Lockerbie: One of the worst crimes ever.

The perpetrators of the worst crime ever have many serious rivals for that title to contend with. Among them are the massacre of American Indians at Wounded Knee; the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the destruction of Dresden; the embargo imposed upon Iraq after Operation Desert Storm which signified the beginning of the Fifth Crusade; the genocidal British putsch into Australia after 1788 and the Spanish Inquisition. The various crimes of the Nazis and their fascist allies could also be considered to be among the worst crimes ever. The mass murder of the Aztecs also deserves a special mention.

What makes Lockerbie so special, so vile a crime that it can be considered to be among the worst crimes ever? We hope to demonstrate that the answer to that question is provided by the details of the crime itself. When Pan Am 103 crashed into the Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988, most if not all of the passengers and crew were dead as the plane had suffered an explosive decompression after a bomb exploded and crippled the plane near the Scottish border. It is therefore possible to imagine a scenario where the plane’s passengers died agonizing deaths over an extended period of time. As they died they surely could not have imagined that the tragedy would soon become far, far worse. Because unknown to the terrified passengers the crippled jet would soon slam into the town of Lockerbie itself and innocent Scottish families would be killed in the so-called security of their own homes. It is difficult to think of a more cold-bloodied, ruthlessly calculated crime – but the murders and criminality had only just begun. A number of spies and whistle-blowers caught up in the subsequent blame-game were also set up and persecuted in the ensuing period. Later, much later, when two innocent Libyans were accused of the crime, one of them, Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi was convicted and spent years and years in prison before being released because he has terminal cancer. An economic blockade imposed upon Libya was tightened after Lockerbie and many deaths were caused in Libya’s hospitals and its previously expanding industrial sector because of lack of medical supplies and spare parts.

It is also necessary to point out that many victims’ families suffered needlessly and are still unable to bring closure to the loss of their loved-ones because they have been lied to for more than twenty years. Some victims’ families are so crushed and overwhelmed by the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent cover-up they are now broken men and women, unable to move forward and in some cases too old to pick up and move on. If they had been told the truth in 1989, although the truth was difficult, they could have recovered by now. Instead they have been fed a steady diet of self-evident British and American lies for twenty years. Being lied to for only a short period of time by people we are supposed to be able to trust is very difficult to bear – but to be lied to for more than twenty years must be overwhelming. And whereas it could be argued that Americans have become accustomed to being lied to by their elected representatives as in the case of the Warren Commission, Watergate and Iran/Contra, the British have come to expect more of their politicians and government lies have been harder to manufacture. This is partly to do with the nature of the British state itself which is occasionally capable of producing honest politicians who have an uncanny ability to sniff out government lies from miles and miles away.

An early indication that the truth would become the greatest victim of the Lockerbie bombing was the arrival at the crash site of teams of American investigators in cream coloured overalls. It is very difficult to explain how the Americans arrived so quickly if they were not pre-positioned and in a general state of readiness. In some reports they immediately began searching for a briefcase carried onboard by Major Charles Mckee, an American with ties to hostage-negotiators in Lebanon – and in other reports they were searching for a CIA authorized heroin consignment. Whatever they were looking for they certainly had unprecedented access to the crime scene. A senior Scottish policeman code-named ‘The Golfer‘ to protect his identity, later testified that the Americans planted evidence, removed evidence and refused to follow instructions. His evidence was dismissed as unreliable.

In time a case began to emerge and a Palestinian splinter group were investigated for carrying out the bombing in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger jet carrying pilgrims to Mecca. When German authorities launched ‘Operation Autumn Leaves‘ in that country, they discovered four Toshiba Bombeat radio cassettes converted into bombs. A fifth unit manufactured by the same group was missing. That unit, allegedly, was the the Lockerbie bomb. A major obstacle to initiating action against the Palestinian group, it has been argued by Ian Ferguson in his book ‘Lockerbie: cover up of convenience,’ was geopolitical. Mr Ferguson suggests somewhat unconvincingly that American overtures to Syria prior to the first Gulf War led to evidence implicating the Palestinian group being ignored. Had the evidence implicating the Palestinian group, the Syrians and therefore the Iranians been solid in the first place, this writer suggests, the Americans and British would have jumped at the opportunity to lay blame for Lockerbie in that direction. Had the evidence been solid, this writer further suggests, failure to initiate action would have angered honest FBI, British and German investigators who might then have leaked damaging information to the press, opposition politicians or a foreign intelligence service. Thus, we conclude that the evidence linking the Palestinian group to Lockerbie is flaky at best. We frankly don’t believe that four Toshiba Bombeats were discovered in ‘Operation Autumn Leaves’ and that a fifth identical device was used to bring down Pan Am 103. If that information was true – once the initial four units were found – the Lockerbie bombing would have been canceled due to a major security breach. We further conclude that the American, British and German governments must think we are stupid and gullible if they expect us to believe that the Lockerbie bombers proceeded with the smoking gun of where their device was manufactured hanging over their heads.

Surely the American administration were unconcerned about the sensibilities of the Palestinian group, the Iranian regime and the Syrian junta. If the Americans wished to forge alliances, why had they shot down an Iranian passenger jet in the first place? That, we suggest, is something Mr Ferguson and others peddling the myth of Iranian involvement cannot answer. For those still clinging to the myth of Iranian involvement, we urge them to read the second half of this report where we will clearly demonstrate that at least one western intelligence operative had access to information which could only be available to the participants of the operation itself.

Perhaps the Americans had serious thoughts about framing the Iranians and then had second thoughts because they knew they couldn’t get away with it. We also think that the suggestion the Americans needed the Syrians onside in ‘Operation Desert Storm’ is far from accurate. The Syrian Ba’athists, like their Iraqi counterparts, were isolated and formed part of a rejectionist front to peace with Israel. From an American/Zionist perspective it would make far more sense to leave them in that position when American forces rolled into Kuwait. The implied threat would be that this is what happens to those who oppose H.W. Bush’s New World Order.

We also don’t think that the Americans cared very much about western hostages in Lebanon, either. If Major Charles Mckee was on his way back to America to report to his commanding officer on a breakthrough in negotiations to free them, one possible motive for the Lockerbie bombing could be that elements within the American government who opposed any concessions to the hostage-takers carried out Lockerbie to silence Mckee. With the Iranian passenger jet incident still dominating US/Iranian relations it seems likely pro Zionist elements wanted to see relations deteriorate even further. Did Mckee’s mission threaten to thwart the plans of those who intended to provoke Iran? If the hostages were freed and Lockerbie never happened, it is likely a political climate would have existed where an improvement could occur. With the Lockerbie bombing and the allegations of Iranian involvement coming so soon after, it seems we can see whose agenda was the order of the day.

Thus, we feel confident, we have dismissed suggestions an alliance of Palestinian operatives carried out Lockerbie at the behest of the Iranians. A further point which reinforces this perspective is that the evidence against Iran – apart from the Toshiba Bombeats – is an alleged transfer of funds from Iran to the Palestinian group. The sum of ten million dollars has been mentioned and “conclusive” evidence the transfer took place came, we believe, from Israel. Again, we don’t believe a word of it. We don’t think the Iranians would be that stupid to transfer such a sum in a way which could subsequently be detected. The fact that the transfer was “discovered,” on the contrary, leads us to conclude that Iran had nothing to do with Lockerbie and was being framed. To further strengthen this perspective we point out that Iran could have smuggled a bomb on board an American passenger jet for a fraction of the cost by using their own operatives – thereby keeping the compartment smaller and more secret. By allegedly contracting the destruction of Pan Am 103 to a Palestinian group widely suspected of being infiltrated by western agents, the Iranians would surely be leaving behind a trail of evidence leading to the discovery of their involvement. If the Iranians had indeed wanted to bring down an American jet in retaliation for the destruction of their own airliner, it would make far more sense for them to do it themselves as it is well known that operatives whose family members are resident within the country are prefered by agencies conducting covert operations as the operative’s loyalty and obedience are guaranteed.

Is it possible to imagine a scenario where elements within the Iranian regime conducted an unauthorised operation and therefore had no access to military resources?  To answer that question in the negative it should be pointed out that the “discovery” of the transfer implicated the highest levels of the Iranian leadership. Contracting out the operation and then having the transfer “discovered” can’t be described as “plausible deniability” by any definition of the term. Indeed, it seems, the transfer was meant to be discovered for reasons which should now be apparent.

Based on the aforementioned information it is not premature to describe Lockerbie as a false flag operation. It appears the original nation to be framed was Iran but I am unable to fully explain why the goalposts were later shifted to blame the Libyans. As I don’t have access to state resources and only receive classified information when I’m lucky on the internet of course there is going to be a knowledge gap there. It is however possible to take an educated guess about why the goalposts shifted. And for the sake of continuity that’s what we’ll proceed to do.

The Lockerbie bombing was one of the worst crimes ever, as previously stated. And it should also be clear to the reader that the evidence of the Toshiba Bombeat and the alleged ten million dollar transfer had proven insufficient to launch a case against Iran. Although the information made public about ‘Operation Autumn Leaves’ suggested a fifth Toshiba Bombeat was missing, combined police resources were unable to link the device to the Iranians or anybody else. The “discovery” of the ten million dollar transfer could be seen as an attempt to shore up the case against the Iranians – but the case remained weak. No court in the world could launch proceedings against Iran on that basis, as the British and Americans were acutely aware. Despite these facts, pressure was mounting on the British and Americans for action on the case. It seemed the British in particular were facing mounting pressure to produce results when revelations about scores of Americans in cream coloured overalls searching for a drug consignment or a missing briefcase emerged. Public unease about the case began to make way for conspiracy theories and rumours circulated that the Americans had themselves bombed the plane to silence Mckee and therefore set the stage for a new provocation against Iran.

The assault on truth led by the British and Americans intensified significantly when a new raft of evidence was presented which implicated Libya in the bombing of Pan Am 103. For reasons which should be apparent by now the evidence of the ten million dollar transfer was quietly dropped and therefore the case against Iran more or less ran out of steam. To fill the void, however, a small fragment of a Mebo timing device was discovered by a man walking his dog. This piece of evidence proved pivotal in the investigation and would ultimately lead to criminal charges being laid against two Libyan nationals. It must be stressed here that the discovery was fortuitous in two separate ways: it filled the void in the findings of the investigation which until then had been unable to make a solid case against Iran and it opened the door for the investigation to focus its sights elsewhere. The British could present the evidence as a breakthrough and the result of a long and diligent investigation which ultimately paid off. The Americans could look on approvingly at their British counterparts and praise the investigation for not jumping to hasty conclusions.

To get to this position, however, covering up the true nature of the crime had proven extremely difficult. At least one Scottish policeman, as mentioned earlier, refused to go along with the charade. A Scottish member of Parliament, Tam Dalyell, began asking extremely pertinent questions (Please see footnotes) and elements within the UK press, notably the Manchester Guardian and The Independent, expressed doubts about the government case. On the face of it, this new raft of evidence seemed conclusive in making a case against the Libyans but the more the evidence was placed under the microscope of analytical scrutiny, the desperation the British and Americans must have felt when their attempts to frame Iran fell apart was plain for all to see.

The Mebo timer fragment, for example, was no bigger than a fingernail but why the man walking his dog stopped and picked up the fragment, among all the other millions of pieces of junk strewn throughout the Scottish countryside, has never been explained. The man’s identity is shrouded in mystery and he has variously been described as a hiker, an off-duty policeman or two lovers engaged in a tryst. Whereas the Warren Commission created a ‘magic bullet theory‘ to paper over glaring inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination, Lockerbie prosecutors created a ‘magic Mebo timer fragment’ to ultimately frame the Libyans.

Much has been written about the ‘magic Mebo timer fragment’ over the years. So much bad feeling and acrimony has been generated, in fact, that it is difficult to think of a single piece of evidence which has generated  a similar furore. It appears the fragment was never tested for explosive residue and Mebo’s owner, Mr Bollier, now claims the fragment came from a non-functional prototype and that a break-in took place at his factory. The British like to give the name ‘Royal’ to some of their institutions to make them sound more impressive than they actually are. Hence the postal service becomes ‘The Royal Mail’ which sounds very impressive indeed. The Royal Armament Forensic Laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent is one of those institutions. Alan Feraday is the retired head of the unit and those convicted of the Hyde Park bombing on Feraday’s evidence had their convictions subsequently overturned. In 1983 during the trial of John Berry, four expert witnesses ridiculed Feraday’s evidence and the judge commented that Feraday should not be allowed to present himself as an expert witness in future. When conducting an examination of the Mebo timer fragment,  Feraday teamed up with Dr Thomas Hayes, whose evidence convicted the Maguire Seven, in one of the most famous post world war two miscarriages of justice. From the British and American perspective these two men would prove ideal for the job.

It isn’t necessary to go into all the details of the Mebo timer fragment scandal here. Suffice to say the evidence was manipulated in a way to link the fragment to a consignment supplied to Libya. More evidence of Libyan involvement was needed, however – a hell of a lot more evidence. And that evidence would be forthcoming courtesy of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who allegedly sold some clothes to one of the two accused Libyans. Mr Gauci’s evidence was even more flaky than the Mebo timer fragment evidence, if that is at all possible – and there have been accusations the witness was paid two million dollars by the American government to give evidence in the case. Mr Gauci, we are asked to believe, suffers from selective amnesia. He can remember selling the clothes to one of the two accused Libyans, he assured the court at Camp Zeist, on a night when it was raining and a Champions League football game was shown on Maltese television. The trouble for this version of events was that no such night existed within the given time-frame, unless it rained in the Maltese capital and the Maltese Bureau of Meteorology somehow didn’t notice. Additionally, crucially, Mr Gauci, when asked to describe the man who he sold the clothes to, described a man significantly older and taller than the accused innocent Libyan. Any reputable court in the world could not have concluded that Mr Gauci sold clothes to the  innocent Libyan but all the inconsistencies amounted to little for three Scottish judges who once again sold out Scottish independence by slavishly following instructions from their British bosses.

Once the timer fragment had been identified as part of a consignment supplied to Libya and items of clothing had been linked to one of two accused Libyan nationals, the prosecution was left with the task of explaining how the bomb got on board Pan Am 103. The Crown alleged that a piece of unaccompanied luggage was loaded at Malta on a feeder flight to Frankfurt, Germany, where it was transfered aboard Pan Am 103. There wasn’t any evidence this happened, however, certainly no record of an item of unaccompanied baggage being loaded at Malta and very sketchy incomplete evidence a brown Samsonite suitcase (document will download) was loaded at Frankfurt. Despite all these facts three Scottish judges condemned an innocent man to twenty five years in prison for a crime he never committed. It was a travesty of justice, an insult to the aspirations of the Scots to break away from British corruption and an insult to the loved ones of those initially murdered. More than that it was a brewing scandal. Even Scottish prosecutors were aghast when a guilty verdict was reached. Lockerbie prosecutors created their own worst nightmare – the scandal that refuses to die a natural death and enter the realm of countless other miscarriages of justice.

footnotes:

Six months after the bombing Police Constable Boylan was told by a colleague that Joseph Patrick Curry, Captain, US Army Special Forces, carried on board the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103. There will doubtless be those who will accuse us of cherry picking our information to fit our theory that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by those who wished to see Iranian/American relations deteriorate even further. Of course we reject that allegation. Captain Curry was an ideal candidate to carry the bomb. Whether or not he did so is beyond the scope of this report.

While researching the September 11th attacks which gave the United States and its Crusader allies a pretext to unleash its modern arsenal against the Muslim world, we began monitoring the websites run by a group named PGCC or the Police, Government Co-operation Committee. These websites were run by a man named Glen Jenvey and also by a man who identified himself as Jonathan Galt. The websites displayed an overtly pro-Russian, pro-Israeli and pro-Indian bias and an equally obvious hostility towards Palestinian self-determination. Also apparent was an anti-Pakistan bias which included an almost deafening chorus of criticism (2) against the Pakistan Secret Service.

We were very interested in monitoring the websites because we felt, almost instinctively, that we were onto something. We had reasons to believe that the 9/11 attacks were a false-flag operation for reasons which will be explained at a later date. We were also aware that other 9/11 researchers had turned their rather depleted attention spans towards other, more exotic explanations for the towers collapsing and felt that our resources would be wasted if we pursued a similar line. We focused our attention on the campaign of fear and infidel hatred being waged against Abu Hamza Al-Masri which was being orchestrated by Mr Jenvey and his supporters, with the apparent backing of the Indian CBI and elements within the Russian FSB. Mr Jenvey and Mr Galt identified P.C. Sharma of the Indian CBI as their boss at one point so our contention that Indian interests were being promoted on these websites isn’t mere guesswork on our behalf. The FSB connection was harder to pinpoint, however, and we are still unable to fully explain it despite Mr Jenvey’s contention that he worked for them “a bit.”

We need to explore these links because any investigation of the Lockerbie bombing has to be placed within an historical context. The trouble we had was that we were without any valid contemporary sources and although the Lockerbie incident weighed heavily on our minds in 1988 because we were naively pro-Libyan, our investigation only picked up and gained any momentum after Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi’s illegal conviction at Camp Zeist. Therefore, what we hope to achieve in writing this report, apart from pointing out the patently obvious, is to place the information we came across within an historical context. We hope we have demonstrated to any fair-minded reader that only by placing the Lockerbie incident itself into a correct historical perspective has the Iranian myth been finally killed off. We  believe that one of the fundamental strengths of this report is that nowhere on the internet or other media has the Iranian myth been so comprehensively demolished and we doubt the allegations will ever see the light of day again. We expect what we are actually seeing today in reality, in that the British government is maintaining what can only be described as a stunned silence while desperately implementing secrecy measures which will ensure their lies and criminality will be kept hidden for many years.

Unfortunately, for them, Almighty God, by His Divine Grace deemed otherwise. God is ultimately Compassionate and our investigation has received many blessings. Even in these difficult times, when Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi is reportedly dying, we still receive many blessings in other ways. We would like to pause at this point and introduce the following video so that no time can be lost in our urgent appeal for Muslims to please pray for Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi’s well-being. We also pray for the safety and well-being of his family and friends and we offer a special prayer for his doctors and ask Almighty God to guide them. We are acutely aware that Mr Al-Megrahi was released on the supposition that he had three months to live. The fact that he has lived for six months since his release is a source of great rejoicing for us all.                                                  

What we discovered by monitoring the PGCC websites could best be described as a gold-mine of information. We first discovered, for example, that any suggestion the 1999 Russian apartment bombings were carried out by elements within the FSB met with a very hostile response. A low-ranking FSB officer, whom the PGCC described as little more than an office clerk, had defected to London and had given information to UK security services that Mr Putin’s rise to power gained its initial momentum from the bombings and that Russian security services were in fact behind the terror as a means to usher in a new era of dictatorial state control. The allegation was vigorously denied on the PGCC website miraserve.co.uk in what can only be described as strong, colourful language. The article denounced the Russian defector as a “clown without a circus”  and invited MI5 to keep the defector as he had “insulted the dead.” On another PGCC website a rather cleverly designed animated gif image declared that the FSB/KGB  wanted their mail back which was a reference to a seizure of diplomatic mail by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government. Mr Jenvey later wrote that he enjoyed visiting Moscow’s military attache at a hotel in the Kensington area of London and described himself as a “briefcase runner” who liked to drink scotch, presumably to relax after long journeys on London’s notorious underground railway system. Russia in the period described had become embroiled in the conflict in Chechnya and had inflicted massive damage on that country’s infrastructure and mercilessly killed huge numbers of civilians. Mr Jenvey then posed as a journalist and independent film-maker, where on a Yahoo message board he denounced the Russian military action and asked contributors if they had film footage of Chechen fighters they could give him because he was making a documentary he hoped to have aired on British tv. We think that any film that was donated to Mr Jenvey’s project was handed over to Russian military analysts who would then attempt to identify the fighters involved and carry out reprisals. We mention the above examples as a way of underscoring our contention that PGCC operatives were providing intelligence and support to Mr Putin’s supporters. As a way of further strengthening this perspective we point out that Mr Jenvey and Mr Galt sometimes become prolific on Pravda’s discussion forums. Mr Jenvey was recently prolific using the user-name George Chetty.

The main argument put forward on the PGCC websites was that Britain had become a base for so-called Islamic extremists who were using the supposedly lax immigration and refugee laws to enter the country and plot attacks against their enemies. The two main “villains” who were singled out and targeted were Abu Hamza Al-Masri and Omar Bakri Muhammed. These two Muslims were the subject of a campaign of harassment by Mr Jenvey and his backers and were seen by PGCC as the antithesis of everything they claimed to stand for: free speech, pro-Israel, pro-Mr Putin and pro-India. The operation against Abu Hamza involved Mr Jenvey allegedly infiltrating Abu Hamza’s inner circle and obtaining a number of audio tapes which were then passed on to police. Mr Jenvey and his supporters described this action as a “sophisticated sting” although we believe the operation began far sooner than has been acknowledged and was a smoke-screen to execute the 9/11 attacks. We can see why the Russians and Indians would support such a campaign against so-called Islamic extremists, however, as the insurgencies in Chechnya and Kashmir were widely supported within the British Muslim community: Moscow and New Delhi were keen to isolate the fighters and deprive them of moral and political support.

PGCC operatives appear to have been unable to find any real evidence against Abu Hamza despite repeated assertions to the contrary. Some of the various allegations leveled against the firebrand cleric included the assertion that he helped orchestrate the kidnapping of western tourists in Yemen in 1999 and an equally unfounded allegation that he was responsible for the USS Cole attack. We recognize the fact that American sources had already blamed Osama Bin Laden for the Cole attack and realize that even if allegations of Abu Hamza’s involvement were indeed based on solid evidence, the likelihood would be that the Americans would be content to blame Osama and leave it at that. The allegations against Abu Hamza in relation to the Yemen hostage taking incident seemed quite specific, however, in that he was alleged to have provided the kidnappers with a satellite mobile phone. These examples serve to illustrate the paucity of evidence against Abu Hamza which infuriated Mr Jenvey and Mr Galt to the point of abstraction and led Mr Galt to phone the Russian embassy in London to ask their opinion about why his arrest had not been forthcoming. Mr Jeremy Reynolds engaged in what can only be described as a writing frenzy at this point and stressed that Galt and Jenvey’s evidence was being ignored by MI5 thereby placing western interests in peril.

Mr John Loftus’ remarks about Abu Hamza recruiting for MI6 in Kosovo provide only one possible explanation for this situation, however. It has been suggested elsewhere that the British government more or less condoned so-called Islamic extremists carrying out attacks against foreign interests as long as they didn’t launch attacks in the UK. We find it plausible, although unproven, on a case by case basis, that this was in fact the case. Where British geo-political interests overlapped with that of a group of  insurgents, as they did in the former Yugoslavia, for example, the British certainly would not refrain from using terrorist surrogates out of any humanitarian concerns. In the Yemen hostage plot, however, a third, far more likely explanation would be that allegations of criminal behaviour simply didn’t cut any ice. A more general picture of continuous Indian and Russian pressure being exerted on the British government can be discerned, however: if one allegation doesn’t stack up introduce another, then another. The desired outcome for the Indians and Russians would be to increase the pressure on the British government to act against their preferred targets: the Chechens and the LET.

Mr Jenvey and Mr Galt did eventually get their facts right and, with the assistance of their colleague in the US, Mr Reynolds, scored a coup by providing evidence against James Ujaama, an American from Seattle. who was being questioned by the FBI about his relationship with Abu Hamza and the so-called Bly, Oregon terror training camp. Although this specific case will be dealt with in far more detail at a later date, as this information is only being used to provide an historical context for Mr Jenvey’s later Lockerbie revelations, we will provide only a brief summary of the case and the later significant development where Mr Jenvey was denied a cash payment for his information under the “Rewards For Justice Program.”

Mr Jenvey, Galt and Reynolds like to portray James Ujaama as a major terrorist kingpin, although here, as elsewhere, they have their facts wrong. What is clear is that James Ujaama was a radical of sorts who at one stage ran the website StopAmerica.org. It was also alleged that Mr Ujaama ran the website Supportersofshariah.org by PGCC operatives. While it is far from clear that Mr Ujaama had sole control over the SOS website – and there is an interesting alternative viewpoint about that – it is clear that Mr Ujaama had some input into the SOS website’s development. Unfortunately for Mr Ujaama but fortunately for the PGCC and FBI, Mr Ujaama denied knowing Abu Hamza altogether, which was a fatal mistake on Mr Ujaama’s behalf since PGCC had video footage of him speaking on the same platform as the much maligned Iman.

The video evidence clearly contradicted Mr Ujaama’s statements. And although all PGCC operatives needed to do was inform the American embassy of their possession of the video, as the Americans would then probably have sent a courier to collect it, Galt, Reynolds and Jenvey made a great deal of fuss about how they skillfully uploaded the video on a certain day at a certain time, thereby taking Mr Ujaama by surprise and contradicting his evidence in the most dramatic way imaginable. Whether or not this touch of melodrama is an example of PGCC operatives reinforcing their self-portrayed image as cunning spies is neither here nor there. The end result was that American authorities had video evidence of Mr Ujaama and that was enough to eventually convict the young, highly intelligent American.

With the Americans now in the loop, convincing the British government to arrest so-called Islamic extremists could be seen as being made easier. This may, in fact, have been the whole purpose of the operation against James Ujaama – to further isolate elements within the UK government who upheld Abu Hamza’s right to free speech and to bring about a campaign to clamp-down on this most fundamental of human rights. The fact is that opposition to the policies of the UK and US governments has been widespread since the dawn of the industrial revolution and has included a powerful anti-war movement and a communist movement which openly called for workers to seize power. Despite these historical developments the most powerful elements within British society always maintained the right to free speech. To make an exception when Abu Hamza openly taunted the “United Snakes of America” was seen as an attempt to wind back the right to freely criticize and agitate.

PGCC’s Russian and Indian bosses were always going to face an uphill struggle in this regard. Horror and disgust at the Russian destruction of Chechen society was widespread in the UK while the conflict in Kashmir was widely seen as being created by the British in the first place and perpetuated by the Indian state itself. Despite and perhaps because of these sentiments, convincing the UK government to criminalize support for armed struggle quite obviously needed the Americans who share a history of repression with their Russian and Indian counterparts. We would like to emphasize at this point that we obviously cannot exonerate the British state from its colonial excesses which in many ways surpass those of the Indians, Americans and Russians. We are merely pointing out that the level of state repression in the McCarthyist era, for example, would probably have heralded the advent of a British socialist revolution.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations against James Ujaama,  he only received a two year sentence. The US government offered Mr Ujaama a plea agreement, which he initially accepted, whereby Mr Ujaama would give evidence against Abu Hamza. Mr Jenvey sensed a whiff of success and applied for a reward, as previously mentioned, under the “Rewards for Justice” program. To his astonishment – and as a considerable blow to his pride, his application was rejected.

We are unable to say why the Americans refused to pay up but Mr Jenvey took it as a personal snub. Mr Reynolds wrote a lengthy opinion piece attacking the decision but there was no going back. We are also unable to say with any degree of certainty what processes led to Mr Jenvey releasing obviously classified information on his websites but we suspect he saw it as a form of pay-back to the Americans. During the following period Mr Jenvey disclosed that the same batch of C4 had been used in the USS Cole and Bali attacks, he highlighted a remarkable claim about Tawfiq bin Attash, the alleged 9/11 plotter and sent the 9/11 Commission into a spiral of damage control. He published Abu Hamza’s home address thereby placing the life of a UK government recruiter in danger and, remarkably from our point of view,  claimed (screenshot) the Lockerbie bomb was in the sewage tanks of Pan Am 103 and not in the brown Samsonite suitcase.

Mr Jenvey’s career from this point appears to have taken a nose-dive. We saw him advertising his services at one point for the princely sum of fifty pounds per hour – surely an insignificant sum for an accomplished “briefcase runner” and spy. We were informed by Mr Jenvey that he had been forced to obtain employment in a hospital and other reports in our possession describe him at various times as an unemployed actor and truck driver. The association with Neil Doyle came to an end when Mr Jenvey revealed he received no money from the book “Terror Tracker” and we presume the Russian and Indian funding fizzled out when their intel bosses realized their aims had only partly been accomplished. Towards the end of 2003, however, a significant event took place which propelled this writer into a direct dialogue with Mr Jenvey. We cannot say our goals were achieved but in 2005 and 2006 we did believe our actions had a significant impact. The significant event we refer to was the attempted assassination of President Musharaf. Mr Jenvey created a document on his website pakistan-army-ISI.com which we saw as something of a ‘Rosetta Stone’ in our quest to understand the geopolitical forces carrying out global terrorism. Mr Jenvey’s document was titled ISI Warning and it spelled out in chilling and frightening terms the lengths PGCC would go to to carry out their military operations. Screenshots  

The reader will remember that a constant flood of criticism from PGCC towards the Pakistan ISI was a constant thread running throughout their argument that Pakistan was a police-state and unlike India which was free. With Mr Jenvey’s ‘ISI Warning,’ however, we could immediately understand why these statements were being made so frequently. To begin with, Mr Jenvey introduced himself by his real name: Jenvey Zia and also revealed that he was the adopted son of the murdered ex-Pakistani president, General Zia Ul-Haq. Mr Jenvey then underscored his feelings about the attempted assassination of Mr Musharaf in a most dramatic way. He said that his adopted father would deplore the assassination attempt if he were still alive – he hyperlinked to a biography of his late adopted father and then made what can only be described as military orders for “Al-Qaida clerics to be shot dead across Pakistan” to an unknown person named Ziadi, allegedly a person connected with “Pakistan drug gangs.” Mr Jenvey then blustered some more about how the UK police were not giving him protection and suggested somewhat tongue in cheek that they saw him as being of a similar volatile personality as Colonel Gadaffi’s son. He then went on to recall an event where the British police confiscated twenty machine guns from his Wiltshire residence, confirming our view that he was running a paramilitary operation from this unlikely location. Finally and most chillingly,  Mr Jenvey made outrageous threats against the people of Iran by declaring that if Iran was found to be responsible for the assassination attempt Mr Jenvey would bomb their mosques “on Friday at pray.” We had to stop what we were doing, sit back, gasp…and take it all in. We had never seen an html document anything like it before. Our immediate thoughts were: so that’s who controls the drug-gangs – a faction of the military loyal to General Zia, Jenvey himself – or at least ‘Ziadi.’

Of course we should have immediately shown the document to the authorities, if not the Australian authorities then the Iranian authorities against whom Jenvey was making terror threats. The mere thought that someone in Wiltshire could contemplate bombing Iranian mosques because of some alleged involvement in the assassination attempt appalled us in a way we have not been before. We began to realize that night that our decision to investigate 9/11 from a PGCC perspective had been a brilliant, albeit at times tedious decision. We were getting results, real results, while the rest of the 9/11 investigative community were living in fantasy land with one or two possible exceptions.

We could see, almost immediately, that having the ability to control criminal gangs in a country like Pakistan enabled those wielding that power to exercise a greater degree of control than could be obtained by almost any other means. A police Commander follows orders, for example – and as a general rule abides by the law. To control an armed group of drug-traffickers, however, all that would be needed would be a threat – an implied threat – that unless you act as we want you to act your drug operation will be closed down. In return, a compliant drug lord would be willing to sacrifice an agent here or an operative there in exchange for being allowed to continue a criminal venture. And of course it must be emphasized at this point that there are no “Al-Qaida” clerics anywhere in the world. There may be radical clerics and there may be radical clerics who admire Osama bin Laden but the order by Jenvey to Ziadi that Al Qaida clerics be shot dead simply doesn’t stack up. We also suggest that Pakistan’s judiciary would take an extremely dim view of such a set of instructions and would see them as an attempt to undermine national sovereignty. From a British perspective, where laws are in place to prevent unhinged – probably drunk – individuals from issuing terror threats, Mr Jenvey’s goose would be well and truly cooked. (While researching this report and using archive.org to search for hyperlinks, we discovered to our surprise a document which is also relevant in the context. We haven’t seen this document before but link to it here.)

When we awoke the next morning, Australian eastern standard time, Mr Jenvey’s website Pakistan-army-ISI.com  no longer carried the terror instructions issued in Wiltshire. The whole site was down for ‘violation of terms of service’ so our guess is that the service provider was alerted. Mr Jenvey vanished down the into the black-hole of cyber-space and, we suspect, attempted to keep his head down lest his drunken indiscretion came to public attention. A colleague did attempt to contact him or rather – to force him out of his shell with a series of provocative comments on another of Mr Jenvey’s websites twin-towers.net. It was to no avail. Mr Jenvey had well and truly gone to ground and must have been fearful MI5 would come to visit. From our perspective, we wish to apologize to the Iranian Government and the Pakistan Government for not alerting them to the threat. It was a wrong decision and we hereby admit it. Our logic at the time was that if the government raided his house and found twenty machine guns and it didn’t make front-page news then whatever he’s doing must be sanctioned by the British Government. Anyway, it was wrong not to inform the two respective governments and we have no real excuse for acting inappropriately. What if Jenvey actually carries out those threats and causes explosions at Iranian Mosques we kept asking ourselves? We could have stopped it and taken him out of action. We were wrong, wrong, wrong. There are no excuses for our lack of back-bone and principals.

Instead we got arrogant and thought we had Jenvey over a barrel. We knew that he knew exactly how many visitors his site received that night because the stats collected via a counter. We suspected, although we didn’t know, that as soon as Mr Jenvey sobered up he’d rush to his computer to check his stats, unless of course the service provider shut him down first. Of course it must be mentioned that IP addresses are included in all of Mr Jenvey’s stats as we once contemplated using the same service he used and researched the online statistics that would be made available. We waited. We didn’t say a word except the aforementioned provocative comments. We were watching the progress – or lack of it – in any attempt to have Mr Megrahi released from illegal detention and biding our time.

It was November 2005 when we finally sent an email to Mr Jenvey. He set up a new website glen-jenvey.com and the association with Galt appeared to have come to an end. We wrote to him nicely from our address at operation_breaklock@yahoo.com.au and the title of the email was ISI Warning. We asked Mr Jenvey how he knew the Lockerbie bomb was in the sewage tanks and emphasized that all we were interested in was getting Mr Megrahi out of jail. We thought his information was vital for the following reasons: knowledge about where the device was located implied a working knowledge of the operational cell which carried out the attack. It was easy, for example, for numerous commentators to lay blame for the event at the feet of the Iranians – but to have knowledge of where the device was located suggested Mr Jenvey had access to information which would normally be exclusively in the hands of the operatives themselves. Operations such as Lockerbie are carried out with strict compartments: the operational cell would be strictly quarantined from those giving the orders and possibly from others providing logistical support. Thus, we felt, that the highly specific claim that the bomb was in the sewage tank came from the operational cell which carried out the attack – or from sources whose proximity to the operational cell was so close that they had access to this information. There is an alternative explanation for this information, however, in that a forensic analysis of the wreckage could have determined this information and Mr Jenvey chanced upon it in connection with his other “spying” duties. Perhaps he overheard a conversation from investigators, for example, or was informed about it from a foreign intelligence source as part of his work with other matters. We tend to dismiss these suggestions as it would take a mighty effort for a forensic analysis to determine the bomb was in the sewage tanks and then convince investigators to announce a contrary finding. Then again, with Lockerbie, this is exactly what appears to have happened if we follow the nefarious twists and turns of the official explanation. We find it more convincing to follow the first suggestion that the information came directly from the operational cell. For this reason we concluded tentatively that Mr Jenvey’s information about the bomb in the sewage tank came out because he knew the people who put it there and hadn’t chanced upon the information by accident.

Of course we were on shaky ground by believing this information in the first place. No doubt various commentators would accuse us of being gullible in the extreme in believing something completely at variance with all the information put into the public arena by various German, American and British investigators. Our reply to this accusation is that we don’t take Jenvey’s statements on the net at face value and if – after reading this report – we are accused of making up a cock and bull story about the bomb being in the sewage tanks then our reply to this accusation is that we are only delivering a report. Mr Jenvey’s reaction to our initial email only strengthened our resolve to pursue this our path, however. He questioned how we knew that the bomb was in the sewage tanks despite the fact that the information came from one of his websites and then promised to co-operate with us once he had checked out our “bona fides.”

We weren’t sure where this left us initially. We were confused that the information we downloaded was now being turned around to ask us questions. Had Mr Jenvey forgotten writing it – or, we then considered, were there others in the PGCC group who had passwords to the site?  Were Jenvey’s websites exclusively his private websites, in other words – or did the information posted come from various individuals who may not always be aware of what was being said? Anyway, we responded to him again – not with a hyperlink but with a copy and paste of the information – and we again sensed, almost instinctively, that we made a grave error in revealing our source – despite the fact that it was his source. We had a feeling right from the beginning  that we had let him off the hook.

But not quite –  as we intend to show. We received another reply outlining the case against Iran – old, tired information we knew didn’t cut any ice. Mr Jenvey’s initial tension and surprise at our inquiry switched to firmer ground when he could reiterate the allegations against the Iranian Republic. In other words, from the outset, we knew we blew it by revealing our sources. Still, one unfortunate question remained and we posed that question to Mr Jenvey in the most straightforward way imaginable. We informed Mr Jenvey in our initial email that we knew the bomb was in the sewage tanks. His immediate reply was: “How did you know that?” So we turned the question around and asked him the same question: “What we’re trying to find out here isn’t whether you think the Iranians or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine carried out the attack – but how you knew the bomb was in the sewage tanks.” And the reply was very interesting.

Of course we weren’t skilled in this type of negotiation – but one thing which could be said in our favour was that we did know our subject. We had monitored Jenvey’s, Galts and Reynolds quasi satirical pieces, rants and essays for almost four years. And so when we got a response which included the information that the American CIA had hired Jenvey and sent him on an “undercover” mission to Iran – which included him visiting a book-fair –  we were astonished to find out that we hadn’t known this information before. The information about the bomb being in the sewage tanks was discovered while he “was watching Iranian television,” he told us. He had been spying for the Americans and just by chance managed to switch the remote control over when this vital piece of information was broadcast. Of course we didn’t believe a word of it. “Everyone in Southern Iran knows Libya was not responsible,” we learned from Jenvey. Moreover, within two days of our receiving this correspondence, Glen-Jenvey.com had its front page rewritten to include the dramatic tale of how he was recruited by the CIA, sent to Iran and visited the Iranian book-fair. It was the first anyone had ever heard of it and obviously we thought it was us who had prompted the revelations about his career as a CIA spy. We suspected it was all made up to obscure the true source of his information.

Of course we had no idea what the true story was – but we had received confirmation of the sewage tank claim, albeit in a roundabout way – and our inquiries had initiated a rather clumsy cover-up. “Don’t worry,” Jenvey assured us. “I’m writing a book with Jeremy Reynolds called ‘War of the Web’ with two whole devoted to the Lockerbie incident.” The truth will come out, we tried to reassure ourselves. And we waited and waited for the book’s launch which had been announced on Amazon.com. It was quite reasonable to conclude we wouldn’t get any further questioning Mr Jenvey and so we abandoned the tactic for a while. And it is important to reiterate that our only priority was getting Mr Megrahi out of jail – as we had no pretensions about being the only independent investigators in the world who could single-handedly unravel the Lockerbie cover-up.

And so we waited – and, as we did so, we noticed that events gained an independent momentum of their own. Mr Megrahi’s new appeal was granted and there were important calls for his immediate release. It seemed that even those who had participated in the initial cover-up and show-trial in Holland were now expressing doubts about the conviction. By monitoring various websites that seemed a good barometer of what was in the pipeline we concluded that an almost unstoppable campaign for Mr Megrahi’s freedom was in fact well underway. Did this campaign move the Scottish “justice” system? Well, yes – it did. But then we feel that powerful forces intervened and slammed the brakes on. Pre-appeal hearings began to be canceled and rescheduled months away. We feel the American and British governments still had a huge amount to lose if the truth came out. We got frustrated. We wrote once more to Mr Jenvey and threatened to publish his ISI warning and indicated our displeasure at the intolerable delay in the publication of his book. Now, in retrospect, we feel quite certain he was got at and forced to remain silent. His international audience for his terror tracker escapades must have known something was amiss. The appeal, for what it was worth, contained virtually no new information whatsoever and focused almost solely on the unreliability of Tony Gauci’s evidence and some rather belated disclosures about the Mebo Timer and the apparent fact that it was never tested for explosive residue. In other words, all the evidence which had been previously accepted by the court was now being re-examined. Why? Was the appeal just another smokescreen? We don’t have any doubt that Mr Megrahi would have accepted his release on almost any grounds – and we don’t blame him for that. We feel, however, that ‘The Golfer’s’ revelations severely rattled the Scottish “justice” system and if we were on the right track as well then only time will tell. I wish to thank my main assistant in these endeavors, a volatile young woman of Maltese descent who has a fuse so short you need to run like hell if she gets stirred up to the point of abstraction – and who has a wicked right hook. We wish to conclude by saying we wish Mr Megrahi and his family and friends all the best for the future. A report on Professor Black’s site released in the last few days indicated that Mr Megrahi may in fact live for years and years and this caused us immense pleasure indeed. Further information about the Lockerbie cover-up, especially new information, should be sent to Robert Fisk at the Independent Newspaper in the UK. Apparently he has no email address and if you should wish to contact him you must do so by post. I’m not quite sure how Mr Fisk would handle any classified information so if any of our readers have classified information they can post it on Wikileaks where the Swedish Constitution protects freedom of speech. Alternatively, you may contact the author of this report via:

operation_breaklock@yahoo.com.au or

Andreweslazak@yahoo.com.au

The book, for what it was worth, was never published. Jenvey’s “friend” Lionhart has seen it apparently. The thought of writing to Mr Reynolds and asking him about the two chapters on Lockerbie doesn’t appeal somehow. This document is finished but may have mistakes corrected over time.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s