[What follows is a review by Irene Brownlee of Lockerbie: Lost Voices published on the East Coast FM website:]
As its name suggests, this play by Lee Gershuny is about the Lockerbie tragedy when a bomb explosion over Lockerbie of PanAm 103 in December 1988 killed 270 people. The play imagines what happened through the perspective of six passengers on board the fatal flight. They are all fictional although one is based on one of the actual victims – the character John was inspired by Major Chuck McKee, a US military intelligence agent. It is a short piece, only around 45 minutes long, but it is well told and very effective.
The play starts in the Airport departure lounge with its hum of background noise. Six characters are waiting to board – an older American couple on their way home from a European trip, a stepmother and daughter with an uneasy relationship, the intelligence agent and his lover, an investigative journalist. The first four are blissfully unaware of any potential danger and we eavesdrop on their everyday conversation and bickering, reminding us of the innocence and normality of the victims. The other two are aware of and discuss dark activities involving clandestine CIA groups, drug running and illegal arms sales and suggest the motive for what follows.
With some simple rearranging of the six chairs on stage, the scene changes to the flight itself and we become more involved with the characters. The explosion when it comes is not a surprise to us but is still shocking. The characters awake into an afterlife where they observe the chaos and aftermath of the crash. Why are CIA agents crawling all over the scene and hiding evidence, why did the son of an FBI chief get off the flight, what is being covered up and will we ever find out the truth?
The final scene is very emotional with the mother and daughter (played by real life mother and daughter Isabella Jarrett and Hannah Jarrett Scott) being reconciled in death and as she sings her a lullaby I found myself with tears rolling down my cheeks. This production is thought provoking and sensitively done.
[A review on the website of The Stage can be read here. The play can be seen at the Netherbow Theatre, Scottish Storytelling Centre, 43-45 High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1SR at 7pm until 26 August.]
As its name suggests, this play by Lee Gershuny is about the Lockerbie tragedy when a bomb explosion over Lockerbie of PanAm 103 in December 1988 killed 270 people. The play imagines what happened through the perspective of six passengers on board the fatal flight. They are all fictional although one is based on one of the actual victims – the character John was inspired by Major Chuck McKee, a US military intelligence agent. It is a short piece, only around 45 minutes long, but it is well told and very effective.
The play starts in the Airport departure lounge with its hum of background noise. Six characters are waiting to board – an older American couple on their way home from a European trip, a stepmother and daughter with an uneasy relationship, the intelligence agent and his lover, an investigative journalist. The first four are blissfully unaware of any potential danger and we eavesdrop on their everyday conversation and bickering, reminding us of the innocence and normality of the victims. The other two are aware of and discuss dark activities involving clandestine CIA groups, drug running and illegal arms sales and suggest the motive for what follows.
With some simple rearranging of the six chairs on stage, the scene changes to the flight itself and we become more involved with the characters. The explosion when it comes is not a surprise to us but is still shocking. The characters awake into an afterlife where they observe the chaos and aftermath of the crash. Why are CIA agents crawling all over the scene and hiding evidence, why did the son of an FBI chief get off the flight, what is being covered up and will we ever find out the truth?
The final scene is very emotional with the mother and daughter (played by real life mother and daughter Isabella Jarrett and Hannah Jarrett Scott) being reconciled in death and as she sings her a lullaby I found myself with tears rolling down my cheeks. This production is thought provoking and sensitively done.
[A review on the website of The Stage can be read here. The play can be seen at the Netherbow Theatre, Scottish Storytelling Centre, 43-45 High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1SR at 7pm until 26 August.]
I haven't seen the play yet but I'm going on Sunday. Glad to hear it's getting good reviews. But.
ReplyDeleteWhy are CIA agents crawling all over the scene and hiding evidence, why did the son of an FBI chief get off the flight....
There's no actual evidence that there were CIA agents crawling all over the scene and hiding evidence. It's persistent rumour that has never been substantiated. Major McKee's suitcase was interfered with after it had been retrieved from the fields, with the full knowledge and permission of the Scottish police.
And Buck Revell's son didn't get off the flight. He simply didn't. He changed his flight some time in advance, as many many people did for all sorts of reasons, some ending up on the doomed flight and some avoiding it.
I'm sorry if this play is perpetrating false conspiracy theories like this. It makes all questioning of the investigation so much easier to dismiss. It plays right into the hands of the authorities.
"It plays right into the hands of the authorities."
ReplyDeleteIt is important that the pressure and attention to the Lockerbie case is kept up.
People having formed an opinion based on dubious information will usually want to maintain that opinion.
In that process they will be more likely to accept the right arguments at a later stage. Luckily there are plenty of those.
And the government does not need a play like this to keep talking about "unsubstantiated arguments" anyway. They do that on every occasion anyway.
"There's no actual evidence that there were CIA agents crawling all over the scene and hiding evidence. It's persistent rumour that has never been substantiated."
From a positive point of view: not all unsubstantiated rumors are false.
How wonderful it would be if the scriptwriters would consult JfM, or the vast material available.
But let's face it - not everyone has the time to dig deep enough.
We want an independent inquiry. This will come out of public opinion and interest.
Can't we safely say that only a minimum of good political decisions are based on the people's correct and deep understanding of matters?
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013
ReplyDelete.... "Will we ever find out the truth about the 'PanAm-103 bombing' ?" NO !
Guarantees under 'National Security' (PII) ! It was a willful false flag operation ...
But soon we will prove that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Libya had nothing to do with the "Lockerbie Tragedy" - without a doubt !
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD. Telecommunication, Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
SM, you're right of course. The trouble is the authorities already like to smear people who are casting doubt on the conviction as "conspiracy theorists", and the propagation of more conspiracy theories (or in this case a couple of very old ones re-heated) doesn't make it any easier.
ReplyDelete'The Man Who Knew Too Much'
ReplyDeleteCharles McKee, knew too much about Operation Ringwind and was murdered on Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland because corrupt CIA officials allowed it to happen.
< citation needed >
ReplyDeleteDidn't Lester Coleman's "Trail of the Octopus" open with an anecdote about Buck Revell actually running onto the tarmac at Heathrow and dragging his son and his family off flight PA103?
ReplyDeleteMISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013
ReplyDelete.... Will we ever find out the truth about the 'PanAm-103 bombing' ? NO !
Guarantees under 'National Security' (PII) ! It was a willful false flag operation ...
At the first hearing on the 19th of October 2007 the Appeal court in Edinburgh suddenly confirmed after more than 3 months the existence of a document "under national security"; but keeps ist content closed.
Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC agreed on the 20th of February 2008 to open the secret document but the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson, QC, - Westminster's representative in Scottish matters - refused so and argued that it was not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed higher national interests: "The national security was at stake"!!!
Seemingly the content of the document "under national security" (MST-13 timer) is so high-explosive that the national security of Great Britain is at stake !!!
Prosecuting counsel Ronnie Clancy added that the secret document did not originate from the USA or one of ist agencies as the CIA.
But soon we will prove that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Libya had nothing to do with the "Lockerbie Tragedy" - without a doubt !
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD. Telecommunication, Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Baz, anecdotes are just anecdotes. Buck Revell explained on camera that his son had changed his reservation some days or a week in advance (sorry, don't remember the exact details) because his leave dates changed.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, it is certainly the case that nobody ran on to the tarmac and dragged anyone off the plane. I mean, how? And how could such an occurrence fail to be widely reported? Buck Revell's son did not board Maid of the Seas, that is absolutely certain. If my memory serves me correctly, he was already in the USA on 21st December, having switched his flight for an earlier date.
A report produced for the PCAST investigation looked into the whole question of no-shows, re-bookings and cancellations, and found nothing out of the ordinary. A surprising number of people switch their flights every day, and PA103 on 21-12-88 had its fair share - no more and no less. That report is detailed and credible, and it's very hard to see how it could have been falsified. I have never read anything questioning its findings. It seems that people just ignore the data and go on repeating "anecdotes" regardless.
After a road accident different people respond to the accident but this is not evidence of their involvement in the accident!
ReplyDeleteLikewise even if the CIA were crawling over the wreckage this would not be evidence of their involvement in the crash.
It would be normal for the CIA to become involved because of VIPs on the Christmas flight requiring a search for important documents and information.
Worrying about being embarrassed by ‘crack-pot’ conspiracy theories is misplaced, because those responsible for the cover-up will describe all explanations as ‘crack-pot’.
It is the politicians with a political interest in knowing the truth that need persuading to pursue the matter and this appears to have been achieved on the Justice Committee.
These politicians will not be deterred by ‘crack-pot’ theories if they are aware of the lack of evidence, because the truth can always be resolved at a public enquiry.
There's no evidence of the CIA "crawling over the wreckage" lying in the fields. Just none.
ReplyDeleteThe US authorities were very concerned to get their hands on the contents of McKee's grey Samsonite. It was found in a field and retrieved by a Scottish policeman who remembered seeing McKee's papers sticking out of the broken corner that had been blasted open by the bomb in the suitcase right in front of it. The US guys went to the Scottish cops and asked for access to the suitcase. This was granted, and the contents were spirited away. The case itself was returned with some innocuous personal possessions, and sent to RARDE where they completely failed to appreciate the real story that damaged case was telling.
John Orr "forgot" all about this and it wasn't recorded in the logs, however the policemen involved in handling the case remembered it perfectly well and it is now all documented.
‘Crawling over the wreckage’ is an exaggeration (presumably from those who want to blame the CIA) that makes normal CIA involvement sound suspicious.
ReplyDeleteBut then again a grey Samsonite suitcase that is blasted from the plane due to an ‘IED’ in the suitcase next to it (that allegedly is powerful enough to destroy the plane) but survives the blast and fall with only a damaged corner (and with important papers protruding from said corner that could be the result of hitting the ground!) sounds suspicious too.
An ‘IED’ that destroys a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds, but leaves the suitcase next to it intact. Hmm not another ‘crack-pot’ theory!
"An ‘IED’ that destroys a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds, but leaves the suitcase next to it intact. Hmm not another ‘crack-pot’ theory!"
ReplyDeleteOnly for the one who can't understand how an inside explosion can damage an airtight structure, but to little general damage to the things inside it.
The opposite - an explosion that destroyed everything inside, but made no damage to fuselage itself - that would be a crackpot theory.
'Only for the one who can't understand how an inside explosion can damage an airtight structure, but do little general damage to the things inside it.
ReplyDeleteHappy you agree!
ReplyDeleteIncluding the 'bomb' suitcase that leaves identifiable clothing and circuit board?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how old I would have to be before I would easily understand that things close to the bomb would be very damaged, and the airtight hull might disintegrate, but the teddy-bear I held in my hand might not suffer any damage?
ReplyDeleteDave, look up "overpressure".
ReplyDeleteSo you are surprised that the grey Samsonite wasn't very damaged?
ReplyDeleteNow tell me this, Dave. Where was McKee's grey Samsonite in relation to the bomb suitcase?
ReplyDeleteHaving now seen the play (which is what this thread is actually about), I can report that it's very good. A nice little piece of drama, well presented.
ReplyDeleteIt's more or less about the conspiracy theories. I turned to my companion at the end and said, did they miss any? Red tarpaulin and white helicopter and suitcase of drugs and Buck Revell's son and revelations about the hostage crisis and Iran/Contra and probably more - it was all there.
It was a drama. It's a mistake to conflate drama with reality. Tactically, it's probably not great that a pile of discredited rumour keeps being raked over, but when you're writing a play that isn't really your main concern.
The main concern is drama, and the drama worked very well indeed. We shouldn't mistake it for a serious contribution to the debate, though.
Well in a previous post you said it was in front of the ‘bomb’ suitcase. Does this mean next to?
ReplyDeleteAnd you said identifiable paperwork was protruding from a corner of the damaged grey Samsonite and that this was a result of blast damage from the ‘bomb’!
Now I admit I am relying on common sense, but I think the fall from the plane alone would have inflicted more damage.
And blast damage would have inflicted more damage too and burnt all the paperwork?
But I agree with your points about the play.
I didn't say it was in front of the bomb suitcase, because it wasn't. Since you clearly don't believe a word I say anyway, I would invite you to go and read up about the facts for yourself.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'd enjoy a novel experience like that.
One of your previous posts on this very thread said the grey Samsonite was in front of the ‘bomb’ suitcase. Check Post No.11
ReplyDeleteThat said I was hoping SM would confirm whether he thought the grey Samsonite which he said would be very damaged, was in fact very damaged?
What Rolfe says in comment no 11 is that the bomb suitcase was in front of McKee's, *not* that McKee's case was in front of the bomb suitcase.
ReplyDeleteYes your right Rolfe said the ‘bomb’ suitcase was right in front of the grey Samsonite.
ReplyDeleteWhether front means side or back (or makes a difference) depends on how they were loaded and the size of the ‘bomb’.
But it seems we are agreed on ‘next to’, but not whether the paperwork would have survived un-burnt?
You know, it's remarkably instructive to examine the evidence, and see what actually did happen. Some of it might not be what you'd have expected just from imagining it.
ReplyDeleteYou should try it some time.
ReplyDelete"That said I was hoping SM would confirm whether he thought the grey Samsonite which he said would be very damaged, was in fact very damaged?"
But I didn't say anything about how damaged the grey Samsonite was, and I don't know more about it that is discussed here.
At times it appears like you are desperate to find some discrepancy in the known data, possibly to support your idea that there was no bomb at all.
While there's method in it, it's madness, as Shakespeare didn't say.
For your info: if a suitcase survives something without disintegrating more or less completely, it is almost impossible to imagine that papers inside it would be lost.
I am examining the evidence presented on this blog and have learned a lot of detail in the process.
ReplyDeleteBut some detail incites new questions.
For example what sort of ‘bomb’ cuts through metal at a distance but not cloth and paper in close proximity?
An elementary physics question that puzzles many readers?
Ah, Dave, you are multitude.
ReplyDelete"An elementary physics question that puzzles many readers?"
ReplyDeleteI'd say: only those in a particular category.
Blog rules do not allow me to give details about that category.
Here's a thought experiment for you:
A car is filled up with clothes, a suitcase with papers and a bomb. When the bomb explodes, the car is completely torn apart, doors blown off, roof, bottom etc.
I'd expect you to think that this would have to mean that all clothes would be unidentifiable, and that no papers in the suitcase could have survived.
Right?
And if clothes were identifiable and papers in the suitcase was preserved to some extent, you'd find the who thing fishy.
Right?
SM
ReplyDeleteYou would not expect nondescript clothing in the bomb case to survive in an identifiable form after being blasted by a powerful bomb.
At Zeist it was alleged it would in order to provide the uncontested forensic ‘evidence’ to convict Megrahi.
However if identifiable nondescript clothing does survive this could be evidence of a bomb, but only a tiny bomb and therefore not powerful enough to destroy the plane in 3 seconds.
But if no identifiable nondescript clothing survives this would be consistent with a powerful bomb, but you would need other evidence to prove it.
Do tell. How do you know how much "nondesctipt clothing" didn't survive at all? Do you think there is a bright line between utterly destroyed and completely undamaged items, with any individual item either being completely destroyed or completely undamaged?
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the ‘made in Malta’ label?
ReplyDeleteSM you said that things close to a bomb would be very damaged. The grey Samsonite was next to the ‘bomb’.
ReplyDeleteRolfe said that the grey Samsonite was discovered with paperwork protruding from a corner that had been damaged by the bomb.
But it seems the paperwork had not been burnt by the bomb.
But a damaged suitcase could be consistent with simply falling from the plane and hitting the ground and hence no burnt paperwork!
A puzzle that presumably was resolved by a forensic examination, with the information examined by lawyers!
I don’t know the answer, but saying that other stuff further away from the bomb could survive undamaged doesn’t really solve the puzzle either.
Dave, you don't know how close the grey Samsonite was to the bomb, so your analysis falls down right there.
ReplyDeleteThere is a particular reason why a fairly small charge of explosive caused such a catastrophic disintegration of the plane, and until you understand that, you'll just keep on getting it wrong.
Rolfe you said the ‘bomb’ case was right in front of the grey Samsonite.
ReplyDeleteSo if I said the same would I be right?
If yes then my analysis is based on your information. Is this where my analysis falls down?
My analysis is that you would expect the protruding paperwork to be burnt, but if it was burnt it wouldn’t be protruding. Having burnt away!
Dave, if nature always complied with 'common sense' there would be no need for experimental science. An explosion is all about extremes - very high temperature and pressure over a very short duration. There's no justification for applying what we know of moderate-temperature, quasi-static physics in such a situation.
ReplyDeleteTests were performed in which half a dozen IEDs of various sizes were blown up in containers packed with suitcases full of clothes. These tests were filmed, and witnessed by an assortment of people from different organisations.
These IEDs were able to blow a hole in the aluminium container, but cases and their contents close by survived in a way similar to the items recovered from Pan Am 103.
Maybe you need to think about what happened to that suitcase after the bomb blast. Maybe you also need to think about the fact that you don't know how far the suitcase was from the bomb itself.
ReplyDeletePete
ReplyDeleteI agree common sense is not a substitute for experimental science, but it can tell us what to look for.
For example you have explained that tests were carried out with different size IEDs that ‘were able to blow a hole in the aluminium container, but cases and their contents close by survived in a way similar to the items recovered from Pan Am 103’.
But common sense tells us that an accurate test would require an examination of the luggage after the IEDs had blasted a hole in the aluminium container
- and the fuselage of the plane in decompressed conditions?
Dave, you don't need me to spoon-feed you all this. You don't need your imagination either. It's all available for your own perusal.
ReplyDeleteHow are you getting on with that "Fundamental Error" article by the way?
Rolfe - of course I realise the Revell anecdote was just an anecdote. The claim was preposterous. However it is the sort of unfounded claim that becomes Lockerbie "fact" (like drugs being recovered at Tundergarth or McKee being a CIA officer supposedly rushing back to Washington to "expose" this drug dealing.) My only point was the same as yours, this may (or may not) be good drama, but has it anything to do with the truth?
ReplyDeleteRolfe - of course I realise the Revell anecdote was just an anecdote. The claim was preposterous. However it is the sort of unfounded claim that becomes Lockerbie "fact" (like drugs being recovered at Tundergarth or McKee being a CIA officer supposedly rushing back to Washington to "expose" this drug dealing.) My only point was the same as yours, this may (or may not) be good drama, but has it anything to do with the truth?
ReplyDelete"I'm sorry if this play is perpetrating false conspiracy theories like this. It makes all questioning of the investigation so much easier to dismiss. It plays right into the hands of the authorities."
ReplyDeleteMy response to that comment is late in the day I know however I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Rolfe.
The Lockerbie case doesn't need untruths thrown in. There is enough established fact in the case to shout from the roof about. I would want the facts highlighted in any play/film/dramatisation rather than other things we know to be false. For, as Rolfe says, the authorities can highlight the false parts and use those to shoot down everything else. We don't want that.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that I swore to myself to avoid association with this issue for a few days simply to allow my synapses some respite, having read through the thread and being immensely encouraged to see Jo back, I simply cannot resist throwing my own hat into the ring.
The bottom line is that not one single one of us has the remotest notion of what the dynamics of an explosion in the environment we are discussing are. Not one of us! Please do say if I have got that wrong, oh, and reveal your credentials do.
Extending from that, one certainly can postulate that, given the pressure variant, altitude and speed of the craft, it is far from impossible that items such as paper, and other material that one may expect to ignite and burn to dust in a more ambient ground level situation would not. In fact, and I must add that my knowledge of explosion dynamics or thermodynamics in any circumstances is borderline negligible, I can very easily imagine that what may be almost unimaginable at ground level in fairly undisturbed environments may very well be entirely possible in circumstances otherwise (namely: travelling at some 4 to 500 MPH at cruising altitude for a 747).
Therefore, frankly, I find this current debate infuriatingly self indulgent, utterly worthless and exactly the kind of deadend verbiage that pleases only one institution: the Crown Office.
I confess to being a generalist but I have read quite sufficient to satisfy myself that Zeist was an unspeakably deluded outcome in an attempt to bring about a fair trial in hugely fraught circumstances. I do not intend to pillory their Lordships MacLean, Sutherland and Coulsfield, nevertheless, not one of them had, to my knowledge, ever had to deliberate on a question of guilt or otherwise. Furthermore, Mr al-Megrahi could have been considerably better represented at his first appeal in my view.
My point is this. Post fact, and as an imaginary potential juror, having listened to such evidence as was presented at Zeist, I posit the following. If I were the commander of an organisation wishing to bring down 103 by the method that the Zeist court concluded it had been, how would I have responded to a plan of this variety? Simple. I would immediately, without a second thought, have had the person who had made the suggestion shot in front of my cohort on the grounds that they lacked sufficient basic intelligence to be worthy of association with my organisation and were likely to be a potential, and serious, future liability. End of argument. This would also have had the additional effect of getting others under my command to get wise in order to aid my objectives.
The manner in which the Zeist Court concluded misses entirely the mentality, determination and commitment of warfare and those directly involved in it. Comfortably off, perhaps albeit well intentioned judges, should never have been put into the position of imagining the machinations of the paramilitary mind, even thought they may have hailed from one of the most belligerent nations (the UK) on the planet and ought, by extension, to have been able to make such projections. That was Gaddafi’s mistake. He should have trusted 15 regular punters.
The bomb entered the chain at Heathrow as indicated here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136479902/7-Fundamental-Error. The rest is distraction and decoration.
Yours,
Robert Forrester (Sec. JFM).