Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted in the wreckage of Pan Am 103?

[Ambrosia]

It might also prove useful to have Hayes testimony from the Zeist trial reproduced in this thread, what follows is an extract of Hayes testimony from Day 16 where he is being asked about the pagination of his notes from page 50 - 56 and also his examination of the grey cloth containing the MST-13 fragment and other debris.

I have reformatted this to make it easier to read. Numbers in [brackets] are original page numbers of the transcript this was copied from. I'll pull out "highlights" from this transcript in subsequent posts and emphasize there, I want to keep this as close to the original as possible

As this quote is very tl:dr I've enclosed it all in spoiler tags.




Q: What we have here are your working notes as you describe them in your evidence earlier today?

A: Yes, we have.

Q: I wonder if we could begin by turning to page 51 in the examination notes. And do we see that that entry is dated 12th May 1989?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And that it refers to material identified as PI/995?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: And if we go over to the preceding page, we see that that is page 50? Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

[2578]

Q: And that it too is dated 12th May 1989?

A: Yes.

Q: If we go back to page 51 and turn over to the next page, we find that that is dated 15th May 1989, do we not?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And we find that it was paginated as 51, but that the pagination has been changed to 52?

A: That's possibly a possible interpretation.

Q: Well, let us not detain ourselves with possibilities, Dr. Hayes. If we can perhaps magnify the very top of that page on the screen, we can see fairly clearly, can we not, that a "2" has been overwritten?

A: I was going to say that and the subsequent few pages appear to have been overwritten. I'm not sure why.

Q: I am just going to come on to the subsequent few pages, Dr. Hayes.

A: Yes.

Q: Pausing with 51, which is now 52, we can see it has been overwritten, can we not?

A: Yes, either overwritten or altered.

Q: If we then turn over to the next page,

[2579]

we can see that the numbering 52 has been changed to 53.

A: Yes, that appears to be the case.

Q: That again is a page dated 15th May 5 1989?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And if we turn over to what was page 53, we can see it has been changed to page 54.

A: That appears to be the case, yes.

Q: And if we turn over to the next page, what was page 54 appears to have been changed to page 55?

A: Yes.

Q: And if we turn over to the next page, which is again dated 15th May 1989, that which was page 55 has become page 56?

A: Yes. That appears to be in pencil, as far as I can see.

Q: Now, when was that change in pagination carried out, Dr. Hayes?

A: I'm sorry, I have no idea.

Q: Why was it carried out, Dr. Hayes?

A: I agree, it's a very good question. I'm sure there is a quite innocent explanation, which I have no idea of.

[2580]

Q: On a previous occasion, when you missed out a page, you appear to have simply inserted an "A" page.

A: No. That wouldn't be the correct interpretation; not a missed-out page. Only where I have inserted a page, that would be accurate.

Q: Where you have inserted a page, you've made it clear that it's an insertion by marking it with an "A"?

A: Yes.

Q: So if we turn back, for example, to page 6?

A: Six, yes.

Q: We can see over the page an insertion, page 6A?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: But if we go over to page 7, it is dated 9th January 1989, whereas 6A is dated 3rd January 1989, and 6 is dated 28th December '88.

A: That's quite --

Q: How could that be an insertion?

A: Sorry, how can that be an insertion?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, for no better reason than it is called 6A rather than 7.

[2581]

Q: But if we look at the sequence of dates that you actually give, on page 6, the date you give is 28th December 1988, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: The date you give on 6A is 3rd January 1989, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And the date you give on page 7 is 9th January 1989?

A: Quite correct, yes.

Q: So there appears to have been no cause for an insertion at that point, in that form, if it was simply a case of coming back at a later date?

A: On the basis of the dates alone, I would quite agree with you.

Q: Well, let's just go back a little and examine your handwritten index for the materials which you examined during the course of your work. And I think if we turn to your table -- if My Lords allow me a moment just to find the reference on the screen.

If you turn back to items detailed in the examination notes, as its headed, page 1.

A: Page 1, yes.

Q: Which, I think, My Lords, will be found on the Flip Drive at B15, according to the

[2582]

cross-reference I have here. And perhaps that could be brought up on the screen.
I'm sorry, that's not the correct reference, My Lord. I'm sorry, My Lords, but the list on the Flip Drive doesn't follow the order of the actual production, so it's necessary to try and cross-reference the actual document in order to identify it, because there is no pagination.

I think it may be LPN15. If that could be brought up on the screen.
I apologise for the delay, My Lords. And if that could be magnified slightly.

Is that in your handwriting, Dr. Hayes?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And it's headed "Items Detailed in Examination Notes."

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And if we look to the items that were detailed on what were previously pages 51 to 55, and now appears pages 52 to 56, do we see that the pagination under reference to those items has also been altered?

A: Yes, it does appear to have been altered.

Q: And I take it that that table would have

[2583]

been prepared after you had completed the relevant pages of notes? Well, it must have been, Dr. Hayes, must it not?

A: I would imagine so. I wouldn't like to generalize.

Q: Well, Dr. Hayes, was there a previous page 56 in the notes that has been removed so that there could be inserted a new page 51?

A: Oh, in these notes that I have in front of me? I'm trying to be as helpful as I can, and it's tempting for me to answer your question in the negative. But, for example, if the next page on the pad, which is blank, was numbered 6, and I had written the case number and the date, and then written something down which was not what I had intended, I may well have torn the page up and started again. I don't have a recollection of doing that. And by suggesting it, I am not inferring that I did it.

Q: And if you had, the pagination would have followed without the need for you to come in and alter it?

A: I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.

Q: If you had done that, the pagination would have proceeded without the need for alteration?

A: That's correct.

[2584]

Q: Yes. Well, I wonder if you could help me with a slight puzzle over page 56. If we look at pages 52 to 56, which were previously pages 51 to 55,
do we see that they pertain to an examination on 15th May 1989?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And if you then go on to page 57, it pertains to an examination on 16th May 1989?

A: That's correct, yes.

[... snipped discussion about providing copies of Hayes notes to the judges and a short recess ...]


MR. KEEN:
Q: Dr. Hayes, if we can turn back to page 52 of your examination notes. That is the page that was 51.

A: Yes, it appears to have been.

Q: And that is dated 15th May 1989?

A: It is, yes.

Q: And if we turn over to page 53, that was 52, that again is dated 15th May 1989?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And page 54, that was 53. Again, that is 15th May 1989?

A: Yes, it is. Yes.

Q: And page 55, that was 54, again is dated

[2587]

15th May 1989?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: And page 56, that was 55, is dated 15th May 1989?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: So all of those pages have been moved on one, and we have another page 51, dated 12th May 1989?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And we notice from your own handwritten index that where you had recorded your examination of materials by their label numbers, for those materials listed on what are now pages 52 to 56, we would have had to alter the pagination of your index in the same way as the pagination of your notes has been altered?

A: I don't have it on the screen at the moment. I'm sure you are correct.

Q: And I think you accepted that the index was by definition prepared after the sheets themselves?

A: Well, I thought about it carefully, and I didn't really reach any conclusion.

Q: Well, let's just consider that point for a moment, Dr. Hayes. The index which you prepared could only have been prepared after the examination
notes themselves, could it not?

A: Well, the other opportunity would be to

[2588]

record information partway through it. Clearly, not beforehand.

Q: Well, if we look at the page which is on the screen, "Items Detailed in Examination Notes," you've clearly recorded the items; and against the item, you have recorded the page at which you have carried out your examination.

A: Yes, I have.

Q: And in respect of, for example, items 679, 422, 593, 404, you have had to alter the pagination?

A: Yes, I have. Yes.

Q: So, clearly, the index was prepared after the examination notes were prepared, and the index was altered after the examination notes had been altered, or at least in conjunction with it?

A: That seems reasonable, yes.

Q: Now, you told us about your method of making these notes on a contemporaneous basis, Dr. Hayes. Can we come back for a moment to page 49. At the top of the page, we have the date, 15th March 1989?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: If we go just below halfway down the page on the left-hand side, we have an item "PI/991."

A: Yes, I see it.

[2589]

Q: And that item was in fact received by you and examined some time after 15th March 1989, was it not?

A: Well, I had a note of a date here, 15th of May '89.

Q: Indeed. A date has been inserted, 15th May 1989, on that page 49, has it not?

A: Yes, it has.

Q: Now, in fact, the examination notes of 15th May 1989 proceed on what are now paginated as pages 52 to 56?

A: Yes. I'm afraid I've lost it from the screen again, but I'll take your word for it, of course.

Q: If you go back to the hard copy that's in front of you, Dr. Hayes, you can see that the examination for 15th May 1989 is set out, in accordance
with your contemporaneous practice, at pages 52 to 56 of the examination notes?

A: Yes.

Q: And each page is more or less full of your notes?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: But there does not appear to have been space for the examination of PI/991, does there?

[2590]

A: Not on those pages. That's correct, yes.

Q: Had there originally been a page 56, when the examination notes for 15th May 1989 were paginated as 51 to 55, then that clearly would have
accommodated the examination of PI/991, would it not?

A: It probably would, yes.

Q: And the inference that one is led to, Dr. Hayes, is that the original page 51 and subsequent pages were renumbered, the original page 56 was removed, and thereby space was made to insert what is now page 51 in your notes.

A: Well, that is your inference. I would prefer not to reach any inferences on conclusions at all. I've no recollection.

Q: With respect, Dr. Hayes, are these notes in your handwriting?

A: Yes, they are.

Q: And you've told us about your work practice of carrying out an examination with the notes beside you and of completing the notes as you were making the examination, have you not?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Are the changes to the pagination in your handwriting?

[2591]

A: Yes, they are. At least I think they were. There is one where, say, it's in pencil, which may or may not be mine, on page 56. But, personally, I am not concerned. I am more concerned that the date is representative of the day in which the examination was carried out.

Q: Well, whether it be the date or the page number, Dr. Hayes, would you like to explain how the present page 51 came to be in your examination notes?

A: How it came to be there?

Q: Yes.

A: I'm rather lost for words. It came to be there in exactly the same way as every other page came to be there.

Q: If that was the case, Dr. Hayes, the pagination of your notes would run quite simply from pages 50 to 56, without the need for the alterations that have been made in the pagination of the notes themselves, and the index; is that not the case?

A: Well, I can understand you expressing some concern on page 52 onwards. But to my mind, 51 follows from page 51, page 51 follows from page 50, in a perfectly normal way.

Q: But page 51 can only be there because what preceded it as page 51 has been changed to

[2592]

page 52; is that not equally obvious, Dr. Hayes?

A: Well, otherwise there would be two pages 51, of course.

Q: And what would have appeared at the end of pages 52 to 56 now appears at the bottom half of page 49? That is the entry for PI/991.

A: Well, the mystery -- apparent mystery of the entry on the bottom of page 49, PI/991, to my mind is no more complex than there was space available on the page. And rather than waste part of the page, I inserted an examination note and dated it. The pagination, to me, is of no great consequence. The date and day of the examination, to me, is of much greater consequence.

Q: Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?

A: Yes. But presumably our definitions of "contemporaneous" are different. My -- I only mean that these notes were written on the date on the page, and that the notes were written at the time precisely of the examination, and not any time afterwards.

Q: Well, if that had been the case, there would have been no need for the insertion of what is now page 51, would there?

[2593]

A: Well, it is your suggestion that it was inserted. I have no recollection of an insertion of that form at all. If it was, then it was done for a particularly good and perfectly innocent reason.

Q: Which you can't now recollect?

A: I wish I could help you. It would save a lot of awkwardness. But I cannot, no.

Q: Well, let's just pause and consider for a moment the terms at page 51. You refer to item PI/995 --

A: Yes.

Q: -- do you not?

A: I do.

Q: And you describe it as: "A portion of the" -- question mark -- "neckband of a grey" -- question mark -- "shirt, severely explosion-damaged with localised penetrations and blackening."

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And then you say: "Trapped in the grey material within the blackened area were:

"A, several fragments of black plastics." And the word "sheet" has then been deleted?

A: Yes.

Q: "B, a fragment of a green coloured circuit board.

[2594]

"C, a small fragment of metal and wire.
"D, a multi-layered fragment of white paper bearing writing in various languages."

A: Yes.

Q: Now, by this stage of your forensic examination in May 1989, you would know, if you hadn't known earlier, that there would be considerable interest in any pieces of circuit board found in the vicinity of blast-damaged material?

A: Yes.

Q: You have then allocated to subparagraph D the fragments of paper, the designation PT/2?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: And that was a designation which you employed in respect of material which you considered to be of interest, and which you discovered during the
course of your examination of the items referred to you?

A: Yes.

Q: You've then gone to the trouble of drawing in considerable detail the pieces or fragments of white paper which you've now designated at PT/2?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: It would appear that sometime later a designation of PT/35 has been given collectively to the

[2595]

material referred to in subparagraphs A, B, and C; is that correct?

A: I'm sure that's correct, yes.

Q: And there is in fact an annotation in the bottom right-hand corner of this page to that effect, is there not?

A: There is, yes.

Q: Is that in your handwriting?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And was that annotation placed there sometime after the 12th of May 1989?

A: I would imagine so.

Q: So you know that there would be interest in a piece of circuit board found in the vicinity of blast-damaged material; that's correct?

A: Certainly.

Q: You draw the five pieces of paper; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You give the five pieces of paper the designation PT/2?

A: Yes.

Q: You make no drawing of the items listed in A, B, or C on this page?

A: That's correct.

[2596]

Q: And you give them no PT designation at the time of your examination?

A: That's correct.

Q: Where you did find pieces of circuit board in or in the vicinity of blast-damaged material, it was your practice, was it not, to draw it?

A: Yes, I believe so.

Q: We can see that illustrated, can we not, in a number of pages of your own examination notes. If we look at page 49, for example, which is just the immediately preceding page or two, do we see a drawing of a fragment of plastic, approximately 3 millimetres across, represented about halfway down that page?

A: As I've said, I'm quite sure I would have recorded details, drawings of some parts of circuit boards.

Q: Well, if we look at page 90 --

A: 90, yes.

Q: -- which is a sheet dated 8th June 1989. Do you have that, Dr. Hayes?

A: Yes, I do, sir.

Q : At the foot of that sheet, you've identified a piece of circuit board about 4 millimetres across; is that right?

A: Yes, I have.

[2597]

Q: And you have drawn this in detail?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: And you have even drawn a detail of where that fragment was found, if we go further up that same page?

A: Okay. Yes. Yes.

Q: And you have allocated that fragment a PT number; in this instance, PT/30?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: And that's on the 8th of June 1989, almost a month after you had apparently completed the sheet at page 51?

A: Yes, so it appears.

Q: And that has a PT number lower than PT/35, does it?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: You prepared a draft report following your examination of material from the Lockerbie disaster, did you not, Dr. Hayes?

A: I did. That's correct, sir.

Q: And I think if we turn and look at certain pages from the draft report. First of all, if it could be brought on the screen, Production 1497-R01. Is that the first page of your draft report, which opens: "We, Thomas Stuart Hayes and Allen

[2598]

William Feraday"?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Was this, in fact, a draft joint report?

A: It was planned to be, yes.

Q: If we look to the top right-hand corner, there has been written in pen the date 15-11-90.

A: Yes, there has.

Q: Is that in your hand?

A: I don't believe so, no.

Q: Would that approximate with the date of preparation of this report?

A: I can't help you, I'm afraid.

Q: Would it be the case that such a draft report would be prepared after you had completed the examination referred to in your examination notes?

A: I would expect that to be the case, yes.

Q: If you then turn to page 6 of the report. Do we have the designation "PT/35 (part)"?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And if we turn and look at that, we can see that it states: "Assorted materials recovered from damaged clothing PI/995."

A: Yes, I see that.

Q: And then it reads: "A number of shattered and soot-coated fragments of a black rigid

[2599]

plastics were examined and identified as probably having originated from the casing and internal cassette mechanism of a radio/cassette recorder."

A: Yes.

Q: "They are shown at the bottom left of photograph" -- and then there is a reference to be completed?

A: Yes, there is. That's correct.

Q: And if we turn back to page 2 of the report, which -- I don't believe what has come on the screen is page 2 of the report, My Lords. If we scroll down to the bottom, it is. If My Lords have it now.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes.

MR. KEEN:

Q: Do we see, Dr. Hayes, that the section of the report in which the reference to which I've just taken you is contained is headed "Construction of the Improvised Explosive Device"?

A: Yes, I see that, sir.

Q: Coming back to page 51 of your examination notes, Dr. Feraday. Do we see that at the top of page 51, beside the reference to a portion of neckband of a grey shirt, there is inserted in the margin the word "photo," with a tick beside it?

A: Yes, we do.

[2600]

Q: And what would that represent?

A: That would represent my concern that at some stage the item should be photographed. And I believe the tick means the job was done. It was
photographed.

Q: And is that entry made beside the portion of neckband because the photograph represented the neckband as it was received by you?

A: I could only answer "Probably." I can't recall clearly.

Q: Well, let us look further down the margin on the left-hand side of that page, Dr. Hayes. Do we not see there again the entry "photo" with a tick beside it?

A: Yes, we do.

Q: And would that not represent the taking of a photograph in respect of the particular matters referred to immediately to the right of that entry?

A: That seems reasonable, yes.

Q: Would that not have been your actual practice, Dr. Hayes?

A: Well, the practice I have described already, which is to remind me to take a photograph at an appropriate time, and the tick to indicate the job had been performed. Unfortunately, it doesn't help --


[2601]

advise me precisely when that was undertaken.

Q: I wonder if we could have on the screen Production 181, photograph 117, to which you were taken this morning.

A: Photograph 117?

Q: Photograph 117, if you wish to refer to the hard copy. It will come on the screen, Dr. Hayes. Do you see that, Dr. Hayes?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And I think, as you mentioned this morning, this is intended to be a photographic representation of the piece of cloth, which is designated PI/995, and the material which you refer to as having been trapped therein; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: It must have been a very full piece of cloth when you received it, Dr. Hayes.

A: A very full piece of cloth to contain all these component parts?

Q: Indeed.

A: I would agree.

Q: If we look at photograph 117, would it not be fair to observe that the item that stands out most strikingly is that piece of green-coloured circuit board which appears to have on it the letter "1"?

[2602]

A: On this photograph it does appear to stand out, yes. I agree.

Q: And you would be able, as a forensic scientist, to identify that as a piece of circuit board?

A: Yes, I would.

Q: Now, I wonder if we could have on the screen Production No. 333. I think we want the document and not the label. Thank you.
And if we can begin at the top, do we see that this is a memorandum on an MOD form 4A?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And is that a form employed by RARDE?

A: Well, I'm sure it was in use at the time. It appears to have been, anyway.

Q: And under the word "Memorandum," we see that it is addressed to "DI" -- which we may assume is "Detective Inspector" -- "Williamson"?

A: Yes.

Q: And it's dated 15th September 1989?

A: It appears to be.

Q: And it appears to be from Allen Feraday?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Who was your fellow forensic scientist on the Lockerbie investigation at the time?

[2603]

A: Yes, he was.

Q: And if we look at the subject, do we see that it is "Fragment of Green Circuit Board"?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And it begins: "Willy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in
such a short time. The diameter of the curvature of the edge is 0.6 inches IE." And there's the representation of the diameter of a circle of .6 inches, is there not?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: Now, if, Dr. Hayes, you had discovered this fragment of green circuit board in May 1989 and had the opportunity to enter it in your examination
notes at that time, can you explain why Mr. Feraday had no time but to obtain a Polaroid photograph for the purposes of reference to Detective Inspector Williamson?

A: I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. You are concerned about a time scale involved here, are you?

Q: Well, I think the question is quite clear, is it not, Dr. Hayes? But, lest you be in any doubt, let us go back to the terms of the memorandum

[2604]

itself. It states: "Enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board." Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Let us assume that that is the piece of circuit board which is now designated PT/35, letter B.

A: Yes.

Q: And I think we will, in due course, see that that can be related to the diameter of the curvature of the edge.

A: Yes.

Q: And it then goes on: "Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a short time." Now, that, Dr. Hayes, is written in September 1989.

A: Yes.

Q: Apparently some four months after you've recovered this fragment, examined it, and recorded it at page 51 of your examination notes?

A: That's how it appears to be, yes.

Q: Can you explain why there should be such a problem about photography, or a consideration of a short time, if in fact you'd recovered this fragment four months earlier?

A: No, I can't. I'm sorry.

[2605]

Q: Well, let's go on to the next paragraph for a moment, Dr. Hayes.
"I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important, so any light your lads/lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome."
Do you see that, Dr. Hayes?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Now, what light do you think the lads and lasses could shed upon something which they clearly haven't seen if you had recovered it from the collar of a shirt?

A: Well, I think probably it would be better to put that question to Mr. Feraday, as he wrote the memo. I would rather not speculate.

Q: Well, you wrote the examination notes that are now paginated as page 51, did you not, Dr. Hayes?

A: I certainly did.

Q: And you record in those notes on page 51 that PT/35 B was trapped in the collar of a shirt or in a piece of material --

A: Yes.

Q: -- do you not?

A: Yes, I did. Yes.

[2606]

Q: So that fragment could not, presumably, have come to light, so far as the police were concerned, prior to it being extracted from the cloth by yourself?

A: That's correct. Yes.

Q: It would follow that it could not have been seen by the police prior to the cloth being passed to you at RARDE and the article being extracted by you from the trapped area of material?

A: I'm sure that is the case.

Q: So you can cast no light, however, despite that background, on the second paragraph of this memo?

A: I'm sorry, I can't. No.

Q: Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI/995 and the trapped material in May 1989, that Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?

A: I would imagine he would, yes. Most definitely.

Q: And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr. Hayes?

A: It's most unlikely they would be, no.

Q: I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would

[2607]

be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?

A: No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time. No.

Q: So just to summarise your position on PT/35 B, according to the examination notes at page 51, this was discovered by you on the 12th of May 1989?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Do you actually recall finding this fragment in the cloth which is referred to as PI/995?

A: I think so. If I was -- it's tempting to be too helpful in answering your question and saying clearly a very important piece, you must have a memory of it. You have flashbacks of certain important items that you've looked at. I question whether those are flashbacks to the correct case examination or another case examination. So although in my mind there is no question whatever that I did find it within this neckband, whether I have a clear recollection in my memory of teasing it out, I would prefer not to be too definite about it.

Q: Are you saying you don't recall having found this item trapped in the piece of cloth, Dr. Hayes, but are relying upon the notes you made at

[2608]

page 51?

A: I think it's reasonable to say in virtually all my recollections, after such a space of time, I am heavily dependent on my notes and the photographs.

Q: And do I take it from that answer, Dr. Hayes, that you are not able to rely upon your recollection, but only upon the terms of the examination notes set out in what is now page 51 of 1497?

A: I would prefer not to rely upon my recollections but, rather, to rely upon something more concrete.

Q: Do I take it, then, that you have to rely upon what is written at page 51 of your examination notes and not your own recollection of this event?

A: What is written on page 51 and the photograph, which, of course, does stir memories.

Q: When you refer to "the photograph," are you referring to photograph 117 in the report 181?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: And when was that photograph taken, Dr. Hayes?

A: Well, I'm sure the information is

[2609]

available, but I can't answer your question from my own knowledge.

Q: I see.

LORD MACLEAN: Could I ask you one question about that: Did you take the photographs yourself, or were they arranged to be taken by someone else?

A: All the photographs, to my knowledge, My Lord, were taken by our senior photographer, Stephen Haines, as appropriate, under my own supervision.

LORD MACLEAN: Thank you.

MR. KEEN:
Q: And do you know if the photographs which appear on the report 181 were taken as a complete set, or simply taken over a period of time related to your examination?

A: I don't think necessarily that either of your suggestions is true. I think what the situation was more likely to have been was the majority of the
photographs were taken close to the time of an examination, but there would be some, particularly composite photographs and those relating to examination of some control samples, which may have been taken at a
date later than when the examination of the component parts was carried out.

Q: Do you know if the photograph

[2610]

represented as photograph 117 in report 181, which we are looking at, or have looked at, is the same photograph as is referred to in the marginal note at page 51 of your examination notes?

A: You asked me if I know. I think it is highly probable. I would be extremely surprised if it was not the case.

Q: Well, can I just take that up with you, because if we look at the photographic reference in the marginal note, do we not see that it is entered beside the portion of neckband, before you go on to report the content?

A: You are attaching some significance to the position of the word "photo" on the page.

Q: I am.

A: I don't think you should, with respect. I don't think it necessarily conveys a chronological order in terms of the addendums to the page; that is, "photo" or "chemistry."

Q: Well, in that event, can we go back again to the second marginal note of "photo". Does the appearance of two marginal notes that far apart not
indicate that they are made under reference to the stage of the examination you've reached?

A: Well, yes, I would draw some

[2611]

significance in the fact that the second "photo" appears to be a sharper pencil mark, which possibly relates more closely to the diagrams alongside it.

Q: As a forensic scientist, would you not also be concerned to record the condition of cloth or other material before you intromitted with it?

A: The condition of the cloth before I ...

Q: Intromitted with it. Before you began to carry out work on it.

A: If it appeared relevant, yes.

Q: Well, this piece of cloth appeared relevant, did it not, Dr. Hayes, because it was apparently blast damaged?

A: Well, I took you to mean that the information I might note down might be, for example, whether it was wet or dry. If it was blast damaged, then certainly I would expect to record that information.

Q: And would you not normally take the step of recording that by way of a photograph before you actually began to intromit with the article or the material itself?

A: Not necessarily so. It was my attempt to minimise the number of photographs, because

[2612]

otherwise one could spend all one's time photographing, and not recording data.

Q: In fact photographing was done for you, was it not, Dr. Hayes?

A: I didn't take the photograph myself, as I have said earlier to his Lordship.

[Caustic Logic]

Spoiler tags is an awesome idea for that. It does make it easier to ignore tho, which I did ATM as I'm excited to share My OWN Hayes saying from Day 17, since red circles have been an issue here.

Q Are these shown in photograph 273?

A Yes, sir. Item PI/995 is shown in 273 with all of the fragments, including the paper removed.

Q The paper is the item circled in this photograph?
A Circled in red, sir, yes.

Q Could you read on, please.
A "Photograph 273 shows what originally appeared to be a single fragment of paper (encircled) after its extraction from item PI/995. Detailed examination showed ...

Sounds like the same photo, but with the paper circled. Another would be done with the fragment circled. Perhaps one for the collar...

[Ambrosia]

More testimony from the trial regarding some of the forensic testing of PT/35

long(ish) and spoilered.


[2832]

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. TURNBULL:

Q: Are you Mr. Alan Worrol?

A: I am, yes.

[... address snipped ...]

Q: Did you work with Ferranti Computer Systems in Oldham?

A: Yes.

Q: For how long, Mr. Worrol?

A: I worked for the Ferranti Group for 37, 38 years.

Q: And when you retired, what position did you hold with them?

A: Chief chemist.

Q: And do you have qualifications in chemistry?

A: Yes. I am a chartered chemist.

Q: In the course of your work with Ferranti, did you also have experience of working with

[2833]

printed circuit boards?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers?

A: Yes.

Q: And Scottish police officers, I take it?

A: Yes.

Q: And did they have with them items that they wanted you to examine?

A: An item, yes.

Q: Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Would you look for me, please, at Label 353, and perhaps also Label 419.
Do you recognise these items, Mr. Worrol?

[according to Bollier (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2009/dok726.html) 353 refers to PT/35 and 419 shows the small square section removed from it in the bottom right]

We hold, after the visit on 27. April 1990, with engineer Hans Brosamle, in Siemens AG, the MST-13 timer fragment were sawed into two parts. The larger part got the label No. 353 = PT-35(b), the smaller part label No. 419 = DP-31(a).

A: Yes, I recognise 353. I presume that 419 is the piece that -- yes, the piece -- yes, I do.

Q: And was that smaller piece in 419 already removed when you saw the fragment?

A: No. No. It was removed subsequently.

Q: I see. In order to assist the police, did you carry out an examination of the fragment?

A: Yes.

Q: Did that examination require you to do

[2834]

anything to any part of the fragment?

A: Not initially, no. We were just allowed to look at it using a microscope.

Q: And were you able to assist them by simply examining the fragment with the microscope?

A: Not specifically.

Q: And so did it go on to having to do something else?

A: Yes, it did.

Q: And what did you go on to do in order to assist the police?

A: We wanted to remove the fragment and examine it by microsection, look through a
cross-section of a fragment of it containing cracks.

Q: And did you do that?

A: Well, I didn't -- I didn't remove the fragment. It was not -- it wasn't removed -- well, the police eventually came with a mounted microsection that had been removed from the fragment of the board.

Q: By somebody else?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, was the removed section that they brought to you what you now have in Label 419?

A: 419. I think it was a further fragment taken from that.

[2835]

Q: All right. What was it that you did to whatever the police brought to you on this subsequent occasion?

A: I think we looked at it by microscope, and then I remounted it in a larger microsection to alter the handle to view it on the microscope.

Q: We understand, Mr. Worrol, that on printed circuit boards you can sometimes find a solder mask; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And was there a solder mask on the fragment that you were asked to examine?

A: Yes.

Q: On one side, or both?

A: We could only -- it was only visible on one side.

Q: I see. And when you carried out your subsequent examination for the police, did you do anything to the area of the solder mask?

A: No.

Q: Did you have to do anything in the nature of grinding?

A: Yes. Once I'd -- once we realigned it, yes, we'd have to grind it and repolish it.

Q: And to which side of the fragment would

[2836]

that grinding and repolishing --

A: Well, it happened to both of it, to both sides of it.

Q: I see. Would that have any effect on the colour to the naked eye?

A: No.

Q: How many times did the police come to see you, do you think, Mr. Worrol?

A: I can't exactly remember, but at least on three occasions.

Q: I see. And was the last occasion something in the region of a year, perhaps, after the previous one?

A: As far as I can remember, yes.

Q: I see. This is not something that you have a good memory of, thinking back now in terms of dates?

A: Difficult to put the time scale on, yes.

Q: Of course. Are you able to help me with this, Mr. Worrol. On the last occasion that the police came to see you --

A: Yes.

Q: -- did they bring the same fragment as they had on the earlier occasions?

A: As far as I remember, yes.

[2837]

Q: Did they ever bring an entire circuit board?

A: Yes.

Q: Which occasion was that?

A: On the last occasion that I saw them.

Q: I see. All right. And did they ask you to perform some tests on the entire circuit board?

A: No.

Q: Not at all?

A: Only to view it.

Q: Did you ever replicate for them on an entire circuit board an examination that you had conducted with the fragment?

A: No.

Q: And so your recollection is that you would just visually examine the entire circuit board?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. If there was evidence from the police officers, Mr. Worrol, that they asked you to not only examine the entire circuit board but to replicate examination of it in the way that you had examined the original fragment, would that be incorrect, do you suppose?

A: Would it be, I'm sorry?

Q: Would it be incorrect?

[2838]

A: Would what be incorrect?

Q: I'm sorry, it's my fault. If there was evidence from the police officers that they asked you to do exactly the same to the complete circuit board as they had previously asked you to do to the fragment, would that be correct or incorrect?

A: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are --

Q: Well, let me -- it's my fault. Let me start again. The police first of all asked you to look at the fragment?

A: Yes.

Q: And you were able to examine that for them?

A: Yes.

Q: And tell me again, please, what you recollect doing with the fragment.

A: We looked at it visually first under a microscope. And then eventually, when the fragment had been removed, when the section had been removed, we looked at the section. I'm pretty sure we did a test on the solderable finish on it.

Q: On, what, sorry?

A: The finish on the tracks, the metal on the tracks, and looked for tin and lead. And that's

[2839]

basically more or less it.

Q: All right. You did mention to me a moment or two ago something about grinding and polishing?

A: Yes.

Q: Would that have anything to do with the fragment?

A: Yes, that was what we did to the fragment.

Q: I see. So would that be -- the grinding and the polishing would be part of some of the examination process, would it?

A: Yes.

Q: And then there was another occasion when they brought to you an entire circuit board?

A: Yes.

Q: And that was the last occasion they visited you, I think?

A: Yes.

Q: And what was it that they asked you to do with the entire circuit board?

A: Just to look at it visually.

Q: Not to carry out any tests?

A: No.

Q: Or do anything else by way of comparing

[2840]

it with the fragment?

A: Only visually.

Q: All right. Thank you.

At the end of which we can conclude that, as part of the forensic examination the fragment was ground and polished, which accounts for the "M" not being there by mid 1990. Not to mention being a more aggressive mode of cleaning than swabbing it with solvent(!)

Also that PT/35 was a single sided board, which tends to fit Lumperts affidavit, and his claims that this fragment was of a non-working prototype as the boards printed by Thuring were double sided machined boards.

This is happening in early 1990 while Scots police are trying hard to ID the fragment before Thurman was involved.

[Ambrosia]

and some more trial testimony re PT/35 and the cutting up of it.

This is evidence from Williamson on day 18.


Q: Now, can I ask you to return those and ask you to consider one further matter with me, please. You told me a little while ago, Inspector, that you had supervised the inquiries conducted in the printed circuit board industry.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And during the course of those inquiries, we understand that you asked a number of people within the industry to examine the fragment that had been recovered during the Lockerbie investigation?

[2985]

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And on occasion, fragments were removed for further testing; is that correct?

A: That's correct, sir, yes.

Q: Can I ask you to look for me, please, at Label 315 and Label 419. I'm sorry, I said 315. It's my mistake. I meant to say 415. And 419. Thank you.
Can you confirm by examining these two labels, Mr. Williamson, that these are the two largest fragments that were removed from the piece of printed circuit board during the course of these inquiries at industry in 1990?

A: I can, sir, yes.

Q: 414 -- sorry, 415.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That's a sample we understand that was removed in February of 1990 at the premises of New England Laminates?

A: That's correct, sir.

Q: And you were there when that happened?

A: I was.

Q: Which part of the printed circuit board fragment was that sample taken from?

A: A part directly above the main land on the board, sir. The top of the board, if you like.

[Photo 415 referred to here presumably shows the missing piece from the top of the board, which is hereby accounted for, and wasn't removed by grinding, it was cut off.]

[2986]

Q: There's a depiction rather like a figure "1" on the fragment?

A: That's what I referred to as a land, sir.

Q: That's the land. And so 415 is a section removed from above the land?

A: That's correct, sir, yes.

Q: And 419, is that a sample which was removed in Germany?

A: That's correct, sir, yes.

Q: And that's from a little bit further down?

A: That's a sample which was taken to include all three metallic areas of the circuit board, sir.

Q: Thank you. I wonder if you could then just help us by looking at two photographs, which will be shown on your screen.
These are in Production 181. And I am hoping to look at photograph 334.
Now, do you recognise what we see in that photograph?

A: I do, sir, yes.

Q: What is it?

A: That is a fragment of printed circuit

[2987]

board, which is labelled PT/35 (b).

Q: And are we viewing it there before either of the two samples I've asked you to look at were removed?

A: We are, sir, yes.

Q: And if you next look at photograph 336. Do we see a view, firstly, showing the fragments in the upper portion of the photograph and then a circuit board below it?

A: We do, sir, yes.

Q: And you can see that the circuit board below is designed DP/347 (a)?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And that, I think we saw, was Label 412?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And so looking at the fragment in the upper part of the photograph, are we now looking of a view of it after the two samples to which I've drawn your attention have been removed?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: We can see, by comparison with the circuit board below it, that the figure "1" on the fragment no longer goes all the way to the top of the board?

A: That's correct, sir, yes.

[2988]

Q: And is that because Label 405 was removed from that area?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: We can also see that the other portion of it, Label 419, removed in Germany, is in situ, but we can see where the cuts have been made?

A: Yes, sir.

I'd consider giving up an arm to be able to look at the all of the photos referred to in these transcripts.

[Rolfe]

At the end of which we can conclude that, as part of the forensic examination the fragment was ground and polished, which accounts for the "M" not being there by mid 1990. Not to mention being a more aggressive mode of cleaning than swabbing it with solvent(!)

Also that PT/35 was a single sided board, which tends to fit Lumperts affidavit, and his claims that this fragment was of a non-working prototype as the boards printed by Thuring were double sided machined boards.

This is happening in early 1990 while Scots police are trying hard to ID the fragment before Thurman was involved.


I'll need to come back to this, but I really don't think the fragment was "ground and polished". It couldn't take it, that would have removed the printed circuit entirely. And the surface doesn't look ground and polished.

My take on that story is that the sliver removed from the top (about 0.4mm I believe) was mounted on a slide for microscopic examination - like a histology slide. This was done in cross-section to allow the fibreglass layers to be examined and counted. I believe it is this mounted preparation that was "ground and polished", in cross-section.

However, if all the Thuring boards were double-sided and PT/35b was single-sided, that does rather bring Lumpert's story back into play. I don't know what to make of this, but it bears thinking about.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

Sure, I'm with you there. I hadn't realised Hayes quit as early as late 1989 though. That does put a latest date on the fabrication, as I really can't see how he could have done this after he'd left. From what you say he was under a serious cloud during the whole of 1989, and probably earlier. Can you give me your source for this?

Hayes evidence at the Zeist Trial. (day 16 p2558 onwards)

Q: [reading from Sir John Mays interim report] And if we look to section 1.1, we can see that it notes that: "On 19th October 1989, the Home Secretary announced in the House of Commons that he and the Attorney-General were appointing Sir John May to hold a judicial inquiry with certain terms of reference which we're concerned with: The position of the trial of certain named parties."

A: Yes.

[...]

Q: In fact, I think, the section goes on to note that you are no longer, at the time of the interim report, working full-time at RARDE?

A: It does note that, yes.

So at the time of the report being compiled, Hayes does not work full time for RARDE any longer. Earlier in his testimony he states that he was retained at RARDE on a part time consultancy basis until mid 1990.

Q: When did you start working there?

A: In July 1974.

Q: And when did you leave?

A: The exact date of my leaving is a little circumspect, but I believe it was in 1990.

Q: I think probably we'll come in the context of this case to discuss a little more precisely

[2328]

when you actually left, but that sort of period of time?

A: It was, sir.

Q: By the time you came to leave, what was your position at RARDE?

A: I was then acting as a consultant.


[...]


Q: Now, I wonder if I might return to an issue that I think you mentioned yourself a little earlier; namely, the sequence of your position in the department. You were, I think you told us, the head of the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. And until when did

[2330]

you hold that position?

A: I have the dates recorded. I don't have the date in my memory.

Q: Would that be sometime in the course of 1989?

A: It would, sir.

Q: But did you continue to work on as a consultant working on the Lockerbie case?

A: Yes, sir, I did, for approximately three months, initially.

Q: And was that extended?

A: It was.

Q: And did it continue until the summer of 1990?

A: I believe that is correct.


Summer of 1990 [June 15th] is when Thurman IDed the MST-13 fragment.

[Rolfe]

In today's paper.

Flaws in evidence at Lockerbie trial (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/letters-friday-5-january-2010-1.1003900) (about the 5th letter down the page)

Dr. Swire remarks on Goldsmith's change of mind regarding the illegality of the invasion of Iraq "following consultations in the USA", and goes on to point out....

Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed Allen Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?

Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.

The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.

Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?


This is more evidence of the criticism Feraday had received from the bench for his role in a competely different miscarriage of justice. And of course the suspicion that the CIA was pulling Feraday's strings.

I note Jim Swire always gives his home address in full in the printed paper, so he's obviously not hiding from correspondence.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

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

Just bumped into that. Leppard explains HOLMES and another program CRISIS were made to work together for mascal events, but they didn't prove compatable after all, so they had to skip the software and do it by hand.

In general I'm not as up with the timer issue now, but a few tidbits from books:

Leppard, On the Trail of Terror (mid-1991)
Says the search for a part of the "timing mechanism ... appeared to have made a promising breakthrough as early as June 1989." This was a piece of circuit board, labeled PT-30, found "melted into the remains of Karen Noonan's tourister suitcase, which had been stacked directly on top of the bomb bag." The chunk of suitcase was labeled PK 2128, and Feraday found the CB bit on June 18. It was suspected a part of some digital alarm clocks found in Khreesat's tool box, but the Scots waited 'til December to ask their liaison in Germany to check on the evidence held there. Apparently nothing came up, and by mid-1990 the investigation was seeming "to run nowhere."

Oh.

"Then suddenly, RARDE made an astonishing breakthrough. In his laboratory Thomas Hayes, who after his retirement had been retained by RARDE to work as a consultant on the inquiry, finally identified a tiny piece of micro-circuitry as being part of the bomb's triggering mechanism.

'It was not part of a detonator but it was a piece of he means of timing and powering the bomb,' one RARDE source close to the inquiry confirmed. The piece of circuit board appeared to be part of a timing device manufactured by a Swiss company.
[...]
Hayes had spent many months scratching his head before committing himself to a positive identification of the timing device. When at last he did American intelligence analysts prepared an assessment of the likely source of the circuit board.

Vicent Cannistraro ... told LICC that the assessment indicated possibible similarities with a batch of ten timing devices recovered from two men arrested in Senegal ..." [p 209]

Weird, confused, few specifics, no sources given, except in text.

Gerson and Adler: The Price of Terror (2001), with a twist on Thurman's involvement:
“Detectives fanned out all over the world, searching among the most ubiquitous products of contemporary industry, electronic circuit boards, for one showing the same distinctive pattern of tracks. In early January 1990 Detective Stuart Henderson, the deputy head of the Scottish task force, sent a photograph of the board to one of the FBI’s top explosive experts, Thomas Thurman, asking for his help in identifying it. Thurman says Henderson asked him to keep his inquiries within the bureau, and he complied. Over most of the next six months he worked on trying to match the photo to records in the FBI’s huga database of IEDs...” [p 88]

Nothing fit. Like Feraday’s suspicions about PT/30 at this time, Thurman was curious about digital alarm clocks and spent fruitless time looking at those. Thurman and Feraday were also hanging out, blowing stuff up together (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/02/forensic-elimination-2-indian-head.html) in this period, and their forensic finds and special abilities really dove-tailed nicely here, din't they?

“In June, Henderson came to America for a conference … Thurman brought up the circuit board and asked Henderson’s permission to consult another agency. He doesn’t remember if he specifically mentioned the CIA, but that was the agency he had in mind. Henderson assented. A few days later, Thurman visited CIA headquarters and met a friend there …” [p 88]
Here no photos match in his files either, but on a whim Thurman asks to look at hard samples anyway and checks out K-1, and here “jumped up from his bench.” The book does not indicate its sources, but this chronology actually makes sense and fits a few things together.

And I'm also left with a question - MST-13s had been seized in Togo in 86, almost right on their first introduction thanks to maybe-CIA-linked MEBO. 2-10 (reports vary) more are seized in Senegal in 88, here intelligentially liked to Libyan intel and explosives and planes. These were taken back in a diplomatic pouch by the BATF, I believe turned over to CIA, etc. So if the FBI's database should cover known terrorist IEDs that Middle Eastern types might use (and if it doesn't, why look in it?) why did it not contain the MST-13? Why do you have to get special permission and cross that Berlin wall betwixt the CIA and FBI, in order to solve this important case? And even there no photos, some say?

I'm sensing something weird about this whole timer's history and pedigree.

[Caustic Logic]

To touch on an issue from pages back:
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.

Well, I'm not sure I'm reading it right, but it seems like the best expert, Rainer Gobel of BKA, is talking about only the timer circuit wehn giving that spread.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/03/thirty-eight-minutes.html

"When the neccessary operating height has been reached the fall in pressure connected with it will start the timing mechanism, and when the delay period has elapsed the detonator will be activated. […] The time delay of the electronic component fluctuates over a wide margin since the structure of the circuit is relatively simple. Time delays between 35 and 45 minutes were measured." [Leppard, p 11-12]

A similar timer on the Sanyo monitor IED yielded a 30-35 min range, and enough of one of the destroyed radios was left for Gobel to report:
“[T]he accompanying capacitor is of the same value as in 1 and 2, but has however, jumped out of circuit. […] it can be assumed from the remains of the circuit that the time delay was in the same region as 1 and 2." [p 144]

If that's right, it's not the problem I first suspected. Gobel found the alitide/pressure rigger at about 950 milibars, Leppard says, equivalent to 2400 feet. By the altitude profile in the AAIB report, that level was passed about two minutes after wheels up. Cabin, hold, and outside pressure should not be much different that low or early, right?
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/alt_detail_2400.jpg

[Caustic Logic]

An update: Dr John Wyatt is talking again. Article in Mail on Sunday, shared by Professor Black:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/megrahis-new-book-to-reveal-vital.html
I've asked the good doctor by e-mail if he could share more details on the tests that were featured on Newsnight back in January. No response, and I'm sure he had reasons aside from not having the time for a nerd like me. Seems his work is now to be a big part of the upcoming Megrahi / Ashton expose book.

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.
[...]
Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.

The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion.

[...]
Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.

"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)


Even short of the upcoming book, this new article adds some details that were missing from the Newsnight show.

In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.

Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.


Finally, a second question I was unaware of and some (not completely right) context:

Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)

The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.

The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.

To be more exact, the timer fragment was not evidence directly against Megrahi, but by keeping the sights on Libya, it was certainly a powerful circumstantial clue that, as a presumed Libyan intel agent with other clues suggesting him, Megrahi probably did it. But the other clues, Gauci's "ID" and the suggestion that an unaccompanied bag for 103 left Malta airport while he was there, both have serious questions surrounding them as well. And that's being generous.

Anyway, this book will be another major turning point in our awareness of the fragment. The article goes on quite a bit longer and is worth a read.

[Rolfe]

Yeah, I read it. I wonder, though, if Dr. Wyatt is going to be a bit more definite than he was on Newsnight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm), where he said in true scientific manner that of course he couldn't be absolutely certain that the fragment couldn't have survived, from only 20 tests. At which point Dick Marquise smiled like a friendly shark and said, well there you go then. He explicitly said it wasn't impossible!

(Shades of, it wasn't impossible an unaccompanied bag got on at Luqa, and it wasn't impossible there had been a few drops of rain in Sliema on 7th December - so that proves both things happened, case closed.)

I wish to hell Wyatt had said something about the radio manual. I mean, if the fibreglass circuit boards were vaporising like that, what happened to the paper that was close to the Semtex?

And he also seems to be saying the Claiden chip couldn't have survived at all. Which implies someone planted that at Lockerbie. Early. (Or if not that actual fragment, something like it.) I've been very reluctant to go down that particular rabbit hole, and indeed it's the apparent survival of the radio PCB that persuaded me the survival of a bit of MST-13 was at least in the realms of possibility. Maybe we ought to take a closer look at that too.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

An update: Dr John Wyatt is talking again. Article in Mail on Sunday, shared by Professor Black:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/megrahis-new-book-to-reveal-vital.htmlBefore carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.

The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt.

Thats pretty much where I had got to a couple of weeks after starting to look closely at the MST-13 fragment, that such a find was extraordinary and as such unlikely to be genuine. It's pretty hard to come to another conclusion. It's very interesting to note that an explosives expert has now said, effectively, that it is proven beyond doubt that MST-13 had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing at all.


Anyway, this book will be another major turning point in our awareness of the fragment.

Thanks for the link. I very much hope, but sadly also very much doubt that a qualified explosive expert loudly expessing an opinion that the MST-13 fragments is "proved beyond doubt" to not be part of the bombs timing circuitry will stir up enough interest in the whole case as to get it reopened.

[Rolfe]

Bloody journalists. This makes Watergate look like a minor peccadillo. But are they interested? Not on a bet.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

The timer fragment and the portion of manual drew the association between Libya and the bomb. Of course alluding to a relationship between Bollier and Megrahi was also a link to the timer. While Tony Gauci's identification and Bogormire Erac's printout pointed directly to Megrahi. I do hope Megrahi's book offers much more that Dr Wyatt's tests which we were already quite aware of. Unless, of course, Dr Wyatt carried out far more extensive tests and conclusions than was revealed in the Newsnight programme...


Yeah, I read it. I wonder, though, if Dr. Wyatt is going to be a bit more definite than he was on Newsnight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm), where he said in true scientific manner that of course he couldn't be absolutely certain that the fragment couldn't have survived, from only 20 tests. At which point Dick Marquise smiled like a friendly shark and said, well there you go then. He explicitly said it wasn't impossible!

(Shades of, it wasn't impossible an unaccompanied bag got on at Luqa, and it wasn't impossible there had been a few drops of rain in Sliema on 7th December - so that proves both things happened, case closed.)

I wish to hell Wyatt had said something about the radio manual. I mean, if the fibreglass circuit boards were vaporising like that, what happened to the paper that was close to the Semtex?

And he also seems to be saying the Claiden chip couldn't have survived at all. Which implies someone planted that at Lockerbie. Early. (Or if not that actual fragment, something like it.) I've been very reluctant to go down that particular rabbit hole, and indeed it's the apparent survival of the radio PCB that persuaded me the survival of a bit of MST-13 was at least in the realms of possibility. Maybe we ought to take a closer look at that too.

Rolfe.

I was considering this too. If Dr Wyatt is suggesting that by 'incredible' he means 'planted', then it also implies that the radio itself would have been obliterated, and thus AG/145, the tiny piece of PCB found behind the AVE404 plate, would not have survived either. Never mind the miracle portion of manual.

However, if we remember that Feradays initial conclusion on the discovery of AG145 was that it was one of two kinds of models of radio, neither the latterly determined RT-SF16, and it was white, not black as the radio used by Megrahi, then perhaps we should be considering the same circumstances as Mrs Horton's discovery?

Mrs Horton did indeed find a page of manual, a bit tatty around the edges but otherwise virtually intact, and therefore not possibly part of the bomb device itself, only for it at Zeist to be presented as a barely visible scrap of paper, but enough for the prosecution and the judges to conclude on it's exact model, which proved so damning towards Libya, and Megrahi. The fragment of PCB found behind the plate on AVE4041, initially pointed to it being a 'white' Toshiba radio, but by the time Zeist came around, it was part of a black Toshiba radio and completely different model, which reaffirmed Mrs Horton's find and the association with Libya and Megrahi.

So, perhaps AG145, just like Mrs Horton's page, were very much the remnants of 103's break-up, but neither were actually part of the fatal bomb device. The manual actually belonging to an innocent passenger carrying a Toshiba radio, which could also account for the fragment of PCB found on AVE4041 as being entirely genuine, but wholly innocent in being part of the bomb device??

[Ambrosia]

I wish to hell Wyatt had said something about the radio manual. I mean, if the fibreglass circuit boards were vaporising like that, what happened to the paper that was close to the Semtex?

And he also seems to be saying the Claiden chip couldn't have survived at all. Which implies someone planted that at Lockerbie. Early. (Or if not that actual fragment, something like it.)


Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.

It blows all kinds of holes in all kinds of evidence. I think the pcb fragments found at Lockerbie are genuine finds, but were likely not from the bomb itself and came from electronics in other peoples luggage, but who knows how far planting of evidence and manipulating of evidence went.


... And it was right towards the end of this period, we decided we'd put it on the container, on the reconstruction. And in doing so, well, I picked it up and began to think about how we were going to attach it.

Q And did you discover something as you were doing that?

A Well, as I think is quite natural, what you do, you look at the pieces you have, almost without -- not without thinking, but you pick them up, and you
naturally want to look at them and turn them over. In doing so, I saw there was something wedged in the fold, at the top of the plate.

Q And you explained to us earlier that the plate is folded over at the top --

A Along the top edge, it is folded over.

Q And are you telling us now that you became aware of something wedged into that fold?

A Yes, just in the -- fairly cursory examination of the plate. And I saw something, a bit

[1562]

of debris wedged in the fold.

[...]

Q And what did you do with the piece of

[1563]

debris, having found it wedged in the data plate?

A Well, when I first saw it wedged, I didn't know what it was. It just looked like a bit of debris, rubbish basically. So I just flexed the plate a little bit and it fell out onto the floor. So I picked it up, put it on the table, and could see quite clearly what was to be a fragment of a circuit board.

Q And can we see that in the photograph?

A Yes, it's the browny-coloured object with the white lettering on it.

Q Thank you. And having come to the view you've just explained, what did you do?

A Well, I picked it up and I looked at it, as you do. And the circuit-board fragment appeared to be bound up with a sort of a carbonised softish piece
of material, so that it did not appear to be metallic. Now, I didn't know, obviously, what it was. It had the potential to be associated maybe with a device.

Q Yes.

A But it could have been out of somebody's shaver, or computer, or anything. But bearing in mind this was two weeks after I started work, and I did have information relaying back to me from Mr. Charles that evidence of a detonating high explosive had been found, so at the top of one's priority, you had to assume that

[1564]

it might have been part of such a device.

Q Of course. So what did you do with the item?

A I photographed it, and this is one of the photographs I took. I photographed it both sides. And with what I've just said in mind about its possible importance, I got hold of a plastic jar -- this may be the one, in fact, with the snap top. I put it in, and I think I sealed the top up with some tape.

Q And gave it to who?

A I then took it to -- I think it's the production office, the police production office, which is very close to the area where I was working, saw the policeman in there -- and I'm afraid I can't remember his name -- and I said to him, "I think this could be important. Can you please insert it into your system, allocate a number. Don't lose it. And can you ensure it gets sent to" -- I think "send it to Fort Halstead or send it to RARDE."

That's how Claiden describes his finding of the fragment in evidence he gave to Zeist.

[Rolfe]

I did wonder about an innocent radio in some blast-damaged luggage. But if so, surely there would have been more of it found. And how do you conceal that, if only Hayes and Feraday are bent (as I assume)?

Do we have an actual date on Mr. Claiden's find? It was after the pieces of the container had been inside for a couple of weeks anyway. And while I'm not sure Hayes and Feraday were up to anything particularly underhand until April, Tom Thurman himself was yomping all over the place from about day 2. And we've already decided there is evidence of a US presidential desire to pin this on Gadaffi from the earliest days of the investigation.

It's not impossible, is all I'm saying. Should we bump the Toshiba thread?

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

Do we have an actual date on Mr. Claiden's find? It was after the pieces of the container had been inside for a couple of weeks anyway.

From trial evidence the closest I can find so far is mid-January.

Claiden states that he was asked in very early January to reconstruct the baggage containers, and later states that 2 weeks later than that he found the fragment. There ought to be an exact date somewhere in the records.

I did wonder about an innocent radio in some blast-damaged luggage. But if so, surely there would have been more of it found.

If you are raising the possibility that the radio fragments discovered were from an adjacent case and not the bomb case - then as many of the radio fragments were embedded in clothes also determined to be from inside the bomb case - you get the inference that clothing fragments thought to have been inside the bomb case might in fact also be from an adjacent case.

We need more information on exactly what debris was left from Wyatts tests.

I think it's plausible that very little of anything that was near the initial bomb blast was recovered eventually.

[Caustic Logic]

If Dr Wyatt is suggesting that by 'incredible' he means 'planted', then it also implies that the radio itself would have been obliterated, and thus AG/145, the tiny piece of PCB found behind the AVE404 plate, would not have survived either. Never mind the miracle portion of manual.


And he'd be being quite reasonable, says I. Do consider with AG/145 not only was that famous largest portion intact and milimeters on a side, the face that would normally face the blast (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/06/feradays-forensic-follies-section-sixty.html), just an inch away and shielded by nothing, was left unchanged. Unburnt. Delicate white painted markings "L106" and "101" perfectly readable. A second readable fragment within AG/145 marked "02" (no available photo I know of) is reportedly the same.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Lockerbiedivide/AG-145_color.jpg
You might wonder if the board had been re-installed backwards, for some bizarre reason, but the backside was also undamaged enough that its tracking pattern was used to identify the board correctly (though not the radio model, as you note).

The mysterious accompanying white plastic ... Its unusual provenance via Mr. Claiden ... the argument saying these bits getting into the data plate is really impossible ... AG/145 and anything else suggesting this radio model BomBeat RT/SF16 is entirely bogged in bizarre anomalies - or - inconsistencies in the planting process.

I'm not scientist enough for my feelings here to carry any weight, but I just can't bring myself to give that the kind of credence you'd need in order to not alienate people who think that's clearly just fine. As a strategic point, perhaps one shouldn't put this up front, but it certainly wouldn't be misleading to develop these questions or, better yet, answers.

[Rolfe]

I still think this "we found no explosive residues on it in 2008" is a bit silly. That was 20 years on. And the damn thing had been solvent-cleaned and polished up and sawn into bits and all sorts. How would anyone expect anything still to be there by then? It should have been tested before the original muck was cleaned off it. And why would it be beyond the wit of a couple of explosives experts to make sure it was going to come up positive, again?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

From trial evidence the closest I can find so far is mid-January.

Claiden states that he was asked in very early January to reconstruct the baggage containers, and later states that 2 weeks later than that he found the fragment. There ought to be an exact date somewhere in the records.


It's very early to start thinking about planting fabricated evidence, unless one is a LIHOP or MIHOP proponent. However, if I was going to suggest fabrication, it might go something like this.

POTUS (Reagan I suppose, with Bush waiting for the baton) wants to use this incident as justification for going after Libya. Cannistraro quite fancies being able to pin it on Libya. Somebody identifies the RT-SF16 radio as having had a large batch sold to Libya a couple of months previously. They blow one up and pick out this little scrap as having recognisable numbers on it. Thurman slips it into the data plate of the baggage container.

Feraday (not at this stage aware of any US shenanigans) is supposed to identify the radio as the RT-SF16, but it turns out that PCB is incorporated into several different models and because there's white plastic around (thought at one time to be from an alarm clock I think) Feraday actually pegs it as an RT-8016.

In April, Thurman meets up with Feraday and Hayes in Maryland, and ensures they're on-side. They start getting their ducks in a row. They realise that the chip alone isn't enough to give a positive ID on the radio model, so Feraday goes on to Japan to sort it out. He comes back with samples of the RT-SF16 and decides that a nice chunk of the front page of the manual saying "RT-SF16" will do nicely. He removes whatever it was Mrs. Horton picked up and replaces it with the suitably singed manual page. He makes sure that all the plastic he finds after that is black. Job done.

I'm not terribly convinced, to be honest, but what else, if the fragment isn't genuine? Claiden picked up something unrelated and it was later substituted? I wonder if we can find a window for substitution to occur as we have with the timer fragment and the manual page?

If you are raising the possibility that the radio fragments discovered were from an adjacent case and not the bomb case - then as many of the radio fragments were embedded in clothes also determined to be from inside the bomb case - you get the inference that clothing fragments thought to have been inside the bomb case might in fact also be from an adjacent case.

We need more information on exactly what debris was left from Wyatts tests.

I think it's plausible that very little of anything that was near the initial bomb blast was recovered eventually.


My problem with that is Tony Gauci's mystery shopper. If that wasn't one of the terrorists but rather an innocent person doing some shopping that later found its way on to that plane, why wouldn't this have been discovered?

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

POTUS (Reagan I suppose, with Bush waiting for the baton) wants to use this incident as justification for going after Libya. Cannistraro quite fancies being able to pin it on Libya. Somebody identifies the RT-SF16 radio as having had a large batch sold to Libya a couple of months previously. They blow one up and pick out this little scrap as having recognisable numbers on it. Thurman slips it into the data plate of the baggage container.

Why bother with all of that unless you know already the culprits are not Libyan. In order for anyone to plant the original fragment, which Claiden ID's in court testimony as being what he found, then they have to already know who the culprits are, and that has to mean MIHOP/LIHOP with the US heavily implicated, it's found ~3 weeks after the bombing, alot of the debris from which is still lying all over the ground around Lockerbie, a bunch more has been collected and is in storage facilies waiting to be examined, who knows what other more incriminating evidence might yet turn up to point at a n other guilty party. The size of the conspiracy needed to cover all of this up starts growing exponentially if evidence is being planted at the very early stages of investigation and examination of evidence.

I think the Claiden fragment is a genuine find, It could have been substituted, I think that substitution at a later date is orders of magnitude more likely than it being outright planted, and that it being a genuine piece of circuit board from someones radio,not a piece of the IED radio, that somehow got folded up inside the remains of the cargo container being the most likely explanation.

[Rolfe]

Why bother with all of that unless you know already the culprits are not Libyan.


It might have taken those familiar with what was happening in Frankfurt only a very short time to figure out the PFLP-GC were probably responsible.

In order for anyone to plant the original fragment, which Claiden ID's in court testimony as being what he found, then they have to already know who the culprits are, and that has to mean MIHOP/LIHOP with the US heavily implicated, it's found ~3 weeks after the bombing, alot of the debris from which is still lying all over the ground around Lockerbie, a bunch more has been collected and is in storage facilies waiting to be examined, who knows what other more incriminating evidence might yet turn up to point at a n other guilty party.


Yes and no. LIHOP isn't necessary. LIHBI (let it happen by incompetence) is probably my preferred theory. Remember what Paul Foot speculated?

Just as likely (as Jack Anderson's theory) was the fear in both their minds (Bush and Thatcher) that the Lockerbie bombing had exposed a gaping hole in their intelligence services which would, if the matter was fully aired, be proved to have been incompetent to stop a murderous plot they knew about.


I have a tentative sort of feeling that the CIA thought they had infiltrated the PFLP-GC and in the guise of participating in the plot, thought they were going to get Iran's plans stopped for the time being, and good. But they were circumvented, and the bomb got through.

As you yourself said

I think the whole Frankfurt thing is that the US was trying to get several birds with one brick. I think that there was some kind of arms/drugs for hostages thing being run via Frankfurt, which the authorities hoped would also nail them a terrorist ring as well fixing the hostage situation in the Lebanon for good measure and after the recent Oliver North, Contra scandal, the US absolutely, positively did not want any more news like that coming out.


I could see it happening that as soon as they realised their complicated plot had let the bomb through, they might have been disposed to do a bit of misdirection ASAP.

The size of the conspiracy needed to cover all of this up starts growing exponentially if evidence is being planted at the very early stages of investigation and examination of evidence.


I do agree that three weeks is awfully quick to start anything. I don't honestly think anything was started until April. I'm just saying, it's not completely impossible a little something was slipped in earlier just on spec.

I think the Claiden fragment is a genuine find, It could have been substituted, I think that substitution at a later date is orders of magnitude more likely than it being outright planted, and that it being a genuine piece of circuit board from someones radio,not a piece of the IED radio, that somehow got folded up inside the remains of the cargo container being the most likely explanation.


I've always thought it's genuine. It's only when you start telling me that it can't have been part of the IED that I get the feeling the rug's been pulled out from under me and I have to open up all the possibilities again.

For a flake of circuit board from some random radio, the rest of which wasn't found, to show up associated with the very container the bomb was in, and for that to be consistent with a batch of radios sold to Libya - there are already too many coincidences in this case for my liking.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

My problem with that is Tony Gauci's mystery shopper. If that wasn't one of the terrorists but rather an innocent person doing some shopping that later found its way on to that plane, why wouldn't this have been discovered?

There are two people in the world that can identify the mystery shopper.

Gauci, and the shopper themselves.

Gauci can't remember and after he gets wind of the reward money he is coached by his brother/police to point to Megrahi and stfu otherwise.

The shopper doesn't want to come forward, or can't come forward, perhaps because they were on the plane as well.

Has there been any comparison of the artists impression of the shopper with passengers on the plane?

[Ambrosia]

It might have taken those familiar with what was happening in Frankfurt only a very short time to figure out the PFLP-GC were probably responsible.
LIHBI (let it happen by incompetence) is probably my preferred theory. Remember what Paul Foot speculated?

Actually when you put it like that.

Shortly after PA103 is blown apart a bunch of people have a collective "oh ****" moment and suddenly enter CYA mode. They need someone to finger apart from the PFLP-GC to cover up their collective incompetence and Libya is the current terrorist flavour du jour.


I do agree that three weeks is awfully quick to start anything. I don't honestly think anything was started until April. I'm just saying, it's not completely impossible a little something was slipped in earlier just on spec.

Perhaps not, it does point to a lot more people involved with the coverup the earlier it starts though.




I've always thought it's genuine. It's only when you start telling me that it can't have been part of the IED that I get the feeling the rug's been pulled out from under me and I have to open up all the possibilities again.

Gotta follow where the evidence leads. Wyatts evidence seems to point to the fact that it's impossible given a 450g semtex bomb for any of the items very close to bomb itself to have survived.

Either Wyatt is wrong, or the bomb was actually much smaller, or some of the evidence presented by the Crown is fake/planted/manipulated to fit up the wrong guy, or ... ??

Given the track record of Hayes and Feraday upon which much of the Crowns case rests ...

I would love to see the details of the Indian Head tests that apparently match up with what Hayes et al say was found at Lockerbie.

[Rolfe]

There are two people in the world that can identify the mystery shopper.

Gauci, and the shopper themselves.

Gauci can't remember and after he gets wind of the reward money he is coached by his brother/police to point to Megrahi and stfu otherwise.

The shopper doesn't want to come forward, or can't come forward, perhaps because they were on the plane as well.

Has there been any comparison of the artists impression of the shopper with passengers on the plane?


Evidence at the FAI said the blast-damaged clothes didn't belong to anyone on the plane. For what it's worth, because the FAI was about as stage-managed as the National Theatre.

But we know the identity of everyone on the plane. If any of these people had been on Malta a month before the disaster, I can't help feeling it would have come out. And if someone else had bought the clothes and innocently passed them on to a passenger, it's inconceivable that wouldn't have come out.

I'm more inclined to believe the purchase was a deliberate misdirection attempt by someone connected to the PFLP-GC, aimed at distracting the investigation from Heathrow if the clothes happened to be traced to Mary's House.

I'd love to believe the whole thing was cooked up at Indian Head, Maltese clothes and all, but the way Tony came out with seven of the ten blast-damaged items in his very first statement seems to shoot that in the head right out of the box.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Actually when you put it like that.

Shortly after PA103 is blown apart a bunch of people have a collective "oh ****" moment and suddenly enter CYA mode. They need someone to finger apart from the PFLP-GC to cover up their collective incompetence and Libya is the current terrorist flavour du jour.


That's where I've been for a long time, on this one. It's crystallising more, these days.

In particular, I think the "oh ****" moment was very quick indeed. Quick enough for the Frankfurt police to go right into CYA mode almost immediately, so that they did a complete scorched-earth job on all the relevant baggage records at the airport.

Meanwhile Reagan is threatening to bomb Libya because of Lockerbie, within days of the crash, and on precisely no evidence of a connection, just because terrorists need to be taught a lesson and Libya will do for now.

And Thurman was yomping all over Dumfriesshire with his dinky FBI baseball cap on, from about day three.

Perhaps not, it does point to a lot more people involved with the coverup the earlier it starts though.


Not necessarily, given Thurman's presence right there.

Gotta follow where the evidence leads. Wyatts evidence seems to point to the fact that it's impossible given a 450g semtex bomb for any of the items very close to bomb itself to have survived.

Either Wyatt is wrong, or the bomb was actually much smaller, or some of the evidence presented by the Crown is fake/planted/manipulated to fit up the wrong guy, or ... ??

Given the track record of Hayes and Feraday upon which much of the Crowns case rests ...

I would love to see the details of the Indian Head tests that apparently match up with what Hayes et al say was found at Lockerbie.


Yes. We need to go round this some more. But I still can't see how these clothes weren't bought by the mysterious dark stranger from Tony Gauci on 23rd November 1988. That has to be fitted in somehow.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

And he'd be being quite reasonable, says I. Do consider with AG/145 not only was that famous largest portion intact and milimeters on a side, the face that would normally face the blast (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/06/feradays-forensic-follies-section-sixty.html), just an inch away and shielded by nothing, was left unchanged. Unburnt. Delicate white painted markings "L106" and "101" perfectly readable. A second readable fragment within AG/145 marked "02" (no available photo I know of) is reportedly the same.

You might wonder if the board had been re-installed backwards, for some bizarre reason, but the backside was also undamaged enough that its tracking pattern was used to identify the board correctly (though not the radio model, as you note).

The mysterious accompanying white plastic ... Its unusual provenance via Mr. Claiden ... the argument saying these bits getting into the data plate is really impossible ... AG/145 and anything else suggesting this radio model BomBeat RT/SF16 is entirely bogged in bizarre anomalies - or - inconsistencies in the planting process.

I'm not scientist enough for my feelings here to carry any weight, but I just can't bring myself to give that the kind of credence you'd need in order to not alienate people who think that's clearly just fine. As a strategic point, perhaps one shouldn't put this up front, but it certainly wouldn't be misleading to develop these questions or, better yet, answers.

I wouldn't mind knowing what the analysis of world-wide sales of a Toshiba RT-8016 (Toshiba RT-8016 (http://www.shizaudio.ru/audio/./data/media/19/Toshiba_RT-8016.jpg)) were in the mid-late 80's. A model predominantly for use in Europe? Perhaps Germany took delivery of the vast majority of this particular model? Maybe the UK? Or even the US? That would be interesting if the originally designated model, and white, just as the 8016 actually is, was a model predominantly for the UK or US market. Not that this would with certainty rule out any possible use by a group looking to improvise it into a bomb device, but certainly wouldn't show or allow any direct inference to be made towards Libya as the RT-SF16 did.

I'm giving some consideration that AG145 was from a model of radio, perhaps in amongst the luggage loaded into 4041, or perhaps the container adjacent, and with the explosion, break-up of the aircraft, on the containers impact with terra firma, a portion of this radio's pcb became embedded behind the plate on 4041. This might explain the lack of obvious explosive damage and the still visible white numbers on the fragment AG145. Just like the manual, independently found (well, not RARDE or Police, so essentially outwith the 'official' criminal investigators) and later attributed to be part of this particular model of radio: RT-SF16, the model sold in large quantities to Libya.

[Rolfe]

One thing I picked up on reading the evidence Ambrosia posted sn that the fragment doesn't seem to have been behind the data plate at all.

[....] we decided we'd put it [the data plate] on the container, on the reconstruction. And in doing so, well, I picked it up and began to think about how we were going to attach it.

In doing so, I saw there was something wedged in the fold, at the top of the plate. Along the top edge, it is folded over. And I saw something, a bit of debris wedged in the fold. So I just flexed the plate a little bit and it fell out onto the floor. So I picked it up, put it on the table, and could see quite clearly what was to be a fragment of a circuit board.


So, the data plate had come off the container and was found separately. It was deformed in such a way that the top edge was folded over. When Mr. Claiden was doing the reconstruction of the container he saw something wedged in that fold, and when he prised it loose, it was the PCD fragment.

I don't know how that plays into Charles's "non-Newtonian chip" meme. I think stuff was flying all over the place in the instants following the explosion, and small stuff changing direction when it hit up against larger stuff is obviously going to happen. But I wonder how far away this radio would have had to be from the blast for this to happen.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

Quick update after tonights programme Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber.

Something very odd was uncovered in the German investigation files being looked at in the programme. According to the German's the MST fragment was first discovered in January 1990! :confused: And it's mentioned more than once in the final report. Now, once could quite easily be an error, but repeated, I do find curious.

They also focussed on the labelling of evidence. They mentioned,as has been covered in this thread, the irregular numbering of evidence bags, particulary relating to the 'Collar and it's contents' beingout of the apparent sequence. They also examined the renumbering of the pages by Hayes to which a number of scientists consulted by the programme on the matter who were quite incredulous at this depature from what should always be a strict procedure.

Specifically however, the programme devoted alot of scrutiny to the manner of signatures on the evidence labels. In particular, they were alleging that Hayes had signed many of the bags containing the eventual incriminating evidence first, and only latterly had an additional signature added by someone who was essentially told 'you found this, sign here to confirm'. This also runs against normal procedure, and certainly the procedure that was in operation with the collection of the debris.

The policeman/woman who found it would sign for it, and this would require to be countersigned by the leading officer designated, and thereafter set aside to be returned to families, added to the plane reconstruction, or examined furether and then sent to Rarde and Hayes/Feraday.

I think the programme was effective alleging that Hayes himself had clearly signed the bags first and then had approached police to get them to sign retrospectively for items they may, or may not, have any idea about - or perhaps had never been collected from the debris by those officers, or any officers at all.

Anyway, as I say, it's worth trying to catch if only for the host of new documents and photos that certainly I had never seen before.

[Rolfe]

I think January 1990 is the first time there's independent evidence of the chip's existence from outwith the actual inquiry. There was a case conference in that month where the thing was talked about, but I believe not shown, by the Scottish police. Marquise expressed great frustration then that the FBI wasn't being allowed in on the effort to identify this clue.

However, the question is, did Feraday really send these polaroids to Williamson on 15th September as he said he did in the memo. If he didn't, then Williamson is also in on the fabrication, and lying in his teeth, and this starts to get awfully complicated and awfully unnecessary. At Zeist, Williamson confirmed that he received the 15th September memo at that time, and that he undertook to take forward the identification of the chip. He describes going to Germany with Feraday in January 1990 to look at the "Autumn Leaves" evidence in this connection.

So it seems that January 1990 is probably the first the Germans heard about it, but the provenance within the English/Scottish investigation probably goes back to September 1989.

I am absolutely convinced that finders were asked to sign for evidence retrospectively, exactly as you describe. For one thing, Bobby Ingram is inteviewed in The Maltese Double Cross describing exactly that process. (It's not clear whether he actually signed the bags he was told to sign.) For another, if I wanted to find someone to do that, DC McColm is exactly the guy I'd choose. Just see the pen portrait in Crawford's book, of someone keen to stay away from the tramping over the cold fields, and far more interested in a tidy office than in the chain of custody and provenance of the evidence. It's inevitable a lot of that evidence would have been poorly documented - the conditions were horrendous. But of course retrofitting the documentation opened the door to all sorts of shenanigans.

I wish it was possible to record the internet transmission - I suppose it isn't?

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

The programme Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber is shown again today Rolfe at 12.00.

I think you can watch it live on line via here - http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Schedule/ProgramSchedule.aspx

Failing that, AlJazeera English is available on digital and freeview on CH89.


.

[Rolfe]

I'm busy now (well, at 1pm BST which is when I think it's on) but I see it's on again tomorrow.

We're only half-way converted to Freeview (the rest to come next week I think) and so far all we have are the BBC channels.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

If the Germans are saying the timer chip wasn't found till January 1990, because that's when they were first made aware of its existence by the Scottish police, well - that's on a par with saying the Erac printout didn't surface till August 1989, justy because that was when the German police chose to make the Scottish police aware of its existence.

Oh, wait....

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm obsessive about seeing every new video, but I'll have to catch this one when I do.

It also just occurred to me Dr. Wyatt's credibility problem is absent from this thread, I think (?). For those reading later and unaware of the in-betweens, that should be mentioned. I still think his tests might have been done fine and the results make sense to me, but ...

And hey, if the show's a limited run, can someone take screen caps of relevant new things? I'll try the same, see what else I can do to "save a copy" or whatever ... have a bit of time this weekend.

[Rolfe]

I think it will appear as a permanently-viewable link once the initial run is finished. I intend to watch it tomorrow - I didn't realise I could have watched it online last night.

I think we should keep an open mind about the credibility of the tests Wyatt says he performed. If other evidence points in the same direction, well and good, but if not, he's certainly not sacrosanct.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Those labels were interesting. Even leaving aside the possibility of over-writing, is it really likely Hayes would have written his name top left, if he were the third to sign?

A couple of L&B cops showed up at my work the other day, with one of these labels, to attach to a report I'd written that they wanted to use in evidence. They asked me to sign the label, and I was the first signature. Of course I signed on the first line, to the left.

Do policemen who find something for the first time usually sprawl their signatures over the lower part of the label, leaving the forensics officers to sign above them?

I loved the way they showed the CLOTH -> DEBRIS transformation.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

Late to the party, and just passing through.

FWIW (and in case it's not been mentioned before) the 1985 terrorist plot to attack Air India flights did involve checking in a bag (which contained a bomb) on a Canadian Pacific airliner, with the expectation that the bag would be transfered later by baggage handlers to an Air India plane (the actual target of the attack).

I may have seen here the argument made that any plan to bring down a specific plane would not include such a step. But I think the example above suggests otherwise.

[Rolfe]

Yes, there's that one and another where the plan failed because the timer was wrongly set. It was quite a popular idea, because at one time it wasn't too hard to check the case in personally, travel with it on the first leg, and then simply not board the second leg. If you have the guts to ride a plane with a bomb in the hold!

There's nothing wrong with that plan, if you have a sufficiently powerful charge that the plane will be destroyed no matter where in the hold the suitcase ends up. However, that doesn't seem to have been the situation with the Lockerbie bomb, where a pretty small charge caused the plane to break up because it was in precisely the wrong place.

However, that's not the main objection. The main objection is that if you have a digital timer like the MST-13, and you have the plan this was supposed to be, you don't set the timer for three quarters of an hour after take-off unless you are a complete moron. And whoever carried out this atrocity was not a moron. You set the timer for maybe four hours after take-off, not just to disappear the plane over the Atlantic, but to give yourself the best chance that it will actually have taken off by the time of the explosion, even if there has been a significant delay.

Of course if you have one of Khreesat's timers, then the plane will blow up about 30 to 45 minutes after take-off, no matter what time the plane actually takes off.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

Yes, there's that one and another where the plan failed because the timer was wrongly set....

Unless I'm mistaken, you are here referring to the two bombs associated with the coordinated attack (which took place in 1985 on the same June day) which targeted two Air India planes?

One bomb blew Air India Flight 182 out of the sky.

The other exploded on the ground at Narita Airport, as the bag which contained it was in the process of being transferred from the originating flight (a CP flight) to an Air India flight.

The speculation is the bomb had been intended to explode, yes, just shortly after the scheduled take-off. But detonated one hour early since the bombers, carelessly...failed to account for daylight saving time when setting the timer!



...at one time it wasn't too hard to check the case in personally, travel with it on the first leg, and then simply not board the second leg...

Actually, each of two bags (which each contained a bomb) were checked onto a separate CP flight. Neither of the people (if there *were*two different people, rather than the same plotter) who checked in the bags boarded even the first leg of the respective flights.

One bomb was then transfered to an Air India flight. The other (as mentioned above) exploded on the ground as it was in the process of being transferred to its intended Air India flight.

So, in the Air India plot, the plan involved (in spite of the regulations that existed on paper at the time) checking in and transferring unattended baggage *four* times. Within a few hours. And the plan basically succeeded.

Probably the only thing preventing a tragedy greater than it already is, is the DST fiasco that one might assume not even a five year old would have made in similar circumstances. However, otherwise intelligent people making such absent-minded mistakes is not unusual in these cases. How the Oklahoma City Bomber (an otherwise very intelligent man) was tripped up is another example that comes to mind.

P.S. My comments are meant only to address specific arguments that I believe that I have seen made, and which I don't necessarily agree with.

Anyone reading them should not extrapolate from my comments that I am implying a position on Megrahi's guilt or innocence. I'm not. I don't know enough about this case to even be sure that I have, in the previous sentence, even spelled the man's name correctly.

[SnidelyW]

FWIW, I share a thought with Ambrosia regarding the importance of the 'drugs for hostages' link to PA103. I'm not out to derail the thread in the least. I'm bringing this up because it goes to the huge motivation the U.S. had for covering all its bases, and goes to the very reason minutiae like the timer fragment became important.

If someone can point me to a thread where I can discuss this approach to PA103, I'll be very glad to do so.

[Rolfe]

Unless I'm mistaken, you are here referring to the two bombs associated with the coordinated attack (which took place in 1985 on the same June day) which targeted two Air India planes?

One bomb blew Air India Flight 182 out of the sky.

The other exploded on the ground at Narita Airport, as the bag which contained it was in the process of being transferred from the originating flight (a CP flight) to an Air India flight.

The speculation is the bomb had been intended to explode, yes, just shortly after the scheduled take-off. But detonated one hour early since the bombers, carelessly...failed to account for daylight saving time when setting the timer!


That's exactly what I was thinking of. I recall someone suggesting that the bizarre detonation time for the PA103 bomb could have been for a similar reason, but that one doesn't really fly. The thing detonated at least three hours earlier than any terrorist who had a digital timer would have been aiming for.

Actually, each of two bags (which each contained a bomb) were checked onto a separate CP flight. Neither of the people (if there *were*two different people, rather than the same plotter) who checked in the bags boarded even the first leg of the respective flights.

One bomb was then transfered to an Air India flight. The other (as mentioned above) exploded on the ground as it was in the process of being transferred to its intended Air India flight.

So, in the Air India plot, the plan involved (in spite of the regulations that existed on paper at the time) checking in and transferring unattended baggage *four* times. Within a few hours. And the plan basically succeeded.

Probably the only thing preventing a tragedy greater than it already is, is the DST fiasco that one might assume not even a five year old would have made in similar circumstances. However, otherwise intelligent people making such absent-minded mistakes is not unusual in these cases. How the Oklahoma City Bomber (an otherwise very intelligent man) was tripped up is another example that comes to mind.


Thanks for the specifics - I remember someone else giving details of that plot, but I had forgotten much of it. I do recall that there was a lot of speculation at the time that the planter of the Lockerbie bomb had travelled on the feeder flight from Frankfurt but then simply failed to board the 747 at Heathrow, but of course that was shown not to be the case. The only gate no-show was someone who was beginning his journey at London, and he was not the terrorist.

P.S. My comments are meant only to address specific arguments that I believe that I have seen made, and which I don't necessarily agree with.

Anyone reading them should not extrapolate from my comments that I am implying a position on Megrahi's guilt or innocence. I'm not. I don't know enough about this case to even be sure that I have, in the previous sentence, even spelled the man's name correctly.


As I said, the main objections to the three-plane transfer theory, as far as your comments go, are the small Semtex charge rendering placement of the suitcase critical, and the timing of the explosion, which was far too early for a digital timer and spot on for a barometric timer.

However, the timer identity is a side issue as far as Megrahi's guilt or innocence is concerned. (And you can spell the name phonetically any way you please, although "Megrahi" has become fairly standard.) The reason he didn't do it is that he didn't buy the clothes that were in the bomb bag (as he was alleged to have done), and that there is no evidence at all for the bomb travelling from Malta through Frankfurt to Heathrow, despite intense and prolonged investigation. On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that the bomb was actually introduced at Heathrow, at a time when Megrahi was over a thousand miles away.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

FWIW, I share a thought with Ambrosia regarding the importance of the 'drugs for hostages' link to PA103. I'm not out to derail the thread in the least. I'm bringing this up because it goes to the huge motivation the U.S. had for covering all its bases, and goes to the very reason minutiae like the timer fragment became important.

If someone can point me to a thread where I can discuss this approach to PA103, I'll be very glad to do so.


The thread "What the hell was going on at Frankfurt?" is probably the most appropriate place for that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184455

I'm currently reading a couple of books which have info on that, and it's been on my mind, so I'd be glad to explore the subject.

Do you have access to the transcript of The Maltese Double Cross (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/mdc.pdf)? I think if covers some very important points.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

...the main objections to the three-plane transfer theory, as far as your comments go, are...

...and the timing of the explosion, which was far too early for a digital timer...

"Too early" in the sense that you believe a terrorist would not have intended for the plane to blow up in the actual vicinity that it did. Not in any technical sense, if I understand you correctly.

But it seems to me to be not inconceivable that terrorists could actually *aim* to have the plane blow up over land. Especially over a populated area. Creating as much collateral damage (and, hence, as much terror) as possible.

For example, is there any way we know the plan could not have been to blow up the plane from the sky right near London? And the short delay on a timer was hedging against take-off being a few minutes delayed?

[Rolfe]

No, too early in that there was a very significant chance that the device could have detonated on the tarmac at Heathrow, with such an early time set.

When a flight loses its slot, it tends to be delayed quite significantly. This was midwinter (literally), early evening in the busiest airport in Europe. The chances of it being delayed more than "a few minutes" were quite substantial, as anyone who has ever travelled regularly out of London will tell you. The feeder flight could have been delayed (actually it was, just not quite long enough). Something could have happened to keep the plane at the gate (actually it did - there was a no-show passenger and they should have waited, but they decided just to strand the lucky, lucky guy). Snow, fog, mechanical troubles, you name it, it's all part of the hell that flying often entails. To go to all that trouble, negotiate the impenetrable security at Malta, and the x-ray machine at Frankfurt, and all the possibilities for interception and lost baggage, and then have the thing go off like a damp squib just because the plane was 45 minutes late, when you have a seven-hour flight time to play with - it's nuts.

In fact Lockerbie was just sheer appalling luck. There isn't much around there, and the bloody plane just had to hit one of the few settlements. But even more so, nobody could have predicted the exact route the plane would have taken, and in fact the more usual route was over Ireland, not Scotland. Gadaffi (if anyone still thinks he had anything to do with it) was quite a fan of Ireland - or at least he was arming the IRA at the time.

In fact, if the terrorists had flexibility in setting their timer, and a fancy for bringing the plane down on land, common sense says they'd have delayed until close to the landing time, and crashed on the hated USA soil. And then, if the plane was significantly delayed, they'd at least get the crash over the ocean, not harmlessly on the tarmac.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I think one thing that's worth pointing out is that if it were just the timing of the explosion on its own, that would be a pretty weak point to make. However, the timing of the explosion is only one part of a whole heap of evidence suggesting that the device was put into the baggage container at Heathrow, and the MST-13 timer fragment was a plant.

The timing is something very obvious that makes you go, WTF??? It's the rest of it that makes you realise there's substance to the suspicions.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

I don't think we ever determined one way or another about the provenance and the type of camera which may have been used to take the photograph of the shirt collar and it's contents: PI/995.

The Aljazeera documentary showed this photograph without the red circle - which I think we have always been somewhat unsure if a photo without this circle actually existed at all, or perhaps as the original photo had been a polaroid and possibly taken with no negative or film to verify a date taken. And this was why all we could ever find was seemingly a reproduction of this first photo which could never be verified by the negative or film that should still be kept.

However, the documentary showed this:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1871/pi99501.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/pi99501.jpg/)


This is certainly the first time I've ever seen this photo without that red circle which was used to highlight the fragment we were to concentrate on.

As if those other bits of plastic which are burnt beyond any kind of recognition would somehow distract you from the great freaking microchip clue with the number 1 screaming out of the photo!

So, this might indicate that it was indeed a photograph taken with film and has a negative, and therefore a provable way of determining when that photo was actually taken. Was it really May as Hayes' notes try to imply, or possibly 4 months later in September when his no.2 Feraday rushed off a polaroid of the chip to Williamson as those were all he could manage in such a short time.(?)

[lane99]

...The timing is something very obvious that makes you go, WTF???...

One basis of your assertion that the timing of the detonation is a *glaring* red flag is your presupposition that terrorists would not have deliberately brought an airliner down over the land base of the British Isles, right?

But, if a barometic trigger was used, wouldn't it have been rather likely that sort of bomb, aboard that particular flight, would have exploded over land?

So the reasoning appears contradictory to me. If a barometic trigger was used, it seems the bomb was- by design- not improbably going to explode over land. Is that not correct?


...the timing of the explosion is only one part of a whole heap of evidence suggesting that the device was put into the baggage container at Heathrow, and the MST-13 timer fragment was a plant...

If the bomb went aboard at Heathrow, the MST-13 has to be a plant?

Assuming, FTSOA, the bomb was put into the baggage container at Heathrow, why couldn't it have, notwithstanding that, nevertheless actually used a MST-13 timer as the trigger?

Does that idea that it couldn't have, for credence, depend on the notion that a plotter would not have planned to bring down the plane so soon after the scheduled take-off?

[Rolfe]

One basis of your assertion that the timing of the detonation is a *glaring* red flag is your presupposition that terrorists would not have deliberately brought an airliner down over the land base of the British Isles, right?


A terrorist who had an MST-13 timer, no. Not because he would necessarily have been unhappy about the plane crashing on land as such, but because such an early time setting carried with it a very serious risk that the plane would still have been on the ground at that time. And if it had still been on the ground, there would have been no disaster, merely inconvenience. And the timer was just as easy to set for three or four hours later, as for 7.03pm.

But, if a barometic trigger was used, wouldn't it have been rather likely that sort of bomb, aboard that particular flight, would have exploded over land?

So the reasoning appears contradictory to me. If a barometic trigger was used, it seems the bomb was- by design- not improbably going to explode over land. Is that not correct?


If a barometric trigger was used, the terrorists didn't have any choice. The time delay built into these capacitance-based timers was relatively short. It was a ruse to circumvent a security device at the airport, not aimed at the plane exploding anywhere in particular - so long as it was actually in flight.

Barometric timers with no capacitor delay phase had been used in the past to bring down airliners, which exploded as soon as the plane reached the critical altitude. Because of this, some airports had installed vacuum chambers as a detection mechanism. Luggage was put into the chamber, and the pressure dropped, and if there was a barometric trigger in there, it would go off, damaging nothing but luggage. However, luggage was only held in these chambers for a couple of minutes, and the capacitor delay mechanism would stop an altimeter-based device from going off in that time. It would simply reset itself. That's all it was for.

Such a device was relatively inflexible, in that it would always explode around 35 to 50 minutes after take-off, irrespective of when take-off was. This made it a perfect choice for bombing aircraft, because it was immune to planes being delayed. Thus the timing makes perfect sense in the context of such a device, and no coherent sense in the context of a countdown timer with no altimeter component.

If the bomb went aboard at Heathrow, the MST-13 has to be a plant?


No. If the plane blew up 38 minutes after take-off, the MST-13 is screaming "I don't belong in this sequence of events!". It did blow up 38 minutes after take-off.

Assuming, FTSOA, the bomb was put into the baggage container at Heathrow, why couldn't it have, notwithstanding that, nevertheless actually used a MST-13 timer as the trigger?

Does that idea that it couldn't have, for credence, depend on the notion that a plotter would not have planned to bring down the plane so soon after the scheduled take-off?


I hope my post has explained this. The MST-13 is anomalous no matter where one speculates the bomb was introduced. The MST-13 had no means of detecting where the device was at the set time, and would blow regardless. It's way too likely that a flight out of Heathrow on a winter's evening will be delayed by more than 45 minutes (especially one that has to wait for a feeder leg coming in from elsewhere), thus causing a harmless explosion at ground level, with a setting for 7.03pm GMT.

And this applies no matter who made the device, even if we speculate that Khreesat and Dalkamoni had somehow got their mitts on one.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

Perhaps I'll just say I don't find those arguments I've happened to see to necessarily be persuasive. Not least because I'm not sure how valid are the assumptions and assertions which seem to underpin them.

For instance, I wouldn't agree that if a planted bomb destroyed a plane on the ground that would be nothing more than a harmless inconvenience and constitute abject and total failure of any terror plot.

Still, even if some arguments don't quite sway me, there is one which raises some intrigue. Namely, that the bomb detonated in the range of time a barometric triggered bomb would have. Even if ultimately it is only a coincidence, I think initially such an observation would be considered a valid clue, and appropriately give rise to certain suspicions.

[Rolfe]

This particular bomb was only about 450g Semtex. It was completely incapable of destroying a plane on the ground. All the bomb itself did was ruin a handful of suitcases and their contents, and damage about 20 more, and blow a hole about 20 inches in diameter in the side of the plane. The plane was destroyed by the explosive decompression and being ripped apart at 31,000 feet. If the bomb had gone off on the tarmac it would have given everyone concerned a helluva fright, and Pan Am a 747 with a hole in the side. It's unlikely that anyone would have been injured. Somehow, I think the terrorists were after a bit more than that.

Look at it from the point of view of the terrorists. If you have a barometric device, the problem of ensuring a detonation at altitude is sorted. So long as the flight is of longer duration than the capacitor timer, then the plane will be flying when it explodes. In fact, it will be about 40 minutes into whatever course it has set, and you can't predict that course. It might be over the Irish Sea, it might be over Ireland, or it might be over Scotland. But it will be in the air.

If you have a timer-only device, you need to figure out the best time to set it for. You have a flight time of rather over seven hours, with the earliest possible take-off time being 18.15 GMT, and touchdown around 01.30 GMT. Again, you can't predict the exact course. The early part of the flight might be over England, the Irish Sea and Ireland, or it might go north into Scotland. The later part might overfly Newfoundland, or Labrador, or it might come in from the ocean towards New York. You can't possibly "aim" for anywhere in particular. One thing you do know however is that planes get delayed, and than an hour or so is far from unusual, especially in winter.

Why are you going to set the timer for less than an hour into the earliest possible flight time?

Of course, if the rest of the evidence stacked up, we'd have to concede that the terrorists did just that. The thing is, the rest of the evidence doesn't stack up either.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Perhaps I'll just say I don't find those arguments I've happened to see to necessarily be persuasive. Not least because I'm not sure how valid are the assumptions and assertions which seem to underpin them.


Sorry if I'm just replicating Rolfe, but I haven't taken the chance to say hey, welcome to the issue. Sounds like you're making a fairly serious effort, and I commend that. Let's see an example:

For instance, I wouldn't agree that if a planted bomb destroyed a plane on the ground that would be nothing more than a harmless inconvenience and constitute abject and total failure of any terror plot.

I think you'd be wrong. The main difference, and it's big, is pressure diferrential. On the ground, the plane is not puffed up inside like a baloon relative to the vacuum outside. Really the damage to the plane from the bomb itself was like a pinprick.

That plus cross winds and airplane movement into them not present on the runway. Watch this animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5naaWe3nLI) and you might understand. If it happened on the runway, that first little hole is all you'd have, not the cabin torn asunder, seats hurled out, and the plane falling in half.

Flying is really pretty insane when you think about it, and about how many people do it so regularly. But anyway ...

Still, even if some arguments don't quite sway me, there is one which raises some intrigue. Namely, that the bomb detonated in the range of time a barometric triggered bomb would have. Even if ultimately it is only a coincidence, I think initially such an observation would be considered a valid clue, and appropriately give rise to certain suspicions.

That's a promising sign. Because yes, from the best minds, speaking at trial for the defense, based on direct observation, it's a smoking gun or at least a rather stunning coincidence (among many, many others that all point the same way).

Cabin pressure takes usually about 7 or 8 minutes from take-off to hit the trigger pressure of the barometers used, and the "ice cube" timers that started charging at that point were either 30, 45, or 60 minutes, with some uncertainty over which one was used for which unit. Not much uncertainty, though, given the 38-minute detonation. (explained here (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/03/thirty-eight-minutes.html) if you could use the details).

As for why any Libyans thought they could get away with setting the MST-13 for 7:03 and still achieving burial at sea, there's just no reason, as Rolfe is always good at explaining. It's sheer stupidity, or else an unavoidably bad fiction, based on timeframe the PFLP-GC's bomb left them with. See here (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/12/but-flight-103-was-behind-schedule.html).

From what I've seen, this particular clue was not really considered much by the investigation. They started out looking at just these guys and these bombs, but as of 1989, were always considering time delay from ingestion at Frankfurt at least, flat ruling out a London intro as soon as it became fairly clear that was the truth.

That's a little more subjective and off-putting, but I think you'll come to agree the more you follow up on the unanswered questions of this case.

[lane99]

...If the bomb had gone off on the tarmac it would have given everyone concerned a helluva fright, and Pan Am a 747 with a hole in the side. It's unlikely that anyone would have been injured. Somehow, I think the terrorists were after a bit more than that...

I wouldn't be surprised. Though that's besides the specific point I was making.

The contingency you described would be far from a mere inconvenience. It would instill some ongoing fear and anxiety in the population as a whole. Which, somehow I think, would not have been entirely incidental to any terrorist plot.


....I haven't taken the chance to say hey, welcome to the issue...

Awfully nice of you. Thanks.


...Flying is really pretty insane when you think about it, and about how many people do it so regularly...

Yes. Now add in the thought that someone apparently is looking to smuggle bombs about airliners. Even if you only know this because a bomb "harmlessly" exploded while it was taxiing down the runway somewhere, complacency will tend to be displaced by apprehension. Not a good thing for the aviation industry specifically, not to mention the transportation industry in general.

[Rolfe]

Except, that had already happened, several times. Jibril was responsible for at least two of these. And there was at least one incident where a plane had limped back to an emergency landing, with a hole in the side.

People went right on flying though. Come to that, they went right on flying after Lockerbie itself, 270 deaths and all. I think they went right on flying after 9/11, too.

Why take a huge risk of a (by comparison) damp squib on the tarmac, when all you have to do to make that virtually impossible is to set the timer for about three hours later?

But as I said in a previous post, if that was the only problem with the "official version" of the Lockerbie bombing, it would be a very weak point indeed. It's a strong point because of the context.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

Search of the entire JREF forum showed only one mention of the name "Reza Khalili". But somehow I'm guessing someone here, unlike myself, has heard of him.

Just saw an article (just learned how to do this at this moment (http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/04/25/14875-2893)) in which he claims the Lockerbie bombing was Iranian backed. It quotes him thusly in describing a conversation he claims to have had with an Iranian operative:

"He [the Iranian operative] talked about the radio transmitter and specifically mentioned that it was used as a trigger for the bomb."

What does he mean by "radio transmitter"? Is an MST-13 timer somehow a radio transmitter, or part of a radio transmitter?? If he had just said "radio", I would have assumed he talking about the Toshiba cassetter player. However, the term "radio TRANSMITTER" is confusing me.

[Rolfe]

The Lockerbie bombing is widely believed to be an Iranian-sponsored operation, including by most of the posters in these threads.

However, there are a lot of genuine, 24-carat conspiracy theories surrounding the incident, and a lot of self-evident weirdos. I've never heard of this guy, and having read that article, I'm none the wiser. The line about "the radio transmitter being used as a trigger for the bomb" makes no sense at all. The MST-13 was a simple digital count-down timer. Khreesat was working with altimeter-based devices that used a capacitor system to delay detonation for a fixed period after the height had been reached. There's no mainstream theory that involves a radio transmitter.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm pretty sure this claim came up here once or even twice before. Seems like it was dismissed pretty out-of-hand, and I think that was justified. Lots of supposed experts and witnesses have said things that just aren;'t true, and there's nothing in either the official story nor the best few alternatives to support a radio transmitter being involved.

Lane 99, sorry if I sounded a bit rude above, disagreeing with the first point as "an example," had a different implication than I meant to convey.

Even if you only know this because a bomb "harmlessly" exploded while it was taxiing down the runway somewhere, complacency will tend to be displaced by apprehension. Not a good thing for the aviation industry specifically, not to mention the transportation industry in general.

Fair enough, but do you agree now on the importance of altitude for the destruction of the plane? (the video is really important to grasping this - see it if you haven't) It's likely that altitude distinction that drove the adoption of the Khreesat style by the PFLP-GC, and why that group and weapon was chosen for this job by the Iranians.

They were probably after something like 300 deaths to avenge their 290. Something that might cause some jangled nerves could be a consolation prize and so not a total failure, but neither the best answer they'd be trying for.

It's an assumption, but a pretty fair one, isn't it?

ETA: Just to emphasize, I do not mean to downplay the effects of on-the runway explosions, and seem callous to victims of such attacks, or unaware of how such things affect the aviation industry. I'm sure it is a serious danger, just not the one I suspect was behind the PA103 plot.

[Rolfe]

I haven't heard anyone make a sensible, positive case for a digital timer being set to explode at 7 o'clock.

Maybe the terrorists wanted a crash on land.

Well maybe they did, but if the plane had gone by the Great Circle route (as it usually did) there was a good chance it would actually have landed in the Irish Sea. Or if it had crashed on land, it would have been on Ireland. Gadaffi liked Ireland - at least he loved the IRA and was actively arming them at the time. Crashing on Scotland was nothing but sheer chance.

So why was a possible crash on Ireland or in the Irish Sea (with only an outside chance of a crash on Scotland) so desirable that it was worth taking the very serious risk the bomb would go off on the tarmac? There's absolutely no reason at all.

Maybe the plane simply disappearing over the ocean wasn't emphatic enough, it had to be on or near land. What, an entire plane crashing mid-Atlantic wasn't good enough, but a pop-gun explosion that just wrecked a few suitcases and didn't injure anyone was just fine? I don't think so.

The simple fact is that in a plot like this, using a digital timer, if the terrorists had a preference for a land crash if possible, the way to achieve that was perfectly simple. Figure out how early that flight could possibly land (not that that would have happened that night, with the gale-force westerly winds) and set the timer to go off 15 or 30 minutes before that time. You might get the USA - if you don't, you'll probably get Canada. Worst-case scenario, if the plane was very late or took a very southerly course, would be the crash over the open ocean. That actually was the plan, in a recent thwarted Al Qaida attack.

For the debater determined to argue the genuineness of the timer, the better line to take is the "mistake" one. Maybe the terrorists miscalculated the time when they were setting the thing. Maybe it was meant to be on a different plane - actually, if PA101 had been carrying that device, it would have blown up about an hour before touchdown at JFK. Or maybe the device simply malfunctioned and went off prematurely.

There are problems with these ideas too though. A single hour's mistake, such as forgetting about the time zone difference between Heathrow and Europe, might be plausible. But this thing went off at least three hours before a rational detonation time with such a timer.

The "it was meant to go on PA101" idea is seductive - that flight had extra security precautions, maybe the terrorists tried to get it on and failed, but had set the timer late enough that PA103 could still be targeted so long as it wasn't late in departing. Except, that also torpedoes the prosecution case, because it inevitably implies a Heathrow introduction. It is impossible to send anything from Malta in the morning and have it catch the 1pm PA101 flight. The case against Megrahi specifically requires the suitcase to have been tagged for PA103 and to have been meant to travel on PA103. (A similar objection shoots down the suggestion that the suitcase was actually meant to be transferred to a direct Frankfurt-to-JFK flight which departed earlier than PA103A.)

It has been suggested that the timer simply malfunctioned. However, part of the case against Megrahi was a tale of another timer that was returned to Bollier, allegedly set for 7pm on Wednesday 21st December. With the implication that the Libyan plotters intended to set that as the explosion time all along. There's a great deal wrong with this story, starting with the word "Bollier", nevertheless its inclusion in the prosecution case underlines their assumption that the timing of the explosion was deliberate.

And in all of that, you still have to cope with the astounding coincidence that the mistake or malfunction involving the MST-13 timer just happened to make it explode right in the window when the devices being constructed in Neuss by Khreesat, Dalkamoni et al., the people with the actual means, motive and opportunity, would have exploded.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

...People went right on flying though. Come to that, they went right on flying after Lockerbie itself, 270 deaths and all. I think they went right on flying after 9/11, too...

You think so, do you? I think you might be right about that. My memory also is that the entire edifice of the world's aviation industry did not grind to a complete halt, without so much as a single paying customer remaining.

However, the extent to which your theories depend upon the idea that terrorist attacks have no ramifications beyond the direct damage and causualites that they cause, is the extent to which I would be skeptical of your theories.

[lane99]

The Lockerbie bombing is widely believed to be an Iranian-sponsored operation, including by most of the posters in these threads.

However, there are a lot of genuine, 24-carat conspiracy theories surrounding the incident, and a lot of self-evident weirdos. I've never heard of this guy, and having read that article, I'm none the wiser...

Self-evident weirdos? But, in essence, he's agreeing with most of the posters on this thread.

He's a former Iranian agent, and he's saying the Lockerbie bombing was an Iranian-sponsored operation.

[lane99]

...Lane 99, sorry if I sounded a bit rude above...

Rude? No, you didn't. In fact, quite to the contrary. Don't worry, Caustic Logic. Your manner belies your name.



...They were probably after something like 300 deaths to avenge their 290. Something that might cause some jangled nerves could be a consolation prize and so not a total failure, but neither the best answer they'd be trying for.

It's an assumption, but a pretty fair one, isn't it?..


I agree the second sentence is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I'm not sufficiently conversant with this subject to know whether the first sentence is. And I'm sure that you didn't *start* your enquiry of this bombing with this particular assumption. Since that would could lead to all sorts of problems, couldn't it?

[Rolfe]

You think so, do you? I think you might be right about that. My memory also is that the entire edifice of the world's aviation industry did not grind to a complete halt, without so much as a single paying customer remaining.

However, the extent to which your theories depend upon the idea that terrorist attacks have no ramifications beyond the direct damage and causualites that they cause, is the extent to which I would be skeptical of your theories.


You're focussing on one tiny point of a very extensive critique, to the exclusion of everything else. I've said a number of times that if the timing of the explosion was the only problem with the Official Version, it would be a very weak point. It only becomes interesting in context.

I thought my post above yours explained the various possibilities as regards timing quite well. Did you actually read it?

I'd like to turn the argument back on you. Imagine you are the (hypothetical) terrorists. You are on the island of Malta, early in the morning of 21st December 1988, and you're setting the timer on your filthy bomb. You've got as long as you like - the thing will run for weeks if necessary.

Your first flight leaves Malta at 9.45 European time (08.45 GMT), and arrives in Frankfurt about 13.00 European time (12 noon GMT).
Your second flight leaves Frankfurt about 17.00 European time (16.00 GMT), and is scheduled to arrive in Heathrow about 17.10 GMT.
Remember the hour time-zone difference, though you're probably going to work it all out in GMT anyway.
Your third flight, the target, the transatlantic leg, leaves Heathrow at 18.00 GMT (although the earliest it can possibly take off is 18.15) and thereafter flies for over seven hours before arriving in New York at 01.40 GMT (20.40 Eastern US time).

Here is the most probable flight path (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-jfk) (note, by the way, that it goes nowhere near Lockerbie), but naturally there is considerable variation in the course a particular plane might take on any particular day. And of course planes are never significantly early, but they are often significantly late, especially in the middle of winter.

Where do you want the bomb to go off, ideally? Is it necessary to take any significant risk of it going off before the transatlantic leg takes off? What is so important about the first 45 minutes of that flight path, especially given that you absolutely can't be sure it won't be a fair bit north or south of that trajectory? (Remember, you're on good terms with Ireland.) You've just put in place an enormously cunning plan, at considerable personal risk. Why would you rather chance a minor non-fatal incident on the tarmac, than make virtually certain of a mid-air explosion by aiming for a later time?

Self-evident weirdos? But, in essence, he's agreeing with most of the posters on this thread.

He's a former Iranian agent, and he's saying the Lockerbie bombing was an Iranian-sponsored operation.


Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I was referring to the fact that if you look around enough you'll find quite a variety of alleged triggers for that explosion, proposed by various fruitcakes. From some sort of pager on the ground setting off a large bomb in the airframe, to an accidental detonation of illegally-transported ordnance, to a door failure setting off a loaded shotgun in someone's luggage, you can find them. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to find a theory about a radio transmitter. That's what I meant about the weirdos.

However, there's no widely-accepted narrative of Lockerbie that involves a radio transmitter. Therefore, noting that an informant has mentioned a radio transmitter doesn't give their story any particular credibility.

And I'm sure that you didn't *start* your enquiry of this bombing with this particular assumption. Since that would could lead to all sorts of problems, couldn't it?


I think most people came into this by noting that the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi pretty much redefined the word "tenuous". The much vaunted official theory, when paraded in court, turned out to be even more naked than the proverbial emperor. The judges convicted, but the decision was so perverse that all it really did was cause a lot of people to sit up and go WTF???!!!

You can take it from there.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Lane 99, I've been trying to figure out where you're coming from with this one. I note you've only posted in this thread (of the dozen or so Lockerbie threads), and you've confined your discussion to the question of whether or not the timing of the explosion was anomalous. As you've now realised, I think, this is not the starting point, or even close to it. Can I rewind a little for you?

The Official Version of Lockerbie says that the bomb was carried on Air Malta 180 on the morning of 21st December 1988, as unaccompanied luggage, tagged to be transferred, eventually, to PA103. It arrived in Frankfurt where, after a stop-over of four hours, it was loaded on to the feeder flight PA103A, having sailed through the security x-ray procedures undetected. On arrival at Heathrow, it was transferred across the tarmac to PA103, which took off pretty much on time, and duly exploded just after 7pm.

However, what evidence is there that this happened? As it happens, None. At. All. This may be shocking, but it's true.

There is no evidence at all that the bomb or the suitcase it was in were ever anywhere near the island of Malta. Not only that, the intensity of the investigation on the island which failed to turn up such evidence is sufficient virtually to amount to evidence of absence. Security procedures at that airport were surprisingly stringent, and the flight had been carefully checked and supervised. There was no unaccompanied luggage, nor even any theory about how there might possibly have been unaccompanied luggage.

The other side to this coin is a selection of clothes which were identified as having been in the suitcase with the bomb. These were all manufactured on Malta, and were brand new. It was possible to trace the manufacturers, and then to trace a retailer. The retailer appeared to remember the sale of these clothes to a man he had never seen before or since. It was the location of this retailer, only three miles from the airport at Malta, that convinced the investigation that the bomb must have originated there. Even though several weeks had elapsed between the sale of the clothes and the bombing.

The investigators discovered someone they regarded as suspicious had been passing through the airport that morning - Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a man who was a wheeler-dealer for the Gadaffi regime. All he did was catch a different flight to Tripoli, but they decided they were on to something. They speculated that he might perhaps have been the man who bought the clothes, so they showed his picture to the shopkeeper, and hey presto, it was him!

Or was it?

This is the real crux of the issue, and there is a completely separate thread about it. The reason it was determined that the bomb must, somehow, God only knows how, have been smuggled on to KM180 that morning, was that the man who bought the clothes in the bomb bag was at the airport at the same time. That's it. I kid you not.

If Megrahi had indeed bought the clothes, say there had been CCTV pictures of him doing it or he had paid with his own credit card or his DNA had been recovered from the fabric, then there's a ghost of a chance this chain of logic might at least get off its backside and stagger a few steps along the road.

But he didn't buy the clothes. The day the clothes were probably bought, he was nowhere near the shop. The original description the shopkeeper gave of the customer didn't match him at all. And the details of how he was allegedly identified through photographs and an identity parade (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/photoid.pdf) would be laughable, if they weren't so tragic. And to cap it all, the shopkeeper was handed a "reward" of $2 million for his trouble.

So, it's like this. To believe the Official Version, you have to make a credible case that Megrahi really bought these clothes. It can't be done. That was of course the central plank of the SCCRC report into his conviction, that concluded there was evidence it was a miscarriage of justice. And you have to show even some reasonable case that an unaccompanied bag was carried on KM180. Again, it can't be done, as Megrahi's actual trial judges acknowledged. They just over-rode this because they'd already decided he bought the clothes so he "must have done it somehow".

So if you want to defend the Official Version of Lockerbie, these are the bits you have to work on. Megrahi as the clothes buyer, and the unaccompanied suitcase on that flight out of Malta. The case stands or falls on that alone.

It's once you realise that it has fallen in a heap, been chewed up, spat out and taken out with the empties, that the question of the timer comes in. Because that's when you start to ask, well, what did happen then? And obviously, you have to decide, does my theory, whatever form it's going to take, include an MST-13 timer? Then it becomes quite difficult, because it's difficult to see why anyone with such a timer, whether it was Khreesat, or a genuine goon of the Gadaffi regime, or one of the also-ran theories, would set it for that time.

Then you take note that the provenance of that particular piece of evidence is so flaky that it would be a miracle of biblical proportions if it wasn't a plant. Which is a whole other can of worms.

So that's where we really are. If you want to declare that the timer fragment wasn't a plant, and was a genuine part of the IED, be my guest. But please, put it in context and realise that unless you can make a credible case for Megrahi having bought these clothes, and an invisible magic suitcase being levitated on to KM180 that morning, it doesn't make the Official Version one iota more credible.

Yes, this is a summary. There are bits that I've left out. But they're peripheral. If you want to have a crack at this "conspiracy theory", you need to tackle the identification of the clothes buyer, and the routing of the bomb suitcase on Air Malta that morning.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

You're focussing on one tiny point of a very extensive critique, to the exclusion of everything else. I've said a number of times that if the timing of the explosion was the only problem with the Official Version, it would be a very weak point. It only becomes interesting in context...

I not "focusing" on it anymore than you are. It's an argument that you prominently made- in the opening post of this thread- and I've commented on it.

From my first post I made it quite clear, I hoped, that any comments I make are not based on any sort of detailed familiarity with this case, and should not be extrapolated to mean or imply anything other than what they actually say. There, I've said that *twice* now. Though wish I hadn't needed to take the time, as it eats into a limited budget of such.

I agree the timing is a weak argument to make against the official version (are the capital "O" and "V" commentary by you, or an inside joke, perhaps? If so, fine. Just not sure. Normally that term wouldn't be capitalized here, would it?). But you have indeed made it clear you don't think your case relies on this point, so that is fair enough.


I thought my post above yours explained the various possibilities as regards timing quite well. Did you actually read it?

Are you refering to the post which starts: "I haven't heard anyone make a sensible, positive case for a digital timer being set to explode at 7 o'clock"

If so, yes, I've skimmed it. And it seems to me some of your comments are based on conjecture that could very well be wrong. For example, your claim of the only "rational" window of time to set the timer. Or, even if that your conjecture was correct, that "mistake" could not account for the discrepancy. It could, I assert. I've no time to elaborate on this now, sorry.

[lane99]

..If he had just said "radio", I would have assumed he talking about the Toshiba cassetter player. However, the term "radio TRANSMITTER" is confusing me.

..However, there's no widely-accepted narrative of Lockerbie that involves a radio transmitter. Therefore, noting that an informant has mentioned a radio transmitter doesn't give their story any particular credibility...

Did a cursory check, and I now suspect that this person was, indeed, meaning to refer to the Toshiba portable music device that purportedly housed the bomb.

How the quote about a "radio transmitter" "triggering" the bomb came to be, I'm not sure, but can think of a few different possibilities.

[Rolfe]

I not "focusing" on it anymore than you are. It's an argument that you prominently made- in the opening post of this thread- and I've commented on it.

From my first post I made it quite clear, I hoped, that any comments I make are not based on any sort of detailed familiarity with this case, and should not be extrapolated to mean or imply anything other than what they actually say. There, I've said that *twice* now. Though wish I hadn't needed to take the time, as it eats into a limited budget of such.

I agree the timing is a weak argument to make against the official version (are the capital "O" and "V" commentary by you, or an inside joke, perhaps? If so, fine. Just not sure. Normally that term wouldn't be capitalized here, would it?). But you have indeed made it clear you don't think your case relies on this point, so that is fair enough.

Are you refering to the post which starts: "I haven't heard anyone make a sensible, positive case for a digital timer being set to explode at 7 o'clock"

If so, yes, I've skimmed it. And it seems to me some of your comments are based on conjecture that could very well be wrong. For example, your claim of the only "rational" window of time to set the timer. Or, even if that your conjecture was correct, that "mistake" could not account for the discrepancy. It could, I assert. I've no time to elaborate on this now, sorry.


What I've been trying to explain to you is that this thread was started to discuss the timer issue. That's what the thread is about. It's not the only or the first thread about Lockerbie, and it's certainly not the central issue.

Some commentators like to make it a central issue though, because it's photogenic, and because the provenance is as flaky as a French patisserie, and because it makes for a dramatic sort of documentary. So for these reasons also it's a subject worth discussing in its own right.

It is, however, not the reason why the Official Version of Lockerbie is a crock of nonsense. That honour goes to the eyewitness identification (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/photoid.pdf).

I took quite a lot of trouble to try to explain the issues to you, and I'm disappointed that you just "skimmed" my post. But nevertheless you feel able to "assert" that I'm wrong. I'd recommend taking the time and trouble to get up to speed, especially when other posters go out of their way to help, or just give up on the drive-by duh-bunking.

But if you feel the timer fragment convinces you it's absolutely genuine, altered labels and renumbered pages and undateable polaroid photos and forensics officers with serious past form in fabricating evidence and all the rest, hey knock yourself out. Even if it is genuine, it doesn't do a thing to shore up the Official Version. All it does is pose the problem of who put it there and why.

And if you have a sensible, rational reason for setting a digital timer for seven o'clock under these circumstances, you haven't told us about it yet. Why would a terrorist reject the possibility of an explosion over the Atlantic Ocean in favour of the possibility of a non-lethal explosion at ground level?

Just realise that any theory that incorporates the MST-13 timer, still doesn't incorporate either Abdelbaset al-Megrahi or flight KM180, given that the eyewitness identification is baloney (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/photoid.pdf).

(Please, God, send me someone who knows something about the facts of the case to debate, why don't you...?)

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Did a cursory check, and I now suspect that this person was, indeed, meaning to refer to the Toshiba portable music device that purportedly housed the bomb.

How the quote about a "radio transmitter" "triggering" the bomb came to be, I'm not sure, but can think of a few different possibilities.


I think the entire world knew about the Toshiba radio-cassette player from a fairly early stage, what with the whole "Autumn Leaves" thing and the coincidence (if it was a coincidence) of that IED also being in a different Toshiba model which was also called "BomBeat".

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

To get even clearer about this, the point about whether or not the timer chip was planted is crucial, but as regards whether there was investigator malpractice, not as regards whether the investigators got either the right guy or the right modus operandi.

Maybe they were all completely on the level (which would have been a novel experience for some of those involved but there's a first time for everything), and they just convicted the wrong guy by the usual means of confirmation bias and group-think.

Or maybe not. I incline to the view that forensic scientists with a history of falsifying evidence did it again. But then maybe they didn't. But that still doesn't get us any further in figuring out who bombed that plane or how, I'm afraid.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

What I've been trying to explain to you is that this thread was started to discuss the timer issue. That's what the thread is about...

Yes, I got that. That's why I posted the comments I did, where I did.

What I don't get, is why you're complaining about someone discussing the issue that you yourself raised, on the thread that you yourself created, especially for just such a discussion.

But, at any rate, I've probably had my full say on the matter now.


...But nevertheless you feel able to "assert" that I'm wrong...

I don't need to know the details of this case, or any case, to know, that a mistake could have been made in setting the timer.

But, to be clear, I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing that a mistake needed to be made to account for the timing of the explosion of a MST-13 dependent bomb. Just that, even if it has to be a mistake, it wouldn't be unprecedented for such to occur.

The argument that a one hour mistake is feasible, but not a three hour mistake strikes me as marginal. I would agree that as the duration of the supposedly necessary mistake is increased, the less plausible it becomes. But three hours? It wouldn't be that much more difficult to make that mistake, than a one hour mistake. And I can imagine several possible ways in which it could be done.

Actually, I rather suspect that if it hadn't already reportedly happened, you would be now WTF'ing over the idea that anyone who is smart enough to build a bomb, set it with a timer, and smuggle it onto a plane would not also be smart enough and to be able to calculate the time difference, at any given moment, between Vancouver and Tokyo (as was apparently required in the Air India plot). It's really quite simple to do.

And I'd be right there with you. Since, in the absence of any known examples, it would certainly seem improbable to me. And yet, it seems to have happened.

[Rolfe]

Indeed, it happened, once. I said I thought a simple mistake was unlikely, of course it's not impossible. First because an error of at least three hours over the earliest rational time (assuming a desire to hit the middle of the Atlantic rather than the approach lanes to JFK) is quite a bit harder to do than an hour because of a time zone difference. Second, because it would have been quite the coincidence for an inadvertent error like that to have just happened to score a bulls-eye on the window where a Khreesat barometric trigger would inevitably have exploded. And third, looking for a minute at the case against the Libyans, evidence was led in court specifically suggesting the alleged terrorists had deliberately intended that time.

Well, it wasn't the Libyans anyway. Or at least not these Libyans. And the timer wasn't set in Malta, wherever it was set. If it was ever set. It's possible that whoever made that bomb had an MST-13 timer and simply blew it when he was setting the time, but got away with it because the plane got away on time.

It's also possible that Amanda Knox snuck out of Raffaele Sollecito's house while he was on the computer, in the evening of 1st November 2007. I could come into that thread and make that point in isolation in the middle of the discussion, but it would be a bit pointless in the context of the rest of the evidence. I could still keep harping on about how it was possible though. And no doubt you would find it a bit irritating.

Rolfe.

[lane99]

Indeed, it happened, once. I said I thought a simple mistake was unlikely, of course it's not impossible...

Ok. We both agree it's not impossible. But we disagree on how likely it may or may not be. So be it.

BTW, Don't have examples at my fingertips, but I'd be willing to bet that bombs set to detonate by timers have exploded at "mistaken" times countless times through history. Not just once.


...It's also possible that Amanda Knox snuck out of Raffaele Sollecito's house while he was on the computer, in the evening of 1st November 2007. I could come into that thread and make that point in isolation in the middle of the discussion, but it would be a bit pointless in the context of the rest of the evidence. I could still keep harping on about how it was possible though. And no doubt you would find it a bit irritating...

Not at all. People can make that point there, if they want (and they have). It's a general discussion thread.

It would be petulant of me to object. Even more so if I were to object to that point being raised in a thread specifically dedicated to the very question of whether or not Knox could have snuck out of the house during the timing of the boyfriend's computer use ;-)

[Rolfe]

Look, of course a mistake in setting the timer is possible. There's no law of nature that prevents it. Pointing that out doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Why would you prefer that explanation, given the context. That is the question.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

A new article by de Braeckeleer has just been published. Interestingly, he's using the order of dissection of the shirt collar as shown in the photos to allege a date on or after 10th October 1989 for the first appearance of the fragment in the chain of evidence.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38099

I'll need to consider his point in detail. My opinion has been that the fragment surfaced by 15th September, the date of the Feraday memo to Williamson. Why fabricate that, when Williamson could have denied receiving it on that date?

Dan O. noted that the photo numbered 117 must have been taken during the examination described on the infamous (new) page 51, because it shows the debris after removal from the collar but before teasing out the pages of the small wad of the manual. Both operations are described on the page. Hayes, however, was delightfully vague on that point in court, and wasn't pressed as far as he might have been.

I don't know what to make of de Braeckeleer's latest.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm trying to figure out de Braeckeleer's logic, and while I think he's highlighted a fascinating wrinkle I don't think it's as "inescapable and indisputable" as he claims.

He shows a photograph (116) of four separate pieces of the infamous Slalom shirt, including the small piece of collar (only 4 inches long) which yielded the timer fragment and all the rest. The four pieces have separate ID numbers. The photo is said (by Hayes, in court) to show the collar section before it was investigated to yield the timer fragment, the scraps of manual and the rest, but in fact that isn't necessarily so. The item doesn't look significantly different from its appearance in the second photo (117), which is obviously post-dissection.

The dates on which the four pieces were dealt with in Hayes's notes are given. The small collar piece we know to be 12th May, on the mysterious "new" page 51. Two other pieces were examined on 22nd May, ten days later. Whether or not that is still within the scope of the renumbered pages is not stated but could probably be ascertained. The fourth piece, which is the section including the pocket which was featured in the Aljazeera documentary (alleging that the exhibit was a boy's shirt, while Tony described selling an adult man's shirt to the mysterious customer in his later statements), was not examined until 10th October.

I'm not following the logic that concludes that the dissection of the collar section must therefore not have taken place until after 10th October. As the photos are undated they are of no help. Picture 116 could have been taken early, before any of the four pieces were investigated, and for some reason Hayes just didn't get round to looking at the pocket piece until at least five months later. Alternatively picture 116 could have been taken later, after all four pieces had been examined and it was realised they related to the same garment. Hayes could simply be mistaken in believing that 116 shows the collar before the debris was extracted from it.

So I don't think the evidence inescapably proves what de Braeckeleer concludes. I also think that Feraday's memo of 15th September is fairly good evidence the timer fragment was present in the chain of evidence by that date.

The anomaly, really, is the very late examination of the pocket section of the shirt. I can't see any reason for that, if Hayes had all four pieces assembled on or before 12th May. It's possible that the pocket section simply didn't surface until October, and the composite photo was retrospective, but there's evidence against that in Crawford's book. There he describes going to Kent in August to examine ALL the pieces of blast-damaged clothing, and specifically describes the pocket section with the label (although he mis-remembers it as "ALAMO" rather than "SLALOM").

I suspect there may be an indication of shenanigans with that shirt in all this, but I don't think it's simple, and I don't think it's what de Braeckeleer claims.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

I'm struggling to follow de Braeckeleer's thinking here too. He appears to blithely assume everyone will be blinded by the obvious discrepancy he claims to be exposing, but actually presents a rather limited and somewhat vague article.

However, I do see a number of strange issues around Hayes' notes, dates and references to the other blast damaged items.

The later page no.112, dated 10/10/1989, which is with reference to PP8932 which encompasses all those blast damaged pieces, and begins with the remnants of a "brassiere", and then goes on to describe the examination of PK1978, a partial remains of a shirt breast pocket.

At the bottom of the page, Hayes concludes by his examination notes by relating this examination to the other items of 'debris' included in PP8932. Specifically he notes this items direct association with "PI/995, PK/339, PK1973."

There is also a footnote below this with reference to "see pg.153".

I am noticing that in the all of the above references there is no reference to item PT2, apparently examined, noted and illustrated on the 12th May on page 51. Nor does the note of 10th October make or describe any relevance to what now would also be known as PT35 (PT35(b) that of the piece of timer fragment) and the fragments that had been extracted from PI/995 five months before he sat down and examined the shirt pocket and added the references to what was also part of PP8932.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ludwig-photo-112.jpg


Of course PT35, and PT2, which were apparently examined and noted on the 12th May, and despite their crucial importance, if not by this point in the investigation as Hayes' and Feraday didn't make anything of it until September, neither are referred to in any way in the later examination conducted on the 10th October in relation to the other items given the reference PP8932.

Is that making any sense whatsoever? For, it's all I can see as the possible anomaly that de Braeckeleer's might be getting at.


ETA: The link above appears to not connect, so here's a link to the entire article again:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38099

[Rolfe]

That piece of shirt with the "SLALOM" logo was one of the things the Aljazeera documentary claimed had been tampered with, wasn't it? A change in shape of the fragment, a bit missing or something like that?

But it wasn't just that the pocket was too narrow to be an adult shirt, it was the width of the whatjamacallit, the border that carries the buttons and the buttonholes (placket?). And there is a section of that on one of the other pieces as well and it seems to be the same width.

What I don't understand is why Crawford was called to Kent in August to examine all the charred clothing found, and mentions the SLALOM label on the pocket, and trots back to Scotland with photographs of all this stuff - but Hayes doesn't record his examination of that particular piece of evidence until October.

The whole shirt story is surrounded by suspicion, what with Tony originally being sure he didn't sell any shirts, and the cops buying a couple, and then Tony "remembering" he sold two to the mystery shopper, but his new memory is of adult sizes while the fragments are a child's size. And all that amazing evidence that comes out of just one single piece of it.

I'm having trouble figuring out what the real sequence of events was. Could Crawford be wrong about seeing the SLALOM (ALAMO) label in August? His memory is atrocious, but I would have thought he'd at least have that bit right as it was part of what sent them running to Malta at the very end of the month.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

I, for one, am glad of de Braeckeleer's article, even though I don't really see why he's so confident in asserting his claim of antedating. Hoorah! for photos to attach all these tumbling reference numbers to.

Buncrana points out the lack of fuss made of PT2 and PT35B. That's the very fishy bit for me too.

That lack of a sketch for PT35B -( piece of green coloured circuit board ) when there are detailed drawings of the 5 teeny scaps of paper ( now to be known as PT2 ) showing different languages, important in the context of Toshiba cassette player manual, niggles at me.

I can only speculate that he might be waiting for the, ahem, 'correct' fragment to make an appearance. Bits of circuit board were very much sought after in the sifting process.


The timeline of events is twisting my noodle, too. I'm off to see if I can figure out when the green coloured circuit board becomes PT35B as it isn't raised as a seperate production at the time of discovery.


CTB

[Rolfe]

Caustic Logic has done quite a lot on this.

http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/

Try this. http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/search/label/PT%2F35%28b%29

He's the one who noticed that the investigators were going mad trying to find more bits of circuit board from the radio to pin down the model more precisely, at exactly the time PT35b (allegedly) showed up. So Hayes found the biggest bit of PCB of all the pieces deemed to be evidential, in a position which virtually guaranteed it was from the IED, and all he did was make a note of it and file it for another four months.

Yeah, right.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Last I heard, Dr. Ludwig had just disappeared in I think 2008, after speaking of some kind of trouble. I forget who told me that, but he never returned my e-mails. Now he's back on the scene ... I haven't tried to get into what he's saying, but I gave it a look and appreciate, as always, photos. He's getting the October date from another page of notes... aren't these known to be of mixed reliability?

Otherwise, it's a fine date, aside from that Sept. 15 memo. Possibly also a forgery and backdated - maybe the date is a clue - exactly four months after discovery? But why so long? Etc. ... I sense possible headaches, will stand back and see what anyone else figures out.

[Rolfe]

The thing about the September date is that it is a memo to Williamson. If Williamson didn't receive that memo on or about that date, wasn't he likely to have said something?

There must have been a start date to the efforts of the Scottish police to identify that fragment. I don't actually know what they were doing before January, but the information may be somewhere. What would be the point of trying to pretend the Scottish investigators had the item (or a photo) months before they actually had it, when surely that could be double-checked - even if Williamson was in on the fabrication, which I very much doubt that he was.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

It was me that read on the Canadian Free Press site that they had received an email from Dr de Braeckeleer saying he was in trouble while researching an article abroad and would update when more was known.

Now he's obviously returned, and as I said, I'm not entirely clear how the whole article allows his conclusions, but nevertheless, it is very interesting and I think he's essentially correct that the 'discovery' of the fragment was back dated. Quite if it's as obvious that the find was actually made between Oct10 1989 and Jan10 1990 as he's seems to suggest, I'm not as convinced.

However, as CL first caught, and as we've discussed already, there is the irrational numbering of evidence when some of them (the most critical pieces no less) are taken in parallel with the dates of discovery and other items also discovered during those same timeframes.

And so, the only wrinkle I can see in the assertions made about this particular period of note taking and photographs offered in the article is that with the knowledge that PT35 (and PT2) was teased out of the collar in May, and then a memo relating to its importance was raised in September, only to then see a note relating to all the blast items included in PP8932 in October make no mention of either PT2 or the incredible PT35 now part of complete evidence collection of PP8932.

The memo in October notes the examination of 2 items from PP8932, and at the bottom makes the point of drawing the association with PI995, PK339 and PK1973, but omits the items which by this time what now also constituted the whole PP8932 evidence as though, dare I say, they didn't even exist. Indeed Hayes make reference to 'blackened debris', and subsequently mentions PI995, and the others, and that's it.

No mention of the scraps of manual, or fragment of microchip, portions of speaker and the other 'blackened debris' (PT35 a,b,c, etc etc) whatsover.

I suppose you might say, well why would he? Perhaps that's reasonable considering the amount of evidence that was being examined and logged, but still, personally, it strikes me as quite odd for any reference to these particular pieces to be omitted.

[CTB]

thanks for the link, Rolfe, and thanks to Caustic Logic for the content. I haven't yet found a definite date for PT35B coming to life as a production.

Mainly because at the mo. I'm sidetracked with trying to work out which cassette player ( x 2 ) Andrew Jackson says he his asked to source in March 1989 from Washington DC and send back to Scotland. If only he could have seen the production or his label he'd have been able to tell the court of the make, model and serial number. Why get them from the US? Surely Toshiba in the UK could oblige? Mind you, if there's a full range of Toshibas and some FBI colleagues can help point you to the right store...

It's just that our intrepid forensic boys seem to spend a lot of time blowing up 8016s in April and July because that's the one Feraday is positive that's been used for the IED. Why not just pick up the control sample at the same time?

On June 30th May 11th, it's the RTSF16 that swings into view, thanks to the 'Horton' evidence - PK689, and less than a fortnight after Feraday's been in Japan finding out about it's existence for the first time? I guess this is where the control sample of the manual comes from?

If the cassette player confuses me this much what chance have I got when pondering the provenance of the timer fragment ? :boggled:

Switching into Persevere-mode, but maybe a lie down first.


CTB

[CTB]

Well, I'm going with first appearance of PT35B as a production with the photograph taken by Rod MacDonald on 12th Feb 1990. ( possibly Production 181; photograph 334 )

Before this photo is taken, on 8th Feb 1990, a pinhead sample is taken at CIBA Geigy ( label 414 )

Then it tours the UK and to Munich, and has various bits removed for testing. The only grinding and polishing I see happening is by Mr Worrel of Feranti, who removes a fragment from the fragment that Siemens AG took in Germany ( production 342; label 419 )



Anyhoo, what Mr de Braeckeleer is driving at is that photograph 116 shows the items, not just the shirt collar, before examination.

On page112 of Dr Hayes' notes, October 10th, 1989, Dr Hayes examines PK1978 ( the 'pocket' fragment ) and relates it to PI 995 ( the 'full-of-stuff' collar ), PK339 and PK1973 and adds a curious little note, in different ink, about page 153 of his notes. This would suggest, to me, that PK339 and PK1973 are also out of sync. ( de Braeckeleer grants that they were examined on 22 May 1989, thereby scuppering his own theory, if you ask me.)

Despite the less than scientific approach to examination, and the oodles of other jiggery-pokery, is it an obvious thing to do to be rummaging around for all the bits of shirt and snap them all as a happy family before getting to, loose use of the term here, the forensics?

Yet, Feraday sends a memo ( production 333 ) with photos of the fragment (production 334 as a copy or representation of photograph attached to memo ) showing front and back to Williamson on 15th September 1989. The MacPlods are already on Malta talking to Toni Gauci.

There are two places, at least to keep things simple, where PT35B could have come from: the IED inside PA103 as proposed by the prosecution or inside one of the 8016s blown-up in April or July in the US.

The MST-13 only makes sense in PA103 if the terrorists really bungled setting the time. The air-pressure switch fits the bill much better for explosion time on PA103.

Hayes and Feraday are known to fabricate and lie to send anyone to prison. It's natural not to believe a single word they utter, but this one's wrapped-up like they've learned a thing or two about covering their tracks.

I haven't even got round to pondering Ebol's notion of PI995 originally being PT95. Sheesh! Time for another lie down.


CTB


CTB

[CTB]

Pondered it for a while after seeing it on Ebol's site, then couldn't find it again there, then thought of CL's Lockerbie Divide.

It may not be big news to the Longtimers here, but I think this is the first photographs of PT 35 B, and is possibly Production Label 334 " of photo referred to in memo " ( ie Feraday to Williamson 15 September 1989; production label 333 )





http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/Feraday_fragment_notes.jpg




Hayes doesn't draw it or describe it, but here's Feraday with all sorts of annotations - the best he can do in a short space of time.


Green? Brown? Bloomin' difficult to tell.


A copy of the Hayes/Feraday report ( production 181 ) sure would be handy....



CTB

[Caustic Logic]

Excellent stuff, CTB! I'll venture an easy response that won't scare me off with a headache. As you know, I'm a bit out of this loop, and the details you're citing seem alien to me, despite half-knowing much of the not long ago. The photos details I never bothered sorting out until we had a verifiable dated negative, or something.

I have this pet tendency to suspect early plans and planting, and find most all of it to be the work of early-mid 1989. But the timer's it's own thing that I think was supposed to come out slower and later, the icing on the cake. I could see holding that back until about 1990, and then having the RARDE guys make it all sciency and 1989-vintage and let it start rolling from there.

Hayes doesn't draw it or describe it, but here's Feraday with all sorts of annotations - the best he can do in a short space of time.

Allen's more an artist than a scientist, it just occurred to me. I don't know when that page was supposedly done - is it part of the (supposed) Sept 15 package?

Did I say earlier I don't trust Williamson much either? I think he might be able to cooperate on backdating something by confirming its new timeline.

On the color I can easily add:
Green? Brown? Bloomin' difficult to tell.

From this, of course. It's black and white. The photo supposedly taken in May however shows more of a blue-green cast under the soot, and the cleaned fragment matches that in all hard-to-replicate details. And that's clearly green/blue. So the Lumpert story (of giving a brown prototype board to the cops) remains an oddball. Worse is Bollier's bizarre effort to fuse that brown prototype into the chain - Lumpert's fragmented and the corner planted, then replaced by the green version, differentiated only by the lack of the scratched "M," otherwise a perfect re-creation but for the color. Then the corner was cut out, and replaced with part of the original brown fragment, IIRC. And no photos show any portion of a brown MST-13 that I can see (even correcting for the strange blue tinting - but I'm open to anyone showing me wrong).

A copy of the Hayes/Feraday report ( production 181 ) sure would be handy....
Yeah ... I started re-creating it once, partial, from trial transcripts. I did that with Marshman's report on Khreesat and Abu Elias, and it was useful enough to see it in order, with the noted sections and pages just missing. But the report was just too big. And of course I have no idea how to get ahold of the full report. Well, no solid idea, anyway, but I might ask around.

[Rolfe]

I'm watching this thread, but I'm obsessing about the amazing Caruana Christmas 1988 trip to Disneyworld again.

I'll get back to that bloody timer chip later.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

it just occurred to me. I don't know when that page was supposedly done - is it part of the (supposed) Sept 15 package?





I think the page I've shown here is constructed by Ebol, which he's dutifully noted with 'taken off ' ( orig: abgedeckt ) pointing to the origin of his Jigsaw theory, but I do think he's using original photos and notes, as presented, as the Sept 15 pack to Williamson. I'm sure I've seen an UnEdwinned page with Feradays explanations to his annotations somewhere, but I might be thinking of something else at the mo.


One of things that is first established about the chip, on Feb 8th 1990, once it gets into independent hands, ie when the Scottish police take it around PCB manufacturers ( to eliminate them from enquiries or something. If the police had just handed it to Thurman he'd have sorted it out in a couple of days with help from his pal Orkin at the CIA. ) is that it's unusual for it's 9 ply construction.
Cheaper to do 'em 8 ply basically, so everyone in the UK does.
This is established before the fragment is taken from the chip and before a fragment is taken from that fragment.

Anyhoo, what I'm trying to say here is that it's these photos ( front and back shots of PT 35B ) that are the first available and not Photo 117 ( ie collar with bits removed ) despite what Hayes says in court about before and after shots. The whole page 51 saga shows that Production 181 is unreliable,barely covering the fact that the important bits, as far as the prosecution goes, are begging to be cussed-out as fabrications.

Colourwise, maybe he's written green because, as a rule, that's the colour PCBs are. He hasn't seen PT35B, nor asked for it to be photographed. All he's doing is backdating some notes. Thurman and Feraday are the key in all of this.

Williamson I don't know enough about, but a bent MacPlod? That is without question, I assure you, entirely possible. Just couldn't say, as in I don't know, which one or two or from which regional force, might have been involved. The Label corroboration system was easily exploitable, so it got exploited. The Scottish police may have nominally been in charge, but the direction of the investigation was being driven by others.


CTB

[CTB]

" A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”. ( my emphasis )

Sunday Herald - 17th July 2011



More shenanigans with the timer? Whodathunkit?


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-doubts-over-crucial-evidence-in-lockerbie-trial-1.1112514


CTB

[Rolfe]

Damn! The photo isn't online!

There is a photo of the timer in the actual dead-tree paper, which was taken before it was cut up at all, and the detail is jawdropping. It's the clearest picture I have ever seen of the thing.

I have to scan it, right.

I was working so hard on the Caruana aspect that I didn't pick the paper off the mat until I was en route for the hospital to visit my mother. I took it, and yesterday's paper, with me. I spent some time reading the leading article from Saturday to her, about the couple who have won £131 million in the lottery. Then I started trying to bring her up to speed on the News International scandal, which was Sunday's front page, and of course by then I knew that Rebecca Brooks had been arrested.

Then I opened the paper and found myself confronted by the most detailed and high-resolution picture of PT35b I have ever seen. I spent the rest of the visit telling my mother that the bomb had never been anywhere near Malta anyway, and that the theory it had been was based on a misinterpretation of a baggage trail left by a family going to Disneyworld for Christmas who had changed their tickets.

I think that would be a bigger headline than PT35b if only we could prove it.

So the timer fragment tested negative for explosive residue. I heard someone report that earlier, though I don't know where they got it from. They'll just say it was all cleaned off. Nothing will dent the provenance of that thing but tracing the dates the photos were taken.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

Damn! The photo isn't online!

There is a photo of the timer in the actual dead-tree paper, which was taken before it was cut up at all, and the detail is jawdropping. It's the clearest picture I have ever seen of the thing.

I have to scan it, right.

< snip>

Then I opened the paper and found myself confronted by the most detailed and high-resolution picture of PT35b I have ever seen. I spent the rest of the visit telling my mother that the bomb had never been anywhere near Malta anyway, and that the theory it had been was based on a misinterpretation of a baggage trail left by a family going to Disneyworld for Christmas who had changed their tickets.

<snip>

So the timer fragment tested negative for explosive residue. I heard someone report that earlier, though I don't know where they got it from. They'll just say it was all cleaned off. Nothing will dent the provenance of that thing but tracing the dates the photos were taken.

Rolfe.

I've emailed my bro asking if he could scan it for me, but he might not even have bought the paper, so I'd definitely appreciate your effort.

I'll give DS Henderson an 'out' in that he's saying that the explosives experts say no, so the tests prove negative. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't aware that no tests were carried out by Hayes. Who else might have tested for residue?


CTB

[Rolfe]

http://vetpath.co.uk/jref/pt35b.jpg
(http://vetpath.co.uk/jref/pt35b.jpg)

[CTB]

thanks for posting the pic of PT35B, Rolfe. My bro swapped to the SoS a while back as the Sunday Herald's 'too thin these days' he says.

Where on earth did the Herald dig it out from, I wonder.

It doesn't look like it's from any RARDE photo I've seen yet, but there's a whole heap of stuff I'm never likely to look at.

Is this is the Scottish police shot ( 12th Feb, 1990 ) that Rod MacDonald took?
There isn't a handy photocredit in the paper, I s'pose?

CTB

[Rolfe]

Not a sausage I'm afraid. The Herald might disgorge some information I suppose.

The colour is still all wrong. There's a very slight greenish cast to the fragment in the printed version, but it still has that grey/blue look - but again, the background is also grey/blue. There is also a sort of woven pattern like woven cotton or something all over the picture - fragment and background and all. At first I thought it was the actual paper but it's not - it's far too regular for paper, and it's not there on the plain areas of paper that I cropped off when I tidied the scan.

You can see how impossible it would be to substitute that with a different item. There's no way in hell it would be possible to duplicate all these cracks and scratches on another piece.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

I've been meaning to come back to this for ages.

The question for me is: Where did Feraday get the fragment from? I don't think it was teased-out from the shirt collar. The first photographs of it are the polaroids he whips together to show Williamson.

The "All together " shot of PP8932 doesn't have PK2316 - "Brassiere ( damaged and sooted )" so I'll guess that the photo of PP8932 is taken once it's been determined of what's to go in there to be presented to court, should there ever come a trial. It's determined that the shirt fragments all belong together, so that's fair enough.
Perhaps the bra is only being considered for PP8932 because it was also found in K section and is trashed in much the same manner as the shirt.
This could be what Mr de Braeckeleer is driving at: On page 112 of Hayes' notes of 10th October, 1989, under Ref: PP8932, he starts with the bra. Then does the large shirt fragments.

I find it odd that you'd pull out loads of bits of evidence from their bags, take a photo, work on a couple of bits then bag it all up again to complete months later. Nobody else seems to think it odd, so I guess that's how it's done.

Anyway, Hayes pretty much has to rework his notes ( our infamous page 51 ) because his original PT35 is raised as " assorted materials " consisting of: a) several fragments of black plastic; b) a fragment of green coloured circuit board; c) small fragments of metal and wire.

a) is non-descript melted and deformed bits of plastic
b) is an unidentifiable piece of PCB
c) turns out to be some speaker mesh, or such-like.

As far as I'm aware none of these assorted materials get the meticulous treatment that is afforded PT35 (d) which is raised as PT2 "multi-layered fragment of white paper." I mean, that's some serious tweazing and sketching.

So, my best guess is that the MST-13 fragment is not planted in the evidence for forensics to find, but introduced by TheMakeStuffUpAboutLibya Team. That's one helluva gamble, better involve folks with questionable career histories?

An improbable surviving front page from the radio manual. An improbable surviving, recognisable part of the IED itself. A shopkeeper with an uncanny memory for remembering ( when prompted to do so ) and a ( delusional ) superstar Libyan informant who can tie it all together, starting in Malta. Libya are never going to hand over the accused, so what a handy stick to beat them with. Wait, there's gonna be a trial? Arse.

[CTB]

Hmmm.....just noticed that PP8932 is also the label of the Toshiba/IED Trial Loading photo. So, is that reference number the baseline to refer to for bits of evidence that may, or may not have, come into contact with it?

[Rolfe]

I've been meaning to come back to this for ages.

The question for me is: Where did Feraday get the fragment from? I don't think it was teased-out from the shirt collar.


Good question. I have some thoughts about this. As to why the MST-13 was chosen to donate the fragment, see below. However, I think they took that decision and then had to find one to cannibalise, which wasn't so easy as so few were made.

I'm interested in the story about someone from the Lockerbie investigation having been in contact with MEBO in June 1989, culminating in Lumpert being said to have given them the brown prototype board. I can't help feel that Lumpert is lying in his teeth about most of this, probably at Ebola's instigation. However June 1989 is just about when they might have been trying to get such an item, so there could be some truth in all this. I have a suspicion that they tried to get a board from MEBO and did get a brown prototype, as Lumpert claims. However when they compared that to their reference board they realised it wouldn't do the job because it wasn't the same. (That would mean that everything Lumpert said about the scratched M and the jagged edge was so much moonshine.)

I think they either found another board "in the wild", or had one made up. There is evidence of four boards surfacing, two in Senegal and two somewhere else (I forget exactly - Togo?). One of these was the reference timer they had on file. We've been over this before, and it's possible they got hold of one of one of the others to cannibalise for the faked evidence. There is also a story of a company in Florida that was making "fake" versions, for the CIA. I don't know much about this, but if they had a sample, how hard could it be to get a copy run up? It was going to be beat up anyway, and only a corner used.

I think the idea of doing this was dreamed up in April or May, probably as a follow-on from the Indian Head exercise, but the delay in getting the necessary materials caused the thing not to be ready until September, hence the backdated pages.

The first photographs of it are the polaroids he whips together to show Williamson.


That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Dan O noticed umpteen pages back that the composite photo had to have been taken during the exercise described on the "new" page 51, as it represents an intermediate stage between the fragments being teased out of the shirt collar, and the wad of paper being separated. So if this is all on the level, the photo had to have been taken on 12th May 1989.

I don't know if it was ever established whether this provenance could be proved for that photo. Ebola has persistently said it's actually a professional-quality polaroid, and he has seen the actual print, but to be honest I don't know how you tell and I don't trust him anyway of course.

I don't know if we have the actual "polaroids" Feraday says he sent to Williamson. Unless he's talking about the composite photo, and it is indeed a polaroid, of course. Why couldn't he just have got the RARDE photographer to take some pics then and there, anyway? A day or two more wouldn't have been of any consequence to the investigation at that point.

The "All together " shot of PP8932 doesn't have PK2316 - "Brassiere ( damaged and sooted )" so I'll guess that the photo of PP8932 is taken once it's been determined of what's to go in there to be presented to court, should there ever come a trial. It's determined that the shirt fragments all belong together, so that's fair enough.
Perhaps the bra is only being considered for PP8932 because it was also found in K section and is trashed in much the same manner as the shirt.
This could be what Mr de Braeckeleer is driving at: On page 112 of Hayes' notes of 10th October, 1989, under Ref: PP8932, he starts with the bra. Then does the large shirt fragments.


You're more into the detail of this than I am. I really should try to pull together more of what Hayes's notes say around this time. Wasn't that Karen's bra? They had quite a few blasted pieces of Karen's underwear, but in the end it was Patricia's suitcase they decided was smack up against the bomb bag, not Karen's. Karen had three smaller holdalls, and I think I read somethere that two of them were said not to have ended up in AVE4041 at all but to be among the items that were loose-loaded because the container was full. And yet they found so much of her stuff blast-damaged that they thought she was a mule at first. I've never really understood this, unless she had packed a bunch of her stuff in Patricia's case. (I've often holidayed with friends, but I've never done this - maybe ask a friend to carry a single heavy item if they have weight allowance to spare, but not actual clothes, especially not small stuff.)

I find it odd that you'd pull out loads of bits of evidence from their bags, take a photo, work on a couple of bits then bag it all up again to complete months later. Nobody else seems to think it odd, so I guess that's how it's done.


It's still odd. They were going nuts in May 1989 trying to find more circuit board to ID the radio. They were doing a happy dance over a particular piece they found shortly after 12th May. But the biggest piece of all, with a distinctive pattern on it, allegedly found 12th May, was just ignored...?

Anyway, Hayes pretty much has to rework his notes ( our infamous page 51 ) because his original PT35 is raised as " assorted materials " consisting of: a) several fragments of black plastic; b) a fragment of green coloured circuit board; c) small fragments of metal and wire.

a) is non-descript melted and deformed bits of plastic
b) is an unidentifiable piece of PCB
c) turns out to be some speaker mesh, or such-like.

As far as I'm aware none of these assorted materials get the meticulous treatment that is afforded PT35 (d) which is raised as PT2 "multi-layered fragment of white paper." I mean, that's some serious tweazing and sketching.


I think the bizarre thing is the way the "fragment of green coloured crcuit board" is just noted and ignored, given how keen they were to find circuit board at the time, and he goes mad on the wad of paper instead. The Horton miracle page surfaces at about this time too, of course.

So, my best guess is that the MST-13 fragment is not planted in the evidence for forensics to find, but introduced by TheMakeStuffUpAboutLibya Team. That's one helluva gamble, better involve folks with questionable career histories?


Well, yes, but I've been thinking about the priorities of this.

Consider the timing of all this, and the preoccupations of the inquiry. It was the spring of 1989, and the big deal was all about trying to blame Frankfurt and not Heathrow. The Erac printout hadn't surfaced by then, and as I said, I think that's on the level and nobody who knew about it thought Malta was in the least bit relevant. The clothes had surfaced, but only the Babygro had a Malta provenance at that time, and again nobody thought that was particularly important.

An awful lot of what went on at Indian Head was designed to show the IED couldn't have been introduced at Heathrow. They blew up a few containers of unclaimed luggage, and decided the bomb suitcase couldn't have been on the bottom layer. Quite a lot wrong with this of course. They didn't do enough repetitions to be anywhere close to sure, and they didn't try what was probably the actual arrangement which was the bomb suitcase just shoved to the left and angled up into the overhang, and they were making an absolute and essential assumption that Bedford's bags couldn't have been moved at all - an assumption they later abandoned, but they didn't abandon the conclusions they had reached when they were relying on the assumption!

Anyway, they managed to persuade themselves that the IED couldn't have been in Bedford's mysterious brown Samsonite, and had to have been in one of the Frankfurt bags. On completely false premises, but they did it. The problem was, the Germans were insisting that the thing had to have been loaded at Heathrow because a Khreesat device (which they knew all about by then, what with Sonntag being killed and all the rest) would have gone off over France if it had been loaded at Frankfurt.

The official line on this, as related by Leppard (who is really extraordinarily informative) is that they decided there was about a 25% chance of a Khreesat device failing to go off as designed. So they decided what happened was that it failed to go off on the first leg due to a malfunction, but maybe the shakeup during the tarmac transfer at Heathrow put it right again, and it then went off on the next take-off.

This really was pretty tenuous. Does anyone seriously think the transatlantic leg wasn't the primary target? It's not completely impossible, as the feeder flight had a lot of US service personnel on board on their way home for Christmas, but the idea that that was the primary target and the transatlantic leg just a fall-back position to give an unreliable detonator a second bite at the cherry is reaching, for sure.

I think they knew it was tenuous, and what they wanted to do was introduce evidence of a non-barometric trigger to support the not-Heathrow theory. By this analysis the MakeStuffUpAboutLibya motivation was secondary. Not to say that it wasn't a positive objective, because it would have been easy enough to have faked something up with a part from an old video-recorder or something like that (see the 1984 Brighton bombing), but that the primary incentive was for some sort of long-delay fuse to support the feeder flight introduction.

This is where the timing is interesting. They didn't leap to the Malta theory until late August or early September. The Malta theory however completely busted the "malfunctioning Khreesat timer" theory. Were they thinking that the bloody thing had malfunctioned twice, only going off fortuitously on the transatlantic leg after sparing both KM180 and PA103A? It's bonkers. There were only 39 people on KM180, and none of them were either American or Jewish, it just wasn't a realistic target. The idea that a Khreesat device had been loaded at Luqa was insane.

Nevertheless they swallowed the Malta theory hook line sinker and rowboat, and pursued it singlemindedly from September 1989, well before the MST-13 was identified as a digital timer, and in fact while they were chasing a PFLP-GC cell on the island. What did they imagine had been used as a timer, during that part of the investigation? I have no idea.

I'm inclined to think that two weeks isn't long enough to dream up the idea of planting a bit of MST-13 in the system, get everything prepared, get Hayes to "revise" his notes, and Feraday to send his memo to Williamson. And that would leave the story of the June 1989 visit to MEBO out in the cold. I think it was just very fortuitous that they had already begun preparations to plant a fragment of a digital timer in the evidence, and then when the Malta theory came up and needed to be supported, they were already half way there.

But on the other hand it's intriguing. If they really hustled, and they had access to a second timer, they could have done it. I mean, seen which way the wind was blowing, cooked it all up, got everything in place, and got Feraday to send the message to Williamson by 15th September. All because they needed to support the theory that the bomb had taken off twice safely before it exploded on the third go, and the first takeoff was in a plane which wasn't a target by any stretch of the imagination. It could also explain Feraday's haste to get the memo off with the polaroids. (And then Williamson completely failed to ID it when he was supposed to....)

What I don't know is what the investigators were thinking, for the year or so between deciding it was a Malta introduction, and the MST-13 being identified. They were chasing the PFLP-GC during that time, and finding nothing because they were looking in the wrong place of course. But if it was a PFLP-GC bomb, how do they think it got sent from Malta to bring down Maid of the Seas over Scotland? It's nuts.

It's almost as if someone knew that wouldn't be a problem forever, maybe?

An improbable surviving front page from the radio manual. An improbable surviving, recognisable part of the IED itself. A shopkeeper with an uncanny memory for remembering ( when prompted to do so ) and a ( delusional ) superstar Libyan informant who can tie it all together, starting in Malta. Libya are never going to hand over the accused, so what a handy stick to beat them with. Wait, there's gonna be a trial? Arse.


Oh yes. Nobody thought there would be a trial. It was all for the relatives, to make them think the case was solved, and for the politicos, to give them one more socking great excuse to squash Libya with punitive sanctions. Megrahi and Fhimah weren't supposed to surrender themselves for trial. But they squashed Libya too hard, and in the end the pips squeaked.

Bugger, now we have to bring that stuff to court. Double bugger.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

Hmmm.....just noticed that PP8932 is also the label of the Toshiba/IED Trial Loading photo. So, is that reference number the baseline to refer to for bits of evidence that may, or may not have, come into contact with it?


PP8932 is the reconstruction of container AVE 4041

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/lockerbiecontainer.jpg



so anything thought to be from here is referred back to it.

Rolfe, I'll ponder your points and reply soon. I've been re-reading a couple of the threads here and also going back over bits of trial transcripts. Now that I'm much better informed of 'characters' such as Mr Bollier a whole heap of confusion and mis-direction can be pretty much discounted from my head, which still leaves a whole heap of confusion still in there, of course.

Mr de Braeckeleer comes to a conclusion that's obvious to him, but I just cannot make the leap too.

For those in need of a refresher on Mr de Brackelaer's claim it's this link right here. (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38099)

[Rolfe]

I tried to understand de Braeckeleer's point in that article, and failed miserably. I suppose I should try again.

I have another point about the timer, but now I need to eat!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

OK, what's wrong with de Braeckeleer's logic? First, I don't see why we need to be absolutely sure that Hayes was right about 116 showing the thing before dissection. I don't think Hayes was that concerned about strict accuracy in the witness box, and I think the likeliest thing is that he just agreed with the question without really thinking about it.

Second, unless we know that the other piece wasn't found until 10th October, what's to prevent our remarkably laid-back Dr. Hayes from taking the group photo in early May, and then putting aside most of it to examine at a later date?

But I think the former possibility is the more probable answer.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I've been thinking about the timers as such, as intact items rather than just the single circuit board we usually see. Here's the whole thing, box and all, and the readout where you can set the elapsed time as required.

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/lockerbie/story/images/story7a.jpg

I think these might be Edwin's hands, actually.

Anyway, here's the things Khreesat was using.

http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_384524_1%5B673869%5D.jpg

And here's the mock-up of the Toshiba, as it's supposed to have been booby-trapped with the IED.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg)

I can see where the ice-cube thing will fit in. It's small, and the radio has a battery anyway. But how are you going to get the MST-13 in?

Ebola was asked about this, and he said he didn't know, "maybe if you took the radio out." I imagine he was suggesting the case be at least partially gutted to get the bomb components in. But there's no suggestion the radio was taken out - quite the contrary as bits of speaker mesh and so on are recorded as being recovered. When we discussed the tape transport, the opinion was that even that was supposed to have been left in place.

We seem to be imagining that the timer would be taken out of its case to save on space, but I'm still having trouble figuring how. There was more than one circuit board, and you'd need to have some way of setting it and knowing what time it was set for.

Caustic Logic said he could see the timer in there, but I wonder. Presumably it is actually possible to make this work, or someone would have pointed it out, but I can't honestly see it.

This is all because Bunntamas said the timers were designed for blowing up airliners. They weren't even designed for fitting inside radio-cassette players.

ETA: I can actually see something in that mock-up, labelled "timer". So the must have managed to shoe-horn it in somehow. I still don't see how it all worked though.

Rolfe.

[CTB]

I've been thinking about the timers as such, as intact items rather than just the single circuit board we usually see. Here's the whole thing, box and all, and the readout where you can set the elapsed time as required.

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/lockerbie/story/images/story7a.jpg

I think these might be Edwin's hands, actually.

Anyway, here's the things Khreesat was using.

http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_384524_1%5B673869%5D.jpg

And here's the mock-up of the Toshiba, as it's supposed to have been booby-trapped with the IED.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg)

I can see where the ice-cube thing will fit in. It's small, and the radio has a battery anyway. But how are you going to get the MST-13 in?

Ebola was asked about this, and he said he didn't know, "maybe if you took the radio out." I imagine he was suggesting the case be at least partially gutted to get the bomb components in. But there's no suggestion the radio was taken out - quite the contrary as bits of speaker mesh and so on are recorded as being recovered. When we discussed the tape transport, the opinion was that even that was supposed to have been left in place.

We seem to be imagining that the timer would be taken out of its case to save on space, but I'm still having trouble figuring how. There was more than one circuit board, and you'd need to have some way of setting it and knowing what time it was set for.

Caustic Logic said he could see the timer in there, but I wonder. Presumably it is actually possible to make this work, or someone would have pointed it out, but I can't honestly see it.

This is all because Bunntamas said the timers were designed for blowing up airliners. They weren't even designed for fitting inside radio-cassette players.

ETA: I can actually see something in that mock-up, labelled "timer". So the must have managed to shoe-horn it in somehow. I still don't see how it all worked though.

Rolfe.


This is exactly the thing that got me re-reading this thread from the start, just to see if it had been explained. Also Mr Bollier, with possibly a bit more disinfo, saying that at the desert tests in Libya he decided there would need to be two MST 13s in case a bit of vibration kicked the whole thing off too early.

At it's very basic the timer is two circuit boards and a clock, with a couple of buttons to allow you to set a countdown then you press Go.

I guess you then find a way to stop it rattling around inside the device. I've heard Semtex is malleable, so maybe you just squish the stuff in any ol' how. I'll assume the last bit that gets done is push the detonator into the explosive. Then re-assemble your cassette player. I'm just not sure about replacing the cassette mechanism, though. Which poor bombsquad guy got to remake the whole thing? Ah, yeh. The new quy.

There's a fair amount of space inside most electronic goods, so I'm not seeing it as impossible, but if the timer is not in it's box how does one stop bits jiggling about potentially short-circuiting or just falling apart?


From Mr Bollier's Libyan desert adventures he's not just trying to sell timers. He's punting on the know-how of lining a suitcase with explosive and transceivers et al and offering to provide the whole kit and kaboodle. If you're mental enough to be blowing-up aircraft with bombs then why not go the extra-mile and add further complication?

[CTB]

I'm interested in the story about someone from the Lockerbie investigation having been in contact with MEBO in June 1989, culminating in Lumpert being said to have given them the brown prototype board. I can't help feel that Lumpert is lying in his teeth about most of this, probably at Ebola's instigation. However June 1989 is just about when they might have been trying to get such an item, so there could be some truth in all this. I have a suspicion that they tried to get a board from MEBO and did get a brown prototype, as Lumpert claims. However when they compared that to their reference board they realised it wouldn't do the job because it wasn't the same. (That would mean that everything Lumpert said about the scratched M and the jagged edge was so much moonshine.)


I'm pretty sure that was Flockinger, or if not someone else from BUPO. I can't quite remember if this visit is 89 or 90, but 1989 makes more sense. It is in the transcript, which I'm not currently referring to, but when Flockinger is asked if the visit was in relation to MST13s Mr Burns, I think, says, "Don't answer that"

I'm kinda dismissing the whole scratched M thing. Also anything to do with jigsaw constructions of differing fragments. Perhaps I'm just lacking the imagination?





I think they either found another board "in the wild", or had one made up. There is evidence of four boards surfacing, two in Senegal and two somewhere else (I forget exactly - Togo?). One of these was the reference timer they had on file. We've been over this before, and it's possible they got hold of one of one of the others to cannibalise for the faked evidence. There is also a story of a company in Florida that was making "fake" versions, for the CIA. I don't know much about this, but if they had a sample, how hard could it be to get a copy run up? It was going to be beat up anyway, and only a corner used.



To be honest, I've not really been able to keep track of where all the timers were meant to have ended up. If the CIA have one for reference, politely asking if they can take it home in a diplomatic bag, then they can figure out how to fake-up as many as they need. I wouldn't have thought they would outsource it to blabbermouths in Florida.





I think the idea of doing this was dreamed up in April or May, probably as a follow-on from the Indian Head exercise, but the delay in getting the necessary materials caused the thing not to be ready until September, hence the backdated pages.




Well, if it cannot have originated in London or Frankfurt there has to be some thought on how the IED made it through 2 hops or more. A long countdown timer, for sure. Can we link it anywhere that points away from our handy 'assets' in the Middle-East?




That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Dan O noticed umpteen pages back that the composite photo had to have been taken during the exercise described on the "new" page 51, as it represents an intermediate stage between the fragments being teased out of the shirt collar, and the wad of paper being separated. So if this is all on the level, the photo had to have been taken on 12th May 1989.


I
'm glad Dan O pointed that out. Hayes' notes don't tell much about what was photographed, and certainly not when. It's noted in the margin that a photo should be taken. A bit of me wonders that it gets a tick once Hayes is going through his notes, writing up the report, to show that he does in fact have a photo to refer to. He comes across to me as a person who has just about had enough of it all. Before? After? Yeah, okay.




Ebola has persistently said it's actually a professional-quality polaroid, and he has seen the actual print, but to be honest I don't know how you tell and I don't trust him anyway of course.

I don't know if we have the actual "polaroids" Feraday says he sent to Williamson. Unless he's talking about the composite photo, and it is indeed a polaroid, of course.




I'm going with the following as polaroids ( which have been slightly Edwinised, but the notes do seem to be Feraday's ) :



http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/rarde-1-1.jpg



and



http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/rarde-2-1.jpg



You're more into the detail of this than I am. I really should try to pull together more of what Hayes's notes say around this time. Wasn't that Karen's bra? They had quite a few blasted pieces of Karen's underwear, but in the end it was Patricia's suitcase they decided was smack up against the bomb bag, not Karen's.



I honestly couldn't tell you. I'm only really working from page 112 of Hayes' notes here. He describes the damage and concludes pretty much with that it's not a match for a piece of bra already examined., or as he puts it, " Not a mechanical fit "




It's still odd. They were going nuts in May 1989 trying to find more circuit board to ID the radio. They were doing a happy dance over a particular piece they found shortly after 12th May. But the biggest piece of all, with a distinctive pattern on it, allegedly found 12th May, was just ignored...?


I think the bizarre thing is the way the "fragment of green coloured crcuit board" is just noted and ignored, given how keen they were to find circuit board at the time, and he goes mad on the wad of paper instead. The Horton miracle page surfaces at about this time too, of course.




The only mystery regards the fragment that I've solved in my head is that the green is on the reverse side of our famous 1. Had it been photographed that way then we might have been able to tell. Until Mr de Braeckeleer's article I'd only ever seen B&W copies of the 'post-dissection' montage of stuff.

It's the whole 'no explosives residue test because it's obviously been in an explosion' routine, pushing it aside as "assorted materials" that I'm failing to grasp. Sure, Becky Horton's find of the front page of the Toshiba manual is PT 1, so let's get on with PT2, but no phonecall to anyone to say, " You wouldn't believe what just tumbled out of that collar!"

Hayes is on the verge of retiring to pastures new. Maybe he's just not giving a flying one?


As for the investigation, I think it's figuring out that Khaled Jafaar isn't the culprit, unwittingly or not, that changes things in the Spring of 1989. It's at this time the Scottish police are doing fingertip searches in Newcastleton forest for bits of Samsonite suitcase, blast damaged and charred stuff, as well as further sifting at Dextar looking for the same kind of bits.

So, who else is on the culprit list? Well, there's this letter from a Mr Bollier saying it's Libya wot did it. Now, what does Mr Bollier do for a living? Sells electronics and goes to Libya a lot? Well, well, well...

[Rolfe]

I'm pretty sure that was Flockinger, or if not someone else from BUPO. I can't quite remember if this visit is 89 or 90, but 1989 makes more sense. It is in the transcript, which I'm not currently referring to, but when Flockinger is asked if the visit was in relation to MST13s Mr Burns, I think, says, "Don't answer that"


Inspector Flückiger, I think. There were several visits, including one in the late summer of 1990 after Thurman IDed the chip but before the Scottish police got there, and I get them mixed up. But the one where Lumpert says he handed over the brown board was June 1989. And there was some resistance to divulging all the details, I believe.

I'm kinda dismissing the whole scratched M thing. Also anything to do with jigsaw constructions of differing fragments. Perhaps I'm just lacking the imagination?


Not so much imagination as Ebola, anyway! The scratched M thing is a pile of hooey, as is any suggestion that the chip isn't the same object all the way through, before and after being cut up. Sometimes I think Edwin is into deliberate disinfo, with all these obvious fairy-tales he comes out with.

To be honest, I've not really been able to keep track of where all the timers were meant to have ended up. If the CIA have one for reference, politely asking if they can take it home in a diplomatic bag, then they can figure out how to fake-up as many as they need. I wouldn't have thought they would outsource it to blabbermouths in Florida.


I don't think there is any tally of what happened to all 20. A good few of them would have been blown up, obviously. And we only have Edwin's word that there were only 20, and we know how much that's worth!

I wonder. These spooks were into black ops, no question. And there was a great deal of political will to blame Libya for stuff. It's not inconceivable that the idea of planting bits of MST-13 timer had occurred to someone even before PA103 went down, as a general strategy that might be worth employing in suitable circumstances. It might not all have been a de novo idea in 1989.

Well, if it cannot have originated in London or Frankfurt there has to be some thought on how the IED made it through 2 hops or more. A long countdown timer, for sure. Can we link it anywhere that points away from our handy 'assets' in the Middle-East?


Yes, I think that was it. The question that exercises me is, when did they start thinking about this? I'd always assumed around April 1989, when they decided to do the tests to prove the explosion hadn't been in the position where the Bedford Samsonite was last seen, and the Germans had managed to get themselves killed examining the new finds of Khreesat radio specials. At first they insisted that the barometric device had simply malfunctioned on the first leg, but I don't think that was ever terribly plausible. It would have meant that Maid of the Seas wasn't even the primary target, just a back-stop, and the real target had been the 727 from Frankfurt to Heathrow.

So did they decide then that the malfunctioning Khreesat device was a story with a limited shelf-life, and they better start thinking up something more plausible, or did they really think that was the way to go until the introduction of Malta made it a necessity to introduce a countdown timer?

Gauci didn't reveal the clothes purchase until 1st September, but KM180 itself was implicated on about 17th August I think. You know, depending on how the spooks were thinking, that is possibly time to have the thing produced and ready for Feraday to send to Williamson on 15th September. And that might explain Feraday's apparent haste on that day, when there's no other reason for that, not if the thing had either been hanging round RARDE since May, or been in the pipeline since June.

I wonder if they'd been toying with the idea of slipping a bit of MST-13 into the mix, to allow for a Frankfurt loading, and then when it became clear that a Malta loading was the game in town, someone pressed the button for immediate action?

I'm glad Dan O pointed that out. Hayes' notes don't tell much about what was photographed, and certainly not when. It's noted in the margin that a photo should be taken. A bit of me wonders that it gets a tick once Hayes is going through his notes, writing up the report, to show that he does in fact have a photo to refer to. He comes across to me as a person who has just about had enough of it all. Before? After? Yeah, okay.


He comes over as a person who is quite used to making the facts up as he chooses, and not being challenged in court. The May inquiry must have come as a bit of a shock. Then he leaves in a bit of a hurry to become a chiropodist. Interesting change of tack for a man with a PhD in electronics. He's been trimming toenails and burning off veruccas for ten years, and now he has to rewind back to 1989. And he reverts to the supercilious "expert" who doesn't expect to be challenged, but actually his mamory of the minutiae isn't that great.

The question is, was that photo actually taken in September 1989, while the fragment and its provenance were being faked up to make it all look as if it had been picked up in January and examined in May? I would dearly love to know if the provenance of the negative can be verified. If there is a negative.

I'm going with the following as polaroids ( which have been slightly Edwinised, but the notes do seem to be Feraday's ) :

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/rarde-1-1.jpg

and

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/rarde-2-1.jpg



The top one I have seen before, in Edwin's collection. The bottom one I have not. I think you're right, actually. These are very likely to be the polaroids.

I honestly couldn't tell you. I'm only really working from page 112 of Hayes' notes here. He describes the damage and concludes pretty much with that it's not a match for a piece of bra already examined., or as he puts it, " Not a mechanical fit "


Well, that's a different topic really. It's just something that confuses me. Early in the investigation it's all about Karen, and fragments of Karen's clothes. I think there as even a name tag on something. This was when the bomb bag was supposed to have been placed on top of Bedford's brown Samsonite, which was assumed to be interline passenger luggage joining at Heathrow. Karen was the one with the Jordanian boyfriend. Patricia had picked up an American boyfriend, one of the US troops stationed in Europe.

Then when it's all change and we've decided the Bedford bag must have been moved (but it still can't have been the bomb bag, er, we're not quite sure why not, now, but trust us it isn't), it's Patricia who turns out to be the owner of the blue canvas case which is blown to bits, and we've now decided was underneath the bomb bag. Karen's luggage is now determined mostly not even to have been in the container, and nobody mentions her bra or her jogging trousers or her tennis shoe.

The only mystery regards the fragment that I've solved in my head is that the green is on the reverse side of our famous 1. Had it been photographed that way then we might have been able to tell. Until Mr de Braeckeleer's article I'd only ever seen B&W copies of the 'post-dissection' montage of stuff.


Ah, that makes sense. So it's not meant to look green on that side? I know the radio's own PCBs appear to be brown in all the photos we see, but I think there is a written description that says they were green on the other side. That green colour they use on these things is quite bright, isn't it?

It's the whole 'no explosives residue test because it's obviously been in an explosion' routine, pushing it aside as "assorted materials" that I'm failing to grasp. Sure, Becky Horton's find of the front page of the Toshiba manual is PT 1, so let's get on with PT2, but no phonecall to anyone to say, " You wouldn't believe what just tumbled out of that collar!"


Because it didn't tumble out of the collar then?

Hayes is on the verge of retiring to pastures new. Maybe he's just not giving a flying one?


He's on the verge of jumping before he's pushed, on account of what Sir James May is saying about his conduct in the investigation of the Maguire Seven. (Leppard's book is quite amusing. He absolutely lionises Hayes, and when dealing with his departure from RARDE says several times that he left to set up his own private consultancy business. Yes, as a toenail trimmer!)

As for the investigation, I think it's figuring out that Khaled Jafaar isn't the culprit, unwittingly or not, that changes things in the Spring of 1989. It's at this time the Scottish police are doing fingertip searches in Newcastleton forest for bits of Samsonite suitcase, blast damaged and charred stuff, as well as further sifting at Dextar looking for the same kind of bits.


That's an interesting observation. I hadn't quite figured out the timeline of when they suspected Karen Noonan and when they suspected Khaled Jafaar. I think Karen was in the frame earlier, wasn't she? (Of course Karen flew in from Vienna, and her luggage went unaccompanied through the automated system at Frankfurt, so if Jamal had given her anything it would have posed the same problem as the Malta introduction - unless the Vienna flight wasn't high enough for long enough of course.)

So, who else is on the culprit list? Well, there's this letter from a Mr Bollier saying it's Libya wot did it. Now, what does Mr Bollier do for a living? Sells electronics and goes to Libya a lot? Well, well, well...


Yes, interesting observation. And Reagan wanted to bomb Libya in retaliation for Lockerbie about a week after it happened.

Rolfe.

[pete2]

I've always assumed there must be some connection between Edwin's Fang-Brief and the eventual "discovery" of an MST-13 fragment. Someone could have come up with this idea any time from early 1989 onwards. There would be no point implementing it, though, until they were sure that no identifiable parts of the actual bomb mechanism had been found.

[pete2]

T
From Mr Bollier's Libyan desert adventures he's not just trying to sell timers. He's punting on the know-how of lining a suitcase with explosive and transceivers et al and offering to provide the whole kit and kaboodle. If you're mental enough to be blowing-up aircraft with bombs then why not go the extra-mile and add further complication?

My interpretation of Edwin's evidence is that the case contained the remote control mechanism by which a bomb dropped from an aircraft could be detonated in the air. There was no talk of bombs in suitcases, no talk of blowing up any aircraft.

Unrelated point: Edwin says at some point in his testimony that the timers were used both with and without their casing.

Another unrelated point: At one moment Edwin appears to say that a timer was put in a "'BomBeat" - but no, it's just the translator getting overexcited - he just said a bomb cylinder. Then later he appears to say an aircraft was blown up - but again, no, it's him and Turnbull getting their wires crossed. He says a bomb was detonated by remote control on the ground, just to test the mechanism before dropping one from an aircraft. And as I've said before, he talks of "aircraft bombs", but only to mean bombs carried and dropped by military aircraft.

Anyone who skims the transcript and picks out the juicy phrases (I can think of one person) is liable to come away with an impression that is completely at variance with the facts.

[CTB]

My interpretation of Edwin's evidence is that the case contained the remote control mechanism by which a bomb dropped from an aircraft could be detonated in the air. There was no talk of bombs in suitcases, no talk of blowing up any aircraft.

Unrelated point: Edwin says at some point in his testimony that the timers were used both with and without their casing.

Another unrelated point: At one moment Edwin appears to say that a timer was put in a "'BomBeat" - but no, it's just the translator getting overexcited - he just said a bomb cylinder. Then later he appears to say an aircraft was blown up - but again, no, it's him and Turnbull getting their wires crossed. He says a bomb was detonated by remote control on the ground, just to test the mechanism before dropping one from an aircraft. And as I've said before, he talks of "aircraft bombs", but only to mean bombs carried and dropped by military aircraft.

Anyone who skims the transcript and picks out the juicy phrases (I can think of one person) is liable to come away with an impression that is completely at variance with the facts.


Thanks for that, Pete2. Mr Bollier's Hall of Mirrors routine must have driven the interpreters to drink. I got the bit about the ground detonation test, but couldn't figure out the why's and wherefor's of detonation at 150m. I've probably read 'suitcase' when what got said was 'case'


On your point earlier about making sure none of the actual bomb mechanism being discovered, I only ever come back to thinking, " Was any of it recovered? "

Which takes us into the Nothing is Impossible territory. Toshiba are earmarked pretty quickly. First it's a white one. Then a black one. Because they found more bits of black melty stuff embedded everywhere, I s'pose.

Then there's PT 35B. I'm super-suspicious that it's introduced into the evidence chain even though it was nowhere near Pan Am 103.
The PI 995 label doesn't bother me so much - although I did spend some time pondering if it could have started out as PT 9, but the last thing I need is to be dreaming up my own CTs in this. Maybe I should drop Mr Bollier a line and get him to revise his PT 95 routine? He's a crucial element to the whole case and I'm beginning to think charges of deliberate disinfo are on the mark.

It's that page 51 of Hayes' notes and subsequent renumbering that really bugs me. Our SuperSpooks, for it were they, went to all that bother to cook-up a nice, identifiable and traceable clue and Hayes does this?

[CTB]

DanO came up with a good observation a few posts back regards pre-dissection and post-dissection photographs of some evidence.


According to the forensic examiner in court, Dr Hayes, this is the pre-dissection shot:

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/ludwig-photo-116shirtbefore-1.jpg


The bit we're interested is identified as PI 995. It was transferred to RARDE, from Dextar, on 6th Feb 1989. ( PP8932 is a reference to the baggage container these items are thought to have come from )


As DanO pointed out the next photo is clearly post-dissection of PI995


http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/ludwig-photo-117shirtafter.jpg



Well, it's clearly mid-dissection. Here's Haye's notes on the matter


http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l495/davidgrierson/ludwig-photo51_thumb.jpg



I'll assume that in the RARDE report prepared by Dr Hayes that there is another photo showing the unscrunched wad of paper so meticulously sketched. Sure, he had to crack on with it quickly because a draft might blow the vital evidence away.

He did not have a glass slide he could have put them under to prevent such an event? I don't work in forensic labs, so have no idea how one might prevent the delicate stuff being lost.


Anyhoo, my point is that without the date of the photographs, or recourse to the full report and Dr Hayes' notes ( if that's not asking too much of an inquiry into the investigation ) it is not possible for me to work out how contemporaneous the photos are with the notes. I had to look-up the definition of contemporaneous and it is not, in my mind, the loose definition Dr Hayes needs it to be.



ETA: I realise that the Hayes' notes are not particularly readable in this post, but all the squiggly drawings are of bits of paper. His note regarding the PCB chip are stashed in the bottom right, where it is told that this super clue is to be raised as " Assorted Materials " and given the ID of PT 35.

[CTB]

Label PI 995 has, I would say, almost entered into folklore as evidence of shenanigans in the investigation, but it does have a traceable path in the evidence chain.

It is possible to see it's journey from witness evidence at Camp Zeist. It most likely was found on 13th Jan 1989. It definitely was logged on 17th Jan 1989 at 1745hrs. It then is taken to RARDE on 6th Feb 1989. Considering the 'clues' that examination yielded it would seem unfortunate that a 'tidying-up' of the label was uncovered. At all points, though, the item of evidence is described as 'charred debris'

However, while I was doing this little fact-finding mission amongst the transcripts of the trials early days I did notice a different little curiosity.

In the pre-dissection photo shown recently we have four items that all look like they belong together. But have a scroll back and have a look at PK 1973. It's the raggedy bit on the right. It's probably lost in the resolution of the photo, but there should be small, as in really small, bits of debris in that photo, too.

Tam Gilchrist gives evidence that this was found, during a sifting excercise of the debris collected, in an item called PK 1392 and it's logged on 31st Jan 1989. The PK 1973 label describes: material ( piece of ) charred and torn, and small aircraft debris.

He has the item in front of him in court and goes onto say that it's a sort of pale blue, turquoise colour [ then gives a rough estimation as to it's size ]
I think it's Mr Keen that concurs that it's a very small fragment.


Just as I was coming to a conclusion about the green-ness and not brown-ness of our MST13 chip now I've got a pale blue/turquoise or grey question to ponder. Is there anything about this evidence that doesn't have 'questionable' hanging over it? Sigh.

None of this pondering impacts at all on the reasons of Mr Megrahi's conviction nor on the conclusions reached by the SCRRC regards a miscarriage of justice. My question, I s'pose, is just how questionable does a piece, or pieces, of evidence have to be before it/they are shown the door and told to close it on the way out?