Several people who would be testifying as to what really happened in the Pan Am 103 crash have either been falsely charged and put in prison,or met mysterious deaths. I have been in touch with these peopole for seveal years, and have received a great deal of data from them. For instance:Many of these mattes are detailed in the third edition of Defrauding America.
- Lester Coleman, a respected newsman who became an undercover operative for the Defense Intelligence Agency and worked in Beirut and Nicosia, became aware of a drug smuggling operation using Pan Am aircraft out of Frankfurt. He worked part of the time in the DEA Nicosia office where he learned about this drug smuggling operation involving CIA, DEA personnal and Lebanese and Syrian drug smugglers. He gave an affidavit to Pan Am's attorney explaining what he discovered, and was promptly charged, falsely, by Justice Department personnel He was first charged with using a false passport--given to him for his undercover operation. After that charge was eliminated, and there is a story behind that, he made known that he would be testifying in the case against the Libyans, and this was promptly followed by another charge, for which he is now incarcerated.
- Former Mossad operative and head of an international security firm in New York, Juval Aviv, was hired by Pan Am attorneys to find out how the bomb got on the plane. He came up with similar information and made a report. Justice Department prosecutors then filed false charges against him. Fortunately, the jury wasn't the usual ignorant mass that believed everything the prosecutor said, and they acquited him in about an hour's time.
- Alan Francovich, a European investigator and documentary film producer, who produced the film about Lockerbie, The Maltese Doublecross, was returning to the United States with documents showing the Justice Department coverups and false prosecution against Coleman. He suffered a heart attack upon entering Customs in the United States and the documents disappeared. A private atopsy reportedly found several needle marks on the back of his neck.
Rodney Stich
Chris Olsson wrote:
>The testimony of FBI White Knights isn’t likely to play well in Europe. It
>shouldn’t be accepted anywhere. The FBI leadership knows that recorded
>interviews are the best evidence of what was said - and that they can
>easily record all of their interviews.It is important to remember that the PA103 trial is under the evidentiary rules
of Scots Law, which may be somewhat different to its English/American
equivalents.First of all, remember that an FBI agent is not recognised as a Policeman by a
Scots Court.Remember also that Hearsay evidence is not admissible to a Scots Court.
Remember too that uncorroborated evidence is not admissible to a Scots Court.
Now let's take a hypothetical example, exaggerated for the purpose of clarity.
Let's say an FBI agent has a witness "statement", on a Form 302 or whatever, in
which a witness declares that he saw Osama Bin Laden put an object, which
appeared to be a cluster of sticks of dynamite with wires leading to an alarm
clock, into a suitcase at Heathrow Terminal 3 and place the suitcase onto the
baggage checkin belt of a PanAm checkin station. You might think that this
would be important evidence in the trial of a suspect accused of bombing the
aeroplane, but in fact this evidence would be declared inadmissible to a Scots
Court. Firstly, because the FBI agent is not recognised as a cop, his evidence
is nothing more than hearsay. The FBI guy merely heard someone say that xyz
occurred. The agent himself did not witness Laden putting something into a bag,
so the agent's "evidence" isn't worth a hill of beans. Secondly, unless there
is corroboration of the witness's evidence, such as a second person who saw the
same thing or a security video tape showing the same thing, then the witness's
evidence is inadmissible in a Scottish Court. The FBI guy's "evidence" of a
Form 302 is completely worthless.The only way the Crown Office (Prosecution) could convert the worthless FBI
crap into useful ammunition against a defendant would be to send Scottish
police officers to interview the witnesses and obtain proper Statements. Under
Scottish jurisdiction a witness can be compelled to make a statement, under
penalty of Contempt of Court charges if the witness refuses to do so. The only
exception to this rule is that no-one can be compelled to say something which
he or she has reason to believe would incriminate him/herself.It is vital to understand that in Scots Law a witness statement *MUST* be in
the witness's own words.There is a distinction is Scots Law between statements and precognitions. A
statement is in the witness's own words; a precognition is the record kept by
someone else of what the witness says. Only a statement can be put to a witness
at trial. So, if a witness says something completely different in evidence
under oath from what was said in precognition, that cannot be raised by either
the Crown or the Defence. If, however, a witness has given a statement (usually
to the police), as opposed to a precognition, at an earlier stage and departs
from that evidence at trial, the Crown will be in a position to challenge the
witness about any difference between the evidence given at trial and the
statement. Witnesses are entitled to peruse the written record of their
statements immediately prior to entering the witness box in Court.The FBI's use of 302s to try to build a phony case in support of their missile
theory for TWA800 and in support of their fabricated case against Libya is a
damning indictment of the shabby standards of the Bureau and of the rottenness
of American justice.There is a vast appetite in America for whizzo conspiracy theories and there is
a great thirst for material to reinforce the anti-Arab prejudices of the
majority of Americans. The FBI merely stokes these cravings by hyping
conspiracy theories, such as the missile nonsense in the case of TWA800; and
the anti-Qadaffi rhetoric in the case of PA103.I'd like to think that a fair trial, under the normal procedures of a Scots
Court, would assure a fair verdict in the trial of the two men who are accused
of bombing PA103. Unfortunately the signs so far are not very good.Cheers, Chris Olsson
--
Rodney Stich, E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.unfriendlyskies.com
http://www.defraudingamerica.com
http://www.druggingamerica.com
