Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted in the wreckage of Pan Am 103? [Archive] - Page 3

realdon

28th October 2009, 07:09 PM

A bit more info on the Togo timer. From the trial at Kamp Ziest This is from the MEBO website so...!!!

Ex Witness no. 528, Richard Louis Sherrow, was primary a special officer for explosive ordonance disposal in the United States Army. In November 1984 he left the army and took up a position as an explosives enforcement officer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, a law enforcement agency within the USA.

In the end of 1986 officer Sherrow in company of Mr. Owen and Mr. Casay, went to Lome, Togo (West Africa) in order of the US-Department of State.

Sherrow and company were taken to the headquarters, army barracks and were shown explosives, firearms, ammunition, military equipment and took some photographs from 2 MEBO MST-13 electronic timers.

Trial Kamp van Zeist excerpt:
Q-- And did there come a stage where you were considering returning to the United States?

(Witness 528, Richard Sherrow)
A-- Yes. Q-- And at that stage did you express any interest in taking any of the items back with you? A-- Yes, sir.

Q-- What were you interested in taking with you? A-- I was interested in the timers, also in samples of explosives.
Q-- Did you liaise with anybody as to whether it would be possible to do that? A-- Yes. Q--Who was that? A-- The State Department representative, the embassy personnel. Q-- Now, the State Department representative, was that somebody who had travelled with you from the United States? A-- Yes. Q-- Was it Mr. Casey? A-- Yes, it was. Q-- I see.

And what was the result of these negotiations? A-- Subsequently, we were allowed to -- I was allowed to take one timer and a sample of, I believe, three different types of explosives. Q-- Thank you. And how were these items taken away from Togo? A--They were placed in the United States diplomatic pouch and returned. Q-- And who had custody of that?

A-- Mr. Casey. Q-- So does it follow from that, then, that the items which you were given permission to remove were taken from the country in his custody? A-- Yes, sir. Q-- And on your return to the United States, did you see any of the these items again? A-- Yes, I did. Once we returned to the United States, they were turned over to my custody. Q-- I see. Was that all of the items? A-- es, sir.

Q-- And therefore including the timer? A-- Yes, sir. Q-- How many timers did you remove? A-- Only one. Q-- And what did you do with it when you returned to the United States? A-- I examined it at the headquarters of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, performed bench tests, functioning tests.

Q-- Did you photograph it at the headquarters? A-- Yes, I did. Q--Had you also photographed that some timer in Lome? A--Yes. Q--And having performed these tests and photographed it, what did you then do with it? A-- I was requested to take it to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and give a briefing on what I found. Q-- And did you do that? A-- I did.

Q-- And did you take the timer with you in order to give that briefing? A-- Yes. Q--Did you return to your own headquarters after that briefing? A-- I did, yes. Q-- And did you take the timer back with you? A-- No, I didn't. That was released to their custody.

MEBO important:
On the MST-13timer PC-board was printed the name of the manufacturer, MEBO Ltd. Thus Richard Luis Sherrow and the CIA knew the manufacturer and the address since the beginning of 1987! This explains why the UK expert of RARDE Mr. Allen Feraday contactet the Swiss Federal Police, this visited MEBO Ltd (Ing. Lumpert) about the MST-13timer on the 22 June 1989.

An interesting point from this is that Sherrow examined the timer at the ATF headquarters performing bench and function tests. He must have given it a pretty good going over looking at component types, makes etc. Part of this examination must have included trying to find out where it was manufactured
Did he miss the 'scratched out MEBO' I cant see how with such a close examination. Sounds like he had the thing working.

MEBO are saying here that their name was on it ??

If only the court had asked the question " were you able to identify its make or manufacturer"

D

realdon

28th October 2009, 07:45 PM

Well where did you get it? If we don't know anything, it's probably just good for illustrative examples. And it is.

D[/QUOTE]

Well its from this webpage but I warn you there are some pretty whacky statements contained.

The guy seems to be a US version of Bollier/MEBO. Quote " ACCURACY SYSTEMS ORDINANCE CORPORATION, provided specialized explosive devices to law enforcement, the military, Special Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.pinetreeline.org/other/other18/other18an.html

He seems to have fallen out with the ATF at some point as well

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16998

"Byers, 58, is a munitions expert par excellence, an inventor and former licensed manufacturer of exotic ordnance and devices, who for years supplied law enforcement and intelligence agencies with his specialized products."

and

"Byers' explanation is that he is the victim of a long, off-and-on campaign by ATF and the Central Intelligence Agency -- one which opened again in August 1997, when he and two witnesses met in the Phoenix office of Rep. Bob Stump (R-Ariz.) with Stump's aide and two internal affairs agents from the CIA.

As Byers tells it: "For the better part of the year I had been writing to the director of the CIA telling him I had documentation of sinister actions by certain agents who are selling weapons of war to international terrorists, smuggling drugs into the U.S. The officials in Washington wouldn't do anything, but finally agreed to send agents to meet with me.

"I showed up with all my documentation and two other witnesses to substantiate my testimony and add additional information -- but the agents would not accept it because I insisted on tape recording its transmittal."

According to Byers the agents became "vehemently upset" -- and refused even when Byers said the tape could remain with Rep. Stump. "I just wanted a record of what I gave them -- and they flat-out refused," he said.

Byers believes it would be too much of a coincidence that just two or three weeks later, the ATF arrived and declared the ranch off-limits to the public.

So he has the picture on the page linked above no mention of its origin. He left his phone number though !!!

D

D

Dan O.

28th October 2009, 10:02 PM

Here is a picture of a completed timer its a bit contrasty. Maybe some one can clean it up a bit

It shows the timer with no cut outs so this particular one will not have been put in one of the waterproof boxes shown in a previous post. But it could be put into a radio case or other item

I think the black part is a battery pack

Also it looks like there is a smaller circuit board mounted on the larger board.
This may well be the UZ4 board that had the scratched off MEBO logo on it

The PT35b fragment has the cutouts unlike this but it could have been taken out of the case to put it in the toshiba

I would love to know the origins of this photo. Never seen it used any where
regarding Pan Am 103

D

I agree, the black part looks like the battery pack. You can see the two small leads going to the power input pads below the power switch and the heavy leads going to the relay pads and off to the (?detonator).

Then there are the small mystery leads also going up to the relay and following the detonator leads. These would likely go to a safety switch which could be a barometer. I think we saw the corner of this board near the relay before. I couldn't see the second small wire going to the relay then but knew it had to be there.

The white board is the display/counter module. This photo confirms a question I was pondering on how the display module connected to the main board. I had previously assumed that the display was a commodity item but now I'm thinking it could be a MEBO product.

Caustic Logic

29th October 2009, 01:18 AM

Well its from this webpage but I warn you there are some pretty whacky statements contained.

The guy seems to be a US version of Bollier/MEBO. Quote " ACCURACY SYSTEMS ORDINANCE CORPORATION, provided specialized explosive devices to law enforcement, the military, Special Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.pinetreeline.org/other/other18/other18an.html

He seems to have fallen out with the ATF at some point as well
<snip>

So he has the picture on the page linked above no mention of its origin. He left his phone number though !!!

Whaddya mean, no explanation? He doesn't seem to get that cm isn't just the British word for inch. But this is interesting:
These 3 photographs are of an identical model of the electronic timer used to detonate the bomb that blew up PAN AM 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. A one inch square partial section of this timer was found in the PAN AM 103 wreckage. It is adjustable from 0 to 99 minutes or 0 to 99 hours with the flip of a switch. It is a high quality, professionally assembled timer whose design includes both circuit (hook-up/connection) and output (function/activation) test lights. I know where it was manufactured in Florida --- again exclusively for the CIA!!
So this must be the origin of the CIA duplicates made in Florida claim, which the court dismissed as fiction. Of all states, Florida I'd believe involved in weird things. I was going to say another source ruled out, as these seem to be true green. But then, IF these are made for the CIA, why except framing? Why not get them proper blue as well? Many ifs, but at least something to ask about that I didn't know before. This is awesome how progress is being made. To borrow Rumsfeld's terminology, we're making unknown unknowns into known unknowns.

ETA: The larger picture there looks more workable. I may work on it a bit.

Dan O.

29th October 2009, 02:44 AM

realdon

29th October 2009, 12:11 PM

I kept trying to make sense of what UZ4 could stand for until I realized that it doesn't have to be english.

UZ4 ?= Unten Zählung 4 <--> 4 digit down counter

I just got those words from a translator and have no idea if they make any sense.

Dan thats bang on. The board UZ4 has 2 thumbwheel switches mounted on it for setting the time and may be also the components for the 'counter circuit'
that will count down from the number selected on the thumbwheels.

For some reason I thought the timer could do up to 9999 mins or hours but
looking close at the picture I posted (The Florida one ?) only 2 digits so 99 mins or Hours. The one in the picture is set at zero

On the circuit board colour thing. On all pictures of the MST other than the Florida one the board colours are way out. What Bollier is saying I agree with
The three protype boards will be brown. They are home made and will not have had the green solder resist screen printed on them. Only the commercially produced Thuring boards will be green. Blue screen printing is not common at all even today ( you sometimes see it now on fancy go faster PC mother boards) I have been inside hundreds of commercially produced electronic items and Green is the colour 99.9%.

15534

I just feel this is wrong it should be green (like florida). Its from 1990 so not from a digital camera. Has there been a problem with the colour printing at some point, bad copys, Colour photcopy ? Did the court press release these or what?

15535

This is labeled as a grey shirt but looking at the image I would not be able to identify it as such,looks white

we need some decent images !

D

D

Rolfe

29th October 2009, 05:55 PM

Can anybody post a sensible survey of the non-fragment timers that have been associated with this investigation? Or it it all too complicated?

Rolfe.

Dan O.

29th October 2009, 08:44 PM

Well its from this webpage but I warn you there are some pretty whacky statements contained.

http://www.pinetreeline.org/other/other18/other18an.html

I finally looked at the link and can see a little more information. The MST-13 circuit board is double sided but the front side is only used for labels such as the big letters that say "MST-13". It's also shows that everybody has been looking at the board upside-down. The relay and display would be at the bottom.

The LED (and push button below it) are labeled "TEST". But I am mystified as to what the test could be. There is no connection to the relay contacts so the circuit cannot test the continuity of the detonator circuit which would be the most useful function. I can't imagine wanting a test function that closes the output relay as there would be no time to see the test LED come on :)

One possibility for the test would be to fast cycle the count so it counts seconds instead of hours or minutes. This would still be hazardous, especially if the timer was out of its case, since if the unit were jostled in flight the battery pack could wedge itself over the test button it would cause the remaining hours to count off in seconds.

Caustic Logic

30th October 2009, 02:06 AM

I finally looked at the link and can see a little more information. The MST-13 circuit board is double sided but the front side is only used for labels such as the big letters that say "MST-13". It's also shows that everybody has been looking at the board upside-down. The relay and display would be at the bottom.

The LED (and push button below it) are labeled "TEST". But I am mystified as to what the test could be. There is no connection to the relay contacts so the circuit cannot test the continuity of the detonator circuit which would be the most useful function. I can't imagine wanting a test function that closes the output relay as there would be no time to see the test LED come on :)

One possibility for the test would be to fast cycle the count so it counts seconds instead of hours or minutes. This would still be hazardous, especially if the timer was out of its case, since if the unit were jostled in flight the battery pack could wedge itself over the test button it would cause the remaining hours to count off in seconds.

So are you saying this board wasn't designed very well? Remember it's CIA, maybe meant to get sold top people they didn't like. And we all know the CIA has control of the jostling market, so it's a perfect set-up!

Interesting this is the bottom, but it only looks like "we're number one!" or "that's the one" when you look at it this way.

Realdon, I looked at the colors again - non MST-13 official evidence pictures have consistent bright blue backgrounds (check the Yorkie tag, the packed toshiba display), while the one of DP/347 however is way darker, and PT/35's a bit darker, and blue-tinted. I just did a blind test to match these to the usually background, and the bards came out too bright, decontrasted, and the same basic hue anyway. Yet the paper tags and touch pad are tinted blue... it is something confusing, but the photos Thurman showed were also blue like these. The messy one Thurman compared to does in some views look a much brighter blue-green (see here (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/PT35/U7946.jpg)) but otherwise, if color is wrong, it's done pretty widely, as in we have access to no non-altered views. That's a little weird to think, but then... I dunno.

Can anybody post a sensible survey of the non-fragment timers that have been associated with this investigation? Or it it all too complicated?
I thought so, and maybe. Or rather, yes, so long as we realize sensible is a relative term.

realdon

30th October 2009, 12:43 PM

So are you saying this board wasn't designed very well? Remember it's CIA, maybe meant to get sold top people they didn't like. And we all know the CIA has control of the jostling market, so it's a perfect set-up!
.

I am not sure at all about the claim by Charles Buyers that this was built by the CIA. However that picture on the linked page aint an official one, it has none of the court reference stuff on it DP no, Scale etc. So who took it and where.?

If the CIA had bulit replicas of the timer imagine the scene in court

Q. So you matched the fragment PT35 to a timer that had been recovered previously in Lome, Togo
A. That's correct
Q. And from this you were able to discover the timer had been supplied by MEBO
A. That's correct
Q. And MEBO have already told us that they sold Timers to Libya
A.Yes
Q. Could Libya have obtained the timer from anyone else other than MEBO
A Well errr yes possibly
Q Well from whom?
A well err the CIA also made some exact replicas
Q So this fragment could have been from Mebo timer or a CIA one
A wel um I suppose so
Q Right get out of my court the lot of you .I'm off down the Pub.

Also I've been looking over some of the Tv programmes and in the BBC Conspiracy files I've come across some more timer differences

At 30.13 they have a good image of the MST 13 main board
as in DP/347 looks like the real thing nice proper green colour

This is then superimposed on to of a court photo DP/111 which is of a complete timer in box (never seen this photo else where). They actually superimpose it upside down by mistake.

The superimposed image is then faded ot to show the photo (DP/111) of the timer with the switches. Four of them so this timer can do 0 -9999 mins/hours

Bollier then shows a boxed timer to camera and the V/O says this is the type of timer Bollier sold to Libya.
We then see in close up a timer, but its completely different type of timer
the switches are in the centre, the board in this timer is not the same one as in DP/347 or DP/111 and its rotated in the box.

Can any one do screen grabs of these not sure how to myself
The relevant part is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7k9odglFQ&feature=PlayList&p=DF5A67DDC84E1B32&index=28

Its looking like there are different versions/models of this timer. Potentially water proof boxed boards with corners cut out and with no corner cut outs ike the "CIA" one that can be used within some other enclosure.

Did Mebo sell both boxed and unboxed to Libya ?

Feraday stated in court that the timer board he used to make the fragment match to had no corner cut outs. But Thurman tells of how he opened the box to look at it closer. From what I can gather the ATF/CIA/FBI only ever had 1 timer in ther possession from Togo

D

Caustic Logic

30th October 2009, 03:35 PM

Sorry so totally brief - that's a mock-up I think, not a real board. Right circuitry layout, holes too small, and it's proper green (at beginning of that linked clip). If the real thing was this green, intact or in the "debris," then all photos, held by Thurman, posted by Mebo, etc are altered to blue while only the BBC's reconstructions and alleged CIA fakes are done right. I tend to think the MST-13 is blue, but there are extra color issues with the evidence photos. So I'm still confused and open to suggestions. Would they call a blue board green if they didn't know of blue and thought of it as on some possible green-blue scale they just call green? That's my guess so far...

DP 111 (at o:28) I had missed - that is more green isn't it, but still not quite Florida green. Maybe - tinting and video... I'll check it out. Could be thw two-sideds used a diff color for each side, or all-in-all...
ETA: Check at 2:09 Bollier with a nice green one in case, his blue (green) "replacement" board photo in the back, next to the blue (brown) original fake.

Dan O.

30th October 2009, 05:20 PM

Here is DP/111 from the video "The Conspiracy Files - Lockerbie" Part 4 @0:31
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_151444aeb6fc3b984f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18054)

And here is the later one @2:11
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_151444aeb6f2f9df5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18053)

The first may be the real thing but the second is probably an engineering mockup that was built either before the MST-13 was designed or as a prototyping for a new version.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 05:32 PM

[Sorry, cross-posting]

The BBC fragment is definitely a mock-up. They had a still pic of it on their web site last week too. It's a better mock-up than that National Geographic comedy number though.

It's the corner thing that's intriguing me. Bollier said that a boxed timer would never fit inside a radio, but maybe the bombers had taken the circuit board out of the case. I think, for once, he might actually be right. I'm virtually certain that all the timers supplied to Libya were boxed, with the corners professionally milled out by Thuring.

So where does this thing with the corners still attached come from?

If we could get the question clear, we could even ask Bollier - assuming his answer would make any sense, which is hardly a given.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 05:45 PM

Bollier again.

A convincing of fraud study of the PT-35 (MST-13 timer fragment) for the last "Non-Believers".

The confrontation between the regular chronology (1989 to 2000) of the MST-13 timer cirquit board (prototype) up to, allegedly in Lockerbie found, PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board and the falsified and manipulated chronology (1989 to 2000) of the PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board, from experts Tom Thurman (FBI), USA, Dr. Thomas Heyes and Allen Feraday, both of (RARDE) U.K., is in work and publishes soon.

This should be good. I wonder how he'll explain how the photographs all seem to be of the same object?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 05:48 PM

Dan O.

30th October 2009, 06:24 PM

It just dawned on me that circuit boards can be semi-transparent. The blue color shift we see in DP/347 is transmission through the circuit board of the blue background card it's sitting on.

realdon

30th October 2009, 10:07 PM

Actually, I do want to know as exactly as possible where that fragment was found. In particular, whether it was in Scotland or in England. Why is everybody going on about the Kielder Forest, and yet it was a couple of Scottish cops who were crawling on their hands and knees and came across it?

These guys are really territorial, and in particular the Scottish cops had enough on their plate not to be crawling all over England.

Rolfe.

I posted this a few pages ago
Discovered 13 Jan 89 by DC Gilchrist and DC McColm. Search sector 1, Newcastleton which is about 25 miles east of Lockerbie and just straddles the border

Logged in to property store at Dextar 17 Jan 89

Examined by Dr Hayes 12 May 89

Source Opinion of the court document
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library...ejudgement.rtf

D

Caustic Logic

30th October 2009, 11:02 PM

It just dawned on me that circuit boards can be semi-transparent. The blue color shift we see in DP/347 is transmission through the circuit board of the blue background card it's sitting on.

I'd need to see that explained better 'cause none of these looks translucent at all. Rather, quite opaque.

On the green cased timer Bollier's holding, looking at the screen cap it looks almost like green clay with buttons stuck in. I'm sure it's not, just an odd impression that might be amusing.

Dan O.

30th October 2009, 11:40 PM

I'd need to see that explained better 'cause none of these looks translucent at all. Rather, quite opaque.

Look closely at DP/347. Notice how there is a lighter band right at the edges. It also gets darker near the large pads where the pad is shadowing light going through the board. You can also see some of the grain inside the board.

On the green cased timer Bollier's holding, looking at the screen cap it looks almost like green clay with buttons stuck in. I'm sure it's not, just an odd impression that might be amusing.

I've looked closely trying to figure what it's made of. It looks like some kind of plastic from the way it's cracked. The green here may be just painted on and the lettering is probably hand drawn.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 04:57 AM

I posted this a few pages ago
Discovered 13 Jan 89 by DC Gilchrist and DC McColm. Search sector 1, Newcastleton which is about 25 miles east of Lockerbie and just straddles the border

Logged in to property store at Dextar 17 Jan 89

Examined by Dr Hayes 12 May 89

Source Opinion of the court document
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library...ejudgement.rtf

Sorry, I should have acknowledged that. That's maybe as close as we're going to get, but it's still a bit confusing. I'll check it against the Air Accident report and see if I can triangulate it a bit better.

Newcastleton is in Scotland, and Kielder is in England. The forests are pretty much contiguous, but the Scottish side is Newcastleton Forest and the English side is Kielder Forest.

It's also pretty much at a four-way county boundary. Lockerbie itself is in Dumfriesshire, but not far to the east Roxburghshire starts. Both of these are Scottish counties. Over the border, Kielder is in Northumberland, but south-west of that is Cumbria.

http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/output1/gam/gam_print_ordsvywat-sun-17252615361359.jpg

This is one of the little snippets of OS map from their "Get-a-map" service, that are allowed to be reproduced for information. I'm sorry I can't fix the scale at the moment.

I'm just confused by all the reports of "Kielder Forest", which go right back to the early stages of the case (The Maltese Double Cross goes to town on it), but then the finding being logged by Scottish policemen. Another source says "Cumbria", but it's unlikely to have been Cumbria, because most of the Kielder Forest is in Northumberland. However, if it was really found in Scotland, we should be talking either about Roxburghshire (the geographic county) or Scottish Borders (the administrative county), or just possibly Dumfriesshire.

It could be simple confusion because of the area being so close to the border, but the border is administratively very important (not least because the law and the legal jurisdiction is different depending on which side you're on), and it's odd that a Scottish find is so persistently spoken of as occurring in England.

There does seem to have been some uncertainty about the provenance of the find from the start, though I'm not sure if de Braeckeleer is the only source for that and if so how reliable it is. It could just be Chinese Whispers. But the whole thing is to me suspicious of something that wasn't properly documented contemporaneously having its provenance filled in retrospectively.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 05:36 AM

I'm suspicious that this is the reason for DC Gilchrist's evasiveness at the trial. That he either didn't find it at all, or doesn't remember finding it. That in fact he signed for a number of things that had been brought in and weren't properly documented - probably a commoner occurrence than anyone will admit, given the sheer amount of stuff and the number of amateur searchers. Bobby Ingram seems to describe a tidying-up exercise on the documentation going on as much as two years after the event, possibly relating to the Fatal Accident Inquiry, or maybe the indictment of the Libyans.

Of course, this isn't inevitably sinister. It could just be sloppy documentation. However, if anything like that had come out at the trial, the fragment would probably have been ruled inadmissible, and that would have been the end of that.

I wonder if this is actually unrelated to the possibilty of a plant? I'd have thought all along that the easy way to plant something like that fragment would be to get access to a likely bit of evidence that hadn't been fully examined, and insert it at that point. It's possible this could have been done, without realising the policemen who'd signed the label would be uncertain about the provenance. (I'm not really speculating about who changed the label, but in this scenario the probable answer would be whoever added the fragment, to give the bag a higher profile. It certainly was cunningly done, almost unnoticeable, and would have taken far more concentration and effort than simply striking through the originlal word and adding the new designation.)

On the other hand, the whole contents in that bag were awfully convenient. Bits of Toshiba case, bits of metal and wire, and bits of the Toshiba manual. All embedded in that collar. How easy would it be to pick that out as the perfect place to add the timer fragment?

The alternative is that the whole damn thing was fabricated, at a later date, to match what was being found elsewhere. Then get a label off an unimportant piece of cloth, and attach it - instant provenance.

I suppose it's the Toshiba manual fragment that I find most difficult to explain in this context. Hard to fabricate, and unnecessary. More likely to be part of a real piece of evidence, but either a very lucky or a very careful selection considering what else was in the bag.

It would be nice to know what was logged into Holmes about this, but on the other hand, I suppose at best all it would show would be a piece of evidence with that ID number and that provenance entering the system on 17th January, not what was in the bag. (I have a friend who worked on Holmes almost all the time I knew him, certainly in the period we're talking about, and he would know how the system would handle this sort of thing. Unfortunately he emigrated to Tennessee a year or two ago!)

I guess I'm suspicous that Thurman (hypothetically) got access to the store of stuff that was being sent to RARDE, or that had already arrived at RARDE, and was able to choose a plausible item to add his fragment. How this relates to Hayes' odd behaviour (the extra page 51, and even more inexplicably, his failure to jump on the fragment as something hugely significant the minute he saw it), I don't know.

Mmmmmm.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

31st October 2009, 05:52 AM

Rolfe: Thanks for bringing the jurisdiction issues up and into this. I didn't realize the debris had spread far enough to be in England as well (or so close anyway).

Dan O: Looking, I kind of see it - meh, too tired for a new thought right now. The background also is way darker than usual in the 347 photo. I did this:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_bg_blue_comp_3.jpg
I'm not sure we can take the views at right as standard either, there are so few points available to compare. I found the hue seems pretty similar in the others, mostly working brightness and contrast and getting little color change. My results vary with each photo - the same background in the two pics of 347 don't yield the same board color. So I dunno how valuable it is, but that's the most different. It does get more green by a bit, and with translucency considered there should be less blue if the background were white, right? I'm still having a hard time seeing that much show through, but the thing really is small and thin, not some book-sized thing like it can seem looking at all these pics.

Adam

realdon

31st October 2009, 12:19 PM

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 12:55 PM

But if you read Hayes' notes from 12th May 1989, he describes it as a "fragment of green circuit board". Which suggests it looked clearly green as found, even before significant cleaning up.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

31st October 2009, 03:59 PM

But if you read Hayes' notes from 12th May 1989, he describes it as a "fragment of green circuit board". Which suggests it looked clearly green as found, even before significant cleaning up.

We can see that he cleaned a spot on the lower left before it was photographed which was done before the fragment was documented. He probably couldn't see anything except black before rubbing off the soot in that spot.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 05:29 PM

Are you saying those "scratches" that seem contiguous with the "M" are actually Hayes having cleaned a little bit of the fragment before the photo was taken? That would be a good explanation for these marks. Are they consistent with that though?

ETA: Bingo, I suspect.

Dan, please spend a little more time on this, you seem to nail it every time.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 05:33 PM

Just trying out the current hypothesis here.

I'm agreeing with Dan that the provenance of that photograph, to before the paper fragment was teased out, should be reliable. And since the documents show the paper fragment as being teased out on 12th May, it seems reasonable to assume that if we could trace the provenance of the negative, it ought to fit with 12th May (or earlier, but probably 12th May) as the date it was taken. Otherwise, that would be one helluva smoking gun to leave in the chain of evidence.

If the fragment was planted, this puts the date a lot earlier that I first surmised. However, it does put it right to the time we know Thurman was running around among the raw evidence and (I think) also getting pally with Hayes and Feraday. He was also running backwards and forwatds to the USA during that time. So, there is means and opportunity, and motive isn't exactly impossible.

We know there was political will to soft-pedal the Syrian involvement about two months earlier than that, so early May isn't an impossible date for the deed. Putting it earlier, right back to 13th-17th January when the shirt collar appears in a polythene bag in the evidence trail, is a bit more problematical. That's less than 4 weeks after the actual crash, and the idea that the spooks leaped up and plotted to falsify the evidence quite that early is a bit much to credit.

I'd dearly love to know when that poly bag was sent to RARDE. If Thurman did the actual planting, Dextar does seem the most probable location. We know he was there, in an official capacity, looking at evidence, and it's not too much of a stretch to imagine he could have engineered an opportunity to slip something into a convenient evidence bag.

My sticking-point (apart from not knowing anything about how the evidence was guarded and logged at Dextar, so it's possible someone could show this was completely impossible) is how did he find such a perfect piece of evidence to plant it in? Every item that was thought to be in the bomb bag was itemised in the court judgement, and there weren't all that many. I'm just not sure how easy it would be to spot the right bag - getting it in with a bit of the manual was a coup. Just a lucky strike?

Of course the easy time to sort this out would be when the relevant bags were actually being examined in detail. But it wasn't Thurman who was doing this. I wonder how well he'd got to know Hayes? Did he know he wasn't averse to massaging a case to assist the prosecution? However, none of the evidence against Hayes involved fabrication of physical evidence - it all seemed to be about suppressing evidence. And if it was me playing this game, I'd avoid telling any of the Brits what I was doing, at all costs.

Overall, my suspicions would be that it was done at Dextar, and facilitated by there being a fair bit of examining of evidence going on there anyway. Whether Thurman was actually looking at evidence there I don't know, but there's a scene in the National Geographic film which definitely includes him doing exactly that. It does seem a bit odd that nobody even looked in that bag at all for four months, so some sort of preliminary sorting at Dextar, with Thurman around, might be the likeliest thing.

This means Hayes was acting entirely in good faith. So it was just sheer incompetence that caused him to misnumber vital pages, and to completely fail to spot that he had something in front of him that merited at the very least an extremely close examination, if not an actual eurekagram?

Bizarre. But then what Hayes did is bizarre any way you slice it.

Can anyone shred this one, or provide any better hypotheses?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 06:02 PM

Rolfe: Thanks for bringing the jurisdiction issues up and into this. I didn't realize the debris had spread far enough to be in England as well (or so close anyway).

Here's a better (and permanent) image of the map I tried to post before.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/lockerbie.jpg

The thick grey line is the border between Scotland and England. The thinner grey lines are the county boundaries.

If you compare that to the map of where the bits landed in the appendix to the AAIB report, it becomes clear that none, or almost none, of the bits of the plane itself landed in England. The "southern trail" goes due west and then slightly north from Lockerbie, passing just south of Langholm, and petering out shortly after that, apparently barely making it to the county boundary between Dumfriesshire and Roxburghshire, and none of the aeroplane bits seem to have made it to England. They don't show the lighter debris in that plot as far as I can tell.

Lighter bits did go further though, I think qute a lot further, and obviously if you extrapolate the line as shown in the AAIB plan, it's heading straight for the Kielder Water. That bit of shirt could have been either side of the border when it was picked up, going by the descriptions. It's just a bit odd that Kielder Forest is mentioned if it was recovered on Scottish soil, or that a couple of Scottish cops found it, if it was recovered on English soil.

It's only a small discrepancy though. They could have crossed the border while searching (this isn't usual practice by any means, but this wasn't a usual situation), or it could just be slightly loose terminology when describing the recovery zone.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 06:04 PM

Rolfe

31st October 2009, 06:12 PM

I'm not sure we can take the views at right as standard either, there are so few points available to compare. I found the hue seems pretty similar in the others, mostly working brightness and contrast and getting little color change. My results vary with each photo - the same background in the two pics of 347 don't yield the same board color. So I dunno how valuable it is, but that's the most different. It does get more green by a bit, and with translucency considered there should be less blue if the background were white, right? I'm still having a hard time seeing that much show through, but the thing really is small and thin, not some book-sized thing like it can seem looking at all these pics.

Any progress on sorting out the different descriptions of the intact comparison board? Remind me, where is the reference to the intact board with the corners still on?

Am I wrong when I assume the description of the "finished" Thuring boards had all the corners machine-milled out? If so, why is anyone comparing the fragment against something with it's corners still in place? Where dd they get it from and what's it supposed to be?

ETA, is this it?

"In June 1990 Mr Feraday attended at the Explosives Unit of the FBI HQ in Washington DC and examined it there. A preliminary examination by him determined that there were similarities between the circuit board of the Lomé timer and the fragment PT/35(b)".
OK so far

"On later examination he discovered that the Lomé timer had a double sided circuit board, whereas the fragment PT/35(b) came from a single sided circuit board."
OK

"Further he observed that the board did not have the corners cut out,"
Now which board did not have the corners cut out? the Loem timer board? we know PT/35(b) has the corner cut out

"which indicated that it cannot have been boxed."

So the Lome timer has no cut out so it cannot have been boxed ?
yet we have Thurman explaining previously how he opened the box to to look at it more closely.

"An attempt had been made to scratch out the letters MEBO on the surface of a smaller circuit board contained within the timer."

So the MEBO id is on a different circuit board contained within the timer (box?) but not on the board that PT35(b) was matched up to

I did notice that the picture of the board with the scratched MEBO that Caustic posted did not look like it was part of the board DP/347(a) that PT35(b) matches

So Feraday's saying that the comparison board he was shown by Thurman didn't have the corners removed? But weren't they all milled out by Thuring anyway?

So what's that one shown in the official pictures? It looks completely brand new. One provided by Bollier to the court? But again it suggests the production run all had their corners taken out. Is the intact timer I thought was just something Bollier had lying about the house, with the streak across the "1", the actual Togo timer?

Help, somebody!

Rolfe.

realdon

31st October 2009, 07:38 PM

We can see that he cleaned a spot on the lower left before it was photographed which was done before the fragment was documented. He probably couldn't see anything except black before rubbing off the soot in that spot.

Sorry Guys but which photo is this?
D

Caustic Logic

1st November 2009, 01:08 AM

I notice MEBO seem to question the colour in the evidence photos on their website

"why was it not possible-in the Court room at Kamp van Zeist to show all MST-13 timer-fragments in full and correct colors (fragments: (PT/35), (PT/35b) and (DP/31a)?? It was not possible to detect green or brown colors. All other photo-projections were in brown color only! There was only one complete MST-13 timer (green) Thüring PC-board in a blue-grey casing that had then been shown in true-colors! Even the related original photographs had been presented in brown color. It is a presumtion to present such inferior photo-quality (resembling photomaterial of the 1920-ies) in today's high-tech-times;- particularly considering the importance given to these key-pieces of evidence!"

D

Hilarity! The link, July 2001:
http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/affair.html
So back then he felt colors were impossible to see, and it is tricky with all that blue confusing you. Then a few years later it's quite clear the first photo was brown and the later one green. I could go off, but that's the point here, to not get misdirected.

We can see that he cleaned a spot on the lower left before it was photographed which was done before the fragment was documented. He probably couldn't see anything except black before rubbing off the soot in that spot.

The problem I see there is those patches wound up just lighter gray/whitish, not revealing any green/blue as we see it in the photo. Some of the native color is evident, especially with closer views with a microscope etc. all at his hand he'd be better equipped than us with this photo. Do you think the comparison shot with DP/347 and PT/35(b) shows the fragment cleaned off entirely? Because I can't see the kind of hue-shift and saturation issues turning that blackish thing any particular color unless more was visible to amplify.

I'm agreeing with Dan that the provenance of that photograph, to before the paper fragment was teased out, should be reliable. And since the documents show the paper fragment as being teased out on 12th May, it seems reasonable to assume that if we could trace the provenance of the negative, it ought to fit with 12th May (or earlier, but probably 12th May) as the date it was taken. Otherwise, that would be one helluva smoking gun to leave in the chain of evidence.

Sorry, I'm still behind on that point. I get that the paper scrap evidence was logged on May 12 by the notes, but how do we know this photo was taken no later than that day? Is it just that the paper pieces are not there in the shot? The exploded electrics "raised collectively as PT/35" were taken out first, IDd and photographed (with an odd number - PP8932), while the paper fragments mentioned and drawn the same day, and "separated and raised" as the much lower number PT/2, were still in there? Anyway, I think I missed a turn, wouldn't be the first time.

Caustic Logic

1st November 2009, 01:40 AM

Any progress on sorting out the different descriptions of the intact comparison board?

Not much - I was waiting til I had time to learn a little more first.

Am I wrong when I assume the description of the "finished" Thuring boards had all the corners machine-milled out? If so, why is anyone comparing the fragment against something with it's corners still in place? Where dd they get it from and what's it supposed to be?

Bollier's all I know who says that. Corners on, off, different batches... But it's quite true there are mysteries here - As you found the ref again, I had to go back too, It's paragraph 51 in the verdict-opinion. From here we have the kept Togo timer having solder masking on both sides, corners intact so not snugly boxed, but in some kind of timer with the smaller board, and quite likely was supplied by the east Germans, not the Libyans. (various clues cited by the judges). The comparison photo Thurman used was apparently this, since it's what Feraday looked at there with Thurman, whom the court mentions but one in that whole document (noteworthy). No official stand-alone photos of this have been shown - a Mebo photo of unknown origin and video of Thurman's photo is all I've seen.

The Senegal board, they didn't physically have, except the other one from France... ??? So they had a physical model DP/347, that's clearly not the Togo timer as described, and not the missing Senegal one, but then we have the second timers from both Togo and Senegal, models collected from Mebo, and Thuring, or wherever else that one might come from.

Here's a clue, from the last-linked Mebo page;
Excerpts from the Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist:
-Witness No.994, Chief Inspector, William Williamson;

Q- Would you look for me at Label 434 and 435. Is Label 434 four printed circuit boards, Mr. Williamson? A- Label 434, sir, says on the label that it is four circuit boards. There are only three circuit boards in the package. Q- I'll come to that just in a second. Thank you. And is 435 three printed circuit boards? A- It is, sir,yes. Q- Sorry, did I ask you if 435 was three printed circuit boards? A- Yes, sir, it is. Yes. Q- Thank you. Can you tell me, please, what the police reference number on Label 434 is? A- DP 347. Q- Thank you. And keeping that in front of you, would you look at Label 412. What's the police identification reference on that label, Mr. Willismson? A- DP/347(a) Q- So that's the same as the reference on 434, but with the addition of the letter "(a)"? A- Yes. Q-Have you signed the label that's attached to 412? A- No, I have not, sir. Q- What does the label say about its source? A- It says "Found DP/347 on 24/5/91". Along from that, "28/2/92." Q- So it says "Found DP/347"? A-Yes, sir. Q- I see. And that's Label 434, which contained the indication of sour printed cirquit boards, but only three within it. A- That's correct , sir. Q- Thank you. ----

Where can WE get these procedings? There's so much there that never made it to the Final draft (eg, Hayes' statements about mysteries, etc.?) No mention of DP/347 in the final opinion, but several here. I'm not sure what this quote shows just tossing it up there. In fact, it's puzzling without references.

So Feraday's saying that the comparison board he was shown by Thurman didn't have the corners removed? But weren't they all milled out by Thuring anyway?

Says who? Oh yeah...
ETA: Only thing I can say is apparently not always. MAYBE as he says, always on the ones sold to Libya, meaning further evidence the Togo timers at least came from Germany, not Tripoli. Also, he could just be flat wrong as he frequently is.

So what's that one shown in the official pictures? It looks completely brand new. One provided by Bollier to the court? But again it suggests the production run all had their corners taken out. Is the intact timer I thought was just something Bollier had lying about the house, with the streak across the "1", the actual Togo timer?

Apparently so, or that's my guess anyway. And as I just found, DP/347 was apparently "found" in May 91, so it's indeed neither. We've sen no photos of either Senegal timer, unless one happens to be DP/111 as shown boxed in the video and Bollier says is the only true-color picture released.

Dan O.

1st November 2009, 07:48 AM

Where can WE get these procedings? There's so much there that never made it to the Final draft (eg, Hayes' statements about mysteries, etc.?) No mention of DP/347 in the final opinion, but several here. I'm not sure what this quote shows just tossing it up there. In fact, it's puzzling without references.

Have you tried the "Daily Report from Camp Zeist" archived at the University of Glasgow?

If I am reading these ID numbers correctly, DP would stand for "Defense Photo" and PP would stand for "Prosecution Photo. Of course, the defense would not exist until after there is a suspect that is being tried. And similarly, the prosecution would not exist until after there was a prosecutor that knew where the case was going and had a plan for how it would be presented. So all DP and PP photos would be staged and not necessarily contemporaneous with discovery.

Rolfe

1st November 2009, 09:30 AM

Sorry, I'm still behind on that point. I get that the paper scrap evidence was logged on May 12 by the notes, but how do we know this photo was taken no later than that day? Is it just that the paper pieces are not there in the shot? The exploded electrics "raised collectively as PT/35" were taken out first, IDd and photographed (with an odd number - PP8932), while the paper fragments mentioned and drawn the same day, and "separated and raised" as the much lower number PT/2, were still in there? Anyway, I think I missed a turn, wouldn't be the first time.

Dan pointed out that the compacted paper fragment is visible in that picture, which must therefore have been taken before Hayes teased out the pages. According to his notes, he did that on 12th May 1989. Thus, the picture must have been taken on or before 12th May.

If the picture was taken later, because the whole damn back-story is retrospective to explain a much later plant, then the provenance of the negative would be very very difficult to fake. Having a picture obviously taken before an irrevocable alteration said to have taken place on 12th May, which actually had a negative with a much later provenance, would be an absolute smoking gun. I presume we do not actually have such a smoking gun here.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

1st November 2009, 11:42 AM

Have you tried the "Daily Report from Camp Zeist" archived at the University of Glasgow?

ETA: I see the main page was linked in this thread earlier:
I can't find any transcripts of daily court proceedings online. I did come across the University of Glasgows "Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit (http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/schooloflaw/news/lockerbietrialbriefingunit/)" which has a daily summary of trial evidence for some days.

Caustic Logic

1st November 2009, 02:53 PM

Have you tried the "Daily Report from Camp Zeist" archived at the University of Glasgow?

I did look and they have daily files, but they seem to only be press releases with a two-para summary. There are other good things there, so it's a good page to bookmark, but no detailed testimony. I did save an e-mail contact I may use to ask after this stuff.

If I am reading these ID numbers correctly, DP would stand for "Defense Photo" and PP would stand for "Prosecution Photo. Of course, the defense would not exist until after there is a suspect that is being tried. And similarly, the prosecution would not exist until after there was a prosecutor that knew where the case was going and had a plan for how it would be presented. So all DP and PP photos would be staged and not necessarily contemporaneous with discovery.

That would be my guess as well, but it's odd in spots. I don't know why the Defense would be doings MST-13 comparisons, and the cut-free corner of the fragment was labeled DP/31(a). But it's a side-point for now.

Dan pointed out that the compacted paper fragment is visible in that picture, which must therefore have been taken before Hayes teased out the pages. According to his notes, he did that on 12th May 1989. Thus, the picture must have been taken on or before 12th May.

Okay, it's a minr point so I don't want to go too much off, but for clarity which item in the photo is this? I'd expect a flat pile of paper with burnt/torn edges. If his notes pages are app 8x11" and the drawings are to scale as h says, they tend to be about 1" or 2.5cm wide. It's either the tiny white 1/4 cm shape thing just below the fragment, or the larger 1-2cm crumpled shape to its right, which looks more like a partial page crumpled for the wastebasket than what I'd expect. I thought it was some kind of foil, but it is whitish with black patches, so that must be it? http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_Hayes_Photo.jpg

If so, this would be either earlier in the day or another earlier day, unless he re-crumpled them together. It would show he got the electrics out before studying the papers, making the odd numbering (PT/25 before PT/2) that much odder.

If the picture was taken later, because the whole damn back-story is retrospective to explain a much later plant,
I was thinking it was just a later, second photo, with all the PI995 stuff minus the paper bits, reassembled as PP8932. So it wasn't a major point for me.

realdon

1st November 2009, 03:00 PM

Have you tried the "Daily Report from Camp Zeist" archived at the University of Glasgow?
.

Seems to have been some murmurs around the LTBU in the Scottish press

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/3295

http://www.heraldscotland.com/new-top-tory-in-row-over-cv-1.828530

D

Buncrana

1st November 2009, 03:26 PM

Contributors on this JREF forum have presented a really excellent examination and discussion thread so far on this timer, one of the many peculiar aspects of this whole case - and I really am trying to keep up with each development!

Sorry I've not been offered greater input, but nonetheless, everyone in this discussion have far exceeded my own limitations on the subject. After spending about 2hrs preparing a post yesterday, I sadly lost the whole thing due to the linking restrictions for novices - hitting return only gave me an empty message box. C’est la vie. That'll teach me not to copy it first! Anyway, I digress....

Returning to the gathering of evidence at Dexstar, and to the processes involved in the crucial fragment discovery, I have come accross a series of helpful documents.

DAY 4, May 8, 2000
Missing evidence in Lockerbie investigation ?

The Lockerbie trial heard references Monday to a circuit board, part of a suitcase and charred clothing found among debris after a bomb destroyed Pan AM flight 103 over Scotland in December 1988. A spokesman for the prosecution declined to say if the items were the same pieces of key evidence expected to be introduced later as alleged remnants of the timer, case and clothes used to pack and detonate a bomb.

A Scottish police officer testifying in the trial of two Libyans said today that he raised concerns about the possibility of missing evidence early on in the bombing investigation of Pan Am Flight 103. Douglas Roxburgh testified about evidence-tracking procedures during the fourth day of the proceedings against alleged Libyan intelligence agents Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

Roxburgh, 63, was the acting deputy chief constable of a police unit that catalogued debris brought in from around Lockerbie and identified pieces that might be of interest to investigators. He told prosecutor Alan Turnbull that ``tens of thousands'' of items were brought to a collection point near Lockerbie, where they were catalogued and stored.

Roxburgh said he set up the storage centre at Dexstar. It was guarded 24 hours a day and split into sectors which corresponded to the sectors of Lockerbie and the surrounding areas being searched by teams of officers. Any suitcases brought in would be examined by sniffer dogs for explosives as police feared there could be secondary devices. He told the court: "It would be put through an x-ray machine like at an airport for the detection of explosives. "It would then be booked in and given priority examination in case it was going to be required for further forensic examination."

If there were any explosive marks, for example, the item would be logged and taken to a special area where AAIB staff or explosive experts could examine it, he said. Mr Roxburgh said: "We started off by ensuring that items were not required in the legal process and we started releasing stuff back to the relatives sometimes via consulates but it was mainly personal possessions like rings, jewellery and wallets." He told how a laundry was set up at Dexstar to clean clothing before it was returned to the victims' families.

The policeman described extra tight security measures as his staff carried out a ``very detailed examination of every piece that came in, from handkerchiefs to socks.'' Anythin with marks of an explosion was logged as evidence and sent to experts. Under cross-examination, Fhimah lawyer Richard Keen talked about worries that agencies other than police were dealing with items and that some property was removed by those agencies.

Roxburgh admitted he raised such concerns at a meeting with superiors in the days following the tragedy after ``someone had taken off property where there had been traces of explosion.'' But he later said he had ascertained that the ``someone'' had been from a legitimate investigating authority in Britain, suggesting it did not constitute a security breach. He also refused to answer Keen's question about whether British and foreign intelligence agencies were involved in the collection of evidence.

Two police officers were asked to describe the discovery of a piece of charred circuit board and a mangled remnant of an aluminum baggage container. The special attention given these two pieces of evidence suggested they would figure as significant items later in the trial, when prosecutors seek to link the two suspects to the bombing.

Link: plane-truth.com/ Aoude/ geocities/ firstday. html

So, it would seem there were concerns from the first few days after the disaster about the collection, labelling and records pertaining to the chain of evidence. Roxburgh asserts that, "If there were any explosive marks, for example, the item would be logged and taken to a special area where AAIB staff or explosive experts could examine it." (my italics and bold)

So, clearly, items with evidence of charring or scorching were designated for a particular area at Dexstar to be examined. And these experts were whom exactly? RARDE...FBI?

As an aside, I'm wondering if 'The Golfer', who latterly claimed interference in the evidence, and the possible planting, was Roxburgh or Gilchrist?

Dan O.

1st November 2009, 04:21 PM

the larger 1-2cm crumpled shape to its right, which looks more like a partial page crumpled for the wastebasket than what I'd expect. I thought it was some kind of foil, but it is whitish with black patches, so that must be it? http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_Hayes_Photo.jpg

The first shape drawn (approx scale) is the best resemblance to the actual fragment. Sheet 5 side 2 is documented as no printing and black deposits. That is what we see in the photo to the right of the circuit board fragment.

Notice how the shape of side 2 of each of these sheets so not matches the mirror image of side 1. I wonder if he was being assisted by a toddler in making these drawings.

Dan O.

1st November 2009, 05:57 PM

Seems to have been some murmurs around the LTBU in the Scottish press

Is there any evidence that he tainted the reporting? His job was to advise the press on scottish law. The press could be expected to print what he says so if he got anything wrong somebody would call him on it.

However, this could be a useful position to control in another regard. The right person in that position would be able to feel the direction the media is trying to spin the reporting and would be able to know who is investigating along which lines. And though he couldn't filter the evidence once it reached Glasgow, in this unique position between the press and the facts, he would know what evidence existed and be able to advise the authorities which pieces should be released to the public to achieve the proper spin.

Of course, since there isn't any official site that has published any of the evidence in this case, it is possible that every piece of evidence that we think we have seen has been fabricated by or for the media.

Caustic Logic

2nd November 2009, 05:38 AM

The first shape drawn (approx scale) is the best resemblance to the actual fragment. Sheet 5 side 2 is documented as no printing and black deposits. That is what we see in the photo to the right of the circuit board fragment.

I'll be darn, the first shape is of the cluster of papers before separation, and my mental picture was not right. Why would a little stack jam up there all flat? They'd violently jumble together and mostly burn, but one little pocket at least could form a little wad before stopping and being shielded inside the slalom collar. The shape is similar enough, and the scale is about perfect too. This is a bit approximate itself, but I think we're in agreement on this part, making this photo before the Page 51 notes. I wouldn't say which fragments we're seeing here, maybe 5 side 2 and at least one other I'm sure...
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/2_photo_Hayes_notes.jpg

Notice how the shape of side 2 of each of these sheets so not matches the mirror image of side 1. I wonder if he was being assisted by a toddler in making these drawings.

The flip-side drawings are close enough for me. Looks like someone freehanding each side without trying to make it fit perfectly. Looks natural, maybe too natural ...

Everyone else: in case I crash before responding, awesome stuff. Sorry, hectice weekend, night, etc.

Dan O.

2nd November 2009, 06:48 AM

Caustic Logic

2nd November 2009, 07:01 AM

Sorry Guys but which photo is this?
D

The Hayes(?) photo of May 12(?) (blowup (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_blowup.jpg)), presumable the lower left corner where the lighter streaks are. There is a slight tint of the base color visible in patches, except where it's "cleaned," which is just gray.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PT35_blue_less_more.jpg

Thanks for the tips on the LTBU - hardly a turn here where something disturbing doesn't appear right quick. I wonder how that turned out? Worth looking at some more. Dan O, interesting thoughts on that. Media - trial - connective tissue - manipulation - something, that's intriguing. Buncrana, sorry you lost your work, that's a bummer. That info is useful and helps show some possible gaps or concerns anyway. You'll have to re-gather the best of what you lost and share it, pasted from a well-saved text document. :)

Professor Yaffle

2nd November 2009, 07:22 AM

Is there any evidence that he tainted the reporting? His job was to advise the press on scottish law. The press could be expected to print what he says so if he got anything wrong somebody would call him on it.

However, this could be a useful position to control in another regard. The right person in that position would be able to feel the direction the media is trying to spin the reporting and would be able to know who is investigating along which lines. And though he couldn't filter the evidence once it reached Glasgow, in this unique position between the press and the facts, he would know what evidence existed and be able to advise the authorities which pieces should be released to the public to achieve the proper spin.

Of course, since there isn't any official site that has published any of the evidence in this case, it is possible that every piece of evidence that we think we have seen has been fabricated by or for the media.

Here's a story about the problems the media had in relation to the trial:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jun/05/law.theguardian

Rolfe

2nd November 2009, 08:16 AM

I suspect there was something heavy that was propelled by the blast and picked up various bits of debris on the way. A possible candidate for that object is the relay on the timer circuit. As I mentioned before, the tabs where the relay solder to the circuit board would act as hinges so the initial pressure wave from the blast would fold the edge of the board up against the relay protecting the face of the circuit fragment. The relay and circuit fragment would be accelerated together and crash through the case of the cassette player picking up bits of black plastic. Before leaving the box, this projectile would punch through the manual picking up a neat little stack of pages. Outside the box it encounters the soft folds of fabric that are able to slow and capture the projectile. Heat from the initial explosion would melt the solder freeing the relay and a sharp deceleration will dislodge the solder and remaining wire fragments from the solder pad. The relay itself is too large to remain trapped in the fabric and subsequently falls out in the tumble to earth leaving behind the circuit board, bits of plastic and a neat stack of paper.

Do you think, then, that the evidence of that picture is too good to be faked? That it suggests the highly suspicious and incongrous fragment, which led the case away from the direction the authorities didn't want it to go and towards a direction they were extremely pleased with, and which was forensically examined by three people all with extremely questionable CVs, two of which subsequently lost their jobs because of evidence-rigging in other contexts - is in fact entirely genuine?

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

2nd November 2009, 05:22 PM

Do you think, then, that the evidence of that picture is too good to be faked? That it suggests the highly suspicious and incongrous fragment, which led the case away from the direction the authorities didn't want it to go and towards a direction they were extremely pleased with, and which was forensically examined by three people all with extremely questionable CVs, two of which subsequently lost their jobs because of evidence-rigging in other contexts - is in fact entirely genuine?

Rolfe.

I followed his little forensic narrative and it totally made sense, but for the timer fragment, which I'm reserving judgment on until I know which way it was supp. facing, where in relation to the relay box, outer radio case, etc...

Only an actual explosion would explain the whole collar and debris situation in general, meaning it was either really from the plane bomb, or well-faked with a real explosion and then planted. But to KNOW a recognizable timer chunk was in there, unless you planted it in the fake before planting that, no.

The main clue is just that one fragment - it's possible to have used or just put into a bomb, but the logic gets too convoluted for my liking, and I still suspect someone planted it for Dr. Hayes to see. Hayes himself would be in the best position for this, FWIW, and he does seem less than completely on the level.

Prof Yaffle, awesome link. I keep meaning to go find more info, but you guys are finding all the best quicker than I can read it anymore.

Rolfe

2nd November 2009, 05:40 PM

Hayes' behaviour is so strange, but I don't know how to interpret it. Sure, he could have agreed to add the fragment to the piece of evidence which would give it the best provenance. Then maybe to ignore it so that it lies in the system to acquire some real provenance when somebody else finds it.

But if you were Thurman, or indeed any American playing that sort of deep game, would you want to enlist the help of a Brit? Also, although Thurman was implicated in fabricating evidence, Hayes was only in trouble for suppressing it. Interesting that they both ended up losing their jobs though, and going on to do other things.

Or maybe that red-circle photo really is a polariod that can't be dated (doubt it), or maybe its negative never did have the provenance it should have had but that was never spotted....

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

3rd November 2009, 01:37 AM

I wanted to offer my guess what this quote from CI Williamson (above) means, and see if anyone else agrees or disagrees. First my summary of what it seems he and the court agreed on:

Label (photo?) 434 is of the label from a "package" indicating four circuit boards inside, presumably MST-13 all. There were only three, which are shown in label 435 as the whole exhibit DP/347. I'm guessing this is for the four African timers, of which only three were gathered when they went out and tried. DP/347(a), which we've seen, is shown alone in label 412. I guess there's a 347(b) and (c) as well, one of them presumably "K1" (FBI nickname for the messy Togo timer Thurman looked at), the other unseen so far by us, and the fourth... ????

Q- What does the label say about its source?
A- It says "Found DP/347 on 24/5/91". Along from that, "28/2/92."
Q- So it says "Found DP/347"?
A-Yes, sir.
Q- I see. And that's Label 434, which contained the indication of four printed circuit boards, but only three within it.
A- That's correct , sir.
Q- Thank you.

I don't think we can know who filled out this label, what exact kind it was, when and by whom it was done. Did the fourth board go missing AFTER it was logged and labeled? Or was this some pre-find 'here's what you'll find" document? I don't know. The find date of Late May 91 lines up close with Realdon's earlier finding that Williamson recovered a Senegal timer in France in June. I'm not as sure what the 92 date refers to.

If this is the case, chances are the model DP/347(a), of a different style from K1 (corners cut out, maybe different color, more clean condition), would most likely be one of the Senegal timers. right? They were more closely linked to Libya than the earlier find in Togo, and had their corners cut out like our PT/35(b) found about a year later in the wreckage of PanAm 103.

Rolfe

3rd November 2009, 03:56 AM

Sorry, I've mislaid the link to that - could you re-post it?

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

3rd November 2009, 04:26 AM

Sorry, I've mislaid the link to that - could you re-post it?

Rolfe.

http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/affair.html
That was way the heck up there.

realdon

3rd November 2009, 10:05 AM

I wanted to offer my guess what this quote from CI Williamson (above) means, and see if anyone else agrees or disagrees. First my summary of what it seems he and the court agreed on:

Label (photo?) 434 is of the label from a "package" indicating four circuit boards inside, presumably MST-13 all. There were only three, which are shown in label 435 as the whole exhibit DP/347. I'm guessing this is for the four African timers, of which only three were gathered when they went out and tried. DP/347(a), which we've seen, is shown alone in label 412. I guess there's a 347(b) and (c) as well, one of them presumably "K1" (FBI nickname for the messy Togo timer Thurman looked at), the other unseen so far by us, and the fourth... ????

I don't think we can know who filled out this label, what exact kind it was, when and by whom it was done. Did the fourth board go missing AFTER it was logged and labeled? Or was this some pre-find 'here's what you'll find" document? I don't know. The find date of Late May 91 lines up close with Realdon's earlier finding that Williamson recovered a Senegal timer in France in June. I'm not as sure what the 92 date refers to.

If this is the case, chances are the model DP/347(a), of a different style from K1 (corners cut out, maybe different color, more clean condition), would most likely be one of the Senegal timers. right? They were more closely linked to Libya than the earlier find in Togo, and had their corners cut out like our PT/35(b) found about a year later in the wreckage of PanAm 103.

I dont think they had more than 1 complete timer recovered from Togo or Senegal (other than the 2 samples given to the Scots by Mebo along with 11 circuit boards)

2 timers were discovered in Togo but the Americans were only took one back to the US. What happened to the one left with the Togo goverment has never been explained

1 timer reportedly was found in Senegal, Feb 88 by the local authorities but had gone by the time the Scottish and US investigators arrived. It was recovered by CI Willaimson,Paris Oct 1999. which was not examined forensically say the court The court stated that it was unknown if it had a double or single sided board. So I dont think it was presented as evidence

So by late Oct 1999 the Scots had the Togo timer given to them by the FBI and the Senegal timer from Paris along with 2 new samples from MEBO

D

Caustic Logic

3rd November 2009, 03:43 PM

Okay, Hmmm... I thought somehow late May 91 lined up with July 90, not June 91. ??? And July 90 is when the Scots found the one timer missing. It was app. a typo that it was also found in France the same month. (post 485) The Court says Oct 99 for THE Senegal timer found in France.

On their being two Senegal timers, there's been some confusion.
Marquise mentions only one in each case, so he's at least part wrong.
Rolfe post 493: For what it's worth, in The Maltese Double Cross, Bollier states 2 timers in Senegal and 2 in Togo.
African Independent (http://www.africanindependent.com/libya_west_lockerbie_tainted_evidence_pean090209.h tml), based on some detailed info, says Saber and Marzouk were arrested with TWO MST-13s in Senegal.
And you addressed that as reporting confusion in post 495. Could be, but two each gives us four, four boards are discussed, three of four accounted for. Could this have just been summarized by the court as only one timer found in Senegal?

Possibly, but maybe this is from another source after all, like a seized consignment from Mebo. You suggest a mix - 2 from Zurich plus the 2 African timers. Do you have a source for that or is it a guess too?

I recall somewhere Scottish authorities walking away from Mebo or Thuring with about a dozen MST-13s, some one-sided, some 2-side solder-masked. ... Ah, Opinion para 50: 11 circuit boards not used for timers, seized May 91. !! And two MST-13 samples in November 1990. !! So a match for number, two samples, and a match for the find date of DP/347, but not together.

Okay so the confusion is not quite resolved. But thanks realdon, for pulling me back out of running ahead with that half-formed illusion I had it down. No rush getting this all, it's starting to get old, the constant uncertainty.

Caustic Logic

4th November 2009, 12:52 AM

Okay, that African Independent article is listed as actually from Le Monde Diplomatique and states:
the 20 February 1988 arrest at Dakar airport of two Libyans, Mohammed Marzouk, alias Mohammed Naydi, and Mansour Omran Saber. The men were in possession of two MST-13 timers, part of an order that Libya had placed with the Swiss firm Mebo AG.

Paul Foot's mini-book mentions:
In September 1990 [...] the French news magazine L’Express reported that the detonator fragment found at Lockerbie was identical to a number of others seized almost three years before by Senegalese police from two Libyan secret agents.
French sources would be the most up-to-date on Senegal since it was a French colony for about 100 years and they retain special interest there, as former masters usually do. L'Express was the first paper to publicize an official shift to blame Libya around early October, said Nnew York Times at the time (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/10/world/libya-now-linked-to-pan-am-blast.html?pagewanted=all), who also reported
According to accounts in the French press in 1988 that were confirmed by American officials, the Libyan detonators seized in Senegal differ fundamentally from those used by Mr. Jibril's Popular Front in West Germany.
So "the French" had app. pre-Lockerbie reports on these seized timers that might be available somewhere.
Scottish and American investigators have concluded that the recovered portion is identical to 10 timers that were seized from two Libyan intelligence agents in the West African nation of Senegal in February 1988, 10 months before the Pan Am bombing.

Others do say one, or two, or several timers seized. I'm not comfortable settling on a number until I see some reliable primary reports.

Rolfe

4th November 2009, 12:59 PM

http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/affair.html
That was way the heck up there.

You know, Bollier may be a fruitcake, but he has posted a great deal of evidence which seems to be untainted.

-July 1989
In those days already, Mr. Allen Feraday/ RARDE and FBI forensic agent Thomas Thurman (and others) conducted explosion-tests in the USA, using TNT and Semtex. aifreight-containers, Toshiba radio-recorders type RT 8016/SF16-Bombeat (made in Japan) and Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases (made in Denver, Colorado) and of antique copper-color, filled with clothing, etc. that were subjected to the explosion, with most such activities being photographically recorded.

If you wanted to fake some evidence, with a fragment of alien electronics planted in a convincing provenance, that would be an awfully good opportunity....

I wonder in what context the red-ring photo was presented in court? It's odd that, if it was handy (as it surely was), that the judge wasn't referred to that at the point when he asked why it was necessary to have taken polaroid pictures in September, wasn't it photographed in May?

We're building a lot on that photo, and the assumption that its provenance is good. I'd just like to know a bit more about it.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

4th November 2009, 02:53 PM

So the timers numbers issue and nature of that DP/347 package remain unresolved for now

You know, Bollier may be a fruitcake, but he has posted a great deal of evidence which seems to be untainted.

Indeed, he's been around over the years and has lots of (apparently) good info no one else knows where to get. And fact is I appreciate the transparency of his antics. Like with Aviv, it's clear we've got a clown, Unfortunately, most people seem to miss the obvious, so here we are...

We're building a lot on that photo, and the assumption that its provenance is good. I'd just like to know a bit more about it.

Rolfe.

There are enough questions by now that someone - bigger than us - should at least do a full review of the Court's procedings, evidence, etc. Short of a full new investigation, a fuller public viewing (website w/lots of links, public access, hundreds of photos, reams of text) of the first trial and what was skimmed out of the verdict. That would be awesome.

On another issue, forensic testing of PT/35(b), it's true that whoever said it wasn't tested for budget reasons was almost certainly wrong (red herring) - latching onto this was a mistake for Gideon Levy. It's not being tested for being too small has I think actually been said by someone official as if it were true, but it falls flat. It's plenty big enough to show residue and other clues.

And it's been pointed out here a better reason was that it didn't matter, since the fragment was found inside the shirt collar which was clearly involved in an explosion, so it would be contaminated with semtex traces just by being there. But I still think if they were being rigorous it should have been studied too for type and amount of residue, nature of blast damage, gas pitting, forensic rundown of where it was in relation to thee bomb, etc. Any bomb investigation experts here? Gas pitting is what was used to show luggage container AVE4041 was exposed to a bomb - is this fragment (app 1cm square) be too small to show pitting?

Such tests may have been done and just not publicly mentioned. So far it's just whatever, however, this Libyan timer was found in the wreckage, so it must be such and such. No you don't get t, it was in the wreckage! That proves it!

Rolfe

4th November 2009, 03:24 PM

I suppose there are two separate aspects to this. The first one is pretty obvious to me. Did Megrahi do it ("it" being put the suitcase on the plane)? Well, no. I can't see any reasonable way that suitcase got on the plane at Malta, and he was on Malta that morning. Also, the evidence that he bought the clothes (which would certainly have implicated him in the bombing, even if he hadn't actually introduced the suitcase) is absolutely pathetic.

If you're interested in Megrahi's guilt or innocence, you go for the Gauci identification and the Malta loading point. Both of these weak points simply collapse under scrutiny. These (well, the former) were what the appeal was concentrating on.

However, that doesn't get you anywhere with regard to how it was actually done.

I suspect one of the reasons the establishment is so keen for Megrahi to stay convicted is the lack of willingness to go right back to 1989 and start all over again with this investigation (that and the thought of Gadaffi looking for recompense for 10 years of sanctions, and billions of dollars paid out in compensation....) While they can still point to someone officially convicted of this crime, there is going to be no serious investigation of other possibilities.

Nevertheless, as soon as you start down that road, the provenance of the MST-13 fragment surfaces as being the most crucial thing in the whole show. If it was planted, then it's all pretty simple. Khreesat device, loaded at Heathrow, break-in, Bedford suitcase, all very neat. We only need to figure how the device was brought to London and introduced through the sawn-off padlock, and nobody could possibly claim that was impossible.

However, if it was planted, it puts the authorities and in particular the US contingent in a very bad place. Crawling all over Dumfriesshire looking at bodies and spiriting away luggage and so on - well, possibly understandable if there are agents on the plane with sensitive information. However, fabricating evidence is a whole other ball game.

If on the other hand the fragment is genuine - and on the face of it that red-circle photograph tends to support that position - we need to figure out what it was doing there, given the 38-minute explosion. (Personally, I favour Jibril's group using it to get the device remotely to Heathrow without exploding on the first leg, though I can't say why they wouldn't then have taken the chance the timer offered to delay the explosion until the plane was far our over the ocean.)

This opens the whole question of Frankfurt again, and how the device might have got past Maier. And did you read the link I posted about Lesley Riddoch's verification of the material in The Maltese Double Cross?

http://www.lesleyriddoch.co.uk/2009/08/the-maltese-double-cross.html

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

4th November 2009, 03:53 PM

And did you read the link I posted about Lesley Riddoch's verification of the material in The Maltese Double Cross?

http://www.lesleyriddoch.co.uk/2009/08/the-maltese-double-cross.html

Rolfe.

Just now I did. :D It's good, I didn't realize just how few copies there were at one point, and how tenuous its existence. The whole movie, its narration, history, the phone call parts, weird and a bit unsettling. It's like a large Island I've only explored parts of.

Rolfe

4th November 2009, 05:12 PM

It really did vanish for a while. Then Frankovich died. (Of course there is a CT says he was murdered but you have to draw the line somehwere.)

I don't know when it first showed up on the internet, but you can see the quality is abusmal, looks like a copy of a copy of a copy of a VHS tape. And it's the full version too, not the edited-down version shown on TV in Britain (once). I suppose it's 15 years old now and events have moved on, and the strategy now is just to ignore commentary that questions the official version - that and smear as many of the proponents as possible. Look at the Wiki article - full of stuff about Libya paying for the film.

Lesley Riddoch is the real deal though. If she says she checked it out, it's kosher. Doesn't mean the thesis is correct, but it does rather scotch the accusations that a lot of it is fabricated.

I suspect a lot of that stuff about the drugs route to the US through Frankfurt is probably true, possibly up to and including the "drugs for hostages" part.

Rolfe.

ETA: I went to Amazon to see if the film was available on DVD. No, it isn't. But if you start to type the title into Amazon's search box, it auto-completes for you. Which suggests quite a lot of people have looked for it there.

Rolfe

4th November 2009, 05:49 PM

realdon

4th November 2009, 06:42 PM

So the timers numbers issue and nature of that DP/347 package remain unresolved for now!

Well the number of timers thing is just to wonky. Different amounts quoted here and there 1,2...10 Some folks are getting mixed up with place names Dakar, Senegal, Lome, Togo even the opinion of the court has its own differences.

I started thinking about the timing of the event and I think this fact is worth considering.

All west bound flights to the US use one of the North Atlantic tracks ABCDE and F.
These tracks change day to day depending on the jet stream, weather etc. Below are tracks 2nd Nov 09 and 05 Nov big difference.
The Airlines request and are allotted a track just prior to departure so who ever set the timer could not have been planning for it to go off over land.

Only tracks A + B take the route over Lockerbie here. If CDEF were used the aircraft would have been over the sea.
15619
2nd Nov 09
15620
5th Nov 09

http://acweather.blogspot.com/2005/10/north-atlantic-weather.html#tracks

Any one know the actual departure and arrival times of KA180 and PA103A

I will passing by Lockerbie over the weekend and have done many times.Did so on the 26th Dec 88 and had to drive right by the crater on the A74. One side of the road had been re opened. It's a sight that I will never forget.

I have never stopped in lockerbie but I may take the chance to do so and pay my respects.

D

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 02:40 AM

Well the number of timers thing is just to wonky. Different amounts quoted here and there 1,2...10 Some folks are getting mixed up with place names Dakar, Senegal, Lome, Togo even the opinion of the court has its own differences.

I'd like to understand which pictured timers actually relate to which provenance (I think I got this wrong before), but beyond that, I'm not sure it hugely matters. I can't see an argument that the CIA couldn't have got its hands on one if it had decided to fabricate some evidence.

What's the story about the Florida-manufactured ones though? That seems very weird. I thought the things were exclusive to MEBO, and not such a nifty item that anyone would particularly motivated to counterfeit them.

I started thinking about the timing of the event and I think this fact is worth considering.

All west bound flights to the US use one of the North Atlantic tracks ABCDE and F.
These tracks change day to day depending on the jet stream, weather etc. Below are tracks 2nd Nov 09 and 05 Nov big difference.
The Airlines request and are allotted a track just prior to departure so who ever set the timer could not have been planning for it to go off over land.

Only tracks A + B take the route over Lockerbie here. If CDEF were used the aircraft would have been over the sea.
15619
2nd Nov 09
15620
5th Nov 09

http://acweather.blogspot.com/2005/10/north-atlantic-weather.html#tracks

Exactly. But you couldn't be sure.

If what you have is a Khreesat device (loading at Heathrow), at least you know it will be well airborne when it explodes, and given the limitations of the technology, you may be willing to take the risk that the plane is over land when that happens even while hoping that it isn't. Perfectly reasonable plan.

If what you have is a timer without a barometer (loaded anywhere), why the hell would you set it for 7 o'clock when you could just as easily set it for midnight? It's not so much the risk of it being over land when it explodes (with the resulting shed-loads of evidence), but the risk that it will still be ON land, due to a flight delay.

Any one know the actual departure and arrival times of KA180 and PA103A

Not off the top of my head, but I'll keep a look out for the information.

I will passing by Lockerbie over the weekend and have done many times.Did so on the 26th Dec 88 and had to drive right by the crater on the A74. One side of the road had been re opened. It's a sight that I will never forget.

I have never stopped in lockerbie but I may take the chance to do so and pay my respects.

Funny, I was thinking of doing the same thing myself (not this weekend though). Take some flowers or something. I'm not actually passing that way, but it's not much more than an hour's drive from my home.

I passed that way on the evening of 24th December 1988, driving home up the A74 for Christmas (I was living in England at the time). I remember when the crash happened, about my third or fourth thought was, how on earth am I going to get home on Thursday night if that road's closed?

There was a terrible hold-up of course, but I got past eventually. It was pitch dark though, so I didn't see a great deal. On the way back to England after New Year, I armed myself with an ordnance survey map and navigated round the hold-up through the forest tracks to the west of the main road. I remember looking across the valley to the main road with a line of stationary traffic, and Lockerbie beyond. It was scarcely credible what had happened.

I was in the town canvassing for the 1999 elections, but I wasn't speaking to anyone about the disaster. The party worker I was with, from Dumfries, told me a few accounts she's had about it from people who were in the town at the time. People shopping, not knowing what might have hit their homes and families, people cowering in shop doorways for fear of falling debris. One of the documentaries said, if it had happened in daylight, the entire population of Lockerbie would be in a mental hospital - he meant the sight of people (who were nearly all alive until they hit the ground) falling out of the sky on to their homes.

And this is the disaster the authorities are simply content to pin on a guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and just shut up anybody who thinks there might be a bit more (or possibly less) to it than that.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

5th November 2009, 07:55 AM

What's the story about the Florida-manufactured ones though? That seems very weird. I thought the things were exclusive to MEBO, and not such a nifty item that anyone would particularly motivated to counterfeit them.

The Florida theory seems to originate with Charles M. Buyers (http://www.pinetreeline.org/other/other18/other18an.html) who owned an electronics firm in Arizona. In one statement, Bollier claims that Buyers is the owner of the Florida firm but this could just be a false recollection. Buyers was apparently in possession of the complete timer without the milled corners as of Jan 1986.

Timers made from the Swiss made PC boards would be virtually indistinguishable. However, if new boards were manufactured elsewhere using the original artwork, there could be differences in the materials that would show up in a proper forensics examination.

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 08:41 AM

The Florida theory seems to originate with Charles M. Buyers (http://www.pinetreeline.org/other/other18/other18an.html) who owned an electronics firm in Arizona. [.....]

Wow, that's some concentrated CT!

However, I'd dearly love to see that stuff debunked properly, 9/11 style, rather than simply declare it to be self-evidently ridiculous. Spy novels aren't complete fantasy after all - covert operations and false-flag attacks do occur, and are covered up. Just because you sound like a paranoid fantasist doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

5th November 2009, 09:10 AM

If what you have is a timer without a barometer (loaded anywhere), why the hell would you set it for 7 o'clock when you could just as easily set it for midnight? It's not so much the risk of it being over land when it explodes (with the resulting shed-loads of evidence), but the risk that it will still be ON land, due to a flight delay.

One of Bollier's statements talks about watching or participating in a demonstration involving 2 timers and a radio. The first timer is a safety to insure you get far away before the device can inadvertently detonate. The second timer is a backup incase the primary trigger fails. The primary trigger is a radio link that allows the operator to cause the wreckage to drop on a designated target despite time variances by the airlines.

If the goal is to create maximum havoc, choosing Lockerbie as a target beats an unwitnessed lost plane somewhere over the Atlantic that may never even be identified as a terrorist act. But we know this can't be the case because: "Nobody conceived of using passenger aircraft as weapons".

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 09:27 AM

See Realdon's post above for an explanation of why Lockerbie (or indeed any particular spot on the ground) couldn't realistically have been a target. Nobody could predict which route the plane would take out of Heathrow, and indeed I understand that one of the more southerly routes was the most common one for that flight. There was a reasonable chance it might indeed have been over water when it exploded.

More than that, even if the route was constant and predictable, scheduled flights don't overfly particular spots on the ground so you can set your watch by them. The plane was a few minutes late, as it happens. Lockerbie as such was quite obviously sheer blind horrible luck. The vast probability for such an explosion would simply have been a lot of debris and bodies scattered across the countryside.

Would terrorists prefer that, with the associated possibility of evidence coming to light, to a disappearance over water? Who knows. Whoever planted that device couldn't possibly have known what it would have been over either at 7.03pm, or 38 minutes after takeoff (whichever).

The difference between altimeter devices and timer-only devices is that in the former case you can guarantee the plane is going to be 30,000 feet up in the air, so maybe you're prepared to leave it to chance exactly what it falls on. In the latter case, you can't guarantee that. You can only set it to give you the highest probability that the plane will be airborne when it goes off. Seven o'clock is way too early for that, quite apart from the huge coincidence of the 38-minute detonation.

Rolfe.

ETA: OK, I kind of see your point about a remote detonation choosing the moment when it was over the town. Er, several miles over it, in pitch darkness, and it's quite a small town you know. And the terrorists would have had little clue in advance which way the plane was going to head. I have great difficulty believing anyone could time that with such precision. If a crash on habitation is what you want, your best bet would have been somewhere south of Manchester.

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 10:13 AM

Sitting thinking about it, no, I can't see it. Not this time.

Plane takes off with remote-operated bomb on board. Terrorists don't know which route it's going to take, but are tracking it. How? Radar? Where is this sophisticated system that can pinpoint a plane several miles above the Scottish countryside? Can they hack into Air Traffic Control's system? Is even Air Traffic Control quite that accurate?

They sit tight and watch as the plane flies out over the London suburbs, and the Midlands, and the Manchester conurbation. Quite a lot of quite big towns, bound to have been above something interesting several times, but they hold off. Then at the exact moment it's above a tiny Scottish town in the Border hills, just ten minutes before it would have crossed the coastline (crikey, even the coastal towns are a bigger target than Lockerbie!), they press the button.

And it just happens to be 38 minutes after take-off, too.

No, I don't think so. The VHF radio signal is a better explanation than that one.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 01:02 PM

I passed that way on the evening of 24th December 1988, driving home up the A74 for Christmas (I was living in England at the time). I remember when the crash happened, about my third or fourth thought was, how on earth am I going to get home on Thursday night if that road's closed?

Why did I get that wrong? The crash was on a Wednesday, not a Monday. I drove north on Friday 23rd, only 48 hours after the crash. Which means I went back on Monday 2nd January I suppose.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 02:47 PM

Just a random thought. Gilchrist was quite a big noise in the investigation. I wonder how many big noise coppers were combing the Cheviots on their hands and knees, along with the mountain rescue people and so on? I wonder how long Gilchrist spent doing that?

I have very strong suspicions he didn't find that shirt collar, but signed for it as part of a tidying-up exericise at a later date. Whether or not it's genuine.

I was looking at that "Detective's Tale (http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh9_p8RjikQC&pg=PP1&dq=Lockerbie+Incident:+A+Detective%27s+Tale#v=onep age&q=&f=true)" book. It's pretty pedestrian, I have to say, and the guy doesn't have a clue in a lot of areas. 2kg Semtex? I don't think so. Why is he comparing this to what happened in 1746, and blaming that on "the English"? That's just bizarre. Why is he calling Stuart Henderson an Englishman (you only have to hear him speak to know he isn't)?

But he's absolutely anal-retentive on police procedure on the ground. Start reading on page 56. It's clear the actual crawling on the ground was being done by the plebs - police constables, and mountain rescue teams and so on. Each item recovered was supposed to be signed by the "finding officer" and the "detective officer", the leader of the team of ten finding officers. They were also responsible for recording the nature of the item on the label. Further completion of the labels was done at a central collection point, by a Detective Sergeant.

The author works closely with McColm, one of the signatures on "the" evidence bag. Look what he has to say about him, starting on page 62. He wasn't exactly all that worried about getting everything properly labelled from that account! Also, "despite the fact that he spent most of his time in the sector office, he managed to find a very important piece of evidence."

This is the bit Realdon highlighted in the other thread, and at the time I thought it was just poor memory, because he's talking about the Toshiba circuit board, not the MST-13. However, it's not that simple, because the co-signatory is said to be Graham Cairns, not Gilchrist. Cairns being the junior. He does say he's doing all this from memory so it could just be confusion, but it's interesting.

So even McColm is noted not to have been doing a great deal of searching. Was he out on 13th January, we ask?

The other signatory on "the" bag wasn't Cairns, it was Gilchrist. He's mentioned on page 31 as being a DCI, boss of the local CID, and in charge of the casualty bureau. This confirms my suspicions that he was too big a cheese to have been crawling over the landscape picking up bits of shirt. Why was he doing that on 13th January? Was he doing that on 13th January?

I haven't read all the book and there may be clarification later, but this (published after the trial, remember) casts a lot of doubt on the likelihood of these two guys having picked anything up off the ground together. I'm also getting the impression that the search was winding down by the early days of 1989, with the bulk of the stuff having been cleared by then. Why would these two be out there in the middle of January? It doesn't make sense. And also, Francovich said that the main search only lasted two weeks.

I'm now even more convinced that these two guys weren't out in the field on 13th January, and "the" bag of evidence was signed for retrospectively.

The comment about the weather making it impossible for labels to be completed in the field also makes sense. A lot of these labels wouldn't be written until the material was under cover somewhere. The label in question is remarkably pristine, come to think of it. This makes it even more likely that stuff was handed in unlabelled and had to be tidied up later.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

5th November 2009, 04:52 PM

Well the number of timers thing is just to wonky. Different amounts quoted here and there 1,2...10 Some folks are getting mixed up with place names Dakar, Senegal, Lome, Togo even the opinion of the court has its own differences.

Agreed, it's getting nerdy. It might be nice to sort out sometime, but it's not happening without some serious research, probably offline, and until then...

Interesting work on the different tracks - first time I figured out why a London-NY flight would go so far north at first was in the Air Crash Investigation video. This info here helps put it in context.

Any one know the actual departure and arrival times of KA180 and PA103A
At Frankfurt? KM180 parked at 1248Z, uhh... 103A left at 1653, per OoC. But the question is how it lined up all-in-all with pre-decided timetables, which they'd be basing on. I gather it was only about ten minutes behind schedule as it passed Lockerbie. So does it seem the plotters would or wouldn't be able to know the departure route? This might mean they were aiming for ocean detonation on a different departure, but coastal/iffy oceanocity. If they'd just given it another, say TWO HOURS they could be more sure.

For my Lockerbie memories, I was on a family vacation in Florida at the time, and heard about it on the TV news. Small damp Scottish town befallen by troubles from the sky at Christmas time. I felt like I'd flown over there, not driven by, but it was really neither, just a passing glimpse in the night of distance and time. Sorry, bad poetry starts to leak out of me sometimes.

Interesting stuff on the cops, Rolfe. I don't have a grip on who's who, but getting these reports lined up for consistency and clues would be useful.

realdon

5th November 2009, 06:06 PM

This is the bit Realdon highlighted in the other thread, and at the time I thought it was just poor memory, because he's talking about the Toshiba circuit board, not the MST-13. However, it's not that simple, because the co-signatory is said to be Graham Cairns, not Gilchrist. Cairns being the junior. He does say he's doing all this from memory so it could just be confusion, but it's interesting.

So even McColm is noted not to have been doing a great deal of searching. Was he out on 13th January, we ask?

The other signatory on "the" bag wasn't Cairns, it was Gilchrist. He's mentioned on page 31 as being a DCI, boss of the local CID, and in charge of the casualty bureau. This confirms my suspicions that he was too big a cheese to have been crawling over the landscape picking up bits of shirt. Why was he doing that on 13th January? Was he doing that on 13th January?

Rolfe
There are 2 Gilchrists. DC Thomas Gilchrist of Strathclyde police and DCI Jimmy Gilchrist of Dumfries and Galloway. DC T Gilchrist and McColm found the shirt/fragment and DCI J Gilchrist was involved in the Bollier interview in Scotland amongst other aspects.

But I didnt notice the McColm connection until you pointed it out. So his name is down for the Toshiba fragment in the container debris and the shirt fragment ?

D

Rolfe

5th November 2009, 06:43 PM

Rolfe
There are 2 Gilchrists. DC Thomas Gilchrist of Strathclyde police and DCI Jimmy Gilchrist of Dumfries and Galloway. DC T Gilchrist and McColm found the shirt/fragment and DCI J Gilchrist was involved in the Bollier interview in Scotland amongst other aspects.

Ah, I hadn't realised that. It's a common name, after all. This probably makes it a lot more reasonable. To be honest, I did wonder why nobody had questioned the probability of a senior officer apparently having been crawling over the fields.

But I didnt notice the McColm connection until you pointed it out. So his name is down for the Toshiba fragment in the container debris and the shirt fragment ?

No, not necessarily. Remember, Crawford states clearly that he's writing entirely from memory. He can't have had personal knowledge of the signing of the critical evidence bags, he must have been remembering second-hand accounts, possibly just news articles. I think he may have got confused.

I think Crawford may have conflated the two circuit boards. Suggestion - Cairns was one signatory on the Toshiba find. Crawford also knew that McColm had signed for a crucial piece of circuit board, and assumed this was the same thing. Hence, a piece of timer circuit board, blasted into the cormer of the baggage container, and signed for by Cairns and McColm, in his version.

If McColm actually did find the Toshiba fragment as well, then just, wow. But I suspect not, because crawford only credits him with one important find.

What I find suspicious is the statement about Tommy McColm had managed to wangle a cushy job, and spent most of his time in the sector office", even staying in on a day when Crawford was sent back out even though he'd arranged to stay in and complete his paperwork for the previous day. And the related bit about McColm being extremely cavalier with five large bags of evidence, sending them to Dextar without any signatures or descriptions or proper provenance.

Crawford doesn't give exact dates for January, but his description isn't that far off Francovich's version of the main search only lasting two weeks. McColm found the shirt collar just over three weeks after the crash. What's the chances of this guy who managed to skive through the height of the search being out combing fields when it was being wound down and officers re-deployed?

I was wrong about Gilchrist, obviously, but this description of McColm isn't exactly inconsistent with someone who would sign a few bags of evidence retrospectively to keep the paperwork in order.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

9th November 2009, 04:33 AM

I'm wondering, does anyone have any further information on the provenance of the red-circle photo? I first saw it in Paul Foot's article. It has been widely circulated and it would appear to have been an official press release.

It seems a little incongrous to me in the context of the exchange at Camp Zeist on the subject of Feraday's September 1989 polaroids, where the question was asked of Hayes, well, didn't you have pictures taken in May and wouldn't these have been available to Mr. Feraday in September? Hayes appeared to have no recollection of the May discovery at all beyond what he could see from his own notes, and said something like "I suppose so".

The point is, the red-circle photo would have answered these questions perfectly. Yes, a photo was indeed taken in May, but it was a picture of the entire contents of the evidence bag and not a close-up of the timer fragment on its own. The fragment wasn't quite square-on to the camera, and wasn't seen in close-up. Therefore it wasn't unreasonable for Mr. Feraday to have tried to get a more face-on and possibly a more close-up view for DCI Williamson, who wanted a picture in something of a hurry.

If that picture had such a high profile that is was part of official press releases, I'm surprised that no mention of it was made at this stage. I'm also surprised that none of the discussion of the photo has referred to its date, and the provenance of that date. We're relying very much on that picture having demonstrable provenance as being taken on or before 12th May 1989, and I'd just like to know how sure we can be of this.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

13th November 2009, 09:28 AM

This is embarrassing, bumping my own thread again. However.

Robert Black's blog for today (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/latest-from-private-eye.html) refers to an article in the print version of Private Eye (apparently not included in the online version) which covers a lot of aspects of concern in this case. It makes specific mention of the exact point we have been discussing.

* Photographs and evidence suggest that the circuit board and debris from the shirt had not been discovered until January 1990 – seven months later than Rarde claimed.

* Further evidence that scientific notes had been altered.

* Details of simulated explosions carried out in the US in July 1989 were not revealed, but debris from those blasts [was] taken both to Rarde and to Lockerbie for comparison.

* Exhibit labels were being written and attached by police more than a year after the debris was found.

* One man who was asked to put his name to the discovery of pieces of the charred shirt says he does not recall recovering the material. He also says the cloth shown to him by police was not the same grey colour as that identified in court as the shirt bought by Megrahi.

* Evidence to suggest the charred “bomb” shirt was in fact a child’s shirt.

* A wealth of conflicting evidence surrounding the discovery of charred pieces of a Babygro – also said to have been packed in the bomb suitcase and sold to Megrahi. One Babygro collected by investigators for comparison purposes was not accounted for.

It seems fairly clear that the author of this piece is alleging or suggesting fabrication of the entire shebang contained in that evidence bag, probably by way of the test detonations carried out in the USA in the summer of 1989.

I'm especially interested in the first point. That photographs suggest the fragment wasn't introduced into the chain of evidence until January 1990. This may imply that doubt has been cast on the provenance of the red-circle photograph, i.e. that it does not in fact support a date of 12th May 1989. I would dearly love to see more detail about this.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

13th November 2009, 03:43 PM

I should have commented earlier. But all I have to say on the photo issue now is let's see some negatives that got a date later than May 12, or else we've got some minor questions not worth the time, unless I'm missing something, which I often am.

On the new article, saw that last night (my time), looks really interesting. It'll be in the details.
Lawyers for Megrahi have now uncovered a similar pattern of inconsistencies, alterations, discrepancies and undisclosed material that again calls into question the integrity of the Rarde scientists. It comes from new scientific tests as well as a meticulous examination of evidence that was not disclosed or available at the time.

Is this stuff we haven't seen yet? I have to jet now but will look at it some more tonight.

Rolfe

18th November 2009, 03:27 AM

I seee our friend Edwin has posted more on Prof. Black's blog (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/fragments-of-truth.html) that might explain the January 1990 date. (Of course he then launches into a wild and implausible CT based on that, but he usually has his basic facts from the court evidence correct.)

(Text of ex FBI Task Force Chief Richard Marquise, from his logbook 'SCOTBOM')

+++ Williamson said that Allen Feraday, the forensic examiner, hat sent a fax to Henderson in January 1990, about items he found blasted into a Slalom shirt. The most significant item was a fingernail size chip, green in color, with solder for a circuit on one side only. This chip became known as PT-35, the evidence designation placed on it by the Scots. He spoke of the efforts which led us to MEBO, one familiar to the Swiss.

Cretton expressed his concerns and those of Bollier. The first was that the CIA had planted the chip in the wreckage found at Lockerbie. Henderson and I told him this thought had also crossed our minds. Neither of us believed the CIA or any government official would do such a thing, but we had discussed the possibility. Henderson was convinced of the veracity of PT-35, the way it had been found, logged in and the fact it had not been identified even by the forensic examiners until January 1990.

Minutes of excerpts from the court, Kamp van Zeist (2000):
Witness, number, 261, Inspector Keith Harrower, sworn:
+++
Q-- In January of 1990, did you become aware of the existence of a piece of evidence which you were asked to make further inquiries into? A-- Yes, I did. Q-- And was that Label Number 353? We can perhaps just confirm that in a moment, Inspector Harrower. A-- Yes, that's correct. Q-- And along with Detective Inspector Williamson, did you then carry out some inquiries in relation to that fragment?
A-- I did, sir, yes. Q-- What was the purpose of those inquiries? A-- To try and identify where the circuit board had come from. Q-- And did you make those inquiries in the printed circuit board industry? A-- I did, yes.

Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New England Laminates Company? A-- Yes, sir. Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New
England Laminates Company? A-- I did, yes. A-- It was at the end of the January 1990.
Q-- Now, 353 is available, Inspector, now Can you confirm for me that that is the fragment of circuit board that we've been speaking about?
A-- Yes, that's correct, sir. Yes. Q-- As a result of the advice given to you, did you go in February of 1990 to a company known as CIBA Geigy?

In spite of the rushed note (with polaroids) Feraday sent to Williamson in September 1989, the real search for the identity of the fragment doesn't seem to have got going until after the New Year. This of course coincides with the conference described by Marquise in his book, at which he says Henderson talked to him about the fragment but refused US assistance to identify it.

There's another interesting snippet there.

Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) confirmed at the court in Kamp van Zeist the following:
+++ Q-- If we look at 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us?
A-- (Feraday) That's a photograph of fragment PT-35 as recovered in the laboratory. Q-- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? A--That is correct. Yes sir. +++

It would be interesting to know which is photograph 334. Sounds as if it's a good photograph of the pre-forensics sample, as we surmised would have been taken. (Bollier seems to be making a big deal about the photograph designations 353 and 334, but I'm not sure what he's on about in the middle of all the Babelfish translations.)

Rolfe.

Rolfe

18th November 2009, 03:38 PM

Talking of posters on Robert Black's blog, does anyone know who "Baz" is? Here's his latest (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-becoming-embarrassing-for.html).

In 1996 I pointed out to the Crown Office, the FBI, the PM (in response to his appeal) Mr Duff and Dr Swire who built the bomb and how, where and by whom it had been introduced. I suggested, indeed pleaded with the defence to pursue a particular line of enquiry which they did not do. (Due to developments subsequent to the verdict it is still a valid line of enquiry).

I'd quite like to hear more about that one! I get the impression this might be someone we already know of IRL. Don't know who it might be though.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

23rd November 2009, 02:19 PM

Hmmm. Bollier has finally posted the much-trailed first part of his "chronology of the MST-13 timer fragment. Due to his use of frames it's impossible to link to the actual page (http://www.lockerbie.ch/), but this is the start of it.

A convincing study about the fraud of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) for the last "non-believers"

The regular operational sequence of the MST-13 timer fragment.

Introduction over the MEBO, MST-13 timer circuit board:

The following MST-13 timer PC boards existed, with similar design up to the end of the production 1988:

1.> MST-13 timer "Circuit Boards", by hand manufactured, so-called prototypes, consisting of 8 layers fibre glass, standard plate material, color brown. Both sides without soldering stop lacquer. (such brown MST-13 timer, circuit board was not inserted into, the 20 pieces of MST-13 timers delivered to Libya)!

2.> MST-13 timer " Circuit Boards", by machine manufactured (of print factory; "Thüring") consisting of 9 layers fibre glass, green colored. The first series had only on a side, the front side, soldering stop lacquer, color green. The second series of MST-13 "circuit boards", were covered on both sides with soldering stop lacquer, color green. (The 20 pieces of MST-13 timers delivered to Libya were with such; "Thüring" Circuit board equipped).

°°°
January, of 1989:
FBI explosive Examiner, Tom Thurman, since at the end of 1988, he was involved into the PanAm 103 Crash investigations. After its return from Lockerbie, Scotland and after a briefing of the CIA, Thurman, on 19th of January 1989, in its laboratory in Washington gave its own Briefing. He worked closely with the experts of U.K. Dr. Thomas Hayes and all Feraday together, (both from RARDE).

[snip several yards]

Can anyone make any sense of this at all? For a Swiss, his English is terrible.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

23rd November 2009, 02:36 PM

Bad English might be part of Ebol the clown's schtick. It's better than mein Deutsch, but that's not saying much.

All that seems to say is again there were hand-made "brown" prototypes and machine-made "green" boards, Thurman was investigating from late December, and on Jan 19 gave a briefing in Washington. We already know that (see Marquise, SCOTBOM, p 35)

Nothing new yet.

Rolfe

23rd November 2009, 02:49 PM

That was just the start that I quoted. I'm not quoting the lot!

Go see if you can make anything of the rest of the document. If you have an hour or three to spare....

Rolfe.

realdon

23rd November 2009, 03:52 PM

Talking of posters on Robert Black's blog, does anyone know who "Baz" is? Here's his latest (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-becoming-embarrassing-for.html).

I'd quite like to hear more about that one! I get the impression this might be someone we already know of IRL. Don't know who it might be though.

Rolfe.

Not had much time of late but have been checking in to have a look

BAZ has his own blog

http://e-zeecon.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html

and states "The author is a graduate in Modern History and International Relations.

He/She makes some interesting propositions in the blog and says the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. Worth a read

Bolliers latest is just to difficult. He really needs to get some one to do a proper translation

D

Rolfe

23rd November 2009, 04:00 PM

Rolfe

23rd November 2009, 04:15 PM

Here's another interesting quote from Robert Black's blog. Mark Hirst is Christine Grahame's researcher, but he has more of a background in the subject than I had realised and may well be the driving force behind Christine's representations on the matter.

As I have previously stated I coincidentally worked as a Quality Inspector for the world’s biggest PCB manufacturer in the world, ironically a US owned company. I therefore happen to know a little about circuit boards. Having recently read the court transcript the identification of PT35 was done purely on a visual comparison of a complete board which the CIA happened to have and which Thurman acquired. As I have previously stated the board was NOT manufactured by MEBO, but by Thuring AG and then sold to MEBO to be "populated". I have made the point before, and this is evident in the court transcript, that there are design characteristics on PT35 which yes, could be present on a complete MST13 timer, but, which the Court failed to consider, equally present on any number of other circuits produced by Thuring. That is not just my view but a view shared by people I know who still work in the industry and presumably why none of the 55 PCB companies visited by investigators was able to give a categorical identification of the fragment before Thurman’s "miraculous" (I am being generous) ID in Washington.

That's an interesting point, indeed, and not one that has had much of an airing. However, I'm not sure whether he's postulating the existence of some completely different timing device, or fabrication based on another Thuring board.

Rolfe.

realdon

23rd November 2009, 06:14 PM

Yeah, I'd seen Baz's blog, but the whole "masonic" stuff put me off. His vitriolic dismissal of presentations of alternatice theories is also very off-putting. I don't necessarily buy Francovich's theory (essentially Coleman's too) either, but simply posting a tirade against them and everyone who took part in The Maltese Double Cross as frauds and charlatans is counter-productive

Even Bollier points out some useful facts from time to time. More so Francovich and Coleman, concentrating as they do on material that was brought out in the early stages and in the earlier hearings.

He seems to think the bomb was the actual device confiscated from the PFLP-GC group in October 1988 by the BKA. Which, unless he describes how this got back into terrorist hands (if so I missed that bit), sounds a bit too like a MIHOP for comfort.

Rolfe.

Yes I agree just been reading some of that Francovich/Coleman put down stuff and the tone is a bit strong

On the PFLP GC bomb I am sure I read and I will have to go back and find where that there was a 5th bomb that was not recovered and it was built into a larger radio that the recovered ones.

His theory that the US had the apparatus in place (in advance) to blame Libya and deflect Irans involvement seems possible. If Iran was proved to be the sponsor then the US would have no alternative but to hit back leading to God knows what. They really had to get out of a tit for tat escalation. Libya seems to have been the perfect scapegoat here.

D

Rolfe

23rd November 2009, 06:35 PM

"In advance"? LIHOP?

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

24th November 2009, 03:10 AM

Also, from Marquise (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/fragments-of-truth-continued.html), clarification of the Tegeenlisht travel row:
With regard to the "travel" of PT-35-- once again-- it was the sharing of information which led to the solution of this case. If the fragment had remained behind in Scotland, never shared, it would possibly be unidentified today. No one would ever have discovered it was a piece of one of 20 timers given to Libyan intelligence. It is clear no one ever attempted to "cover" that up-- I freely admitted it in my book, Mr. Henderson stated such in his precognition and I again said so to Mr. Levy. My "confusion" at Arlington last December over whether it had come to the US or not, was due more to the tone of the question, the setting and the allegation I may have lied to him when he first interviewed me. Unlike Mr. Megrahi, I do not tell lies when it comes to the evidence in this case. I said it right when Mr. Levy first interviewed me. We had nothing to hide because we did the right thing and there has never, never, never been one scintilla of proof that PT-35 was altered or changed in any way.

Hmmm. Same bug hit Henderson? And Thurman prior to his Levy interview? What strange magic does this little Dutchman have over these people?

That new MEBO page does have a lot of details, but I don't feel up to digging. Another resource. But we've got the full transcripts now, and don't need his filters to get snippets. Here's a few points:

A long part Day 22 with a guy from Thuring details two separate MST-13 orders for Mebo, of 20 and 35 units each. The first had a layout sent, with defects the company corrected with extra solder traces called "silver lines" in the court. They refer to photos, perhaps the same "spatter" off the touch pad we've wondered over. The first order was solder-masked one side only, and had no cuts - corners, screw holes, timer window (big middle hole) and switch holes were all left not holes. The second order of 35 had again a new layout sent, negatives taken, 2:1 scale, with request to cut out the necessary parts and solder mask both sides. The same circuitry defects were there and again corrected with numerous silver lines. Mr Keen I think makes a big deal of both orders having these, and the defect not being corrected in between. The corners of the second batch were also left uncut. So PT/35(b) couldn't be part of either order, unless cut later.

A bit from Allen Feraday's trainwreck testimony, Day 21 June 15:
Q Could we look at your final report, 181, at page 50 to 51. And could you also have available to you Production 1497, which are Dr. Hayes' notes and draft report.
Q And are you saying that you examined PH/137 before you finished the report?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where are the notes of that examination, Mr. Feraday?
A Well, there aren't any, because as I said, I did not always, when I was looking at them, make any difference between myself and Hayes -- although in this instance I did, and I told him so, that in my opinion you couldn't necessarily put that in
3333
the explosion damage. I couldn't convince myself that it was explosion damage. Prior to that, Hayes had written this preliminary report for another purpose -- I think the Fatal Accident Inquiry --
Q And you recall --
A Sorry, I'm waiting for the --
Q I don't think you had finished, Mr. Feraday, so do finish your answer if you wish.

A bit later - this is Mr. Keen above and below:
According to the evidence of this witness, he prepared the final report on the basis of his examination of certain matters, and by considering Dr. Hayes' notes. What my learned friend appears to be inviting is hearsay evidence about the forensic
3216
examination of the rucksack and its contents, when in fact the witness who could speak directly to that, Dr. Hayes, has come and gone from the witness box.
I object to the Crown canvassing hearsay evidence, even in the context of what is referred to as a joint report, in respect of such a matter. If they wish to take direct evidence on this issue, then they had ample opportunity of doing so with Dr. Hayes. And in my submission, it is not competent for them to take hearsay evidence on this matter from Mr. Feraday.

Rolfe

24th November 2009, 04:35 AM

With regard to the "travel" of PT-35-- once again-- it was the sharing of information which led to the solution of this case. If the fragment had remained behind in Scotland, never shared, it would possibly be unidentified today. No one would ever have discovered it was a piece of one of 20 timers given to Libyan intelligence. It is clear no one ever attempted to "cover" that up-- I freely admitted it in my book, Mr. Henderson stated such in his precognition and I again said so to Mr. Levy. My "confusion" at Arlington last December over whether it had come to the US or not, was due more to the tone of the question, the setting and the allegation I may have lied to him when he first interviewed me. Unlike Mr. Megrahi, I do not tell lies when it comes to the evidence in this case. I said it right when Mr. Levy first interviewed me. We had nothing to hide because we did the right thing and there has never, never, never been one scintilla of proof that PT-35 was altered or changed in any way.

It's certainly possible that Gideon Levy's ambushing of witnesses 20 years after the events in question led to unnecessary contradictions. Some of these guys are getting on a bit and their memories might not be as sharp as all that. I would take the whole Arlington thing with a pinch of salt. Although I do think it's a bit weird that Henderson states categorically that the timer fragment never left Britain, whereas according to Marquise's book (which is almost certainly right, going by other sources) he took it to the USA himself!

Some of the confusion is probably to do with the different concepts of "never left Scotland", "never left the UK", "was always in the custody of the Scottish police" and "never left the jurisdiction of Scotland/UK".

The fragment did go walkies. That's pretty incontrovertible. However, it seems that it always went walkies in the custody of Alan Feraday (HNC), who was himself, when out of the UK with it, always accompanied by a "minder" from the Scottish police. Henderson in the case of the trip to the States. So they are saying that it never left Scottish jurisdiction. Others are interpreting that as saying it never left Scotland, which has to be wrong.

Peter Fraser comes over as a bumbling idiot promoted way beyond his competence. In his interviews with Levy he seems to have no clue at all what he's talking about. Which says a lot of about him and about how much credence to put on his analysis of the affair, but not a lot about where the fragment went.

The real problem is the absence of entries on the log of the fragment documenting its travels. Especially, to anywhere where it might be tampered with. (It's silly of Henderson to go on about how it couldn't be tampered with, because it was essential to do some tampering to analyse it, and clearly that was in fact done. The point is to document the tampering, and have verifiable evidence of what was done, where and when and by whom, and to be able to show that no falsification occurred.)

If there are no official records that it was taken to Munich, where I think it was cut up, and other places, and then the USA, then that's bad and sloppy and a technicality that might hang the case.

But I still don't care because the court exhibit can be seen to be the same item as the red-circle photograph. My interest is in the provenance of the latter and how it fits in to the extraordinarily murky documentation of that fragment in the year from January 1989 to January 1990.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

1st December 2009, 06:20 AM

The Swiss Cheese is coming out with more holey theories. (He still doesn't seem to have learned good English, which is unusual in a Swiss.)

MISSION LOCKERBIE. The second part of the Lockerbie-study of MEBO, will be published soon. Here a part of the chronology no. 2:

The criminal manipulation of the police label (Lothian and Borders) was the foundation for the fraud with the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35):

Court Kamp van Zeist: Day 6, page 966:
+++ On the 13th of January 1989, Witness number 257, Mr. Thomas Gilchrist recovered Label 168, which was known as PI-995, a fragment of grey Slalom shirt. +++ end

MEBO uncovers:

1. > The marking PI-995 of a fragment of a grey slalom shirt, was remodeled in a police Label No. PI-995 !

2. > Dr. Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday (RARDE) needed some similar police Label, with date of January 13th, 1989, also for a criminal act against Libya ! Therefore the original police Label No. PT-95, was changed/falsified as follow:

> This police Label no. PT-95, became Label no. PI-995;
> The date, of January 1989 (down left) remained existing and
became supplemented with the date, 17th of January 1989;
> The word "cloths", (charred), for the Article, became with the word "DEBRIS" (charred) overwritten!

3. > To demonstrate the liabillity the Label was later additionally signed by 5 further officials: Dr. Thomas Hayes; Allen Feraday; Derek Henderson; Ron McManus and Cal Mentoso.

MEBO Question: Did these people had to take the responsibility on themselves, if the criminal fraud would be noticed? And did each official have to secure himself face to face from the others? It is strange and not normal that the altered police Label no. PI-995 was signed by 7 officials...
(Lord Advocate Fraser's order was that police Labels must by signed by 2 officials).

4. > Dr. Hayes needed the manipulated police Label PI-995, for his mysterious eximination auxiliary side no. 51, from 12th of May 1989 !
With this Label PI-995, expert Dr. Hayes marked only one plastic bag with contents.
From contents inside the plastic bag, Ref. PP'8932, was registered various material, which was found allegedly in Lockerbie by the police:

Among other things, a portion of the ? neckband of a grey? short, severely explosion damage localised penetrations and blackering. etc.;
Under the marking PT-35, a) several fragments of black plastics;
Under the marking PT-35, b) was an unknown "fragment of a green coloured circuit board", was registered and depictured on Ref. PP'8932, PI-995;
Under the marking PT-35, c) small fragments of metal + wire.

5. > On the original photo Ref, PP'8932, PI-995, the red encircled fragment shows not a green MST-13 circuit board fragment designated as PT-35, but a brown coloured fragment from a prototype.
The first evidence photography together with photo no. 334, shows the fragment of the circuit board in the original condition, before forensic sawing into two parts. (part. no. 353= PT-35 (b); and part. no. 419= DP-31(a). )
The fragment comes from a MEBO prototype timer MST-13 circuit board, brown coloured and has a in-scratched, well visible letter "M" on it.

6. > The fragment from photo Ref. PP'8932, PI-995 and photo no. 334, was -as can be proved-, (determined of visible technical characteristics) not green coloured, but brown ! The delivered MST-13 timer to Libya were equipped with green circuit boards.
Thus the MST-13 fragment (PT-35) cannot be brought in connection with MST- 13 timers, supplied to Libya !

7. > Dr. Hayes needed the altered label PI-995 in his falsified eximination report side no. 51, dated of May 12th 1989, to bring into the MST-13 fragment, as PT-35. The original side numbers, 51 to 55, were overwritten by Dr. Hayes with no. 52 to 56!
To the memory:
Allen Feraday had discovered the MST-13 Fragment for the first time on 12th of January 1990 and Dr. Hayes booked back the date to May 12th 1989 !!!

The complete study coming soon on our website: www.lockerbie.ch

by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

MISSION LOCKERBIE: A part of the second chronology study.

This is only a computers translation from Babylon, German in English.

On following date, 17th January 1989; 12th May 1989 and 15th September 1989, existed still no fragment of a MST-13 timer, neither still to photos with the illustration of the MST-13 timer of fragment!

The MST-13 fragment was seized for the first time, photographed at the beginning of January 1990, and registered as PT-35, by expert Allen Feraday (RARDE, Defense Research Agency military division at Fort Hatstead, UK)
Supported on a fax document from 12th of January 1990, which conveyed Allen Feraday of forensic examiner, at the Scottish senior Investigating Chief Stuart Henderson (SIO).
Thus the fraud becomes evident over the MST-13 fragment (PT-35): All Examinations documents, Reports, Label, Memorandum etc., which the MST-13 fragment (PT-35) before 1990 are concerned, was manipulated or falsified among other things by Feraday and Dr. Thomas Hayes, (RARDE):

> Polizei Label PI-995, was manipulated, (original PT-95 alter into Label PI-995;
> the Article: "cloth" (charred) was altered into "DEBRIS"(charred) andnothing has to do with the MST-13 fragment;
> Examinations side no. 51, of 12. May 1989 (later caused Auxiliary side), was manipulated and falsified partially;
> Examinations sides numbers, 51 to 55, were overwritten by Dr. Hayes with no. 52 to 56;
> Memorandum from 15th September 1989 von Feraday to Insp. William
Williamson was later written, a fraud !!!
> Polizei Label DP'137 from Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary, date of 10th September 1990, was amended to 15th September 1989, ;
> Photographie Ref.,8932, PI-995 was manipulated, photomontage and
falsified date;
> Testimonies by Dr. Hayes and Allen Feraday, Insp. William Williamson artially incorrectly, lies !

This, by ex FBI task Force Chief, Richard Marquise, admits nascent fax, from 12th of January 1990, (an important piece of evidence) to the Defence team of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, at the court in Kamp van Zeist, was suppressed !!!

In the second "fraud chronology" study, also the background of the truth mission "CIA/Bollier's briefing" get published, comes shortly on our website: www.lockerbie.ch

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

I'm pretty sure it's nonsense, but I'd like to have some idea what his argument actually is. He's not making it very easy though.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

1st December 2009, 04:45 PM

I'll bite long enough to sort this out a bit. It seems he's saying Feraday "seized"the fragment (from Swiss police I presume) and then photographed it, etc. in early January 1990. This is based on a letter to SIO Henderson of January 12, which must be real (??) and shows all previous entries, memos, photos, etc. must be fake. He then gives a list of things that must be fake.

This passage is a little more enigmatic:
This, by ex FBI task Force Chief, Richard Marquise, admits nascent fax, from 12th of January 1990, (an important piece of evidence) to the Defence team of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, at the court in Kamp van Zeist, was suppressed !!!

In short, another "proof of fraud!!" from the Swiss Cheeser Ebol the clown, joining the missing M and brown (not the color) color board and so on.

Caustic Logic

1st December 2009, 05:07 PM

I'm back to considering whether or not the fragment PT/35(b) would be expected to survive normally. I've always thought it was a plant, but didn't want t say it must be due to existing. But I'm less able to see it than before. Looking the the testimony, it seems this really was the only piece of the timer or anything added to the radio that was discovered. (parts of the radio itself were found, but nothing else). Feraday's final report:
This piece of circuit board is the sole recovered fragment originating from the mechanism of the IED itself

Now if the explosion were NOT strong enough to vaporize everything, I would expect a few surviving pieces, wit h this probably the largest. Rather it's the only, and it's the most recognizable part of the board, which was probably the most identifiable part of the whole modification. In this case above all, coincidence has no reason to be hanging around this much.

Previously, when I was engaging Longtabber PE, I had wondered if maybe such a piece could have been shielded behind a larger element attached to the board. Here is a duplicate MST-13 with elements attached:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/FLA_Fakes.jpg
I don't know what these things all do or are called (sorry I'll forget again later too) but if something like that shielded the fragment from vaporization, then where is that protector now? Did it vaporize itself? Or plunge irrecoverably into the mud at the bottom of a loch? Maybe, but then all elements of the bomb except this "number one" corner of that Mebo-traceable, indictment-enabling fragment wind up disappearing into the ether. I'm a reasonable chap but I find that harder to swallow than that they just never existed, and only "the one" was ever near this crime scene.

Rolfe

6th December 2009, 06:20 PM

Here's something interesting. A commentator on Robert Black's blog (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/11/lockerbie-bombing-facts-deception-and.html).

By 1988 Pan Am DID have access to a depressurisation chamber for suspect baggage at Frankfurt airport. Such equipment was (and still is) commonplace at major airports and is used when a first-line X-ray shows complex electrical equipment inside the suitcase. This equipment was developed to counter the use of simple barometric detonation switches in aircraft baggae bombs. Bomb makers such as Khreesat then developed the use of the secondary so-called "ice-cube" timer which would delay actual detonation for around 20 minutes or so after the barometric switch had closed the circuit. The baggage depressurisation chamber would trigger the barometric switch but bags would not be kept in the chamber long enought for the secondary timer to trigger the detonator. Once out of the chamber the barometric switch would return to the open position and the circuit would be broken. In flight, however, once the ambient pressure in the baggae hold dropped to the required level, the barometric switch would close the circuit and the batteries in the circuit would start to charge the secondary timer which was, in Khresat's bombs, a simple capacitor which would slowly charge up with current from the batteries until it reached its dicharge capacitance and would then send a high voltage charge to the detonator in the Semtex which then exploded.

Maybe what Frankovich meant was that there were two timed switching mechanisms in the Lockerbie bomb: one barometric and one "ice-cube". However, this would NOT allow the bomb to travel from Frankfurt to London without exploding. There is a small amount of evidence to suggest that Khreesat's bomb might have been amended to inclulde a third device such as a clock-based timer set to cover the period from ingestion into the baggage system at Frankfurt until being offloaded at Heathrow. I don't really rate this theory myself, but it is possible.

This makes quite a lot of sense. I did wonder what the ice-cube was actually for, since detonation at 7 minutes (when the height was reached to trigger the bomb) would certainly do the trick. However, adding an extra half hour on to the flight time after depressurisation would certainly foil a device like this.

Presumably no depressurisation device was used in the loading of PA103, or we'd have heard about it. I'm mildly surprised it hasn't been mentioned at all - assuming Aku is right, which I suspect he is. However, it helps to know what the reasoning was.

I still can't get past the pardox that either the Bedford suitcase is a red herring (which it doesn't feel like), or the MST-13 fragment is some sort of a plant. But if we go for the fragment being real, does this information help figure out what the digital timer might have been for, and still explain the 38-minute detonation?

Rolfe.

Dan O.

6th December 2009, 11:02 PM

The problem is that you can't put the barometer in there at all if it's going to be x-rayed. That's one of the key components that the x-ray operators are going to be trained to look for. The explosive itself will just look like a semi-dense non-desrcript blob like everything else that is expected to be in a suitcase. (news link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19881229&id=FbkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6fkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6789,1768236))

A long duration timer placed in an unsuspecting travelers bag could be set to go off 5 1/2 hours into an 8 hour transatlantic flight and wouldn't be fooled by multiple hops on feeder flights. It may be too late to look up now but I wonder if there were any passengers that changed their flight plans from PA107 to PA103.

Rolfe

7th December 2009, 03:13 AM

Caustic Logic

7th December 2009, 04:11 AM

Too many variable here for me. I sense I won't be nailing down all these details about what was and wasn't maybe in the bomb. I'm not even certain the official radio model ID is true, so I have an unsure size space, variable configurations available, depending - barometer - ice cube - MST-13, MST-13 - barometer - garage door opener, etc... We got one curiously intact and IDable PCB fragment and nothing else, so we have reason to suspect something with an MST-13 as either most likely or least likely, depending how you view that evidence.

I did have a sort of basic question, for either of you or anyone - the explosion happened 38 minutes after takeoff, and the known Khreesat bomb style IIRC had a barometer triggering an ice cube timer, which had a pre-set but variable?) time of 35-45 minutes once triggered. So for this to work, the barometer would have to be triggered early, after just the first take-off climb I'd think. As opposed to, say, cruising altitude, which it had just reached when the ice cube "melted." Is that a correct assessment from what anyone else knows?

Rolfe

7th December 2009, 04:40 AM

The quote above gives the most detailed account of the "ice cube" I've seen so far.

The barometer was set to a pressure equivalent to about 8,000 feet above sea level. However, bear in mind that it would be in the pressurised aeroplane hull, and so actual feet above sea level is irrelevant. The point is that for technical reasons aircraft are not pressurised to sea level, but to the equivalent of about 8,000 feet. So by the time the pressure in the aircraft has dropped to that level, the plane will be pretty high.

Whatever the technical details, it seems to be agreed that under normal conditions, it would take about 7 minutes from take-off for the plane to get high enough for the barometer to be tripped.

I now repeat what Aku said.

[....] once the ambient pressure in the baggage hold dropped to the required level, the barometric switch would close the circuit and the batteries in the circuit would start to charge the secondary timer which was, in Khresat's bombs, a simple capacitor which would slowly charge up with current from the batteries until it reached its discharge capacitance and would then send a high voltage charge to the detonator in the Semtex which then exploded.

This explains why nobody could alter the setting on these "timers". They were fixed according to the discharge capacitance and the time it would take for that to be reached. All the devices seized by the BKA from the PFLP-GC were found to have discharge times of 30 minutes, give or take.

Seven minutes (give or take) to get to the trigger height, then 30 minutes (give or take) for the capacitor to charge, and there you have it.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

7th December 2009, 10:08 AM

But that doesn't really make sense in the light of most of the other information we have. If you could reliably spot a barometer on x-ray, then why would you need depressurisation to check if there was a barometric switch on luggage that seems supect on x-ray?

Khreesat's bombs were barometric devices concealed inside electronic equipment. The point of that was to disguise the device for x-ray purposes, surely. Which sort of implies that it was possible to conceal the barometer, I would have thought.

Rolfe.

The pressure chamber is not for detection of the barometric switch but for prematurely activating a suspected device without risking personnel opening the case for a visual inspection. This was just one step in the terrorist/security arms race. Khreesat's delayed trigger countered the pressure chamber so that security would need to physically examine suspicious baggage. The tattle tail is still the pressure switch which in those days was a modified altimeter which contained a readily identifiable large metal cylinder, bellows or coil. Elimination of the pressure switch in exchange for a long duration timer allows the bag to sail through security. Even if they were suspicious of the radio, I imagine their response would be to x-ray the package from several angles looking for that altimeter. Without the altimeter, it can't be a bomb (or so they thought).

With the micro sensors we have today, it doesn't make sense to look for triggers or timers. The only viable detection is to fire a neutron howitzer at the baggage and look for the tell tail signatures of known explosives. That of course makes me wonder why they still have all those x-ray machines at airports.

Rolfe

7th December 2009, 10:55 AM

You seem to be suggesting that a standard Khreesat device would be unlikely to make it through x-ray if that procedure wasn't circumvented. This is the first I've heard of that, and it does put a new light on the whole thing. I can see the logic of it though, as an aneroid barometer isn't exactly subtle.

How would you explain the 38-minute detonation though? It seems a pointless thing to do if you've got a long-acting digital timer. Accidental detonation or "wrong plane" leading to a purely coincidental time? There are so many alleged coincidences in this affair, and I can't believe all of them are pure happenstance.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

7th December 2009, 05:00 PM

Thanks for the answers Rolfe, I just can't absorb everything that comes in, at least not the first time. I think I finally get how the ice cube works. If it took several minutes to reach the trigger altitude, I have to say it's pushing to like a 30-minute delay or even less, which is a non-perfect fit for the commonly understood Khreesat bomb. Various estimates fudging it? Slightly different bomb style? I'll need to catch up on the details sometime... Obviously I haven't thought about this aspect much yet as I was imagining outside pressure, like what the plane's pressure altimeter would read, rather than interior. duh.

Maybe they'd set it for an intermediate pressure setting? If 8,000 is the app. end point, it's the equivalent of crusing altitude, the point you might not wait for. London's at about 10 ft MSL or so, right? That's a big window. If they set it for equivalent 2,000 or 4,000 feet that's a better fit.

Rolfe

7th December 2009, 05:31 PM

Caustic Logic

8th December 2009, 02:22 AM

It's a bang-on fit. It's just that some of the sources add together the delay to get to the trigger altitude (about 7 minutes) and the delay on the ice-cube (about 30 minutes) when describing the effect. Total time from take-off to explosion something like 35 to 45 minutes, but made up of the two components. The actual delay on the ice-cubes was 30 minutes.

Unless you can find an authoritative source that says different.

Rolfe.

Ah ... 38 minutes combined. I may have misread something in the transcripts and then thought I had it, since it was from the transcripts. Delay was 30 minutes, and the variability (35-45) is then from the time to reach 8,000 feet. That makes more sense. Sorry.

Rolfe

8th December 2009, 02:59 AM

The delay wouldn't have been a spot-on time either. I understand that better now I know how the things worked. I think they were a bit temperature-dependent, and also varied depending on how often they'd been used before (for testing, presumably).

Most of the sources just give a "timed to explode x +/- y minutes after take-off" comment, without explaining that this time was made up of two variable components - the time to reach trigger pressure, and the time for the capacitor to charge up.

Also note that the trigger pressure would be reached a lot higher than 8,000 feet. It would be 8,000 feet without pressurisation, but in the pressurised hold the pressure wouldn't drop that far till more like cruising altitude.

Jibril tried to make out that the devices weren't necessarily intended for use on aircraft, and spoke about getting them on board vehicles that would subsequently be driven to mountaintop Israeli military bases. As David ben Aryeah said, and how many military bases does Israel have that are situated at over 8,000 feet? Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

8th December 2009, 03:41 AM

The pressure chamber is not for detection of the barometric switch but for prematurely activating a suspected device without risking personnel opening the case for a visual inspection. This was just one step in the terrorist/security arms race. Khreesat's delayed trigger countered the pressure chamber so that security would need to physically examine suspicious baggage. The tattle tail is still the pressure switch which in those days was a modified altimeter which contained a readily identifiable large metal cylinder, bellows or coil. Elimination of the pressure switch in exchange for a long duration timer allows the bag to sail through security. Even if they were suspicious of the radio, I imagine their response would be to x-ray the package from several angles looking for that altimeter. Without the altimeter, it can't be a bomb (or so they thought).

With the micro sensors we have today, it doesn't make sense to look for triggers or timers. The only viable detection is to fire a neutron howitzer at the baggage and look for the tell tail signatures of known explosives. That of course makes me wonder why they still have all those x-ray machines at airports.

I understand perfectly what you're saying, but it does place more constraints on what could be managed with these devices than I was aware of.

Indeed, it almost seems to me that the time-delay switch was close to redundant, because by the time the bag is subject to pressure-chamber testing, the authorities are so suspicious that they'd be likely to find it anyway. If a suspect bag doesn't blow up in the depressurisation chamber, whould they really just wave it on its way as described? Would they not then hand-search it, if they were so suspicious?

If the barometer is really so distinctive on x-ray, it would imply that the Khreesat devices either relied on the x-ray operators being asleep at the wheel (maybe not all that unlikely, but I'd hardly want to bank on it), or on some way of circumventing the x-ray.

I suppose this is what the Jafaar bag-switch hypothesis is all about. In that tale, Jafaar put a perfectly innocent bag through check-in, which was then x-rayed and of course was fine, then after that the suborned baggage handlers switched the bag for a similar one containing heroin (which presumably would look suspicious on x-ray in large quantities). Presumably, also, they would switch the baggage tags.

So far so good, except that this couldn't have been done with a barometric device at Frankfurt, because if it was, it would have exploded over Paris. And that story has always been quite flaky.

At Heathrow, Bedford said that Kamboj told him he'd x-rayed the Samsonite suitcase. And presumably Kamboj is in the clear. But Kamboj actually denied saying this. It's possible that suitcase was smuggled on to the baggage container without being x-rayed.

However, as a device to be used by a suicide bomber, or given to an innocent mule to carry aboard, the Khreesat devices wouldn't really fly, by this reading of the matter. Any plan that involved the bag going through x-ray would be liable to be scuppered by the x-ray showing the barometer. And if that's spotted, is the time-delay really going to save the day? If a bag with a suspect barometer in it doesn't explode in the depressurisation chamber, is it not then just going to be hand-searched? Would it really be practical to conceal such a device, barometer and all, in such a way as to foil a suspicious hand-search after the barometer had already been spotted on x-ray? (Abu Talb did say in court that there was a limit to how much Semtex he could use, because of the danger it could be "seen" - at a hand-search?)

It's a pity that the possibility of this being a Khreesat device was never tested in court. If it had been, presumably we'd have a much clearer idea of the rationale for these things, and what was and wasn't possible when deploying them.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

8th December 2009, 04:24 AM

Jibril tried to make out that the devices weren't necessarily intended for use on aircraft, and spoke about getting them on board vehicles that would subsequently be driven to mountaintop Israeli military bases. As David ben Aryeah said, and how many military bases does Israel have that are situated at over 8,000 feet? Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

Oh things have been made quite easy for Mr. Jibril on this. Even in that Conspiracy Files video he comes off as if he's been accused by Juval Aviv and nothing else, and can just toss it all off. "Ridiculous. Airplanes? Phhhh."

Easiest million ever is what that is.

Caustic Logic

8th December 2009, 04:31 AM

If the barometer is really so distinctive on x-ray, it would imply that the Khreesat devices either relied on the x-ray operators being asleep at the wheel (maybe not all that unlikely, but I'd hardly want to bank on it), or on some way of circumventing the x-ray.

The latter, definitely. These guys just use basic logic. They're not stupid, they don't take chances and get fancy. This is the easiest best way, it's all they could do anyway after the bust. All you need is keep it out of the X-rays. Some well-aimed money could do that easy enough. Mrs. Kamboj or Bedford or anyone in such a position could have been co-opted, thinking it was something else. I wouldn't really trust the words coming out of that possible conduit area too completely.

Dan O.

8th December 2009, 08:19 AM

It's a bang-on fit. It's just that some of the sources add together the delay to get to the trigger altitude (about 7 minutes) and the delay on the ice-cube (about 30 minutes) when describing the effect. Total time from take-off to explosion something like 35 to 45 minutes, but made up of the two components. The actual delay on the ice-cubes was 30 minutes.

Unless you can find an authoritative source that says different.

Rolfe.

How about the trial testimony on day 71: (pg 8753)
The delay time in the electronic component, on account of the relatively simple construction of the circuit, has considerable range of variation. Delay times were measured, ranging between 35 minutes and 45 minutes.

Rolfe

8th December 2009, 08:45 AM

So that would be the actual delay time then, by that wording? That's not quite consitent with what I was reading, but the various sources (almost all secondary) are rather unclear.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

8th December 2009, 11:22 PM

The first tests Gobel did on the Khreesat timers may have been shortly after the "Autumn Leaves" roundup in October 1988. That's when he got the 40-45 minute time delay. Most of his work however was conducted after Lockerbie and then he was specifically given the relevant data including the 7 minutes to reach the trigger pressure and the final flight time for PA103. Gobel was asked to evaluate if the Khreesat device would be consistent with the timing of PA103. Instead of using the known times he measured earlier, he estimated the time that would result based on reconstruction of another timer that was blown apart by a water cannon and this is where he arrived at 30 to 35 minutes.

A very good description of the "Ice-cube" timers is given by Orkin of the CIA at the end of Day 71:The basic time delay is obtained by charging the capacitor C1 through resistor R1. When the voltage across C1 becomes great enough, about six-tenths of a volt, the transistor turns on. This fires the silicon-controlled rectifier and applies battery voltage across the two output leads.

Repeated tests for timer number 1 showed a maximum time of 54.5 minutes and minimum time achieved of 23.6 minutes. Wider variations were found as the temperatures were varied.

The "spot on" times for these devices is indeed quite large. This variation was for a single device. Variations between devices will be much larger as it will be largely dependent on the leakage of the capacitor and the "turn on" voltage of the transistor.

Rolfe

9th December 2009, 02:48 PM

I was going by what Paul Foot said, and while he reported the 7 minutes to reach altitude bit, he only reported the final conclusion that the 38 minute detonation was entirely consistent with a Khreesat-type device.

I wonder why they didn't just use digital timers like the MST-13 anyway? Given the size of the target offered by the 4-5 hours of an Atlantic crossing, and the small probability of such a plane being significantly early, I'd have thought it would be the obvious solution. Especially if the barometer was so obvious on x-ray. Could they not get hold of such timers easily, or what?

But then I'd expect the plane to blow up about 6 or 7 hours after its scheduled take-off time.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

9th December 2009, 09:33 PM

I'd have to ask why they thought they needed to blow up planes in the first place. Will any of them say that they or their families are better off today than they were before?

The capacitor based timers are very easy to construct and possibly quite reliable if you just need 20-30 minutes to get away from the scene after setting a charge. There are no mechanical contacts to false close if the device is dropped or handled rough. A single switch to turn it on or turn it off and reset makes operation easy to pass on to the lower ranks and being potted in a solid block of epoxy makes the unit virtually indestructible. The only identifying component is possibly the circuit board and that isn't strictly necessary except to make it easier to manufacture several at once. They would have been useful in land based operations long before they were used to target planes so it may have just been a case of using what they were familiar with.

What makes the digital timer superior? We know that the MST-13 can be programmed for up to 9999 minutes (or 9999 hours). This is plenty of time to inject the device on a feeder flight and set it for several hours into the transatlantic hop. But what if the bombers didn't have the 4 digit model?

With 2 digits you get up to 99 minutes. This is still time to activate the device and check in since the checkin counter only closes 30 minutes before the flight. The other option is to set the timer for hours. 99 hours is just over 4 days. The timer could be set for a desired time and the unit closed up and repackaged in its original box like new. It can then be delivered to a courier who is headed to the states 3 days and 2 or more flights later.

If the terrorist is thinking, they would consider the possibility of delays and set the timer for about an hour before the earliest possible arrival in New York. The shortest time for this flight is 7 hours 25 minutes so a reasonable setting would be 6 1/2 hours into the flight.

But Orkin says in his testimony that the MST-13 timer he examined can detonate up to 6 counts early because the printed circuit board had a bug that wasn't corrected. 6 hours earlier, this flight is over Lockerbie.

Rolfe

10th December 2009, 03:54 AM

As to why they did it, who can fathom the mind of the terrorist? Presumably they hope they and their families (and their homeland) will be better off as a result. As to this specific one though, the thesis that Ayatollah Khomeni paid Jibril about $10 million to down a US civilian airliner (4 days before Christmas) in revenge for the shooting down of the Iranair Airbus on its way to Mecca 4 days before the high point of the Muslim religious calendar has wide support and some evidence to confirm it. I've read some Middle Eastern experts discussing the necessity for revenge in the context of the Middle Eastern mindset, but it's not something I know much about. $10 million is quite an incentive.

Regarding the possible bug in the timer, I need to read more about that. There are a number of theories to explain the detonation happening at the time it did, making it sheer coincidence that it happened in the middle of the 20-minute window where an explosion would be expected with an ice-cube timer loaded at Heathrow.

Coincidences do happen, of course. It's the sheer number of coincidences surrounding this story that's so hard to take. The trick is figuring which are genuine happenstance and which aren't, and I don't think we're there yet!

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

10th December 2009, 05:33 AM

But Orkin says in his testimony that the MST-13 timer he examined can detonate up to 6 counts early because the printed circuit board had a bug that wasn't corrected. 6 hours earlier, this flight is over Lockerbie.

Okay, interesting... someone finally spinning plausible cover stories? There is an interesting section on Thuring's epic fails making the MST-13, with silver lines all over to bridge design errors or something. This COULD work towards the use of the MST-13, what seems to be a visually super-defective, hopefully-tested and-known-fail timer, aiming for an ocean disposal but - ooops - problem.

On the other hand, we still have (evidence I haven't obsessed over yet) linking Iran to the PFLPGC and the (same) linking them to Khreesat bombs and this route so perfectly mirrors one atrocity with another in a properly swift counter-punch manner. Revenge served, cold, no good. That's Daffy Duckaddaffy - ie fiction - thinking. Rolfe put it well above. I'm only now getting the Christmas connection. It's so obvious.

One question in fact raised by the official story that no one's addressed, is the highly unusual circumstance by which friggin IRAN just forgave us for *accidntally* shooting down their airliner full of 290 people? At the same time we were helping Iraq drive them to full surrender? (it worked). UN inquiry into what the hell happened there, behind closed doors where they said "oh, that's cool."

Maybe Daffy Duckaddaffy's coincidental random overblown poorly done retaliation for an older slight, just be accidentally creating what they wanted the Americans to feel, actually sufficed? Yeah, I guess that'd have to be the answer.

Sorry, just thinking aloud again.

Caustic Logic

13th December 2009, 03:08 AM

shooting down of the Iranair Airbus on its way to Mecca 4 days before the high point of the Muslim religious calendar

Actually I've been unable to find any support for this. Some sources say many were en route for the Hajj, but this seems to happen, if at any one time, in November. Do you have a link handy for that? It makes a great point if it pans out.

commandlinegamer

6th January 2010, 05:13 AM

Newsnight investigation of the timer fragment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm

From the article

We carried out 20 tests, we didn't carry out 100 or 1,000, but in those 20 tests we found absolutely nothing at all - so I found it highly improbable that you would find anything like that, particularly at 10,000 feet when bits are dropping into long wet grass over hundreds of miles.

Caustic Logic

6th January 2010, 06:13 AM

CLG, wow! Thanks. That's BBC. This will raise serious questions. I just posted this, and it's suddenly more relevant - THE ONE (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/number-one-on-top.html) (stiill right-brain and not proof of anything but what are the chances, considering it seems planted ten other ways as well?)

Again, wow. This can't help but hurt some certainties even across the pond. Seriously - Americans, in government even, might actually finally express the slightest inkling there's a potential problem here. Keep an eye out.
:popcorn1

Dan O.

6th January 2010, 07:57 AM

Also from some versions of the article:
Wyatt conducted 20 separate test explosions on identically mocked up suitcases

This suggests that there may be something Wyatt didn't try. In each test he probably stuck the detonator deep into the Semtex where it would stand out like a sore thumb on an X-ray.

Architect

6th January 2010, 10:18 AM

Does it? Are you sure that this is the only thing it suggests?

Caustic Logic

6th January 2010, 04:44 PM

It might be early to second-guess the guy. So far it's been postponed from tonight to tomorrow. It's night there already (UK) so I guess we'll already know that.

For those outside the UK, it won't be possible to view this, will it? I'd like to comment more on the significance of this, but I'd rather wait until it's been aired.

ETA: Patrick Haseldine says it was aired. ?? The website confirms I can't watch it. Can anyone else record the audio or take relevant screen caps to share with me? Or transcribe cool parts?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight

Caustic Logic

7th January 2010, 03:20 AM

Okay, I haven't seen the show or anything besides some commentary and the existing articles. Prof. Black sums it up:
The programme concentrates on the famous fragment of circuit board that supposedly came from a MST-13 timer, supplied by MEBO principally to Libya.

The programme mentions the concerns that often have been expressed about the provenance of the fragment, about its identification, about the forensic scientific processes to which it was (or was not) subjected and about deficiencies in the record keeping relating to it. But by far the most important revelation in the programme is the evidence of experiments conducted by top explosives expert, Dr John Wyatt. In twenty controlled explosions of suitcases packed as the Lockerbie one was alleged to have been, no such fragment of timer circuit board ever survived. According to Dr Wyatt, the contention that such a fragment survived the Pan Am 103 explosion at 31,000 feet is simply "unbelievable".

So as I thought, the physical study by Dr. Wyatt, a weapons expert employed by the UN, is what's really new. I wonder if this study was done in study fashion, with a report, aside from what went into the video. I'd really like to see how the tests were set up before deciding the exact relevance.

But in essence, he set up 20 replications of the official bomb situation - explosives amount, radio model, timer simulation, maybe? Same or similar suitcase, stuffed with some clothing simulations (the same plaid pattern on those trousers, or a different one?). In some setting, with its effects. 20 times. Exactly repeated or slight variations? They were blown up. Not one piece of circuit board like PT/35(b) was found after ANY of the 20 tests. Right? (not of that size? any size at all? Pure vapor?)

Then we have Dr. Hayes and Mr. Feraday finding one of readable size on the first try in Scotland, or rather at a RARDE lab. No one could decipher that thumbnail-sized double-underlined numeral uno that held the fate of a nation on its little square shoulders, until Mr. Thurman and Mr. "Orkin" identified it using CIA "here's stuff from Libya" files. Dr. Wyatt tries 20 times and decides "I do find it quite extraordinary and I think highly improbable and most unlikely that you would find a fragment like that - it is unbelievable."

Earlier in the thread we discussed this, with Longtabber PE insisting nothing from so close to the explosion (one pound semtex, inches away within a Bombeat radio case) would survive. I only disagreed with being certain, and did entertain some scenarios it could survive. But in retrospect, that's one area he was probably right. It was not swabbed. It always did look to me less "high-explosives-obliterated" and more "cut off with hacksaw, burnt, and run-over in a gravel driveway, or slightly blown up with a firecracker."
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_blowup.jpg
Seriously, that's it, their number one clue, due to Libyan bad timing, and a miraculous quirk, and to boot lady luck gives up the thumbs-up with the ol' number one. (it's actually displayed upside down here, and usually).

Rolfe

7th January 2010, 05:43 AM

This suggests that there may be something Wyatt didn't try. In each test he probably stuck the detonator deep into the Semtex where it would stand out like a sore thumb on an X-ray.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. The circumstantial evidence suggesting that fragment was planted is enormous.

It really shouldn't have survived - many people agree on that.
The officer countersigning the evidence bag was someone who managed to wangle a nice cosy desk job for the duration of the search, and seldom if ever went out searching. He was also very cavalier with the provenance and labelling of recovered items.
The label on the evidence bag was painstakingly altered to read "debris" instead of "cloth", when SOP (and simple convenience) dictated any change should be made by scoring out the original text.
The renumbering of pages in Hayes's notes from 12th May 1989 makes it look as if the page describing the fragment was added retrospectively.
Why Hayes drew and described the fragments of paper in the same bag in detail, but simply noted "fragment of green coloured circuit board" without further comment or drawing it to anyone's attention at the time is completely obscure.
Feraday's memo of September is rather odd, indicating urgency and hurried photography, considering that the fragment had been first noticed in May and doesn't surface again in the narrative until January 1990.
Thurman's involvement is strange, in that he seems to have known what it was almost as soon as he saw it in June 1990, and went straight to the CIA guy who had the comparator board which identified it. And yet in one version of his narrative he describes spending weeks comparing hundreds of circuit boards to get a match.
And so on. And that's not even mentioning Edwin Bollier's stories about green and brown boards, and later substitution within the evidence chain, which I think are disinfo to be honest.

If this was a detective story, that would be seen as serious overkill if the author wanted to imply the fragment was planted evidence.

And yet, I can't figure out a coherent narrative of when or how the fragment could have been introduced into the chain of evidence retrospectively. It gets even worse when you try to figure out the motive for doing it, and who might have been giving the orders. (OK, Cannistraro and Thurman, but it's not that easy.) As a result, I have to say I remain agnostic about the timer fragment. I want it to have been planted because the case starts to make sense in many different ways if it was, but I can't convince myself beyond reasonable doubt.

If it was indeed wholly impossible for it to have survived the explosion, then it must be either a monumental mistake founded on a coincidence, or it was fabricated. However, I remain open to the possibility that it was simply very unlikely that it would have survived, but by some fluke it did. Wyatt's reconstruction might simply have been off in one small detail of positioning.

And if so, we have to add that to the other flukes that litter this case.

The tiny fragment, that shouldn't have survived at all, fell from 30,000 feet, on to the Newcastleton Forest for God's sake (think about the canopy, and the stuff that was never recovered from there), in the middle of winter in foul weather, and yet it was found.
Although the baggage records from Frankfurt were mysteriously and inexplicably destroyed, Bogomira Erac just happened to preserve the one small snippet of information that apparently showed an unaccompanied bag arriving from Luqa and heading for PA103A.
Although sources of untraceable clothes abound, the bombers chose to make a special purchase in a small shop from a shopkeeper with a quite remarkably good memory for details and faces (despite being "a sandwich short of a picnic") who recalled the whole thing nine months later.
Although using an MST-13 timer gave the capability for virtually ensuring the explosion would happen over the Atlantic so that almost no evidence would be recoverable, the plane actually blew up very early in its flight while still over land.
As I said, I usually have a high tolerance for coincidences. Ask any homoeopath. But this lot is doing my head in.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

7th January 2010, 05:07 PM

Well-put, Rolfe. Might I also add the company this came from. Mebo, and their strange behavior before, during, and after the investigatiion. Bollier was the first we know of to implcate Libya, within a few weeks of the bombing, and the case finally did go that way and cozied up to him and Mr. Meister for clues. Which they got. A ttime handded back with PA103's detonation time set on it, a missing suitcase that had been left in Bollier's office, a blue babygro they kept trying to get him to carry around... and later the fragment swap stories, the brown (but not color brown) prototyp, etc.

On the program, the BBC did post a version I could watch, and it was quite a good show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm
I kept the audio for reference in case it's pulled quick, but nothing so amazing to share here. The tests look pretty good (took screen caps too) - radio in box, clothes, same model suitcase. 19 tests done indoors, one outside in a cargo container (numbers from Times story below). He says he was surprised at how nothing recognizable resulted.

New articles on the subject:
The Times (Malta) (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100107/local/lockerbie-malta-link-blasted-away)
The Firm (http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/1837/Crown_Office_swipes_at_BBC_over_Lockerbie_claims,_ but_dodges_key_explosives_issue_.html)

Rolfe

7th January 2010, 05:31 PM

The thing that annoyed me a little about the BBC item was in fact its concentration on the timer (and its assertion that this was "a BBC investigation" when it was all old news bar the Wyatt stuff, which I presume was not instigated by the BBC). I suppose all the anomalies (and nobody even mentioned the renumbered pages!) make for a good story.

However, the timer fragment could be as genuine as gold bullion, and still Megrahi isn't implicated. All the timer fragment does is point rather vaguely towards Libya. Even then, Libya supplied armaments to many terrorist groups, so it doesn't even prove Libya carried out the bombing. And it certainly doesn't prove Megrahi had anything to do with it. Megrahi is Libyan, and was a JSO officer, and it's not that surprising he had dealings with Bollier. There's no evidence he ever had an MST-13 timer in his possession, or any explosives, or a Toshiba radio or a Samsonite suitcase either for that matter. Libya itself is the connection between Megrahi and Bollier, and Megrahi is only implicated in that respect by the fact that he's Libyan.

Megrahi was implicated partly by Gauci's identification, and partly by the combination of the Erac printout and his being at Luqa on the critical morning. These two very tenuous pieces of evidence were allowed to become synergistic in the minds of the judges when they should not have been. The bomb must have gone on at Luqa because Megrahi was there and he bought the clothes, even though the Erac printout was hardly conclusive and all the rest of the evidence argued against it. It must have been Megrahi whom Gauci saw, because he was at Luqa that morning and the Erac printout says the bomb came from there....

Really, it's the very ordinarily unmysterious shakiness of the identification evidence, and the completely unwarranted suppositions about what happened at Luqa that morning, that undermine the case against Megrahi in person, not the positively supernatural goings-on with the timer. [OK, OK, when I think about the surreal vision of a terrorist buying clothes to pack a bomb suitcase from Gauci, and the positively bizarre disappearance of the Frankfurt baggage records, maybe not as ordinary and unmysterious as all that. But let it pass for now.]

If Megrahi really did buy those clothes, and the bomb really did travel unaccompanied on KM180, then he's guilty, even if the bloody thing didn't have an MST-13 timer in it at all. Conversely, the timer fragment could be completely genuine, and still turn out to be something Khreesat managed to get his mitts on to add some unspecified complication to his toys. But I suppose that's too complicated for general consumption.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

7th January 2010, 07:44 PM

GlennB

8th January 2010, 12:32 AM

I call Dr Wyatt a complete fraud on the basis that if his tests were accurate that would confirm what Longtabbor was saying and that can't be right. :mad:

I remember from before even getting involved in this thread seeing a show of Myth Busters or Brainiacs where they blew something up with C4 and later found part of the detonator. The Explosives expert said that this was common. I'd like to see independent sources either way that don't have a stake in Lockerbie to settle this issue. I'm not going to buy the results of a test that may have been conducted to prove a point without seeing the full details of the test.

One point that I've been trying to express all along is that it is possible and perhaps even desirable to design the charge for a shaped explosion. One contention is whether a small symmetrical explosion is enough to rupture the skin of the aircraft from within the baggage container. What I have yet to see is any discussion on how this changes if the charge is shaped so that it directs the explosion in the direction of the nearest aircraft wall. In such a scenario, the circuit board would be away from the primary direction of the explosion so as not to impede the blast and therefore more likely for pieces to survive. The bomber would be taking a chance that he can predict the loading strategy or have an inside man placing the bomb bag in the container.

At first sight it seems unlikely that this could be arranged.

Firstly, 'shaped charges' are specifically designed and built, not improvised and shoved into rather thin radio cassette players. They require a dense liner to contain and direct the blast. And linear shaped charges - as used in CD - actually cut steel by being strapped to the target and projecting a copper 'V'-shaped slug in the desired direction. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge)

And, even if such a thing could be packed in a a radio-cassette player, it would require the suitcase to be oriented in a known direction within the baggage container, and the baggage container also to be correctly oriented. I'm not saying this could not be done, but it would seem to require very specific action indeed during loading. Slipping a crooked baggage-handler some money for putting a suitcase of drugs on the plane sounds plausible enough, but the minute you tell him that the bag absolutely must be aligned in a certain direction then only a total idiot wouldn't put 2+2 together, I'd have thought.

Caustic Logic

8th January 2010, 02:18 AM

I'm no expert, but everything GlennB says makes sense and is about what I'd say to such a notion (except I didn't know how shaped charges work). Unless you can precisely control its placement, it could turn the wrong way, blow the hell out of some luggage and leave the plane unharmed. No, omnidirectional and with plenty of punch is your only bet.
Might look like this, in a hard-side samsonite suitcase, in the dark and in slow-motion. that bright stuff in the middle a bit bigger than a Bombeat radio - is that white hot pure energy?
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Newsnight_Wyatt_blast_dark.jpg

And then of course, one of those directions is to the (semtex pat's) left. I couldn't read the labels on this official photo. Does anyone disagree with these lablings? What's that labeled at upper right?
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Toshiba_RT-SF16_labeled.jpg
The cassette assemply obviously had to go, and the timer looks to be about 1.5 inches from the explosive. How much energy would still remain unused that far out from the epicenter? What is there between to shield them? Not much it seems. Wyatt's tests just confirm what's common sense, I suppose.

Ambrosia

8th January 2010, 02:21 AM

However, the timer fragment could be as genuine as gold bullion, and still Megrahi isn't implicated. [...] Megrahi is only implicated in that respect by the fact that he's Libyan.

Not quite. Megrahi rented office space from Bollier and the two were acquainted.

I think the Newsnight piece adds one more item to the weight of evidence that suggests the MST-13 fragment was planted and did not come from PA103.

There are conflicting stories about it's discovery, and the chain of custody of this fragment after it's discovery is suspect.

It wasn't tested correctly, and was handled by unqualified personnel with a history of sexing up evidence.

It's claimed that this timer fragment can ONLY point to Libya, and thats not true either.

It's suggested by scientific tests that no piece of detonator should have survived the initial blast.

Lumpert claims to have given the very fragment to investigators.

I'm giving Wyatt the benefit of the doubt until we can see how his tests were done and evaluate them more fully, he's a UN explosives expert, not some crackpot in a shed, and ought to know what he's doing.

I'd like to see some detail of the forensic tests carried out by the US on which they based their conclusions that the charred clothes and bits of suitcase et al were consistent with the detonation of about 450g of semtex packed in a radio inside a suitcase.

Caustic Logic

8th January 2010, 02:43 AM

dbl post

Caustic Logic

8th January 2010, 02:45 AM

I'm giving Wyatt the benefit of the doubt until we can see how his tests were done and evaluate them more fully, he's a UN explosives expert, not some crackpot in a shed, and ought to know what he's doing.

I'd like to see some detail of the forensic tests carried out by the US on which they based their conclusions that the charred clothes and bits of suitcase et al were consistent with the detonation of about 450g of semtex packed in a radio inside a suitcase.

Wyatt gives the dose in his own tests, approximately: “I must admit, since the quantity of explosives we were using was only three or four hundred grams, I thought there were going to be some remnants of the radio left. But it – it – (chuckling) it just totally disintegrated. I mean really just went into tiny tiny bits."

The Crown office response to this story is ridiculous in general, but it does cite existing tests.
In fact, extensive explosives tests were carried out in the United States in 1989, some time before the fragment PT35 was extracted by the forensic experts, as part of the Lockerbie investigation. The purpose of these tests was:
to estimate the amount and location of the explosives used on PA103;
- to establish the extent of damage to the improvised explosive device ( IED ), the adjacent suitcases and their contents; and
- to ascertain what parts of the IED and its contents it was possible to recover and identify.

After a number of test explosions a detailed search was made and circuit board fragments, radio cassette casing and parts, fragments of instruction manual, the suitcase and clothing were all recovered in a condition which was consistent with the debris recovered in relation to the Lockerbie disaster.

That's indeed a different result. It would be ultimo to see the documentation for both, compared and critiqued in an impartial definitive showdown. I half-suspect the very tests carried out in 89 yielded VERY consistent results with what was found in Scotland - perhaps done using too small an amount or the wrong type explosive, but with nicely Libya-themed items (MST-13s, RT-SF16 radios, Maltese clothes, etc). I have no direct evidence for that, so don't ask.

Rolfe

8th January 2010, 03:13 AM

Not quite. Megrahi rented office space from Bollier and the two were acquainted.

Yes, I realise that. I was being over-simplistic.

Megrahi was one of the Libyan officials who dealt with Bollier and MEBO. There were certainly others. I'm not sure if he rented the office from Bollier or it was simply in the same building. He apparently expressed an interest in taking a stake in MEBO at one point.

However, Megrahi doesn't seem to be the conduit between Bollier and Libya for the MST-13 timers. There's no evidence of his having handled the timers or dealt with them or anything like that. The two connections seem separate - on the one hand Megrahi dealt with MEBO, and on the other hand MEBO supplied MST-13 timers to Libya.

It's not that close a connection. Nobody is suggesting that Megrahi got the MST-13 timer he's supposed to have put in the bomb directly from Bollier, it's supposed to have been one of the 20 (or so) supplied as a consignment to Libya, of which several were picked up in different places - Togo for example.

So I'm not really that impressed by Megrahi's acquaintance with Bollier as being strong evidence of anything much, to be honest.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

8th January 2010, 03:39 AM

I half-suspect the very tests carried out in 89 yielded VERY consistent results with what was found in Scotland - perhaps done using too small an amount or the wrong type explosive, but with nicely Libya-themed items (MST-13s, RT-SF16 radios, Maltese clothes, etc). I have no direct evidence for that, so don't ask.

What? Is that not completely circular logic. Or gibberish at least.

If they found something in Scotland, then whatever explosion they used for the test in 1989, if it produced the same kinds of fragments, is likely to be a similar explosion. But if they found fragments of cloth and timer in Scotland why are they trying to fake them?
If they didn't find anything in Scotland, then whatever their tests produced, it couldn't match what they didn't find.
If what you mean is that the things 'found' in Scotland are those made in the 1989 tests, then how can you say they used too small an amount or the wrong type of explosive?

For what it's worth, I haven't posted in these threads for ages, although I've still been following them because I've seen nothing to change my position. I agree with Rolfe's summary above that the timer fragment doesn't particularly implicate Megrahi, and I don't think you can really prove a negative, even if it's a 1 in 1000 chance that the fragments survived, they clearly did QED.

Finally the one thing nobody has addressed satisfactorily is who would think that planting a 1cm2 fragment of PCB would be the best way of implicating Libya in the Lockerbie bomb? I know the espionage industry contains some reality challenged individuals like David Shayler but I still can't see the CIA, FBI, MI6 etc all getting together in a big meeting and deciding that this was the way to irrefutably pin the blame on Libya.

Ambrosia

8th January 2010, 04:05 AM

even if it's a 1 in 1000 chance that the fragments survived, they clearly did QED.

The fragment of MST-13 did not clearly survive an explosion.

There is NO EVIDENCE that that fragment was ever in any explosion at all.

It wasn't tested for explosives residue until much later on, and none was found.

As far as I am aware there is no forensic analysis anywhere that shows the MST-13 fragment was damaged by an explosion.

Finally the one thing nobody has addressed satisfactorily is who would think that planting a 1cm2 fragment of PCB would be the best way of implicating Libya in the Lockerbie bomb?

Assuming that someone wants to plant evidence to frame Libya, why do they need to find the "best" way of doing that.

The timer fragment very clearly pointed to Libya, and if it was fabricated and planted then whoever did so would have known it pointed to Libya.

Guybrush Threepwood

8th January 2010, 04:16 AM

There is NO EVIDENCE that that fragment was ever in any explosion at all.

It wasn't tested for explosives residue until much later on, and none was found.

As far as I am aware there is no forensic analysis anywhere that shows the MST-13 fragment was damaged by an explosion.

Using all caps doesn't make an incorrect statement right. There is a large quantity of evidence that the fragment was in an explosion. Where it was found, what it was found with, the damage to it, etc etc.

It may not be enough evidence to convince you, it may not be irrefutable proof, but it is evidence.
I agree there is no forensic evidence of explosive residue.

Assuming that someone wants to plant evidence to frame Libya, why do they need to find the "best" way of doing that.

The timer fragment very clearly pointed to Libya, and if it was fabricated and planted then whoever did so would have known it pointed to Libya.Assuming someone wants to frame Libya why would they do it in a half assed way?

The fragment clearly has some kind of vague connection to Libya, that's about it. It has a much better connection to Switzerland.

Ambrosia

8th January 2010, 04:50 AM

Using all caps doesn't make an incorrect statement right. There is a large quantity of evidence that the fragment was in an explosion. Where it was found, what it was found with, the damage to it, etc etc.

It was found in May 1989 by Dr Hayes who discovered it while closely examining charred cloth debris picked up at the scene by DC Gilchrist and DC Mc Colm.

OR

It was found by two volunteer searchers not wrapped in any cloth 6 weeks after the disaster.

OR

It was given to investgators by Ulrich Lumpert and was never found at the scene of the crash at all.

The fragment does not show any damage to it (pitting/heat damage) that would be consistant with an explosion as far as I know.

What large quantity of evidence is there to say it was at one point in an explosion?? I can't find any.

What makes the planting of the fragment "half assed" It remains the only piece of physical evidence remaining of the IED. It single handedly ruled out Khreesat as the bombmaker and pointed away from the PFLP-GC towards Libya.

Caustic Logic

8th January 2010, 04:56 AM

What? Is that not completely circular logic. Or gibberish at least.

If they found something in Scotland, then whatever explosion they used for the test in 1989, if it produced the same kinds of fragments, is likely to be a similar explosion.

I was being a little weird and implying the tests in 89 were THE SOURCE of the fragments found in Scotland. The planted ones. Clothes, radio, timer, all fake. It does make a certain sense and I can see it. But I'm not really implying or arguing the idea.

The timer chunk however is especially fake. I'm especially calling it out for the above cited reasons and foremost for allegedly being found at all and on the ground at that (when it's a timer).

But if they found fragments of cloth and timer in Scotland why are they trying to fake them?
If they didn't find anything in Scotland, then whatever their tests produced, it couldn't match what they didn't find.

Then these would answer each other.

If what you mean is that the things 'found' in Scotland are those made in the 1989 tests, then how can you say they used too small an amount or the wrong type of explosive?

Bingo, or tossing it out there anyhoo. What I mean is IF both of these are true
- Wyatt's test came close to replicating what the FAI etc. decided the bomb was, and it left no residual chunks like this in 20 tries, and
- The FBI etc/ tests in 1989 DID consistently leave chunks that large, well, some variable has to be set up different, right?

For what it's worth, I haven't posted in these threads for ages, although I've still been following them because I've seen nothing to change my position. I agree with Rolfe's summary above that the timer fragment doesn't particularly implicate Megrahi, and I don't think you can really prove a negative, even if it's a 1 in 1000 chance that the fragments survived, they clearly did QED.

No, I just can't see anything asides RARDE scientists affirming they found it in the evidence, and no one else admitting they stuffed it there. Otherwise, it indeed screams plant, didn't survive nothin' except whatever weak simulated blow-up it might have been subjected to.

Finally the one thing nobody has addressed satisfactorily is who would think that planting a 1cm2 fragment of PCB would be the best way of implicating Libya in the Lockerbie bomb?

Anybody who knows this is a timer linkable to Libya, that picked the most recognizable part, and apparently failed to make the plant forensically feasible. From there it's just the will to do it, and it getting done discretely.

I know the espionage industry contains some reality challenged individuals like David Shayler but I still can't see the CIA, FBI, MI6 etc all getting together in a big meeting and deciding that this was the way to irrefutably pin the blame on Libya.

True, I'd suspect a smaller meeting. Tighter Opsec that way. Maybe just Thurman and "Orkin" and an MST-13, then Thurman and some evidence, then simply "evidence-led investigation." So long as no one raises any questions and screws it up... Clearly it was planted, so someone did something to that effect at some point, just who is unprovable. ;)

Guybrush Threepwood

8th January 2010, 06:06 AM

Caustic Logic

8th January 2010, 06:12 AM

Oh my. Frank Duggan responds to the show, in an e-mail to Tom Thurman.
Tom - that BBC video is rubbish. It must gall you to have your own experience and background deliberately misstated, but worse, to have the whole investigation continually called into question by others with unsupported theories. I would hope that there would be one reporter in the UK who would understand that the piece of timer in question, as well as other pieces of evidence, were not destroyed because the plane was not blown up! It was torn apart, and even pieces of paper that were in that suitcase were recovered. Perhaps we can remind them what happens when a pinhole is made in a balloon, and that the relatively small explosive charge created a gas shockwave penetrating the skin of the plane and blowing off the front nose portion.

Perhaps I am asking too much.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/reaction-to-newsnight-programme.html

Is a balloon a good metaphor? Is the whole plane a good comparison for something 1.5 inches from the epicenter? And that 1.5 inches being mostly air, not lead? Before piercing the hull, before rupturing the container, before obliterating the suitcase, before vaporizing the clothes and radio case, all that stuff was doing for a nano-second was vaporizing and weaponizing the stuff inside the case. And a chunk of that timer with an upside-down one, a cm square, survives?

Possible doesn't count, it says nothing. How likely? Anyone else? What basis is there for any benefit of the doubt or presumption that 'whatever the odds, it happened?'

Eh, Neither me nor frank is a forensics expert obviously, but at least my way of thinking makes sense to me.

Ambrosia

8th January 2010, 08:43 AM

My understanding of this is that the null hypothesis H0 is that there was no conspiracy, all the evidence collected was collected as described in the various documents.

In order to establish a conspiracy you need to find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this is incorrect, so far I can't see that this has been done.

Too many people seem to regard H0 as 'There was a conspiracy' and are merely trying to figure out how it was done.

For the record I believe that the timer fragment was planted and a case fitted up around Fhimah and Megrahi based on intel that US intelligence knew to be bogus.

I find that there is reasonable doubt regarding the provenance of the MST-13 timer fragment. DC Gilchrist whom the trial judges believed to the person that found the charred shirt that the fragment was later found in was noted to give evasive and confusing testimony. People don't do that, particularly police officers who are trained to give evidence in a courtroom, unless they are hiding something.

There's a whole slew of errors which the trial put down to sloppy work regarding this fragment.

Now there is forensic evidence from an accredited explosives expert to suggest that no trace of the timer ought to even exist.

There is a motive for shifting the blame, namely the political situation in the Gulf. It's well within the means of various intelligence people to slip a fragment of something into as yet unexamined evidence in storage at Dextar, then to let the investigation take it's course, perhaps nudging people in the right direction if they can't ID the source of the circuit board fragment.

I think that all things considered that a planted fragment makes more sense given all the evidence that I've read, than the official version does.

I think that while H0 does explain everything, it stretches credibility too far.

Rolfe

8th January 2010, 09:14 AM

I think that entire evidence bag is extraordinarily convenient, shall we say. It contains the charred collar of a shirt of a brand known to be on sale in Tony Gauci's shop, and embedded in that (according to Hayes) there were several fragments of black plastic and a fragment of metal consistent with these being part of the Toshiba radio, and a compacted chunk of paper which turned out to be a part of the Toshiba's manual, and the timer fragment. Such a collection of evidence all in the one package is very very tidy. There's nothing else quite like it in the evidence trail.

And yet it is this package that is subject to all the anomalies and provenance difficulties the judges remarked on. They specifically commented what a pity it was that this item hadn't been given the same meticulous attention the rest of the evidence received.

First, nobody seems quite sure where it was found. This could just be poor communication, but the latest is a field in Newcastleton. Not the forest (with all the problems of stuff caught in the canopy which is highlighted in The Maltese Double Cross, but make no mistake a lot of stuff did get lost in the squillions of acres of forest under the debris trail), and certainly not the Kielder Forest, which is what a lot of the commentaries state.

In addition, who found it and when seems to have been unclear in the early years of the investigation. I'm not sure of the details of this, but de Braeckeleer gives a number of alternative stories including a man walking his dog, and a courting couple. Paul Foot's account also implies this was a bit unclear. I'm not sure exactly when it crystallised out that Gilchrist and McColm found it on 13th January during a routine fingertip search.

This could all just be Chinese Whispers, but it hasn't been explained as far as I know. But given the apparently clear evidence label with the signatures and date on it, why would there have been any ambiguity at all? I'd very much like to know if the alternative stories are just sloppy reporting, or if the "Gilchrist and McColm on 13th January in a field at Newcastleton" version really was a latecomer to the narrative.

Then we have the alterations on the evidence bag label (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/995/995-1.png). It's not clear why anyone would have done that, but there's a lot about this that isn't clear. "Cloth" changed to "debris", not by scoring out and clearly altering, or even rubbing out, but by reshaping the letters. That alteration took time and thought, to make it as near-unnoticeable as it is. Why? Why take the time to do that, when SOP would have been just to score out? (And again, since the debris was apparently buried within the cloth and only came to light when Hayes explored the burnt penetration holes in the collar, why?)

I would say also that that evidence label must have been one of the ones written up retrospectively "back at base", as many if not most of them were, because it's not nearly ratty enough for something written out in the open in January in Scotland. Trust me, I've played that game often. (If the plane had crashed this Christmas, they'd have been completely screwed - the place has been under a couple of feet of snow since 22nd December, they wouldn't even have found the bodies.)

I don't know anything about DC Gilchrist who apparently picked the thing up, except that we're told he was so stressed before giving evidence at Camp Zeist that he couldn't sleep, and that the judges criticised his evidence as "at best confusing, at worst evasive". He claimed not to have noticed the careful alteration of "cloth" to "debris" until it was shown to him.

We do know about DC McColm, thanks to John Crawford (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nh9_p8RjikQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+detective's+tale&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false) (whose book wasn't published until after the trial - 2002 I believe). He paints a picture of someone who was a bit of a shirker, landing a cosy indoor job and seldom if ever actually getting out on the search area. One incident clearly sticks in Crawford's mind, when he (Crawford) left a number of evidence bags overnight, intending to write up the relevant labels in the morning from the notes he'd made in the field. When he returned to do that he found that McColm had already despatched the bags to the central depot, unlabelled, "because they made the place look untidy". Crawford had to go to the central depot and find the bags and write up the labels there. But this is the guy who just happened to be doing one of his rare outdoor forays when the crucial item was handed in to him.

Or looking at it a different way, we know there were attempts to tidy up the evidence and the labelling of the bags as much as two years after the event. Does DC McColm (with his tidy mind and cavalier attitude to actual chain of custody requirements) sound like the sort of person you'd ask to sign a few stray bags that hadn't been properly documented? I'd say yes.

The bag then disappears into the system and next surfaces on 12th May in Kent. Hayes examines the contents on that day, and makes a note of what he found (http://media.photobucket.com/image/hayes%20rarde%20May/chainsawmoth/127-911/page_51.jpg). He pays a lot of attention to the fragments of paper, making drawings and photographs, but for some reason appears not to think the "fragment of green circuit board" worthy of any special note, merely recording its presence. I can't understand why he didn't send out the eurekagrams right then and there, considering the importance of circuit board identification to this investigation. Even if he thought it was just another part of the radio, it seems very surprising that he did nothing to follow it up.

And of course the page where he described that particular bag just happened to be the very page that appears may have been a later interpolation, from the pattern of renumbered pages. Another crazy fluke?

The next documentation relating to the fragment is Feraday's memo to Williamson (http://media.photobucket.com/image/feraday%20williamson/chainsawmoth/127-911/9-15letter.jpg) of 15th September. That isn't as hard to explain as Hayes's behaviour, but it's still odd. Why the big rush and the polaroid photography, for something that's been lying there for over four months and doesn't surface again for another four?

We then believe that Williamson and his colleagues spent the next nine months trying and failing to identify the fragment. Travel to various circuit board manufacturers is documented, and at some point (April 1990?) the board was sawn into two pieces at the Siemens plant in Munich for closer investigation. However, I'm not quite sure how early this documentation starts - I have a feeling it's not until about January 1990.

The Scottish police were (according to Marquise (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BOZszeDjnZgC&pg=PP1&dq=scotbom&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)) very possessive about the fragment and wouldn't let anyone else have a look at it. It wasn't until a conference in June 1990 that Thurman got hold of a photograph of the thing. Marquise reports that Thurman himself either requested the picture or asked to be allowed to take a picture (whether or not the actual fragment was in the USA in the custody of Henderson at this point, or not, is hotly disputed).

Thurman certainly knew who to go to, to identify the thing (Orkin). In one of the interviews he gave, he seems to imply he already knew what it was, and that Orkin could confirm it. Certainly he had the comparison within two days, resulting in Henderson and Feraday, who had flown back to Britain, pretty much having to turn on their heels at Heathrow and go back.

I believe there were two comparison boards, one an actual item (the Togo board?) and a photograph of another one (the Senegal board?). The physical comparison seems to have been a complete timer in its case, and when the case was opened the "1" board was there, and a secondary board on which the maker's name (MEBO) had been scratched out.

Again Thurman in interview indicates that they knew immediately that the semi-legible letters said "MEBO", nevertheless they followed up a number of other possible readings first "just to be sure". (This also seems a bit strange to me.) But finally, by September, they were on Bollier's doorstep. When it all gets even murkier, so I'm going to stop now.

If the evidence bag is wholly genuine, that is a very singular tale.

The possibility that Thurman was involved in fabricating the contents of the bag, which was then passed to Hayes and Feraday for the purposes of producing a credible provenance for it within the chain of evidence going back to the original search period, and that it was then fed to the Scottish police to "investigate", can't be ruled out, to my mind.

Arguing against it are the red-circle photograph (though we don't actually know for sure what the provenance and timing of that picture are supposed to be), and the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy being postulated.

I'm on the fence. I'm far from convinced, but I don't feel it can be definitely discounted.

Rolfe.

commandlinegamer

8th January 2010, 09:17 AM

the plane was not blown up. It was torn apart

Is he trying to imply that 'blowing up' means the aircraft should have vaporized á la a nuclear explosion?,From the diagrams I've seen the timer was adjacent the explosive so to me it seems at least very unlikely for that to have survived and I haven't even seen the Newsnight programme yet.

Rolfe

8th January 2010, 10:39 AM

Hmm.. time to drop out again I think.
My understanding of this is that the null hypothesis H0 is that there was no conspiracy, all the evidence collected was collected as described in the various documents.

In order to establish a conspiracy you need to find evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this is incorrect, so far I can't see that this has been done.

Too many people seem to regard H0 as 'There was a conspiracy' and are merely trying to figure out how it was done.

I do hope you won't stay away! The thread definitely needs people supporting the "there was no conspiracy" line!

My own starting point on this one is, IF the evidence was planted, how could this have been done? When and how being the main questions, but by whom and why and how was the decision to do it arrived at and how many people knew about it, as well.

The list of anomalies surrounding that fragment is ridiculous. Proving that is was planted, from the evidence available to us, is however likely to be impossible, so if you're demanding that then I suspect it isn't going to happen. Finding a coherent narrative by which it could have been planted is an interesting exercise though. If we can't do that, then I think it probably wasn't. That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

Also, regarding the anomalies. You're forgetting the initial one, the 38-minute detonation. No sane terrorist would set an MST-13 timer to detonate at 7pm GMT in the circumstances. Midnight would have been more like it. Even if they didn't care about an explosion over land yielding all these miraculous clues, it's far too big a risk that the plane would still have been on the tarmac at 7pm.

And yet a Khreesat-style barometric timer would have gone off at around 38 minutes after takeoff simply by the nature of the technology. Everything about this case points to a Khreesat-style device loaded at Heathrow, and in that reading, the fragment of MST-13 simply OUGHT NOT TO BE THERE.

All the anomalies in the provenance of the timer fragment are bizarre, but never forget the biggest anomaly, that the time of the crash is not consistent with an MST-13 having set it off.

Rolfe.

Dan O.

8th January 2010, 12:53 PM

At first sight it seems unlikely that this could be arranged.

Firstly, 'shaped charges' are specifically designed and built, not improvised and shoved into rather thin radio cassette players. They require a dense liner to contain and direct the blast. And linear shaped charges - as used in CD - actually cut steel by being strapped to the target and projecting a copper 'V'-shaped slug in the desired direction. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge)

The existence of engineered "shaped charges" does not preclude the charge in an IED being shaped to produce a non-symmetrical explosion. Atomic bombs use shaped charges to trigger the initial fission reactions but that doesn't mean that all shaped charges create atomic blasts.

High explosives do not rely on containment to propagate the shock front. The secondary waves reflecting off the containment walls will be significantly delayed and would not contribute to the primary shock wave propagating through and being enhanced by the explosive material. It is the primary shock impulse that atomizes anything in it's path.

With the detonator plunged into the center of the Semtex, there will be a primary shock wave in all directions (except directly back through the detonator). This is the best way to insure complete atomization of everything around the explosive. If however, the detonator is placed on one edge of the charge, the primary shock wave would propagate only in the direction away from the detonator and anything behind the detonator would be subject only to the much weaker back wave.

And, even if such a thing could be packed in a a radio-cassette player, it would require the suitcase to be oriented in a known direction within the baggage container, and the baggage container also to be correctly oriented.

It would not be inconceivable that a terrorist organization could have an insider handling baggage at the airport. It would be handy to be able to manipulate baggage around the security checks to move supplies for the organization. We do know that at least one of the principle suspects had an airside pass at the time.

GlennB

8th January 2010, 01:11 PM

We do know that at least one of the principle suspects had an airside pass at the time.

Who at Heathrow was a 'principal suspect' ? This is where the case went on PA103

Rolfe

8th January 2010, 03:51 PM

It would not be inconceivable that a terrorist organization could have an insider handling baggage at the airport. It would be handy to be able to manipulate baggage around the security checks to move supplies for the organization. We do know that at least one of the principle suspects had an airside pass at the time.

The positioning of the suitcase has always suggested inside collaboration - possibly among the crew that transferred the baggage from PA103A, as that would be when all the baggage in that container would have had its final positioning, including the interline (and any other) bags loaded in the baggage shed. However, I don't know which "principle suspect" you're talking about. Explain yourself!

Rolfe.

Dan O.

8th January 2010, 11:01 PM

The positioning of the suitcase has always suggested inside collaboration - possibly among the crew that transferred the baggage from PA103A, as that would be when all the baggage in that container would have had its final positioning, including the interline (and any other) bags loaded in the baggage shed. However, I don't know which "principle suspect" you're talking about. Explain yourself!

Fhimah had access through his job at Luqa Airport that was suspected of being a front for LIA. This is just an example of placing an operative in a position where they can do some good for the organization.

Can you rule out having an insider in the baggage handling at Heathrow?

For those who don't know what the baggage container is, see: bottom image here (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/baggagehandling/baggage_makeup.html#carts).

In court testimony, we heard how the container was loaded (similar to the image above but suitcases were of different shapes then). From the forensics on the container, we know that the center of the explosion was near the outboard edge above the angled section. The likelihood of a bag being placed in this most advantageous position by chance is slim. An insider however could have arranged that the bag was placed there and in the proper orientation at the same time.

Ambrosia

9th January 2010, 03:01 AM

Fhimah had access through his job at Luqa Airport that was suspected of being a front for LIA. This is just an example of placing an operative in a position where they can do some good for the organization.

Fhimah was a lying fantasist though.

We do not find it necessary to go into much detail about his
dealings with the CIA in Malta. What emerged from the evidence quite clearly in our
view was that he endeavoured from the outset to give a false impression of his
importance within the JSO in the hope of persuading the CIA that he was a valuable
asset who might in the future be able to provide valuable information. Thus he
initially told them that when he joined the JSO he was in the secret files section, when
in fact he was in vehicle maintenance; he claimed to be related to King Idris, which
he was not; he claimed long-standing friendship with Ezzadin Hinshiri and Said
Rashid, and acquaintance with Abdullah Senussi, the head of operations
administration. We are satisfied that these suggestions were at best grossly
exaggerated, at worst simply untrue. It is also in our view clear that whatever may
have been his original reason for defection, his continued association with the
American authorities was largely motivated by financial considerations. In addition
to receiving a monthly salary, initially $1000 increasing to $1500, he also persuaded
the CIA to pay for sham surgery to his arm with a view to preventing the risk that he
would have to do military service in Libya, and tried to persuade them to finance a car
rental business which at one stage he said he wanted to set up in Malta. Information
provided by a paid informer is always open to the criticism that it may be invented in
order to justify payment, and in our view this is a case where such criticism is more
than usually justified.

Can you rule out having an insider in the baggage handling at Heathrow?

No. In fact there is credible evidence to suggest just that.

Raymond Manly and Philip Radley both gave evidence about a suspicious break in at Heathrow that was discovered 18 hours before PA103 departed at the first appeal hearing.

Odder than that though is the evidence at the original trial of Dave Bedford, a luggage loader employed by Pan Am who was directly involved with checking in interline luggage and x-raying same into luggage container AVE4041.

He testified that he loaded cases into this container, left it for a while and on his return there were 2 new cases in the container, one of which was a samsonite brown hardshell case.

Mr Bedford said that he recalled that on 21 December 1988 he had set aside
container AVE 4041 for baggage for PA103. He recalled also that he had placed a
25
number of suitcases in the container. These cases were placed on their spines in a row
along the back of the container. He said that he had left the interline shed to have a
cup of tea with Mr Walker in the build-up area. On his return, he saw that two cases
had been added to the container. These cases were laid on their sides, with the
handles towards the interior of the container, in the way that he would normally have
loaded them. The arrangement of these cases was shown in a set of photographs
(production 1114) taken in early January 1989 in Mr Bedford’s presence. Mr Bedford
said that he had been told by Mr Kamboj that he had placed the additional two
suitcases in the container during his absence. Mr Kamboj denied that he had placed
any suitcases in the container and denied also that he had told Mr Bedford that he had
done so. Both witnesses were referred to a number of police statements which they
gave at various times and to their evidence at the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the
disaster, and it appears that each of the witnesses has consistently given the same
account throughout. Mr Kamboj eventually conceded in evidence, in a half-hearted
way, that what Mr Bedford said might be correct, but the contradiction is not
resolved. Mr Bedford was a clear and impressive witness and he had no reason to
invent what he said. Mr Kamboj was a less impressive witness, and he might have
been anxious to avoid any possible responsibility. In our view, the evidence of Mr
Bedford should be preferred on this point. The difference between the witnesses is
not, however, material since for the purposes of this case what is important is that
there is evidence that when the container left the interline area it had in it the two
suitcases positioned as described above. Mr Bedford agreed that in statements to
police officers and in evidence at the Fatal Accident Inquiry he had described one of
the two cases lying on their sides as a brown or maroony-brown hardshell Samsonitetype
case. He could not recollect that when he gave evidence in this case, but said
26
that he had told the truth in his statements and earlier evidence. Mr Bedford also said
that he had arranged with Mr Walker that because the incoming flight PA103A was a
little delayed, and to wait for it would take him beyond his normal finishing time, he
should take the container to the baggage build-up area and leave it there, and that he
did so before leaving work soon after 5.00pm. Mr Walker could not recall what had
happened, but accepted that he had told investigating police officers soon after the
event that he recalled seeing Mr Bedford at about 5.00pm and that Mr Bedford had
said that he was going home, but that there was no conversation about leaving a
container at the build-up area. Mr Walker’s evidence at the FAI in regard to whether
or not he was aware of a container being brought to the build-up area differed from
his original police statement and he was unable to explain the difference. There is,
however, no reason to doubt Mr Bedford’s evidence that he did take AVE 4041 to the
build-up area and leave it there.

The likelihood of a bag being placed in this most advantageous position by chance is slim. An insider however could have arranged that the bag was placed there and in the proper orientation at the same time.

Exactly.

The bag was placed on board at Heathrow, not at Luqa, imo.

Which makes it dam near impossible that Megrahi had anything to do with the loading of the case.

We have evidence given at the trial by a "clear and impressive witness [who] had no reason to
invent what he said" that points to an insider loading the material case at Heathrow. We have evidence heard at the appeal that security at Heathrows baggage handling area was compromised hours before PA103 took off.

I believe that an accomplice broke into Heathrow some hours before PA103 was due for departure and left the bomb packed in it's case primed and ready. Some time later an insider places this case into AVE4041 ensuring the case is well positioned within the container, then later ensures the container is in the right place within the cargo hold.

All told much weightier evidence points towards an insider at Heathrow loading the bomb than anyone at Luqa.

ETA: No brown hardshell suitcase was recovered from Lockerbie other than the "primary case" if the "Bedford Samsonite" was NOT the primary case then what happened to it? the judges at the Zeist trial speculated it away sugesting it was moved when further interline baggage was added to the container from the Frankfurt feeder flight. That it simply was lost and never recovered.

There is much detailed forensic evidence that the bomb was hidden in a brown samsonite case. The most credible evidence in the trial for this case bing loaded aboard 103 comes from Dave Bedford, a clear and impressive witness.

an inference can be drawn that an unidentified and
unaccompanied item of baggage was carried on KM180 and transferred to PA103A at
Frankfurt and PA103 at Heathrow.

...

Mr Bedford also said
that he had arranged with Mr Walker that because the incoming flight PA103A was a
little delayed, and to wait for it would take him beyond his normal finishing time, he
should take the container to the baggage build-up area and leave it there

My emphasis.

The Judges state in their judgement that an inference can be drawn that a bag loaded at Luqa was transferred via PA103A (Frankfurt) to PA103.

Bedfords evidence excludes that possibility. Bedford loaded luggage into the container where the explosion happened, he notes the addition of two extra cases in about the right location that he did not load he describes a mysterious case that matches the primary case, no other similar case was recovered, and his testimony indicates that inline luggage from both KM180 and PA103A had not yet arrived during his shift

Caustic Logic

9th January 2010, 04:56 AM

Fhimah was a lying fantasist though.

Fhimah/Giaka confusion?

I'm open to any evidentiiary reason to suspect someone at Heathrow colluded in placement. Bedford or Kamboj or someone else could have been paid to set the bag a certain way, contributing to later controversy. Maybe. Could they even spend the money? maybe, since authorities were trying to NOT bust anyone over or draw attention to a Heathrow breach...

But until I see something more solid, I'll probably stick with powerful omni-directionall bomb trusted to the fates for exact placement.

ETA: No brown hardshell suitcase was recovered from Lockerbie other than the "primary case" if the "Bedford Samsonite" was NOT the primary case then what happened to it? the judges at the Zeist trial speculated it away sugesting it was moved when further interline baggage was added to the container from the Frankfurt feeder flight. That it simply was lost and never recovered.

Thanks, I was always curious about that point. No that wasn't the bomb, it just disappeared. The real brown Samsonite is the one no one else reported seeing - except fantasist Giaka, in Fhimah's possession. The one that must have been in tray 8849 on the shady Frankfurt printout. The one containing memorably acquired clothes, and a bomb with a timer of steel, set to rain readable surviving fragments on Scotland. NOT the one someone reported seeing that offers a perfect detonation-time fit with a known bomb style.

FWIW I posted a thing (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2010/01/it-is-unbelievable.html) on the Newsnight piece. Some pictures and details.

And to Guybrush Threepwood: I echo Rolfe's plea to not just zip off. We've been asking for official-story-leaning people to engage in discussion, and I didn't even realize you were here all along (off and on). You seemed so reasonable and open to talk about it I didn't even recognize how inclined you are to give the official science and conclusions the benefit of the doubt. That alone makes you a valuable contributor, and I promise to moderate my snarkinesss and try not to drive you off.

Ambrosia

9th January 2010, 06:36 AM

Fhimah/Giaka confusion?

Yes. My mistake. Giaka was the star crown witness, who was thrown out of court for being a lying fantasist.

But until I see something more solid, I'll probably stick with powerful omni-directionall bomb trusted to the fates for exact placement.

Various forensic evidence shows that the bomb was about 450g of plastic high explosives. There is very little doubt that 103 was brought down by a single IED loaded within AVE4041. Mistakes in calculation about the Mach stem effect suggest that the bomb was 30cm away from the outter skin of the fuselage, but the force of the explosion was calculated. It was no more powerful than an explosion of about 450g of semtex. It was not a powerful omni-directional bomb (whatever one of those is). It was loaded onto PA103 and by accident or by design it was loaded very close to the outter skin of the aircraft.

Dan O.

9th January 2010, 08:41 AM

I'm open to any evidentiiary reason to suspect someone at Heathrow colluded in placement. Bedford or Kamboj or someone else could have been paid to set the bag a certain way

Anyone that would follow instructions to place a bag in an aircraft container in such a specific location would have to be dumber than a cork to not realize that the bag contained a bomb designed to destroy the aircraft. Nobody can be paid to perform such a task unless they already want to do it.

commandlinegamer

9th January 2010, 08:48 AM

It was not a powerful omni-directional bomb (whatever one of those is). It was loaded onto PA103 and by accident or by design it was loaded very close to the outer skin of the aircraft.

Isn't any bomb which isn't a shaped charge omni-directional by definition?

In any case, I can't see a shaped charge being of much use inside a suitcase unless you know for a fact it will be placed in the exact position to direct the shock front through the fuselage.

Rolfe

9th January 2010, 02:41 PM

We do know that at least one of the principle suspects had an airside pass at the time.

Oh, I see, you were talking about Fhimah. I thought you meant an airside pass for Heathrow.

Fhimah had left his job at Luqa airport by the time of the bombing but he still had his airside pass. I assume these are only valid for specific airports though - possibly even restricted to certain areas? Fhimah was, I believe, definitely on Malta that morning, but the prosecution were unable to show any evidence that he was at the airport. He was well known by witnesses from the airport, for example the Air Malta check-in girl. The prosecuting advocate didn't even ask her if she saw him there - no doubt not wanting a negative answer on file. If he was on Malta he wasn't at Heathrow though, so he's irrelevant to the Heathrow introduction theory.

I think your point is that Fhimah and his airside pass was originally essential to the prosecution case - that Megrahi couldn't have got the bomb suitcase on to KM180 without airside help. But then Giaka (who did place him at the airport) was shown to be a lying fantasist, nobody else placed him at the airport, and he was acquitted as no case to answer.

And the judges went on to decide that somehow Megrahi got the suitcase (that wasn't there) on the plane anyway.

Someone genuinely in a similar role at Heathrow seems likely. I'm sure nobody would simply take money to put a case in a specific position in a baggage container (as opposed to just getting it in the plane as for ordinary smuggling) but baggage heaving isn't a highly qualified or highly paid job, it can't be that hard to get a "sleeper" in place (a "clean skin" as it were). I could even speculate that PA103 was chosen because that's the plane the sleeper knew he would be loading. (As opposed to it being the one with the CIA officers and the drug smuggler, pay your money and choose your conspiracy theory.)

Were all the airport personnel at Heathrow investigated properly, or was Heathrow eliminated so early in the enquiry that this was never done?

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

9th January 2010, 04:22 PM

Various forensic evidence shows that the bomb was about 450g of plastic high explosives. ... It was no more powerful than an explosion of about 450g of semtex. It was not a powerful omni-directional bomb (whatever one of those is). It was loaded onto PA103 and by accident or by design it was loaded very close to the outter skin of the aircraft.

That's another part I hadn't tried to figure out yet, but last night I saw a few sites specifying 312 grams of Semtex-H was thought to be responsible. I'm not sure what the difference might be. Wyatt specifies only using "3-400 grams" of explosive, so varied?

And omni-directional just means non-directed, like CLG says. All directions, like explosives would naturally do.

Anyone that would follow instructions to place a bag in an aircraft container in such a specific location would have to be dumber than a cork to not realize that the bag contained a bomb designed to destroy the aircraft. Nobody can be paid to perform such a task unless they already want to do it.

Agreed - a million or two can make people see things different, but I don't believe that's what happened. Using a clean skin might be a better bet, but I'm not buying that either until I understand better the placement it did get and how unusual that really was. A million other things to do, I may remain agnostic on that point forever.

On other issues, it seems like Mr. Bollier (ebol) is raising doubts about Wyatt's test. In the German language comments here:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/spare-thought-for-lockerbie.html
rough partial translation:
It is interesting in which kind BBC-TV the MST-13 timer (PT/35) ' SWINDLE' to hush up (hush UP) tries, before Secretary OF Justice, Kenny MacAskill wants to publish the vesprochenen (SCCRC) documents
...
This acceptance is wrong! If a MST-13 timer had actually activated the explosion on PanAm 103, (which is to be excluded 103 case in the PanAm absolutely) it would have been possible that a fragment in the size of (PT/35) would have survived! Military attempts showed that with larger explosions fragments in the size of (PT/35) project, since the Circuit board consists tough fibre glass of 8-9 layers!
...
They can reread in the records of the court of Kamp van Zeist, under Witness No. 548, Edwin Bollier: With a military exercise in the Libyan desert, for safety reasons before the start of a Airfighter, with two Airfight bombs, two MST-13 timers were inserted. The protection housings had to be removed because of the small charging hole with the bombs. After the release a bomb exploded only at the ground. Parts of the MST-13 timer and Motorola the Pager Comand receiver were found in the periphery by approx. 500m. The circuit board were emergency pulverized!

So that's another small good sign for the tests. And then safely dismissing Wyatt's errors, ebol falls back on the more 'reliable' clues of outright swaps within swaps and the PT changed to PI that prove duplikat falsifications! After the brouhaha we created about brown vs. green, he shifted to not brown the color but style, but here he says "On the original photo Ref, PP 8932, PI-995, the red encircled fragment shows not a green MST-13 circuit board fragment designated as PT-35, but a <b>brown coloured fragment</b> from a prototype" that actually appears near-black, dark-gray green-blue in the photo.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th January 2010, 08:30 AM

I do hope you won't stay away! The thread definitely needs people supporting the "there was no conspiracy" line!

And to Guybrush Threepwood: I echo Rolfe's plea to not just zip off. We've been asking for official-story-leaning people to engage in discussion, and I didn't even realize you were here all along (off and on). You seemed so reasonable and open to talk about it I didn't even recognize how inclined you are to give the official science and conclusions the benefit of the doubt. That alone makes you a valuable contributor, and I promise to moderate my snarkinesss and try not to drive you off.

Oh well, if you put it like that, I'll keep on posting:). Although to be clear about it, I'm not really a supporter of the official position, I'm certain Megrahi was wrongly convicted, and think the balance of probability is strongly on the side of him having absolutely nothing to do with the bombing, I just think this is another great British terrorism miscarriage of justice, without a conspiracy.

The main problem for me is that, although the official narrative has holes in it, and anomalies which make it seem at first sight implausible, the same is true for conspiracy theories. Wherever an problem with the official narrative leaves a hole for a conspiracy, other problems contradict that conspiracy. Rolfe's summary below is very good for the MST13 timer evidence, so I've interspersed my comments in it.
I think that entire evidence bag is extraordinarily convenient, shall we say. It contains the charred collar of a shirt of a brand known to be on sale in Tony Gauci's shop, and embedded in that (according to Hayes) there were several fragments of black plastic and a fragment of metal consistent with these being part of the Toshiba radio, and a compacted chunk of paper which turned out to be a part of the Toshiba's manual, and the timer fragment. Such a collection of evidence all in the one package is very very tidy. There's nothing else quite like it in the evidence trail.
And yet it is this package that is subject to all the anomalies and provenance difficulties the judges remarked on. They specifically commented what a pity it was that this item hadn't been given the same meticulous attention the rest of the evidence received.

First, nobody seems quite sure where it was found. This could just be poor communication, but the latest is a field in Newcastleton. Not the forest (with all the problems of stuff caught in the canopy which is highlighted in The Maltese Double Cross, but make no mistake a lot of stuff did get lost in the squillions of acres of forest under the debris trail), and certainly not the Kielder Forest, which is what a lot of the commentaries state.

In addition, who found it and when seems to have been unclear in the early years of the investigation. I'm not sure of the details of this, but de Braeckeleer gives a number of alternative stories including a man walking his dog, and a courting couple. Paul Foot's account also implies this was a bit unclear. I'm not sure exactly when it crystallised out that Gilchrist and McColm found it on 13th January during a routine fingertip search.

This could all just be Chinese Whispers, but it hasn't been explained as far as I know. But given the apparently clear evidence label with the signatures and date on it, why would there have been any ambiguity at all? I'd very much like to know if the alternative stories are just sloppy reporting, or if the "Gilchrist and McColm on 13th January in a field at Newcastleton" version really was a latecomer to the narrative.

Then we have the alterations on the evidence bag label (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/995/995-1.png). It's not clear why anyone would have done that, but there's a lot about this that isn't clear. "Cloth" changed to "debris", not by scoring out and clearly altering, or even rubbing out, but by reshaping the letters. That alteration took time and thought, to make it as near-unnoticeable as it is. Why? Why take the time to do that, when SOP would have been just to score out? (And again, since the debris was apparently buried within the cloth and only came to light when Hayes explored the burnt penetration holes in the collar, why?)

I would say also that that evidence label must have been one of the ones written up retrospectively "back at base", as many if not most of them were, because it's not nearly ratty enough for something written out in the open in January in Scotland. Trust me, I've played that game often. (If the plane had crashed this Christmas, they'd have been completely screwed - the place has been under a couple of feet of snow since 22nd December, they wouldn't even have found the bodies.)

I don't know anything about DC Gilchrist who apparently picked the thing up, except that we're told he was so stressed before giving evidence at Camp Zeist that he couldn't sleep, and that the judges criticised his evidence as "at best confusing, at worst evasive". He claimed not to have noticed the careful alteration of "cloth" to "debris" until it was shown to him.

We do know about DC McColm, thanks to John Crawford (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nh9_p8RjikQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+detective%27s+tale&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false) (whose book wasn't published until after the trial - 2002 I believe). He paints a picture of someone who was a bit of a shirker, landing a cosy indoor job and seldom if ever actually getting out on the search area. One incident clearly sticks in Crawford's mind, when he (Crawford) left a number of evidence bags overnight, intending to write up the relevant labels in the morning from the notes he'd made in the field. When he returned to do that he found that McColm had already despatched the bags to the central depot, unlabelled, "because they made the place look untidy". Crawford had to go to the central depot and find the bags and write up the labels there. But this is the guy who just happened to be doing one of his rare outdoor forays when the crucial item was handed in to him.
So the whole bag was faked up in January 1989? Clothes from Gauci's shop etc. That means the entire plot was in place before all the evidence was collected, Megrahi's movements were already known etc, etc. If that isn't what this implies then any inconsistencies in the finding of the debris are irrelevant to any subsequent conspiracy.
Another point is that the planting of fake physical evidence at this stage is very risky, what do you do when real evidence of the actual bomb turns up and contradicts the plant? Unless of course it's a full blooded NWO conspiracy with the power to 'disappear' any inconvenient evidence.

Or looking at it a different way, we know there were attempts to tidy up the evidence and the labelling of the bags as much as two years after the event. Does DC McColm (with his tidy mind and cavalier attitude to actual chain of custody requirements) sound like the sort of person you'd ask to sign a few stray bags that hadn't been properly documented? I'd say yes.

The bag then disappears into the system and next surfaces on 12th May in Kent. Hayes examines the contents on that day, and makes a note of what he found (http://media.photobucket.com/image/hayes%20rarde%20May/chainsawmoth/127-911/page_51.jpg). He pays a lot of attention to the fragments of paper, making drawings and photographs, but for some reason appears not to think the "fragment of green circuit board" worthy of any special note, merely recording its presence. I can't understand why he didn't send out the eurekagrams right then and there, considering the importance of circuit board identification to this investigation. Even if he thought it was just another part of the radio, it seems very surprising that he did nothing to follow it up.Why? if he thought it was part of the radio, which was already known to be the bomb container it's not very exciting.

And of course the page where he described that particular bag just happened to be the very page that appears may have been a later interpolation, from the pattern of renumbered pages. Another crazy fluke?Why the later interpolation, unless it is to add the detail about the MST-13 fragment, to make it appear as if it was found earlier? In which case all the previous anomalies about the bag are irrelevant as this is where the plant happened. It also means Hayes must be in on the plant.

The next documentation relating to the fragment is Feraday's memo to Williamson (http://media.photobucket.com/image/feraday%20williamson/chainsawmoth/127-911/9-15letter.jpg) of 15th September. That isn't as hard to explain as Hayes's behaviour, but it's still odd. Why the big rush and the polaroid photography, for something that's been lying there for over four months and doesn't surface again for another four?

We then believe that Williamson and his colleagues spent the next nine months trying and failing to identify the fragment. Travel to various circuit board manufacturers is documented, and at some point (April 1990?) the board was sawn into two pieces at the Siemens plant in Munich for closer investigation. However, I'm not quite sure how early this documentation starts - I have a feeling it's not until about January 1990.So Hayes and Thurman/Orkin (presumably they supplied the fake fragment) let Feraday and Williamson thrash about for nine months before managing to engineer an opportunity to identify the fragment? That takes balls of steel. Again what if something else turns up, which points the investigation in the direction of the real bomber? Surely the best thing is to get the MST-13 ID done as quickly as possible.

The Scottish police were (according to Marquise (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BOZszeDjnZgC&pg=PP1&dq=scotbom&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)) very possessive about the fragment and wouldn't let anyone else have a look at it. It wasn't until a conference in June 1990 that Thurman got hold of a photograph of the thing. Marquise reports that Thurman himself either requested the picture or asked to be allowed to take a picture (whether or not the actual fragment was in the USA in the custody of Henderson at this point, or not, is hotly disputed).This doesn't suggest anything to me.

Thurman certainly knew who to go to, to identify the thing (Orkin). In one of the interviews he gave, he seems to imply he already knew what it was, and that Orkin could confirm it. Certainly he had the comparison within two days, resulting in Henderson and Feraday, who had flown back to Britain, pretty much having to turn on their heels at Heathrow and go back.
I believe there were two comparison boards, one an actual item (the Togo board?) and a photograph of another one (the Senegal board?). The physical comparison seems to have been a complete timer in its case, and when the case was opened the "1" board was there, and a secondary board on which the maker's name (MEBO) had been scratched out.

Again Thurman in interview indicates that they knew immediately that the semi-legible letters said "MEBO", nevertheless they followed up a number of other possible readings first "just to be sure". (This also seems a bit strange to me.) But finally, by September, they were on Bollier's doorstep. When it all gets even murkier, so I'm going to stop now.

If the evidence bag is wholly genuine, that is a very singular tale.OK, so Thurman has the cojones to sit on his hands for nine months, then when he finally gets the sample he IDs it in an improbably rapid two days, risking awkward questions? Doesn't sound like a master conspirator to me

The possibility that Thurman was involved in fabricating the contents of the bag, which was then passed to Hayes and Feraday for the purposes of producing a credible provenance for it within the chain of evidence going back to the original search period, and that it was then fed to the Scottish police to "investigate", can't be ruled out, to my mind.

Arguing against it are the red-circle photograph (though we don't actually know for sure what the provenance and timing of that picture are supposed to be), and the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy being postulated.

I'm on the fence. I'm far from convinced, but I don't feel it can be definitely discounted.The only way I can see that working is a conspiracy from the top, with the power to stop investigation into any inconvenient real directions, and that hits the barrier of all conspiracy theories, that so many people would have to be involved, that one of them at least would have blabbed by now.

The list of anomalies surrounding that fragment is ridiculous. Proving that is was planted, from the evidence available to us, is however likely to be impossible, so if you're demanding that then I suspect it isn't going to happen. Finding a coherent narrative by which it could have been planted is an interesting exercise though. If we can't do that, then I think it probably wasn't. That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

So far, you haven't found one that isn't as full of holes as the official story. Any conspiracy narrative has to be better at explaining the facts than the official story, if it isn't then my default is to stick with the official one.

Also, regarding the anomalies. You're forgetting the initial one, the 38-minute detonation. No sane terrorist would set an MST-13 timer to detonate at 7pm GMT in the circumstances. Midnight would have been more like it. Even if they didn't care about an explosion over land yielding all these miraculous clues, it's far too big a risk that the plane would still have been on the tarmac at 7pm.I don't have your experience of sane and insane terrorists to make this call;). I agree, if I was planting a bomb on a plane, I'd set it to go off over water, but I'm not convinced that that is enough to prove a conspiracy.

All the anomalies in the provenance of the timer fragment are bizarre, but never forget the biggest anomaly, that the time of the crash is not consistent with an MST-13 having set it off.It is consistent with an MST-13. Even if the bomb case was loaded in Malta the MST-13 is quite capable of timing the detonation to 19:00 on the 21st. It's just not consistent with what you think they should have done, I wouldn't have done it that way either, but it's still not enough for me to believe the MST-13 must have been a plant, it could have been a secondary timer to allow the bomb to be loaded in Frankfurt, or even Malta or...

The_Librarian

10th January 2010, 09:16 AM

I would like to reiterate one point from UK_Dave from the start of the thread.

Does blowing the plane out of the sky over the ocean really provide the best result for a terrorist?

I am not sure either that blowing a plane over the ocean is really that good for terrorists. Think about the France-Brasil plane who disappeared some months ago in the Atlantic. I remember dimly that it took a few weeks to fish some remains, and some more weeks before some story could be made about what happened (a faulty probe, apparently). Half the world has forgetten about that plane by this time.
I think terrorists would prefer a more spectacular event with an immediate exposition in the news.

About a crash landing leaving more clues: eh, your bag is going to explode in mid-air, and the remains will be scattered on the land behind. How could this leave any useful clue? Crime novels and movies are ripe with criminals underestimating the number of clues they leave. Real-life criminals may be as clueless (sorry, cannot resist), especially since gathering clues is not as easy as the CSI sitcoms claim it. And anyway, a terrorist organization wants it to be know that they did it, so erasing clues is not their main objective. If no-one knows how dangerous you are, it defeats the purpose. Merely claiming you did it is not enough for the authorities to believe you.

As for the plane suffering enough delay for the bomb to explode with the plane still on ground: well, what's the likeliness of it? Has this specific line a record of always departing late, or more or less on-time?
It's just anecdotal, but in 8 years of taking 2 to 4 planes a year, I only remember being delayed 2 times. This is not that I would call a high likelihood. Maybe I was just lucky, or North America planes are more punctual.

Ambrosia

10th January 2010, 09:33 AM

The main problem for me is that, although the official narrative has holes in it, and anomalies which make it seem at first sight implausible, the same is true for conspiracy theories. [...]

So the whole bag was faked up in January 1989? Clothes from Gauci's shop etc.

If the bag was faked it's more likely to have been done much later.

Jan 89 is when this was supposedly found, but it wasn't examined by Hayes until March 89 (according to Hayes) however the page numbers being changed, coupled with evasive testimony about this bag of evidence and it's chain of custody, that was noted at the trial, implies that this bag of evidence was concocted, or at least tampered with, much later in the investigation. The polaroid photo of the fragnment being the "best that can be done in a short time" implies that it wasn't added to the evidence (assuming it was planted) until very shortly before the polaroid was taken.

If this is the case then the investigators will know by then that it's very unlikely for further physical evidence to show up.

Unless of course it's a full blooded NWO conspiracy with the power to 'disappear' any inconvenient evidence.

Lots of evidence WAS disappeared. There are all kinds of reports of drugs, things covered with tarpaulins, missing suitcases, holes cut into suitcases, missing bodies, sewing machine needles/fletchettes that were cleaned up, labels that were removed from bodies.

I'm sure a good chunk of those reports are fabricated/embellished but Im also fairly sure that the speed at which plain clothed US people were on the scene immediately afterwards points to something being swept under the carpet. (Most likely imo the "controlled delivery" of narcotics)

So far, you haven't found one that isn't as full of holes as the official story. Any conspiracy narrative has to be better at explaining the facts than the official story, if it isn't then my default is to stick with the official one.

I have more time in a couple of days and will write up my "version" if you like of what I believe happened for us to poke holes in.

I do agree that any alternative theory for what happened does have to make more sense than the "official" version else its a non starter.

Ambrosia

10th January 2010, 10:01 AM

Oh, I see, you were talking about Fhimah. I thought you meant an airside pass for Heathrow.

Someone genuinely in a similar role at Heathrow seems likely.
Were all the airport personnel at Heathrow investigated properly, or was Heathrow eliminated so early in the enquiry that this was never done?

There is also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been
introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or
introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the build-up area.
To achieve that, the person placing the suitcase would have had to avoid being
detected, but the evidence indicates that a person in possession of a pass for the
airside area would not be likely to be challenged, and there were a very large number
of passes issued for Heathrow, a substantial number of which were not accounted for.

That's another part I hadn't tried to figure out yet, but last night I saw a few sites specifying 312 grams of Semtex-H was thought to be responsible. I'm not sure what the difference might be. Wyatt specifies only using "3-400 grams" of explosive, so varied?

Forensic tests show that the explosive was a plastic high explosive. From the damage observed in the cargo hold we can make an educated guess as to the power and therefore size of the bomb.

I read somewhere, and now cant find my source, that it was reckoned to be between 340g and 450g and that had the bomb not been so close to the aircraft skin its likely that PA103 would have been able to limp to an airport for an emergency landing.

The bomb blew a hole in the fuselage that was fairly small, it was a catastrophic depressurisation that tore the plane apart.

Rolfe

10th January 2010, 01:53 PM

I would like to reiterate one point from UK_Dave from the start of the thread.

I am not sure either that blowing a plane over the ocean is really that good for terrorists. Think about the France-Brasil plane who disappeared some months ago in the Atlantic. I remember dimly that it took a few weeks to fish some remains, and some more weeks before some story could be made about what happened (a faulty probe, apparently). Half the world has forgetten about that plane by this time.
I think terrorists would prefer a more spectacular event with an immediate exposition in the news.

About a crash landing leaving more clues: eh, your bag is going to explode in mid-air, and the remains will be scattered on the land behind. How could this leave any useful clue? Crime novels and movies are ripe with criminals underestimating the number of clues they leave. Real-life criminals may be as clueless (sorry, cannot resist), especially since gathering clues is not as easy as the CSI sitcoms claim it. And anyway, a terrorist organization wants it to be know that they did it, so erasing clues is not their main objective. If no-one knows how dangerous you are, it defeats the purpose. Merely claiming you did it is not enough for the authorities to believe you.

As for the plane suffering enough delay for the bomb to explode with the plane still on ground: well, what's the likeliness of it? Has this specific line a record of always departing late, or more or less on-time?
It's just anecdotal, but in 8 years of taking 2 to 4 planes a year, I only remember being delayed 2 times. This is not that I would call a high likelihood. Maybe I was just lucky, or North America planes are more punctual.

Recent developments have shown a tendency for terrorists who want to crash a plane on land to choose the destination rather than the departure end of the flight. There are a number of reasons for this, partly that if the plane is late at least it will still blow up while in the air, and as the USA seems to have been the primary target (certainly in either the Libya or the PFLP-GC theories) then crashing on the USA would surely be far preferable to crashing on Scotland.

I've flown out from Heathrow and (more often) Gatwick on many occasions, and I absolutely would never make life-or-death plans based on a plane taking off no more than an hour late. Heathrow is an incredibly busy airport and this was December - it's notorious.

In fact, if the plane had taken off bang on time and taken its more usual southerly route, it might well have been over water when it blew up - or over Ireland. Nobody could have predicted it would blow up over land, and blowing up over a small town in a sparsely-populated county was pure evil luck.

There was a very definite chance that plane could still have been on the tarmac at 7.03pm. At the same time, there was a definite chance it could have been over the sea, or Ireland. I can't see any compelling reason for wanting the plane to have a chance of crashing on Britain or Ireland that would make it worth risking an explosion on the tarmac.

Another thing - setting a timer as early as that, with the possibility of an explosion over land, introduces the chance the contents of the bomb suitcase might be identified and traced. And yet, apparently, the terrorist(s) decided to make a special purchase of clothes in a particularly conspicuous and traceable venue.

In short, I can't see any advantage to setting the timer so early that could possibly compensate for the potential disadvantages. For goodness sake, if you want a crash on land, set the timer for the earliest possible time the plane might still be airborne before landing. If you get it right, America gets the crash, if you get it wrong, you still get your crash over the ocean.

And get your clothes from a second-hand shop.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

10th January 2010, 03:45 PM

Oh well, if you put it like that, I'll keep on posting:). Although to be clear about it, I'm not really a supporter of the official position, I'm certain Megrahi was wrongly convicted, and think the balance of probability is strongly on the side of him having absolutely nothing to do with the bombing, I just think this is another great British terrorism miscarriage of justice, without a conspiracy.

The main problem for me is that, although the official narrative has holes in it, and anomalies which make it seem at first sight implausible, the same is true for conspiracy theories. Wherever an problem with the official narrative leaves a hole for a conspiracy, other problems contradict that conspiracy.

I agree with you. I think it's perfectly possible there was no real conspiracy going on (or no more than trying to cover up unrelated shenanigans that happened to intersect with the bombing), and that Megrahi was really just another victim of the desire to convict somebody for this atrocity, and he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

However, there are so many anomalies in the official story, I'm not convinced that's all there is to it. As I said, I'm trying to see if its possible to construct a narrative that makes more coherent sense than the official story. I may well fail, but that's also a result.

So the whole bag was faked up in January 1989? Clothes from Gauci's shop etc. That means the entire plot was in place before all the evidence was collected, Megrahi's movements were already known etc, etc. If that isn't what this implies then any inconsistencies in the finding of the debris are irrelevant to any subsequent conspiracy.
Another point is that the planting of fake physical evidence at this stage is very risky, what do you do when real evidence of the actual bomb turns up and contradicts the plant? Unless of course it's a full blooded NWO conspiracy with the power to 'disappear' any inconvenient evidence.

No, my point was that the peculiarities surrounding the evidence bag (label) and its alleged finding on 13th January might possibly point to the bag being fabricated at a later date, and then a spurious provenance constructed for it. I cannot explain why the label was changed, but neither can anyone else, and it was changed.

We know there was tidying-up of evidence bag documentation as much as two years after the original search period. Bobby Ingram claims to have been asked to sign bags he knew nothing about. We also know that DC McColm wasn't out in the field much at all, and also that he was quite cavalier about documenting the finds. I'm speculating that Gilchrist and McColm might have been asked to sign this (and perhaps other) bags retrospectively, as part of such a tidying-up exercise, and that they did that. That DC Gilchrist's nerves and evasiveness might be explained by him having agreed to sign some bags retrospectively, including this one.

Why? if he thought it was part of the radio, which was already known to be the bomb container it's not very exciting.

The radio identification was never really 100%, and in the end relied to a large extent on assuming that the bits of manual found were from the radio in question. Another piece of identifiable circuit board from the radio might have been very valuable.

But in fact, it was only another poster's suggestion that he might have ignored it because he thought it was part of the radio, and I was commenting that even that isn't an excuse. In fact we don't know why he ignored it. Any forensic scientist, seeing that, should have been jumping up and down. Even if it turned out to be another bit of radio, it could have been very useful. Assuming it was unimportant seems entirely ridiculous. I can think of no sensible reason for not highlighting it for further investigation at that stage. I simply can't understand it at all.

Why the later interpolation, unless it is to add the detail about the MST-13 fragment, to make it appear as if it was found earlier? In which case all the previous anomalies about the bag are irrelevant as this is where the plant happened. It also means Hayes must be in on the plant.

I don't know, except that if these notes were interpolated, then yes, Hayes was in on it.

If we discount the red-circle photograph for the moment, then we still have no evidence that the fragment existed at this stage either. The interpolated page could be another attempt to give the fragment earlier provenance in the chain of evidence than it really has. This could be refuted by producing photographic negatives with the right provenance, but we simply don't have access to that level of detailed information.

So Hayes and Thurman/Orkin (presumably they supplied the fake fragment) let Feraday and Williamson thrash about for nine months before managing to engineer an opportunity to identify the fragment? That takes balls of steel. Again what if something else turns up, which points the investigation in the direction of the real bomber? Surely the best thing is to get the MST-13 ID done as quickly as possible.

Lacking the information relating to the photographic negatives, my own feeling is that the fragment might have been introduced as late as January 1990. Indeed, I would presume that the intention would have been to ID it sooner, but it was necessary to turn it over to the Scottish police, who were very possessive of it. They wanted to be the ones to make the identification, and resisted turning it over to the Americans.

This doesn't suggest anything to me.

See above.

OK, so Thurman has the cojones to sit on his hands for nine months, then when he finally gets the sample he IDs it in an improbably rapid two days, risking awkward questions? Doesn't sound like a master conspirator to me.

Fair point, and one I had noticed myself. Later, of course, Thurman does claim to have spent months comparing sample after sample before he made the identification. However, it was indeed only two days. It's not clever. At a wild guess, he was so frustrated at the enforced wait (at least six months) that he rushed things?

The only way I can see that working is a conspiracy from the top, with the power to stop investigation into any inconvenient real directions, and that hits the barrier of all conspiracy theories, that so many people would have to be involved, that one of them at least would have blabbed by now.

I think that is exactly the type of conspiracy this was, if it was a conspiracy. Indeed, accounts suggest that as early as March 1989 certain avenues of investigation were being choked off.

However, I'm not so sure about the number of people involved. Cannistraro, Thurman, "Orkin", Feraday, Hayes. We know nothing at all about Orkin, but the others all have proven form in fabricating or "sexing up" evidence in other cases. If the introduction was later than September 1989, we have to add Williamson to that. This may be a black calumny, but there are persistent rumours of at least one senior Scottish police officer being involved in some sort of fabrication.

My objection is rather different - that these are people from three different jurisdictions, and I'm very hazy as to how they came together into a conspiracy of this sort. If they did. Nevertheless, they were all (except Cannistraro) working together on the ground in Scotland pretty much from day one, so they could well have become thick as thieves.

So far, you haven't found one that isn't as full of holes as the official story. Any conspiracy narrative has to be better at explaining the facts than the official story, if it isn't then my default is to stick with the official one.

Not arguing. I'm trying to see what can be constructed. It may never fly. Please keep trying to shoot it down!

I don't have your experience of sane and insane terrorists to make this call;). I agree, if I was planting a bomb on a plane, I'd set it to go off over water, but I'm not convinced that that is enough to prove a conspiracy.

Uh, no. It's just the bit we're talking about in this thread.

It is consistent with an MST-13. Even if the bomb case was loaded in Malta the MST-13 is quite capable of timing the detonation to 19:00 on the 21st. It's just not consistent with what you think they should have done, I wouldn't have done it that way either, but it's still not enough for me to believe the MST-13 must have been a plant, it could have been a secondary timer to allow the bomb to be loaded in Frankfurt, or even Malta or...

Yes, I see your point, it's physically consistent with such a timer. It's very difficult to make it logically consistent with such a timer.

Your last sentence is the other avenue I think might fly quite well. I think it might have been a device to allow the suitcase to be safely transported to Heathrow, by whatever route, and then loaded on PA103 without any need to open it to prime or assemble the mechanism.

Indeed, if that is the case, that it wasn't part of the actual detonation mechanism, it might explain why it was far enough away from the Semtex for a little bit to have survived the explosion....

Rolfe.

Rolfe

10th January 2010, 03:59 PM

If I have more time in a couple of days and will write up my "version" if you like of what I believe happened for us to poke holes in.

I do agree that any alternative theory for what happened does have to make more sense than the "official" version else its a non starter.

I feel I'm just sketching here. I'll be intersted to see what you've come up with. Charles Norrie, posting on Robert Black's blog, also claims to have a scenario. He is a close relative of one of the victims and seems to have been turning this over in his mind for 20 years.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

10th January 2010, 04:24 PM

Charles Norrie speculates that Lockerbie was blown out of the sky by two bombs, not one, in a plot orchestrated by the CIA in cahoots with the Iranians. Iran wanted bloody revenge for the Vincennes shooting, in the order of several planes blown up, and a secret deal was struck to allow them to take out 103 but no more.

His brother Tony was killed in the UTA 772 blast, not in the Lockerbie disaster.

There's an interview with Charles in the google cache here (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:UpP5NBfnnzEJ:www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2009/082809/inews082809_02.html+%22Charles+Norrie%22+lockerbie&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a).

My "version" is simpler and I am trying to make sure it sticks to what evidence there is and am taking the time to pick through it and cite sources. I should post it Wednesdayish where I'll welcome any and all attempts to poke holes in it.

Rolfe

10th January 2010, 04:30 PM

OK, that claririfies that, thanks.

The idea that PA103 was a LIHOP agreed to limit the revenge Iran wanted to exact has a number of proponents, including Tam Dalyell. It's a bit much for me to swallow.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

12th January 2010, 04:12 AM

.... the MST-13 .... could have been a secondary timer to allow the bomb to be loaded in Frankfurt, or even Malta or...

I've been thinking a little bit more about this. I had thought about the MST-13 being used in exactly the way you describe, and it's very difficult to make that fly. The main reason for this is the very short transfer time between PA103A and PA103, which was of the order of 20 minutes.

By this scenario, the MST-13 is ued to stop the bomb being triggered by the low pressure on earlier stages, but then cuts out and lets the barometric device with its ice-cube timer start operating from Heathrow. However, there's only that 20-minute turnover spot to hit with that timer setting, and it's too close. If PA103A is late, that blows up instead of PA103.

In addition, it's pointless. If your suitcase is tagged for PA103, and in the system, and going to be loaded on that plane, and you have an MST-13, you might as well just set the thing to trigger at midnight anyway, and forget about the barometric device. This is at least as reliable a plan as the one where you have to be sure the 20-minute turnover will happen on schedule.

Or again, if you're completely paranoid about not having an explosion on land no matter how screwed up the schedule becomes (and the suitcase still being on land at midnight requires an extremely screwed-up schedule), use the barometric device, but still don't let it start to operate until maybe 11pm or 11.30.

I just couldn't see a rational scenario where the terrorists, having access to an MST-13 and having sent the suitcase into the system at Frankfurt or earlier, tagged for PA103, would still have settled for the 38-minute detonation.

However, let's look at it differently. Let's suppose the Bedford suitcase was the bomb bag, which seems by for the most likely scenario any way you slice it. Why would you need an MST-13, or how would you use it if you had one?

The thing is, we have no idea at all how the Bedford suitcase got into AVE4041. "Baz" thinks it came in from Sweden on the Gothenburg ferry, which of course would be safe as the ferry doesn't fly. However, suppose the route into Heathrow required another flight? Not PA103A, but something with a longer and unpredictable delay at Heathrow?

According to the experts, SOP for a Khreesat device used in that way would be for the bomb to be transported disassembled, or at least not primed, for the earlier stages. Apparently the bombs were primed by pushing the headphone jack of the radio into its socket. There are stories of the Lockerbie bomb coming into Heathrow in exactly this way, possibly involving an earlier Frankfurt flight, with the terrorist opening the case at Heathrow to do the dirty.

However, supposing the plot involved only airside contact with the suitcase at Heathrow, with one or more baggage handlers being part of the gang. It's one thing to take a suitcase and put it in a particular container, or even to put it into a particular position in a container. Baggage handlers do that all the time. However, asking a baggage handler to open a case and interfere with the contents? Much harder.

So, instead of using the jack-plug method, they decided to use the MST-13 which they'd got hold of to allow transport to Heathrow without detonation, then the suitcase could be handled and positioned by the baggage handler without any need to do anything as suspicious as sneak the case off somewhere private and open it.

Yes, if you're absolutely sure that PA103 on 21st December is the flight you're going to go for, it would still probably be more sensible just to use the MST-13 as the primary trigger device and set it for midnight. However, maybe you're not. We have absolutely no idea how this was arranged, except that it seems to have involved somebody breaking into Heathrow the previous evening.

I'm speculating that the suitcase came in on some earlier flight, with or without an accompanying passenger, and that it was intercepted by a baggage handler accomplice airside. This accomplice got the case into the Pan Am baggage handling area and into AVE4041 without needing to open it. The MST-13 was set in such a way that the barometric component became active while at ground level in London, allowing complete flexibility as to which flight it was then placed on.

Whether the choice of flight in the end came down to opportunity, or whether it was influenced by the drug smuggling activities or the itineraries of the CIA agents (or even Bernt Carlsson!) I have no idea. I do think though, that if you have to accept the presence of the timer fragment as a genuine piece of evidence in the face of the 38-minute explosion, this one flies reasonably well.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

12th January 2010, 05:25 PM

Aplogoes for not being involved lately. I've been working on other projects, some involving Lockerbie, some involving zombies. Long story.

Oh well, if you put it like that, I'll keep on posting:). Although to be clear about it, I'm not really a supporter of the official position, I'm certain Megrahi was wrongly convicted, and think the balance of probability is strongly on the side of him having absolutely nothing to do with the bombing, I just think this is another great British terrorism miscarriage of justice, without a conspiracy.

Fair enough of course. From my view, it seems like an unwarranted compromise solution. It implies no planting or deliberate fabrication, which creates an awful lot of odd coincidences to explain the appearance of such.

With regard to the current subject, the timer fragment, that a MST-13 really was used despite its known links to Libya (same for the radio model, when there's a world of more anonymous ones), AND it was set illogically early so it happened to perfectly match a Khreesat bomb loaded at Heathrow, AND that chunks of the radio and timer miraculously survived the explosion, AND were found and correctly IDd as of (presumably) Libyan origin.

As I've stated before, the only reason to make such a compromise is to avoid calling the investigators, or those controlling it for them, liars. To me it seems more logical to suspect them of conspiracy than to accept a string of strange coincidence like this.

The main problem for me is that, although the official narrative has holes in it, and anomalies which make it seem at first sight implausible, the same is true for conspiracy theories. Wherever an problem with the official narrative leaves a hole for a conspiracy, other problems contradict that conspiracy.

The "other problems" that contradict this conscious frame-up theory are... well, mostly just the fact that investigators and politicians insist their findings were genuine. It's a problem that can range from huge to amusingly easy all depending on one's mindset.

I do recognize reality is more complex than simple answers, but still there's usually one view that's a best guess/closest approximation of truth. I feel like I have it, and am behaving a little "uncompromising" because I'm comfortable with the risk of being wrong (it's well under 50% anyway)

Here's one problem one might pose:

I would like to reiterate one point from UK_Dave from the start of the thread.
Does blowing the plane out of the sky over the ocean really provide the best result for a terrorist?

It would depend on one's motives. The PFLPGC, if they did it, didn't seem to care if they were caught - the clues are obvious. One of their known altimeter bombs, usual detonation 35-45 min after takeoff, loaded at London, since PA103 blew up 38 min after leaving the runway there. It was spectacular, SHOUL have left no physical clues, but even fif so, they're an underground terrorist group anyway - they're already on the run.

Libya on the other hand... we know just where they live and have bombed them before. They have never "confessed" to the bombing, leading most to presume they were trying to hide their role and be sneaky. Blowing up a plane over the ocean would obviously be a better way to be sneaky, especially considering identifiable, specifically Libyan, parts of the bomb strangely survived. So this is indeed an inconsistency that no one's really explained. "thhey just got sloppy" seems to be the basic atitude, and "it doesn't matter if it makes sense, we have the clues and got a conviction, end of story."

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 05:20 AM

Fair enough of course. From my view, it seems like an unwarranted compromise solution. It implies no planting or deliberate fabrication, which creates an awful lot of odd coincidences to explain the appearance of such.

This is my dilemma. In my previous post on the thread I outlined a possible scenario that would explain the genuine presence of the MST-13 timer fragment in the wreckage, and still be consistent with a 38-minute explosion from a Khreesat-style device. It's obviously possible to maintain the fragment wasn't planted, and still come up with a reasonable explanation in the context of the other facts of the explosion (38-minute detonation, Bedford suitcase, absence of unaccompanied baggage on KM180 and so on).

However, this still leaves the screaming anomalies associated with the fragment itself.

The label on the evidence bag being altered
One signatory to the bag described as "at best confusing, at worst evasive" in court
The other signatory someone known to have been seldom out in the field, and to have a cavalier attitude to proper documentation of evidence
The first description of the fragment being on a re-numbered page that appears to have been an interpolation into the notes
Hayes's inexplicable failure to recognise it as potentially significant evidence at that point
Feraday's peculiar note dated 15th September, referring to a polaroid photograph being "the best I can do in the time available"
Thurman's almost instant recognition of the item which had baffled the Scottish police for many months
The last two points are less weighty than the earlier ones, but they seem to belong on that list. It's possible to exlain away each of these points individually (well, I find the fifth one completely baffling to be honest), but all of them? If the fragment is genuine, then all of that is pure coincidence. The single most important item of evidence in the entire case, is the one that attracts more screw-ups, mistakes, bad procedure and weird anomalies than would seem possible.

If we accept the fragment as being genuine, we have to swallow all that as being completely irrelevant. I think I'd need much more solid evidence that it wasn't a plant before being prepared to accept that.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

13th January 2010, 05:53 AM

This is my dilemma. In my previous post on the thread I outlined a possible scenario that would explain the genuine presence of the MST-13 timer fragment in the wreckage, and still be consistent with a 38-minute explosion from a Khreesat-style device. It's obviously possible to maintain the fragment wasn't planted, and still come up with a reasonable explanation in the context of the other facts of the explosion (38-minute detonation, Bedford suitcase, absence of unaccompanied baggage on KM180 and so on).

However, this still leaves the screaming anomalies associated with the fragment itself.

The label on the evidence bag being altered
One signatory to the bag described as "at best confusing, at worst evasive" in court
The other signatory someone known to have been seldom out in the field, and to have a cavalier attitude to proper documentation of evidence
The first description of the fragment being on a re-numbered page that appears to have been an interpolation into the notes
Hayes's inexplicable failure to recognise it as potentially significant evidence at that point
Feraday's peculiar note dated 15th September, referring to a polaroid photograph being "the best I can do in the time available"
Thurman's almost instant recognition of the item which had baffled the Scottish police for many months
The last two points are less weighty than the earlier ones, but they seem to belong on that list. It's possible to exlain away each of these points individually (well, I find the fifth one completely baffling to be honest), but all of them? If the fragment is genuine, then all of that is pure coincidence. The single most important item of evidence in the entire case, is the one that attracts more screw-ups, mistakes, bad procedure and weird anomalies than would seem possible.

If we accept the fragment as being genuine, we have to swallow all that as being completely irrelevant. I think I'd need much more solid evidence that it wasn't a plant before being prepared to accept that.

Rolfe.

Exactly. See? Takes like fifteen full-size paragraphs to work out a scenario where an MST-13 would be in there, and that's not even listing the coincidences. And on the other hand, you have Khreesat bomb, London, plant.

I will concede the official version is of course possible, but possible doesn't mean much. And I appreciate how it's a difficult leap for people. But if you think it out, you'll realize it's not hard for making too little sense.

I still wonder why there are so MANY oddities at almost every single stage, ready to be listed like that. Did they really have to be that sloppy? Is this some second level, some code, like CTists who believe the illuminati always leave their mark? I don't buy that stuff usually, but who chose the "numeral uno" (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/number-one-on-top.html) part of the board to be found there and why?

I did notice a funny thing on the debris charred tag - again, this logged the shirt collar the timer chunk was later found in:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PI995.jpg
Three signatures at least (the lowest scribbles seem notes). McColm at lower left, Gilchrist lower right, in the field of split lines. The third sig is curiously in the two long lines reserved for "Nature/Locus of Crime" - T Hayes, baby.

Oh, well, I think that's all for this issue at the moment.

Guybrush Threepwood

13th January 2010, 06:15 AM

OK this is a quick drive by 'cos I'm at work. I'll try and do more later

However, this still leaves the screaming anomalies associated with the fragment itself.

The label on the evidence bag being altered
...
The other signatory someone known to have been seldom out in the field, and to have a cavalier attitude to proper documentation of evidence
...
...
...
...

I snipped the others out, but 3 is the answer to 1, you don't need a conspiracy just a copper who doesn't like getting wet, and doesn't care about following protocol.
I know the official story contains anomalies, it's what I expect from a 20 year old case which has had several hundred people working on it. To persuade me, you need a clear alternative that accounts for most of the anomalies.

Exactly. See? Takes like fifteen full-size paragraphs to work out a scenario where an MST-13 would be in there, and that's not even listing the coincidences. And on the other hand, you have Khreesat bomb, London, plant.

Do you know a guy called Michael Mozina? You have a similar view on what constitutes a theory. That isn't an alternative scenario, you need to specify what was planted (exactly; was it just the MST-13, was it the MST-13 + radio fragments, the whole evidence bag or more ?) when it was planted, by who, and who else knew before we can see how your theory addresses the anomalies.

I still wonder why there are so MANY oddities at almost every single stage, ready to be listed like that. Did they really have to be that sloppy? Is this some second level, some code, like CTists who believe the illuminati always leave their mark? I don't buy that stuff usually, but who chose the "numeral uno" (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/number-one-on-top.html) part of the board to be found there and why?
:rolleyes: I can't believe this would persuade anybody, and it certainly makes me think you have an obsession with conspiracies and are trying to bend the facts to fit.

Caustic Logic

13th January 2010, 06:52 AM

:rolleyes: I can't believe this would persuade anybody, and it certainly makes me think you have an obsession with conspiracies and are trying to bend the facts to fit.

The very quote starts with "I wonder." So it's fine I won't convince anyone with that particular quote. It's alright if you're jealous that I enterain exotic thoughts you don't allow yourself to.

I'm not familiar with the guy you cited, but I presume he has dumb theories and the comparison was a put-down. That's fine. I'm just speaking my mind and no one has to agree.

For the record I diagnose your own view as crippled and tethered, and it's not by logic. Feel free to take that how you do.

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 08:28 AM

I'd really like to know more about the photographs of the fragment and associated items.

The red-circle photo seems to show the pages of the manual before they were teased out, thus would seem to have been taken before the events described on the page of notes dated 12th May. (Bollier persistently describes this as a polariod, but it isn't obviously a polaroid to my mind.)
There is an annotation on that page of notes suggesting the fragments of paper were photographed at that point, but not the circuit board.
Feraday refers to polariod pictures of the fragment itself being taken (apparently recently) in his memo dated 15th September.
Is it possible that the photo referred to in the 12th May notes is actually the red-circle photo, which has everything in it, not just the paper? This seems unlikely, because that photo doesn't show the paper at all clearly, and the implication in the notes seems to be that the paper was photographed particularly. The likeliest explanation is that this picture was taken at much the same time in addition to close-ups of the paper fragments, but this composite shot (taken at the start of the examination) wasn't recorded separately on the notes. Nevertheless, if the red-circle photo was indeed taken on 12th May, why is this never referred to in court, and why is it implied and accepted in the court evidence that no photograph of the fragment was taken on that date?

If there are indeed separate photographs of the paper fragments which can be reliably dated to 12th May, then that suggests at the very least that the fragment, if fabricated, was then associated with some genuine evidence, and makes it less likely that the entire bag was fabricated. It also makes it less likely that the red-circle photo, which appears to show the paper fragments in their original condition, was taken later than 12th May - which again would indicate that the fragment was present in the evidence at that date.

What's the deal with the polaroids taken on 15th September? This feature is used to support the assertion that no photographs were taken on 12th May. If in fact the polaroids were taken simply because the red-circle photo didn't show the fragment well enough for identification purposes, why not just say so?

Polaroids of course don't have negatives and so can't be dated in the way that normal film can. My original suspicion as regards the polaroids is that a polaroid camera was used to take the first pictures of the fabricated fragment so that these could later be passed off as having been taken earlier than they were. However, I don't think we have these polaroids, and the red-circle photo actually seems to be the first picture taken, and so the one for which the provenance is most crucial.

There's no sign of a date-stamp on any of the photographic prints associated with the case, indicating that the use of a camera with a date-stamp capability wasn't routine (I had such a camera in about 1996, so it wouldn't have been impossible). However, provenance of individual pictures can usually be ascertained from the negative, which should be traceable to a particular film (I would assume with 36 exposures). Finding the negative in the right place in such a film, surrounded by other pictures of consistent provenance, is pretty much conclusive evidence of when the picture was taken.

You might get round this by using up an entire film on the material you wanted to introduce, however taking a full 36-picture film of a few scraps of debris would look like overkill, surely, and could also look suspicious. Also, it could be that films were routinely numbered for ease of retrieval, and depending on the system of numbering used that again would make it more difficult to interpolate an extra film. Serial numbers on film might also complicate the issue.

All of that makes me think that the red-circle photograph (which doesn't look like a polaroid) should be genuinely traceable to 12th May. However, this has never been proved. Twenty years on, and ten years past the trial, perhaps it never can be proved. However, the suggestion was made pretty obviously at the trial that there was a problem with the provenance of the timer fragment, and the lack of a photograph taken on 12th May was a large part of that problem. I'm thus left wondering why, when that question was brought up by the defence, the prosecution didn't simply point to the red-circle photo (which was being used as a publicity shot), produce its negative in context with other pictures taken that day and on a roll of film recorded as being used that day, and shoot the whole thing down then and there?

Could the red-circle picture actually have been taken much later, when the fabricated evidence was being prepared for insertion into the chain of evidence? If so, what about the negative? Is it after all a polaroid (why would anyone be using a polaroid camera on 12th May)? If we looked for its negative, would we find it, and would we be able to establish its provenance to 12th May?

If that picture can really be shown to be taken on that day (presumably along with some pictures of the teased-out paper fragments), this pushes the opportunity for introducing the fragment as a fabrication back rather earlier than is entirely probable (though it's still not entirely impossible as political interference in this case goes back to March and the explosion tests were done in April). It also indicates that the interpolated page and Hayes's inexplicable ignoring of this important chunk of evidence are innocent sloppiness and incompetence, which removes a fair bit of the suspicion from the provenance in general.

But we don't know that. With all the questioning in court about why no pictures of the fragment from 12th May, why didn't they just wave that picture and say, voila?

What the hell is going on?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 08:32 AM

Buncrana

13th January 2010, 08:43 AM

Anyone can and should expect there to be, especially in crimes involving state agencies and it's agents, discrepancies and vague assertions which can be taken as, on balance, probably correct, or completely fanciful. These however, would be instances where the prosecution are laying out the landscape of the crime which has taken place, and not the 3 central pillars on which their case is based.

The crime and the recovery of the evidence was indeed involving hundreds of individuals, and must've have been a mammoth and complex task. Of that no one is in any doubt. Once again however, the most critical pieces of evidence, and the 3 damning and most crucial points of this prosecutions case, has not in any way satisfactorily explained why, even allowing for the mammoth task which was faced, these very large and important discrepancies should be then accepted and, on balance, are minor inconsistencies therefore beyond reasonable doubt. These inconsistencies are at the very heart of the prosecutions case against Megrahi and in their narrative of how ther bombing was carried out, and have no plausible explaination.

As for this somewhat miraculous fragment of timer, well, short of filling a plane with people and flying to 31,000 feet, we are never going to have an absolute true representation of what variables the explosion faced when it went off on 103. Even then wind and other weather condition could never be replicated. So, we have someone with explosive qualifications coming out of his posterior, and working for the UN no less, who replicates to the best he can, and on 20 different occassions, no remnants of the timer remain, and still there appears to be some doubt over precision and credibility of his findings and conclusions. If that is the case, then everyone is simply better off ignoring the Hayes, Feradays, Thurmans and the prosecutions utterly fairy tale suppositions, and accept they are just wholly incompetent, at best.

Buncrana

13th January 2010, 08:53 AM

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 10:19 AM

I snipped the others out, but 3 is the answer to 1, you don't need a conspiracy just a copper who doesn't like getting wet, and doesn't care about following protocol.

No, I don't think that answers it at all. If McColm had altered the label, it would have been perfectly easy for him to have said, I did that, sorry, wasn't quite the right way to do it, but it was my work. But he just left it hanging there, and indeed the judges decided that the label had not been altered by the signatories. It appears that neither Gilchrist nor McColm noticed the alteration.

I know the official story contains anomalies, it's what I expect from a 20 year old case which has had several hundred people working on it. To persuade me, you need a clear alternative that accounts for most of the anomalies.

Well, it was a 10-year-old case at the time. And it's not just the anomalies as such, but the way they all cluster around this one piece of evidence. It's the one thing that "shouldn't" be there in the context of the timing of the explosion (the 38-minutes suggested an ice-cube timer), and it's the physical evidence that connects the case to Libya. It's the most important thing anyone picked up off the ground. Without it, the case not only falls apart, but careers off in a completely different direction. And it's the one with the anomalies.

It may be you're right. It may be that all this is pure weird coincidence. If the provenance of the photographic negatives could prove that the fragment was really there, as described, on 12th May, I'd be more inclined to go down that road. But we don't know about the provenance of the photographs, and the sheer weight of anomalies is currently still making me suspicious.

I did post a suggested scenario that accounted for the anomalies, only excepting that I don't know why the label designation was altered. (Could be as simple as "I told you to put 'debris'!" Oh sorry, I can change that.") Also, I'm not sure whether to suggest that the 15th September memo was also retrospective (in which case Williamson would have to be considered as part of the conspiracy), or whether that date actually represents the first introduction of the fragment.

I'll summarise.

Some time in the second half of 1989 the political pressure not to bring the PFLP-GC to book intensifies (we have evidence that this aspect was being downplayed from March).

Why? A variety of political and procedural imperatives have been suggested in this and other threads, from the desire not to piss Iran off any further considering the totality of the situation in the Middle East, to the desire not to have any closer light shone on what was going on when Khreesat (an alleged CIA asset) was released from custody in October 1988, possibly to pick up where he left off and get right back to blowing up a US airliner.

Somewhere within the CIA, a decision is taken to try to move the focus of the investigation away from Iran and the PFLP-GC and focus it elsewhere. Libya might have seemed like a good scapegoat, especially if Cannistraro was involved. (Cannistraro's whole career at one time centred on getting Gadaffi a bad press by fair means or foul.) I think it's too early for the Saddam Hussein/Kuwait aspect to be exerting an influence, though that might certainly have concentrated minds and provided an extra imperative later in 1990.

Was the timer fragment "the best" way to do this? Who knows, it was one way, and it might have seemed the most practical way, since the CIA knew of these timers, had examples, and believed them to be an exclusively Libyan item. The evidence bag was put together somehow, I suspect Thurman and Orkin of having a hand in it.

Thurman was of course on very familiar terms with the Scottish and English investigating officers, having spent most of Christmas 1988 and January 1989 in Scotland and being very thick with Feraday. Evidence was being tidied up then and later, and we know Bobby Ingram was asked to sign for stuff he'd never seen before as much as a year later. I suspect it happened a few times. Something hadn't been properly signed for due to the adverse circumstances on the ground at the time, and the officers doing the tidying up would try to get the appropriate signatures (or at least some appropriate signatures) added. Maybe DC McColm and DC Gilchrist were quite happy to assist with this. It might not have been that hard to get a blank label (or one with the word "cloth" already on it?) and slide an extra bag in there.

The bag is then transported to RARDE, where Hayes examined it as he would have done anyway, but appearing to take no notice of the fragment apart from recording its presence and taking a picture of the whole production which included it. He then interpolated the page of notes he'd produced, and which he'd dated 12th May, into the sequence of pages for that time period by re-numbering half a dozen pages.

Feraday then writes his memo to Williamson with the (undateable) polaroid pictures of the fragment itself, making it look as if this was the first time anyone had really noticed that fragment to the point of thinking it was possibly significant. If this actually happened on 15th September then Williamson isn't necessarily in the loop; if it happened later and the memo was backdated, then he must be. (In any case, getting an extra bag of evidence into the system and signed off in retrospect probably involved a Scottish officer at that stage.)

Whether this happened in September or a few months later, the fragment seems to have been genuinely present in the system by January 1990, with Scottish police trying to identify it. It was in that month that Henderson refused to show it to Marquise or to involve the Americans in the search for its origin.

Cannistraro/Thurman/Orkin were probably expecting to see the fragment again much sooner than they actually did. Who knew that Henderson would be so possessive? Or indeed that in all their enquiries, the Scottish police would fail to turn up Bollier and MEBO. But what could the Americans do about it?

Finally, in June 1990, at a conference in America, Thurman manages to persuade Henderson to let him have a photograph of the fragment. He goes straight to Orkin, and we know the rest.

This is just a suggestion, just speculation, but it does cover the anomalies, and it's not wildly implausible unless you simply reject the possibility that such a conspiracy could exist at all. It doesn't involve a ridiculous number of people (probably only six), most of the people suggested have prior form in fabricating and/or sexing-up evidence in criminal or political circumstances, and they were all working together in a situation that would have permitted such a conspiracy.

If it were proved with reference to the photographic negatives that the fragment was really there on 12th May, I think it falls. Not only is it less easy to construct a scenario whereby the fragment was planted before May, this would actually remove the worst anomaly (Hayes's notes) from consideration and leave only the altered label and the suspicious behaviour of Gilchrist and McColm as possible pointers to fabrication. I'm not sure that's enough, really.

I don't really know which way to jump - this scenario, or one in which the MST-13 timer was really part of the bomb in some way. There are problems with either scenario, which tend to throw me back to the other one when I think about one of them for too long.

Which is why I wish I could have a few hours alone with the RARDE photographic archives for May 1989.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 11:11 AM

As for the red circled photograph, I cannot seem to find anywhere this photograh in it's original state. That is, presumably without the red circle marking the all important fragment out from the other items contained on that photo. Please tell me the original photo as used by the prosecution did not contain that red circle?

ETA: This photograph - http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_385213_1%5B674787%5D.jpg

This photograph, but without the red circled point of noting the fragment. This photo appears to marked "Crown copyright", but I'm assuming this red circle has been added by someone, possibly Bollier, at a later date and the original as presented by the crown at Zeist contained no red circle? Surely.

I've never seen a copy without the red circle. The print used by Paul Foot, writing in 2001, has the red circle. As a journalist, I would imagine he got the picture directly from the Camp Zeist press office.

I'm actually not sure it was ever used in evidence. I've only ever seen it in press publications, and if it was referred to at any stage in the trial I'm not aware of it. It has more the air of a publicity shot issued to journalists. In which case the red circle might have been added to direct the attention of the Press to the item of interest.

The question is, when was it taken? Certainly before April 1990, when the fragment was cut up. Almost certainly before the compacted paper fragment was teased out, unless someone was trying for a mock-up of that apearance, perhaps by including only one of the pages. And I can't see why they would.

I've had another look at Hayes's notes, to compare with the numbering on the photo, and PI995 is the number on the label (funnily enough, that seems to have been altered too, from PT995, but nobody has made any issue of this except Bollier who doesn't count). PP8932 is the serial number allocated by Hayes.

I don't know if either number gives it any provenance.

Hayes then seems to have concentrated on the paper fragments and given them the number PT2. Also, apparently as an afterthought, he designated the other bits of debris (the fragments of Toshiba and the MST-13 fragment) as PT35.

He notes two photographs taken, one of the pieces of paper he teased out, but also one of the shirt collar, which could be taken to mean a photograph of everything in the bag. That latter could well be the red-circle photograph.

When did he do all this? If really on 12th May, why not simply produce that photograph (complete with properly-documented negative) to prove that, when the provenance of the fragment was challenged in court?

But if the negative doesn't have the right provenance, isn't that a bit damning? Or maybe it would be if anyone noticed?

Why is the only copy we've seen, a copy of a print that had a red circle drawn on it? I argued earlier that issuing the photo as a press picture argued against shenanigans, as surely the negative's provenance would have been highlighted when it was retrieved to make the press copies. But that's wrong. The copy or copies that were issued were all made from a print that had had a red circle drawn on it - there's no evidence the original negative was accessed at all.

I don't see how it could be a polaroid, if it's the photo Hayes refers to in his notes. Why would he have used a polaroid camera for his routine work on 12th May?

I did wonder if it was a picture Feraday sent to Williamson, and that was when the red circle was drawn, but that doesn't fit either. Feraday implies he's taken polaroid pictures of the fragment itself, specially to send.

Maybe there's a simple explanation, but I'm not seeing it, either way.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

13th January 2010, 02:52 PM

For the record I diagnose your own view as crippled and tethered, and it's not by logic. Feel free to take that how you do.

Stoppit. Guybrush Threepwood is performing an excellent service in trying to pick holes in this particular chunk of speculation. You can't have a discussion if everyone is in agreement, and you stifle discussion (and block off potentially valuable input) if you drive people who take a different view away by being rude.

Well to be fair, I started it, the comparison to M. Mozina wasn't nice (his work is available here in the Science forum for those interested) I just find Caustic Logic's wilder flights of fancy a bit irritating.

No, I don't think that answers it at all. If McColm had altered the label, it would have been perfectly easy for him to have said, I did that, sorry, wasn't quite the right way to do it, but it was my work. But he just left it hanging there, and indeed the judges decided that the label had not been altered by the signatories. It appears that neither Gilchrist nor McColm noticed the alteration.

I was thinking more that he had done something else, like spending his time in the pub or had given someone a tenner to go and look in some woods or... there could be many reasons why he felt guilty.

I'll summarise.

Some time in the second half of 1989 the political pressure not to bring the PFLP-GC to book intensifies (we have evidence that this aspect was being downplayed from March).

Why? A variety of political and procedural imperatives have been suggested in this and other threads, from the desire not to piss Iran off any further considering the totality of the situation in the Middle East, to the desire not to have any closer light shone on what was going on when Khreesat (an alleged CIA asset) was released from custody in October 1988, possibly to pick up where he left off and get right back to blowing up a US airliner.

Somewhere within the CIA, a decision is taken to try to move the focus of the investigation away from Iran and the PFLP-GC and focus it elsewhere. Libya might have seemed like a good scapegoat, especially if Cannistraro was involved. (Cannistraro's whole career at one time centred on getting Gadaffi a bad press by fair means or foul.) I think it's too early for the Saddam Hussein/Kuwait aspect to be exerting an influence, though that might certainly have concentrated minds and provided an extra imperative later in 1990.

Was the timer fragment "the best" way to do this? Who knows, it was one way, and it might have seemed the most practical way, since the CIA knew of these timers, had examples, and believed them to be an exclusively Libyan item. The evidence bag was put together somehow, I suspect Thurman and Orkin of having a hand in it.

Thurman was of course on very familiar terms with the Scottish and English investigating officers, having spent most of Christmas 1988 and January 1989 in Scotland and being very thick with Feraday. Evidence was being tidied up then and later, and we know Bobby Ingram was asked to sign for stuff he'd never seen before as much as a year later. I suspect it happened a few times. Something hadn't been properly signed for due to the adverse circumstances on the ground at the time, and the officers doing the tidying up would try to get the appropriate signatures (or at least some appropriate signatures) added. Maybe DC McColm and DC Gilchrist were quite happy to assist with this. It might not have been that hard to get a blank label (or one with the word "cloth" already on it?) and slide an extra bag in there. Good so far, I can't see an obvious hole in this.

The bag is then transported to RARDE, where Hayes examined it as he would have done anyway, but appearing to take no notice of the fragment apart from recording its presence and taking a picture of the whole production which included it. He then interpolated the page of notes he'd produced, and which he'd dated 12th May, into the sequence of pages for that time period by re-numbering half a dozen pages.Why interpolate and renumber? There were only 5 more pages. If it's a whole new bag then start a new section. The interpolation only makes sense if he is adding the MST-13 fragment to an existing bag, but then the first half of your post doesn't cover the anomalies in the label, since the bag of evidence is genuine, but doesn't contain the timer fragment.

Feraday then writes his memo to Williamson with the (undateable) polaroid pictures of the fragment itself, making it look as if this was the first time anyone had really noticed that fragment to the point of thinking it was possibly significant. If this actually happened on 15th September then Williamson isn't necessarily in the loop; if it happened later and the memo was backdated, then he must be. (In any case, getting an extra bag of evidence into the system and signed off in retrospect probably involved a Scottish officer at that stage.)

Whether this happened in September or a few months later, the fragment seems to have been genuinely present in the system by January 1990, with Scottish police trying to identify it. It was in that month that Henderson refused to show it to Marquise or to involve the Americans in the search for its origin.

Cannistraro/Thurman/Orkin were probably expecting to see the fragment again much sooner than they actually did. Who knew that Henderson would be so possessive? Or indeed that in all their enquiries, the Scottish police would fail to turn up Bollier and MEBO. But what could the Americans do about it?

Finally, in June 1990, at a conference in America, Thurman manages to persuade Henderson to let him have a photograph of the fragment. He goes straight to Orkin, and we know the rest.
Plausible, if it is really only a low level conspiracy, so they have no power to give the Scottish police a push when needed, but it's hella risky for a few not particularly high up operatives to start this level of faking in what must be the biggest investigation of their careers.

This is just a suggestion, just speculation, but it does cover the anomalies, and it's not wildly implausible unless you simply reject the possibility that such a conspiracy could exist at all. It doesn't involve a ridiculous number of people (probably only six), most of the people suggested have prior form in fabricating and/or sexing-up evidence in criminal or political circumstances, and they were all working together in a situation that would have permitted such a conspiracy.Could someone point me to explanations of what other fakery Thurman/Fereday and Hayes were involved in. The only one I know about is the Maguire case where I think Hayes overstated the significance of a swab test for nitrocellulose, which is a long way from introducing fake evidence.

If it were proved with reference to the photographic negatives that the fragment was really there on 12th May, I think it falls. Not only is it less easy to construct a scenario whereby the fragment was planted before May, this would actually remove the worst anomaly (Hayes's notes) from consideration and leave only the altered label and the suspicious behaviour of Gilchrist and McColm as possible pointers to fabrication. I'm not sure that's enough, really. I agree, proof of the photo's bona fides would shoot this one down. It's very well done, and if any conspiracy could persuade me, this one would. I'm still not convinced, for the reasons above, and also because the timer fragment was unnecessary. There was a link to Libya with the radio cassette model (almost all sold in Libya I think?) and the evidence to convict Megrahi was all separate from the MST-13.

I don't really know which way to jump - this scenario, or one in which the MST-13 timer was really part of the bomb in some way. There are problems with either scenario, which tend to throw me back to the other one when I think about one of them for too long.

Which is why I wish I could have a few hours alone with the RARDE photographic archives for May 1989.I'm staying where I am for the moment, but that is the closest to convincing I've seen. I'll think about it some more and see if I can find any other holes.

Caustic Logic

13th January 2010, 04:40 PM

Sorry, guys. I just haven't had the patience to get into the scenario. And was getting a little curmudgeonly as well as flippant last night.

On the scientists and bad rack records, I think it was Feraday who he'd decided a "stick of chalk" meant "gelignite" wrapped in paper, which was wrong but helped convict somebody. Sources... around... Google it I guess.

Feraday's Wikipedia page (hosted elsewhere) has some points. Also the Maltese Double Cross about 0:59 - 1:03:15 Feraday and Hayes discussed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609

Thurman had the IG report from 1997(?) citing routine dishonesty from his unit in a judge bombing case and the Oklahoma City bombing. He's never been officially criticized for work on PA103 or similar work on the crash of UT772, also blamed on Libya due to a surviving circuit board.

So there's a precedent. If there was too much of one for each of these guys, they might no be employed long enough. Too little and the people looking for fudgers wouldn't recognizes Mrs. F H and T as candidates. I'm being flippant again. I don't know how these things really work. Planting is possible, there's good reason to suspect, just how is ???

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 04:54 PM

Well to be fair, I started it, the comparison to M. Mozina wasn't nice (his work is available here in the Science forum for those interested) I just find Caustic Logic's wilder flights of fancy a bit irritating.

It's his style. We all have our little ways. Mine is thinking "aloud" and producing reams of tl;dr. Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses to the discussion. Thak you most sincerely for yours.

I was thinking more that he had done something else, like spending his time in the pub or had given someone a tenner to go and look in some woods or... there could be many reasons why he felt guilty.

No, hold on, there were two of them. Going by Crawford's (confused) explanation, it appears that Gilchrist was one of a team of ten searchers bringing their finds back to McColm for countersigning. That's how it worked. (Scots law insists on having two witnesses - I well remember my dismay when, in England, I realised a single traffic cop could book me! - but sending the police out in pairs would have made it more difficult to cover the ground.) Thus the two signatures - Gilchrist as the primary finder and McColm as the more senior corroborator.

Gilchrist was the one who was nervous and a poor witness in court. This is very strange indeed - all he had to say was that he found it in that place on that day and took it to McColm. A policeman should be able to do this in his sleep. But then he couldn't explain the altered label, which he said he hadn't noticed previously. "At best confusing, at worst evasive" was the judge's opinion. Why such soul-searching over such a simple piece of evidence?

I'm not sure if McColm was called or not - we should check this. My point about him was doubt as to whether he was really out in the field with the search at all in mid January. Crawford paints a picture of someone much keener on manning the desk, and extremely skilled at holding on to that duty. By 13th January the search was actually winding down, with people being pulled off search duty. But this is the time when the guy who would do anything but go out in the cold actually went out there and found the most important piece of evidence?

McColm, as portrayed by Crawford, sounds like exactly the sort of person I'd go to if I had a few evidence bags that didn't have the proper signatures on them, and wanted it all squared up. Maybe Gilchrist was also helping out with that from time to time, hence the nervousness and evasiveness in court.

Good so far, I can't see an obvious hole in this.

Well, there is one. HOLMES. I forgot to mention this in my post. That evidence bag was apparently logged into HOLMES on (I think) 17th January. So if my speculation is anywhere close, we have to assume that the fabricated bag was in some way associated with an item that actually existed as a HOLMES entry for that date. I'm not sure that would be especially hard, given how much completely irrelevant dreck must have been picked up and logged. However, without knowing exactly what information was entered into HOLMES, I don't know how big a stumbling block this is. (I have a friend who used to work with HOLMES, including at that time - I wonder if he would tell me?)

Why interpolate and renumber? There were only 5 more pages. If it's a whole new bag then start a new section. The interpolation only makes sense if he is adding the MST-13 fragment to an existing bag, but then the first half of your post doesn't cover the anomalies in the label, since the bag of evidence is genuine, but doesn't contain the timer fragment.

I found it more difficult to dream up a scenario where the timer fragment was added to an existing bag - it wouldn't explain the Gilchrist evasiveness (unless this was purely coincidentally one he'd signed retrospectively) and it doesn't allow for questioning the provenance of the Slalom shirt, which has a number of question marks over it. Principally that Gauci at first denied having sold a shirt to the mystery shopper, but in January 1990 it appears that the Scottish police persuaded him that he did, after all.

As far as Hayes's notes go, the single page covers everything in that bag. This again argues against the fragment alone having been added, as that would imply that the page already existed, and rewriting it to include the reference to the green fragment wouldn't have produced an extra page.

There were more than five more pages. There were only five more renumbered pages. The suggestion was that a conveniently dispensible page (56?) was removed to square up the pagination, but for some reason (I don't know what that would be) the extra page was added at position 51 and a handful of pages re-numbered.

It does seem very sloppy, but it's likely they never expected any of this would be subjected to detailed scrutiny - for a long time nobody believed anyone would be brought to court, and I suspect that initially the fabricated evidence (if it did happen like that) was intended to thwart the investigation, not facilitate a prosecution.

On the other hand, maybe Hayes was simply a complete bungler, and his explanation for the renumbered pages was entirely true.

Plausible, if it is really only a low level conspiracy, so they have no power to give the Scottish police a push when needed, but it's hella risky for a few not particularly high up operatives to start this level of faking in what must be the biggest investigation of their careers.

Marquise (whom I don't think was involved) did try to give the push, but was rebuffed. Thurman may have grabbed the first chance he got.

However, I don't think it was low level. Cannistraro wasn't low level, and I don't imagine it was all his own idea. Exactly how high up the order came from (or probably more of a hint - "who will rid me of this turbulent priest!") I wouldn't know. I don't know much about the world of the spook, but I suspect it's murkier than we necessarily assume. Just because there were few people in on it doesn't mean it originated at a low level.

But irrespective of how high-level the origin, it's still perfectly possible there was nothing that could be done when Henderson got possessive. If he wasn't in on it, who was going to tell him to co-operate and hand it over?

Could someone point me to explanations of what other fakery Thurman/Fereday and Hayes were involved in. The only one I know about is the Maguire case where I think Hayes overstated the significance of a swab test for nitrocellulose, which is a long way from introducing fake evidence.

Michael Scott (interviewed by Francovich) was bitterly critical of Feraday's qualifications and expertise, and in a separate case he was criticised by the judge and it was stated that he wasn't a suitable person to be giving expert evidence in terrorism cases. Thurman appears to have been "let go" by the FBI in connection with an investigation into fabrication of evidence in unrelated cases - the details are a bit obscure. Cannistraro practically made a career out of making :rule10 up about Gadaffi.

I agree, proof of the photo's bona fides would shoot this one down. It's very well done, and if any conspiracy could persuade me, this one would. I'm still not convinced, for the reasons above, and also because the timer fragment was unnecessary. There was a link to Libya with the radio cassette model (almost all sold in Libya I think?) and the evidence to convict Megrahi was all separate from the MST-13.

I'm not sure the provenance of the cassette recorder is as definite as the prosecution tried to present it. Ambrosia knows more about this aspect than I do. The possible Libyan origin of that wasn't given much emphasis and I think in the absence of the timer fragment it might not have held up.

I'm staying where I am for the moment, but that is the closest to convincing I've seen. I'll think about it some more and see if I can find any other holes.

I'm mainly trying to figure out what to think about the fragment. If it's on the level, then that has to be factored into any explanation of what went on. Either it has a secondary role similar to my suggestion about an airborne leg to Heathrow with no safe opportunity to open the case after that, or there has to be some explanation for the 38-minute detonation that isn't the ice-cube one. A number of theories have been put forward, from a timer malfunction to confusion over the airline timetables, but these are all speculation and they still leave the 38 minutes as one hell of a coincidence.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

13th January 2010, 05:25 PM

By the way, do look at Robert Black's latest blog entry (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/o-bring-my-weer-terug-na-die-ou.html). He was supposed to be flying to South Africa today.

Because of weather conditions at Heathrow, I was unable to fly today. I am now booked on the equivalent Thursday flights. But will the runways be any clearer tomorrow? Keep tuned for the next thrilling instalment.

This happens all the time at Heathrow, especially in winter. Fog, snow, ice, you name it. Shorter delays are more common of course, but total cancellations can come right out of left field. This just illustrates the sheer insanity of setting an MST-13 type device for 7pm, and points out that even setting it for midnight wasn't exactly a cast-iron guarantee.

A barometric device makes a lot more sense in these circumstances, even if another timer is used to keep it from exploding on an earlier leg of the journey,

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

13th January 2010, 05:41 PM

There's a lot of new stuff here to address, so a couple quick points:

On the red-circle photo, I've also seen it only this way and agree with Rolfe's reasoning that it was done for the press. The photo probably was mentioned at trial, but I'm not going to dig for it. Would be interesting if the judges asked about the circle.

However on McColm and Gilchrist's explanation, we have the transcripts now. Tonight I'll use my LTBU summaries index to see which days to search. I'd like to the see the "confusing/evasive" responses in their own words.

And thanks Rolfe for your comment above
It's his style. We all have our little ways. Mine is thinking "aloud" and producing reams of tl;dr. Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses to the discussion. Thak you most sincerely for yours.
I agree we make a good team and I don't want any excess of my style to drive anyone off. I also have modes - quick assessments/broad stroke certainties and brush-offs, and pondering uncertain detail-noodling hypothesism. Or whatever. I've done enough the latter, IMO, to warrant some of the former.

Ambrosia

13th January 2010, 05:59 PM

also because the timer fragment was unnecessary. There was a link to Libya with the radio cassette model (almost all sold in Libya I think?)

The principal other suspect is the PFLP-GC.
At the time of the Lockerbie attack the PFLP-GC are based in Libya.

There is some question as to whether the radio that was used was the type that was sold mostly in Libya ( differences in the colour of the plastic casing could be a big difference) if I find a solid source I'll post a link.

the evidence to convict Megrahi was all separate from the MST-13 rubbish

Fixed that ;)

If you haven't looked yet at the UTA772 terrorist attack that happened in September 1989 it raises some interesting questions.

Basically Libya was blamed off the back of a confession from one of the alleged conspirators, as well as other circumstantial evidence.

For that disaster, Tom Thurman (himself discreditted by later investigations, and revealed to be not all that well qualified) identified a fragment of timer that led to the convictions.

This time though, 9 months after apparently a successful attack on PA103, and before anyone even knew of the existance of the MST-13 timer for Lockerbie aside from a handful of Scottish police, they used a different timer, the bomb was made differently, it was 3 times larger and was made with thin sheets of explosive lining a case.

Assume that Libya were indeed responsible for both attacks, why would they change their methods? They have a bunch of MST's - and the MST story has yet to break, why change that? Why use a different bomb construction thats 3 times bigger? the first bomb worked plenty good enough from their perspective.

Oh and not to mention that if Wyatts test point to the high probability that no fragments of timer ought to survive the explosion, what are the odds that in two consecutive explosions, both times a fragment of the bomb thats identifiable AND traceable survives, when the UTA bomb was close to 1500g of plastic high explosives, where the explosives in that case were all around the timer?!

It doesn't add up.

If wyatts tests are correct and any fragment surving is a hundreds to one longshot .....

It IS possible to construct a narrative that accounts for these anomalies, say they had run out of MST timers, or the Pan AM bomb didn't work right, say they didn't have a man on the inside at the baggage handling depot this time so the bomb needed to be bigger to ensure it'd take the plane down no matter where it was in the cargo hold. imo you are adding way way too many coincidences for it to all hold water.

Buncrana

14th January 2010, 10:56 AM

I've never seen a copy without the red circle. The print used by Paul Foot, writing in 2001, has the red circle. As a journalist, I would imagine he got the picture directly from the Camp Zeist press office.

I'm actually not sure it was ever used in evidence. I've only ever seen it in press publications, and if it was referred to at any stage in the trial I'm not aware of it. It has more the air of a publicity shot issued to journalists. In which case the red circle might have been added to direct the attention of the Press to the item of interest.

The question is, when was it taken? Certainly before April 1990, when the fragment was cut up. Almost certainly before the compacted paper fragment was teased out, unless someone was trying for a mock-up of that apearance, perhaps by including only one of the pages. And I can't see why they would.

I've had another look at Hayes's notes, to compare with the numbering on the photo, and PI995 is the number on the label (funnily enough, that seems to have been altered too, from PT995, but nobody has made any issue of this except Bollier who doesn't count). PP8932 is the serial number allocated by Hayes.

I don't know if either number gives it any provenance.

Hayes then seems to have concentrated on the paper fragments and given them the number PT2. Also, apparently as an afterthought, he designated the other bits of debris (the fragments of Toshiba and the MST-13 fragment) as PT35.

He notes two photographs taken, one of the pieces of paper he teased out, but also one of the shirt collar, which could be taken to mean a photograph of everything in the bag. That latter could well be the red-circle photograph.

When did he do all this? If really on 12th May, why not simply produce that photograph (complete with properly-documented negative) to prove that, when the provenance of the fragment was challenged in court?

But if the negative doesn't have the right provenance, isn't that a bit damning? Or maybe it would be if anyone noticed?

Why is the only copy we've seen, a copy of a print that had a red circle drawn on it? I argued earlier that issuing the photo as a press picture argued against shenanigans, as surely the negative's provenance would have been highlighted when it was retrieved to make the press copies. But that's wrong. The copy or copies that were issued were all made from a print that had had a red circle drawn on it - there's no evidence the original negative was accessed at all.

I don't see how it could be a polaroid, if it's the photo Hayes refers to in his notes. Why would he have used a polaroid camera for his routine work on 12th May?

I did wonder if it was a picture Feraday sent to Williamson, and that was when the red circle was drawn, but that doesn't fit either. Feraday implies he's taken polaroid pictures of the fragment itself, specially to send.

Maybe there's a simple explanation, but I'm not seeing it, either way.

Rolfe.

There's a lot of new stuff here to address, so a couple quick points:

On the red-circle photo, I've also seen it only this way and agree with Rolfe's reasoning that it was done for the press. The photo probably was mentioned at trial, but I'm not going to dig for it. Would be interesting if the judges asked about the circle.

However on McColm and Gilchrist's explanation, we have the transcripts now. Tonight I'll use my LTBU summaries index to see which days to search. I'd like to the see the "confusing/evasive" responses in their own words.

<snip>

Sorry folks, I cannot buy any of the assertions that it was done by Hayes, Feraday or as a press release highlighting the fragment. The thing jumps out from the photo sitting alongside some indistinguishable tiny pieces of plastic, a piece of cloth and something scrunched up (paper). The fragment, is quite easily and clearly got a partial number and conductors lines accross the bottom. I mean, even I, knowing absolutely ziltch about electronics, recognise that is part of something electronic. Whereas the rest are either completely unknown (tiny plastic pieces and the scrunch of paper/metal) or quite obviously some sort of charred material. Do they think the press attending normally cover what Brad Pitt's been wearing this week or something? The press sent there, would be, without fail, those well versed in court trials, law, evidence and witnesses. If it was circled out by Hayes or Feraday, then I would say that is yet another unnecessary and unexplained departure from, I presume, standard logging and evidence precedure.

If this picture was never referred to or presented at the trial, that would be utterly astounding.

I notice here that the picture circle appears somewhat lighter, and the details suggest a 2.5mpx polaroid camera being used.

This picture - http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9463/mst13fragmenttech10.jpg

This red circle is really bothering me, who circled the photo, when and why exactly (obviously, you might say..) but I'm not too sure what to make of it..

realdon

14th January 2010, 12:08 PM

However on McColm and Gilchrist's explanation, we have the transcripts now. Tonight I'll use my LTBU summaries index to see which days to search. I'd like to the see the "confusing/evasive" responses in their own words.

Caustic.You need to look at Day 5. Gilchrist, McColm and other police officers giving details of searching and production labels.

One thing that I cant fathom is the following and something about 2 P1955
labels

17 Now that you are looking at the actual

18 labels, Mr. Gilchrist, and looking at the label for

19 PI 995 --

20 A I don't think PI 995 is my writing.

21 Q You don't think it's your writing?

22 A It's not the way I would do a "D".

23 Q You signed the label attached to it, the

24 label itself?

25 A Yes. yes
860

1 Q Who else has signed the label?

2 A Several people. Cal Mentoso (phonetic),

3 Derek Henderson -- no, I think it's -- I think it's

4 Derek Henderson, Tom Hayes, Allan Feraday, Tom McColm,

5 Ron McManus.

Not the same signatures as the PI995 label I have seen posted on this thread

Also this

24 Q Now, if we look at PI 995, we can see

25 that you are recorded as the finder of that item

1 A Yes.

2 Q And if we look to the date found, we see

3 that the date is 13th January 1989?

4 A Yes.

5 Q If we look to the date when the item was

6 logged, we see the date 17th January 1989?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Do you know where item PI 995 was for

9 four days before it was logged at the Dextar warehouse,

10 Mr. Gilchrist?

11 A No, I don't.

Rolfe, You mentioned HOLMES but no mention is made of this in witness examination. Seems they entered the labels into a hand written production register at Dextar

David

realdon

14th January 2010, 02:21 PM

Further to the above, Missing for 4 days PI 955 this is Gilchrst in cross examination by Mr Keen

3 Q Now, if you put the label to one side,

4 and if we could return to Production 114, which is the

5 production log from Dextar, at reference PI 995. And I

6 think we can see that on this sheet from the Dextar log

7 we have again sequentially numbered three entries:

8 PI 994, PI 995, and PI 996.

9 A Yes.

10 Q And if we look at PI 994, we see that

11 the finder of that item is entered as "Unknown"?

12 A Yes.

13 Q But it's entered as found on the 17th of

14 January 1989, and again it's logged on the 17th of

15 January 1989?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And if we go to PI 996, we can see that

18 the finder of that item is entered as "Unknown."

19 A Yes.

20 Q But it's recorded as having been found

21 on the 17th of January 1989, and of course logged on

22 the 17th of January 1989?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Now, if we look at PI 995, we can see

25 that you are recorded as the finder of that item.

1 A Yes.

2 Q And if we look to the date found, we see

3 that the date is 13th January 1989?

4 A Yes.

5 Q If we look to the date when the item was

6 logged, we see the date 17th January 1989?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Do you know where item PI 995 was for

9 four days before it was logged at the Dextar warehouse,

10 Mr. Gilchrist?

11 A No, I don't.

Copyright 2000, Scottish Court Service

Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided

the source is acknowledged

David

Caustic Logic

14th January 2010, 03:49 PM

David, you beat me to it. I did find Gilchrist last night and working on cuttin the extra stuff and formatting it better than that. It is an interesting response. He doesn't think he wrote Debris or "charred)? But other examples show him writing (charred) if it was, and this one was! (Once found again anyway) I'll put up anything I got that you didn't, and then we can analyze. :)

Buncrana: On the photo being Polaroid, we've been thinking it was 35mm. But I'm no photo expert. Just remember that blowup is a large magnification.
Sorry folks, I cannot buy any of the assertions that it was done by Hayes, Feraday or as a press release highlighting the fragment. The thing jumps out from the photo sitting alongside some indistinguishable tiny pieces of plastic,
Maybe they thought people were idiots and needed the help? I don't see what other purpose this would have, except to look suspicious to some.

Back with Gilchrist

Caustic Logic

14th January 2010, 05:08 PM

Q And what have you written?
A The date, 13th of January 1989; debris (charred) were found, I Sector, grid reference 502 858.

material of some sort ... grey ... some burning around the edges ... Four inches long by about two inches wide.
Some time is spent establishing the find area as they logged it, using Ordnance Survey grids. It was around Newcastleton, near the the intersection of grid lines 86 and 50.
Q And without trying to be overly specific, is that the area in which this grid reference that you
815
referred to for the finding of this item is to be found?
A Yes.

Q Thank you. What sort of countryside was that?
A Forestry and farmland.

Q I wonder if we can magnify on the
845
word "debris." Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered?
A I can see writing underneath it.

Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word "debris," we can make out, can we not, the word "cloth," with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of "debris," and a T under the R, and a H under the S?
A It's possible, yes, sir.

Q It's more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It's perfectly obvious, isn't it?
A Yes.

Q Well, why didn't you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A I didn't notice it. It's the first time it's been brought to my attention.

Q Do I infer from this that you did not alter the label?
A I've probably overwritten it at the time.

Q Did you or did you not alter this label, Mr. Gilchrist?
846
A It certainly looks as if I have.

Q And if we look to what is contained on the underside of the writing, we can see the word "cloth."
A Yes.

Q And can I suggest, Mr. Gilchrist, that the reason you, as a detective constable, wrote "cloth" on the label is because that is what you found?
A That would probably have been my assumption.

Q What do you mean, Mr. Gilchrist, "that is probably an assumption"?
A At first examination, I've probably written down "cloth," and on closer examination, I did not put down "cloth" in case it isn't cloth. I put down "debris." I haven't scored it out and I haven't initialled it. My mistake is I have overwritten it.[/QUOTE]

Do we see that in this photograph the designation PI 995 is attached not only to a piece of
848
cloth, as you've already described, but to a very obvious and significant piece of electrical circuit board, which we can see with the number 1 etched on it?
A Yes.
[...]
Q Have you ever seen that photograph before?
A I'm not sure.

Q Have you ever been invited to change the label, and in particular the wording on label PI 995, from "cloth" to "debris"?
A Never at any time.

Q So you can't account for the change in the wording on the label from "cloth" to "debris"; is that correct, Mr. Gilchrist?
A Yes.

I am noticing, handwriting aside, all writing in the upper part is very faint except the words clearly added later. Why victimize the weak ink unless you're trying to be sneaky?

Q If you leave aside the question of whether there's been any change in it, just looking at the writing as it is on the label, what do you say about that?
A In what respect? The "debris," certainly, appears overwritten.

Q Yes.
A And the "(charred)," if you look, "Where
861
Found," I Sector, the pen looks as if it's almost running out there, and the "debris" is in heavier writing.

Q Looking to the other label, you see the words "Debris (charred)"?
A Yes.

Q You explained to the Court earlier that you had written these words.
A Yes.

Q Is that the position?
A Yes, it's my writing.

Q And what about the position on the other label, PI 995?
A Part of it's mine.

Q Sorry?
A Part of the writing is mine, but I am not convinced it's all mine.

Q Well, with respect to the words "Debris (charred)," what do you say?
A I can't give an opinion on it. I don't recall overwriting it, and I'm not convinced that "charred" is my writing.

Q I see. But the phrase "debris (charred)" is a phrase that you clearly used --
A I normally use.

A lot of "it's possible" and uncertain language when pushed on a controversy. It's almost as if he worries someone else has given a different story there and he doesn't want to contradict. Not the most encouraging midset to encounter, if so.

Anyone else?

Rolfe

14th January 2010, 05:18 PM

Sorry folks, I cannot buy any of the assertions that it was done by Hayes, Feraday or as a press release highlighting the fragment. The thing jumps out from the photo sitting alongside some indistinguishable tiny pieces of plastic, a piece of cloth and something scrunched up (paper). The fragment, is quite easily and clearly got a partial number and conductors lines accross the bottom. I mean, even I, knowing absolutely ziltch about electronics, recognise that is part of something electronic. Whereas the rest are either completely unknown (tiny plastic pieces and the scrunch of paper/metal) or quite obviously some sort of charred material. Do they think the press attending normally cover what Brad Pitt's been wearing this week or something? The press sent there, would be, without fail, those well versed in court trials, law, evidence and witnesses. If it was circled out by Hayes or Feraday, then I would say that is yet another unnecessary and unexplained departure from, I presume, standard logging and evidence precedure.

If this picture was never referred to or presented at the trial, that would be utterly astounding.

I notice here that the picture circle appears somewhat lighter, and the details suggest a 2.5mpx polaroid camera being used.

This picture - http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9463/mst13fragmenttech10.jpg

This red circle is really bothering me, who circled the photo, when and why exactly (obviously, you might say..) but I'm not too sure what to make of it..

I honestly don't know. The picture is ubiquitous, but I've never seen it without the red circle. I was simply guessing when I speculated it might have been Feraday (pointing it out to Williamson) or the Camp Zeist press office (pointing it out to the public). If it was done further down the line than that, it's weird that there isn't a copy anywhere without it.

If we take the whole thing at face value, the picture would appear to be the "photo" mentioned in the first margin annotation on Hayes's 12th May notes. We would expect a second photo of the five teased-out paper fragments to accompany it.

What confuses me about this is why, in that case, was the court allowed to believe that no photograph existed of the fragment on that date? The authenticity of these notes was specifically challenged because of the re-pagination. The judges decided they believed the date at face value, though there was no clear reason for that. The red-circle photo wasn't exactly hiding its light under a bushel, if Paul Foot was reproducing it in 2001, so why not simply refer to that and point out that it was taken on that date? And that if anyone had any doubts, the negative could be produced to show provenance.

Why would it be a polaroid? Yes, I can absolutely see that if it was, that would explain why every copy has the red circle - if someone marked the original in that way, you're stuck with it as you don't have a negative to make more prints. But there's no reason at all for Hayes to be using a polaroid camera in his routine work in May. Indeed, at the trial, Feraday was asked (in relation to the polaroids he sent to Williamson), surely Hayes had had the fragment photographed in May, so why didn't he just use that photo? He was quite evasive about that, as I recall.

Bollier has consistently called the photo a polaroid, and originally I did think it was one of the polaroids Feraday took on 15th September. However, as Dan O. noticed, it shows the paper still compacted, so it must have been taken before Hayes teased it out, which he says he did in May.

OK, here's a suggestion, supportive of the "plant" theory. It relies on a degree of inattention to detail on the part of Hayes and Feraday, but that would be in character with some of the rest of it - I don't believe they really imagined this would ever come to court.

When the final preparations were being made for inserting the fabricated production into the chain of evidence, probably after the Gilchrist/McColm signatures had been secured and the bag was officially at Fort Halstead, Hayes opened it and performed the examination as he would have done if it had been a normal evidence bag. However, the photographer was not involved (for obvious reasons) and a polaroid camera was used throughout both to get round this, and to avoid negatives being produced with the wrong provenance.

Where he would have taken photographs in the normal course of events, these were taken with the polaroid camera, and noted in the margin of his notes. Ensuring, of course, that no special attention was given to the fragment, because at this point he wasn't supposed to have realised it was anything worth following up. (Aye, right....)

Once he'd done all that, Feraday took over to write his memo to Williamson, taking a couple more snaps of the fragment for that purpose. Note that the memo refers to "polaroids" in the plural, and mentions some mysterious and inexplicable time pressure to explain why they aren't 35mm shots. When he came to send the memo plus polaroids to Scotland, he had all the pictures to hand, and he included the one of the entire production. Circling the fragment in red to highlight it for Williamson.

Not realising that, as it showed the paper still compacted, it "should" have been taken in May - and the September polaroid-excuse didn't actually apply to May.

It's perfectly possible that nobody has noticed this point until Dan O. spotted it. That one of the polaroids referred to in the September memo was actually a photo that was ostensibly taken in May, in which case why is it a polaroid, and why are you constantly implying and agreeing that the fragment wasn't photographed in May?

In due course the picture was selected to be released to the press, but the original print was reproduced, red circle and all - either because any negative was assumed to be at RARDE, or because it was recognised as a polaroid.

Buncrana, what do you think about the picture? Could it be a polaroid? It seems to have quite a lot of detail, visible in that second version you linked to - enough to allow the pattern of fracture and damage to be compared to the later pictures.

I hope we can find some reference to this picture in the Camp Zeist proceedings. The provenance stated or implied for it could reveal a lot. If it's being presented as a polaroid taken on 12th May, I'm very suspicious of a later plant, because that picture should not be a polaroid. If it's presented as one of the 15th September polaroids, it's a smoking gun. It may be that there isn't enough detail in the transcript to tell, but we need to find out.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th January 2010, 05:32 PM

Caustic.You need to look at Day 5. Gilchrist, McColm and other police officers giving details of searching and production labels.

One thing that I cant fathom is the following and something about 2 P1955
labels

Not the same signatures as the PI995 label I have seen posted on this thread.

That is odd. The pictures of the label are from Bollier's web site, but he has no record of falsifying or faking up picture evidence.

Rolfe, You mentioned HOLMES but no mention is made of this in witness examination. Seems they entered the labels into a hand written production register at Dextar.

You could be right. I don't know where I got the impression that all these pieces had been logged on to HOLMES at Dextar, but I thought that was what was done. A lot easier to slip something in retrospectively if it was just a hand-written log.

The court accepted that a 4-day delay in logging an item was nothing out of the ordinary, but if the surrounding items were logged the same day, that's odd. I would have thought that delays in logging would have been more likely to occur earlier in the search - by 13th January it was winding down and there wouldn't have been so much stuff.

Of course, we don't know the reason for these anomalies, but they are anomalies. We don't know what difficulty might have been encountered in getting a bag retrospectively associated with a suitable log entry (if it was, of course), and it could be related to that.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th January 2010, 05:50 PM

David, you beat me to it. I did find Gilchrist last night and working on cuttin the extra stuff and formatting it better than that. It is an interesting response. He doesn't think he wrote Debris or "charred)? But other examples show him writing (charred) if it was, and this one was! (Once found again anyway)

My impression is that he doesn't remember finding the item at all. It's possible he simply has no recollection of that particular fragment, over ten years after the event. And maybe he didn't want to admit to that, even though it wouldn't have been very surprising.

Or maybe he agreed to sign off on a few items retrospectively, to tidy up the documentation, and he now has a horrible suspicion that this is one of them. Of course, if that's so, he can't possibly mention it, even if all the material signed for really did have the provenance indicated.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th January 2010, 06:00 PM

Rolfe

14th January 2010, 06:21 PM

I'm going to bed. Can you find any reference to the red-circle picture in the transcript?

Rolfe.

realdon

14th January 2010, 06:47 PM

OK, that's a definite. Here's how to see the spot.
.

Thats cool. There's a lot of detail in the court transcripts. I've been dipping into then over the last few weeks.

For those who can access it use the witness list on the wiki to find the relevant days of interest. 10,230 + pages of stuff to think about!

Now can anybody help with this. Somewhere amongst the 1300 + lockerbie posts on Jref I am sure there are some posts about a Policewoman? who spoke to the press early in the investigation regarding comments made to her by a senior officer about something, a suitcase or item that had been found that was linked to a certain passenger on 103. Something about it how "all hell was going to let loose over the next few days" I'm sure the owner of this
item was named and the senior officer was linking him or the case directly with the bomb.

Cant use the search function as I need the names

David

Caustic Logic

15th January 2010, 12:25 AM

OK, that's a definite. Here's how to see the spot.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/

Click on the pink "I want to Get-a-map now!" circle.

Find the search field in the resulting pop-up, and enter NY502858.

Click on "go". There is is. That spot is right in the middle of the large-scale map that will appear. You might want to zoom back one stage to a slightly smaller scale. Note that this is not a "field" exactly. It's quite a steep hillside and it's rough grazing, very near to the edge of Newcastleton Forest but not in it. It's very near the border but it is in Scotland.

For goodness sake, that's baby stuff. If the spot was that clearly identified, why the bloody blue blazes have people been wittering on about the Kielder Forest for decades?

Rolfe.

ETA: That of course is also the solution to my "location" (left) which routinely baffles the Yanks.

Awesome! I was hoping the numbers could be useful to someone who knows what the heck that system is. You are just that person. :) Now that summation by me my be imprecise - it was along "scroll thos way, now zoom, now..." section. May be to the left or something, but around there. App. 35 km due east (slightly north) of Lockerbie.

I suspect the forest find story has persisted because it sounds less plausible. That canopy, etc. Is it famous for its thick canopy, in particular, or anything? To my mind, it's not the records of what WAS found and where and when that's as puzzling as that stuff was later planted within it. Of course. There may have been a full swap. I really am suspicious of the clothes as well.

I'll come back to the label for PI/995 in a bit - by the way, it was filled out 21 years ago today, a couple days ago.

Caustic Logic

15th January 2010, 12:35 AM

Can you find any reference to the red-circle picture in the transcript?

If I bump into it... so far this sounds like maybe the photo - if "obvious" is code for circled in red, then we have a support.
Q ... Do we see that in this photograph the designation PI 995 is attached not only to a piece of
848
cloth, as you've already described, but to a very obvious and significant piece of electrical circuit board, which we can see with the number 1 etched on it?
A Yes.
[...]
Q Have you ever seen that photograph before?
A I'm not sure.

Thats cool. There's a lot of detail in the court transcripts. I've been dipping into then over the last few weeks.

For those who can access it use the witness list on the wiki to find the relevant days of interest. 10,230 + pages of stuff to think about!

That's of course for those few who've registered there. If you're serious about the issue, contact Dan O. or myself or whoever to get the top-secret url and then register and you can do stuff like that. :)

Now can anybody help with this. Somewhere amongst the 1300 + lockerbie posts on Jref I am sure there are some posts about a Policewoman? who spoke to the press early in the investigation regarding comments made to her by a senior officer about something, a suitcase or item that had been found that was linked to a certain passenger on 103. Something about it how "all hell was going to let loose over the next few days" I'm sure the owner of this
item was named and the senior officer was linking him or the case directly with the bomb.

Cant use the search function as I need the names

David

Dangit... exactly the hazy tip-o-my-brain recollection myself... I can do this. Hold on... "Joseph Patrick Curry" will unlock the secrets. I recall it seeming inconclusive, but maybe not...

Rolfe

15th January 2010, 05:48 AM

I'm not sure how easy other posters find it to read OS maps, but the place the fragment was found can be visualised quite easily from the map reference.

It seems to have been on a north-facing shoulder of a small hill called Blinkbonny Height. The terrain isn't all that steep, but it falls away more steeply to the north towards the Tweeden Burn. To the south is the rounded summit of Blinkbonny Height which is part of a double summit - the other summit, to the south-east (Carby Hill), has prehistoric remains on it.

I suppose it is a big field, it has field boundaries marked on the map, sloping hill ground and rough grazing - not cultivated. It would probably have upland sheep or suckler cows grazing. The most striking thing is that the field is bounded on two sides by the Newcastleton Forest, which is marked as coniferous woodland. It's likely to be a Forestry Commission plantation. These are usually quite dense monocultures, with trees close together and not much life on the forest floor. The edge of the forest is only about 50 yards off in either direction.

I suspect, though, that the grid reference simply means the item was found somewhere in that field. The reference as given refers roughly to the middle of the field, so I suspect they simply designated that entire field as 502 858 and used that reference for everything found within the field boundaries. So it could have been "right against the forest fence", or further down near the Langley Cleuch and the smaller in-bye fields. I don't suppose anyone would remember whereabouts in any particular field they found any particular item, but the reference certainly places it in that specific field.

It's only about 20 miles due east of Lockerbie itself. I thought, according to Crawford's book, that they'd searched that radius before 13th January, but of course he's not that reliable.

It's funny there was so much misinformation floating around about where it was found and by whom. That information is extremely clear. I suppose it could just have been sloppy reporting - someone has said "35 miles east of Lockerbie" (which is actually in the Kielder Forest in England) instead of "20 miles east", and then nobody ever thought it worthwhile to check it. (It could conceivably have been 35km east of Lockerbie, then misreported as miles, but I'm not sure if anyone was recording in km in 1989.)

I just had a look at the BBC Conspiracy Files programme again, and the reconstruction of the finding of the fragment is definitely not in the right place. They have filmed it in a small clearing in actual forest, not in a field of rough grazing next to the forest. (And of course it's filmed as if two policemen found a piece of grey cloth with a bright green bit of rather unconvincing electronics sitting on top of it, all clean and shiny. In fact Glichrist would have picked it up while quartering the field and brought it back to McColm as the second witness, acting in that capacity for a team of ten. And nobody knew there was anything lodged inside the piece of cloth.) They (the BBC) seem to have realised the error of their ways finally though, because the Newsnight programme from last week said "a field near Newcastleton" which is essentially right.

Which of course gets us no closer to knowing whether the thing really was picked up there as described, or not.

Were Gilchrist and McColm really out searching that field on that day or not? My suspicion is not, because McColm didn't do much searching at all, and by 13th January I really thought they'd covered everything that close to Lockerbie itself. It would be interesting to know what else was found there or nearby, and by whom and when, but we're not going to get that information.

It's interesting that the adjacent items are logged as "finder unknown". To me that suggests the important item might have had finders' information added later, in the way that Bobby Ingram recounted. It seemed as if police officers were going round trying to get better provenance entered on items that looked as if they might be important evidence.

I don't know how anyone would have gone about sliding an extra item into the chain of evidence, in late 1989. I'm pretty sure it would have been possible. There's also a fair chance there might have been anomalies to see, if anyone had examined the records in enough detail. Where were Gilchrist and McColm on Friday 13th January 1989, based on other evidence? When was the Blinkbonny Farm area actually searched? When and how were other items from that or adjacent fields logged at Dextar, and by whom?

We're never going to find out. Maybe Glichrist and McColm were really there that Friday, Gilchrist picked the stuff up and took it back, but nobody got round to logging it until the following Tuesday and the label got a bit scrambled.

Or maybe PI995 was picked as some totally unwanted piece of trash, "finder unknown", and its number used for the fabricated evidence. Gilchrist and McColm signed for it later, maybe with other things, when the evidence was being tidied up.

If anyone had been suspicious enough even at the time of the trial, I suspect a lot might have been clarified by interrogating the available data. However, typical lawyers, more interested in finding anomalies to "cast doubt" than actually clarifying anything.

I don't know. There's not enough evidence at the Scottish end to show it was a later interpolation, or to prove it's completely kosher. I suppose we have to leave it there unless/until something more emerges.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

16th January 2010, 05:09 AM

I must admit I'm not up to sorting this out fully. But we've got the material to do so pretty well.

On material find location, we're settled on or near that open slope bluebunny hill or whatever. That's solved pretty well. As for the tag itself, these are the things to consider:

- Did Gilchrist and/or McColm actually find this item - or any item - in that area on that day? or just sign later?
- Weak ink - date, "Cloth", perhaps "(charred)", and location were all done with a dying pen, or so Gilchrist later deduces. From what he can see he thinks that's probably his writing, right?
- Added in bolder ink by someone other than Gilchrist (he thinks, probably) - "Debris" over "Cloth", "(charred)", and the signatures are bolder and readable, so done after the dead pen was tossed anyway.
- Two tags - ?? One with more signatures than the one we've seen. ??
- Adjacent numbered items - PI/994 and 996 - finder unknown? Same weak pen? Not gone over later? I would guess did not then prove to have amazing Libya-implicating evidence inside?

Discuss.

Caustic Logic

17th January 2010, 04:06 PM

Yay! We've passed 10,000 views on this thread!

Let me just pop in with a side thought. What reason do we have to dismiss the possibility that Edwin Bollier handed over the MST-13 to chop up and plant?

Considering his company made the things. He had kept Megrahi and an associate Badri Hassan close to him and his offices and later gave clues about them to thee assassins. He was the first person to alert Americans that Libyans might be blamed. He calls that his "catch letter," typed on a writer with Spanish keys. He says Western intel forced him to write it, Dec 28 1988 IIRC. He was offered $4 million immoral offer by the FBI he says to help convict Megrahi, but turned it down.

You know who else is that upright? Abdul Majid Giaka, trial transcript:
"I did not ask them [CIA] for money, but they decided to allot $1,000 per month to me, but I did not ask for that sum. They offered larger sums, but I turned that offer down."

[41] In relation to the first accused, there are three important witnesses, Abdul Majid [Giaka], Edwin Bollier and Tony Gauci.
that one, Mr. $2 million Gauci (with $1 million brother), and Bollier, who despite questioning the fragment in court, and getting yelled at for his idiocy, he provided "additional evidence against the first accused" on several occasions. No payment tho.

EXCEPT the $200 million, from LIBYA he's claimed to the BBC Conspiracy Files to be aiming for. At a recent comment at Black's blog, he clarified this with better than usual English.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/lockerbie-bomber-release-rules-followed.html
MISSION LOCKERBIE: attn. Caustic Logic

I want to clarify the $ 200 million reward I would receive from Libya for my assistance in Megrahi's release.
I answered the question in the BBC movie The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" with "Yes".
Many TV spectators may have wondered why I answered that question, usually people don't talk about money publicly.
The reason is that one sequence of my interview was cut out and my statement was only partially quoted leading so to a wrong connotation. I was asked by BBC: "Will Libya pay you for your work in the Lockerbie case?" My answer was: "No, if we win the case and the compensation for the victims (US$ 2.7 billion) is refunded I will get a success honorary of US$ 200 million."
Then BBC asked the next question: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" What should I answer? Staying close to my first answer I said. "Yes." Better I should have insisted on my more precise first statement. But how could I know that my first statement was cut out later and my statement such distorted.
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland

So it's a ridiculously enormous prize IF Bollier gets the families to pay Libya back. Hmmm... If I were Libya, I'd be more likely to pay someone else to get some compensation from BOLLIER. At least whatever he took - without admitting it - to provide THE ONE (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/number-one-on-top.html).

realdon

17th January 2010, 05:38 PM

Caustic logic
Dangit... exactly the hazy tip-o-my-brain recollection myself... I can do this. Hold on... "Joseph Patrick Curry" will unlock the secrets. I recall it seeming inconclusive, but maybe not...

Thanks for that Caustic. Took me where i wanted to go hoping to get 2 +2 to equal 4 but got maybe 3.75. Will explain all soon.

I had some spare time Friday and managed to get along to hear Dr Jim Swire in conversation with Ian Anderson at Glasgow concert hall.

I was suprised at the attendance well over 100 maybe 150. Audience age on average over 60. It was broadcast live on Celtic music radio, a local Glasgow station. I checked with them and was told it will available to listen again on line in the next few days

Link (may need refresh)
http://www.canstream.co.uk/celticmusic/index.php?cat=IainAnderson

He gave an outline of his thoughts for the uninitiated and what he thnks were the holes in the prosecutions case and the investigation.

The PFLP/Abu Talb connection. The timing at 38 mins pointing at a barometric device. The undisclosed Heathrow break in. Moneys paid to witnesses. All the stuff that gives Rolfe a headache:)

Seems most people there were in agreement that releasing Megrahi was the right thing to do judging by the general reaction. Dont think many were aware of the ins and out of the case. Dr Swire asked who had seen the recent Newsnight report and only half a dozen raised ther hands.

I managed to get a very short chat with him afterwards. Must say he was a liittle wary of me at first but when he realised I knew something of the case he was happy to talk. Told him I was of the mind that it was a PFLP barometric device at heathrow but that I couldnt figure how the MST13 fragment could have been introduced. He said "ahhh well there is someting that will explain that" His tone on this was very definite and up. Maybe the mystery document withheld by a foreign power that has been alluded to?

I see the posts on Robert Blacks blog are getting up steam. We now have Richard Marquis and Edwin Bollier posting to each other.

David

Caustic Logic

17th January 2010, 06:45 PM

Thanks for that Caustic. Took me where i wanted to go hoping to get 2 +2 to equal 4 but got maybe 3.75. Will explain all soon.

Great! Let's see your work to get that "number." I'm definitely curious.

I had some spare time Friday and managed to get along to hear Dr Jim Swire in conversation with Ian Anderson at Glasgow concert hall.
...
I managed to get a very short chat with him afterwards. Must say he was a liittle wary of me at first but when he realised I knew something of the case he was happy to talk. Told him I was of the mind that it was a PFLP barometric device at heathrow but that I couldnt figure how the MST13 fragment could have been introduced. He said "ahhh well there is someting that will explain that" His tone on this was very definite and up. Maybe the mystery document withheld by a foreign power that has been alluded to?

That's great. I wonder if anyone else from here made it, and you just didn't recognize them in person. Me, eh, the commute didn't seem workable. I've always dug Dr. Swire. He may be a little on the "woo" side, embracing theories maybe too easy or too firmly. But IF he's too woo, I don't think it's by much, honestly. I'll see if I can hear it. As for the "something" that will "explain" he MST-13, we'll just have to see what that is. I'm curious for sure.

I see the posts on Robert Blacks blog are getting up steam. We now have Richard Marquis and Edwin Bollier posting to each other.

David

That's nothing new - their partnership goes back to the late 80's/early '90s. ;) Even at the blog, they've both been commenting for quite a while, ebol a lot more often, obviously. One sub-theme is how ebol plays the clown, throwing out disinfo that Marquise can easily knock down and make the "conspiracy theorists" look bad. Yet when it comes to, for example, meetings to buy more MST-13s just a couple days before the bombing, Marquise will take a claim supported only by Bollier (AFAIK) and repeat it as fact. :rolleyes:

Caustic Logic

17th January 2010, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood
also because the timer fragment was unnecessary. There was a link to Libya with the radio cassette model (almost all sold in Libya I think?)
The principal other suspect is the PFLP-GC.
At the time of the Lockerbie attack the PFLP-GC are based in Libya.

There is some question as to whether the radio that was used was the type that was sold mostly in Libya ( differences in the colour of the plastic casing could be a big difference) if I find a solid source I'll post a link.

Quote:
the evidence to convict Megrahi was all separate from the MST-13 rubbish
Fixed that

Just had to call out that "correction." In fact the evidence convicting Megrahi was both separate from the MST-13 and rubbish.

And a tidbit: Reacting to reactions to Wyatt's tests, Mr. Marquise had this to say:
One phrase seems to have been forgotten-- Dr. Wyatt said it was "not impossible" for the fragment to have survived. I think any attorney would be glad to have that statement to be used in any defense of the fragment itself.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/crown-misinformation.html

Isn't that weak?

Rolfe

18th January 2010, 03:20 PM

Your namesake just wrote something quite interesting on Robert Black's blog.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/crown-misinformation.html

Let us not forget what Richard Marquise wrote about Feraday:
"Feraday at RARDE was a road block. He had insisted on reviewing all evidence personally and was not interested in having any help. He wanted to ensure he was accurate and no one could fault him for that."
This is fairly enigmatic. If I want to be totally sure that I am accurate - then I, like all reasonable people, ask friends and and collegues to have a close look at it.
Only people who have to hide something or who want to arrange something in favour of a thesis is afraid of witnesses.
I think, here we may have the clue to the many strange rearranged pieces of evidence in this case.

Mmmmmm......

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

19th January 2010, 02:16 AM

Your namesake just wrote something quite interesting on Robert Black's blog.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/crown-misinformation.html

Mmmmmm......

Rolfe.

Those comments have really gone off the rails. German Adam is one of the more encouraging voices involved. It's a good observation. One would have to consider his possible mentality re: trust of those across the Atlantic, around him, etc. and what it indicates about what he thought he was up to. It's a right-brain observation, unprovable, etc. But good.

Ambrosia

19th January 2010, 05:46 AM

Just had to call out that "correction." In fact the evidence convicting Megrahi was both separate from the MST-13 and rubbish.

I'd quote an interview between Gideon Levy and Richard Marquise here if I could find the link ...

[from memory though the general gist is accurate]

GL: "If it hadn't been for the fragment of MST-13 would they have found Megrahi guilty"

RM: "We wouldn't have even got an indictment"

The fragment points to Libya - it connects Libya to Bollier. Bollier is connected to Megrahi (renting office space). while some of the evidence that convicted Megrahi is seperate, the MST-13 fragment remains crucial to the case against him used as it was to point to a plot by Libyan JSO to the exclusion of all other terror groups, the fragment being judged to be that unique by the er.. judges.

Rolfe

19th January 2010, 06:45 AM

I know he said that, but Richard Marquise said some pretty silly things in that film and in my opinion that was one of them.

Indeed, the fragment was important in putting the initial case together for this having been a Libyan exercise. However, it was relatively peripheral to the case against Megrahi personally. Consider. Gauci is believed to have identified Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes. If true, that is bloody dynamite. It connects him absolutely definitely to the bombing. If I thought Megrahi had really bought these clothes as described, I'd be right up there with the "string him up and throw away the key" mob.

Additionally, it was supposedly proved (by way of the Erac printout) that the bomb suitcase was routed to PA103 by way of KM180 out of Malta. It was definitely proved that Megrahi (complete with coded passport) was at Luqa airport that morning, actually checking in for a flight that left about the same time as KA180, from an adjacent check-in desk.

If the evidence for both these points is sound, you do not in my opinion need the timer fragment. Yes, if you can also show that the bomb incorporated a timer supplied to Libya by an acquaintance of Megrahi's, then jolly good, that's a nice little extra. But it seems to me that if you can prove he bought the clothes you've got him by the short and curlies anyway (is anyone going to believe he didn't know what that random assortment of garments was to be used for?), and if you can then prove that he was where the bomb was introduced into the baggage handling system, that's your case.

I think Richard Marquise was once again betraying the circular logic in the case. The clothes were purchased on 7th December (rather than 23rd November) because Megrahi was there that day. The orphan luggage tray on the Erac printout must have come off KA180 - because Megrahi was there when that plane took off. I think he's acknowledging the weakness of these points in absolute terms. It's only when we have some other reason to suspect Megrahi that we can use his presence to support the version of events that makes him guilty.

That other evidence was of course the timer fragment - even though Megrahi was never shown to have purchased any, or even to have had one in his possession.

And it was Giaka too. If Giaka's evidence had stood, and Gauci's evidence been credible, I can see no reason why they wouldn't have got a credible conviction. Timer fragment or no timer fragment.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

19th January 2010, 07:04 AM

And it was Giaka too. If Giaka's evidence had stood...

I am still at a loss as to how the court can throw out all of Giakas evidence on account of him being a paid story teller, yet still accept his description as to the roles of Megrahi/Fhimah within the JSO.

Either he's a credible witness or he isn't.

We can surmise that Megrahi was indeed a JSO agent (coded passport etc) but there was no evidence other than Giaka I am aware of to say that they did such and such within the Libyan intelligence agency.

I agree that RM often says silly things, though if that statement sums up the thought within the investigation, it's further (very flimsy) circumstantial evidence of it's fabrication.

Rolfe

19th January 2010, 07:30 AM

I'm deeply struck, when reading the verdict, that the judges seem to have disallowed (most of) Giaka's evidence on paper, but then continued to behave as if what he had said still stood. Continually, when there is a choice of what construction to put on a particular situation or piece of evidence, they choose the construction that supports Megrahi's guilt - even when, objectively, it is the less likely construction.

As Caustic Logic said in the other thread, why did they decide the clothes purchase happened on the 7th (December) and not the 23rd (November), when in fact the evidence of the weather, the Christmas lights and the football game all fitted 23rd November like a glove? Well, because Megrahi was there on the 7th. (Implied, we know Megrahi did it, so it must have been that day.)

Why did they decide the bomb suitcase travelled on KA180, despite there being positive evidence that there was no unaccompanied luggage on that flight, and there being other perfectly plausible explanations for luggage tray 8849 on the Erac printout? Well, because Megrahi was in the airport when that flight took off. (Implied, we know Megrahi did it, so it must have happened that way.)

Take away "We know Megrahi did it", that is Giaka's evidence, and it all falls apart. But despite rejecting Giaka's evidence, they retained the presumption of Megrahi's guilt that allowed them to choose the less likely (but incriminating) explanation for the clothes purchase and the stray luggage tray.

I do wonder, if Giaka had been removed from the equation before the trial, and not been allowed to give evidence at all, would they still have brought in that verdict?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

19th January 2010, 07:32 AM

By the way, if the fragment was planted, I don't think Richard Marquise was in on it. His protestations, though unconvincing and didactic, appear sincere.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

19th January 2010, 07:56 AM

By the way, if the fragment was planted, I don't think Richard Marquise was in on it.

Me neither, if the fragment was planted it was done so in my opinion by an intelligence operative acting on orders from very high up. *perhaps* Cannistraro had a hand in it, but you'd think that the people involved with the investigation were deliberately kept honest in the work that they did.

Assuming that it was planted it had to have been done by someone who knew where an MST-13 would lead, at that time there can't have been many people with that kind of knowledge. It's most likely to have been planted august/september 1989, immediately prior to the polaroid photo surfacing and I don't think Hayes is guilty of anything other than doctoring his notes under instruction to do so from high up.

I do not agree with Marquises conclusions, I do firmly believe that RM is an honest investigator who did the best job he could and that he is completely convinced, based on the evidence that he's seen, of Megrahis guilt.

Rolfe

19th January 2010, 10:11 AM

Me neither, if the fragment was planted it was done so in my opinion by an intelligence operative acting on orders from very high up. *perhaps* Cannistraro had a hand in it, but you'd think that the people involved with the investigation were deliberately kept honest in the work that they did.

Assuming that it was planted it had to have been done by someone who knew where an MST-13 would lead, at that time there can't have been many people with that kind of knowledge.

I agree entirely. This isn't something that would have been initiated by someone on the level of Thurman or Feraday or Hayes. Sexing up existing evidence, yes. Putting an incriminating spin on essentially innocent evidence, yes. We know these guys were into that sort of thing.

But that sort of behaviour is all aimed at securing a conviction against people already under suspicion. So far as I can see, all the other stuff was about suporting the case the police had already sketched out. Nowhere is there any accusation that any of these people fabricated evidence to involve a previously unconnected party in a crime.

If there was a decision to introduce a piece of evidence to incriminate Libya, it didn't come from any of these people. It may have come from Cannistraro, but even there, I would doubt if he would be the instigator. He may have been the "intelligence operative acting on orders (or perhaps a very pointed suggestion) from very high up."

It's most likely to have been planted august/september 1989, immediately prior to the polaroid photo surfacing and I don't think Hayes is guilty of anything other than doctoring his notes under instruction to do so from high up.

I don't think that's minor. At the very least, he was given the evidence bag in August or September, and instructed to falsify his notes to show that he examined it in May. Even if he thought at the time that he was simply establishing earlier provenance for something genuinely found at the scene that had been overlooked, later events would have demonstrated it wasn't as simple as that. He certainly knew evidence was being falsified, and co-operated in that falsification.

The same would go for Feraday, probably. Even if his memo dated 15th September was really written on that day, I find it a bit of a stretch to imagine that he didn't know the item hadn't really been examined on 12th May.

Yes, we could speculate that the evidence bag was handed to them on a "don't ask questions but make this look as if it was here four months ago" basis, but you can only take that so far before it becomes complicity.

And as far as Thurman is concerned, well, someone had to fabricate the actual evidence, and while the pseudonym Orkin comes up in that context I wouldn't be at all surprised if Thurman was involved too. In fact, I think his involvement is essential to the hypothesis, because someone on the US end who was on familiar terms with the Scottish and English investigators would have been needed to get that bag introduced, and as far as I am aware, Orkin didn't spend weeks yomping around Dumfriesshire in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, palling up to the Scottish police.

I do not agree with Marquises conclusions, I do firmly believe that RM is an honest investigator who did the best job he could and that he is completely convinced, based on the evidence that he's seen, of Megrahis guilt.

I agree with you up to a point. I think anyone with a degree of intellectual honesty ought to be questioning that conclusion by now, given what we've seen about the way the case and the prosecution were handled. However, I don't think he dares admit the possibility that he might have been mistaken (or deliberately misled), even to himself.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

20th January 2010, 06:41 AM

I honestly don't know. The picture is ubiquitous, but I've never seen it without the red circle. I was simply guessing when I speculated it might have been Feraday (pointing it out to Williamson) or the Camp Zeist press office (pointing it out to the public). If it was done further down the line than that, it's weird that there isn't a copy anywhere without it.

If we take the whole thing at face value, the picture would appear to be the "photo" mentioned in the first margin annotation on Hayes's 12th May notes. We would expect a second photo of the five teased-out paper fragments to accompany it.

What confuses me about this is why, in that case, was the court allowed to believe that no photograph existed of the fragment on that date? The authenticity of these notes was specifically challenged because of the re-pagination. The judges decided they believed the date at face value, though there was no clear reason for that. The red-circle photo wasn't exactly hiding its light under a bushel, if Paul Foot was reproducing it in 2001, so why not simply refer to that and point out that it was taken on that date? And that if anyone had any doubts, the negative could be produced to show provenance.

Why would it be a polaroid? Yes, I can absolutely see that if it was, that would explain why every copy has the red circle - if someone marked the original in that way, you're stuck with it as you don't have a negative to make more prints. But there's no reason at all for Hayes to be using a polaroid camera in his routine work in May. Indeed, at the trial, Feraday was asked (in relation to the polaroids he sent to Williamson), surely Hayes had had the fragment photographed in May, so why didn't he just use that photo? He was quite evasive about that, as I recall.

Bollier has consistently called the photo a polaroid, and originally I did think it was one of the polaroids Feraday took on 15th September. However, as Dan O. noticed, it shows the paper still compacted, so it must have been taken before Hayes teased it out, which he says he did in May.

OK, here's a suggestion, supportive of the "plant" theory. It relies on a degree of inattention to detail on the part of Hayes and Feraday, but that would be in character with some of the rest of it - I don't believe they really imagined this would ever come to court.

When the final preparations were being made for inserting the fabricated production into the chain of evidence, probably after the Gilchrist/McColm signatures had been secured and the bag was officially at Fort Halstead, Hayes opened it and performed the examination as he would have done if it had been a normal evidence bag. However, the photographer was not involved (for obvious reasons) and a polaroid camera was used throughout both to get round this, and to avoid negatives being produced with the wrong provenance.

Where he would have taken photographs in the normal course of events, these were taken with the polaroid camera, and noted in the margin of his notes. Ensuring, of course, that no special attention was given to the fragment, because at this point he wasn't supposed to have realised it was anything worth following up. (Aye, right....)

Once he'd done all that, Feraday took over to write his memo to Williamson, taking a couple more snaps of the fragment for that purpose. Note that the memo refers to "polaroids" in the plural, and mentions some mysterious and inexplicable time pressure to explain why they aren't 35mm shots. When he came to send the memo plus polaroids to Scotland, he had all the pictures to hand, and he included the one of the entire production. Circling the fragment in red to highlight it for Williamson.

Not realising that, as it showed the paper still compacted, it "should" have been taken in May - and the September polaroid-excuse didn't actually apply to May.

It's perfectly possible that nobody has noticed this point until Dan O. spotted it. That one of the polaroids referred to in the September memo was actually a photo that was ostensibly taken in May, in which case why is it a polaroid, and why are you constantly implying and agreeing that the fragment wasn't photographed in May?

In due course the picture was selected to be released to the press, but the original print was reproduced, red circle and all - either because any negative was assumed to be at RARDE, or because it was recognised as a polaroid.

Buncrana, what do you think about the picture? Could it be a polaroid? It seems to have quite a lot of detail, visible in that second version you linked to - enough to allow the pattern of fracture and damage to be compared to the later pictures.

I hope we can find some reference to this picture in the Camp Zeist proceedings. The provenance stated or implied for it could reveal a lot. If it's being presented as a polaroid taken on 12th May, I'm very suspicious of a later plant, because that picture should not be a polaroid. If it's presented as one of the 15th September polaroids, it's a smoking gun. It may be that there isn't enough detail in the transcript to tell, but we need to find out.

Rolfe.

It's absolutely infuriating, I just don't know what to make of this photograph. I would agree it seems to have greater detail that you'd expect from a polaroid camera. (http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_385213_1[674787].jpg)

As you say, a request for the negative, if not a polaroid, which I agree it doesn't seem to be, and certainly shouldn't have been if taken in the course of Hayes' work in May, would confirm it's provenance once and for all. But then, why would it then also appear that this photograph, with the red circle pointing out the fragment that was originally not of much interest, and this one only that has been circlated abundantly without anyone asking about the original? Where are these polaroids 'taken in such short time', when there's a perfectly good one he took in May? One with better detail that a polaroid, and the fragment with all the marking visible to make it possible to identify?

Together with the implausible reasoning for his renumbering of those particular pages describing these examinings, is simply too much to accept as chance or incompetence.

If it a genuine photograph, but taken in September, then that would explain the lack of this photo being produced in it's original format without a red circle, because that would require the negative which would reveal the true date of taking. But, why red circle the May photo, when you've taken 'polaroids' at 'short notice' to send to Williamson?

If it is a polaroid, taken in May, then why the hell is he using a polaroid camera in May when, not under pressure or in any particular rush (sure he didn't note it's importance) he is carrying out his duties as a forensic examiner for British investigators on the biggest mass murder in it's history?

Am I making any sense here, or am I chasing my tail and this red circle nonsense is just clogging further discussions up?

Rolfe

20th January 2010, 08:11 AM

I think that photograph is crucial, and not clogging anything up.

It seems too detailed to be a polaroid, but what do I know? We need a photography expert. If it was a polaroid, that would at least explain why we never see it without the red circle - somebody drew that circle on the original print.

It's clearly supposed to have been taken in May. It's the first of the two annotations of "photo" in the margin of the May notes. And it shows the compacted paper fragment.

I could imagine that in September Feraday wanted a picture of the fragment on its own, and thought this May photograph wasn't enough of a close-up and wasn't at a straight enough angle. Maybe his polaroids were better - though I'd be surprised, actually, because you'd need a macro lens to get a close-up of anything that small.

I'm wondering if he actually did send the red-circle photo to Williamson at the same time, and that's why the red circle is there? Maybe the memo form was too small and there was no need to go into such detail as "I'm sending you the only original picture taken of the fragment (circled), and some polaroids of it on its own, the best I can manage in the time available...." And then he forgot all about that part, ten years later. Even though he was asked about it in court.

It would also imply that nobody has looked out the negative since then, since all the extant copies appear to have been taken from the same print.

Or it could be that the red-circle photo was taken about the same time as the "polaroids", when the evidence giving the fragment its retrospective provenance was being fabricated. And again, Feraday enclosed it with the others he sent to Williamson. That would explain his vagueness in court, and his lack of any reference to one of the pictures being taken in May.

It's important, but I don't see how we get an answer. If the photo is a polaroid, or if there is no negative for it with a provenance of 12th May, I'm highly suspicious of serious dirty work. If on the other hand there is a negative with a solid provenance to the right date, my feeling is that the fragment is likely to be genuine, despite the improbable litany of anomalies surrounding it.

I don't know anything about Polaroid cameras, especially if there were any particularly good models with superior resolution. If there were, RARDE might easily have had one available. I'd kill to know with certainty at least whether or not it's a polaroid.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

20th January 2010, 03:32 PM

I don't know anything about Polaroid cameras, especially if there were any particularly good models with superior resolution. If there were, RARDE might easily have had one available. I'd kill to know with certainty at least whether or not it's a polaroid.

OK, it might not be necessary to kill anyone. I accept that Edwin Bollier is not the most reliable of witnesses. However, I've never seen him falsify or falsely report evidence. Grossly misinterpret is his style. But he has information on the matter (http://forums.randi.org/MISSION%20LOCKERBIE,%20attn.%20Rolfe:%20%20I%20exa mined%20on%2014th-16th%20September%201999%20with%20my%20questioning% 20at%20Crown%20Office,%20by%20Procurator%20Mirian% 20Watson%20in%20Dumfries,%20important%20pictures%2 0an%20Originals%20about%20the%20MST-13%20Timerfragment%20PT/35;%20PT/35B%20;PT/35%28b%29,%20DP/31%28a%29%20on%20Polaroid%20photos,%20and%20no.%20 335;%20334;%20336;%20etc.on%20normal%20photos.%20T he%20colors%20brown%20or%20green%20could%20not%20b e%20determined%20in%20no%20photos%20100%%21%20%20P lease%20do%20not%20let%20be%20deceive%20from%20the %20term%20Polaroid%20photo.%20Senior%20photographe r%20Stephen%20Haines,%20%28RARDE%29%20made%20all%2 0photos%20in%20a%20good%20analogous%20quality%20on %20a%20professional%20Polaroid-camera%20%22Haselblatt%22%20mark,%20for%20Dr.%20Ha yes%20and%20Allen%20Feraday.%20Only%20the%20colour %20of%20the%20pictures%20was%20not%20identical.%20 %20Edwin%20Bollier,%20MEBO%20Ltd.).

MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. Rolfe:

I examined on 14th-16th September 1999 with my questioning at Crown Office, by Procurator Mirian Watson in Dumfries, important pictures an Originals about the MST-13 Timerfragment PT/35;
PT/35B ;PT/35(b), DP/31(a) on Polaroid photos, and no. 335; 334; 336; etc.on normal photos.
The colors brown or green could not be determined in no photos 100%!

Please do not let be deceive from the term Polaroid photo. Senior photographer Stephen Haines, (RARDE) made all photos in a good analogous quality on a professional Polaroid-camera "Haselblatt" mark, for Dr. Hayes and Allen Feraday. Only the colour of the pictures was not identical.

Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd.

I'm not clear what he's saying, but it may be possible to figure it out.

First, he states that RARDE did indeed have a pro-quality polaroid camera that could produce pictures with better resolution than the usual swinger toys. That suggests the red-circle photo could be a polaroid from the technical point of view.

He also states that the photographer took the polariod pictures as well as the normal 35mm shots. If this applies to the suspect polaroids, we may have to add another person to the list of suspects. On the other hand, would the photographer remember dates clearly enough, and indeed is it likely it would occur to anyone to ask him?

He appears to know which pictures were polaroids and which 35mm shots. Unfortunately I'm unclear from his designations which is which. Nevertheless, he seems to be clear in his own mind, and he has always stated that the red-circle picture is a polariod (which of course would explain why we never see it without the red circle....).

It's beginning to look as if it might really be a polaroid.

Why would Hayes have used a polaroid for routine work in May? Would this have been normal practice?

Does the possible/probable involvement of the photographer change the equation at all?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

20th January 2010, 04:56 PM

Got another reply. Don't know whether his English is really alarmingly poor for a Swiss, or whether it's all a put-on. He credits this to Babelfish (Babylon?)

MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. Rolfe:

The supposed Photo-Montage No.329, (PP' 8932; PI- 995) with the red circle, I have together with the shown MST-13 timer fragment with the marking; M" since November 1990 until the process in Kamp van Zeist in the year 2000 never seen, this photography the No.329 was assigned. I had seen with a questioning in the Scottish policy Camp near Glasgow, the same photo without red circle to at the beginning of of 1991, on which the MST-13 Circuit board was not shown, but the Circuit board (AG/145)) of Toshiba radio recorder - RT-8016!!!

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd,

At this point I suspect (charitably) poor memory or (uncharitably) looney tunes.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

20th January 2010, 05:44 PM

If on the other hand there is a negative with a solid provenance to the right date, my feeling is that the fragment is likely to be genuine, despite the improbable litany of anomalies surrounding it.

Like being highly unlikely to have survived the explosion it was suppposed to be in? I hope you meant to say the photo would then be legit, and the fragment just physically there being photographed on May 12 (presumably). I'd agree with that, anomalies included. But I see no reason to rule out planting no matter the date. Bollier, who owns the design and only reportedly had no made boards left for himself, was in contact and trying to help blame Libya from the beginning, remember.

But oh, he's got some stories, eh?

ETA: I refuse to get confused or re-think things based on that man's gibberish. If it's a 35mm shot, great, there's a negative somewhere we'll never see. If it was Polaroid, that's suspicious and might hint at back-dating, but no proof. Until I see something else, non ebol, I'm considering it a legit photo from May 12 of a planted fragment.

Caustic Logic

21st January 2010, 02:54 AM

Sorry the above came out too harsh. Maybe I'm way off base to be THAT suspicious of Bollier, but I do get frustrated tho, seeing you or anyone wasting brainspace hmmm-ing over the weird things this guy says. I even doubt it's mental illness that makes him so weird. He smells more like a rubbery, sticky, disinfo putty to me than a person with valuable but 'unusual' or 'cryptic' insights. He promotes the bad, denies the good, and obscures everything with flat nonsense clownishly posed in "Babylon translation." He manages to discredit his discreditations of himself even.
<pulls hair in frustration and then calms down again>

Happy Thursday.

Rolfe

21st January 2010, 03:56 AM

:D

I don't really know what to make of him, and I agree that disinformation is one possibility. Remember, Francovich said his Stasi handlers suspected he was actually a double agent being run by the CIA, at one point. He must be over 70 by now though, so whether anyone is running him is debatable.

His speciality seems to be preposterous interpretations of the evidence leading to wild accusations. However, the actual evidence he presents seems to be untampered-with and is actually very valuable. And he did actually see the photos, and (later) the fragment itself.

I don't believe for a nanosecond that there was a version of that red-circle photo starring the Toshiba chip, though.

I'm not convinced it was impossible for the fragment to have survived. From the start, one of my main questions has been, if it was planted, when was that done. If the red-circle photo was taken on 12th May, then the answer becomes, before 12th May 1989. That is awfully early for any decision to plant that evidence - which, remember, then lay unnoticed and unidentified for over a year.

Not only that, if Hayes really examined the evidence on 12th May, then what do we make of all the suspicions that the evidence for that date and possibly 15th September were later interpolations? If the fragment was already there, then the innocent explanations for these anomalies become preferred, which makes a substitution less likely overall.

So yes, if that photo was really taken on 12th May, I think the fragment is likely to be genuine. Not definitely, but likely. Faced with two improbabilities - that the fragment managed to survive the explosion and be recovered, or that someone faked it all up and introduced it into the evidence trail less than five months after the crash, I'd probably favour the former.

I think it might have survived because it wasn't the primary detonator, but a secondary timer to allow a barometric device to be safely carried by air on earlier stages of its journey.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

21st January 2010, 06:35 AM

Ambrosia

21st January 2010, 07:23 AM

Rolfe

21st January 2010, 07:33 AM

Bollier's assertions, with foundation or not, simply cannot be trusted in my opinion. The Maltese Double Cross seemed to show Mr Bollier as someone who mixed and done business with whoever rattled their money tin. He may have some valuable evidence on his site, and I think he's been played like a fiddle by the CIA, but in the end, is better kept at arms length.

With the apparent confiscations made over previous years relating to MST timers, the exposing and arrest (with subsequent release) of the PLFP-GC group and Khreesats devices in Oct '88, the confusion over the exact Toshiba model type which apparently concealed the bomb, the discrepancies over the photographs taken, and the unsatisfactory reasoning for renumbering of the notes, I am more inclined to fall on the side of 'plant'.

Why in the little man in china was Thurman not called at Zeist? Does anyone know? He had er, 'left' the bureau just before the trial, and yet nothing, absolutely nothing seems to have been raised by the defense or the court as to this, quite clearly significant report, that had been made strongly critical of the man who connected the 'fragment' to Libya!!

I get the feeling we've got a number of photo's, not all showing what the investigators wanted or needed it to show, probably a few fragments, quite a few toshiba radios and circuit boards, some backdating and some altered notes.

I kind of agree with you. I tend to think that red-circle photo might be a polaroid, partly because of the ubiquitous red circle suggesting copies have been made from an original print rather than a negative, and also, to some extent, because Bollier (who seems to know something about it) keeps saying it's a polaroid, and now says RARDE had a pro-quality polaroid camera, which makes sense when you come to think about it.

Which means the timer fragment, possibly the entire bag of evidence, could have been planted late in 1989. It makes at least as much sense as any innocent explanation for the heap of anomalies surrounding that item, unless you simply dismiss the whole concept with "they wouldn't do that!!"

In the end it's not that important to figuring out how it was done. The evidence suggests the bomb was introduced at Heathrow whichever way you slice it. Whether or not an MST-13 timer was part of that is in a way secondary. I'd mainly like to know because it makes such a difference to the totality of the case as a whole. The difference between an honest, if at times incompetent and misguided, investigation happening to latch on to an innocent who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then turning the full force of "we have to get a conviction" on him, and deliberate fraud, misdirection and frame-up.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

21st January 2010, 08:44 AM

Random thought on the 'red circle' photo that might well be going a bit too far "CT".

Hayes examines 12th May a bag of cloth containing debris, he notes that he finds fragments of plastic consistent with a radio, and fragments of what turn out to be the manual for a radio.

Was it ever established that the fragments of paper he found were from the SAME manual found elsewhere almost intact which was ultimately used to specify the exact make of radio?

The investigators were unable to specify the exact radio from the pieces of radio, they relied on the manual to do that, only if there were bits of manual found from two seperate manuals how reliable is that identification? The exact model is kind of important to the case as the one they claim it is was sold exclusively (almost) in Libya, other similar radios were not and were sold elsewhere.

Your point about the paper fragments is part of my reason for thinking that the manual (or page of a manual) found by Mrs. Horton was some piece of random litter, possibly not even related to PA103. However, I'm not sure how central her finding was to the decision on which model of radio was involved. Caustic Logic's suggestion that she did find and hand in some unrelated scrap (which she presumably didn't photocopy), and that later a page of the manual the investigators wanted it to be was substituted for whatever she found, is an interesting thought.

Two reasons why what she found seriously couldn't have been the manual. First, if the manual was packed in the original cardboard box with the radio, as we're led to believe, it could scarcely have survived in "almost intact" form. Not even a single page alone could have survived like that. Dammit, the clothes in the suitcase were burned and shredded almost beyond recognition. The umbrella was a twisted skeleton in two pieces. And we're to believe a page or more of mere paper survived, as an actual page, and essentially undamaged? It's ridiculous.

Secondly, we're told that the paper fragment in the shirt collar was a tiny bit of five pages of the manual that had been punched out, compacted together and driven into the shirt collar by a hard object propelled by the explosion. That, I can just about cope with. It's a small fragment, it's heavily damaged, and it just might have survived by being protected by the object that hit it, and the collar, combined with being propelled away from the centre of the explosion real fast.

However, that by definition indicates that a single page of the manual couldn't realistically have been found intact. Another scrap similar to the one on the collar, maybe. But most of the manual? An entire page that Mrs. Horton says was legible and (to her eyes) undamaged? What planet are you on?

I think it might be instructive to re-visit the question of how important Mrs. Horton's pice of paper was to the case.

To get back to the photo. Here's my hypothesis.

The MST-13 fragment is not in the original 12th May photo. It was added photoshop style to the photo at a later date, the shopped piece was printed on a quality printer, and then a polaroid of that print was taken using a decent polaroid camera, the print, the original 'not there' MST-13 photo were destroyed leaving only a genuine polaroid showing the evidence as we see it today. The reason the red circle is on it is not to highlight the fragment of circuit board, it's used to hide the fact that the colour of the table that the inserted fragment was sitting on didn't exactly match the previous photo, to hide the fact that it's an insert into an original photo.

I toyed with that one earler, and it's worth examining. I couldn't see any discontinuity associated with the red circle, but that doesn't mean much - if it was done, it would have been done well enough not to show on a jpeg.

This would suggest that the collar and the rest of the contents were legit, but the timer fragment was added to the mix at a later date. It makes the shenanigans with the finding of the collar and the labelling of the evidence bag relatively irrelevant. Why was Gilchrist so evasive in court? Isn't it odd they picked a piece of material signed for by McColm, who was wedded to his desk job and practically never went out in the cold? Why on earth alter the label on the bag? Still, none of that is fatal.

What rather bothered me was the provenance thing. It implies that a negative exists somewhere of that production, but without the timer fragment. Unless it has been "disappeared". We're back to the problem of the conspiracy either being vulnerable to a good look at the negatives archive, or having interfered with that archive - which again would be hard to do without leaving traces.

Also, it didn't really make sense of the page renumbering. My original idea was that the initial description of the production might only have been on a single page, but that it was necessary to run on to a second page when adding the timer fragment to the notes. Hence the need to find an extra page number. However, the entire bag is descibed on a single page, and the reference to the timer fragment is cursory - "fragment of green circuit board". If that was the only interpolation, the page could easily have been rewritten to incorporate it, but this would not have disturbed the original page numbering.

I wouldn't discount the idea, but on reflection I thought that fabrication of the entire bag as a complete item fitted the facts better.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

21st January 2010, 09:47 AM

I think it might be instructive to re-visit the question of how important Mrs. Horton's pice of paper was to the case.

I checked the court judgement on the subject.

Subsequently, when the blast damaged clothing was examined in detail there were found embedded in two different Slalom brand shirts, a Babygro, and a pair of tartan checked trousers, fragments of paper which on examination proved to be from an owner’s manual for a Toshiba RT-SF 16 BomBeat radio cassette player. All the other fragments thought to have originated from the radio containing the explosive were consistent with having come from an RT-SF 16. Other fragments of plastic associated with the radio were found in other items of clothing considered to have been in the primary suitcase, namely a white T-shirt, cream pyjamas, a herringbone jacket, and brown herringbone trousers, as well as in the four items in which the fragments of paper were found. The conclusion reached by the forensic scientists was that the nature of the fragments and their distribution left no doubt that the explosive charge was contained within the Toshiba radio, and we agree with that conclusion. Having regard to the presence of fragments of an RT-SF 16 owner’s manual, we also accept that it was that model of Toshiba radio that was involved.

No mention of Mrs. Horton, and no mention of any intact pages. Apparently four different cloth items had caught scraps of the manual, in a simiar way to the shirt with the timer fragment. And the exact model of radio was deduced from this.

:confused:

Rolfe.

Buncrana

21st January 2010, 10:34 AM

Well, manual intact or not, Feraday had reached completely different conclusions.

In a Letter titled “Lockerbie inquiries”, addressed to Detective Chief Superintendent Orr on 3rd February 1989, Feraday wrote the following:

“I have compared some fragments of electronic circuit board recovered at Lockerbie (Longtown) and marked as item AG/145 with various radio/cassette tape recorders. I am completely satisfied that these fragments originate from a Toshiba brand radio stereo cassette recorder types RT-8016 or RT-8026. These fragments are shattered in a manner consistent with their intimate involvement in a violent explosion, and I therefore conclude that the bomb was concealed in the aforementioned Toshiba type portable radio/cassette player.

The Toshiba RT-8016 and RT-8026 are visually similar and differ only in that the 8026 has a 3 band graphics equaliser on its front panel. Both sets measure 16 and a half inches by 5 and a half inches by 4 inches. The set used in the bomb possessed a white plastics case.”

Toshiba RT-8016 - http://www.shizaudio.ru/audio/./data/media/19/Toshiba_RT-8016.jpg

Toshiba RT-SF16 - http://www.shizaudio.ru/audio/./data/media/19/Toshiba_RT-SF16.jpg

Buncrana

21st January 2010, 10:57 AM

I checked the court judgement on the subject.

No mention of Mrs. Horton, and no mention of any intact pages. Apparently four different cloth items had caught scraps of the manual, in a simiar way to the shirt with the timer fragment. And the exact model of radio was deduced from this.

:confused:

Rolfe.

And yet according to the Crown Office themselves,

*Also embedded within that same clothing fragment were pieces of a Toshiba RT-SF 16 radio cassette recorder owner's manual. Separately, another fragment of the owner's manual was found on 22 December 1988 in Morpeth, Northumberland;

*The fragments of the owner's manual recovered from the grey Slalom shirt by the forensic scientists were found to have come from parts of the same page of the same manual, close to one another."

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/08115853

So, are they saying that this was one and the same manual? Some of it was embedded by the initial explosion into the shirt collar, while some of it was found in Northumberland virtually, according to the Horton's, unscathed? Surely not.

Rolfe

21st January 2010, 03:46 PM

That is indeed very weird. Can I suggest we move the discussion of the radio-cassette player and its provenance to a new thread? It's actually a separate topic from the timer fragment, and very interesting in its own right.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

22nd January 2010, 07:02 AM

I noted that a further release, although not the complete conclusion, is to be made by the SCCRC next month on their decision to refer megrahi's case back to appeal.

I'm interested as to whether they make any further reference to the claims by the former scottish detective, aka 'the golfer', who it was made strenuous claims a number of years ago that evidence in the investigation had been 'planted'. If my memory hasn't completely failed me, the former detective indicated the fragment and the clothing had been manipulated and/or planted.

I know the SCCRC dismissed his claims in their conclusions, but it would be interesting to see how he claimed this had taken place.

Buncrana

24th January 2010, 05:23 PM

I thought this is probably most relevant in this thread, although it deals specifically with the operation of the Toshiba Bombeat device recovered by the German Secret Police in October 1988, in Neuss, nr. Frankfurt, Germany.

) Operation of the TOSHIBA radio cassette player found in the possession of the DALKAMONI network in Western Germany in October 1988.

This is a mass produced TOSHIBA BOMBEAT radio cassette player.

Inside it had:

- a small box labeled TOSHIBA - SX 225 BW, which was not related to the operation of the set, butcontained 300 grams of explosive with a detonator.
- a few wires modified for the circuit.- a box with 4 batteries, independent from the set, but serving to power the explosive device.

- another box labeled TOSHIBA - POWER SUPPLY - 100 MZ at 8 KHS, containing a timer with condenser.

The welding of its circuit were hand-made.

Also included was a safety switch.

The delay is 35 to 45 minutes.

Under the engine of the cassette there was a pressure box (of the type of a mechanical barometer)whose needle is close to a contact.

The measurements made locate the contact towards a depression of 940 to 950 milibars.

Under the base of the antenna, a short circuit plug turned the set on.

Knowing that the atmospheric pressure in a line airplane can drop to 750 mb at high altitude, it is possible to think that this device was designed to make an aircraft explode in flight.

It would work as follows:

1) Preparation of the equipment and opening of the timer safety.

2) Placement in an aircraft by any means, but preferably in the cockpit.

3) Installation of the antenna plug.

4) At this stage, we have 3 operational contacts, all there is to do is to wait for pressure to fall below940 milibars for the 4th contact to close and start the timer. 35 to 45 minutes later, the explosion willtake place in full flight.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 26
D4365

From the viewpoint of security, it is very difficult to discover these devices.

Indeed, the explosivecannot be seen by X-rays and the detonator, which gives a small image, is confused with the parts of theset, the same as the ignition device.

Only a systematic dismantling of any electronic device boarded would allow discovering these booby-traps, but this verification is totally unfeasible.

Full Document Link (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ljSJfspWZvsJ:www.crowell.com/PDF/UTA-Flight-772/20_Caprioli_Report.pdf+TOSHIBA+-+SX+225BW&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShdQJUP08fySkdkVm8y_zlsD1ePUgZQuEZjK-r-ESu7XvkjNKrVOUW5VOt0UDJsE_O0TOROBGGpW8dUDL-wkoKyFOwD_XZDryiFbDeAOgxR5JcCZVuDs8cWO3E2sGRZqQeW-Bba&sig=AHIEtbQwHCtTHPlkmlwpTWykFbHMlnfYaQ)

Caustic Logic

24th January 2010, 08:42 PM

Rolfe

25th January 2010, 03:47 AM

Someone did have a better source showing that it wasn't quite that simple and that in fact the time window was wider than we had estimated due to the number of variables associated with these crude devices. However, the conclusion was still the same, that Maid of the Seas blew apart at a time entirely consistent with a Khreesat device.

It seems to me it would be difficult, or rather very chancy, to try to mimic this detonation time using a timer-only, non-barometric device. As it happened, PA103 was only about 15 minutes late taking off. Maybe this was par for the course - I don't know. I suppose you could spend days hanging around Heathrow observing exactly what time that plane actually left the ground as a regular rule. However, given the frequency of delays at Heathrow, especially weather-related delays in winter (snow, ice and fog), it seems a very risky undertaking to set a timer for 7pm and hope that the plane will have taken off at least half an hour before then.

It's possible someone thought it was worth the risk. But it carries the same objection any theory involving a timer-only device set for 7pm carries. You are seriously risking that it will blow in the tarmac, cause minimal damage, and everything in that bag is quite remarkably traceable.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

26th January 2010, 04:43 AM

Hi, Buncrana!

That document again asserts the 35-45 minutes delay is after the right pressure is achieved. We've discussed this earlier, and IIRC Rolfe had the best sources as a set 30 minute delay after a variable (5-15 min) time to de-pressurize to 8,000 ft msl equivalent.

This issue is still a little confusing, and it's of course key to bomb style and thus perpetrators. What do you think?

Hi CL, some excellent posts on your blog recently! I must admit, the timer fragment, as the model of Toshiba and the manual, was an area of the case, and was aptly demonstrated in my reading of this thread, I was certainly not fully up-to-speed with.

Despite my many years reading about the case, and aware of the discrepancies surrounding the fragments identification, I hadn't examined it to the degree it has been on this forum. Over the years I had often noted Bolliers cries of foul play with regards to the fragment, and at the actual trial itself, but could never make head nor tail of his website, and even on the infrequent occasions that I did make any sense from his claims, was always highly skeptical of his information. This thread has certainly demonstrated that to be the case, although it would appear he has many crucial links annd documents online which would appear unavailable anywhere else.

On the timer itself, it would seem there are many variable ways the Khreesat device had been manipulated in some instances to include timer settings combined with barometric activation, as the document I linked above suggest. However, given what has been discussed on here, what was revealed at Zeist, the first and second appeals, together with the evidence we do have at hand, my position is that the bag was introduced at Heathrow and was using a straightforward barometric device resulting in the downing of 103 in the time-frame associated with Khreesat's devices uncovered outside Frankfurt. The shenanigans, latterly concealed, we know of at Heathrow and together with Bedford's testimony, which I can see not reason whasoever for him to fabricate (in fact his admission if anything actually admits some small culpability on his and Kamjos part given they did not fully determine how those bags came to be in AV4041, and he simply accepted Kamjo's assertion at the time, although Kamjo later denied this) his claim that a bronze samsonite had appeared in somewhat surreptitious circumstances and was loaded onto 103.

I do not wholly rule out the possibility that in fact the bomb was inserted at Frankfurt, using some combination of timer and barometric sensors, especially given the German authorities clear attempts at misdirection and suppression of evidence pertaining to 103a, but on balance I think this area may be more to do with the claims of a clandestine intelligence operation, and that the device was given the easiest chance to succeed, and loaded onto 103 at Heathrow.

Rolfe

26th January 2010, 04:45 PM

I think, quite honestly, that if the investigators are right about the bomb being in a brown Samsonite, it has to have been the Bedford suitcase. The Frankfurt stuff is tenuous in the extreme, and it's as certain as reasonably can be that the bag wasn't on KA180.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that PA103 was targeted because of its involvement in controlled drugs deliveries though. Jibril and his merry band were in an excellent position to know about that, and they may have reasoned that this would put a serious crimp in investigations into that route. By this reading, the CIA personnel were either coincidental or icing on the cake. (Unless they were indeed involved with the drug courier, as Francovich suggests, but I don't give that much credence.)

However, a Khreesat device, in the Bedford suitcase. I also wonder about inside help with placing the bomb bag on the right side of the container. I wondered about Kamboj, but he was at least genuine enough still to be contactable to give evidence at Camp Zeist 10 years later. More probably one of the loaders who dealt with the final filling of the suitcase, I'd have thought. (The containers weren't very wide and I suspect maybe 50% of the cases might have been in about the right position, but 50% isn't really good enough.)

However, Jibril, Khreesat, Abu Talb and the rest weren't in London. They were in Frankfurt, and other places like Jordan and Stockholm. The suitcase had to get to London, without blowing up.

Baz thinks it came by sea from Sweden, which is always possible. However, I'm trying to fit in the MST-13 at this stage. That wouldn't be needed in a sea-level journey. There's a press story about someone bringing the device on an earlier flight from Frankfurt, disassembled, and it being finally armed in London. That's also possible. But again, no role for the MST-13.

I just wonder if the suitcase was brought into Heathrow, perhaps accompanied, on a completely unrelated flight. Then it was intercepted airside, retagged, and put in AVE4041. The MST-13 would then function to stop the explosion on the earlier leg of the flight, without any necessiry for the suitcase to be opened and fiddled with by someone who would have had no business opening cases.

That's my alternative to the fragment being a plant, anyway.

I have no proof at all of that. (Which by Charles's way of thinking means that you have to accept this as fact until you provide hard proof that I'm wrong....) I'm just trying to make something fit that facts as they may (or may not) be. I don't know where the break-in fits in, but we don't know who broke in or why - it wasn't necessarily to bring the suitcase airside.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

26th January 2010, 07:09 PM

Just a quick note back to that photograph production PP8932.

From the Judges verdict at Zeist (Para13):

"The second reason for doubt was said to be that in most cases when a fragment of something like a circuit board was found in a piece of clothing, Dr Hayes’ practice was to make a drawing of that fragment and give it a separate reference number. There was no drawing of this fragment on page 51, and the designation of the fragment as PT/35(b) was not done until a later date. Finally it was said that it was inexplicable that if this fragment had been found in May 1989 and presumably photographed at the time, his colleague Mr Feraday should be sending a memorandum in September 1989 enclosing a Polaroid photograph as being "the best I can do in such a short time".
Lockerbie Zeist Judgement (http://www.lawphil.net/international/int_cases/lockerbie_verdict.html)

So, if my interpretation of that is correct, then the photograph, with the curious red circle, was indeed the photograph that was available for presentation to the court and judges. By their wording, "presumably", they did not know with certainty if any photograph was taken in May or indeed existed, they simply presumed! Nor did the Judges (and once again, Megrahi's defense team) even bother requesting the May photograph, and simply accepted the photo presumably existed and was the one which was later released. The one with the red circle. It surely wasn't ever in an original state without the red circle, as someone would have, at some point over all these years, requested it?

Given Mr Feraday's previous transgressions, as laid out by the judges themselves above, then to presume anything about Mr Feraday's procedures is foolhardy in the extreme.

Buncrana

27th January 2010, 06:05 AM

<snip>

However, a Khreesat device, in the Bedford suitcase. I also wonder about inside help with placing the bomb bag on the right side of the container. I wondered about Kamboj, but he was at least genuine enough still to be contactable to give evidence at Camp Zeist 10 years later. More probably one of the loaders who dealt with the final filling of the suitcase, I'd have thought. (The containers weren't very wide and I suspect maybe 50% of the cases might have been in about the right position, but 50% isn't really good enough.)

However, Jibril, Khreesat, Abu Talb and the rest weren't in London. They were in Frankfurt, and other places like Jordan and Stockholm. The suitcase had to get to London, without blowing up.

Baz thinks it came by sea from Sweden, which is always possible. However, I'm trying to fit in the MST-13 at this stage. That wouldn't be needed in a sea-level journey. There's a press story about someone bringing the device on an earlier flight from Frankfurt, disassembled, and it being finally armed in London. That's also possible. But again, no role for the MST-13.

I just wonder if the suitcase was brought into Heathrow, perhaps accompanied, on a completely unrelated flight. Then it was intercepted airside, retagged, and put in AVE4041. The MST-13 would then function to stop the explosion on the earlier leg of the flight, without any necessiry for the suitcase to be opened and fiddled with by someone who would have had no business opening cases.

That's my alternative to the fragment being a plant, anyway.

<snip>

Rolfe.

I remember reading somewhere (I'll try and locate it) that Khreesat's devices recovered in Neuss were not triggered and ready to be used. They were if you like an initial prototype. The report was that four Khreesat devices had been recovered, but one device was thought to have evaded the raid by the Germans.

Not that this necessarily challenges anything you've stated above, but it does facilitate the transportation of the device much simpler, and from what we know, the device was difficult to spot, even when x-rayed without removing the entire casing of the radio embedded with the bomb.

If the PLFP, or the Iranians, had someone working airside at Heathrow in any capicity, sympathetic to their 'revenge mission', although preferably someone with baggage loading knowledge, I really don't think it would be difficult at all to slip them a suitcase, triggered with the bomb, with the instruction to place it as late as was possible in the loading procedure into a container that will be as close to the planes outer fuselage as possible. If the Iranian Airlines gate was also adjacent to 103's, then access to the Pan Am flight loading containers and with the appropriate knowledge of how these would be loaded, would be dare I say, pretty uncomplicated to insert the suitcase containing the bomb.

Rolfe

27th January 2010, 10:37 AM

The Khreesat devices were armed enough to kill a German bomb disposal operative....

Which was odd because he was supposed to be a double agent, ostensibly working for Jibril but under orders to make dud bombs. He was, allegedly, an asset of Jordanian intelligence, which essentially made him a CIA asset. This is believed to be why he was released so quickly in October after the raid. I read he made a phone call, then he was released as "insufficient evidence". The double agent, infiltrated into the PFLP-GC, but making dummy bombs on the orders of his CIA handlers - dummy bombs that exploded....

These bombs were supposed to be easy to arm anyway. I think it's in the court judgement. You armed them by pushing the headphones jack plug into its socket.

Except, to do that, you have to open the case. I'm sure it's easy for an airport baggage handler to put a suitcase where it's wanted. I suspect it's less easy to open the case and start fiddling with electrical equipment inside it. It's also marginally inconsistent with the story that the Lockerbie radio was in its original box. You can't get a radio-cassette recorder into its box with the headphones jack in place.

So there might have been a need to get the suitcase on some earlier flight, but then not to have to open it airside at Heathrow. That might be a role for an MST-13. I'm suggesting it might have got into the system earlier than Heathrow, but have been intercepted, retagged and routed to PA103 at Heathrow. It's already beed suggested the break-in might have been for the purpose of getting an appropriate luggage tag.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

27th January 2010, 03:26 PM

At the end of the day how do we know that the MST-13 fragment was discovered in wreckage recovered from the crash scene?

Hayes Testimony and only Hayes testimony.

He didn't photograph this fragment in situ, it's only in a photograph of unknown provenance, that has no negatives we know about, pictured circled in red ink.

His notes on which he records the existance of this fragment are of questionable origin,he breaks several rules of SOP (why are his notes on loose pages? why was this fragment not tested for explosives residue? If nothing else the recorded dates of this testing could help pin down when it was found. Why was no photograph taken of this fragment using standard procedures? (A negative that had been catalogued would point to where and when this fragment came from) He doesn't even draw a picture of this fragment in his notes but carefully draws pictures of fragments of manual ?!?!

He works at RARDE at the time of the investigation ,RARDE labs and scientists come in for heavy criticism for lying in court and fabricating evidence by appeal court judges circa 1991 (a decade before the Zeist trial) over the Maguire 7 and Birmingham 6 cases.

On the one hand we have Hayes testimony for the provenance of this fragment, on the other we have Lumperts affidavit stating he gave a fragment from a non working prototype to investigators months before Williamson sends his memo.

Lumpert is an employee of MeBo and might well have been motivated by Bolliers reported large reward if he can get Megrahi freed. His testimony is about as worthless as Hayes.

So what are we left with? Well if Lumperts right then the "1" is a solder terminal that would not have had stuff soldered to it, if Hayes is correct there ought to be evidence of the solder terminal having been used in a populated board, and from examination of the available photos it looks more likely that the fragment came from a un populated board. Also the finished board sold to Libya and the prototype board had differing numbers of layers(?), the forensic tests carried out by the Crown ought to be able to settle that completely, are they available anywhere?

As far as arming the bomb in it's cardboard box, cut a small hole in the box over where the headphone jack is and arming it would be a breeze...

If the bomb was taken to London, and smuggled into Heathrow baggage handlers which later appears as the "Bedford Samsonite" arming it would have been a breeze, and would have ensured an airbourne detonation.

There's also the evidence of Khreesats intercepted phone call documented in MDC and I think Marquises' book. "I have made improvements to the medicine, it is better, stronger" - could he maybe be referring to a more reliable, or more complicated detonator, perhaps involving an MST-13?

Guybrush Threepwood

28th January 2010, 03:11 PM

[quote=Guybrush Threepwood;5510695]I was thinking more that he had done something else, like spending his time in the pub or had given someone a tenner to go and look in some woods or... there could be many reasons why he felt guilty.

No, hold on, there were two of them. Going by Crawford's (confused) explanation, it appears that Gilchrist was one of a team of ten searchers bringing their finds back to McColm for countersigning. That's how it worked. (Scots law insists on having two witnesses - I well remember my dismay when, in England, I realised a single traffic cop could book me! - but sending the police out in pairs would have made it more difficult to cover the ground.) Thus the two signatures - Gilchrist as the primary finder and McColm as the more senior corroborator.

Gilchrist was the one who was nervous and a poor witness in court. This is very strange indeed - all he had to say was that he found it in that place on that day and took it to McColm. A policeman should be able to do this in his sleep. But then he couldn't explain the altered label, which he said he hadn't noticed previously. "At best confusing, at worst evasive" was the judge's opinion. Why such soul-searching over such a simple piece of evidence?

I'm not sure if McColm was called or not - we should check this. My point about him was doubt as to whether he was really out in the field with the search at all in mid January. Crawford paints a picture of someone much keener on manning the desk, and extremely skilled at holding on to that duty. By 13th January the search was actually winding down, with people being pulled off search duty. But this is the time when the guy who would do anything but go out in the cold actually went out there and found the most important piece of evidence?

McColm, as portrayed by Crawford, sounds like exactly the sort of person I'd go to if I had a few evidence bags that didn't have the proper signatures on them, and wanted it all squared up. Maybe Gilchrist was also helping out with that from time to time, hence the nervousness and evasiveness in court.

Good so far, I can't see an obvious hole in this.

Well, there is one. HOLMES. I forgot to mention this in my post. That evidence bag was apparently logged into HOLMES on (I think) 17th January. So if my speculation is anywhere close, we have to assume that the fabricated bag was in some way associated with an item that actually existed as a HOLMES entry for that date. I'm not sure that would be especially hard, given how much completely irrelevant dreck must have been picked up and logged. However, without knowing exactly what information was entered into HOLMES, I don't know how big a stumbling block this is. (I have a friend who used to work with HOLMES, including at that time - I wonder if he would tell me?)

Why interpolate and renumber? There were only 5 more pages. If it's a whole new bag then start a new section. The interpolation only makes sense if he is adding the MST-13 fragment to an existing bag, but then the first half of your post doesn't cover the anomalies in the label, since the bag of evidence is genuine, but doesn't contain the timer fragment.

I found it more difficult to dream up a scenario where the timer fragment was added to an existing bag - it wouldn't explain the Gilchrist evasiveness (unless this was purely coincidentally one he'd signed retrospectively) and it doesn't allow for questioning the provenance of the Slalom shirt, which has a number of question marks over it. Principally that Gauci at first denied having sold a shirt to the mystery shopper, but in January 1990 it appears that the Scottish police persuaded him that he did, after all.

As far as Hayes's notes go, the single page covers everything in that bag. This again argues against the fragment alone having been added, as that would imply that the page already existed, and rewriting it to include the reference to the green fragment wouldn't have produced an extra page.

There were more than five more pages. There were only five more renumbered pages. The suggestion was that a conveniently dispensible page (56?) was removed to square up the pagination, but for some reason (I don't know what that would be) the extra page was added at position 51 and a handful of pages re-numbered.

It does seem very sloppy, but it's likely they never expected any of this would be subjected to detailed scrutiny - for a long time nobody believed anyone would be brought to court, and I suspect that initially the fabricated evidence (if it did happen like that) was intended to thwart the investigation, not facilitate a prosecution.

On the other hand, maybe Hayes was simply a complete bungler, and his explanation for the renumbered pages was entirely true.

Plausible, if it is really only a low level conspiracy, so they have no power to give the Scottish police a push when needed, but it's hella risky for a few not particularly high up operatives to start this level of faking in what must be the biggest investigation of their careers.

Marquise (whom I don't think was involved) did try to give the push, but was rebuffed. Thurman may have grabbed the first chance he got.

However, I don't think it was low level. Cannistraro wasn't low level, and I don't imagine it was all his own idea. Exactly how high up the order came from (or probably more of a hint - "who will rid me of this turbulent priest!") I wouldn't know. I don't know much about the world of the spook, but I suspect it's murkier than we necessarily assume. Just because there were few people in on it doesn't mean it originated at a low level.

But irrespective of how high-level the origin, it's still perfectly possible there was nothing that could be done when Henderson got possessive. If he wasn't in on it, who was going to tell him to co-operate and hand it over?

Could someone point me to explanations of what other fakery Thurman/Fereday and Hayes were involved in. The only one I know about is the Maguire case where I think Hayes overstated the significance of a swab test for nitrocellulose, which is a long way from introducing fake evidence.

Michael Scott (interviewed by Francovich) was bitterly critical of Feraday's qualifications and expertise, and in a separate case he was criticised by the judge and it was stated that he wasn't a suitable person to be giving expert evidence in terrorism cases. Thurman appears to have been "let go" by the FBI in connection with an investigation into fabrication of evidence in unrelated cases - the details are a bit obscure. Cannistraro practically made a career out of making :rule10 up about Gadaffi.

I agree, proof of the photo's bona fides would shoot this one down. It's very well done, and if any conspiracy could persuade me, this one would. I'm still not convinced, for the reasons above, and also because the timer fragment was unnecessary. There was a link to Libya with the radio cas