Friday, 21 October 2016

Conspiracy against a Libyan

This is the translated title of a fairly lengthy article (in German) about the Lockerbie case by Martin Alioth in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, first mentioned on this blog on this date in 2007. It quotes Dr Jim Swire and myself and is, perhaps, of particular interest because written primarily for a readership in the Swiss city where MeBo and Edwin Bollier are based. See

An English language version, courtesy of Google Translate, can be read here.


  1. 1)> DOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2016 -- Doc. nr. 501187.rtf

    Dear my friend Professor Robert Black.
    Please make a HEADLINE not just a comment to another report… The people familiar with the case will understand that this interview is a game changer! Ist dynamite !!! You will be surprised about dramatic news coming up early November…

    Exclusive Interview with ex-Mebo engineer Ulrich Lumpert. Statement in the new documentary film - for help to Operation SANDWOOD and important intended for the "Justice for Megrahi" petition (PE 1370) to Mr. McGrath, Scottish Parliament.
    (C) 2016
    Recorded on 9th September 2016, in Zurich/Switzerland - Original Transcript on documentary film in Swiss German language.
    Interviewer: Mr. Lumpert – we are recording the interview in the Swiss German language – it will be synchronized in English. It is in addition to the recordings, with you, made by an English team for Al Jazeera. Can you confirm, that you agree that we are doing the video recordings with you today?

    Lumpert: Naturally [Camera shows the complete picture with the red circle]Interviewer: Mr. Lumpert – you see now the original photo of the MST-13 fragment PT 35 – in the red circle. This photo was made by RARDE. [Camera zooms on the red circle] [Camera shows the large picture of the fragment]
    Interviewer: If the picture is enlarged you can see clearly a scratched “M” and 3 scratch marks. The making of the scratch marks you already confirmed in an affidavit dated 18th July 2007. Is it correct Mr.Lumpert, that you made the „M“and the 3 scratch marks yourself.
    Lumpert: That is correct.
    Interviewer: How did you make the scratch marks?
    Lumpert: The scratch marks I made with such an Awl (a hardened sharp metal pen); because with something softer cannot scratch on this material – it has to be a harder tool, because the material is strengthened with fibreglass. [Camera zooming on the metal scratch pen in his hand]
    Interviewer: Could you point to the picture on which you made them.
    Lumpert: It is here – here is the „M“and here are the scratch marks.
    Interviewer: OK – on top is the „M“ – can see this clearly – and scratch marks – here is one – could you show it…
    Lumpert: It is here (1)
    Interviewer: And a second one (2)
    Lumpert. Three (3) –
    Interviewer: I think here in between
    Lumpert: Yes it is here in between.
    Interviewer: The question now is, on which point in time you have made the scratch marks.
    Lumpert: [murmurs; unclear, not understandable]; I just cannot remember it anymore.
    Interviewer: You have told Mr. Bollier once, that it was in autumn 1989 – but for sure before Christmas.
    > continued below >>>

  2. 2) >continued >>>

    Lumpert: Yes – that’s sure. Yes
    Interviewer: And a further question. Where did you made the scratch marks
    Lumpert: The scratch marks I made here at the laboratory.
    Interviewer: I understood correctly – you have made the scratch marks here at Mebo – in the laboratory that you had at the time.
    Lumpert: Yes
    Interviewer: Before you scratched – the surface of the fragment – it was carbonized. Is this correct?
    Lumpert: Yes
    Interviewer: After you scratched (the material) looked brighter.
    Lumpert: Yes
    Interviewer: You in fact cleaned the carbonized part a little bit. (Could say so)
    Lumpert: Yes the surface - the lacquer and the things (=material).
    Interviewer: And another question… How did the fragment come to you – here to Mebo?
    Lumpert: That’s a good question. [murmurs at the beginning; not understandable] This I don’t know anymore.
    Interviewer: Did somebody bring it?
    Lumpert: It had to be – obviously - brought by somebody.
    Interviewer: But who – this you don’t know anymore.
    Lumpert: Who? – No idea.
    Interviewer: You do not know anymore… But you did not have to collect it somewhere. It was brought to you.
    Lumpert: No, No – It has been brought.
    Interviewer: OK … It was brought by a person or several persons.
    Lumpert: I did not have to do anything.
    Interviewer: OK
    Interviewer: I would like asking you at the end… You made now several statements about the scratch marks and other things. Would you confirm this also if there would be a criminal investigation?
    Lumpert: Yes - certainly

    Interviewer: Thank you Mr. Lumpert for answering all those questions.
    Additional question: You appeared in a TV documentation at the Lindenhof in Zurich. Can you remember?
    Lumpert: Yes – I do
    Interviewer: Together with Dr. Swire – a long time ago…
    Lumpert: Yes – it is a long time ago
    Interviewer: You did say in this film that the fragment could not be from a functioning timer… It is from a prototype. Today – do you still stick to the same opinion?
    Lumpert: I still have the same opinion.
    Interviewer: From your point of view it was a prototype and not one out of the series delivered to Libya or other places.
    Lumpert: [not out of the series…] No (it was a prototype)
    Additional question: On 27th April 1990 at the laboratory of Siemens Munich/Germany the Original fragment had been cut into two pieces. [Picture: You can see this here.] [Lumpert points to the picture.] On the lab photos you cannot see the scratch marks made by you. [Additional comment – not recorded; high definition pictures could lead eventually to a different conclusion]

    > ontionued below>>>

  3. > ontionued below >>>

    3)> A member of the Siemens staff made a statement under oath, at the court in Zeist, that the surface of the fragment had been polished.
    On the Lab photo of Siemens you can see clearly the curve of the fragment – sawed by hand – could you point at it – and the carbonized part.
    The court in Zeist confirmed that the Siemens Lab photo shows the Original fragment which was found (in the Lockerbie area) and not a copy of it. It is clearly the Original fragment.
    Mr.Lumpert – did you know that after you made the scratch marks, the fragment was brought to Siemens in Munich/Germany?
    Lumpert: No
    Interviewer: This I did not know.
    Lumpert: No
    Last question: At the time you made the scratch marks at the Mebo lab – was the fragment collected on the same day or at a later time?
    Lumpert: No – it must have been at the same day.
    Interviewer: For you this was – a so called - quick job.
    Lumpert: Naturally – Yes
    Interviewer: For you making the scratch marks was an easy task.
    Lumpert: Yes, Yes
    Interviewer: Thanks for your statements.
    MEBO COMMENTTARY: All criminal backwards dated data, about the finding of the fragment (PT­35) on 15 September 1989 and 12 May 1989, were altered and then testified at the Court in Kamp van Zeist from Scottish official witnesses, under Oath, nr. 355, Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) nr. 994, Chief Inspector William Williamson, (Scottish Police) nr. 257, Det. Thomas Gilchrist, (Scottish Police).

    The fragment PT­35 was never tested for traces of explosives !

    The secret facts when (temporal) and where (at what location) had engineer Ulrich Lumpert, the three (3) Scratch bodies and the letter (M) scratched into the real, black carbonized, MST-13 timer pice of evidence (PT-35) ; before the photo shoot was created (PP8932 / PI/995), at RARDE - is no longer a secret ! This crucial "ENIGMA" completes the proof of fraud in a new appeal to 100% !

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage:

    All criminal backwards dated data, about the finding of the fragment (PT­35) on 15 September 1989 and 12 May 1989, were altered and then testified at the Court in Kamp van Zeist from Scottish official witnesses, under Oath, nr. 355, Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) nr. 994, Chief Inspector William Williamson, (Scottish Police) nr. 257, Det. Thomas Gilchrist, (Scottish Police). The fragment PT­35 was never tested for traces of explosives !

    The secret facts when (temporal) and where (at what location) had engineer Ulrich Lumpert, the three (3) Scratch bodies and the letter (M) scratched into the real, black carbonized, MST-13 timer pice of evidence (PT-35) ; before the photo shoot was created (PP8932 / PI/995), at RARDE - is no longer a secret ! This crucial "ENIGMA" completes the proof of fraud in a new appeal to 100% !

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage:

  5. Dear Prof Robert Black, please if I am correct ? - in the case of false witness statements under OATH, deliberately made at the court in Kamp van Zeist (2000, under Scottish jurisdiction), the penalty is in Scotland, 7 years' imprisonment ?

    Many thanks Edwin Bollier/MEBO Ltd

  6. Edwin, the relevant crime in Scottish law is perjury. This is a common law (not statutory) crime and so the sentence is not fixed and must be determined by the judge in accordance with the seriousness of the case. It can range from a fine, up imprisonment for years, including even life imprisonment (though this would be very unusual).

    1. Perjury as you say has no fixed punishment as in the case of BP's Lord Brown who repeatedly committed perjury in a case against his boyfriend and had to be told by the judge to stop. He got completely away with it so i am sure something the same will happen to the Scottish "Officials" who commited perjury and they also will get away with it. It's how the "British" justice system works. Totally corrupt.

  7. I would like to know:

    1) if the timer fragment in question is the fragment that is also the Sn-only printed circuit board.
    (if so, it would follow that MEBO _did_ work with Sn-only boards)

    2) there are two pictures on-line on
    which shows completely different "M"s.
    Why would that be?

    3) Lumpert's way of marking board would be to make a hardly visible scratch with some tool. A scratch that would be completely invisible if it was touched or rubbed by a finger.
    I have seen countless marked boards, but in all cases something called a "marker" (made for that purpose exactly) was used. This had 3 obvious advantages:
    1. Clearly visible. 2. Robust towards handling.
    What would have MEBO choosing such a failure-prone and unusual method?

    4) It has in other contexts been argued, that the FBI was surprisingly lucky that such an identifiable fragment was found. Would MEBO agree, that it is also an amazing coincidence that this fragment also holds Lumbert's scratch, still visible?

  8. Dear SM
    There is only one original MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) which was supposedly found in a slalom shirt, by expert Allen Feraday at RARDE, on January 20, 1990. The original letter "M" and the three scratch marks are visible on this PT-35 fragment (enclosed in a red circle on the judicial proof photo). All other illustrations must be manipulated pictures.
    Please have a look at the new film document from MEBO LTD, which will be published in about 2 weeks on the MEBO website: and on facebook.
    Sorry I can not give you more explanations. best Edwin Bollier/MEBO Ltd

  9. The so-called "M" seems to be a scratch done to the fragment by Hayes when he first discovered it, apparently in an attempt to ascertain what the real surface of the fragment was like under the grime or sooting. It's just an extension - a sort of flourish - of a more concentrated attempt to scrape off the surface coating between the tracking lines. This is quite obvious from the photograph with the red circle which was taken in May 1989. All later photos (the one in the other link given by SM dates from September 1989) appear to show the board cleaned completely of the surface grime so the rough scratches Hayes made no longer appear.

    I wish Edwin would address the substantial issues around that fragment, such as what sort of tinning process was used within MEBO to make prototype or test boards, whether they had a facility to apply alloy tinning or whether they simply used liquid (chelated) tin.

    Instead of repeating obvious canards about scratched "M" markings and manipulation and substitution of things that quite clearly have not been manipulated or substituted. Instead of posting fanciful and misleading interpretations of the Frankfurt coding sheets. Instead of muddying the waters at every available opportunity,

    And by the way, the "TO" letters on the Erac printout stand for "Tunnel Ost".

  10. Thank you, gentlefolks.

    I see that I in my "3 obvious advantages" forgot to mention the 3rd, which would have been '3. Leaving no doubt about whether the marking was truly an intended such, or something else'.

    Based on what I have (and in above answer from you, Mr. Bollier unfortunately:haven't) read so far, I keep thinking it is not in the interest of MEBO to spend efforts on the "M"-postulate if your aim would be to increase the general trust people would have in you, in Lockerbie matters.

    You posted recently that Operation Sandwood did not want to meet you. It is unfortunate. Unfortunate, that I have to think that they did the only right thing.

    You could do yourself a great favor by reading through chapter "9. PT/35(b)" in "Adequately Explained by Stupidity" (ISBN 978 1783062 508) and seriously answer/comment on the matters raised, including the matter of the Sn-only production method. Something you'd imagine you could do. But I suppose that if this would happen it had been done already.

    From a man who for decades have an ongoing interest in the Lockerbie affair and has been so close to it, it is just beyond me that producing matters that appears (to me) as nonsense is his primary interest.

    If JfM would have a weak case, well, by all means, 'baffle them with bullshit' would win a few supporters, as for any weak alternative theory.

    But as it is, WHY not deliver your part with something clear, well-referenced, usable?

    Choose your way of contributing, so people mean what you want them to mean if they say "There's enough material here for a whole conference".

  11. Sehr geehrte Katze Rolfe, Ihrem Wunsch Denken kann ich nicht entsprechen, das MST-13 Timerfragment Beweisstück (PT-35) in einem Slalom Shirt, war erstmals am 20. Januar 1990, von Experte Allen Feraday, bei RARDE, gefunden worden ! Nach neusten Beweisen, war das Beweisstück (PT-35) im Herbst 1989, zuvor von ex Ing. Ulrich Lumpert, mit dem Buchstabe "M" für Muster und den drei Kratzstellen bearbeitet worden.
    Alle anderen Fund Datum, u.a. Seite 51, wurden vorsätzlich manipuliert.
    Überzeugen Sie sich durch den neuen Dokumentar Beweisfilm, demnächst publiziert auf unserer Webseite:

    google translation German/English:

    Dear cat Rolfe, your wish thinking I can not correspond, the MST-13 Timerfragment Proof (PT-35) in a slalom shirt, was first found on January 20, 1990, by expert Allen Feraday, at RARDE !
    According to recent evidence, before in the autumn of 1989, from ex-Engineer Ulrich Lumpert, the piece of evidence (PT-35) had been edited with the Letter "M" (for Muster = sample) and the three scratch points.

    All other dates among others, like page 51, were deliberately manipulated.
    Convince yourself by the new documentary proof film, soon to be published on our website:

    best Edwin Bollier & MEBO Ltd

  12. Sure, Edwin. And the band played, "Believe it if you like".

    The provenance of PT/35b is difficult to pin down with certainty due to poor archiving procedures at RARDE. However photograph 117 would appear to have been taken DURING the examination described by Hayes on the infamous "page 51", as it shows the collar after the debris has been removed from it, but before the leaves of the wad of manual fragment have been separated out. The separated leaves are drawn individually on page 51.

    Although PT/35b itself disappears from the narrative, there are clear and detailed photographs of the separated manual pages which date to May 1989. These pages were indeed part of the narrative of the case from that period. And the archival date for the negative of photograph 117 is indeed May 1989. (Bear in mind that at one point earlier in these discussions Edwin said that photograph 117 was a polaroid and therefore there would be no negative. Funny that, because the negative was produced and shown to the SCCRC.)

    It is certainly true that pages 50 and 51 look very much like interpolations. It would be very easy to infer that Hayes was not working on that material on Friday 12th May 1989, in fact resuming his interrupted examination on Monday 15th. The fact that he seems to have told a pack of lies to the SCCRC doesn't exactly help his credibility either. Nevertheless his notes are a shambles throughout, with multiple instances of interpolated pages, sometimes with extra added pages even splitting a sentence. It's incredibly shoddy practice, particularly in a forensic laboratory. If he had really wanted to add the notes about PI/995 after the event he could have done it almost seamlessly so one has to wonder why it looks so obviously manipulated. Maybe there's something underhand going on, but I can't make out what it was. Maybe he was just terminally disorganised and chiropody's gain wasn't much of a loss to forensic science.

    One also has to bear in mind that Ludwig de Braeckeleer has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the fragment of shirt collar itself really did fall out of the sky. Was PT/35b (and/or the rest of the debris) actually within it at the time? I can't absolutely prove that it was, but I'm finding it almost impossible to figure out a scenario whereby it could have been plausibly and practically introduced later. I am working on the premise, for now, that PT/35b really did fall out of the sky on the night of the disaster. I don't even begin to understand what that means, as it does not appear to be one of the timer instruments supplied to Libya but rather to be a deliberate counterfeit made from the original template but using the one-off liquid tin process rather than the industrial alloy process. And I do not believe that the bomb was triggered by a count-down timer.

    It's worth noting in this context that the Letraset template for these circuit boards was in the possession of MEBO all along. It's possible to make a photographic copy of an existing board to create new ones, and that would have the same characteristics as the original template, but it would require a board without any components soldered on to it or from which the components had been removed. The obvious source of that counterfeit board is the original template. I wonder what that's all about. Catch-letter and Spanish typewriter as well.

    The whole "M" thing is quite obviously a blatant and transparent lie. Just like the story about the two pieces of PT/35b after sectioning having been manipulated with one of the pieces not having the green solder resist on the back. Just like the fake interpretation of the Frankfurt computer printout. Just like photograph 117 being a polaroid. Just like saying the letters "TO" on the printout represent the English word "to". And in my personal opinion Ulrich Lumpert's "confession" is simply him doing what his boss told him to do.

    Just what is Edwin Bollier up to?

    1. No doubt, but I'm looking for a lot more detail than that. Where is this money coming from, for a start.

    2. From the Scottish taxpayer!

  13. Sehr geehrte Katze Rolfe.
    Es ist ja schon mal gut, dass Sie der Ansicht sind, die Bombe sei nicht mit einem Zeit- Timer aktiviert worden. Der Beweis mit einem MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) war ein gezielter Indizienbeweis-Betrug, "zurechtgebastelt" im Umfeld eines Intelligenz Dienstes, gegen das frühere Gaddafi Regime.
    Hier ist auch nach dem Grund zu suchen , wieso von der Schweizer Justiz, eine ermöglichte Strafuntersuchung in dieser Angelegenheit, gegen einen Mitarbeiter des Nachrichtendienstes und unbekannte, bis zur Verjährung verschleppt wurde.

    Notabene: Es existieren beim schottischen Untersuchung Team 2 Stück ähnliche (fake) MST-13 Timerfragmente (PT-35):

    1)> Das reale, karbonisierte (PT-35) Fragment, abgebildet auf Foto 117, PI/995 - (diese Foto konnte nicht am 12. Mai 1989, erstellt worden sein - sondern heute nachweisbar, erst ab Januar 1990 !

    2) > Das zweite MST-13 Timerfragment war ein grünes Fragment 'PT-35' Duplikat, nicht schwarz karbonisiert - welches im Juni 1990, beim FBI- Labor zur Begutachtung und zum Vergleich mit dem TOGO-Timer, (K1) - u.a. von SIO Stuart Henderson und seiner Crew, eingereicht wurde.
    Ende der weiteren Stellungnahme,
    best Edwin Bollier /MEBO Ltd

    With the help of google translation German/English:

    Dear cat Rolfe.
    It's minimum a good thing that you not believe that the bomb was triggered by a count-down timer. The evidence with an MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) was a deliberate evidence-proving fraud, "handicraft" in the context of an Inteligence area, against the former Gaddafi regime.
    This is also the reason to search why, from the Swiss judiciary, a possible criminal investigation against an employee of the intelligence service and unknown ones, has been prosecuted until the statute of limitations...

    Notabene: There are 2 similar (fake) MST-13 timer fragments (PT-35) in the Scottish investigation team :

    1) > The real, carbonized (PT-35) fragment, depicted on photo 117, PI / 995 - (this photo could not have been produced on 12 May 1989, but to day, provable first onwards from January 1990 !

    2) >The second MST-13 timer fragment was a green fragment 'PT-35' duplicate, not black carbonized - which was used in June 1990, at the FBI laboratory for assessment and comparison with the TOGO timer, (K1). by SIO, Stuart Henderson and his crew.

    End of more statements,
    Best Edwin Bollier / MEBO Ltd

  14. Two PT/35bs? Only one PT/35b has ever been photographed. All the photographs in existence are of the same thing. So do I believe Edwin when he says that there is another one, with no photographs of it in the public domain, which he knows about because he's seen it? Let me think about that...

    Let's talk about where that thing came from, and templates. The original template for the circuit board was made by Ulrich Lumpert using Letraset. A photograph of the template appears in the Joint Forensic Report. The template would have been in the possession of either MEBO or Thüring and I'd put a large bet on MEBO as Thuring wouldn't have held on to it after the order was fulfilled.

    The circuitry of PT/35b appears to have been produced using the template. The template that was in Switzerland, at the MEBO premises. What was produced was an essentially perfect copy of the PCBs in the first batch of timers sold to Libya, with the only difference being that instead of Thüing's production-line alloy tinning, this one-off item was dipped in liquid tin. My educated guess is that MEBO had no production-line facilities to produce PCBs in quantity (if it had, it wouldn't have outsourced the production run to Thüing in the first place). So they had to use the chelated tin product used for one-off prototype work.

    The first run of PCBs received from Thüing were strange. They had solder resist brushed on the back for no readily apparent reason, but no solder resist on the business side. Someone has made another PCB in the same way, using the template MEBO had, and identical components otherwise, but they had to use liquid tin because they didn't have access to a production-line system that would apply alloy tinning.

    Now who could that have been I wonder and why would they have done that and how did that item come to be close to the explosion on PA103 on the evening of 21st December 1988? All these things that Edwin could be telling us, but instead he writes balderdash about "M" markings and duplicate fragments.

    1. I keep getting the html wrong.