[This is the heading over an article, with illustrations, published yesterday on the Canada Free Press website by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer. It reads in part:]
Q Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
A Yes. But presumably our definitions of “contemporaneous” are different.
—Testimony of Dr Hayes at the Lockerbie trial, Page 2592.
The discovery of a tiny fragment of a Swiss timer played an essential role in the Lockerbie investigation. In fact, according to the FBI agent who led the US part of the investigation, an indictment would have been impossible without that piece of evidence.
We can now reveal with certainty that this piece of evidence was not discovered in May 1989 as officially stated but in fact surfaced in the fall of 1989.
According to the official line, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found, on 13 January 1989, a piece of charred material which was given the police number PI/995.
The original inscription on the label was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’. [illustration omitted]
Q Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered?
A I can see writing underneath it.
Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word ”debris,” we can make out, can we not, the word ”cloth,” with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of ”debris,” and a T under the R, and a H under the S?
A It’s possible, yes, sir.
Q It’s more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it?
Q Well, why didn’t you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A I didn’t notice it. It’s the first time it’s been brought to my attention.
The judges concluded that “There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing."
According to his examinations notes, Dr Hayes examined this item on May 12 1989 and, after dissection of the material described as part of the neckband of a grey shirt, he extracted a fragment of a green colored circuit board. [illustration omitted]
There is something very peculiar about PI/995. In his report, Dr Hayes presents photos 116 and 117 as pictures of PI/995 before and after its dissection that led to the discovery of the MEBO timer. [illustrations and some text omitted]
Therefore it is rather obvious that PI/995 could not have been dissected before October 10 1989. And the key piece of evidence that led the investigation towards Libya could not have surfaced before that date.
The US investigators (FBI) were told about it for the first time on January 10 1989. [RB: Dr De Braeckeleer asks me to say that this is a typo that appears in the original. The correct date is January 10, 1990.]
The consequence is inescapable and indisputable. The key piece of “evidence” surfaced between October 10 1989 and January 10 1990. For some reason, this finding was antedated to May 12 1989.
Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?