Sunday, 3 July 2011

Was Lockerbie Key Evidence Antedated?

[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?
A Yes.

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?


  1. Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?

    The FBI's expert in fabricating evidence, Tom Thurman, knows the answer to that question.

    Please see Lockerbie: CIA 'fitted up' Gaddafi at the United Nations.

  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, doc. nr.1455.rtf: More and more comes to light ...

    Why another date 10th September 1990, on the Label "DP 137" backdated by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, into 15th September 1990 ?

    In early September 1990, members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team, together with officers of the British Security Service, were making arrangements to travel to Switzerland.
    Their intention was to meet members of the Swiss police and intelligence service.
    The purpose of the meeting was to take forward a line of inquiry suggesting that the company MEBO might have been the manufacturers of the MST 13 timing device.

    Such a device had already been identified as forming part of the improvised explosive device responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103.
    Prior to the departure of these officers, a request was made by the CIA to the British Security Service to deter or delay" -- I'll read that again -- "to deter or delay the members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making the visit.

    This request was refused, and the visit proceeded as planned on Thursday 13th September 1990. Separately, officers of the CIA met with the Swiss police (BUPO) and intelligence service on Wednesday 12th 1990, the day before the visit made by the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team and the British Security Service."

    The "Scotts" wanted "BUPO" to inaugurate about the latest "scam" to inaugurate:
    The change of the first black carbonize (ex colour brown) original MST-13 timer fragment PT-35 (nr.353) into a "green" fragment duplicate (also as PT-35, nr.353) !

    The original carbonize MST-13 Fragment (PT-35) was "baked" by Allen Feraday, between October 1989 and the beginning of January 1990 and came from a board prototype MST-13 circuit. Such brown circuit boards were not delivered to Libya!

    The Swiss Lockerbie Investigation Team "BUPO" in Bern, was presented by the "Scotts", among other material, Polaroid photos, etc., which have to do in context with MST-13 timer and the Pan Am 103 "bombing" ...

    Inspector Williamson's problem was that he needed a "green" fragment of MST-13 circuit board to etangle Libya with the PanAm crash. The first manipulated (original) MST-13 timer fragment examined forensically on April 27th 1990 at the Siemens company (laboratory photo number "ZPL TW11"); was a black charred equal MST-13 circuit board, however, formerly brown coloured and marked with a in scratched letter "M "!

    For obvious reasons a false similar memorandum was backdated to 15/09/89 and replaced with the real Memorandum (10/9/90) of Feraday...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD. Switzerland. URL:

  3. ERROR, Sorry:
    The date 10th September 1990, on the Label "DP 137" from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, was backdated into 15th September 1989

    Edwin Bollier

  4. It is excellent news that Dr Ludwig is back on the case and this piece is up to his usual high standard.

  5. de Braeckeleer doesn't mention the memo from Feraday to Williamson dated 15th September 1989. I tend to think the fragment must have existed in the chain of evidence then, or why would Feraday have written the memo saying he was sending photos? Surely there was a big risk of Williamson denying he got that memo on that date?

    For sure, that photo numbered 117 was taken during the examination detailed on the new page 51 of Hayes's notes. I'd dearly love to know the date of the negative of that photo. If there is a negative, of course.

    I agree the position of Hayes's signature on that label suggests he was the first person to sign it.

  6. Edwin asked: Why another date 10th September 1990, on the Label "DP 137" backdated by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, into 15th September 1989?

    French investigative journalist, Pierre Péan, supplied the answer: "In Summer 1990, following the outbreak of the Gulf crisis and the decision by Syria and Iran to join the anti-Iraq coalition, the CIA, FBI and Bruguière decided to abandon those Iranian and Palestinian leads and concentrate on Libyan responsibility instead.

    "Thurman's approach is anything but scientific. He manufactures opinions or hears them on the grapevine, and then tries to 'prove' them scientifically. Working alongside his CIA colleagues on the Lockerbie and UTA bombings, Thurman was well aware that the CIA suspected Libyan involvement in both cases, despite the evidence pointing to the PFLP-GC. It is striking to note the similarity of the 'scientific' evidence discovered by the FBI in both the Lockerbie and UTA cases. Of the tens of thousands of pieces of debris collected at each disaster site, one single piece of printed circuit board was found and, miracle of miracles, in each case the fragment bore markings that allowed for positive identification: Mebo in the Lockerbie case and 'TY' in the case of the UTA DC-10.

    "The Mebo timer fragment, which was alleged to incriminate Libya for the Lockerbie explosion, was accepted as genuine by two British forensic officials Alan Feraday and Dr Thomas Hayes.

    "But French experts in the DCPJ/DST and the Prefecture of Police Crime Lab were unambiguous in stating that the 'TY' timer link with Libya had not been established.

    "Nonetheless, Bruguière chose to believe the FBI's expert in fabricating evidence, Tom Thurman," commented Pierre Péan.

    "Libya having thus been incriminated by the CIA and FBI for the two bombings, President Bush Sr persuaded the UN to adopt Security Council Resolution 731 on 21 January 1992 which expressed its concern over the results of investigations into the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and UTA Flight 772 over Niger, and which implicated officials from the Government of Libya.

  7. I posted on JREF about this.

    I'm trying to figure out de Braeckeleer's logic, and while I think he's highlighted a fascinating wrinkle I don't think it's as "inescapable and indisputable" as he claims.

    He shows a photograph (116) of four separate pieces of the infamous Slalom shirt, including the small piece of collar (only 4 inches long) which yielded the timer fragment and all the rest. The four pieces have separate ID numbers. The photo is said (by Hayes, in court) to show the collar section before it was investigated to yield the timer fragment, the scraps of manual and the rest, but in fact that isn't necessarily so. The item doesn't look significantly different from its appearance in the second photo (117), which is obviously post-dissection.

    The dates on which the four pieces were dealt with in Hayes's notes are given. The small collar piece we know to be 12th May, on the mysterious "new" page 51. Two other pieces were examined on 22nd May, ten days later. Whether or not that is still within the scope of the renumbered pages is not stated but could probably be ascertained. The fourth piece, which is the section including the pocket which was featured in the Aljazeera documentary (alleging that the exhibit was a boy's shirt, while Tony described selling an adult man's shirt to the mysterious customer in his later statements), was not examined until 10th October.

    I'm not following the logic that concludes that the dissection of the collar section must therefore not have taken place until after 10th October. As the photos are undated they are of no help. Picture 116 could have been taken early, before any of the four pieces were investigated, and for some reason Hayes just didn't get round to looking at the pocket piece until at least five months later. Alternatively picture 116 could have been taken later, after all four pieces had been examined and it was realised they related to the same garment. Hayes could simply be mistaken in believing that 116 shows the collar before the debris was extracted from it.

    So I don't think the evidence inescapably proves what de Braeckeleer concludes. I also think that Feraday's memo of 15th September is fairly good evidence the timer fragment was present in the chain of evidence by that date.

    The anomaly, really, is the very late examination of the pocket section of the shirt. I can't see any reason for that, if Hayes had all four pieces assembled on or before 12th May. It's possible that the pocket section simply didn't surface until October, and the composite photo was retrospective, but there's evidence against that in Crawford's book. There he describes going to Kent in August to examine ALL the pieces of blast-damaged clothing, and specifically describes the pocket section with the label (although he mis-remembers it as "ALAMO" rather than "SLALOM").

    I suspect there may be an indication of shenanigans with that shirt in all this, but I don't think it's simple, and I don't think it's what de Braeckeleer claims.

  8. 1. Tom Thurman fabricated the timer fragment evidence which incriminated Libya for the bombing of both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.

    2. End of story!

  9. That's a completely stupid thing to say. Even leaving aside the wild assertions about UTA772, and concentrating on PA103, it is by no means "end of story".

    Beginning of story, possibly. What about "John Orkin"? I'm going to be hard to convince that he didn't have a hand in the fabrication. And where did they get the original PCB from to make the fragment? And how did it get into the chain of evidence? How much did Hayes and Feraday know? Were they the only ones?

    Oh, very much NOT "end of story".

  10. I do see a number of strange issues around Hayes' notes, dates and references to the other blast damaged items.

    The later page no.112, dated 10/10/1989, which is with reference to PP8932 which encompasses all those blast damaged pieces, and begins with the remnants of a "brassiere", and then goes on to describe the examination of PK1978, a partial remains of a shirt "breast pocket".

    At the bottom of this page, Hayes concludes by his examination notes by relating this examination to the other items of 'debris' included in PP8932. Specifically he notes this items direct association with "PI/995, PK/339, PK1973."

    There is also a footnote below this with reference to "see pg.153".

    I note that in the all of the above references there is no reference to item PT2 (scraps of Toshiba Manual), apparently examined, noted and illustrated on the 12th May on page 51. Nor does the note of 10th October make or describe any relevance to what now would also be known as PT35 (PT35(b) that of the piece of timer fragment) and the fragments that had been extracted from PI/995 five months before he sat down and examined the shirt pocket and added the references to what was also part of PP8932.

    Of course PT35, and PT2, which were apparently examined and noted on the 12th May, and despite their crucial importance, if not by this point in the investigation as Hayes' and Feraday didn't make anything of it until September, neither are referred to in any way in the later examination conducted on the 10th October in relation to the other items given the reference PP8932.

    So, the question is why would Hayes not make any reference to PT2 in this later examination of October when he does refer his noting to the other items of PP8932, and even more curiously, if he had sent a memo to DI Williamson about PT35(b) a month before in September, why again is there no reference to this crucial discovery amid PP8932 whatsoever on his notes of 10th October?!

  11. Eddie, there's a thread over at JREF on this, just waiting for insighful analysis....

  12. 1. Tom Thurman fabricated the timer fragment evidence which incriminated Libya for the bombing of both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.

    2. Please see Fabricated Evidence of Libyan Terrorism.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. An interesting article with intelligent contributions from EBOL, Rolfe & Eddie whose comments are similar to my own findings.

    I too cannot agree with my friend Ludwig's conclusions. It aooears that the "new page 51" (not necessarily the first "new page 51") was created by the retired Dr Hayes no earlier than June 1990. (See page 209 of Leppard which refers to "part of a timing device manufactured by a Swiss Company.") If he was following the trial Leppard must have known Hayes was giving perjured evidence.

    As I pointed out in the section "MST13 timers" at part X of The Masonic Verses at http/ Feraday discovered a fragment of timer in the shell of Karen Noonan's suitcase of the 18th June 1989 and it may be to this (designated PT30) that the memo of the 15th September refers (a memo I haven't seen).

    As far as I can see page 112 of the 10/10/89 represents the genuine examination of PP9832 which disclosed little of significance. As Eddie points out the "new page 51" records two significant finds including the miraculous recovery of "a multilayered fragment of white paper bearing writing in various languages". It seems what was actually found were "blackened fragments." Eddie omits to note that the supposed examination of the 12th May 1989 failed to note the Slalom label.

    When was the MST13 fragment discovered? Manifestly it wasn't it was planted with the manual fragment. (I see no evidence of misconduct by the officers who discovered the exhibit or any real significance in overwriting the label PT995).

    As I earlier pointed out in relation to the Indian Head tests of 18th April 1989 "even the circuit boards he (Allen Feraday) used had white plastic bars, similar to those which were believed to be on the circuit boards of the actual bomb".

    A Crown Office statement refuting Dr Wyatt's experiments referred to the recovery of "fragments of instruction manuals" in the Indian Head tests.

    TYhe Crown Office have asked the filth to look into Andy Coulson's testimony at the Tommy Sheridan trial. Relative trivia.

  15. Honestly, Baz, how can you have looked at the Lockerbie case for this long and not seen that bloody memo? How can you pontificate without examining the actual evidence? Have you been taking lessons from Charles?

    And why would Hayes mention the Slalom label on the 12th May page when there is no Slalom label on the collar part he's dealing with in that examination?

    What I want to know is how come Crawford went to Kent in August 1989 to examine and photograph and document ALL the blast-damaged clothing, and he specifically describes seeing the piece of shirt with the Slalom label on that occasion. But somehow Hayes doesn't record examining the same piece until the following October?

  16. A copy of the Hayes and Feraday report ( ie Production 181 ) would sure be handy.

    As would a date for the picture of all the bits of scorched shirt, taken before PI 995 had all it's interesting bits tweezed out, which was apparently 12th May, 1989. I guess Hayes just bags up all the other bits again to do some other time.
    I mean, what a haul from the collar: bits of manual that match up with the miraculous find of PK 689 and a bit of circuit board with what looks like the numeral 1 on it.

    Get a date for those photos. I'm sure they would prove conclusive one way or another.

  17. attn. al aplage:

    MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, doc. nr.3012.rtf.(google translation, german/english):

    Forget the Slalom shirt ! The EXAMINATION's report 181, by Dr.Hayes & Feraday, is a sea full of lies ...
    The fact is:

    22nd June 1989:
    1 MST-13 timer circuit board color "brown", Prototype, from 8 layers of fiberglass, was stolen on 22nd June 1989 by MEBO Ltd. and then passed an unauthorized manner to scottish officials at (RARDE);

    10th October 1989 to 10th January 1990:
    During that time, from the "brown" coloured MST-13 Circuit board, a black carbonize fragment, was fabricated, as (PT/35) and then allegedly been found in a slalom T-shirt section... ???

    27th April, 1990:
    The fragment (PT/35) was allegedly taken for forensic examination to Siemens AG. There was the original fragment sawed into two pieces. The larger part was labeled as "PT/35(b)" and the small fragment as "DP/31(a).

    30th May 1990 to 10th September 1990:
    The larger original (black carbonize) fragment "PT/35(b)" has been replaced by a DUPLICATE "green" coloured, from 9 layers of fiberglass and with the same name as "PT/35(b)" is highlighted.
    See announcement on memorandum with label "DP'137". The original small fragment, under "DP/31(a)", with 8 layers of fiberglass, together with the DUPLICATE
    "PT/35(b)" photographed as patchwork and again as (PT/35) have been marked !

    12th June 2000:
    The photograph with the (PT/35) Patchwork fragment was at the court in Kamp van Zeist as official piece of evidence assessmented ...
    Why the complicated treatise to the "green" fragment (PT/35) ? The Libya regime could only be drawn in the "PanAm 103" bombing, with a "green" coloured fragment with 9 layers of fiberglass !

    In german language:
    Vergessen Sie das Slalom Shirt. Der EXAMINATION's Report 181, von Dr.Hayes & Feraday, ist ein Meer voller Lügen...
    Tatsache ist:

    22. Juni 1989:
    1 Stück MST-13 Timer Circuit Board Farbe "braun", Prototype, aus 8 Lagen Fiberglas, wurde am 22. Juni 1989 bei MEBO Ltd entwendet und unerlaubter Weise an schottische Offizielle bei (RARDE) weitergegeben;
    10. Oktober 1989 bis 10. Januar 1990:
    In dieser Zeit wurde aus dem "braunen" MST-13 Circuit Board, ein manipuliertes schwarz carbonize Fragment (PT/35) fabricated und angeblich in einem Slalom T-shirt Teilstück aufgefunden worden... ???

    27. April, 1990:
    Das Fragment (PT/35) wurde angeblich für forensische Untersuchung zu Fa. Siemens AG gebracht. Dort wurde das original Fragment in zwei Teilstücke zersägt. Der grössere Teil wurde unter "PT/35(b)" und das kleine Teilfragment unter "DP/31(a) markiert.

    30.Mai 1990 bis 10. September 1990:
    Das grössere original (schwarz carbonize) Fragment "PT/35(b)", wurde durch ein DUPLIKAT mit "grüner" Farbe, aus 9 Lagen Fiberglas ausgetauscht und mit gleicher Bezeichnung "PT/35(b)" markiert.
    Siehe Ankündigung auf Memorandum mit Label "DP'137". Das kleine originale Fragment, unter "DP/31(a)", mit 8 Lagen Fiberglas wurde zusammen mit dem "grünen" DUPLIKAT "PT/35(b)", als Patchwork fotografiert und wieder als
    (PT/35) markiert worden !

    12. Juni 2000:
    Die Photographie mit dem (PT/35) Patchwork- Fragment wurde am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist als offizielles Beweisstück gewertet...
    Wieso der komplizierte Ablauf bis zum "grünen" Fragment (PT/35) ? Weil nur mit einem "grünen" Fragment aus 9 Lagen Fiberglas das libysche Regime zur Verantwortung gezogen werden konnte !

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland URL:

  18. Herr Bollier,

    I have only been able to inform an opinion on the Hayes/Feraday report by gleaning bits of information from the WWW.

    From what I've seen it's quite clearly a concoction to fit the 'evidence' toward an already established conclusion.

    The how and why it was concocted are, of course, exceptionally important, but I am being asked to believe a scientific report that looks about as based in science as waving crystals at the moon.

    It's a fail and should be binned, but then there would be a whole heap of perjury, amongst the fall-out, to be resolved.

    best regards

  19. I entirely agree with al aplage who has elegised on his blog Contemplate The Bay:

    "Those who just assume Mr Megrahi is guilty just because the news are always calling him The Lockerbie Bomber are in for a shock.

    "Perhaps they might notice what passes for justice in this cherished world of democracy and freedom where law is subordinated to Washington via Westminster.

    "From the tiniest fragments and slimmest of details are all our lives dependent.

    "None of us have much time. Try to spend it doing the least harm to others that you can manage. Your government and courts sure ain't looking out for you."

  20. Even by Rolfe's high standards a particularly asinine comment. Edwin Bollier has grasped the point - the object of the fake document of the 12/5/89 was to prove the fragment of timer is GREEN was GREEN and always has been GREEN. The "new page 51" document may not have been created for several years.

    I was not commenting on Feraday's memo (which I still haven't seen as Adam's illustrations are blocked on the computer I use.) Is it of any relevance? Indeed until Professor De Braeckeleer's article I had never seen page the "new page 51" or 118.

    Where does it say that Dr Hayes was dealing with different parts of the exhibit on the 12/5/89 and the 10/10/89? This is simply in your imagination because contrary to the evidence you think in some way it was genuine. You ought to get a job as a Crown Office spokesman.

    Do you think Hayes really discovered a multilayered fragment of manual that survived the explosion? There was no examination on the 12/5/89 -have you not read the passage in Leppard's book?

    I haven't had the time to waste reading DC Crawford's book but if Crawford photographed the clothing in August (1989) why wouldn't Dr Hayes only examine it later? It contained nothing whatsoever of evidential value as demonstrated by the genuine note of the 10/10/89.

    Matthew 6 Verse 7.