al Qaeda Scams: Lockerbie and TWA 800

The public believes that the Washington al Qaeda Bureau (WAB) only kill foreigners; and so some of us act casually, to incidents of grave concern.
Sporadically, our servants in politics, and the security services (at the top) pull off a scam that affects us. Yet they are always allowed to pull off another one; usually with a similar script.

The persons who fall for these scams are those in the Funny Farm where occupants may be admitted (to the farm) 20 or more times, exhibiting the same precipitating factors; and still never learn from their mistakes.

There are some striking similiarities between the Lockerbie and TWA 800 incidents and several past scams. For example, in the Lockerbie scam, the Washington al Qaeda Bureau (WAB) began issuing vague warnings and later gave specific warnings to cronies.

You know folks! There are always some crackpots to believe these so-called 'official' stories. And, if you note well - whistleblowers are generally framed or rubbed later on.

Judging from the facts generated from JFK, RFK, MLK, Murrah, WTC 1993 and 9-11, I can plausibly suggest that certain security services are threatening the national security of the United States.











FlightTWA800:
Witness 649 - Completely Debunks the CIA Video

In the early days of the investigation it was clear that something very unusual had been seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. The FBI and Suffolk County Marine Police were hot on the trail. They assembled a representative number of very good eyewitnesses, did triangulations of the witness bearing lines and pinpointed two launch points directly under Flight 800's path. They sent their findings up the line

The only problem was the FBI brass wasn't buying it! They kept insisting on finding physical evidence and when any suspicious physical evidence was found by the field agents, it was quickly taken away, supposedly for further analysis, never to be seen again. The end result, the FBI leadership claims they never found any physical evidence and eyewitness reports are too unreliable to be useful. Of course, they will accept the word of a single eyewitness in a murder case and send the accused to the electric chair with no remorse. Here we have hundreds of witnesses all saying the same thing. The FBI leadership's response - they enlisted the CIA to produce a video to explain why "the eyewitnesses did not see a missile".

Witness 649's testimony couldn't have been more clear, and completely debunks the CIA Theory. Two days after the crash, witness 649 gave the FBI a detailed statement which is summarized here:

While on the track at Westhampton High School he " observed, just above his line of vision, and the tree line directly in front of him, an object (object number one) ascending from behind the trees. He stated that the object originated from the south ...object number one appeared to be bright white light with a reddish pink aura surrounding it. He said the object continued to maintain that appearance throughout his observation, except for the last second, when he believed the object impacted with another object. He compared the moving object to a firework."

"Initially, object one ascended almost vertically beyond the tree line with no apparent direction and at moderate speed. Object one evolved into a "squiggly" pattern going up vertically and increasing in velocity and then arced off to the right in a southwesterly direction. He stated that the object continued to stay just above his line of vision, and he never had to pick up his head up to observe the events."

"He stated he observed a second stationary object (object number two) that appeared to glitter in the sky. Object number one was heading toward object number two, which he said he would not have seen if it was not for object number one drawing his attention to it. However, object number one appeared like it was initially going to slightly miss object number two unless it made a dramatic correction at the last moment. In less that a second, he believed object number one impacted with object number two; ..He observed a white "puff" (white flash) approximately the size of a small ball in the sky, however, he heard no noise. Out of the puff came two objects that arched upward from the initial impact trailing smoke. He said the objects then appeared to turn into large rectangular balls of fire descending at an angle down past the horizon of the trees. After the burning objects fell beyond the horizon of the trees he did not observe or hear anything else."

Witness 649 then provided the FBI with the following sketch:
"While he explained what he saw he used his hands to simulate the movement of the objects he had observed - up and to the right at an angle above the horizon for the "firework" object, and down and to the left for the "fire box" and dot descending down to his visual horizon (the tree line)."

It is very clear from this drawing and from the written description that witness 649 saw two completely different objects and that the object he saw ascending was not Flight 800 in "various stages of crippled flight". Armed with this excellent description of a MANPADS missile impacting the very slow moving 747 you would have thought that combined with dozens of other similar stories, the FBI had the "smoking gun" - hundreds of eyewitnesses.

By October 14, 1996, Special Agent Steven Bongardt and Deputy Inspector Matulewich of the Suffolk County Marine Police sent letters up the chain of command pointing to two specific launch points with what would appear to be insurmountable evidence that the aircraft was shot down.

That was not to be the case. The FBI high command kept insisting on PROOF! and in the meantime enlisted the CIA to produce a film that proved the witnesses didn't know what they saw. Either through purposeful obfuscation or extreme incompetence, the CIA came up a theory, based principally on a single eyewitness, Michael Wire (who subsequently stated that the CIA video does not represent what he saw). By May 1997 the CIA was in the middle of producing its docu-drama.

On May 8, 1997 the FBI took a drawing taken from the CIA video back to witness 649 to get him to verify that it was what he saw. In doing so they told him that it was a drawing by another eyewitness and they wanted to see if his recollection was similar. CIA Drawing 2a:

Following is from the FBI witness form:

"Witness 649 drew a sketch of what he remembered on a sheet of paper that he was given which included an approximate tree line and ground line (Drawing #1). When given Drawing #2a, he felt it was pretty accurate except that it was "missing the entire first part" and sketched that part of his observations onto the drawing (Drawing #2b). He also added the two separate lines of objects descending to the primary thicker black line already in the drawing: Drawing #2b:
You can see from the modifications that witness 649 made to the CIA drawing that he is clearly showing an object moving straight up from the horizon, arching over and to the right and intersecting another object which was coming from the left. The second object exploded and continued to the left in a double fireball to impact with the surface. Flight 800 was traveling from his right to his left and object number one was traveling from his left to his right. It is impossible that object #1 was what the CIA said was Flight 800 "in various stages of crippled flight".

It is very clear from this sequence of events the FBI leadership had already decided that the story line was to be: "the witnesses didn't see a missile" and were using the CIA video to publicize that position. Never mind that the facts and the witness observations completely refute the CIA theory.

_____________
From 'turn that s... up'

Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by US government

FORMER CIA agent who claims Libya is not responsible for the Lockerbie
bombing is being gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws
and faces 10 years in prison if herevealsanyinformation about the
terrorist attack.
United Nations diplomats are outraged that the US government is
apparently suppressing a potential key trial witness. Diplomats are now
demanding that the CIA agent, Dr Richard Fuisz, be released from the
gagging order. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and
pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources,
the CIA's key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s
where he also had business interests.
One month before a court order was served on him by the US government
gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke
to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer,
telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and
claiming they were not Libyan.
Lindauer, shocked by Fuisz's claims, immediately compiled notes on the
meeting which formed the basis of a later sworn affidavit detailing
Fuisz's claims. One month after their conversation, in October 1994, a
court in Washington DC issued an order barring him from revealing any
information on the grounds of "military and state secrets privilege".
Congressional aide Lindauer, who was involved in early negotiations
over the Lockerbie trial, claims Fuisz made "unequivocal statements to
me that he has first-hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case". In her
affidavit, she goes on: "Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who
orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr Fuisz has said that he can
confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or
executing the bombing of PanAm 103, either in any technical or advisory
capacity whatsoever."
Fuisz's statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyans
accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organisations,
including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran.

_______________________
The Lockerbie Bombing Trial: Is Libya Being Framed?
by Gary C. Gambill

Lockerbie wreckage
The wreckage from Pan Am Flight 103 (Greg Bos/Reuters)
Scotland's Sunday Herald reported last week that the U.S. government placed a gag order on a former CIA agent to prevent him from testifying in the trial of two Libyans accused of carrying out the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people.

Dr. Richard Fuisz, a wealthy businessman and pharmaceutical researcher who was a major CIA operative in Damascus during the 1980s, told a congressional staffer in 1994 that the perpetrators of the bombing were based in Syria. "If the government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack . . . I can tell you their home addresses . . . you won't find [them] anywhere in Libya. You will only find [them] in Damascus," Fuisz told congressional aide Susan Lindauer, who has submitted a sworn affidavit describing this conversation to the Scottish court that is trying the two suspects.

One month after their meeting, a Washington DC court issued a ruling that prohibits Fuisz from discussing the Lockerbie bombing on national security grounds. When a reporter called Fuisz last month with questions about Lindauer's affidavit, he replied: "That is not an issue I can confirm or deny. I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain to you why I can't speak about these issues." The report quoted a senior UN official who has seen the affidavit as saying that "in the interests of natural justice, Dr. Fuisz should be released from any order which prevents him telling what he knows of the PanAm bombing."1

The investigation into the bombing by Scottish police and the FBI initially focused exclusively on evidence linking the blast to the Damascus-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a radical Palestinian group closely allied with Syrian President Hafez Assad and other senior officials. However, the investigation suddenly changed courses after Syria joined the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq in 1991 and Iran stayed neutral. In November of that year, U.S. investigators issued indictments against two alleged Libyan intelligence agents and President George Bush declared that Syria had taken a "bum rap" on Lockerbie.

Fuisz is not the first to run afoul of the U.S. government for speaking about Syrian and Iranian complicity in the Lockerbie bombing. Juval Aviv, the president of Interfor, a New York corporate investigative company hired by Pan Am to conduct an inquiry into the bombing, was indicted for mail fraud after Interfor announced its conclusion that the PFLP-GC had been responsible.2 A former agent for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lester Coleman, was charged by the FBI with "falsely procuring a passport" while he was researching a book entitled Trail of the Octopus which fingered the PFLP-GC (Coleman left the country and published the book in Britain).3 William Casey, a lobbyist who made similar claims about PFLP-GC involvement, said in 1995 that the U.S. Justice Department had frozen his bank accounts and federal agents scoured through his garbage cans.4

The Case Against Libya

Al-Megrahi and Fahima
A courtroom sketch of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi (center), and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima (right) during the trial proceedings on May 5. (Fred Ernst/Reuters)
The prosecution's claim is that two Libyan intelligence agents, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah and Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, planted Semtex plastic explosives inside a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder in an unaccompanied suitcase on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred onto Pan Am flight 103, bound for New York via London's Heathrow airport.

The first important chain of evidence links the bomb-laden suitcase on Flight 103 to Air Malta Flight KT180. Fragments of the Toshiba radio-cassette recorder were found inside a brown Samsonite suitcase, the only piece of luggage on the Flight 103 that was not checked by a passenger. The suitcase had entered the baggage system at Frankfurt at the same time and location as the Air Malta flight was unloading. According to prosecutors, a tattered shirt with a Maltese label containing fragments of the timing device was found by a Scottish man walking his dog 18 months after the explosion (fabric samples from the shirt were said to indicate that it was inside the brown suitcase).

However, Air Malta's computer records show no indication that a brown Samsonite suitcase was on board Flight KT180, and the notion that an old man walking his dog would stumble across a key piece of evidence a year and a half after the explosion is a bit far-fetched. Moreover, according to a forensic report which the defense will present during the trial, a bomb in a suitcase stored in the aluminum luggage containers could not have created the dinner plate-sized hole in the fuselage that brought down the plane--the bomb would have had to be directly next to the plane's fuselage. If this true, then the prosecution's entire explanation of how the bomb arrived on the aircraft in Malta falls apart.

A second chain of evidence links the two Libyan suspects to Malta. Detectives traced the charred remains of clothing tattered shirt to a clothing shop in Sliema, Malta, whose owner, Tony Gauci, said that he recalled selling the clothes to a tall Arab male, about 50 years old, in the fall of 1988. Investigators say he later identified the man who bought the clothes as Megrahi. However, Megrahi was only 36 at the time, and Gauci greatly overestimated his height. Moreover, a member of the PFLP-GC, Muhammed Abu Talb, was originally identified as the man who bought the clothes during the early stages of the investigation.5

A third primary piece of evidence said to implicate Libya are two fragments of an electronic circuit board from the the timing device that detonated the explosives on board the airliner. Investigators traced the fragments to a Swiss company which manufactures electronic timers, Mebo Telecommunications. The head of Mebo Communications, Edwin Bollier, told investigators that the fragments came from an MST-13 timer he had sold to the Libyan government. However, Bollier recently said he had made the identification solely from looking at photographs of the fragments. When he was shown one of the actual fragments in September 1999, he concluded that "the fragment does not come from one of the timers we sold to Libya." Bollier says that it appears to come from one of the three prototypes built by his company--two of which were sold to the Institute of Technical Research in East Germany (a front for the Stasi intelligence service), while the third was stolen. He intends to testify to this at the trial, as will Owen Lewis, a British forensic expert.6

A fourth important piece of evidence is the testimony of a former Libyan intelligence officer who will identify the two suspects as members of Libya's intelligence service. While details of what he told investigators are scarce, sources close to the defense have said that it is highly questionable.

A number of irregularities in the investigation also detract from the plausibility of the prosecution's claims. The American FBI agent who was instrumental in pushing the Libya hypothesis, J. Thomas Thurman, was later suspended for manipulating evidence to favor the prosecution in subsequent cases.7

The Case Against Syria/Iran

The primary hypothesis guiding the investigation for the first year was that the bombing was perpetrated by the Syria-based PFLP-GC, presumably acting on behalf of Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had vowed to retaliate for the U.S. Navy's July 1988 downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf, saying that the skies would "rain blood" and offering a $10 million reward to anyone who "obtained justice" for Iran. Ayatollah Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, Teheran's envoy in Damascus in 1988, was believed to have recruited the financially-strapped group for the task.

Two months before the disaster, German police arrested 15 terrorist suspects, all connected to the PFLP-GC, and confiscated three explosive devices consisting of Semtex hidden inside Toshiba cassette recorders--nearly identical to the one used in the Lockerbie bombing ( the only major difference being that they had barometric triggers, rather than electronic timers of the type that investigators claim detonated the explosives on board Pan Am flight 103). Moreover, U.S. officials reportedly had received advance warnings that a flight to New York would be targeted around the time of the Lockerbie bombing. In fact, Stephen Green, a senior Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) administrator, John McCarthy, the U.S. Ambassador to Beirut, and several other U.S. officials were originally scheduled to fly on the ill-fated airliner on December 21, but rescheduled at the last minute.

It's possible that the PFLP smuggled the bomb on board Pan Am flight 103 from Malta. Abu Talb was sighted in Malta just weeks before the bombing. When he was later arrested in Sweden, police found the date of the Lockerbie explosion (December 21) circled on his calender.8

This and most other evidence linking the Lockerbie bombing to the PFLP-GC is largely circumstantial and difficult to substantiate, if only because the results of the FBI's early investigation into its involvement were not made public. The question is: Given the weaknesses in the case against Libya, why was the investigation into PFLP-GC involvement suspended and should it be reactivated if the two Libyan defendants are acquitted?..."

____________________
LockerbieScam
Related topic

* Lockerbie
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184

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


Scotland on Sunday Sun 28 Aug 2005
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
MARCELLO MEGA

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.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison.

The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses "wrote the script" to incriminate Libya.

Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.

But Esson, who retired in 1994, questioned the officer's motives. He said: "Any police officer who believed they had knowledge of any element of fabrication in any criminal case would have a duty to act on that. Failure to do so would call into question their integrity, and I can't help but question their motive for raising the matter now."

Other important questions remain unanswered, such as how the officer learned of the alleged conspiracy and whether he was directly involved in the inquiry. But sources close to Megrahi's legal team believe they may have finally discovered the evidence that could demolish the case against him.

An insider told Scotland on Sunday that the retired officer approached them after Megrahi's appeal - before a bench of five Scottish judges - was dismissed in 2002.

The insider said: "He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents.

"Asked why he had not come forward before, he admitted he'd been wary of breaking ranks, afraid of being vilified.

"He also said that at the time he became aware of the matter, no one really believed there would ever be a trial. When it did come about, he believed both accused would be acquitted. When Megrahi was convicted, he told himself he'd be cleared at appeal."

The source added: "When that also failed, he explained he felt he had to come forward.

"He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court."

The vital evidence that linked the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Megrahi was a tiny fragment of circuit board which investigators found in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity.

The fragment was later identified by the FBI's Thomas Thurman as being part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives, and manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo, which supplied it only to Libya and the East German Stasi.

At one time, Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm's headquarters.

The fragment of circuit board therefore enabled Libya - and Megrahi - to be placed at the heart of the investigation. However, Thurman was later unmasked as a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials, and it emerged that he had little in the way of scientific qualifications.

Then, in 2003, a retired CIA officer gave a statement to Megrahi's lawyers in which he alleged evidence had been planted.

The decision of a former Scottish police chief to back this claim could add enormous weight to what has previously been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. It has long been rumoured the fragment was planted to implicate Libya for political reasons.

The first suspects in the case were the Syrian-led Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a terror group backed by Iranian cash. But the first Gulf War altered diplomatic relations with Middle East nations, and Libya became the pariah state.

Following the trial, legal observers from around the world, including senior United Nations officials, expressed disquiet about the verdict and the conduct of the proceedings at Camp Zeist, Holland. Those doubts were first fuelled when internal documents emerged from the offices of the US Defence Intelligence Agency. Dated 1994, more than two years after the Libyans were identified to the world as the bombers, they still described the PFLP-GC as the Lockerbie bombers.

A source close to Megrahi's defence said: "Britain and the US were telling the world it was Libya, but in their private communications they acknowledged that they knew it was the PFLP-GC.

"The case is starting to unravel largely because when they wrote the script, they never expected to have to act it out. Nobody expected agreement for a trial to be reached, but it was, and in preparing a manufactured case, mistakes were made."

Dr Jim Swire, who has publicly expressed his belief in Megrahi's innocence, said it was quite right that all relevant information now be put to the SCCRC.

Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity, said last night: "I am aware that there have been doubts about how some of the evidence in the case came to be presented in court.

"It is in all our interests that areas of doubt are thoroughly examined."

A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "As this case is currently being examined by the SCCRC, it would be inappropriate to comment."

No one from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was available to comment.

____________________
Sephton v. FBI
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for
disclosure of Flight 800's probe of records of foreign objects and shrapnel
obtained by the FBI, and withheld, including from the NTSB and the medical examiner




Graeme Sephton

November, 2003

"I am a registered professional engineer who has been working diligently for years on the discovery process of the most pertinent evidence about the explosion of Flight 800. My main effort has been to obtain the forensic evidence about hundreds of objects seized by the FBI during the autopsy that were never later shared with the coroner. (Highly irregular in itself.) I realized that, unlike other evidence collected from the bottom of the Atlantic, the foreign body evidence is definitive because there is no chain-of-custody ambiguity. It cannot readily be explained away.

Consider that any suspicious objects that had been dredged up during the salvage operation could not definitively be linked with the explosion. Objects removed during the autopsies cannot be dismissed in a cavalier manner. But such evidence obviously can be, and was, withheld by the FBI from routine independent evaluation by the County Coroner. Why, I wondered?!

The FBI's excuse for the existence of explosive residues throughout the wreckage is that it was carelelessly “spilled” during a canine explosives detection exercise. Similarly, the evidence from scores of witnesses who saw an object streaking up from the water was both suppressed and dismissed. The CIA experts explained that they were all visually confused by the burning disintegrating aircraft. Radar experts who were concerned with what the radar data showed were also dismissed. But suspicious foreign objects removed during autopsies presents a significant challenge to explain away or dismiss. Perhaps it is easier to withhold than to explain it.

Indeed, the final official conclusion of the spontaneous spark in the fuel tank was always very frail. There is no corroborating evidence to support it. The fuel tank was empty. The FBI claims to have relied on the "spark theory." The FBI asserted that there was “no physical evidence" of any outside initiating event.

In 1998, I made a Freedom of Information Act request for the forensic evidence that was withheld from the coroner. I believe that obtaining that evidence might resolve the controversial conclusions of the investigation. Who if anyone inside the FBI had evaluated all those hundreds of foreign bodies, and what did they conclude about them?

Eventually it became evident that perhaps no one had actually made an evaluation of the critical foreign body evidence: not the county coroner, not the FBI’s medical forensic consultant, not the NTSB medical forensic specialists, and certainly not the media. Despite these and other blatant symptoms of a deficient investigation, the media has repudiated the label “cover-up” as unmentionable and unacceptable. Unfortunately, that has left citizen investigators to investigate and research. There are dozens of us.

In early 2000 the FBI could only find 23 pages of responsive documents relating to the objects that were removed from 89 of the victims. In July 2000, with the support of the FIRO organization (see http://www.flight800.org/FBI_COMP.htm), I filed a lawsuit against the FBI for this apparent withholding of documents. That three-year litigation has now produced a lot of documentary evidence confirming that there were substantial quantities of forensic lab data withheld from both the NTSB and the coroner. But among the 550 pages the FBI has now submitted to the federal District Court in Springfield (June 2003), they have only found and surrendered one page of actual forensic results. One of the FBI affidavits to the Court acknowledged that the FBI had not and would not do a simple keyword search in either of the two computer databases that a former FBI employee identified as most likely containing the responsive records. Former FBI's Dr. Fred Whitehurst is helping, and his affidavit is filed in the suit.

Of the 550 pages of records eventually surrendered to the federal Court in June 2003, only one page was of a forensic laboratory report, a negative result from an explosive residue test. Despite the lack of forensic data, the released records do reveal that hundreds of foreign objects were removed during the autopsies by the medical examiners - and were immediately seized as evidence by the FBI for its “identification” and “detailed lab analysis.” Eight years later the public is still waiting.

The records also show that not even the FBI’s own medical forensic team, headed by their specially appointed consultant Dr. Dennis Shanahan, had any access to the foreign object forensic data.

What those 550 pages fail to provide is very disconcerting. The FBI could not find any of the requested physical details or descriptions of those objects; their size, weight, composition, or likely point of origin. If it accurately reflects the status and contents of the “Main File” of the investigation produced and maintained by the NY FBI Field Office there was a serious problem in the investigation. It implies that Assistant Director Jim Kallstrom and the FBI Office in charge of the investigation never received any of that forensic information or even summaries or assessments of the foreign objects and shrapnel removed from the bodies. Were they even claimed to be merely pieces of a 747 and its contents?

The official FBI investigation cost over $20 million and the main record appears to be totally silent on this fundamental issue. Only a thorough review by independent experts will be able to prove whether the FBI's conduct is based on deception.

Theoretically, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was the lead agency in the Investigation. However, NTSB records released in response to a similar FOIA request were equally perplexing. Those records revealed that the FBI had never shared any of the descriptions or forensic details with them either. When asked about it via phone, Burt Simon, Chair of the NTSB Medical Group/Report, subsequently confirmed that revelation. It seems particularly remiss that the NTSB did not seek or receive that data. It is an important and routine part of the survivability factor analysis of every accident investigation, to analyze what particular objects were flying around and hurting passengers, if such evidence exists. Mr. Simon had no reasonable explanation for how he could have completed a professional survivability report without that data. He attempted to dismiss the unreviewed data as being “probably of little consequence.” Despite his own negligence in the matter, he expressed the utmost confidence in the never-seen analysis and conclusions the FBI must have made about it.

The FBI’s assertion that they cannot now locate the forensic data is not believable. In support of our case, Dr. Fred Whitehurst, formerly a senior chemist at the FBI Crime Laboratory, submitted an affidavit to the Court explaining how easy all of the forensic data would be to find if the FBI merely searched in the right place. He even identified, by name, the two most relevant computerized data bases at that institution.

Despite all the facts above, in August of 2003 the District Court ruled against us a second time, after having already been reversed at the US Court of Appeals. On October 24, 2003 the First Circuit Appeals Court in Boston rejected the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to Springfield District Court. The First Circuit directed the lower court to now finally "resolve the FOIA issues raised by Sephton."

Item “1B-28” - 20 mysterious shrapnel pellets of “unknown origin”

Apart from the single page mentioned above, only one other forensic laboratory report out of those missing hundreds has ever been released by the FBI. It was an analysis performed by Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) to evaluate 20 small (~1/4” diameter) pellets that were removed during autopsy of the person whose ME# was 96-5037; the pellets were designated Item “1B-28”. The lab report showed that a sample pellet was composed mostly of Aluminum with traces of Titanium, Zirconium, Cerium and Barium. Such compounds are consistent with incendiary pellets used in some missiles. The report merely concluded "unknown origin." The details of 1B-28 were among over 200 fairly innocuous pages of documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from another independent researcher, Don Collins, in California. The FBI’s executive summary of that BNL Lab report was at variance with the remarkable implications of the BNL’s findings. The FBI initially classified the BNL report "secret."

Even if the remarkable incendiary components could be explained, the official low-velocity type fuel explosion could not shatter aluminum into small pellets.

Refer to the details and some of the documents of this BNL evidence at:

http://www.flight800.org/FBI_COMP.htm

http://www.twa800.com

230 souls perished with TWA Flight 800. It is now time to find out what really went wrong immediately prior to the explosion. Perhaps even more importantly for the sake of public safety and government credibility, we now also need to find out what went wrong with this elaborate and expensive investigation.

As more and more evidence emerges from the archives of the investigation, the more it's evident that the probe was a sham.

We cannot be safe if catastrophic events and serious problems can be swept under the carpet with elaborate and inadequate investigations..."

____________________
The Lockerbie Scam was an outrageous crime.

As usual, there was a Middle East bogeyman to pin it on.











______________________________________

Here is a compilation of the facts surrounding The Lockerbie Scam:

Anonymous source

The Truth about Lockerbie, and Pan Am 103, and Drugs
The C.I.A. drug trade through the Syria and Iran was going pretty sweet for Syrian C.I.A. contractor Monzer al-Kassar.
He gives the suitcase, C.I.A. agents clear the suitcase through to New York. When the suitcase of drugs was switched for a bomb in Dec 21, 1988, it was cleared as usual. Central Intelligence Agent Charles McKee was aboard, as were 4 other agents, all killed. At the crash scene, CIA agents posing as Pan Am employees walked away with a suitcase.

First, the press had word of a Syrian or Palestinian suspect, but when wind of the C.I.A. involvement began to surface, the C.I.A. needed a scapegoat. The socialist isolationist country is always the best bet, because they are enemies of the U.S. by their mere existence, so bombing and/or sanctions always needs a good excuse. C.I.A. killed two birds with one stone, and pinned the Flight 103 bomb on Libya.

_______________________

Text of Deposition

My name is Susan Lindauer. I reside in Silver Spring, Maryland, one of the suburbs outside the District of Columbia in the United States of America. At the time these events took place, I was living inside the District of Columbia, at 1002 C Street NE on Capitol Hill.

In offering this deposition, I hereby inform the court and all interested parties at the United Nations that I have never accepted any financial compensation from any of the individuals, or governments involved in this case, in any form of cash or non-cash payment. Furthermore, I have never solicited nor received promise of future payments in exchange for this testimony. My reasons for coming forward reflect my own deepest personal values, and my sense of obligation to the cause of international peace and security. I remain deeply persuaded that justice must never be confused with convenience or political scapegoating, and that the issues of this case, including the prosecution of terrorist activities and the imposition of sanctions that seek to isolate an entire Arabic population, are too important in this contemporary age for a lie to stand unchallenged. And so let it be understood by the court: I make these statements of my own free will, out of respect to my own conscience and sense of obligation as a world citizen.

This deposition pertains to my direct and immediate knowledge of an American named Dr. Richard Fuisz, and unequivocal statements by Dr. Fuisz directly to me that he has first hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case. Dr. Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr. Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever. He has also made direct statements to me describing harassment that he has suffered for trying to provide this information to the families of Pan Am 103 and prosecuting authorities in the United States government.

I first met Dr. Richard Fuisz in his business office in Chantilly, Virginia in the United States of America. The date was September,1994. I had been invited to meet Dr. Fuisz by a mutual acquaintance because of my position as press secretary to former Congressman Ron Wyden (a Democrat from Oregon), and because of my known longstanding interest in the Middle East. Wyden is now a United States Senator, and I have continued my career in TV journalism and public affairs. For the record, my relationship with Dr. Fuisz has remained purely professional, and based strictly on my respect for his integrity and incredible, indepth knowledge of the Middle East.

Dr. Fuisz told me in September, 1994 that he had lived in Syria during the 1980s, and that he maintained close ties to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East overall. Mutual friends and associates have confirmed this. He was vague as to what capacity he was working, but after our conversation, I concluded by myself that he must have been feeding U.S. intelligence efforts. He told me that he had infiltrated a network of Syrian terrorists tied to the Iranian Hezbollah, who, at the time of his residence in Damascus, were holding Americans hostage in Beirut. Dr. Fuisz impressed on me that he had identified the organizers behind the hostage crisis, and that he had actually located the streets and buildings where those Americans were being held captive, at tremendous personal risk, in order to try to orchestrate a rescue. This information was later confirmed by a third party source.

We talked a great deal about how the sale of heroin/opium from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon is financing terrorist activities on a global scale. I must add, the rise of heroin in street markets all over the U.S. is a most insidious trend with enormous human costs, which has further motivated my determination to stay involved in this question of Pan Am 103. (The bombing of Pan Am 103 was intended to strike drug enforcement agents of the United States, in reprisal for their aggressive efforts.)

As further evidence of his deep infiltration of terrorist circles, occasionally Dr. Fuisz pointed to photographs on his wall that showed individuals engaged in social activities at private homes. He said they were some of the "most famous terrorists in the Middle East," to use his words. Obliquely he told me they might be household names in the United States.

Dr. Fuisz asked for my help as a congressional staffer because he said he had a problem. After testifying before a congressional committee about an American company that supplied Iraq with SCUD mobile missile launchers, he complained of being seriously harassed in lawsuits and by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Efforts by his attorneys to stop this harassment had been answered with warnings from the highest levels that he should never have talked about U.S. arms supplies to Iraq, and that he should stop trying to contact families tied to Pan Am 103.

In fact, this was the context for how the Pan Am bombing came up in our conversation. He said to me, gosh, [note to MEIB: he used much stronger language and profanities that I did not think would be appropriate for a deposition] I could be providing so much more information about Middle Eastern terrorists, except the United States government doesn't want anybody talking about Syria. Then he jumped into the Lockerbie case by way of example of unsolved bombing cases that he said has the immediate capability to resolve. He complained that he was getting shafted for trying to assist a cause that American leaders profess to care very much about. In essence, he insisted the messenger was getting shot for delivering the message.

Dr. Fuisz made it very clear that he knows a great deal of insider knowledge about this case. Because of his Syrian ties, he told me he "was first on the ground in the investigation," to use his words. At one point, I said to him, "Oh yeah, everybody knows Syria did it, and the U.S. repaid them for supporting us during the Iraqi War by shifting the blame to Libya."

Immediately he cut me off.

"Susan ‚ Do you understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source? Those people in Virginia are analysts. They're reading reports from the field, but they don't have first-hand contact with events as they're happening on the ground. Or first hand knowledge about what's taking place. So they don't actually know it, even if they think they do."

"I know it, Susan. I know it. That's the difference. Because of my Syria contacts, I was the first on the ground in the investigation. I was there. They're reading my reports." (His emphasis. Then he laughed sarcastically.) "In this case, they're reading them and destroying them." (And he threw up his hands.)

He continued on:

"Susan, if the (United States) government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack today. I could do it right now. You want a police line up? I could go into any crowded restaurant of 200 people, and pick out these men."

"I can identify them by face, by name." He started gesticulating, and counting off on his fingers. "I can tell you the address where they work, and what time they arrive at their office in the morning. I can tell you what time they go to lunch, what kind of restaurants they go to, and what time they leave their offices to go home for the day. I can tell you their home addresses, the names of their wives if they're married, the names and ages of all their children. I can tell you about their girlfriends. I can even tell you what type of prostitutes they like."

"And you know what, Susan? You won't find this restaurant anywhere in Libya. No, you will only find this restaurant in Damascus. I didn't get that from any report, Susan." Dr. Fuisz started shaking his head. "I got it because I was investigating on the ground, and I know. Do you understand what I'm saying to you now? I know!"

To which I answered. "For God's sakes tell me, and I'll get my boss to protect you."

Then he got really mad. "No, no ‚ It's so crazy. I'm not even allowed to tell you, and you're a congressional staffer." Then he repeated his story about the Terex lawsuit against both him and New York Times reporter Seymour Hirsch, (the famous Pulitzer Prize winner), whose only crime was reporting Dr. Fuisz testimony at the congressional hearing.

This was how I learned that Dr. Fuisz is covered by the Secrets Act, which severely restricts his ability to communicate information about Pan Am 103. Though he says freely that he knows first hand that Libya was not involved in any capacity whatsoever, it's my understanding that he can provide no further details regarding his part in the investigation, or details identifying the true criminals in this case.

This is tragic on two accounts. First, the accused Libyans are effectively denied the right to a fair trial where they might bring forth witnesses in their own defense, which could immediately exonerate them of all charges. And secondly, the families are denied the ability to close this terrible wound, and experience the healing that would be gained from discovering the complete truth and facts surrounding this case.

On both accounts, I cannot be silent. I suspect my disclosure will grieve the families with the horrible revelation that U.S. government officials have behaved so cynically and despicably as to withhold evidence in this case. And yet such a cynical and desperate act must be condemned by civilized society. I dare say Libya is entitled to financial compensation for the economic harassment her people have endured because of these blatantly false accusations, and the deliberate efforts to mislead potential judges, and victimize potential witnesses by a policy of aggressive harassment and punishment for speaking out. Meanwhile, the true culprits have literally gotten away with murder.

For shame on all of you!

This ends my deposition.

Signed this 4th Day of December, 1998 In the presence of a notary public.

(Lindauer's signature and the crest of the notary stamp)

_______________________
LockerbieScam
By Patriot, Humanitarian and investigative journalist Joe Vialls


The Zionist Lockerbie Scam
Followed by the Libyan show trial at Camp Zeist

... Joe Vialls, edited and reformatted 27 February 2004
The bombing of Pan American Flight 103 at Lockerbie in December 1988, was arguably one of the most successful false-flag 'black' operations ever orchestrated by the Jewish State.

Libya is a small north African Arab country, very rich in oil, which has been governed since 1969 by a man who has sworn never to recognise the illegal Jewish invasion of Palestine.
The Zionists reasoned that if they could make Libya 'responsible' for murdering a Jumbo full of Americans over Scotland, western outrage would permit them to impose 'Economic Sanctions' on Libya, which really means asymmetric warfare of the most barbaric kind. Basically, you quietly starve the citizens of the target nation to death without firing any bullets. It is warfare waged only by sadistic cowards, and New York is not short of such people
For Libya the only defence was legal attack, and this small country stunned the world when it finally agreed to hand over two of its nervous citizens, each of whom had been carefully demonized and 'earmarked' by the Zionists as the 'terrorists' responsible for bombing Flight 103. This was acutely embarrassing for the Zionists, who had no real evidence, and had never really expected the Libyans to hand the 'suspects' over anyway. In order to get around this startling turn of events, the Zionists were obliged to 'rig' the Scottish Court by compromising one of the judges.
You do not have to take my word for this, and you do not need to be a legal expert either. What follows below is a day by day analysis of that trial at Camp Zeist, proving in graphic written form that the west had absolutely no credible evidence against any Libyan. In the end, one Libyan was sentenced on 'evidence' so utterly corrupt that it would be rejected out of hand in any normal court, by any normal magistrate. Unfortunately, Camp Zeist was not a normal court.

Week 1: The start of the Lockerbie Trial was heralded not by intelligent comments from learned counsel as you might normally expect, but by a blast of carefully-orchestrated emotion from the western media....

This was a defining moment in the Lockerbie Trial, which is not about guilt or innocence at the public level, but about the media's ability to work miracles with the human mind on behalf of the lobbies...

There is simply too much at stake to allow the Libyans to fly home with a pat on the back, and a "thank you" for agreeing to turn up at Camp Zeist in the first place...

One of the most disturbing events this week was the defence (allegedly) stating the two Libyans knew ten people connected with the bombing, and would name them.

Hopefully this was yet another media distortion which omitted the critical word "thought they knew ten people..."

Finally this week, the biggest threat to the entire concocted Lockerbie story came not from within the Court itself, but from Swiss company MEBO AG. On Tuesday MEBO quietly posted a report stating it had sent a 16-page report to the Scottish Crown Office/Lord Advocate, proving that the explosion which destroyed Pan Am 103 was not in a Samsonite suitcase as claimed, but "directly on the [fuselage] skin" of the Boeing 747...

Week 2 This week it was the turn of police officers present at the Pan Am 103 crash site to give evidence to the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist...

Scottish Detective Gilchrist conceded that not every piece of evidence [recovered from the crash site] could be properly labeled, the task was simply too huge...

The team of defence lawyers is demonstrating, in no uncertain terms, how determined it is to prove the innocence of the two indicted Libyans. The forethought and attention to detail shown in the case of this single evidence label, proves that little (if any) forged American "evidence" will be allowed at the Lockerbie trial...

Week 4: There was no week three. After being adjourned for twelve days, the Lockerbie trial recommenced at Camp Zeist on Tuesday 23 May, but only for a little while. Problems with special equipment used to relay instant transcription to screens, forced an adjournment till Wednesday.

Once again police officers were interviewed about procedures used to search the crash site, and once again confirmed they had no specialist knowledge for this task, although forensic scientists had briefed them on what to look for, in particular "any sign of printed circuit boards."

On Thursday 25 May, Senior Air Accident Board (AAIB) Inspector Christopher Protheroe, delivered a bombshell to the Court. Mr Protheroe was obliged to admit that on the previous Monday he had advised prosecution lawyers that a complex formula used to calculate blast wave effects after an initial explosion [Mach Stem Effect], had been incorrectly applied in the official 1990 AAIB report on the crash of Pan Am 103. This was a potentially catastrophic admission for the team of prosecutors, who claim the bomb was concealed in a suitcase in a baggage container, at least 25 inches inboard of the fuselage skin.

Put briefly, "Mach Stem Effect" is created when the incident shock wave from a blast collides with the reflected shock wave, in combination creating an increase in overpressure greater than the incident shock wave by itself...

The trial was completely overshadowed this week by breaking news that the Deputy Director of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, was formerly a high-ranking member of the British external intelligence service SIS, commonly referred to as "MI6". Professor Andrew Fulton, former MI6 Head of Station in Washington, DC, was exposed in a Sunday Herald report on 21 May, and did not deny the claim...

Week 5: The trial opened this week with the damaged baggage container from Pan Am 103 displayed in the courtroom. The reconstructed container is important in determining the guilt or otherwise of the two accused Libyans...

Air Accident Investigations Branch inspector Peter Clayton, described how he found a small fragment of circuit board "wedged into a warped metal tag used to identify the manufacturers of the aluminium container"...

Clayton's evidence, like Protheroe's in week four, is crucial. The manufacturers' data plate is positioned on the outside of these baggage containers, meaning that if it had been literally "wedged into the warped metal tag", the explosion must have occurred outside the baggage container, in order to drive the fragment of circuit board into the data plate...

In this regard, defence lawyer Richard Keen, QC, told Professor Peel "you have not simply developed an analytical model, but gone back and altered your view of the facts to apply that analytical model." Prof Peel denied Keen's suggestion.

Week 6: Judges at the trial in Camp Zeist have decided to ignore claims from Iranian defector Ahmad Behbahani that he ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, using Syrians and Libyans to do the job. A worthy decision by the judges...
This week, British agencies tasked with the scientific evaluation of the Lockerbie crash site and debris, confirmed their appalling track record of failing to properly test vital components of "the bomb", or what they claim was the bomb...

How very convenient!...

With its credibility in tatters, the prosecution resorted to the old "Screened Witness" trick, allowing two CIA operatives to appear behind a curtain, their voices screened electronically. Kenneth Steiner and Warren Clemens explained how they had examined a briefcase seized in Dakar during February 1986 which included electronic timers. Then it was the turn of the BATF. Agents Richard Sherwood and Edward Owen described examining a captured arms cache in Togo, which also included electronic timers.

Photographs of the Dakar and Togo timers shown to the court showed the lettering "MST-13", the batch number allocated by Swiss firm MEBO AG to its own series of electronic timing devices! So what? Unless and until those arrested and charged for "carrying" the timers appear at Camp Zeist (which I assure you will not happen), this entire episode can be put down as intelligence agency manipulation of the Scottish Court...

Also this week, Maltese journalist Joe Mifsud posted an authenticated copy of a warning telex circulated by Interpol on 15 November 1988, just weeks before the bombing of Pan Am 103. The author has written a report based on this telex, explaining that the bomb mentioned by Interpol was a "decoy".

Week 7: DERA scientist Alan Feraday presented the Court with a "reconstructed" bomb based on black Toshiba RT SF 16 Bombeat radio cassette...

Feraday's "reconstructed bomb" highlights the flawed way in which the prosecution intents to convict the Libyan accused. Not by use of hard scientific evidence, but by a series of mind-games and charades...

In reality, Mr Feraday manufactured a "simulated bomb" based on guesswork, containing not a shred of the original material allegedly recovered from the crash site at Lockerbie... This is pure Alice in Wonderland stuff, so far removed from scientific reality that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in Kent, UK, should be closed forthwith.

Late in the week Erwin Meister, the co- founding member of MEBO AG , confirmed knowing Said Rashid and Ezzadin Hinshri [cited in the indictment] and further confirmed MEBO supplied them with approximately 20 MST-13 timing devices. Meister also identified the first accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Mr Meiser clarified a number of points on the sale and distribution of MST-13 timers, including a number to the East German Stasi.

The prosecution asked Meister if his co-founder Mr Edwin Bollier had visited Libya during 1993...

Week 8: MEBO co-founder Mr Meister continued testimony, and after identifying Mr Al Megrahi as a former business contact, repeated several times that his memory was poor and getting worse...

On Tuesday Mr Bollier confirmed MEBO sold electronic timers to the Libyans. In 1985 he visited Tripoli to deliver 20 such custom-made devices. Mr Bollier told the court he later saw the timers being tested at the special forces training area at Sabha, Libya, and told the court: "I was present when two such timers were included in bomb cylinders." The 62-year-old added: "They were military aircraft bombs."...During that visit Mr Bollier was considerably concerned that his lawyer was barred by authorities from viewing the evidence at the same time, thus preventing corroboration at the time of examination. "They [the fragments] have been modified, I swear they have been modified,'' Mr Bollier told the Court at Camp Zeist, adding his firm did not necessarily supply the timer, and the fragments could have come from counterfeit copies...

The fragments he viewed could have come from timers he sold to Libya or to East Germany or might even be counterfeit copies since the blueprints Mebo used to make the circuit boards had mysteriously disappeared, he said. ``It could be counterfeit,'' Bollier said when asked where a fragment could have come from.

Later in the week Mr Bollier was savaged by prosecution and defence alike, who concentrated on a letter sent by him to the CIA in 1989...

Week 9: Former Stasi employee Joachim Wenzel claimed to have been Mr Edwin Bollier's "handler" between 1982 and 1985, though it is impossible to say with certainty whether Wenzel's claims are true or false. In traditional intelligence agency fashion, Wenzel was hidden behind a screen, his voice altered digitally to protect him...

Swiss firm MEBO has never tried to deny selling equipment (including MST-13 timers) to the East Germans during this period, but as suppliers there is no way Meister or Bollier could possibly know the end point of their products...

Attempting to put the boot in further, David Burns QC, for Mr Al Megrahi, asked: "Did you suspect because of his various journeys to London and Paris that Bollier had connections with other terrorist organizations?" Mr Wenzel said: "We made certain assumptions because we were not sure that possibly there were such connections but we were never able to prove these." Mr Burns asked: "And these I think included ETA and the IRA?" The witness replied: "Yes."...

The defence is currently showing all the signs of a team that has completely lost the plot, and is endangering its clients in the process. The defence is reminded again here that all it needs to do is show "reasonable doubt" its clients placed a bomb on Pan Am 103. There is currently so much doubt swilling around the Camp Zeist Courtroom, it is truly amazing the judges have not already shut the show trial down, and ordered the return of the two Libyans to Tripoli.

Ueli Lumpert, a former employee of MEBO, confirmed he had manufactured MST-13 timers. He said the fragment shown to him in court "could be" from an MST-13 timer. Initially when shown a letter dated 4 October 1993, Lumpert said he did not remember it, but confirmed his signature...

On 29 June the suspects' passports were examined. Arabic translator Djelloul Hamaz told the court on Thursday that the passports contained various stamps from Tripoli international Airport in December 1988. Prosecutor Alastair Campbell QC pointed out a green-colored stamp in Mr Fhimah's passport which he said suggested the defendant had traveled through Tripoli airport on 18 December, 1988 - three days before the explosion. Other stamps showed movements on 20 and 29 December. The court was also shown a passport in the name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad, which the indictment alleges was a false name used by Al Megrahi.

Pseudo subliminal again. Of what relevance are the movements of the two Libyans to the bombing of Pan Am 103? None, of course. Even if both accused flew from Tripoli to Malta on the day of the bombing, in isolation this information is worthless. What the prosecution is trying to replicate is a procedure much-loved in Australian courts: Stitch the defendants up with a chain of unconnected and uncorroborated events, sufficient to swamp the judges and make them see it "their way". It is perhaps fortunate the Libyans are on trial in a Scottish Court of Law, where tricks like these are simply not permitted. The trial is now adjourned until 12 July to allow the Crown time to consider the precognitions of the additional witnesses contained within a list lodged by the Defence.

Week 11: At the start of this week, MEBO AG lawyer Dieter Neubert (Neubert & Partners, Zurich), filed an official criminal complaint against the Crown in the Lockerbie case for falsification of evidence. In his letter to the Office of the Procurator Fiscal, Mr Neubert accuses the Crown of using a forged fragment of an alleged [MEBO] MST-13 timer...
Readers may remember that during late 1999, Mr Edwin Bollier of MEBO was finally allowed to view the alleged MST-13 timer fragment in Scotland, and found the colour was not the same as that shown in photos presented to him during 1991...

The second straw is the now-famous media beat-up about a Maltese shopkeeper positively identifying one of the two Libyan accused at Camp Zeist. According to the mainstream media, prodded on ruthlessly by the Israeli Lobbies, Tony Gauci of "Mary's House" in Malta, positively identified defendant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi during 1989 as the man who bought baby clothes from his store. As is customary in all matters concerning the "National Security" of the State of Israel, this media story was a complete and utter lie...

Tony and Paul Gauci [joint owners of Mary's House in Sliema] left Malta for Camp Zeist at 2245 hrs on Sunday, accompanied by a Scottish officer and a Maltese policeman aboard Transavia Flight 786. According to journalist Joe Mifsud of the newspaper Kullhadd, Mr Gauci has made a total of 19 statements about the incident to various authorities over the years, not one of which provided a positive identification of al-Megrahi.

He said the man looked around and when Mr Gauci invited him to try on some trousers he said they were for someone else. The man then bought two pairs of trousers, two shirts, two cardigans, two pairs of pajamas, a blue romper suit and, because it was raining slightly at the time, an umbrella. "He left the shop to go to the taxi rank to get a taxi. He came back in the taxi to collect the clothing, which I took out to the taxi."

"That is the one who resembles the man who came into my shop,'' Gauci said, pointing to al-Megrahi sitting next to his bespectacled co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima in the witness box., "the one without glasses." Unfortunately, Gauci used exactly the same phrase to describe a newspaper photograph of Mohammed Abu Talb, a Lebanese member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

On Friday Mr Wilfred Borg, Ground Operations Manager for Luqa Airport in Malta, was asked a wide range of questions about baggage check-in procedures and baggage tags. Mr Borg appeared to stand up to the questions very well, giving the impression that shoving pieces of unaccompanied baggage onto an Air Malta flight unnoticed, would be extremely difficult. Indeed, the efficiency of Luqa Airport security during December 1988 was demonstrated quite clearly earlier in the week, when a German passenger boarding KM 180 told the Court that Airport security discovered he had retained his hotel key, which was then returned to its rightful owners.

Week 12: Having failed to convince a large number of skeptical Maltese "witnesses" to attend the Court last week, the Crown was not prepared to give up on its vital quest to draw completely irrelevant and spurious links between Malta, and the bombing of Pan Am 103 more than 1,000 nautical miles to the north in Scotland.

German witnesses Birgit Seliger and Evelin Steinwandt took the stand to testify they both checked in baggage and boarded Air Malta Flight KM 160 at Luqa on 21 December 1988, then disembarked at Frankfurt and collected their baggage. Were the ladies booked to travel from Frankfurt on the Pan Am 103 feeder flight? No, they were not. Well then, was Ms Seliger or Ms Steinwandt's baggage lost en-route, or did one or both perhaps have critical information about the accused Libyans? No on both counts...

There is an odds-on chance the prosecution knew in advance that many of the Maltese witnesses would probably refuse to attend. So why call them? The answer lies in human perception. The prosecution hoped the Court and public would perceive that the Maltese witnesses refused to attend because they have something to hide, and those who have something to hide are automatically guilty! Those readers interested in pursuing these disgusting techniques, should read Professor Noam Chomsky's excellent book "Manufacturing Consent", a vivid and comprehensive expose of media and other social engineering methods.

Court attention was then switched from Malta to Frankfurt in Germany, with a range of witnesses called to explain airport security and the baggage handling systems. Principal witnesses were Martin Huebner, Pan Am's security chief for Eastern Europe, and Joachim Koscha, who worked for the Frankfurt Baggage Section during 1988. Koscha described how the baggage system worked, and described the journey of baggage from various coding stations. At this stage the attention of informed observers is once again drawn to the irrelevant nature of the prosecution testimony.

The Crown is attempting to show that a piece of baggage, the suitcase containing the bomb, was transferred from Flight KM 180 arriving from Malta on to Pan Am 103a, the first leg of the doomed 103 flight which blew up over Lockerbie, but how can general statements about Frankfurt security and baggage handling help in proving (in any way at all) that the two Libyan accused are guilty of bombing Pan Am 103?

The Scottish Court is not a rerun of "The Holocaust", where emotional and sometimes hysterical 50 year-old eyewitness testimony alone can be used to imprison "suspects" for life. Fortunately for the two accused Libyans, under Scottish Law the prosecution is required to produce hard evidence of guilt, which to date it has completely failed to do. Does the prosecution have verified video footage of the Libyans constructing the bomb? No it does not.

Does the prosecution have verified photographic or written evidence (in their own handwriting) proving the two Libyans were in any way connected with the bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie? No it does not. All the prosecution has is unsubstantiated hearsay from a number witnesses, many with vested interests, especially American double-agent Jiacha, who is personally set to become eight million dollars richer if he can stitch up Megrahi and Fhimah. he Show Trial of the Century trial will resume next Tuesday at 9.45 a.m.

Week 13: As before, the prosecution continued to try and convince the court that there really was a flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988. Having finally persuaded some of the (mostly reluctant) Maltese to take the stand, the prosecution produced witnesses Bonello, Camilleri, Co, Fricke, and later Iaia, with a flourish. All agreed they had flown from Malta to Frankfurt that day, so the flight really did take off as listed in the Air Malta timetable, Luqa International Airport Air Traffic Logs etc etc. Great news! Of course none of these witnesses knew or were questioned about either of the two accused Libyans, but what the heck, it's only British taxpayers money being squandered at Camp Zeist, isn't it?

Enter a slightly bemused Khalil Lahoud, captain of the mysterious Air Malta Flight KM 180. Perhaps the good Captain knew the accused Libyans? Well, no, actually he did not. Captain Lahoud was then asked what altitude he flew KM 180 at en-route to Frankfurt, and he responded it was either 31 or 35 thousand feet. Sensing that a pilot who couldn't remember exactly where he was 4,230 days ago probably had something to hide, the prosecution pounced. Poor Captain Lahoud was then asked a large number of questions about his actual altitude and time to climb.

Riveting stuff with plenty of flair from the highly-paid lawyers, but of absolutely no relevance to the guilt or innocence of accused Libyans Megrahi and Fhima. On a more sinister note, witness Albert Camilleri testified to examining Semtex explosive found at Ghallis Tower in Malta during 1986. Aha! This explosive was covered with the fingerprints of the Libyan accused? Well, no it was not. The Semtex was just Semtex found in Malta two years before the crash of Pan Am 103, thereby artfully roping Malta into the loop as a "Guilty Terrorist State" alongside Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Just to set the record straight and to prove that Malta is not unique in terms of its covert stock of Semtex, perhaps the prosecution will now consider calling a few witnesses from the Metropolitan Police Service in London. All will cheerfully attest that Semtex has also been found in Britain on a number of occasions.

For any such even-handedness we will have to wait for a while. Exhausted by its endeavors, the Court will now adjourn so that everyone can go and play a round of golf at Saint Andrews. Well, everyone apart from the two accused Libyans of course, who will be forced to remain in the cells at Camp Zeist, despite the fact that not one iota of hard evidence has been presented against them. The Trial of the Century resumes on 22 August 2000

Week 17: After ten years in exile as a paid guest of the American Central Intelligence Agency, the time is fast approaching for double agent Jiacha to start earning his elaborate room and board. But this prosecution star turn of the "Trial of the Century", is already causing severe heartburn at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

As may be expected the CIA is trying to beat this event up for all it is worth, and is currently in the throes of psyching-up the defence team with "blacked out" sections of memos from its field agents in Malta to Langley Headquarters in Virginia. The Crown team has seen the full content of the memos of course, and says the blacked-out bits are nothing for the defence to worry about. They are certainly correct in stating there is nothing in the memos for the defence to worry about, but there is a principle at stake here. The defence has demanded to see the blacked-out bits and the Judge has agreed - leading to frantic activity in Langley designed to look like reluctant consent on the part of the CIA to let the defence view American "National Security" secrets.

Bravo! Lawyer performance to date is the equal of anything ever produced in Hollywood, though Jiacha may wish to secure the Oscar for "Best Clown". When required to confront the defence lawyers, Jiacha did so wearing dark sunglasses and a long (rather sexy) Shirley Bassey wig. But who am I to be critical? This double agent is playing the Camp Zeist Casino for a US$4,000,000 jackpot, and protecting his identity is probably important for the future - if Jiacha actually has a future of course, which seems doubtful..

Bearing in mind that Jiacha is already on the record as "never having overheard any actual plans for the accused to blow up an airplane", just what could the sinister blacked-out sections of the CIA memos contain? There are rumors that one contains an order from an American agent for a Pastrami on Rye from a local Maltese sandwich shop, but it doesn't really matter what the memos say, not one of them can provide a trace of hard evidence linking the accused to (a) a bomb and (b) to Pan Am 103.

The entire reason for the memos is identical to so much of the other fatally flawed "evidence" in this case - a psychological ploy designed to convince the media and casual observers that the memos are actually important. After all, would high-powered lawyers fight each over this material if it was not of critical importance to the case? Sadly the answer is yes they would, in fact yes they are, despite the reality that the memos are of absolutely no relevance to the bombing of Pan Am 103.

To fill in court time, a Maltese police inspector took the stand to again recount the story of some standard Semtex high-explosive found at Ghallis Towers, Malta, during 1986. This was not of any relevance to the current case, but allowed the prosecution to once more hint that Malta might be a "guilty terrorist state". The crucial new scientific proof presented on the Semtex-high explosive is that (wait for it, wait for it.......!!) the explosive was found wrapped at Ghallis Towers in LIBYAN newspapers printed during November and December 1980. Nail-biting stuff..

Well that's it then, isn't it? Clearly only Libyans could possible purchase Libyan newspapers, meaning Libyans must have planted the anonymous Semtex at Ghallis Towers in 1986, meaning in turn the Libyans intended to blow up Pan Am 103 with a different batch of Semtex sometime during late 1988, perhaps. Very tenuous I agree, but how else is an increasingly desperate prosecution team supposed to stitch up two innocent men?

Mid week saw the defence trying to deflect attention away from Malta and Germany by seeking to demonstrate flaws in the Heathrow security system, the implication being that the bomb may have been loaded there instead. While this is probably a legitimate technique in terms of casting doubt on the official story (that the accused bombed-up KM 180 in Malta), it can never prove that a bomb was placed aboard Pan Am 103 in London.

Once again we are concentrating on Samsonite suitcases and baggage handlers, when it has already been proved in court that the Mach Stem Effect was miscalculated by the British authorities after the crash. For those readers who have forgotten or not heard about this critical evidence, proper calculations carried out in Munich later proved the Centre of the blast was very close to the aircraft fuselage skin, certainly not inside a suitcase placed inside a baggage container.

In order to place the explosive charge close up against the fuselage, it is first necessary to strip away the wall lining of the forward cargo hold, a task that can only be carried out at second-line servicing level, certainly not on the ramp at LHR or any other airport. So why all of this expensive timewasting with Samsonite suitcases, London Airport Heathrow and "security experts"? The only reasonable assumption is that "the show must go on" regardless, and in spite of terminal damage to prosecution credibility.

Later in the week the prosecution once more provided multiple confirmations that Air Malta KM 180 actually did fly between Malta and Frankfurt on 21 December 1988. Witnesses Poke, Klauss, Backman and Greasefeller all testified they checked in at Malta and flew to Frankfurt. Did any then transfer to Pan Am 103a (the feeder Boeing 727) or Pan Am 103? No they did not. Did any of them know the accused or have any relevant information pertaining to the accused? No they did not. One would think by now that the entire world believes KM 180 actually did fly from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and there is no need for the Crown to waste further taxpayer funds trying to draw a mischievous connection between an innocent airline and country, and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie in Scotland.

Week 18: Court in a complete bugger's muddle. Nothing of substance to report. Court adjourned, no weeks 18, 19 or 20.

Week 21: Another wasted week with lawyers fighting each other over trivialities. Outside the Court, the media starts to highlight the "Palestinians might have done it" theory, courtesy of the Mossad. The Jewish State likes to have an extra suspect "Moslem Sponsor of Terrorism" in the bag wherever possible.

Week 22: After arriving at Camp Zeist surrounded by enough security escorts to do credit to an American President, double agent Jiacha (Giaka) was quickly shown up to be the liar he was long assumed to be. Unable to look the two accused Libyans in the eye, Jiacha stumbled through his "evidence" with almost indecent haste, before scuttling back to his American hideaway to lick his wounds.

The fact Jiacha was ever taken into the Witness Protection Program at all, proves American authorities never expected Libya to release its two citizens for trial. As this week in court showed only too well, the CIA knew the man completely lacked credibility, had no hard evidence to present, and at best served as a mute threat designed to direct hostility towards Libya. For so long as the heavily-protected Jiacha could be mentioned at American press conferences, the western public was persuaded to believe that Libya might have been involved in the bombing of Pan Am 103. After all, who would spend all of that money protecting a witness if he was worthless?

Evidently the CIA and FBI decided this was a worthy way of spending taxpayer funds, but their carefully manufactured illusion of Jiacha's worth was finally destroyed at Camp Zeist in less than two days.

So what "evidence" did this star witness at the Trial of the Century produce? Well, apparently the two accused showed him some blocks of TNT is a desk drawer in Malta, though of course Jiacha has no independent confirmation of this. And most damning of all, Jiacha claimed to have seen one of the accused carry a brown hard-shell Samsonite towards Air Malta Flight KM 180 on the day of the Pan Am crash. Surprise! Both accused worked for Libyan Arab Airlines and carrying suitcases went with the territory. Even if one of the accused did in fact handle a suitcase of this description on the day, so what? Brown hard-shell Samsonites were probably the most common of all suitcases during the early eighties, and my family alone has three of them here at the house.

I could ramble on for pages detailing the way in which both the CIA and FBI tried to sway public opinion and deceive the court, but cannot see any point in doing so. As an observer, it seems to me that Jiacha's physical appearance in the court has finally brought home to the Trial Judges the way in which certain elements of the American and British establishments have tried to use the judicial system for their own ends. Hopefully then, Jiacha's appearance at Camp Zeist marks the beginning of the end of this incredibly expensive farce.

Jiacha has passed his use-by date and the American authorities will have to decide what do with him. Perhaps like so many in the past Jiacha will have an unfortunate fatal accident, or perhaps his rumoured departure for Cairo will become reality. Whatever happens, it seems most unlikely Jiacha will be a burden on American taxpayers for very much longer.
Week 23: Another wasted week. Media speculation that Mohammed Talb might take the stand. Further explanation of the "Palestinian Connection".

Week 24: Prosecution asks for an adjournment to examine exciting new evidence from a third party country (not America). The identity of this "country in the Middle East" is very obviously too secret to pass on to the public.

Week 25: Another adjournment, no kidding! Lawyers disappear to play golf.

Week 26: Court once again adjourned with taxpayer meter running. Lawyers still playing golf, Libyan suspects locked in cells.

Week 27: Just when you thought the whole thing was over and the minstrels were packing their instruments away at Camp Zeist, the prosecution suddenly pounced. Pounced on exactly what you ask? Well no-one really knows just yet, but whatever it is requires the use of Serb-Croat translators and the apparent involvement of at least one more country in the middle east. The BBC, never a very reliable (or accurate) source put it this way:

"More time for Lockerbie defence"

"The Lockerbie trial has been adjourned for another week to allow inquiries to continue into new evidence which could be highly significant to the outcome of the case. The Scottish Court in the Netherlands reconvened for a short time on Tuesday morning before rising again, the fourth such postponement. The adjournment will give the defence team more time to investigate a dossier of material handed to the prosecution by an unnamed government on 4 October.

William Taylor QC, representing Al Megrahi, told the judges another week was needed to continue the investigation. He said this included inquiries into allegations of links between the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and a country in the Middle East not so far linked to the case.
Lawyers in Tripoli were now opening lines of inquiry in "another Middle Eastern state" in an attempt to secure access to evidence there.

Inquiries were also going on in "another European country", which has so far been unconnected with the Lockerbie inquiry. These required the assistance of Serbo-Croat translators, he disclosed. Mr Taylor said that the new information established links, unknown until now, between German intelligence services and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, an organization which was originally high on the list of Lockerbie suspects."

Interim Analysis

This is getting really exciting, right? Wrong! With entire western governments and media outlets slagging off every Arab and/or Moslem country in the Middle East as a "Sponsor of Terrorism", how long do you really believe the prosecution would keep the lid on the identity of this splendid new disinformation source. Five minutes, perhaps ten? Certainly not any longer.

So what we are looking for is "another Middle Eastern state" which is credible to western governments and media, and can remain anonymous for more than three weeks during the Trial of the Century at Camp Zeist. Apart from good old Israel I can't think of a single one. The Serb-Croat connection is a nice touch - perhaps the Mossad has suddenly decided to go multicultural and multilingual, a complete break with its normal racist policies. Oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures! Serb-Croat translators suddenly needed in the Court. Really stirring stuff! Why? To speak to some of the Mossad's snouts, apparently.

Week 28: Lawyers huddle over "new" Mossad Lockerbie evidence. Fancy that! the Jews had crucial evidence hidden away for 12 years until the prosecution team was flat on its face and grasping at straws, then they decided to help out a bit. Nice people...

Week 29: First we had American double agent Jiacha peddling lies or order to qualify for a $4 million cash reward, and now we have the notorious Abu Talb, allegedly promised a shorter prison sentence in Sweden if he helps to stitch up the Palestinians. Ye gods, court credibility has sunk to an all time low, hasn't it?

Just about every "expert" in the west has dutifully filed through the court and failed to nail any "Arab Terrorist State" for the bombing of Pan Am 103, so now you are all expected to take the word of a convicted criminal instead. From Reuters:-

" Defence lawyers at the Lockerbie bombing trial tried to chip away at the prosecution case against two Libyans on Tuesday when they cross-examined a key witness with links to a radical Palestinian group. Defence attorney William Taylor asked Mohammed Abu Talb, an Egyptian-born Palestinian serving a life sentence in Sweden for terrorism, whether Palestinians believed the United States was the greatest ally of Israel, Talb replied: "That's correct and we still believe that." "All groups strive to liberate Palestine and create a Palestinian state..."

When he took the stand on Friday, Talb said he was babysitting his children at the time of the bombing. He acknowledged he had links with one of the groups implicated by the defence, the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF). The defence has also accused the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command (PFLP-GC) of involvement in the attack, for which Libyans Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima and Abdel Basset al-Megrahi are standing trial. The defence questioned Talb about his family background and revealed that members of his wife's family had links to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian President Yasir Arafat. Well that's it then, isn't it?

Talb belonged to a Palestinian organization dedicate to removing heavy Jewish boots from the necks of Palestinian women and children, and worse still, members of his wife's family indirectly knew Yasir Arafat. Condemned out of his own mouth, so to speak...

What pathetic rubbish! As with the Libyans, there is absolutely no hard evidence of any kind linking the Palestinians to the bombing of Pan Am 103, and there never will be. If Abu Talb were to make some sort of "confession" (which seems most unlikely), it would unquestionably be a fairly desperate attempt to gain his freedom and return to his wife and children. None of us could or would blame him for trying, but equally we must not allow any statements made under applied pressure to be regarded as factual.

There should also be grave doubts about Abu Talb's conviction in Sweden, which was achieved without any hard evidence being presented. What evidence (sic) there was in the Swedish court, relied exclusively on the spoken testimony of others. Curiously, Talb was convicted on only one charge, that of bombing a Jewish synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark, as illustrated by the short extract from the Camp Zeist transcript shown below:

Defence Lawyer: Well, I am puzzled by that answer, you see, because you told me at the beginning that the reason you were in prison just now was in respect of bombing attacks which had taken place in Copenhagen, in Stockholm, and in Amsterdam for which you were responsible in the period of 1985 and 1986.

Abu Talb: That is not correct. The fact that I was charged doesn't mean that I was necessarily there or that I committed these acts. I said that I was charged with committing them.

Defence Lawyer: Well, you were convicted of them, weren't you, and sentenced to life imprisonment?

Abu Talb: That is correct.

Defence Lawyer: And these were in respect of bombings which took place in the years 1985 and 1986, a point at which you say was some three years after you had ceased to be a member of any Palestinian organization.

Abu Talb: I was convicted on one charge only, a bombing in Denmark of a Jewish site, not of anything else. I was convicted even though I was not there, and I did not confess to the crime.

Defence Lawyer: Can you tell me when that bombing of the synagogue was, please.

Abu Talb: If I remember correctly, it was in 1985.

Most of the rest of the transcript shows the lawyers trying to put words into Talb's mouth, which should come as no great surprise to anyone. What is a surprise, however, is the almost desperate way in which the lawyers attempted to force Abu Talb to admit he attended a course in Surface to Air missiles in Russia, long before Pan Am 103 was bombed at Lockerbie. Talb refused to admit any such thing, stating correctly the question was not relevant to the case in hand.

But why oh why Surface to Air missiles? Perhaps one day the defence lawyers will explain their irrational but clearly overwhelming obsession about missiles with the rest of us mere mortals. Super terrorist Abu Talb takes the stand. Lawyers pounce and artfully manage to get Talb to admit he doesn't like Israelis, and thinks they should be kicked out of Palestine. Big deal, so Talb shares a common view with about three million other Palestinians! No hard or even corroborating evidence about anything of course, but there has been no hard or corroborating evidence since the beginning of the trial at Camp Zeist.

Week 30: The prosecution concluded its case against two Libyans accused of the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing on Monday as one of the defence lawyers appealed for the case to be dropped. The prosecution ended after the court had seen footage of an interview with each of the accused by a U.S. television reporter. A court official read out the transcript of the accused's judicial examination in April. Then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, the head of the prosecution team, ended his side's arguments with the words "I now close the case for the Crown".

Richard Keen, counsel for Fahima, immediately asked the three Scottish judges to dismiss the case against his client, saying there was in fact no case to answer. The lawyer for Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah is going to argue at the Scottish court in the Netherlands that insufficient evidence has been presented against his client. Next week the court will hear Keen´s motion that there is no case to answer against Mr Fhimah. The judges will be asked to decide on the weight of evidence against him, rather than the quality of the Crown case. There has been no similar move from Megrahi, and there is now speculation he will be the first witness when the defence case begins next week.

Week 31: The defence at the Lockerbie trial went through the indictment with a fine tooth comb on Tuesday, saying there was insufficient evidence to convict one of the two Libyans accused of the 1988 bombing. Richard Keen, Fahima's lawyer, said on Tuesday his client had no case to answer.

"In my submission the crucial fact for your lordships to consider is: was the second accused aware that there was an intention to use an explosive device for the destruction of a civil aircraft and the murder of its occupants?" Keen said. "If the second accused was not aware of that objective then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he cannot be guilty of murder and he cannot be guilty of the alleged breach of section two of the Aviation Security Act 1982," he said.

Dressed in a navy cap, checked shirt and blue waistcoat, Fahima sat impassively, as he has done throughout the trial, a Scottish police officer to his left, Megrahi to his right as Keen sought to knock down the charges in the indictment. Keen's task is not to challenge the reliability of the evidence, but to demonstrate that, even if credible, it is purely circumstantial and would not link his client to the Lockerbie bombing. If the judges agree that there is no case to answer, Fahima will be acquitted.

Keen listed all the areas of the indictment referring to Fahima and argued there was no evidence whatsoever to show his client ordered timers for use in the bomb, tested explosives in Libya or flew to Malta with a suitcase containing a bomb. Mr Keen referred point by point to the lengthy list of charges against Fhimah, adding there was no evidence to bear out the allegation that he conspired to obtain 20 electronic timers capable of detonating explosive devices from the Swiss firm MEBO.

Likewise, there was "not one jot of evidence" that he was involved in testing the detonators on a special forces exercise in Libya, as alleged in the next part of the indictment, Mr Keen said. "There is not one single piece of evidence to bear out that libel as far as the second accused is concerned in any respect whatsoever...One wonders how he came to be mentioned in that paragraph," Keen said repeatedly as he listed the charges.

Entries in Fhima's diary indicating he had taken luggage tags from Air Malta did not prove a thing, Keen said. The prosecution say the bomb began its journey in Malta's Luqa airport and that the two accused used false luggage tags to load it on a plane bound for Frankfurt. They also allege the two posed as employees of Libyan Arab Airlines and were in fact members of the Libyan intelligence services, assertions also not backed up by evidence, Keen said. There was no evidence to show his client was in Malta on the day of bombing, nor did evidence that Fahima kept explosives in his desk at Luqa airport link him to the blast.

Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka claimed earlier in the seven-month trial that Fhimah had 10 kilos of TNT explosive in his drawer at the airline offices which were later moved to the Libyan Consulate in Malta. Mr Keen told the special court at Camp Zeist in Holland: "Any explosive had ceased to be in the possession of Fhimah three months or more probably five months before December 21 1988. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the second accused was a member of the Libyan intelligence services at any time or in any way associated with such a service."

Keen concentrated on disputing evidence relating to the conspiracy charge. Legal experts say there is almost certainly insufficient evidence to convict his client on the murder or aviation security charge -- both of which carry a mandatory life sentence.

Richard Keen QC said: "The crucial fact for consideration is was (Fhimah) aware that there was an intention to use an explosive device for the destruction of a passenger aircraft and murder its occupants? "If he was not aware of that objective, then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he cannot be guilty of murder, and he cannot be guilty of the alleged breach of the Aviation Security Act.

Keen said they had to consider one crucial question: "It is not sufficient for guilt to be a rational inference (from the circumstances) if there are other rational hypotheses as well. "If you left a jury to choose between two inferences, they would have to speculate, and that they cannot do," said Mr Keen. Keen and the Prosecutor Alastair Campbell concentrated on evidence relating to the conspiracy charge on the basis that if that failed, the murder and aviation security charges would probably fail as well.

Campbell said Fahima was an ideal ally for Megrahi because of his inside knowledge and access to Luqa airport. He worked as a station manager there for more than five years. "I have identified Fahima's involvement over the period... he was knowingly involved in the completion of a plan," he said. Keen however, disagreed. "What you are being asked to do is infer that a man who wasn't there did, by means we do not know, smuggle a bomb into Luqa airport."

This accurate Reuters account shows the pure futility of the Trial Of The Century, and the continuing shocking waste of vast sums of British taxpayers' funds. But we must muddle on it seems, if only to try and circumstantially fit-up one "Guilty Arab Terrorist State" or another, in a continuing attempt to protect the guilty. Defence rebuts the prosecution, for the first time quite effectively.

Week 32: Lord Sutherland getting visibly annoyed that the documents Mossad claimed were in Syria, had not been delivered to the Court. No big surprise. When Mossad tells you something, invariably the opposite is true. No weeks 33, 34, 35 or 36

Week 37: No magic documents from Syria, so the accused do not take the stand. The prosecution suddenly drops two of the three charges against the accused, and the defence rightly claims they have no case to answer.

Week 38: Defence argues bomb must have been inserted at London Airport Heathrow, thereby neatly sidestepping the obvious probability of insertion at American servicing facilities. Judges retire with truckload of prosecution evidence (sic) to consider verdict. No week 39.

Week 40: Megrahi found guilty. My personal response is best summed up by Professor Robert Black, principal architect of the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist: "I am amazed ! Astonished ! I cannot express my reaction in words. I am stunned. The entire verdict hangs on the edge, upon Gauci´s recognition of Megrahi. They (the judges) have taken the assumption the suitcase came from Malta. They have chosen to ignore all the contradictive evidence and passed on this judgment. This was not the verdict that anyone expected. "

_____________________

LockerbieScam

Monday, 21 January, 2002, 16:24 GMT
Lockerbie verdict 'politically influenced'

A United Nations observer at the trial of two Libyans accused of the
Lockerbie bombing has said the judgment appeared to be politically
influenced.

Speaking at a conference on the trial at the Arab League headquarters in
Cairo, Austrian philosophy Professor Hans Koschler said there appeared to
be pressure from the USA and UK.

Prof Koschler was one of five people appointed to observe the trial held
at the Scottish Court in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison after
being found guilty of the killing of 270 people in the 1988 bomb attack on
Pan Am Flight 103.

His co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted and has since returned
to a hero's welcome in Tripoli.

Prof Koschler, who said his views were his own and not those of the United
Nations, said: "The present judgment is logically inconsistent.

"You cannot come out with a verdict of guilty for one and innocent for the
other when they were both being tried with the same evidence.

"In my opinion, there seemed to be considerable political influence on the
judges and the verdict.

"My guess is that it came from the United States and the United
Kingdom. This was my impression."

The Innsbruck University professor said he had submitted his report on the
trial to UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, who had forwarded it to the
Scottish authorities.

Sanctions question

The conference was expected to discuss Libyan demands for sanctions to be
abolished.

Both US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have said
that sanctions will not be lifted until Libya accepts responsibility for
the bombing and pays compensation.

Al Megrahi's legal team are appealing against his conviction.

___________________

Lockerbie Scam: This version could be a decoy!

London Times, Monday, July 22, 1991

A former American intelligence officer who worked for a secret unit, four of whose members have been killed, in hiding abroad because of allegations he has made about the Lockerbie bomb disaster.

Lester Knox Coleman, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a key witness behind allegations that negligence on the part of the US government led to the placing of a bomb on board Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.

Mr. Coleman, aged 47, worked until May 1990 with the secret unit Middle East Collection 10 (MC10). For most of his six years with the DIA he was in Cyprus, running a network of agents in Beirut, whose mission was to find American hostages held by extremists. Two senior MC10 members, were Matthew Kevin Gannon and Major Charles Dennis McKee. Both were on flight 103 and had just returned from a mission in Beirut. Also on board was Khaled Nazir Jaafar, a Lebanese agent for the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Mr. Coleman was a unique insight into DIA and DEA operations in the Middle East because he worked for both organizations in Cyprus. While still a DIA agent -- usually paid in travelers cheques sent from the Luxembourg branch of the now collapsed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) -- he was seconded twice to the DEA, from February to September 1987 and April to May 1988.

According to an affidavit by Mr. Coleman given to Pan Am lawyers in Brussels on April 17 this year [1991], the DEA, with the narcotics squad of the Cypriot national police, the German BKA police and British customs, ran a "drugs sting operation" through Cyprus and airports in Europe including Frankfurt. It involved delivering heroin from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon to the United States, particularly to Detroit, Houston and Los Angeles, where there are large Lebanese communities.

The explanation for this operation, which was officially codenamed Khourah, was provided by Ronald Caffrey, acting assistant administrator of the operational division of the DEA, in a US government submission dated March 20 this year [1991]. He said the drugs operation was "a controlled delivery".

His statement said: "In a controlled delivery, a law enforcement agency permits and monitors shipment of contraband, including drugs, to move from a source or transit location to its intended destination. Use of this technique is sometimes essential to enable law enforcement agencies to identify and arrest high-ranking members of trafficking organizations, rather than simply arrest low level couriers."

Mr. Coleman, with his knowledge of this type of operation, believes that flight 103 was being used by the DEA as a "controlled" flight in which Khaled Jaafar, a DEA courier, was allowed to carry his luggage through Frankfurt without being subject to normal security checks. He knew Jaafar was one of many agents involved in drug operations.

In a telephone conversation last October with a BKA officer in charge of investigations at Frankfurt Rhein-Main airport, Mr. Coleman said he was told that BKA had "serious concerns" that a US drugs sting operation out of Cyprus had been used by terrorists to place the bomb on flight 103, by switching bags.

According to reports last year, the security of flight 103 had already been compromised by a mysterious man with an American accent using the pseudonym David Lovejoy, who had reportedly telephoned the Iranian embassy in Beirut on December 20, 1988, the day before the Lockerbie flight, to tip them off that US agents Gannon and McKee would return from a mission in Beirut to the US on flight 103.

Mr. Coleman said: "Individuals involved in drug sting operations would arrive at Larnaca (in Cyprus) on the ferry from Jounich (in Lebanon) and be escorted by officers of the Cypriot national police to the offices of Eurame Trading Company in Nicosia, a DEA proprietory company." Mr. Coleman saw Khaled Jaafar on at least three occasions in the Eurame offices and knew him to be a DEA courier.

The DEA has denied it was involved in a drugs sting operation at any time around the Lockerbie incident. But James Shaughnessy, lead counsel for Pan Am, said in his latest affidavit dated May 3 [1991]: "The DEA's denial is incredulous....simply false."
Pan Am's affidavit refers to a telephone conversation between a senior officer of British customs' investigations branch and Michael Jones of Pan Am Corporate Security in London in which he asked: "Have you considered a bag switch in Frankfurt due to the large amounts of Turkish workers?"

The Beirut end of MC10 had been "blown". There were five key members of the MC10 cell in Cyprus and Beirut, according to Mr. Coleman. Apart from Mr. Coleman there were Werner Tony Asmar, a German Lebanese, Charlie Frezeli, a Lebanese army officer, and two more Lebanese who worked with Asmar. Asmar was killed in a bomb explosion at his office in east Beirut on May 26, 1988. Frezeli was shot dead at his home in east Beirut in November 1989. When Asmar was killed, the DIA ordered Mr. Coleman home.

Those, like Mr. Coleman and the Pan Am lawyers who are convinced there is a link between the Lockerbie bomb and "Operation Khourah" were not helped by the so-called Aviv report, which claimed that a rogue CIA unit permitted the bags switch, knowing it contained a bomb. The report, produced by Isaeli investigator Juval Aviv was discredited. Now, however, a judge in a US court has ruled that the US government must produce all relevant documents relating to the practice of drugs sting operations through Frankfurt and elsewhere in Europe.

____________________
Sunday Herald - 28 May 2000
Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by US government

A FORMER CIA agent who claims Libya is not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is being gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faces 10 years in prison if herevealsanyinformation about the terrorist attack.


United Nations diplomats are outraged that the US government is apparently suppressing a potential key trial witness. Diplomats are now demanding that the CIA agent, Dr Richard Fuisz, be released from the gagging order. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA's key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.


One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan.


Lindauer, shocked by Fuisz's claims, immediately compiled notes on the meeting which formed the basis of a later sworn affidavit detailing Fuisz's claims. One month after their conversation, in October 1994, a court in Washington DC issued an order barring him from revealing any information on the grounds of "military and state secrets privilege".


Whencontactedbythe Sunday Herald last night, Fuisz said when asked if he was a CIA agent in Syria in the 1980s: "That is not an issue I can confirm or deny. I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain to you why I can't speak about these issues." Fuisz did, however, say that he would not take any action againstanewspaperwhich named him as a CIA agent.


Congressional aide Lindauer, who was involved in early negotiations over the Lockerbie trial, claims Fuisz made "unequivocal statements É to me that he has first-hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case". In her affidavit, she goes on: "Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that noLibyannationalwas involved in planning or executing the bombing of PanAm 103, eitherinanytechnicalor advisory capacity whatsoever."


Fuisz's statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organisations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran.


Lindauer said Fuisz told her he could provide information on Middle Eastern terrorists, and referred to Lockerbie as an “example of an unsolved bombing case that he said he has the immediate capability to resolve”.


Lindauer says Fuisz told her CIA staff had destroyed reports he sent them on Lockerbie. Lindauer also refers in her affidavit to speculation that the USA shifted any connection to Lockerbie away from Syria to Libya in return for its support during the Gulf war.


She added that Fuisz told her: “If the [US] government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack today. I could do the right thing … I could go into any crowded restaurant and pick out these men … I can tell you their home addresses … You won’t find [them] anywhere in Libya. You will only find [them] in Damascus. I was investigating on the ground and I know.”


The 1994 gagging order was issued following disclosures by Fuisz during other legal proceedings about alleged illegal exports of military equipment to Iraq. The order claims that the information held by Fuisz is vital to the “nation’s security or diplomatic relations” and can not be revealed “no matter how compelling the need for, and relevance of, the information”. The submission also makes clear that the government is empowered to “protect its interests in this case in the future”, thereby gagging Fuisz permanently.


Details of Fuisz’s gagging have been passed to the United Nations, including UN secretary general Kofi Annan, Russia’s UN ambassador Sergey Lavrov and the Libyan UN ambassador, as well as representatives of France and China. The report on the Fuisz gagging, containing Lindauer’s affidavit, refers to “the history of US interference … [and] … sabotage by the United States”.


One senior UN diplomat said: “In the interests of natural justice, Dr Fuisz should be released from any order which prevents him telling what he knows of the PanAm bombing.” With Fuisz prohibited from speaking, neither the defence nor prosecution can call him as a witness.


A legal source close to Fuisz said: “We want the truth out. The naming of knowledgeable witnesses who can’t be called would utterly change the face of this trial. Dr Fuisz obviously cannot claim he has any knowledge because of national security issues and he could face 10 years in jail. However, if he is not allowed to talk the entire case should be dropped.


“Apart from the US government freeing him from the gag, the only way to allow him to speak would be to subpoena him to the Scottish Court, but the court has no power of subpoena in America.”


The Sunday Herald will make the Lindauer affadvit and Fuisz gagging order available to both the Crown and defence if they require the documents.

2000 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088


END OF ARTICLE

__________________________