LIONEL PODCAST: You Don’t Know Shi’ite About Lockerbie!

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.

Malta Today

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.

Million-dollar reward?

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.

  1. ‘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.’

    I found it interesting to read this post. Unfortunately I was unable to listen to the video due to problems with my speakers. The identification of Megrahi by Tony Gauci is only one of the many discrepancies with which the whole issue of the Lockerbie bombing is littered.

    I recently posted the following question to –

    ‘Why is it that many people in in the USA, while distrustful of government and media, are prepared to accept, without question, deliberate misinformation and deception about the Lockerbie bombing, trial and compassionate release under Scots Law of al-Megrahi?’ –

    I also included a number of links with it.

    Part of the misinformation and deception could be due to a misunderstanding of the difference between Scots Law and English Law. While the two have similarities in some matters there are very significant differences. The following is a comment from a blog post about the UK Supreme Court –

    ‘Bear in mind that the legal system of Scotland is regarded as predominantly Romano-Dutch. It is based on principle not precedent. The law of England is Common Law, and founds upon precedent, not principle. Whilst it is correct to say that the Supreme Court is a British institution and there are some Scots lawyers there, it is not satisfactory to have decisions of the Scottish judiciary overturned by an organ which is mainly composed of people untrained in Scots Law. The point about the House of Lords is only partially correct, in that the House of Lords could not retrospectively unpick decisions of the Scottish Courts (or the English Courts). But it seems the Supreme Court can.
    In fairness to all concerned, it would appear that this was not the intention behind the setting up of the Supreme Court, as it was intended only to look at “constitutional” matters, eg disputes between devolved legislatures, or between them and Westminster. Using it for Human Rights issues is an accident of circumstances, arising from the fact that Human Rights is not a devolved matter and so is reserved to Westminster, and so is under the Supreme Court.
    Finally can I point out that it is not Scotland which has a “different” legal system. It is England. Every other country in Europe uses a legal system broadly similar to Scotland, based on Roman Law.
    England is the only country in Europe to use Common Law. That is why it would be infinitely preferable on the basis of jurisprudence to have Human Rights appeals heard in Strasbourg by lawyers trained in broadly similar legal disciplines to Scots Law than in England by a majority of Common Law judges. Every other jurisdiction in Europe has Strasbourg as the ultimste court of appeal in this regard. It is our basic right to have the same for Scotland, not as an independent country, which it is not, but as a separate jurisdiction with a separate legal system (which it is).’

    The following are extracts from the Wikipedia entry for ‘Common Law’ –

    ‘Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but it has a unique system that combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707…Scots common law differs in that the use of precedent is subject to the courts’ seeking to discover the principle that justifies a law rather than searching for an example as a precedent, and principles of natural justice and fairness have always played a role in Scots Law…Scots common law covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and previous court decisions.’

  2. The point about the origin of the bomb in a supposedly “unaccompanied” suitcase and it’s route from Luqa on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt and then from Frankfurt on Pan Am 103A to Heathrow where it was transferred onto Pan Am 103, is a bit of a mystery, although after the trial evidence did come to light about a break-in to the Pan Am compound at Heathrow which had been reported by a security guard there. Air Malta were able to show that no unaccompanied baggage was loaded at Luqa and that all baggage was claimed at Frankfurt. At the end of the trial at Camp Zeist the prosecution conceded that it had been unable to prove how, the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103, got into the baggage system and onto the aircraft. As a witness for the prosecution Tony Gauci was described by the Lord Advocate as “not being the full shilling”.

    A point that is often missed concerns the Not Guilty verdict on Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima, the co-accused with Megrahi. The trial started with the case against Fhima but the judges came to the view early on that there was insufficient evidence against him for them to be satisfied BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and therefore to proceed any further. This caused a quandary because of the wording of the indictment. If Fhima had been acquitted at that point the whole trial would have collapsed causing severe embarrassment to the UK Government which had made an agreement with the Government of the Netherlands to allow Camp Zeist to be deemed to be Scottish territory for the purposes of the trial.

%d bloggers like this: