Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Crown statement accepts Pan Am 103 evidence chain broken

[This is the heading over an article posted today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows.]

A statement issued by the Crown Office which attempted to undermine MSP Christine Grahame does not challenge the key claim made by Grahame that the chain of evidence in the Lockerbie case was broken.

A fragment relied upon by the Crown during the trial travelled to the US and Germany, and Grahame said 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.

“Questions also need to be answered about the associated evidence log that was meant to accompany PT-35. It mysteriously does not record that the fragment went to the US or Germany, even though the Crown Office has confirmed in writing that it definitely went to Germany," she said.

The Crown Office quickly issued a statement accusing Ms Grahame of promulgating “misleading” information, although crucially they did not deny the truth of Grahame’s story, and offered no explanation as to why the "chain of custody" label attached to the evidence fragment appears not to record the movements out of the country.

In 2007, MEBO engineer Ulrich Lumpert submitted an affidavit stating that the circuit board fragment produced in court at Zeist was part of a non-operational demonstration circuit board that he himself had removed from the premises of MEBO and had handed over to an investigator on 22 June 1989, six months after the destruction of Pan Am 103.

“If this is true, then it totally demolishes the prosecution version of how the aircraft was destroyed, as well, of course, as demonstrating deliberate fabrication of evidence laid before the court,” Professor Robert Black said at the time.

Former Police Investigator Stuart Henderson has stated on the record that if the crucial fragment had travelled abroad without being recorded, it would be tainted evidence and considered unreliable by the court.

“We couldn’t afford to let something like that go. It has never been in their [US] control at all. It couldn’t be, because it was such an important point of evidence it wasn’t possible to release it,” he said.

“It had to be contained to be produced at the court therefore you couldn’t afford to have it waved around for everyone to see it because it could have got interfered with.”

The Crown Office acknowledged that the fragment had travelled to Germany in 1990, and claimed that “at no time during the investigation was the timer fragment ever outside the custody and control of the Scottish police officers, or forensic scientists at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment.”

However, they did not address the break in the chain of evidence or make any reference to the fragment’s travel to the United States, or challenge Grahame's contention that the evidence log is incomplete.

Former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser also stated that as far as he was aware, the evidence had never left the UK.

“The Crown Office have confirmed to me that the fragment, PT-35, the piece of evidence that it was claimed by prosecutors linked Libya to the attack was also sent to Germany in April 1990 as well as the US,” Grahame says.

“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."


  1. The lack of logging and documentary evidence is a theme that permeates throughout this investigation. The lack of evidence from Frankfurt with regards to the baggage (aside from the laterly produced single printout), the destroying of police notebooks as highlightened by Tam Dalyell and the absence of logging of the most vital piece of evidence - the fragment of microchip.

    This, together with the utterly unsatifactory testimony given with respect to the altering of the label containing the alledged fragment, the repagination by Mr Hayes of the exact page relating to the timer fragment and the inexplicable time lapses between discovery, photographing and identification, should render any authenticity or credibilty as to this fragment completely invalid.

  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE: unfortunately only in German language, there too complicate in English

    Im April 1990, (kurz vor dem Siemens Besuch) haben Meister & Bollier bei MEBO Ltd., für die Schweizerische Bundespolizei BUPO, ein Fragment No. PT-35 auf einer vorgezeigten Polizei-Foto, als Teil eines handgefertigten MST-13 Circuit Board's identifiziert. (Prototype)
    Das original Fragment PT-35, konnten wir bevor es aus forensischen Gründen bei Siemens in zwei Teile zersägt wurde, trotz grossen Bemühungen, nie im Original sehen!

    Nach dem Studium der Protokoll und Akten-Einsichten, nach Beendigung des Gerichtverfahrens in Kamp van Zeist, 2001, bestätigte sich, mit der Label No. PT-35, wurde das MST-13 Timerfragment bezeichnet.

    Das Fragment PT-35 wurde registriert auf der manipulierten Seite no. 51, unter (b) in Dr. Hayes Examination's Rapport, zusätzlich auf der Foto von RARDE, No. PP-8932 / PI-995, abgebildet.
    Wichtig: Die Foto und die manipulierte zugefügte Seite No. 51, wurden mit dem gefälschtem Datum vom 12. May, 1989, versehen!
    Deutlich kann auf dem PT-35 Fragment ein eingekratzter Buchstabe "M" gesehen werden! Beweisfoto No. PP-8832/PI-995 Court Kamp van Zeist.

    Dieses original MST-13 Fragment = PT-35, wurde am 27. April 1990 von Scottish Inspector Keith Harrower (Strathclyde police) zu Firma Siemens AG in München, Germany gebracht. Das Fragment PT-35= MST-13, wurde durch electronic Ing. Brosante für eine forensische Untersuchung in zwei Teile zersägt. Der grössere Teil mit dem eingekratzten Buchstabe "M", bekam die Bezeichnung PT-35 (b),= Label No. 353. Der kleine Teil bekam die Bezeichnung DP-31 (a)= Label No. 419.

    continuation down >>>

  3. >>>

    Obwohl den Untersuchungs-Behörden von MEBO, seit April 1990 bekannt war, dass das Fragment, PT-35 von einem MST-13 Timer abstammte will Mr. Marquise in seinem Buch 'Scotbom', mit folgender "Story" die Tatsachen verfälschen:
    Am 15. Juni 1990, FBI Experte Tom Thurman fand, nach Angabe von FBI- Task Force Chief Richard Marquise, angeblich innerhalb Tagen heraus, dass das Fragment PT-35 von einem MST-13 Timer abstammte!

    Original Text aus Scotbom, von R. Marquise: Tom Thurman, the agent from the explosives unit, who had been present in Lockerbie early in the investigation and had been part of the team, approached Henderson and asked if he could take photographs of PT-35 and attempt to identify it. Henderson, who beliefed the Scots had done all they could do, agreed. What Thurman did yieled fruit within two days.

    Task Force Chief Richard Marquise macht sich mit seinen merkwürdigen und teilweisen widersprüchlichen Aussagen, mehr und mehr verdächtig als Kordinator, eine führende Rolle in der Verwicklung Libyens in die Lockerbie-Tragödie, gespielt zuhaben. Nach Angaben in seinem "Log-Buch" Scotbom und nach diversen Interviews (BBC) mit Tom Thurman, hatte Thurman das original Fragment PT-35 nur auf einer Photo begutachtet !!!

    Das original Fragment konnte am 15. Juni, 1990, nicht mehr als ganzes Fragment-Teil, PT-35, von Thurman geprüft werden, da es bei Siemens bereits am 27. April 1990 in zwei Teile zersägt wurde: Label No. 353 =(PT-35(b) und Label No. 419= (DP-31(a).

    Tatbestand: Sollte sich Mr. Marquise an seiner neuerlichen Aussage festhalten, dass das PT-35 Fragment in den USA war, wird der Tatbestand ünterstützt, dass ab May 1990 aus einem maschienell gefertigten MST-13 Thüring Circuit Board, (Libyen-Timer) ein grünes Duplikat PT-35 Fragment fabriziert wurde um Libyen damit zu belasten. Fotos, vorgezeigt von Tom Thurman bei TV Interviews, unterstützen diesen Tatbestand...

    Notabene: Das dem Zeugen Edwin Bollier vorgelegte grüne Beweistück PT-35 (b) im Gericht, Kamp van Zeist, hatte kein eingekratzter Buchstabe "M" !!!
    Das braune original Teilstück PT-35 (b) mit Buchstabe "M" wird seit May 1990 vermisst, dazu die Frage an Mr. Marquise: Wieso wissen Sie, dass ich, Edwin Bollier, das original PT-35 Fragment nur auf einer Foto gesehen habe kann? Befindet sich das vermisste Original Fragment, PT-35 (b) bei Ihnen?

    Important: Only with a green manipulated MST-13 fragment concoct from a machine fabricated Thüring circuit board, Libya could be incriminated for the atrocity of the PanAm 103 bombing! (The first real PT-35 Fragment was cococt from a Prototype)...

    More technical information and ilustrations on our website:

    by Edwin Bollier, VR MEBO Ltd. Switzerland

  4. The sad thing is really not that it can happen. We know it can.
    The sad thing is that nobody is held accountable, that the sick system has no power to clean up itself.
    Where should the power come from? From the people, of course - but nobody cares, until the problem is in their own backyard.

  5. We have absolutely no power unless we act together to get rid of the corrupt elite, which carries out the most atrocious activities in our name. The fact is we are much, much worse than a banana republic because we preach and yet under the veneer acts like the framing of an innocent man for mass murder, murder, theft of taxpayers' money and so take place.


    Ex-FBI Task Force Chief, Richard Marquise, wants to reiterate and correct his doubtful statements made in the documentary "Lockerbie revisited" by Gideon, with once again wrong facts !

    It is precarious that such person was assigned to occupy such a high position as an investor in the Lockerbie-case !
    Just can't believe it !

    Please see professional and truth information about the "Lockerbie-Affair" on our website:

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  7. MISSION LOCKERBIE: Correction:

    Date correction at the beginning of the first text: The date, April 1990 is wrong, correct is: 23rd of March. 1990.
    I'm sorry
    by Edwin Bollier. MEBO Ltd