Forum Index
To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More Lockerbie Oppression
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 54, 55, 56  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:13 pm    Post subject: Lockerbie witness traded away - the independent commission?  Reply with quote

Lockerbie witness traded away

I bet you the independent commission will not happen , as the SNP probably traded that in any deal... as any REAL evidence will embarass about everyone

look at

account champcompconsultant

password roya123

scan of cards from intelligence agencies, emails for Victims groups and from the Libyans.

I was trraded away Twice.. Aug 31, 2000 when they made a deal that there would be no defence witness if the main witness was trashed...

then May 2001 when Bush made a deal wit the Libyans to get on the UN security council for Human Rights

[pan Am used to be called Pan Iran, The US and right wing Jewish groups were trying to install the Shahs son.. My father-in-law was involved.. The Shahs family was the largest shareholder in Pan Am

Bollier, who made the timer for the bombs, wife was Iranian , accoridng to the Libyans

The Libyans want the sanctions off and we told that if they embarassed the US or UK, that would never happen.. so they negotiated on everything..

BP, Shell, Exxon and Total are now in Libya as they were in Iran

They are put the sticks to me and I expect worse

Barry Lanza

00 44 1786 831 554

wife is Hessaby, well know in Iran and my mother-in-laws family were Pakravans... SAVAK
Barry Lanza
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 am    Post subject: Paul McBride "Megrahi" Reply with quote

I was actually appalled at the attitude of Paul McBride to Christine Grahame in this Program.

He seemed to have no grasp of the fact Megrahi was pressured into dropping his appeal by Kenny MacAskill  in order to be released yet all the time he had no intention of releasing him under the prisoner transfer agreement.

This appeal has been swept under the carpet and it is people like him that allow the cover ups to continue with his ridiculous attitude.

I think he should be made to apologise to Ms Grahame.

If the proper place to debate the appeal was the courts then why have the courts allowed this appeal to be abandoned in the fashion it has ?

It could have easily have continued by the video link that was already in operation to Greenock but no the appeal had to be dropped for Megrahi to be released.

The fact remains Mr McBride that even the London Government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scots Jail, let alone the Scottish Government.

If our courts were that confident, then they would have insisted on the appeal continuing.

No log for the timer and it went to America, How convenient.

Mr McBride seems to place all the blame on his defence team by claiming they had the evidence prior to trial, Proof of Defective Representation where his QC Taylor stood up and closed the case without any prior consultation.

Can we all make sure Mr McBride never comes to sit on the board of SCCRC with his attitude of "that's all we need to know"

Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lockerbie families welcome new inquiry

Relatives of people killed in the Lockerbie bombing have welcomed news that there could be a fresh investigation into the atrocity.

Families of British victims have been advised that police are following several new lines of inquiry, including a review of forensic evidence into the 1988 bombing.

A total of 270 people were killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over the town of Lockerbie on December 21.

It is understood that the Crown Office in Scotland has contacted relatives via email informing them of the plans for a new investigation.

The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that Lindsey Miller, a senior Procurator Fiscal who was involved in preparing evidence for Megrahi’s trial, has written: “Throughout the investigation we have, at various times, taken stock of the evidence as a whole with a view to identifying further lines of inquiry that can be pursued.

“Now that the appeal proceedings are at an end a further review of the case is under way and several potential lines of inquiry, both through a ‘desktop’ (paper) exercise and consultation with forensic science colleagues are being considered.

“You will of course appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to elaborate on these lines but please be assured that this is not simply paying lip service to the idea of an ‘open case’.”

Pamela Dix, who lost her brother Peter in the 1988 bombing, said tonight: “As far as we understand it there are avenues which are being pursued, and I think that should be interpreted as a good thing.

“Expectations around Megrahi’s appeal were really quite high but hopes were profoundly dashed when the appeal was abandoned.

“The situation is unresolved and it is unfinished business.”

Dr Jim Swire, who has long been a campaigner for a full inquiry into the bombing, said: “I think that if they are really going to a meaningful investigation then that is all well and good and long overdue. I would be all for it.

“But if it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected then I would be livid.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing, was released on compassionate grounds from Greenock Prison in August.

The release of Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, led to a storm of protest from American relatives of Lockerbie victims.

The decision to free him and allow him to return home to Libya was taken by Kenny MacAskill, Justice Secretary in the minority SNP administration in Edinburgh.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that Detective Chief Inspector Michael Dalgleish, who was part of the original team that brought the case against Megrahi, is heading the investigation.

Four detectives from Dumfries and Galloway Police are understood to be working on the case full-time.

Megrahi, 57, a former Libyan intelligence officer, has always maintained that he had nothing to do with the bombing of Flight 103 from Heathrow to New York.

After being declared one of the two chief suspects behind the bombing by the British government in 1991, Megrahi spent nearly 10 years on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.

He finally handed himself in to the United Nations in April 1999, saying he was willing to stand trial in a neutral country.

He was convicted of the mass murder in 2001 before a panel of Scottish judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands and told he would spend a minimum of 27 years in prison before being considered for parole.

He twice appealed against his conviction, arguing the guilty verdict had been a miscarriage of justice - finally dropping his second appeal.

He was linked to the bombing by fragments of clothing that were found wrapped around the remnants of the Lockerbie bomb.

But his decision to drop his appeal left British families, many of whom are sceptical about his guilt, fearing that new information that should have been made public would remain secret.

News of a fresh inquiry comes as relatives’ group UK Families Flight 103 delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking him to instigate a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing under the auspices of the Inquiries Act 2005.

Members of the group have also requested a meeting with him.

A spokeswoman for the group said: “Since 1989 senior political figures from successive governments have agreed in principle to an inquiry but have qualified their comments by saying that it could not take place while the criminal investigation was ongoing.

“With the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s appeal against his conviction, there has been no resolution to any aspect of responsibility for the bombing.

“During the trial and subsequently, we heard of ‘significant information’ from a foreign power. On repeated occasions, Her Majesty’s Government has sought to prevent or obstruct access to documents, some viewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, for reasons of ‘national security’. We seek access to documents previously the subject of Public Interest Immunity Certificates.

“Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights demands that an inquiry into the circumstances of a death conform to certain minimum standards where it has occurred at the hands of a state or at the hands of agents of a state.

“As host nation, the state - i.e. the UK - had responsibility for the security of the aircraft, as confirmed in the findings of the Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry and for the safety of its country’s airports, as well as for the proficient use of intelligence that might have prevented the disaster.

“We maintain that there has been no investigation compliant with the Article 2 rights of the families.

“We have waited patiently for almost 21 years to learn the full truth of what happened. Now we await Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s response to our renewed calls for a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the bombing.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Iain McKie

Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 939

Location: Ayr, Scotland.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beware of the Crown Office bearing gifts.

This enquiry is to be supervised by an officer who was previously involved and has apparently 4 Dumfries and Galloway detectives working on it. Is this the level of expertise we are looking for?

Nothing in their recent behaviour convinces me that the Crown Office wish other than for this whole affair to be closed down. Their control of the whole affair is relentless. I do not trust them.
What is clearly required is the full enquiry being sought by the UK relatives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom Shielding

Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Mckie. As soon as i saw the news article re a new investigation into this case i thought much the same as yourself. They are trying to fool the masses but certainly won't fool us all. Regards Tom Shielding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How come Christine Grahame can get this kind of info with a FOI request yet some of us are denied access to our case documents

Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with the following:

Vying to be the most outspoken, punitive, secretive or draconian does nothing for Scotland’s international reputation. We need to show that compassion is not just for Christmas and that openness and transparency from those still refusing to share vital information, will not be tolerated.

Lucy Adams: 'MacAskill had nothing to gain yet he chose compassion'

Lucy Adams, 20 Nov 2009 16.16

A man is dying in Libya. 270 people have already died in the most horrendous circumstances. Their relatives are seeking answers.

Officials in Westminster and the Crown Office are still arguing about what information should or should not be shared with the public and politicians are fighting over each other to say I told you so.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is still alive. The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is still sharing in the world’s oxygen supply and there are many who wish he were not. Later this week or this month those politicians are bound to call for the resignation of the minister who released Megrahi exactly three months ago.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, released Megrahi on August 20 on compassionate grounds because he is dying. The guidelines suggest that those prisoners with a life expectancy of three months or less should be considered for such a move.

Mr MacAskill had nothing to gain and much to lose yet he chose compassion over retribution. The UK Government had a great deal to gain from the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) signed off between Westminster and Libya earlier this year. When I interviewed Saif Gaddafi in August he made clear that the deal was all about oil and money.

Although Mr MacAskill rejected the PTA, scores of people in the US threatened to boycott Scotland and its exports.

Those with a sense of perspective praised the decision of Scotland in the face of condemnation from the US and a chilling silence from Westminster.

Even they may now question the decision of Mr MacAskill, but where is the consistency in praising compassion for a man with only three months to live, and criticising compassion for a man who lives for three months and two weeks?

Megrahi is desperately ill but he is still alive. Imagine that now he is back with family in Tripoli he may live for four or five months. Should our patience with compassion run out so quickly that we begin to wish him dead?

Would it not be more constructive at this stage to support the living in finding answers to what happened to their loved ones?

Rather than calling for the resignation of the Justice Secretary, should we not focus on the way forward. Without knowing the truth about the past the path forward will always seem uncertain.

We must allow the relatives a public inquiry to deal with the questions from the past and leave the ghoulish spectacle of a man dying in Libya alone to allow him to spend his few remaining days in peace.

Vying to be the most outspoken, punitive, secretive or draconian does nothing for Scotland’s international reputation. We need to show that compassion is not just for Christmas and that openness and transparency from those still refusing to share vital information, will not be tolerated.

Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the most credible reads yet on Lockerbie

29 Nov 2009
New investigation reports evidence of non-semtex explosion on Pan Am 103
A report by investigative journalist Stewart Nicol has found further evidence that the explosives event which brought down Pan Am 103 was not caused by semtex as maintained by the Crown.

His report, entitled “Pan Am 103: What Really Happened” recounts eyewitness testimony from explosives engineers and eyewitnesses whose evidence was overlooked by the Zeist trial, which indicates both that a far larger explosion or series of explosions took place aboard the plane than proposed by the discredited Zeist evidence, and that the plane may have been under control at far lower altitudes than previously reported.

“The first blast may well have been at 31,000 feet, but the catastrophic explosions and break up happened at a much lower level than is said,” the report says.

“The fact that the Fire brigade in their report say that there was a kerosene mist in the air and a concern about fire around the town that tells you fuel may have been dumped. A frantic fight to save the flight must have happened, just prior to the catastrophic final explosions, and demise of the “Maid of the Seas.

“The massive destruction of the plane suggests, according to one expert I contacted, that at least 5 kilos (over 10lbs) must have been used to destroy the jet and that that material was close to the skin of the aircraft. Or possibly military quality munitions.

“The 800 square miles [of debris] tells you that the plane was ripped to pieces and indeed the severe damage to a number of the bodies underlines the fact of a massive series of explosions. The fact some bodies were ripped apart and others with horrific injuries is witness to the power and energy of the explosions.”

Nicol, who is known to have been investigating the Pan Am 103 events for in excess of three years, is not the first to conclude that a small amount of semtex could not have caused the catastrophic destruction of a Boeing 747.

Earlier this year Professor Robert Black and UN Observer Hans Kochler challenged the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini to demonstrate the Crown’s “scientifically implausible” semtex theory. She declined.

The failure of the Zeist trial process to consider material evidence was criticised by UN Observer Hans Kochler, who concluded that government operatives had ensured crucial evidence was withheld.

“The presence of de facto governmental representatives of both sides in the courtroom gave the trial a highly political aura that should have been avoided by all means," he reported.

“It was a consistent pattern during the whole trial that − as an apparent result of political interests and considerations − efforts were undertaken to withhold substantial information from the Court.

“Foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court.”

Nicol reports that the analysis prepared by explosives engineer John Parkes and delivered to the then Scottish Office was “lost by them and never used in the first trial, and then they did not use it at the appeal. This document is a fairly important one,” he says.

“Written by an explosives demolition man and a former military man with many connections he outlined that the bomb described could not do the damage to the Jumbo jet that occurred. He also was at the autopsy of a young girl aged about nine where he pointed out clear evidence of fragmentation to the body in her back and calves, but not on her thighs or buttocks Her socks, which were pitted with burn marks round burn marks, he felt should give valuable information on what caused the blasts.”

The Firm reported on this aspect of the case in 2007, and concluded that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant an investigation into the possibility that an accidental explosion -possibly of munitions components- may have triggered the destruction of the plane.

Nicol’s analysis also includes testimony that suggests Pan Am 103 may not have been destroyed by a single explosives event, and may have under control at lower altitudes and visible to ground witnesses.

“William Eckardt’s lengthy article on Lockerbie in the Scientific American highlights a wide range of evidence never seeing the light of day in the court. Considering his wide experience and expertise and that at the time he had been the President of the North American Medical Examiners association, his eye witness accounts hint at a much lower level of fall to the ground,” he adds.

Testimony given at the Zeist trial supports the proposition that the plane may have been intact and under control at low level before being destroyed by the final explosions which broke the aircraft apart.

During his testimony, witness Roland Stephenson said he saw the Pan Am 103 travelling in a “glide path“, coming in at a “shallow angle".

“It was showing some form of lights, probably a small flame, no great flame or anything, enough for me to see the dark shape and the passage of the object, which appeared to me to be travelling in what I would call a glide path. It was coming at a shallow angle. It was travelling from the extreme right of the town to the extreme left of the town. It appeared to be travelling more or less the line of the main road,” he said.

“But it wasn't descending sharply.”

Cross examined by counsel if he had any experience of aircraft, Stephenson said he had lived under two airport flight paths, including the famous Kai Tak in Hong Kong where large jets descended amidst the built up central conurbations.

“I used to live in Hounslow West, which is right under the main runway of the approach to London airport. I also lived in Hong Kong on the actual level with the glide path where planes land at Kai-Tak. I was very familiar,” he said.

And witness Jasmine Bell testified that on the night of the event she saw the plane “just going over my head” at just above roof height, but did not see it hit the ground.

Even More Readings:

Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since it is clear from this story below that Megrahi would never have been released under any PTA agreements, why did Kenny MacAskill get him to drop his appeal when he visited him at Greenock.

It is quite clear from Maggie Scott's statement to the court when Megrahi dropped his appeal that he was doing so on the understanding it would afford him a better chance of release, my understanding is his appeal could have continued and would only have had to be dropped for any PTA and not for Compassionate Release.

Did Kenny MacAskill ask him to drop his appeal and if so Why ?

Tony Blair kept colleagues in the dark over Megrahi deal, claims Alex SalmondScottish first minister suggests Jack Straw and Lord Falconer believed UK would refuse Libya's demands for Lockerbie bomber to be included in prisoner transfer treaty
Comments (5)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent, Tuesday 12 January 2010 16.14 GMT Article history
Scottish first minister Alex Salmond. Photograph: David Cheskin/PA

Tony Blair failed to tell two of his most senior cabinet colleagues about secret plans to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner-for-trade deal with Libya, Alex Salmond has suggested.

The first minister suggested that Lord Falconer, one of Blair's most trusted political friends, and Jack Straw, the justice secretary, believed that the UK would block Libya's demands for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to be included in a new prisoner transfer treaty.

But the ministers were not "in the loop" with Blair's plans to include Megrahi in that treaty in his controversial "deal in the desert" with Muammar Gaddafi in May 2007 – plans that were eventually agreed with the Libyans by Gordon Brown in December 2007.

Salmond today told the Scottish affairs select committee at the Commons that, throughout the summer of 2007, Falconer and Straw had repeatedly reassured the Scottish government, both in letters and in face-to-face meetings, that Megrahi would be excluded from the treaty.

Salmond told the committee that the Scottish nationalist government in Edinburgh had consistently opposed the proposal to allow Megrahi to be included.

Salmond said that Falconer, who was justice secretary until Blair stood down in June 2007, had "explicitly said: 'This isn't a difficulty. We've told the Libyans that Megrahi won't be included,' and Jack Straw in July of that year said quite openly that he didn't see any great difficulty, they would just negotiate a PTA [prisoner transfer agreement] which would give us the assurances we desired."

Salmond believed that transferring Megrahi to Libya before his 26-year life sentence was over would breach an undertaking to the US government and US relatives before Megrahi's trial that the Libyan would remain in a Scottish jail.

But in December 2007, after Gordon Brown had become prime minister, the UK government reneged on that position and, Salmond alleged, the deal with the US, when it revealed that the prisoner transfer agreement did not exclude Megrahi.

Straw was forced to say the government now believed it was in the UK's "overwhelming national interests", claiming that the UK's business dealings, security and its desire to see Libya re-enter the international community, overrode Scotland's objections.

Salmond said there was "again an 'evolution' in the UK government's position over this period".

He told the committee, which is investigating inter-government relations between Edinburgh and London, that the prisoner treaty was wrong. "It was a mistake because it raised an expectation by the Libyan government that Mr Megrahi would be included in such a prisoner transfer," he said.

"It was a mistake because it cut across the due process of Scots law, because one of the provisions of prisoner transfer is that legal proceedings would have to come to an end.

"It was a mistake because it was cut across what we believe to be prior agreements with the United States government and the relatives."

Giving evidence immediately after Salmond, the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, told the committee he had no regrets about his decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as he is dying from terminal cancer.

"We followed the rules and guidance. We believe we came to the right decision for the right reasons," he said.

Straw and Falconer have been approached for a response.

Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Wullie

Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5125

Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NEWS05 Feb 2010
Justice Committee hammers Al-Megrahi release decision: "Extremely concerned" - further referral to Parliament recommended
The Holyrood Justice Committee has published its report into the Justice Minister's handling of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to Libya, and has severely criticised crucial aspects of the decision.

In particular, it says that a transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement should not have been allowed whilst the Crown case against Megrahi was outstanding.

Megrahi's own counsel, Maggie Scott QC expressed concern to the court at the time that Megrahi's release appeared to be conditional upon him dropping his ongoing appeal.

"The Committee is extremely concerned about some aspects of the process leading up to the decision, particularly the decision to allow representations in person by Mr al-Megrahi in Greenock prison, the reasoning behind the refusal of the PTA application, the lack of clarity as to the basis on which compassionate release was granted and the fact that the announcement of the decision was not made to the Parliament," the report concludes.

The committee also said they were still unclear as to Kenny MacAskill's reasoning for returning Megrahi to Libya.

"Despite the Cabinet Secretary’s statement and his oral evidence, the Committee remains unclear as to the criteria which the Cabinet Secretary considered," the report stated.

UN observer Hans Kochler stated that he suspected a "covert deal" had been reached to facilitate Megrahi's release. The Firm also reported that Peter Mandelson of the UK Government had met Saif Al Gadaffi shortly before the release.

The Justice Committee recommends that the Scottish Government conduct a full examination of the implications of the decisions, which is likely to add to pressure for a full inquiry to be initiated.

The committee's report can be read here.


Dum spiro spero.
Militamus sub spe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Test Forum 1 All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 54, 55, 56  Next
Page 10 of 56

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.