Lockerbie appeal. Lack of media interest.

[Magda Hassan]

30 Apr 2009
Black bemoans lack of coverage as Lockerbie charade continues

Professor Robert Black has criticised the absence of media coverage on only the second day of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi's second appeal at the High Court, the first stage of which is expected to last up to four weeks, with the entire process anticipated to last up to a year.
The first day was heavily reported upon by TV networks and newspapers.
"An internet trawl of the UK, Scottish and foreign press discloses not a single report on the proceedings at the second day of the Lockerbie appeal," he says on his daily blog.
"This is disappointing but not really a surprise, given the experience at the original trial at Camp Zeist. Then, the press turned up in droves for the opening day, for "star" witnesses, like Edwin Bollier, Tony Gauci and Majid Giaka, and for the announcement of the verdict, but otherwise were conspicuous by their absence. The coverage, particularly in the Scottish media, was shockingly poor."
Black's comments coincide with widely publicised news that the prisoner transfer deal negotiated between the UK -but not Scotland- and Libya had been ratified. It was initially claimed by the UK Government that this deal was not reached for the purposes of accommodating Megrahi's pre-arranged transfer back to Libya. However, aside from Megrahi, there are no Libyan prisoners in Scottish jails.
The agreement has been constructed to ensure that if Megrahi accepts a transfer to a Libyan jail, he will first be obliged to drop his appeal, which would allow his current questionable conviction to stand, and avoid any hearing of exculpatory evidence.
It would also avoid the need for any inquiry into the true cause of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Last week, a private screening "by invitation only" was held at the Scottish Parliament of a Dutch made film promoting the heavily sponsored version of events promulgated by ex Mossad agent Juval Aviv - at the time working for US flag carrier Pan Am's insurers - which blames a Palestinian terror cell, the PFLP-GC for the event.
The screening was for a select group of MSPs and relatives of the deceased.
Even though the appeal was imminent and both Crown and defence teams had prepared their cases, the promoters of the film and the theory within it informed those present that the film may "impact greatly on the forthcoming appeal and the producers intend to make this material available to the Crown Office and to Mr Megrahi’s defence team." It is not known if they have done so, or if the Crown or defence are revising their cases accordingly.
Relatives of those killed in the incident were informed by the Crown Office, who wrote to the families of the victims, about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, and that the repatriation of Megrahi was therefore likely. On 20 April, the Scottish Government denied this was being considered.

[David Guyatt]

It would also avoid the need for any inquiry into the true cause of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

Which is the absolute minimum requirement of course.

[Peter Presland]

It would also avoid the need for any inquiry into the true cause of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

Which is the absolute minimum requirement of course.

That is EXACTLY the issue here. As Jim Swire the most honest, active, knowledgeable and effective Lockerbie campaigner says, Megrahi is most likely an entirely innocent man. As with the Birmingham 6, the Maguire 7, the Guildford 4 and assorted other high-profile 'terrorist' cases, State imperatives were and are always twofold:

1. Secure a conviction
2. Make sure the guilty party fits the State Security narrative du-jour

With item 2 trumping any consideration of actual guilt or innocence. The absolute requirement now of course is for the State to cover its backside and ensure that an innocent man's transfer (or release) is conditional upon his effectively admitting his guilt. Andy Worthington's archives on Guantanamo inmates make it clear that exactly the same techniques were employed time and time again there too.

[David Guyatt]

As with the Birmingham 6, the Maguire 7, the Guildford 4 and assorted other high-profile 'terrorist' cases, State imperatives were and are always twofold:

It always is odd that once the convicted are shown to have been innocent (as in the case of the Birmingham Six, for example, who are now known to have been "framed" for the bombing), no new police investigation takes place. The matter is allowed to quietly die.

We can't have it known that former SAS and military operatives working on a "Strategy of Tension" were responsible for such atrocities, obviously.

Btw Peter, I think you can safely add the Omagh bombing to your list of who didn't dunnits. But don't tell anyone, okay. Mum's the word.

I must try to remember to ask my mate Sean McPhilemy to join up here - if he has time free from doting on his grandchildren (a hobby we both share).

[Magda Hassan]

Btw Peter, I think you can safely add the Omagh bombing to your list of who didn't dunnits. But don't tell anyone, okay. Mum's the word.

Any thoughts on the recent unrest in the six counties?

[Peter Presland]

Btw Peter, I think you can safely add the Omagh bombing to your list of who didn't dunnits. But don't tell anyone, okay. Mum's the word.

Any thoughts on the recent unrest in the six counties?

Magda/David

My wife is from Co Fermanagh. The happiest times of my life were spent on our annual holiday among family in the border areas of South Fermanagh through 'The troubles' over a twenty year period from the mid-seventies. I therefore have lots of anecdotes and (I believe) insight into the NI situation, though no claim to inside knowledge of significance.

What I do know is that the British were involved in dirty tricks every bit as unconscionable as those of the so called 'para-militaries' It was - and to some extent remains - a morass of viciousness and deceit with the British leading by example.

As for the current unrest, my family contacts maintain that that there is little appetite for a return to 'The armed Struggle'. But the economy is on its knees, as is that of the Free State, so who knows what the future may hold?

Martin McGuiness's characterisation of the present Republican rebels as 'Traitors' was a BIG mistake though. Condemnation of behaviour is one thing; 'TRAITORS' quite another and very reminiscent of Michael Collins 90 years earlier. As a man presumably cognisant of Irish history, I suspect he regrets his use of the term.

[David Guyatt]

Unfortunately not Magda. I have more or less stopped active work these days and am now simply regurgitating old info like a poor old tosser.:musicus:

At one time or another I received a variety of more than interesting "tidbits" about the Irish troubles and the use of the so called "pseudo gangs" tactics drawn from the British Army tactics of the 1950's (the "Mau Mau's et al) and transported wholesale to Ulster a decade or so later. So much of the actual history is quite remarkably different to the "recorded" history.

[Peter Presland]

..... and the use of the so called "pseudo gangs" tactics drawn from the British Army tactics of the 1950's (the "Mau Mau's et al) and transported wholesale to Ulster a decade or so later.

.... by one Brigadier General Sir Frank Kitson - or simple Brigadier as he then was - in 1971. His book 'Low Intensity Operations' based on his service in Kenya dealing with (inciting, provoking, false-flagging etc etc) the Mau Mau has become a sort of standard 'counter-insurgency' handbook - though it seems to have become a bit long in the tooth so-to-speak during the British Army campaign in Basra. Still, Webster Tarpley likes referring to it as the precursor of our manipulations of the present rash of terrorist ultra-baddies - and I think he has a point.

[David Guyatt]

Yup, bang on the nail, Kitson was the man indeed, Peter. A nasty piece of work by many accounts.

[Peter Presland]

In light of developments it is instructive to read back over this thread.

The State has indeed ensured that there will be no raking over the existing evidence, nor presentation and scrutiny of substantial and damning new evidence by Megrahi's defence team.

The press is full of sanctimonious outrage at his welcome back in Tripoli; there are copious reports of the 'outrage' of the US families of the victims (if there's one thing our MSM excels at, it is sanctimonious outrage); also of Hilary Clinton being snubbed by Alex Salmond (SNP First Minister) whom she had urged (for public consumption) to refuse Megrahi's release/transfer.

Meanwhile the substantive issue of Megrahi's actual guilt beyond reasonable doubt which any fair minded review of the detail is forced to conclude as unsustainable, is buried.

The Spooks must be breathing a sigh of relief, whilst celebrating their cleverness and the gullibility of the general public once again