tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post2083805887144053514..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Tony Blair, Libya and Megrahi's repatriationRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-25674640170693771692010-07-01T07:55:55.303+01:002010-07-01T07:55:55.303+01:00That is why I do not treat it as a game. Numbers o...That is why I do not treat it as a game. Numbers of CIA officials, senior government personnel, forensic scientists and the like face any number of charges ranging from perjury to murder.<br /><br />I want to see them in the dock. I do not see my position as point scoring. And one doesn't score points in Cluedo.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33638064398794623422010-07-01T00:26:16.297+01:002010-07-01T00:26:16.297+01:00I'm quite sure Professor Black is not offended...I'm quite sure Professor Black is not offended by your comments. He has a very tolerant attitude to his blog posts.<br /><br />However, I'm still entitled to express my opinion that talking about scoring points, as if this was a game of Cluedo, is grossly insensitive.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-13398223516117789912010-06-30T05:43:47.629+01:002010-06-30T05:43:47.629+01:00Dear Rolfe,
There is no point in addressing you w...Dear Rolfe,<br /><br />There is no point in addressing you while you are in this mood. I find my attitude to Lockerbie and its various tragedies entirely self-consistent, even as my understanding of where I think the blame lies changes.<br /><br />If the agencies I feel are responsible had just had a rule as I believe MI6 does "not we jobs" the Pan Am 103 atrocity (and I regard it as an atrocity would not have happened. I regarded much that is said about Lockerbie (such as some of the US relatives attitude towards Mr Megrahi and what his position should be) as so much maundering sentimentality created by political and criminally inclined intelligence circles in the US, who have shamelessly allowed a series of outright lies to be promoted and promulgated. Even if HW Bush, the CIA, the CTC of the CIA, the FBI, the SD, the DoJ and the rest were to hold up their hands today and say" "this is actually the truth", and tell us it, it would appear as just another patina of lie, not to be swept away but polished up by conspiracy theorists. Fot CTs are not folk looking for a solution but an ever-indulgent ritualistic bath in the bloody remains of how terrible things are. Nothing can be done.<br /><br />My point, which was directed at some unimportant point Baz had written, at not a you Rolfe did not call for me to express elephantine crass heart on your shirt sympathy. If you do not know what I feel and think by now, find somewhere else to blog. How about the anti-homeopathy circles (about which I have much sympathy with your position).<br /><br />If you don't like what I write, please complain to Black, but so far nothing I've said has apparently caused him alarm, though he says he has somewhat eccentric standards.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-72816244534857951302010-06-29T22:37:11.930+01:002010-06-29T22:37:11.930+01:00In case you really need it spelled out, Charles, y...In case you really need it spelled out, Charles, your comment about "points" was crass and tasteless.<br /><br />You of all people should know this isn't a rhetorical jousting-match.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-28839936484711069802010-06-29T21:07:41.829+01:002010-06-29T21:07:41.829+01:00I don't know the point of that comment, Rolfe,...I don't know the point of that comment, Rolfe, so I shall ignore it.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-28042364550249460162010-06-29T20:51:41.667+01:002010-06-29T20:51:41.667+01:00Yes. You should know better.Yes. You should know better.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-68045158740080871322010-06-29T08:09:07.276+01:002010-06-29T08:09:07.276+01:00I know. At the risk of saying something obvious, ...I know. At the risk of saying something obvious, I have been there, not that tragedy and not a victim.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-48613319902229786372010-06-28T21:25:57.598+01:002010-06-28T21:25:57.598+01:00It's not a game, or a competition. It's a...It's not a game, or a competition. It's a blown-up airliner, a town in flames and a lot of dead people.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29214426647404500482010-06-28T11:20:10.847+01:002010-06-28T11:20:10.847+01:00If it was a deduction what were the premisses?
Yo...If it was a deduction what were the premisses?<br /><br />You are always keen to tell others to back up their arguments, but when presented with a straightforward issue on what Orr said and how his argument is backed up, you duck.<br /><br />Yet another two points to me, Baz!Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-15097829891793540132010-06-28T10:35:10.141+01:002010-06-28T10:35:10.141+01:00Baz,
If you don't mind, you placed the word p...Baz,<br /><br />If you don't mind, you placed the word prove in inverted commas. I tend to think such a demarcation suggests that the author does not place the words at face value. It is not an emphasis as the inline bold and italics are available for that!Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-12835654388520507532010-06-28T10:27:32.774+01:002010-06-28T10:27:32.774+01:00"That's a claim, not a deduction, and vir..."That's a claim, not a deduction, and virtually a tautology". Tedious semantics is what that is. It was a deduction.<br /><br />"What witnesses"? Orr said "evidence from witnesses is to the effect" ect. I suppose you will hhave to figure out what witnesses he was referring to.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4778770677056003102010-06-23T16:50:30.972+01:002010-06-23T16:50:30.972+01:00== Indeed I believe that Mr Manly may have been pr...== Indeed I believe that Mr Manly may have been produced at the appeal to get the damaging nature of his evidence out of the way. Appeal courts are notoriously unwilling to uphold new defence evidence of the first occasion; consider the Jill Dando murderer and the Colin Stagg case, to say nothing of the Guildford four and Birmingham Six.<br /><br />I find Leppard very accurate and his book contains some gems. <br /><br />== I have met Leppard, and he is a driven man with that typical “I know more that you can ever know” attitude some journalists adopt.<br /><br />However his is the story of the investigation (and in my view where the investigation went wrong.) The story of the "extra" bags is there for all to see in this 1991 bags. Yet Leppard goes along with the official story that the Indian Head tests "eliminated" the Interline bags and to quote Leppard "Kamboj was in the clear". <br /><br />== But, imo, Kamboj was cleared. There is nothing in his subsequent career to suggest he had made a lot of money planting a bomb case, and no one every made any accusations against him, to the best of my knowledge.<br /><br />Leppard sees nothing wrong with Orr's claim that the extra bags were Interline bags, that the primary suitcase was amongst the Online bags and must therefore have been an Online bag.<br /><br />To make the simple but crucial point yet again the only way to prove the brown Samsonite seen by Bedford was an Interline bag was to recover it and link it to a specific Interline passenger - but this suitcase was never recovered (unless it was the primary suitcase). The extra bags were "eliminated" in theory but not in reality.<br /><br />== And you think you can reality them in practice? <br /><br />According to Leppard there were 13 bags that came off other flights at Heathrow. I do not know how this figure is arrived at. I emphatically do not assume they were all placed in AVE4041. I do not know and neither did Orr. As I have pointed out the only way to know for sure if a bag was in AVE4041 was if it was bomb-damaged. There were a number of "candidate" bags both Interline and Online that were placed in AVE4041. That does not mean that the two "extra" bags must have been Interline or Online. The point I was making was that Orr was not in a position to say that all the remaining bags in AVE4041 (after the first 5-8) had come from Frankfurt.<br /><br />== Nobody is going to give you material they believe to be irrelevant. You can join the forlorn hope of a call for a “proper inquiry” - UKFF103, but they have been calling for one for twenty years. No dice, and unlike you and me, they have a proper reason. Lockerbie must be solved on the evidence that is there, and we have to put forward with what has been produced a story so likely to be right, so damning that the authorities are forced to respond.<br /><br />Orr tried to "prove" that the primary suitcase was amongst the "Online" bags not the "Interline" bags. Therefore in Orr's logic it must also be an Online bag. <br /><br />== That's a claim, not a deduction, and virtually a tautology. Orr is a candidate for the Golfer. He left as Lockerbie SIO in 1996 and was promoted to CC of Strathclyde Police, which in terms of promotion in the police hierarchy, DCS to CC missing out ACC and DC is a hell of a promotion. Then went on to get a knighthood in 2001 and given a retirement project of writing a “parades report”.<br /><br />You could argue that there is no "a priori" reason that the primary suitcase was not an Interline bag but there is no evidence that they were despite Orr's claim that his assumption was supported by evidence from witnesses. <br /><br />== What witnesses. <br /><br />My argument is that the primary suitcase must have been the brown Samsonite seen by Bedford and could not have been an Online bag as the official version of events claims.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-84404853189829321822010-06-23T16:49:34.927+01:002010-06-23T16:49:34.927+01:00I have thought about this from Orr's point of ...I have thought about this from Orr's point of view. Rolfe states, as Orr believed, that there were three categories of bags on board PA103 - Interline, Online and bags originating at Heathrow.<br /><br />I am suggesting, and believe the evidence is overwhelming, that there was a fourth category comprising the primary suitcase and the other "extra" bags.<br /><br />== I think you have created two categories of extra bags here, the Primary suitcase (origin mysterious) and two other bags, as seen by Bedford and denied by Kamboj. I find Bedford not a very reliable witness, always drinking cups of tea with Mr Walker and blagging off from his job early, because the arrival of Pan Am 103A took him over the end of his shift. The court decided to accept Mr Bedford's evidence, perhaps because it was the Crown's and it is always deferential to the prosecution's position. <br /><br />== On the face of it the Bedford suitcases were detrimental to the Crown's position, for they implied that suitcases had ended up in AVE4041 PA by unusual means. But perhaps the story of the suitcases was known to the defence, and there would always be the possibility that they would ambush the prosecution by presenting Bedford themselves. Always, as Crown, obey the rule that when you've got potentially damaging revelations, produce them on your own terms. It wasn't the first time the Prosecution would do that; they did it with Talb. He was produced in court, for although Taylor could practically accuse him of being a bomber, there wasn't a shred of evidence that related dates, let alone access to Malta or Heathrow airside areas.<br /><br />== So too Bedford. And Bedford had taken part in a reconstruction in the January, where the extra suitcases played a starring part. No can anyone interview Bedford after the 21 December events and those of the reconstruction in the the January and say they will unfailingly reveal what Bedford recalled and can be accurately placed in a timetable. The question of true and false recall is the root of Gauci's testimony problems, especially the fact he was worked on many, many times.<br /><br />== Unlike a court, the police are allowed to come and come again in the process of building a case, especially where a witness isn't the one in the dock.<br /><br />== Here's a case in point. Some years ago I came across the Patrick O'Brien “Jack Aubrey” novels. I liked it so much (Jane Austen meets the Royal Navy) that I sat down and read the whole canon. At the start I had an almost perfect recall of the plot of that first novel. But, as I read through the canon I found that clear recall of the first novel disappearing under the weight of the stories in the other novels. A simpler test might be “Can you remember your first day at school”. If you can, can you recall the second, twenty second or seventieth. Of course not. Reconstruction, where it involves parties involved in the original finding/evidence are notoriously prone to “false memory” syndrome.<br /><br />== In any case, the Bedford reconstruction was highly problematic, for the obvious conclusion to me from it was that two cases had been introduced into AVE4041 PA by illicit means, and despite the timetabling problem the most logical way of introduction was by the break in discovered at 00:05 on 21 December 1988 by Mr Manly, the BAA security guard. That evidence was not produced until the appeal. I believe the Met/MI5 did not want evidence of another failure of Heathrow security to become known, especially so soon after the Hindawi/El Al scandal, where destruction of an Israeli aircraft was only prevented by the operation of superior Israeli security, which was based on profiling passengers and not on blunt, stupid technical means.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-72157437826788836992010-06-23T11:28:49.238+01:002010-06-23T11:28:49.238+01:00I have thought about this from Orr's point of ...I have thought about this from Orr's point of view. Rolfe states, as Orr believed, that there were three categories of bags on board PA103 - Interline, Online and bags originating at Heathrow.<br /><br />I am suggesting, and believe the evidence is overwhelming, that there was a fourth category comprising the primary suitcase and the other "extra" bags.<br /><br />I find Leppard very accurate and his book contains some gems. However his is the story of the investigation (and in my view where the investigation went wrong.) The story of the "extra" bags is there for all to see in this 1991 bags. Yet Lepppard goes along with the official story that the Indian Head tests "eliminated" the Interline bags and to quote Leppard "Kamboj was in the clear". <br />Leppard sees nothing wrong with Orr's claim that the extra bags were Interline bags, that the primary suitcase was amongst the Online bags and must therefore have been an Online bag.<br /><br /> To make the simple but crucial point yet again the only way to prove the brown samsonite seen by Bedford was an Interline bag was to recover it and link it to a specific Interline passenger - but this suitcase was never recovered (unless it was the primary suitcase). The extra bags were "eliminated" in theory but not in reality.<br /><br />According to Leppard there were 13 bags that came off other flights at Heathrow. I do not know how this figure is arrived at. I emphatically do not assume they were all placed in AVE4041. I do not know and neither did Orr. As I have pointed out the only way to know for sure if a bag was in AVE4041 was if it was bomb-damaged. There were a number of "candidate" bags both Interline and Online that were placed in AVE4041. That does not mean that the two "extra" bags must have been Interline or Online. The point I was making was that Orr was not in a position to say that all the remaining bags in AVE4041 (after the first 5-8) had come from Frankfurt.<br /><br /> Orr tried to "prove" that the primary suitcase was amongst the "Online" bags not the "Interline" bags. Therefore in Orr's logic it must also be an Online bag. <br /><br />You could argue that there is no "a priori" reason that the primary suitcase was not an Interline bag but there is no evidence that they were despite Orr's claim that his assumption was supported by evidence from witnesses. My argument is that the primary suitcase must have been the brown samsonite seen by Bedford and could not have been an Online bag as the official version of events claims.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30719918425343142932010-06-18T23:17:08.362+01:002010-06-18T23:17:08.362+01:00If you really need me to spell it out for you, my ...If you really need me to spell it out for you, my thoughts are going like this.<br /><br />Sure, it's possible Orr and the rest of them were just shit-scared of Heathrow having to take the rap for this. That they'd rather let the real bombers get away than leave Heathrow holding the blame. So they decided to hand-wave away all the interline bags, suspicious provenance or not, and concentrate entirely on the Frankfurt consignment.<br /><br />(You know, that rushed transfer across the tarmac was very very lucky for Heathrow. If the connection hadn't been so tight, the online luggage might have gone through the airport systems as well, and left Heathrow in the firing line whether it liked it or not....)<br /><br />OK, maybe it was pure backside-covering. But how would Orr and others get away with that? Wasn't someone involved in the enquiry, maybe someone not that bothered about protecting Heathrow, going to say, hey what about these bags?<br /><br />On the other hand, if the bombers (by accident or design) had managed to introduce the bomb bag right in among a small group of cases that all belonged to US government agents, might that be why any enquiry into the provenance of these cases was choked off? And one of these cases was left behind, too....<br /><br />There's a rabbit hole here, and I'm looking at it dubiously, but are you with me so far? However, before we could venture into it, we'd really need to be sure these really were the Larnaca suitcases, and not some innocent family's from Innsbruck.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90592919910638270682010-06-18T22:49:19.313+01:002010-06-18T22:49:19.313+01:00The only point I was making was that Orr was not i...<i>The only point I was making was that Orr was not in a position to say that all the remaining bags in AVE4041 (after the first 7) were all bags onlined from Frankfurt.</i><br /><br />Baz, you need to think about this from Orr's point of view.<br /><br />There were three categories of baggage on PA103. The largest was cases taken in through the check-in desks at Heathrow. Second, there was interline baggage, which went through Bedford's station. Finally, there was the online baggage transferred directly from PA103A (so far as I know there wasn't another online connecting flight).<br /><br />Orr is noting that AVE4041 contained none of the first category. Apart from the luggage transferred from PA103A, there were only cases from Bedford's interline shed, that is, category "interline baggage".<br /><br />The completely daffy thing about this isn't the labelling of that group of cases as "interline baggage", it's the assumption that <i>none</i> of these cases could have been the bomb bag. Yes, Mr. Orr, we get it that the pinpointing of AVE4041 exonerates the Heathrow check-in. In <i>that</i> sense, "the bomb did not originate at Heathrow". And we accept that the fast and direct transfer of the PA103A luggage on the tarmac essentially absolves Heathrow of responsibility for anything that was loaded at Frankfurt, and that the possibility that a bomb could have been introduced during that exercise was really negligible.<br /><br />However, there is absolutely no <i>a priori</i> reason why the bomb couldn't have been among these interline bags. None at all. (Unless he was sure these bags were all the property of US government agents and maybe a UN representative, but if he was that sure I'd like to know how, and even so, what about a bag switch?) And that's even before you find out that two of these cases had distinctly suspicious provenance. Once you hear about that, surely your suspicions redouble?<br /><br />The problem is not his categorising these suitcases as "interline". They were introduced in the interline shed, so that's not an unreasonable categorisation. It's his lack of scrutiny of <i>any</i> of these cases. I want to know why that was.<br /><br />The Heathrow check-in might be absolved of blame. However, that's not the only way a bomb could have been introduced at Heathrow. The fact that the Official Story decided the bomb bag was interlined into Frankfurt didn't get Frankfurt (or rather, Pan Am's Frankfurt security) off the hook. Exactly the same potential for Heathrow culpability was inherent in the presence of these few non-online (if you like) bags in AVE4041.<br /><br />Why was this ignored? It's not enough just to say "Orr called them all interline bags". Call them all interline bags if you like. How could he possibly know that the bomb hadn't been interlined into Heathrow in one of them, or (as seems most likely) that the bomb suitcase had been introduced at Heathrow by "hacking" the interline baggage?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30455937656508871232010-06-18T21:43:17.278+01:002010-06-18T21:43:17.278+01:00Baz, I appreciate that you're relying on Leppa...Baz, I appreciate that you're relying on Leppard, but does Leppard know, or is he simply making assumptions? Not only that, but the way you are interpreting his information doesn't actually make sense. I agree that the arrangements at Heathrow would suggest all the interline baggage would have arrived at Bedford's shed, and thus have found its way into AVE4041. However <i>this cannot be true.</i><br /><br />I note that the original court judgement doesn't go into detail about how many cases Bedford said he originally placed in the container. I've seen various estimates, but never more than six. So, <i>even if we were to concede that the two mystery bags were also interline baggage</i>, eight cases, tops. We're figuring out that there were perhaps about 14 interline bags altogether. What about the other six (or eight, if the two mystery bags were interpolated without a bag-switch)? You're assuming they also went into that container, but not only is there no evidence that this happened, the narrative doesn't work if they did.<br /><br />The floor of the container was less than 5 feet square. Laid flat, it doesn't take many cases to cover it. Maybe six, depending on the size. Bedford put the first few bags on their spines, in a row across the back. How many cases would fit across the back of the container, like that? Probably no more than six. The two mystery bags then appeared flat on the floor of the container, in front of these. With six cases in a row along the back, there's still room for that. More than about six, no. Fourteen? Forget it.<br /><br />The cases must have been rearranged to some extent, because it seems clear the bags were all flat by the time the container was fully loaded. Five or six on their spines, plus two more flat, OK, you're still working on the floor of the container. However, if there were already 14 cases in there before the container was sent out to PA103A, that's already getting on for a third full. It's impossible to see how any case from Frankfurt could have ended up on the bottom layer, and yet that's what we're led to believe happened (Karen Noonian's, below the bomb bag). Also, there's probably no room for the number of cases that came off PA103A (49 passengers, and only "a few" cases were supernumerary and ended up loose-loaded).<br /><br />Leppard obviously isn't clear. However, the implication is that the bags Bedford describes were only about half the interline bags, and the other half must have been somewhere else. In which case, we can't say for sure that the Larnaca luggage (and Carlsson's) was in PA4041 without additional information.<br /><br />I'm distinctly intrigued by the idea that all the cases in the container before it went to PA103A were luggage belonging to US government agents, plus Carlsson's perhaps, plus the mystery cases. And that O'Connor's case should have been there too but it was left behind. However, I can't definitely substantiate that this is so on the information available.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-52193386938207436582010-06-18T20:44:17.276+01:002010-06-18T20:44:17.276+01:00I have set up a special account for you to contact...<i>I have set up a special account for you to contact me at Lockerbie1988 At Rocketmail dot com (usual substitutions, and if you contact me there we can exchnage email adresses securely.</i><br /><br />Not a chance, Charles. I have no interest in holding clandestine discussions with anyone on this matter. In my experience, the most useful insights have all been generated as a result of a number of interested people chewing over the same material together. There is absolutely no need for secrecy.<br /><br />I find the blog format less than ideal for this sort of discussion, for reasons I've stated. However, if people here are unwilling to discuss on a forum, then this is what we're stuck with.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62789010518177949172010-06-18T16:25:06.178+01:002010-06-18T16:25:06.178+01:00Baz,
I think your referring to our mutual friend...Baz, <br /><br />I think your referring to our mutual friend JC, and it is to him I would have referred. I have some idea of the doubts of its accuracy (similar ones arise in UT-772). <br /><br />If the point is important, which I think it is not, would it not be best to start from what JC says, and then go from there?<br /><br />We would necessarily have to analyse the potentially inaccurate material anyway, or we would be accused of not having investigated the material, wouldn't we?<br /><br />CharlesCharleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-39057766178250553702010-06-18T15:49:11.966+01:002010-06-18T15:49:11.966+01:00I have seen your PR guy's seating plan but eve...I have seen your PR guy's seating plan but even he doesn't know if its true. My understanding (from Leppard) (see the opening quote from my article Lockerbie The Heathrow Evidence) wa that Orr had effectively "eliminated" Heathrow within 3 weeks.<br /><br />You write "All 15 had boarded PA103from another flight and had therefore had their luggage checked in at an airport other than Heathrow or Frankfurt". Two of the names were US executives of Volkswagen who had been visiting company HQ in Wolfsburg. I doubt they Interlined at Frankfurt.<br /><br />I don't know if I am getting my point across about the number of Interline bags. Leppard said there were 13. Bedford loaded 5-6 from flights that had already arrived. They cannot have come from flights that arrived later. The remainder may have gone in AVE4041 or anther container. Unless they were bomb damaged it is impossible to say. The only point I was making was that Orr was not in a position to say that all the remaining bags in AVE4041 (after the first 7)were all bags onlined from Frankfurt.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-69576741822856244172010-06-18T11:53:02.640+01:002010-06-18T11:53:02.640+01:00Baz,
Crawford says that he and a DS from Carluke,...Baz,<br /><br />Crawford says that he and a DS from Carluke, Alex Brown, were told that they would form a "Priority Profiling Team". They were given responsibility for looking at the 15 (in actuality 16 people listed) - those most likely to be targeted or of some status that would make them a possible target. <br /><br />I do not know who drew up the list and made the selection, whether they were from the same class or not. <br /><br />I do not have but can get access to a seating plan for the aircraft, and this would sort out the class issue.<br /><br />It seems there may be others who were also interline passengers but not part of the PPS list. All 15 had boarded 103 from another flight and had therefore had had their luggage checked through an airport other than Heathrow or Frankfurt.<br /><br />Does that mean by the time the list was drawn up, the investigators had determined to eliminate Heathrow and Frankfurt from their inquiries? The team was looking for targets and stooges. Other groups were dealing with other interline passengers. Crawford gives no details of these.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-11498103260355743152010-06-18T11:29:51.006+01:002010-06-18T11:29:51.006+01:00Yes, Gannon (according to Leppard) had a single ba...Yes, Gannon (according to Leppard) had a single bag, KcKee two.)<br /><br />I am not "jumping to conclusions" but relying on Leppard's account that the first five - six bags in the container were Interlined from Larnaca, Brussels and Vienna. Until Patrick Haseldine pointed it out fairly recently I didn't know Carlsson was the Brussels passenger. I do not know who Interlined from Vienna.<br /><br />My good friend Charles sent me Crawford's list of 16 names but it is not clear what it is a list of. While it features Carlsson and the four Larnaca passengers others on the list Interlined at Frankfurt or began their journeys'there.<br /><br />You should read Leppard - it is very useful. You might ask your friend Adam's unbiased opinion.<br /><br />I thought Bedford refers to 5-6 bags not 4 or 5 so including the two "mystery" bags 7-8 in total. Perhaps Leppard's total of 13 Interline bags includes the two mystery bags. I do not know.<br /><br /> I take the view that if Bedford set aside container AVE4041 at the Interline Baggage shed to take Interline bags for PA103 then Interline bags were put in there. He placed the first 5-6 in there about 14.30hrs.and moved the container 2 1/2 hrs.later. If further interline bags arrived before 5 p.m. I assume they would go into AVE4041.(I do not know that any did or if Bedford made any statement on the subject.)<br /><br />I did work at an Airport and I am very familiar with luggage containers. It was from this experience that I found Orr's deductions very odd and in my view untenable. <br /><br />As far as I am aware "Heathrow" luggage was seperate from Interline (and "Online" luggage)and was put in seperate containers (as was freight). <br /><br /> Yes I assume baggage recovered at Tundergarth was reconciled to a particular passenger. Wasn't that a central objectiv of the investigation? <br /><br />I do not see how Orr was "half-right" about the mystery bags being Interline bags "if they weren't suspicious". Well manifestly they were. Orr falsely claimed there was evidence from witnesses they were Interline bags. If they were then they should have been recovered and reconciled to a particular Interline passenger. However the Police were attempting to determine whether these were Interline or Online bags. The thought that they were neither does not seem to have occurred.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29438858831842215992010-06-18T11:29:50.475+01:002010-06-18T11:29:50.475+01:00Yes, Gannon (according to Leppard) had a single ba...Yes, Gannon (according to Leppard) had a single bag, KcKee two.)<br /><br />I am not "jumping to conclusions" but relying on Leppard's account that the first five - six bags in the container were Interlined from Larnaca, Brussels and Vienna. Until Patrick Haseldine pointed it out fairly recently I didn't know Carlsson was the Brussels passenger. I do not know who Interlined from Vienna.<br /><br />My good friend Charles sent me Crawford's list of 16 names but it is not clear what it is a list of. While it features Carlsson and the four Larnaca passengers others on the list Interlined at Frankfurt or began their journeys'there.<br /><br />You should read Leppard - it is very useful. You might ask your friend Adam's unbiased opinion.<br /><br />I thought Bedford refers to 5-6 bags not 4 or 5 so including the two "mystery" bags 7-8 in total. Perhaps Leppard's total of 13 Interline bags includes the two mystery bags. I do not know.<br /><br /> I take the view that if Bedford set aside container AVE4041 at the Interline Baggage shed to take Interline bags for PA103 then Interline bags were put in there. He placed the first 5-6 in there about 14.30hrs.and moved the container 2 1/2 hrs.later. If further interline bags arrived before 5 p.m. I assume they would go into AVE4041.(I do not know that any did or if Bedford made any statement on the subject.)<br /><br />I did work at an Airport and I am very familiar with luggage containers. It was from this experience that I found Orr's deductions very odd and in my view untenable. <br /><br />As far as I am aware "Heathrow" luggage was seperate from Interline (and "Online" luggage)and was put in seperate containers (as was freight). <br /><br /> Yes I assume baggage recovered at Tundergarth was reconciled to a particular passenger. Wasn't that a central objectiv of the investigation? <br /><br />I do not see how Orr was "half-right" about the mystery bags being Interline bags "if they weren't suspicious". Well manifestly they were. Orr falsely claimed there was evidence from witnesses they were Interline bags. If they were then they should have been recovered and reconciled to a particular Interline passenger. However the Police were attempting to determine whether these were Interline or Online bags. The thought that they were neither does not seem to have occurred.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-56873747801707724082010-06-18T11:01:39.236+01:002010-06-18T11:01:39.236+01:00I have the gravest doubts about the Bedford recons...I have the gravest doubts about the Bedford reconstruction, because it was done in the early days of 1989 when the Met and others were experimenting with ideas of what happened and not wanting the truth, which they had been told in accurate and imprecise terms by the CIA.<br /><br />The main inference to be drawn from Bedford's recollection was that two suitcases had appeared in container AVE4041 PA, and hence a reasobale theory would have be they they had been brought airside without proper security.<br /><br />As you know Heathrow had (and still has) a rotten record for security and neither the Met (nor I suspect BAA) nor MI5 wanted a further impeachment of the airport. It was only a few months after the Heathrow El Al incident.<br /><br />Again, by the time of the Bedford reconstruction Mr Manly had been interviewed by Special Branch and had handed over the broken padlock and bar. The Met knew that airside T3 had been broken into. With that information (and the risk the break in would become known) despite the timetabling problem, there was a reasonable chance that defence counsel would create an impression of a Heathrow break-in/Bedford seen suitcase scenario. I think we would have heard nothing of the Bedford recollections if the break-in had been known at the time of the trial. <br /><br />Also, Rolfe, I have much to talk over with you, for although we row a bit, I am deeply appreciative of your insights. I've just picked up an extended series from the RANDI forum, which impressed me a lot.<br /><br />I have set up a special account for you to contact me at Lockerbie1988 At Rocketmail dot com (usual substitutions, and if you contact me there we can exchnage email adresses securely.<br /><br />I also owe you an apology. Paul Foot must have attended the trial (I never came across him) for the PE special is dated 2000. I was getting the date of that muddled with the Francovitch Affair. Please accept my apologies.<br /><br />I must report I've trawled quite a lot of your postings, and on many things (like homeopathy) we agree! I've also asked around about you, partly to make sure you were not someone else, that I have less respect for. On such things as your comments on your father's death from asbestosis, you passed with flying colours.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-7037590027696732692010-06-17T22:20:20.909+01:002010-06-17T22:20:20.909+01:00[contd....]
Also, have you looked at the mock-up ...[contd....]<br /><br />Also, have you looked at <a href="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Newsnight_Wyatt_test_2.jpg" rel="nofollow">the mock-up of the intact container</a>? How many bags do you think could have been in contact with the floor? Four? There were only about 40-odd cases in there when it was piled high, and the flat part of the floor is quite restricted. They decided Karen Noonan's case (from Frankfurt) was on the floor, so it's more or less physically impossible that all the bags Bedford saw could have been on the bottom layer.<br /><br />You're also making an unwarranted assumption when you say the interline bags in the container would all have been recovered and reconciled to the relevant passengers. Come on, we don't even know which passengers we're talking about! And really, the only way they could hand-wave the Bedford suitcases away was by being completely vague about the whole thing. Oh, we're not interested in undamaged bags, we've no idea about any of these, maybe that other suitcase was moved "to some far corner of the (quite small!) container, whatever.” If there really had been a <i>careful</i> reconciliation of all these bags, it might have been dreadfully obvious to quite a lot of people that it didn't add up. The evidence at Camp Zeist suggests either this was never done, or if it was, it was buried very deep.<br /><br />Baz, you've been looking at this for a while. You need to do better. You need to <i>prove</i> that the Larnaca baggage, and Carlsson's, was in AVE4041, rather than the other half-dozen or so bags. (Indeed, you need a primary source that there were indeed 13 or 14 interline bags in total, I'm not even seeing that.) You need to get your head round the real size of that container, it's smaller than you think. And you need to stop crowing about other people being wrong. Just because you're not as wrong as Orr, or even Francovich, doesn't mean you're right.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.com