Pan Am Flight 103

[Johnny Pixels]

Why doesn't this ever crop up? It was a plane that exploded, there was never any video evidence of said event, except the wreckage scattered across Lockerbie. Yet when Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, you gotta have videos to prove it, the wreckage isn't good enough.

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?

[kevin]

I haven't heard any that I remember. I went to Scotland 4-5 months after that as part of a tour of england. We went through Lockerbie but all that was left was the huge gouge in the ground. The house it had hit had been razed and all the debris cleaned up.

[Dog Town]

Why doesn't this ever crop up? It was a plane that exploded, there was never any video evidence of said event, except the wreckage scattered across Lockerbie. Yet when Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, you gotta have videos to prove it, the wreckage isn't good enough.


It destoys their plane shot down theory! A plane that explodes in air has large pieces and does not make large holes in the ground. They will never cite this for fear! Good point about the vid, though! Their generation knows noth'en else! Look at KKK Clown! Not to mention, it happened before most of them were born! Spoon feed the thought to them, I'm sure they will run with it. While realising Ka-Daffy duck became part of the Illuminatti!

[Mancman]

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?

The jews did it?

[gumboot]

Why doesn't this ever crop up? It was a plane that exploded, there was never any video evidence of said event, except the wreckage scattered across Lockerbie. Yet when Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, you gotta have videos to prove it, the wreckage isn't good enough.

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?

Oh there's plenty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Fl ight_103)

-Andrew

[gumboot]

It destoys their plane shot down theory! A plane that explodes in air has large pieces and does not make large holes in the ground.


I've often cited Pan Am 103's 2000+ sq km debris field in response to claims that UA93's 8km debris field proves it was shot down in the air.

-Andrew

[Dog Town]

So what is their rebutt to that Gums? The typical run?

[gumboot]

So what is their rebutt to that Gums? The typical run?


The only time it was ever rebutted, they commented that it was at very high altitudes and it was a 747. To which I responded by listing a whole heap of other mid-air break ups (collision, pressure failure, bombs, whatever...) of other flights all of which produced enormous debris fields. Coupled with some ground-impact crashes that had smaller debris fields comparable with UA93.

That was when they suspended me from the LC forums...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[Dog Town]

That was when they suspended me from the LC forums...

Priceless! Get your badge?

[brodski]

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?
Private eye are always banging on about their own CT around this, though they never tell you exactly what their theory is, because they want you to buy the book which they published on it.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Why doesn't this ever crop up? It was a plane that exploded, there was never any video evidence of said event, except the wreckage scattered across Lockerbie. Yet when Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, you gotta have videos to prove it, the wreckage isn't good enough.

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?

I think there are some who believe that the Libyan currently in jail did not do it. Some believe that it was the Iranians but because of the Gulf War they decided to ignore them and blame the Libyans....it's a tangled web of deceit and politics you see....

[realitybites]

I'm actually surprised that TWA 800 isn't brought up more in conspiracy circles. I mean... it's hard to find a more obvious "test run" to killing innocent civilians.

[gumboot]

I'm actually surprised that TWA 800 isn't brought up more in conspiracy circles. I mean... it's hard to find a more obvious "test run" to killing innocent civilians.


I've heard many a time that the US Navy purposefully shot TWA800 down. Though I have never heard why, exactly.

PanAm 103 is aided by the fact there were 5 US Intelligence agents on board the aircraft at the time, including some top secret files.

-Andrew

[Hellbound]

I've heard many a time that the US Navy purposefully shot TWA800 down. Though I have never heard why, exactly.

-Andrew

There were Navy ships doing exercises that day off the U.S. coast. Also, because of the nature of the break up and crash, many people (by the time they would have heard the boom and turned) would see what appeared to be a smoke trail leading up to the airplane, as if from a missile.

However, the closest Navy ship (which was a missile cruiser) was over 200km further away then it's longest range missiles. No ordnance was unaccounted for, and no other ships were anywhere close.

The initial blast cause the front of the plane (from wings forward) to break away. The engines were still running, so the plane immediately pulled up. The engines died rather quickly (it was the fuel tank that went boom) and then it began to fall. Those who saw it after this initial climb might well mistake the smoke trail from this initial climb for a missile trail.

However, we have direct witnesses from another airliner and a National Guard helicopter that saw no missile or anything like it.

[Johnny Pixels]

I'm actually surprised that TWA 800 isn't brought up more in conspiracy circles. I mean... it's hard to find a more obvious "test run" to killing innocent civilians.

I guess the TWA 800 incident doesn't come up with regards to 9/11 whackjobs because if the plane was shot down by a missile, and the government didn't use it as an excuse to go clobber someone, then it weakens their "terror to control and invade for oil" ideas.

[kevin]

I've heard many a time that the US Navy purposefully shot TWA800 down. Though I have never heard why, exactly.

-Andrew

I thought some lady claimed to see a flash on the ground and then a flash in the air then the plane come down.

[911insideJob]

Associated Retired Aviation Professionals
Post Office Box 90, Clements, Maryland 20624 USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOMBING OF PAN AM 103
By John Parks - Explosives Engineer

As an unpaid volunteer on the night of the Bombing and someone who rendered further assistance in the ensuing operations I feel it my duty to make you aware of the following facts. I respectfully add that recent evidence given in Court and my study of the AAIB report has prompted this approach. If I may explain.

1. On the night of the Bombing I recruited one of my then employees, a trained mine rescue operative and one further colleague, an experienced Steeplejack, and made our way to Locherbie to assist the emergency services.

2. My team was effective and among other things we demolished the dangerously weakened chimneys at Sherwood Crescent and recovered the body of a female victim from a seriously weakened roof in the Rosebank area. We also covered up the bodies and body parts of the countless victims scattered in and around the gardens of the aforementioned house.

3. Returning to Edinburgh the next day I closed down my business for the Christmas break and returned to Locherbie the day after to offer my assistance.

4. Eventually getting to work I organised and oversaw the following works in Locherbie Ice Rink
a] The formation of a Post Mortem room and an Odontology room
b] The formation of trolley access ramps from the sunken ice rink to the passageways
c] Designed and had manufactured a plywood body support frame for the X Ray equipment
e] Formed screening, enclosures and passageways to and from the ice rink, PM room, canteen and etc
f] Formed a Police control office
g] Arranged the manufacture of steel support frames for the Post Mortem trays
h] Apart from the above operations I improved the overall logistics associated with multiple body movements

5. Having made myself and my qualifications known to Professor Anthony Busitil he invited me to inspect three bodies, which he suspected of being in close proximity to a bomb blast. Studying a young girls body, the most obvious of victim, I observed her back and other rearward facing parts of her body had been impacted with high velocity fragments. Further to the fragmentation strikes the soles of her socks had sustained multiple holing.

Closer inspection of this phenomenon confirmed that the holes had not been caused by solid fragments, as the skin on the soles of the victim’s feet was unmarked. My conclusion was that this holing had been caused by minute jets of hot gasses, minute particles of burning explosives or an acid. A combination of all three could not be ruled out. I could see no evidence of scorching on any part of this victim’s body.

6. The distribution of fragmentation strikes sustained by this victim showed typical and unmistakable signs of blast shadow protection. At the time I deduced the victims seat squab to have been the receptor responsible for this protection. This phenomenon may also have been due to the fragmentation cloud being arrested by a substantial structural element lying in the flight path of the explosively projected debris.

APPENDIX A number three

7. Discussing my findings with Professor Busitl I said that if I could see the victim’s aircraft seat I could have deduced the angle from which the fragmentation cloud had impacted her body. Later on I witnessed the Professor remove fragments from the victims back.

I would have remained at Locherbie and continued to help had it not been for a Strathclyde Chief Superintendent. Returning from his Christmas holiday he verbally abused my every effort. Notwithstanding his hostility to myself he also verbally abused two RAF Odontologists and a physically exhausted Dumfries and Galloway CID Officer. Further to these outbursts he systematically began destroying the pathologists morale for no apparent reason.

Indeed such was this mans intransigence and belligerence, notwithstanding his failing to capitalise on his assets I decided to make mention of his behaviour in my subsequent report to the Secretary of State. Stress may have been a contributory factor in this mans behaviour but his determination to ensure that he would be acclaimed the Hero of the day appeared a likely cause. Receiving compliments from the pathology team for providing them a purpose built facility rather than the cold basement floor in the Town Hall was my only crime.

Several days after my return from Locherbie and after the submission of my report to the Scottish Office, I was approached by a CID officer from the Lothian’s and Borders CID. Wishing to take a statement on my involvement on the night of the bombing he was unaware I had been further involved. Providing the names and addresses of my team members I passed the officer a copy of my report. Returning the next day the officer told me that his superior officer had invited me to make an official complaint on the Superintendents behaviour. As a volunteer with no official standing, and by then wishing to put the disaster behind me, I declined his offer. I would add the officer’s words here “my boss told me to tell you that we don’t like Bastards like that in the Police either” - unquote.

Since the bombing I have made repeated and unsuccessful approaches to the office of the Prime Minister in an attempt to have Professor Busitil and the Steeplejack Joe Pendrick rewarded for their efforts. On the tenth anniversary of the disaster I made one final attempt. Receiving a further acknowledgement but no sign of any awards I have abandoned these efforts.

Over the years I have kept my Locherbie involvement to myself holding firm in the belief that this crime would be eventually solved and the perpetuators brought to justice. Ashamedly I have only taken a casual interest in the subsequent developments. I am now saddened to hear expert witnesses make erroneous statements. Deciding to take a more professional interest in the technical aspects of the bombing I secured a copy of the AAIB report. Studying the report I was flabbergasted to read there was no evidence of Shrapnel being found in any of the victims! The report actually uses the word Shrapnel which, is incorrect terminology. Shrapnel is an antiquated Anti Personnel Artillery Shell named after its inventor. Studying the AAIB report I am concerned that disclosures relating to the explosive event may be in question primarily the reported Net Explosive Quantity (NEQ) of the reputed device.

I respectfully mention that I speak from 36 years practical experience in explosives engineering and military endeavours and I am currently supplying bomb blast mitigation systems to the U.K. Military. Furthermore while on active service in HM forces I planned, executed and destroyed two aircraft with the use of controlled explosives. One of these being a large RAF Transport the other was a bombed Civil Aircraft located 80 metres from the Airport terminal. As the youngest Sergeant in the British army on active service (20) I also won an award for capturing terrorists in Aden during 1966 and 1967.

I have recently voiced my disquiet to both the Procurators Fiscals office in Holland and the Dumfries and Galloway Police Force however; the response to my approaches has only heightened my concerns.

Like my involvement in the disaster I seek no reward or glorification but rather I wish to see justice properly served. My experience of the actual event combined with my study of the AAIB report, not withstanding recent courtroom revelations leads me to believe the prosecutions case is seriously and monumentally flawed.

Yours Sincerely

John H Parkes

cc The Lord Advocate. NB.
(SINCE SENDING THIS LETTER I FOUND THE TRUTH )



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX A number four
Messrs A Duff / Glasgow lawyers also received a copy 10 / 6 / 00
Dear Sirs,

BOMBING OF PAN AM 103.

I have vital evidence relating to the above event. If justice is to be properly served my revelations are crucial and must be presented to the trial Judges at the earliest opportunity.

I have taken this course of events in the light of recent evidence provided in court. Further to this erroneous evidence I have at last taken the trouble to read the AAIB report pertaining to the bombing. The report is seriously flawed in as much as it denies that any fragments were found in the bodies of any of the victims. In fact the report states that no Shrapnel was found in any of the victims, which is the wrong terminology.

I was the first Explosives qualified person to quantify that wounds in the back of one of victims was caused by explosively driven fragments and that during Post Mortem investigation fragments would be recovered from some if not all of the wound sites.

Fragments were indeed recovered from this young girls body and I witnessed Professor A Bustle remove at least one fragment.

The suitcase containing the explosives device or IED could not have been at the bottom of the container. It would have been virtually impossible for fragments from such a small device to escape through overlying luggage and baggage of a thickness of one metre (probably less) be driven through the luggage container roof, the flight cabin floor and subsequently impinge on any passenger in the flight path of the fragmentation cloud.

I would add that immediately upon hearing the news that a Crown witness had stated that the device was not at the bottom of the container and then further said that it might have been at the bottom of the container prompted me to contact the PF’s Office in Holland and the Locherbie Police. I was assured from both sources that further expert witnesses would firmly establish where the suspect suitcase was located. This does not now appear to be the case.

I have everything to loose by bringing my evidence to light and absolutely nothing to gain. Furthermore, and like my efforts at Locherbie I seek no material gain.


Yours sincerely,

JOHN H PARKES



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NB AFTER ANOTHER COLD RESPONSE I BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE AAIB REPORT IN DETAIL.
LOCKERBIE BOMBING - SECOND REPORT 15 / 6 / 00 - Updated 18 / 6 / 00

History and background - See appendix A.

Introduction.

It is with great sadness I put my findings on paper but personal concerns must be put aside at such times. Whereas I have used my real name I do not wish my address disclosed.

In the interest of brevity I have broken down my report into numbered paragraphs. Throughout my findings I will make references to the AAIB report pertaining to the disaster. Not withstanding my own knowledge of the disaster I have found compelling evidence within the pages of the AAIB report to indicate further explosive events took place aboard Pan Am 103. The AAIB report is readily available from HM Stationers and from the internet.

1. We must first ask this question. Why was the most crucial piece of evidence in the trial cut in 2 pieces to facilitate it being brought into court when the thing was already in 2 pieces the original halves of which were capable of being carried into the courtroom? From a news report the Prosecution made issue with the fact that the container base was too large to be brought into the courtroom. This requires confirmation.

I conclude that the original dismembering of this production was carried out to hide the fact that a remote site from that of the alleged single explosive event had been seriously damaged by a further explosive event. This second event could not have taken place inside AVE 4011 PA. I suspect that a quarter of container base outer rim has been substituted with an undamaged section. Heavy saw cuts are obvious and I deduce these had been made with a high speed carborendum disc or “buzz saw”.

The fact that the defence requested that this container base be brought into court played into the hands of those who had effected the substitution. However, this deception could not have been hidden, as a second cut is wholly unwarranted. I find that this production is not representative of the actual container as evidence bearing areas have been removed.

2. The argument about where the IED had been laid is a red herring. While everyone focuses on the AAIB’s and DERA’s version of events and tries to prove or disprove the exact position of the weapon the real sequence of events concerning the bombing is denied in a most scurrilous manner for reasons I can only guess.

3. The inboard floor area of AVE 4011 PA displays 2 distinct failure characteristics. While the aft inboard section has been forced in an upward direction the forward outer section displays a downward attitude. Had a single explosive event taken place inside this container the majority of the floor pan would have been moved in downward manner.

Not so the case, We clearly see one quarter bent upwards and one quarter bent downwards. An obvious downward force has been applied to the inboard forward outer section. My conclusion is that explosives energy from a second source impinged on this area and that it was this energetic event combined with supersonically driven fragments that forced the floor down and occasioned serious damage to the missing section of outer member. I would be surprised if any trace of the original section of side rail will have survived the AAIB enquiry.

4. Let us now consider the damage to the outboard half of the container floor of AVE 4011 PA. This area exhibits undeniable evidence of an explosive event having take place inside the intact component and I would basically agree with the findings concerning the location of this weapon. (I now know this to be a mainstream component) Never the less, I still have serious misgivings about the reputed NEQ of the alleged bomb. In any event the positioning of this alleged device + or _ 50 cm is now totally irrelevant.

My main concern with the position issue is because it appears to have been an attempt to cloud the remaining facts within the AAIB report as to whether the outboard rail is broken through or not. My conclusion is that a length of forward inboard support rail was seriously if not completely destroyed by this event and the substitution of this was to deny a second explosive event had taken place in the cargo hold. This event along with the second event had almost certainly split the bottom of the container in half. I base this on the following;

a/ Within the 2 photographs of the containers base there appears to be a concerted attempt to draw the eye away from a non-existent area of the outboard face. From bridging the gap with a severely damaged and alien item of wreckage - perhaps even the missing section from the inboard side rail - to some kind of tape being wound around the side rail. The underlying timber support frame also draws away the eye and gives the illusion that the container member is continuous. This vanishing rail act is quantified on the sketch drawing of this production at Fig F4.

Viz Areas not recovered unq It is first hatched (signifying not recovered) and then coloured over in red to signify severely blast damaged. The lost components WOULD HAVE probably exhibited a mainstream components' signature.

b/ Black lettering appears all over the container floor, which is not apparent on the top photograph, which was been taken in another locus. Writing on productions with a felt tip marker is not my idea of preserving evidence!

c / The floor of the container is SPOTLESSLY clean but there would have been undeniable evidence of black sooting or weapon fragment splashing . Again this is not my idea of preserving evidence!

5. Forward face of AVE 4041 PA. Fig 7 This again displays signs of 2 separate forces reacting upon it. The Inboard half of this face is forced inwards and towards the rear of the aircraft and the outboard half has been forced outwards towards the front of the aircraft. The lower left edge exhibits heavy sooting and the outer lower rail has been heavily impacted from the outside. This sooting is synonymous with the detonation of oxygen deficient high performance explosives. I am convinced that this photograph has been deliberately taken off centre to hide this area.

Why, when we clearly see a square piece of aluminum on the aft outer strut are we not shown this from the other side in a photograph. We are shown 2 struts but no evidence of the remaining skin of the container. One can fully appreciate that the aft face was the open side of the container and that the open faces of containers are only closed off with a tarpaulin but we should be shown the aft facing view or at least the inside of the remains of the container. This is extremely odd. The lower left section of the containers skin, including the supporting strut shows a break, which is not depicted on the sketch. There is a foreign object laid against or attached to the strut for no good reason.

There is no mention of any blast vent holes, which could have allowed soot to escape from the inside of the container so we can deduce that this area of the container was blasted with soot from the outside. Indeed the sketch of the panel showing what aluminum skin was actually recovered indicates no sign of lost material or puncture wounds of any description. Quote e Forward face panel complete with top, left and lower edge members unq. A ragged section of outer skin is also seen half way up the inboard strut, which seems to appear again and authenticate that this is the same strut. I am concerned also by what appears to be an engineered cut near the top of this strut however this may simply be tape. No aluminum paneling appears to be “wrapped” around the protruding strut at the lower left of the picture however, aluminum paneling appears to be wrapped around the leg when viewing the inboard face of the container. The appendage on this strut on figure F7 looks like a box or something similar. It may even be an alien corner piece.

Inboard face of AVE 4041 PA Firstly what is the section of paneling shown to the extreme left The alleged left hand strut shows straight marks or possibly tape at the area of the bend. What is this and why was it done? The angle of this element is consistent with the panel being blown outwards as would happen when the blast wave exited that container at a low level. The SQUARE hole shown left of centre top exhibits many features consistent of being blown inwards namely inward pettaling and shear bending however, the section of paneling lying at the 8 o’clock position does not marry up with the damaged container skin. The NG letters may be significant. This rough section is shown to be under the Pan Am logo and again it does not marry in with the localised damage. One can quite clearly see the letters AV bent inwards. The central area of paneling has been forced against the central strut and shows crease lines. Again consistent with having been forced against the bracing strut. Looking to the right of the picture one sees that the skin has separated from the outer edge and has either impacted against luggage by an external force or has been impacted with luggage from an internal source. This characteristic buckling was caused by an outside influence as the top right hand corner displays clear signs of being pushed inwards.

The real problem here is reconciling the REPAIR PATCH with the fixed area of paneling behind the same and which displays quite obvious signs of being pushed inwards. This convenient patch is taped or tied onto the damaged area with tape/ twine or whatever but this “patch” did not originate from this area in the first place. If it is a patch it certainly is a rough patch and one would have expected PanAm's artisans to have made a tidier job of it. The bending of the “patch” is not commensurate with the bend of the fixed panel below it nor is the damage to the paneling commensurate with the “patch”. This so called “patch” could not have remained undamaged while the material that is was “reputedly repairing” is so seriously damaged and torn.

Directly below this patch there is a section of paneling (called E in the sketch), which does not marry up to the REAL fixed section of panel. Again the bending of this piece is not consistent with the bending of the fixed section above it. The lower section of the right leg shows signs of a section of paneling wrapped around it and this could not have happened in this area. In the sketch we see a wavy edge of torn paneling attached to the corner strut but this wavy section paneling is not visible on the actual strut so I conclude that this strut is completely alien to this area. Again a straight mark is evident at the top of the strut and we must ask the question if this is tape or a saw cut and if it is only tape then what is it doing there. This section of the container is highly suspicious and lies directly above the alien section of the containers base. Namely the section with the 2 distinct saw cuts though it. Something is seriously wrong in this whole region and has been fabricated to fit a false chain of events.

Outboard face of AVE 4041 This clearly indicates that a lot of the explosive energy exited the container in this area and the Aircraft’s outer structure bears witness to that. Regularly shaped crease lines are evident on the recovered paneling and I conclude that most, if not all of these were caused by fairly solid objects impinging on the inside face. However, I am concerned about the attitude of this panel. We appear to be looking up at it rather than directly at it and this is because there is something to hide on the topside. Indeed strange marks and or writing are visible - what are they. Nothing is shown of any other element of this container except a strut on the left hand side to which a rectangular section of paneling appears to be fastened to. I suspect that could we see the top section properly we would definitely find evidence of a hole being blasted from the inside. This contentious area marries up with the SQAURE hole in the inboard face. My conclusion here is that an “object” was propelled through the top of the container and that “object” originated from with the starboard container containing the explosive material or materials Again I have no dimensions to work with but this can be easily quantified.

Summary. There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that a minimum of two high explosive events took place onboard PAN AM 103. One inside a container located on the Starboard side and one located inside a container on the Port side. In the light of what I personally witnessed in Locherbie Ice Rink and after an in depth study of the AAIB report leads me to the following conclusion.

The first device detonated in a starboard container and did the following damage.

1/ Severely disrupted the cabin floor and sent high velocity fragments into that area some of which impacted upon the victim I personally witnessed. This event also blasted luggage through the fuselage floor forward and below of the container position (Region E figure B20) - I then interrupted my report at this stage to state what I now believe to be the case. - 0330 HRS 7 / 6 / 00 (Young girls socks come to mind)

THERE WAS NO IED INSIDE CONTAINER AVE 4041. THAT AN EXPLOSIVE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN OR AROUND THIS CONTAINER IS NOT IN QUESTION BUT THIS EVENT WAS UNDOUBTABLY CAUSED BY A MAIN STREAM MUNITON, WHICH WAS MOST PROBABALY, A H.E.A.T. ROCKET PROPELLED ROUND. (HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTI TANK)

I was blinded by certain things but now I see the truth.. Like so many others I was side tracked by DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION . Based on what little evidence and enlarged photographs I can glean from the AAIB report and my own observation in Locherbie Ice Rink (Temporary morgue) my findings are.

A/ A catastrophic explosive event took place in a container located STARBOARD SIDE FORWARD. (see immense damage to floor in this area - plus missing structural elements) This was either the accidental self detonation of main stream MUNITONS or the deliberate explosively promoted detonation and or functioning of the main stream munitions The initial sequence would have blasted into the cabin area with tremendous force - hence the fragments in the wee girl - the other phenomenon I witnessed namely the minute holes burnt in the young girls socks bears witness to the fact that burning rocket propellant was undoubtedly in this area.

B/ It is impossible at this time to say how many mainstream weapons were involved - certainly more than one, probably three and possibly more. A mixture of high temperature gas was produced which opened up the starboard side of the aircraft and blew a hole in its underside - pieces of wreckage from the aircraft and the container including most of its contents were blown into the atmosphere to become what I suspect the first separate radar blip. This high-pressure high temperature gas was most likely caused by an “all burnt on launch propellant” and perhaps a mixture of the gasses from a detonating high explosive.

C/ The aircraft’s controls were severely effected in this area if not completely destroyed causing the aircraft to immediately dive to the port side.

D/ Within - Milliseconds (THOUSANDS OF A SECOND NOT MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND) the warheads from these weapons went propulsive and at least 2 and perhaps even 3 of these impacted the now infamous AVE 4041 container on the port side.

E/ One of these warheads either functioned inside the container and caused the effects seen to the port side adjacent to same or functioned against the aircrafts side and damaged container 4041s outer port gable end - One possibly went through the container at high level and another went through the forward in board bottom corner. I also suspect that a further weapon functioned further aft on the port side. See cabin floor damage in that location. (FIG B 18 AAIB report) What we do know is that one impacted the inner forward lower container rail - hence its substitution. This warhead may have then functioned under the container when striking the under cargo floor area or traveled further aft and functioned in the area of the hold where the pallets were stowed (Station 900). It is difficult to see how such a projectile could have been propelled down the hold without functioning but I am convinced an explosive event also took place in that area. There will be clear evidence to indicate what caused the aft event even if some materials have been accidentally LOST.

F/ Due to the catastrophic failure and separation of the nose of the aircraft I suspect that both if not three of these warheads functioned in the forward port area but I cannot say for certain until I see further evidence. Everything now falls into place - The deliberate hiding of damage, the substitution of damaged of components or the LOSS of components bearing weapon signatures and the undeniable and deliberate attempt not to photograph certain areas and or adulterate photographs of these areas - the cutting and bending of components that could not have been caused by an explosive event in the aircraft destruction sequence I describe.

G/ There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am on the correct track here - I have wasted six valuable days either looking for the wrong thing or following the official line with a great degree of skepticism. The evidence is all contained within the AAIB report without me having to say if I saw fragment impacts in a victim or whether I witnessed minute holes in her socks or not.

H/ The aft fibre Glass container behind AVE 4041 also gives clear indication of the secondary effects of a mainstream muniition. Sections of this container appear to have been SURGICALY removed.

18 / 6 / 00 I have just discovered another adulteration within the AAIB report (figure F 8)

I/ Inboard gable of AVE 4041 - I can no longer trust that this view represents a true gable element belonging to container AVE 4041. I have no wish at this time elaborate on this adulteration but it is significant and quite obvious. If the reputed inboard gable end of this container is not the original gable from 4041 then we must ask the question then from which container is it from. However the square hole depicted top left of centre top still shows definite characteristics of having being punched inwards. Looking at the sketch of the recovered container skin it claims this hole to be square. I can see no reason for a square hole to have been formed other than by hand. A Rocket projectile would produce a fairly round hole in taught aluminum and cause the edges to petal inward. Hitting a soft target such as a container side may not necessarily cause the warhead to function however, as I am ignorant of the particular weapon we can only guess at the detonation mechanism. Having seen the effects of shaped charge warheads or HEAT rounds on miscellaneous targets I do not need to guess at such a weapons performance. I fully appreciate that container AVE 4041 also impacted the ground after being separated from its host never the less, explosive blast damage and or weapon impact damage is entirely different from that produced by mechanical trauma by whatever means.

J/ As I am reliant on the AAIB report which is seriously flawed I have no way of effectively plotting the flight path of the projectile that destroyed the “spar cap” on the port side (Fig B 22). Furthermore if we are to believe the tremendous power of this REPUTED device it not only totally shattered and dislocated this Spar Cap it also melted the aircrafts skin after blasting its way out of a container. It is impossible for this melting to have taken place within the time available from the heat energy released from such a small charge.

What is for certain is that the pre impacted spar cap could not have been totally destroyed by the energy generated by the reputed Net Explosive Quantity of explosives contained within the reputed Improvise Explosive Device. Not withstanding destroying this heavy structural element it blasted it out of the aircraft. I claim that this is a physical impossibility and this fact can be empirically proven.

Summary;

1/ There is clear evidence that the reputed container AV 4041 has been adulterated after recovery.

11/ There is clear evidence within the AAIB report to show that a catastrophic explosive event took place on the Starboard side of the aircraft. This is also backed by my own observation of the body of a young female victim seated in the starboard side of the aircraft forward of the main event.

111/ There is evidence to show that more than one explosive event took place in the aircrafts hold

1V/ The AAIB report is inconclusive where it relates to container damage.

V/ The AAIB report relies on computer generated images to present its findings.

V1/ The AAIB report mentions the power of an explosive that is yet to be invented

Conclusion; The real sequence of explosive events is denied within the AAIB report and has been substituted with a mythical chain of events. The real explosive events leading to the total loss of this aircraft was on a far greater scale and leads me to believe that anyone involved in producing this aspect of the report has not had any practical experience of explosive engineering or aluminum structures not least aircraft containers construction.

As to the science behind the mach stem theory this is one situation where science cannot be made to fit the bill.

This explosives aspect of this report is an insult to any self respecting Explosive Engineer not least anyone with an interest in forensic science. To ask us to believe that 300 gms of explosives could tear such a massive and well-built aircraft in half and cause it to fall from the sky within 5 seconds is like asking us to believe in fairies.

The fact that such an elaborate attempt has been made to hide something leads me to believe that my explanation is nearer the truth than that given in the AAIB report.

I John Parkes declare that this is a true account of my findings concerning the loss of Pan Am an 103 and 270 souls. It gave me no pleasure to find the truth. The production of this report has caused me more heartache than my involvement in the actual disaster. Had the authorities approached me at any time and explained why this fabrication had been engineered I would have looked no further. I walked away from this tragedy 11 years ago and like a naive explorer I returned to that dangerous time and joined the casualty list. It is a sad day for mankind when a man who seeks and finds the truth in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice is damned for his efforts.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN PARKES Explosive Engineer

SECOND LOCKERBIE REPORT - ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AT 9 / 7 / 00


Ref - AAIB report Fig B - 22. Spar Cap embedded in fuselage.

Again the photographic aspect of the AAIB report is a disgrace and begs the questions a/ why are the photographs so small - especially the donor site and b/ why do we not see more of the surrounding area of the supposed borrowed image.

My findings on these issues are;

1/ The images are of separate areas of the aircraft namely the “supposed donor” image is of the aircraft’s fuselage and the supposed borrowed image is of an area of the aircraft’s thick underbelly skin.

2/ The “protruding” items are not one and the same.

3/ The split running up the fuselage in the supposed donor image at the 5 o clock position runs all the way up to the protruding element. There is no sign of this split in the supposed borrowed image. Indeed so severe is this split I cannot see how this reputed spar cap stayed in position.

4/ The secondary hole shown in the borrowed image has been formed from the inside and I am convinced that the protruding element was also driven from the inside out. There are also several smaller holes through this section of bodywork, which I suspect were caused by high velocity fragments driven from the inside.

Conclusion. I suspect that the protruding element shown in the borrowed image is a section of baggage container that has been blown through the underbelly skin after being blasted from a complete component. As to the protruding element in the “supposed donor” site I would agree by its dimensions that it is a structural element form the aircraft - possibly a section of a main stringer. The “supposed borrowed image” shows the majority of the area was pushed inwards and I suspect this was caused by mechanical trauma however, this does not detract from the fact that the 2 main holes were formed from the inside.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JH Parkes 10 / 7 / 00
First letter to HSE

ALSO SENT TO MR DUCKWORTH AT HES HQ BOOTLE

SPD C5
Senior Inspector of Explosives
Health and Safety Executive
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE 1 9 HS


Dear Sir, THE LOCKERBIE DISASTER 22 / 11 / 00

I hereby make a formal report that I have discovered that illegal explosive substances were carried aboard Pan Am 103 the detonation of which caused the loss of the aircraft and 270 souls.

The following report is base on my study of the AAIB report and my own findings in the temporary morgue set up in Locherbie Ice Rink during the investigation.

Yours sincerely



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second letter sent 17 / 6 / 00
FAO Mr. A Duckworth
HSE Explosives Inspectorate 17 / 6 / 00
Bootle

I am in receipt of your letter dated 17 / 6 / 00. I trust the Locherbie police will be in touch in due course. I will of course refer them back to yourself as the offence I reported was carried out before Pan Am 103 was lost.

With respect I have not reported the use of explosives for criminal use but have reported the illegal movement, handling and carriage of explosive substances and I must insist that you take this matter seriously. The fact that these substances subsequently detonated in the air above Scotland is not relevant.

I again wish to report the fact that illegal explosive substances were handled and transported in an unlicensed premises and put upon public transport within the confines of the United Kingdom in December 1988.

Upon studying the Health and safety at work act I have found many sections related to this offence. Studying the Guide to the Explosives Act I also find this was also breached. I am fully aware that your executive has no responsibility for aircraft in flight however, it is impossible for such materials to have been put aboard Pan Am 103 without a criminal act having been carried out in the first place. The law therefore had to have been broken in at least the baggage handling facility within Heathrow Airport, the loading apron and the airports runway.

If you are not prepared to take my report seriously then I must insist that you pass my complaint to your superior.


Yours sincerely

JOHN H PARKES



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENT 18/ 6/ 00
The Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC
29 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA
Your Ref 1406/OO/G

18 / 6 / 00
Dear Sir, THE EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION OF PAN AM 103 OVER LOCKERBIE

Thank you for your correspondence dated 14th June Further to my letter of 10th June I have since carried out an exhaustive and in depth study of the AAIB report pertaining to the disaster. I now beg to report that I have deduced the chain of events that lead to the loss of Pan AM 103 and 270 souls. This is certainly something that I did not want to find but once having found it I have made my findings public in order to try and preserve the safety of my family.

I have also reported a serious criminal offence concerning illegal explosive substances being handled in an unlicensed premises and then being carried aboard public transport in December 1988. I am fully aware that the HSE regulations pertaining to such violations of the law do not apply to aircraft in flight but the law was broken before the aircraft took off. The fact that the illegal explosive substances subsequently detonated aboard Pan Am 103 does not detract from the earlier offences. Mr. Duckworth the principal inspector has passed on my report to the Locherbie Police. He is also passing my complaint to the relevant authorities responsible for Heathrow Air Terminal.

I have attached a copy of my findings. however, the AAIB report is so seriously flawed the scenario I have outlined pertaining to the precise activity that took place on the hold of the aircraft may not be an exact reproduction of the true events. What is certain is that multiple detonations took place within the hold and at least one Rocket Propelled Munition of some kind was responsible for at least one of these events.

The original source of this munition was not container 4041 but a container on the Starboard side. As to what functioned that munition I have outlined 2 possible explanations within my report. I have passed on my findings to Dr Jim Swire and the relatives have been made aware by way of the internet. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to Dr Jim Swire and the HSE Explosives Inspectorate.

Again I reiterate that having found out something approaching the truth concerning Pan Am 103 prior to its total destruction, and having discussed these findings to someone in the USA I have had to take drastic measures to safeguard my family and myself.

I have subsequently discovered that further undeniable adulteration of the AAIB’s s forensic report has taken place, which is not enclosed within my report.

It is a sad day for human decency when a diligent hard working man with no aspirations for greatness has now to fear for his family in a country that he loves and has served to the best of his ability.

I would respectfully add that I am not in contempt of the court but rather I am in contempt of the contemptuous evidence that has been presented to yourself the Procurators Fiscal and the three trial Judges.

Yours sincerely

John H Parkes Explosives Engineer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To/ A RELATIVE
From John Parkes Explosives Engineer FAXED 16 - 6 - 00

I apologise from my heart and soul for adding to your grief but I have discovered something monumental about the downing of Pan AM 103 in 1988. Over the years I have often felt like making contact with you and no one more than myself has shared in your grief and frustration. Alas and to my shame I have never done so until now.
I walked away then but I cannot walk away now.

I have discovered the truth about what downed Pam Am 103 and I have sent my findings to the Health and Safety Executives Explosive Inspectorate by fax and hard copy. The faxes were sent yesterday and the letters will be arriving this morning. I am now concerned that in the light of what I have discovered my own life has become forfeit to what I can only say is the most despicable and horrendous chain of events that one could ever imagine.

I carried out my duty to my fellow man woman and child in December 1988 and left that sad place called Locherbie with a broken heart. In the light of what I have discovered and in the interest of justice and human decency I am now drawn back to that time and place.

I would add that this is Poetic Justice unfolding as I had originally and ashamedly contacted the authorities with what I thought was overwhelming evidence with which to convict the accused. Brushed aside like the village idiot
I began my own research based on my own experiences at Locherbie and the AAIB report. I did not want to find what I have found and I did not want to believe what has unfolded before my eyes.

If anyone cares to condemn me as an idiot or a clown then ask them to study what I have found and all will be revealed. Seek and ye shall find. However, for your own verification of my work you must enroll independent and non-government persons or laboratories associated with the government or who receives government funds. A magnifying glass is all that you will initially need to prove my findings and from then it will all fall into place.

A competent laboratory will find many discrepancies within the photographic material. Any weapons / explosives specialist worth his salt will find all the signs that I have found. After that ask any professional photographer how he would have approached the photography aspect of the forensic enquiry. He / she will be appalled when seeing the repeated and deliberate attempt to hide mislead and or falsify the evidence. Then lastly ask any self respecting aircraft accident investigator to look at the AAIB report once armed with my findings and my revelations concerning my intimate knowledge of aftermath.

If the weapons functioned accidentally then I suspect that it was the first radio call to / from Shanwick ATC that activated the firing mechanism. Indeed several years ago in the USA there were many problems associated with the movement of redundant 3.5 H.E.A.T. Rockets through built up areas due to Radio Hazards.. If it was a terrorist device that functioned the weapons then one must look at the implications as to where any such “counter charge” was laid. Like yourself I am who served our country well and none of us deserve to be treated in this
sad and despicable manner. I feel as if we have returned to the dark ages when men’s deaths warrants were signed on parchment with feather quills. Hopefully the truth will come out and your daughter can finally rest in peace.

I would add that a few years ago the DERA blew up a redundant 747 in Bruntingthorpe using no less than 4 simultaneously detonated explosive devices The hull was pressurised as it would have been in a flight level of 30.000 to 35,000 ft. The devices were laid in 4 different locations. I believe this event was shown at the trial. This ex Air France aircraft would not have had a specially strengthened floor (CRAF) as did the Locherbie aircraft.

Please find following my report and copies of my correspondence to / from others. I now seek to protect my family and my friends.

John Parkes Explosives Engineer





Home - Last Updated: 10/19/2000 15:21:55
© 2000 William S. Donaldson III. All rights reserved

[Big Les]

Sorry to zombie-thread, but I've just heard a Lockerbie CT of sorts from someone (intelligent and educated and who should know better). He stated that in Scotland the Sheriff (acting in the role of coroner) has "unlimited powers of inquiry" and because a woman had been found alive (albeit barely) on Scottish land, the NWO..I mean UK government were "soiling themselves" that facts about the case were going to come to light as a result.

This guy is very anti-gov, and it sounded to me like classic "coulda been" casual-CT nonsense. Basically "they're a bunch of crooks but I have no evidence" stated in such a way as to sound like something really might have gone on. Which as we all know is the most common strain of CTBS going.

I see from googling that one or two people were still alive post-crash, so that much is true. But could a Scottish sheriff really have blown open the investigation (which was kept pretty hush hush by the Tories)? And if they could have, surely that's actually evidence that there WASN'T a conspiracy?

ETA - Here's some info on a female survivor. (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612002435/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/victim.html)

I suppose that the gov were "soiling themselves" cannot be quantified because no sheriff tried to dig into the wider facts of the case. This guy was implying that he would have been bought off (sigh).

[Polaris]

I thought some lady claimed to see a flash on the ground and then a flash in the air then the plane come down.

That's correct, the 'missile hypothesis' came from eyewitness reports of people who were on shore. They match official explanations of how TWA800 came apart.

[Bell]

That's correct, the 'missile hypothesis' came from eyewitness reports of people who were on shore. They match official explanations of how TWA800 came apart.

The CIA (IIRC, I'm doing this all from memory from the news conference I saw back then) gave a presentation on how that came to be. After TWA800 exploded, the front part, still attached to the wings, flew upwards for some little time, with a fire trail behind it. It took some time for the sound of the explosion to reach the shore (they compared to thunder). So at the time the witness(es) heard the explosion and looked in that direction, they saw a firey trail going up, and shortly after that, they saw the burning wreckage of TWA800 falling down and breaking up.

[Polaris]

The CIA (IIRC, I'm doing this all from memory from the news conference I saw back then) gave a presentation on how that came to be. After TWA800 exploded, the front part, still attached to the wings, flew upwards for some little time, with a fire trail behind it. It took some time for the sound of the explosion to reach the shore (they compared to thunder). So at the time the witness(es) heard the explosion and looked in that direction, they saw a firey trail going up, and shortly after that, they saw the burning wreckage of TWA800 falling down and breaking up.

That's more technical than my post. Thanks. I was going to look it up, but frankly I had just gotten home from work and wasn't up for a lot of research.

[qarnos]

Sorry to zombie-thread [snip]

When I opened up this thread I thought gumboot had come back!

Then I checked the dates... :blush:

[Big Les]

Yes, sorry about that. I wasn't confident my query warranted a thread of its own, and since this thead was relatively recent I thought it OK to resurrect it.

[stateofgrace]

I live very close to Lockerbie.

I drove past the scene the day after the event, although I saw very little of the actual crash I did see masses of emergencies services at the scene.

At the time I had a friend who was in the RAF mountain rescue service. He and his dog were employed at the scene to recover those that unfortunately perished in this event.

I have seen a couple of cters try to bring this flight up as some type of conspiracy before. I don't even bother addressing them, they are a waste of time and totally disrespectful of this event

if just one, any one of these idiots who promote conspiracies theories should come to Scotland and go to Lockerbie. I would gladly show them round. I would take them to the memorial garden that is set up and I would actually get hold of my friend who was involved. Maybe they would like to talk to somebody that really was involved.

It is the simple failure by the cters to realise that real people were involved in these events and the failure to understand that real people suffer the consequence of these dreadful event that maddens me so.

Am I expert on Lockerbie? No. I am just a guy that lives close by, saw bits of it and spoke to another guy who was involved in the clean up.

I do know one thing though; I would never get in my car drive a couple of miles and start pissing on graves. Nor would I talk about unfounded conspiracies there. But then again I don't live in a paranoid world of delusional fantasies, where I simply copy and paste there thoughts of those have never been there. I live in reality, very close to Lockerbie.

[qarnos]

Yes, sorry about that. I wasn't confident my query warranted a thread of its own, and since this thead was relatively recent I thought it OK to resurrect it.

Sorry Big Les - I wasn't having a go at you. In fact, when I was writing my post I was thinking "Geez... I hope Big Les doesn't think I'm having a go at him".

Sorry if you got that impression.

[Hellbound]

The CIA (IIRC, I'm doing this all from memory from the news conference I saw back then) gave a presentation on how that came to be. After TWA800 exploded, the front part, still attached to the wings, flew upwards for some little time, with a fire trail behind it. It took some time for the sound of the explosion to reach the shore (they compared to thunder). So at the time the witness(es) heard the explosion and looked in that direction, they saw a firey trail going up, and shortly after that, they saw the burning wreckage of TWA800 falling down and breaking up.

Almost right. THe cockpit broke off in the initial blast. The plane was more or less intact from the front of the wings back, and this portion (having no weight on the front anymore) rose and climbed upward before failing and falling.

[Big Les]

Sorry Big Les - I wasn't having a go at you. In fact, when I was writing my post I was thinking "Geez... I hope Big Les doesn't think I'm having a go at him".

Sorry if you got that impression.

Hey, no, I didn't think you meant that. You're being oversensitive to my oversensitivity ;)

I'm really not too familiar with the CTs surrounding Lockerbie, but I think the sheriff/procurator vs coroner thing is a typical red herring. If anyone knows what powers of investigation such people have in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the UK, and how this could have made a difference to disclosed facts, I'd be interested to hear. The point is surely that if they DID have these powers, it didn't do those suspecting a CT any good, since the powers would have been open to them as bodies landed within Scottish borders.

Like I said, it just sounds like "coulda been, grumble grumble, gummint grumble" to me. Hot air.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Hey, no, I didn't think you meant that. You're being oversensitive to my oversensitivity ;)

I'm really not too familiar with the CTs surrounding Lockerbie, but I think the sheriff/procurator vs coroner thing is a typical red herring. If anyone knows what powers of investigation such people have in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the UK, and how this could have made a difference to disclosed facts, I'd be interested to hear. The point is surely that if they DID have these powers, it didn't do those suspecting a CT any good, since the powers would have been open to them as bodies landed within Scottish borders.

Like I said, it just sounds like "coulda been, grumble grumble, gummint grumble" to me. Hot air.

Well PF's (I dont know what he means by Sherriff) certainly do not have "unlimited powers of inquiry" as this chap put it. They do have pretty wide ranging powers but are always under the supervision and are answerable to the Crown Office and to the Lord Advocate, who is the Chief public prosecutor. If the Government where engaged in a cover up they could easily shut up a nosey PF.

[Big Les]

Well PF's (I dont know what he means by Sherriff) certainly do not have "unlimited powers of inquiry" as this chap put it. They do have pretty wide ranging powers but are always under the supervision and are answerable to the Crown Office and to the Lord Advocate, who is the Chief public prosecutor. If the Government where engaged in a cover up they could easily shut up a nosey PF.

Thanks Shaun, that explains why my googling around "sheriffs" was so rubbish. To be honest, the guy in question is quite partial to the old sauce; that might account for his conspiratorial ramblings!

[Bell]

Almost right. THe cockpit broke off in the initial blast. The plane was more or less intact from the front of the wings back, and this portion (having no weight on the front anymore) rose and climbed upward before failing and falling.

Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. When I typed that, it didn't seem right to me. Now I know why.

[pete2]

So, out of interest, are there any conspiracy theories surrounding this event?
Yes, there's this one:

It states that the bomb that blew up PA103 was loaded on Air Malta flight KM180 as unaccompanied baggage, transferred at Frankfurt onto Pan Am 103a and then at Heathrow onto Pan Am 103.

Records of the careful security checks made at Luqa show that there was no unaccompanied bag on KM180. All unaccompanied bags passing through Frankfurt were X-rayed by operators warned to look out for a bomb hidden in a radio cassette recorder.

A simple delay timer was used, so that any delay along the route would thwart the whole enterprise. PA103 would be over the open ocean for 6 hours, but the timer was set so early that the plane was brought down over land, where evidence could be recovered.

The amount of semtex used would not have been enough to damage the plane if the case containing the bomb had been loaded in the middle of a container rather than right at the edge.

This nonsense is in fact the Crown's case against the two Libyans indicted, and believed by the judges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against Abdelbasset al-Megrahi. :confused:

[Caustic Logic]

Great find and handling, Pete2. There are nothing but conspiracy theories here, every one of which has been called ridiculous. One of these theories, the one you outlined, does have legal backing and is the official reality, but it's right in the middle of the stupid scale, at best.

StateofGrace
I have seen a couple of cters try to bring this flight up as some type of conspiracy before. I don't even bother addressing them, they are a waste of time and totally disrespectful of this event

Any different now, a few years and a dozen threads later?

Also, you can safely ignore 911 Inside Job's looooong breach of rule whatever post. It's all John Parkes, who's a nutter. Saw some injuries consistent with either hitting a tree on landing or a vastly different explosion type that left no other clues anywhere. Decided on the latter.

There is plenty of BS with this case, but it doesn't all come from outside government channels. Not by a long shot.

[Rolfe]

Hey, I never saw this thread when I started looking for Lockerbie stuff in the forum in 2007! It's a find in that someone (now banned) has posted the entire canon of the Parkes ranting.

State of Grace is listed as "Guest", which usually means someone has asked to be de-registered, so I don't suppose he'll be back. I recognise that post though, I think he must have repeated it in another thread. I recall replying to ask in what way questioning a very dubious verdict could automatically be classed as "pissing on the graves" of the victims. I don't think I got a reply, as I remember.

Well, zombie thread lives.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hello? Earth to pete2??

You can't just go away again after that OP, you know!

Rolfe.

[danrush]

Flight 800 was blown up by Al Queda and Clinton covered up the fact to protect his so called fragile economic recovery, which wasn't.

[SpitfireIX]

Flight 800 was blown up by Al Queda and Clinton covered up the fact to protect his so called fragile economic recovery, which wasn't.


No. TWA 800 was most likely destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion caused by faulty wiring.


Have you read the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf)? If so, please explain exactly what the NTSB missed. If not, please read it and then explain what the NTSB missed.

[Rolfe]

Flight 800 was blown up by Al Queda and Clinton covered up the fact to protect his so called fragile economic recovery, which wasn't.


Dan, you started a thread JAQing off about TWA 800 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187180) only two weeks ago. Could something have been missed, you asked, apparently in all innocence.

You got your backside handed to you in pretty short order, but here you are again, not even asking questions but making bold pronouncements. Do you never learn?

Rolfe.

[Thunder]

Flight 800 was blown up by Al Queda and Clinton covered up the fact to protect his so called fragile economic recovery, which wasn't.

prove it

[Rolfe]

Oh, don't encourage him. Or if you must, take it to the thread he started where that is the actual subject. (Linked above.)

Rolfe.

[SpitfireIX]

Oh, don't encourage him.


:boxedin:

[Rolfe]

Well, since the thread is supposed to be about conspiracy theories surrounding Pan Am 103, why not go for it.

I'm frankly baffled by the blatant political agenda behind the continuing machinations to keep Megrahi identified as "the Lockerbie bomber", denying both any recognition of the huge flaws in the original indictment and judgement, and a fair appeal hearing. This has been the policy of successive UK governments (Conservative at the time of the bombing and investigation, Labour at the time of the trial), and Scottish governments (Labour/LibDem coalition at the time of the trial, SNP at the time of the compassionate release). They're all in it.

The decision of the SNP to toe the line and continue the charade is to me quite inexplicable, as that party had never been in power at all before 2007, and wasn't involved in any way in the investigation or the trial. Indeed the general mood music in SNP ranks over the years was that the trial was a stitch-up. But as soon as an SNP government was in control of the agenda, it fell into line and continued with the cover-up.

Here's an interesting article from early 2009, while the second appeal was still in progress, before the whole "if you want to go home to die you better drop that appeal" thing got going.

Lockerbie verdict was a "negotiated outcome" says UN observer. Verdict of "diplomatic convenience" was reached. (http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/1393/Lockerbie_verdict_was_a_%22negotiated_outcome%22_s ays_UN_observer._Verdict_of_%22diplomatic_convenie nce%22_was_reached..html)

In a remarkable and lengthy critique of the flawed trial process and protracted subsequent proceedings, Kochler says the Scottish Court covened in the Netherlands which convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi, reached a pre-determined outcome, and accuses the UK authorities of an "apparent strategy" to cover up the "errors and malpractices" in the years since Megrahi's conviction, that have kept him in jail on the basis of a discredited case.

"Altogether, the actions of the Prosecution and Defence often appeared co-ordinated, somehow following an external (non-judicial) strategy, and created the impression of a scripted procedure (whereby the “script” was followed at least to a certain extent) and of a negotiated outcome," Kochler says.


This is an extraordinary accusation, but it comes from a professor of law who was the official UN observer to the trial, not a raving twoofer. It is also supported by the actual events.

There is a school of thought that maintains the present cover-up is simply a cover-up of the original cover-up. That the motivation of those who are so exercised to keep Megrahi branded as "the Lockerbie bomber" NOW, is merely to avoid the embarrassment to the Scottish criminal justice system that would come from the conviction being quashed, and to avoid having to re-open 270 cold murder cases with all the expense and tying up of resources that would entail.

Maybe, but I suspect otherwise. The entire thrust of the machinations involved in the Lockerbie investigation seems to me aimed not so much at convicting some Libyans (highly convenient and desirable though that was), but about NOT getting too close to the Palestinian gang who were the probable culprits, and through them to Iran, their sponsor.

However, does not wanting to mess with Iran (which was at that time an ally) in the late 1980s/early 1990s really explain why the cover-up has continued to be pursued so vigorously right into the second decade of the 21st century? Iran is serious persona non grata now, and I could easily imagine a scenario where an appeal court quashed Megrahi's conviction and a re-opened enquiry found credible evidence that Lockerbie was in fact an Iranian-sponsored operation would go down extraordinarily well in certain political circles right now. (So well that I don't really like to contemplate it, actually.)

Maybe that's a contributing reason for the continuing cover-up? That Scottish and UK governments perceive that exonerating Megrahi could/would lead to the implication of Iran, and that the geopolitical consequences of that could be extremely serious? Or maybe it isn't. I have no freaking idea why certain people are behaving the way they are, right now.

However, this all seems to orbit round the USA, and the CIA, and probable CIA involvement in the original atrocity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario. A F-UP scenario, though, seems quite possible.

We know the US was expecting retaliation from Iran for the Vincennes incident. We also know the CIA had apparently infiltrated the PFLP-GC, at least in the person of the Jordanian agent Khreesat, possibly others. Peter Fraser, who was Lord Advocate at the time of the investigation, admits as much. Khreesat was actually making the bombs with the barometric timers of the type supected to have blown up Maid of the Seas. He was supposed to be making dud bombs, but he wasn't - either because he was being too closely watched (by Abu Elias among others), or because his sympathies actually lay with the terrorists all along.

When the "Autumn Leaves" arrests happened in October 1988, Khreesat was one of those arrested. He is said to have made one call to his CIA handlers, and hey presto almost the entire gang, caught red-handed with a bomb clearly designed to blow up a plane, was released by the German police on the grounds of "insufficient evidence". Khreesat is said to have been furious on the grounds of the arrests being premature - if the police had waited a bit, he said, they'd have got the lot.

The released gang members went to ground and I think Khreesat himself returned to Jordan. But just two months later Maid of the Seas fell out of the sky in circumstances that exactly matched their modus operandi. Then four months after that, the gang was rounded up again with a bunch more of these bombs, and in the process one exploded and killed a German bomb disposal operative. So much for Khreesat making duds.

The PFLP-GC was based in Frankfurt, and a lot of the early suspicion regarding Lockerbie was that they had smuggled a bomb on to PA103A at Frankfurt airport. This was reinforced by the revalation that the US Drug Enforcement Agency had been using Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt, including PA103A/PA103, for "controlled drugs shipments", a series of sting operations where heroin was allowed into the USA so that the DEA could then track it and apprehend the dealers. It was denied that any such operation had been ongoing on 21st December 1988, but on the other hand one of their known operatives was on the plane, and there is a very strange story of a farmer at Lockerbie finding a split-open suitcase with what seemed to be packets of heroin in it, with this story being subsequently covered up/denied.

The suspicion that there was officially-sanctioned lawbreaking going on at Frankfurt airport is strengthened by the scorched-earth disappearance of all baggage records at that airport within days of the disaster, in circumstances that suggest the police must have been involved. On the other hand, if someone switched the drugs suitcase (which would have been smuggled past the x-ray machine at Frankfurt as part of the operation, very handy) for the bomb, how come the heroin actually ended up on the grass at Lockerbie? And how come the strongest evidence for where the bomb was really introduced points to Heathrow, not Frankfurt?

My vague speculations centre round the CIA having infiltrated the PFLP-GC in an attempt to prevent the Iran-sponsored downing of an aircraft in retaliation for IR655. That they were trying to make a clean sweep of the entire boiling of the terrorist cell, with enough evidence to put them away for a very long time. That they may also have been playing a complicated game in relation to the Beirut hostages, involving the drug-smuggling operation, along the lines of Oliver North's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North) little enterprise of a couple of years earlier - this is essentially what Lester Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Coleman) alleges, and he is either a complete nutter or a dodgy character who actually knew what was going on and was put away as a consequence, take your pick.

I think this went badly wrong, possibly because the German police jumped the gun with the Autumn Leaves raid, and the operation got away from them. I wonder if, as a consequence, CIA agents or assets actually facilitated the bombing of Pan Am 103 inadvertently. I wonder if this is the fundamental reason behind the continuing vigorous cover-up, to which other motivations are secondary.

Discuss.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Kochler's allegation that the defence were conspiring to get their client convicted is particularly extraordinary, but it does bear scrutiny.

At the time of the original indictments in 1992, Megrahi and Fhimah engaged a Libyan lawyer to handle their case, a Dr. Ibrahim Legwell. According to Robert Black, he seems to be a decent sort of chap. When the case finally came to court under Scots law, they of course required Scottish lawyers. I don't know who was responsible for choosing the Scots defence team. However, something else happened at that time. The Libyan government appointed its own lawyer to the defence team, someone who had been very high up in the Libyan government. As a result Dr. Legwell withdrew from the case in protest.

This seems to have been what led to the withdrawal of pretty much all the defence case. Originally a large number of defence witnesses had been cited to appear, almost all, I believe, in relation to the "special defence of incrimination" which had been lodged. This defence is one which essentially aims to prove that someone else may have committed the crime, in this case the PFLP-GC. In order to succeed with such a defence it is not necessary to prove that the other party is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", but simply to show that there is a plausible case against them, and thus that your own client's guilt cannot be said to be beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not that well-versed in this aspect, but it appears that the Special Defence of Incrimination was withdrawn after the new Libyan lawyer was appointed. At that point almost all the defence witnesses were cancelled. In the end, after interminable months hearing the prosecution case, the defence called only two witnesses - Major Mifsud, the Maltese meteorologist who testified to the high probability that it didn't rain in Sliema in the evening of 7th December 1988 (and so should have fatally undermined the case that Megrahi had bought the clothes from Gauci at that time), and Lawrence Whittaker, an FBI agent who had observed baggage handling procedures at Frankfurt which undermined the contention that B8849 must inevitably have been an unaccompanied bag unloaded from KM180. Hans Kochler also notes significant participation of Libyan lawyers in the defence deliberations (though less obtrusive than the participation of US DoJ lawyers in the prosecution case), and that the defence team seemed out of step with the accused's wishes.

Against this we have the fact that Bill Taylor, Megrahi's Scottish defence advocate, was devastatingly effective at certain points in the trial. In particular he totally demolished the credibility of Giaka, which in itself should have caused the trial to collapse then and there. But on the other hand Taylor completely dropped the ball at the time of the first appeal, submitting a very weak case which was wide open for rejection, instead of the obvious case which the appeal judges pretty much hinted they might have upheld, that the verdict was one which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have reached.

Megrahi seems to have changed his legal representation after that, and the second appeal was in other hands. I don't want to digress into the apparent problems there, but again there were some.

However, Libyan involvement in the defence team also continued. Libyan lawyers were involved in the machinations leading up to the dropping of the second appeal and the compassionate release, and Robert Black has expressed the opinion that Megrahi's decision to drop the appeal was influenced by Libyan legal advice. It almost seems to me that the shortcomings and failures in the defence case weren't due to the Scottish defence team co-operating with the prosecution, but to pressure from the Libyan side to pursue the case in a particular way.

Libya wanted their man to be convicted? Now there's a conspiracy theory. But I suspect that's the case.

Consider the state of Libya ten years ago. The UN had imposed sanctions on the country for refusing to give its citizens up for trial, purely on the say-so of the USA and the UK. These sanctions were causing significant hardships to the general population, and it has been claimed they caused thousands of deaths by depriving the population of essential medical care. (This was all arguably quite illegal, because Libya was a signatory to a treaty which should have allowed it to try its own citizens in its own country, but the USA refused to hand over the evidence to allow that to be done, and anyway it served Libya right for being a state sponsor of terrorism.)

The Zeist trial was to be the catalyst for ending that Mexican stand-off. Megrahi and Fhimah surrendered themselves in the belief that they would get a fair trial under Scots law. However, the shenanigans with the Libyan-appointed lawyer cast doubt on whether that was ever going to happen.

After the trial things started getting better for Libya, aided of course by the letter that was written apparently accepting responsibility for Lockerbie, but actually couched in ambiguous language which really admits no such thing. And aided of course by Libya paying out billions of dollars in compensation to the bereaved relatives.

And look where they are now. Gadaffi, who was the mastermind behind the plot if Megrahi was really guilty, is being lionised by western leaders. Western countries are queuing up to get a piece of the action exploiting Libya's vast oil wealth. Libya is persona grata again, and begining to re-integrate in the international community. Lucky them.

Is it possible that this future was promised to the Libyan government by the USA, but only if a Libyan bore the responsibility for Lockerbie? Is it possible that for this reason the Libyan government interfered with the defence case and in particular choked off the part of it that involved throwing suspicion back on the PFLP-GC Frankfurt cell?

I'm only half way through this train of thought, but it's a long post so I'll stop now, and post the second half later.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

So what happened then?

The first appeal was brought on the wrong grounds. Was that just Bill Taylor's mistake, or did the Libyan part of the team insist on it? I don't know, Megrahi's legal team aren't telling. The appeal judges obviously realised the evidence was shaky as hell. The things they said during the appeal hearings show it. They were clearly uneasy. People who were there say that they enquired about the possibility of ordering a retrial, but were told that was impossible due to the peculiar circumstances of Camp Zeist. So in the end they decided to go with the legalistic view, and took the loophole inherent in the way the appeal was couched. The trial judges said they took account of all the points you're making, and still came to the decision they did. They were entitled to do that. Your contention that they gave these things insufficient weight thus falls. Appeal refused.

But if this was all a Libyan/US plot to make sure there was a Libyan convicted, where do the judges come in? They have said they were under no political pressure to return any particular verdict. Well, they would say that wouldn't they. Robert Black thinks they couldn't bear to embarrass the Lord Advocate, who brought the prosecution. I think they couldn't face the thought of all the eight years of hoopla and sanctions and so on, and the whole three-ring circus, being for nothing. Indeed, the idea that Libya had been victimised all these years on completely false premises. And that could go for the appeal judges too.

But if this was a US/Libya plot, surely they couldn't leave it to chance, especially after Giaka was rumbled? When that happened, most observers thought it was all over. Nobody would have been surprised if the prosecution had dropped the case right then. In the days between the end of the hearings and the verdict, even the Foreign Office was briefing about the bright new future for Libya/UK relations once the acquittals had been announced. Who could have trusted to the judges to produce that bizarre verdict unprompted?

Same with the appeal. Narrow grounds or not, the judges could still have said the hell with this it's ridiculous, this case is stuffed with reasonable doubt, on your bike. They didn't. So I wonder. I find it implausible that they were got at, but I'm struggling to see how they weren't.

So Megrahi was banged up on a life sentence. I don't think he signed up for that. I think the pair of them agreed to go to Zeist to get the sanctions lifted, in the belief that they would get a fair trial and knowing there couldn't be real evidence against them because they hadn't actually done it. Well, one of them got a fair trial. One out of two ain't bad?

So of course Megrahi applied for leave to mount a second appeal. That had to go through the SCCRC, and it took four years. Why? To a large extent, because the defence entered every single little point of doubt, dubious evidence or faint inference they could scrape up. The SCCRC had to investigate it all. That took time. Was that a deliberate ploy? I don't know.

The result was that the SCCRC still hadn't reported by the time of the deal in the Desert and the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. This is a deeply strange episode. Libya wanted to negotiate a PTA with Britain. Tony Blair said fine, that's OK. Then the Scottish elections happened, and Alex Salmond said, not Megrahi you don't, that's our jurisdiction. Tony lied about it for a bit, then admitted that Megrahi was included (of course the PTA was all about him all the time, there were no other Libyans in jail in Britain). But it's OK Alex, it's still your jurisdiction and it can't happen without the Scottish government's agreement.

At the time, it seemed academic. The PTA couldn't be actioned if there was an outstanding appeal, and Megrahi stated categorically he was going to sit tight and see the appeal to its conclusion. But was it really as simple as that? What would have happened if Megrahi hadn't developed cancer?

The PTA was an extremely peculiar piece of legislation. Every other such agreement puts the application in the hands of the prisoner. It's about allowing a prisoner who wants to serve his sentence at home to apply to do that. This one wasn't. This one didn't allow the prisoner to apply at all. The application had to be made by the Libyan government. And it didn't even require the prisoner's consent - he could be sent back against his will, under its terms.

The SCCRC finally reported in June 2007, just after the PTA was agreed but before it was ratified. Everybody thought the appeal would come to court in 2008, but it didn't. This was because the Crown dragged its heels and refused to release the PIIC document with all the strange conditions round it. This took the start of the appeal up to April 2009. Even then (and even though the appellant was by then known to be terminally ill), a prolonged timetable was enforced, with the hearings split with long gaps between, so that there would have been no decision before the spring of 2010.

What was that about justice delayed being justice denied?

In May 2009, the PTA was finally ratified. The appeal was already before the court and going well. But Libya immediately made an application to have Megrahi returned. Didn't want to wait just another year to see their man and their country vindicated in court, oh no. Send him back now please.

Of course that couldn't happen with the open appeal, and only Megrahi could withdraw that. And the prostate cancer and the possibility of compassionate release were massively complicating the issue by then as well. But supposing Megrahi had been healthy. He'd have stayed put to see out the appeal, wouldn't he?

Or would he? He couldn't himself apply for repatriation under the PTA. He had to rely on his government to do that. They were determined to do it before the appeal had been decided.

It's a neat dilemma. OK, Abdelbaset, you can come home under the PTA right now if you drop that appeal. But if you don't, don't expect us to make a second application if you lose. This is the justice system that's screwed you over twice already. Do you feel lucky?

I think the peculiar terms of the PTA were a deliberate ploy to allow the Libyan government to pressurise Megrahi into dropping the appeal.

Of course it didn't work out like that. The Scottish government didn't want to agree to PTA, for political reasons and because it believed the US relatives had been given an undertaking Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. The Scottish government was minded to grant compassionate release instead. But that didn't require withdrawing the appeal. Everybody thought, fine, he'll go home on those terms and the appeal will continue. Then he suddenly dropped the appeal. He had a Scottish lawyer, who could surely have told him he didn't need to. But the Libyan government lawyers were there too. Robert Black thinks the appeal was dropped on their advice.

However, Megrahi has the entire 800 pages of the SCCRC report. And it's not sub judice any more. He could release a helluva lot of information. At first it seemed as if he was going to do exactly that. He set up a web site and started to post documents. But after he'd posted those referring to the part of the appeal that had already been heard, he stopped. Why? Did his own government tell him to can it?

And now everybody has stopped saying anything about the problems with the verdict. The press, that previously printed lots and lots about it (http://www.heraldscotland.com/how-trial-of-the-century-ended-as-our-worst-embarrassment-1.860588), is now calling him the "Lockerbie bomber" without any of the usual caveats ("the only man convicted of..."), and treating anyone who agrees with their earlier position as some sort of mad conspiracy nut. The Scottish government, which also has the 800 pages and so on, and must know he didn't do it, is blandly asserting that it has no doubts about the safety of the verdict.

This is bizarro-land.

So, my CT on this is that whatever happened on 21st December 1988 at Frankfurt and Heathrow is something the USA still doesn't want to get loose, to the point where it has been able to persuade/manipulate the Scottish criminal justice system to play ball, and has even been able to pressurise Libya to accept formal responsibility for the disaster, pay out a ton of money to the relatives, and co-operate with the justice system to make damn sure a Libyan was convicted and stayed convicted.

Because that's the one way they can be sure nobody is going to re-open the investigation into what really happened.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Come on, guys, it's a perfectly cromulent CT.

Debunk me!

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

That's a lot to take in, and nothing I really want to debunk.

I agree the main goal here was not to just blame Libya for something. Who could want that so bad to cover up an otherwise fine truth of such magnitude. The risk of exposure, the loss of actual justice, the black eye on the world stage letting Iran get away with it.

No, they had to have a darn good reason to want such a truth covered up, and there's a short list of suitable parties that would be more convenient to blame. We can't say just where Libya was on that list, but Vince C being the head of all terrorism investigation at the CIA had to be one early tipping point that way. If you could neatly quantify all political factors, I suspect blaming Libya would be mathematically inevitable. And of all Libyan actors running around at the time, Megrahi was probably the ripest of all for the framing.

I think you've got a strong case here for Libya being involved in the bombing of Megrahi's appeal. If you really wanted to get the right leverage to keep things quiet, their national powers vis-a-vis their citizen would be the best tools to co-opt.

But supposing Megrahi had been healthy. He'd have stayed put to see out the appeal, wouldn't he?

Or would he? He couldn't himself apply for repatriation under the PTA. He had to rely on his government to do that. They were determined to do it before the appeal had been decided.

It's a neat dilemma. OK, Abdelbaset, you can come home under the PTA right now if you drop that appeal. But if you don't, don't expect us to make a second application if you lose. This is the justice system that's screwed you over twice already. Do you feel lucky?

I read a statement somewhere to about that effect - they were so distrustful of the legal system that had railroaded him and felt the appeal was useless waste of time. So distrustful it seems they were just about desperate to keep it from doing its work.

That might be justifiable based just on what had come before. Would a normalizing Libya of 2009/10/whenever, back in the "world community" at great price, want their guilt via Megrahi accepted in court yet again?

But all-in-all, I'm inclined more to the theory you outlined here.

So, my CT on this is that whatever happened on 21st December 1988 at Frankfurt and Heathrow is something the USA still doesn't want to get loose, to the point where it has been able to persuade/manipulate the Scottish criminal justice system to play ball, and has even been able to pressurise Libya to accept formal responsibility for the disaster, pay out a ton of money to the relatives, and co-operate with the justice system to make damn sure a Libyan was convicted and stayed convicted.

Because that's the one way they can be sure nobody is going to re-open the investigation into what really happened.

The US pressuring and managing whole other nations? Whaddya think, they run/ran the world? :rolleyes:

BTW: Why do you use "pressurised" rather than "pressured?" Is it standard where you live, or a personal quirk?

[Buncrana]

It seems that Megrahi's original team, including Dr Ibrahim Legwell, were maneuvered out of the defence team as the conditions for the trial at Zeist were being agreed upon and concluded. The indication at the time was that this represented a 'strong line' that the defence would now adopt and reflect the political concerns rather than the legal considerations. Legwell commented, "I have turned down an invitation to join the new team [appointed by the Libyan govt] because of differences in strategy with Kamal Maghour who was officially charged with the responsibility of heading the new team''.

New Lockerbie Team Appointed (http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/nolegwell.html)


However, it would appear that, after the guilty verdict had been passed at Zeist, Dr Legwell then rejoined the defence team for the first appeal! 5 days after the verdict had been delivered Gadaffi gave a speech, with Dr Legwell sitting alongside.


They said 'Let's convict one of them ... and acquit the other,''' Gadhafi said. ``This will please Libya and its supporters .... and give credibility to the Western, Christian judiciary and please the families of the victims.'' Gadhafi began his speech at sunset. Dressed in electric blue robes with a matching cap, the Libyan leader sat at a desk placed on a rug in front of the shell-pocked ruins of a home on his palace grounds. Posters of the victims behind Gadhafi read: ``This is Reagan's candy to the children'' and ``This is the result of American terrorism.'' [...]

At the right to the table, where Gadhafi was delivering his speech, two wellknown lawyers shared the space. The Libyan head of the defence team 8during trial), Mr. Kamel Maghur, was joined by Ibrahim Legwell, the former Libyan head of defence. Legwell - who was ousted as defence lawyer from the team in 1998 - seems to have been brought back into the team after its losing the case for Megrahi.

During the 2 hour-session, Gadhafi repeadedly listened to explenations and clarifications from both lawyers sitting on a table to the right.

[...] State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, speaking to reporters while Kadhafi was still speaking, said it made no difference what the Libyan
leader said and questioned the point of the address. "Is it possible to define what he's talking about?" Boucher asked rhetorically.

Boucher insisted that the only way for Kadhafi to get UN sanctions against his country lifted was to fully comply with Security Council conditions, including that Libya admit responsibility for the bombing of PanAm 103 and pay compensation to the families of the 270 victims.

"It's really up to Libya to meet the requirements of the international community," he said. "Unfortunately, in the remarks we've seen from Mr Kadhafi today, we don't see him doing either of those things."


Change of Mind? (http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/legwellback.html)


Initially, it seems a whole new raft of Lawyers were appointed to deal with the first appeal.

Harvard legal Professor, Alan Dershowitz says: "After reading the decision of the three-judge trial court, I became concerned not only that the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt had not been met, but that the wrong person may well have been convicted of the crime and the real mass murderer may not have been charged." Prof Dershowitz was appointed to study the verdict and make recommendations for appeal by Dr Ibrahim Legwell, the Libyan lawyer in charge of Megrahi's legal team.

[...] Dr Legwell, who is currently in Holland meeting with Megrahi, said last night that his client now had the support of some of the finest minds in the legal world and he was confident of winning his appeal. He said: "With the full consent of my client, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I have helped gather together an international team of lawyers who share the belief that a miscarriage of justice was carried out when my client was found guilty of the bombing.

:confused: So, what the devil was happening here? Taylor left to carry the can of a failed first appeal, and in bringing the appeal to court on the wrong basis? Unless the conviction was found in the first instance, and was subsequently found to be 'safe' on appeal, would only then the sanctions be lifted. A conviction at Zeist, but then overturned on appeal, would be the equivalent of 'no conviction' and thus no sanctions lifted..?

New Lockerbie Team (http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/newteam.html#wholaw)

[Rolfe]

You know, Buncrana, you have this habit of making me feel like a day late and a dollar short...! :D

I was going to suggest it might be interesting to examine the matter of the Special Defence of Incrimination, and what it actually consisted of, and who were all these witnesses who weren't called for the defence and why. And that you might have some of that information.

I didn't know Dr. Legwell was back on-side for the first appeal? So what happened? Was it really just a simple mistake on Bill Taylor's part?

There are several "what-ifs" in all this, but my main one is, what would have happened if Bogomira's printer had been out of paper on the evening of 22nd December (or even if she'd just binned her printout as she very nearly did), and what would have happened if Bill Taylor had appealed the verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence in law to convict, and that the verdict was one which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have reached.

Anyway, what do you know about the Special Defence, its withdrawal, and releted issues?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Just wanted to say also, thanks Buncrana for that information above. Another issue I've yet to delve into, but there's a good start at the lest. Certainly in the cases of wrongful convictions here in the US that I've been reading about, inadequate defense is a huge problem in many wrongful convictions. Usually it's with low income people assigned underpaid, overworked public defenders. This clearly would have to be something else...

Being too unfamiliar with leal affairs, I won't probably decide what I think about a Libya-scuttled defense anywhere along the line. Too many factors we can't quantify accurately and too many interactions.

And either way, no bad defense is needed to compel those darn judges to make the leaps and bounds they did. As Rolfe's been pointing out, the very evidence they ruled based on runs against the very ruling they made. It's insane, and I would guess there's enough to go around to account for a sword-falling-on routine from Tripoli.

One can't help but wonder if behind the scenes they were given an ultimatum - Washington gets its way in court or, failing that, the old fashioned way. No one would gripe at some more bombing runs over Pan Am 103, would they?

[Rolfe]

I'm more inclined to think it was, OK Muammar, if you have any thoughts at all that you'd like these sanctions lifted, and look forward to Libya becoming part of the actual workd again, then you pony up these two guys, put a spoke in the defence, and then pay out a lot of money.

Much more effective.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm more inclined to think it was, OK Muammar, if you have any thoughts at all that you'd like these sanctions lifted, and look forward to Libya becoming part of the actual workd again, then you pony up these two guys, put a spoke in the defence, and then pay out a lot of money.

Much more effective.

Rolfe.

Oh, sure. That'd be the carrot. It would be foolish not to dangle one of those. But it would be smart to also let them know there's a stick, or at least wondering of there is one. After all, what if they tried to defy you and submit to trial but throw in an amazing and brilliant defense that corners the crown? If the judges were forced by obviousness to rule not guilty (if it becomes obvious to the public and media, that's often the case), who could maintain the sanctions then and enforce the "play along or else" threat?

Then again, who could justify bombing Libya after a resounding "not guilty" to both Libyans? (Vincent?)

Clearly the main thing was to avoid any full exoneration, but just how Libya would be brought aboard is something more complex and unsure.

[Captain_Swoop]

Well, since the thread is supposed to be about conspiracy theories surrounding Pan Am 103, why not go for it.

No, please don't. Read the OP it is asking if there are any similarities with the events of 9/11 as regards conspiracy theories concenring fake plane crashes. Don't hijack it into another long winded rehash of all your other threads.

[Rolfe]

The thread's four years old, and has been dormant most of that time. I don't think "hijack" is quite the word.

If you're not interested, don't read it. Seems like nobody is reading it anyway, judging by the complete lack of critical comment.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

It's strange. Under Scottish law, there is the special defense of "incrimination." It is permissible to blame "persons unknown". A special defense is special only in the sense that it must be announced prior to trial. It does not shift the burden of proof to the defense.

The Special Defense application by the lawyers representing Megrahi and Fhimah would appear appropriate given the information available to Taylor, Duff et al from the German's and the Autumn Leaves operation. As we know, the PLFP cell in Neuss and elsewhere had been under surveillance for some time. Movements noted, phone lines tapped, photographed and eventually arrested and interviewed. Then released.

Interestingly though, aside from the obvious cross cooperation between the German's the Swede's (latterly apprehending Abu Talb), with the knowledge or the Maltese or not, they were also keeping close tabs on the Neuss group's associates on the island. Reports by the BKA noted that Talb had been present on the island 4 weeks before Pan 103 fell. Exactly one year after that, Talb is convicted of seperate terror acts in Sweden, and clothing from Malta - some reports say specifically from Mary's House - the date 21 Dec circled on his calendar are revealed, and Tony Gauci had also stated before ever indicating Megrahi that a picture shown to him of Talb had also "resembled" the purchaser.

Now clearly this point of "resembled" is often espoused as quite clearly not identifying Megrahi, and thus quite rightly, equally this can be applied to his identification of Talb. However, unlike Talb, no claims were ever raised that Megrahi had been involved or an accomplice to terror atrocities in the past. And unlike Talb, certainly not connected to the PLFP group tracked around Neuss and, albeit only briefly, detained by the BKA in October after being caught building bombs in Toshiba radios with barometric devices. Neither was Megrahi found with, or connected to, any other Maltese clothing purchased from Mary's house.

So, on this basis alone, despite the tenuous inference of the purchaser "resembles" any of the men, this circumstantial evidence certainly lends far greater weight towards Talb, and not Megrahi. Add to this the very fact that the UK and US investigators themselves were following a case against Talb and the PLFP initially would suggest that Megrahi's defence team were quite reasonably attempting to demonstrate that the evidence uncovered, and as circumstantial as it may be, supports a case against Talb rather than Megrahi.

Reports in 1989 suggested that such was the evidence uncovered that charges were at one point about to filed against the PFLP and Talb. This line of the investigation quietly disappeared into the abyss only to be announced in 1991 that it was actually Megrhai, Fhimah and Libya. However, in the case of Special Defence for Megrahi and Fhimah a number difficult and curious problems presented themselves for the defence lawyers in the proposition. The timer fragment presented, a digital timer as oppose to the barometric one as found in the possession of the PFLP, appeared to point towards Libya and therefore the two defendants.

Another contention for the defence was their application of Special Defence, by implication of the PFLP and Talb, which suggested that the bomb was introduced at Frankfurt, rather than Megrahi unaccompanied bag travelling by Air Malta. However, the defence team were prepared to assert that the luggage had been introduced at Heathrow, as one of the mysterious bags noted by John Bedford matching the description of the bomb bag and crucially it's location within container AVE4041. This ran contrary to the method presumed to have used by the PFLP group and it's insertion of the device at Frankfurt. Furthermore, during the trial Talb was actually called as a prosecution witness at Zeist to which followed this exchange,


"Lord Sutherland earlier ruled that the court did have power to take action if Talb committed contempt of court.

Defence lawyers claimed that Talb should be charged with contempt for refusing to answer questions on his military background and training.
Alastair Campbell, prosecuting, claimed the judges had no effective sanctions against Talb because he had to be returned to Sweden by 18 November.
Lord Sutherland told Talb:

"As a crown witness you have immunity from prosecution for the offence with which this court is concerned, namely the bombing of Pan Am 103."

"That being so, you are obliged to answer any questions which in the court's view are relevant to this inquiry."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1024619.stm


So, if this being the case, then one would have to assume any application for Special Defence, and incrimination of Talb by the Defence team, was well and truly scuppered. Subsequently, it was only towards the end of the case at Zeist when the argument was put before the court that strong evidence had been delivered showing the bag was most likely introduced at Heathrow and not Luqa, or notably Frankfurt, thus seeking a "not guilty" or "not proven" verdict from the judges without support from the initial Special Defence.

[Rolfe]

I don't know that that's entirely right. Apparently it has been stated that Talb does not in fact have immunity, and that was a misunderstanding. I think I need to read more of the transcripts to see how this worked.

Rolfe.

[Buncrana]

My head hurts.

An astoundingly complex conflation of serveral issues involving International Law, European Extradition and Legal Treaty's (European
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters) European Conventions, Swedish Law, Scottish Law and Dutch Law melt together with no clear and absolute agreement on Talb's status. His conviction in Sweden, and appearence at Zeist while serving sentence, the application made by the Crown office with regards to a specific treaty adhered to by Sweden and Scotland and the terms agreed under such prisoner provisions, appears to lead the Lordships to the conclusion that the Treaty (noted above) takes precedent:

Page2599 pdf Zeist

And Article 12, to which reference is made in 11, provides: A witness or expert, whatever his nationality, appearing on a summons before the judicial authorities of the requesting party, shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty in the territory of that party in respect of acts or convictions anterior to his departure from the territory of the requested party.


And the judges statement to Talb on concluding their discussions on these matters,


Page2610 pdf Zeist

[..] LORD SUTHERLAND: Have the witness back, please.

[Witness resumed]

LORD SUTHERLAND: Can you hear me, Mr. Talb?

THE WITNESS: Yes. [8449]

LORD SUTHERLAND: We should tell you that it is a matter for this court and not for you to decide what is relevant for the purposes of this trial.
As a Crown witness, you have immunity from prosecution for the offence with which this court is currently concerned; namely, the bombing of Pan Am 103. And that being so, you are obliged to answer any questions which in the court's view are relevant to this inquiry. We should tell you that you are not obliged to answer any questions, the answers to which might incriminate you in connection with any other offence with which you might be liable to
be charged.
Do you understand what we have said?

THE WITNESS: Yes.


There's more. Tomorrow.