Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Alternative take: Dr Jim Swire, father of Lockerbie victim Flora Swire

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 March 2008
As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr (David] Miliband now claims cannot be divulged to the defence.
This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.

Mr Miliband has now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates (PIIs) to "protect" the documents from release to...



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 March 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich/Switzerland 14/03/2008 00:31:11

The UK General Advocate Lord Davidson, QC, and the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, QC, can only delay the victory of truth in the "Lockerbie-scandal" but not prevent it ...

Which strategy is followed by the SCCRC in relation to the new appeal of Megrahi?

1.> The original tactics of the SCCRC were to justify the release of Megrahi with the four "unimportant" grounds (Megrahi and Malta) as mentionned in the summary of the report and maybe with the 6th ground.

Thus Megrahi would get back his long overdue freedom but the state of Libya would still remain "linked" with the attack on PanAm-103 through the MST-13 timer fragment. As a result all compensation claims und the refunding of US$ 2.1 billion would probably be an impossible task.

2.> The fact that the content of the document was kept secret since the 28th of June 2007 indicates that the document „under national security" should remain suppressed for Megrahi's defence team and the state of Libya ... or that the document was "fabricated" or suddenly discoverd for the purpose to have more judicial possibilities in concern to the MST-13 timer because of the secret status of the document.

The disclosure of the document "under national security" about the MST-13 timer would reveal the conspiracy against Libya and Megrahi not only as a miscarriage of justice but as criminal machinations of western secret services and their governments.

More of details on the website: www.lockerbie.ch


2

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich/Switzerland 14/03/2008 00:45:38

Non-disclosure of the document "under national security"
As predicted the decision of the Lord Justice General on the 7 of March 2008 definitely not to open the document "under national security" to Megrahi’s defence will be used by the defence as a strong argument for the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. The suppression of exonerating evidence for reasons of national security violates civil and human rights of the defendant and must be considered as a miscarriage of justice.

The Lord Justice General’s decision to keep the secret document (received the 13th of September 1996) under closure indicates again very clearly that the whole process against Megrahi and Libya was from the very beginning a political process and not a fair criminal trial!

More details on the webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
3

sandee,

USA 14/03/2008 21:22:43
So the fact that the US has been transpoting bombs on civilian flights is secret? Stories from luggage handlers would make your hair stand on end. Sometimes these bombs go off from radio communication frequencies. The US had to pin it to someone convenient.
4

NOYB,

15/03/2008 01:20:31
Perhaps Mr. Bollier would like to expound upon the details of Megrahi having leased office space from MEBO before the bombing occurred, rather than dribbling on in horrible English about law and which that he clearly knows knows little.
5

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich/Switzerland 16/03/2008 17:22:25
To the attention of the High Court:

The following witnesses have given wrong testimony at the trial in Kamp van Zeist (1999-2000)
and therefore have to be summoned by the appeal court in Edinburgh to testify again under oath:

1. Mr Ulrich Lumpert, ex-Engineer of MEBO Ltd (witness no.550 at Kamp van Zeist)

2. Commissioner Peter Flückiger, ex-Swiss Federal Police(BUPO), now Federal Office of Police, department for analysis und prevention (DAP) Berne CH (ex witness at Kamp van Zeist)

3. Commissioner Hans Jürgen Fuhl, ex-BKA Germany (ex
witness no.566 at Kamp van Zeist)

4. Traffic-assistant of FA11 Frankfurt, Günter Karsteleiner(ex witness no.799 at Kamp van Zeist)

5. Forensic expert Allex Feraday Experte (RARDE) ex witness no.335 at Kamp van Zeist)

6. Forensic expert Dr.Thomas Hayes (ex witness no.568 at Kamp van Zeist)

7. Chief Inspector William Williamson (ex witness no.994 at Kamp van Zeist)

++++

Additionally the following witnesses have to be summoned:

8. Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC, Scotland

9. FBI Forensic expert Thomas Thurman, USA

10. Ms Linda Mack, UK, at present in Canada)

11. Confrontation with investigator and ex witness no.548 Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, 8004 Zürich CH

Queries:

- No bombing-suitcase-transfer from AirMalta KM-180 via Frankfurt to London Heathrow.

- Manipulated ("fabricated") MST-13 timer fragment used as main piece of evidence to link Libya and Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi to the terror act.

- Blue "Baby Overall" (derived from the phone-monitoring recording from (13.12. 1988, time 11:06), between Edwin Bollier and driver Ali Benissa Tripoli, regarding a order for a blue Overall for his Baby-son. The recording was delivered 1990 to the Scottish
investigation team from xxxxxx (known)

- In 1988, proven no baby overalls were sold by Mr. Tony Gautci,Mary House Boutique in Malta. (Witness Linda Mack)

6

NOYB,

17/03/2008 14:46:42
[42] Mr Bollier and Erwin Meister formed MEBO in the early 1970s. The trial court found Mr Bollier to be at times an untruthful and at other times an unreliable witness. It did, however, accept certain parts of his evidence. In particular, it accepted that in or about July 1985 on a visit to Tripoli Mr Bollier received a request for electronic timers from Said Rashid or Ezzadin Hinshiri and that he had had military business dealings in relation to the Libyan government with Ezzadin Hinshiri since the early 1980s (para [49]). It also accepted his evidence that he had supplied twenty samples of MST-13 timers to Libya in three batches, and that he may well have been correct when he said that the Libyan order was met with the supply of timers which had circuit boards of BOTH the single-sided and the double-sided types. It accepted that in 1985 he himself delivered five of these samples on a visit to Tripoli, that in the same year he delivered another five to the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, and that in 1986 he delivered the remaining ten personally in Tripoli (para [50]). It also accepted Mr Bollier’s evidence that he attended tests carried out by the Libyan military in the Libyan desert at Sabha which involved, inter alia, the use of MST-13 timers in connection with explosives and in particular air bombs. He said that the timers were brought by Nassr Ashur. Mr Bollier attended there as a technical expert. The trial court said in para [53]:

"From the way in which he gave evidence about these tests we are persuaded that he did indeed attend such tests, although it is not clear when they were carried out or what was their purpose."

In para [54] the trial court stated:

"We also accept Mr Bollier’s evidence, supported by documentation, that MEBO rented an office in their Zurich premises some time in 1988 to the firm ABH in which the [appellant] and one Badri Hassan were the principals. They explained to Mr Bollier that they might be interested in taking a sha
7

NOYB,

17/03/2008 14:51:41
[continued from post above] share in MEBO or in having business dealings with MEBO."

[43] In para [88] the trial court made findings in fact which were based on such of the evidence of Mr Majid and Mr Bollier as had been accepted, in these terms:

"We accept the evidence that [the appellant] was a member of the JSO, occupying posts of fairly high rank. One of these posts was head of airline security, from which it could be inferred that he would be aware at least in general terms of the nature of security precautions at airports from or to which LAA operated. He also appears to have been involved in military procurement. He was involved with Mr Bollier, albeit not specifically in connection with MST timers, and had along with Badri Hassan formed a company which leased premises from MEBO and intended to do business with MEBO."

[44] In para [87] findings in fact were also made which, with one exception, were not the subject of challenge in the appeal. The paragraph is in these terms:

"On 15 June 1987 the [appellant] was issued with a passport with an expiry date of 14 June 1991 by the Libyan passport authority at the request of the ESO who supplied the details to be included. The name on the passport was Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad. Such a passport was known as a coded passport. There was no evidence as to why this passport was issued to him [this sentence is challenged]. It was used by the [appellant] on a visit to Nigeria in August 1987, returning to Tripoli via Zurich and Malta, travelling at least between Zurich and Tripoli on the same flights as Nassr Ashur who was also travelling on a coded passport. It was also used during 1987 for visits to Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus. The only use of this passport in 1988 was for an overnight visit to Malta on 20/21 December, and it was never used again. On that visit he arrived in Malta on flight KM231 about 5.30 pm. He stayed overnight in the Holiday Inn, Sliema, using the name Abdusamad. He left on 21 Decemb
8

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich/Switzerland 17/03/2008 17:22:14
Answer to:
6 NOYB, 17/03/2008 14:46:42 and 7 NOYB, 17/03/2008 14:51:41

What is your problem?
Your statement corresponds to the truth. But fact is that the MST-13 timer fragment (police No.PT/35) which was alleged found in Lockerbie, was manipulated and not from a MST-13 timer supplied to Libya. The fragment (PT/35) is proven from a non functional prototype MST-13 PC-board!

Pls.read the Affidavit and see the fotos on our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
9

NOYB,

17/03/2008 20:40:31
My main point is: "The trial court found Mr Bollier to be at times an untruthful". I agree. This corresponds to the truth. Along with ALL of the other evidence, including Megrahi and Libya being associated with MEBO in business ventures before the bombing (no irony that you're backing him now, particularly considering the amount of money flowing into Libya now that sanctions have been lifted), testing of bombing devices and Megrahi in Malta on a coded passport ON THE DAY OF THE BOMBING. Megrahi claims to be a "simple" man of innocence. HA! Who in their right mind would believe anyone associated with such acts is innocent.
I've seen your web site. Laughable.
10

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich/Switzerland 18/03/2008 08:14:06
Aswer to:
9 NOYB,17/03/2008 20:40:31

Their true history does not have anything to do with the case of "Lockerbie" or terrorism, but with normal affairs and tests of military.

Court protocols probable not complete by the SCCR-Commission?

In comparison with the UN-protocol of the trial in Kamp Zeist, copies of the original protocol used by the SCCRC for their findings had probable been falsified in all relevant matters concerning MEBO and the MST-13 timer:

Testimony of Edwin Bollier at the court trial was cut out in he copies of the original protocol and such Bollier was quoted only in fragments.

For example Edwin Bollier confirmed having sold timers to Libya. His further testimony that these timers were not identical with the fragment allegedly found in Lockerbie was cut out.

This lead to the wrong conclusion of the Commission under point 4.0 and 4.1
(Main ground that were rejected by he commission):

"The additional submissions also sought to cast doubt on the origin of a fragment of circuit board recoverd by forensic scientists which the trial court accepted had been part of the MST-13 timer that triggerd the bomb...

The commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to unndermine the trial court's conclusions in respect to the MST-13 Timer fragment (PT/35 prototype).
More details on our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch

11

NOYB,

18/03/2008 16:03:54
Answer to no. 10: What planet are you on Bollier? The true story has EVERYTHING to do with Lockerbie and terrorism. It's an APPEAL to the original CONVICTION OF A TERRORIST who bombed Pan Am 103 over LOCKERBIE.

It's no wonder the courts found you to be "at times an untruthful and at other times an unreliable witness." Hopefully they will find the same in the appeal regarding (among other things, including the timer) the alleged affidavit, which was most likely coerced.
12

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich 19/03/2008 08:23:15

Contradiction to 11 NOYB,18/03/2008 16:03:54

NOYB wen your Lockerbie-story is the truth, why we have received from the SCCR-Commission a re-appeal about "miscarriage of justice"?

Enterprise "Lockerbie" was a political and criminal conspiracy against the state of Libya, Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, MEBO Ltd. and Edwin Bollier!

Ask yourself and convincing you by the video:DISPATCHES of BBC on:
www.lockerbie.ch/mp4/dispatches.html
13

NOYB,

19/03/2008 17:08:14
RE: no. 12
Your question "why we have received from the SCCR-Commission a re-appeal about miscarriage of justice"? Is again laughable. The proper name of the referring body is SCCRC - Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The SCCRC in FACT stated in their reveiw of the Megrahi case: "The additional submissions also sought to cast doubt on the origin of a fragment of circuit board recovered by forensic scientists which the trial
court accepted had been part of the MST-13 timer that triggered the bomb. Underlying those submissions was the allegation that evidence of the timer fragment had been fabricated in order to implicate Libya in
the bombing. The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found NOTHING to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment.
Your reference to a 10 yr. old video is also laughable. But as long as we're rehashing old BBC news, have a look at this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1121924.stm
14

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich 19/03/2008 18:50:40
RE: 13 NOYB,19/03/2008 17:08:14

You can not prevent the victory of truth in the "Lockerbie-scandal"...
The freedom approaches for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi soon and all "blood money" (USD 2.1 billion) must be re-imbursed to the Foundation!

More information soon on the new BBC documentary film and on our webpage: http://www.lockerbie.ch
I`m sorry my english.

End of the announcements. eboll
15

,

19/03/2008 22:50:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

BillFann,

Glasgow 21/03/2008 10:36:53
As far as anyone can see from the proceedings of this case, no one can deny that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, painful as it is to admit. The matter of Libyan involvement is not really clear and may get clearer as the case develops, but the case against Megrahi is clearly bunk, made out of a lot of circumstantial evidence and highly doubtful testimony, some of which has to be reviewed and maybe dismissed altogether. I think it is very deplorable that Milliband is blocking the publication of this material for the defence and the court claiming 'national security' as an excuse, and I find it very suspicious...The truth of this matter needs to be settled once and for all. It is owed to the families of the victims in particular and the world in general, and I personally wish to applaud Dr. Swire who for the sake of his daughter's memory is tirelessly making every effort in his power to uncover the truth of the matter . Milliband has made a mockery out of justice by standing in the way of scrutiny and dispute of this material as the proceedings of a fair trial demands. If 'national security' does not allow the uncovering of this material, then they should not have been part of the prosecution's case in the first place.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.