies: Who Now Speaks For The Murdered 270?
Posted: 22nd, August 2009 | In: Media Comments (260) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
Recent comments
- tuesday on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
- June on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
- Fact Checker on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
- yampster on Lancashire Day In Pictures: The Most Famous Lancastrians
- yampster on David Cameron Wants British Thanksgiving Parade, In Pictures
Regular Features
October 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am
34 Gandolf says:
October 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I would not place any credence on anything most politicians say, they lie as a matter of course and would not know the truth if it came in a brown envelope……and the public accept these charlatans term in term out….
+++++++++++++++++++
I think you will find the word most above. I happen to agree with a growing number of politicians that a miscarriage of Justice has taken place.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AGW, the “fact” that Mr Megrahi was found guilty by a tribunal and not a jury has added greatly to the sense of a manipulated verdict, Scottish law demands a jury, not a tribunal akin to a court martial, so many do not agree he was convicted under Scots law.
The “fact” that evidence was removed from the chain and “without the knowledge” of the lead prosecutor (in theory and popular conception)Lord Fraser would have had any conviction in Scotland quashed……..for the reason of tampering with evidence.
Your loss is acknowledged. I am sure you also would like to see justice executed by a full and open public inquiry, if for no other reason that the living and the dead deserve untainted justice.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Gandolf two solid and irrefutable facts:
1. Megrahi is and will remain Britain’s worst convicted mass murderer.
2. Megrahi is terminally ill and will die still convicted and held to be guilty for the murder of 270 either above or on the ground at Lockerbie.
Never mind the rights and wrongs of it, those are factually correct statements.
…and before you accuse me of putting a spin on those facts, let me give you another one. Members of my family were in Lockerbie that night.
They remain in Lockerbie and/or surrounding countryside tonight and make it very plain they may not exactly share your viewpoint.
While accepting both their and your opinions are valid, they are unlikely to invite you for a drink and a cosy chin-wag at the Somerton House Hotel.
.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Gandolf, you asked me if you really said that - here is your response to what I said something along the lines of politicians saying what the public want to hear when we were discussing the US Dropping the Bomb on Japan.
34 Gandolf says:
October 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I would not place any credence on anything most politicians say, they lie as a matter of course and would not know the truth if it came in a brown envelope……and the public accept these charlatans term in term out….
October 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
http://www.ia-ip.org/temp/uploads/library/reports/Lockerbie.pdf
October 26th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Let’s have another go at not being blocked.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lockerbie: was Anthony Gauci’s memory reliable?
A key witness who identified al-Megrahi shows the classic signs of having come to believe in something that never happenedDavid Canter
8 Comments
Recommend? (14)
The problem with the key evidence in the Lockerbie case is that it ignored discoveries made by psychologists more than 100 years ago. When the Scottish police resume their inquiries into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, they will be reminded that the evidence that condemned Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was probably based on a vague memory that somehow became convincing enough for the court to convict.
By dropping his appeal so that he could die at peace at home in Libya, al-Megrahi removed the opportunity of having the challenges to the evidence against him revealed in court for all to see. The furore over his release masked the debate about whether he really was the man who planted the bomb on Flight 103 and has drawn attention away from the significance of the eyewitness testimony provided by Anthony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper.
It was Mr Gauci’s claim that the man who bought clothes resembling those found in the suitcase with the bomb was indeed al-Megrahi, which was the foundation of the evidence against him. Yet many studies since those of the late 19th century of the psychology of memory have raised doubts about witness testimony. They raise important questions about the validity of what Gauci eventually claimed in court he thought he had remembered. This was the conclusion I came to when I was instructed by al-Megrahi’s solicitor to review Mr Gauci’s testimony. With the assistance of two colleagues, I produced a 102-page report that examined 96 statements surrounding Mr Gauci’s claim that al-Megrahi had bought the clothes in his shop before December 21, 1988.
There were a number of problems with Mr Gauci’s memories, not least in his identification in court, 13 years after the bomb exploded, that the man standing in the dock, al-Megrahi, had bought the clothes. Police had asked Mr Gauci more than ten times to pinpoint the person who came to his shop: at various times he identified various different people.
Many experts have pointed out how unreliable dock identifications are. They are a form of leading question which suggests that the person who has been brought to justice is very likely to be guilty.
On February 15, 1991, two and a half years after a man possibly had visited his shop, Mr Gauci was shown 12 photographs and asked if he recognised the purchaser. At that stage in the investigation the police were focusing on al-Megrahi as the likely culprit. They, therefore, had a lot invested in Mr Gauci choosing al-Megrahi from the photographs. There is a considerable psychological research to show that people can be influenced in their judgments by subtle cues from others around them. So it seems very likely that inadvertently Mr Gauci could have been influenced to choose the photograph the police wanted.
We tested this possibility by running an experiment with two interviewers. Both were told to ask a random selection of people which of the people in the 12 photographs the police had used was likely to be the Lockerbie bomber. They were told to be careful not to indicate who they thought the culprit might be. Interviewer A was told that picture 8 was the culprit and interviewer B was not told anything. Of the 20 people interviewed by B none selected picture 8. Of the 36 interviewed by A, 15 chose picture 8. This small study, with the actual material used by the police, accords with many other explorations of these issues and many cases in which confident eyewitness identification has later proven false.
The police and court seemed to hold an uninformed, naive view of how human memory works. The popular misconception is that memory is like an old-fashioned photographic plate that records what happens, but then slowly fades with time. There even seems to be the assumption that the plate can be dusted down and put in a bright light to reveal more clearly what was there all along.
This certainly was the basis of the claim that Mr Gauci’s memories of an alleged all-important shopping spree actually improved with time as he thought more carefully about the event. But all the evidence is that, unless the event is of great emotional significance and attended to very carefully at the time, it fades from our minds very quickly. So for a shopkeeper to claim he had a memory of what clothes were bought and by whom, when the purchases and purchaser were unremarkable, seems very unlikely, especially so long after the event.
Some of the most important statements by Mr Gauci were made on January 30, 1990, a good two years after the bomb went off. Over and over again it appears that Mr Gauci is keen to do everything he can to remember something that will be of assistance. This leads to a development of what he thinks he remembers when prompted by the police interviewer. We identified at least 20 crucial aspects of Mr Gauci’s memory of the purchase of the clothing that varied considerably over the years from one statement to the next. How the purchaser left the shop, whether he got into a taxi or not, all of these details are vague to begin with but become more precise under police questioning, even though the initial interview was at least ten months after the purchases were reputedly made and subsequent statements were two or more years later.
The evidence in court many years later still gives the impression of confident clear memories. But the earlier statements put these in different light. For instance, Mr Gauci initially claimed the man bought no shirts, but ten years later said in court that he had. In early statements he said that the purchase was well before Christmas as there were no Christmas lights in the shop, but by the time he came to give evidence in court the lights were clearly present.
Whole volumes have been written in recent years on how readily people can come to believe that they remembered things that never occurred but which were actually suggested to them in earlier interviews. There is no simple relationship between how confident a person is in what he thinks he remembers and how accurate that memory is. Yet this psychological truth was ignored by the court that convicted al-Megrahi.
David Canter is Professor of Psychology at the University of Huddersfield and the author of Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action
You can read David Canter’s report at http://www.ia-ip.org/temp/
October 26th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Did I really say that, or is it just that you would like to think that I said that.
http://tinyurl.com/yfae4ny
October 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Gandolf, you are the man who said you don’t believe anything politicians or government officials say. You actually believe anyone is going to admit to anything that could come back on them? Now it is time for all Governments involved to start denying and pointing fingers and saying ‘not I’, it must have been them. Anything that comes out now is going to be about as believable as the UK’s protestations that Megrahi’s release had nothing to do with the Oil Deals.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“Lord Fraser makes it clear he did not know and would not have allowed this evidence to be taken out of Scottish jurisdiction and control, but that is precisely what did happen. That leaves a very serious question mark over the central piece of evidence used to convict Mr Megrahi.”
October 25th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
http://tinyurl.com/yfbvf5m
October 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Crown statement accepts Pan Am 103 evidence chain broken
[This is the heading over an article posted today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows.]
A statement issued by the Crown Office which attempted to undermine MSP Christine Grahame does not challenge the key claim made by Grahame that the chain of evidence in the Lockerbie case was broken.
A fragment relied upon by the Crown during the trial travelled to the US and Germany, and Grahame said Scottish police investigators did not record the fragment’s transportation across the world and in doing so broke the vital chain of evidence undermining the integrity of the fragment.
“Questions also need to be answered about the associated evidence log that was meant to accompany PT-35. It mysteriously does not record that the fragment went to the US or Germany, even though the Crown Office has confirmed in writing that it definitely went to Germany,” she said.
The Crown Office quickly issued a statement accusing Ms Grahame of promulgating “misleading” information, although crucially they did not deny the truth of Grahame’s story, and offered no explanation as to why the “chain of custody” label attached to the evidence fragment appears not to record the movements out of the country.
In 2007, MEBO engineer Ulrich Lumpert submitted an affidavit stating that the circuit board fragment produced in court at Zeist was part of a non-operational demonstration circuit board that he himself had removed from the premises of MEBO and had handed over to an investigator on 22 June 1989, six months after the destruction of Pan Am 103.
“If this is true, then it totally demolishes the prosecution version of how the aircraft was destroyed, as well, of course, as demonstrating deliberate fabrication of evidence laid before the court,” Professor Robert Black said at the time.
Former Police Investigator Stuart Henderson has stated on the record that if the crucial fragment had travelled abroad without being recorded, it would be tainted evidence and considered unreliable by the court.
“We couldn’t afford to let something like that go. It has never been in their [US] control at all. It couldn’t be, because it was such an important point of evidence it wasn’t possible to release it,” he said.
“It had to be contained to be produced at the court therefore you couldn’t afford to have it waved around for everyone to see it because it could have got interfered with.”
The Crown Office acknowledged that the fragment had travelled to Germany in 1990, and claimed that “at no time during the investigation was the timer fragment ever outside the custody and control of the Scottish police officers, or forensic scientists at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment.”
However, they did not address the break in the chain of evidence or make any reference to the fragment’s travel to the United States, or challenge Grahame’s contention that the evidence log is incomplete.
Former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser also stated that as far as he was aware, the evidence had never left the UK.
“The Crown Office have confirmed to me that the fragment, PT-35, the piece of evidence that it was claimed by prosecutors linked Libya to the attack was also sent to Germany in April 1990 as well as the US,” Grahame says.
“On the 22nd of June 1990 it was then taken to the FBI lab in Washington for examination by FBI officials there. Lord Fraser makes it clear he did not know and would not have allowed this evidence to be taken out of Scottish jurisdiction and control, but that is precisely what did happen. That leaves a very serious question mark over the central piece of evidence used to convict Mr Megrahi.”
October 25th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Dr Swire doubts sincerity of Crown Office announcement
[In an article written for Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, Dr Jim Swire casts doubt on the sincerity of the Crown Office's announcement of a review of the evidence in the Lockerbie case. He writes:]
Naturally the UK Lockerbie relatives would love to see a fully enabled objective criminal investigation re-examining all the currently available Lockerbie evidence.
But how can an objective criminal investigation not impinge on the verdict against Megrahi? The Crown Office’s case against Megrahi depended on the evidence of identification by Gauci.
Yet we now know that when the clothing was in fact bought from Gauci’s shop, Megrahi was not even on the island of Malta, but Abu Talb was. We also now know that Harry Bell of the investigating Scots police recorded that the Americans wanted to give Gauci $10,000 ‘up front’ with $2,000,000 to follow if conviction was successful. Clearly they must have thought the identification evidence critical.
It was in Talb’s flat in Sweden that the Swedish police found further items of clothing from Gauci’s shop. The Crown currently has no known explanation for this.
Yet if Talb, not Megrahi, bought the clothing, the verdict against Megrahi would have to be quashed. Are those currently and previously forming the Crown Office, as well as Colin Boyd, (the most implicated Lord Advocate), prepared to see their ‘new investigative directions’ lead to such an outcome? There is of course no evidence that any of them offered any inducements to Gauci or anyone else, but surely their careers and reputations depend on their past conduct of this case? So would the new criminal investigation be objective, I ask myself?
I cannot free my mind of he words of Prof Hans Koechler, the UN’s appointed special International Observer at the court: he thought the verdict so incomprehensible that it could only have been reached through (his words) ‘deliberate malpractice by Scotland’s Crown Office.
So what to do? Observers should remember that under current Human Rights legislation and the Inquiries Act 2005, we the relatives have a right to a full and objective enquiry.
Meanwhile those who swear by the Megrahi verdict might like to visit the London Review of Books website and search for ‘Megrahi’ they will find a devastating analysis as to the conduct of the trial written by Gareth Peirce, one of England’s most noted miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers.
Further, if the Crown Office are really to refer matters as alleged (for I personally have no communication from them) to ‘forensic experts’ it is to be hoped that they will never again try to use the thoroughly discredited Hayes and Feraday.
[In another article in the magazine, headed 'Cynicism and doubt over latest Crown Office “spoiler”', the following paragraph appears:
"Dr Jim Swire told the Firm that - contrary to their usual practice - the Crown Office have not even contacted him to advise that any new investigation was planned. He said the coincidental timing of the Crown’s announcement had unavoidably distracted attention from the same day announcement by UK Families [Flight] 103 that they had delivered a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to instigate a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie event under the Inquiries Act 2005. He described the Crown’s act as a “spoiler,” pointing out that any investigation would be useless as long as the Crown refused to quash the outstanding guilty verdict against Megrahi.”]
October 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Gandolf, it is time this case be put to rest and if a detailed re-investigation of the case, evidence, documents, etc. is what is needed to bring ‘peace’ to all involved, then best it be done soon and then laid to rest. However, you hint to the US and UK involvement only in this case for uncovering information, best you remember, Gandolf, the Scottish officials involvement in this case.
As for myself, I’m quite interested to see in this search for the truth who will confront the 3 Scottish Judges and demand their explanations as to who or what influenced them to find a man guilty on such questionable evidence. They have much to answer for also, Gandolf, and who knows start at top in this investigation it might be easier to solve.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am
I should have added that this announcement is seen by many as another attempt to thwart a full and open public inquiry, while there is an ongoing review westminster would hide behind that as an excuse for being unable to have or hold a full public inquiry……so it is everything it seems….another ploy to conceal the truth from the victims relatives and the wider public.
That will change come independence, everything comes to those who wait, the Lockerbie victims and their relatives will have Justice under a Scottish government, despite the efforts of westminster to previously conceal the truth.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Time will tell what it is, some very interesting facts have arisen, there is undoubtedly some very worried people on both sides of the Atlantic.
The only thing preventing the SNP from publishing all the case papers is the UK parliament, or to be more precise the ministers of Pa Broon.
That will change come total independence, everything comes to those who wait.
You may spin whichever way you like, it is everything it appears, a reinvestigation of what would appear to be the fit up of an innocent man.
Justice will in its true sense prevail, not the justice of those whom injustice is a tool of their trade.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Not quite what it seems Gandolf.
The Scottish Crown Office (prosecutors’ office to those of you in different jurisdictions) has this morning made it very clear this is an on-going procedure to find the alledged accomplices of the convicted Libyan bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
The Crown Office states this is NOT an investigation into the guilt or otherwise of Megrahi. He is and will remain Britain’s worst convicted mass murderer. It is wrong and inaccurate to read anything else into this story.
The Crown Office has also today stated categorically this is NOT a re-opening of the case but a usual on-going revue.
It could hardly do any other given the circumstances…could it?
October 25th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Everything comes to those who wait.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6425205/Police-relaunch-Lockerbie-bombing-investigation.html
October 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Clive, just checked the news over here and not a word about his dying. Frankly, Clive, if he has died our news would be carrying that news as top story for the next 24 hours and then some..
Here is an article from over in the UK his lawyers have denied he has died.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221990/Lawyer-denies-Lockerbie-bomber-Abdelbaset-Al-Megrahi-died.html
October 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Well, reports coming in that Megrahi is now dead.
Maybe MacCaskill was right
October 18th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=news&issue=1246
October 7th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Justice.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Gandolf, I read it - what do you want? It was a deal discussed between the Scottish detectives and US Government. What it tells me is between Scotland authorities and US Government a deal was agreed upon and we the US got stuck paying it.
Gandolf, there will be no official hearing, all you are doing is beating a dead horse.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Omerta……….. http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57129.shtml
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:10 am
“”Simply, I am not convinced anymore he may be innocent.”"
You appear to have gone, as is your right, in the opposite direction of many who have read the case files, most “legal minds” are of the opinion that the case would never have gone to court in a Jury trial in Scotland, something to do with lack of evidence.
Japan was beaten when the yanks nuked her. The war was ended by the very brave Russians on the eastern front.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
Simply, I am not convinced anymore he may be innocent.
As for our nuking Japan in WWII - did those acts not bring on Japan’s surrender? I do believe Europe benefited by that also, did it not?
Come on, Gandolf, it is ludicrous on your part to equate our nuking Japan in WWII to bring the War to an end and then doing business down the road with them to the UK sending a cold blooded murderer/Libyan top spy back to his country as part of the oil deals made with Gaddafi and further selling him arms, high tech equipment, etc. Our countries were fighting a War, Gandolf, when we nuked Japan. We were in peace time when Megrahi blew up an airplane over Lockerbe, Scotland, killing 270 innocent people, majority of whom were going home for Christmas.
Have you ever asked yourself why Gaddafi wanted Megrahi back so badly before he died? What was he afraid of? Megrahi would make a death bed confession of Libya’s involvement/instructions to their top spy to destroy that airline? Why did Gaddafi pay off the families of those killed in that bombing? Gaddafi doesn’t have a heart or soul, he and others like him are evil beings. They don’t even have a conscience.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Is there any part of “Megrahi is not perceived to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” that you are struggling with ?
Every fuckers hands are dirty, you nuked the Japs, it has not stopped you or them doing business with each other, I think there may have been a few more than 270 of them carbonised. Dead is dead there are no degrees to being dead, shit happens, we clean it up or sweep it under the carpet and the politicians return to their deadly game of bluff, which results in everyone except the politicos suffering.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
They are entitled to speak out with whatever their thoughts are re him. Freedom of Speech over here.
However, when a murderer of 270 people is set free and sent back to his country per his country’s request doesn’t set too well with most of us, even with the cock and bull story it was a Compassion Release. But then, in reality he wasn’t really sent back out of Compassion, was he? How many millions or was it billions of pounds worth of oil deals did the UK get out of that Compassion Release? Noted now you are supplying his military with the latest arms, high tech equipment and other needed war weapons for how many millions or billions of pounds?
Tell you, if I were the Queen of England I wouldn’t be sitting too easy these days. I’m waiting to see what price the UK will sell her crown jewels for if Gaddafi asks to buy them.
Yes, Gandolf, I know we have done deals with him and I know we don’t have clean hands anymore the UK does over the years. However, can’t find any cases over here where we have set free from a sentence to life in prison, and back to their country, a convicted cold blooded murderer of 270 people. I know there is that quote:”Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” but I rather believe you all over did it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
These people are Americans to ….? they appear to sing from a different hymn sheet. Or are only certain sections allowed this voice of which you speak.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/featuredFarrakhanArticle/article_6445.shtml
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Do you think that President Obama does not know the outrage and backlash he’d have dumped on him by the American people he welcomed Gaddafi cordially to our country at the UN?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841917.ece
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
That was to be expected, Gandolf. Do you know how many drinkers we have in the Government? Think they’d truly give up that famous Scotland Scotch?
However, read what the American people have done to Gaddifi for his trip over here. Our Government does not speak for us as individuals - we have a voice of our own.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6843545.ece
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/us-calls-a-truce-in-row-over-megrahi-release-1.921385
September 20th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
The story doing the rounds from as reliable as any other source, is that neither of the two in the dock were to have been convicted, appears someone changed the script mid-stream, it may be that this is one of those rare occasions, when public outrage may very well force the truth to be revealed.
Yes you did comment to that effect about MBM, because I may disagree with you at times does not mean I do not respect your opinion or anyone else’s agw, I cannot believe at times how lax the authorities have been in keeping control of Madeleine’s case, it is almost as if they are frightened of what is awaiting to be uncovered.