Pan Am 103 family members slam Obama, Clinton

Stilll haven't apologised. Mr Magrahi may have been found guilty of being a mass murderer. Do you think is he was really guilty the US would have been content with a trial in a two-bit country like Scotland.

No. They did not want to sully the US courts with the shabby trick that the CIA pulled.

Lockerbie will never go away until people begin to think through the lack of evidence and the faked evidence from first principles, as I am trying to do.

It is not helped by a tamed and cowering press and media that only deals with trivial issues.

Mr Bunntamas is still blasting away on Randi, so I'll quote him at length here.

Quote

Look at the interview with Pierre Salinger, which was also recorded, when Megrahi BOLD FACED LIED ON CAMERA, and said he was NOT on Malta ON THE DAY PA103 WAS BOMBED... and said, ON TAPE, that he is a "simple..family man". That he had no involvement with the Gaddafi regime, and considered relations with the Gaddafi regime a disgrace..... though he was working for them, according to Rolfe, on alleged sanctions busting, and the Gadaffi regime financed Megrahi's entire trial, in addition to his "posh" prison stay, after his prison "accoutrements" were not fitting at Barlinnie, and he was moved to Greenock (Hmmmm... again, a simple man has such pull to be moved from Barlinnie to Greenock, complete with cable and access to press interviews?) as well Saif Gaddafi's multiplle public notings on putting Megrahi's release on the table at every negotiation oil deals et. al , threatening, and noting to the media "dire consequences" during oil and other international deal negotiations, should Megrahi not be released.

HA! Simple man, disgraced by the Gaddafi regime, per Megrahi's statements in the Salinger interview. Disgraceful, indeed. Simple... Just like you and me. Simple. HA! SUUUUURRRRRE. Care to place yourself in Megrahi's "simple man genre? When the rubber hits the road, I sincerely doubt you have ANY evidence that can explain why Megrahi lied, as per above. Stair case and sanctions busting my ARSE. Simple man, abhorent of the Gaddafi regime, yet more than willing to take millions from said regime in financing his trial, and said regime putting his release on the table at every negotiation. Simple man? HARDLY.

More like The tactical man who carriued out the murderer of 270+ innocents at the direction of the Gadaffi regime - aka Libyan Official aka, admitted as guilty to the UN, by the Libyans. Time will tell, as more records come light, now that Megrahi's handlers are dead and/or put on trial. Best of luck to all of you, whom have supported this mass murdere for so long with your silly conspiracy theories.
~B

end quote

Apart from Mr Bunntamas' inaccurate and curious use of metaphor and description (a liar is bare-faced not bold faced, even in capital letters), the diatribe is nonsense. An interview by Mr Magrahi (sic) even on television is not admissable evidence, and the man chose not to go into the witness box at Zeist, so we simply do not have his side of the case.

Mr Bunntamas may not recall the difficulties Mr Salinger had with the bench at the trial and Lord Sutherland made it clear that Salinger could not use "his" court to make a political platform.

Mr Bunntamas' spelling is inexusably poor, but he gives every indication of writing before his brain is engaged.

Perhaps Mr Magrahi is right and he was not at Luqa airport that morning. It is quite possible that the CIA sent a substitute to book in and get a case on KM180. They would have been quite capable of it. Mr Magrahi chose not to run such a defence and Mr Taylor's line of questioning did not tend to suggest that he was not present. Singularly, the Crown could not prove Mr Fhimah was there, and the defendant was cleared (do you understand, Mr Bunntamas, that such a clerance in a Scottish court is much more signficant because of the existence of the "not proven" verdict.) Such subtleties of court procedure appear to be beyond your comprehension.

Your charcterisation of Mr Magrahi can be described as no more than mere innuendo, and I am not sure that his remarks have been properly put into English. He has been mistranslated before by such august agencies as Reuters.

I am still waiting for an apology from Mr Bunntamas to myself, and I shall continue to demand it, however weary the psuedonymous man gets.

Keep writing those nutty notes, Norrie

Bunntamas wrote:

While Charles Norrie may be a "victim", he is NOT a
In short. Charles Norrie is a nut-job.

As usual Mr Bunntamas is wrong. I have never said I was victim or a relative of a victim of Pan Am 103, and if Mr Bunntamas cannot understand my plain English statement, that's his problem and he speaks goobledegooky American.

But Dr Swire invited me to join his group with 24 hours of my relative being killed on UT-772. I took up the offer but am always careful to say that I am a semi-detached member of the group, whose main aim is to press for a proper new enquiry into the atrocity.

I found though that my mother and Jane Swire had a friend in common, but that does not make me reltive of a victim of Lockerbie or a relative of a victim of Lockerbie, Mr Bunntamas, but is simply a fact that important tings in the world are closer than one thinks. Note how careful I am in what I say.

You still haven't apologised Mr B, but I'll go on exposing you for your sloppy and inaccurate thinking, if necessary to the day I die, amd I've got a good few years left in me.

Lockerbie bombing: Google "the selective use of polygraphs"

Over a year has gone by Mr pseudonymous Bunntamas, and you still cannot find the effort to pouur out your filthy abuse.

Now, dear, reply sensibly.