Tuesday 17 November 2009

Fragments of truth

[This is the heading over an article in the current issue of the magazine Scottish Left Review by Mark Hirst, Parliamentary Adviser to Christine Grahame MSP. The full article can (and should) be read here. The following are excerpts.]

Earlier this year I met with the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history. Now back in Libya to await a verdict from a ‘higher court’, terminally ill Abdelbaset al Megrahi steadfastly maintains his innocence in the murder of 270 people over Lockerbie in December 1988. Many professionals involved in the case including US intelligence officers, legal experts and police investigators also share his view, in spite of the concerted propaganda efforts by vested interests in the Crown Office, FBI and US Justice and State Departments. Yet for reasons still to be fully explained by Megrahi, his Defence or the Scottish Government, in August this year he dropped his second appeal and a week later Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released him on compassionate grounds. That decision resulted in a hysterical reaction from representatives of some of the US relatives and somewhat half-hearted condemnatory slogans from the Obama led US Government.

Megrahi was not required to drop his appeal in order to qualify for compassionate release. He subsequently claimed in a newspaper interview after his return to Libya that no pressure was placed on him to do so. So why did he? When I, along with MSP Christine Grahame, met with him his focus had been very much on the detail of the case and the new evidence that would be led during his second appeal. But he made it clear that his priorities had changed since discovering he was terminally ill last year. His over-riding objective was to return to Libya and to see his family before he died. He understood fully why some, mostly UK victim’s relatives, were keen to see the appeal continue, but told us it would not take them any closer to the truth and who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of their relatives.

Megrahi literally was running out of time and was deeply concerned that he would, as he put it very directly, return to Libya in a wooden box in the hold of a cargo plane. I believe he was genuinely supportive of the need of relatives of victims to get to the ‘truth’, but those efforts were not going to bring him any closer to his family in Libya before he died. His faith in Scottish justice and the legal process he had been subjected to was understandably low. “If they have a brave judge who looks and says ‘good or bad’, ‘yes or no’, but I doubt that the chair of the judges, who chairs all the other judges in Scotland, will turn around and say that all the other judges [at the trial and the first appeal] before got it wrong.” Megrahi said, before adding, “They will want to show, to keep the integrity of the system, that they don’t care if they have to keep an innocent man in prison to do that.”

The integrity in the Scottish legal system, whether it deserves it or not, is right at the heart of this issue, because that is what is at stake if the complete truth behind this case emerges and that is why very prominent vested interests are even now working hard to close the case down. The latest spurious police investigation being just one example that will ensure no independent inquiry takes place any time soon. (…)

The message to Megrahi, whether made explicitly or not, appears to have persuaded him to drop his 18-year fight to clear his name. That view was confirmed when his defence counsel Maggie Scott QC addressed the High Court in August to confirm Megrahi was indeed dropping his appeal. Scott stated that her client believed that this action would “assist in the early determination of those applications”. Applications, plural. The link was made explicitly. Ultimately Megrahi was led to believe by vested interests in our own legal establishment that his only chance of returning home was by dropping his second appeal and to leave his family name forever associated with the bombing of Pan Am 103. That outcome is a scandal that will haunt the Scottish legal system in particular, for decades to come.

So was there a conspiracy? Perhaps, but there certainly has been a cover-up which is very much ongoing. A cover-up of the weakness of the evidence, the weakness of the criminal investigation and a cover-up of the shameful conclusions reached by three Scottish judges at the trial. (…)

Earlier this year Dutch filmmaker Gideon Levy completed an award-winning documentary, still to be shown in the UK, that proves that the then-Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of [Carmyllie] was unaware that the crucial fragment used to link Libya to the attack went to the United States FBI lab for examination. It now transpires it also went to West Germany, although despite recent Crown Office claims that movement was not explicitly made during the trial. Levy’s film includes interviews with the chief prosecutor in the case, Lord Fraser, the FBI’s Senior Investigating Officer Richard Marquise and Robert Baer who for 30 years worked in the Middle East Directorate of the CIA and was a senior US intelligence operative. What emerges during the course of Levy’s film is the staggering revelation that this crucial evidence was not properly secured by Scottish police and should never have gone to the US. The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be [overstated]. Marquise states that without the fragment, known as PT-35, there would have been no indictment, let along conviction of Megrahi.

Lord Fraser, who brought the original indictments against Megrahi is then asked if he was aware that PT-35 had ever been to the US. “Not to my knowledge... I would not have permitted this as it was important evidence that could have been lost in transit, or tampered with or lost,” He is then shown the interview with Marquise, who confirms the fragment did go to the US before the trial. Fraser responds; “Well this is all news to me”. Later in the film Levy challenges Marquise to clarify whether PT-35 was taken to the US without the knowledge of the Lord Advocate. Standing next to him is retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, the senior Scottish investigating officer in the case. Marquise initially seems confused over whether PT-35 was taken to Washington, contradicting his earlier on-camera interview, before Henderson interrupts and states categorically that the fragment was never in the US. “It was too important to be waved around”, Henderson states. “It was never in the US, it was never out of Scottish control. They [The FBI] came to the UK to see it, but it was never in the US.” After filming Marquise emailed Levy to “clarify” and confirm that PT-35 was indeed in the US and apologised for the earlier confusion. It is clear that if Marquise did not understand the significance of PT-35s foreign movements then Stuart Henderson clearly did.

What has not yet been made public, until now, is that Stuart Henderson states in his precognition statement that he gave to the Crown, ahead of Megrahi’s second appeal, that the fragment, PT-35 definitely did go the US. Henderson states that on the 22nd of June 1990 he travelled to the US with the fragment accompanied by Chief Inspector McLean, DI Williamson and Alan Feraday of RARDE, the forensic explosives laboratory in Kent. According to Henderson’s statement to the Crown they met with Metropolitan Field Officers of the FBI and Thomas Thurman, the FBI official who, it is claimed later ‘identified’ the origin of the fragment. Thurman has a degree in political science and has no relevant formal qualifications in electronics or any other scientific field.

I have also seen one of the crucial productions that was to be led during Megrahi’s second appeal which is the official log that accompanied PT-35 and is meant to record each movement of the evidence in order to protect the evidential chain. At each point it is signed for by the relevant police officer. This is an extremely important process and is meant to ensure the chain of evidence is not broken. There is no entry in this log recording that PT-35 ever went to the US, at any point. That has to cast serious doubts over its integrity in light of Henderson’s precognition statement and the confirmation from the FBI’s Dick Marquise that the fragment was in the US prior to the trial.

8 comments:

  1. Could Mr Hirst clarify who these US intelligence officials and police investigators are who "share his view"? (presumably Mr Megrahi's)

    Mr Hirst poses some disturbing questions about why Mr Megrahi dropped his appeal and then goes on to answer them. Mr Megrahi didn't think an appeal would get at "the truth" and he didn't want to die as a prisoner in Scotland. He dropped his Appeal in order to be considered for prisoner transfer.

    I wouldn't have been so insensitive as to describe the reaction of the US relatives as "hysterical". At least they are not hypocrites.

    He does raise (or consolidate) some good points concerning the handling of a key exhibit but the current Police review of evidence is simply looking to place a further layer on this evidential house of cards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question I have here is, is the objective simply to exonerate Megrahi, even on a technicality, or to discover the truth about what has been going on with the evidence?

    If the chain of custody of the timer fragment is insecure, then that might be a very convenient technicality to challenge the conviction, if only there were a plausible appeals process. Because without that timer fragment, the case gets quite shaky. (Shakier without the Gauci identification though, and I'd have thought that was easier to challenge plausibly.)

    However, given that on the face of it the photographic evidence seems to prove that the fragment as exhibited in court was the same item as that photographed by Dr Hayes on 12th May 1989, I'm not sure how details of the fragment's travels in the interim period advance the search for the truth.

    If it's the same thing, as it seems to be, then does it really matter if it went to Ulan Bator?

    I'd be far more interested in an investigation of the evidence for the date that original red-circle photograph was taken. Can it be proved to be 12th May?

    We wondersssss. Yesssss, we wondersssss.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MISSION LOCKERBIE,
    Excerpt of the crucial MST-13 timer study of MEBO:

    +++ Williamson said that Allen Feraday, the forensic examiner, hat sent a fax to Henderson in January 1990, about items he found blasted into a Slalom shirt. The most significant item was a fingernail size chip, green in color, with solder for a circuit on one side only. This chip became known as PT-35, the evidence designation placed on it by the Scots. He spoke of the efforts which led us to MEBO, one familiar to the Swiss.

    Cretton expressed his concerns and those of Bollier. The first was that the CIA had planted the chip in the wreckage found at Lockerbie. Henderson and I told him this thought had also crossed our minds. Neither of us believed the CIA or any government official would do such a thing, but we had discussed the possibility. Henderson was convinced of the veracity of PT-35, the way it had been found, logged in and the fact it had not been identified even by the forensic examiners until January 1990.
    (Text of ex FBI Task Force Chief Richard Marquise, from his logbook 'SCOTBOM')
    +++

    NOTABENE: For the MST-13 Fragment, the disignation of PT-35, starting on Jannuary 1990 ! The start date 12th May 1989, on Dr. Hayes and Feraday's EXAMINATION side no. 51, is a fraud !!!

    Minutes of excerpts from the court, Kamp van Zeist (2000):
    Witness, number, 261, Inspector Keith Harrower, sworn:
    +++
    Q-- In January of 1990, did you become aware of the existence of a piece of evidence which you were asked to make further inquiries into? A-- Yes, I did. Q-- And was that Label Number 353? We can perhaps just confirm that in a moment, Inspector Harrower. A-- Yes, that's correct. Q-- And along with Detective Inspector Williamson, did you then carry out some inquiries in relation to that fragment?
    A-- I did, sir, yes. Q-- What was the purpose of those inquiries? A-- To try and identify where the circuit board had come from. Q-- And did you make those inquiries in the printed circuit board industry? A-- I did, yes.

    Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New England Laminates Company? A-- Yes, sir. Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New
    England Laminates Company? A-- I did, yes. A-- It was at the end of the January 1990.
    Q-- Now, 353 is available, Inspector, now Can you confirm for me that that is the fragment of circuit board that we've been speaking about?
    A-- Yes, that's correct, sir. Yes. Q-- As a result of the advice given to you, did you go in February of 1990 to a company known as CIBA Geigy?
    +++
    continuation below

    ReplyDelete
  4. MEBO Comment, No. 1 :

    With purposeful intention was wrongly named the original MST-13 timer fragment with that label No.*353 !
    Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) confirmed at the court in Kamp van Zeist the following:
    +++ Q-- If we look at 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us?
    A-- (Feraday) That's a photograph of fragment PT-35 as recovered in the laboratory. Q-- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? A--That is correct. Yes sir. +++

    The photographs, label no. 334 and Ref. PP-8932, PI-995, of 12th January 1990, from the RARDE Labratory, shows likewise the MST-13 timer fragment in the original condition. (before forensic intervention)
    Importantly: At this time (end to of January, 1990), that had been divided original MST-13 fragment, with Siemens AG, in Germany, not yet into two parts !!!
    After the division of the fragment with Siemens on 27th April 1990, the larger part was marked
    with PT-35 (b) = label No. 353,
    and the smaller part was marked with DP-31 (a) = label No. 419.

    *With this deliberate mistake, Insp. Keith Harrower give his successor, Insp. Michael Langford Johnson, a possibility to create, a new MST-13 fragment 'Duplicate' and he start again with forensic investigations (repetitions) then with a Duplicate, by company Ferranti internationally computer and system Limited !
    The duplicate had same Disign, consisted however of a by machine manufactured " Thüring" MST-13 Circuit board, with 9 layers fibre glass, with green soldering stop lacquer on a side (front side) without
    marking " M" on it...

    The crucial MST-13 timer study of MEBO will shortly be published....

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  5. MISSION LOCKERBIE, continuation >>>
    the MST-13 Fragment (PT-35) Duplicate:

    Exerpt from the court protocol in Kamp van Zeist, sworn statement by Detective Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson, Strathclyde police, witness no. 118:

    +++ Q-- And in May of 1990, did you assist in a particular line inquiry along with Detective Inspector Williamson? A-- I did. Q-- Was that into manufacture of a small fragment of printed circuit board? A-- Yes, identified as (PT/35)---
    Q-- In May of 1990, along with Mr. Williamson, did you go to the premises of Ferranti at Oldham? A-- Yeah, Ferranti International Computers and System Limited. Q-- There did you meet a gentleman by name of Mr. Worrol? A-- By arrangement, that's correct.

    Q-- Could you have before you, please, Label Nummer 353 and Label Nummer 419. Now, is Label 353, Inspector, the fragment of the printed cirquit board refered to by as PT/35? A-- Yes. And it bears my signature on it as well. Q-- Thank you. Now, is label number 419apperently a sample moved from that fragment? A-- It is. And it bears my signature on the label again, sir.

    Q-- Thank you. When you spoke to Mr. Worrol on this occasion
    in May of 1990, did he require to do anything to any of the fragments that you took in order to assist you? A-- Yeah. He required to take the solder mask off one side of the laminate in order that he could carry out further examination.
    Q-- Now, of which item are you speaking? A-- 419 is your reference number. Q-- 419. That's the sample removed from the original fragment known as PT --
    A-- Correct, giving the number DP/31. Q--Thank you. And do we understand, then, that you are explaining to us that Mr. Worrol had to do something with this cross-section area?
    A-- Yes. Q-- And you said he did something in relation to the solder mask? A-- He removed it. Q-- How do you know? A-- I was there. +++

    That Insp. Long Ford Johnson starting forensic examinationafter 12th of May 1990, with another MST-13 fragment (duplicate), confirms the following testimony at the court in Kamp van Zeist; witness no. 581, Alan Worrol, of Ferranti computer system icompany in Oldam:

    +++ (Mr. Allan Worrol) Q--And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers? A--Yes. Q--And did they have with them items that they wanted you to examine?

    A-- An item, yes.

    Q-- Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board? A-- Yes, it was. Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label 353, and perhaps also Label 419. Do you recognise these items, Mr. Worrol? A-- Yes, I recognise 353. I presume that 419 is the piece that -- yes, the piece -- yes, I do.
    Q-- And was that smaller piece in 419 already removed when you saw the fragment? A-- No. No. It was removed subsequently.
    Q-- I see. In order to assist the police, did you carry out an examination of the fragment? A-- Yes. -----
    Q-- And what did you go on to do in order to assist the police? A-- We wanted to remove the fragment and examine it by microsection, look through a cross-section of a fragment of it containing cracks. Q-- And did you do that?
    A-- Well, I didn't -- I didn't remove the fragment. It was not -- it wasn't removed -- well, the police eventually came with a mounted microsection that had been removed from the fragment of the board.

    Q-- By somebody else? A-- Yes. Q-- Now, was the removed section that they brought to you what you now have in Label 419? A-- 419. I think it was a further fragment taken from that.
    Q-- How many times did the police come to see you, do you think, Mr. Worrol? A--I can't exactly remember, but at least on three occasions.
    Q--I see. And was the last occasion something in the region of a year, perhaps, after the previous one? +++

    MEBO say: None of this manipulated MST-13 timer fragments (PT-35) can be brought with Libya in connection.
    The complete crucial MST-13 timer study of MEBO will shortly be published on website: www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rolfe asks: "...I'd be far more interested in an investigation of the evidence for the date that original red-circle photograph was taken. Can it be proved to be 12th May?"

    I try to understand your point but so far I fail. Could you please explain, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. Adam:

    I hope that the first part of my timer study can be published up to Sunday, 22th November '09, on my web page. There you find all exact details. But first I can answering of your question:

    The photo, No. 334 and photo Ref. no. PP-8932, PI-995-red-circle,
    was photographed after 12th January 1990, in the RARDE Labratory and shows likewise the MST-13 timer fragment in the original condition, on this date not marked as PT-35.
    The notice on Dr. Hayes and Feraday's Examinations- page no. 51, on 12th of May 1989, is a fraud the date was put back...

    Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) confirmed at the court in Kamp van Zeist the following:

    +++ Q-- If we look at 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us? A-- (Feraday) That's a photograph of fragment PT-35 as recovered in the laboratory. Q-- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? A--That is correct. Yes sir. +++

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MISSION LOCKERBIE: Part. of the MST-13 Timer study

    Résumé: Nach der kriminellen Vorarbeit betreffender Zeugen in der Lockerbie-Affäre, missbrauchte die Anklage am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist, die Label No. 353, für die Verschleierung der wahren "Identität" des MST-13 Timer Fragments; nach folgender Reihe:

    1.> Das Label No. 353 wurde für zwei verschiedene MST-13 Fragment missbraucht, für das Original und für das Duplikat.

    2.> Die Label No. 353 wurde erstmals, nach dem 27. April 1990, (Siemens Besuch) einem Teilstück des original "braunen" MST-13 Timer Fragments (PT-35 (b) zugeteilt. Das Fragment war markiert mit dem Letter "M".

    3.> Zeuge No. 261, Inspector Keith Harrower, wurde am Gericht mit einem "Trick" falsch übezeugt, das mit Label No. 353 bezeichnete Teil, sei das komplette original MST-13 Fragment, welches Insp. Harrower, zwischen Januar bis April 1990, in 6 private Spezial Firmen brachte, um das MST-13 Fragment forensisch zu untersuchen...

    4.> Somit ist bewiesen, dass am Gericht vorsätzlich dem kompletten
    original MST-13 Fragment (erstmals fotografiert bei RARDE, im Januar 1990, Foto no.334) das falsche Label, No. 353 vom 27. April 1990 zugeteilt wurde!

    5.> Als Inspektor Keith Harrower, durch Inspektor Michael Langford-Johnson, ausgewechselt wurde, übergab man Langford-Johnson, am 12. Mai 1990, ein "grünes" Duplikat, MST-13 Fragment, ohne Markierung "M". Dieses Duplikat führte man am Gericht unter der gleichen falschen Label No. 353!

    Zeuge No. 118, Johnson-Langford, und Chief Insp. William Williamson, besuchten mit dem MST-13 Duplikat, No. 353, die Firma Ferranty International Computers and Systems Limited. Dort wurden zur Täuschung am MST-13 Duplikat, No.353, gleiche Untersuchungen gemacht, wie zuvor am original MST-13 Fragment!
    Der Angestellte Allan Worrol, erklärte am Gericht, dass er das zweite Teilstück No. 419 subsequently "removed" hatte!

    (siehe Zeugenaussagen, Zeuge, No. 581, Allan Worrol:

    +++ (Mr. Allan Worrol) Q--And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers? A--Yes. Q--And did they have with them items that they wanted you to examine?

    A-- An item, yes.

    Q-- Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board? A-- Yes, it was. Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label 353, and perhaps also Label 419. Do you recognise these items, Mr. Worrol? A-- Yes, I recognise 353. I presume that 419 is the piece that -- yes, the piece -- yes, I do.
    Q-- And was that smaller piece in 419 already removed when you saw the fragment? A-- No. No. It was removed subsequently.
    Q-- I see. In order to assist the police, did you carry out an examination of the fragment? A-- Yes. -----

    September of 1990- 2000:
    Nach Ende September 1990, wurde für weitere polizeilichen Einvernahmen und später (2000) am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist, eine neue zuätzliche manipulierte Beweis-Foto vorgelegt !
    Die Abbildung (PT-35'B) zeigte eine Zusammensetzung des MST-13 Fragments (Patchwork) bestehend aus dem grösseren grünen "Thüring" Duplikat-Teilstück PT-35(b) ohne Markierung "M" und dem kleineren braunen (Prototype) original Teilstück DP-31(a)...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete