CLPEX Chat Board

http://www.thefirmmagazine.com/fe..._as ... wire_.html

Extracted from this article is the following:

Identification of the buyer and the date of sale were immediately unsatisfactory.Quote:
Gauchi, the shopkeeper was on record as saying that pictures of Megrahi shown to him by the police were like the buyer, but he would have to have been taller and older.
Meanwhile his brother had shown him a picture of a man called Talb on the front page of the Sunday Times, which he had immediately recognized as the buyer. He had also been aware that up to $4,000,000 reward was on offer for a conviction.

I thought Gauchi did his best, under pressure, but reasonable doubt about the buyer’s identity was certainly left. Ex Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser was more critical later, calling Gauchi ‘One apple short of a picnic’.


Who did buy the clothes from Gauchi then? Remember the name

Talb, whose picture was shown to Gauchi in the Sunday Times? He was later arrested in Sweden for causing an explosion in a terrorist attack unrelated to Lockerbie. In his flat in Sweden, the police found some more of the clothing from Gauchi’s shop, and a calendar on which the 21st December 1988 was ringed.

Again, an amazing coincidence?

Did the SCCRC really need three years to decide this verdict might be unsafe?

Aside from questioning the length of time taken by SCCRC to decide on their referral have SCCRC referred this case on the evidence of an expert when all the time no expert opinion was needed.

To clarify this point above: Gauchi really did not Identify Megrahi he has always said it was Talb, yet SCCRC refer his case on Gauchi being shown a photograph 4 days prior to an ID Parade taking place.

See SCCRC referral here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=293

Page 9

Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates
that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci
picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a
magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view
evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close
proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of
the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

Very very strange that three of our High Court Judges accepted this partial Identification as evidence to base their decision to convict on, given all the issues regarding Identification evidence over the years like the "Devlin" report allong with the many others that followed.

It certainly shows how incompetent the SCCRC are at investigating these cases.

They have wasted public funds asking --- --------- for his expert opinion on non existent Identification evidence, surely this must call into question their competence in spending public funds

Wullie,
If you are looking for a further interesting coincidence, have a read of the following statement

http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/iminds04/L11- ... gauci1.pdf

and the following link

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 92.0.0.php

Note the name of the Police Officer involved who played a vital role in showing Gauci the photographs and in taking statements. A certain Harry Bell. It is believed that Gauci was originally unable to identify anyone in the photographs Bell showed him. The rest as they say is history.

Bell was later to leave Malta under a cloud.

To the uninitiated Harry Bell was later to become Director of SCRO, who was in charge during the Marion Ross misidentifications and was integral to covering up the truth.

Bell was later succeeded at SCRO by John McLean who was also heavily involved in the Lockerbie Investigation. McLean was to leave SCRO and move to Jamaica.

Of interest is the following article which appeared in the national media and makes reference to a retried Scottish police officer and quite extraordinary claims of evidence tampering

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lo ... 3298354.jp

Rather interesting.......

Thanks for the links Taggart

Taken from the Herald one here:

"In the commission's view, evidence of Mr Gauci's exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself," according to the report.

This is what SCCRC told me about the police showing photos directly before my ID Parade and one day before my arrest which clearly contradicts what they have said in Megrahi:



And this is what I was told regarding the Arresting Officers participating in my ID Parade:



Both can be viewed here in larger format:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/page11/

SCCRC also have a current Law policy where they have an agreed policy with the High Court here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/sccrcthecurrentlaw.aspx

So why after agreeing with me that what happened at my ID Parade "was not what one would expect today" did they not use their current Law policy to refer my case ?

Answer
It makes Megrahi's defence QC look very incompetent as he was the person that defended me and every aspect of my case comes back to his inability to properly prepare my defence.

He was the QC that never called crucial evidence like the Lawyer who said a witness had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view the ID Parade seen here:



And this is what he said to SCCRC after nearly 22 years:



Mr Shaw believed he knew exactly the position I had adopted but yet my defence team never called this crucial evidence.

The witness in question did not state he was a policeman from the same station when he attended for the ID Parade.

Clearly SCCRC are not evenly referring cases nor investigating them all Independently or thoroughly and they spent £1.8 Million in Megrahi's investigation and Nothing on mine.

In Megrahi he got independent expert opinions, I Got None