On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:13:15AM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > And, if you're thinking about Lockerbie, it's worth bearing the alternative
> > theories in mind. (You know exactly who was _supposed_ to be on board
> > Pan Am 109, but cancelled his party's reservation an hour before takeoff
> > and caught the next flight?)
> >
> > Clue: here in Scotland, 90% of the informed opinion is that the Lockerbie
> > trial will deliver one of two verdicts -- "not guilty" or "not proven".
> >
>
> I haddn't heard who was supposed to be on the flight, but I had heard
> that the defense had a supposed witness that claims a big US drug
> operation at the airport in question, who is most likely an IRA stalking
> horse (considering how much the IRA owes Gadaffi, I don't doubt it). I
> can't imagine that actual taped conversations of Gadaffi congradulating
> the team would not make it an open and shut case.
Of course, such evidence would make it an open and shut case. But I hope
you'll pardon me for doubting that evidence that hard exists; if it did,
it'd have been produced by now (if only to shut up carping critics like
myself :).
The person I was told was due to fly on Pan Am 109, incidentally, was
'Pik' Botha, the South African minister of defense, and his entourage.
(Note that I don't have a documentary source for this to hand, so I'll
have to do a lot of digging if you challenge me on it. So be it.)
If this isn't just synchronicity in action, I find the current South
African government's mediation in getting the Libyans accused of the
bombing a fair trial in a neutral country somewhat ... interesting.
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:35 MDT