On 14 November I posted on this blog a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in that day’s edition of The Herald. It contained the following sentences: ‘Outside a recent presentation of the Scottish play The Lockerbie Bomber in Malta there was an installation with a rotating base carrying the words "Your government and mine know exactly what happened but they're never going to tell". These words were confided in 1989 to a British relative who, like me, had been invited to the US Embassy in London to hear the results of a US presidential inquiry into Lockerbie.’
In response, the President of the US relatives’ organisation Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Inc, Frank Duggan, has sent out to me and others an email in the following terms:
“This never happened and the story has been peddled for 25 years. I served on the Commission (President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism 1989-90) and was at the meetings held in London and Scotland where the statement was allegedly made by one of us to the father of one of the flight attendants in 1989. We were charged with investigating how it was done, not who did it. Everyone had suspicions, but there was a criminal investigation, at that time the largest ever, that had this responsibility. No one really knew who did it in 1989, since the timer that turned the investigation toward Libyan terrorists was not found until a year later. A father of one of the American victims tried repeatedly to demonstrate that this statement was never made, and offered to show photographs of everyone on the trip to the person who claimed he heard this. The proponents of this fable are not interested in the truth and would rather repeat it to UK tabloids, self promoting bloggers, dubious experts in the case, and assorted nutcases. The story is a lie.”
If it comes to a competition between the credibility of Martin Cadman and Dr Jim Swire on the one hand and Frank Duggan on the other, I know which side I would unhesitatingly choose.
A longer account of Mr Duggan's views can now be found in this article in The Christian Science Monitor.
In response, the President of the US relatives’ organisation Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Inc, Frank Duggan, has sent out to me and others an email in the following terms:
“This never happened and the story has been peddled for 25 years. I served on the Commission (President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism 1989-90) and was at the meetings held in London and Scotland where the statement was allegedly made by one of us to the father of one of the flight attendants in 1989. We were charged with investigating how it was done, not who did it. Everyone had suspicions, but there was a criminal investigation, at that time the largest ever, that had this responsibility. No one really knew who did it in 1989, since the timer that turned the investigation toward Libyan terrorists was not found until a year later. A father of one of the American victims tried repeatedly to demonstrate that this statement was never made, and offered to show photographs of everyone on the trip to the person who claimed he heard this. The proponents of this fable are not interested in the truth and would rather repeat it to UK tabloids, self promoting bloggers, dubious experts in the case, and assorted nutcases. The story is a lie.”
If it comes to a competition between the credibility of Martin Cadman and Dr Jim Swire on the one hand and Frank Duggan on the other, I know which side I would unhesitatingly choose.
A longer account of Mr Duggan's views can now be found in this article in The Christian Science Monitor.
MISSION LIFE WITH LOCKERBIE, 2013 - Go to new facts on ground ... currently only available in German language:
ReplyDeleteHört endlich auf in der 'Lockerbie-Affäre' über die "Aurora" und umstrittene Vorfälle zu diskutieren, bevor nicht das entscheidende Beweisstück des MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) einer neuen forensischen Untersuchung unterzogen wird!
Es gibt nur zwei Agenturen, welche die MST-13 Timer Fragmente (PT-35/b und DP-31/a) forensisch beurteilt haben. Dies sind 'RARDE' - Experte Allen Feraday (u.a. bei Siemens, 27. April, 1990) - und der Fabrikant 'MEBO Ltd'. Edwin Bollier (Polizeireport vom 16./17.September (1999) in Dumfries, Scotland)
Allen Feraday konnte u.a. nie durch eine digitale Fotovergrös-serung nachweisen, dass das circuit board (PT-35) aus 9 Lagen Fiberglas bestand - und hat deshalb das Fragment vorsätzlich mit denen an Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer in Verbindung gebracht.
Edwin Bollier hingegen kann heute, mit Hilfe von professionel-len Experten, durch eine neue Untersuchung mit neusten technischen und forensischen Mitteln beweisen, dass das reale, angeblich in Lockerbie aufgefundene MST-13 Timer-Fragment, aus 8 Lagen Fiberglas besteht; und somit nicht mit Libyen in Verbindung gebracht werden kann!
Infolge muss zuerst auf das Verlangen einer neuen forensischen Untersuchung bei - (the new 'operationally Lockerbie Investigation Team' - led by Detective Superintendent Michael Dalgleish) - Druck ausgeübt werden. (Fundament der schleierhaften "PAN AM 103 SAGA")...
Die Technology heute kann 100% prüfen, dass das entscheidende MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) aus 9 oder 8 Lagen Fiberglas fabriziert wurde und ob es Sprengstoffspuren inerhalb eines (Zeitfenster +/- 10 Tage) vom 21. Dez. 1988 aufweist.
Mit 9 Lagen Fiberglas und Spuren von Sprengstoff kann Libyen in Verbindung gebracht werden.
Bei 8 Lagen Fiberglas und keine Sprengstoff Spuren würden auf einen fatalen schottischen Betrug gegen Libyen hinweisen !
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
MISSION LIFE WITH LOCKERBIE , 2013 - Go to new facts on ground ... (google translation, german/english):
ReplyDeleteForget to the discussion over the 'Lockerbie affair' on the 'Aurora' and controversial incidents, not before the crucial piece of evidence of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) is subjected to a new forensic investigation!
There are only two agencies, which have the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35/b, and DP-31/a) forensically examined. These was 'RARDE' - expert Allen Feraday (like at Siemens, April 27, 1990) - and the producer 'MEBO Ltd.' Edwin Bollier (police report from 16/17 September (1999) in Dumfries, Scotland)
All Feraday could inter alia - never detected by a digital photo enlargement provement - that the circuit board (PT-35) consisted of 9 layers of fiberglass - and he has brought the MST-13 fragment intentionally to direction Libya in combination .
Edwin Bollier, however, can now prove with the help of professional experts in a new study with the latest technical and forensic equipments, that the real, supposedly discovered in Lockerbie MST-13 timer fragment, consists of 8 layers of fiberglass, and thus can not bring Libya in conection with the PanAm 103 bombing !
First Scotland must request a new forensic investigation at - (the new 'operationally Lockerbie Investigation Team' - led by Detective Superintendent Michael Dalgleish. (Basis of the obscure "PAN AM 103 SAGA")...
The Technology today can check 100 %, that the decisive MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) was fabricated from 9 or 8 layers of fiberglass and whether traces has onto of explosives for over one (time window +/- 10 days), 21 December 1988.
With 9 layers of fiberglass and traces of explosives - Libya can may be associated.
With 8 layers of fiberglass and no traces of explosives would be indicate a fatal Scottish fraud against Libya !
by Edwin Bollier , MEBO ltd Telecommunication Switzerland . Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Robert Black says “If it comes to a competition between the credibility of Martin Cadman and Dr Jim Swire on the one hand and Frank Duggan on the other, I know which side I would unhesitatingly choose”.
ReplyDeleteMe too, but do you think the Senator was speaking the truth when he said, "Your government and mine know exactly what happened but they're never going to tell", or do you think it was just a personal presumption?
Again another proof film with exculpatory statements by Eng Ulrich Lumpert, in favor of Libya out of the race:
ReplyDeleteMr Lockerbie, Nov 18 12:22 pm (EST):
*Ticket #58433: Video http://blip.tv/file/1214012
*
+++
Good day
Thanks for your answer. As we do not know who owns the video, therefore it
is not possible to download.
Please let us know the e-mail address of the owner of the video.
Mebo supported the production but we do not have the contact anymore.
Thank you very much for your kind support
Edwin Bollier
Mebo Ltd. Zurich/Switzerland
+++
Answer:
Blip Support, Nov 18 01:37 pm (EST):
Unfortunately, we do not have this information.
Thanks,
Blip Support
Hold on to your hats, but I actually agree with Dave. It's impossible to know what the Senator meant by that. It's not at all clear that he was revealing some highly prejudicial information he was party to, rather than simply sounding off a bit of a conspiracy theory of his own. Or perhaps passing on some genuine but wrong high-level thinking.
ReplyDeleteFor example, look at the things Tam Dalyell has said about Lockerbie. Speculation and assumption, the lot of it. And in my opinion, not terribly well-founded speculation and assumption. But he says these things, and he was an MP for pretty much all the time he was saying it. In fact, he was Father of the House for quite a long time.
But he's just speculating and guessing. We can't know that the US senator was voicing anything more substantial.
According to the Wikipedia page on the "President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism"
ReplyDelete(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki President's_commission_on_aviation_security_and_terrorism) , the enabling Executive Order no. 12686 required the President to appoint 2 Senators among the 4 Commission members from the U.S. Congress, 1 Republican (Alphonse D'Amato, New York, born 1937 and coincidentally, or not, a graduate of Syracuse University) and 1 Democrat (Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey, born 1924, died 2013).
Frank Duggan states that he "served" on the Commission but he was not a member of the Commission. Frank Duggan was appointed "liaison to the Families"
To my knowledge the first time Martin Cadman, father of victim Bill Cadman, was quoted
regarding the alleged Senator's alleged comments was in the late Paul Foot's "Lockerbie - The Flight from Justice" - and it goes like this: " After we'd had our say, the meeting broke up and we moved towards the door. As we got there, I found myself talking to two members of the Commission - I think they were senators. One of them said:"Your government and our government know exactly what happened at Lockerbie. But they are not going to tell you".
I suggest that, just for starters, Frank Duggan supplies verifiable proof that he was present when the statement in question wasn't made. He may have been at the meeting but that doesn't mean he can prove that the comment wasn't made by one of the two senators in question. If he was present when the comment wasn't made, my money's on it having been (the late) Frank R. Lautenberg who didn't make it.
Since when was Frank Duggan an arbiter of the truth anyway.
It's quite difficult to be as consistently wrong as Frank Duggan is. Listen to his interview with George Galloway. I mean, Gorgeous George is a chancer himself, but he knew his facts. Duggan simply made it up as he went along, then put the phone down when Galloway called him on his lies. I don't think he had a single fact right in the entire conversation.
ReplyDeleteIf that charlatan was representing me, I'd be pretty upset with the quality of the service I was getting.
My comment was a question rather than a statement made to show that making reasonable presumptions on the basis of probability without proof is a valid contribution to solving the Lockerbie case.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I think the US/UK secret services know the truth about Pan Am 103 and therefore I also think the probability of them knowing the truth is very high, but I can’t prove it!
I also think the Senators tasked to look into the matter will know the truth and therefore I also think there is a very high probability that the Senators know the truth, but I can’t prove it.
And I think the intention behind the Senator’s comment was, off the record, to comfort a bereaved parent by saying in effect ‘we can’t tell you what happened, but rest assured we do know and will make the necessary changes so it won’t happen again’, but I can’t prove it.
And I think the probability of a Senator making such a crass remark if it wasn’t true is very low, but I can’t prove it.
In other words the high probability that the words were spoken and true is good reason to use them to advertise the play, even if like some other presumptions, it can’t be proved.
Much too much ado about a remark from a man not being able to reveal sources or about who we would have no clue of why he would be confided with such a massive secret.
ReplyDeleteAny amounts of such remarks wouldn't interest me one bit, and if that evidence had been the first 'counter-evidence' I'd ran into, I might never have looked further.
Of course I can well understand why it would be dynamite for a bereaved parent.
And of course Frank Duggan focuses on this, as there is a zero risk of his statements being falsified, and so you can safely claim that Jim Swire is a liar. I recall the interview with Galloway where Duggan uses the word 'crackpot'. All a part of an ad-hominem attack, which comes convenient for those who need a reason for looking away from the real matters.
- - -
With the headline "If a picture paints a thousand words..." there is another document posted here.
That is the real thing, ten thousands of times more important and damning.
Don't drown it in Frank Duggan's nonsense.
There is a presumption in SM’s comment that a senior Senator tasked to look into the Lockerbie case wouldn’t be confided in or know the truth about such ‘a massive secret’.
ReplyDeleteBut I would say the opposite, because no secrets and particularly massive secrets remain secret.
Put simply the probability that the truth is known is very high because people talk, leak and reveal the truth for various reasons.
What persists is the official cover-up.
The unofficial truth about Lockerbie is known, but the official truth remains unknown.
Just as Megrahi is clearly innocent, but still remains officially guilty.
Comfort a bereaved relative? Bwahahahaha. Anyone who thinks a remark like that would be comforting had better not volunteer for a bereavement conuselling service.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, we have no proof or even a strong reason to believe that it wasn't said. No reason at all to doubt Martin Cadman, let alone call him a liar.
On the other hand, even making the reasonable assumption that it was said, we don't know what was meant by the words. We don't know if this was just something the Senator dreamed up by himself, or if it was a conclusion he'd jumped to from shaky premises, or if it was indeed a true report of government thinking. Even if it was a true report of government thinking, we don't know whether that thinking was actually correct.
So for all these reasons it's not something I put a huge amount of enphasis on when considering the case. But Frank Duggan just has to jump in with both feet and accuse Martin Cadman of lying. Nice one Frank.
The point is surely that both the US government (from George H.W. Bush onwards) and the UK government (from Margaret Thatcher onwards) have for nearly 25 years gone to enormous lengths to keep a lid on the truth - whatever it is. They wouldn't do that if they didn't have something very nasty to hide.
ReplyDeleteYes I doubt the Senator was a qualified bereavement counsellor, but in some situations whatever we say is the wrong thing.
ReplyDeleteBut for a hard-nosed Senator is does sound like something they would say and he would be in a position to know.
And to dismiss those words when the probability is high they were spoken and true contrasts with Rolfe’s willingness to embrace a fragment, when the probability of it surviving is very low.
I don't know. It's possible.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the misdirection of the investigation away from Heathrow to concentrate on the feeder flight and eventually on Malta has all the hallmarks of terminal, brain-dead incompetence.
Maybe a mixture of both.
Dave, I am getting seriously pissed off with your insults and defamation.
ReplyDeletePot calling the kettle black, methinks!
ReplyDeletePeace, bros.
ReplyDeleteDave is right that quite a bit goes the other way. That his arguments at times are so [*] would not be a justification.
Quiz:
What did I have in mind for [*]:
"brilliant"
"far out"
"hilarious"
"overwhelmingly convincing"
"stupid"
"unusual"
"well supported"
Anyone coming up with an answer should be MODERATED, except for maybe Dave himself.
Address the evidence instead of repeating the same discredited fantasies and I might start being polite.
ReplyDeleteYou have no recourse but to insult me, because I base my deductions on the evidence - unlike your hero, John Barry Smith.
Wordy evasion, dissembling and insulting others and then claiming offence to imagined insults when none are returned to create bad feeling in order to sabotage a blog are all the characteristics of a troll.
ReplyDeleteFortunately this blog is moderated to stop that sort of thing from happening here?
Dear ebol, “Cat Rolfe”, all is forgiven!
I have just about had enough of this. I am sorely tempted to close down the comments facility (or to go back to non-moderation, so that I don't have to bother reading them. But that would let the unspeakable Haseldine back.) Sigh.
ReplyDeleteI for one will try to keep more strict to the serious issue at hand.
ReplyDelete