---

NEWS | Archives A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H | Updated: 26.02.2007

---

THE LOCKERBIE AIR - DISASTER

PART (F)
Announcement: A new book, "Lockerbie-in search of the truth..."
by Peter Biddulph and Dr. Jim Swire: http://www.lockerbietruth.com

Zürich, 25. Setember 2003
Taylor

Breaking News......

The Libyan innocent "Lockerbie Prisoner," Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, has lodged a RE-APPEAL against his conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been asked to investigate the miscarriages of justice in the case of Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

*Al Megrahi's solicitor, Eddie MacKechnie, said the case contains detailed legal arguments not previously presented, including allegations of unfairness, abuse of process, insufficiency of evidence, errors in law, non-disclosure of evidence and defective representation. (*Part. from scotsmann news.)

Zürich, 22.09.03
Beckett

Bei der Überprüfung des "Advokaten-Werk's" im Lockerbie Jahrhundert Prozesses der schottischen Justiz, kommen laufend neue "Flops" zum Vorschein. Ein RE-Appeal ist absolut notwendig und gerechtfertigt.

Vorab muss festgehalten werden;- im Lockerbie-Prozess am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist war folgendes bewiesen und durch den Zeugen No. 799, Gunther Kasteleiner bestätigt worden:
(Productions numbers, 1060, 1062 Image 1-3, 1790 Image 3)

Passagier No.99, die Studentin Karen Elizabeth Noonan, war ein inter-line Passagier, gebucht am 21.12.1988;- von Vienna mit Flug (Lufthansa-1453) nach Frankfurt, transit weiter mit Flug (PanAm 103/A) nach London-Heathrow, transit weiter mit (PanAm 103/B) nach NewYork;- (Lockerbie Opfer).
Durch das Flugticket ist bewiesen dass Karen Nooan (3)-Gepäckstücke am Airport Vienna eingecheckt hatte. (Prod.1151, Image 27)

Die (3)-inter-line Gepäckstücke wurden dann um (12'39, 12'40, 12'41Uhr) am Coding-Counter No. 203, mit Code (S-0012) in Halle V3, vom Computer gesteuerten Gepäck-Verteilungssystem in Frankfurt erfasst und mit folgenden Tray-No: B-10467, B-10773, B-3546 ab (16'25Uhr), via X-ray-Kontrolle, zum Gate B-44 weiterbefördert. Von dort wurde das Gepäck der (FAG)-Organisation, vom eigenem PanAm-Personal übernommen. Während der Beladung des Flugzeuges, (Flug PA-103/A), wurde nochmals die Stückzahl und die Lade-Reihenfolge vom "Loadmaster" mit der Ladeliste kontrolliert.

Die obige Zeitangabe der Codierung auf dem (FAG/KIK)-Computer-Printout zeigt, dass innerhalb 3-Minuten, von (12'39-12'41Uhr), die drei Gepäckstücke von Karen Noonan, über den inter-line Counter No.203 in Halle-(V3)FRA erfasst und Airport-intern weiterbefördert wurden.

Da die (3)aktuellen "Bag's über den inter-line Counter No.203=Coding (S-0012), zum Gate B44 befördert wurden, hätte es für Advokat Beckett zum vornherein klar sein müssen, dass diese (3)Bag's von einem "Feeder-Flight" transferiert wurden.
Somit bleibt absolut ausgeschlossen, dass das (3-te)"Bag", nachträglich von Karen Noonan am Transit Gate in Frankfurt eingecheckt wurde. Die "Grossexamination" von Mr. Beckett hätte sich bei seriösem Studium des Sachverhaltes, in diesem Punkt, erübrigt!

Teil-Auszug von GROSSEXAMINATION BY MR.BURNS:

-----Q- All right. You (Witness Kasteleiner No.799) were asked about--a few questions about a ticket in the name of "Noonan" Do you identified that ticket?---A-Yes.---Q- The ticket in Noonan's name appeared to show three pieces of luggage. Do you remember that?---A-Yes.---Q-Could I ask you to look, please, at Production 199. It will come up on the screen as well, Image 2, I think it will be. I'm sorry, could we go back to image 1, please. I beg your pardon. Now, this is an all passenger list for PanAm 103, it says B on the 21st of December, Frankfurt/Heathrow. Would that be right? You see it at the top there?---A-Where does it say Heathrow? Oh, I see,yes. Heathrow is over there. Okay.---Q- It's just to the right of 21st December is the Frankfurt designation; correct?---A-Correct.Yes.---Q- And all the passengers down the list appear to have LHR applicable to them, London/Heathrow.---A-Yes.---Q-So this is the leg, Frankfurt/Heathrow on the 21st December.
Could we look at image 2, please. And if we look at the 99th passenger, which is about in the middle of the screen at the moment under named Noonan. Do you see that?---A-Yes.---Q- If you go along the line to the right of the word Noonan, do we see what will be a seat number 06E. Do you recognise that?---A- I can see that, but i don't know wheter that is a seat number, because I don't know this document.---
Q- All right. There is then the letter "M". Do you see that?---A-Yes.---Q- And then "2".---A-Yes, I can see it.---Q- Do I take it that you won't be familiar whit what that figure represents from your previous answer?---A- No.---Q- If I suggested to you it represents the numbers of items of baggage checked in, are you saying that you have no understanding of these particular documents?---A-Yes, I really know nothing about it.---Q- All right. Thank you very much indeed.

LORD SUTERLAND: Advocate Depute. MR.TURNBULL: I have no re-examination. Thank you, My Lords.
LORD SUTTERLAND: Thank you. Mr. Karsteliner. That's all.


Die versuchte, Verwirrung stiftende Darstellung von Advokat Mr. Beckett, über die "manipulierte" Anzahl Gepäckstücke (2) statt (3) auf der Passagierliste von K.Nooan, war gezielt und ist als negativ zu bewerten!
Statt dieser äusserst wichtigen Ungereimtheit nachzuforschen, wurde versucht der "Manipulation", eine andere Alternative zu geben. Man glaubte, das Problem auf diese Art und Weise aus dem "Schussfeld" nehmen zu können.

Zur Erinnerung: Nur durch diese Manipulation auf der Passagierliste konnte ein inter-line Gepäckplatz, für das von der Justiz statuierte "Phantom"-inter-line "Bomb-Bag" (Tray/No.B-8849), von MaltaAir(KM-180), geschaffen werden....

Dies zu Ungunsten des libyschen verurteilten Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
Ohne die Manipulation der Anzahl Gepäckstücke einzubeziehen, sind auf PanAm Flug PA-103A, bestätigt, (13) Stück inter-line "Bag's" via X-ray Kontrolle geladen worden.
Diese "Bag's" konnten zweifellos an die verschiedenen Zubringer-Flüge zugeordnet werden. Dem Flug, MaltaAir KM-180 konnte jedoch keines der (13)-mit Tray Nummern registrierten Gepäckstücke, zugeordnet werden.
Um die Behauptung abzustützen, dass das angebliche inter-line ("Bomb-Bag" Tray No. B-8849) von MaltaAir transferiert wurde, mussten die registrierten (13)inter-line Bag's durch eine Manipulation auf der Passengerliste auf (12) Stück reduziert werden.
Nur mittels diesem "Kunstgriff" konnte behauptet werden, dass das restliche (1) eine Bag, das angebliches "Bomb-Bag", von MaltaAir transferiert wurde, ansonsten hätte es total (14)inter-line Gepäckstücke gebraucht! Der unbekannte "Fälscher" hatte übersehen, dass alle transferierten inter-line Gepäckstücke von PanAm-103A über eine zweite Linie erfasst wurden und somit die Beweise sichergestellt sind. (Loading-Printout, Prod.1060)

Wie junior Advokat Mr. Beckett, vom ehemaligen "Defense-Team" Duff &Taylor, mit Unterstützung eines Zeugen, das Gericht mittels einer Alternative, für die "Manipulation" auf der Passagierliste, umzulenken versuchte. Wieso???

Wie in Part. (A) der MEBO-Webpage beschrieben, wurden aus kriminellen Gründen und um die Wahrheitsfindung zu erschweren, auf der Passagierliste von PanAm Flug PA-103/A, bei Passagier No. 99, Karen Noonan, die Gepäckstücke auf (2) statt (3), von unbekannt, manipuliert.
(Zeist-Gerichts Produktion No. 199, Image 2)


GROSSEXAMINATION BY MR. BECKETT, während des Prozesses in Kamp van Zeist:
Zeuge No. 812, Wolfgang Manner, war 1988 bei PanAm als Passagier-"Boarding Gate-Agent", im Airport Frankfurt angestellt.

Auszug aus dem Prozess-Protokoll:

-------Q- The interline passenger on coming to the boarding gate would check in for the first time at Frankfurt?---A-Yes.---Q-And he would need to produce his ticket and his passport?---A-Yes.---*Q- Could you imagine how it could come to be that a passport would be found later within an item of checked-in baggage?---A- Can I ask you just repeat that question?---Q- Can you imagine how it might come to be that after the plane had taken off, a passport might later be found to have been within a piece of checked-in baggage?--- A- If the passport belonged to the passenger who was sitting on the aircraft, then I can't imagine how that would happen.---

Q-Could I suggest one situation to see if it might answer how happen. If an interline passenger, for example, came to the boarding gate, having already checked in a number of items, but had hand luggage, and decided that he or she would like to check in their hand luggage at the gate, after showing their passport, they might choose to put the passport within the hand luggage. And might that explain how you could end up with a passport within a piece of checked luggage?---A- Yes, that could be one of the explanations.---

Completion, Ergänzung:
1.- * Die konkrete Frage, von Advokat Beckett an den Zeugen (No.813, Manner), über das aufgefundene ("checked-in-baggage" mit Passport), sowie die seelische Beeinflussung des Zeugen, mit der zusätzlich dargestellten Suggestion eines aufgefundenen ("Bag" mit Passport);-
hat absolut nichts, mit dem (Gepäck+Passport), von Passagier No.99, bezugsweise, der Person von Karen Noonan zutun.
Diese praktizierende Verwirrung, (that he or she would like to check in their hand luggage at the gate...), hatte klare Absichten gehabt. Diese "Machenschaft" zeigt, dass Mr. Beckett mit der Suggestivfrage, gezielt versuchte, das aktuelle (Gepäck+Passport)-Problem, mit Passagier Karen Noonan, zu-vernetzen. Hiermit hat Mr. Beckett, zu Ungunsten Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, ein wegweisendes entlastendes Beweismittel dem Prozessverlauf entzogen und somit die Aufklärung der kriminellen Spur (die Manipulation auf der Passagierliste), verhindert, bezw. im "Keime erstickt"...

2.- Für den konkreten, dargestellten (Gepäck+Passport)-Fund, gibt es eine zutreffende Erklärung:
Da der Besitzer des in Lockerbie aufgefundenen ("checked-in-baggage"+Passport), spätestens bei der Einreise in die USA seinen Passport gebraucht hätte, könnte der Passagier ein Angehöriger der US-Army gewesen sein. Es ist auch sonderbar, dass Mr. Beckett die Identität des Passport-Halters, in dieser wichtigen Angelegenheit, nicht bekannt gab?
Dazumal (1988), war es Vorschrift, dass Angehörige des US-Armycorps in Militär-Uniform, nicht mit ihrem zivilen Passport-, sondern mit einem (US-Army proof of identity), reisen mussten. Auf dem Flug PA-103/B gab es US-Military Passagiere in Uniform.

Q- Now, I want to ask you a question, which you may not be able to answer, so tell me wheter you can or wheter you can't. Do you know whether an interline passenger who was boarding a flight, a PanAm flight at Frankfurt, and who was travelling on PanAm 103, for example, to New York, would he require to produce his passport at Heathrow when he checked in again?---A-Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you.---Q- Thank you. I wonder if I could ask you to look at at a document which will be shown to you on the screen.
I-think you've seen already Production 199. Image 2, please. Could you look, please about halfway down the page, at the entry for passenger number 99. Do you see next to the number "99" the name "Noonan"?---A Yes--- Q- And the initial "K"?---A Yes.---Q-If we follow along the columns of codes going to the right, do we reach at one point 06E?---A-Yes.---Q-Would that in all probability refer to the seat number to be occupied by that passenger?---A-Yes.---Q-We then see the letter "M", and in the following column we see the numeral "2". Is dat correct?---A-Yes.---Q-And would the numeral "2" tend to indicate that this passenger was recorded as having checked in two pieces of luggage?---A-Yes.---Q-Might it be the case that on a--that on occassions, a document such as this would not necessarily have an accurate record of how many pieces of luggage were checked in by a particular passenger?---A-I couldn't tell you with any certainty any more.

--Q- Well, to take an example, if this Court were to hear evidence or it were to be agreed as a matter of fact that this particular passenger checked in three pieces of luggage, would that seem to demonstrate an errorin what is recorded in this document?---A- My recollection was that the number of pieces of baggage indicated here is the number of pieces of baggage that were checked in at the orginal checking-in point, either at the man checking-in gate or at the departure gate, if was an interline passenger. If the passenger handed in a piece of hand luggage, as has been mentioned, possibly, I don't think it would have been updated to say "3".---Q- Thank you very much.

LORD SUTERLAND:
Mr. Manner, as far as standby passenger are concerned, I take it that the boarding gate is airside of the normal passport controls, Customs controls, and things of that nature?---A- Ihaven't understood your question. I'm sorry. I didn't understand the contents of your question.

LORD SUTERLAND: A passenger arrives at Frankfurt Airport without a reservation and becomes a standby passenger, right?---A-Yes.
LORD SUTERLAND: They will then be issued with boarding cards?---A-Yes.
LORD SUTERLAND: At the normal checkin desk, is that right, in the hall?---A-No. That would be at the departure gate.
LORD SUTERLAND: Well, how do they get to the departure gate without a ticket?---A- The passenger does have a ticket. They come with their ticket, but they don't have a reservation. They come to the main check-in. They are treated therefore as a standby passenger, and they go with their ticked, but without a bording pass, to the departure gate. And shortly before the flight departs, thei are given their boarding pass.
LORD SUTERLAND: Yes.Yes. Thank you.

Advocate Depute. MR. TURNBULL: I have no re-examination. Thank you.
LORD SUTERLAND: Thank you Mr. Manner. That's all.
MR. TURNBULL: *** folgend im Mebo-Kommentar.

Kommentar von MEBO:

Die Gerichts-Akten weisen aus und bestätigen, dass es für die Anklage-Seite, im "Lockerbie-Prozess", ein unangenehmes markantes Problem, mit der PA-103/A Passagierliste gab, (Computer-Printout).

N.B.- Die Anzahl der Gepäckstücke sollten auf beiden Computer-Printout's, der Ladeliste (Prod.1060) und der Passagierliste (Prod.199) übereinstimmen. Da das FAG-KIK-Computersystem miteinander vernetzt war, ist es nicht möglich gewesen, dass die Printer verschiedene Stückzahlen der eingecheckten Gepäckstücke von Karen Noonan ausgedruckt haben!
Den fatalen Fehler (Manipulation), der Gepäck-Anzahl von Karen Noonan ("2" statt "3"), auf der Passagierliste haben die Advokaten voll erkannt, aber absolut mangelhaft hinterfragt und das Problem fahrlässig zum verhängnisvollen Nachteil des verurteilten Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, unverantwortlich und "elegant" vom Tisch verbannt...

Ergänzend dazu, die fragwürdige unakzeptierbare Entschuldigung an die LORDS zu diesem blamablen Debakel;-von

***MR.TURNBULL:
My Lords, I'm afraid that the evidence has proceeded a little more efficiently today than I anticipated it might, and I have no other witnesses available now. I apologise if that a little wasted time, but perhaps the Court will understand that the Crown have been working with some unusal difficulties.
LORD SUTERLAN: Certainly. Very well.

MEBO hatte nach einer Vergrösserung der manipulierten Ziffer "2" klar festgestellt, dass diese von einer Ziffer "3" stammt. Die Ziffer "3" wurde zuvor von einem Computer gesteuerten Tintenstrahl-Printer punktiert ausgedruckt und musste dann von jemandem mit einem kleinen Eingriff auf die Ziffer "2" abgeändert worden sein. Nur mittels dieser "fast perfekten" Manipulation, wurde der inter-line Platz für das angebliche "Bomb-Bag" auf MaltaAir, geschaffen.
(siehe, orginal Computer-Printout), auf Part "A")

Auf diesem kriminellen Fundament wurde mitunter die "Malta Saga" aufgebaut;- danach soll der libysche "Official", Abdelbaset Al Megrahi ein "Samsonite Bomb-Bag", auf MaltaAir, (KM-180), eingeschleust haben, welches in Frankfurt auf PanAm 103/A mit Tray-(No. B-8849) transferiert wurde.
Wie heute eindeutig bewiesen werden kann, wurde das "Bag" (Tray-No. B-8849), nicht von MaltaAir, sondern vom "Feederflight", PanAm-643 aus Berlin-Tegel (on-line, codiert als inter-line), über Frankfurt auf PanAm-103/A transferiert...
(Siehe MEBO-Webpage Part. "A")

C Copyright Edwin Bollierì

Zürich, 17. September 2003
chapter

"The chapter of the Lockerbie investigation can only be closed when the full truth will have been established"

The full statement by PROFESSOR DR. HANS KOECHLER, observer of the International Progress Organization, nominated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands (2000-2002). The Lockerbie settlement between the US, UK and Libya;-
see URL: Koechler-Lockerbie-statement

+++NEW BOOK: Lockerbie documentation on the I.P.O. observer mission;-
see URL:http://i-p-o.org/sirxxvii.htm

+++NEW BOOK including chapter on Lockerbie trial: Prof. Dr. Hans Koechler," Global Justice or Global Revange? International Criminal Justice at the Crossroads";-
see URL: http://www.springer.at/main/book.jsp?bookID=3-211-00795-4

Zürich, 14. September 2003
back

Nach der Erfüllung, der von Libyen umstrittenen und unfairen Bedingungen des Weltsicherheitsrates, wurden die Sanktionen von UN-SC, am 12. September 2003, nach 11 Jahren aufgehoben.
Durch das zu beweisende Fehlurteil der "Scottish Justice" in der Lockerbie-Affäre beläuft sich der finazielle Schaden für die "materiellen Opfer";- das Libysche Volk, der Staat Libyen, Mr. Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, MaltaAir und MEBO LTD, gegen 45 milliarden USD.

MEBO LTD ist durch den grossen finaziellen Schaden genötigt, voraussichtlich sein Office auf Ende Oktober 2003 zu schliessen. Die "Lockerbie-Interessen" werden von der Firma EBO-(M.&E.B) übernommen.

Um die UN Sanktionen aufzuheben wurde der Staat Libyen "praktisch erpresst", die Verantwortung für das PanAm-103 Attentat über Lockerbie (1988) und das Attentat von Flug UTA-772 über Niger (1989) zu übernehmen, sowie Schadenersatz in milliarden US-Dollar zu bezahlen. (US$ 2,7milliarden Kompensation für die Hinterbliebenen der Lockerbie-Tragödie + Kompensation für die UTA-772 Opfer).

Der Staat Libyen hatte nicht, wie falscher Weise in den Welt-Medien publik gemacht wurde, die Verantwortung für die beiden Flugzeug-Attentate übernommen, sondern nur die Verantwortung ihres Staatsbürgers und "Officials", Abdelbaset Al Megrahi,
welcher durch ein rechtsgültiges Urteil der "Scottish Justice", für das angebliche Attentat auf PanAm-103 lebenslänglich verurteilt wurde!

Auszug aus der verlangten Erklärung Libyen's vom. 16.August 2003 an den UN-Security Council, unter Punkt 3;

C Copyright: Edwin Bollier

WE will fight on to clear Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing...

Das Begehren, zu beurteilen ob das fatale "Lockerbie-Urteil" von Mr. Megrahi durch markante Beweisfehler der "Scottish Justice" zustande kam, wurde am 15. August 2003 vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte zurückgewiesen. Grundangabe;- es wurden noch nicht alle Rechtsmittel ausgeschöpft. (Reappeal)

Jetzt wird bei einem "RE-APPEAL" bei der "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC); The House of Lords, in United Kingdom", mitunter von MEBO bewiesen, dass das schottische Gerichts-Urteil von Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, ein verhängnisvolles Fehlurteil war.
Nach einer seriösen Nachuntersuchung von MEBO, können massgebende materielle Gegenbeweise vorgehalten werden:

-Irreführung des Gerichts, durch manipulierte Beweisdokumente;- es gab keinen "Bombenkoffer" (B-8849)-Transfer von MaltaAir Flug KM-180 auf PA-103A, wie vom schottischen Gericht statuiert wurde.
Der "erkorene" Koffer Nr.(B-8849) wurde zweifelsfrei von PanAm, Flug PA-643 aus Berlin-Tegel kommend befördert und am 21.12.1988 als on-line "Bag", am Counter No.206 um 13.07 Uhr, jedoch fatal als inter-line "Bag", am Airport Frankfurt codiert und auf den London "Feeder"-Flug, PA-103A geladen.

-die von Zeuge No. 550, Ulrich Lumpert, gemachten falschen Zeugen-Aussagen am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist.
Der ehemalige Ingenieur von MEBO LTD, Lumpert, hat in einem nachträglichen AFFIDAFIT, (schriftliche beeidigte Erklärung), am 3.Mai 2001 bestätigt, dass er am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist, (zu Ungunsten Megrahi's und des Staates Libyen), über massgebende prozesswichtige Details der MEBO MST-13-Timer, falsche Zeugenaussagen gemacht hat.
Es kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass der Zeuge Lumpert von unbekannt angestiftet wurde, gezielte Falschaussagen zu machen...

N.B. Das angeblich aufgefundene MST-13 Timerfragment stammt nicht von den MST-13 Timer-Typen, welche von MEBO LTD nach Libyen geliefert wurden!

- dass das MEBO MST-13 Timerfragment Beweiststück, welches vor der Übergabe an das Gericht in Kamp van Zeist zum zweiten Mal, nach der Expertiese bei Prosecutor Watson (1999 in Dumfries), zu Ungunsten Libyen's von unbekannt manipuliert, bezugsweise total verbrannt wurde.

Der "Lockerbie-Strafprozess" war klar ein politischer Prozess gegen Libyen. Der zu lebenslänglich Gefängnis verurteilte libysche "Officials", Vater von 5 Kindern, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, wird mit den neuen Entlastungsbeweisen von MEBO bei einem RE-APPEAL seine Unschuldigkeit am PanAm-103 Attentat, erklagen und beweisen können...
C Copyright: Edwin Bollier, 14.09.2003

Zurich, 12.09. 03
deal

End of Libya Sanctions by UN-Security Council.
PanAm 103 (Lockerbie) and UTA 772 (Niger) deal close.
"The problem over the UTA- and the Lockerbie case is over", Colonel Muammar Gaddafi said in his adress to the world.

He said Libya did not take responsibility for the Niger or Lockerbie bombings and that the money was not a compensations payment, was simply paying a price for on lifting the UN-Sanctions!
*Earlier he claimed, the agreement was nothing more than a business deal to enable UN sanctions to be lifted and pointed to the "obscure" and "odd" wording of the Libyan statement in which it accepted responsibility for "the questionable acts of its officials". *(part from The Glasgow Herald UK)

The proposel for the Lockerbie-case RE-APPEAL will go now to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in an attempt to quash the guilty verdict.

The "Lockerbie-Bombing" absolute needs a new independent inquiry.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, his government and MEBO, still believe the officials, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi is innocent.

The "Lockerbie-Case" was a miscarriage of Scottish Justice, because the court did not consider all the available exonerate evidence. The alleged "bomb-bag", tray no. (B-8849) was not a inter-line bag from MaltaAir (KM-180). This bag was a on-line bag, coding as inter-line bag from PanAm, flight PA-643, from Berlin-Tegel... +++
C Copyright: Edwin Bollier

Gaddafi: We will fight on to clear Megrahi

Libya takes blame but maintains innocence

MICHAEL SETTLE

THE fight to clear the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will continue despite Libya officially accepting blame for Britain's worst terrorist atrocity.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, and his government still believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is innocent.

A senior Libyan source told The Herald last night: "Libya has always believed Megrahi is innocent." However, he did not elaborate on which Libyan "officials" were responsible instead.

Eddie MacKechnie, the lawyer acting on behalf of Megrahi, who is serving a life sentence in Barlinnie prison, Glasgow, was adamant the newly-brokered deal would not hinder his client's campaign to clear his name.

Mr MacKechnie said the statement agreed between Libya, America and Britain "does not deflect us from what we are trying to do for Mr Megrahi". The Glasgow-based lawyer said: "The statement has no impact for us, nor does the possible payment."

He claimed the agreement was nothing more than a business deal to enable United Nations sanctions to be lifted and pointed to the "obscure" and "odd" wording of the Libyan statement in which it accepted responsibility for "the acts of its officials".

Asked if Megrahi now felt abandoned by Tripoli because of the settlement, Mr MacKechnie was emphatic. "No. He and I and our small team are being supported by Libya and always have been."

The lawyer pointed out that his client's family were being accommodated in Glasgow courtesy of Colonel Gaddafi's government and that a consulate had been set up in the city purely to cater for Megrahi's needs, all at a cost of several million pounds a year.

In the next week or so, Megrahi's case will go before the Scottish criminal cases review commission in an attempt to quash the guilty verdict. Its consideration is expected to take several months.

An attempt to take the matter to the European Court was ruled out last week because all the domestic legal avenues had not been exhausted.

A main plank of Megrahi's case is that the UK and US governments have been engaged in a "massive cover-up" and vital evidence has been withheld that would point to the Lockerbie bombing being the work of Iran in revenge for the downing of an Iranian airbus by the USS Vancennes 15 years ago.

Mr MacKechnie added: "There is no doubt the US and UK governments know who ordered the bombing of Pan- Am 103 and who perpetrated the bombing on behalf of Iran. They have chosen for whatever reason to conceal the facts."

Some politicians and relatives of the 270 victims of the 1988 bombing also believe Megrahi is innocent.

When The Herald asked the Foreign Office, given Libya now accepted the blame for the Lockerbie bombing, whether it would press Tripoli for details on how and why the terrorist act took place, a spokeswoman replied: "It is for the Scottish investigating authorities to make further requests to the Libyans. We would support them in that but it's not for us to lead on."

Tripoli yesterday began transferring the money to be paid to victims' relatives into the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland.

In New York, members of the UN Security Council were having informal talks on the UK draft resolution to lift the sanctions against Libya. A vote was expected today or tomorrow, although this could slip because business has been dominated by the bombing of the UN mission in Baghdad.

France, which is trying to obtain a similar settlement from Tripoli for the families of 170 people killed in a 1989 attack on a French passenger jet over Niger, is threatening to block the trilateral deal.

Zürich, den 20.August 2003
Tisch

How the Libyan state was crooked into the responsibility for the Lockerbie-case

Wie der Staat Libya, mit der Verantwortung im Lockerbie-Fall, "über den Tisch gezogen wurde"

Am 14/15.November 1991 wurden durch die US-und UK-Justiz die beiden libyschen Staatsbürger, Amin Khalifa Fhimah und Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, offiziell angeklagt, das Attentat auf PanAm, Flug PA-103, ausgeführt zu haben.

Der Staat Libya wurde aufgefordert die beiden Angeklagten umgehend für ein Gerichtsverfahren in die USA, oder nach United Kingdom, auszuliefern.

Libya hatte dazumal der Auslieferung keine Folge geleistet;- Grund dafür war, dass es sich um libysche Staatsbürger handelte und Libya keine Auslieferungsverträge mit USA und UK hatte. Die libysche Justiz hatte sich aber bereit erklärt an der Aufklärung in dieser Angelegenheit mitzuhelfen.

Amin Khalifa Fhimah und Abdelbaset Al Megrahi wurden kurzerhand in Tripoli verhaftet und im Januar 1992 der libyschen Gerichtsbarkeit zugeführt.
Ihr Verteidiger Advokat Dr. Ibrahim Legwell (Tripoli), konnte das Gericht von der Unschuld der Angeklagten, nicht am PanAm Attentat beteiligt gewesen zu sein, überzeugen. Fhima und Megrahi verliessen das Gericht als freie Männer.

USA und UK gaben sich mit dem libyschen Gerichtsurteil nicht zufrieden und beharrten auf der Auslieferung von Fhimah und Megrahi. Im März 1992 wurde der UN-Security Council angerufen und ein UN-Embargo wurde angedroht (Res. 731), falls die beiden Angeklagten nicht nach USA oder UK überstellt werden. Es folgten UN-Resolution 748 (31.März 1992) später Res. 883 (1993).

Libya liess das Auslieferungs-Datum verfallen und das UN-Embago gegen den Staat Libya trat in Kraft! Libya konnte nebst anderen Unannehmlichkeiten, nicht mehr von der internationalen Zivil-Luftfahrt angeflogen werden;- darunter litt das libysche Volk sehr.

Nach jahrelangem "hin und her" wurde durch den schottischen Professor Robert Black (Edinburgh), eine Lösung gefunden, ein schottisches Gerichtsverfahren auf dem Hoheitsgebiet von Holland in "Kamp van Zeist" durchzuführen.

Die Staaten; Libya, USA, UK und die UN waren mit diesem Plan einverstanden und ein Gerichtshof wurde 1999 in Kamp van Zeist eingerichtet, inwelchem der "Lockerbie-Prozess" am 3. Mai 2000 begann.

Bevor sich die beiden Angeklagten Fhimah und Megrahi freiwillig für das Lockerbie-Gerichtsverfahren zur Verfügung stellten, wurde ein Abkommen zwischen dem Staat Libya und der UN unterzeichnet. In diesem musste unter anderem von Libya zum voraus anerkannt werden;- dass bei einem rechtsgültigen Schuldspruch, gegen die staatlich liierten Angeklagten, (Officials), der Staat Libya die Verantwortung für eventuelle Straftaten der "Officials", inkl. Schadenersatz- zahlungen übernehmen muss!

Durch die bereits in Libyen durchgeführte Untersuchung und das Gerichtsverfahren gegen Fhimah und Megrahi, waren sich die Angeklagten und der Staat Libya absolut sicher als Unbeteiligte Im Lockerbie-Fall einen Freispruch zu bekommen. Die Angeklagten wurden am 5.April 1999 nach den Niederlanden gebracht und das UN-Embargo gegen Libya wurde vorläufig ausgesetzt, nicht aufgehoben.

Es kam anders. Nach dem Gerichtsverfahren im Jahr 2000/2001, beide waren wegen der selben Tat angeklagt, wurde der eine Angeklagte, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, komplett frei gesprochen und konnte nach Libyen zurück. Der zweite Angeklagte, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, wurde im "Orginal"- und im "Appeal"-Verfahren, des Attentats an PanAm-103, schuldig gesprochen und zu lebenslangem Gefängnis verurteilt...

Hiermit sei nochmals unmissverständlich festgehalten, dass im "Lockerbie-Prozess", nicht der Staat Libya angeklagt und verurteilt wurde, sondern Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, ein angeblicher (Officials) des Libyschen-Sicherheitsdienstes.

Der UNO-Observer Professor Hans Koechler, welcher den Prozess beobachtete, bewertete das Urteil schon damals, als politisches Urteil.

Obwohl der Schuldspruch der Schottischen Justiz ein definitiv beweisbares Fehl-Urteil ist, weil das Gericht mit manipulierten Beweismitteln irre geführt wurde und wichtige Entlastungs-Beweise von der Verteidigung nicht entgegen gesetzt wurden, ist das Fehl-Urteil bis zu einem "RE-APPEAL"-Resultat zugunsten von Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, rechtsgültig!

Somit musste der Staat Libya wohl oder übel, um das UN-Embargo endgültig aufzuheben, die Verantwortung seines verurteilten Staatsbürgers, ("Officials") übernehmen. Auch die Entschädigung der Opfer im Lockerbie-Fall musste, vertragsgemäss übernommen werden. Das UN-Embargo wurde nur vorübergehend ausgesetzt, als die Angeklagten "ausgeliefert" wurden. Bei nicht Anerkennung der Verantwortungs-Übernahme ihres "Officials", durch Libyen, sowie der nicht Bezahlung der Kompensation für die Geschädigten, hätte das UN-Embargo als Druckmittel jederzeit wieder eingesetzt werden können.

Libyen blieb somit keine andere Wahl und hatte in einem Brief vom 16,August 2003, an den UN-Security Council unter Punkt 3. folgendes bestätigt:

3. In this context, and out of respect for international law pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign state:

- has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of PanAm 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials;

- has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and piedges to cooperate in good fait with any further requests for information in connection with the PanAm 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels;

- has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To this end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days.

Wer denkt der Lockerbie-Fall sei damit zu Ende, der irrt. Mr. Eddie MacKechnie, Q.C. vom Defense Team, des verurteilten Abdelbaset Al Megrahi wird vor Ende August 2003, mitunter die Beweis-Dokumentation von "MEBO", für das "RE-APPEAL" by the Scottish Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), (The House of Lords), einreichen.

Das Fehlurteil der Schottischen Justiz stützt sich hauptsächlich auf den angeblichen "Bomben-Koffer", No. (B-8849) ab. Die Justiz wurde irre geführt und nahm an, das "Bag" sei von MaltaAir, Flug KM-180 im Airport Frankfurt auf den PanAm, Flug-103 transferiert worden.
Dies hat sich bei einer seriösen Nachuntersuchung beweisbar als falsch herausgestellt.

*Der Koffer No. (B-8849) war ein transfer on-line "Bag", (als in-terline Bag codiert), aus Berlin-Tegel, von PanAm, Flug-643.

Wichtig: *Allein schon diese massgebende Tatsache müsste für eine Revision (RE-APPEAL) genügen, um das Urteil gegen den "Officials", Abdelbaset Al Megrahi zu revidieren.
Erinnerung: Im Gerichts Urteil wird behauptet;- Abdelbaset Al Megrahi hätte den angeblichen Bomben-Koffer (No. B-8849), am Luqa Airport auf den MaltaAir-Flug KM-180 nach Frankfurt eingeschleust...
C Copyright: Edwin Bollier, MEBO

16 August 2003
from VOICE of AMERICA
14 Aug 2003,11:57 UTC
Michael Drudge

Relatives of Lockerbie Bombing Victims Seek Independent Inquiry
Ex-cerpt:

Relatives of British victims of the 1988 PanAm bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, say they would rather have an independent inquiry into how the attack happened than money from Libya!+++

The father of one of the British victims is the Reverend John Mosay. His 19-year-old daughter Helga was one of the passengers on the flight, which blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988.
Reverend Mosay says the compensation agreement is a distraction from the families' quest for an investigation into alleged security failures that allowed the bombing to happen. He told British radio Thursday there are a number of questions he wants answered.
"How in the face of at least 10 very specific warnings, many of them, nothing was done to protect us? How it is that notics were put on American Embassy notice boards advising people that they ought perhaps not to fly with PanAm at that time? No one told us," Rev. Mosay said. "We need to have an independent inquiry into all these things."
Lawyers for victims' families say they signed a deal with Libyan officials in London Wednesday to set up a $2.7 billion compensation account.+++

That would clear the way for the Security Concil to lift economic sanctions that have been in effect since 1992.
The U.S. State Department plans to consult with the families of American victims about the agreement on Friday. U.S. officials say the United States will accept the deal if the families agree to it. +++

The MEBO commentary:
"Don't forget, the final bomb warning was two days befor the crash, by telex on 19.December 1988 to the loadmaster (Mr. O'Neil), for the PanAm 103, Frankfurt-to-London flight"!
Ronald O'Neil was witness number 817, in the court at Kamp van Zeist, (Production 1087, image 1.) The subject on this telex to "FRAOAPA", "12 19 1052" was an security alert for inter-line bags! All inter-line bags were examined in an x-ray machine at gate 46, wich was close to the aircraft parking position B44, then to be loaded onto the London flight PanAm 103A!
Mr. O'Neil stated on-line bags are not x-rayed, that prove, all on-line bags from Berlin-Tegel, transfer to flight PA-103, are not x-rayed!
The alleged "bomb-bag" no. (B-8849) was provable transfered on-line, from PanAm flight PA-643, from Berlin-Tegel to flight PA-103A, not from Malta-Air, flight KM-180!

Zürich. 13.August 2003
deal

Lockerbie compensations deal close, the proposel for the RE-APPEAL, by the Scottish Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), (The House of Lords), start befor end of August, 2003.

When the Lockerbie case was over, the Libyan defendant Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was jailed for life in Glasgow Scotland! Mr. Megrahi is innocent and consequently a political prisoner!
Never forget: The "Lockerbie-Judgment" was a provable demonstrable miscarriage of Scottish Justice, because the court dit not consider all the available clear, exonerate evidence!

The United States, Britain and Libya have reached an agreement in principle on a diplomatic and financial settlement to the 1988 bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Diplomats said Tuesday that negotiators were close to a plan by which the Libyan government would pay compensation to families of the Lockerbie victims. The United Nations would permanently lift sanctions imposed on Libya in 1992.

As compensation, the Libyan government has placed US$ 2,670,000,000.-- in four Swiss clearing banks via an (escrow or holding account) at the Bank of International Settlements in Basel Switzerland.

The Libyan government was not going to accept responsiblility for the crash, but will pay this sum in order to have the economic sanctions against Libya lifted permanently!

The Libyan government is confident that the truth will be forthcoming and, when it is, it will demand a refund of the money spent to have the sanctions against the Libyan people liftes.
It is clear, the new RE-APPEAL brings the truth, that no "bomb-case" was transfered from Air-Malta, Flight KM-180 to PanAm-PA 103A at Frankfurt! The alleged bomb-bag no. (B-8849), was coming from Airport Berlin-Tegel with PanAm, Flight PA-643! +++

Zürich. July 28, 2003
evidence

Der plötzliche Tod von Kurt Maier, des wichtigsten vorgesehenen Entlastungs-Zeugen, im "Lockerbie-Prozess"

Nachruf:
Lieber Kurt, Dank Deinen pflichtbewussten Eintragungen im "X-Ray- Kontroll-Logbuch vom 21. Dezember 1988 und Deinen aufgezeichneten Aussagen vom 5. Januar 1989, im Fall PanAm 103, bei der Federal- Aviation- Administration, (FAA) in Frankfurt; - wird der durch das rechtsgültige Fehlurteil der (Scottish Justice), zu lebenslänglicher Gefängnisstrafe verurteilte, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, zukünftig seine Freiheit zurück bekommen! Leider kannst Du den Ausgang der "Lockerbie-Affäre" nicht mehr erleben.

Im schottischen "Lockerbie-Gerichtsverfahren" in Kamp van Zeist, wurde von einem massgebensten Ereignis, viel zu wenig Notitz genommen! Das "Defense Team" (Duff & Taylor) hat den "Schach-matt-Zug", gegen den Staatsanwalt, mit dem Beweis von Kurt Maier's Aussage, verpasst! Wie bekannt, verlor das "Defense Team" nicht nur den "Orginal"- Prozess, sondern auch das "Appeal"!! Die Advokaten waren scheinbar unfähig die vorhandenen und wirksamen Entlastungs-Beweise, gezielt entgegen zu setzen!

Aus Kurt Meier's X-Ray Logbuch-Daten vom, 21. Dezember 1988, geht klar hervor, dass für PanAm Flug PA-103A, nur 13 inter-line Gepäckstücke über die X-Ray Station kontrolliert, registriert und geladen wurden! Sämtliche Gepäckstücke hatten eine Tray Kontroll-Nummer. Dank diesen Nummern, kann man noch heute, die Herkunft der 13 inter-line Gepäckstücke einwandfrei, den verschiedenen inter-line "Transit-Flights" zu-ordnen! Dem MaltaAir-Flug KM-180, kann beweisbar, kein Gepäckstück zu-geordnet werden, da nur 13 inter-line bags auf der (FAG-KIK)- Ladeliste registriert wurden!! (siehe Aufstellung in, Part E)

Am 25. Juli 2000 sollte der wichtigste Zeuge im "Lockerbie-Fall", Kurt Maier in den Zeugenstand treten. Stattdessen wurde der Justiz ein Telefax übermittelt welches eine Absage des Zeugen Kurt Maier und ein ärztliches Zeugnis enthielt, welches bestätigte, dass Kurt Maier aus medizienischen Gründen nicht nach Zeist reisen könne.

Auszug aus dem Gerichtsprotokoll Kamp van Zeist, vom 25. Aug. 2000
---Proceedings resumed at 3.48p.m.

LORD SUTHERLAND, Yes, Advocate Depute. MR.TURNBULL: My Lords, in the evidence of the next witness, it would be my intension to seek to introduce a statement in terms of Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
And perhaps I could take a moment to adress Your Lordships on that before calling the witness.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes. MR. TURNBULL: The statement concerned is a statement taken by the Federal Aviation Administration inspectors Saunders and Tiedge of the gentleman Kurt Maier to whom reference was earlier made. Kurt Maier is presently unwell, and I have a medical certificate which I propose to address My Lords in respect of.
This has only been obtained by fax today, and it is in German. What I had in mind, if Your Lordships thought it acceptable, was to ask the interpreter to read the document into English, thereby providing a version on the LiveNote facility, and I could thereafter address Your Lordships.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes. MR. TURNBULL: Todo this-- the interpreter has been provided with a copy, but to do it, it may be best to place a copy on the projector and have her read it, thereby enabling us all to see it. I do also, of course, have copies for Your Lordships, if you would wish them.

LORD SUTHERLAND: I don't think there is much point in producing German copies, Mr. Depute. We will read it on the screen in English, MR. TURNBULL: Can we see the document on the projector screen, please. And might I ask the interpreter to read the document to us.

THE INTERPRETER: This is the fax sent by Dr. Hanisch concerning the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, witness Kurt Maier, born on the 1st Oktober 1928, in following address, 64295 Darmstadt, Wihelm Rohrig Haus, Schibelhutweg 31. In answer to your questions with reference to the fax sent by the German criminal investigation office on the 24th of July this year, 2000, I can inform you the following.

Number 1: The above-mentioned patient has been treated by me for some time, since 1991, as an outpatient, for bronchial asthma.
On the 13th of April 2000, he telephoned me to say that for the past day, he had been lying helpless in his apartment. I visited him at home, but he was unable to open the door to me.
I then had to climb over the balcony and break one of the window panes. I found him in a terrible state, lying on the floor of his sitting room. His speech was extremely unclear, probably as a result of exsiccosis. The apartment was filled with hundreds of empty alcohol bottles. I immediately assumed that the diagnosis was chronic alcoholism and exsiccosis.

Number 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------- It's no longer possible for him to move around independently and freely, He is being treated, in fact, in a home, in a clinic, in a wheelchair. At the same time, a cebral psychosyndrome has developed, and he suffers intermittendly from disorientation . As such, he is in no fit state to be examined, nor even to travel.

That was the end of the translation of the fax.

MR. TURNBULL: If I might ask Your Lordship now to turn to Section 259 of the Act. It provides that subject to the following provisions of this section, evidence of a statement made by a person otherwise than while giving oral evidence in court in criminal proceedings shall be admissiblein those proceedings as evidence of any matter contained in the statement where the judge is satisfied,

1. that the person who made the statement will not give evidence in the proceedings of such matter for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection 2 below;
2. that evidence of the matter would be admissible in the proceedings if that person gave direct oral evidence of it;
3. that the person who made the statement would have been at the time the statement was made a competent witness in such proceedings, and;
4. that there is evidence which would entitle a jury properly directed or in summary proceedings would entitle the judge to find that the statement was made and that either it is contained in a document, or a person who gave oral evidence in the proccedings as to the statement has direct personal knowledge of the making of the statement.

Subsection 2 provides that the reasons referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 above are that the person who made the statement is dead, or by reason of his bodily or mental condition, unfit or unable to give evidence in any competent manner.

Subsection 2, subparagraph (a) being the reason is, in my submission, satisfied by the terms of the certificate that has just been laid before Your Lordships.
Returning, perhaps, to subsection 1, subparagraph (a), that paragraph is met, in light of the reason, should Your Lordships be satisfied, in terms of the medical certificate.
Subsection 1, subparagraph (b), that evidence of the matter would be admissible in the proceedings if that person gave direct oral evidence of it. The statement which I have in mind is a production in the case. It is Production Number 1791 and is an account given by Kurt Maier to the investigators of the procedures adopted by him in carrying out the x-ray of the interline baggage on the 21st of December of 1988, and so that matter would be admissible evidence if given by Mr. Maier.

Subparagraph (c) of subparagraph 1 is met, as Mr. Maier would at all times have been a competent witness. And the statement is contained in a document, and so subparagraph (d) is also met.
Subsection 5 of the section provides that notice of such an application as this requires to be given, and it anticipates that a party shall give evidence---shall give notice, rather, in writing, of the fact that the application is to be made, and the witnesses and the productions are to be adduced in connection with the evidence, and that such notice shall be given before the trial diet.

However, subsection 6, subparagraph (b), provides that a party shall not be required to give notice, as mentioned in subsection 5 above, where he satisfies the judge that there was good reason for not giving such notice. And Your Lordships will understand from the medical certificate that Mr. Maier first took unwell in April, and since that time efforts have been ongoing to ascertain his state of health, whether or not there had been any recovery, and finally to obtain information as to whether or not he would be able to travel.
And that is now available. And so I would submit that in those circumstances, it was correct to attempt to ascertain whether he would be able to give evidence, and there was no necessity to immediately apply, in advance of the trial, in writing as envisaged by subsection 5.

Subsection 7 provides that if no other party to the proceedings objects to the admission of evidence of a statement by virtue of subsection 1 above, the evidence shall be admitted without the judge requiring to be satisfied, as mentioned in that subsection. But it may be that Your Lordships would be fairly easily satisfied that the considerations set out in subsection 1 are in any event met. And in light of the medical certificate and the consideration of the legislation, I would invite Your Lordships to permit me to take evidence of this statement from the next witness, and also from a forthcoming witness, Mr. Tiedge.

LORD SUTHERLAND: My recullection is that the--was there a date on the medical certificate? I am reminded it was the 24th of July, which is yesterday.

MR. TURNBULL: The doctor just saw Mr. Maier yesterday, My. Lords. Perhaps I didn't make that plain, perhaps.

LORD SUTHERLAND: When the Crown first become aware that there might be a problem with this witness's healt? MR.TURNBULL: Just before the trial commenced, My. Lords. It was ascertained that the German police officers who attempted to serve him with a citation were not able to do so because he had been taken to the hospital. At that stage there was no information as to what his condition was, nor whether he would improve, and so it seemed inappropriate to immediately assume that he would be incapable of attending court, particularly as he might not be required for some time after that date. And so instead of immediately proceeding to serve a notice, efforts were made to ascertain what his condition was and whether or not there would be any recovery. And as time initially passed on, there were varying views as to whether or not he would make a recovery. But of course, now that it's important to hear his evidence at this stage of the trial, a decision had to be made. And this is the most up-to-date information that's available as to his condition.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes.
Mr. Burns, have you any obsevations to make on this matter? MR. BURNS: Well, in light of the terms of the medical report, My Lord, I don't feel it appropriate to make submission contrary to the Crown position in this particular matter.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you. LORD SUTHERLAND: Mr. Davidson?

MR.DAVIDSON: I have nothing to say, My Lord. LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you.

Well, as no other party to the proceeding objects to the admission of the evidence of the statement, we do not require to be satisfied, as mentioned in subsection 1, having regard to the therms of subsection 7. In any event, even if we had required to be satisfied under the terms of subsection 1, we would have been. Accordingly, we shall allow the Crown's application.

MR.TURNBULL:
The witness is number 821, My Lords, Noami Saunders.

THE MACER: Witness number 821, My Lord, Naomi Saunders.
WITNESS: NAOMI SAUNDERS, sworn.

LORD SUTHERLAND: AdvocateDepute. EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. TURNBULL:
Q-Are you Naomi Saunders? A-Yes, I am.---Q-And do you work with the Federal Aviation Administration?---A-Yes, I do.---Q-Is that normally referred to as the FAA?---A-Yes.---Q-What position do you hold there?---A-At the present time I am the manager of the airports division, in Fort Worth, Texas.--- Q- Were you with the FAA in 1988?--- A-Yes, I was.---Q-What position did you hold at the end of 1988?---A-At the end of 1988 I was in Rome. I was the manager of the civil aviation international security field office.---Q-Did the office in Rome have responsibility for other areas of Europa?---A-Yes,we did.---Q-After the destruction of PanAm 103, were you asked to assist in an assessment of procedures at Frankfurt Airport?---A-Yes,I was.---Q- And did you go there for that purpose?---A, Yes, I did.---Q- Did your assessment involve interviewing members of staff that had been associated with that flight?---A- Yes.---Q-And were you assisted in that task by David Tiedge?---A-Yes,I was.---Q- When you interviewed members of staff, did you take notes of the interviews?---A- Yes, we did.---Q-In handwriting?---A-In handwriting, yes.---Q- And were those notes later typed up into formal reports of each interview?---A Right.---Q- Can I ask you to look with me, please, at Production Number 1791. Can we see this on the projector, please. Could we see the report of the interview on the projector, please. Thank you. Is this the report of an interview conducted by you with an employee called Kurt Maier?---A-Yes, it is.---Q- And do we see that it took place on the 5th of January of 1989?---A-Right,Yes.---Q- Thank you. Can I ask you to look at Production Number 1792, please. Just give 1792 to the witness, please. Thank you. And can you confirm to me that within that production are the handwritten notes taken by you of this interview?---A- These are the handwritten notes of David Tiedge--- Q- I'm so sorry--- A-that are in front of me right now. The one on the back page, that's marked up at the top number 27, is my notes.---Q- Are your handwritten notes within this document, then?---A-Yes.---Q-They are?---A- the last page is my notes.---Q- I see. Now, Marcer, could we have, please, the report, 1791, back on the projector, please. Was the interview conducted in English?---A- Yes,it was conducted in English, yes.---Q-Do you see the portion which reads: Mr. Maier stated substantially as follows...---A-Yes.---Q- Would you then read to us, please the next pararagraph.---A-On December 21st, 1988, his working hours were 09.00 to 17.00. He was assigned to the mobile x-ray unit on the ramp for the screening of transit baggage.We asked Mr. Maier to examine the duty report for the transit x-ray dated 12-21-88. He identified the form as the one he had completed that day.

The report was in German, so Mr. Maier translated the entry made at 16.25 hours, which he advised were the bags he x-rayed for PanAm Flight 103. According to Maier, he x-rayed ten suitcases, two garment bags, and one cardboard box, size 20 by 20 by 30 centimetres.

Do you want me to coninue?---Q- Can we just pause there for a moment. In that paragraph, you spoke with Mr. Maier about a duty report completed by him. Can I ask you to look on the screen with me at Production 1076. Image 2. please. Do you recognise that as the first page of the report that you spoke with Mr. Maier about? It may require to be magnified.---A- It looks like it. I really have to say I don't recall exactly what it looks like. It was so long ago.---Q- If we look at image 3, please. And go to the bottom of the page. You'll see that there is an entry timed at 16.25, which includes reference to ten suitcases, two bags, and a carton. Does that assist in identifying this as the report that Mr. Maier spoke of?---A-Yes, it would--it would tend to.---Q- All right. Thank you.------------------

--------------A- We asked Maier how many bags he had x-rayed that day, and he advised 92 total bags, which he indicated was about normal for a day.-----------------------

MEBO COMMENTARY:
To PanAm, Flight PA-103, only 13 inter-line bags was x-rayed and laden to the airplane, with the following Tray numbers:

*B-3546, B-10773, B-10467, B-5203, B-5936, B-4809, B-6001, B-7418, B-5620, B-5070, B-3148, B-4573, B-4842
(Dates from FAG/KIK Computer printout)

1. *-All of this inter-line bags with one of this Tray-numbers not came transit from MaltaAir, Flight KM-180!!
2. --The alleged "Bomb-Bag", Tray No, B-8849 was not a inter-line bag. This bag was a on-line bag, coding as inter-line, from PanAm,Flight PA-643, from Berlin-Tegel and was not x-rayed by Kurt Maier!!

Auszug aus dem Gerichtsprotokoll, Kamp van Zeist, vom 25. Juli 2000:

-----Q- All right. Thank you. Could we now perhaps, then, return to the "Documents" channel, and could I ask you to continue reading from the report.--- A- Mr. Maier advised he opened the x-ray at that time specifically for flight 103. All of the bags he x-rayed were from other airlines, interline baggage, and all were for flight 103 only. Maier advised he sat inside the mobile x-ray unit and watched the monitor. Someone else brought the bags and put them into the machine and took them out of the machine. He stated he did not know which airlines the bags came from and found nothing unusual in any of the bags.------------
---------On January 6th, 1989, at 15.00 hours, Mr.Maier was re-interviewed to verify the numbers of interline bags which were x-rayed. Maier advised he was positive he had x-rayed 13 items for PanAm Flight 103. He again stated there were ten suitcases, two garment bags, and one cardboard carton. He advised the cardboard carton had been closed with adhesive tape. This concluded the interviews.---Q- Thank you. And both you and your colleague have signed that report?---A-Yes.---Q-Thank you. +++

MEBO KOMMENTAR

Der ehemalige X-Ray Angestellte Kurt Maier lebte nach dem Beginn des "Lockerbie-Prozesses" zusammen mit 4 Kollegen in einem Apartment, im Senioren Altersheim "Wilhelm Rohrig Haus" in Darmstadt, Deutschland.
Es wäre für das Defense Team durchaus möglich gewesen den Zeugen Kurt Meier zu einem späteren Datum, für eine kurze Zeugen-Aussage, per Auto in Darmstadt abzuholen!
Sein Leibarzt Dr. Hanisch bestätigte, dass sich Kurt Maier recht gut erholt hatte, und wieder aussagefähig gewesen wäre, dann aber am 13. August 2000, während des noch laufenden "Lockerbie-Gerichts-Verfahrens", in Darmstadt DL, plötzlich verstarb !!! ?
Auch die noch im Senioren-Heim arbeitende Betreuungs-Schwester ist gleicher Meinung! E.B. hatte gegen Ende Sommer 2000, mit Kurt Maier telephoniert und er schien, in normaler Verfassung zu sein! Vermutlich passte sein persönliches Erscheinen am Gericht nicht in das "Konzept", denn rückblickend ist von Rechts-Gelehrten bestätigt: Ein "Life-Auftritt" von Zeuge Kurt Maier am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist, hätte durch seine Aussage zu einem Freispruch für Abdelbaset Al Megrahi führen müssen! +++

Stay tuned .....