Friday 24 April 2009

The Dutch TV documentary and reactions

[The Herald's report on the film shown last night in the Scottish Parliament can be read here. A letter from Dr Jim Swire in the same newspaper can be read here. The following are two accounts of the film from persons who attended the showing, and to whom I am extremely grateful.]

1. From Dr Swire

I saw the film last night in the Scottish Parliament. Lord Fraser, Stuart Henderson, Richard Marquise, Fred Whitehurst, Tom Thurman, Prof Hans Koechler and Robert Baer all made contributions in it.

The subject was the famous 'timer circuit board fragment', called PT35B in the court records.

There was evidence of widespread confusion over what was supposed to have been the way in which PT35B was handled, some claimed it had been to the USA others that it had not. The impression was that at least some of these were trying to contribute to a story the truth of which they did not want us to know.

Their stories could not all be true, for they differ widely.

'Oh what a complex web we weave when first we practice to deceive'

For me Robert Baer of the CIA was the most significant. His view was basically that of course it was a Iranian/Syrian job, but that even the USA (and therefore the UK) could not confront Iran militarily over it. That would, without question, have been to strangle the straits of Hormuz and therefore US oil supplies for a start. That sounds common sense to me.

The interviewer of these men was Gideon Levy himself [the film-maker], who showed great skill in extracting a maximum of information from them.

There was one criticism and that was that the film did show the famous picture of a tiny piece of circuit board on someone's finger tip. This is a picture of a shattered piece from a domestic cct board such as a tape recorder. It carried the codes of the former components printed in white on the fragment which appeared to have been of 'Paxolin' (mid brown) and bore no resemblance to a piece of fibre-glass board.

Use of this image will cause some confusion and allow the critics to get their knives in.

Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.

I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.

There is also said to be evidence that PT35B was never tested prior to the trial, for explosives residues, but that this has now been done and shown no trace of such residues.

Incredibly one contributor to the film claimed that the failure to do this was ' for reasons of economy'. Can you believe it? PT35B was only the most important forensic item in the entire 'evidence' armoury.

2. From an interested observer

Although the film obviously had the approval of all (or most?) of those present, my own feeling is that it required the audience to already know something – of course it did the usual intro.

Around 18:05, Christine Grahame (MSP) introduced one or two of the better known names. Then hands over to Gideon Levy who introduces his film – played, I think, from his laptop to a beamer (not the BMW variety). His preamble is simply to say we will see conflicting statement between CIA and Scottish authorities.

*Film starts

*Initially just various quotes for effect, giving cause to doubt the verdict. And then showing that he has been to a ceremony for the 20th anniversary at Arlington.

*In charge of the investigation were Marquise (FBI) and Stewart Henderson, Scottish Police.

*Interview with Hans Köchler and a review of his opinion; why one guilty verdict and one not guilty? Initial indictment based on conspiracy, so how could it change?

*Interview with Ian Ferguson [co-author of Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie] (who turns up at other times in film).

*Chopping of interviews with Bob Baer (ex CIA), Fred Whitehurst (FBI), and Marquise and Lord Fraser; he (Levy) required of all his interviewees a handshake on their saying that they’d tell him the truth. They all agreed (although one of them – possibly Marquise, can’t remember – did reserve the right not to answer a question).

*Fraser says his successors (4 or 5 of different parties) could have stopped the proceeding

*Marquise shown Bob Baer saying he had been a bomb maker for the CIA. He (BB) found it very unlikely that anyone would have a bomb transferred from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow and onwards.

*BB mentions PFLP-GC (on behalf of Iran) being responsible after the USS Vincennes/Iran Air

*Why was the agent Khreesat released back to Jordan by the German BKA; Fraser said K was double agent of PFLP and CIA; Marquise suggested double agent of PFLP and Jordan spying agency.

*Ferguson (on film) now says there was a change of focus in the investigation because the U.S. was somehow involved.

*A video is shown of Gaddafi (we have to rely on subtitles naturally) saying U.S. companies have had to pay to get back in to Libya – the same amount as Libya has paid out to relatives of victims.

*Marquise says no money paid to witnesses prior to the trial; does not answer regarding after the trial.

*Fraser says he gave instructions, there should be no money to be paid to witnesses; admits he was conscious of the effects if discovered afterwards.

*Tom Thurman explains his analysis of the circuit chip which he found – it is pointed out by Gideon Levy that T.T’s degree is in political science.

*Whitehurst says that Thurman altered his (W.’s) reports. W. also asks why the chip was given to the FBI when the Brits should have experts to look at it. (Fraser denies knowing chip was ever in USA). W. claims it is Thurman’s finger behind the chip fragment in the photo ‘going the rounds’ – later in film, TT seems to agree, or at least lets the comment of Levy go without any complaint. Marquise says it was brought to the U.S. – Fraser is seen raising his eyebrows!

*Ferguson asks why fragment not tested for explosive residue – talk of cost, but various people waffle (sorry can’t really explain what was going on here, except that people could not really believe cost was a factor).

*Fraser states that he was never satisfied with the investigation that went into the PFLP-GC – should have been pushed further to show that they were not involved.

*Thurman denies that he was thrown out of his job, he retired voluntarily; his opinion regarding the fragment was verified in England.

*Marquise acknowledges “People don’t trust government”

*Then Marquise at Arlington (in company of Henderson) says the fragment was never in the U.S., but the circuit board was in the U.S. (yes, I am confused – perhaps he was talking of an example of such a circuit board). Henderson confirms fragment never left the U.K. Henderson says loudly in walking away ‘culprit is in custody’.

*Film ends, but Levy now adds that he received a letter from Marquise after the shooting while the film was being completed to say that (effectively) to clarify the interview he had given, he agrees that the fragment did come to Washington but under the control of Faraday of the U.K.

After the film, the two MSPs Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald lead the ‘discussion’ – not much is actually discussed – mostly just points people want to draw attention to. Dr Swire speaks first on the film, and then to the question of the break-in at Heathrow the night before the crash. Asks why there were no restrictions on flights because of that breach of security. Also wanted to know why details of the break-in only became public knowledge (or at least available to defence) very late. Prof John Grant gives his opinion and is asked a couple of legal questions by one of the MSPs. Swire also asks Grant about the break-in and whether it can still be used in argument. Grant wants to know why Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have not published their reasons – says they do publish a couple of wishy-washy (my words) paragraphs, but no detail.

20 comments:

  1. The two reports of the showing are extremely helpful - however readers should be made aware of the following:

    1: The fragment(s) of circuit board NEVER in fact left the mainland of the United Kingdom, Mr. Thurman admitted on camera during a documentary that I assisted in making that he had NEVER actually had possession of the fragment but had been 'sent photographs' - when challenged about this he shrugged.
    2: Mr. Richard Marquise would appear to have an extremely selective memory in respect of the FBI and their 'leading role' in the investigation. Many oridnary Scottish Police Officers at the time expressed (in private) serious misgivings about the activities of both the FBI and 'mysterious unidentified Americans... who plagued the investigation from the very first night'. As for his averrment that no-one was paid...he really cannot be serious - if he would like I can arrange for him to be given a list!
    3: Stuart Henderson was indeed the senior investigating officer of the inquiry but not continuously and not during the first few years. Many feel that Stuart (who is a fantastic person) was extremely badly treated in the period up to his retiral.
    4: Mr. Ian Feguson is a journalist of long standing, however it has been alledged that since the commencement of the trial he was, defacto, working in conjunction with the Lybian Defence Team. This does leave him open to questions of 'partiality'.
    5: Dr. Frederick Whitehurst is a man of impeccable reputation and integrity who was responsible for whistle-blowing so effectively about Thurman and the FBI laboratory that an International Forensic Commission of Inquiry was convened and shortly thereafter Mr. Thurman 'stood down'. The Inquiry produced a damning report about the laboratory and its sheer lack of qualification and/or oversight. Whitehurst paid a high and heavy price for his honesty, a fact that almost everyone seems ignorant of.
    6: Robert Baer was a consumate field officer for the CIA for many years in the Middle East. Uniquely he gained respect both in Israel AND almost every other country in the region.
    What I find strangely disturbing is his apparent ignorance of the activities of some of his colleagues,in Germany, Switzerland, Malta, Senegal and even (in direct contrast to Federal law, within the Continental United Staes of Ameerica) One should remember that the first thing taught at CIA training is how to lie.... and to do so in an utterly convincing manner.
    7@ Khreesat WAS at the very least a double-possibly triple agent. He was interviewed by two highly respected international journalists while in protective custody outside Amman (Jordan) ONE FULL WEEK prior to the FBI being allowed to interview him. Both of the journalists concerned gave me a full briefing three years afterwards - one was generous enough to give me a copy of his notes....the fact that the Germans (BND) released Khreesat to Jordan was highly significant - Interpol had issued a Fiche rouge (Red File) requiring his IMMEDIATE DETENTION and transfer to Italian custody where he had been sentenced to life inprisonment (in his absence) for another bombing attack.

    IN conclusion - the relatives have always asked for two things - TRUTH and JUSTICE.
    Despite the Fatal Accident Inquiry, 12+ years of investigations, the Trial, the First Appeal, the Scottish Cases Revue Commssion and now the possibility of the repatriation of Megrahi terminating the second appeal - there has been precious little justice and even less truth.
    TOO MANY PEOPLE in the shadowy worlds of intelligence and geopolitics have far, far too much to hide and conceal.
    270 souls from 21 nations and 7 faiths have been sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In response to both Professor Black and Mr. Ben-Aryeah, I think a number of points need be clarified. First--the Scottish Police--not the FBI--led the investigation. I have always believed and recognized that and do not think I have ever said otherwise. I led the FBI aspects of the investigation and do agree that Mr. Henderson is one of the finest people I have ever met. It is because of his (and other Scottish police officers I have met through the years) credibility that I have faith in what they say they found at Lockerbie.
    The fragment known as PT-35 is a piece of circuit board which was never in the physical possession of the FBI. After Tom Thurman located a circuit board which would prove to match PT-35, Alan Feraday did in fact bring it to the United States in about late June 1990. So, Mr. Ben-Aryaeh's statement that it was never in the US is not true. While I have not seen Mr. Levy's film, I "assume" the confusion of my discussion of fragments and circuit boards is because I was speaking of two distinct things--the "fragment" being PT-35 which was never in the possession of the FBI or US authorities and the "circuit board" to which it was later linked which was found in the United States.
    I am amazed there is still discussion of "unidentified Americans" in any forum. This issue was raised at trial and as I recall--although many people heard about all these people, not one could ever articulate any information about any of them. As a result, I find it hard to believe there were any.
    I will state equivocally one more time, no witness in this case was ever promised or paid any money in return for their testimony. To offer someone money in exchange for pointing the finger at someone would be anathema to any of us in law enforcement This would have been against legal requirements in Scotland--the case was always investigated as if the trial would be held in a Scottish court and would have been contrary to the way we do business in the United States. Prosecutors on both sides of the Atlantic were well aware of the discussions we had regarding thsi issue in the months leading up to the indictment. I do not believe that any evidence was ever produced before or at trial that any witness was paid or promised money in return for their testimony.
    With respect to doing a forensic analysis of the PT-35 fragment, it must be remembered that it had been blasted into a piece of cloth found in the debris field. This cloth did have explosive residue on it and also contained a fragment of the manual for the radio in which the bomb was located. The fragment had been subjected to so many tests in an effort to identify it in 1989-90, any explosive residue may have been wiped away. However, I am not a forensic expert and leave that discussion to others more qualified to answer it.
    I agree with Mr. Ben-Aryeah that this case has always been about Truth and Justice--we would want nothing less. That is what we all sought to find. None of us are or were political people--we were cops tryjng to do our job--seek the truth and bring them to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In respect of Mr.Marquise's averments above...
    (1) could he comment of the simple fact that the US Government, through several of it's agencies advertised a reward of up to $4 MILLION for 'information leading to conviction of the perpetrators of the bombing'?
    (2) Reliable sources in the United States have reported that at least two separate and substantial payments have been paid out in respect of that offer.
    (3) Would Mr. Marquise care to comment on the simple fact that 'a star' witness at the trial Abdel Majid/Giacha not only was relocated to the continental United States after being interviewed by FBI agents on board an Anerican warship in the Mediterranean under the Federal Witness Protection Program and since 1989 has received support and funds in excess of $1 MILLION?
    4: Is Mr. Marquise aware of the simple fact that the officers charged with the actual physical custody of the evidence (including the fragments of circuit board) were and remain resolute that the fragments never left the mainland of the United Kingdom and that if Mr. Feraday did, in fact, remove them from the UK he did so in secret and without permission? (An act that would render him liable to charges of attempting to pervert justice or conspiracy.
    5: SERIOUS unanswered questions remain as to the nature and substance of both RARDE 'alleged scientists' at Zeist...NO MENTION was made either in Feraday's notes or his verbal evidence to his taking any fragment to the UNited States.
    6: I note that Mr. Marquise has no answer to the matter of James T. Thurman and the Inspector-General's Report into the malfeasance of the FBI Laboratories - I have a copy and it makes deeply disturbing reading.
    7: In respect of 'mysterious Americans' for the avoidance of doubt - at verious stages in the trial, with various witnesses, regarding a number of locations, there were several questions and answers regarding 'un-identified Americans. I respectfully suggest that Mr.Marquise read the transcripts of the trial - the record is correct and the references clear and unambiguous.
    8: As senior FBI officer on the case would Mr. Marquise care to comment on the fact that for ten years the US media (and others) were assured by senior figures at the Department of Justice and FBI Headquarters that 'we've got a supergrass and the guy is going to out the two Libyans away(sic in prison) for ever?
    Thanks to unredacted copies of CIA signals made available at the trial(Only after serious threat of the prosecution case collapsing) the 'super-grass' was shown to be extremely questionable and of dubious value, comments made by Their Lordships in their 82 page judgment document.
    9: Would Mr. Marquise care to comment on the simple fact that the said witness had been informed the night before he was firstly interviewed by FBI officers that the CIA (who had been paying him oney for a considerable time) had decided that he was worthless in terms of accurate information and intelligence: had informed him they were 'cutting him loose' and overnight he (Majid/Giacka) had a sudden remembrance of seeingMajid/ Giaka at Malta Airport the day before the bombing. (Despite this he actually had a meeting with his CIA handler days before the bombing but failed to give any information as to a pending attack!)
    10: Sorry Mr.Marquise - the TRUTH is out ther - it's in the offical trial transcript and other places if you know ehere to look - and, sir, given your background... you should know that!

    ReplyDelete
  4. FBI specially agent and Task Force chief Mr. Richard Marquise, thanks that you confirm, the Scottish is responsible in the fragments affair, PT35/b (MST-13 timer)...

    by ebol

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's fine, Mr Marquise. A few further questions for you:

    1. Can you please explain why Mr Thurman (graduate in political science) could not give evidence at Camp Zeist?

    2. His British counterpart, laboratory technician Alan Feraday, did give evidence at the trial about the timer fragment. Do you consider Mr Feraday to be a qualified forensic scientist?

    3. Former CIA counter terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro was scheduled to testify, but was not called: why? Vince falsely alleged that an al-Quaeda cell had entered the US from Canada to carry out the September 11 attacks, causing embarrassment to President Obama's National Security Adviser, Janet Napolitano (see http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/623559). Can you believe anything Mr Cannistraro says?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Further to Mr. Haseldine's excellent questions above - would Mr.Marquise care to comment on the simple and well-known fact (In US media circles) that the almost constant 'turf wars' between the CIA and FBI, that have raged for years and contributed to missed 'indicators of 9/11, were defacto at their height in 1988?

    In respect of Mr. Cannistraro, he WAS in the CIA but following revelations in Bob Woddward's book 'Veil' had to leave the agency.
    He was then assigned to National Security duties in the White House, sharing an office with Colonel Oliver North!
    In 1986 (Reported in the Washington Post) he was given oversight and approval of a plan to destabilise and overthrow the regime of Colonel Ghadaffi!
    He THEN turned up after the Lockerbie bombing as being LEAD Agent in the CIA's participation of the Lockerbie bombing!
    By the time of the trial, senior Crown officials had knowledge of the many varied and provable questions as to Cannistraro's activities during the investigations.
    During the trial the then Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC was placed in the utterly incredible position of 'assuring their Lordships' that ALL of the CIA signals regarding the 'super-grass' Majid/Giaka had been made fully avaiable to the defence - only to have to endure the utter humiliation of two further adjournments and then having to lay further signals before the court...I beleive Lord Bolyd to be an honourable man... his main failing was that he totally believed EVERYTHING that the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA told him... and was publicly embarassed for his trust!
    What puzzles me MORE than anything is the simple fact that Mr.Marquise appears to be ignorant ,or chooses so to be, of these facts and many more that I have investigated and substantiated. Whether truth or justice?

    ReplyDelete
  7. NOTE TO EDWIN BOLLIER:

    I urge caution in making judgements based on Mr. Marquise's comments.
    He did NOT adduce evidence at either the trial or appeal.
    The facts that can be even partially relied on in respect of fragment(s) of curcuit board to date, have been presented in evidence on oath and subject to cross-examination.
    Sadly at the trial the defence seemed to stumble through the evidence rfelating to the fragment(s) of circuit board(s), their provenance and exactly who found what and where (Not withstanding Mr. Marquise's earlier comments - as he was not present when any of them were, in fact found)

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a nice Round Table! Should have started much earlier.
    A tiny detail around the American Mystery Men at Lockerbie from day one: six hours after the catastrophy occurred the American ambassador to the UK landed in Scotland. He used a C-130. I don´t know why he chose a Hercules and not a smaller aircraft. And I don´t know who attended the flight.
    But had I been the ambassador I would have ordered my whole intelligence staff and more to go with me. Since the cooperation with the US had not been set up the American agents would stroll around in the first days without credentials oher than being “diplomats”. Which surely could irritate Scottish investigators.
    But I don´t see anything mysterious in it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The most deplorable in the Lockerbie case is that Mr. Megrahi literally spoken had no defence in court who would take up many essential and simple aspects such as explosive residue traces on the MST-fragment. So we all took it for granted that such a test had been untertaken.
    Now to tell us that it was due to costs is stupid stuff. And the question may be raised whether all other parts of the “bomb evidence” have been checked for explosive traces or if we just were “told” that they stem from the PanAm luggage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr Marquise states that the fragment of MST-13 timer (exhibit PT35/b) was blasted into a piece of cloth. This was the evidence of Dr Hayes, the version of events accepted by the Judges at Camp Zeist.

    However as described in David Leppard's "On the Trail of Terror" published in 1991 Alan Feraday also of RARDE claimed to have located the exhibit blasted into the suitcase of Carol Noonan!

    (I raised this issue in my modest contribution to the debate at part X of my blog The Masonic Verses, The Bombing ofUTA 772 in the section "the MST-13 timer" and "the revelations of Vincent Cannistraro" at http://e-zeecon.blogspot.com).

    I think Mr Ben Aryeah's made a small error in claiming Vincent Cannistraro shared an office with Oliver North. I suspect Mr Cannistraro was not the sort to share an office. North shared with Colonel Dick Childress NSC
    spokesman on South East Asia. (i.e.the "MIA issue".)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Baz -
    sorry to disagree with you - Cannistraro DID share an office with North, not for very long but I have heard of reports that Vincent actually confirmed this in an interview.
    In respect of fragment(s) of circuit board(s) - as I said at the first public showing of the Maltese Double Cross in Edinburgh, on Sunday 11th. December 1994 before an 'open' audience -'The origin of the fragment(s) of circuit board have a strange similarity to the 'magical bullet that killed President John F. Kennedy'. Depending on whom you choose to believe, the fagment(s) were found in SEVERAL locations by SEVERAL persons!
    Cannistraro gave support in the inital stages of the investigation that the bombing had been executed by the PFLP-GC through Frankfurt at the behest of the Iranian regime. (Ali Akbar Montashemi IV)
    Later on he (Cannistraro) claimed to have been the person who 'made the link' between Lockerbie and Libya - which was quite controversial considering that the 'legendary' James T Thurman had already gone on coast to coast television making the identical claim! (SMALL wonder that NEITHER of them were called to adduce evidence at Zeist!)
    Latterly he is reported as having reverted back to the belief that is WAS the PFLP-GC...since the confirmation of a seoond appeal he seems to have become (for him) strangely silent...
    Note to Adam: I have several filing cabinets full of reports ( some confirmed, some not) regarding 'mysterious Americans' who 'infected' the investigation since the first night. BY 2.00 am on the 22nd. December 1988, being in Lockerbie, I was aware that in excess of 150 US London personnel had flown North on a chartered media flight.
    By 06.00 a.m. DOZENS of Americans, many wearing FBI baseball hats and windbreakers were in the town.
    By as early as 2.00 am. an un-named FBI offcer walked into the Academy gymnasium and sat and watched as Inspector George Stibbs QPM was setting up what became within hours the control centre for the investigation.
    Then there is the case of the identification and un-authorised removal of one suitcase out of 850+ square miles of howling weather and darkness within hours of the bombing, AND the fact that 2 'mysterious Americans' then handed the EMPTY suitcase to a British Police Officer the next day indicating where he should ['replace it' for official retreaval.
    Tam Dalyell MP asked a clear and unambiguous question of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons - the response bore ABSOLUTELY no relation to the question and, to date, no-one has been charged with removal of evidence from the scene of a major crime!
    As with the many of the UK relatives I have never accepted the guilty verdict - reached on ENTIRELY circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships confirmed in their 82 page written judgement of their doubts about the 'evidence' of identification of Megraho but amazingly went on to declare that on the 'balance of proability' he had been identified.
    I defer to Professor Bob Black's many years of experience of Scots Law and am confident that he will confirm the PRIME requirement, especially in murder cases is that evidence proves 'beyond redasonable doubt' the guilt of the accused. This simply DID NOT happen at Zeist!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Two of the judges were made privy councillors one month before the trial: the other was already a member of the Privy Council. Alex Salmond was invited by Blair to become a councillor just after Blair had set up the Memorandum of Understanding on prisoner exchange. I have little doubt Salmond wll agree to Megrahi being sent back to Libya next week or very early into the trial. The Privy Council has been described as permanent unelected government. I suspect that there is a conspiracy emanating from the inner recesses of the Privy Council to hijack the appeal and deny the victims' families and the Libyans, who suffered dreadfully under sanctions, the right to know who carried out the bombing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The "unfathomable mystery" of the timer fragment MST-13 (PT-35B) is still covered up from the scottish Justice!

    Witness Dr. Hayes could not explain at the trial in Kamp van Zeist why he had already on the 12th of May 1989 registered the fragment PT35B in his notebook/report 181 and did define his own irregular notes "as an unfathomable mystery"!

    The photo illustration PI/995 together with the page no. 51 in Hayes’ "draft report" is a falsification and the date is rebooked, because on the 12th of May 1989 the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35B) did not yet exist. It was „discovered“ and photographed for the first time on the 12th of September 1989 by RARDE...

    Neither the Lord Advocate nor the Defence Team Duff & Taylor have questioned these mysterious statements of Dr. Hayes - a really gross negligence...

    A digital magnification of the picture (PI 995) in MEBO's possession proves doubtlessly that the photograped MST-13 timer fragment:
    did originate from a handmade brown non fuctioning MST-13 Timer printed circuit-board (PC-board prototyp). Clearly a scratched off letter "M" is still visible. It was "fabricated" out of an empty brown MST-13 timer PC-board/prototyp) from ex Engineer Lumpert.

    Ex Eng. Ulrich Lumpert wrote in his Affidavit:
    I confirm today on 18th July 2007 that I stole the third handmanufactured MST-13 Timer PC-Board consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on 22th June 1989 to a police person investigating in the "Lockerbie-case".

    The police officer handed it over to Mr Alan Ferady from RARDE. In July 1989 Mr. Allen Feraday/RARDE and FBI forensic agent Thomas Thurman (and others) conducted explosion-tests in the USA, using TNT and Semtex H, airfreight-containers, Toshiba radio-recorders type RT 8016/SF16-Bombeat and Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases (made in Denver, Colorado) filled with clothing, etc. (perhaps using the brown MST-13 PC-board from Lumpert) that were subjected to the explosion, with most such activities being photographically recorded:>>>

    1.) by FBI Polaroidphotos; (liable for: Thomas Thurman)

    2.) by photos from Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer.

    According to statement of ex Witness no. 355, Mr. Allen Feraday, (RARDE, Defense Research Agency Division at Fort Halstead) (sworn statemements): Q- I believe you were accompanied to these tests by Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer? A- that's correct sir. Yes. Q- Did he photograph the results of these tests? A- He did indeed, sir.Yes. Q- And do you know where these photographs are now, Mr. Feraday? A- well, they were certainly at Fort Halstead when I last saw them, and all the negatives are there. ----

    Notabene: For the Court and the Defence legal proceedings, all these photosgraphs (negatives) are still kept under security closure at Fort Halstead!

    In advance: It was an elaborated script with the help from scottish officials, to incriminate Libya with the bombing of Pan Am 103. Western intelligence services were involved into a conspiracy against Libya ...
    Similarities with the document "under national security" are purely "accidental"...
    more details on URL: www.lockerbie.ch

    Justice for Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Libya immediately !

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  14. Miscarriage of justice not only in six points!
    We are convinced of the fact that Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, by additional discharge of proofs, as not guiltily get back its freedom. Not by prisoner exchange!

    Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Libya are intitled to get their honour back by a clear decision of the appeal court due to start on the 28th of April 2009 !

    Mr. Megrahi said: "This is the real way to clear my name before I go back to my homeland Libya." Mr. Al-Megrahi has consistently maintained his innocence and has vowed to stay in Scotland and win his freedom through the appeal courts.
    MEBO has already disposed of all the needed exonerating evidence to the Defence Team and the High Court. 
    More details on: www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Telecommunication Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  15. Enigma Mystery Puzzle?!?!

    On July 1989 Mr. Allen Feraday/RARDE and FBI forensic agent Thomas Thurman (and others) conducted explosion-tests in the USA, using TNT and Semtex H, airfreight-containers, Toshiba radio-recorders type RT 8016/SF16-Bombeat and Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases (made in Denver, Colorado) filled with clothing, (inclusive of a blue babygrow and a T-shirts "Abanderado" brand from Malta) etc. (perhaps using the brown MST-13 PC-board from Lumpert) that were subjected to the explosion, with most such activities being photographically recorded:>>>

    1.) by FBI Polaroidphotos; (liable for: Thomas Thurman)

    2.) by photos from Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer.

    Notabene: For the Court and the Defence legal proceedings, all these photosgraphs (negatives) are still kept under security closure at Fort Halstead!

    To the memory:
    The mysterious premature visit of an unknown scottish official's to Malta in 1989.

    At the trial in Kamp van Zeist was revealed that an unknown scottish Officer was in July or August 1989, before Malta had granted international legal assistance to Britain in Malta. His investigations were in relation with the recovery of a babygrow which could be related back to the island of Malta.

    If the unknown officer had visited Anthony und Paul Gauci before is at the moment unknown. Anyway afterwards the officer visited the whole sale company "Big Ben" with a blue remnant. This company said to have delivered such blue babygrows (from the company PVC) to Mary's House on the 22th of September 1988. (Label 439, Invoice Prod. 488) Paul Gauci was Managing Director of "Big Ben" at that time !

    With great probability the unknown scottish officer had covertly contacted the Gauci brothers to prepare the ground for the Gauci brothers collaboration in the "Lockerbie affair, prior the also very questionable interrogation of Police Officer Henry Woods Bell between September 1 - 8, 1989 ".

    Excerpt from the book Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation by US Task Force and FBI Special Agent Richard A. Marquise :
    By late August 1989, RARDE had identified a number of "category one" items which they opined had been in or near the primary cause of the explosion. These items included the baby's romper suit, some Yorkie brand trousers, a cardigan sweater, a herringbone patterned sport jacker and a pajama top.
    Little information had been received from the intelligence community. While no one gave it much consideration at the time, no intelligence agency played an active role in this conference or the earlier one in Scotland.

    In none of the court protocols the name of the unknown officer is mentioned and he question remains open: Was this unknown officer an agent of an intelligence agency?
    Mystery dissolution: Was the unknown official, Mr. Allen Feraday???
    More information on URL: www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Zurich Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  16. GIven 'ebol''s repeated postings above, I feel it important that readers unfamiliar with his multiple postings since the site opened become aware of the following facts about his antecedents:

    1: Mr. Bollier was senior partner in the Swiss based firm of MEBO.
    2: Over many years it manufactured electronic components and timers to a variety of commercial customers including the Libya and the East German Intelligence services.
    3: It has been alleged that many of his manufactured prodcts have been detected in terrorist groups' possessions.
    4:It has been alleged that over the first 18 months of the investigation a THIRD arrest warrant was prepared for Mr. Bollier.
    5: It has been alleged that this arrest warrant was not 'served' on Bollier because of difficulties with the Swiss authorities and pressure from American Intelligence sources!
    6: Despite Mr.Bollier knowing for nearly 20 years that he would feature ;arge in the case he still appears to give the impression that his English has not improved over that period.
    7: Mr. Bollier admitted on oath at the trial to having been approached by a 'mysterious American' DAYS after the bombing after which, he (Bollier) maintained contact with a person whom he beleived to be a CIA officer.
    8: IN 2008 Mr.Bollier, on camera, in a television documentary confirmed that he had 'expectations' of up to $400 MILLION reward from Libya for 'his assistance' in obtaining Megrahi's release!
    He simply cannot be viewed as an impartial commentator or participant.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Mister David Ben-Aryeah

    I do not know if your attempts to discredit me as a key witness in the Lockerbie affair are politically motivated. At every opportunity you claim that Megrahi is innocent and you admit that the investigation of the MST-13 fragment was not properly carried out but concerning MEBO and me you make every effort to discredit my sincere and unchallengeable evidence about the key evidence. Or is jelaousy the hidden motif of your slanderous comment on me given the prospect that my work for the truth in the Lockerbie case may be rewarded by the Libyans after Megrahi's release?
    I want to clarify only point 8. All other points are pure defamation.

    You mention reward up to US$ 400 million reward I would receive from Libya for my assistance in Megrahi's release.
    I answered the question in the BBC movie The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" with "Yes".

    Many TV spectators may have wondered why I answered that question, usually people don't talk about money publicly.
    The reason is that one sequence of my interview was cut out and my statement was only partially quoted leading so to a wrong connotation.
    I was asked by BBC: "Will Libya pay you for your work in the Lockerbie case?"
    My answer was: "No, if we win the case and the compensation for the victims (US$ 2.7 billion) is refunded I will get a success honorary of US$ 200 million."

    Then BBC asked the next question: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?"

    What should I answer? Staying close to my first answer I said. "Yes."
    Better I should have insisted on my more precise first statement. But how could I know that my first statement was cut out later and my statement such distorted.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear David,
    I fully agree: The bottom line is that the verdicts against Mr. Megrahi had no evidential basis. The basis was rather a chain of assumptions which partly directly contradicted the facts mentioned in the reasons for the verdict.
    From this bottom line everybody may develop his own theory about what really happened.
    When it comes to the "mysterious americans" I only try to leave out a conspiracy theory where there could be "natural" explanations. And I find it quite natural that all American institutions went on alert since it was an American airplane with many American passengers. Even the mysterious suitcase would for the time being satisfy me if we assume that it was a top secret suitcase. National flight carriers are used by secret services to bring stuff of that kind home. Attended or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Mr.Bollier,

    I am NOT politically motivated, I AM interested in TRUTH and JUSTICE.
    I have been involved in this case with no likeliehood of financial reward since 20H10 hours on the 21st. December 1988.
    I have interviewed many people, as a legitimate journalist in Holland, Switzerland, Germany and other places about you long and profitable association with the Libyan Regime.(INcluding your activities in Rotterdam and Radio Ship Mebo II)
    I am grateful for your confirmation in respect of your 'expectations' of TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS...I'm sure that that possibility has been a major factors in your constantly developing theories that have NOT been tested in any court.
    You MUST have been advised before that, as a person who has been involved in the case, and who feels that you and your evidence has been mis-used - you can take independent legal action to seek a Judicial Review berfore a Scottish Court.
    This, of course, could involve you in considerable legal fees and also your physical presence in Scotland to adduce evidence (on oath) in support of your claims.
    On a point of information regarding the possibility of the relatives ever being required to repay the $10 MIllion per victim: having publicly accepted their liability to pay the funds: the US attorneys having deducted a THIRD of it in fees+ under various provisions of the UN supervised agreement in respect of paying it - there is NO liability on the relatives to repay a cent.
    There is one family that I am aware of who have NEVER accepted a cent of solatium payment and I stand in awe at their simple integrity.
    Lastly, given the sheer volume of televisions and media interview you have given over the past 18+ years, you MUST have realised as you spoke the possibility and dangers of selective editing - and yet you still revealed expectation of VAST wealth...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Doctor Swire's letter to the The Herald of the 27th April 2009 referred to the comment in Margaret Thatcher's 1993 book "The Downing Street Years" that "the raid on Tripoli was a far greater success than I could ever have imagined and put a stop to Libyan sponsored terrorism for years to come".

    At the time of publication I thought this claim, which appears to exonorate Libya for the Lockerbie bombing, was very significant and drew it to the attention of Tam Dalyell MP who raised the matter in a letter to The Independent.

    Unfortunately, the purpose of Mrs Thatcher's memoir was not to enlighten but to claim infallibility. At the time this claim was written Mrs Thatcher knew it was completely untrue.

    Mrs Thatcher may have had serious reservations about "Operation Grand Canyon" the driving force behind which were officials of the NSC such as Cannistraro and North who were running a parallel foreign policy to the State Department. That situation may have been reflected in the UK with Mrs Thatcher taking the advice of Charles Powell rather than the FCO.

    Whatever her misgivings Mrs Thatcher may have taken the view that it was essential to support the USA whatever the cost.

    There was a price to pay which was paid by the UK not the USA. Following the raid, which caused death and destruction to innocent people but was otherwise ineffectual, the Libyan regime substantially increased support for the PIRA shipping hundreds of tons of weapons and explosives and providing millions of dollars in funds up to the interdiction of the Eksund on the 1st November 1987 en route from Malta. (see Brendan O'Brien "The Long War, The IRA & Sinn Fein" at http://cain/ulst.ac.uk/issues/abstentionism/obrien99.htm or google my blog "Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War by Other Means.")

    The 1986 raid did not "put a stop to Libyan sponsored terrorism for years to come." On the contray the ineffectual raid made the situation far worse. It was the imposition of UN Sanctions in 1992 following the indictment of two Libyans for the Lockerbie bombing that "put a stop to Libyan sponsored terrorism for years to come".

    ReplyDelete