Saturday, 14 April 2012

Some pertinent questions from Dr Swire

[What follows is from a message sent today by Dr Jim Swire to actor, writer and director David Benson:]

Now that we know, thanks to John Ashton that the famous timer fragment was indeed a forgery there can be absolutely no excuse for pretending that this trial was fair.

For the sake of people in Scotland it is essential that an inquiry be launched into why the Crown Office failed to discover the forgery - they had the basic information before the trial - and why they failed to pass the information about the Heathrow break-in to the defence. We now know that the Scottish police were aware of the break-in in early 1989 but failed to pass it to the Crown till 1999. As often happens, it seems the police (whether or not under improper persuasion from others) decided to back their hypothesis of the bomb coming from Malta, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Later, in support of their hypothesis, along came the famous fragment to bolster their hypothesis. Who made it? Just how did it get into the 'evidence chain'? This must be investigated.

A side effect of the failure to alert the defence and therefore the court to the Heathrow evidence was that the defence were denied the opportunity of incorporating it into their defence of incrimination which would have pointed to the Syrian air pressure sensitive bombs, which required either arming or introduction at Heathrow, and which were obligated to a 35-45 minute flight time.

As for me, I remain enraged by the fact that Heathrow has escaped criticism for doing nothing for 16 hours, when they knew of the break-in immediately, from the early morning of the day of Lockerbie, and while our Flora boarded her flight, expecting that there would be a responsible level of security protecting it.

They might have saved all those lives, had they not decided to ignore the break-in. How sad is that?

I am also increasingly aware that the function of the prosecuting service in Scotland must be reviewed: they have the great responsibility of ensuring that evidence is shared  with the defence, and if they are not investigated for their failures over that in this case, then who can expect a fair trial with equality of arms in a Scottish court in future?

We must reform the system for everyone's sake. Justice must be seen to be done in our country in future.


  1. We know the PCB fragment wasn't one of the 20 items of Thuring manufacture supplied to Libya. Do we know it was a "fake" in quite those terms? A fake as in the sense of a "cheap knock-off", certainly. Unless of course there's some manufacturer of pocket calculators using a PCB board with exactly the same corner, I suppose. However, what people tend to mean by "fake" is that it was planted by the investigators.

    There is another piece of information which has come out with the SCCRC report, which hasn't had so much prominence. The SCCRC have seen evidence from RARDE that photograph 117 was taken in May 1989. That means that Hayes's repaginated page 51 was not backdated. There must be some other reason for the bizarre provenance of the fragment's discovery, and for Hayes and Feraday ignoring this freaking great ginormous clue for four months. Incompetence is one possibility.

    This changes the basic premises of the discussion. If the timer fragment was introduced into the chain of evidence by the investigators as early as May 1989, something very weird is going on.

    Of course, if it fell from the sky on 21st December 1988, it also means something very weird is going on.

    In the NAME of ALLAH, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful


    please give to Abdelbaset Al Megrahi more time, so that it gets the honour back, before its death, by the Scottish Justiciary and United Kingdom.
    Mr. Al Megrahi have nothing to do with the "Lockerbie Tragedy"; and please does not call him never more the "Bomber of PanAm 103", Thanks.
    We wish Abdelbaset and of its family much power and ALLAH'S support

    best by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL:

  3. So how is it that the imprint of page 51 does not appear on page 52 but the imprint of an unrelated document does? Does photograph 117 actually show the fragment (I can't see it) and if it does is the photograph genuine?

    I would also suggest Feraday's "lads and lasses" memorandum was a rewrite of the original to describe the circuit board as "green" (the SCCRC saw this point as evidence it wasn't faked!)

  4. attn. baz >>>
    MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012, doc. nr. 8131.rtf. (google translation, german/english):

    Photo (no.329) of (RARDE) noted on the additional examinations page 51. Original text from expert Allen Feraday including its question mark:
    "A portion of the ? neckband of a grey ? shirt, severely damaged with localized penetrations and explosive blackening", shows a portion of a neckband of a grey shirt.
    Traped in the grey material within the blackned area were:-
    (a) several fragments of black plastics.
    (b) a fragment of a green coloured circuit board.
    (c) small fragments of metal wire."

    The grey neckband of a grey shirt was marked under PI/995, Ref. PP'8932.

    MEBO's forensic investigation about the fragment PI/995:
    A digital enlargement by the scientific service in Zurich, shows that the weave of the textile material (cloth) is not descended from a grey shirt, but by a white T-shirt !

    Very Important, Subject:
    Part PI/995, a T-shirt fragment was found first on the 10th October 1989, of Allen Feraday (RARDE) and was listed on, in EXAMINATION page No. 112, This confirmed that all data associated with part (PI/995) exist prior to October 10th, 1989, are fake!
    Summary: Item PI/995 is not from a grey shirt "Slalom" brand, but from a white T-shirt, "Abanderado" brand!

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL:


  5. Addition to upper MEBO comment (PI/995)
    Which answer gave Anthony Gauci, as witness number 595, in Kamp van Zeist, when him the T-shirt, make "Abanderado" was shown.

    Gauci say: A-- It's underwear,
    Q-- What make is it?
    A-- It's Abanderado make.
    Q-- Did you, in 1988, stock
    T-shirts of that kind?
    A-- Yes. Yes. When I sold this one, I didn't sell T-shirts. Perhaps somebody else was there. I never sold him a T-shirt.
    Q-- You never sold the Libyan gentleman a T-shirt?
    A-- On that day, no. On that particular order, no, that we are
    talking about, no. He could have come another day.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: