[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The following are excerpts.]
[A] campaign initiated by the Lockerbie Justice Group ... challenges the Lord Advocate to openly demonstrate that Pan Am 103 could have been brought down by a semtex bomb, under controlled laboratory conditions.
The group state that fabric and circuit board fragments cannot survive a semtex explosion, and accordingly the entire Crown case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi falls. In 2007 Ulrich Lumpert of timer company MEBO released an affidavit stating he had manufactured the circuit board “evidence” relied upon by the Crown at the Zeist trial. Earlier this year a report by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer concluded that the Crown’s case was “scientifically implausible”.
“The Crown theory utterly depended upon Judges believing that this white-hot sphere with a temperature of 6,800F, travelling in all available directions at 20,000mph did not scorch, never mind totally annihilate, a printed circuit board and a fabric label, which it was able to wholly detach from the shirt. Our group finds this utterly incredible,” the group said.
“We, as members of the concerned Scottish public, invite the Crown to openly demonstrate their theory under controlled laboratory conditions. Either the circuit board survives with its legible ID and soft solder, or it is annihilated in a white-hot gas. In the event of PCB annihilation, we demand a proper and independent committee of inquiry into ‘What brought this plane down?’ Will you please publicly demonstrate your theory, ... Lord Advocate?”
The challenge has been backed by Dr Hans Koechler, who observed the trial [as a UN-appointed observer] and called for a full public inquiry afterwards.
“It is highly important to address this question to the Scottish prosecutor’s office and I shall add my name to such an initiative,” he said.
“It is equally important that an explosives expert with impeccable academic credentials, ideally a University professor from a European country, endorses this initiative or confirms the basic physical facts in writing. Under this condition I can join the initiative.”
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 destroy a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occurred in the hold as the Crown claimed
“As the explosion of one pound of Semtex H inside the luggage container does not generate a blast wave sufficiently powerful to fracture the skin of the fuselage, we have little choice but to conclude that the verdict appears scientifically very implausible,” they said.
The group’s initiative is bolstered by the new testimony of former Ferranti electrical engineer Aitken Brotherston, experienced in testing circuitry for use in military applications.
“Although no doubt there have been some advances in the construction of circuit boards the predominance of boards in current use are the same as those I tested. In most cases the boards would happily catch light with a flame source similar to that of a Swan Vesta (...)
“While we did not test them to the 3000 plus degrees C temperatures of a Semtex explosion bright spot, even as an apprentice electronics engineer with Ferranti, my experience at much lower temperatures would persuade me that nothing of the circuit boards would survive that environment.
“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.
“What it does demonstrate is the extent to which anyone promulgating that theory believes us out here in the real world to be completely stupid.”
Surely this test could be done privately, under controlled scientific conditions. I`m sure the Libyan government could be persuaded to fund it.
ReplyDeleteI still can`t believe that no test for residue was done on the timer fragment (if there was one)and the label.Could it be that a test was done and the results supressed?
> I still can`t believe that no test for residue was done on the timer fragment (if there was one)and the label.
ReplyDeleteI am met a "Don't be stupid!" when I tell people about this.
Imagine a presentation of a knife in the court, claimed to be used as a murder weapon. It is unthinkable, that such a knife would not have gone through all the tests in the book - fingerprints, DNA (victim's and accused's) and traces of blood.
> Could it be that a test was done and the results supressed?
That could be, but on the other hand - if the fragment was real it should have the traces, and it would be presented in court.
If it was not, it would not be sent for analysis, so most likely - and unbelievably - the fragment was never checked.
- - -
But in the end - lets say, that defense HAD asked, and prosecution had to say that it was not tested. I think it would not have had any impact. It is too plausible to believe that it is just THE timer fragment.
The prosecution would ask: Would the defense have any suggestions as of how such a fragment of a highly specialized device would end up at that place, and in that shape, if not being a part of the bomb?
That has merit too.
In court Mr. Hayes and Mr. Feraday admitted that there had been no test for explosives on the crucial electronic fragments. Of course the judges should therefore have rejected these fragments as evidence.
ReplyDeleteBut, as my old friend Niccolo Machiavelli comments: Why test a component for explosive residue when you know that there is not any?
“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"
ReplyDeleteEven less credible is the fact that parts of the Toshiba User`s Manual (presumably paper)survived the 3000 degree blast.I assume no test for explosives were done on these pieces either!
From the judges opinion...."The method adopted by the forensic scientists was to treat as a
ReplyDeletehigh probability that any explosion damaged clothing which contained fragments of
the radio cassette player, the instruction manual, and the brown fabric-lined cardboard
partition from within the suitcase to the exclusion of fragments of the outer shell, was
within the primary suitcase." Surely a much more accurate test would have been to test for traces of explosives on the articles.I must be missing something!
By the way, I see from the judges opinion that where tests for explosives were done (on the baggage containers,I think)no control was carried out.
"Some traces appeared to be found well away from the "explosion site" but these were explained away by the experts.The traces relating to 270.1 and 270.3
indicated the presence of PETN and RDX. These are chemicals used in the
manufacture of plastic explosives, including Semtex. In cross-examination it was
suggested to him that a report by Professor Caddy presented to Parliament in 1996 on
the possible contamination of a centrifuge used at RARDE vitiated his conclusions.
However, while that report did indeed suggest that a centrifuge was contaminated with RDX, it also made clear that certain examinations carried out in the period which
included December 1988 were not affected, and in the list of such examinations was
included the examination of the Lockerbie debris carried out by Dr Douse. It was
further suggested to him that the traces disclosed peaks which were consistent with
the presence of TNT, DNT and nitroglycerin, but for the detailed reasons which he
gave in his evidence he was entirely satisfied that the peaks in question related not to
these forms of explosive but to non-explosive co-extractives. We see no reason to
doubt the conclusion to which this very experienced expert came.Finally it was
submitted that inadequate precautions were taken at the laboratory by way of the use
of control swabs of clothing and equipment to prevent the risk of distorted results
because of contamination.There was however a description both by Dr Douse and Dr
Hayes of the precautions taken to prevent contamination, and we are satisfied that
these precautions were adequate to prevent any risk that Dr Douse’s tests were
vitiated by any contamination."
Grendal said...
ReplyDelete----
"The method adopted by the forensic scientists was to treat as a high probability...."
Surely a much more accurate test would have been to test for traces of explosives on the articles.I must be missing something
----
The problem is that some people believe that experts can answer everything. The belief comes from
1.- the fact that laymen can't evaluate their statements, and
2. - that some experts are willing to make far-going conclusions without basis, just like 'ordinary people'.
Nobody could ever tell if the Malta-clothing were in the suitcase with the bomb or another nearby suitcase.
It is a completely hopeless affair to have a bomb exploding in a container with size of explosive, placement of items and a composition you all know nothing about - and then later determine, with any accuracy, what items were where.
Doing _quantitative_ analysis for RDX and PETN to any point where it makes sense it far from possible.
To the question: "With what probability would you say that the mentioned items where in the suitcase with the bomb?" you could not even reach 20%.
Why? Because you'd never be able to tell the difference between the clothes in the suitcase with the bomb and the suitcases beside, on top or bottom. The suitcase-wall between the nearest suitcases disintegrates completely, instantly.
It is possible that the clothes in the suitcase would be non-existent af the explosion.
It is possible that the Toshiba recorder was in the suitcase next to the explosion.
The whole point is unscientific nonsense, one of real many in a trial loaded with far-going assumptions and wildly insufficient data and knowledge.
Science is all about making testable theories and test them.
Buy a suitcase, similar clothing, stuff a container with suitcases. Collect, report. That is the very start.
If you search for the word "experiment" in the trial transcripts on Dr. Robert's archived site you will find the word experiment twice, none of which has anything to do with gaining knowledge.
(forgot to request email follow-up to be mailed, now done)
ReplyDelete