Thursday, 20 October 2016

Lockerbie evidence was taken abroad

[This is part of the headline over a report published on the STV News website on this date in 2009. It reads in part:]

Christine Grahame says Crown Office confirmed fragment taken abroad by investigating officers.

An MSP says that a key piece of evidential material used to convict the Lockerbie bomber was taken to Germany and the US without the defence team or the prosecutor knowing.

Christine Grahame MSP says the Crown Office confirmed to her that the fragment was taken to Germany and then to the US by Scottish investigating officers without the knowledge of the defence team or the senior prosecutor at the time of the investigation.

Ms Grahame also claims Scottish police investigators did not record the fragment's transportation across the world and in doing so broke the vital chain of evidence undermining the integrity of the fragment.

She said: "The Crown Office have confirmed to me today that the fragment, PT-35, the piece of evidence that it was claimed linked Libya to the attack was also sent to Germany in April 1990 as well as the US.

"On the 22nd of June 1990 it was then taken to the FBI lab in Washington for examination by FBI officials there. Lord Fraser makes it clear he did not know and would not have allowed this evidence to be taken out of Scottish jurisdiction and control, but that is precisely what did happen. That leaves a very serious question mark over the central piece of evidence used to convict Mr Megrahi."

[RB: The history of PT35 and its travels can be found on Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer’s PT35B website.]


  1. DOSSIER LOCKERBIE 2016 > Dok. Nr. 501185.rtf:
    For the time being for legal reasons only in German language. English in preparation:

    Wieso wurde im Lockerbie-Prozess 2000, von Zeuge Nr. 355, Expert Allen Feraday *(RARDE) - Nr. 994, Chief Inspector William Williamson, (Scottish Police) und - Nr. 257, Det. Thomas Gilchrist, (Scottish Police) mit falschen Zeugenaussagen unter Eid - der Gerichtsbarkeit vorgetäuscht - dass das entscheidende Beweisstück Fragment (PT-35) sei am 12. Mai 1989 gefunden worden ?

    Das Fragment sei abstammend von einem MST-13 Timer, welcher den Sprengsatz (IED) auf Flug PanAm 103, über Lockerbie aktiviert haben soll ? Anfänglich wurde, nach fragwürdigen Unterlagen von *RARDE, das Fragment (PT-35) am 15. September 1989 - dann suspekterweise, schlussfolgernd am 12. Mai 1989, in einem angebrannten Stück "Slalom"-Shirt, im Labor bei (RARDE) durch Experte Allen Feraday, gefunden ?
    Am Gericht wurde diese fragwürdige Angelegenheit als mysteriös in den Raum gestellt und dann achtlos übergangen...

    *RARDE in Fort Halstead, ist das Hauptquartier 'of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment'.

    Erst 7 Jahre, nach dem Gerichtsurteil, wurde durch die SCCR-Commission aus einem übermittelten Telexschreiben von Experte Feraday, an den Investigating Officer (SIO) Stuart Henderson aufgedeckt, dass das MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) – erstmals am 20. Januar 1990, in einem angebrannten Stück "Slalom"-Shirt bei (RARDE) aufgefunden wurde !

    1.) Kernfrage: Wieso wurde von den Experten Dr. Thomas Hayes und Allen Feraday bei der Zusammenstellung des "RARDE- Report 181", anfänglich nicht vom "realen" Fund Datum des MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) vom 20. Januar 1990 ausgegangen ?

    2.) Wieso trug das Memorandum, übermittelt von Experte Feraday an Insp. William Williamson - mit der Beschreibung über das aufgefundene MST-13 Timerfragment, das Datum vom 15. September 1989 ?
    Auf dem Polizei-Label (PT'137) wurde das ursprünglichen Datum 10. September 1990, mittels Überschreibung, auf das falsche Datum, 15. September 1989, zurück gesetzt (gefälscht) ?

    3.) Warum trägt das suspekte Memorandum, geschrieben von Experte Allen Feraday (RARDE) - und überreicht an Insp. William Williamson – ebenfalls das Datum vom 15. September 1989 ?

    4.) Wieso und wann wurde das Fund Datum des MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) vom
    (20. Januar 1990) nachträglich mit einem falschen Datum, nochmals und endgülltig auf den 12. Mai 1989, zurück gebucht und auf einer zusätzlich, eingeschleusten Zusatzseite Nr. 51, im 'RARDE' Report 181 registriert ?

    5.) Wieso wurde im Lockerbie-Prozess verheimlicht, dass das "reale" MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) im Herbst 1989, zu Ing. Ulrich Lumpert, in das MEBO Labor nach Zürich gebracht wurde, wo Ing. Lumpert "mindestens" das Schriftzeichen "M" (Abkürzung für Muster) und drei (3) Kratzstellen auf das schwarz karbonisierte MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) einkratzte ?
    Wichtig: Diese "ominöse" Bearbeitung , von Ing. Lumpert, am realen Fragment (PT-35), wurde bereits 1989, vor dem Auffinden des Fragments (PT-35) in einem "Slalom"- Shirt bei (RARDE) im Januar 1990, und ohne Wissen der Inhaber der 'Firma MeBo Ltd' , Meister & Bollier ausgeführt !

    6.) Welche Person, unter Schutzbegleitung der Schweizer "BUPO" haben das MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) - (oder die mögliche, am 22. Juni 1989, unerlaubt übergebene MST-13 Timerplatine (Prototyp) an einem Kommissar der "BUPO") - zur Bearbeitung zu Ing Lumpert, in das MEBO-Labor gebracht ?

    "Senior Ivestigating Officer (SIO) Suart Henderson said in a statement that the original fragment was abroad always under custody of Scottish Police. If this statement is correct, then a Scottish official must have witnessed the "scratsching session" of Ing. Ulrich Lumpert, by MEBO Labor at Zürich 1989" !!!

    continued below >>>

  2. Continued >>>

    7.) Wieso wurde unter Anweisung von Insp. William Williamson, Scottish Police, das reale Timerfragment (PT-35) am 27. April 1990, zu Firma Siemens in München (DL) gebracht - und warum wurde bei Siemens, u.a. die von Ing. Ulrich Lumpert (MEBO Ltd) markierten drei (3) Kratzstellen und der Buchstabe "M" auf dem MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35 ) auspoliert; sowie das Fragment in zwei Telstücke (PT'35/b) und (DP'31/a) zersägt ?

    8.) Wieso wurde mittels einem offiziellen schweizerischen Dokument der Abteilung Staatschutz vorgetäuscht, das schottische Beweisstück der MST-13 Timerplatine sei beim Wissenschaftlichen Dienst des Kanton Zürich, begutachtet worden und hätte nicht mit der, von Ing. Lumpert, unerlaubt an einem Mitarbeiter des Nachrichtendienstes (NDB) übergebenen MST-13 Timerplatine, übereingestimmt ? Lüge: Das reale Fragment (PT-35) wurde nie dem Wissenschaftlichen Dienst zur Begutachtung übergeben !

    9.) Das Forensische Polizei Institut in Zürich hatte im Auftrag von Edwin Bollier & MEBO AG, lediglich ein Fotoauftrag über zwei verschiedene Printplatten (Circuit Boards), fabriziert aus 8 bezugsweise 9 Fiberglas Lagen ausgeführt.
    Alle Antworten werden in einer Publikation, unterstützt mit Bild & Ton (Dokumentfilmen) demnächst auf der MEBO Webseite und zur Ergänzung für die "Scottish Operation SANDWOOD" veröffentlicht.

    Ein neues "Appeal" in Scotland ist aufgrund dessen unerlässlich, um auch das "Miscarriage of Justice" gegen den verstorbenen Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, aufzuklären.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage:

  3. From Braeckeleer’s PT35B website.:

    Richard Marquise, FBI: “No PT/35(b), No Case.”


    The fragment has nothing else to do with the accused than that he
    - was from a country where the timer was delivered into
    - through his work, in another context, knew Bollier, the producer.

    How can this, so weak evidence against an accused person, make any significant difference in weather there would be a trial or not?

    Can we then at least agree, that if weak evidence has enough weight to make any difference, it is because no strong evidence exists?

    But of course, it all adds up, fitting together 'to form a real and convincing pattern' when you are willing enough to accept it, regardless of how well each element is established, and how incriminating they are.

  4. Richard Marquise is a hot-headed idiot who isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is. He also doesn't know nearly as much about the case as a whole as he thinks he does, as is demonstrated by that execrable "Scotbom" book of his. Couldn't you afford a decent editor, Dick?

    The fragment of circuit board was instrumental in turning the investigation towards Libya and away from the PFLP-GC. Without it I suppose a case for the bomb having travelled from Malta would be struggling a bit, but even there, since no part of a barometric timer was shown to the court I expect the judges could have been persuaded of the logic of a countdown timer. What it does not do is implicate Megrahi in any meaningful way.

    The case against Megrahi was that he bought the clothes, and then he was at the airport when the bomb was smuggled on to the plane. (He didn't buy the clothes and he wasn't at the airport when the bomb was smuggled on board the plane.) Without the timer fragment it's unlikely he would have been fingered as a suspect because he only surfaced once the investigators, working on the belief that the fragment demonstrated that Lockerbie was a Libyan operation, had been instructed to look for Libyans.

    But there is no meaningful link between the timers and Megrahi. Dick is a bit of a dickhead on this point.

  5. The daft thing is, so what if the fragment was taken to the USA and somebody didn't fill in the paperwork properly? Just what is being implied here? The evidence is that the item was accompanied and supervised by a Scottish police officer the whole time, and you only have to look at the photos to see it hasn't been substituted or anything like that.

    I wish people would stop pointing to this adventure as if it means something. It doesn't, or not obviously, and it smacks very much of an attempt to have an incriminating piece of evidence disallowed on a technicality.

    The thing is a fake, and it always was a fake and it was a fake when it fell out of the sky. Worry about that part.

    1. If it is a fake, i didn't fell out of the sky. It was introduced in the chain of evidence at Dexstar after the investigation switched from Iran/Syria to Libya, t.i. between march (the Georgie/Maggie telephone call) and may (Hayes' examination) 1989.

    2. No, wrong!, sorry. PI/995 was found on 13/1/89 and received bij RARDE on 8/2/89. This means PT/35b was introduced after 13/1/89 and before 8/2/89, well before the telephone call.

    3. You have some evidence for this? I've pored over Hayes's notes and looked at the provenance of the entire thing from the collar being found in a field near Newcastleton on 13th January and I can't see any loophole where PT/35b could have been added, let alone any sign that anything like that actually happened.

      You have, thankfully, spotted that the provenance of the thing goes way back far earlier than the switch from Iran/Syria to Libya (which happened in September of 1990) and indeed significantly before the alleged telephone call about backing off a bit on the PFLP-GC which was supposedly in March of 1989.

      Now, we have to distinguish between PI/995, the shirt collar, and PT/35b, the PCB fragment. I hate to disappoint you, and believe me the discovery disappointed me too, but Ludwig de Braeckeleer has clearly shown that the shirt collar fell out of the sky on the night of the disaster.

      The question then becomes, is it possible that the PCB fragment was introduced later and its provenance reverse-engineered to link it to the shirt collar? As I said, I can find no hard evidence that this happened, and indeed I can't find any way to postulate a possible way it could have been added.

      We have to face the possibility that PT/35b, which was not a part of one of the timers sold to Libya but appears to be a deliberate fake made to look as if it came from one of these timers, was actually on the plane, very close to the explosion, and fell to earth in the shirt collar on the night of the disaster.

      And yet the rest of the evidence says that the explosion was not detonated by a countdown timer. This is all extremely odd. However this is not a detective story, it is something that actually happened. Therefore the more we can discover about what actually happened the better chance we have of solving the mystery.

    4. Yes, the collar felt out of the sky, but maybe not all the rubble that was found inside it. They had nearly three weeks to introduce "evidence" in the collar before it was sent to RARDE on 8/2/89.

    5. They did. It's a theory I'm very partial to myself. The trouble is I can't see any way it could easily have been done, let alone any sign that it was done. I'm even open to the possibility of it being introduced at a later date and the May (and even September) provenance being retrospective. But nothing I can think of actually works.

      When you're reduced to postulating a ridiculously complicated scenario to explain a possible substitution that if it had actually happened could have been done with relative simplicity (except we can see that wasn't done), you know your theory is in trouble.

    6. And after introducing evidence "cloth" became "debris".

  6. Yeah, someone decided to alter the label so everyone could see it had been tampered with. Right, supremely logical.

    You find some flaw in the recorded provenance of that thing and we're in business. I can't find anything. It's fun brainstorming ideas but unless the evidence actually allows your pet theory to be possible, you have to put it to one side.

    1. Yes, sure you are right. PT/35b is fake and it was introduced somewhere in AVE4041 to implicate Libya right from the start. It felt out of the sky and luckily it was found in a piece of cloth in a field just anywhere in Scotland. Does that sound logical?

      BTW probably the guy who introduced the evidence didn't alter the label.

    2. No, that doesn't sound logical either of course.

      I do not know what PT/35b is. I do not know who made it or when it was made or for what purpose it was made. (I have a fair suspicion that Edwin knows at least some of these answers but he's not telling. All he posts are fairy-stories that seem designed to mislead.) Not knowing, I don't make categorical statements I can't substantiate.

      I can't find any plausible way that thing was introduced into the chain of evidence after the event. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it does mean this problem needs to be overcome before we can assert that it was done, or use that assertion as a basis for further theorising.

      At the moment the best-fit interpretation of the evidence we have says the debris was in the collar when it fell out of the sky. That's a hard one to fit into any theory but if it's the truth then we won't get anywhere if we just go into denial about it.

      There's an answer somewhere. Sure, it would be a lot easier to make everything fit if the PCB fragment was a retrospective plant and if anyone can find a plausible way that could have happened I'll buy them a drink. But until we get a serious lead we have to keep our minds open to all possibilities, and face up to the fact that at present the more difficult answer to "did it fall out of the sky?" seems to be the front runner.