Thursday, February 5, 2009

"Chinatown" (Featuring background to HSBC Tax Evasion Scam -how the HSBC stole $1.5 billion dollaars in order to take over The Midland Bank!)


“In Chinatown nothing is what it seems to be”Noah Cross (John Huston) to Jake Gittins (Jack Nicholson)
(from Roman Polanski’s Chinatown)



Introduction;
Parts VI & VII concern the consequences of two “Iran-Contra” fundraisers, attempts to raise “black” funds to ransom hostages. Both had very significant if unintended consequences, unrelated to the actual fraud.


The first, an attempt to solicit funds from Wimpey PLC, supposedly to bribe Malaysian politicians, was utilised by the Sunday Times in an example of “sponsored” journalism to pursue a campaign of mischief against the British and Malaysian Governments.


This arose from a Hong Kong corruption scandal in which the Hong Kong Government fraudulently presented an edited and sanitised account of the extent of this corrupt activity, centred around the head of the Legal Department's Commercial Crime Unit Charles Warwick Reid,  portraying it at harmless. The true story involved several murders including those of three witnesses whose statements were corruptly disclosed by the Hong Kong Government’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).


The story also involves prosecutions arising from the 1983 collapse of the “Carrian” group of companies, in which two of the defendants were charged not in the interests of justice but at the behest of No.10 Downing Street in order to facilitate a Civil action against the groups’ accountants (and perhaps their legal advisers) to recover the losses of a corrupt Malaysian Bank in order to appease the Malaysian Prime Minister.


When the case collapsed the UK taxpayer picked up the bill for the Bank’s losses through funding the Pergau Dam project. As a delicious irony the case lay behind the creation of the “Cash for Questions” affair, central to the allegations of Conservative Party “sleaze”, which was central to the disintegration of John Major’s Conservative Government.


The story also involves a colossal fraud, the $1billion (Aus) Bell Resources scam by which the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank reduced its massive unsecured exposure to Alan Bond as a necessary prerequisite of the takeover the Midland Bank.



A Dam Waste of Money;
On the 20th February 1994 the Sunday Times published the notorious story “Wimpey offered contract bribe to malaysian PM” under the by-line John Davison (1) A text insert referred to a previous story concerning the Pergau Dam.


This told the story of how in 1985 the British construction giant Wimpey had been approached by a “Hong Kong based British businessman David J. Hutcheson” soliciting funds supposedly on behalf of influential Malaysian politicians as bribes in order to award Wimpey the contract to build a (supposedly) proposed $600US million aluminium smelter project. The paper’s editor Andrew Neil argued on BBC2’s Newsnight that the story didn’t say money was offered to the Malaysian PM. (2)
(A baffling claim in view of the article's title!)

The story provoked the Malaysia Government to impose a further trade embargo on the United Kingdom as it was intended to do. A decade earlier, the prickly Malaysian Prime Minister Mohammed Mahathir had imposed a trade embargo in protest at Mrs Thatcher’s policy of ending subsidies for overseas students. (Malaysians of Chinese origin preferred to study in English in the UK rather than in their third language Malay. Mahathir took the view that it was the responsibility of the UK taxpayer to educate his country’s racial minority as the British had brought his country’s racial minorities to colonial Malaya.)


In January 1983 Mrs Thatcher met with PM Mahathir at Downing Street. A package of measures was agreed to improve bilateral relations. These included measures to recover the colossal losses of the Malaysian Bank Bumiputra Malaysia to the Hong Kong Carrian Group.


While obviously an “advance-fee” fraud of a type endemic in Hong Kong and the Far East at the time this fraud was of unusual significance. The fraud was launched from a “bucket-shop” in the Empire Centre, East Tsimshatsui, a sub-prime business area at the tip of the Kowloon peninsular, on or about the 11th June 1985 13 days after David Jacobsen, Director of the American University Hospital in Beirut had been kidnapped. The man behind the scam was a notorious fraudster and later a personal friend of Jacobsen’s.(3) Indeed the alias “David J. Hutcheson” may have been some clue to this. He was also part of Oliver North’s “inner circle”.(4 )


The fraud was abandoned around September 1985 after Wimpey had foolishly paid some $100,000 to “Hutcheson”. Wimpey then made a complaint to the Royal Hong Kong Police’s Commercial Crime Bureau who launched an investigation under the supervision of Superintendent Phil Layton. The Police were unable to identify or trace “David J. Hutcheson”. The other occupants of Hutcheson’s office were unable to assist. They had merely rented out a desk space to some unidentifiable person.


At the time the Sunday Times’ Wimpey bribe story was published several UK broadsheets, Newsweek Magazine, Channel 4 news and the Sunday Times itself were showing a great deal of interest in the Pergau Dam project when in 1989 £214 million or 90% of the Foreign Aid budget was devoted to this single scheme. Even the Minister for Overseas Development Chris Patten (later Governor of Hong Kong) was baffled.


By third world standards Malaysia had a high and rising standard of living. Nearly all the Foreign Aid budget was going to a single country, one with which Britain had long had fractious relations. The Prime Minister had ignored the advice of the National Audit Office who described the project as “unnecessary, unenvironmental and a waste of taxpayer’s money”.(5)

A widely held, if untrue suspicion, was that “Pergau” was about “arms for aid”, a subsidy so Malaysia would buy British military equipment. (A consequence of the new trade embargo was that the Malaysian Air Force ended up being equipped with MiGs!). In fact it was a lot sleazier than that. (6 )


Why did the Sunday Times publish as fact an obvious fraud eight years after the event? As would become clear the story had not been approved by the Sunday Times libel lawyer.


Three weeks later, on the 13.3.94 the Sunday Times published another strange story under the same by-line of “John Davison”. Risibly titled “Victim Spends Years in Jail Without Trial” this full-page story told the story of Lorraine Osman, former Chairman of the Bank Bumiputra Malaysia who had fled Malaysia in 1983 and sought asylum in the UK. He had been arrested in 1985 and had spent seven years on remand fighting extradition to Hong Kong to face corruption charges in relation to the Carrian case.(7)


(The edition of the 13th March 1994 also carried a four page special on the “Malaysian Affair” which made numerous allegations of criminality and corruption against PM Mahathir and his associates. The piece was illustrated by a number of racist caricatures). (8)


Eventually extradited to Hong Kong in 1992 Osman pleaded guilty and served a further nine months imprisonment. On his release his extradition specialist Michael J.Kingston boasted to a Hong Kong newspaper of having sold Osman’s story to a London newspaper for £5,000. (9) (If true, this would be contrary to the newspaper’s code of conduct that forbids payment for a convicted felon’s story.) According to the Independent a “freelance journalist” had touted the story to the Observer and Independent for £5,000. But who was paying whom?


Again the story was not checked for libel and repeated defamatory comments about a Malaysian politician Tengku Rezaleigh Hamza made in the earlier Wimpey story alleging Hamza was involved in the murder of the Malaysian accountant Ibrahim Jafaar (see below).


The story referred to “Alex Carlisle MP” (now Lord Carlisle a Government advisor) “making the latest of many appeals on Osman’s behalf in the House.”(10)     MPs of all parties had been  approached by Osman’s representative Kingston some of whom (such as Labour’s Barry Shearman) showed him the door. Osman’s lobbying extended to the press such as an anonymous “letter from Hong Kong” placed in Private Eye (11) and a petition published in the letter column of the The Times “Call to End 6 Year Remand” (12) signed by Mr Kingston and a number of luminaries.


The Sunday Times continued to print further stories criticizing Malaysia to the bemusement of readers and the embarrassment of the newspaper’s proprietor who was trying to establish Star TV in Asia and who sought cordial relations with the regions authoritarian governments. The “Malaysia Campaign” was sometimes seen as an attempt by News International to exert pressure on the Malaysian Government. In truth it probably demonstrated Rupert Murdoch left editorial control to his editors (reserving of course the right to sack the editor!)


In February 1996 the Sunday Times published a bizarre retraction and apology. According to the “apology” News International had been sued for defamation by Hamza in relation to two stories published in relation to the “Malaysian affair”. These stories were not referred to my title or content but by their dates of publication 20.2.94 & 13.3.94. (the Wimpey bribe story and the Osman story.) (13)


News International made an unreserved apology for these unspecified allegations and announced its agreement to pay substantial, if unspecified, damages. News International repudiated their unspecified source and stated that these stories should never have been published. The ordinary reader would have no knowledge of which stories it was referring to or that News International had retracted the story that provoked the 1994 Malaysian Trade Embargo.


Within weeks Andrew Neil, who had earlier described the Wimpey story as “copperbottomed” and vigorously defended his “Malaysian campaign”, stood down as editor. In his memoirs Neil continued to refer to the fictitious “David J. Hutcheson” as a real person. (14)



The Carrian Case:

“ There is no such thing as politically motivated crime – crime is crime is crime.” - Margaret Thatcher ( 15 )



The Carrian group of Companies were established in Hong Kong in the late 1970s by a\Singaporean George TAN Soon-gin who was living illegally in Hong Kong. (The name “Carrian” derives from the names “TAN” and his mistress Carrie Wu.)   For a time the group prospered with interests in property, transport, taxis and pest control.



The group’s main bankers were the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the Bank’s Chairman Michael Sandberg being a personal friend. (Sandberg was also a backer of Alan Bond and later Asil Nadir.) Another major backer was the Bank Bumiputra Malaysia.


This connection was a matter of controversy in Malaysia. The Bank Bumiputra Malaysia had been established with a racist mandate to support indigenous Malays (Bumiputras) rather than the more commercially sophisticated Chinese. Instead Bank Bumiputra lent nearly all it’s capital to a group of Hong Kong Chinese businessman on what transpired to be grossly inadequate security.


TAN used the services of the elite of Hong Kong’s business community. Price Waterhouse were the public companies’ accountants and John Marshall a PW partner was appointed Chairman. The groups’ Legal advisors were the Colony’s most prestigious law firm Deacons.


In 1981 Carrian pulled off the most astonishing property coup buying the Bank of America Tower, a landmark of Central District, then, almost immediately, announced its sale for 100% profit to two Hong Kong businessman the Lam brothers. Carrian’s profits soared with this coup and the share price surged. The Hong Kong property boom exploded and the Carrian group borrowed huge sums on the security of Carrian shares and mortgaged their assets to the hilt (and beyond).

An insider’s dream, the Bank of America Tower deal was a sham.  As a scheme to boost the Carrian share price those with knowledge of the scam could make a fortune . As the Lam brothers later admitted they hadn’t paid a cent. The supposed “sale” was a fraud.


Following Mrs Thatcher’s ill-fated visit to Beijing in 1983, where her hopes to negotiate an extension to the lease on Hong Kong’s New Territories were dashed, the Hong Kong Stock Market slumped and the Carrian stock price fell sharply. Bankers dumped Carrian stock, depressing the price further and leading to panic selling. As the Carrian group was on the verge of collapse the Police’s Commercial Crime Bureau raided Carrian HQ. The liabilities of the Carrian group exceeded three billion Hong Kong dollars.


Also involved in the Carrian case was the Territory’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) whose sweeping powers, including the power of press censorship, made them a formidable body to cross. Often seen as rivals to the Police with whom they later undertook some supposedly “joint” investigations they actually controlled the Police investigation of Carrian and other Police cases through their control of the Attorney General’s Commercial Crime Unit (CCU) headed since 1981 by a New Zealand Solicitor and Barrister Warwick Reid. Police files left with the Legal Department were routinely copied by the ICAC.



While the plan to raid Carrian had long been in gestation the raids were precipitated by one of two homicides in the case arising from the relationship between Bank Bumiputra Malaysia and the Carrian group.


As Carrian’s financial position worsened Bank Bumiputra’s Hong Kong subsidiary made a number of loans to the group. A Malaysian auditor Ibrahim Jafaar was sent to Hong Kong by the Bank’s HQ to investigate. He was murdered in his hotel room in Kowloon and his body found in a banana plantation in the rural New Territories.


The second suspicious death was that of John Wimbush, senior partner of Deacon’s and Chairman of the Hong Kong Law Society who had handled the conveyancing on the Bank of America Tower deal. At about 9 a.m.on Monday the 28th March 1984 Wimbush was found in the swimming pool of his Peak District apartment with a manhole cover tied to his neck with nylon rope. (Despite the apparent Masonic symbolism Wimbush was not a Mason.)


His family were out of the Territory but two teenage friends of his son were staying at the flat. At about 7 a.m. they had heard Wimbush having a heated telephone conversation with a person never officially identified. He left a brief suicide note.


The case was treated as suicide, and the party with whom Wimbush was speaking on the phone never came forward. Wimbush was to be arrested later that day.   CCB's Deputy Commander Russ "What's in a name?" Mason had made an appointment with Wimbush in advance to do so!   Also to be arrested, by appointment, were two other Deacons Solicitors partner Maurice Wong and his assistant Simon Poon who according to an anonymous CCB spokesman speaking on the Monday were “still out of town”.


At 11 am on the morning of Saturday 25th March, 48hrs before Wimbush’s death the two senior CCB officers on the Carrian case Superintendent Philip Layton and his sidekick Chief Inspector Rod Starling met Wong and Poon at Deacons offices in Swire House and briefed them on the case against them. They also told the two lawyers that they were free to leave Hong Kong.


The two lawyers along with many others had made fortunes insider trading on Carrrian shares through their knowledge of the Bank of America deal. They fled Hong Kong for Australia and the USA never to return. In evidence to the Carrian trial Layton falsely claimed the two had never been interviewed.


They had been tipped-off on the instructions of Warwick Reid at a meeting held earlier that morning at the Legal Department also attended by John Sulan, senior Legal Department official handing Carrian and by CCB’s Russ Mason. Layton had been told not to make any record of the interview and to remove the two from the Immigration Department stoplist. Layton was baffled by Reid’s instructions but did as he was told.

At the inquest into Wimbush’s death, despite heavy pressure from the Coroner to return a verdict of suicide the Jury returned an open verdict.




The Reid Affair;


In September 1989, Warwick Reid, now Director Designate of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office, (with a “character reference” from Hong Kong Attorney General Michael Thomas) (17) was arrested by the Independent Commission against Corruption ICAC and two years later pleaded guilty to unspecified corruption, (being in control of assets greater than the total of his cumulative earnings.)


While in ICAC custody Reid’s “confession” statement was concocted and Reid was presented as a “supergrass”, supposedly giving a true account of his corrupt activity in order to receive a reduced sentence and keep the bulk of his fortune intact. He served a further three years of an eight year sentence all in ICAC custody.

        Any reduction in his sentence was dependent on his coming up with a version of events that suited the Hong Kong Government and the ICAC, primarily that his “confession” would not incur any financial liability for the Hong Kong Government. While happy to dump liability for the Carrian collapse on Price Waterhouse they had no plans to face the bill for Reid’s systematic corruption. Reid claimed in Court he only took bribes to do what he would have done anyway and that no miscarriage of justice ever occurred from his taking money not to drop prosecutions.   This is of course risible.


Reid’s arrest may have been prompted by his planned move to New Zealand. The ICAC were doubtless aware of his corrupt activities and degenerate lifestyle for years prior to his arrest through one of Reid’s associates.


Toby Lok was a key figure in Reid’s admitted corruption. A corrupt former Detective Inspector and Sun Yee On Triad Society member Lok disappeared shortly before Reid’s arrest. (He is rumoured to form part of the foundations of the Hongkong Bank’s spectacular HQ at No.1 Queens Road, Central, Hong Kong.) Reid’s association with Lok long predated his admitted corruption and as early as 1981 Reid had scuppered prosecutions in major cases in which Lok was involved.


While other corrupt Policemen fled Hong Kong in the 1977 crackdown on Police corruption, (in which Lok’s own “bagman” his former Station Sergeant was arrested and charged) Lok remained in Hong Kong and was never arrested or charged. As an English speaker he had become a valuable informant for the ICAC who in its early days were staffed largely by masonic refugees from “Operation Countryman”.

      Reid’s “confession” statement produced an edited, sanitised and quite incredible account of the extent and duration of Reid’s corrupt activity pretending he had only become corrupt in April 1986 under the pressure of his elder brother’s debts (Mike Reid was a Senior Crown Counsel, Warwick Reid’s subordinate in the CCU) and that he had made corrupt deals on just six cases.


Reid gave evidence against just three persons, only one of which, a Banker, was alleged to have actually paid him money. It was apparently a mystery who was the source of the millions of dollars paid in the other five cases. The two other defendants, Oscar LAI a Solicitor, and Eddie SO a Barrister, had, as a team, represented parties in all six cases. "Carrian", the Ka Wah Bank and a number of other cases involving the collapse of Banks such as the Overseas Trust Bank, Dominican Finance Deposit Taking Company and other less high-profile cases were expunged from the official version of events.   Of particular interest Oscar LAI had been the senior Chinese partner at Deacons before he left in the aftermath of Wimbush's death to start his own firm.    While Reid's corrupt activities supposedly only commenced in May 1986 (evidence to the contrary being suppressed) he had been involved in corrupt activity in April 1984 allowing two Deacons Solicitors to flee Hong Kong and Lai and So had represented the Lam brothers when Reid dropped charges against them.  Of course Lai and So weren't going to point out they had been bribing him for years longer than was alleged!


In relation to the collapse of the Ka Wah Bank (one of several Bank collapses that feature in the “Reid affair”) the principals of the Bank the Low brothers had fled to Taiwan.(16) According to Warwick Reid’s statement the Low brothers wanted to get their hands on witness statements made in the case and Mike Reid had spent his working hours photocopying the files with a view to selling this material (as he doubtless did in other aspects of Reid’s “covered-up” corruption.) Warwick Reid’s statement noted that “the ICAC were concerned for the safety of their witnesses.”(17) Mike Reid was never arrested or charged but was allowed to return to his native New Zealand where he later committed suicide. (18)  (Trying to make the world a better place?)


On the 10th September 1989 Dr David Chye was shot dead in the garage of his Sidney home. In January 1990 his sister Mrs Brenda Caleo was hacked to death at her Sydney home. Mrs Caleo was the former mistress of one of the Low brothers. Both murders remain unsolved.


In May 1990 the world famous surgeon heart surgeon (and friend of Princess Diana) Dr Victor Chang was shot dead in a street in Sydney. This time the Police had a lucky break. The professional hitman who gunned him down had dropped his wallet at the scene! (As you do!) (19)


Like Chief Superintendent John Orr of the Strathclyde Police Sydney’s finest grasped the essential principal of successful criminal investigation - “you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”, and arrested the assassin, who had been working as a restaurant plongeur (dish-washer) as he boarded a flight to his native Malaysia.(20) He got life.


Marketing confidential files to suspects and to the ICAC was an important revenue stream for the Reid brothers. But had Mike Reid actually sold the Ka Wah Bank papers or was this passage in Reid’s statement created to exonerate the ICAC and the new Attorney General Jeremy Mathews from their own responsibility for the murder of these three witnesses?


The Hong Kong Government had brought a crackpot Civil action against the principals of the Ka Wah Bank which recovered $200HK (£20 sterling) of the $3HK billion (£300 million) liabilities of the Bank. To provided the evidence for this civil action the Hong Kong Government engaged the services of a firm of private detectives with a personal link to a senior ICAC officer. Did these private detectives actually conduct an “investigation” or did they simply use copies of statements given in confidence, passed to them illegally (under the secrecy clauses in the ICAC Ordinance)?


Evidence that contradicted Reid’s self-serving claims of the extent and duration of his corrupt activities was suppressed and the authorities relied on the fact they would not be trampled in the rush of Reid’s other paymasters to confess. Reid had channelled his corrupt payments (or at least the few deals that were admitted to) through a Singaporean bank account he had opened in his mother’s maiden name. The date this account was opened and the activity on the account went undisclosed in evidence.


Also not disclosed was that when 26 year old Reid joined the Hong Kong Government in 1975 he had recently divorced his wife and was supporting two children. (22) As a junior Crown Counsel, living a riotous bachelor lifestyle (23), Reid was under financial pressure as soon as he landed in Hong Kong eleven years before he supposedly became corrupt.


For the purposes of managing the “Reid Affair” the Hong Kong Legal Department (or the ICAC) imported a new DPP John Wood, former head of the UK Serious Fraud Office, who announced within days of his arrival that the ICAC had “got to the bottom of the Reid Affair.” How would he know? As a senior official of the Crown Prosecution Service Wood had become close friends with fellow Mason Graham Stockwell now the ICAC Director of Operations. (23)


As a Metropolitan Police Superintendent Stockwell had achieved a measure of fame in the Maxwell Confait case a Police abuse that nearly led to the resignation of the DPP. Maxwell Confait was a transsexual prostitute who died in a fire at his flat in 1972. Two days later two youths were seen running from a burning shed. After several hours in custody they had not only confessed to setting light to the shed but also to the murder of Maxwell Confait!  Charges were later dropped and a major enquiry followed. The case led directly to the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (PACE).


Amongst the several “covered-up” aspects of Reid’s corrupt activities was the “Carrian” case. When conspiracy charges against the two Lam brothers (the supposed purchasers of the Bank of America Tower) were dropped and they became instead “witnesses” it apparently went quite unnoticed that in court they were represented by Oscar Lai and Eddie So.

The flight of Wong and Pun was a corrupt deal three years before the “official” start of Reid’s corrupt activities. Reid knew the two Solicitors had been placed on the Immigration Department stoplist and only the Police could remove them. At the time Oscar Lai was the senior Chinese lawyer at Deacons leaving soon after to start his own firm.




P:arallel to the “Reid affair” the ICAC had arrested Police superintendent Phil Layton together with a former ICAC officer John Picken on charges that were almost unintelligible. Layton was accused of “soliciting an advantage” by looking at the possibility of working in the private sector. He was acquitted after a lengthy and very expensive trial in which his sidekick Rod Starling was a reluctant witness against him, hampered by the fact that the charges against Layton was so ethereal.


Layton, who formerly led the Police Carrian investigation was represented by Martin Thomas QC (no known relationship to Michael Thomas QC) a former Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate. Martin Thomas was also representing Lorraine Osman who was facing corruption charges in the Carrian case which may give some clue as to the Sunday Times’ ultimate source of the Wimpey bribe story.




The Carrian Trial;

The prosecution in the “Police” Carrian case took nearly two years from September 1985 until June 1987 to present its case. At the close of the prosecution case the Trial Judge Dennis Barker, sitting alone, ruled that all defendants had no case to answer a ruling against which there was no appeal. The charges arose out of the 1981 accounts of Carrian and the four defendants in the case were George TAN, his assistant Bentley HO and two relatively junior Price Waterhouse accountants David Begg and Anthony Lo. Many of their more senior colleagues, partners in Price Waterhouse, had been interviewed and given statements after having been given immunity from prosecution by Reid and John Sulan.

The prosecution of Begg and LO was for reasons other than the interests of Justice. While the accounts of the public company had been falsified to overstate Carrian’s profitability through the Bank of America Tower scam Begg and LO were being prosecuted for failing to realise it was a fraudulent deal. Were these two juniors to blow the whistle when a senior partner in the firm was Chairman of Carrian?


The Carrian case was masterminded by a Foreign Office body called the Commonwealth Fraud Secretariat headed by Dr Barry Ryder, who had been one of the board that had appointed Reid to head the CCU. (Apart from the Carrian case a “Commonwealth” Secretariat had no real function). At the annual conference of Ryder’s private business C.I.D.O.E.C. held at Jesus College Cambridge in August 1994 the theme for the conference was “Making the Accountants Pay”. When this had actually been tried in the Carrian case it the UK taxpayer who ended up paying by funding "Pergau". (24)


(Had any of the Deacons Solicitors been convicted Deacons could have been facing a substantial Civil suit but John Wimbush was now dead and Wong and Poon had permanently absconded. Charges against a fourth Deacons solicitor were also dropped.)


Ryder’s sidekick was Dr David Chaikin an Australian Barrister. In 1981 Reid had supposedly recruited a South Australian Lawyer John Sulan to head the Carrian enquiry two years before the group’s collapse. In fact Sulan may have been recruited at the behest of his friend (and co-religionist) Chaikin.   Sulan did not personally prosecute any Carrian case and left the Hong Kong Government in 1985 to become the Australian Special Prosecutor into Alan Bond.


Another central personality in the affair was the Attorney General Michael Thomas who was appointed in 1983. Thomas had developed a "friendship" with the most prominent personality in Hong Kong Baroness Lydia Dunn who had many interests in the business and political sphere (in Hong Kong there was little distinction between the two.) Baroness Dunn was a Director and later Deputy Chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank as well as thousands of other companies. Amongst her numerous positions she was Chairman of the ICAC Complaints Committee as well as being a principal advisor to the Foreign Office before leaving Hong Kong in the run-up to the 1997 handover.


In 1988 Thomas resigned as Attorney General, divorced his wife and married Ms Dunn. Despite being Reid’s supervisor for five years Thomas was unaware of Reid’s corrupt activities regarding him as being very able. (If ignorance is bliss Thomas must have been a very happy man.)


In a speech given prior to Reid’s arrest to the dinner of the Hong Kong Society of Accountants Thomas boasted of the skills and experience of the Legal Department’s (inept and corrupt) CCU but complained they were often left to pick up the pieces “after the bird has flown” and called on accountants to “blow the whistle at the earliest opportunity”. “Eternal vigilance” he pontificated “is the price of freedom”. ( 25 ) Despite sounding like he was touting for business and despite being a bit short on eternal vigilance himself the sole consequence of his ineptitude was that the ICAC dropped their annual claim to “work on the principal of supervisory accountability” from the Hong Kong Government yearbook.

Alan Bond and the "Bell Resources" Fraud ;

During the trial of Oscar LAI and Eddie SO some dirty laundry was aired. One of the interesting details to emerge concerned Michael Sandberg’s protégé Australian “entrepreneur” Alan Bond. In 1983 Bond had floated Bondcorp on the Hongkong Exchange. Bond then caused apoplexy by publicly announcing that the value of assets in Bondcorp far exceeded the offer price.


It transpired that the Police (Phil Layton) had obtained an arrest warrant for Bond in relation to this public statement. It further transpired that the Attorney General Michael Thomas had cancelled this warrant after being asked to do so by John Oates, Deputy Chairman of the HKSBC. (26) Thomas had done so “in consultation with his senior staff on the case” which included Reid and the future Australian Special Investigator of Alan Bond John Sulan.


When Sulan was appointed Special Investigator the major crime for which Bond was convicted had yet to be committed. In 1987 Bond bought a minority stake in the late Robert Holmes A’Court’s vehicle Bell Resources. Bond and cronies hijacked the board excluding other minority shareholders notably the AMP insurance group. Bell Resources was “cash-rich” earning interest from long-term cash deposits.


The new Bell board decided that these stuffy safe investments were not good enough. Instead they resolved to lend Bell Resources reserves to the financial black hole known as Bondcorp. Within two years Bell Resources had been looted of a $1,000 million Aus (this was when a billion dollars was a lot of money.) What became of the money was not explained. Little was recovered from the liquidation of Bondcorp.


The Bell Resources case was central to Sulan’s role as Special Investigator. Bond was eventually prosecuted but a “sweetheart” deal was struck. Bond pleaded guilty, was sentenced to five years in prison (he was out in three) and nobody else was prosecuted. No money was recovered.


There was more to “Bell Resources” concerning a frequently mooted merger of the British Midland Bank and the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank. A planned merger in 1988 had to be abandoned because of mounting losses in the Midland’s US operations and growing losses by the Hongkong Bank’s Australian subsidiary the Hongkong Bank of Australia which had massive unsecured exposure to Bond and a number of similar Australian "entrepreneurs."


How Bond had financed his stake in Bell Resources was a mystery. He must have borrowed the money from somebody and the party who lent him the money might be regarded as a party to the fraud. It was no secret that the Bell Resources fraud coincided with a substantial reduction in the Hongkong Bank of Australia’s exposure to Bondcorp. ( 27 )


In 1991 BCCI collapsed. BCCI had been inadequately supervised by a “college of regulators.” (i.e. no regulation at all!) Following the 1992 General Election the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank launched a takeover bid for the Midland Bank. The HKSB engaged the former Hong Kong Minister Francis Maude, who had lost his seat in the April 1992 General Election as “consultant” for the deal who was paid a fee of £1 million.


It is suspected that personalities associated with the HKSB and the Swire group had made substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds prior to the election and Prime Minister John Major had visited the territory the previous year and whist there solicited donations to party funds.


In 1995 David Leppard of the Sunday Times ran an expose of “Tory Party funding” a story of how several prominent Hong Kong personalities, some unsavoury, had funded the Conservative Party. However the guts of the story “Bell Resources”, the takeover of the Midland Bank and the contributions to the Conservative party of the Deputy Chairman of the Hongkong Bank, “named” insider dealer, LI Ka-shing was expunged as LI was a friend of the Sunday Times Business Editor Geoff Randall.


In order to supposedly prevent the BCCI fiasco ever occurring again (look around!) PM John Major had set up a Special Investigations Unit within the Bank of England. In response to the PM’s standard request for persons with relevant information to “come forward” the author drew the SIU’s attention to matters concerning the Bell Resources fraud and personalities associated with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. (27)


The SIU declined to pursue the matter unless the author agreed to his information being disclosed to the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption a body who covered-up systematic and related corruption in the Hong Kong Legal Department and who had disclosed confidential information resulting in the murder of three of their own witnesses! The regulation of a UK Bank was in the hands of a Hong Kong criminal enterprise who had kept personalities associated with the Hongkong Bank "out of the frame".




.
The “Cash for Questions” Affair;

On the 10th July 1994 (a few months after the publication of the Wimpey and Osman stories) The Sunday Times Insight Team published the first of several stories on the “cash for questions affair” an attempt to test the probity of MPs by offering them money to ask questions in the House of Commons. Two Tory MPs, both Parliamentary Private Secretaries initially accepted money to ask questions about a fictitious drug. One of the two (Graham Riddick) had second thoughts and returned the money.


The Sunday Times story became entwined in revelations published in The Guardian of a more systematic attempt to subvert Parliament involving the lobbying company Ian Greer Associates who maintained a “stable” of MPs for the purpose. The Guardian story featured the affairs of Mohammed Al-Fayed and the take-over of Harrods an arcane parliamentary affair of little or no interest to people in the real world.


Al-Fayed had apparently paid more than one Conservative MP for “advice” and the story led to the libel case brought against Al-Fayed by the former Trade Minister Neil Hamilton and the imprisonment of the former Minister for Defence Procurement Jonathan Aitken.


The Sunday Times’ attempt to entrap MPs was based on the experiences of the Sunday Times’ informant a “prominent businessman” who had experience of paying MPs to ask questions in the House. The informant was widely assumed to be Mr Al-Fayed. Mr Al-Fayed, no shrinking violet, was never shy in coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing. In fact the Sunday Times’ (self-styled) “prominent businessman” was Lorraine Osman for whom paying MPs to ask questions and paying for press coverage were aspects of his futile seven year long campaign to avoid extradition to Hong Kong. (Osman's later involvement with Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds led to his disgrace and resignation.)

Unaware and uninterested in the true motivation behind the story the Committee on Standards and Privileges nonetheless condemned the Sunday Times for the attempt to entrap MPs. The scandal led to the establishment of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life in October 1994. By coincidence a member of the Nolan Committee, Peter Shore MP headed the Foreign Affairs Select Committee investigation of Pergau but being unaware and uninterested in the true story was unable to conduct a worthwhile investigation.


The “cash for questions” affair was a major contributory factor to “sleaze” the perception that MPs and particularly Conservative MPs were corrupt, and significantly contributed, to the defeat of the Conservative Government in the 1997 General Election.

Postscript: The Hong Kong Terrorist Association

In the summer of 1987 Hong Kong was rocked by a number of terrorist bombings carried out by an entity calling itself, rather lamely, the "Hong Kong Terrorist Association".    The Acting Governor David Ford had publicly promised the people of Hong Kong that the culprits would be brought to justice.

The "Masonic Verses" is essentially a blog about the Lockerbie case arising from how the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and in particular the CIO Chief Superintendent John Orr made a colossal blunder in "eliminating" Heathrow as the point at which the primary suitcase was introduced.   How could the Police make such an elementary blunder?   Well I had been there before.   My colleagues in the Royal Hong Kong Police were unable to solve the Hong Kong Terrorist Association case, even though I told them who did it!

In October 1987 (possibly as an aspect of the "Reid Affair") I was interdicted and never returned to duty.   One day I went to my parent unit and ran into an old friend Ricky who was in charge of the "Hong Kong Terrorist Association" investigation which was apparently going nowhere.    Ricky and I had worked together several years earlier with another officer nicknamed by the rank and file (without irony) as "mental".     One day "mental" just wasn't there any more.  He had been sacked.   I later heard he had been burgling his new place of employment just to show he was cleverer than the Police.

I suggested to Ricky that the culprit was somebody like "mental"   Ricky thought about this for a microsecond and said "no it couldn't be.   The person they were looking for was Chinese but spoke good English, had a grudge against the Police and was an expert chemist."   I responded that "mental" was Chinese and spoke good English, had a horrendous grudge against the Police in having been so badly humiliated and I told Ricky something he didn't know.   "Mental" was a graduate chemist.  Ricky considered this for a further mic5rosecond.  "No" he said, "couldn't be."   Curious that the OC case actually knew the bomber.   Contrary to the Acting Governor's pledge the case was never solved.  It was no surprise to me John Orr got it so badly wrong.
  







(1) Wimpey offered contract bribes to Malaysian prime minister John Davison Sunday Times 20.2.94 which refers to New evidence links aid for Malaysian dam to arms deal Sunday Times 23.1.94

(2)Panel discussion BBC2 Newsnight 4.3.94 featuring Andrew Neil


(3)David Jacobsen with Gerald Astor Hostage My Nightmare in Beirut Donald I.Fine 1991 (1993 Edition ) meeting with “John Smith” p.308

(4) Gavin Hewitt Terry Waite, Why Was He Kidnapped (published in US as Terry Waite and Oliver North ) Bloomsbury 1991 Chapter 4 The Inner Circle

(5) Chris Blackhurst Patten ‘fury’at Malaysia dam deal – Minister thought Pergau not proper use of aid
Independent –

(6) The Malaysian air-force bought 18 Mig 29s.

(7) John Davison Victim spends years in jail without trial Sunday Times 13.3.94

(8) Sunday Times 13.3.94

(9) Interview with Mike Kingston SCMP (South China Morning Post) 28.8.93

(10) John Davison Victim spends years in jail without trial Sunday Times 13.3.94

(11) Letter from Hong Kong (sic) (Macclesfield actually!) from Our Own Correspondent Private Eye 6.12.91

(12) Call for end to 6 year remand from Mr M.J.Kingston and others
Letters Times 9.9.91

(13) Sunday Times Feb.1996

(14) Andrew Neil Full Disclosure

(15) Statement to camera by Lady Thatcher featured on BBC TV as a
trailer. Date and time of statement unknown.


(16) “confession” statement of Charles Warwick Reid – not in public domain.

(17) Lindy Course Thomas in court denial of Reid claim SCMP 7.4.92

(18) Lindy Course Reid’s brother a ‘paid informant’ SCMP 11.2.92

(19) Sidney Police left in the dark over Hongkong link in murders Hongkong Standard 10.2.91

(20) Dropped wallet provided clue in surgeon’s killing SCMP 20.7.91

(21) Marriage cert.1853 All Saints Anglican Church Nelson, New Zealand 24.2.68




(22) Lindy Course Reid tells of lawyers’ sex and booze binges SCMP 11.2.92

(23) John Elliott Hong Kong given a morale boost Financial Times 19.10.90

(24) August 1994 Prospectus for conference of C.I.D.O.E.C.
Jesus College, Cambridge.

(25) Attorney General urges accountants to report business fraud SCMP 3.10.87

( 26) Terry Porter Thomas ‘killed Bond charge’ SCMP February 1992

(27) Paul Barry The Fall and Rise of Alan Bond page 198

(28) Author’s correspondence with Bank of England’s Special Investigations Unit.

The Masonic Verses Part V

The Elephant in the Room –
Richard Lawless & “Autumn Leaves”


“I will never apologise for America; I don’t care what the facts are - I’m not an apologise for America kind of guy”. ( 1 )

Vice-President George H.W. Bush



The bombing of Pan Am 103 did not come as a bolt from the blue. It was expected and planned for. While it is widely recognised that the “Vincennes Incident” gave Iran a motive to retaliate, it is not widely recognised that the “Vincennes Incident” also gave the US Government a motive to collude in a measured or proportionate response on a calculation that any alternative course of action would result in far greater loss of life without any political benefit.


Save for those who perished, their friends and families (who at least received substantial compensation) Lockerbie and the creation of the “Libyan solution” worked out quite well. Most relatives, particularly the Americans were largely satisfied with the outcome of Camp Zeist and see no reason to question the guilt of Al-Megrahi or the culpability of the Libyan regime.


Our perception of events are conditioned by assumptions. It is widely, almost universally assumed that in the event of a threat to bomb a civilian airliner the authorities would do all in their power to prevent such an occurrence. This is not necessarily true. (for example credible claims, routinely but not convincingly denied, have been made that the Omagh bombing might have been prevented at the cost of the authorities revealing intelligence sources and surveillance techniques.)


The alternative to “Lockerbie” was not that the supposed warnings were acted on, the bombing prevented and nobody died but that different people, and perhaps many more people, would have died.


It was reputed the Ayatollah Khomeini had demanded the destruction of six aircraft in revenge.(2) Ayatollah Montashemi threatened that “the skies would rain blood”(3) while the Iranian Prime Minister stated the US “would not escape responsibility.”(4) A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in London Mohamed Basti promised or threatened “an appropriate response to the magnitude of the crime”.(5) But what was an “appropriate response” and how would the Americans themselves respond to this unspecified response?



The American Government would have held crisis meetings, the deliberations of which will be likely be secret forever, to consider each possible Iranian response and to plan the US counter-response to each possible Iranian response and to consider in turn how the Iranians would respond to each US response and so on. This is basic International Relations theory. (By pretending retaliation for the Vincennes Incident never happened the proverbial “line in the sand” was drawn and the cycle of response, counter-response, counter counter-response was broken).


The Vincennes Incident would have been top of the agenda for the Inter Agency Group that met on a daily basis in the White House situation room. Comprising representatives of the State Department, the NSC, the CIA and the Military they would have co-ordinated US policy, initially the response of official spokesmen, including the President.


Beyond what was agreed these agencies, who were not only colleagues but rivals, they may have had their own agenda as competing groups within these agencies. For example what would be the collective view of the Military towards a major conflict in the Middle East and what was the view of the Army, Marine Corp and USAF towards the Navy’s conduct in the “Vincennes Incident”?


What where the possible Iranian responses that American planners would consider?

Firstly the Islamic Republic could have decided to forgive and forget, complain to the UNSC and the I.C.A.O., make some threats for domestic consumption, but essentially turn the other cheek. Unlikely as such a response may have seemed this is supposedly what actually happened obviating the need for any US response.



A second option might be that the Islamic Republic might try to pursue the matter under the Montreal Convention, demand the extradition of Captain Rodgers and his crew and put them on trial. This was not a proposition that the USA could countenance.



A third option was that Iran might attempt to destroy several aircraft. Such a plan was conceived and practised by the mastermind of the first World Trade Centre bombing Ramzi Younis who learned his bomb-making skills at Cardiff Polytechnic (an institution also attended by Mr Megrahi) and plans for a similar scheme were thwarted in theUK in the summer of 2006.


There are indications from the “Autumn Leaves” affair in which several aviation bombs were produced that this was the option initially chosen. It may be that different Iranian factions were pursuing different policies. “Autumn Leaves” was presented as a triumph to prevent an attack before “the baton was handed on to Libya.” Was it instead an operation to prevent unacceptable retaliation that would compel the US to make a drastic counter-response?


A fourth option might be that Iran would attempt to destroy a single aircraft. Increased security might prevent this (for a time) but sooner or later “the bomber would get through”. Would the Americans attempt to control the circumstances in which retaliation occurred in order to manage the consequences?


Further possible responses might be a limited or limitless campaign of terrorism, hostage-taking and attacks on US interests. Disproportionate retaliation would lead to counter-retaliation, escalation and war. Was there a way out of the impasse? If Iran retaliated by destroying a single aircraft the US Government could tolerate that (they had few practical alternatives) but it was essential for domestic considerations to pretend that retaliation had not occurred otherwise the pressure for counter-retaliation might be overwhelming.


The Americans could have tried to deter any Iranian reaction by a threat of the use of overwhelming counter-retaliation. There are no indications in the public domain that the US attempted to deter retaliation or even that a threat to the security of US aviation was even acknowledged following the Vincennes Incident.


At a meeting in London an un-named US official told Martin Cadman, father of a Lockerbie victim “my Government knows perfectly well who did this but they will never tell”.(6) This statement may have been absolutely true.




Alleged Meetings between Iranian Officials and a US Envoy:



Following the exposure of Colonel North’s “arms for hostages” operations triggered by the publication of an article in the Beirut newspaper “Al Shiraa” in October 1986 and the eruption of the “Iran-Contra” affair in Washington it might be assumed that the attempt to trade arms for hostages had been brought to an end.


The policy had been recognised by more sober minds in the State Department as being counter-productive. Giving the hostages value only encouraged further hostage-taking, not just of Americans but any Westerner then any foreigner. By the time North left the scene there were more Americans held in Beirut than when he started, his initiative having resulted in the release of just two or three hostages.



In two articles (7) (8) in his series of Lockerbie related articles Diary of a Vengenace Fortold Professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer wrote of a number of meetings that occurred in late September and early October 1988 between a former CIA officer Richard Lawless and four Iranian officials. According to Professor De Braeckeleer the purpose of these meetings were to discuss the ongoing Beirut Hostage Crisis and resulted in the release of one Hostage Mithelswar Singh an academic and US resident who had been held captive for 20 months.


According to other newspaper reports Lawless had handled the release of a South Korean diplomat who had been kidnapped in Beirut, apparently simply as a commercial venture. While the South Korean Government denied a ransom had been paid for his release it is likely that some ransom was paid. This was allegedly paid through Lawless’ Company.(9)


These claims were first made in October 1988 by former Iranian President Bani-Sadr (a man with doubtless very good sources and perhaps an interest in thwarting any rapprochment between the USA and the Islamic Republic) who alleged that both sides in the Presidential campaign had sent envoys to Iran and that an aide to Vice President Bush had held meetings in Switzerland with representatives of the Iranian Government in September and October. (10)


According to White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwalter:-


“There is a fellow named Lawless. He is over there. What he’s up to nobody knows. But he doesn’t represent to United States….he does not represent the Vice President or the President or anybody else.” (10)


Lawless himself denies that these meetings took place or that he has even held negotiations on the Hostage issue or ever met with any Iranian official or person purporting to represent the Iranian Government.(10) Spokesmen for both Presidential candidates also denied their involvement in any negotiations to release the hostages.


Lawless’ business partner Therese Shaheen stated that Lawless’ passport and business charge records showed he was not in the area during that period, (9) a claim at odds with Fitzwater’s statement.


The “Iran-Contra” revelations had severely damaged President Reagan’s credibility. The “Hostage” portfolio was firmly in the remit of the State Department and Ambassador Paul Bremmer’s had instituted a strict policy of no negotiation and no publicity. It was the emotional appeal to the President himself that had wrecked a rational policy and Bremmer was determined Reagan’s sentimentality on this issue was not going to affect policy.


Further Vice-President George H.W.Bush was campaigning for the Presidency. Having been dogged by the claims of the “October Surprise”,* and attempting to distance himself from claims of his direct involvement in the “Iran-Contra” affair the surprise release of more hostages was probably not top of his wish list at that time.


After leaving the CIA in 1987, after the death of CIA Director Bill Casey and considerable recriminations in the agency following the exposure of aspects of “Iran-Contra”, Lawless. a Korean speaker, set up a consulting company dealing in trade with the Far East and developed ties with Taiwanese interests. There is nothing in the public record to link him with the Middle Eastern politics.


For four and a half years 2003-2007 he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence for North East Asia dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue. The husband of his business partner Therese Sheheen was Chief of Staff to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who resigned in November 2006 and was replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. (Deputy Director at the time of the Lockerbie disaster).


According to a number of Internet sources Lawless was the protégé of many senior Republican figures. He served in Korea when the Station Chief was Donald Gregg President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Adviser, one of his two closest friends in politics with whom he also co-authored a book. He was associated with Dick Cheney (later George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defence) and with other rising stars referred to collectively as the “Lawless Group.”. (Is there a pun intended?) He had been spoken of as a possible Director of a “reformed” (i.e. partisan) CIA earlier in the Presidency of George W.Bush. (11).


However his most interesting relationship was with Jeb Bush, second son of George H.W.Bush. Jeb Bush and Richard Lawless appear to be close business associates and Jeb Bush acquired considerable wealth from his participation in deals involving Richard Lawless. ( 12 ) When Jeb Bush was Florida’s Commerce Secretary Lawless’s Company won contracts to promote Florida in Asia. (13)


In July 1988 Jeb Bush left his post as Florida’s Commerce Secretary to work full-time on his father’s Presidential Campaign (as did older brother George W.Bush). Later Jeb Bush was seen as his father’s political “heir” and far more likely to succeed him that his older brother.


Did Lawless meet with Iranian officials in September and October 1988 and for what purpose? Save for the comments of Marlin Fitzwalter and the claims of Bani Sadr there is little evidence that he did and none about what was discussed. Could they have held discussions about the hostage situation, as Professor De Braeckeleer alleges, and ignore The Elephant in the Room, the shoot-down of an Iranian civilian airliner by a US warship?


The idea of having contacts with the hated Iranian regime was anathema and allegations of such contacts were strenuously denied. But if the Americans were not talking to the Iranians perhaps they should have been. The Republican party were anxious to secure the Reagan legacy and possible Iranian retaliation for the “Vincennes Incident” threatened George H.W. Bush’s road to the White House. In 1980 the Iranians had had a decisive effect on the outcome of the Presidential Election.




Autumn Leaves;


While the “Autumn Leaves” affair occurred eight weeks prior to the bombing of Pan Am 103 as an aspect of Lockerbie it relates largely to the first ten months of the investigation when the Police were convinced of a link between Lockerbie and the activities of the West German cell of Ahmed Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP-GC). While this link was discounted when evidence of the supposed “rogue suitcase” materialised the Police were probably correct. They were then unable to square the circle having “eliminated” Heathrow as the point at which the bomb was introduced. (14 )


However there are four aspects to the “Autumn Leaves” affair that are of particular significance in the build-up to Lockerbie. These are:

(a) The travel movements of Abu Talb

(b) The existence of a plot to build bombs suitable for use against commercial civilian aircraft

(c) That the Central Intelligence Agency had an active policy

(d) The timing of the arrests.


Abu Talb’s Travel Movements:

Abu Talb was an Egyptian born Palestinian militant who had been granted political asylum in Sweden. His relationship, if any, to the Lockerbie incident, remains unproven. In the film The Maltese Double Cross evidence was fabricated to “prove” a relationship between Abu Talb and Khalid Jafaar a Lockerbie victim who was central to Francovich’s fraudulent claims. (15) He was imprisoned in Sweden in 1989 in relation to attacks on Jewish targets in Copenhagen on the 21st July 1985 and Stockholm and Amsterdam 1986. He was called as a witness in the Camp Zeist trial and was hostile to the defence who were unable to obtain a full and coherent account of his activities.


Interest in Abu Talb centres around his movements in October and November 1988. He left Sweden on the 3rd October 1988 flying to Larnaca. In Cyprus he met his Hafez Dalkamoni a member (leader?) of the “Autumn Leaves group. He then flew to Rome on the 18th October 1988 where he attempted to board a flight for Libya but was ejected from the plane by Libyan security guards. At Camp Zeist he claimed that he planned to fly to Libya in order to enter neighbouring Egypt illegally overland in order to visit his mother. As a deserter from the Egyptian Army he was wanted in Egypt.


In the Lockerbie case the authorites constructed an elaborate scenario to “prove” the primary suitcase was introduced at Malta in order to incriminate Al-Megrahi and Libya. If the Autumn Leaves group planned to bomb one or more civilian aircraft might a subsequent revelation that one of the group had begun his journey in Tripoli be used to “prove” Libyan involvement?


Having been thrown off the plane to Tripoli Abu Talb flew instead to Malta on the 19th October 1988 leaving on the 26th October and returning to Sweden. Despite intense questioning by the defence team at Camp Zeist Abu Talb refused to say by what route he had returned to Sweden. He did not use the unexpired portion of his return ticket to Cyprus. The significance of the matter is that the 26th October 1988 was the date on which the West German authorities moved against the Autumn Leaves group. Was Abu Talb to collect, or did he collect, an aviation bomb on the way to Sweden?


An associate of Abu Talb’s was Imad Chabaan @ Martin Imandi. On the 24th July 1985 Imandi travelled to England by the Gothenburg Ferry to lay low for a while. Imandi had been to England before.to get married. ( 16) This is a possible route by which the primary suitcase was brought to England. As it incorporated a barometric trigger this was probably a lot safer than flying and security on a ferry would not be looking for an aviation bomb.




The objective of the “Autumn Leaves” gang


The central point of the Autumn Leaves conspiracy is that it appears to represent a plot to build several aviation bombs and therefore one mighty deduce a plan to bomb several planes. The extent of the plot are not known because the PFLP-GC bombmaker, the Jordanian Marwan Khreesat was released from custody and left West Germany soon after his arrest. While Khreesat was subsequently interviewed by FBI agents who gave hearsay evidence of what Khreesat said the defence had no opportunity to question or cross-examine him.


In the “special defence” advanced by the defence teams at Camp Zeist Abu Talb and Directors of the Mishca bakery in Malta were named as suspects (lending credence to the “Malta scenario”) while Khreesat was not. As Khreesat had not been named in the Special Defence their Lordships were not inhibited from accepting his “evidence”.


Marwan Khreesat – A CIA Informant:

It was revealed at the Camp Zeist trial that Marwan Khreesat was an “asset” of the CIA. The Camp Zeist Judgement stated that:-

“it is also to be noted that the cell’s principal bomb-maker was one Marwan Khreesat who was in fact an agent who infiltrated the cell on behalf of the Jordanian Intelligence Service. His instructions from them were that any bomb he made must not be primed. Moreover while he himself did not give evidence, there was evidence of a statement given by him to FBI agents in which he said he never used radio cassette players with twin speakers (such as the Toshiba RT-SF 16) to convert into explosive devices”. (17)



Khreesat was suspect in three earlier aviation bombings. In 1970 47 people had died when a Swissair jet from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv exploded and on the same day an Austrian Airways flight from Frankfurt to Israel survived an explosion. Khreesat was also suspect in the bombing of an El Al jet from Rome to Tel Aviv in August 1972.(18) The plane made an emergency landing.


The claim about Khreesat’s supposed instructions not to prime the bombs does not arise from his “statement”. On the contrary he “stated” (via the FBI) that he felt constrained, due to his being closely supervised, from doing this and the devices he built were fully functioning. (19)


Indeed on the 17th April 1989, following an intelligence tip the BKA returned to search the basement of a grocer’s shop belonging to one of the Autumn Leaves group and recovered two further IEDs that had supposedly been there since October the previous year. Later that day two BKA technicians attempted to disarm one of the devices in an armoured workshop at BKA HQ. The device exploded killing one technician Hans Sonntag and seriously injuring another. Contrary to the Camp Zeist Judgement Khreesat’s IEDs (if these further devices were the work of Marwan Khreesat) were lethal.(20) The West German authorities did not pursue the death of Sonntag as a criminal matter.


Their Lordships also saw no reason to question Khreesat’s reported claim that he never used a radio-cassette with twin speakers. He would have had an obvious motive to deny having built the bomb that killed 270 people and his claim may have been self-serving. His claim may however have been true.


The Lockerbie IED was allegedly concealed within a black twin speaker model SF-16, Toshiba radio-cassette player. Khreesat had built an IED within a model RT-f453D single-speaker model (recovered from the boot of Dalkamoni’s Ford Taurus on the 26th October 1988 in Neuss.) Khreesat also possessed a second 453 model single-speaker Toshiba which was also recovered.(21)


However the identification of the radio-cassette in the Lockerbie case, which was blasted to smithereens in the explosion, is extremely dubious. Essentially it is predicated on the recovery of one of the most curious exhibits in the case – a charred owners manual for a twin speaker SF-16 radio-cassette recovered eighty miles away and assumed to relate to the IED radio-cassette. (22) (No other Toshiba radio-cassette was recovered in the wreckage.)


In the official version of events Megrahi (or somebody else) built a bomb within a Toshiba radio-cassette. This was stored in Malta or flown from Libya to Malta. At some point the radio-cassette was placed in a bronze samsonite tourister suitcase together with a quantity of clothing that had been purchased at the Saint Mary’s House Boutique Silema and in the official version the timer was set. But why would they put the owner’s manual into the suitcase as well?


Some observers believe that the IED that destroyed flight PA103 was similar in construction and design to the device recovered from Dalkamoni’s Ford Taurus on the 26th October 1988. It is not known into whose custody this device was eventually entrusted and it is not impossible that this was the device that destroyed flight PA103..


The Timing;

The most significant aspect of the Autumn Leaves case was the timing of the arrests at a point when it appears that the PFLP-GC were about to put their plans into action. The arrests were made on Wednesday 26th October 1988 at which time a fully functioning aviation bomb concealed with a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder was recovered.


Wednesday 26th October 1988 was six days before the US Presidential Election held on Tuesday 1st November 1988. What would have happened if the “Autumn Leaves” group had not been neutralised and what they had planned had gone ahead?


It was George H.W.Bush who had defended the “Vincennes Incident”, George H.W.Bush who said he would never apologise for America. According to Marlin Fitzwalter it was Richard Lawless “over there” a man apparently seen as a representative of George H.W.Bush. Could a terrorist atrocity have had a major impact on the Election? (23)


In 1980 Ronald Reagan had beaten the incumbent Jimmy Carter in a landslide, only the second time in US History that an elected incumbent President had been defeated. The Iranian Government had played a decisive part in that election in holding the US Embassy Hostages. Carter was campaigning against the backdrop of the hostage situation whose release was eventually timed to coincide with Reagan’s inauguration. This was not a gesture of conciliation but tgo underscore how a US domestic election had been affected by the issue.


If Iranian revenge for the “Vincennes Incident” was inevitable it could have come at a worse time for George H.W.Bush. Although he would have to deal with the situation the election was safely out of the way. He was still Vice-President but President-elect working to organise the new administration. Ronald Reagan, who had never recovered from the Iran-Contra revelations of late 1986 where it was revealed that he had little knowledge or control over what officials were doing, was still President perhaps already affected by Alzheimer’s.


Until the announcement of the indictment in the fourth year of Bush’s Presidency (long after the end of the Gulf War) the investigation had, to the disgust of the relatives, had apparently been glacial. It was the 41st President George Herbert Walker Bush who famously announced that Syria and Iran had taken a “bum rap.”


As pointed out in Parts I & III the object of the indictment was not a trial but sanctions against Libya. These could not be introduced without the changes to the Security Council that took effect on the 1st January 1992 and the main sanctions resolution 738 was passed on the 31st March 1992. That summer Bush was to campaign for re-election essentially on his foreign policy record and presumably had some foreign policy plans for his second term involving the Middle East.



*The “October Surprise” was the claim, almost certainly a hoax, that prior to the 1980 Presidential Election the Republicans had made some agreement with Iran that the US Embassy hostages would not be released until after the Presidential Election ensuring Reagan’s victory. (In the event their release coincided with the inauguration.)

Central to this claim was a purported former CIA officer Oswald Le Winter who claimed to have been involved in arranging security for a meeting that occurred in Paris attended by Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W.Bush. Unfortunately for Le Winter’s story on this day Bush was filmed in Washington.


A claim was therefore made that another native Austrian Gunther Russbacher, who purports not only to be a master spy but a USAF test pilot had flown Bush from Paris to Washington in two hours in an experimental plane. (Russbacher’s astonishing exploits and incredible adventures can be enjoyed on the Rumour Mill website run by his ex Raylean.)

The “October Surprise” hoax was exposed in a BBC current affairs expose made by the late Alan Francovich and Jane Ryder with whom he was romantically involved. Le Winter (filmed with a bag on his head) confessed it was a hoax. A decade later Francovich employed Le Winter as his “consultant” in the fraudulent documentary The Maltese Double Cross purporting Le Winter had been employed by the CIA even after exposing the “October Surprise”. Some of the “evidence” staged by Le Winter for The Maltese Double Cross, notably a telephone conversation between Le Winter and a supposed former CIA colleague was so blatantly fabricated even lawyers at the Scottish Crown Office noticed it.


After Francovich died Russbacher dumped his wife, divorced her without her knowledge in Mexico, and married Jane Ryder in California apparently forgetting he was already married!


Oswald Le Winter ended up in gaol in his native Austria in 1999 having been convicted of having tried to sell Mohamed Al-Fayed “evidence” the CIA colluded with MI6, Prince Philip ect. in the murder of Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana. This was (according to Winter and his ilk) a CIA/FBI plot to prevent Le Winter appearing as a witness in the Camp Zeist trial. (see Other Theories of the Spiro Murders in Part II The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro.)


( 1 ) Vice-~President George H.W.Bush quoted at a campaign rally 2.8.88 quoted in “Perspectives” in Newsweek Magazine 15.8.88.

(2) Claim attributed to Vincent Cannistraro reported in David Leppard On the Trail of Terror Jonathan Cape, London 1991 page 212

(3) Susan and Dan Cohen PA103 New American Library 2000
page 34

(4) PA 103

(5) Film library clip featured in BBC2 Correspondent The Other Lockerbie

(6) Interview with Martin Cadman featured in Alan Francovich’s The
Maltese Double Cross


(7)Former Iranian President Reveals Secret US Talks With Iran by Professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer Ohmynews International 9.10.08

(8) US Official Denies Arms for Hostages Deal With Iran by
Professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer Ohmynews International 10.10.08

( 9) Hostage Deals; Koreans Look to the US by Robert Neff 23.8.07
www.atimes.com

(10) Exiled Iranian President Connects Both Candidates to Hostage Talks
New York Times 5.10.88

(11)Tompaine.commonsense 15.11.2004

(12) Alecia Swasy & Robert Trigaux Make the Money and Run St
Petersburg Times Online 20.9.1998

(13) The Masonic Verses Part III Lockerbie – Criminal Justice or War
by Other Means
section The Historical/Political Background refers
to Jeb Bush’s association with right-wing Cuban exiles linked to the
bombing of Cubanair flight 455 when George H.W. Bush was
Director of the CIA .

(14) The Masonic Verses Part I Lockerbie – the Heathrow Evidence

(15)See Francovich The Maltese Double Cross or any version of the
“Drug Conspiracy Theory”.

(16) Leppard page 184

(17) Judgement para.75

(18) Leppard page 8, 141

(19) Evidence of Hal Hendershott of interview with Marwan Khreesat
(get Glasgow Law School Lockerbie Trial website.

(20) Leppard 142

(21) Leppard p.11

(22) Camp Zeist Judgement para.10

(23) In the event Bush beat Dukakis by 426 – 111 in the Electoral College
and by 53.8% to 42.6% in the popular vote a considerable margin of
victory.

Monday, February 2, 2009

The Masonic Verses Part IV The Shootdown of Iranair Flight 655 - The "Vincennes Incident"

“All our misfortunes come from Amrika”
- the Ayatollah Khomeini

The Iran-Iraq War:


In September 1979 Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with the objective of annexing “Arabistan”, the Arabic speaking provinces of Iran. Saddam Hussein had become President in 1977 following a Palace coup against his predecessor. Iraq had a recent history of conflict and rivalry with the more populous (and better armed) Persian neighbour ruled by US client Shah Pavlazi who a 1953 American sponsored coup d’etat had transformed from a constitutional to an absolute monarch. Iraq had given refuge to senior Iranian clerics including the Ayatollah Khomeini who were later expelled to Paris under pressure from the Imperial Iranian Government.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution (which Iraq had done much to encourage) posed a fundamental threat to the Iraqi regime. The Iranian revolutionaries threatened to export their Islamic revolution. While there were significant Shi’ite minorities in Saudi Arabia, Western Afghanistan, Pakistan and some Gulf States the majority of Iraqi citizens, almost entirely excluded from the ruling elite, were Shi’ites. If the Islamic revolution were to be spread it would be exported to Iraq.


The revolution had fundamentally weakened Iran’s armed forces, largely concerned with crushing internal dissent rather than defending the state. Many senior officers had fled Iran or had been imprisoned or executed. Having been lavishly equipped with the most advanced American weapons, American trainers and contractors had been expelled. Spare parts and new equipment would not be forthcoming. It was Saddam Hussein’s first opportunity to flex his military muscles possibly encouraged by the United States whose citizens were being held hostage.


While the US and the West were officially neutral de facto western policy was pro-Iraq. This pro-Iraq tilt was obscured following the Iran-Contra revelations that elements of the US administration, had tried to achieve some understanding with Iran or at least purported to, as a rationale for their arms dealing activities that also became entwined in the Beirut Hostage Crisis. (For example the “Hakim accords”, negotiated by an associate of Richard Secord’s in “The Enterprise” committed the US to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein)


Iraq was supplied with weapons by the West and by the Soviet Union. More importantly Iraq was received credit from the West and it’s Arab allies, notably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Later the Americans supplied Iraq with intelligence and satellite photography.


Iraqi forces were numerically inferior and morale on the Iranian side was high. The fighting was largely confined to the disputed territory to the East of the Shatt Al Arab waterway where Iranian human wave tactics were often met by the Iraqis resorting to the use of chemical weapons. As the war ground on it was the Iraqis who sought a way out.




The Deployment of Western Naval Forces to the Persian Gulf:

Both Iran and Iraq were major oil producers and the Iranians attempted to exert an economic blockade on Iraq and its Arab allies by attacking tankers transporting oil to the West (and East.) Geography gave the Iranians a marked advantage. Tankers headed to and returning from Basra, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia’s Eastern ports had a long journey through hostile waters then through the chokehold of the Straits of Hormuz, the eastern shore of which was Iranian territory (the western shore being the Omani peninsular).


The Iranians had a small navy and the remnants of the Shah’s air force. Their main weapon to harass merchant vessels were small Swedish made motor patrol boats known as “boghammers” armed with machine guns, light weapons and RPGs. They had also acquired a number of Chinese made surface-to-surface Sikworm missiles which posed a threat not only to merchant shipping but to military vessels..


In response to the “War of the Tankers” which posed a significant threat to Western oil supplies the US Government and its Western allies deployed a Naval presence to the Persian Gulf and the approaches to the Arabian Gulf, where a US Aircraft carrier was deployed, in order to escort merchantmen flying the flag. Many Panamanian and Liberian registered vessels were hastily re-flagged.


The rules of engagement were imprecise. Although supposedly neutral, in 1987 in the United States had destroyed many of Iran’s off-shore oil installations in retaliation for an attack on a merchantmen flying the Stars and Stripes and for a US Navy vessel hitting an Iranian mine.


On the 17th March 1987 occurred an incident of crucial importance to the “Vincennes Incident”. The frigate, the USS Stark, was hit by two Excocet missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage. 35 sailors were killed and the career of the Stark’s skipper Glenn Brindel, came to an ignominious end. Iraq was not supposed to be a threat to the US Navy.


The “Stark Incident” gave rise to grave concerns amongst the press and Congress. The President was widely criticised for putting American lives at risk on some vaguely defined mission. The fact that the Iraqi jet and missiles had been supplied by France, who while far more dependent on Gulf oil than the Americans was not contributing to the Naval presence, was noted. The rules of engagement were “clarified” and extended. The US Navy could fire on any aircraft that approached within 20 miles at the discretion of the Captain in order to eliminate any potential threat. (1) (The Iraqi Mirage had launched from a far greater distance - 40 miles.)

The Vincennes and Captain William J. Rogers III


 
The ROEs (rules of engagement) were modified to underscore the responsibility of the onscene commander to exercise the inherent right of self-defence in a timely fashion

The appropriate question should be: Are the ROEs weighted to protect American lives and property?

The answer – “absolutely”
- Captain William Rogers III”
(2 )

    The billion-dollar Aegis class guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes was one of the most sophisticated pieces of military hardware in the world. Packed with the most up to date computer system it was designed to be part of a carrier taskforce to fight a battle against Soviet forces and to track and intercept hundreds of incoming aircraft and missiles.


  The Captain of the Vincennes Captain Will Rogers III had been commissioned in 1965 at the age of 27.  He had spent the bulk of his career in staff postings. At the age of 50 The Vincennes was his first combat posting. It was a prestigious appointment. Captain Rogers was reputedly still ambitions and to reach the highest ranks of the navy would have been looking to be promoted to flag rank following a successful tour of duty. Indeed being given the Vincennes as his first command might indicate that this was the route planned for him.


The Vincennes soon acquired a reputation for aggression. The Vincennes had arrived in Bahrain on the 29th May 1988. During its first patrol on the 2nd June 1988 an Iranian frigate the Alborz had stopped a merchantman and had boarded it (as was it’s right) to search it.


The Vincennes closely approached the scene. Rogers took under his command another Navy ship the frigate USS Sides and ordered it in position close to the Vincennes. Captain Hatttan of the Sides protested to fleet HQ believing this might be seen by the Iranians as a threatening manoeuvre. The order was over-ruled and the Sides withdrew. The Vincennes was ordered to observe the search from a distance.(3)


In his memoirs Captain Rogers dates the incident as the 14th not the 2nd June and omits the dispute with Captain Hattan.(4) He also describes how, as a civilian helicopter carrying a news team flew across the bow of the Alborz, the Iranians fired two machine-gun bursts in their direction.


At 0633hrs on the 3rd July 1988 the USS Elmer Montgomery was entering the Straits of Hormuz from the Northwest side. Some 13 Iranian gunboats had emerged from their bases on Abu Musa Island and were said to be milling around a Liberian tanker the Stoval. (The Stoval may not have actually existed. It may have been a phantom created by fake radio communications to confuse the Iranians.) (5)


The Vincennes was situated south of the Straits in the Arabian Sea covering any threat from Silkworm missiles at the approach to the Straits. Fleet HQ at Bahrain ordered the Vincennes to dispatch its helicopter to observe the scene. Some thirty minutes later the Vincennes Apache helicopter was circling over the Iranian gunboats.


Under the rules of engagement the helicopter was forbidden from flying within four miles of the Iranians. The pilot, Lieutenant Mark Collier, subsequently denied being closer than two or to three miles. (He had been ordered to “investigate”.) It appears that a shot, possibly an RPG round was fired at or close to the Vincennes’ helicopter. The helicopter backed off and reported to the Vincennes. Rogers ordered the Vincennes north in support of his helicopter.(6)


Captain Rogers’ account was that he wanted to bring his helicopter under the protection of his air defence umbrella a result that could be achieved by the helicopter flying south towards the Vincennes. In 1992, Rogers later claimed that due to atmospheric conditions, communication with the helicopter was limited to 15 miles.(7)


As the Vincennes steamed north at 30 knots the Iranian gunboats were ordered by the Omani coastguard to withdraw as was the Vincennes which was warned that high-speed manoeuvres were not consistent with the rights of innocent passage.


At about this time (0840) Captaiin Richard McKenna, the surface operations commander and Captain Rogers’ immediate superior at Bahrain HQ was startled to see the position of the Vincennes and the Elmer Montgomery moving into the Persian Gulf and ordered the ships to return to their position south of the Straits of Hormuz.(8)


Also in the vicinity was the USS Sides under new Skipper David Carlson. The Sides was equipped with a computer system that allowed it to share information with the Vincennes, to “see” what the Vincennes saw. The taskforce commander in Bahrain did not have this facility.


As the Vincennes steamed north supported by the Elmer Montgomery the US ships passed two Iranian gunboats drifting in the swell. They did not seem to regard the Americans as a threat. At about this point, 0934hrs, Captain Rogers sought the permission of Fleet HQ to open fire on Iranian gunboats, which were retreating into Iranian waters. He claimed they were closing in on his position. Under the rules of engagement he did not require permission if under threat.


However the Vincennes was not under threat. A few minutes later the Vincennes (0940hrs) entered Iranian territorial waters in pursuit of Iranian gunboats that had not fired on the Vincennes. The claim the ship was under attack from a swarm of Iranian gunboats was untrue.(9)



At 0943 the Vincennes opened fire with its single five-inch gun lobbing shells at the distant Iranian gunboats that returned fire, their RPGs or mortars falling hundreds of yards short.


At 0947 Captain Rezian pilot of flight 655 commenced his take-off at Bandar Abbas Airport for the short journey to Dubai.(10) As the Airbus took off it was immediately monitored by the Sides and the Vincennes and was assigned a track number. Commander Carlson had being following the manoeuvres of The Vincennes with increasing alarm and incredulity. He was concerned at the Vincenes engaging in combat with small gunboats and felt the best course for The Vincennes would be to clear the area. (11)


On the Sides Captain Carlson followed the track of Iranair 655 as it ascended. Attempts to contact the plane on the International Air Distress (IAD) and Military Air Distress (MAD) bands met with no response. Carlson ordered that the plane be “lit-up” with targeting radar that generally served as a deterrent. The plane did not respond.


According to Carlson he made a verbal assessment that “track 4131” was not a threat. It was slow; it was ascending and did not respond to being “lit-up.” There was no precedent for an F-14 attacking a surface ship. Carlson overheard Rogers’ informing Bahrain HQ of his intention to shoot down “track 4131” if it approached within 20 miles.(12)


(Lieutenant Colonel David Evans’ analysis of the “Vincennes Incident” (13) refers throughout to the Vincennes’ perception that the plane was an F-14. The F-14 Tomcat was a formidable fighter plane 79 of which had been sold to the Imperial Air Force from 1975 onwards. The Iranian Air Force was the only overseas Air Force supplied with the Tomcat. Equipped with Sidewinder, Sparrow or Phoenix air-to-air missiles the Tomcat outclassed most Iraqi fighters. It was not equipped with air-to-surface missiles.


Captain Rogers’ memoir however refers to a message from Vice-Admiral Less of the 18th June 1988 warning of Iranian attempts to convert their Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom fighters to a ground attack role by equipping them with iron bombs or unguided Eagle missiles. (14)


Unknown to US Intelligence the Iranians may have had some new weaponry or may have acquired Excocets on the black market. These were the types of weapons the Vincennes was designed to defend against.


On board the Vincennes Captain Rogers was in the commander’s chair in the darkened Combat Information Centre (CIC) crammed with computers and VDUs. As the single gun fired there were temporary blackouts of the background lighting and as the ship rapidly charged course manuals and papers were thrown to the floor. Many of the crew were unfamiliar with the CIC and had not been in combat before.


According to the information passed to Captain Rogers the contact was not ascending but diving. (It is possible that this information was not clearly available). Attempts were made to contact “track 4131”. It is possible that Captain Rezian, several minutes into a routine flight did not realise these transmissions, if he received them, were addressed to him i.e. unidentified military plane. The black boxes were unofficially recovered by the US Navy but their transcripts were not released.(15)


While flight 655 was a scheduled flight it has been hinted that there was some confusion over the four different time zones used in the Gulf and the flight was not identified in the timetable in time. There was also confusion over the flights transponder, an automatic beacon that emits a signal identifying the flight as civilian or military.


Flight 655 was emitting a signal identifying it as a civilian flight and was identified as such by the Sides moments before it was destroyed. The Vincennes may have confused flight 655 with signals emanating from Military flights on the ground at Banda Abbas.


The Shooting-down of KAL 007:

On the 1st September 1983 a Soviet interceptor had shot-down a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 flight KAL 007 from Anchorage to Seoul over the Soviet Island of Sakhalin killing all 269 passengers and crew (including a US Congressman). Either by accident or design the flight was hundreds of miles off course. There have been allegations that the flight was deliberately off-course as part of an intelligence gathering operation.


American officials castigated the Soviet Union for the callousness with which a civilian flight had been destroyed. Speaking that day from Santa Barbara California President Reagan called it “a horrifying act of violence” and in a national broadcast of the 5th September called for “a national day of mourning” stating “this was the Soviet Union against the world and the normal precepts which govern human relations among people everywhere.”(16) The Soviets tried to defend themselves against this PR disaster claiming, as with the Vincennes Incident, the plane had failed to respond to repeated warnings.


The US rhetoric was not backed up by any reprisals. The shooting down of flight KAL 007 was essentially used for propaganda purposes to castigate the inhumanity and incompetence of the “evil empire”.



The American Response;


The first official US comments on the “Vincennes Incident” were made by Admiral William J.Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a Press conference given at 1.30 p.m. in Washington some eleven hours after the shooting down. His comments were based on the initial account of Captain Rogers. Crowe was of course a naval officer.


In his briefing, while admitting his information was incomplete Admiral Crowe claimed that flight 655 was flying outside commercial corridors, had not responded to repeated warnings, that the flight was descending and picking up speed and that the Vincennes was defending itself in international waters. Nearly all these claims were untrue. It was a mistake that an officer of Crowe’s seniority should have given a press briefing before the full facts were known.


Within 48 hrs. the tapes and logs of the Aegis system were being analysed at the Pentagon and information contradicting Admiral Crowe’s initial account began to emerge.


The Iranians took the matter of the “massacre of 290 innocent civilian passengers” (18) to the United Nations Security Council chaired by the United States. Vice-President Bush was delegated to present the US response. The Secretary of State or the US Ambassador could have responded. While evidence was emerging contradicting elements of the initial account, the Pentagon did not share these doubts with the White House. In his speech Vice-President Bush claimed the shootdown occurred as the Vincennes was rushing to the defence of a merchantman under attack by Iranian gunboats.


The Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati described it as a “dastardly attack by a reckless and incompetent naval force led by aggressive and expansionist policymakers”.

The crew of the Vincennes were awarded combat ribbons and several of the officers including Captain Rogers and a Commander Lustwig, the air warfare commander for “heroic action” “in maintaining his poise under fire”.

The Investigation of Admiral Fogarty;
An investigation into the “Vincennes Incident” was conducted by a senior naval officer based at Central Command HQ, Tampa, Florida Admiral Fogarty. The enquiry, aspects of which were made public, has been the subject of some criticism.


This criticism was that the enquiry failed to interview other senior officers who had some involvement in the incident for example Commander Carlson skipper of The Sides, Captain Rogers superior Captain McKenna and the commander of the aircraft carrier the USS Forrestal who was, electronically, observing the incident.


The enquiry, allegedly, did not properly investigate Captain Rogers’ claim that The Vincennes had been fired on a claim that could have been substantiated or otherwise by an examination of the hull. The enquiry glossed over the fact that The Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters. Above all the investigation was criticised for its conclusion of “scenario fulfilment” to explain how the staff of the CIC concluded that track 4131 was diving and accelerating when in reality it was climbing at a steady speed.


According to the now retired Commander Dave Carlson, a critic of Captain Rogers’ actions in the shoot-down of flight 655 the Navy faced a huge problem in confining responsibility to Captain Rogers. Rogers had sought permission to open fire from his superior Vice-Admiral Anthony Less who had apparently, if reluctantly concurred.

However Less and fleet HQ were not equipped with the sophisticated computer link that allowed, for example, The Sides to view the same data that the crew of The Vincennes saw. Carlson also believed that to discipline Rogers would have brought the Navy’s training and selection procedures under unwanted scrutiny.(18)


Charles Bilyeau:


A very interesting comment on the “Vincennes Incident”, Captain Rogers and the shoot-down was made in a review of Captain Rogers’ memoirs Storm Centre posted on Amazon. Lieutenant Commander Charles Bilyeu, an officer on the Vincennes, castigates Captain Rogers giving the book one star out of five. He drew attention to the fact that on return to San Diego 32 members of the crew were arrested and discharged for drug offences. “ WAS THE CREW THINKING CLEARLY AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED” (Bilyeu’s capitals.) “The book fails to even fully disclose what did happen between July 1988 and May 1989. The NCIS, FBI, myself and those onboard know what happened but no-one is talking.” Despite this he concludes without a breath of explanation “
yes, the downing was justified.” (19 )

Conclusion;

Was the downing “justified?” How do you justify killing 290 innocent civilians? Captain Rogers has been widely presented as an officer who was over-aggressive, looking to take on the Iranians on any pretext, an officer who sought to impress his senior officers. Were these the qualities looked for in an officer of flag rank? Rogers’ actions that day had done nothing but irritate his immediate superior Captain McKenna and dumped responsibility for his own decisions onto the taskforce Commander Rear Admiral Less for whom the “fog of war” arose only from Captain Rogers’ actions.


Save for the failure to respond to the transmissions, for reasons known to the US Government, who have declined to release the transcripts of the black boxes or share them with the I.C.A.O. or the Iranian authorities the pilot of flight 655 behaved correctly. He was not to know he was flying over a “fire-fight”. Indeed even the Iranian gunboats didn’t know they were involved in a “fire-fight” until minutes before the shoot-down.


In his own mind and in terms of the Rules Of Engagement Captain Rogers saw the shoot-down as justified. Captain Rogers knew there were commercial aircraft crossing the Straits. He was probably aware that the Iranians had nothing flying, even some sort of kamikaze attack, that could threaten The Vincennes.


Rogers was in a critical situation, under appalling pressure of time to make a decision, but it was a situation entirely of his own making. He had been erroneously told the target was accelerating and descending. His primary, indeed sole responsibility was to the safety of his crew and command. The Vincennes did not share the fate of the USS Stark.


At the time The Vincennes was having enormous difficulty trying to hit the Iranian gunboats with his single 5” gun and the Captain was starting to look foolish. With its array of missiles an airplane was a different proposition and The Vincennes did what it was designed to do.



The Americans did not help the situation by their response of blaming the Iranians for this wholly avoidable disaster and far greater care could have been taken with the response.


However none of this really mattered. A discussion of whether or not Captain Rogers was justified in his actions or whether the US response could have been more considered is to a large extent futile. Captain Rogers did what he did and his actions could not be undone.


Yet in the official version of events the “Vincennes Incident” had no further significant consequences. The Iranians complained to the security council and to the I.C.A.O. but with the regime on the brink of collapse following its capitulation in the Iran-Iraq war decided to let bygones be bygones.  They apparently accepted that the United States had every right too shoot down an Iranian civilian aircraft if it posed a potential or theoretical threat to the safety of a US warship looking for a fight in Iranian territorial waters.


There were bloodcurdling threats of revenge but these were apparently for domestic consumption despite the statements of official spokesmen such as Mohamed Beshti who said at a press conference at the Iranian Embassy in London:-

“
What our response will be we do not say – but it will be an appropriate response to the magnitude of the American crime.”
A statement in English at the London Embassy was not for the Iranian public.

While there is copious evidence that the Iranians tried to retaliate in October 1988 through the PFLP-GC “Autumn Leaves” cell this effort was foiled as the cell had amongst its members at least one CIA informant. After this they gave up.   The Americans were obviously too clever for them and the task of smuggling a single IED on a single aircraft was obviously beyond their capabilities. Curiously Libya managed it quite easily.






( 1 )Sea of Lies Newsweek 13th July 1992 reporters John Barry, Roger
Charles

(2) see also Captain Will Rogers comments in the postscript to Naval Science 302, Navigation and Naval
Operations II, Lesson 20 Crisis Decision Making USS Vincennes a case study byLieutenant

Colonel David Evans US Marine Corps (Retired). (online)

(3) Naval Science 302, Navigation and Naval Operations II, Lesson 20 Crisis Decision Making USS

Vincennes a case study by Lieutenant Colonel David Evans US Marine Corps (Retired). (online)


(4) Storm Centre Will and Sharon Rogers (with Glen Gregson) Naval
Institue Press 1992 page 88 – see also Newsweek Sea of Lies


(5)& (6) Newsweek Sea of Lies & Naval Science 302, Navigation and Naval Operations II, Lesson 20

Crisis Decision Making USS Vincennes a case study by Lieutenant Colonel David

Evans US Marine Corps (Retired). (online)

(7) Navy Times 3.8.92 (quoted in Evans)

(8) (9) & (10) Newsweek & Evans
(11)BBC Correspondent The Other Lockerbie features critical interviews with Commander Carlson,

Captain McKenna and “real-time” footage of the “Vincennes Incident”.

(12) & (13) Evans

(14) Storm Centre page 89

(15) BBC Correspondent The Other Lockerbie (on which Lieutenant Colonel Evans is credited asconsultant).

(16) Statement of President Reagan Santa Barbara 3rd September 1983.

(17) Newsweek Sea of Lies

(18) Security Council expresses “deep distress” at downing of Iranian
civilian plane
UN Publications December 1988 (online)

(19) Sea of Lies Newsweek 13th July 1992 reporters John Barry, Roger
Charles see also Captain Will Rogers comments in the postscript to
Naval Science 302, Navigation and Naval Operations II, Lesson 20 Crisis Decision Making USS

Vincennes Case Study. by Lieutenant Colonel David Evans US Marine Corps (Retired). (online)
Also BBC Correspondent The Other Lockerbie


( 20) Review of Storm Centre by Lieutenant Commander Charles Bilyeu
USN (Retd.) at Amazon.com