Post by sutartsorric Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Mel Rowing Post by Mel Rowing
There was no evidence of corruption on the part of the CIA
influenced the trial in any way.
That's probably true, but there is a good deal of suspicion ...
Conspiracy theorists can always must "a good deal of
Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by soupdragon
So why was the trial procedure altered from standard Scots Law to
some weird variant without a jury?
Why ask me? Scotland presumably agreed to it. Ask them.
Agree with whom? It came under Scots Law, there was no reason to
Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon
anything with anyone.
Ok, so ask Scotland why they chose to do it that way, then, if you
dislike "agreed" so much.
Because the CIA asked them to, fearing a Not Proven verdict in a
Post by Fred J. McCall Post by soupdragon Post by Fred J. McCall
And who in the Scottish government or judicial system returned that
It was widely speculated at the time by many in the legal profession
that a Not Proven verdict could prove to be unwelcome, but very likely
outcome given the circumstantial evidence.
In other words, nobody who knew anything gave you that answer.
I'm talking people in the judicial system you referenced above.
Yes, "widely *speculated*" by an anonymous "many". In other words,
folks talking out their asses with zero knowledge.
Sounds like some folks on Usenet....
But not you of course, who actually says very little of any substance
- just concentrates on rubbishing what other people say.
All too many people these days seem to be 'self-rubbishing'. If they
stop posting rubbish, I'll stop pointing it out as being rubbish.
Post by sutartsorric
Sadly, this is a creeping cancer on usenet.
Indeed. I've been around pretty much since the beginning of things
and noticed more and more like you about.
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
See what I mean?
You contribute nothing, but continue posting derogatory comments that
people who do not agree with your views.
But never mind. You are always right, so the following will no doubt
be all lies as well.
- - -
Most significantly, German federal police have provided financial
records showing that on 23 December 1988, two days after the bombing,
the Iranian government deposited £5.9 million into a Swiss bank
account that belonged to the arrested members of the PFLP-GC.
The decision to steer the investigation away from the PFLP-GC and in
the direction of Libya came in the run-up to the first Gulf War, as
America was looking to rally a coalition to liberate Kuwait and was
calling for support from Iran and Syria. Syria subsequently joined the
UN forces. Quietly, the evidence incriminating Jibril, so
painstakingly sifted from the debris, was binned.
Those who continued to press the case against the PFLP-GC seemed to
fall foul of American law. When a New York corporate investigative
company asked to look into the bombing on behalf of Pan Am found the
PFLP-GC responsible, the federal government promptly indicted the
company’s president, Juval Aviv, for mail fraud. Lester Coleman, a
former Defense Intelligence Agency operative who was researching a
book about the PFLP-GC and Lockerbie, was charged by the FBI with
‘falsely procuring a passport’. William Casey, a lobbyist who made
similar allegations in 1995, found his bank accounts frozen and
federal agents searching through his trash. Even so, documents leaked
from the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1995, two years after the
Libyans were first identified as the prime suspects, still blamed the
Suspicions and conspiracy theories have swirled around Lockerbie from
the beginning. Some of them are fairly outlandish. In Diplomatic
Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005), Brigid Keenan,
the wife of the British diplomat Alan Waddams, reported that over
dinner in Gambia, a former Interpol agent told her and her husband
that the bombing had been a revenge attack by Iran, in retaliation for
the downed airliner (though she didn’t say how he knew this). The
Interpol agent claimed the cargo had not been checked because the
plane was carrying drugs as part of a deal over American hostages held
by Hizbullah in Beirut. Militant groups were being allowed to smuggle
heroin into the US in exchange for information; the bomb had gone on
board when the PFLP-GC found a loophole in this drug-running
At least four US intelligence officers, including the CIA’s deputy
station chief in Beirut, were on the Flight 103 passenger list. In the
days following the bombing, CIA agents scoured the Scottish
countryside, some reportedly dressed in Pan Am overalls. Mary Boylan,
then a constable with Lothian and Borders police, has said that senior
police officers told her not to make an official record of the CIA
badge she recovered from the wreckage, asking her instead to hand it
over to a senior colleague. Her testimony, too, is now in the hands of
the SCCRC. Jim Wilson, a farmer from the village of Tundergarth,
reported shortly after the bombing that he had found in his field a
suitcase packed with a powdery substance that looked ‘like drugs’. He
last saw the suitcase when he handed it over to the police, he said;
he was never asked about it again.
In December 1998, Susan Lindauer, a US congressional aide, submitted a
sworn deposition to the court in which she claimed that Richard Fuisz,
a CIA agent, had given her a guarantee that he knew who was behind the
Lockerbie bombing. Lindauer’s affidavit describes a conversation in
Fuisz’s ‘business office’ in Chantilly, Virginia, in which he said he
knew for sure the perpetrators were based in Syria. ‘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.’ ‘If the
government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack,’
Lindauer says Fuisz told her. Lindauer has since been accused by the
US government of being an Iraqi agent; her case is pending. But her
earlier deposition has been submitted to the SCCRC. It can’t count for
much, however, since Fuisz himself is not able to comment. In October
1994, a month after Lindauer spoke to him, Fuisz was gagged by a
Washington court. The US government ruled that under state secrecy
laws he faced ten years in prison if he spoke about the Lockerbie
bombing. UN observers have since criticised this apparent restraint of
a key witness.