Lockerbie Links Page             
The Zionist Lockerbie Scam
Followed by the Libyan show trial at Camp Zeist
Copyright Joe Vialls, edited and reformatted 27 February 2004
            The bombing of Pan American Flight 103 at Lockerbie in December 1988, was arguably one of the most successful false-flag 'black' operations ever orchestrated by the Jewish State. Libya is  a small north African Arab country, very rich in oil, which has been governed since 1969 by a man who has sworn never to recognise the illegal Jewish invasion of Palestine.
            The Zionists reasoned that if they could make Libya 'responsible' for murdering a Jumbo full of Americans over Scotland, western outrage would permit them to impose 'Economic Sanctions' on Libya, which really means asymmetric warfare of the most barbaric kind. Basically, you quietly starve the citizens of the target nation to death without firing any bullets. It is warfare waged only by sadistic cowards, and New York is not short of such people
            For Libya the only defence was legal attack, and this small country stunned the world when it finally agreed to hand over two of its nervous citizens, each of whom had been carefully demonized and  'earmarked' by the Zionists as the 'terrorists' responsible for bombing Flight 103. This was acutely embarrassing for the Zionists, who had no real evidence, and had never really expected the Libyans to hand the 'suspects' over anyway. In order to get around this startling turn of events, the Zionists were obliged to 'rig' the Scottish Court by compromising one of the judges.
            You do not have to take my word for this, and you do not need to be a legal expert either. What follows below is a day by day analysis of that trial at Camp Zeist, proving in graphic written form that the west had absolutely no credible evidence against any Libyan. In the end, one Libyan was sentenced on 'evidence' so utterly corrupt that it would be rejected out of  hand in any normal court, by any normal magistrate. Unfortunately, Camp Zeist was not a normal court.   
Week 1: The start of the Lockerbie Trial was heralded not by intelligent comments from learned counsel as you might normally expect, but by a blast of carefully-orchestrated emotion from the western media. Any concept of "media balance" fell by the wayside as network vied with network to gain the most brownie points from the lobbies. Winner for the week was probably an Australian reporter who not only managed to interview four weeping relatives of the dead, but then went on to state the two Libyans were "...on trial for placing explosives on an Air Malta flight". No "allegedly" about it.

This was a defining moment in the Lockerbie Trial, which is not about guilt or innocence at the public level, but about the media's ability to work miracles with the human mind on behalf of the lobbies. Over the year to come we can confidently expect every dirty trick the media can muster, designed to finally convince readers that the Libyans must have done the job, regardless of the findings of the Scottish judges. If the Scottish judges find "Not Guilty" or "Not Proven", we will then be bombarded with shrieks of outrage from the western media, and shrill demands for a retrial.
There is simply too much at stake to allow the Libyans to fly home with a pat on the back, and a "thank you" for agreeing to turn up at Camp Zeist in the first place. Those readers who have managed to research the real scientific evidence on Lockerbie, will already be aware that most of it points towards America and Israel, rather than towards Libya and Syria. This of course raises the prospect of Zionist terrorists being directly responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103, a shocking though realistic scenario the media will sweep under the carpet in seconds.
One of the most disturbing events this week was the defence (allegedly) stating the two Libyans knew ten people connected with the bombing, and would name them. Hopefully this was yet another media distortion which omitted the critical word "thought they knew ten people..." Certainly back in 1996 the Libyan suspects knew nothing of these people at all, and it would be reassuring if their legal defence team would make this important point very clear to media observers.
Finally this week, the biggest threat to the entire concocted Lockerbie story came not from within the Court itself, but from Swiss company MEBO AG. On Tuesday MEBO quietly posted a report stating it had sent a 16-page report to the Scottish Crown Office/Lord Advocate, proving that the explosion which destroyed Pan Am 103 was not in a Samsonite suitcase as claimed, but "directly on the [fuselage] skin" of the Boeing 747. The author first researched this harsh scientific reality and reported it to a senior British Member of Parliament, before publishing detailed findings in the Australian Strategy newspaper during September 1999. A condensed version of my original report can be read on this website under "Setting Up The Libyans, Page Two".
Week 2 This week it was the turn of police officers present at the Pan Am 103 crash site to give evidence to the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist. Things are certainly not going the way the prosecution would have liked, which is probably why the western mainstream media has discreetly avoided reporting trial progress this week.

Scottish Detective Gilchrist conceded that not every piece of evidence [recovered from the crash site] could be properly labeled, the task was simply too huge. Defence lawyer Richard Keen questioned Gilchrist about a police label attached to a piece of cloth, and circuit board. Detective Gilchrist confirmed the writing on the label was his own, then became visibly upset when shown an enlarged photo of the label, which revealed the description [on the label] had been altered from "cloth" to "debris", in violation of the law and police procedures.
The team of defence lawyers is demonstrating, in no uncertain terms, how determined it is to prove the innocence of the two indicted Libyans. The forethought and attention to detail shown in the case of this single evidence label, proves that little (if any) forged American "evidence" will be allowed at the Lockerbie trial.
By Thursday the defence had effectively dispatched so many witnesses, the prosecution felt obliged to ask for an adjournment while it arranged the next phase of its attack, comprising mainly technical evidence. The prosecution's request for an adjournment was grudgingly granted by the presiding judge, and the trial will recommence on the morning of 23 May 2000.
Week 4: There was no week three. After being adjourned for twelve days, the Lockerbie trial recommenced at Camp Zeist on Tuesday 23 May, but only for a little while. Problems with special equipment used to relay instant transcription to screens, forced an adjournment till Wednesday.
Once again police officers were interviewed about procedures used to search the crash site, and once again confirmed they had no specialist knowledge for this task, although forensic scientists had briefed them on what to look for, in particular "any sign of printed circuit boards."
On Thursday 25 May, Senior Air Accident Board (AAIB) Inspector Christopher Protheroe, delivered a bombshell to the Court. Mr Protheroe was obliged to admit that on the previous Monday he had advised prosecution lawyers that a complex formula used to calculate blast wave effects after an initial explosion [Mach Stem Effect], had been incorrectly applied in the official 1990 AAIB report on the crash of Pan Am 103. This was a potentially catastrophic admission for the team of prosecutors, who claim the bomb was concealed in a suitcase in a baggage container, at least 25 inches inboard of the fuselage skin.
Put briefly, "Mach Stem Effect" is created when the incident shock wave from a blast collides with the reflected shock wave, in combination creating an increase in overpressure greater than the incident shock wave by itself. Protheroe admitted the correct calculation showed a maximum distance from the fuselage skin for this shock wave collision not at 25 inches, but 12 inches, i.e. the bomb could not have been in the baggage container, but was close against the fuselage skin itself.
This latter reality was reported by the author during mid-1999, with a condensed version of the text shown here on this website in "Setting Up Libya for the Lockerbie Bombing". This crucial AAIB admission has the potential to destroy the case against the Libyan accused.
There was then another adjournment until Tuesday 30 May, brought about by the need to display the complete reconstructed baggage container in the Court. The container is too large to pass through the door into the Court, so will probably have to be taken apart and reassembled inside - hence the delay.
The trial was completely overshadowed this week by breaking news that the Deputy Director of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, was formerly a high-ranking member of the British external intelligence service SIS, commonly referred to as "MI6". Professor Andrew Fulton, former MI6 Head of Station in Washington, DC, was exposed in a Sunday Herald report on 21 May, and did not deny the claim. Since then Professor Fulton has been dismissed from the Lockerbie Trial Unit, which has now lost all credibility as an "impartial" body providing information to the media about Lockerbie and Pan Am 103.
Deliberate interference by MI6 should come as no great surprise to anyone, with its known close links to the CIA. Furthermore, like the CIA, MI6 was long ago deeply penetrated by agents of the State of Israel, prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. This was commented on earlier by the author in the investigation into WPC Yvonne Fletcher's murder outside the Libyan Embassy during 1984.
Week 5: The trial opened this week with the damaged baggage container from Pan Am 103 displayed in the courtroom. The reconstructed container is important in determining the guilt or otherwise of the two accused Libyans. If 100% proof exists that the bomb was inside the container, there may be a case to continue the trial. However, if reasonable doubt exists over the actual location of the bomb, then the two Libyans effectively have no case to answer.

Air Accident Investigations Branch inspector Peter Clayton, described how he found a small fragment of circuit board "wedged into a warped metal tag used to identify the manufacturers of the aluminium container". In further evidence, Clayton said a fairly cursory examination of a data plate [the manufacturer's identification plate] from the aluminium container revealed "debris lodged in a fold."
Clayton's evidence, like Protheroe's in week four, is crucial. The manufacturers' data plate is positioned on the outside of these baggage containers, meaning that if it had been literally "wedged into the warped metal tag", the explosion must have occurred outside the baggage container, in order to drive the fragment of circuit board into the data plate. If the explosion has occurred inside the container, the fragment of circuit board would have been driven into the inside aluminium wall of the container, behind the manufacturer's data plate. Clayton's evidence does not appear to support the prosecution claim that the bomb was inside the container, but contradicts it.
For absolute clarity here, we need to know whether the fragment was "wedged into" the side of the plate with writing on it, i.e. the outside, or on the reverse, i.e the inside. Professor Peel of the government Defence Research and Investigation Agency (DERA), told the court how he had applied algebraic equations to data describing damage to the aircraft fuselage, to determine the location and weight of the bomb. Prof Peel claimed that only a unique combination of charge size and distance could have caused the damage he observed. While Peel is right to claim that only a "unique combination of charge size and distance" could have caused the damage, there is no hard evidence that his personal interpretation is the correct one.
In this regard, defence lawyer Richard Keen, QC, told Professor Peel "you have not simply developed an analytical model, but gone back and altered your view of the facts to apply that analytical model." Prof Peel denied Keen's suggestion.
Week 6: Judges at the trial in Camp Zeist have decided to ignore claims from Iranian defector Ahmad Behbahani that he ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, using Syrians and Libyans to do the job. A worthy decision by the judges. At the time of the Lockerbie crash, Behbahni had just celebrated his 20th birthday. A trifle too young to be the mastermind of Iranian Intelligence..
This week, British agencies tasked with the scientific evaluation of the Lockerbie crash site and debris, confirmed their appalling track record of failing to properly test vital components of "the bomb", or what they claim was the bomb. Scientist John Douse of DERA admitted that scraps from "the bomb's electronic timer or the tape player and suitcase it was allegedly found in", were not tested for explosives residue.
How very convenient! Scraps of metal from the baggage container alleged to have housed the bomb apparently showed minute traces of explosive compounds "sometimes used in the manufacture of Semtex." The explosive substances named were RDX and PETN. Most readers will appreciate that fragments from the container walls would show traces of explosives, whether the bomb was positioned inside or outside the container.
With its credibility in tatters, the prosecution resorted to the old "Screened Witness" trick, allowing two CIA operatives to appear behind a curtain, their voices screened electronically. Kenneth Steiner and Warren Clemens explained how they had examined a briefcase seized in Dakar during February 1986 which included electronic timers. Then it was the turn of the BATF. Agents Richard Sherwood and Edward Owen described examining a captured arms cache in Togo, which also included electronic timers.
Photographs of the Dakar and Togo timers shown to the court showed the lettering "MST-13", the batch number allocated by Swiss firm MEBO AG to its own series of electronic timing devices! So what? Unless and until those arrested and charged for "carrying" the timers appear at Camp Zeist (which I assure you will not happen), this entire episode can be put down as intelligence agency manipulation of the Scottish Court.
Next week the court will probably be packed, and the prosecution extremely nervous. On Tuesday the Chairman of Swiss company MEBO AG, Edwin Bollier, is due to appear to give evidence. He will be carrying a load of extremely credible evidence proving that the bomb on Pan Am 103 was positioned next to the fuselage skin, and not in the baggage container as claimed by the prosecution.
Most of Bollier's claims have the written backing of Professor Hitmar Schubert, of the Fraunhofer Institute in Munich, Germany. Prof Schubert is a world expert in this area, and the Fraunhofer Institute's principal client is the German Federal Defence Ministry. Mr Bollier has written a report detailing his latest claims on Pam Am 103, and posted it on the internet. Those interested can read his report here.
Also this week, Maltese journalist Joe Mifsud posted an authenticated copy of a warning telex circulated by Interpol on 15 November 1988, just weeks before the bombing of Pan Am 103. The author has written a report based on this telex, explaining that the bomb mentioned by Interpol was a "decoy".
Week 7: DERA scientist Alan Feraday presented the Court with a "reconstructed" bomb based on black Toshiba RT SF 16 Bombeat radio cassette. This despite the fact that under cross-examination by defence counsel Keene, Feraday concurred that his original notes specified a white Toshiba 8016 or 8026 type cassette recorder. Mr Keene paid particular attention to Feraday's earlier "expert" tesimony in the case of R v Berry, where the guilty verdict was subsequently reversed on appeal, and the term "dogmatic" used in reference to Feraday's evidence.
Feraday's "reconstructed bomb" highlights the flawed way in which the prosecution intents to convict the Libyan accused. Not by use of hard scientific evidence, but by a series of mind-games and charades. Most readers would assume "reconstructed bomb" means the actual components of a real bomb put back together again, after proper testing for explosive residue etc. So far as the Oxford Dictionary is concerned, the reader would be correct in his or her assumption, but that is far from the case where Mr Feraday's "bomb" is concerned.
In reality, Mr Feraday manufactured a "simulated bomb" based on guesswork, containing not a shred of the original material allegedly recovered from the crash site at Lockerbie. He claims to have managed this after "examining" several plastic pieces recovered from the site, and scraps of paper said to have been part of a Toshiba instruction manual, also recovered from the crash site.
So were the fragments Feraday "examined" properly tested for explosives residue in order to establish a scientific connection to his claims? Well, no they were not! This is pure Alice in Wonderland stuff, so far removed from scientific reality that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in Kent, UK, should be closed forthwith.
Late in the week Erwin Meister, the co- founding member of MEBO AG , confirmed knowing Said Rashid and Ezzadin Hinshri [cited in the indictment] and further confirmed MEBO supplied them with approximately 20 MST-13 timing devices. Meister also identified the first accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Mr Meiser clarified a number of points on the sale and distribution of MST-13 timers, including a number to the East German Stasi.
The prosecution asked Meister if his co-founder Mr Edwin Bollier had visited Libya during 1993. Mr Meister claimed this as true, and that the trip was regarding a loan of 1.8 million Swiss francs. However, the alleged loan was never made. MEBO co-founder Mr Edwin Bollier will take the stand next week.
Week 8: MEBO co-founder Mr Meister continued testimony, and after identifying Mr Al Megrahi as a former business contact, repeated several times that his memory was poor and getting worse. Mr Meister agreed his identification of Al Megrahi might have resulted from press photos rather than his own recollections. Under cross examination, Meister admitted he had not earlier mentioned a business trip to Syria in 1984, during which he unsuccessfully attempted to sell telephone equipment. Apparently the defence is focusing on this obscure point because it wishes to prove the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PLFP-GC), then based in Syria, and another Palestinian group, was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103.
This is an extremely reckless defence approach. Just as it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt the Libyan accused are guilty, it is equally impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that members of the PLFP-GC are guilty. Readers might like to speculate on who instructed defence solicitors to take this hazardous course of action, which in the end will at least "point the finger" at one Arab state or another, using the same fatally flawed evidence provided by current US prison inmate Lester Coleman, alias Thomas Leavy.
Edwin Bollier, the second founding member of MEBO, provided general background company details, and later stated his company fitted briefcases with the technology to radio-detonate remote controlled bombs. Based on Swiss Telekom and Motorola pagers, these devices were sold to the East German Stasi. This simple confirmation made the national news in Australia, where there has been a total black-out since the start of the Lockerbie trial. But oh how the facts were changed before they hit the television screens here! According to a national Australian network, MEBO admitted selling briefcase radio detonators to the Libyans, one of which was then used to destroy Pan Am 103!
Blatantly manipulated reportage of this kind has been commonplace in the Lockerbie Case since 1988, showing very clearly who is really trying to convict the Libyans, or Syrians, or perhaps the Iranians. At no time has the Australian media mentioned the realistic probability that the Israelis and Americans ordered and conducted the operation. Like used car salesmen with only three models in stock, the media has already demonstrated its willful intent to ensure that one of these three "Dirty Ayrab" states will act as "fall guy" for the 270 dead at Lockerbie.
On Tuesday Mr Bollier confirmed MEBO sold electronic timers to the Libyans. In 1985 he visited Tripoli to deliver 20 such custom-made devices. Mr Bollier told the court he later saw the timers being tested at the special forces training area at Sabha, Libya, and told the court: "I was present when two such timers were included in bomb cylinders." The 62-year-old added: "They were military aircraft bombs." This caused a bit of a stir among members of the media down here in Australia, because "Aircraft Bombs" sounded just like the bomb on Pan Am 103. Wrong! The devices in question were free-fall bombs of the kind carried and dropped from the bomb bays or wing pylons of military aircraft.
On a more serious note, Mr Bollier claimed that the fragments of MST-13 timer shown to him in the Camp Zeist Court, had been altered since he was first allowed to examine them in Scotland during September 1999. During that visit Mr Bollier was considerably concerned that his lawyer was barred by authorities from viewing the evidence at the same time, thus preventing corroboration at the time of examination. "They [the fragments] have been modified, I swear they have been modified,'' Mr Bollier told the Court at Camp Zeist, adding his firm did not necessarily supply the timer, and the fragments could have come from counterfeit copies.
Bollier did identify the two fragments as appearing to come from a MST-13 circuit board. But he said the pieces seemed to have been burnt since he first saw them at a Scottish police office in 1999, and one was slightly smaller than a photo taken shortly after it was found. Mr Bollier insisted that several versions of the fragments might be floating about, without giving further details. The fragments he viewed could have come from timers he sold to Libya or to East Germany or might even be counterfeit copies since the blueprints Mebo used to make the circuit boards had mysteriously disappeared, he said. ``It could be counterfeit,'' Bollier said when asked where a fragment could have come from.

Mr Bollier confirmed several sales by MEBO to Libya in 1985 including mobile radio equipment, timers, radio controls, Motorola receivers and "transmitters in suitcases". Bollier said it was made clear the timers had to be stable and heavy and able to operate over a long period of time. He said Mebo solved the problem by creating timers which could deal with a period of 9,999 minutes or 9,999 hours. Mr Bollier said his MEBO technician developed the timer on the basis of the specifications received from Tripoli. His technician produced two sample timers and these were delivered to Libya in the summer of 1985.
Bollier claimed that only about 20 timers total were sent to Libya. The first five were provided as samples, five were sent via the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin and the last 10 were taken to Libya personally by Mr Bollier. He said that the timers were for the purpose of detonating explosive devices, and had been told Libya needed these devices because of the Chad war. They wanted to leave explosive charges in military camps when they left these camps.
Later in the week Mr Bollier was savaged by prosecution and defence alike, who concentrated on a letter sent by him to the CIA in 1989. At one stage in the proceedings Mr Bollier was accused of working for the East German Stasi, with suggestions he sent the letter in order to deflect attention away from the PFLG-GC, who the prosecution are trying to prove were really responsible for the bombing on Pan Am 103. Things are rarely as they seem at Camp Zeist, however, and a proper analysis of the chain of events will be posted on this web site shortly. Those interested should check the "Updates" page during the next few days.
Week 9: Former Stasi employee Joachim Wenzel claimed to have been Mr Edwin Bollier's "handler" between 1982 and 1985, though it is impossible to say with certainty whether Wenzel's claims are true or false. In traditional intelligence agency fashion, Wenzel was hidden behind a screen, his voice altered digitally to protect him. Protect him from what exactly? Unless and until Bollier is prepared to sign a confession stating that this man was indeed his handler, or unedited video tapes of physical meetings between the two men are played to the Court, "Wenzel" is just another example of unsubstantiated hearsay evidence not admissible in a Scottish Court of Law.
Swiss firm MEBO has never tried to deny selling equipment (including MST-13 timers) to the East Germans during this period, but as suppliers there is no way Meister or Bollier could possibly know the end point of their products. For example, though British MI6 purchases electronic equipment from Marconi (UK), no-one but a fool would try to suggest Marconi has the slightest idea where or when this equipment is used. "Wenzel "said Bollier supplied "receivers, recognition devices,. everything to do with radio technology," for the Stasi, including timers with digital and rotary switch displays, plus radio equipment to listen to NATO military broadcasts.
Radio equipment to listen to NATO military broadcasts? Shock horror! Surely this must mean that Mr Bollier was pro-communist, anti-NATO, and therefore not to be trusted. Yet another example of the sleazy way this case is being conducted at the pseudo subliminal level. Just about anyone could make a radio capable of receiving NATO military broadcasts, including the author.
Attempting to put the boot in further, David Burns QC, for Mr Al Megrahi, asked: "Did you suspect because of his various journeys to London and Paris that Bollier had connections with other terrorist organizations?" Mr Wenzel said: "We made certain assumptions because we were not sure that possibly there were such connections but we were never able to prove these." Mr Burns asked: "And these I think included ETA and the IRA?" The witness replied: "Yes." Oh dear! "Wenzel" had provided more unsubstantiated hearsay slander that Mr Bollier could not rebut, because he had already been dismissed by the Court. It will take a great deal more than this rubbish to draw a link between the Palestinians and Pan Am 103.
The defence is currently showing all the signs of a team that has completely lost the plot, and is endangering its clients in the process. The defence is reminded again here that all it needs to do is show "reasonable doubt" its clients placed a bomb on Pan Am 103. There is currently so much doubt swilling around the Camp Zeist Courtroom, it is truly amazing the judges have not already shut the show trial down, and ordered the return of the two Libyans to Tripoli.
Ueli Lumpert, a former employee of MEBO, confirmed he had manufactured MST-13 timers. He said the fragment shown to him in court "could be" from an MST-13 timer. Initially when shown a letter dated 4 October 1993, Lumpert said he did not remember it, but confirmed his signature. The letter states there was a technical problem with the prototype MST-13 timers which necessitated that he worked on a Saturday to correct the problem in 1985. It went on to say that at the beginning of 1993 Mr Bollier began to check if there were any MST-13 circuit boards still in the company and it was then that GDR documents were found. When asked if he first remembered about the timers being supplied to the GDR just before the letter in 1993, he said yes. During his evidence Lumpert maintained that at the time of production he did not know who he was making the timers for, but later realized they must have been for the GDR as Bollier took them to Berlin.
At this point the pseudo subliminal nature of the Camp Zeist Court "evidence" kicks in again. Lumpert was an employee of the Swiss firm MEBO, an electronics engineer responsible for designing equipment to specifications dictated by his employers Meister and Bollier. There is absolutely no reason why Lumpert should be privy to information on end points or end users, and it is entirely unreasonable for the prosecution or defence to press him on this point. When these prosecution and defence lawyers were promoted to QC, did any of them challenge higher authority and ask "why?" Of course not, it was a management decision.
On 29 June the suspects' passports were examined. Arabic translator Djelloul Hamaz told the court on Thursday that the passports contained various stamps from Tripoli international Airport in December 1988. Prosecutor Alastair Campbell QC pointed out a green-colored stamp in Mr Fhimah's passport which he said suggested the defendant had traveled through Tripoli airport on 18 December, 1988 - three days before the explosion. Other stamps showed movements on 20 and 29 December. The court was also shown a passport in the name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad, which the indictment alleges was a false name used by Al Megrahi.
Pseudo subliminal again. Of what relevance are the movements of the two Libyans to the bombing of Pan Am 103? None, of course. Even if both accused flew from Tripoli to Malta on the day of the bombing, in isolation this information is worthless. What the prosecution is trying to replicate is a procedure much-loved in Australian courts: Stitch the defendants up with a chain of unconnected and uncorroborated events, sufficient to swamp the judges and make them see it "their way". It is perhaps fortunate the Libyans are on trial in a Scottish Court of Law, where tricks like these are simply not permitted. The trial is now adjourned until 12 July to allow the Crown time to consider the precognitions of the additional witnesses contained within a list lodged by the Defence.
Week 11: At the start of this week, MEBO AG lawyer Dieter Neubert (Neubert & Partners, Zurich), filed an official criminal complaint against the Crown in the Lockerbie case for falsification of evidence. In his letter to the Office of the Procurator Fiscal, Mr Neubert accuses the Crown of using a forged fragment of an alleged [MEBO] MST-13 timer. Full details of the letter will be released in due course, but Mr Nuebert has apparently also accused the Crown of having manipulated and disfigured the alleged timer in order to obscure the true shape and colour of the fragment, in order to prevent accurate identification.
Readers may remember that during late 1999, Mr Edwin Bollier of MEBO was finally allowed to view the alleged MST-13 timer fragment in Scotland, and found the colour was not the same as that shown in photos presented to him during 1991. Mr Bollier was so concerned that he made a further statement detailing the irregularities, which were also noted at that time by the Procurator Fiscal, and by a Scottish Police Detective Inspector.
From the outset, the Crown really only had two straws to grasp at in terms of a "credible" prosecution. First there was the famous timer fragment, now doubly in doubt because of alleged Crown forensic tampering, and the dismissal of the FBI's top man for "tampering with evidence" in cases which may have included Lockerbie.
The second straw is the now-famous media beat-up about a Maltese shopkeeper positively identifying one of the two Libyan accused at Camp Zeist. According to the mainstream media, prodded on ruthlessly by the Israeli Lobbies, Tony Gauci of "Mary's House" in Malta, positively identified defendant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi during 1989 as the man who bought baby clothes from his store. As is customary in all matters concerning the "National Security" of the State of Israel, this media story was a complete and utter lie.
Tony and Paul Gauci [joint owners of Mary's House in Sliema] left Malta for Camp Zeist at 2245 hrs on Sunday, accompanied by a Scottish officer and a Maltese policeman aboard Transavia Flight 786. According to journalist Joe Mifsud of the newspaper Kullhadd, Mr Gauci has made a total of 19 statements about the incident to various authorities over the years, not one of which provided a positive identification of al-Megrahi.
According to Reuters, in the court Gauci tried to recall events. It was shortly before Christmas, I can't remember the exact date, maybe a fortnight before Christmas"..."eleven years are a long time for me, but in those days I told them everything exactly.'' Gauci said the man had black hair, wore a blue suit and was less than 6 feet tall. He confirmed a series of mug shots and artists impressions that he had been shown by Scottish investigators during several meetings at Malta police headquarters in the fall of 1989. Later: Gauci continued his testimony.
He said the man looked around and when Mr Gauci invited him to try on some trousers he said they were for someone else. The man then bought two pairs of trousers, two shirts, two cardigans, two pairs of pajamas, a blue romper suit and, because it was raining slightly at the time, an umbrella. "He left the shop to go to the taxi rank to get a taxi. He came back in the taxi to collect the clothing, which I took out to the taxi."
"That is the one who resembles the man who came into my shop,'' Gauci said, pointing to al-Megrahi sitting next to his bespectacled co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima in the witness box., "the one without glasses." Unfortunately, Gauci used exactly the same phrase to describe a newspaper photograph of Mohammed Abu Talb, a Lebanese member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).
The grainy, black and white photograph of Abu Talb, who is in jail for terrorism in Sweden and has been named as a prosecution witness, was first shown to Gauci by his brother and then later referred to by Gauci in police statements as bearing a close likeness to the man he served in his shop. Readers may ask why on earth Gauci was summoned to the Court at all. other than as a desperate measure by the Crown to keep the "Show Trial of the Century" going for a little longer.
On Tuesday 12 July the Court was adjourned yet again, because several prosecution witnesses from Malta refused to appear. The prosecution had in fact known about their unwillingness to attend for months, but was either incompetent, or unwilling to call forward substitutes in time to keep the trial rolling seamlessly. Exactly why the witnesses refused to appear has not been stated, but a strong pointer to their reasoning was provided by one Maltese prosecution witness who did: Mr Manuel Ferrugia, a rather flamboyant gentleman with four earrings in his left ear, told the Court how he had traveled from Malta to Frankfurt aboard Air Malta Flight KM180 on the day of the crash.

Was Mr Ferrugia booked to travel from Frankfurt to London on the Pan Am 103 feeder flight? No, he was not. Well then, was Mr Ferrugia's baggage lost en-route, or did he perhaps have critical information about the accused Libyans? No on both counts. The bottom line is that Mr Ferrugia was flown to Holland and accommodated at British taxpayer expense, simply to tell the court that he flew out of Malta aboard an Air Malta Boeing 737 on the day of the Pan Am Crash. Fascinating travel information of course, rather like the author's flight out of Calcutta for London during 1984 aboard a British Airways jet, but neither journey is of any possible relevance to the Trial of the Century at Camp Zeist.
Hopefully Mr Ferrugia enjoyed the Air Malta in-flight service on 21 December 1988, and hopefully British taxpayers will understand the prosecution's need to "construct" a connection between Malta and Pan Am 103 using irrelevant information. Thanks should therefore be extended to the majority of Maltese witnesses who refused to attend this pathetic game of charades, thereby saving British taxpayers a small fortune.
On Friday Mr Wilfred Borg, Ground Operations Manager for Luqa Airport in Malta, was asked a wide range of questions about baggage check-in procedures and baggage tags. Mr Borg appeared to stand up to the questions very well, giving the impression that shoving pieces of unaccompanied baggage onto an Air Malta flight unnoticed, would be extremely difficult. Indeed, the efficiency of Luqa Airport security during December 1988 was demonstrated quite clearly earlier in the week, when a German passenger boarding KM 180 told the Court that Airport security discovered he had retained his hotel key, which was then returned to its rightful owners.
If Luqa authorities managed to detect the small concealed hotel key, it is more than reasonable to assume they would also have detected the large brown Samsonite suitcase, allegedly being dragged across the airport tarmac by the two Libyan "Secret Agents". The famous Maltese clothes shop, alleged provider of the clothing allegedly bought to wrap "the bomb" in. Owner Tony Gauci has already formally identified two entirely different men as the supposed purchaser.
Week 12: Having failed to convince a large number of skeptical Maltese "witnesses" to attend the Court last week, the Crown was not prepared to give up on its vital quest to draw completely irrelevant and spurious links between Malta, and the bombing of Pan Am 103 more than 1,000 nautical miles to the north in Scotland.
German witnesses Birgit Seliger and Evelin Steinwandt took the stand to testify they both checked in baggage and boarded Air Malta Flight KM 160 at Luqa on 21 December 1988, then disembarked at Frankfurt and collected their baggage. Were the ladies booked to travel from Frankfurt on the Pan Am 103 feeder flight? No, they were not. Well then, was Ms Seliger or Ms Steinwandt's baggage lost en-route, or did one or both perhaps have critical information about the accused Libyans? No on both counts. Just like poor Mr Ferrugia last week, the bottom line is that Birgit Seliger and Evelin Steinwandt were flown to Holland and accommodated at British taxpayer expense, simply to tell the Court they flew out of Malta aboard an Air Malta Boeing 737 on the same day as the crash of Pan Am flight 103 at Lockerbie.
Those readers believing that the prosecution lawyers have finally lost their marbles, would only be partly correct. Though calling Ferrugia, Seliger and Steinwandt has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the two Libyan accused, or with due legal process, the bizarre procedure has everything to do with neuro linguistics and psychological flooding.
In the twilight world of the establishment media and intelligence agencies, reality can be turned on its ear and even reversed by "flooding" the Court and public alike with so much inaccurate information about a single subject, all eventually believe it to be true. The harsh reality is that there are no proven links between Malta and Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie at all, but who would believe this to be true with Ferrugia, Seliger and Steinwandt being paraded before the court?
There is an odds-on chance the prosecution knew in advance that many of the Maltese witnesses would probably refuse to attend. So why call them? The answer lies in human perception. The prosecution hoped the Court and public would perceive that the Maltese witnesses refused to attend because they have something to hide, and those who have something to hide are automatically guilty! Those readers interested in pursuing these disgusting techniques, should read Professor Noam Chomsky's excellent book "Manufacturing Consent", a vivid and comprehensive expose of media and other social engineering methods.
Court attention was then switched from Malta to Frankfurt in Germany, with a range of witnesses called to explain airport security and the baggage handling systems. Principal witnesses were Martin Huebner, Pan Am's security chief for Eastern Europe, and Joachim Koscha, who worked for the Frankfurt Baggage Section during 1988. Koscha described how the baggage system worked, and described the journey of baggage from various coding stations. At this stage the attention of informed observers is once again drawn to the irrelevant nature of the prosecution testimony.

The Crown is attempting to show that a piece of baggage, the suitcase containing the bomb, was transferred from Flight KM 180 arriving from Malta on to Pan Am 103a, the first leg of the doomed 103 flight which blew up over Lockerbie, but how can general statements about Frankfurt security and baggage handling help in proving (in any way at all) that the two Libyan accused are guilty of bombing Pan Am 103?
The Scottish Court is not a rerun of "The Holocaust", where emotional and sometimes hysterical 50 year-old eyewitness testimony alone can be used to imprison "suspects" for life. Fortunately for the two accused Libyans, under Scottish Law the prosecution is required to produce hard evidence of guilt, which to date it has completely failed to do. Does the prosecution have verified video footage of the Libyans constructing the bomb? No it does not.

Does the prosecution have verified photographic or written evidence (in their own handwriting) proving the two Libyans were in any way connected with the bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie? No it does not. All the prosecution has is unsubstantiated hearsay from a number witnesses, many with vested interests, especially American double-agent Jiacha, who is personally set to become eight million dollars richer if he can stitch up Megrahi and Fhimah. he Show Trial of the Century trial will resume next Tuesday at 9.45 a.m.
Week 13: As before, the prosecution continued to try and convince the court that there really was a flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988. Having finally persuaded some of the (mostly reluctant) Maltese to take the stand, the prosecution produced witnesses Bonello, Camilleri, Co, Fricke, and later Iaia, with a flourish. All agreed they had flown from Malta to Frankfurt that day, so the flight really did take off as listed in the Air Malta timetable, Luqa International Airport Air Traffic Logs etc etc. Great news! Of course none of these witnesses knew or were questioned about either of the two accused Libyans, but what the heck, it's only British taxpayers money being squandered at Camp Zeist, isn't it?
Enter a slightly bemused Khalil Lahoud, captain of the mysterious Air Malta Flight KM 180. Perhaps the good Captain knew the accused Libyans? Well, no, actually he did not. Captain Lahoud was then asked what altitude he flew KM 180 at en-route to Frankfurt, and he responded it was either 31 or 35 thousand feet. Sensing that a pilot who couldn't remember exactly where he was 4,230 days ago probably had something to hide, the prosecution pounced. Poor Captain Lahoud was then asked a large number of questions about his actual altitude and time to climb.
Riveting stuff with plenty of flair from the highly-paid lawyers, but of absolutely no relevance to the guilt or innocence of accused Libyans Megrahi and Fhima. On a more sinister note, witness Albert Camilleri testified to examining Semtex explosive found at Ghallis Tower in Malta during 1986. Aha! This explosive was covered with the fingerprints of the Libyan accused? Well, no it was not. The Semtex was just Semtex found in Malta two years before the crash of Pan Am 103, thereby artfully roping Malta into the loop as a "Guilty Terrorist State" alongside Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Just to set the record straight and to prove that Malta is not unique in terms of its covert stock of Semtex, perhaps the prosecution will now consider calling a few witnesses from the Metropolitan Police Service in London. All will cheerfully attest that Semtex has also been found in Britain on a number of occasions.
For any such even-handedness we will have to wait for a while. Exhausted by its endeavors, the Court will now adjourn so that everyone can go and play a round of golf at Saint Andrews. Well, everyone apart from the two accused Libyans of course, who will be forced to remain in the cells at Camp Zeist, despite the fact that not one iota of hard evidence has been presented against them. The Trial of the Century resumes on 22 August 2000
Week 17: After ten years in exile as a paid guest of the American Central Intelligence Agency, the time is fast approaching for double agent Jiacha to start earning his elaborate room and board. But this prosecution star turn of the "Trial of the Century", is already causing severe heartburn at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
As may be expected the CIA is trying to beat this event up for all it is worth, and is currently in the throes of psyching-up the defence team with "blacked out" sections of memos from its field agents in Malta to Langley Headquarters in Virginia. The Crown team has seen the full content of the memos of course, and says the blacked-out bits are nothing for the defence to worry about. They are certainly correct in stating there is nothing in the memos for the defence to worry about, but there is a principle at stake here. The defence has demanded to see the blacked-out bits and the Judge has agreed - leading to frantic activity in Langley designed to look like reluctant consent on the part of the CIA to let the defence view American "National Security" secrets.
Bravo! Lawyer performance to date is the equal of anything ever produced in Hollywood, though Jiacha may wish to secure the Oscar for "Best Clown". When required to confront the defence lawyers, Jiacha did so wearing dark sunglasses and a long (rather sexy) Shirley Bassey wig. But who am I to be critical? This double agent is playing the Camp Zeist Casino for a US$4,000,000 jackpot, and protecting his identity is probably important for the future - if Jiacha actually has a future of course, which seems doubtful..
Bearing in mind that Jiacha is already on the record as "never having overheard any actual plans for the accused to blow up an airplane", just what could the sinister blacked-out sections of the CIA memos contain? There are rumors that one contains an order from an American agent for a Pastrami on Rye from a local Maltese sandwich shop, but it doesn't really matter what the memos say, not one of them can provide a trace of hard evidence linking the accused to (a) a bomb and (b) to Pan Am 103.
The entire reason for the memos is identical to so much of the other fatally flawed "evidence" in this case - a psychological ploy designed to convince the media and casual observers that the memos are actually important. After all, would high-powered lawyers fight each over this material if it was not of critical importance to the case? Sadly the answer is yes they would, in fact yes they are, despite the reality that the memos are of absolutely no relevance to the bombing of Pan Am 103.
To fill in court time, a Maltese police inspector took the stand to again recount the story of some standard Semtex high-explosive found at Ghallis Towers, Malta, during 1986. This was not of any relevance to the current case, but allowed the prosecution to once more hint that Malta might be a "guilty terrorist state". The crucial new scientific proof presented on the Semtex-high explosive is that (wait for it, wait for it.......!!) the explosive was found wrapped at Ghallis Towers in LIBYAN newspapers printed during November and December 1980. Nail-biting stuff..
Well that's it then, isn't it? Clearly only Libyans could possible purchase Libyan newspapers, meaning Libyans must have planted the anonymous Semtex at Ghallis Towers in 1986, meaning in turn the Libyans intended to blow up Pan Am 103 with a different batch of Semtex sometime during late 1988, perhaps. Very tenuous I agree, but how else is an increasingly desperate prosecution team supposed to stitch up two innocent men?
Mid week saw the defence trying to deflect attention away from Malta and Germany by seeking to demonstrate flaws in the Heathrow security system, the implication being that the bomb may have been loaded there instead. While this is probably a legitimate technique in terms of casting doubt on the official story (that the accused bombed-up KM 180 in Malta), it can never prove that a bomb was placed aboard Pan Am 103 in London.
Once again we are concentrating on Samsonite suitcases and baggage handlers, when it has already been proved in court that the Mach Stem Effect was miscalculated by the British authorities after the crash. For those readers who have forgotten or not heard about this critical evidence, proper calculations carried out in Munich later proved the Centre of the blast was very close to the aircraft fuselage skin, certainly not inside a suitcase placed inside a baggage container.
In order to place the explosive charge close up against the fuselage, it is first necessary to strip away the wall lining of the forward cargo hold, a task that can only be carried out at second-line servicing level, certainly not on the ramp at LHR or any other airport. So why all of this expensive timewasting with Samsonite suitcases, London Airport Heathrow and "security experts"? The only reasonable assumption is that "the show must go on" regardless, and in spite of terminal damage to prosecution credibility.
Later in the week the prosecution once more provided multiple confirmations that Air Malta KM 180 actually did fly between Malta and Frankfurt on 21 December 1988. Witnesses Poke, Klauss, Backman and Greasefeller all testified they checked in at Malta and flew to Frankfurt. Did any then transfer to Pan Am 103a (the feeder Boeing 727) or Pan Am 103? No they did not. Did any of them know the accused or have any relevant information pertaining to the accused? No they did not. One would think by now that the entire world believes KM 180 actually did fly from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and there is no need for the Crown to waste further taxpayer funds trying to draw a mischievous connection between an innocent airline and country, and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie in Scotland.
Week 18: Court in a complete bugger's muddle. Nothing of substance to report. Court adjourned, no weeks 18, 19 or 20.
Week 21: Another wasted week with lawyers fighting each other over trivialities. Outside the Court, the media starts to highlight the "Palestinians might have done it" theory, courtesy of the Mossad. The Jewish State likes to have an extra suspect "Moslem Sponsor of Terrorism" in the bag wherever possible.
Week 22: After arriving at Camp Zeist surrounded by enough security escorts to do credit to an American President, double agent Jiacha (Giaka) was quickly shown up to be the liar he was long assumed to be. Unable to look the two accused Libyans in the eye, Jiacha stumbled through his "evidence" with almost indecent haste, before scuttling back to his American hideaway to lick his wounds.
The fact Jiacha was ever taken into the Witness Protection Program at all, proves American authorities never expected Libya to release its two citizens for trial. As this week in court showed only too well, the CIA knew the man completely lacked credibility, had no hard evidence to present, and at best served as a mute threat designed to direct hostility towards Libya. For so long as the heavily-protected Jiacha could be mentioned at American press conferences, the western public was persuaded to believe that Libya might have been involved in the bombing of Pan Am 103. After all, who would spend all of that money protecting a witness if he was worthless?
Evidently the CIA and FBI decided this was a worthy way of spending taxpayer funds, but their carefully manufactured illusion of Jiacha's worth was finally destroyed at Camp Zeist in less than two days.
So what "evidence" did this star witness at the Trial of the Century produce? Well, apparently the two accused showed him some blocks of TNT is a desk drawer in Malta, though of course Jiacha has no independent confirmation of this. And most damning of all, Jiacha claimed to have seen one of the accused carry a brown hard-shell Samsonite towards Air Malta Flight KM 180 on the day of the Pan Am crash. Surprise! Both accused worked for Libyan Arab Airlines and carrying suitcases went with the territory. Even if one of the accused did in fact handle a suitcase of this description on the day, so what? Brown hard-shell Samsonites were probably the most common of all suitcases during the early eighties, and my family alone has three of them here at the house.
I could ramble on for pages detailing the way in which both the CIA and FBI tried to sway public opinion and deceive the court, but cannot see any point in doing so. As an observer, it seems to me that Jiacha's physical appearance in the court has finally brought home to the Trial Judges the way in which certain elements of the American and British establishments have tried to use the judicial system for their own ends. Hopefully then, Jiacha's appearance at Camp Zeist marks the beginning of the end of this incredibly expensive farce.
Jiacha has passed his use-by date and the American authorities will have to decide what do with him. Perhaps like so many in the past Jiacha will have an unfortunate fatal accident, or perhaps his rumoured departure for Cairo will become reality. Whatever happens, it seems most unlikely Jiacha will be a burden on American taxpayers for very much longer.
Week 23: Another wasted week. Media speculation that Mohammed Talb might take the stand. Further explanation of the "Palestinian Connection".
Week 24: Prosecution asks for an adjournment to examine exciting new evidence from a third party country (not America). The identity of this "country in the Middle East" is very obviously too secret to pass on to the public.
Week 25: Another adjournment, no kidding! Lawyers disappear to play golf.
Week 26: Court once again adjourned with taxpayer meter running. Lawyers still playing golf, Libyan suspects locked in cells.
Week 27: Just when you thought the whole thing was over and the minstrels were packing their instruments away at Camp Zeist, the prosecution suddenly pounced. Pounced on exactly what you ask? Well no-one really knows just yet, but whatever it is requires the use of Serb-Croat translators and the apparent involvement of at least one more country in the middle east. The BBC, never a very reliable (or accurate) source put it this way:
"More time for Lockerbie defence"
"The Lockerbie trial has been adjourned for another week to allow inquiries to continue into new evidence which could be highly significant to the outcome of the case. The Scottish Court in the Netherlands reconvened for a short time on Tuesday morning before rising again, the fourth such postponement. The adjournment will give the defence team more time to investigate a dossier of material handed to the prosecution by an unnamed government on 4 October.
William Taylor QC, representing Al Megrahi, told the judges another week was needed to continue the investigation. He said this included inquiries into allegations of links between the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and a country in the Middle East not so far linked to the case.
Lawyers in Tripoli were now opening lines of inquiry in "another Middle Eastern state" in an attempt to secure access to evidence there.
Inquiries were also going on in "another European country", which has so far been unconnected with the Lockerbie inquiry. These required the assistance of Serbo-Croat translators, he disclosed. Mr Taylor said that the new information established links, unknown until now, between German intelligence services and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, an organization which was originally high on the list of Lockerbie suspects."
Interim Analysis
This is getting really exciting, right? Wrong! With entire western governments and media outlets slagging off every Arab and/or Moslem country in the Middle East as a "Sponsor of Terrorism", how long do you really believe the prosecution would keep the lid on the identity of this splendid new disinformation source. Five minutes, perhaps ten? Certainly not any longer.

So what we are looking for is "another Middle Eastern state" which is credible to western governments and media, and can remain anonymous for more than three weeks during the Trial of the Century at Camp Zeist. Apart from good old Israel I can't think of a single one. The Serb-Croat connection is a nice touch - perhaps the Mossad has suddenly decided to go multicultural and multilingual, a complete break with its normal racist policies. Oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures!  Serb-Croat translators suddenly needed in the Court. Really stirring stuff! Why? To speak to some of the Mossad's snouts, apparently.
Week 28: Lawyers huddle over "new" Mossad Lockerbie evidence. Fancy that! the Jews had crucial evidence hidden away for 12 years until the prosecution team was flat on its face and grasping at straws, then they decided to help out a bit. Nice people...
Week 29: First we had American double agent Jiacha peddling lies or order to qualify for a $4 million cash reward, and now we have the notorious Abu Talb, allegedly promised a shorter prison sentence in Sweden if he helps to stitch up the Palestinians. Ye gods, court credibility has sunk to an all time low, hasn't it?
Just about every "expert" in the west has dutifully filed through the court and failed to nail any "Arab Terrorist State" for the bombing of Pan Am 103, so now you are all expected to take the word of a convicted criminal instead. From Reuters:-
" Defence lawyers at the Lockerbie bombing trial tried to chip away at the prosecution case against two Libyans on Tuesday when they cross-examined a key witness with links to a radical Palestinian group. Defence attorney William Taylor asked Mohammed Abu Talb, an Egyptian-born Palestinian serving a life sentence in Sweden for terrorism, whether Palestinians believed the United States was the greatest ally of Israel, Talb replied: "That's correct and we still believe that." "All groups strive to liberate Palestine and create a Palestinian state..."
When he took the stand on Friday, Talb said he was babysitting his children at the time of the bombing. He acknowledged he had links with one of the groups implicated by the defence, the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF). The defence has also accused the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command (PFLP-GC) of involvement in the attack, for which Libyans Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima and Abdel Basset al-Megrahi are standing trial. The defence questioned Talb about his family background and revealed that members of his wife's family had links to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian President Yasir Arafat. Well that's it then, isn't it?
Talb belonged to a Palestinian organization dedicate to removing heavy Jewish boots from the necks of Palestinian women and children, and worse still, members of his wife's family indirectly knew Yasir Arafat. Condemned out of his own mouth, so to speak...
What pathetic rubbish! As with the Libyans, there is absolutely no hard evidence of any kind linking the Palestinians to the bombing of Pan Am 103, and there never will be. If Abu Talb were to make some sort of "confession" (which seems most unlikely), it would unquestionably be a fairly desperate attempt to gain his freedom and return to his wife and children. None of us could or would blame him for trying, but equally we must not allow any statements made under applied pressure to be regarded as factual.
There should also be grave doubts about Abu Talb's conviction in Sweden, which was achieved without any hard evidence being presented. What evidence (sic) there was in the Swedish court, relied exclusively on the spoken testimony of others. Curiously, Talb was convicted on only one charge, that of bombing a Jewish synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark, as illustrated by the short extract from the Camp Zeist transcript shown below:
Defence Lawyer: Well, I am puzzled by that answer, you see, because you told me at the beginning that the reason you were in prison just now was in respect of bombing attacks which had taken place in Copenhagen, in Stockholm, and in Amsterdam for which you were responsible in the period of 1985 and 1986.
Abu Talb: That is not correct. The fact that I was charged doesn't mean that I was necessarily there or that I committed these acts. I said that I was charged with committing them.
Defence Lawyer: Well, you were convicted of them, weren't you, and sentenced to life imprisonment?
Abu Talb: That is correct.
Defence Lawyer: And these were in respect of bombings which took place in the years 1985 and 1986, a point at which you say was some three years after you had ceased to be a member of any Palestinian organization.
Abu Talb: I was convicted on one charge only, a bombing in Denmark of a Jewish site, not of anything else. I was convicted even though I was not there, and I did not confess to the crime.
Defence Lawyer: Can you tell me when that bombing of the synagogue was, please.
Abu Talb: If I remember correctly, it was in 1985.
Most of the rest of the transcript shows the lawyers trying to put words into Talb's mouth, which should come as no great surprise to anyone. What is a surprise, however, is the almost desperate way in which the lawyers attempted to force Abu Talb to admit he attended a course in Surface to Air missiles in Russia, long before Pan Am 103 was bombed at Lockerbie. Talb refused to admit any such thing, stating correctly the question was not relevant to the case in hand.
But why oh why Surface to Air missiles? Perhaps one days the defence lawyers will explain their irrational but clearly overwhelming obsession about missiles with the rest of us mere mortals.  Super terrorist Abu Talb takes the stand. Lawyers pounce and artfully manage to get Talb to admit he doesn't like Israelis, and thinks they should be kicked out of Palestine. Big deal, so Talb shares a common view with about three million other Palestinians! No hard or even corroborating evidence about anything of course, but there has been no hard or corroborating evidence since the beginning of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Week 30: The prosecution concluded its case against two Libyans accused of the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing on Monday as one of the defence lawyers appealed for the case to be dropped. The prosecution ended after the court had seen footage of an interview with each of the accused by a U.S. television reporter. A court official read out the transcript of the accused's judicial examination in April. Then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, the head of the prosecution team, ended his side's arguments with the words "I now close the case for the Crown".
Richard Keen, counsel for Fahima, immediately asked the three Scottish judges to dismiss the case against his client, saying there was in fact no case to answer. The lawyer for Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah is going to argue at the Scottish court in the Netherlands that insufficient evidence has been presented against his client. Next week the court will hear Keenīs motion that there is no case to answer against Mr Fhimah. The judges will be asked to decide on the weight of evidence against him, rather than the quality of the Crown case. There has been no similar move from Megrahi, and there is now speculation he will be the first witness when the defence case begins next week.
Week 31: The defence at the Lockerbie trial went through the indictment with a fine tooth comb on Tuesday, saying there was insufficient evidence to convict one of the two Libyans accused of the 1988 bombing. Richard Keen, Fahima's lawyer, said on Tuesday his client had no case to answer.
"In my submission the crucial fact for your lordships to consider is: was the second accused aware that there was an intention to use an explosive device for the destruction of a civil aircraft and the murder of its occupants?" Keen said. "If the second accused was not aware of that objective then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he cannot be guilty of murder and he cannot be guilty of the alleged breach of section two of the Aviation Security Act 1982," he said.
Dressed in a navy cap, checked shirt and blue waistcoat, Fahima sat impassively, as he has done throughout the trial, a Scottish police officer to his left, Megrahi to his right as Keen sought to knock down the charges in the indictment. Keen's task is not to challenge the reliability of the evidence, but to demonstrate that, even if credible, it is purely circumstantial and would not link his client to the Lockerbie bombing. If the judges agree that there is no case to answer, Fahima will be acquitted.

Keen listed all the areas of the indictment referring to Fahima and argued there was no evidence whatsoever to show his client ordered timers for use in the bomb, tested explosives in Libya or flew to Malta with a suitcase containing a bomb. Mr Keen referred point by point to the lengthy list of charges against Fhimah, adding there was no evidence to bear out the allegation that he conspired to obtain 20 electronic timers capable of detonating explosive devices from the Swiss firm MEBO.

Likewise, there was "not one jot of evidence" that he was involved in testing the detonators on a special forces exercise in Libya, as alleged in the next part of the indictment, Mr Keen said. "There is not one single piece of evidence to bear out that libel as far as the second accused is concerned in any respect whatsoever...One wonders how he came to be mentioned in that paragraph," Keen said repeatedly as he listed the charges.
Entries in Fhima's diary indicating he had taken luggage tags from Air Malta did not prove a thing, Keen said. The prosecution say the bomb began its journey in Malta's Luqa airport and that the two accused used false luggage tags to load it on a plane bound for Frankfurt. They also allege the two posed as employees of Libyan Arab Airlines and were in fact members of the Libyan intelligence services, assertions also not backed up by evidence, Keen said. There was no evidence to show his client was in Malta on the day of bombing, nor did evidence that Fahima kept explosives in his desk at Luqa airport link him to the blast.
Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka claimed earlier in the seven-month trial that Fhimah had 10 kilos of TNT explosive in his drawer at the airline offices which were later moved to the Libyan Consulate in Malta. Mr Keen told the special court at Camp Zeist in Holland: "Any explosive had ceased to be in the possession of Fhimah three months or more probably five months before December 21 1988. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the second accused was a member of the Libyan intelligence services at any time or in any way associated with such a service."
Keen concentrated on disputing evidence relating to the conspiracy charge. Legal experts say there is almost certainly insufficient evidence to convict his client on the murder or aviation security charge -- both of which carry a mandatory life sentence.
Richard Keen QC said: "The crucial fact for consideration is was (Fhimah) aware that there was an intention to use an explosive device for the destruction of a passenger aircraft and murder its occupants? "If he was not aware of that objective, then he cannot be guilty of conspiracy, he cannot be guilty of murder, and he cannot be guilty of the alleged breach of the Aviation Security Act.
Keen said they had to consider one crucial question: "It is not sufficient for guilt to be a rational inference (from the circumstances) if there are other rational hypotheses as well. "If you left a jury to choose between two inferences, they would have to speculate, and that they cannot do," said Mr Keen. Keen and the Prosecutor Alastair Campbell concentrated on evidence relating to the conspiracy charge on the basis that if that failed, the murder and aviation security charges would probably fail as well.
Campbell said Fahima was an ideal ally for Megrahi because of his inside knowledge and access to Luqa airport. He worked as a station manager there for more than five years. "I have identified Fahima's involvement over the period... he was knowingly involved in the completion of a plan," he said. Keen however, disagreed. "What you are being asked to do is infer that a man who wasn't there did, by means we do not know, smuggle a bomb into Luqa airport."
This accurate Reuters account shows the pure futility of the Trial Of The Century, and the continuing shocking waste of vast sums of British taxpayers' funds. But we must muddle on it seems, if only to try and circumstantially fit-up one "Guilty Arab Terrorist State" or another, in a continuing attempt to protect the guilty. Defence rebuts the prosecution, for the first time quite effectively.
Week 32: Lord Sutherland getting visibly annoyed that the documents Mossad claimed were in Syria, had not been delivered to the Court. No big surprise. When Mossad tells you something, invariably the opposite is true. No weeks 33, 34, 35 or 36
Week 37: No magic documents from Syria, so the accused do not take the stand. The prosecution suddenly drops two of the three charges against the accused, and the defence rightly claims they have no case to answer.
Week 38: Defence argues bomb must have been inserted at London Airport Heathrow, thereby neatly sidestepping the obvious probability of insertion at American servicing facilities. Judges retire with truckload of prosecution evidence (sic) to consider verdict. No week 39.
Week 40: Megrahi found guilty. My personal response is best summed up by Professor Robert Black, principal architect of the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist: "I am amazed ! Astonished ! I cannot express my reaction in words. I am stunned. The entire verdict hangs on the edge, upon Gauciīs recognition of Megrahi. They (the judges) have taken the assumption the suitcase came from Malta. They have chosen to ignore all the contradictive evidence and passed on this judgment. This was not the verdict that anyone expected. "