[This is the headline over an article on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Lord Advocate Elish Angioini has refused to engage with the semtex challenge backed by UN Special Observer Hans Kochler and Professor Robert Black QC, set by the Lockerbie Justice Group.
The group have tasked Angiolini to demonstrate that a fragment of circuit board can survive a semtex blast, as claimed by the Crown in the Lockerbie trial. The group say that this is not physically possible.
Despite repeated requests for a response, Angiolini has not acknowledged the group’s challenge, and refused to engage with the gauntlet that has been thrown down.
Angiolini has also refused to be interviewed by The Firm about the challenge.
The challenge itself coincides with the screening of dutch documentary "Lockerbie Revisited" at Holyrood tomorrow night, which focuses on the crucial piece of circuit board fragment alleged to have been found during the Lockerbie investigation. The film casts serious doubts over the credibility of this evidence. It has been nominated for best documentary at the [current] Netherlands ... Film Festival in Utrecht.
The challenge to the evidence has been emboldened by confirmation from semtex manufacturer Miroslav Štancl of Explosia a.s, who says the temperature at the point of explosion of “plastic explosives Semtex” is between 3,800 and 3,870° C, depending upon the type and composition.
Aitken Brotherston, who tested circuit boards as an engineer at Ferranti says that such boards will combust at temperatures equivalent to that produced by a Swan Vesta match, and “nothing would survive” within a semtex blast bright spot.
“The proposal that fragments of the board, of sufficient size to permit identification, packed with the bomb had survived a temperature environment of more than 3000 degree C in the explosion is to me just not credible,” he says.
In 2007, MEBO engineer Ulrich Lumpert submitted an affidavit stating that the circuit board fragment produced in court at Zeist was part of a non-operational demonstration circuit board that he himself had removed from the premises of MEBO and had handed over to an investigator on 22 June 1989, six months after the destruction of Pan Am 103.
“If this is true, then it totally demolishes the prosecution version of how the aircraft was destroyed, as well, of course, as demonstrating deliberate fabrication of evidence laid before the court,” Professor Black said at the time. (...)
Earlier this year a test conducted by Dr Ludwig De Braeckeleer and researchers at the Centre of Explosives Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico estimated that up to thirty pounds of explosive was needed to penetrate a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occurred in the hold as the Crown claimed. They concluded that the Crown’s case, which maintained only one pound of semtex destroyed Pan Am 103 was "scientifically implausible".
Does the Lockerbie Justice Group have an offical page, memberlist and similar? Who can join?
ReplyDeletethe dutch docu can be watched here...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/41867169/media/41892895/%20?#
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain- we have a twisted version of the "facts." Looking at the DeBraeckeleer "paper" it does not appear that any test was conducted with DeBraeckeleer and individuals in New Mexico as claimed by Prof Black's post. The post indicates tests had been recently conducted and a conclusion reached that it would have taken 30 pounds of explosives to penetrate the skin of the 747. I am no scientist but I can read the report which says that shortly after the bombing (21 years ago) a group of "bomb experts" in New Mexico concluded as the article stated. It did not say they conducted tests and Dr. DeBrakeleer did not (according to the report) conduct any tests either. His assumptions were a result of some indecipherable scientific calculation. I am not even sure that anyone conducted a test other than officials from the FBI lab, FAA RARDE which did in 1989 in Indian Head, MD and in fact determined that not only was it possible to penetrate the skin of the aircraft with less than one pound of Semtex, fragments of items located next to the explosive were recovered.
ReplyDeleteWe should not forget the "Study Report of Security Control and Bomb Threat to International Civil Aviation" from 16 October 1989, where the experts assessed that it took 10 pounds of Semtex to destroy Pan Am 103 since the cockpit and 1st class section was separated from the other parts of fuselage by the explosion.
ReplyDeleteMy old friend Niccolo Machiavelli comments: since Mr. Feraday´s Toshiba recorder is obviously too small for ten pounds of Semtex the authors of the mentioned report must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteNice to know that Mr. Marquise is still alive and around. May I kindly remind you that you forgot to answer a few questions i.a. concerning Mr. Giaka (Majeed)?
ReplyDeletePS: As far as I remember the mentioned report was made for/by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
ReplyDelete"His assumptions were a result of some indecipherable scientific calculation".
ReplyDeleteCome on Mr Marquise,if the Lockerbie judges had taken such a dismissive view of expert scientific evidence there would never have been a guilty verdict!
Its good that you are engaging with the posters on this site , however. Will you agree to answer specific questions?If the "evidence" undermining al Megraghi`s conviction is so flawed then who better to expose it than yourself.
Adam--you know how to contact me and Grendal-- I stated I am not a scientist--read the report and tell me (assuming you are a layman) if the report makes any sense--it would not--as written--make any sense to most people. My point was it appears that despite the statement that NO TEST was conducted at New Mexico with Dr. DeBraeckaleer in 2009.
ReplyDeleteOne last point--Megrahi's conviction will not be undermined. I am not aware of any evidence which would undermine the conviction of (unfortunately) the only man convicted in the Lockerbie attack. The judges heard it and judged Mr. megrahi to be guilty--beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I would imagine with that statement, we may well be on our way to some additional discussion.
Mr Marquise, because the contents of the report "would not....make any sense to most people" does not make it nonsense, as you seem to inply. By its very nature, scientific evidence is difficult for laypeople (and judges) to understand, which is why expert witnesses are called in trials to give evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf an expert in a particular field casts doubt on evidence given by other expert witnesses in that field,surely it should , at least, be taken seriously. I cannot believe that you disagree with that general point.
Given all that, it is not uncommon for "experts" to disagree in criminal cases. Surely the best solution would be to carry out "field tests" to examine the various claims here.It seems to me that all the questions surrounding the explosion itself could be answered quite easily.
Mr Marquise, I`ve just read deBraeckaleer`s report and I concede that it is incomprehensible to this layman. However, you will have noted that he addresses the FAA RARDE report specifically and questions its calculations and conclusions.
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing to write a scientific report and have the ability to explain it. However, it is another to actually carry out the test. This was done by FBI, FAA and RARDE--they physically blew up a DC-10 with one pound of semtex secreted in a radio, contained in a luggage container and suitcase and they got similiar results to the explosion which happened aboard PA 103. They may have used scientific jargon but the results obtained in the field are far superior to some scientific formula. I am not trying to be argumentative but did you see one word in the report which would cause you to ignore the results of the test?
ReplyDeleteMr Marquise,
ReplyDeleteI'd be most grateful if you could provide further details of the test in which a DC-10 was destroyed by one pound of semtex. Where and when did it take place? Is an account of the test available online or can one be made available? Many thanks.
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeletePlease stay on the fundamental exonerating proof, the MST-13 timer fragment, with police no. PT-35B and the letter "M" on it. It was concoct from a not functional MST-13 circuit board (Prototype) and is not from a timer, delivered to Libya! see photos and read the Affidavit of Eng. U. Lumpert, on our website: http://www.lockerbie.ch
Important: Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the Lockerbie Affair: Ex forensic scientist Dr Thomas Hayes (RARDE) UK, Ex forensic expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) UK and three known persons of the Scottish police are responsible for manipulating evidence in the Lockerbie Affair and are still protected by the Scottish Justice ! (They are not involved in the PanAm 103 bombing, but responsible for the conspiracy against Libya).
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland
Dear Mr. Marquise,
ReplyDeleteright, testing comes before formulas. Modern science is all about watching first, then explaining. As this may seem natural today, as we know it was not always so.
- - -
Can you then, as a genuine researcher, not agree that we need to see a testing of whether an explosion of half a kilo of Semtex could leave a fragment of a timer circuit board?
You know that serious allegations have been raised against this piece of absolutely fundamental piece of evidence.
The facts seems to be -
* 1. - that while so many other things were chemically tested for rests of explosives, the timer fragment was not, before the trial. Afterwards a test done on the fragment concluded that the timer fragment was never in the seat of a Semtex explosion.
* 2. - that Thomas Thurman's "lab agents produced inaccurate and scientifically flawed testimony in major cases" (Justice Department inspector General) and that other central witnesses were involved in court cases where convictions were later overturned.
* 3. - that a Scottish police officer to SCCRC has delivered a signed document saying that he knew about a planting of the fragment.
* 4. - that Ulrich Lumpert has delivered a sworn testimony that he delivered a timer-sample to an official after the disaster, and that a fragment of this timer-sample is what we see in court.
* 5. - that E Bollier says he had been shown another fragment earlier, and that the "latest version" was altered since then.
* 6. - that contradicting statements have been made, whether the timer fragment was in USA or not, raising doubt about why it would have been.
To me (1) is beyond comprehension, like prosecution producing a gun as a murder weapon, without having tested if it was ever fired. Not exactly "the smoking gun", right? After the conviction, the gun is tested not to have been fired.
Either you must proof that the tests were unreliable, or how could you ever maintain a belief in the guilt of the convicted?
(2-3) is most disturbing. (4-6) definitely have weight too.
There is in fact little, if anything at all, to counter any of those points, except "trust us, we do our work well and we are honest".
Mr. Marquise, that is of course not good enough to satisfy anyone with an open mind and less-than-blind trust, and would not be supported by history either.
- - -
Then, there's this point (7)
* 7. No fragment of the timer could have survived an explosion right next to a pound of Semtex.
When I was 14 I played with KNO3, sugar and ignition by a circuit board with small pieces of "konstantan"-thread soldered. A cable and a battery - and you had something looking like a volcano, tempratures would be around 1500 centigrades. There were never a trace of the circuit board left. Then again, that is not comparable to Semtex in a suitcase.
I'd much prefer to think that justice already had been served, but it is an uphill battle. I'd really like to know that a timer fragment could have survived. Please help!
Hmm, was all that text in the little "Leave your comment box" ? Will make posts shorter in the future.
ReplyDeleteWhile military aircraft-bomb tests in the desert of Sheba, from two remote controlled 150 kg military bomb one of this had exploded not 150 m over ground, but at the ground. The military soldiers collected after the explosion all fragments in the periphery of approx. 100 m. Unbelievably but truth, a MST-13 timer and a command receiver, was without large damages but of course defective! The Circuit boards was not split into individual fragments!!
ReplyDeleteby Edwin Bollier
Supplementing:
ReplyDeleteThe military aircraft-bomb which filled with approx. 50 kg of explosives Semtex and the comand receiver and the MST-13 timer was directly with the explosives!
by Edwin Bollier
If I may contribute to this futile debate the FAA's attempt to develop a 747 to withstand the blast of a "Lockerbie" size device featured in series 3 of National Geographic's Air Crash Investigation (broadcast on Channel 4 in 2002.) The plane (parked on a runway) used in the experiment was a Boeing 747 not a DC-10.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking to camera Walter Korsgaard of the FAA opined that "The Maid of the Seas" may have survived the blast if the IED was not so close to the skin. In the official version of events (or if the IED was introduced at Frankfurt) the position of the IED was fortuitous.
Incidentally I'm not surprised the Lord Advocate failed to respond to the "Semtex challenge". It was a preposterous stunt almost as lame as the petition to Mr Treki at the UN.
1. - that while so many other things were chemically tested for rests of explosives, the timer fragment was not, before the trial. Afterwards a test done on the fragment concluded that the timer fragment was never in the seat of a Semtex explosion.
ReplyDeleteR-- the fragment was contained "within" an item which did have explosive residue. I honestly do not do if such a test was done on the fragment but do know it had been subjected to much scrutiny in the UK before the FBI ever saw it.
* 2. - that Thomas Thurman's "lab agents produced inaccurate and scientifically flawed testimony in major cases" (Justice Department inspector General) and that other central witnesses were involved in court cases where convictions were later overturned.
R-- It was not Tom Thurman's lab. Whatever the IG said about the lab did not apply in this case-- the fragment was identified by looking at a photo and then the comparison made by both Feraday and Thurman with the actual fragment-- confirmed by MEBO.
* 3. - that a Scottish police officer to SCCRC has delivered a signed document saying that he knew about a planting of the fragment.
R--turns out this testimony which was not accepted by the SCCRC was given by a low level (not chief as has been claimed) officer having no real knowledge of the inner workings of the investigation.
* 4. - that Ulrich Lumpert has delivered a sworn testimony that he delivered a timer-sample to an official after the disaster, and that a fragment of this timer-sample is what we see in court.
R-- This cannot possibly be true because he says he turned the timer over in 1989 when we never even identified MEBO until over a year later.
* 5. - that E Bollier says he had been shown another fragment earlier, and that the "latest version" was altered since then.
R-- I do not think Mr. Bollier ever saw the real fragment--just pictures--at any rate from his current post he wants to show how "strong" his timers were as they survived an explosion and fall from a plane. His words--not mine.
* 6. - that contradicting statements have been made, whether the timer fragment was in USA or not, raising doubt about why it would have been.
R--no contradictory statement. If you will see the entire information in the Levy "documentary" he notes that I promised him I would not lie, did not and confirmed in an email, that the fragment had indeed come to the US. It did to confirm what the FBI had found-- a match--something police in the UK had been unable to do in six months. That is why it is important to work together and share information.
I apologize for the lengthy reply.
Sorry to be a nuisance, but (as posted by Prof. Black):
ReplyDeleteMr Marquise,
I'd be most grateful if you could provide further details of the test in which a DC-10 was destroyed by one pound of semtex. Where and when did it take place? Is an account of the test available online or can one be made available? Many thanks.
MISSION LOCKERBIE: Mr. Marquise
ReplyDeleteWhy you know that I could never see the original whole MST-13 timer- fragment, police No. PT-35, with the in-scratched letter "M" ? That makes you very suspect and supports my determined proofs!
Das orginal Fragment Prod. PT-35 wurde aus forensischen Gründen in zwei Teile zersägt: der grössere Teil mit dem eingekratzten "M" wurde als PT-35(b) bezeichnet und wurde mir nur auf einer Photo gezeigt. Das abgesägte original Teil von PT-35, wurde als DP-31(a) bezeichnet und ich konnte es im orginal Zustand begutachten.
Question: Mr. Marquise, where is the original part of PT-35 (b) with in-scratched letter "M" ? (see proof photo at trial Kamp van Zeist).
Ich habe nie behauptet das abgebildete PT-35 Fragment, im original gesehen zu haben! Ich habe das Fragment nur auf der vergrösserten Photo von Experte Allen Feraday (RARDE). Diese Photo wurde von Feraday laut Trial, am 10.September 1989 gemacht (see das manipulierte Polizei Label DP137) !
Wie war es dann möglich, dass Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) bereits am 12. Mai, 1989 in seinem Rapport 181, auf der nachträglich zugefügten Seite No.51 das fragment als PT-35 erfasste und mit Foto Ref. PP-8932, PI-995 belegte?!
Mir wurden bei meinem Besuch bei Procurator Mirian Watson, ab 13. September 1999 in Dumfries, folgende original Teilstücke vom MST-13 Timer gezeigt, welche angeblich in Lockerbie gefunden wurden:
1 Teilstück Farbe grün, gefälschtes (Duplikat) Prod. PT-35(b) ohne eingekratzten Buchstabe "M"! Das zweite Teilstück PT-35(b) auf einer Photo!
1 Teilstück, Farbe braun, original Teilstück von PT-35, Prod. DP-31(a) !
Das zweite Teilstück PT-35(b) mit Letter "M", nur auf einer Photo von Allen Feraday (RARDE) gesehen!
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland
In an e-mail to me, for which I express my thanks, Richard Marquise says the following about the test on the DC-10:
ReplyDelete"This test was conducted in the United States in 1989 and in the presence of FBI, FAA and RARDE. I am not certain if any report is publically available. I was not present at the tests but know the information regarding its results were shared with Scottish police authorities and (I assume) with prosecutors. I do not recall if a “report” was written or who would have written it. My concern with the wording of the post on your blog was that the impression was left that Dr. DeBraeckaleer had done a test with scientists in New Mexico sometime in 2009 when (from my reading of his report) it appears that did not happen. He used some scientific equation to “prove” the results which we say caused the plane to disintegrate could not have happened."
Dear Mr. Marquise, everybody here understands that you want to defend your own work as FBI Special Agent in this case.
ReplyDeleteBut therefore I do not understand why you try to evade various essential issues.
Fx this Semtex issue.
Certainly you must know that such experiments could not take place in the USA without extensive documentation. And certainly you (as a high ranking FBI officer) must know where this documentation is stored. There is no reason at all not to declassify that documentation. It be that the results don´t fit the theory against Mr. Megrahi.
As long as the report concerning the semtex tests is not available I would rely on the report from the world aviation organization (ICAO) from october 1989. There it is assessed that it needed ten pounds of Semtex to destroy PA 103. The authors of this report surely gained their knowledge from the US investigators.
ReplyDeleteMISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteNB: This is only a Babylon computer translation, german/english:
Mr. Marquise,
why you know that I could never see the original whole MST-13 timer- fragment, police No. PT-35, with the in-scratched letter "M" on it ? That makes you very suspect and supports my determined proofs!
Question: Mr. Marquise, where is the original part of PT-35 (b) with in-scratched letter "M" ? (see the FBI proof photo at trial Kamp van Zeist).
Now the missing facts about evidence linking the bomb to Libya is clear !
After the published controversial documentary film "Lockerbie Revisited" from Gideon Lewy and the statement of ex FBI specially agent and task Force chief Richard Marquise, suggests the MEBO MST-13 fragment (PT-35) left the UK and was examined in USA.
A comment on Professor Robert Black bloc 'The Lockerbie Case'; Marquise say:,"I do not think Mr. Bollier ever saw the real fragment--just pictures"!
A part material of the MST-13 fragment PT-35 (b) with the "M" on it, brown colored is still missing and could be today stay at FBI!
Why:
The real material MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) with the "M" on it was concoct from a non functional MST-13 prototype circuit board, and was on the 27th of April 1990, by officer Harrower, for forensic investigation, by Siemens company in Germany. After the visit by Siemens, Allen Feraday (RARDE) brought the two sawed material fragments PT-35(b) and DP-31(a) to the FBI expert Tom Thurman, in Washington. From this time, the real fragment PT-35(b) with the "M" on it, is MISSING !
From 12th May 1990 the brown colored fragment PT-35(b) was re-placed with a green colored duplicate, without the "M" on it, and was used for conect Libya in the Lockerbie-tragedy ! Now only a FBI photo with the pictures of the real PT-35(b) exist !!!
By the way, in the film "Lockerbie Revisited", confirmed Task Foce chief of UK , Stuart Henderson: " the MST-13 timer fragment never left UK"! Also a Lie!!!
Please see evidences + pictures on our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
Jeez, how do you lot keep all this stuff in your heads??????
ReplyDeleteWhen I first commented above it was because I felt that the amount of Semtex used was relevant because it would relate to the condition of the timer circuit board fragment.If there really was a field test carried out by the investigators,then there must be detailed results.Where are they? Can it be true that some sort of confidentiality order has been slapped on them? I am inclined to agree with Mr Marquise that such a test,properly conducted, would have been better than any mathematical calculation.
Presumably,arguments around how much explosive would be required to bring down Pan Am 103 would be more difficult to solve and would involve many imponderables.Would a small puncture hole, at over 30,000 ft, caused by the blast,mean that the aircraft would tear apart in the way it did or would a larger blast be required to cause this damage? I know that there was an attempt to analyse this at the trial but I find it hard to believe that the amount of explosive could be deduced by working backwards from the nature of the damage to the aircraft.
By the way,were there really tests done on the scraps of clothing (alledgedly) surrounding the timer fragment? It occurs to me that these scraps alone,even without the MEBO link, would have led the investigators to Mary`s House and thus make the Libyan conection, if traces of explosives were found on them.
That anybody, experimentally, would blow up a plane and an extensive report not being made is just impossible (though I start having my doubts about how our great investigative services works). Whether the reports would be released is of course another matter - but if not, you can not refer to it with any weight.
ReplyDeleteWe can definitely exclude that the hole in the plane would be enough to cause the disaster, as planes sometimes do develop holes, all by themselves, then landing safely. Try to google for "hole in plane" - two recent examples, one is: "A hole the size of a small car in the underside of a Qantas jumbo jet carrying 346 passengers over the South China Sea"(!)
- - -
The clothes-link alone is very weak, as it is impossible to determine whether the clothes were in the suitcase with the bomb, or a nearby one - especially if tests are not made, and even if.
- - -
Mathematical models should be used with greatest care. They only work under a number of presumptions, that frequently do not apply to the real world.
But Mr. Marquise assures us, or seems to assure us, that clothing traced back to Mary`s House in Malta was found near Lockerbie and tested positive for explosives.While it is by no means "proof", it would suggest that, if these clothing fragments weren`t planted in the Border`s countryside, they must have been close to the bomb when it exploded. As it appears that all the luggage was finally accounted for(was it?) and presumably none was as badly damaged or heavily polluted with explosive residue as the "Maltese" case and contents , then it is surely a fair assumption that they were in the same case as the bomb.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "badly damaged" I, of course, know that the bomb suitcase was blown apart and that only fragments were found.I assume that traces of explosives were found only on the "inside" surfaces of these fragments. Am I correct in my assumption?
On a different tack,but what the hell as our American cousins would say,if I am a Libyan terrorist in Malta who wants to blow up a transatlantic jet, would I go to a local shop where I am known by the owner to buy clothing from a small,very traceable,manufacturer to put in the bomb case? Are there no shops in Malta which sell Nike or Adidas? Don`t they sell scissors which can cut labels off clothing?
ReplyDeleteGiven that the bomb bag has to go through two international airports with all their attendant security and there is a significant chance my case will come under scrutiny, would I use a Toshiba radio bomb, knowing that a number of these Toshiba bombs had been found recently amid great international publicity?
If I am also a senior Libyan Security Officer, I would be aware of the tip offs that a bomb was due to explode on a transatlantic flight over the Christmas period and that , therefore, my bomb might well be intercepted. Surely I would use my country`s considerable financial and other resources to cover my tracks.