The prosecution has not proved the Malta connection hence its difficult to substantiate the case against the two Libyans.  In my opinion the verdict will be a not proven one if not the not guilty one.

The Maltese have always refused the suggestion that the bomb began its journey from Malta.  If there was a proof of this, then our Maltese Law would have provided that the two accused could have been tried in Maltese court.  This because of jurisdiction as the the crime would have commenced in Malta.

The prosecution witnesses Abdul Magid Giaka and Tony Gauci continued to mine the case if there was one.

Giaka
The main witness Giaka took the prosecution for a ride instead of providing the necessary imput for convicting the two accused.  We as Maltese knew
that.  We knew Giaka well but he has deceived the Americans.

Regarding Giaka, it is important to note that he was under pressure from his handlers to get information to them if he wanted to remain on their pay roll.  Till September 1989, Giaka had not given any information regarding the Pan Am tragedy and yet he was meeting them since August 1988, five months before the tragedy, he should have given them first hand information on the conspiracy and details on what was going to happen so that they could have avoided the tragedy.

The American's assessment of Giaka is disclosed in one of the classified cables,

"It is clear that Giaka will never be the penetration of the Libyan Secret Service (JSO) that we had anticipated.  Giaka is now out of the JSO and has no intention to attempt to regain direct access.  Unfortunately it appears that our assisting him in scam surgery on his arm to avoid military service has had the reverse result that we had intended.  It has also allowed him to avoid further service with the JSO, Giaka's true intention from the beginning.  Giaka has never been a true staff member of the JSO, and as he stated at this meeting, he was co-opted with working with the JSO and he now wants nothing to do with them or their activities.  Giaka would prefer to remain on Malta."

His American handlers were putting pressure on him to give them information,

"We will want to ensure that Giaka understands what is expected of him and what he can expect from us in return.  Giaka will therefore be advised on the 4th September 1989 meeting that he is on trial status until 1st January 1990.  Giaka will be instructed to make every effort possible to return to Malta in October to discuss further developments and to advise regarding his employment status."

What was happening was that there were negotiations between Giaka and his CIA handlers, where Giaka was proving to be of very little value to the Americans, he was costing them money, and they were beginning to doubt whether he would ever be able to provide information of an important character for them, despite the injection of funds into his life.

He bluffed that he has always opposed the Qadafi regime but never revealed that fact to anyone. His handlers think that he apparently fears sufficiently for his safety, or perhaps the maintenance of his lifestyle in Malta.  But from we know Giaka here in Malta was a fervent supporter of the Libyan regime, even wearing a watch with' Qadafi's face on it.

Giaka had recruited a number of Maltese citizens in illegal operations, among those a physician, immigration officers and an Air Malta employee.

A local physician who was willing to provide him with necessary documentation regarding a physical disability.  This physician had already given Giaka documents attesting to the fact that he has back problems.

Giaka succeeded in recruiting Maltese immigration officials willing to assist secret service members in concealing their entries or departures from Malta.

One should keep in mind that Giaka unlike either of the accused, was actually employed at Luqa International Airport in December 1988.

His handlers suspect that from he earned illegal commissions through his employment, in his Libyan Arab Airlines capacity, perhaps low-level smuggling.  So there was a suspicion that the man was engaging in smuggling through the airport by virtue of his capacity with the Libyan Arab Airlines, in addition to his ability to circumvent immigration controls.

In addition to the attendance of Giaka at these meetings, there was another individual, who had introduced him to the United States embassy in Malta, who initially acted as interpreter and subsequently as a source of information.  The Maltese woman had a regular position with Air Malta that allowed her access to baggage handling at the airport.

Tony Gauci
After 19 statements by Tony Gauci, after an identification parade in April 1999 and after taking the witness stand during the Camp Zeist trial this week, he has not positively identified anyone that went to his shop and bought clothes, fragments of which were later found in the fields of Lockerbie months after the Pan Am tragedy.

Now we have learned that FBI where behind the first suggestion that Megrahi was the person who bought the clothes in Mary's House.  The Scottish investigators where invited to go to Malta and there a FBI officer would show him the photo of the suspect.

The photo of Megrahi was shown to Tony Gauci on the 15th of February 1991. Those familiar with the case might ask, why the investigators showed Megrahi
's photo to Gauci so late in the investigation when the CIA were meeting their Libyan informer, now defector, Abdul Majid Giacka, way back in August 1988, four months before the tragedy?

In a statement on that day Gauci said that the person in the photo is "similar to the man who bought the clothing. The hair is perhaps a bit long. The eyebrows are the same.  The nose is the same, and his chin and shape of face are the same.  The man in the photograph is in my opinion, in his thirty years.  He would perhaps have to look about ten years older, and he would look like the man who bought the cloths.  It's been a long time now and I can only say that this photograph resembles the man who bought the clothing, but it is younger."

Megrahi was 36 at that time.

In April 1999 Gauci was called to Camp Zeist in Amsterdam for an identification parade where Megrahi was shown to him with other seven persons.  On that occasion Tuesday, the 13th of April of last year, Gauci said that Megrahi was "not exactly the man I saw in the shop.  Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who look a little bit like exactly is the number 5".

Much of the media reported that Tony Gauci, during his testimony, made a positive identification of Megrahi, in fact he has not done that, he said that Megrahi "resembles him".  And that's different from what was reported that the Maltese shop owner had positively identified Megrahi as the person that bought the cloths from his shop.

But when Gauci saw the photograph of Palestinian terrorist Abu Talb, whom the defence is incriminating and is currently serving a life sentence in a Swedish prison, the Maltese shop owner said, "yes, he resembles him a lot". Abu Talb's photo was shown to Gauci in the trial and he again confirmed after being asked by the defence if he resembles the person who both the clothes.

The Lockerbie investigators where moving on the Abu Talb track because he had links with a Palestinian faction based in Syria, before finally pointing the finger at Libya in 1991.  Abu Talb was twice in Malta less than a month before the Lockerbie bombing.

So there was no concrete identification of any person by Gauci.

Three more points that must be noted in Tony Gauci's testimony are:

If the person that bought the items from Mary's House was living at the Holiday Inn Hotel as the prosecution is claiming, less than five minutes away from the hotel, was it wise for the person who bought the items to walk to the taxi stand which is the same distance from the hotel and in the opposite direction?  This point is very puzzling a lot and if the case were being heard here in Malta, the defence team would have a field day.

One of the points raised during Gauci's testimony was regarding Christmas decorations.  In his earlier statement to Scottish police he said that no lights where yet up. But in his testimony he said that lights where being put up.  In Malta a month before Christmas, shops and streets are already decorated especially in shopping areas to attract Christmas shoppers.

The prosecution is trying to project a scenario as near Christmas as possible because of the day when the clothes where both form Mary's House. The prosecution is suggesting the 7th December when Megrahi was in Malta and the defence is working more on the 23rd of November as the day when the clothes where bought.  On that day immigration records show that the accused was not in Malta.

Then there is the rain factor.  The person, who bought the clothes, bought an umbrella because it was raining.  On 7th December 1988, when the prosecution is alleging that clothes where both from Mary's House it did not rain in the afternoon as checks with meteorological office will confirm. The day the defence is suggesting, from weather reports its seems that it was raining in the afternoon.

So Tony Gauci has not proved beyond reasonable doubt as requested by Scottish Criminal Law that Megrahi was the man who bought the cloths from his shop

If this case was a common one, the case should have never reached a trial.

The aftermath
The aftermath of the case is going to be difficult for the victim families as they would have not got an answer to what really had happened.

Its going to be difficult for the United Nations to explain how an embargo was imposed on millions of people, now resulting that there was no real proof against Libya but speculations and allegations not proved in a court room.

Its going to be difficult to convince the British tax payer that paid millions of pounds for this investigation and for a trial that resulted in a complete fiasco for the Crown.  The Crown has not presented a strong case in course.  The American influence and decisions taken during the past years has not let the Scottish investigators do their own investigations and conclusions.

The Lockerbie investigators are also going to be blamed for abusing of Malta's hospitality when telephone tapping was used without the necessary permission for the Maltese Authorities.

Its going to be a relief for Malta and the national airlines Air Malta that their name is going to be cleaned after more than years of speculations and allegations.

Its going to be a relief for the families of the two accused that for the last years fought for clearing their relatives name.