20 Years Later, the Lockerbie Terror Attack Is Not as Solved as We Think

The wrong time for conspiracy theories

It's bad enough that so many died. But why are those on the net making it worse by relying on conspiracy theories? One person here believes the (white) South Africans did it; another that it was the Iranians.

Lockerbie was not some underlying secret Illuminati-type conspiracy. There were escalating tensions from the mid 1980's between Libya and the west. It's fact that Libya supplied the IRA with modern weaponry; Libya also bombed a French airliner (UTA 772), and Libyan agents were convicted in the courts for it, just like Megrahi.

Why does it seem to make (some) people feel better to imagine hidden forces at work, rather than facts we can establish? Evidence is rarely perfect, that's the real world. But these days it seems any gap in evidence is rapidly filled by a conspiracy-monger with an axe to grind.

Instead, why not remember and respect the relatives: they are the ones who are suffering here.

Frank Duggan

Frank Duggan is an apologist for the US Government who knew Iran was behind the bombing (and still know). He wants evidence of this? Try this, extract from US Defence Intelligence Agency final report on Lockerbie: “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar (Mohtashemi-Pur), the former Iranian Minister of Interior. The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad (Jabril), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC)) leader, for a sum of 1,000, 000 US dollars. One hundred thousand dollars of this money was given to Jabril up front in Damascus, by the Iranian Ambassador to Sy [i.e. Syria], Muhammad Hussan (Akhari) for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.” The Intelligence Brief also considered that at this time the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the July 1998 U.S. shoot-down of an Iran Air 655 airbus may have been the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation. The Brief, amongst other things, stated that analysis of materials confiscated at the Autumn Leaves raid of a PFLP-GC cell in Germany in October 1988 provided strong circumstantial evidence linking the cell to the bombing and that Iran had reportedly made a large payment to the PFLP-GC following the bombing. Libya was specifically discounted in the report as being involved in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. The Intelligence Brief considered that: “following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya, Qadhafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”

The CIAs former Middle East senior analyst Bob Baer also stated to Dutch TV that the reason the US didnt go after Iran was that this state could shut the Straits of Hormuz in 3 minutes and the price of gas in the US would go to $30 a gallon and the economy nosedive. Frank Duggan doesnt want to know the truth, because the real truth implicates his own government in this atrosity. Shame on you Duggan, you are misleading the relatives.

Lockerbie

How many US citizens died at Lockerbie? The official death toll was 270 of whom 189 were US citizens. Aaron S. refers to an AP story stating there were 269 victims.

My Lockerbie blog at http://e-zeecon.com postulates that the alternative to Al-Megrahi's guilt is that the authorities colluded in the bombing for intelligible political motives. As US officials were filmed carrying what appeared to be a coffin at Longtown Airfield, Cumbria and in view of the experience of Dr John Fieldhouse (whose numbering of corpses was removed) the official death toll may not be definitive.

Your correspondent "of VA", whose identity is obvious, makes some good points particularly concerning the witness who retracted his evidence. He is also correct to say that the supposedly discredited FBI forensic witness did not give evidence and his findings were corroborated by RARDE. Indeed as I pointed out in part 10 of my blog on the UTA case not one but two RARDE scientists claimed to have discovered the key exhibit, the fragment of MSTY timer at different times and from different portions of the debris!

Lockerbie Terror Remains Unsolved

Mr Megrahi's appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction is scheduled to start in Edinburgh's Court of Criminal Appeal on 27 April 2009. If his appeal is successful, as Nathan Thrall has eloquently anticipated, we are back at square one with the criminal investigation into the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103: no Libyan officials guilty, therefore who else could have done it?

Since early in 1989, I have believed apartheid South Africa to have been responsible. Namibia is likely to be the key in any new investigation, and the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the Lockerbie bombing is the most obvious clue for resolving the mystery.

Namibia's independence should have taken place soon after United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 was agreed in September 1978. However, it took over 10 years for UNSCR 435 to be implemented. The delay was blamed by author and journalist Christopher Hitchens on Chester Crocker's 'procrastination' and on President Ronald Reagan's 'attempt to change the subject to the presence of Cuban forces in Angola' as well as the 'flagrant bias' in America's Namibia policy in favour of apartheid South Africa. Hitchens praised Carlsson's role as a 'neutral mediator' in the process leading to Namibia's independence: "An important participant was Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia, who worked tirelessly for free elections in the colony and tried to isolate the racists diplomatically. Carlsson had been Secretary-General of the Socialist International, and International Secretary of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. He performed innumerable services for movements and individuals from Eastern Europe to Latin America. His death in the mass murder of the passengers on Pan American Flight 103 just before Christmas 1988, and just before the signing of the Namibia accords in New York, is appalling beyond words."

An editorial in The Guardian of December 23, 1988 stated: "Two days before Christmas, two tides flow strongly. One - the greater tide - is the tide of peace. More nagging, bloody conflicts have been settled in 1988 than in any year since the end of the Second World War. There are forces for good abroad in the world as seldom before. There is also a tide of evil, a force of destruction. By just one of those ironies which afflict the human condition, peace came to Namibia yesterday. Meanwhile, on a Scottish hillside, the body of the Swedish UN Commissioner for Namibia was one amongst hundreds strewn across square miles of debris: a victim - supposition, but strongly based - of a random terrorist bomb which had blown a 747 to bits at 31,000 feet."

Ten years were to elapse until the Ronald Reagan/Mikhail Gorbachev summit of the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union in Moscow (May 29, 1988 – June 1, 1988) finally secured the implementation of UNSCR 435, which would require South Africa to relinquish its control of Namibia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Carlsson).

Lockerbie

Clearly the last post from Aaron of Ct is proof you cannot believe everything you read in the press. You commented on two items in my post. I see that USNWR has already changed the number of Americans killed on the flight to 189 which is the correct number.

The second point to which you took issue was the identification of the Scottish police officer. Just because the officer was identified in the "press" as high ranking does not make it so. The man's testimony has already been discredited and I can assure you--he is not a chief, deputy chief, Chief Supt, Supt etc. He is a man who had little knowledge of the inner workings of the investigation and not at all a high ranking official. I would be hesitant to use the media as the definitive source for everything.

And yes, to release the Libyan would be a miscarriage of justice

Its "of VA" who errs

The most egregious error, writes VA, is that the high ranking Scottish police officer "is not high ranking at all." Yet the police officer was a retired "Scottish police chief" and was "of assistant chief constable rank or higher":

http://news.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Police-chief-Lockerbie-evidence-was.2656485.jp

Does that qualify as not high ranking at all?

Also, it seems there is some confusion about the number of American victims. A December 23, 2008 Washington Post article states: "The highest-profile case was the bombing 20 years ago of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 180 Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122202050.html?hpid=moreheadlines

On November 21, 2008 the BBC wrote: "The families of the 180 US victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, have claimed victory in their quest for justice."

On November 17, 2008, USA Today ran an Associated Press story stating: "All 269 passengers and crew, including 180 Americans, on the Pan Am flight and 11 people on the ground were killed in the Lockerbie bombing."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-17-2450814691_x.htm

But there are other articles that state there were 189 victims, and it appears, with the correction posted on January 12, 2009, that US News & World Report believes that is the correct number.

What "of VA" doesn't address is most telling: the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has declared that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that based on their review the Scottish courts are granting a second appeal. If the Libyan is freed, "of VA" will surely say that this too was an egregious error.

Too many errors to count

I do not know who Thrall is but his research is appalling. He got some of it right when he said a Libyan agent was convicted of the attack which took American lives--189, not 180. The Scottish Review Commission which has "declared that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" never interviewed many of the witnesses, in the US and the UK who could have shed some light on their "investigation."

Thrall's most egregious errors occurred in the paragraph which stated that "major elements of the prosecution's case are falling apart." The high ranking Scottish police officer who said "vital evidence was fabricated" is not high ranking at all but was a low level police officer who had no knowledge of the whole investigation. Additionally, it would be beneficial for one to state what that evidence was and that has not been done to my knowledge.

Thrall states that "one of the FBI's principal forensic experts has been discredited." That "expert" was never called as a witness at trial-by either defense or prosecution- thus his findings had no bearing on the conviction of the Libyan agent. Also, each of his findings was corroborated by forensic experts in the UK.

While the former Lord Advocate of Scotland said one of the main witnesses at trial was "an apple short of a picnic," he also told the BBC, "I have no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci’s evidence.” He went on to say, “Indeed such was the thoroughness of the investigation and the way in which it developed that I probably would place greater emphasis and credibility on Mr. Gauci’s evidence than any of my successors as lord advocate.” He further said that any view of his was not relevant as all that mattered was the view of the judges. “Three of Scotland’s High Court judges heard him give evidence properly subject to cross examination and they were specific in their conclusion that he was entirely credible.”

I do agree that one witness has come forward to state that he lied at trial. However, his new claim must be considered in the light of his original untainted statements which he made to investigators in 1990 and 1991. He was consistent and what he said was corroborated by two other principals at his firm in Switzerland. His new statement should also be considered suspect because his business associate, who has encouraged him to come forward, has stated to BBC he expects to be paid $200 million if the Libyan agent is acquitted. This man who claimed in a 2007 affidavit that he lied also said he turned over key pieces of evidence to Scottish police in 1989 which is a full year before the police and FBI ever heard of him or his company.

I would hope that before USNWR ever publishes articles by Mr. Thrall again, just remind yourself--is he really Jayson Blair??

I am a many year subscriber to your magazine and have normally found it accurate. This article was not.

Lockerbie Terror Remains Unsolved

In composing the 3000-character comment above, I relied on two online sources of factual information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Epilogue_from_PCAST

and

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson#Plaudit

The comment immediately following mine and entitled "Rubbish" does not cite any sources for the critical views expressed.

I would be very interested to know who the "true experts" in the Lockerbie case are. For my part, I have been following the case very closely since 7 December 1988 - even before the bombing took place - when 'The Guardian' newspaper published my letter entitled "The double standards on terrorism" (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg).

Far from there being "not a shred of evidence that anyone else was connected", there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence indicating that apartheid South Africa - not Libya - carried out the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 (see e-zeecon.blogspot.com/2008/11/lockerbie-propositions.html).

But to return to the question that I posed above:

Can Senator Frank Lautenberg now tell us who made that 1990 embassy statement, and what the PCAST sealed envelope contained?

Patrick Haseldine,

HM Diplomatic Service (Retired)

Not such rubbish

On 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an official but independent expert body, reached the conclusion that, for six reasons, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. One of these reasons is that, on the evidence led at the trial, no reasonable court could have reached the view that Megrahi was the purchaser in Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb, or was even on Malta on the day that the clothes were purchased. Without that finding in fact by the trial court, Megrahi could not have been convicted.

See http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/07/sccrc-decision.html

It is time that those who cling to the fantasy of Megrahi's guilt recognised and addressed this inconvenient fact.

Rubbish

The article by Nathan Thrall is absolute rubbish. He could not have spoken to any of true experts in this case and come to the conclusions he has reached. He bought into the stories of Prof. Black and Dr Swire. The Libyan bomber was properly convicted and will be upheld on appeal. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone else was connected. If so, Prof Black would have brought it up in the past 20 years. I thought US News and World Report was better than the UK tabloids. Shame on you.

Frank Duggan,President

Victims of Pan Am Flight 103,Inc