Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EVIDENCE-US Bought Lockerbie Conviction For $2 Million +

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:27 AM
Original message
EVIDENCE-US Bought Lockerbie Conviction For $2 Million +
Edited on Sun Oct-04-09 11:28 AM by kpete
Evidence The US Bought The Megrahi Conviction
By: bmaz Saturday October 3, 2009 11:46 pm


The case against convicted Lockerbie/Pan Am 103 bombing suspect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi was always thin, at best. Despite all the commotion over his trial and conviction, the entire prosecution case was founded upon the testimony of a single clothing shopkeeper from Malta, Tony Gauci, that supposedly sold the clothes that were believed to be in the suitcase containing the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103. Long after the unremarkable alleged sale, Gauci somewhat incredibly remembered selling the clothes to Megrahi. Megrahi has consistently maintained his innocence.

Megrahi's trial was held in a Scottish court that was constituted in the Netherlands by agreement in order to obtain the extradition of Megrahi for trial. Since the conviction at trial, Megrahi has appealed unsuccessfully, but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, had taken jurisdiction of the case and referred it back to court for appeal, which is the posture the case was in when the Scottish Justice Ministry cut a deal to release him to his home country of Libya on compassionate grounds (Megrahi has terminal cancer) in return for Megrahi giving up his appeal.

With no appeal available to press his case, Megrahi has taken to releasing material and briefs that were to constitute the foundation of the appeal, and in that regard has opened a website where the material is posted. One of the filings disclosed yesterday on the website documents a blockbuster finding and allegation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) on collusion of the Scottish Crown prosecution team and US authorities to effectively buy Shopkeeper Gauci's testimony against Megrahi by paying Gauci two million dollars and Gauci's brother, Paul Gauci, a million dollars:

The SCCRC has recovered undisclosed material which indicates that:

(a) The witness Tony Gauci had, at an early stage, expressed an interest in receiving payment or compensation for his co-operation in giving evidence, and that this interest persisted until after the trial

(b) that the witness Paul Gauci had " a clear desire to gain financial benefit" from his and his brothers co-operation and that Paul Gauci exercised considerable influence over his brother

(c) that the U.S. authorities offered to make substantial payments to the witness Tony Gauci from an early stage

(d) that an application for reward monies was made on behalf of the SIO of the investigation team of the Scottish police to the U.S. Department of Justice, after the trial, and that substantial payments were received by both Tony (in excess of $2m) and Paul Gauci (in excess of $1m) after the appeal.

The Scottish Crown prosecution team concealed both the early discussion prior to the trial of financial reward to Gauci for his testimony and the big payoff by the US Government after his testimony and the trial concluded. The prosecution did not reveal the clearly material and exculpatory (in that it gutted the credibility of the sole direct witness against Megrahi) evidence to either the defense or the court. In fact, the investigation and prosecution team put numerous entries into their reports and records that "Tony Gauci has never at any stage sought to benefit" from his testimony, statements that appear to have been designed to mislead.

more:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/10/03/evidence-the-us-bought-the-megrahi-conviction/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Guardian published this last week - why have I not seen one
single US Media organization report on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because it makes everybody in the US who complained about Megrahi's case look bad

And the US media isn't about portraying the US as foolish or irresponsible in foreign affairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well, well, well.

Surprise surfuckingprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. whistle.. kick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm shocked
Sarcasm off. Kicked.


Peace,
Max
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Until I see this in the American press
I am finding it hard to believe. This sounds like another conspiracy theory with little evidence to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Bwaaaahahahaha!
:rofl: :spray: :rofl:


Welcome to DU...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. You're sweet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Would the Wall Street Journal do?

Perhaps you missed this during your EXTENSIVE DIGGING on the subject.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125448302641459133.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Wall Street Journal
is a right wing rag now. I will look at the available information and make a decision as to whether the Lockerbie bombing is the result of a conspiracy theory. Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Regards, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Sweet.....thank you nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Spain didn't blow up the USS Maine, either. "I'll send you a war, you just take the pictures"
Some things don't change much in 90 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Shouldn't be that much effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. How do the detractors explain this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie


Pan Am's insurers, in anticipation of lawsuits from victims' families (which were eventually to contribute to the famous old airline's bankruptcy), carried out its own investigation. This came up with revelations even more startling than Ostrovsky's. The investigative agency retained by the airline was Interfor, a New York firm founded by Yuval Aviv, a former Mossad staffer who emigrated to America in 1979. Aviv's task was to prove that any blame for poor security was not Pan Am's, but Frankfurt airport's. In his report, he cites, without identifying them, six broad intelligence sources whom he rates as "good" or "very good", and one intelligence agency, that of a "Western-oriented government", graded "excellent". The only other "excellent" source is "the experienced director of airport security for the most security-conscious airline". Clearly, the agency is Aviv's old shop, Mossad, and the airline is Israel's El Al.

In his new book on Mossad, Gideon's Spies, Gordon Thomas says that - according to a source at LAP, the psychological warfare wing of Mossad - "within hours of the crash, staff at LAP were working the phones to their media contacts urging them to publicise that here was ‘incontrovertible proof' that Libya, through its intelligence service, Jamahirya, was culpable".

Yet Aviv proved fairly convincingly that the bomb was placed in Frankfurt, and he implicated a Palestinian resistance movement. His Interfor report concludes that the bombing was directed not at the US airliner per se, but at a small unit of US military intelligence - members of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) - that had uncovered a drugs-smuggling ring in Lebanon.

The ring was run by a "rogue" CIA unit working in collusion with Hizbullah, the resistance movement to Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Some of the funds generated were intended to buy the freedom of six US hostages held by Hizbullah (which was bankrolled by Iran). DIA sources say that the CIA-Hizbullah drug ring was set up by Mossad agents, who had penetrated Hizbullah and were the local Arabic-speaking traffic managers for the CIA. At the same time, Israel would sell elderly US missiles, at ample profit, to Iran; a skim from both drugs and arms profits would be used, as part of Irangate, to subsidise the Contras, the right-wing terrorist movement in Nicaragua so favoured by Reagan and the iniquitous Oliver North.


Time Magazine gave further details about the DIA investigators:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975399-1,00.html


In Beirut he was identified merely as a military attache assigned to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). But his hulking physique didn't fit such a low- profile diplomatic post. Friends there remember him as a "walking arsenal" of guns and knives. His real assignment reportedly was to work with the CIA in reconnoitering the American hostages in Lebanon and then, if feasible, to lead a daring raid that would rescue them.

...

< -- Jibril and his group may have targeted that flight because on board was an intelligence team led by Charles McKee, whose job was to find and rescue the hostages


So, it appears, the US Press had covered this, at one time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Why explain anything when they can just shout "Boycott Scotland"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
followthemoney Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Many watch TV for information.
I watch TV for misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC