You wanna bet? I’ll bet you that you’ve never heard of Tony Gauci but you’ve most probably heard of Lockerbie (Pan Am Flight 103) and maybe Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, whom you probably know him as the “cancer-stricken” terrorist bomber who was released by the Scottish government from prison for humanitarian reasons. Trust me, and I don’t even know you, if you’ve listened to our MSM sock puppet media solely, you know absolutely bupkis about Lockerbie. Herein, I explain the foundations of our nescience with some background facts that will astound you.
Scottish Sun says “top-secret dossier” from review commission that ordered Megrahi retrial shows Maltese witness Tony Gauci could have been paid to keep up testimony.
The report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that looked into the evidence against Libyan suspect Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and ordered his appeal to go for retrial, has described the key testimony against him by Maltese witness Tony Gauci as “unreliable”. The SCCRC report suspects that this formed part of a cover-up over the trial that saw Megrahi jailed for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
Cancer-stricken Megrahi was released from incarceration in 2009 on humanitarian grounds and is now residing in Libya. The news was broken by Marcello Mega, an investigative journalist who has followed the case closely. According to the SCCRC report, shopkeeper Tony Gauci is described as an “unreliable” witness. The SCCRC said the Crown prosecution suppressed from Megrahi’s defence team statements showing how much Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.
Gauci claimed to have recognised Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop Mary’s House on Tower Road, that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103. The SCCRC said: “The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial.” The SCCRC also found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 – when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8. The report said: “This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced.” The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi’s pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.
In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde detective constable Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci. It reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a “striking similarity” between Megrahi and the buyer. But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years. The report says: “This is different to DCI Bell’s evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear.” The SCCRC also obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worthmillions: one undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci – with “$10,000 available immediately”.
The SCCRC also said that in court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought. The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was. Gauci said Christmas lights were not set up yet on Tower Road when Megrahi allegedly visited his shop. Police said they could not find out when the lights were switched on. But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 – a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer. The commission’s report says: “It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection.” It adds “no reasonable court” could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci’s shop. The commission also noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them. The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.
A big mystery surrounding key witness Tony Gauci is whether it was true that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paid him and his brother Paul $2 million over the course of his testimony. The Herald Scotland had claimed recently discovered papers show Scottish police officers investigating the 1988 bombing were aware the US intelligence service had discussed financial terms and witness protection schemes with Tony Gauci and his brother. It has not been confirmed that the brothers accepted any money, but the fact that an offer was made is directly relevant to the credibility of Tony Gauci, who became the lynchpin of the case. Paul was never called as a witness. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that document, thought to be from the CIA, during its three-year investigation, which concluded that Megrahi should have a fresh appeal.