Gauci and the Czech Photo

24 November 2010
last edits 26 December

Just What was Identified
From the revived JREF discussion thread Tony Gauci and the Mystery Shopper comes a very interesting nexus of questions surrounding critical images of "Lockerbie bomber" Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. In later pages there, Rolfe, Buncrana, Pete2, and myself are re-considering the image by which shopkeeper Tony Gauci linked al-Megrahi to the wreckage of PA 103 with his "identification" of the Libyan as the buyer of a certain set of clothes.

Although Tony had been talking to the police since September 1989, this historic fingering only happened on 15 February 1991, when Mr. Gauci was shown another spread of 12 faces. According to his statement, he at first felt all were too young to be the buyer, and selected none of them. The police refused to take no for an answer, and asked him to again "look at all the photographs carefully and to try and allow for any age difference." [Gauci 15/2/91] On the second pass he pointed to picture number 8 from the left. This was an image of al-Megrahi obtained by investigators from Czechoslovakia. For those unfamiliar, the undated big-hair image used for the slot in question is shown below.

Now, what Tony said pointing at this notably low-quality image and its obscuring noise, is less than amazing. His police statement following the session records it as:
“...similar to the man who bought the clothing. The hair is perhaps a bit long. The eyebrows are the same. The nose is the same, and his chin and shape of face are the same. The man in the photograph is in my opinion, in his thirty years. He would perhaps have to look about ten years older, and he would look like the man who bought the clothes. It's been a long time now and I can only say that this photograph resembles the man who bought the clothing, but it is younger.”
Back in 1989 he had given the buyer as a burly six-foot-plus Libyan, aged approximately 50 years. Our 5'8" villain al-Megrahi was but 36 at the time of purchase. And instinctively, this photo looks to me quite young, taken perhaps a decade before the 1988 purchase. He looks almost too young, with the apparence of baby fat on those long al Megrahi cheeks... and with the cheeks and nose actually seeming shorter... the lips and nose look different...

In fact, the image used is highly unusual, bearing such little resemblance to Megrahi one could be excused for wondering, as I have, if this really is him. The Lockerbie case is so special, I can't see ruling out such a simple thing as a misattributed photograph. However, there's a certain logic to presuming the image is genuine - it would be a massive risk that the picture could be proven to be of some other person, or even altered.

I remain convinced by an earlier experiment I did with photo comparison that I don't think I documented. Even with the apparent facial differences, this could well be Megrahi, taken a bit "chin-up," showing nostrils, more upper lip, shortening the face and nose as seen. Nothing in the overall proportions ruled out the same face. The hair obviously is unlike anything else we've seen him wearing, which when long is more like in the photo shown below.

The image at left was taken for the false passport in the name "Abdusamad" issued by Libyan authorities in mid-1987, age 35. It was used on a few occasions, including a now-famous trip to Malta on 20-21 December 1988. As I've explained elsewhere, this is a legitimate clue - if not for Megrahi's guilt, then for why he was selected for framing.

The image itself is the most widely seen photo of the accused from the 1990s onward. It's not unlike the others taken since then as the man gained new fame as the accused - and then convicted - "Lockerbie bomber." This verifiable likeness is very unlike the photo Tony pointed to, and to which we now return.

The Hair
What Megrahi looked like before and after the Abdusamad photograph is unclear. Whether the raging afro seen in the Czech photo was chopped down before the above or grew in after it can't yet be established (but most clues point to some time before). However, one thing we know it does, among all images of al-Megrahi, is bring him close to matching the plumage style of Gauci's buyer. 

At left is the police artist's sketch based on Tony's description of the mystery shopper, 13 September 1989. The likeness is uncanny in its near-exclusion of Megrahi. It just doesn't look a lick like him, especially with this intense, angular, face, compared to Megrahi's soft features he later pointed to. And all this on a "large head" atop a 6-foot-plus frame to Meegrahi's 5'8" and Tony Gauci's 5'3".

One main feature to note is the dense afro-style haircut atop a clear expanse of forehead. The tightness of the curl is different by a long shot from any photo of Megrahi I've seen. His dangling ramen-wiggle expanses seem incapable of the tightly spherical sculpted look of the artist's sketch.

And here is the "Photofit" or "composite face" image compiled from Gauci's descriptions, given the same day as the above. They share the same basic hair, here a bit longer and fuzzier at the top. Otherwise, the two look drastically different from each other in the lips, chin, eyes, eyebrows, nose, and cheeks.

Tony did specify the sketch was a better likeness than the photo-thing, but agreed both resembled the buyer quite a bit. This almost seems to say "if you can find a photo of anyone with this kind of mid-sized 'fro that I think you guys want to prosecute, I will say it looks like the man." 

Prior to al-Megrahi, Tony had selected others as a match for the buyer, like Mohammed Abu Talb, famously in December 1989. Abu Talb didn't really fit by hair; his appeal was more from the word "bomber" across the corner of his face.  And Tony once pointed out  Mohamed Salam - a pretty good likeness of the sketch in both hair and face - on a less famous occasion. Like al-Megrahi, both of these men were at least a decade  too young. 

Perhaps Megrahi's undated fro was an earlier thing, from his 20s. But other than the Czech photo, we've only seen Megrahi with less hair and apparently more hair product. Buncrana found a photo of Megrahi at about age 19 - a student visa is from when he was studying in Wales, around 1971 (first revealed by the Sun back in August). We can here recognize al-Megrahi's longish features as a stylish young man. A little quiet-looking, but with a wild frontal swoop, almost a bouffant, coming halfway to his eyebrows. Quite unlike Tony's buyer, the Megrahi images show nary a clear forehead, especially in the questionable Czech photo.  And unlike that photo, this one actually looks like the guy it's supposed to be. 

Czech Photo Origin, Age, and Effects 
What was shown was not that Megrahi was or even actually resembled the buyer. All we learned on 15 February was that, among a selection of 12 pictures, Megrahi's could be made to be reported as the one most resembling the buyer, so long as you pick one that doesn't really look like him, while giving him something like the right hair.

This highly useful image was supplied to the investigation by intelligence from Czechoslovakia, says lead FBI investigator Richard Marquise. [see Sent Home to Die, Youtube posting 17:48] In his 2006 book he gave no explanation I could find about when the investigation got this picture, why it's of such poor quality, and what info came with it.  He acknowledge that "no one could positively date the photograph shown to Gauci." [SCOTBOM p. 127 - Google Books link] This may be of key importance below.

Marquise and his faux-witness Abdul Majid Giaka agree the photo Tony pointed to showed a young man, who was Meagrahi. "Giaka had looked at the Czech passport picture identified by Gauci. He said it was Megrahi when he was much younger." [p 142 ] Gauci's own feeling was of a man "in his thirty years," (30s) which Megrahi then was. But this could be chalked up to the lack of clarity and the fact that nearly all men Tony had been shown were in their 30s. DI Scicluna, Maltese police, gave his own account of the 15 February ID with slightly different details.
“.. Gauci started examining the photographs and the first thing he said was that they are all too young. It was explained to him to allow for age discrepancy as the man he saw could be 10-15 years older. [...] Gauci then looked through them and again stopped at Baset’s photo and indicating it he said ‘This is similar, but it is maybe 10-15 years younger.” [Grounds of Appeal doc]
Somewhere in his 30s, plus fifteen years is close enough to a match with the 50-year old man he described. But Marquise, Bell, and Scicluna and crew didn't know how old the photo was. All they had to do, and perhaps did,  was presume the picture itself was 10 years old, and add 10 years per what Gauci said, and you've got Megrahi's age, even though it's still 14 years below what Gauci first estimated.

Further, the quality of the Czech photo is worth wondering about. If the other 11 pictures he was shown that day were all normally clear and this one only looked strange, might that itself be leading? Might Gauci think it was included for some special reason? Might he think this is some super-elusive Mullah Omar character the cops can only get a crappy picture of? Might that make him feel it's more fruitful to point at then the others?

In fact, it seems the other images were altered to lessen the difference, but a professional who reviewed the effects in 2008 felt it was insufficient and the Czech photo still stands out as the gritty, mysterious one. [see Valentine report, page 40]

And There They Stopped
However exactly he was tricked into it, this was the final identification. Tony Gauci had been picking men out of photo lineups sporadically since September 1989, at different times having picked out at least three other men as similar to the buyer, but younger. But after 15 February the exercises abruptly stopped, and investigators were somehow sure they had their man. An identified buyer of the clothes, a Libyan agent comporting with the by-then identified timer, and there as Abdusamad on the day of the bombing. Never mind that he was about five inches too short, too slight of stature and light of skin, 14 years too young, and nowhere near the island of Malta on the day the clothes were purchased.

Marquise related how, at a mid-1991 conference, Senior Investigating Officer Stuart Henderson "discussed the photo spread leading to the Gauci identification of Megrahi. Although no one could positively date the photograph shown to Gauci, he was reluctant to show any more photos without fear of tainting what he had already provided." [127-8]

Something tells me it wasn't so much "tainting" as "spoiling the moment" Henderson was worried about.  As we've seen there was a special and delicate magic about how this supposed selection of al-Megrahi was materialized. It's also clear that the other photos available, with al-Megrahi's usual hair styles and better clarity, would show Tony how unlike the buyer this Libyan was. It could conceivably screw up the ID they had and wanted to keep.

So the big-hair Czech photo remained the only one of the chosen suspect that Tony saw until the better likenesses started appearing in the news a few months later as the "Lockerbie bomber." By then the whole world knew just what the guy looked like, removing all the cahallenge from arranging the later touted pointings-out in 1999 and 2000, just before Tony helped land a conviction and his $2 million prize.
Updates 12/26: In fact, Harry Bell noted in his police diary the day of this charade that this was the only photo the Scottish police had of "Abdelbaset" and they had to use it for fear they could never find another.
"meeting with Special Agent Reid. He tried to imply that we were rushing showing the photograph spread. ....they were the ones that wanted it done before Bollier left the USA.  Also if Baset was identified, Bollier would be the last person to be told as we know he is still in contact with the Libyans. Reid has been worried in case there is no identification made by the witness because [the photo]of Baset we have is too young. I explained that as we have no other and no indication that we will ever get one, then we can only proceed with what we have. If no identification is made and we later get a better photograph showing his true age and appearance in December '88, then the Lord Advocate may
accept an argument for showing this to the witness.

The differences in any photos can be noted while accepting that to some degree it will weaken the identification at any trial."

Then, among the eight points why Megrahi was the buyer, he wrote:
(7) The SIO [Stuart Henderson] advises that Bollier has now been shown the photofit and he states that if the hair was shorter then it would indeed look like Abdelbaset, also if it was 10 to 15 years older.
They got the same response from Bollier, but apparently in reference to the Photofit, not the Czech photo, if it was older (??). Bollier claims in comments below that he was never shown the Czech photo, and had still never seen it for 20 years of highly public study, until this blog post.

(8) The SIO also advises that the photograph we have of Abdelbaset is in fact 12 years old.
This confirms the suspicion. A twelve year old photo of Megrahi would be of a man aged 26, circa 1979. Gauci thought it was of a man in his 30s, and never actually retracted his belief the man was "around 50." This looks a hell of a lot like a shell-game or three-card-trick, designed to fit Megrahi in. [See: Grounds of Appeal doc, page 42/43]
Information continues in the excellent comments below.


Rolfe said...

the quality of the Czech photo is worth wondering about. If the other 11 pictures he was shown that day were all normally clear and this one only looked strange, might that itself be leading?

This part is dealt with in the expert witness reports. Look at section 8.17.3 of Tim Valentine's report. They tried to make the pictures match by degrading the quality of the others, but in Prof Valentine's opinion this was not an unqualified success and "Megrahi's" picture stands out as the only one with a markedly grainy quality.

He talks about this, about the fact that all the policemen knew which was the suspect's picture and so could have put out unconscious clues, and about Tony rejecting all the pictures at first because the men are too young.

He just doesn't mention that the photo alleged to be of Megrahi looks no more like Megrahi than I do (OK, that bit's poetic licence....)

Rolfe said...

Pete's point about the three-card-trick with the age estimate is a very good one, that I didn't pick up on immediately.

Tony said the clothes buyer was about 50, right at the start, when nobody had any preconceptions or was trying to push him in any particular direction.

Then they started showing him a lot of pictures of 30-something guys, possibly because all the suspects they came up with were that age. (Why the terrorists couldn't just have sent Uncle Aziz to buy the clothes for them, nobody really explained.)

Tony was very willing to pick out pictures of clean-shaven Arab-looking men with big hair, as "resembling" the purchaser, and did so on several occasions. But every time he said, looked like that but this guy is too young. Including on one occasion when the picture he chose was of a guy of 47.

On 15th February 1991 it went much the same way. No these guys are all too young. Oh well just imagine if they were 10 to 15 years older. OK that one [points to one that looks very like the photofit he produced earlier....] but I estimate that he's in his 30s, and the guy I saw was about 10 to 15 years older.

Tony is quite clearly sticking to his "about 50" estimate here. He doesn't just say "ten to fifteen years older", he says "ten to fifteen years older, on the basis that this is a guy in his thirties".

But then the investigators decide that the picture is in fact of a man of 26.

So, Tony said this was like the purchaser, but ten (to fifteen) years too young. This photo is Megrahi at 26. He was 36 when Tony (allegedly) saw him. Bingo, a result. Fourteen years disappear in a puff of logic.

That's really quite cunning.

Rolfe said...

Senior Investigating Officer Stuart Henderson "discussed the photo spread leading to the Gauci identification of Megrahi. Although no one could positively date the photograph shown to Gauci, he was reluctant to show any more photos without fear of tainting what he had already provided."

The more I read this, the worse it gets.

Imagine, you're investigating a crime, and it's very important to find out exactly who it is the witness saw on a particular occasion.

You only have a very very bad likeness of your suspect, and your witness is pretty tentative in his comments. He doesn't say "oh yes I recognise him that's the man," he just says, well this man looks similar but is too young.

You then manage to secure a much better picture of your suspect, in colour, with far better resolution, and known to have been taken only a year before the witness may have seen him.

What do you do?

If you're really after the truth, you set up another ID session, this time using the better picture. (And you make sure to follow proper best practice this time.) Surely, if the witness does have a good memory of the person he saw, he'll jump on the good likeness and say, oh yes that's him!

On the other hand, if you think your witness has a poor memory of the person he saw, or that his memory is of someone fairly unlike your suspect (in fact more like the bad likeness than the real person), and you don't care a button for truth, just for getting a conviction - you do what Henderson did.

You don't show your good likeness to your witness. You stick legalistically to the "fact" that he picked out the poor likeness, and brazen it out.

It's disgusting.

Caustic Logic said...

Three excellent comments. I always have to respond and say something, but I'm tired by now. Didn't even read them all just yet. Thanks for the tip on Dr. Valentine's insights. That's worth updating the post over, quite possibly. Nah ... I like having some of the good stuff stay in the comments to compel people to not miss them.

ebol said...


Dubious, on the same day, Wedensday 7th of December 1988, as Mr Megrahi arrived in Malta, the police provides the Robot-image from the buyer of the sale of clothes by Gauci... (Ref. Swiss police)
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland, URL:

ebol said...

Apology, I hope the information to me, from Swiss police, that the artist representation was made on 7 November 1988 is incorrectly ? The robot drawing was made on 13.Sept.1989 ?

+++ At an even earlier stage, said Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gauci had helped to prepare a photofit and an artist's impression of the purchaser. The artist's impression is Production 427, and the photofit 430.
And these appear to bear a close resemblance, particularly to the photograph picked out by Mr. Gauci
of the accused. +++

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd

Caustic Logic said...

Yes, the images were made only after Scots police had talked to Tony and gotten his description. I have no idea why someone would tell you (??) these were made the day of the purchase oor thereabouts. And that was of course 23 November, not 7 December.

And these appear to bear a close resemblance, particularly to the photograph picked out by Mr. Gauci

Disagreed. The sketch and photofit match with Megrahi in the sense that he, too, has a face. The sketch and the "composite face" to me look nothing like each other except in the hair. But Tony said the sketch was a better match to the buyer, while the photofit is slightly closer to resembling Megrahi.

Of all photos of the accused, this Czech photo is the closest fit to either, but even then it's not a "close resemblance," in my opinion, not even by the unusual hair.

Caustic Logic said...

From the grounds of appeal report, support for the "three card trick" regarding age:

Entry for 11th October 1989. Although redacted, this mentions a meeting with Gauci, DCI Bell and Mr Henderson and makes “reference” to the fact that Tony’s judgement of age may be questionable, and that the number of photographs being shown to him may “confuse matters”

Yet for 17 months the confusion continued until the one final point to Megrahi. Suddenly Henderson doesn't want to"taint" it any further. As Rolfe points out above, this is not a good sign as far as procedure is concerned. It was clearly only technically an ID of the Libyan, not a real, firm, repeated ID with better photos used in the other instances.

And if Tony were ever that clear, it would look even worse in a way, since Megrahi clearly is not the buyer. Again, he was too short, too young, too slight, too light, has the wrong face and wrong hair, and was was not on Malta at all the day in question.

pete said...

What's baffling me is that, according to the records, the Americans had two different photographs of Megrahi, and got Edwin Bollier to pick out the best likeness:

Memo M2618 from SIO to WMFO (11/2/91): “…It would be very much appreciated if
the Quantico team could introduce as early as possible the photographs of the Libyans to
Bollier. It is imperative to determine which photograph of Abdelbaset is the best
reproduction of how he looked in December 1988 before the photograph selection is
shown to Gauci. Is it the one with the collar and tie or the one with the open neck
shirt?...I would wish to avoid misleading the witness Gauci during the photograph
viewing, if at all possible. It would avoid the impossible situation of showing two photos
of the same suspect…”

Extract from DCI Bell Diary (11/2/91): “Attended US Embassy with McAdam. Met
with SA Reid who produced a number of photos…Two photos of Abdelbaset one with
collar/tie, one with open shirt. Point: Bollier in his statement picks out photo 18 stating it
is Baset. We must confim the ID and use this to show witness in spread.”

So what was the other photo, and was it really a worse likeness than the Czech photo?

Where's Bollier when you need him?

Herr Bollier:
als Sie in Februar 1991 in Amerika waren, DCI Bells Tagebuch zufolge, hat man Ihnen einige Fotos gezeigt, in der Hoffnung dass Sie in der Lage wäre, sie zu identifizeren.

Herr Bell schrieb dass die Amerikaner Sie zwei Fotos von Megrahi gezeigt hatten, und dass Sie haben einer der Fotos, "nummer 18", in dem er einen Anzug und einer Krawatte trug, als gute Abbild von Megrahi ausgewählt. Könnten Sie für uns das zweite Foto beschreiben? Es wundert mich, dass es ein schlechteres Bild gab als das Foto, das man im 15.2.91-Fotoschau verwendet hat.

Caustic Logic said...

Insane ... "which photo is best - the one that looks like him, or the one that looks a bit like Tony's buyer? SIO Henderson doesn't want to "confuse" the poor guy."

After some reflection, we know which one they chose.

From what I know I'd guess the tie photo is the Czech one, and the open-collar one is the Abdusamad photo. That could easily be wrong but maybe 50/50 that could be just it. If so, the inferences are clear.

Good stuff, thanks. Excellent comments action adding value-added excellence.

Rolfe said...

So they actually had the Abdusamad picture at the time they used the Czech photo in the photospread? That is bizarre.

The Abdusamad picture is in colour, and clearly of better definition. It should be the obvious pick. Surely common sense says it has to be the better likeness. But the cops don't know what Megrahi really looks like, and keep an open mind on whether the blurry black-and-white snap might actually be more like the real man.

So they find someone who knows what Megrahi looks like, and ask him. And that someone is Edwin. And he picks the blurry, unrecognisable picture over the decent likeness.

I don't suppose we're going to get an explanation of this, no indeedy.

Caustic Logic said...

We don't know that, but I'd be willing to bet ten dollars on it. There are only so many pics to chose from.

I doubt Bollier himself would be any help here. He'd have to know what the buyer sketch and photofit show for hair, and which of the two was closer to that. But something tells me they didn't deal with just him, but rather pulled a Clever Hans thing to have him launder their own desire to use the one closer to what Tony described in the hair and simply less visible in the face area. A little more of the Bollier-style laundering with him, subtle cues... bingo.

ebol said...

Attn. pete

Bei meinem Besuch bei FBI in Washington 1991, wurden mir im Laufe meiner Befragungen ein Porträt- Photo von Abdelbaset Al Megrahi gezeigt.( No.?) Ich erkannte Al Megrahi zweifelsfrei. Parallel dazu wurde mir ein Robotphoto (No.?) gezeigt, welches nahezu 100% dem ersten Porträt glich !

Ich war erstaunt und sagte zu meinen USA-Begleter, FBI Attache Rober Fanning, dass das Robotbild praktisch gleich nachgezeichnet war wie das original Photo-Bild...
Ich wollte hören was er dazu sagte.

Er durfte aber keine Antwort geben; also habe ich mich entschlossen nicht zuviel anzunehmen und gab an, das Robotbild entspricht etwa 50% des original Porträts.
Der Interviewer meinte nicht mehr in % ?... Darauf erhöte ich, selbst überzeugt, auf 70%. Der Interviewer sagte o.k. und trug auf einem vorgeschriebenen FBI-Dokument mit angeheftetem Robotbild, 70% ein.

Ob das Robotbild dem, bekannten veröffentlichten FBI "artist rendition" entsprochen hatte, bezweifle ich ! Nach meiner Erinnerung war das Robotphoto-Bild perfekter nach dem Bild von mr.
Al Megrahi,s nachgezeichnet.

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland. URL:

pete said...

Edwin's reply:

During my visit to the FBI in Wahington in 1991 a portrait photograph of Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was shown to me in the course of my questioning. I recognised Al Megrahi without a doubt. Parallel to that I was shown an identikit picture which was almost a 100% match forthe first portrait!

I was astonished, and said to my American handler, FBI Attache Robert Fanning, that the identikit picture was practically a tracing of the original photograph...I wanted to hear what he said to that.

He could not answer; therefore I decided not to assume too much, and stated that the identikit picture was a 50% match for the original picture. The interviewer said, no more that that, as a percentage? On this I increased, being convinced myself, to 70%. The interviwere said ok and entered "70%" on a preprinted FBI document with attached identikit picture.

Whether the identikit picture did correspond to any known published FBI "artist rendition", I doubt it! By my recollection the identikit picture was a perfect tracing of the picture of Mr Al Megrahi.

Herr Bollier,

Nur um ganz deutlich zu sein:
In dem Artikel "Gauci and the Czech Photo" auf diesem Blog, gibt es mehrere Fotos, darunter eine Künstler-Skizze und ein Robotphoto. Können Sie sagen, ob du unter ihnen die in Washington gezeigtene Bilder erkennen?

ebol said...

Attn. pete

Die Fotos, das Robotbild und die Zeichnung vom 13.9.89, habe ich vor dem Besuch bei FBI (1991) bereits bei Swiss Police gesehen. Die Foto von Al Megrahi auf dem Ausweis der University of Wales habe ich erstmals dieses Jahr auf DIVIDE gesehen.

Beim FBI habe ich eine gute Porträt Foto von Al Megrahi gesehen und gleichzeitig eine perfekte Zeichnung (nicht Robotfoto). Ich habe zuvor die Zeichnung falsch als Robotfoto bezeichnet. Die Zeichnung von Al Megrahi entsprach fast 100% der Foto Abbildung. Diese Zeichnung habe ich später nicht bei Scottish Police und nicht bei Swiss Police in den Fotobücher gesehen.

Das Polizei-Dokument, welches ich bei FBI (1991) unterschreiben musste, war bis auf die Zahl 70%, mit einem Text ausgefüllt gewesen.
Die Zeichnung, in Postkarten Grösse, wurde zusammen mit der Foto an das Protokoll angeklammert.

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland, 14.Dec.2010

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks, Pete, for the translation work there. I've been unable to keep up here lately.

Ebol, translated:
During my visit to the FBI in Wahington in 1991 a portrait photograph of Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was shown to me in the course of my questioning. I recognised Al Megrahi without a doubt. Parallel to that I was shown an identikit picture which was almost a 100% match for the first portrait!

The photo was the one discussed here, the "Czech photo," correct? This "identikit" image sounds like the "photofit" or "composite face" image? Robotphoto? I'm confused what it is you're saying was such a suspicious match.

Das Foto war das, das hier, das " besprochen wurde; Tschechisches Foto, " korrekt? Dieses " identikit" Bild klingt wie das " photofit" oder " zusammengesetztes face" Bild? Robotphoto? I' m verwirrte, was es you' ist; ReSprechen war solch ein misstrauisches Gleiches.

ebol said...

Attn. Gaustic Logic

The photo was the one discussed here, the "Czech photo," correct? No, the "Czech photo" has nothing to do with the drawing in the FBI. The FBI was signed artist rendition of a photograph of Al Megrahi. Passport Porträt
The Czech photo I have only seen on their website DIVIDE.

best Edwin Bollier

Caustic Logic said...

The Czech photo I have only seen on their website DIVIDE. best Edwin Bollier

Hmm. That's interesting. So did they show you two photos of Abdelbaset, one with a collar and tie, one with an open collar shirt? Memo above says the cops wanted to. I had presumed the one with the tie, cropped, is the Czech photo, and you told them it was the better likeness. But you've never seen it before, in all your years of Lockerbie research?

I feel so exclusive to be the first! No, wait - it's put on that I'm feeling.

Books and Manuals said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often..

rachelle madrigal