The Megrahi
passports
Matt Berkley
7 June 2011
The judges at the
trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi said that eyewitness testimony from the shopkeeper
Tony Gauci was a highly important element in the case. The value of that testimony may be weakened
by other evidence on age and height, mentioned but not discussed at trial.
The present
article expands on brief descriptions of the evidence published in December 2010,
which are to the author's knowledge the only places where the issues have been
mentioned. Mr Gauci told police in
September 1989 that the customer was about 50.
At trial he said "...under 60...I don't have experience on height
or age." The problem appeared to
be that Mr Megrahi was only 36.
The trial judges
said they had not overlooked the discrepancies. However, there was evidence suggesting the Libyan authorities
thought Mr Megrahi looked younger than 36.
Mr Megrahi used,
in addition to his regular passport, another issued in 1987 by the Libyan
authorities in the name of Abdusamad.
The trial transcript records that the birth year given in the Abdusamad
passport was 1957. Mr Megrahi's real birth year was 1952.
Unless there was
wrong information in the court transcript, or a mistake or lack of care by the
Libyan authorities, it would seem that those authorising the passport in a
false name thought it was a good idea to say he was five years younger than he
really was.
If one purpose of
a false identity document is to avoid suspicion, it might be especially
incautious to put in details that contradict the holder's appearance.
One reason for
giving some significance to the birth date evidence could be that the person(s)
making such a judgement might well have done so after consideration,
familiarity or both - having available such information as a variety of viewing
angles; skin texture; how Mr Megrahi's body looked; how he moved; and how he spoke.
Those might have been the kinds of things on which Mr Gauci would
reasonably have judged age.
We might think
that a plausible arrangement would be for a colleague who knew the person to
give the fake details to the issuing authorities.
Similar
considerations might be relevant to the question of whether to place faith in
this evidence rather than judging the quality of an identification by how close
a witness was to the actual age.
Some people do
look clearly younger or older than their age.
Suppose a witness' description accurately matched the age of the
accused, but everyone (perhaps including the witness) thought the accused
looked younger. That would not be the
best evidence against the accused.
There appears to
be no evidence suggesting Mr Megrahi looked old for his age.
It is possible
for a person to use disguises, but in this case discrepant evidence was about
height, skin colour, and perhaps neck and chest size as well as age. The buyer
was described as having black hair, so perhaps the easiest kind of disguising
of age was not done.
How likely might
we think it was that the date was an oversight or other anomaly? The date 1957 is repeated several times in
the transcript, including when the letter requesting the passport is produced.
At the least,
no-one seems to have rejected the passport as being unusable due to an
implausible birth year; after it was issued in June 1987 Mr Megrahi did use it
until December 1988 without it causing serious problems.
For a mistake to
have persisted to the point where the passport arrived in Holland, we might
think that the requesting agency, and the External Security Organisation
through which "coded" (fake name) passports were requested (if that
was not the originating agency) and Mr Megrahi himself either did not notice or
did not care. So the likelihood of the
passport keeping the mistake would appear to be a function of both the
likelihood of a mistake and the likelihood of non-correction.
If Mr Megrahi could
plausibly pass for somewhere near 50 years old - and remember that Mr Gauci was
saying that the buyer was older than himself who was 44 - it seems less likely
that 1957 would have been deliberately written in the first place, and less
likely that, if written by mistake, it would be left uncorrected.
Even if he
plausibly looked 40 in 1987, is it likely that he would have been using a
passport with a fake name, bearing in mind the kinds of activities which might
have been envisaged for using such a
passport, if it said he was 30?
Secondly - and
this is presented as a lesser point -
Mr Megrahi's height may have been slightly further from Mr Gauci's
initial estimate of "about six foot or more" than the judges thought.
The figure
accepted in court for Mr Megrahi's height was 5 feet 8 inches, taken from the
identity parade in 1999. However, the trial transcript gives his height from
both passports (issued in 1986 and 1987) as 1 metre 70, which is less than 5
feet 7 inches.
We might ask
whether the person or people measuring the height at the ID parade knew about
Mr Gauci's previous evidence about six feet, since they could have been
influenced either consciously or unconsciously.
Measurements may
vary due to general inaccuracy, and/or be rounded up or down. This particular discrepancy may be a small
matter.
Mr Megrahi's
expert Professor Valentine, in a report prepared for the second appeal, said
that he understood the shopkeeper's own height to be 5 feet 3 inches.
Rounding up
and/or down on two occasions, and variation in measurement and posture, could
together make for some difference greater or smaller than an inch between the
accepted 5' 8" and Mr Megrahi's true height.
If he were really
shorter than 5'8", then that would mean he was nearer to Mr Gauci's own
height.
Although Mr Gauci
said in court that he had no experience of height or age, his varied accounts
included such things as the customer coming back to the shop, and Mr Gauci
fetching various items. We might
conclude that his accounts did imply the two men being in a variety of physical
positions relative to each other which would give good clues on whether one was
much taller than the other, as well as making that kind of information more
reliable than if there had been a very brief meeting.
People might
reasonably be expected to judge others' height more accurately when dealing
with people closer to their own. A
small change in evidence to the effect that Mr Megrahi and Mr Gauci were of
closer height than the judges thought, could make it a little less likely that
it would be both true that Mr Megrahi bought the clothes, and true that, as in
fact happened, Mr Gauci would describe a tall man.
Appendix 1:
Extracts from trial transcripts and judgement
http://www.mattberkley.com/megrahicourttranscripts.zip
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf
The prosecution
said,
"....these
estimates [on age] have to be considered in the light of what happened on the
occasion on which he picked out Megrahi in the photo spread. This was the statement of 15 February 1991...He
said that the man that he picked out, who was Megrahi, was in his thirties and
would have to look about ten years older to be the man who bought the
clothes. As at 1988, Megrahi was 38
years old, so that that estimate, in relation to the photograph of Megrahi
himself, was rather closer to the actual age of the man."
[trial transcript
page 9452]
Mr Megrahi was in
fact 36. Mr Gauci's statement on that occasion read in part:
"The first
impression I had was that all the photographs were of men younger than the man
who had bought the clothing. I told Mr.
Bell this. I was asked to look at all
the photographs carefully and to try and allow for any age difference.
"I then
pointed out one of the photographs .....I would say that the photograph at number
8 is similar to the man who bought the clothing.....The man in the photograph
number 8 is, in my opinion, in his thirty years. He would perhaps have to look about ten years or more older, and
he would look like the man who bought the clothes. It's been a long time now, and I can only say that this
photograph number 8 resembles the man who bought the clothing, but it is
younger."
[page 4864]
The judges said
in their Opinion, or judgement:
"Mr. Gauci's
initial description to DCI Bell would not in a number of respects fit the first
accused. At the identification parade the first accused's height was measured
at five foot eight inches. His age in
December 1988 was 36. Mr. Gauci said that he did not have experience of height
or age, but even so, it has to be accepted that there was a substantial
discrepancy." [paragraph 68]
"We have
also not overlooked the difficulties in relation to description and
height. We are nevertheless satisfied
that his identification, so far as it went of the first accused as the
purchaser, was reliable and should be treated as a highly important
element in this
case." [paragraph 69]
In court a letter
was produced from the the Libyan External Security Organisation requesting the
passport in the name of Abdusamad, giving the details to be recorded
(transcript page 7787).
Appendix 2: Previous publication of the basic
observations
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6644938
"....the
Abdusamad passport said he was born in 1957 rather than 1952. If that was
thought credible, then maybe he looked younger than 36 at the time, and Mr
Gauci's initial evidence on age might weigh even more against Mr Megrahi being
the purchaser."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6645071
"Mr
Megrahi's height: At page 4585 [of the trial transcript] it is read from the
1986 passport as being 1 metre 70. That is under 5 foot 7 - so, less than
measured at the ID parade and further from the "about six foot or
more" mentioned by Mr Gauci to begin with.
One question is -
did the person or people measuring the height at the ID parade know about Mr
Gauci's evidence about six feet? I realise that measurements may vary and/or be
rounded up or down, that the discrepancy may be a small matter and that it may
be unfair and unnecessary to mention the possibility of even unconscious
communication or influence.
But in any case,
if he were really shorter than 5'8" (rounding up and/or down in two
instances, and variation in measurement and posture, could together make for
some difference greater or smaller than an inch), then that would mean he was
nearer to Mr Gauci's own height.
Since people
might reasonably be expected to judge height more accurately when dealing with
people close to their own height, a small difference could make it appreciably
less likely that Mr Gauci would describe a tall man."
............................................................................................
Matt Berkley
Unit 164
266 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7DL
England
+44 (0)7868
397699