Monday 26 October 2009

We still need a Lockerbie inquiry

[This is the heading over an article on The Guardian's website by Pamela Dix, whose brother was one of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. It reads as follows:]

For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing. In the request for an inquiry, the families group has clearly identified the areas of concern and the questions that need to be answered. This request is separate from the need for an independent, criminal investigation to bring to justice those responsible.

The fact that so far the outcome of the criminal investigation has not been conclusive is disappointing. Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth.

The circumstances of the trial, the appeal and the Scottish judicial process have prompted calls for a separate inquiry. There is an argument that any such investigation is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, with the powers to call upon the UK government, and its officers, to explain its position.

However, this is quite separate from the families' continuing call for an independent, wider inquiry. Some of the issues that we wish to see included in such an inquiry relate to national security, foreign policy and transport safety – all responsibilities that since devolution remain within the remit of the UK government. It is galling to listen to David Miliband's off the cuff response to our request for an inquiry: that the biggest mass murder in the UK had nothing to do with his government. If this were the case, why did Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Tony Blair have ongoing discussions with us about a possible public inquiry, both before and after devolution? At no stage was it suggested that this was a matter for the devolved Scottish parliament.

Underpinning our request for this inquiry is our belief that unless we understand and acknowledge the complicated series of events that led to the decision to put a bomb on Flight 103, no lessons will be learned. The fact that Straw told us personally that he would have instigated an inquiry at the time if he had been in a position to do so does not lessen our frustration in failing to get ministers to accept what must be done.

Governments need to understand the tenacity of relatives involved in such tragedies. There have been numerous occasions when we could have caved in under the lack of interest, political pragmatism or sheer ignorance of those in authority. Yet nearly 21 years after the explosion that killed 270 dearly loved people, we have not lost heart that finally – surely – the fourth prime minister to hold that office since the disaster will do the right thing. This is why relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 stood at the gates of Downing Street to hand over a letter requesting the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to instigate a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the aircraft.



    Apology, my German text is a English computers translation, from Babylon.

    The "fantastic" defense protection of Scottish prosecutor and from the former UK detective chief superintendent Stuart Henderson (CIO) and from former FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise, after the reproaches by Mrs. Christian Grahame MSP, about the crucial evidence PT-35 (MST-13 Timerfragment).

    There came no concrete answer back of the lies from CIO Mr. Stuart Henderson over the PT-35 (MST-13) timer-fragment, that the piece of crucial evidence had never left UK.

    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.
    Mr Megrahi's defence team did not dispute during the trial, after analysis by their own experts, that the fragment was part of an MST-13 timer.
    Then the Crown statement accepts PanAm 103 evidence chain broken...

    Reaction: Now the Crown Office, avoiding as apology say:

    "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 (RARDE)."

    Prosecutors as answer sayd on BBC only: "Libyan Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 of the murder of 270 people but freed in August, was not working alone".

    In The Herald, 26. 10. '09: Former FBI agent Richard Marquise, who was involved in the original investigation, said: "the review did not constitute a new initiative" !!! (which Aroganz)

    In addition 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 !

    The crucial proof PT-35 (MST-13) fragment was the first time manipulatet, provable from a Prototype MST-13 circuit board, braun colored, with a in-scratched letter "M" on it. Sawed with Siemens on 27 of April 1990, into two parts PT-35(b)=no.353 and
    These two sections PT-35(b) and DP-31(a) were not in the original with expert Tom Thurman. On 13th of June 1990, Thurman received only a photo, shown as complete fragment PT-35!

    See the original Text in Scotbom, from 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. +++

    On 15th of June 1990, for Tom Thurman was clear, the PT-35 fragment was a part from a MEBO MST-13 timer

    The 20 pieces MST-13 timer produced (1985-86) for Libya, were not equipped with brown colored prototype circuit boards, that is why a new proof, a green colored PT-35 duplicate, was fabricated, between 12th of May and 10th of September 1990! (without the letter "M" on it)!

    Support finally the truth with a new Police investigation. Libya and its official Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi have nothing to do with the Lockerbie-Tragedy!
    The criminal UK Police investigation can start...

    see the BBC Film with Tom Thurman and which it confirmed on:

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  2. One of the comments in response to the article in The Guardian by Pamela Dix said:

    "For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing."

    The Scottish and UK governments seem reluctant to reopen the Lockerbie case and to hold the "full independent inquiry" demanded by Pamela Dix. An inquiry under the auspices of the United Nations might therefore be the answer.

    In which respect, please see this petition which asks the Prime Minister to endorse calls for a United Nations Inquiry into the murder of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

    Sweden's UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was the most prominent of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims murdered on 21 December 1988.

    In investigating Carlsson's murder, Scottish police detective John Crawford stated in his book (The Lockerbie Incident: A Detective's Tale, pages 88-89): "We even went as far as consulting a very helpful lady librarian in Newcastle who contacted us with information she had on Bernt Carlsson. She provided much of the background on the political moves made by Carlsson on behalf of the United Nations. He had survived a previous attack on an aircraft he had been travelling on in Africa. It is unlikely that he was a target as the political scene in Southern Africa was moving inexorably towards its present state....I discounted the theory as being almost totally beyond the realms of feasibility" ( ).

    A United Nations Inquiry can be expected to find a different - and much better - explanation for Bernt Carlsson's murder. ( )

    The petition is open for signature until 28 January 2010.

    Addition to FBI Expert Tom Thurmann:

    FBI expert Tom Thurmann confirmed still on 15th of April 1999, on TV CBS, "60 MINUTES" (start Kamp van Zeist) that it saw the MST-13 timer fragment PT-35 only in photo, never in the original !

    Also In the following TV-Films: on 17th of December 1998, in the BBC film "DESPATCHES";
    15th of June 1990, on TV ABC "Person of THE WEEK"...
    More information on:

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd

  4. I wish Mr. Bollier and others would give up these repeated claims about the MST-13 fragment either not matching the intact board or having been substituted during the enquiry. This is clear nonsense.

    The earliest photograph of the MST-13 fragment also includes the intact fragment of compacted Toshiba manual pages teased out by Dr. Hayes on 12th May 1989. The latest photograph is of the fragment exhibited at Camp Zeist in 2000.

    THEY ARE THE SAME ITEM, and the shape perectly matches that of the intact timer also exhibited.

    Tinting of the photographs makes it impossible to say that any of the items are green, but there is no obvious colour mis-match. More importantly, the shape of the broken edges to the right and the bottom, and the markings on the fingerpad, correspond far too exactly to have been replicated on a substitute fragment.

    In addition, the apparent discrepancy in the curvature of the corner cut-out between the fragment and the intact board is an illusion caused by trying to line up the top of the post-forensics fragment with the top of the intact board, without taking into account that about 0.6mm has been ground off the top of the fragment during forensic examination. (This can be appreciated by comparing the intact and post-forensics pictures.)

    Exactly what that so-called "M" or the markings below it are, is hard to say. However, they appear only on the very first picture and seem to be something that was easily cleaned away. The correspondence in shape is far too close for there to be any other explanation for this. All this is quite easily appreciated by looking at the pictures on Mr. Bollier's own web site. Why he is attempting to assert something different I have no idea.

    Spotting anomalies relating to this fragment is easy, and inevitably fuels suspicions. The chain of custody has also been challenged. However, altered labels and pagination anomalies and unauthorised foreign trips do not alter the fact that the fragment as exhibited at the trial appears in a photograph ostensibly taken on or before 12th May 1989, and that it matches the intact reference board.

    Any attempt to allege shenanigans relating to that fragment must either place these shenanigans earlier than 12th May 1989, or show not only that the anomalous page 51 of Dr. Hayes's notes was inserted retrospectively, but that the picture which includes the compacted paper fragment was likewise retrospectively fabricated. This is likely to be difficult to do, as the provenance an evidential photograph should be secured by its negative.

    Does it really help the scrutiny of this investigation to make wild claims which are easily demonstrated to be false? On the contrary, it seems to me that such antics merely destroy the credibility of those questioning the official account of the tragedy.

  5. MISSION LOCKERBIE. attn. Rolfe:

    PT-35 the determining piece of evidence!

    The truth about the MST-13 (PT-35) fragment seems to provoke you. Besides, the color brown and green is not determined by the photos but it is determined of technical characteristics on the circuit boards! Prototypes boards = brown colored, Thüring PC-boards = green colored. I'm sorry but we know from what we speak.

    PT-35 das massgebende Beweistück!

    Die Wahrheit über das MST-13(PT-35) Fragment scheint Sie zu reizen.
    Nebenbei, die Farbe braun und grün kann nicht von den Fotos bestimmt werden, sondern von technischen Merkmalen auf den Circuit Bords! Prototypes = braune Farbe, Thüring PC-boards = grüne Farbe. Sorry aber wir wissen von was wir sprechen.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd,, Switzerland

  6. Mr. Bollier, I'm not provoked by anything, except repeated assertions of nonsense.

    The photographs on your own web site clearly show that the red-ringed fragment in the photo which includes the compacted paper is the same item as the court exhibit. It's that simple.

    Not only that, looking at all the photographs available of the fragment, they all show the same detail of damage on the fingerpad, and on the broken-off left and bottom edges.

    There are thus three possibilities.
    - the fragment is genuine
    - the fragment was planted before 12th May 1989 and not subsequently substituted
    - the fragment was planted later than that, but the photograph with the red circle was retrospectively inserted into the evidence.

    This last would be very hard to do, because the provenance of the negatives of evidential photographs is carefully preserved. And that photograph is not a polaroid, by the way. Have you any evidence that the negative of this picture, which was released to the press, has a questionable provenance? No?

    So really, that leaves either a genuine find, or something planted before 12th May 1989 and not subsequently substituted. You choose.

  7. Could Edwin and Rolfe please continue your fascinating discussion about the timer fragment elsewhere (on the FBI or the MEBO websites, perhaps)?

    We still need a Lockerbie inquiry concerns the article by Pamela Dix in The Guardian today.

    Thanks very much!

  8. OK, I'll bite. So Pik Botha was originally booked on PA103, but his flight was inexplicably diverted to miss out a stop (in Frankfurt?) so that he arrived at Heathrow much earlier than planned. His minders then booked him on the earlier PA101, but the plane was nearly full and the whole party couldn't be accommodated. But instead of just waiting and taking up their original reservations on PA103, those left behind turned round and went home to South Africa.

    How am I doing?

    The suspicion thus is that the exact flight PA103 was known to be the terrorist target - as a general warning would have been just as applicable to PA101.

    Getting warm?

    Known warnings, including the Helsinki warning, were vague about the exact flight involved. Does the Botha thing imply that somebody somewhere was warned about the exact flight? If so who, and who else knew?

    Is that it?

    Culminating of course in Mr. Carlsson being deliberately delayed by people who also had that information so that he ended up catching the danger flight?

    So who had this information, and how did they come by it?

  9. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. Rolfe:

    Their opinions are wrong. On 13-16 Septembers 1999 in the Crown Office, I could examine the following circuit boards in the original :
    PT-35 (b)= Duplikat, green colored, without "M" on it ;
    DP-31 (a) = original part, brown colored (from a Prototype).
    PT-35 original, seen only on a police-photo (before cut in two parts by Siemens) PT-35 = MST-13 timer fragment = Prototype, brown colored. with "M" on it.
    The first part of original PT-35 (b) with "M" on it, was missing (I have seen only on photo)
    Please read my police-statements by the Crown Office, on my website, under LINKS.

    Ihre Ansichten sind falsch. Am 13-16 September 1999, im Crown Office, konnte Ich die folgenden Circuit-Boards im original begutachten: PT-35 (b)=Duplikat, Farbe grün, ohne "M";
    DP-31(a)=original Teil, Farbe braun, abstammung von einem Prototype.
    PT-35 original, begutachtet auf einer Polizeifoto bevor forensisch bearbeitet (in zwei Teile zersägt) bei Siemens:
    PT-35 original , mit "M", war von einem Prototyp! Das original Teil war vermisst.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  10. For Rolfe:

    The agenda for this urgently-needed United Nations Inquiry into the murder of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing is likely to include:

    1. An analysis of the ten-year delay in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 of 29 September 1978, which called for South Africa's immediate withdrawal from its illegal occupation of Namibia ( ).

    2. A review of the Settlement Proposal which led to the signature of the New York Accords at UN headquarters on 22 December 1988 ( ).

    3. An investigation into the travel arrangements for the 23-strong delegation of South African negotiators heading for New York. Direct flights to US airports by South African Airways were banned ( ) so the whole delegation, led by Foreign Minister Pik Botha, were booked on Pan Am Flight 103. Their SAA flight arrived early at Heathrow, having cut out a scheduled stopover at Frankfurt, and six of the party - including Botha - were rebooked on the morning Pan Am Flight 101. The remainder of the party cancelled the PA 103 booking, and returned to Johannesburg ( ).

    4. UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was returning to New York for the signing ceremony and had been invited to speak to the European Parliament's Development Committee in Brussels on 20 December 1988 ( ). Carlsson cancelled his Sabena flight from Brussels to JFK and, instead, travelled to Heathrow by BA 391, arriving at 11:00am on 21 December 1988. He was met there by a representative of De Beers, and was driven to London. Carlsson was back at Heathrow by 17:30, in good time for the scheduled 18:00 departure of Pan Am Flight 103 ( ).

    5. Scottish police, in what seems to have been a cursory investigation into Bernt Carlsson's murder, were unaware of this background. Detective Constable John Crawford stated in his 2002 book (The Lockerbie Incident: A Detective's Tale, pages 88-89):
    "We even went as far as consulting a very helpful lady librarian in Newcastle who contacted us with information she had on Bernt Carlsson. She provided much of the background on the political moves made by Carlsson on behalf of the United Nations. He had survived a previous attack on an aircraft he had been travelling on in Africa. It is unlikely that he was a target as the political scene in Southern Africa was moving inexorably towards its present state....I discounted the theory as being almost totally beyond the realms of feasibility" ( ). The same DC John Crawford was highly critical of Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to grant compassionate release on 20 August 2009 to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, saying: "I think the compassion angle was all wrong. It was inevitable that people would use it against the decision he made as it was so obvious that Megrahi did not show one jot of compassion when he cold bloodedly went about his business of killing 270 innocent people" ( ).

    It is obvious that apartheid South Africa had the means, motive and opportunity to target Bernt Carlsson in the Lockerbie bombing. Only a United Nations Inquiry has the power to uncover all the incriminating evidence and to determine whether the apartheid regime was primarily responsible - perhaps in collusion with other countries - for the execution of this crime.

    If you have read this far Rolfe, I hope you are now persuaded to sign the petition at


    Oh wow, cool, cool. Rolfe... :D

    Now I'll read this chain and comment again, make it an even dozen! Sorry Mr. Black, this shouldn't take too long...

  12. Patrick Haseldine and Rolfe, will you please take this discussion to Mr Haseldine's petition? Oh, and good work, sir, on pursuing that interesting lead so diligently.

    What isn't:
    ebol said:
    The truth about the MST-13 (PT-35) fragment seems to provoke you. Besides, the color brown and green is not determined by the photos but it is determined of technical characteristics on the circuit boards! Prototypes boards = brown colored, Thüring PC-boards = green colored. I'm sorry but we know from what we speak.

    So this is a prototype because why? Because Lumpert said he handed one out, and changed his story to where these are brown now? It's got rough soldering, looking like it had been roughly handmade or exploded or fake exploded? So it's brown, tho appearing dark blue (called green) and got an M, and they replace it with a green board that looks exactly the same for shape and detail and color except a bit more blue and they forgot the M? So brown = blue (green), and blue (green) does too, they can exactly replicate this, swap out corners, change colors and shapes, and they forget the "M" and can't fake a machine soldering job or scare up anywhere, even with CIA help, a genuine machine-made model to disappear and toss in the rock tumbler?

    PT-35 (b)= Duplikat, green colored, without "M" on it ;
    DP-31 (a) = original part, brown colored (from a Prototype).

    Thanks for reaffirming that's where you've got to. Why do you think they chose the corner that didn't have the telltale M on it to swap back in? Would that have been enough to fool you?

    I appreciate your works too, sir, especially your early contributions to the case (Dec '88 esp.). You don't need to feel provoked by my criticism if you don't want. And I will stop now myself.

  13. Can anyone help by pointing out if any of the statements 1-8 are false? There is no connection or chronology intended, each one is stand-alone.

    In the affidavit Mr. Lumpert claims he gave a brown circuit board in June 1989 to Swiss Commissioner Peter Fluckiger who requested the device at the demand of a 'friendly intelligence agency.'

    Mr. Bollier claims that he was shown a polaroid photo in Dumfries 1999, and that the photo showed a brown timer fragment.

    The fragment on this photo could according to Mr. Bollier not have been in production use because:
    a. it was brown, only used for prototype boards AND
    b. because no components were soldered on it.

    If 1-3 is true:
    No other evidence (than 1+2) exists that a brown fragment was ever involved. I.e., nobody else claims to have seen a brown fragment, or have seen any photo that did not depict the fragment presented in court.

    This photo
    is a photo of the polaroid photo Mr. Bollier saw. I'll call it picture-1.

    Picture-1 is released to the press by investigators, and is as such an 'official' photo.

    Another photo of the fragment as presented in court is released and available somewhere. (If so, a link would be appreciated).

    Bollier use a comparison of picture-1 with a real board to demonstrate that they would not match. The claim is that they could not match.


    This image is from Mr. Bolliers website.

    showing some damaged timer. What is that? That is not the same as on picture-1. So how does this one enter the game?

  14. Hi sfm
    that last pic is one of the model timers confiscated by the CIA. I believe this is the Togo timer. The Senegal one disappeared, and may have resurfaced in Lockerbie for all I know. I'll be sorting out and blogging about this issue soon.

    On the photos of that actual fragment, see my post

  15. While I was typing this, Caustic Logic got in first. See his blog post. I don't necessarily agree with all his text, and at one point the May 1989 photo is labelled September 1989, but the picture comparisons are stellar.

    sfm, my take on your questions.

    1. Do we know why Mr. Lumpert has made this affidavit, and why Mr. Bollier seems so anxious to have his employee indicted for perjury?

    2. Mr. Bollier has claimed many things over the years, since he first entered the case in early January 1989 when he told the US embassy in Vienna that "Libyan thugs" carried out the bombing. Much of what Mr. Bollier has claimed he has later contradicted.

    3. Once again, "according to Mr. Bollier". Since we don't seem to have this picture, then who can say. However, bear in mind that such a board involved in a very high-temperature explosion would have its solder melted away, so it might be difficult to say whether anything had previously been soldered to it.

    4 (a). One oddity of this evidence is that none of the photographs seems to show either a green or a brown board - they seem to be grey or blue-grey, apparently due to tinting. This includes the pictures of the intact Togo board, the reference comparison, which is universally agreed to be green.

    4 (b). False. That picture is not a polaroid. The link is to an enlargement of a detail of a larger picture, accessible here.
    This picture shows the compacted paper fragment described by Hayes in his notes dated 12th May 1989 (, before he teased out the five pages. Thus, it was taken on or before 12th May 1989. Or it was fabricated later, and somehow nobody noticed that the provenance of the negative was all wrong even though they were issuing multiple copies to the press. (The enlargement you link to on Mr. Bollier's web site is a good image though.)

    5. I've certainly seen the photograph in press publications, most notably in the Private Eye report on the case by Paul Foot. It also appears in various places on the internet, with varying degrees of resolution. It's not a polaroid. It's certainly an official photo.

    7. The court exhibit photograph can be seen here.
    The actual fragment is placed above the corresponding part of an intact MST-13 board, probably the one recovered in Togo.

    8. All the available pictures of the fragment match the real board. The one you are calling "picture 1" which dates from before 12th May 1989 (unless someone has pulled an enormously fast one with its negative), and the one of the fragment as exhibited in court. (Also some in between, but the first and the last are the best pictures and also the most important for establishing full continuity.)

    Not only that, if you examine carefully the detail of the broken edges and the damaged fingerpad in these two pictures, you will see they are the same thing. The only difference is the forensic mutilation, some minor damage probably inevitable when cutting such a small item, and the famous "M" and "scratches", which seem to be something superficial and easily cleaned or brushed away.

  16. sfm, I forgot your question.

    That picture seems to be an intact timer, with the corners not sawn out (which is necessary to get the circuit board to fit in the case). It is not the intact timer produced to the court, which was pristine. It appears to be one Mr. Bollier just happened to have handy, a "used model" by the look of it.

    So far as I know, it is not related to the Lockerbie enquiry,


    In den nächsten Tagen erscheinen von MEBO Ltd. zwei diverse professionelle Chronologien über das MST-13 Timerfragment
    (PT-35), begleitet mit Foto-Kopien aus offiziellen Unterlagen von RARDE und Gerichts-Fotos, Kamp van Zeist, zuhanden von:

    New Scotland Yard, Westminster, London
    Mrs Christine Grahame MSP, Scottish National Party UK
    Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh


    1) Die erste Chronologie datiert vom, 22. Juni 1989 > 23. März 1990 > 17. April 1990 > 2. Oktober 1990, 15. November 1990 >13. September 1999 > 2000, Kamp van Zeist, zeigt den realen Werdegang des MST-13 Circuit Board. (Prototype, handfabriziert, Farbe braun, Type standard mit 8 Fiberglas Lagen, als Timer nicht betriebsfähig) > das daraus fabrizierte Fragment PT-35, wurde mit dem eingekratzten Buchstabe "M" markiert.

    2) Die zweite Chronologie datiert vom 17. Januar 1989 > 12. Mai 1989 > 10.-15. September 1989 > 15. Juni 1990 > 15. September 1990 > 15. November 1990 > 13. September 1999 > 2000 Kamp van Zeist, zeigt den manipulierten und gefälschten Werdegang des Fragments PT-35, ab 15. Juni 1990, von FBI Experte Tom Thurman, als MST-13 Timerfragment zugeordnet.
    (Nach Besuch bei Siemens AG in Deutschland, am 27. April 1990, wurde ein neues PT-35 Fragment (Duplikat) jetzt aus einem maschinell gefertigten Thüring PC-Board fabriziert, Farbe grün, 9 Lagen Fiberglas, ohne "M" markiert).

    Verantwortlich für die Manipulationen und Fälschungen auf offiziellen Unterlagen, die Offiziellen, Dr. Thomas Hayes, Allen Feraday (RARDE) und mindestens 3 Beamte der Scotish Police.

    by Edwin Bollier,VR, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland


    Der Versuch von anonymen Personen (vermutlich involvierte) mit fragwürdigen technischen Kenntnissen, das entscheidende Timerfragment MST-13, (PT-35) im Lockerbie-Fall, als massgebender Beweis zu "demontieren" und als "vernachlässigbar" in den neuen Polizei Ermittlungen einzugliedern, schlägt gewaltig fehl!
    Nur mit einer sauberen Aufklärung dieser "Machenschaften", können in den eigenen Reihen, die schottischen Offiziellen überführt werden!

    Das MST-13 Fragment, das die IED Explosion aktiviert haben soll, ist das einzige massgebende Beweisstück, welches Libyen in das PanAm 103 Attentat in Verbindung brachte! Diesem fragwürdigen Beweisstück muss die grösste forensische Untersuchung zu Teil werden um Libyens Ehre endgültig zurückzubringen!

    Nicht zu vergessen die Worte von ex FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise vor 11 Monaten am 20. Jahrestag der Lockerbie-Tragödie, im Dokumentar-Film "Lockerbie-revisited", von Gideon Levy:

    The main subject dealt with the notorious 'timer circuit board MST-13 fragment', called PT35 in the court records. FBI Task Force Chief Richard Marquise answered Gideon Levy's question G. L.:
    Would you have a case if you wouldn't have these evidence (MST-13 timer)?
    R.M.: Would we have a case. It would be a very dificult case to prove. It would be a very dificult case to prove ... I don't think we would ever had an indictment.
    And he said also: But I can tell you that now money was paid to any witness, any witness prior to the trial. No promise of money was made to any witness prior to the trial. G.L.: And was there paid any money after he trial?
    R.M.: I'm not gonna answer that.
    And he said: If someone manipulated evidence, if somebody didn't invesitgate something that should have been investigated, if somebody twisted it to fit up up Megrahi, or Fimah or Libya, then that person will go to jail. I mean that sincerely, that person should be prosecuted for that.

    Please watch now the full documentary film "Lockerbie revisited" by Regisseur Gideon Levy, shown to Scottish members of Parliament about important facts concerning the conspiracy against Libya.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  19. Okay, so there's still some confusion here on the finer points. This is clearly not the place to sort them out.


  20. Thank you, Rolfe and Caustic Logic for replies.

    Mr. Bollier, from reading the above and on your web page I have so far understood the following:

    1. Only you and Lumpert claim that a brown timer-board and -fragment has ever been involved in this case.

    2. The pictures you can point to give absolutely no reliable information about coloring of the boards.

    3. If you are right that the two photos, with and without the "M", do not show the same fragment, the work done to have them look identical otherwise is perfect.

    4. The "M" thing appears like it could easily be anything else than something written by a human hand. A fibre or a random scratch.

    5. You say that the prototype board is brown, and not confusable with a real green board, so why write 'M' (for 'Sample' in German) on it?

    Did you write 'Sample' on all brown boards, or only some of them? If the latter, what difference would there then be on those with and without the 'M'?

    And if it was indeed written, why such a tiny scratch, easy to overlook - and easily made invisible if somebody should grease it by swiping over it with a finger?

    What tool did MEBO employees use for marking boards? A needle?

    5. Lumpert claims to have (a) stolen a board and (b) lied in court. Why any employee would take a board and give it to some person, rather than refer this person to his boss, is beyond me, unless payment was received, which I have not seem claimed. The reason given for committing perjury in Zeist is 'fear for own life', something which to me defies logic.

    Those wanting to see the best in our fellow human beings could instead choose to believe that he innocent of (a) and (b), and only lied once, on the affidavit.

    - - -

    I am not saying that you could not be right, just that your case is weak.

    In general, I find your conclusions real hard to draw from the material you present. This is a pity, as your website contains some valuable points too.

    You have already called a number of people in the case 'liars', 'criminals' etc. With the mentioned exception, this is without sufficient base in proven facts.

    All we have are reasonable grounds for raising suspicions.

    I believe that those who press for the truth regarding Lockerbie and Megrahi's conviction should show their dedication to conclusions and statements being based on proper evidence only.

    Could you possibly consider the correctness of that, and hopefully find reasons to change your style, first of all for Megrahi's sake?

  21. The Tegenlicht documentary is very interesting, and it does question the security of the chain of evidence as regards the fragment after it was discovered. However, it's difficult to build a credible case by ambushing people and asking them to remember off the top of their heads what happened 18 years previously. Inconsistencies could merely be due to faulty recollection.

    More important is Christine Grahame's enquiry. It seems certain that the fragment went to Siemens in Munich(?) in April 1990, and highly probable that it also went to the USA later that year.

    Marquise's published memoir implies that it was taken there on 11th June, and photographed by Tom Thurman. It was this photograph he used to make the identification with the Togo timer, which he did within a matter of days by taking it to a CIA colleague. (It appears they already knew what it was.) This resulted in the British officials bringing the thing back very soon afterwards to see the comparison for themselves.

    According to Marquise's book, Henderson was one of the people involved in this exercise, so it's very strange that he vehemently denies to Levy that it ever left Britain. However, it appears that it was at all times in the custody of either the RARDE officials and/or the Scottish police, so maybe that's his point.

    These travels do not seem illegitimate to me, given that the fragment never left British custody. However, Miss Grahame states that they are not recorded on the log attached to the fragment, which should of course document all this. This is clearly a matter for concern.

    However, it depends on whether the goal is to get the Megrahi conviction overturned, even on a technicality, or to discover the truth. If the former, then here is an excellent technicality. If the latter, not so much. As the fragment can be seen to be the same item in both the original (red-circle) photograph from May 1989 and the pictures of the item exhibited in court, it hardly matters if it was taken to Ulan Bator in between these times. It's still the same thing.

  22. Rolfe said: "...These travels do not seem illegitimate to me, given that the fragment never left British custody. However, Miss Grahame states that they are not recorded on the log attached to the fragment, which should of course document all this. This is clearly a matter for concern..."
    We do not know whether the fragment was always in British custody. Since there is no record on the log one must assume that this was omitted deliberately (or somehow disappeared afterwards). The other explanation (if not deliberately) is that the Scottish police officers were incapable of doing their job - which raises more questions concerning the investigation.

  23. I completely agree that it would be perfectly natural to send any piece of evidence to a place with higher expertise. Probably this happens all the time in international police work, and this is in the interest of all of us.

    But here the search was not for the truth - the agenda was to get one man convicted. One single matter would be enough to prove that statement for me: that Gauci and his brother were paid millions of dollars. This has absolutely no places in any kind of justice. Period.

    CIA has a very poor history in being a bastion of justice, but an excellent history in supporting contemporary political goals.

    FBI has had their own well documented problems. FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States, and this carries its own history of bias in police work. Famous is Nixon's juggling with both organizations.

    This article is a good descriptions of the problems, that also relates to those described for Tom Thurman.

    Any involvement of these organizations in a case of this international political weight is worrying (even if necessary) and strongly weakens the evidence.

    So, here we are, regarding the importance of the timer fragment history. It may or may not be genuine. But there may be important evidence to gather from the history itself. If e.g. the - or "a" - fragment was sent to Siemens, maybe records at Siemens would be of value. Date and time may prove a lot and can be hard to tamper with.

    - - -

    The Megrahi conviction is long overturned, and only exists as a formality, so embarrassing for UK, US and your crown.

    Alone the evidence having emerged around Gauci, only ignorant people or denialists with something to defend could still claim him "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

    RB won his case.

    A thought to play with now is whether he can be proven "not guilty beyond possible doubt".

    If the timer-fragment can be proved to be "sick", we have reached even this very rare verdict.

  24. MISSION LOCKEBIE, attn. sfm:

    Letzte Antwort: Der Buchstabe "M" wurde nicht von Ing. Lumpert oder MEBO auf das Fragment PT-35 eingekratzt.
    Das "M"= Master, wurde von der offiziellen Person markiert, welche das PT-35 aus Lumpert's Prototype Circuit board, fabriziert hatte! Die erste offizielle Polaroid-Foto wurde von diesem MST-13 Timer Fragment gemacht und Meister & Bollier, von "Swiss Police BUPO", am 23. März 1990, bei einer Befragung gezeigt.
    Somit muss die Abbildung des MST-13Fragments als Original gewertet werden! (ab 15. Juni 1990, diente es als Presse Foto).

    Das original Fragment PT-35, wurde von Fa. Siemens AG in Deutschland, ab 27. April 1990 in zwei Teile zersägt: Part, no. 353 = PT-35(b) und Part, no. 419 = DP-31(a).

    Nach dem Siemens Besuch wurde zwischen Mai 1990 und September 1990, ein grünes Duplikat PT-35 Fragment mit gleichen Design fabriziert und ebenfalls in zwei gleich grosse Teile zersägt. Daraus entstand das Patchwork Fragment: "PT-35(b)/DP-31(a)". Bei dieser offiziellen Abbildung (Foto), ist nur die Teilansicht bezugsweise Part, DP-31(a), mit den Brandstellen gegenseitig mit den zwei verschiedenen Abbildungen auf offiziellen Fotos identisch! Somit bleibt nur Part, no. 419 = DP-31(a) als Original identisch!
    Von Part. No. 353 = PT-35(b), Farbe braun, mit Markierung "M", gibt es somit ein Duplikat PT-35 (b) mit grüner Farbe ohne "M" Markierung.

    NB: Die Farben wurden nicht von Abbildungen auf Fotos bestimmt, sondern abgeleitet von technischen Merkmalen auf den Circuit Boards.
    Die nach Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer 1985/86, waren nur mit grünen Thüring Circuit Boards bestückt.

    Die Beschädigung auf dem Lötstützpunkt 1 sind auf dem braunen Original Fragment mit Markierung "M", gegenüber dem grünen (Thüring) PT-35 Duplikat verschieden, das ist korrekt.

    Die ähnlichen Beschädigungen (r) auf dem Duplikat PT-35, wurden bereits gemacht, bevor die markierte Ecke (f) des grünen Thüring Circuit Boards abgeägt wurde! siehe Foto, Image, prod. U/7946, auf unsere Webseite vom 13. September 2009. Aus diesem bereits vorbereiteten 1/4 Teilstückes des Thüring Boards wurde nach dem Besuch bei Siemens ab Mai 1990, das grüne Duplikat PT-35(b), ohne Markierung "M" fabriziert !

    Ab 15. November 1990 war als Beweistück offiziell nur das Patchwork Fragment PT-35B im Focus! Das PT-35B bestand somit aus dem grünen Duplikat Circuit Board Part. PT-35(b) und dem braunen original Part. DP-31(a).
    Zwischen der Begutachtung in Dumfries am, 16. September 1999 und der Besichtigung der Fragmente im Zeugenstand, 2000 Kamp van Zeist, stellte ich fest, dass das erste Teilfragment, PT-35(b) eine grüne Farbe auswies, ohne "M". Das zweite Teil-Fragment DP-35(a) erneut manipuliert geworden ist, d.h. nachträglich total verbrannt wurde, eine Farbe konnte nicht mehr zugeteilt werden! Weitere Fragen über die Differenzen wurden von Lord Advocate abrupt abgewiesen...

    Ich habe sämtliches Timer- und das Fotomaterial im Original zwischen 13.-17. September 1999 beim Lockerbie Trail Team, Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute, in Dumfries UK geprüft. Ich weiss wovon ich spreche. Bitte überlassen Sie die Ermittlungen professionellen Polizei Experten von New Scotland Yard. Ende der Durchsage.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland

  25. sorry: typing error, not DP-35 (a) correct is: DP-31 (a)


    Since August 1990, definitely a wrong date was created (7th of December, 1988) in order to accuse deliberately the libyan official Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the buyer of the cloths in "Mary's House".

    A further proof from MEBO that the sale of dresses in Anhony Gauci "Mary's House" took undoubtedly place on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988 by a supposedly Libyan buyer:

    Tony Gauci told Bollier on 25.01.2008 in Malta, that the 2 pieces of pyjamas, label "John Mallia", were the last two pyjamas he had sold to a Libyan in his shop. On the other day, the 24th of November 1988, Gauci by phon ordered at the company "John Mallia" additionally 8 pieces of the same pyjamas. The 8 pyjamas were delivered on the 25th of November 1988 with the calculation/delivery note, dated 25th of November 1988 to Gauci' s Mary' s House at Sliema Malta. Prod. 477-1.

    The day after Wednesday, December 7, December 8, 1988 was an official public holiday (Immaculate Conception Day) and the "John Mallia" company was closed. But the day after November 23, November 24, 1988 was not an official public holiday, the company "John Mallia" was open.

    Court at Kamp van Zeist, Excerpt:
    MR. CAMPBELL: The next witness is 606, Paul Mallia.
    THE MACER: Paul Mallia, Your Lordship.
    Q-- Mr. Mallia, what is your full name? A-- Paul Mallia. Q-- And your address? A-- It's 4 Marina Court, Sliema Road, Malta. Q-- What is the name of the company? A-- It's John N. Mallia & Son Limited. Q-- Would you look, please, at Label 445. Do you see that the bag contains a pair of pyjamas? A-- These are the pyjamas we used to manufacture back in that time. Q-- Could we have on the screen, please, Production 181, photograph 134. You see there a photograph of a pair of pyjamas. Can you confirm, first of all, that that's a photograph of the pyjamas that you have physically in front of you? A-- Yes, it is.

    Q-- Are you familiar with a shop called Mary's House in Tower Road, Sliema? A-- Yes. He is one of our clients. Q-- Did you supply that shop with goods? A-- Yes, we do. Q-- Would you look, please, at Production 501. Focus in on the label at the top of the page, please. We see that that label describes what we are about to look at as an invoice. If we move on, please, to the next image, image 1. Do we there see a carbon-copy invoice from your records, John N. Mallia & Son Limited? A-- Yes. Q-- And do we see that it's dated 31st October 1988? A-- Yes, that's correct. Q-- And it's to Mary's House? A-- Yes. Q-- In Sliema. And do we see that included in the order is a quantity of 16 men's pyjamas? A-- Yes.

    Q-- If you can close that, please, and look now at Production 500. Do we see that this label tells us that this, too, is a receipt. And if -- an invoice, I'm sorry. And if we move to image 1, we again see that this is a carbon copy invoice from your records. Is this one dated the 25th of November 1988? **A-- Yes, that's correct. Q-- And again, is it to Mary's House in Sliema? A-- Yes. Q-- And in this case the item -- the items in it is a quantity of eight men's pyjamas? A-- Yes.

    **(MEBO: This order made by Gauci on 24th of November 1988, by telephone).

    Excerpt: described by Gauci.
    Question: Q-- And if we can have Production 4771, do we see that that's a similar invoice to your shop from John Mallia dated 25th November 1988 for eight pairs of pyjamas?
    Answer: A-- Yes. I used to buy stock, and when it finished, I used to buy -- I used to phone often. It's an item that is quite sold in winter.

    Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi was not in Malta on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988, thus Mr. Megrahi is definetely not the buyer of the dresses !

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD, Switzerland

  27. "Letzte Antwort: Der Buchstabe "M" wurde nicht von Ing. Lumpert oder MEBO auf das Fragment PT-35 eingekratzt. Das M= Master, wurde von der offiziellen Person markiert, welche das PT-35 aus Lumpert's Prototype Circuit board, fabriziert hatte!"

    So the "M" was not written by Lumpert. Somebody else wrote the 'M', the 'official person'.

    Great! Here we have the chance. Can you find this person and have him confirming that he used to scratch such 'M's on boards? That would have some value.

    If he can also explain why he didn't use a permanent marker pen, as everyone else I have ever seen doing marks on circuit boards, that would be grat.

    For the rest: think of what you in praxis can prove.

  28. Maybe the "official person" was the same one who ordered Mr. Bollier to write a letter accusing Libya and hand it over to the US embassy in Vienna?

  29. MISSION LOCKERBIE attn. Nennt mich einfach Adam:

    Was sagen Sie zu dieser Tatsache?

    Die Hintergründe und den Text-Inhalt des erfolgreichen Fang-Briefes an die CIA, war dem Libyen Government, dem British and American Government, durch das FBI und der Scottish Police, seit dem 16. Januar 1991, 8 Monate vor dem Indictment von USA und Great Britain bekannt, trotzdem wurde ein Indictment gegen Libyen ausgestellt!

    Somit kann eine Beeinflussung durch den CIA Fang-Brief, für das Erstellen eines Indictment, ausgeschlossen werden!

    Bitte den nächsten Vorhalt, unsere Verteidigung beruht auf Wahrheit und wird zum peinlichen Bumerang ...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  30. Mr. Bollier,

    you argument is that your "catch-letter"(??) was not crucial for the indictment of Libya.

    Right, I think nobody would say so too. But that is not the question either.

    Why did you deliver such a letter??

    For somebody who'll later claim that Libya is wrongly indicted it is a madman's work.

  31. MISSION LOCKERBIE attn. sfm:

    Heute wissen wir, dass der "Befehl", einen Brief an den Chief der CIA zuschreiben, von einem westlichen security Service Agenten kam!
    Der Brief wurde dann von mir nach langer Überlegung in die Form eines Fang- Briefes umgewandelt. Der Text in meinem Brief war derartig gestaltet worden, dass die Immunität der Personen, nach einer erwartenden Rückantwort, bekannt wird.

    Der Fang-Brief war sehr erfolgreich: Der security Service, der Name der zukünftigen Ansprech-Person, die Adresse, die Telefon und Fax Nummer und die Kommunikations- Frequenz, wurden durch die Rückantwort bekannt...

    Heute wissen wir, dass die neue Bestellung Ende 1988, für die Libysche Armee, sofort weiteren 40 Stück MST-13 Timer zu liefern, von einer Person, "H.B." im Auftrag des selben westlichen security Services gemacht wurde !
    Im Auftrag des selben security Services wurde auch organisiert, dass ich Edwin Bollier, zusammen mit Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi alias (Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad) mit dem gleichen Air Malta Flug, KM 107, am 20. Dezember 1988, nach Malta reisten sollte!

    Documents indicate that originally the CIA and an other western intelligence service planned also to involve Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd.) together with Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi into the PanAm 103 plot!

    Edwin Bollier was told at the check-in at Tripoli airport that his already booked direct flight with Swissair to Zurich on December 20,1988 was fully booked and he should travel via Malta to Switzerland on the same day - the same flight on which Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was booked (*flight KM 107, on December 20, 1988 from Tripoli to Malta). According to a new statement Megrahi did not know that Bollier was planned to travel on the same flight as he was !

    Bollier was suspicious because he didn't see many people on the airport and went to the Swissair Station Manager who told him that there were many empty seats on the Swissair flight to Zurich. So he took the direct flight to Zurich on December 20, 1988. Only Abdelbaset Al Megrahi (alias Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad) traveled with flight KM 107 from Tripoli to Malta on December 20, 1988.
    Therefore Bollier was not in Malta on the same day as Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. The CIA was confronted with a new situation and the same intelligence people decided to involve the station manager of 'Libyan Arab Airways' , Mr. Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, into the complot.

    *Al Megrahi was instructed by his boss Ibrahim Bishari to travel to Malta on December 20, 1988 for a security order (not in connection with the bombing of PanAm 103) ...
    On September 14, 1997 former foreign minister, Ibrahim Bishari, died in a car crash in Egypt ...

    Leider wurden meine Aussagen als Zeuge in Kamp van Zeist nicht mit der nötigen Sorgfaltspflicht aufgenommen, sondern gezielt von Lord Advocate und dem "Defence Team", Duff & Taylor, unglaubhaft bezugsweise lächerlich gemacht und mit der Spionage Film Story, "Der 3. Mann" verglichen !!!
    (etwa so: Ein Mann spielt auf einer Geige, das Musikstück der "der dritte Mann", vor der Eingangstüre der Firma MEBO Ltd)...

    Weitere Informationen über dieses "Zeist Theater", können aus den Gerichtsprotokollen Kamp van Zeist gelesen werden.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  32. Mr. Bollier,

    as your "answer" provided me no help I did my own research and found the article below.

    I am forced to select at least one of these:

    A. You never said to Swiss authorities that the purpose of the letter was 'to get the investigators away from the wrong track and bring them on to the Libyan track'

    B. You are willing to lie and make up stories, either in court or in front of Swiss authorities.


    23 Jun 2000
    Lockerbie trial told of letter to CIA


    "Mr Bollier said yesterday he delivered a typewritten letter to the American Embassy in Vienna in January 1989 which blamed Libya and said the bomb had been contained in a suitcase.

    Mr Bollier, 62, claimed he was ordered to implicate Libya by a 'mystery man' from the secret services who visited the offices of his firm in Zurich soon after the tragedy. He said he 'made up' the letter, describing it as 'pure fantasy'.

    However, the court heard that in a 1991 interview with the Swiss authorities he said the purpose of the letter was 'to get the investigators away from the wrong track and bring them on to the Libyan track'. The 'wrong track' was the investigation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

    Under cross-examination from Mr David Burns, QC, defending one of the accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Mr Bollier denied he wanted to implicate Libya to deflect attention away from East Germany's secret police - the Stasi - for whom he had also manufactured MST-13 timers and who had allegedly supplied them to groups including the PFLP-GC.

    He said he had been told to write the letter on a typewriter with a Spanish letter set. It said the CIA could contact him using a codename and also suggested he should be paid for any 'classified information'.

  33. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. sfm:

    Antwort A: FBI Legal Attache Ed. Marshman kannte ab Dezember 1990 von mir persönlich und aus dem, von FBI in Besitz genommenen Brief bei CIA, die Order und den Hintergrund des Fang-Briefes.
    Bei einem neuen Meeting vom 14. bis 18. Januar 1991, in Zürich, anwesend laut vorheriger Ankündigung: Offiziere der Schweizer "BUBO", Beamte des FBI, Beamte der Scottish Police und ubekannte Personen in einem Nebenraum, wurde von Legal Attache Marshman den überraschende Anwesenden die Angelegenheit mit dem Fang-Brief an die CIA und dessen Reaktion teilweise preisgegeben. Deputi CIO Jim Gilchrist, Scottish Police, machte Marshman (FBI) grosse Vorwürfe, wieso die Scottish Police von CIA, seit Ende Januar 1989 bis Anfang 1991, über diese Angelegenheit nicht informiert wurde! Vom mitgebrachten Fang-Brief durften die Scots nur den Anfang lesen, die Details wurden abgedeckt. Frustration machte sich breit!
    Das Libyen Government wurde von mir persönlich im gleichen Zeitraum über die Brief Angelegenheit informiert.

    Antwort B: Meine Aussagen entsprachen bei allen Statements in Libya, bei BUBO, FBI, Scottish Police und am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist der Wahrheit, das ist bis heute meine Stärke!
    Somit war für die oben aufgeführten Investigations-Behörden bekannt, dass ich durch einen gut informierten Agenten am Freitag den 30. Dezember 1988, bedrängt wurde einen Brief, mit den Angaben, wieso ich am 18. Dezember in Libyen und nachher in *Malta war etc., an den Chief der CIA, via des US Konsulats in Zürich zu senden.

    Wie bekannt, war ich nicht in Malta! Die Person wusste scheinbar nicht, dass ich am 20. Dezember mit einem direkt Flug, Tripoli-Zürich, mit Swissair gereist war!
    Den Brief habe ich dann persönlich beim US-Embassy in Wien abgegeben.

    Bitte die nächsten Vorhalte.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  34. Apologies to all serious posters and the owner of the blog for seeking answere and thereby inducing "replies" from this man.

    Mr. Bollier, while you never made much sense I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Whatever mistakes the trial judges may have made in the verdict, the description given of you was spot-on.

  35. It is just OK, sfm! If we could silence him a bit it would be fine.

  36. On the matter of the travels and custody of the silicon fragment, I have not yet received a reply to the following email, even though Ms Miller at the Crown Office has in the past replied promptly.


    1. The article to which I refer in the email is at .

    2. My phrase "or which part of the story is misleading" was after this passage in the Scotsman:
    "... the Crown Office dismissed her claim, saying: "There is absolutely nothing new in this misleading story.""
    ( )


    Request for information on silicon fragment

    21 October 2009 10:00


    Dear Ms Miller,

    I am writing to ask you to clarify the situation on the silicon fragment mentioned in today's Times, which says,

    "The Crown Office said that Ms Grahame’s interpretation was misleading".

    I would be grateful if you could clarify which interpretation or part of the story is misleading, the true position which should replace any misleading statements by Ms Grahame, which documents record the movements of the fragment, and which documents record the unbroken chain of control of the fragment.

    Many thanks.

    Yours sincerely,

    Matt Berkley.

  37. I think it went to Munich in April and to the USA in June. And really, I don't see why not, if it was always in the possession of a senior Scottish 'tec or one of the RARDE people. (Assuming these people to be honest, just for the sake of argument.)

    However, why on earth was this not documented in the log of the fragment? This is simply nuts. Though one might see it as on a par with Hayes, noticing the thing in May 1989 but then completely failing to leap in the air shouting "this is a CLUE!", and leaving it to moulder in the evidence store till Feraday came across it four months later. Then Williamson, trawling round Europe visiting 55 different electronics firms over the the next NINE months to absolutely no effect, when actually Tom Thurman knew exactly what it was and identified it within a couple of days once he finally got his mitts on a picture.

    Thirteen months from first seeing it to identifying it, when, as I said, Thurman who was yomping round Dumfriesshire from late December 1988 right through to the spring, and knew Hayes and Feraday quite well, already knew what it was if only he'd been asked. Great detective work, guys.

    I'll say it again. Tom Thuman was yomping round Dumfriesshire from about Christmas Eve 1988 right through to the spring of 1989, off and on, having returned to the USA several times during that period.

    If the fragment was planted, it's virtually certain that was done before 12th May 1989.

    Tom Thurman wasn't called to give evidence at Camp Zeist because he'd already been demoted as a result of being implicated in systematic fabrication of FBI evidence, designed to get convictions that were politically desirable.

    Tom Thurman can't seem to remember whether he had the fragment or only a photo in his lab. Tom Thurman can't remember whether he identified it at once, or spent "literally months" trawling through files.

    Tom Thurman knew exactly which CIA agent to go to to identify the fragment, in June 1990. He knew what it was the minute he saw it, even though the Scottish police had tried 55 electronics firms to no avail.

    Is anyone seeing a pattern here?

  38. Okay apparently this thing continues anyway, so...

    To Rolfe:
    Is anyone seeing a pattern here?
    I think we do. Speculating here, and it's just too easy, all it takes is an earlier visit to Mr. "Orkin" at the CIA. In the ACI video
    is a nice visualization - at the 7:50 mark
    Thurman: "do you have this timer?"
    The answer was yes, these did NOT only available to Libyans, obviously. If he'd seen another photo, the answer might have been "no" since at least one Senegal timer was inexplicably "missing" per Marquise. Oh, wait, I'm postulating a PRE-PT/35 exchange. Maybe then the answer was yes.

    To SFM: good article, hadn't seen that yet.

    To Mr Bollier:
    Interesting story about, if I read right, an effort to implicate both you and Megrahi together by getting you in Malta at the same time? Sorry, makes too little sense, but there were high politics involved in these days and can see someone trying to squeeze you, etc. and will reserve judgment. But none of this explains how you also told the court, in 2000, about those Olympus timers some Libyans messed with but didn't buy, so you took them back home on December 20.
    On his return to Zurich Mr Bollier claimed to have discovered that one of the timers had been set for a time and a day of the week which were relevant to the time when there was an explosion on board PA103. He showed this to Mr Meister who agreed that he was able to see a time and even a date which were relevant. We do not accept the evidence of either of these two witnesses about this alleged discovery. It was established, and Mr Meister was forced to accept, that the Olympus timer was incapable of showing a date. Moreover, the evidence of both witnesses about what they claimed to have seen and the circumstances in which they claimed to have made the discovery was so inconsistent that we are wholly unable to accept any of it.
    Oh, and was Megrahi really to be your payee on this attempted sale of 12/18-20 1988, as the court accepted?
    It was submitted by the Crown that Mr Bollier’s visit to Tripoli and particularly his visit to the first accused’s office and the presence there of Nassr Ashur provided additional evidence in the case against the first accused.

    But to be fair, you did swear the timer fragment was swapped out! Do you see how this isn't helping?

    - Adam Larson aka Caustic Logic
    Spokane WA

  39. There are plenty other articles around on this week-long testimony. Here's a good one:
    "A defense lawyer, Richard Keen, accused Mr. Bollier of being "mired completely in a web of deceit, cunning and lying of your own invention," and the prosecution admitted it had considered charging him as a co-conspirator."

    CO-conspirator? Mr. Bollier has more evidence against him then Megrahi does. I'm not saying we're chatting with the Lockerbie bomber here, but the tangled we here is so totally dense- so Bollier rents Megrahi an office in Zurich we hear and they can meet there anytime. Then they meet in Tripoli to buy timers, they leave together headed north to almost pass Malta together (Bollierswears he took a direct flight) just as the one guy slips another's timer in a bomb towards 103 at Malta. If one's going to write this story, why not have them both going back to Zurich to have a beer and hatch their next evil plan? It's just too much.

    The masterious way of the identification of the MST-13 of timer fragment. Evidence material for a new Investigation:

    Richard Luis Sherrow, he was an ex exolosives enforcement officer by law enforcement agency within the USA. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). On October 1986 he went in Togo. In the headquarters, army barracks he shown 2 piece of MST-13 Timers, supplied from Libya with other army material.

    When Mr. Sherrow return to the USA in October 1986. He take one MST-13 timer and parts of three different types of explosives, placed in diplomatic pouch !!! and retourned to USA ! Mr. Sherrow return in his own headquarters and he was requested to take it to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

    This MST-13 Timer landed already on June 1989 by FBI experte Tom Thurman! (important, not which Thurman said: after 11 June 1990 ! (This is the lie start of the MST-13 Timerstory !)

    On one of 4 polaroid-photos, with date of 6th of June 1989, and with inches control yardstick, is showing the out scraped company name MEBO. Thurman explained with pride in a BBC-TV interview, that he had deciphered the company name MEBO!
    This fact explains, why the Swiss police knew the manufacturers company MEBO and took on order, a MST-13 circuit board in possession with Ing Lumpert, on 22 June 1989. (Besides the name MEBO can be read also by a layman)...

    By Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  41. Apologies that that was exagerrated. My point was more that Megrahi's conviction was based on circumstantial evidence that could with a little imagination have snamred others as well. And also that Mr. Bollier is in some sort of weird zone here, one way or another.

  42. MISSION LOCKERBIE, that is a computers translation of Babylon, German in English:

    Call to all anonymous persons on this venerable Bloc of Professor Robert Black...

    Why do you have to cover yourselves for such responsible questions and answers (270 victims) with an alias? If you want to make your representation public without perfide intentions, then you call please "Horse and Name" !

    "Newspaper hoax" from steered mainstream media, are not proofs! Adhere to facts, which can be proven or counterproven materially or by reliable documents!

    MEBO works for 18 years on the discharge proofs for Libya and its official Mr. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, with the today's result that Libya and Mr. Megrahi cannot to brought in connection with the Lockerbie- Tragedy.

    The fact that in all probability, which was the Scottish court decision a Miscarriage of Justice, supported by the persistent refusal of a new UN Investigation by Prime Minister Gordon Brown UK, First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond and other one...

    Notices you for those it applies: If someone manipulated evidence, if somebody didn't invesitgate something that should have been investigated, if somebody twisted it to fit up up Megrahi, or Fimah or Libya, then that person will go to jail. I mean that sincerely, that person should be prosecuted for that! Gesprochen von FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise...

    Richard Marquise answered also to Gideon Levy's question G. L.: Would you have a case if you wouldn't have these evidence (MST-13 timer)?
    R.M.: Would we have a case. I don't think we would ever had an indictment. And he said also: G.L.: And was there paid any money after he trial? R.M.: I'm not gonna answer that...

    More Information on:

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  43. MISSION LOCKERBIE, that is a computers translation of Babylon, German in English:

    A convincing of fraud study of the PT-35 (MST-13 timer fragment) for the last "Non-Believers".

    The confrontation between the regular chronology (1989 to 2000) of the MST-13 timer cirquit board (prototype) up to, allegedly in Lockerbie found, PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board and > > >
    the falsified and manipulated chronology (1989 to 2000) of the PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board, from experts Tom Thurman (FBI), USA, Dr. Thomas Heyes and Allen Feraday, both of (RARDE) U.K., is in work and publishes soon.


    Eine überzeugende Betrugs Studie über das PT-35 (MST-13 Timerfragment) für die letzten "Ungläubigen".

    Die Konfrontation zwischen der regulären Chronologie (1989 bis 2000) des MST-13 Timer Cirquit Board (Prototype) bis zum, angeblich in Lockerbie aufgefundenen, PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board und >>>
    der gefälschten und manipulierten Chronologie (1989 bis 2000) des PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board, der Experten Tom Thurman (FBI), USA, Dr. Thomas Heyes und Allen Feraday, beide von (RARDE) UK, ist in Arbeit und wird demnächst publiziert.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland