tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post644535055181657805..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: "The stench of cover-up becomes overwhelming"Robert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-54477400325277768132014-06-06T12:53:13.787+01:002014-06-06T12:53:13.787+01:00The defence and the experts they employed didn'...The defence and the experts they employed didn't understand the significance of the metallurgy results, due to a large extent to some critical documents not being disclosed. I refer mainly to the Williamson memo and Feraday's hand-written examination notes.<br /><br />Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The defence missed an awful lot though, and if we start going through it all we'll be here all week.<br /><br />As far as the very early planting of the fully-loaded shirt collar is concerned (and if you consider that you also have to start wondering about the Claiden fragment too), it has to raise the spectre of a MIHOP (make it happen on purpose, that is that the US authorities were complicit in the plot to bring the plane down). I know some people believe this to have been the case.<br /><br />I don't, and I'm very reluctant indeed to go there. There are a number of quite good reasons for arguing that that didn't happen. On the other hand there are some reasons for proposing that it might have happened, and being honest I have to acknowledge that it's something that might have to be confronted one day.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-59870641503752361162014-06-06T00:08:23.278+01:002014-06-06T00:08:23.278+01:00"I really don't like where that train of ..."I really don't like where that train of thought leads." - no, me neither Rolfe.<br /><br />"The truth about the fragment was, it wasn’t what the prosecution claimed it to be and the defence failed to contest the forensics." - Dave there was a huge amount of evidence for defence to wade through. Things were bound to get missed/overlooked. I mean a massive police enquiry seems to have overlooked all the evidence pointed to the Samsonite starting its journey at Heathrow. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00845639549869999875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-32206979258837948182014-06-05T22:27:41.121+01:002014-06-05T22:27:41.121+01:00The defence missed a trick with the forensics, wit...The defence missed a trick with the forensics, without any doubt. The defence missed a lot of tricks and we'd be here all night if we started listing them.<br /><br />That doesn't however mean that there is proof that the fragment didn't fall from the sky, or wasn't in the piece of cloth which was picked up in the field on 13th January.<br /><br />It might have been, it might not have been.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-46418422281651283772014-06-05T22:14:25.697+01:002014-06-05T22:14:25.697+01:00The truth about the fragment was, it wasn’t what t...The truth about the fragment was, it wasn’t what the prosecution claimed it to be and the defence failed to contest the forensics.<br /><br />The rest of your message was a diversion away from this central point that by not applying reasonable doubt and demanding an examination of the fragment was an abdication of duty by the defence.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29642976115849575142014-06-05T21:26:37.305+01:002014-06-05T21:26:37.305+01:00My last message was of course a reply to Dave.
Sc...My last message was of course a reply to Dave.<br /><br />Scott, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Did that fragment fall from the sky, or didn't it? (Together with who made it, and why?)<br /><br />We can suspect all we like and speculate all we like but we don't have a conclusive answer to any of that.<br /><br />I also have serious doubts that it fell from the sky, but there's a good case for its being in the chain of evidence at a pretty early date, possibly even on 13th January 1989. I really don't like where that train of thought leads.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-65448055249679468572014-06-05T19:05:02.117+01:002014-06-05T19:05:02.117+01:00You know the truth about the fragment? Do tell!
...You know the truth about the fragment? Do tell!<br /><br />I think you have the wrong end of the stick as regards the place of "reasonable doubt" in Scots (and indeed English) law. It is not a test that has to be applied to each individual piece of evidence.<br /><br />To get back to your original point, such as it was, the answer is simple. There was a thorough and co-ordinated fingertip search of the crash site, concentrating especially on the area around Newcastleton where it was realised that pieces of explosion-damaged debris were being found. Searchers were told, "If it isn't growing, or a rock, bring it in."<br /><br />This was done to maximise the likelihood of recovering anything of evidential importance that might have landed somewhere accessible. No doubt some items landed in inaccessible places. One can imagine all sorts of useful fragments that <i>weren't</i> recovered. It was to be expected, though, that some useful ones would be recovered, and indeed that was the case.<br /><br />You can't dismiss this exercise and all its fruits simply by declaring "It's unlikely that particular piece would be found." As I said, it's the same as saying, "It's unlikely you would have won the lottery," <i>after you've won it</i>. Someone's going to win the lottery, after all. And some useful pieces of evidence are going to be picked up.<br /><br />The only thing we <i>know</i> about that fragment is that it wasn't part of one of the 20 MST-13 timer instruments supplied to Libya by MEBO. We don't know how or when it got into the evidence chain. It may have happened exactly as the police claimed.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-40361950062505400622014-06-05T19:04:07.123+01:002014-06-05T19:04:07.123+01:00Have to say I have serious doubts the timer fragme...Have to say I have serious doubts the timer fragment was ever on board Pan Am 103. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00845639549869999875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-60026303598275133562014-06-05T12:23:39.767+01:002014-06-05T12:23:39.767+01:00Yes but as usual your dissembling because saying t...Yes but as usual your dissembling because saying the fragment could survive the explosion and saying the way it was discovered can’t be disproved does not excuse not applying reasonable doubt, which would have revealed the truth about the fragment at Zeist.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-43478671889473215562014-06-05T09:42:36.323+01:002014-06-05T09:42:36.323+01:00I'm pointing out that you have no proof at all...I'm pointing out that you have no proof at all that the discovery didn't happen exactly as claimed. Lots of things that were involved in the explosion were prised out of other things after the items had been picked up from the ground.<br /><br />It would have been entirely inapprporiate for the cops to have poked around in these items and disturbed the evidence of the blast, right there out in the open.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-50987173878097386862014-06-05T05:09:04.531+01:002014-06-05T05:09:04.531+01:00It wasn’t [as you confirm] found in the finger-tip...It wasn’t [as you confirm] found in the finger-tip search of a very large area, but later inside the evidence room and the fragment wasn’t what the prosecution claimed it to be.<br /><br />Or are you implying its genuine?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-25845631659842824302014-06-05T00:14:34.825+01:002014-06-05T00:14:34.825+01:00I'm implying reasonable doubt!I'm implying reasonable doubt!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-45599876088700767012014-06-04T08:50:44.008+01:002014-06-04T08:50:44.008+01:00Some burnt clothing that was picked up in the big ...Some burnt clothing that was picked up in the big field beside Blinkbonny farmhouse, during a fingertip search. Or are you implying something different?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-88607669662411663972014-06-03T19:25:00.982+01:002014-06-03T19:25:00.982+01:00It was found in some burnt clothing in the evidenc...It was found in some burnt clothing in the evidence room!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-2342713094504980962014-06-03T17:18:07.607+01:002014-06-03T17:18:07.607+01:00They said it did. How do you know that's wron...They said it did. How do you know that's wrong?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18919191355663606682014-06-03T09:15:03.888+01:002014-06-03T09:15:03.888+01:00Also the finger-tip search of a very wide area did...Also the finger-tip search of a very wide area did not find the fragment.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-47744602132289630252014-06-03T09:10:10.900+01:002014-06-03T09:10:10.900+01:00If the prosecution say they have found the vital n...If the prosecution say they have found the vital needle in a haystack, you would expect any defence to ask for a look at the needle!<br /><br />And if they didn’t you would expect the defendant to make this basic request!<br /><br />Alas following advice from his defence team Megrahi did not go into the witness box!<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-8796225774567094802014-06-02T22:30:46.793+01:002014-06-02T22:30:46.793+01:00Clearly, in Dave's world, the police wasted co...Clearly, in Dave's world, the police wasted countless man-hours conducting fingertip line searches of the area, because <i>anything</i> they found was just going to be dismissed with "it's very unlikely you would have found that"!Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-79066994284734986242014-06-02T21:32:37.724+01:002014-06-02T21:32:37.724+01:00Arguing that something is theoretically possible d...Arguing that something is theoretically possible does not excuse, not applying reasonable doubt to the evidence, particularly when such a test is standard procedure in court cases.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-40707915610807743122014-06-02T19:17:38.768+01:002014-06-02T19:17:38.768+01:00Dave, will you please give this one a rest.
It...Dave, will you please give this one a rest.<br /><br />It's a sad fact of human history that there have been enough explosions to know that fragments even of things close to the explosion can survive. If that doesn't fit with your intuitive understanding of what goes on in an explosion, I would respectfully suggest that it's your understanding which needs to change, not the real world.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831322202596781171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-32438073289063295442014-06-02T10:07:39.205+01:002014-06-02T10:07:39.205+01:00This is a bit like the argument that nobody ever w...This is a bit like the argument that nobody ever wins the lottery.<br /><br />How can you claim you won the lottery? The chances of that are about 14 million to one. You've no chance of being believed against my accusation that you got that money from dealing drugs.<br /><br />Except - someone wins the lottery pretty much every week. In the same way, many bits of something close to the explosion will be lost, but a few will be found. That's why they searched the countryside, and searched it very carefully. It's not really all that surprising if an exercise like that actually bears fruit, you know.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-82695002897338474342014-06-01T21:26:51.286+01:002014-06-01T21:26:51.286+01:00Well yes, but you would expect reasonable doubt to...Well yes, but you would expect reasonable doubt to have incited some, rather than no questions about the forensics!<br /><br />And there is also reasonable doubt the prosecution could find many experts to back their case as qualified as the ones they had!<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-32896613376205149652014-06-01T16:07:27.700+01:002014-06-01T16:07:27.700+01:00"The chances ... should have incited reasonab..."The chances ... should have incited reasonable doubt that it was genuine."<br /><br />Small pieces of everything will be found after an explosion [in a suitcase]. Numerous parameters, mixed up with pure chance, determine how small the fragments are, and how they are positioned among or inside other debris.<br /><br />As for the value of the argument at the trial, I believe that for each expert in explosives that the defense could have found who'd would claim that the timer fragment or clothes would have been unlikely to survive...<br /><br />... the prosecution would have been able to find twenty ditto that would say that no such thing could be concluded with any justified certainty by anyone on the planet.<br /><br />So the defense did not make a mistake on that one. There are enough loose assumptions in this case already. <br />See the verdict for more.<br />sfmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02127645052255935678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30654392171766763902014-06-01T09:10:11.512+01:002014-06-01T09:10:11.512+01:00The chances of a tiny bit of circuit board survivi...The chances of a tiny bit of circuit board surviving the explosion, being found and remaining identifiable as coming from a specific batch of circuit boards is so remote, it should have incited reasonable doubt that it was genuine.<br /><br />The chances of it being found in the collar of some burnt clothing that survived the explosion that also remained identifiable as a specific item of clothing from a specific shop is so remote it should have incited reasonable doubt it and the clothing was genuine.<br /><br />The idea that a shopkeeper could identify the specific clothing and the specific person who brought the clothing 3 years after the event is so remote that it should have incited reasonable doubt that the fragment, clothing and witness were genuine.<br /><br />In short the defence should have questioned the whole chain of evidence and not just whether it was raining on a particular day!<br /><br />In short they could have simply asked for a look at the fragment and without any tests, seen it was fake by the absence of burn marks!<br /> <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-44612997611228780222014-05-31T21:29:12.852+01:002014-05-31T21:29:12.852+01:00MISSION LIFE WITH THE LOCKERBIE AFFAIR, 2014 (goog...MISSION LIFE WITH THE LOCKERBIE AFFAIR, 2014 (google Translation, german/english)<br /><br />Why the Scottish Justice the Truth not will hear ? - because we have forget to ask whether they can handle and bear the Truth...<br /><br />by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.chebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681382726604052927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-6699565366856189472014-05-31T15:41:08.425+01:002014-05-31T15:41:08.425+01:00Well it was revealed to the defence teams long in ...Well it was revealed to the defence teams long in advance of the trial that there was a fundamental contradiction between page 51 of Dr Hayes notes and photograph 117 but in 19 years nobody on the defence teams, including John Ashton (researcher for two of the teams) noticed this glaring anomaly. Adequately explained by stupidity? bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.com