Zurich, February 4, 2009
For The High Court at Edinburgh, Scotland

A) Wrong Circumstantial Evidence:

No "baggage-transfer" at Frankfurt Airport from AirMalta flight KM-180 on feeder flight PanAm flight PA-103B!

Which circumstantial evidence lead the prosecution and the judges at the Lockerbie Trial to believe that the Libyan official, Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi, had channeled a "bomb suitase" on AirMalta flight KM-180 at Luqa Airport ?

1. Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi alias, Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad (passport), was actually before the take off of AirMalta flight KM-180 on Dezember 21, 1988 at 9 am at Luqa Airport.
Note: Check-in time for the flights AirMalta KM-180 to Frankfurt and Libya Arab Airway LN-147 to Tripoli was between 08:35 and 9:15 hour local time.

2. One (1) on-line bag from PanAm PA-643 arriving from Berlin TXL was reloaded directly in Frankfurt from plane PA-643 on plane PA-103A, outside the "Conveyancing System" and therefore not coded and registerd by the "Conveyancing System".
(not registered on loading list TADD, 881221)

3. One piece of baggage (Tray No. B-8849) was coded as inter-line bag by the "Conveyancing System" (inter-line hall V3) in Frankfurt at 13:07 on "counter" no. 206.

4. On the same counter No. 206, V3, at the same time (13:07) during the coding of luggage no. B-8849, between 13:04 to 13:10, the inter-line baggage from AirMalta flight KM-180 was also coded.

5. Bag B-8849 from counter no. 206 was loaded in Frankfurt on feeder flight PA-103A and transported to London-Heathrow.

6. Bag B-8849 was transfered in Heathrow on "main flight", PA-103B, to New York.


MEBO: Allegedly found pieces of cloths from "Mary-House" (Malta) from one "bomb-bag" at the Lockerbie side are no relevant because there was no bomb bag from Malta loaded on PA-103B.

B) Correct Circumstantial Evidence versus Wrong Circumstantial Evidence.

New important fact by MEBO investigations revealed:

Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi alias, Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad (passport) was in charge of a "security appointement" and was sent by his chief, Ibrahim el Bishari (ESO), under a wrong name to Malta from December 20 to 21, 1988. But this appointement had nothing to do with the infiltration of a piece of luggage on AirMalta flight KM-180.

Mr. Megrahi was around 9 am local time at the Luqa airport to check in for his return flight to Tripoli on Libya Arab Airways flight LN-147. Accidentally at this time also AirMalta flight KM-180 was dispatched.
Note: Check-in time for the flights AirMalta KM-180 to Frankfurt and Libya Arab Airway LN-147 to Tripoli, was between 08:35 and 9:15 hour local time.

Pan Am feeder-flight for PA-103 from Frankfurt to London-Heathrow on Dezember 21, 1988 was named on all official documents as PA-103/B.

For example: On the passenger/baggage list C140V and on the three (3) Telex PTM/LDM's for the feeder-flights from Berlin-Tegel to Frankfurt. (PTM=Passenger Transfer Message)
The main-flight from London Heathrow to New York was only named as flight PA-103, (official).

MEBO's investigations into the inquiry of the German BKA's decisive investigation report for the FAA (ST 33-068507/88, HR: 2327, 02.07.1990) have revealed a fatal error.
In this report on pages 7, 13 und others the BKA named feeder-flight for PA 103 in London-Heathrow wrongly as PanAm flight PA-103/A; and the main-flight from Heathrow to New York wrongly as PA-103/B !

Extract from the BKA report HR: 2327, page 13, (4.3.2) investigations:

On the tickets of Lufthansa the above mentionned pieces of luggage (mumber) are registered. Further on continuation from Frankfurt with *PA 103 A and from London with *PA 103 B to New York. The numbers of luggage had been confirmed through various testimonies.

Rectification by MEBO:

1. PanAm flight *PA 103 A from Frankfurt to London-Heathrow was named wrongly by the BKA !
Correct is: The flight from FRA to LHR is officially known as *PA 103 B.

2. PanAm flight *PA 103 B from London-Heathrow to New York was also named wrongly by the BKA !
Correct is: The flight from LHR to New York is officially named only as *PA 103.

A careless and maybe badwilling prosecution and a negligent defence at the "Lockerbie-Trial" in Kamp van Zeist has used the same wrong additions to the flight numbers (PA-103/A und PA-103/B) for the damage of Libya. Although it was known to Mr. Burns by the "examination" of witness no. 799, Gunther Kasteleiner (FAG), what the additional letter "B" stood for!

Extract from the protocol of the trial in Kamp van Zeist, July 25, 2000, witness no. 799, Gunther Kasteleiner, FAG:

Q- Could I ask you to look, please, at Production 199. (C140V, for PA-103/B, MEBO). 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 Pan Am 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.------

Q- All right. Thank you very much indeed. Lord Sutherland: Advocate Depute. Mr Turnbull: I have no re-examination. Thank you, My Lords. Lord Sutherland: Thank you, Mr. Kasteleiner. That's all.

For remembrance: The supposed "bomb-bag" Tray No. B-8849 was a normal on-line bag from passenger no.131, Ms. Wagenführ, from flight PA-643 arriving from Berlin TXL, which wrongly had been coded as inter-line bag becasue it had been transfered by the FRA "baggage control system" on feeder flight PA-103/B. (This bag didn't come from AirMalta KM-180!)

The PanAm office in Berlin had informed correctly PanAm Frankfurt by a PTM/LDM telex that one (1) bag and one (1) passenger from PA-643 had to be transfered to PA-103/B. Because of the wrong description of flight PA-103/A, (by the BKA), the judges supposed that bag no. B-8849 was a transfer bag from PA-103/A on the "main flight" PA-103 (B) to New York.

see telex:

*(PTM/LDM: Telex FSA 0207 211130+AA TXLKOPA 211126 PA0643 21DEC TXL PTM PA0643/021 FRA PA 103B/21-- LHRO/01 B1)

*Explanation of the telex by MEBO:

PTM/LDM Telex relates to: Feeder flight PanAm PA-643 from Berlin-Tegel (TXL) to Frankfurt (FRA) Transfer on flight PA-103 B to LHRO = London Heathrow; /01= 1 passenger; B1= piece of luggage: 1

From the 25 on-line transit passengers with a total of 26 on-line bags to PA-103 B came:

From Berlin Tegel TXL: PA-643 = 1 passenger with one (1) bag, not directly reloaded from PA-643 to PA-103 B, but transfered over the luggage Conveyancing System in Frankfurt. (Registered on the loading-list TADD-881221, as Tray B-8849)

From Berlin Tegel TXL: PA-647 = (18 passengers) with 21 bags, reloaded directly to flight PA-103 B in Frankfurt;

From Berlin Tegel TXL: PA-649 = (6 passengers) with 4 bags, reloaded directly to flight PA-103 B in Frankfurt.
All, 4+21=25 bags not registered on the loading-list TADD-881221! (Only recorded on the passenger/baggage list at Production 199, (C140V, for PA-103/B, and on the 2 PTM/LDM Telex from PanAm-company Berlin-Tegel, from December 21, 1988).

Only one (1) transit on-line passenger from the Berlin-Tegel flights, without luggage had been checked on "main flight" PA-103 from Heathrow to New York.
Bag B-8849 had been checked out by passenger Wagenführ at Heathrow. Therefore it is guaranteed that bag B-8849 was not laoded on flight PA-103 to New York and is out of question as "bomb-bag" ...

RESULT: On the feeder flight PA-103/B from Frankfurt to London-Heathrow not one Samsonite suitcase - the alleged bomb suitcase, from AirMalta, flight KM-180 to PanAm flight PA-103/B - was loaded, but 3 unknown and unaccompanied luggage items from Lufthansa, flight LH-631 from Kuwait, ex tray no. B-4809, B-6001, B-7418.

Note: All institutions up to now who deal with the attack on PanAm 103, MEBO as well, have relied on the incorrect BKA flight number additions.

By Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

All MEBO proofs are under copyright protected and belong to Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd., 8004 Zurich Switzerland.

The Scottish Tudors

One incident not to overlook in the "Lockerbie-Affair" demonstrates why Lord Hardie on February 16, 2000 - three months before the Lockerbie trial (May 3, 2000) - passed over the Lockerbie indictement to his colleague Lord Advocate Colin Boyd of Duncansby.

MEBO Review:

Mr. Peter Fraser was since 1982 Solicitor General for Scotland and was planned for chief by Margaret Thatcher and became Lord Advocate in 1989, when he was made a life peer as Baron Fraser of Carmyllie, in the District of Angus and a member of the Privy Council.

He has appeared for the United Kingdom in both the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lord Fraser was the Architect for Libya's questionable responsibility in the PanAm 103 tragedy, who as Lord Advocate, initiated the Lockerbie prosecution!

At no stage, then or since, has he conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to those who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service.

During the time as Scotland's senior law officer, Lord Advocate Peter Fraser was ultimate and directly responsible for the conduct of the wrong investigation into the bombing, of PanAm 103.
He drew up the 1991 the fateful "political dye" indictment against the two accused Libyans and issued warrants for their arrest.

The Lockerbie Massacre and its politically motivated damages for Libya:

On September 13, 1996 a not yet named state (probably Germany) sent a document "under national security" (PII) to the Crown.

From a reliable socurce leaked through that the PII certificate demonstrated clearly that the allgeged bomb suitcase from Malta was not introduced by AirMalta. Because on December 21, 1988 no interline luggage transfer took place from AirMalta flight KM-180 to PanAm 103/A in Francfort to Heathrow (PA 103). MEBO's research confirms that today.

The document informs further on that the explosive device which caused the crash of Boeing 747 (PA-103) over Lockerbie was not activated by a MST-13 timer delivered to Libya by MEBO. Therefore a connection of Libya with the atrocity must be excluded beyond any doubt.

Lord Advocate Fraser was immediately briefed by the UK Crown on the document "under national security" and its exonerating content in favour of Libya.

Since September 1996 QC Lord Fraser is the main responsible for the concealment of the PII document to the disadvantage of the Trial in Kamp van Zeist, the Defence Team of the two Libyans Mr. Fhimah and Mr. Megrahi, the UN, the USA and the state of Libya!

Lord Fraser had done his part with his deliberate indictment against the alleged Libyan perpetrators of the terror act, Mr. Megrahi and Mr. Fhimah, and left the fatal outcome at the trial and the first appeal in the hands of his successor Lord Advocate Colin Boyd.

The Scottish Court in the Netherlands Thursday, March 14th, 2002, the Crown Office was announced the rejection of the Appeals:

Megrahi, a Libyan national, was found guilty 31 January, 2001, of the murder of 270 people by placing a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103 which was en route to New York when it blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988. His co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted.

Five senior judges began hearing the appeal at Camp van Zeist near Utrecht on January 23. They are Lord Cullen, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kirkwood, Lord Osborne, Lord Macfadyen, and Lord Nimmo Smith.
The original guilty verdict was returned unanimously be a panel of three judges sitting without a jury. They were Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsland and Lord Maclean.

Lord Advocate Fraser withdrew itself and from 1992 to 1995, Lord Fraser was awarded as Minister of State at the Scottish Office covering Home Affairs and Health. He was then Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry with a responsibility for export promotion and overseas investment with particular emphasis on the oil and gas industry. In 1996 he became Minister for Energy.


Why the top law officer quits?

Before the document "under national security" was shown to the designated chief judge of the Lockerbie Trial, Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie, it had already been decided by the crown at a hearing in January 2000 that Hardie as Scotland's most senior law officer would preside over the trial in Kamp van Zeist

During the course of the proceedings Lord Advocate Hardie was introduced on February 8, 2000 into the document "under national security" and was instructed to keep the document secret from the other judges and Megrahis Defense Team.

Reading the PII Lord Hardie saw clearly that he didn't want to take the reponsibility for his already prepared case against Libya anymore.

The reaction of the highly honoured senior law officer Lord Hardie was coming at once and he quits his order! Lord Advocate Hardie did not want to get its honour dirty...

On 15 Februar 2000, Lord Hardie did not want to be longer oversee the prosecution of the Lockerbie trail and have also lose his role as prosecutor in the trial of the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing...

Scotland's senior law officer has resigned from devolved Scottish government and moved to the bench as a jude.


As a successor during the Lockerbie-Process, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd was selected.
Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, who was chief prosecutor at the Lockerbie trial, reacted after the Sunday Times article- Scotland on Oktober 23, 2005, (Fraser: my Lockerbie trial doubts) later by saying: "It was Lord Fraser who, as Lord Advocate, initiated the Lockerbie prosecution. At no stage, then or since, has he conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service."

Lord Colin Boyd leadin as Advocate for Scotland from February 24, 2000 until his Lord Boyd of Duncansby's role as Lord Advocate featured leading the prosecution in the PanAm Flight 103 bombing trial between, May 2000 and January 2001. Of the two defendants, one – Mr. Fhimah – was acquitted and the other – Mr. Megrahi – was convicted on January 31, 2001 of 270 counts of murder, and sentenced to 27 years in jail. Controversy continues to surround Megrahi's conviction despite the rejection of his appeal on March 14, 2002. Evidence presented at the trial has been called into question and doubts have been expressed about the reliability of several key prosecution.

Following the announcement in April from 10 Downing Street that Colin Boyd QC, Lord Advocate, is to be appointed to the House of Lords, as of today (14 June, 2006) Mr Boyd adopts the title "The Right Honourable The Lord Boyd Of Duncansby".

Lord Boyd said: "It is a great honour, both personally and professionally, to be appointed to serve in the House of Lords. I look forward to playing an effective role in policy making for the UK, especially in relation to Scottish affairs."

Lord Boyd will be formally introduced into the House of Lords on 3 July 2006.

The ex Prosecutor of the "Lockerbie-Case" at Camp van Zeist, Lord Advocate, Lord Colin Boyd, who surprisingly gave his demission on 6th of October 2006.

May 16, 2007 it was reported that Boyd is quitting the Scottish Bar and will become a part-time consultant with public law solicitors. Strange ?

The document under "national security" was allegedly withheld from Lord Colin Boyd up to 28th June, 2007. Strange !?


But five years after the PanAm Flight 103 bombing trial, when Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi was convicted of 270 counts of murder, Lord Fraser, he cast doubt upon the proofs. Why?

After the first appeal of Libyan Official Mr. Megrahi beeing dismissed on March 14, 2002 by the High Court Peter Fraser assumed to enjoy his live to the full ...

By insider knowledge he knew at the end of summer 2005 that the SCCRC had included the PII document into its investigations.

Lord Fraser lost his peace and suffered misgivings. Thus he was tempted prematurely to give on October 23, 2005 the following public statement:


1. "My Lockerbie trial doubts".
(The Sunday Times - Scotland Mark Macaskill)

"Warrants have been issued," Fraser revealed to the world’s media packed into the cramped room. "The two accused should surrender themselves for trial." Fifteen years on, Fraser should be reflecting on the successful administration of justice. Following an unprecedented trial heard by three Scottish judges sitting in the Netherlands, one of the two Libyans, Megrahi, is now languishing in a Scottish jail, serving a life sentence for the crime. His co-accused was cleared of involvement.

As Scotland’s most senior legal officer when Megrahi was indicted, Fraser played a crucial role in bringing the Libyan to book. Yet he has now joined a growing number of people to voice disquiet about the legal proceedings which resulted in the subsequent conviction.

Fraser’s apparent concern over the reliability of Tony Gauci, the principal witness in the trial upon whose evidence the case against Megrahi hung, follows a recent steady drip of “revelations” which have stoked the fires of conspiracy.

That Megrahi’s appeal to the Scottish criminal cases review commission is imminent is perhaps no coincidence but some of the new evidence appears more compelling than that presented at his trial and subsequent appeal.

On 23 September 2003, Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for his conviction to be reviewed, and on 28 June 2007 the SCCRC announced its decision to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh after it found he "may have suffered a miscarriage of justice".
The date is intended on spring 2009 for Megrahi's second appeal which will finally decide whether or not the guilty verdict should stand. Meanwhile, Megrahi is serving his sentence in Greenock Prison, where he continues to maintain his innocence.


2. Lord Fraser: "My Lockerbie trial doubts".
(The Sunday Times - Scotland Mark Macaskill, 23 Oct. 2006)

William Taylor QC, Megrahi’s ex defence advocate, said Fraser’s latest comments are highly significant:

"For the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Lord Fraser," he said. "I’ve always held the opinion that Megrahi did not purchase clothing in Mary’s House."

Without that there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

"[Gauci] made so many errors between the descriptions he gave of the man who bought the clothing at the time and his identification some 14 years later. To say that the evidence could in any way, shape or form be relied upon struck me as being beyond belief."

Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP instrumental in organising the trial at Camp Zeist, described Fraser’s comments as an "extraordinary development".

"I think there is an obligation for the chairman and members of the Scottish criminal review body to ask Lord Fraser to see them and testify under oath — it’s that serious," he said.

“Fraser should have said this at the time and if not then, he was under a moral obligation to do so before the trial at Zeist. I think there will be all sorts of consequences.”

Professor Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at Edinburgh university also believes Fraser’s apparent shift is important. "It’s very interesting that someone who was Lord Advocate, the man who, with the attorney-general of the United States, said ‘we know who did it’ is clearly less confident now than he was back then. I am always pleased at any sign of people coming round to the view of Lockerbie which I have held since the trial."

Meanwhile in Greenock prison, as Megrahi whiles away (ill) the hours in his cell, where he is said to enjoy a range of perks including unlimited telephone calls and access to Arabic television, he may take some comfort from Lord Fraser’s comments.

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

Why did Libya pay US$ 2,7 billion compensation?
The other side of the "Lockerbie affair"

The Sottish advocates, the so called defense team (2000-2005), chosen to represent Libya's interests in the "Lockerbie case" are responsible for the worldwide financial and political damage for Libya and the loss of its international prestige !

Libyan Official Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi was found guilty for the attack on PanAm 103 and was sentenced for life by a panel of Scottish judges on January 31, 2001. On March 14, 2001 his appeal against conviction was rejected.

Mr Megrahi is jailed innocently in a Scottish prison near Glasgow and continues to assert his innocence ...

The Scottish ex Defense Team created the possibility to open the blocked account of US$ 2.7 billion at the Bank For International Settlements (BIS) Switzerland, at the damage of Libya through careless and badwillingly judicial conditions in the settlement agreement for the compensation of the dependants of the victims:

The compensations for the dependants of the victims leaned solely on the highly questionable and scandalous judgement in the "Lockerbie case" and the first appeal which had sentenced Mr Megrahi unjustly for life for purely political reasons.

The precipitated and by coercion enforced pay out of US$ 2.7 billion by the Bank For International Settlements (BIS) was specially displeasing in the settlement agreement elaborated by the Defence Team.

Very strange as well is the fact that the responsible advocate at the BIS conducted the pay out of the blocked account precipitated and did not wait until the second appeal granted by the SCCRC was held and all remedies in Scotland were exhausted. Further on various inconsistencies (manipulation of evidence) were well known to the crown, the judges and the Defence Team!

The blocked and interest-bearing account of US$ 2.7 billion in favour oft the dependants of the victims would judically not have prevented the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya.

The precipitated payment of the compensations - some bereaved called it blood money - and the untrue news coverage of the world media lead to the wrong notion that Libya had taken responsibility for the attack on PanAm 103. Libya's prime minister Ghanem rejected this assertion immediately and said that the Libyan state had been blackmailed to make the payments.

The same delaying tactics are apparent in the procrastinated petition for Megrahis second appeal by the Defence Team. The last remedy in Scotland was omitted and Megrahis second appeal was directly sent to the European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg who rejected the appeal as impermissible.

Every first-year student of law knows that the European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg can only be appealed if all remedies of the national - in this case of the Scottish law - have been exhausted.

The outcoming delay was intended. Because Mr Megrahi was legally convicted since March 14, 2002 and with the help of the patchy settlement conditions for the compensation of the victims the pay out of the blocked account in the amount of 2.7 billion US$ for the dependants could be advanced without Libya's possibility for objection.

In September 2003 Mr Megrahi demanded the reopening of his proceedings. As expected by MEBO the High Court in Edinburgh on June 28, 2007 after four yerars of inquiries of the SCCRC, granted a second appeal to Mr Megrahi.

The second appeal will start early in 2009 because of a possible miscarriage of justice in at least 6 points.

by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland