Richard Marquise, the FBI investigator into the Pan Am bombing, is, as far as I’m aware, the only public figure who’s tried to defend the prosecution. It’s interesting, then, that he does it rather badly.
Anyway, in an interview with OhmyNews, back in 2009, Marquise addressed the evidence that crucial (if unconvincing) witness Tony Gauci was rewarded for his testimony in the form of loadsamoney…
I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone…
When he was interviewed for Gideon Levy’s documentary Lockerbie Revisited Marquise seems to have been more equivocal…
Richard Marquise states categorically that no money was paid to any of the witnesses before the trial. In relation to witness Tony Gauci, Marquise refuses to say whether any money was paid out after the trial.
After the Al Jazeera documentary – which provided a sceptical view of the investigation – Marquise popped up in the comments at Robert Black’s blog and gave an even weirder response…
I believe that I and any of my Scottish colleagues coulod well have testified in Zeist that no witness asked for, was promised or paid money in exchange for saying anything anything.
Let’s all play a game where we answer the relevant question! Was money offered? Given? It seems so…
Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal – abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’.
Witness payments have typically been an issue when the media has offered witnesses moolah for their tales. It’s so controversial that the practice was nearly banned, and is subject to a host of regulations. (One of them, which might interest Lord Fraser, is that any payment or offer of payment must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence.) They’re concerned that the idea of cash might sway the witnesses’ judgements.
Hmm.
Seems like Mr Marquise has some ‘splaining to do.
June 24, 2011 at 10:04 pm
I’m going to be a prosecution witness in a court case in Edinburgh on Monday.
I wish someone would offer me $3 million for telling what I saw.
The accompanying notes say they won’t even pay for car parking.
June 25, 2011 at 2:14 am
Rolfe,
Ask Robert Black how he got all that funding for the multiple trips he took to Libya, illeagally, during sanctions. I’m sure he can help you figure it out.
June 25, 2011 at 2:17 am
sorry – typo – meant illegally. I’m sure you get the point.
June 25, 2011 at 2:42 am
I’ve allowed this (potentially libellous) comment through, Bunntamas, but it does occur to me that you’d be better off asking Professor Black yerself.
I must say, as well, that unless a question can be shown to be irrelevant, the character, lifestyle and motivations of the questioner are of secondary importance.
June 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm
What exactly do you think is “potentially libellous” about my comment? Robert Black has admitted to having travelled to Libya during a time when travel there was sanctioned, and he also has admitted to having his “expenses” paid by Libyan “business men”. Suggest you get a mirror and re-read your own blog post prior to slinging accusations about libel toward others who are stating fact.
~Bunntamas
June 25, 2011 at 10:02 pm
It was potentially libellous inasmuch as I had no way of knowing if it was true. This blog post – which, at your recommendation, I’ve revisited – provides a happy contrast in that I cite each claim.
(And was it illegal to visit Libya? I can’t help thinking the police would have gotten involved if it had been.)
For the record, and for what it’s worth, I disapprove of corporate and/or partisan sponsorship. These cases are hard to align, however, because we only have Gauci’s word to go on whereas everything I’ve seen Prof. Black claim can be judged against existing documents, statements and so on.
February 28, 2012 at 12:08 am
[...] Gaddafi. This, if true, would be extremely significant as the fragments, along with the unreliable testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper, is all the solid evidence the prosecution boasted. When and if that link [...]