A Meeting of the Minds?

3 October 2010

Here I'd like to float an exciting nexus of nebulous ideas I discussed a bit with "Full Inquiry" and "Rolfe" earlier today in the comments under the latter's "Rewards and Bribery" post. In essence, FI suggested a gathering of relevant minds and players in the Lockerbie issue, perhaps in Lockerbie itself. Jim Swire, Robert Black, Rolfe and myself (of course), perhaps Edwin Bollier, and someone like Richard Marquise for the other side, and even Megrahi and/or Fhimah themselves.

Apparently he's got some excellent coffee going on up there, and this is grandiose in numerous directions at once. All kinds of misadventures could be envisaged. But it's a thought that's definitely got me thinking a little more, and a starting point for some exploration. He suggested "perhaps Caustic could start a sign-up list on his website to gauge interest?" In a sense that's what I'm doing, but for the reasons below, it's far more vague than that.

Bollier was down right off the bat and said (in English) "I would participate immediately," while I had a little rain for the parade. "I don't think Megrahi is in any state to travel for both medical and legal reasons, and I doubt he or Fhimah are eager to set foot in Scotland again." I'm sure they'd send messages if asked, however.

He had suggested Rolfe might help plan the thing, but she noted it'd be either a big event or a "chatty night out," the former being well beyond her and the latter hardly being worth the hassle of long-distance travel for most folks. And not at Lockerbie, says the lady who lives in the south of Scotland. Rather, it should happen "somewhere decently far enough away from a very small town still struggling to be normal again." Agreed.

A big event with a clear goal would be worth moving people around to certain spot, and that I think would be formal, and then media coverage can enter the frame. As Rolfe further said:
An actual conference on Lockerbie, with people giving papers on various matters, going into particular aspects of the case in detail, writing it up for publication in a proceedings collection? Yes, would be great. If we genuinely had people at expert enough level to do it. I don't think we have. I'm still making embarrassing mistakes and missing points that are clearly accessible in the public domain if only one knows where to look. We could try to parcel out the subject, but actually, I don't think we're good enough.
A conference being a genuine gathering of the minds (all talking, no dancing) doesn't even have to happen in person and can be arranged easier on the Internet. A non-corporeal symposium/conference thing, with no binding powers but something brilliant, with a committee that issues an opinion and a verifiable report.

"We" as it stands are not up to a professional-level analysis or anything that could convince most ordinary citizens, let alone governments. But there are many others who are experts and are sympathetic or else can be convinced to get involved. Funds could be raised for the whole thing to pay experts to consider something in their field as fully and honestly as possible and pass on their conclusions. We need new forensics tests to confirm or refute those of Dr. Wyatt, for one extreme example, and a wider range of expert analyses of Gauci's witness statements, for a less violent one. Certainly a panel on who did take down 103 is in order, assessing how justly the original lines of inquiry were cut off, and what was likely missed.

So other possibilities emerge, tying into the ongoing calls for a full public inquiry, sooner rather than never. Isn't there something in the UN Human Rights charter about spontaneous people's inquiries if government's aren't responsive? Well, maybe there should be if not, and either way such an undertaking might just win acceptance in the court of public opinion. That can lead to legal reality for an idea in fairly direct ways.
Comments: Mostly thoughts on this line of interest. What might work, be a bad idea, one possible aim, time or place, etc.


Charles said...

I have long thought that a conference (an all good men come to the aid of the party sort of thing) would be wonderful, but I think most of use would only want to participate on their own terms.

Marquise would, of course, refuse on principle to do it, as old Mr "Read my lips" would only want to be the outcome that we read his, and I've dispensed with his sort of dissimulation long ago.

Ms. R, whom many make much of, I find in the end unimaginative and unambitious in thought, though I admire her insights occasionally, I wonder when she'll stop turning over the compost heap that is the evidence that is Lockerbie, andso-called actually think about it.

Professor B, has made it clear he holds me now in contempt, and really because I raised some issues about his involvement with Libya. As I have pointed out I have been compensated through a French charitable foundation by that country, at arms length, but I hope I think I honestly think I accepted that money because Libya actually did UTA.

Whether or not they did Lockerbie is irrelevant to that argument, but I am glad I was never put in a position of having to make a decision of Libyan guilt over it. Would I have been principled enough to refuse? I think not.

Jim would be a difficulty, for I have put forward four cogent reasons and many more les cogent as to why the PFLP GC or PPSF did not do the bombing. Jim, I think, it would be fair to say, has at times been closely associated with a PFLP GC attribution, and I think that wrong.

As for the wide number of deniers who will pick on a particular point in your argument, twist it, then say you are a denier, a conspiracy theorists or worse, I would have nothing to say to them.

One man thinks I am as right as one can be, but a conference of two is a bit thin, isn't it.

VC, LJ the late TS are out as is HW, but he won't sue.

Please set up the conf,, if you can, but and if you want invite me, but don't expect me to cahnge the general tenor of my position by a single iota.

As for Lockerbie? No. The town has suffered enough.


Caustic Logic said...

Thanks, Charles. Some very interesting points about money and belief. It's all hypothetical so, let's say you should be invited.

Sorry I've been too busy today to respond 'til now, and then so brief.

Caustic Logic said...

Also, FullInquiry: It might seem like I'm making fun of your notion here. And I am, a little, but in a friendly way and really, it'sof excellent spirit and a start point for something I meant to bring up.

More thoughts! But no rush!