The police “review” of the Lockerbie case appears to be little more than a sop to head off demands for a full public inquiry.
Any meaningful reinvestigation would involve another force being brought in to carry out the review – not an officer involved in the original investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103. It would also surely include a thorough review of the evidence upon which the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) decided that Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice… But this is not to be.
Another new key area of concern is the forensic evidence underpinning the entire case: notably a small fragment of a circuit board for a bomb timer found in and among fragments of a man’s shirt recovered from the site. The shirt and other clothing recovered were said to have been traced back to Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who said he had sold them to a man who resembled Megrahi.
The prosecution has always claimed that these tiny fragments were identified by Dr Thomas Hayes at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (Rarde) on 12 May 1989. There was concern at the time of the trial that the label on this crucial piece of evidence had been altered. Further, the pages in Hayes’ notes relating to this evidence had been curiously renumbered. Eye readers may recall that the work of Hayes and other Rarde scientists has subsequently been criticised in a series of high-profile miscarriage-of-justice cases involving IRA terrorism – in particular the inquiry by Sir John May into the wrongful conviction of the Maguire family, where scientific notebooks were found to have been altered.
Lawyers for Megrahi have now uncovered a similar pattern of inconsistencies, alterations, discrepancies and undisclosed material that again calls into question the integrity of the Rarde scientists. It comes from new scientific tests as well as a meticulous examination of evidence that was not disclosed or available at the time. Here are some examples …
* Photographs and evidence suggest that the circuit board and debris from the shirt had not been discovered until January 1990 – seven months later than Rarde claimed.
* Further evidence that scientific notes had been altered.
* Details of simulated explosions carried out in the US in July 1989 were not revealed, but debris from those blasts [was] taken both to Rarde and to Lockerbie for comparison.
* Exhibit labels were being written and attached by police more than a year after the debris was found.
* One man who was asked to put his name to the discovery of pieces of the charred shirt says he does not recall recovering the material. He also says the cloth shown to him by police was not the same grey colour as that identified in court as the shirt bought by Megrahi.
* Evidence to suggest the charred “bomb” shirt was in fact a child’s shirt.
* A wealth of conflicting evidence surrounding the discovery of charred pieces of a Babygro – also said to have been packed in the bomb suitcase and sold to Megrahi. One Babygro collected by investigators for comparison purposes was not accounted for.
The SCCRC which had some but not all of this material, rejected suggestions that the evidence had been deliberately fabricated. But it fell short of conducting its own forensic tests.
If this is a cock-up or incompetence, it is on such a scale that it recalls the verdict of Sir John May in the Maguire inquiry that the scientific basis on which the prosecution was founded should not be relied upon. Taken with Gauci’s highly dubious identification evidence …, the case for a public inquiry remains overwhelming.
[The above is the text of an article that appears on page 28 of the current edition (1249) of Private Eye. It does not feature on the magazine's website.]
It would be nice to know the sources for these assertions.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the author is alleging, or at least suggesting, that the entire shebang contained in that evidence bag was fabricated, probably using material generated during the test detonations carried out in the USA in the summer of 1989. However, as I've said before, the existence of the red-circle photo would seem to argue against that hypothesis.
New viewers may start here.
Thomas Hayes's notes dated 12th May 1989 describe his examination of the contents of the bag in question. In the course of that examination he teased out a five-sheet-thick fragment of compacted paper (from the Toshiba manual) also found within the shirt collar.
The red-circle photo of the contents of the bag shows the timer fragment quite clearly - indeed, so clearly that it's possible to identify it as the same item as was exhibited at the trial in 2000. It also shows the fragment of paper - still compacted. Thus, unless it has been falsified, that picture was taken on (or before) 12th May 1989. And it shows the timer fragment.
The photo is not a polaroid, and thus should have a negative, which should establish the provenance of the photo to the date in question.
Or not, as the case may be.
Has anybody checked this out? Does the negative show up in a roll of film shot at the right time? This is absolutely crucial to the entire case, and I'd dearly love to know the answer.
My main sticking point on this issue is my doubt as to whether a group of law enforcement who were up to no good around Christmas 1989 would dare try to introduce this picture into the evidence trail retrospectively, with all the problems of negative provenance. The picture was circulated to the press, I believe - are we really to believe nobody noticed the negative wasn't from the date it was supposed to have been taken?
Nevertheless, this article seems to be suggesting they have exactly that sort of evidence.
Photographs and evidence suggest that the circuit board and debris from the shirt had not been discovered until January 1990 – seven months later than Rarde claimed.
Is this for real? Do they know something we don't? Or is this just Chinese Whispers and speculation?
MISSION LOCKERBIE,
ReplyDeletebravo Private Eye, their report goes into the truth and correct direction.
A sea full of lies! Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill it is time, please wake up !!!
A convincing study on the fraud of the PT-35 (MST-13 timer fragment) for the last "non-believers".
The confrontation between the regular chronology (1989 to 2000) of the MST-13 timer circuit Board (prototype), supposedly discovered in Lockerbie, and the fake and manipulated chronology (1989 to 2000) of the PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board, from the expert Tom Thurman (FBI), United States, Thomas Heyes, and Allen Feraday, both from (RARDE) UK and from some person from Scottish Police, is in work in process and will shortly be published.
Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the Lockerbie Affair 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).
Notices the words from ex FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise for those it applies: If someone manipulated evidence, if somebody didn't invesitgate something that should have been investigated, if somebody twisted it to fit up up Megrahi, or Fimah or Libya, then that person will go to jail. I mean that sincerely, that person should be prosecuted for that!
will shortly be published....
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
Rolfe summed up my impressions pretty well. It reads kind of exciting, but I'm not holding my breath. The sticking word is "new" and I'd like to see this information in more detail.
ReplyDeleteRolfe said: "...Thomas Hayes's notes dated 12th May 1989 describe his examination of the contents of the bag in question. In the course of that examination he teased out a five-sheet-thick fragment of compacted paper (from the Toshiba manual) also found within the shirt collar...."
ReplyDeleteAgain a timeline can help us:
2 February 1989: According to Mr. Feraday Toshiba UK confirms that the radio circuit board fragment is from a Toshiba RT-2016.
23 April 1989: Toshiba Japan confirms that the RT-2016 circuit board was used in seven different radio models manufactured in three different countries.
Toshiba delivers specimen of the radio (surely including manuals).
Then(!)
12 May 1989 Mr. Hayes discovers (or "discovers") the manual fragment.
Adam says:
ReplyDelete"12 May 1989 Mr. Hayes discovers (or "discovers") the manual fragment."
Too true. Months after ID-ing the radio, and still takes time only to sketch the lettering on these, in hopes of - ID-ing the radio? How about focus on new stuff? Nah, too busy playing that down with the ol' didn't even realize schtick.
I liked the bit about the "conflicting evidence about the charred remains of a Babygro" so much I nearly bought a copy!
ReplyDeleteMy favourite hoax "The Maltese Double Cross" created "evidence" Khalid Jafaar travelled to Sweden to meet Abu Talb. This was the eye witness account of "Mr Goldberg" a person who does not appear to even exist. Following their meeting Jafaar phoned his sister to impart the news that Abu Talb had given him (a nineteen year old bachelor) a blue Babygro! ("daft sod gave me some kiddie's romper suit" he probably said.)
I note recent further revelations in Private Eye concerning Khalid Jafaar are based on the supposed revelations of relatives of some dead terrorist!
John Ashton was credited as researcher on the "Maltese Double Cross" and is happy to be described as Francovich's "Deputy" and therefore is not really credible.
Adam said....
ReplyDeleteAgain a timeline can help us:
2 February 1989: According to Mr. Feraday Toshiba UK confirms that the radio circuit board fragment is from a Toshiba RT-2016.
23 April 1989: Toshiba Japan confirms that the RT-2016 circuit board was used in seven different radio models manufactured in three different countries.
Toshiba delivers specimen of the radio (surely including manuals).
Then(!)
12 May 1989 Mr. Hayes discovers (or "discovers") the manual fragment.
The Toshiba circuit board was common to seven different models of radio, as you say. They decided it was a RT-SF 16 because of the owner's manual found. However, there is a slight disconnect here. According to one of the documentaries, a woman in Northumberland found the manual more or less intact. She was interviewed, saying that while she found an intact manual, what she was shown at the trial was charred and damaged. There was some discussion about whether destructive forensic testing was necessary or permissible in this context.
That would seem to have been the piece of the manual that allowed the identification. I would doubt that it was ever found intact, but the finder seemed to be saying there was enough for her to recognise what it was. And yet in the court judgement the recovery of fragments embedded in cloth seems to be given as the identifying material.
Why would Hayes be so struck by the paper fragments if a bigger piece of manual had already been found? Possibly, the larger piece could have been random litter, but finding some of the manual inside a blast-damaged piece of cloth proved provenance?
OK, fair enough, but it still doesn't explain why he ignored the "fragment of green circuit board" he found at the same time.
If the evidence in that bad was fabricated before May 1989, what motivation are we assuming for this? It's awfully early in the timeline to be planting evidence to incriminate Libya.
A first and short answer: Already in February 1989 Mr. Feraday tells his superiors that he knows exactly the type of radio:
ReplyDelete"I have compared some fragments
of electronic circuit board recovered at Lockerbie
(Longtown) and marked as item AG/145 with various
radio/cassette tape recorders. I am completely
satisfied that these fragments originate from a Toshiba
brand radio stereo cassette recorder types RT-8016 or
RT-8026. These fragments are shattered in a manner
consistent with their intimate involvement in a violent
explosion, and I therefore conclude that the bomb was
concealed in the aforementioned Toshiba type portable
radio/cassette player.
"The Toshiba RT-8016 and RT-8026 are
visually similar and differ only in that the 8026 has a
3 band graphics equaliser on its front panel. Both
sets measure 16 and a half inches by 5 and a half
inches by 4 inches. The set used in the bomb possessed
a white plastics case. Photograph of RT-8016 enclosed."
From the Camp Zeist trial, 15 June 2000.
This is surprising under various angles. The (almost) only thing he had to conclude on was the 3x4 milimeter fragment from a circuit board that had no special features to identify it as part of a Toshiba radio. It could also have been from any other radio. Had he proved that? As far as I know, not really.
This of course is Mr Feraday, HNC-30-years-ago.
ReplyDeleteIf he had the front page of the manual almost intact, as it would appear he had, then he wouldn't have needed to do too much comparing or examining to draw an obvious inference.
The Mrs. Horton aspect is confusing. As far as I understood Mrs. Horton did not tell the court that the papers she found were from a Toshiba. She only said it was from a cassette recorder or the like. And nor did police inspector Walton who collected the intact manual. In the end the defense team maintained that it was a manual from a Toshiba. But I cannot find it in the evidence. Maybe you can help me there.
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised if there were several cassette recorders on the plane, for personal use or as present - it was a Christmas flight.
I would also assume that if Mrs. Horton really found an almost undamaged manual - even of a Toshiba - it would not have interested the Feradays and Hayes that much. Their interest was in the burned pieces (one may say: the real ones and the fabricated ones).
And yet, what she found is alleged to have been part of the "bomb" Toshiba's manual, as far as I can see. Her complaint was that the item she was shown at the trial was severely damaged compared to what she remembered finding.
ReplyDeleteIf what she found was of no consequence, why get her to court to identify her find?
Also, not much of the luggage was severely damaged. Most of the suitcases fell to earth intact and any damage they suffered happened when they hit the ground. Electronics manuals, which would have been inside boxes which were themselves inside suitcases, wouldn't necessarily have been flying all over the landscape.
Oh, fabrication.
ReplyDeleteIf the fabrication happened during August 1989, which is what seems mostly to be alleged, do you have evidence that the red-circle picture which shows the timer fragment as identifiably the same item as was produced in court, wasn't taken on 12th May?
Rolfe said: "...If what she found was of no consequence, why get her to court to identify her find?"
ReplyDeleteI think it was some sort of "forward defense" by the prosecution. They assumed that the defense would call her - so they did it themselves in order to say: there is nothing here.