"The Advice of Just One Doctor..."

Who said Megrahi had Three Months?
July 13 2010
last edit August 8


This post will address, if not resolve, some of the confusion about just who was responsible for that controversial decision that Abdelbaset al Megrahi was likely to die within three months or less. As the span since then stretches to a year, the pressure has risen to investigate just how this decision was made in the first place.


First, the "three months" benchmark, while important, is over-stated in its importance. The rules on Compassionate Release state as one of its main criteria:

"Those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period."
Scottish Government Website, Sept. 1 2009

That is, the "bomber" could have been sent home even without this supposedly pivotal prognosis. To actually do so would court criticism that the 3-month guideline hadn't been met, however, so it was useful in that regard.

One Doctor = Sikora
The recent slew of press reports is a little vague and confused on the number and identity of the doctors responsible for the prognosis in question. But the over-arching impression is most sources originally citing "one unnamed doctor," who later seemed to be questionable cancer expert-for-hire, Karol Sikora. He was paid by “Libyan officials,” and so, as one comment grossly summed it up, Scotland allowed “one terrorist diagnose another terrorist.”


MSNBC, July 4 2010

“The doctor who said he would maybe only have three months to live now says he could live another ten years.”

CNN, July 5 2010

"... the Sunday Times said it could only find one doctor who admits giving three months to live. Dr. Karol Sikora was hired by Libyan officials, who asked him to assess the patient. He told the Times, "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for"...

Daily Fail, 5 July

"The cancer expert who predicted the Lockerbie bomber would die within three months of his release from prison has admitted he could live for another ten years or more."

New York Daily News, July 7:

"It's bad enough that Megrahi still hasn't died. It's even more stomach-turning that the doctor who provided the convenient initial prognosis now says the released terrorist might live 10 years, maybe even 20. That's the latest word from cancer specialist Dr. Karol Sikora ..."

SF Gate, July 7:

"Megrahi's doctor [sic], Professor Sikura [sic], was the only expert who would assert Megrahi had only three months to live."

Scotsman, July 8

The senators [Schumer, Lautenberg, Menendez, Gilibrand] wrote: "The doctor responsible for the key medical opinion has told the media that not only could Mr al-Megrahi live another ten years, but that the Libyan government had commissioned the doctor to make his assessment, expressly because the Libyan government hoped for a three-month prognosis. This is outrageous."

A Panel and No Sikora

Four senators, including a Kirsten Gilibrand, wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald,asking for answers about what Sikora had said. NY Daily News, Mouth of the Potomac:

Sheinwald denies the physician influenced the release at all, saying a panel of doctors made the recommendation. “This group did not include Prof. Sikora,” Sheinwald wrote in a letter to Gilibrand obtained by The Mouth.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/brits-deny-docs-libyan-tale.html


Earlier, the Scottish government had said the same thing:

"The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Libyans had paid for the medical advice of three doctors and "encouraged" them to form the opinion that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live.
A [Scottish Government] spokesman said: "This report is false and factually incorrect.

“The Director of Health and Care at the Scottish Prison Service drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for the patient.

These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient.

They did not include Karol Sikora, Jonathan Waxman or Ibrahim Sherif, whose assessments played no part in considerations – including no part in the report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/

One Man = Andrew Fraser and/or an Unnamed Doctor
Besides MacAskill, at least one other decision-maker in the Scottish justice system, who is in fact a doctor, did make the, or a, crucial call in all this:


Daily Record, August 26:

"Four specialists said in June and July that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could live for up to 10 months and was not sick enough to be released.
But less than a month later, prison service medical director Andrew Fraser told MacAskill that in his opinion, Megrahi's prostate cancer had got much worse.
He said it was now "reasonable" to predict that he would be dead within three months."

The Times, August 28 2009

"The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scottish Prison Service."

It seems worth wondering if Andrew Fraser is that "one doctor" whose opinion was relied on. But it seems there was another one consulting, who supported or informed this endorsement.




Daily Mail,28 August 2009

"It emerged that the doctor who advised that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had fewer than three months to live was not an expert in prostate cancer.
[…]
The report to Mr MacAskill […] contains a reference to an unnamed doctor who 'dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer'. It added: 'Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week [26 July to 3 August]. The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.'"

Telegraph, August 25

Bill Aitken, Scottish Tory justice spokesman, said: “In June and July, there was a consensus on prognosis of eight months. Where is that consensus now? ”We only have the opinion of one anonymous individual - not the range of medical experts promised.”
[...]
Dr Simpson [...said] ”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”

Following Fraser'sreport, but just prior to MacAskill's decision, a clue emerges:
Daily Record, August 26:

On August 20, the day before MacAskill announced Megrahi's release, a cancer specialist asked by Libya to examine the bomber told the minister to make an "urgent" decision.
Professor Karol Sikora said: "We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
Sikora said he visited Megrahi in Greenock jail on July 28, along with Professor Ibrahim Sheriff from the Tripoli medical centre and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul-general in Scotland.

Telegraph, 4 July 2010

"The Scottish government insists Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who took the final decision to release Megrahi, based his ruling on a medical report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). A spokesman said Professor Sikora’s advice to Libya “had no part to play in considerations on the Megrahi case."

A Panel With Sikora
Many sources in fact cite or collectively suggest a panel of four doctors, voting either 3/4 or 4/4 against three months, but overridden by Dr. Fraser and/or the fourth doctor.  The balance suggests Dr. Sikora was the dissenter.


At least one of these reports stands out for differing. From early April, well between "three months" and "ten or 20 years":


Scotsman, April 5 2010:

"Karol Sikora was one of three specialists who refused to concur with the prognosis by a prison doctor last August that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live when he was released last year.
[…]
"I say he will be dead within four weeks," said Mr Sikora, the medical director of Cancer Partners and Dean of Buckingham University medical school."

This last oddball aside, it seems Dr.Sikora was indeed the one doctor on a panel of four, once anonymous but now named, who gave Fraser a possible 3-month message. And urgently, according to the Daily Record's report. From there, of course, it had to be accepted by Fraser and reccommended in his report to the Justice Secretary. And from there, Secretary MacAskill had to make the decision  that he alone claims responsibility for - to release what he considered to be a man responsible for the murder of 270 souls.


Libya's payments to Karol Sikora do little to explain any of that. Other interests must be considered to get even the faintest understanding of how compassionate release was leveraged here. Looming above all considerations, I suspect, was Megrahi's second appeal and its ominous threat to the Scottish Justice system. Perhaps a magic ticket like Dr. Fraser proposed, with strings attached (or rather implied) by that system's guardian, Mr. MacAskill, could be used as the lever to pry that appeal away from its rightful owner. If one also considers the urgency of death some months off, and a conspicuously stalled appeal process, stretching out like a sunset shadow well past the grave, it becomes clear just how absolutely ripe the situation was to exploit this way. As Rolfe puts it:

If it was actually possible to infect someone with prostate cancer, I'd suspect Kenny MacAskill (or his predecessor, since the diagnosis was actually made in 2008) of doing just that. It's the most convenient diagnosis since Socrates swallowed the hemlock.

---

Leaked Documents Reveal Gory Details of Megrahi Release Decision

August 1 2010
update Aug 3

A small vanguard of US Senators have been pursuing/demanding an investigation into the early release nearly one year ago of "Lockerbie bomber" Abdelbaset ali al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison. At first the probe was to be into the role of vilified oil company BP in the release. But after no one agreed to show up, and the Senators realized that limited scope wouldn't take them far at all, they decided on a wider probe into the full body of little-understood circumstances surrounding the release. (Except for Megrahi's appeal - see below)

The details of any inquiry or discussion are still being discussed, but in the meantime, anyone who has an interest in this much derided decision might want to look at the classified Scottish Government documents:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie
The highly revealing reports were leaked by the Scottish government to the Scottish government website nearly one year ago. They reveal the shadowy machinations that led to what might just be a miscarriage of justice surrounding the release of this legally guilty, schedule one terrorist.

This amazing resource has some lines of blue lettering in the middle area, which are actually links to whole subsets of the unnecessarily convoluted decision. Much of it is in PDF format - raw government reports with few redactions. Most of what's blacked out is certain names that weren't agreed, and things the U.S. government said in the run-up to Megrahi's release.

The compassionate release decision is explained, including a medical report (overview - no scientific stuff). The history, legality, and philosophy of compassionate release is explained - it wasn't invented for Megrahi. There's the PTA track (Prisoner Transfer Agreement), as lodged by Libya, lobbied by BP, green-lighted by the UK, opposed in Scotland, and finally - at the very last minute after it had apparently slain an appeal - rejected by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Both of the possible release/repatriation schemes are explained in detailed documents of the advice rendered to the secretary.

"Representations" to Mr. MacAskill, connected to the PTA process, are collected in another document. Families of Pan Am 103 victims weighed in against the transfer idea, Libyans and UK for. Mr. Megrahi's misunderstood meeting with MacAskill on August 6 is recorded in abstract, and the prisoner's 3-page note is included, ptotesting his innocence and dismay at his stalled appeal process and impending (ish) death. He was told if the PTA went ahead, which it couldn't and wouldn't, but which he implied it might, Megrahi's appeal would have to be surrendered.

If a new meeting to understand all of this is to go ahead, the Senators (who have their own brains plus research staffs) could first establish which questions have already been answered, narrow down the rest, and clarify all accordingly. Instead, we've seen insistent calls to 'get over here and explain this.' Much information was already sent to the Senators and only just yesterday did they finally say:
"Mr Menendez and Mr Lautenberg have pledged to carry out a thorough review of all documents already made public by the UK and Scottish governments..." link
That is soon they'll see if any of their questions were already answered in the informative documents they were sent a while back.

If the Senators are just alittle slow and not downright impaired, once it's all clear enough they will come around to the Scottish view. Then they can hopefully finally explain this to the American public, and much of the anger and confusion will dissipate. But even in this best-case scenario, I predict any such hearing will prove a farce. Both sides in this (Scottish and American, as it will come down) agree on concealing the biggest pachyderm in the living room - Megrahi's dropped appeal, the explosive information contained within it, and the deliberate framing of Libya suggested by that information.

But whatever the outcome, I suggest to all relevant parties on Great Britain that it might be best to go to the angry Americans, let them come to you, whatever works, and talk it out. Answer all their questions, be sure to explain everything relevant at one point or another. Be thorough, take time of your own to make sure they've heard allyou have to say. In fact, be chatty - have some coffee. Show respect of course, but some gentle dersision is in order here, and holding it back would be awkward.

And then just MAYBE they won't come a-knocking again a few weeks off, eight days after some quack reports that Megrahi will be "dead within a week." Best of luck.

The London Origin Theory

The First Causualty of the Investigation was Truth
(incomplete)
last update July 30 2010

“I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.” - Hans Köchler, independent UN observer at Zeist trial, 21 Aug 2009 (Source)


"If I was determined to bring down an airplane, I would have put [the bomb] on in London." - Robert Baer, 'former' CIA agent and weapons expert, who doesn't buy the Libyans-did-it story line.

The London Origin theory has emerged as the most logical explanation for what happened to Pan Am 103 on December 21 1988. The official story, all the most widely-seen revisionist arguments, and even Megrahi's defense team's curious "special defense of incrimination" drew on elements of the drug swap theory, with the bomb coming in from Germany or further afield. Megrahi's counsel William Taylor QC did however give reasons to suspect a  London origin (some below) to the trial judges and summarized at trial's end in 2001:
“My submission is that all of the above render the choice of Heathrow a much more likely one [than Malta]. And when that possibility is considered, one finds that there is a compelling body of evidence that points to Heathrow as being the point of ingestion.” [day 82 p 9862]

But in the earliest days of the investigation, January and February 1989, British investigators labored to clear Heathrow Airport of any lapses and ensure that the bomb's origin would have to be found elsewhere. Years of confusion ensued... (see "Counter-Arguments" below for more on the dismissal of the London theory).

Direct Evidence For the Theory
Among the first clues came from finding where the plane failed, and what luggage container the blast originated in. Container AVE4041 in forward left cargo hold, position 14L, was decided within a few days. The container's blasted out remains were found and reassembled enough to show the blast was down at the bottom of the container, in the aft outboard corner. It had been in the spot closest to the hull, only 25" from the thin and aged skin of Maid of the seas.

Unfortunately, the exact placement, origin, or even number of suitcases in that box was hard to pin down. Records and witnesses helped decide 4041 was loaded with a few bags (6-8 or so) of (apparently) interline luggage, then filled up with a few dozen cases from the feeder/first leg flight 103A out of Frankfurt. But within this generally imprecise body of memories, one stands out as of amazing possible significance.

> The Bedford Suitcase(s)
This was always the hard part to get around in order to reject the initially obvious Heathrow introduction theory. A Pan Am worker mentioned to police right after the attack said he saw two brown hardshell samsonite suitcases, placed on the floor of container 4041. The position of these was side-by-side from the far left of the floor, at the (loading) front of the container. If the bags had been later stacked one on the other and the top bag slid a few inches left, it would be in the perfect spot to match the explosion center - aft outboard corner, second suitcase from the bottom - where just such case detonated.

An amazing lead, investigators almost seem to have tried to not follow this one.  Since the cases Bedford saw were on the floor when he saw them, and the blast seemed to have happened one layer up from that, they decided these cases were a coincidence. They must have been moved across the container, and replaced in that lower corner with an identical case from Germany, on top of some other damaged Frankfurt-originating luggage. The leaps of faith here are simply alarming.

The Bedford story is covered in great detail at this site, with the works so far compiled at the link above.

> Break-in Reported
A security Guard at heathrow Airport reported a break-in at terminal 3 around 12:30 am on  December 21. Ray Manly's report, of a padlock on the floor "cut like butter" was covered up for over a decade. Even at trial in 2000, the defense was not allowed to know of this. Manly came forward in 2001 with the story, soon verified by the long-suppressed police reports. A post is up but empty - anyone care to help? I'll get to it later.

Mentioned in: Appeal Court Dismissal of the Heathrow Theory

Circumstantial Evidence For the Theory


> The 38-Minute Coincidence

Aside from its crew and perhaps some cargo that (probably) doesn't matter here, the 747 Clipper Maid of the Seas landed empty at London's Heathrow airport mid-day December 21, 1988. There the plane took on a load of 243 passengers and their luggage, and took off at 6:25 PM for New York as Pan Am Flight 103. Clearly, the bomb went on the plane at London, but the question that comes quickly behind it is where did it come from before that? A van in the parking lot, or another plane?

Such clues were vital to tracking down the perpetrators, and should be embraced when they're found. The time of explosion itself is a valuable clue - 38 minutes after leaving the ground - is a known hallmark of the altimeter bombs made just weeks earlier by terrorist bomb-maker and "double agent" Marwan Khreesat. He had produced four altimeter-triggered, radio-disguised bombs, set to detonate less than an hour after takeoff. Each of the others was a bit different, but the one that was captured and tested thoroughly would have blown up about 45-50 minutes after takeoff.  

The timing compatibility with a Khreesat bomb loaded at London notwithstanding, it's been officially decided and legally established that was a Libyan-ordered and set MST-13 timer that told the bomb to go off over Lockerbie. Officially, legally, by the evidence led at trial, it's an asbolute coincidence the timing so resembles the method first suspected. 

> Operational Security
When confronted with the official story of a Malta-Germany-London, the most obvious averse reaction of those who know air travel operations is to ridicule the notion that an airline bomb would make any sense being trusted to so many switches. Any functional security screen or time delay along the way coulld screw up the whole operation with a timer-based device as alleged. A trip from Frankfurt only is often suggested to replace this, but it too has one too many stops for a Khreesat bomb, and still a high chanced of the bomb being delayed or intercepted. If one could pierce security at any of the three airports, and it obviously happened at one of them, Heathrow would give one the best chance for success and the only way for a Khreesat bomb to have done what happened.  

Former head of security for British Airways, Denis Phipps, Maltese Double Cross:

“If a device had been infiltrated into the system at Malta, it would have been necessary for that device to have been carried in an aircraft in the sector from Malta to Frankfurt, to have gone through a handling process, been carried on an aircraft through the sector from Frankfurt to Heathrow, and then timed to detonate during the final sector, Heathrow to New York, presumably whilst the aircraft was over the ocean to avoid discovery of forensic evidence …  one has to say, um, are - terrorists  - idiots? Don’t terrorists plan to have a reasonable degree of success?"  

> Explosive Efficacy
If one places a device at the airport the target leaves from, rather than remotely through multiple flights, a new ppossibility is opened up - depending on the nature and depth of his penetration, a determined terrorist could place the bag himself and chose where in the container it went. As it happened, the bomb in PA103 was placed in the best spot (for the terrorists), and one of the few that could have even worked - the lower outboard quadrant, more or less on the sloping floor nearest the hull. Figure F13 (below) of the AAIB's report shows the deduced center of explosion that officially was achieved by accident. Considering even there, all that was blows from the hull was a chunk the size of a dinner plate. That's all it took, but it wouldn't happen at all if the bomb had wound up in the upper inboard corner, or even in the middle.

It is true, as some have pointed out, that there'd be no guarantee any cases placed in that deadly corner would stay there. But terrorists simply can't wait for guarantees. Certainly having it in the right spot, for sure, at one point, is better than relying on pure chance. Perhaps with this in mind, famous former CIA agent Robert Baer, who may have direct experience in this for all we know, has said:

"I used to teach explosives. The last thing you want to do is put a bomb on in a place like Malta and have two stops along the way ... you couldn't count on this thing hitting its target. ... Malta would not have been my first choice. It would have been London. If I was determined to bring down an airplane, I would have put it on in London." Flight into Darkness video, part two, 5:25

Counter Arguments Addressed
Forensics and the Frankfurt Link to the Rescue
UK and Germany had both been unsettled by the possibility their security forces had allowed the horror of Lockerbie to pass through. Some of their early wrangling is addressed in the post "What did the Germans Know?" British investigators decided the blast - 10 inches above the container floor - was above any possible non-Frankfurt luggage and therefore had to be some other brown, hardshell Samsonite from the one(s) Bedford described, that must have been from the feeder 103A. It was unsound reasoning and wishful thinking until the Erac printout emerged months later, showing an item apparently coming from Malta, to PA103, via Frankfurt.

The Malta Link to the Rescue
The Erac printout, emerging months after the attack from an employee's locker after all official copies somehow disappeared, sealed the deal for Malta origin. But the tiny island nation had already been mentioned in the evidence, as the place of manufacture for some of it. As it so happened, the Erac (Frankfurt) printout in August 1989 spurred a closer look, and the clothes were traced to a store on Malta where Tony Gauci was found...

Malta-based Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka was already on file with the culprits - Megrahi and Fhimah - that some hoped Tony saw one of. By late February 1991, they had a sort of identification of Megrahi from the shopkeeper.  A few months later, Giaka was finally removed to safety and first mentioned the suitcase - possibly the same model Bedford reported - seen on Malta the day before it reappeared on that dubious printout leaving there. The story is clearly false, but formed one basis of the U.S. indictment against Megrahi and Fhimah in November 1991.

And finally, Air Malta has airtight records that the 55 bags on flight 180 were all claimed by its 39 passengers. They've shown this in court, like in their libel suit against Granada television. How the bomb was sneaked around Air Malta's system was never explained or substantiated even back when Fhimah was accepted as an accomplice. Investigators tried to find evidence of Maltese collusion or corruption or incompetence, but came up only with 'well, they must have done it somehow.' After the dismissal of Giaka's Malta stories, the Zeist judges  found that accomplice not guilty, further complicating the feat for Megrahi. They admit it's hard to see just how he did it, but he must have. Guilty.

See also: JREF Forum discussion thread on the London Evidence - great discussion

Debate Call: "Kaddafi Delenda Est"

July 28 2010

Kaddafi Delenda Est (Latin, Gaddafi must be destroyed) seems so far to be just a yappy little propaganda smear-bot has been spamming numerous Megrahi / Pan Am 103 discussions lately with irrelevant, out-of-context claims of Libyan villainy. In particular, consider his contributions beneath this post at the Washington Post national security blog "Checkpoint Washington." "Black September, Rome/Vienna airport massacres, London embassy shooting, La Belle disco, Pan Am 103, UTA flight 772, PIRA, Abu Nidal, Abu Sayyaf, etc., ad nauseum." And the Bulgarian nurse tortured to confess she was spreading AIDS in Africa (I think). It's like acomputer virus written by Vincent Cannistraro in 1986, with someInternet news-feed add-on.

Once I learned just what exactly the case against Libya for PA103 really was, I became suspicious of the preceding laundry list as well. I haven't looked into any of these other events/allegations, and for all I know some or all of them might be correct. But I'm convinced they were framed for Lockerbie, and to me, the frenzied litany of allegations reads like propaganda written to whip Americans up to keep leveraging Libya and keeping it down until it plays by our rules. KDE does little to change that impression:

"America fought our first overseas war against Tripolitan pirates who used hostage extortion to secure huge annual jizya payments from Western nation treasuries. Kaddafi now has that racket back in business. Are Americans prepared to do anything about it?"

I'll challenge you to debate, Kaddafi Delenda Est, on the relevant issue of the moment: Pan Am 103 - bring me your best evidence how we can know Megrahi is actually guilty of this crime.

Other possible subjects if you're up to it: The Bulgarian Nurse's story - that's disturbing, and I'd like to learn more and see how credible the report is.

And for a fourth aspect, I'll start by addressing you attacks on me and my work here, in case they don't allow my response there.

"Some deluded Leftists still drool over illiterate conspiracy theories-- framing Juval Aziz’s refried nonsense as grounds for yet another specious Megrahi "appeal." [...] Don’t be a Kaddafi clan apologist your whole life, CausticLogic. Sod off, you wanker."

"CausticLogic (aka, Adam Larson) is a 9-11 Troofer conspiracy moron. Please follow Penn Jillette's sage advice to HBO viewers and feel free to throw Adam "down a flight of stairs” without reservation."

This last is in reference to Penn and Teller's advice re: 9/11 neo-Nazi nutter and clown Eric Hufschmid. My main work regarding 9/11 was debunking claims made by people like him. I challenge you, Kaddafi Delende Est to find any support for the inaccurate and misleading slur "9-11 Twoofer moron." Bring the dumbest claim I've made - be it no-planes, space-beams, nano-thermite, whatever. Post it in the comments below, or else retract or clarify what that term means re: me.

And if I get a respectable response for you here, I'll modify my introduction accordingly.

Further responses will start below.

-Adam
(oh, and I didn't catch your real name?)
---
postscript: HE didn't show up! His note of excuse at the same page:

"Adam can take his "debate" invitation up with Penn Jillette. Rational folks have no interest in plumbing the depths of depraved minds of troofer morons who indulge in jihadist homicide denial.

Piss off."

Merging my response to this and a really stupid follow-up:

Nice. Penn never called me a moron or told people to push me down stairs. YOU are the one who did and who knows you'd look the fool if you tried to support any of the drivel you post after it was properly challenged. And you claim you're too "rational" to explain yourself. Why is the SCCRC "specious?" Which of their six grounds of miscarriage of justice do you disagree with and how? You have no idea, but I’m sure you’re sure that it's all Euro-Jihadist lies!

Terp Mole / aka Kaddafi Delenda Est's dickless handling of having it pointed out that he doesn't know what he's talking about seems to be part of a pattern. No comprehension of the real world plus tea-bag delusions leads to the brilliant and o so original conclusion that President Obama is on the side of terrorists trying to destroy America. We "need to know" the answer to that before we can be confident, you never will "know" that, because you are the king of never finding out what you don't want to know.

And now you go on ignore as the worthless waste you are.

Frank Duggan, for the Families

July 21, 2010

PCAST in A Leading Role
To start with, the current leader of the official 'American families group,' Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated, is not himself a victim of Pan Am 103; president of the board Frank Duggan lost no loved ones in the bombing. But his involvement with the bereaved runs deep, back to 1989 with his appointment as "liaison to the Families" on the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (PCAST).

This “blue ribbon panel” was originally to be independent, but wound up being under President Bush’s control. As its chair, he selected Ann McLaughlin, who was once Secretary of labor under Reagan, as well as having been a director for at least “five major corporations.” Frank Duggan had worked as an aide and assistant secretary of labor under her before she picked him as PCAST’s families ambassador. Duggan grew up in Brooklyn, became a cop, and put himself through college, before turning into “a lawyer and a reliable Republican pol who had been a railroad industry lobbyist,” wrote Alan Gerson and Jerry Adler in a 2000 book. ”Needing someone who could win the trust of mostly middle-class families from the Northeast, many of them Irish or Italian Catholics, McLaughlin couldn’t have done better than Frank Duggan.” [1 pp64-69]

In a later interview, Duggan described PCAST as "the Cadillac of commissions” due to “the quality of its work and the number of recommendations, some 60 of them if I recall." [2 - ] The most memorable passage in the report was “national will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means for fighting terrorism.” The section that was in emphasized missile strikes covert action, either “preemptive or retaliatory,” and was penned by former FBI agent J. Brian Hyland, working from a desk next to Duggan’s. “As Hyland wrote, Duggan kept humming “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” to keep his colleague in a martial frame of mind.” [1 pp68-69]

As Family liaison, Duggan lobbied for their interests and listened to them – concerns, conspiracy theories, plots to hire assassins - with patience and understanding. The families also had a chance to support Duggan when his daughter was crushed into a coma by a drunk driver (she later awoke, but with brain damage). [1 p70] After the commission he continued lobbying for the families as the trail turned to Libya, indictments, and a 1990’s deadlock. During this time, he went to work for one of the legal teams representing the families, headed by Allan Gerson, whose 2001 book noted that “for six years Duggan had worked for the families and had earned nothing for it except their trust and gratitude.” [1 p255-56]

The Corporation / A Man of Vague Understandings
Mr Duggan maintained these ties with the families over the years, as Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc. proved itself a highly effective lobbying group, securing huge payments from Pan Am and then from Libya, netting billions for survivors, lawyers, board members, and so on. But only in 2008 was Duggan offered the presidency of the group’s board of directors - a post usually held by a family member. He told the Scotsman:

"I could not say no to them. I told them I didn't think there was much more to do. Legally and politically the battle was over. Libya was recognized and compensation had been paid. Then they released Al Megrahi and a 20-year-old story was back on the front pages again." [2]

These developments needn’t have been a surprise to those who followed the news. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission had announced Megrahi may have “suffered a miscarriage of justice” and should have his appeal heard. Duggan’s election/appointment was clearly after this omen, and perhaps (I don’t know the date) after the prisoner’s September 2008 diagnosis with advanced, terminal cancer. Compassionate release was a known factor at the time, as were prisoner transfer deals already being discussed.

The increased publicity following the convict’s eventual release and inevitable “hero’s welcome” would, predictably, stimulate both anger and also attention to the case. With all this plus more evidence than ever available, 2008 was a year rife with threats to the official stasis – just the time to circle the wagons and re-focus the voice of the American families, the force one dares not be seen as out-of-step with.

And Duggan tried to seem well-equipped for verbal battle, tackling the growing ranks of official story critics as “cranks,” “Libya shills,” a “shameless band of conspiracy mavens,” and “no worse than Holocaust deniers who will not accept the facts before their faces”. They're hopeless;  by December 20 he was “through trying to reason with Prof Black or MSP Grahame.” [2] It’s no wonder he tires so easily. Duggan’s scholarly achievements consist of an article for TransLaw, (transportation law) Winter 2010. It’s got details that are correct enough by normal standards, but it shows little actual insight. He’s clearly looking these things up as he goes, perhaps using Wikipedia.

When working strictly from his own head, Duggan fails, as when George Galloway made mincemeat of his in a phone interview a few weeks after Megrahi’s release. Duggan tried the standard hollow offensives (“eight judges” ruled guilty, Megrahi “lied under oath,” etc.), and made numerous factual errors (Galloway made a few as well). The short talk centered on Tony Gauci’s evidence, which Duggan called “reliable” and “natural,” while admitting he doesn’t know that the man actually said. The high point was Duggan aggressively and repeatedly denying the $2 million reward for Gauci as a rumor with no substance. That and my rebuttal are covered separately, but it looks like he made the wrong call here, loudly as always. And again he was done trying to “reason” with cranks and hung up. [3]

He can’t be happy with this blogger either. In December I wrote an article sarcastically accusing the Maltese government and Air Malta of complicity in Megrahi’s plot to destroy PA103. I even suggested the UK sever the “axis of malice between Velletta and Triploi” by re-conquering the island. Duggan wasn’t the only commenter to miss the fine-tuned sarcasm, but he was the only one who sided with what he saw, and called it : “a welcome change from the bilge we have to read from the Libya shills.” Said shills, he explained, “have no shame and cannot be embarrassed by the facts.” And he thanked me for my “efforts to publish the truth,” and said “you are like a breath of fresh air.” [4] I felt a little sorry for the poor guy, in fact. It was’t meant to trick anyone, except into reading it. They were supposed to get it by halfway through …

Speaking for the Families
Nine days after praising my Maltese prank, the solemn anniversary arrived - 21 years exactly after the event that started all of this. VPA103 Inc. always has had a controlling say in the annual ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. It wasn’t Duggan, but the board of which he was president, that voted to disallow the remarks they had solicited from Friar Pat Keegans. As the parish priest of Lockerbie on December 21 1988, he came within yards of being a PA103 victim himself. He had bonded with the American and all families who came to the area, and has often been asked for his thoughtful remarks.

But this time Keegans opted to express his feeling that Megrahi was innocent, and that either way his release was justified by Christian compassion for a dying man. Well that’s just not the right message for Arlington. Duggan said they try to “avoid a discussion of the bomber's trial and conviction or of his health," or “any political statements or any discussions of the convicted bomber." President Obama’s counter-terror point man John Brennan was on-hand with some more neutral, appropriate, apolitical messages: “The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi … unjustified release … a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli … those who assisted him …” [5]

To their credit, the board did send the Friar’s speech to members by e-mail, so they know his stance in that odd corner with Dr. Swire and a few other Brits and, it seems, absolutely none of the hundreds closely related to the 190 Americans killed. Clearly what Duggan meant is that December 21 is a time to remember that we’ve got everything figured out, and that - America’s ability to secure a politically expedient conviction by … means - will be thy solace as the bell tolls at that name that pulls the heartstrings.

In his debate with Galloway, Mr. Duggan was unsure how many families he represented, but when asked “whether there unanimity amongst the families in the United States,” as opposed the widely divergent opinion of UK victims, he responded “Yes there is. I can tell you that. There’s a difference of opinion as to how compassionate we should be. But there’s no difference of opinion as to the guilt of Mr. Megrahi” … I don’t know how to explain it … eight judges have already looked at this and decided the man was guilty beyond a deasonable doubt. There’s no question in anyone’s mind that I know of who’s looked at the evidence. The man - was - guilty.” [5]

In June 2010, the Daily Mail (daily fail) opined on Saif Gaddafi calling Tony Blair and adviser of Tripoli’s, and reported that “last night, families of the 270 Lockerbie victims accused Mr Blair of breaking bread with people who 'have blood on their hands'.” The actual quote was “It's important for world peace that Libya is brought back into the community of nations but that doesn't mean that you have to honour people with blood on their hands.” They say the quote was spoken to them by Mr. Duggan. [6] He isn't even one of the 270 victims' relatives, let alone "families of the 270," but he will keep speaking as if that’s so. And there are structural reasons they’ll continue to obligingly let him, and to say the same things when they speak for themselves.

On Blood Money, More of
As mentioned above, Duggan had in the mid-1990s joined one of the legal teams representing the PA 103 families, and apparently was again a family liaison. In June 1995 Gerson asked him “whether he thought the family members would support a suit against Libya,” the lawyer’s book explained. “George Williams – at that time president of Victims of Pan Am 103 – polled the members of his board.” They had earlier rejected a similar idea by fellow survivor Bruce Smith, “but now, Duggan reported back to Gerson, the board was unanimously in favor.” [1 p229] Duggan added the following, articulating a central theme of Gerson’s book – The Price of Terror:

“Since the majority will still consider monetary compensation ‘blood money,’ the award must be punitive as well as compensatory and be large enough to discourage any government from ever contemplating support for another terrorist act. The families have not made their political efforts for money, rather they have made it for justice and to leave some legacy in the names of their lost loved ones.” [1 p230]

Of course this punishment, "justice," and "legacy" would take the form of huge piles of money. If it’s a problem, is a whole lot more of it the answer? One can also be excused for wondering what role the justice/legacy/punishment money from Libya – an average $10 million per each of the 270 victims – has had in keeping the family members who accepted it quiet about any tiny, itching doubts they might harbor.

Duggan will always help maintain the confidence that they got it right, and assure those left behind that they do not need to re-open, with a critical eye, the trial transcripts they were all given. The families are best equipped to keep that fuzzy view of the end picture and just remind the world as needed - with or without Frank's help - that the heart-stricken families of the far-fallen are ironclad behind the government’s case.
---

Sources:
[1] Gerson, Allan and Jerry Adler. The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink. New York, Harper Collins, 2001. First edition. 302 pages.
[2] Forsyth, John. "After 21 years no end in sight to wrangles over Lockerbie." The Scotsman. December 21 2009. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/legalissues/After-21-years-no-end.5926777.jp
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkehXY26Ghw
[4] "Another call on Malta: Admit it already!" Caustic Logic. Dec 11 2009. 12/7-9/11 treadmill. http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-call-on-malta.html
[5] "Keeping the Politics Out of Arlington" Caustic Logic. 12/7-9/11 Treadmill. December 24 2009.
[6] "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son." Daily Mail, 5 June 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html#ixzz0uJagz3UB

The MEBO Files

1988-91: Eine Intrige in den Studien der Lockerbie-Tragödie!
July 16 2010 (incomplete)

Me ("Caustic Logic"): So you agree, you "know" a bunch of "facts" suggesting the Libyans you knew were up to something at the time of the bombing, involving Libyan Army/JSO, Malta, suitcases, MST-13 timers, the approximate bombing day and time, a blue baby suit, other mixed clothes, Abdelbaset, Badri (left at the end of 1988 mysteriously, you say!), Ezzadin, and what else again?

Edwin Bollier ("ebol," translated): That is the result after 18 years private investigations into and around the Lockerbie Affair, begun after the visit of the 'Third Man' with MEBO, on Friday 30th December 1988 approximate at 10 o'clock A.M. 

Libya and Abdelbaset Al Megrahi are definitely not involved in the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie Tragedy ...
(Source (comments))

---

Find below the gathered exploits of Herr Edwin Bollier, electronics seller extraordinaire, co-founder of Swiss firm Mebo, and would-be intriguer. Ever since one of Bollier's timers (MST-13) was identified as setting off the bomb on Pan Am 103, the man and his knowledge of Libyan players seemed of great importance. In recent years, he's championed al Megrahi and his nation as victims of a frame-up, but at first, from 1988-1991, he was mumbling a different story and may have had a fairly important role in bringing the case "onto the Libyan track."

> Prelude: From Zurich to Malta to Tripoli to Malta to...
An older piece from my first blog, written last year. Starts to address the issues below, with a side-emphasis on Bollier's theory that the plotters tried to implicate him in the plot by routing him through Malta the day before the bombing.

> Part One: Bollier's "Catch-Letter"
July 1. The story behind the first suggestion to frame Libya, from the man who would become the champion of poor framed Libya. Dateline, Jan 5 1989. A typewriter with Spanish keyset, a letter to the CIA mentioning secret meeting in Libya, a request for payment. The CIA made him do it, with the old "mystery man" device.

> Part Two: Why Bollier Suspected the Libyans.
July 4. Even before the mystery man tasked him with that letter, Bollier had his hunches. Enough to call "Lockerbie bomber" al Megrahi to see if "something had happened." It's got an illogical order for timers, the bombing time entered on one, shuttling between Libya and Europe, prank calls, police interviews, pretending to help in a ceaseless quest to find out who was behind it all.

> Part Three: A Suitcase for Hinshiri
July 6. A brown suitcase, a blue baby suit, a note at the airport, favors for friends, more "favors for friends." Allegations of blackmail. Bollier being "helpful."

> Part four: (No) Money from Megrahi (forthcoming)

> Part Five: Unsure

> Etc...  

Is Schumer 'Shrooming? Return Megrahi to Jail?

July 13 2010

In the unfolding brouhaha over some nonsense spouted by quack doctor Karol Sikora, one headline that popped up: U.S. senators demand Lockerbie bomber is sent back to jail. Nothing in the article actually said that, but it mentioned the activities of four US Senators: Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez, and Kirsten Gilibrand - all four of the Senators from New York and New Jersey, all Democrat, all united in fury to hear some stuff.

They wrote a letter to the UK's ambassador in Washington, Nigel Scheinwald, who said he'd pass on their questions to the proper Scottish authorities, who would answer. After being denied by those officials, Mr. Schumer and Menendez got fed up and just yesterday made an open call for just what that headline said. Press Release from the office of Senator Schumer:

AFTER SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO REINVESTIGATE EARLY RELEASE OF LOCKERBIE BOMBER:

SCHUMER, MENENDEZ CALL ON STATE DEPARTMENT TO PRESSURE LONDON TO RETURN LOCKERBIE BOMBER TO PRISON; AL-MEGRAHI WAS GIVEN 'THREE MONTHS TO LIVE' - REPORTS SAY TERRORIST COULD LIVE ANOTHER TEN

http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=326309&

Dear Mr.Schumer and Mr. Menendez (and/or Lautenberg, Gilibrand, others):

Oh boy, guys, the wrongness is just so thick with this headline and with the text beneath it ... where to begin? Well, most glaringly, as always, you neglect completely to consider the mountains of available evidence that Megrahi was framed by your own government. Loyalty to on high be damned; if you care about the families and justice, you know you'd look into even a slight chance that we got the wrong man. If the real killer of your constituents' relatives may still be at large in, for example, Reston VA, maybe with his kids attending the same school as some younger PA103 relatives, you'd want to know. If witnesses were paid millions and still never really made an identification, wouldn't that be pretty weak for the single direct connection to the bomb? What if there were legitimate concerns that at least two important pieces of physical evidence were planted? There's well more than a slight chance of these and other possibilities, and you show no sign of caring in the least. Can either of you explain this?

Next, "Reports" of a ten year life span (it was "ten or even 20," by the way) is misleading. "Reports" sounds possibly medical, but really what's concerned you is news media repetition of a hypothetical musing from a man of little repute to begin with, Dr. Karol Sikora.

Schumer and Menendez noted the release of al-Megrahi was predicated on his only have [sic] three months to live, yet the doctor who examined him now suggests the bomber of Pan Am flight 103 may well live for another ten years.

He said there was "always a chance" of this, but it is "unusual" and, by extension, highly unlikely. Megrahi has cancer of the pelvis now too, among other things, and no medicine but a morphine drip. That's a real-world sign of the end, compared to words from an apparent charlatan. The Senators have chosen, and have set about making it noisy.

Like so many, the Senators are badly confused in thinking Dr. Sikora, who was paid by Megrahi's Libyan team (I'm not sure by whom exactly), was the sole doctor who examined the prisoner. But that examination is mentioned here to bolster the irrelevant musing cited; Sikora knows Megrahi's health and says he'll live a decade. Like so many, you guys are using Sikora to debunk Sikora, besides confusing that loop with the actual release decision.

"[T]he Scottish government on Friday rejected reinvestigating al-Megrahi’s release, claiming due process had been followed and there was no further need to investigate the decision any further. The senators are demanding the US State Department pressure London to have him returned to prison immediately."

This has been suggested before by you, Mr. Schumer, in November 2009. Now you're back on it backed with Sikora's well-timed Fourth of July words, with Mr. Menendez alongside, and, near the end of the PR, it again looks like Sens. Lautenberg and Gilibrand signed the letter to State:

"In their letter to Secretary Clinton, Schumer, Menendez, Gillibrand, and Lauenberg stated the US Government must do everything in its power to pressure London to put a facilitate a return of this convicted mass murderer of 270 people, 189 of whom were Americans, to Scotland to serve out the remainder of his prison sentence."

Wow. How far should this one go, guys? To the shores of Tripoli itself? Again, please recall that you are still strangely ignorant of the high likelihood that you're flat wrong and deceived about how PA 103 was destroyed. And please consider that before pushing this nonsense any further.

The overriding reasons given for the Obama administration to demand such a return trip are "for the families whose loved ones were murdered, for national security, and for fundamental justice." These are all excellent reasons to look into this confused mess of a release, but only after a thorough review of the original case. Sure, Megrahi decided to drop his own appeal, but why take that as a free ticket to avoid a review, unless you’re afraid of a review? I urge the Senators to pressure the UK and in fact Scotland itself, if they can be bothered, to revive the appeal themselves and look it over in the wide open. You wouldn’t fear that, would you, good Senators?

"The families of the 270 people who were murdered have already once lived through an unthinkable, real-life horror story. It’s as if they now are being forced to live through a sequel. They believed that justice had found the man who killed their loved ones, only to see that the system was rigged and that this terrorist is having the last laugh. This is outrageous and cruel."

With the edits above I could agree with you guys here. The bandage placed over their wound had to come off, and the justice-starved scar was left raw and exposed again. To heal it right will require another painful re-living yet. You're helping stall that, you know. At the rate we're going, only their great-grandkids will finally get to know the truth. Please – you’ve become encrusted with the need to uphold an artificial status quo. Just step aside and stop prolonging the inevitable. Or, get involved in a useful way.

To Senator Chuck in particular: I know it can be frightening to confront the possibility that you’ve been lied to and deceived by a conspiracy so huge. It’s okay to ask advice and draw on the courage of others. I suggest you ring up your "old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey." They’re imaginary, and so are another part of you, of course. But that kind of externalization can help you scrape up the courage to look long and hard at the facts that are available at, for example, this site.

- Caustic Logic, 13 July 2010
---

Some Background on Karol Sikora

July 12 2010

Form the moment I heard about Megrahi's magical three-months prognosis, I was a bit suspicious. His appeal was dropped, apparently due to confusion that was allowed to linger, to speed the process that call allowed. As the prognosis gets more and more wrong by the month, that feeling grows. A Dr. Karol Sikora was generally cited as the source of that assessment. Recently, he came out as saying he has no idea - Megrahi could live for ten or twenty years. He's embarrassed to have been wrong, but did nothing wrong.

Below is some information on Dr. Sikora gathered by my compatriot at the JREF Forum, Rolfe, who knows more than I and I'm grateful to her for putting this together. Commentary follows. (original link)
---
(I have memories of him as a well-respected expert, from many years ago. Either he has changed his approach as he became more senior, or I was mistaken in the first place.)

Look at his involvement in the case of Lisa Norris.

Miss Norris was given 58% too much radiation during her treatment at the Beatson and died at her family home on 18 October 2006.
An internal inquiry following her death found that she had died from her tumour and not from the overdose.
However, that was disputed by an independent report from one of the country's top cancer experts. [....]
Miss Norris's father, Ken, did not want to comment directly on the proceedings.
But his lawyer, Cameron Fyfe, said: "We had a report from Professor Sikora, an expert in oncology, who confirmed that Lisa would probably have survived had it not been for the overdose.
"After further inquiry the professor revised his report to say it was a possibility, not a probability.
"Proof in Scots law is based on the balance of probabilities and that is not enough for the fiscal to proceed with the fatal accident inquiry.
"I think the family are disappointed that Professor Sikora was unable to adhere to his initial view but they accept that it was not appropriate for the FAI to proceed in these circumstances."

That is absolutely classic "hired gun" behaviour. Oh, you think the radiation overdose killed your little girl? Yes, I can go along with that, here's an expert witness report saying so. Then they get to the point where the experts from both sides confer to try to reach an agreement, and he realises he's not on solid ground at all. He revises his report to be less certain than it was originally, and the case collapses.

It's not really, consciously dishonest. It's unprofessional. It's an outlook that aligns itself too closely with the side of the dispute you're talking to, and fails to take a properly professional, unbiassed, disinterested view. I've seen it scores of times in the witness box, often from senior academics.

As y'all know, I'm a big fan of David Colquhoun. What David has to say about Karol is quite distressing.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2073

CRC Public Relations is a conservative PR firm previously known as Creative Response Concepts. ‘Creative’ appears to mean ‘lying’, but I guess that is what PR is all about.

Disgracefully, Karol Sikora, a former oncologist at the Hammersmith Hospital, supported CPR on US television. See Karol Sikora makes a fool of himself at NHSblogdoctor.
“Karol Sikora had been duped by a slick American businessman into providing a “rent-a-quote” service for a notorious right-wing American organisation”
Sikora now works for the UK’s only private university and a private cancer treatment company. He is also famous for claiming, falsely, to be a professor at Imperial College (he has an honorary contract with the Imperial College Hospital Trust but nothing with the University). And for promoting a load of nonsense about alternative medicine (a lot more on that coming up shortly).

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1466

Karol Sikora, formerly an oncologist at the Hammersmith Hospital, is now Dean of Medicine at the University of Buckingham (the UK’s only private university). He is also medical director at CancerPartners UK, a private cancer company.

He recently shot to fame when he appeared in a commercial in the USA sponsored by “Conservatives for Patients’ Rights”, to pour scorn on the NHS, and to act as an advocate for the USA’s present health system. A very curious performance. Very curious indeed.

His attitude to quackery is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. One was somewhat alarmed to see him sponsoring a course at what was, at first, called the British College of Integrated Medicine, and has now been renamed the Faculty of Integrated Medicine That grand title makes it sound like part of a university. It isn’t.

The alarm was as result of the alliance with Dr Rosy Daniel (who promotes an untested herbal conconction, Carctol, for ‘healing’ cancer) and Dr Mark Atkinson (a supplement salesman who has also promoted the Qlink pendant. The Qlink pendant is a simple and obvious fraud designed to exploit paranoia about WiFi killing you.

The first list of speakers on the proposed diploma in Integrated Medicine was an unholy alliance of outright quacks and commercial interests. It turned out that, although Karol Sikora is sponsoring the course, he knew nothing about the speakers. I did and when I pointed this out to Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of Buckingham, he immediately removed Rosy Daniel from directing the Diploma. At the moment the course is being revamped entirely by Andrew Miles. There is hope that he’ll do a better job. It has not yet been validated by the University of Buckingham. Watch this space for developments.

Stop press It is reported in the Guardian that Professor Sikora has been describing his previous job at Imperial College with less than perfect accuracy. Oh dear. More developments in the follow-up.

I happened across this lot after I'd posted my out-dated opinion about Karol Sikora being a respected expert. He may have been at one time. Now he's something else.

Which is actually fairly peripheral to the Megrahi affair. In that situation, all parties involved in the decision were aligned in their wishes. Libya wanted their human sacrifice home, being as they didn't believe Lockerbie was a Libyan operation in the first place and had only agreed to pay compensation for political advantage. The Westminster government wanted him home to get rid of this perennial bump in the road that was complicating their oil deals. And the Holyrood government wanted him home so they could get that appeal stopped. Having Megrahi die in a Scottish jail was also politically unacceptable, as it would have done lasting damage to UK/Middle Eastern relations.

In that situation, just who was paying whom to come up with an agreeable opinion really isn't all that important.

Rolfe.
---

Decky Horton and Her Find

Posted June 17 2010
last edit July 14

This post will gather the evidence of Gwendoline "Decky" Horton regarding her find of a piece of paper, alleged to have been evidence PK/689 (below, compared to a control sample, PT/1). This was alleged to be the cover off the manual for the bomb radio, which had obviously been near a powerful Semtex explosion, since it's - ripped up a bit. The clearly readable model name identified the model used for the bomb (??) as one sold primarily to a Libyan company.

Mrs. Horton and her husband Robert Geoffrey Horton (or Jeff) had been credited as turning the miracle find in to police in Late December, from their farm near the North Sea. The main controversy about this surfaced at trial in 2000 where Decky but not Jeff testified.

Trial testimony

Camp Zeist, day 6 May 10 2000

Witness number 334, Gwendoline Horton

Transcripts pp 962-966

In her remarkably brief questioning, she re-told of finding "what we thought was just debris, possibly from a passing car or something," on the morning after the crash. Soon they heard there was debris everywhere, and a neighbor told them "she understood it was from the plane that had crashed, and that all the local farmers were collecting it in the fields." So Jeff and Decky headed out to gather what they could in case it had any value. From there her testimony runs:

Q And did you hand material in to the police on that day?
A I can't remember if it was that day or the following day.
Q How many times did you hand material in to the police?
A Twice.
 Q And how did you carry this stuff once you'd gathered it?
A Just in a carrier bag, I think, at the time.

Q I would like to ask you about one item in particular. Do you remember coming upon a document of some sort that made reference to a radio cassette player?
A Yes, I do.
Q Can you describe what that item was like?
A Well, from what I remember, it was possibly about -- I know I'm supposed to say it. * About that kind of size, you know, about possibly eight by eight, or something like that, inches.

* This apparently refers to the usual instruction to speak out sizes, directions, etc. rather than gesturing.

Q Could you see writing on it?
A I could see writing, because I remarked to my husband, "This appears to be from a cassette player," or something like that. I do remember it was something electrical.
Q And did you hand that item in to the police?
A Yes, that went into the bag as well.

Q Right. I wonder if you would look, please, at Label 24. You'll see there is a bag which contains items there. Do you recognise anything?
A Well, not in its present state. I'm sure when I handed it in, it was in one piece.
Q Yes.
A Yes.

Q Perhaps -- I wonder if it could be put on the document imager, to see if we can see it. You can see within the police plastic bag, I think as you've described, more than one piece of a document.
And you can at least see writing on it?
A Yes.
Q Do I understand you to say that when you handed it in, it was in one piece?
A It was in one piece, sir. I am practically sure of that, yes.
Q But apart from that, you recognise the item?
A Yes. Uh-huh.

Q Whereabouts did you find that item?
A In the fields -- we are a private house on the roadside. In the field opposite, they are known as the glebe fields, and it was in the bottom glebe field, down beside the burn, down in the bottom. In the dean.
Q Thank you very much.
[...]
LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Mrs. Horton. You are free to go. Thank you for coming.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.

2008 Media interest
Following the 2007 SCCRC findings that Megrahi deserved a second appeal, and coming on the 20 year anniversary of the attack, 2008 brought attention to the whole case including the Hortons. The trial controversy had the crew of BBC Conspiracy Files visit the farm and get Decky's story on camera.
BBC Conspiracy Files, 2008:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/01/video-conspiracy-files-lockerbie.html (Starting around 37:30)

"I was taken into court by the usher, and I had to swear the oath. And then I was shown a plastic bag with this ... piece ... of paper in it. But at the time I was asked is this what I had found. And I said well when I found it, it was in one piece. But in the bag there were several pieces, and the name Toshiba was only just discernable by then."
[...]
"When I found the piece of paper it was more or less intact - a bit tatty around the edges but it definitely had Toshiba written across And it was in one piece, where this is in several pieces."
Narrator: "The police say the evidence had become degraded because it had undergone hundreds of forensic tests."

> Contemporaneous article, The Sunday Sun (UK)

Geoff and Decky Horton found a key piece of evidence after wreckage was strewn over their farm, located 60 miles from the crash site. But the piece of paper — believed to be from the package which contained the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 — was damaged after it was handed over to investigators.
[...]
Police said the paper was damaged following a battery of forensic tests.
But the documentary says: “Why was the piece of paper so altered from when the Hortons found it? Was it proof of a conspiracy or careless handling by the police? The mystery remains.”
Conspiracy theorists believe key evidence was tampered with to implicate Libya in the bomb plot.

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2008/08/31/lockerbie-evidence-called-into-question-79310-21640187/

...

Analysis:
Mrs. Horton didn't independently recall any specific wording, including Toshiba, at trial. All she said before being shown the item was "I remarked to my husband, "This appears to be from a cassette player," or something like that. I do remember it was something electrical." In 2008 she claims to have remembered it saying "Toshiba" in its entirety. This could be a false memory. Nonetheless, I suspect it did say Toshiba. The reason being, this fragment appears to be a plant, one designed to exploit an actual memory.If the fragment had said something else, like Panasonic, she might remember that and cry foul when it later said Toshiba. That would be risky. I doubt she would or should recall the tedious model number, be it RT-SF16 or otherwise. The "BomBeat" or lack it might stand out, but it doesn't seem to have.

I also challenge Mrs.Horton's "several pieces" categorization. It can appear that way, but it's described in eaminations, and is, a single sheet of paper, nearly torn through in spots. THE BBC's coverage of this tricked me at first - the question is whether investigators tore up the paper Decky found on purpose. The real question is whether this was the piece she found at all. If so, it was nowhere near the bomb, and then what a coincidence it's for this model, sold primarily in Libya.

Again, it was allegedly torn through from being inches from an explosion that ruptured a plane's hull at over two feet. Or rather, if one trusts both RARDE and Mrs. Horton, one needs to accept that the manual cover (and no other page) was made "a bit tatty around the edges" by that blast, and torn to nearly to shreds by later forensic testing.

These tests were discussed at the Zeist trial. PK/689 was listed as first received at RARDE on both May 11 and June 30 1989. [link] Dr. Hayes' notes said (paraphrased) "this item was received at RARDE on 11/5/89, and then passed to a DC Jordan on the same date for non-destructive fingerprints, and then returned to RARDE on 16th May, passed to DC Jordan on 16th May for chemical treatment after photography." Jordan, by Hayes' recollection, was with either the Metropolitan police or Scotland Yard. [Zeist trial, day 18]

That's all I can find, and no mention of explosives residue testing. It hardly seems worth the hassle, of course, being so clear on the face of it. In fact, I'm half surprised they didn't claim Megrahi's prints from this find.
...