|Zürich, July 3, 2001
Are Investigating Inspectors
involved in Criminal Activities in the Lockerbie-Affair?
After studying the official Court documents from Kamp van Zeist we can claim today thanks to supplementary information- to uncover criminal "evidence-connections" that would clearly call for a total re-enactment of the entire trial, in order to then use a more comprehensive and new system for questioning witnesses.
Chronology of the MST-13 Timer-Fragment:
-December 21, 1988, 7.03 PM
Downing of Pan Am-103 over Lockerbie, GB
Mr. Allen Feraday, RARDE-witness no.355, visits the USA beginning of April, carrying with him the documentation of the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered AAIB-registered fragments.
-April 23-May 1, 1989
Mr. Allen Feraday visits the Toshiba radio-factory in Japan and carries with him on his return a radio-recorder, technical information material, instruction manuals, as also several units of the RT 8016/SF16 and similar radios.
In those days already, Mr. Allen Feraday/ RARDE and FBI forensic agent Thomas Thurman (and others) conducted explosion-tests in the USA, using TNT and Semtex. aifreight-containers, Toshiba radio-recorders type RT 8016/SF16-Bombeat (made in Japan) and Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases (made in Denver, Colorado) and of antique copper-color, filled with clothing, etc. that were subjected to the explosion, with most such activities being photographically recorded.
Excerpts from the Court-documents, Kamp van Zeist:
Witness no. 355, Mr. Allen Feraday, (RARDE, Defense Research Agency Division at Fort Halstead) (sworn statemements):
-----Q- Can we turn on to your report, your final report, production 181, at page 9, Mr. Feraday. And if we look to the last paragraph on that page-- A-Yes, sir. Q-- you refer to explosion trials using luggage-filled metal cargo containers. A- Yes, sir. That's correct, sir. Yes. Q- And are these trials that were carried out in April 1989 and July 1989? A- I think that is correct.
Q-And were they carried out under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Authority? A-Yes,essentially, yes. It was a combined effort, but essentially it was under their auspices. They provided the containers. Q- And I take it you attended at those tests, Mr.Feraday? A- I loaded all of radios with their explosives, sir, yes. Q- And did you also advise on the way in wich the explosive tests were to be set up and carried out? A- That again was a kind of composite decision. There were--myself, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the FBI all had a wiew. And so, essentially, a trial was done one way, then a trial was done another. So it wasn't only my view, if you understand my meaning, although I loaded the radios for them.Q- Did you perform some of this tests not only within cargo containers, but with cargo containers located within a representation of the fuselage of a plane? A- Yes, sir I did. At Atlantic City. Q- I believe you were accompanied to these tests by Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer? A- that's correct sir. Yes. Q- Did he photograph the results of these tests? A- He did indeed, sir.Yes. Q- And do you know where these photographs are now, Mr. Feraday? A- well, they were certainly at Fort Halstead when I last saw them, and all the negatives are there. ----
Why did the Duff-defense-team never ask for the set of photographs from all such US-tests and the relevant pictures of the various fragments, to then compare such material with the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered fragments? According to the official Court documents no such photographs were available to the Court either! It would have been interesting for the court to also examine photographs of the "shatter-Zone fragments" from the fuselage.
----Q-Mr. Feraday, you referred earlier in your evidence to having taken part in explosion trials in the United States in April and July 1989? A-Yes,sir. Q- And every one of those trials, there being nine in total, the improvised explosive device- was contained in a Toshiba radio/cassette recorder model RT-8016, wasn't it? A- Yes, sir. Q- And that was because you had reported yourself completely satisfied that it was such a model which had been employed for the improvised explosive device on PanAm 103? A-That's correct, sir.Yes.----
Principal piece of evidence: the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer-fragment (PT/35).
1.- First Story with the Polaroid-Photograph with Picture of the MST-13 Timer-fragment "PT/35"
Court documents indicate that an allegedly Lockerbie-recovered fragment of a PC-board (PT/35=MST-13 timer-fragment) had been photographed a second time by orders of inspector Dr. Thomas Hayes (witness no. 586) and Mr. Allen Feraday (witness no.355/ RARDE), using a Polaroid-camera.
Excerpt from the Court-Documents, Kamp van Zeist,
(witness no.586: Dr. Thomas Hayes- RARDE, sworn statements)
---Question: Well, you wrote the examination-notes that are now paginated as page 51, did you not, Dr. Hayes- Answer: I certainly did. Question: And you record in those notes on page 51 that PT35B was trapped in the collar of a shirt or in a piece of material? Answer: Yes. Q-Do you not? A- Yes, I did. Yes. Q- So that the fragment could not, presumably, have come to light, so far as the police were concerned, prior to it being extracted from the cloth by yourself? A-That is correct, yes. Q- It would follow that it could not have been seen by the police prior to the cloth being passed to you at RARDE and the article being extracted by you from the trapped area of material? A- I'm sure that is the case. Q- So you can cast no light, however, despite that background, on the second paragraph of this memo? A- I'm sorry, I can't , now.
Q- Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI 995 and the trapped material in May 1989, Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs? A- I would imagine that he would, yes, most definitely. Q- And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr .Hayes? A- It is most unlikely that they would be, no. Q- I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs? A- No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time, no.
To sum up this chapter just before the short adjournment, there is evidence which suggests that some productions were interfered with before they reached RARDE, and the label relating to PI995 was irregularly and inexplicably altered. Dr. Hayes seemend to have no recollection independently of his notes of having found PT/35B. The sequence of the PT numbering and the absence from the notes of a drawing of the circuit board are unusual features. The pagination of the notes was described by Hayes as "an unfathomable mystery," for which he did propose an explanation, but unfortunately one that does not work. The memorandum of the 15th of September 1989 is difficult to understand if the fragment was indeed found on 12th of May 1989. PT 35B is an important piece of evidence on which the Crown rely and in respect of which it is for the Crown to satisfy the court as to its provenance. I submit that the irregularities and peculiarities which attend this item are some which the court ought to have some hesitation in being satisfied as to the items proenance. And that would be a convenient moment.
- This allegedly Lockerbie recovered MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) is said to have been found in the wreckage of PanAm-103 and to be part of the alleged IED that allegedly destroyed the aircraft from within container AVE 4041 PA. As of September 1989, Dr. Thomas Hayes and Mr. Allen Feraday knew already "miraculously" well that this MST-13 timer-fragment PT-35 was a decisive part of evidence. Yet, this so vital piece of evidence has never been tested for explosives - powder residue! A truly unforgiving act of negligence!
Excerpt from Court Documents, Kamp van Zeist.
Witness no. 586, Dr. Thomas Hayes, sworn statement:
----Q- The item which was found and labelled as PT 35(b) is later reported by you in report 181 as a fragment of a timer, or timing devise, which was associated what the bomb within the Toshiba radio/cassette recorder? A- Yes, sir. Q- Why was that never the subject of any form of chemical trace analysis to see if it had intimate contact with explosives, Dr. Hayes?-----
-----Q-With respect, Dr. Hayes, we are talking about an item which, according to your later report, was quite intimately associated with the explosive and the explosion itself, are we not? A- With respect, you are referring to that? Q- Yes, I am. And that's what I am asking you about, Dr. Hayes. A- But my goals, one of my goals, was to determine the explosive used, having established that, little is achieved, in my opinion, in furthering that same inquiry upon other items known to have originated from the explosive device.
Q- Well, you say "known to have originated from the explosive device", Dr. Hayes. Had you carried out chemical trace analysis on PT/35b, you could have determined whether or not it had been intimately connected with the explosive and the explosion itself, could you not? A- With respect, I would have not have achieved that because if it, for example, had orginated from a neighbouring suitcase, then one could be misled in interpreting the finding of explosive traces into believing it was an intimate part of the explosive device. Q- But as a forensic scintist, you would identify and recognise the tracing of such explosive resiues as a relevant and significant adminicle, would you not? A- As a forensic scientist, sir, I use my judgement as to which items I process for chemistry. Q- So you process two pieces of aluminium container for chemistry, but you don't process the fragments of Toshiba radio cassette connected with the explosive device itself? A- That's quite correct, sir.
Q-You are familiar whit the means by which such chemical analysis can be prepared, are you not, Dr.Hayes? A- Can be preared? Q- Well, it's not necessary to swab every item, is it, if you have small fragments. You can also wash them in solution and then use that solution in the same way as you would a swab? A- Preferably you would wash them, yes, sir.Q- Yes. So the size of the fragment would not inhibit such chemical analysis, would it? A- The analysis would not be inhibited by any size of fragment. It's the realism applied to the likelihood of finding traces. Q- On the fragments of Toshiba radio cassette, there would have been a realistic prospect of finding traces of explosive residue if these had been intimately connected with the explosion, would there not? A- I don't believe so sir. The total surface area involved of all of the recovered fragments was relatively small. Q- And are you suggesting that in solution that would not have been sufficient to throw up evidence in a chemical trace analysis?
A- I wouldn't rule out that possibility. Q-Well, you did, by not carrying out the analysis, Dr. Hayes, did you not? A- No. I didn't rule out the possibility. I ruled out the work that would be required. Q- You were invoved in the case of the Maguire family that is the Maguire Seven case? A- That's correct, sir. Q- And there tracing scraped from under their nails were sufficient in size to admit of chemical trace analysis, were they not? A- Yes, they were. I'm not quite sure of the relevance of your comment, but I agree with your statement. Q- Well, on the basis of those tiny fragments, evidence of chemical contact was used as a basis for their initial conviction, was it not? A- Yes. But you you haven't made a distinction there between handling explosives and post-detonation residues. And there is a large difference between the two.-------
-----Q- But you are familiar with explosives, are you not, Dr. Hayes? A. Yes, sir, I am. Q- And you know that when there is a detonation, you cannot normally expect there to be 100 per cent detonation of the high explosive. It may only be of a proportion of the explosive? A It will most certainly be a proportion, which will then be dissipated through the environment. Q- And dissipated whit the explosive residue will be that proportion which did not detonate and which is pure explosive?
A- That is correct,sir.-------
Excerpt from Court Documents, Kamp van Zeist.
-Witness no. 994 Chief Inspector William Williamson, sworn; statement:
---- Question: And was that about an item that he had examined? A: Yes, sir. Production 333. Is this a memorandum, Mr. Williamson, adressed to you? A: It is, sir,yes. Q: And is it dated the 15th of September of 1989? A: That's correct, sir,yes. Q: And it explains that these are photographs of a green circuit board? A: That's correct, sir, yes. Q: And Mr. Feraday explains that the fragment could be potentially most important? A: Yes, sir, he does.-------
-Mr. Feraday then travelled to Washington to the FBI-forensic expert Thomas Thurman, Carrying with him allegedly only this one Polaroid-photograph, showing the MST-13 timer fragment PT35. Mr T. Thurman then allegedly discovered the MEBO-origin for this PT35-fragment solely from this Polaroid photograph;- in the fall of 1989!
Mr. Thomas Thurman's FBI-investigation then resulted in Thurman' official news- announcement on June 15, 1990, that the Polaroid-pictured fragment was part of a MEBO MST-13 timer!---Note also that the same Thomas Thurman has in the meantime been fired from the FBI after having been proven to have altered evidence in favor of the prosecution in several other crime cases- with one of those cases having ended with a death-sentence! Strangely, this Thomas Thurman was never called to appear in the Court-room in Kamp van Zeist to testify either as an "expert" or as a general witness. This can be called another unforgiving blunder
of the DUFF-defense team!
Another occurrence seems to be quite noteworthy: On April 23, 1990, 53 days prior to the MST-13 timer fragment-announcement by FBI-expert Thomas Thurman, MEBO had the visit of two agents from the Swiss Federal Police, showing
E.Meister and E. Bollier a Polaroid photograph of the still complete, allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer fragment no PT35: That specific Polaroid picture clearly showed parts of a handmade prototype MST-13 timer PC-board without the green-colored solder -stop lacquer. This fragment must have been from a 8-ply PC-motherboard.
The tin-footing also showed that no relay had ever been fitted, the tin-tracks were unclean and the rounded corner had been cut with a jig-saw. This was also the main reason why Bollier and Meister had asked several times since then to once more be shown this particular Polaroid-photograph. The alleged fragment PT/35 has been manufactured from a non- functioning MST-13 timer!
A member of the Swiss Federal Police, witness no. 567: comissioner Peter Flückiger, insists that he and his colleague did show the Polaroid-photograph to E. Meister and E. Bollier first on October 2, 1990. This is not the truth. It was well weeks prior to Tom Thurman ( the FBI-expert) showing the fragment on June 15, 1990. There seems to be a very good reason for such date- manipulations.
Excerpts from the Court-documents, Kamp van Zeist.
Witness: Peter Flückiger, sworn statement:
----Q-Are you an officer with the Swiss federal police? A- That is correct.---- ----Q-You were in the company of Mr. Bollier, is that so? Mr. Bollier was present? A-I wasn't alone. A colleague from the federal police came also. We drove to Zurich together. I think I must have phoned him beforehand in order to find out wheter he was free. Q- Mr.Fluckiger. All I am really interested in knowing is if you actually spoke with Mr. Bollier in his premises. Did you do that?A-Yes, I remember that well. Q- Thank you. From what you've told us already, you took some photographs with you? A-That is correct. Q- And did you discuss with him-- and I really just need to tell me if this is correct or not-- did you discuss with him MST-13 timers? A-Yes, that is correct. The MST-13, if I remember, was shown on the photograph. Q-Did you also have with you a photograph of a fragment of a printed circuit board? A-This is correct. Q-And did you show that to Mr. Bollier? A- Well, I would say that this was ten years ago. And at this stage, my memory is perhaps a bit vague. I would say that we certainly showed it to him, but we didn't start with a photograph of the fragment. There were other photographs where the entire timer was shown. And he already made a few comments on those. Q- The only thing I am interested in for the moment is the photograph of the fragment. And if you took it with you, I need to go on and ask you if you showed it to Mr. Bollier. A- Well, as I said before, I cannot be absolutely certain today, but I assume so, because in later discussions he always referred to that.----
----Q- Do you recognise that photograph, Mr. Fluckiger? A- Yes, It is the first one I saw. Q- Is it the same as the photograph you had with you when you visited Mr.Bollier's premises on the 2nd of October of 1990? A- I certainly had it with me, but I had a second picture as well showing this fragment but in a slightly smaller size. ---
---- Q- And were these photographs used during the first of the interviews that you told us about with Mr. Bollier on the 16th November of 1990? A- No. It wasn't in November. Well, I can remember such a booklet numbered 29 was put before Bollier by the Scottish official. But as far as I am concerned, I don't think I'ev seen that album. We were allowed to make copies quickly, and then the Scottish official put it away.
From time to time we got pictures from Americans---- A- Look, chronologically speaking, I had written a memo on the 22nd of October 1990. There I took photographs and took them to Bollier, and these photographs came from the Americans. And he made his statement on the basis of the photographs. He made these statements to me, to the police. And then in November, when there was this interview of witnesses in Zurich, we worked with photographs, and I think Gilchrist brought this album with him. Q- All right. Your photographs came from America, is that so? A-That is correct. ---
Q- In your memo, which we looked at a moment ago-- and perhaps we should have it back on the screen, Production 1562, image 4. In your note here you speak, I think, in the first paragraph about a previous meeting, is that so? A That is correct. Yes. Q What was the date of the previous meeting? A- I don't remember this by heart, but I can read it here. I wrote down 22nd of June 1989. It would have been on that date. Q- Thank you. Was that date of the previous meeting in connection with MST-13 timers? Mr. BURNS: Don't answer that question.-----
----Q-Can we return to think about the meeting on 22nd June 1989, Mr. Fluckiger. Was that previous meeting in connection with the MST-13 Timers? A- No, definitely not. Q- Were any photographs of fragments, such as we've just looked at, shown to Mr. Bollier during the course of the meeting of June 1989? A-No,no photographs were shown. And I can remember that the first photograph of that fragment was seen in September 1990. At that time, I didn't know anything about the fragment. Q-When you say that the first photograph of the fragment was seen in September 1990, do you mean seen by you? A- Yes, that is correct. A- representative of the FBI came to Berne, and he told us----
---- A- I saw the photograph of the fragment for the first time at the beginning of September 1990. Before that, I didn't know anything about it. Q- Can I ask you a further matter, please. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Bollier in March of 1990 at his offices? A- Well, I don't think I can answer that question. Over the last ten years, I've met Mr. Bollier on several occasions. It's possible, yes. Q- If you did meet Mr. Bollier in March of 1990, was it possible for you to have shown him a photograph of the fragment? A- In March, certainly not. As I said before, I saw the photograph for the first time in September of 1990.----
---- Q- Thank you. Can you now look at Production 1568. Is that the record of an interview with Mr. Meister conducted at Zürich on the 14th February 1990? A- That is correct. I wrote it myself.-----
-It shows that H.P. Flückiger has already admitted two visits to MEBO, namely: on June 22, 1989 and on February 1990. The third important visit, during which E. Meister and E. Bollier had the first time been shown the Polaroid-photograph -showing the complete MST-13 fragment in April of 1990- (before Thomas Thurman presented his identification of the allegedly Lockerbie recovered MST-13 timer fragment)- this visit by P. Flückiger to MEBO is still being denied by P. Flückiger!
-It is difficult to believe that commissioner P. Flückiger, then with the Swiss Federal Police, has seen the Polaroid photograph with the MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) for the first time in September of 1990;- when we know that officials from the Scottish police had visited the Swiss Federal Police as early as end of 1989/ beginning of 1990 in this Lockerbie matter!
Reminder: the first Polaroid photographs picturing the still complete MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) have been crculated by Mr. Feraday and Dr. Hayes (RARDE) on May 12 and September 15, 1989!
Excerpts from the Court-documents, Kamp van Zeist.
Witness no. 994 Mr. William Williamson, Chief Inspector, sworn statement:
----Did Mr. Feraday tell you who had discovered this fragment of green cirquit board? A-No, sir. Q- I see You're quite sure about that? A-I always assumed it was him himself. I never gave it any further thought. Q- Now, I think you said that having received details of this fragment, you became involed in the police investigation to identify the origins of the fragment, is that right? A- That's correct, sir,yes. Q- And these investigations led you to MEBO and to the MST 13 timers that have been referred to in your evidence? A Yes, sir..
Q- And were you, during 1990, effectively in charge of the part of the police investigation concerned with the identification of the fragment and the identification of the manufacturer? A Yes, sir. But under the control of the senior investigating officer and his deputy. Q- Of course. But it was an area in which you became personally involved, was it not? A-Yes. Q- And you've told us you went to the United States of America, and a Mr. Thurman showed to you first of all a photograph and then an actual timer marked as an MST 13 timer? A-Yes.
Q- And you mentioned in your evidence that you then arranged to go to Senegal in July of 1990? A- Yes. Q- And were the Americans that you had seen in relation to the MST 13 timer aware of your intended visit to Senegal? A- Yes. Q- And I think you told us that when you arrived in Senegal, Mr. Thurman and a number of other Americans were leaving? A- Not Mr. Thurman, sir. If I said that, it's a mistake Mr. Marshman and Mr. Bolcar.
Q- I think you mentioned a Mr. Bolcar? A- Bolcar and Marshman. Q- I thought you had also mentioned Mr. Thurman. A- If Idid, that's a mistake. He wasn't there. Q- Were there just the two Americans that you met? A-Yes. Q-And that you say that as you arrived, they were in the process of leaving Senegal? A- That's right , sir. The same morning I arrived, they left. Q- And was it apparent why they had been in Senegal? A- Yes. Q- And why had they been there? A- To make investigation into an incident which had occurred earlier in, in February 1988.
Q- And was it apparent that these American personnel had in fact been in contact with the people with whom you were going to make contact in Senegal regarding the MST 13 timer? A- Yes, sir. Q- So they had, in effect, been there ahead of you, if you like? A- Yes, sir. Q-Now, you mentioned that you then received information that MEBO was the manufacturer, or might be the manufacturer, of the MST 13 timing device? A- Yes, sir, Q- Do you recollect where that information came from, Mr. Williamson? A-Yes, sir. From Mr. Gilchrist, the deputy senior investigating officer. Q- And do you know where Mr. Gilchrist received that information from? A-I don't, sir, no. Q- What I'd like to do is refer you to an account of certain matters in respect of your visit to Switzerland and then to ask you certain questions as to your state of knowledge.
A- Yes, sir. Q- And if I can just quote this following account: " In early September 1990, members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team, together with officers of the British Security Service, were making arrangements to travel to Switzerland. Their intention was to meet members of the Swiss police and intelligence service. The purpose of the meeting was to take forward a line of inquiry suggesting that the company MEBO might have been the manufactures of the MST 13 timing device. Such a device had already been identified as forming part of the improvised explosive devise responsible for the destruction of PanAm 103. Prior to the departure of these officers, a request was made by CIA to the British Security Service to deter or delay"-- I'll read that again--" to deter or delay the members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making the visit. "This request was refused, and the visit proceeded as planned. Separately, officers of the CIA met with the Swiss police and intelligence service on the day before the visit made by the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team and the British Security Service."
Now, Mr. Williamson, were you made aware of these steps to deter or delay the members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making the visit to Switzerland? A- Absolutely not, sir. Q- These were never disclosed to you? A- I have no knowledge of that information you've just read out wathsoever. Q- Was it disclosed to you that the day before you met with the Swiss police and intelligence services on the first visit the CIA had already met with them? Mr.TURNBULL: Don't answer that.----
----Q- Mr. Williamson, do you know of any other police officers involved as members of the Lockerbie inquiry team who visited Switzerland for the purposes of identifying wheter MEBO were manufacturers of the MST 13 timer other than yourself? A- Could you repeat that question? Q- Yes, It wasn't a very good question, Mr. Williamson. In the period in the latter part of 1990, when you were going to make inquiries in Switzerland as to wheter MEBO were the manufacturers of the MST 13 timer, are you aware whether any other police officer who was a member of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team made a separate visit to Switzerland to the one you made? A- Yes, I am aware of that, sir. Yes. Q- And do you know when this other visit was made? A- No, sir. But it was prior to my visit. Q- And do you know when this prior visit was made to Switzerland? A- The exact date, no, I have no idea, sir. Q- I see. Did you meet with Swiss police when you went to Switzerland? a- Yes, sir. Q- Do you know if members of the Swiss intelligence service were also present at such a meeting? A- No, sir. Q-You -don't know, or they weren't? A- Well, they weren't identified as such, sir, if any person was there. Q- Was it disclosed to you that prior to your visit, the CIA had met with the Swiss police and intelligence services? A-No, sir. Q- Was it ever disclosed to you why the CIA might have wanted to deter the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making their visit to Switzerland?A- No, sir, I didn't ever know that they did do.
According to official Court documents we learn that inspector William Williamson has learned from FBI forensic expert Thomas Thurman in June of 1990 only that the allegedly Lockerbie recovered fragment (PT/35) is from a MEBO MST-13 timer. T. Thurman showed W. Williamson a MST-13 timer that had been confiscated in Senegal. Why then did W. Williamson still decide to travel to Senegal,- and for what reason? Please, remember: Mr. Williamson did receive a memorandum and photos of the MST-13 timer fragment PT35 on September 15, 1989 already!
We know today that detective Williamson ordered constable Roderick McDonald 5 months lather;- on February 12, 1990, to also photograph the MST-13 timer fragment PT35. The both Polaroid photographs of September 15 and February 12, 1990 were subsequently not examinde by the Duff-defense team. Another severe omission! We also know that police officers involved as members of the Lockerbie inquiry team visited Switzerland 1989/90 for the purpose of identifying MEBO as manufacturer of the MST-13 timer!
MEBO, Meister and Bollier had been prevented for almost 10 years from viewing the orginal alleged MST-13 timer fragment. Permission was only granted to visit Dumfries (office of Procurator Fiscal: Mrs. M. Watson) to view said fragment in the fall of 1999.The fragment was then presented to us in two parts. The larger part no. (PT/35b) was from an industrially manufactured Thüring-PC board for MST-13 timers, one side treated with solder-stop lacquer and formed of 9 layers of fiberglass. The lacquered solder-stop surface was faint, showing no abraison traces, the frontsides and the half-round edge were highly polished and clean-cut!- This smaller fragment no. (DP/31a), was from a light-brownish, hand-made prototype MST-13 PC-board without solderstop lacquer on boths sides and counting 8 layers of fiberglass only, without any abraisive spots! One front-side was burnt and two parallel solder-tracks were well visible. Bollier had been told that both fragment-sections had been prepared for the then forthcoming Kamp van Zeist trial, therefore having been placed into separate vials. Yet, despite the objection of several police-officers who were present during the September 1999 presentation of the fragments in Dumfries, the vials' seals were then broken on orders of Mrs. Watson (see: police-report from the Scottish police).
URL: http:// www.geocities. com/ CapitolHill/5260/2 mebo.ipg (pages, 2-9)
Remember: The first three handmade prototype MST-13 timers PC-boards from eng. U.Lumpert (then with MEBO, INC) were of 8-ply fiberglass and were very distinctly of brownish color. These PC-boards were not treated with solder-stop lacquer. It is from these PC-boards that two functioning MST-13 timers had been hand-made, to then be delivered to the then East-German "Institute of Technology" in Bernau (section of the STASI-Government-Security).
-No hand-made MST-13 timers were ever delivered to Libya. The third (today missing) PC-board had apparently been discarded by U. Lumpert following irreparable damage to it. MEBO has no way at all to confirm this explanation.
-All industryally manufactured Thüring-PC-boards were made of 9-play fiberglass and had been trated either one-or both-sided with green solder-stop laquer.
Excerpts from the Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist.
Witness Edwin Bollier, no. 548, sworn statements:
---- A- That is correct. The first time he had brought with him four photographs, which he then also took with him for the international legal assistance proceedings. Q- And your evidence is that one, at least, of these photographs was of a fragment of a timer? A- That is correct. Q- All right. But do I understand you to say that these photographs showed a different fragment than the one you examined in the witness box? A- That is correct. The fragment at first sight was the same. But on closer inspection, it is different from what the Scottish police put on the table. At first they wanted to put these photographs in with the files. But then a member of the Scottish police said, "No, it's those photos." And I believe what I had seen were the photos that were subsequently added. And I would like to see those photographs that I had signed in the Swiss records. And there was a number attached to those photos. And nobody ever wanted to show us those photos again. So when the Scottish police came to Zurich again--this was somtime later--I asked Inspector Fluckiger whether I could see this photo again, because they didn't want to show us the orginal. Mr. Flückiger was sitting at the conference table and said "Yes". He opened his file. Mr.Meister joined me, andwe were standing next to Mr. Flückiger, and I said to Mr. Meister, " It's clear here. Look at that." And then the member of the Scottish police got up--I forget his name now.
Date: May 1991, Name: Detective Superintendent James Gilchrist
He moved over to Mr.Flückiger and kind of knocked him and said, "Close the book." And this is the photo I want to see again. This is the photo that shows a prototype. Q- All right. A- This is how it all began. On that prototype, we could clearly make out something that would tell us that this was a fragment that had been produced from an MST circuit board. Q- But the problem with that, Mr. Bollier, is that we've heard evidence--and I think you refer to this-- that the fragment was only linked-- or identified as being from a MEBO timer in June of 1990, is that right? A- That is correct. Yes. But, as I said, two to three months prior, the same fragment has been shown. A similar one. How did that come about? Q-Yes. Well-- A- Was shown to us, Mr. Meister and myself.----
----Q- I see. So in your opinion, there may be a number of different fragments which have been variously photographed,is that the position? A- No,no,no.They are different.There are minor details from which you can tell. Q- I see. Would you look for me at an object which will be shown to you, Label 353. A-May I ask you to put this on the table? I could wear gloves, if need be. Q- Before we do that, can I ask you to confirm something for me. You've seen that fragment before, haven't you? A- That is correct. Yes I've seen it in Scotland. This is what it looks to me right now. I would have to look at it more closely.
Q- And is it in a container or something at the moment? A- It is here on the table. All you need to do is open the lid. Q- And can you see it adequately? A- Yes, if I open it.Might I open it? Q- And what do you want to do whit it once it's opened? A- I'd like to look at it with my magnifying glass. Q- Well , if that's acceptable to the Court, the Crown have no objection.----
------Q-Have you had a chance to look at it? A-Yes. No. I haven't opened it yet. May I take it out now? I am wearing gloves. Is that allowed? Q- Yes. I think the Court granted you permission to do that. A- Thank you. A- My Lord, I am sorry, this is not what I saw in Scotland. From what I can tell, this has been burnt afterwards. The other that I saw was shiny green, and now it looks as if it had been burnt afterwards. I don't even have to take out the second piece from its glass container. It used to be brown, PT 35,(DP/31a) now it is burntôÆ. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to implicate anyone, but this has been altered, both of these pieces. Q- Now, when was it that you saw this fragment in Scotland? A- I saw it--I.arrived on the 13th. A, I saw on the 14th, I believe, and B, on the 15th of September 1999.
Q- So in September of last year at the police station in Dumfries, you were shown-- A Yes, in Dumfries. Yes. Q- Make-- A -The police. And I had a witness because I wanted to have a report. She was assigned to me. She, too, saw both fragments. And now they have been modified. I swear they have been modified.---
---- Lord Sutherland: Thank you, Mr. Bollier.That's all. A- My Lord, may I put a question? Am I allowed to do that? Lord Sutherland: I think not, Mr. Bollier. Your evidence is now over, and that is all we can hear.
Excerpts from the Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist:
-Witness No.994, Chief Inspector, William Williamson;
Q- Would you look for me at Label 434 and 435. Is Label 434 four printed circuit boards, Mr. Williamson? A- Label 434, sir, says on the label that it is four circuit boards. There are only three circuit boards in the package. Q- I'll come to that just in a second. Thank you. And is 435 three printed circuit boards? A- It is, sir,yes. Q- Sorry, did I ask you if 435 was three printed circuit boards? A- Yes, sir, it is. Yes. Q- Thank you. Can you tell me, please, what the police reference number on Label 434 is? A- DP 347. Q- Thank you. And keeping that in front of you, would you look at Label 412. What's the police identification reference on that label, Mr. Willismson? A- DP/347(a) Q- So that's the same as the reference on 434, but with the addition of the letter "(a)"? A- Yes. Q-Have you signed the label that's attached to 412? A- No, I have not, sir. Q- What does the label say about its source? A- It says "Found DP/347 on 24/5/91". Along from that, "28/2/92." Q- So it says "Found DP/347"? A-Yes, sir. Q- I see. And that's Label 434, which contained the indication of sour printed cirquit boards, but only three within it. A- That's correct , sir. Q- Thank you. ----
This is a questionable situation.
-We have no details from the questioning of witness: police inspector Mr. W. Williamson on the whereabouts of an industrially manufactured Thüring PC-board of green color that had been "confiscated" during a visit of the Thüring-factory back in 1989/1990!
-E. Bollier was not permitted to view the actual fragment during a visit to Washington DC, in 1991! What fear prevented E. Bollier's request to be granted? On the other hand, the same fragment was subsequently travelling with detective inspector W. Wiliamson to several companies around Europe for whatever presumably very unnecessary testing.- MEBO contends: if the alleged fragment was actually recovered from a T-shirt that belonged to a PanAm-103 passenger, and it was already linked to the alleged Toshiba-Bombeat-radiorecorder (the one that forensic experts had already decided to have contained said MST-13 timer and the explosives), then absolutely no further fragment-testing was necessary;- except for powder-residue, linking it directly to the alleged explosive-material. And exactly such powder-residue-testing was not performed;- allegedly for lack of funds and some other "excuses". The running around Europe to several companies and universities for senseless and rather ridiculous alibi-testing did cost several times the amount that a powder-residue-test would have consumed. But as MEBO states: the case seemed to be crystal clear for the forensic teams anyway: the fragment was from a T-shirt of a passenger's suitcase that was on top of the alleged Megrahi bomb-Samsonite suitcase! And if the MST-13timer fragment was imbedded into this T-shirt;- what reason was there to run months of "crazy" tests on this alleged fragment!
February 12, 1990
2.- Second story regarding the Polaroid photograph with MST-13 fragment picture no: (PT/35)
-The fragment MST-13, evidence with the same no: PT/35 had to be re-photographed by another police-HQ-official on February 12, 1990, five months after the September 1989 Polaroid-photo-production of Mr. Feraday and Dr. Hayes/RARDE. On this February 12 1990, Mr. Roderick MacDonald, withness no:589, had been called into Strathclyde police-station to take some photographs of an allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer fragment with the allocated no: PT/35 (evidence: production no:1754)
- According to Court-documents, the alleged MST-13 timer fragment PT/35 was at that time no longer in its orginal condition and in one piece! A needle-thin section had been taken off the fragment on February 8, 1990 by Mr. French from CIBA-Geigy. Could this fragment be a forgery? All uncovered details would indicate such an explanation!
Excerpt from Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist:
Witness no. 589, constable Roderick, MacDonald.
----Q-Are you an officer within the identification bureau, Mr. MacDonald. A. That's correct. Q- And as such, at the request of your colleages, do you take photographs from time to time? A-I do. Q- Do you remember a request being made of you in the early part of 1990 by Detective Inspector Williamsen and now
Inspector Harrower? A- That's correct, yes. Q- And did they ask you to photograph a small item that they had possesion of? A- They did. Q-Would you look for me, please, at Production 1754.------A-Yeas. Q-And in the right-hand corner of the fragment, do we see an area which is curved to an extent? A- That's right.---- Q-And perhaps if we then zoom in on the same area, the top of the "1", do we see more clearly how far up the silver goes? A- We do, yeah."---- And finally, Constable, can I ask you to tell us when these photographs were taken by you? A-I think it was in February 1990. Q- Yes. And does the front cover of the booklet have a label giving the date? A- That's correct. The 12th of February.------
-As of February 12,1990 and later, only this Polaroid-photograph was being used, picturing allegedly the MST-13 timer fragment no: PT/35, completely untouched as recovered in Lockerbie. This is actually a forgery! It is known that this fragment had been manipulated by CIBA-Geigy on February 8, 1990 for forensic testing, by using a diamond saw for the separation of a 0.4mm wide strip. This was asolutely unnecessary because the fiberglass-ply-number could easily be counted without any alteration to the fragment. We assume that the copy or duplicate fragment had to be cut down to the same size to match the originally Polaroid-photographed fragment of May 12 and September 15, 1989!
-Mr. Feraday very likely discovered during the five months following the alleged discovery of the first MST-13 timer fragment and the ensuing cooperation with Thomas Thurman, that this fragment only showed 8 layers of fiberglass-ply, whereas the MST-13 timers delivered to Libya, the industrially manufactured ones, all showed the more expensive 9-ply PC-boards! The first Polaroid-photograph ever shown E.Meister and E.Bollier clearly shows a fragment from a prototype-PC-board, containing only 8-play fiberglass! In order to indict Libya and the two Libyans, it was necessary to produce a piece of timer-evidence of 9-ply fiberglass PC-board;- and the handmade ones were all 0.4mm shorter than the industrially manufactured Thüring-PC-boards!
-It is quite logical to reach such a conclusion because i.e. the third official photograph of the MST-13 timer fragment no: PT/35 shows the fragment that had been altered by shortening it by 0.4mm (four days prior to the photographing), while additionally this fragment had also been examined by several electronics firms and universities in order to verify the existence of 9-ply fiberglass. The equally vital fragments from the alleged Toshiba radio have never been subjected to intensive testing, even though errors in identification and radio-brand name had been made right from the time of discovery of such radio-fragments.
Excerpt from Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist
Witness: no. 573, Mr. George Norman Wheadon
New England Laminates company
----Q- Do you remember being contacted by police from Scotland in early 1990? A- Yes. Q- And did they explain to you that they would like some assistance? A- Yes.
----Q-Do you remember what that was in connection with? A- A small piece of printed circuit board. Q- Did you visit Lockerbie police station in order to examine the piece of printed circuit board? A-Yes. Q-At Lockerbie, were you able to examine the piece of circuit board by using a microscope? A-I was. Q Were you able to tell anything about it at that stage? A It was a fairly standard piece of what the industry knows as rigid laminate. And it was slightly peculiar, insomuch as it was manufactured with nine plies of glass, whereas the industry standard at that time, for reasons of cost, was eight plies of glass.---- A I recall rubbing down a very small edge with some wet and dry paper and then looking as best as we could at that time with a microscope in Lockerbie, Label 415. ---A- We were able to conform the initial findings, that it was made with nine plies of glass.
Witness: No.118, Detective Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson
Strathclyde police based in Glasgow.
----Q- And in May of 1990, did you assist in a particular line of inquiry along with Detective Inspector Williamson? A- I did. Q- Was that into the manufacture of a small fragment of printed circuit board? A Yes, identified as PT/35. Q- Thank you. And did you understand that Inspector Williamson had been conducting these inquiries for some months prior to you joining him? A- I was aware of that, yes.---Q- Now, is Label 353, Inspector, the fragment of the printed circuit board referred to by you as PT/35? A- Yes. And it bears my signature on it as well. Q- Thank you. Now, is Label Numer 419 apparently a sample removed from that fragment? A- It is. And it bears my signature on the label again, sir. Q- Had that sample already been removed by the time you began assiting Inspector Williamson? A- It had, yes. Q- Thank you. and did you take both of these items with you when you went to see Mr, Worrol? A- Yes. Q- And were you hoping that he might assist in taking the inquiry forward? A- Yes, in relation to the fibergass laminate. Q.-Sorry? A- In relation to the fiberglass laminate, trying to identify it.----Q- Now, of which item are you speaking? A 419 is your reference number.----Q- 419. That's the sample removed from the orginal fragment known as PT-- A Correct, giving the number DP/31----
-As of May 1990, when the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered fragment had been cut into two sections, the larger one of these sections was marked (PT/35b), and the smaller section: (DP/31a). The original fragment bore the designation: (PT/35)
The false testmony in connection with the MST-13 timer in the Courtroom at Kamp van Zeist!
Witness: Eng. Ulrich Lumpert, no.550, former MEBO-engineer, sworn statements:
- MEBO is firmly convinced that the picture from the first produced Polaroid-photograph, showing the MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) (shown to MEBO by agents of the Swiss Federal Police) was made from a handmade PC-board. It was of light-brown color and was free of any solder-stop-lacquer. Only three prototype timers had been handproduced by U. Lumpert. Two such PC-boards were then Democratic Republic of Germany;- more precisely: the "Institute for Technical Research" in Bernau.
- U.Lumpert has testified to this fact in all prior interrogations by the BKA (German Federal Crime Agency) and BUPU (Swiss Federal Police). U. Lumpert also claims to have discarded the third prototype PC-board due to breakage and technical failure. MEBO assumes that intentional purgery by U. Lumpert as a witness in Kamp van Zeist was to make the prototype MST-13 timers disappear as the significant pieces of evidence. This may also explain U. Lumpert to have handed over to official Lockerbie-investigators the first blueprint-copyfilm that had been used to produce the three prototype-MST 13 timer PC-boards!
- In his request for Swiss legal assistance, it was the Lord Advocate from Scotland who wrote to the Swiss Attornay General's office that he was interested in the MST-13 prototype PC-boards that were SIMILAR to the one that had been confiscated in Togo and Senegal on earlier occasions. How was it possible that the Lord Advocate knew at that time that two distinctly different PC-boards for this MST-13 timer did exist, ones the handmade units produced by U. Lumpert, and then the industrially produced ones by Thüring. The units confiscated in Togo and Senegal carried industrially manufactured, green-colored Thüring PC-boards. MEBO must also assume that the officially designated Lockerbie-MST-13-fragment from a MST-13 timer is actually a fragment from the allegedly discarded and non-fitted hand-made PC-board;-(discarded according to the sworn statement by U. Lumpert).
- U.Lumpert, the former MEBO-engineer, has signed an affidavit on May 3, 2001, testifying in detail that he committed purgery during his appearance as a witness at Kamp van Zeist! Could it be that his purgery was part of well-directed instructions?
What must be researched:
- where are the 2 units of Thüring MST-13 PC-boards presently missing from the MEBO evidence-collection at Kamp van Zeist (or Dumfries)?
- where are the first orginal Polaroid-photographs showing the untouched MST-13 timer-fragment, picture: (PT/35), produced on May 12, 1989 and September 15, 1989 by RARDE?
- why was it permitted to completely "destroy" the key-piece of evidence: the MST-13 fragment section (DP/31a)-(this fragment is today totally carbonized)- between the visit of E. Bollier in Dumfries in September 1999 and his appearance as a witness in Kamp van Zeist in June 2000???
Prior to its destruction and stemming from the September 1999- visit to Dumfries by Edwin Bollier, an official report exists that oulines precisely what obsevations were then being made when viewing the partial, brownish fragment (DP/31a). It was then easily possible to count the 8-ply-fiberglass-layers to clearly prove that this fragment is from a handmade prototype PC-board;- and such boards had never been delivered to Libya!
The MEBO- Explanation:
The partical fragment (DP/31a) had to be charcoiled in order to obliterate the brown color and to make it impossible to now detect the 8-ply fiberglass structure.
- why and by whom were the photograph-enclosures with "E-designation" in the Swiss Federal Police-protocols (official Swiss legal assistance) replaced by a new set of photographs?
- what was the true reason for U. Lumpert's purgery as a witness in Kamp van Zeist?
- why did the Lord Advocate know on September 19, 1990 already that two distinctly different MST-13 timer PC-boards did exist: one brownish and of 8-ply fiberglass, the other one green and of 9-ply fiberglass? This knowledge can only result from comparing the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer-fragment with another one from an industrially manufactured Thüring PC-board.
- what was the true reason to cut the original, allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer-fragment (PT/35) in March 1990 into two parts: (PT/35b) and (DP/31a)??
- when producing the duplicate-forgery of a green Thüring-fragment (PT/31a), it was impossible to exactly also duplicate the orginal burn-marks onto the later separated fragment (DP/31a), because a comparative Polaroid photograph whit the picture of the prototype MST-13 timer fragment had been circulating since 1989! This also explains that in September of 1999 in Dumfries, the handmade brown fragment (DP/31a) had been added to the then shown industrially manufactured green Thüring fragment (PT/35b)! This is how it became possible to show almost identical images of the cut-in fragments (PT/35b and DP/31a) and the fourth photograph that was made on May, 1990. The picture shown on this fourth photograph must be a solid forgery, according to MEBO research-results.
- why was it not possible-in the Court room at Kamp van Zeist to show all MST-13 timer-fragments in full and correct colors (fragments: (PT/35), (PT/35b) and (DP/31a)?? It was not possible to detect green or brown colors. All other photo-projections were in brown color only! There was only one complete MST-13 timer (green) Thüring PC-board in a blue-grey casing that had then been shown in true-colors! Even the related original photographs had been presented in brown color. It is a presumtion to present such inferior photo-quality (resembling photomaterial of the 1920-ies) in today's high-tech-times;- particularly considering the importance given to these key-pieces of evidence!
- MEBO contends that at least one set of exact copies of the photo-series taken during the test-explosions in the USA, (with Mr. Feraday and Dr. Stephan Haines/ RARDE present), should be be offered for examination and information to the defense-team.- These photographs also show fragments of a container similar the type AVE 4041 PA, fragments from a Toshiba-radio recorder 8016, fragments from a Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcase (made in Denver/Colorado, color: antique copper), all fragments from clothing, as well as parts of a shatter-zone from a fuselage-test explosion. These photographs are being kept at Fort Halstead.
- An examination by MEBO of published evidence-photographs by Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal's Service as of June 2001 confirms the following:
- Image no. 9, referred in evidence by Allen Feraday 20 page 3166, shows that the circle piece of debris was identified as a blast fragment of printed circuit board from a MEBO MST-13timer. This fragment was tagged with identification no: (PT/35), allegedly showing the Lockerbie- recovered MST-13 timer-fragment as is! A 30-x-magnification then shows that the fragment contains three abraisive areas and hand-made marking "M". it had therefore already been manipulated with. Could the "M" stand for Muster-/sample??
- Image no. 12, refered in evidence, Allen Feraday, day 20 at page 3174 shows: Control Sample MST-13 Cirquit Board-Fragment of Timer (from Thüring). An FEL-photograph showing the recovered fragment of the printed circuit board and sample of the printed circuit-board. This photograph was taken after the fragment printed circuit board had been tested and samples had been taken from it in efforts to trace its origin.
- This comparative image of a MST-13 timer-fragment placed against a Thüring PC-board clearly shows a fiberglass-grid-structure on the Thüring-PC-board, thanks to the one-sided solder-stop lacquer. The vertical grid-structure-stripes show more prominent. When photographing fragment (PT/35b) and (DP/31a) there are no grid-structures visible because no solder-tin-stop lacquer had been used on this board. It is this fact that shows quite clearly (in addition to quite a number of other decisive details) that the first, allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) is from a handmade prototype PC-board. Test-series by MEBO with varius photo-comparisons of both PC-board types demonstrate the stated differences. The fragment shown in September 1999 has been criminally manipulated and must be meticulously researched.
(see: report from the Scottish Police).
- Additionally to the first photograph shot on May 12, 1989 (reference: no PI/995), a second Polaroid-photograph of the untouched MST-13 timerfragment (PT/35) had been made by orders of Dr. Hayes and Mr. Feraday (RARDE) on September 15, 1989.
- This September 15, 1989-photograph was then also sent to detective inspector William Williamson in September 1989 (production 333) where A. Feraday explains that THIS FRAGMENT COULD BE POTENTIALLY MOST IMPORTANT.
- Constable Roderick MacDonald, witness no.589, had then been ordered by William Williamson five months later, on February 12, 1990 to take a third Polaroid photograph from the same, allegedly non-manipulated MST-13 fragment (PT/35). This fragment had been manipulated by CIBA-Geigy on February 8, 1990 (by Mr.French), shortening it on one side by about 0.4mm. As of this date, this Polaroid-photograph was then being used for all official purposes.
- the already shortened MST-13timer fragment underwent additional testing by various companies and universities between February 14 and March 12, 1990, whereby additional sections were removed.
- about 8 weeks later, in May of 1990, the MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) had been unnessessarily ordered to be cut into two section by W. Williamson, after all relevant tests on the fragment had already been completed. The larger one of the segments was now marked (PT/35b), and the smaller one: (DP/31a), both duly photographed. The cutting into two parts of the fragment was allegedly necessary for testing of the solder "mask". This exanmination had though already been performed by witness no. 577, Mr. Steven Rawlings from the Shipley Ronal company in Warrington, (label no. 418) in March of 1990.
- It seems to be obvious that the separation of the fragment into two sections must be part of the evidence-manipulation !
- The Duff-defense-team should have meticulously scrutinised the four Polaroid photographs with the official Court photograph, using the assistance of experts! (Court evidence-photographs no: 330, 334, 335, 336).
Excerpts from Court-Documents from Kamp van Zeist
To page -3-
Additional examination of the forensic research
of witness no: 586, Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE)
- Dr. Hayes had noted in his memo (no: 181, page 51, second paragraph) that thje collar of the shirt, as well as the MST-13 timer-fragment no (PT/35) had already been photographed on May 12, 1989 after its initial examination (PI/995). It seems to be very unrealistic to claim that the MST-13 timer-fragment had not been discovered prior to Dr. Hayes examination of the T-shirt. It is safe to assume that the Strathclyde police had already well examined said T-shirt in the collar-section as well when i.e. searching for a brand-label. If the MST-13 timer-fragment had been originally imbedded in the collar- section of this T-shirt, then the first police-examination would have obviously led to its discovery.
- We have well confirmed today that the forensic research conducted by Dr. Hayes and Mr. A. Feraday was deficient, not transparent and sloppy at best. The Duff-defense team should have viciously objected to such forensic presentations.
Excerpts from Court-Documents from Kamp van Zeist.
Witness No. 335, Mr. Allen Feraday
------Q-Could we look at photograph 330, please. And could you read on Mr. Feraday.
A- " The single fragment of cirquit board, shown life-size in photograph 330, wherein it is compared to an index finger, was given the identity PT/35(b)". Q- Can we pause there. Do you go on to explain to us that after it was delivered to the police for investigational purposes, various samples were removed from the board? A-That's correct. Yes. Q- Does the photograph that are looking at show the sample-- I'm sorry, show the fragment before any samples were removed? A No, sir. It shows after some of it's been removed. Q- I see. Could we then, whilst keeping that photograph on the screen, look at photograph 334. And is it possible to have 330 as well. And if it's possible, could we magnify 330. If we look at 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us? A- That's a photograph of fragment PT/35 as recovered in the laboratory. Q- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? A- That is correct. Yes, sir. Q- And can we see, then , by comparison with the fragment shown, as pictured in 330, that a portion has been removed from along the top--. A- Yes,sir.------
------Q- We have on the screen the photograph number 334, which you told us a moment ago was one of the orginal photographs of the fragment taken at your laboratory? A- It is indeed, sir, yes. Q- Can we keep that photograph on the screen and also look at 335. Now, we are looking in photograph 335 at a photograph of the board which you chose to use as a control sample for comparison exercises.--------
Excerpt from Court-documents at Kamp van Zeist:
Witness No.586, Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE)
-----A- To sum up this chapter just before the short adjournment, there is evidence which suggests that some productions were interfered with before they reached RARDE, and the label relating to (PI 995) was irregularly and inexplicably altered. Dr. Hayes seemend to have no realrecollection independently of this notes of having found PT/35(b). The sequence of the PT numbering and the absence from the notes of a drawing of the circuit board are unusual features.The pagination of the notes was described by Hayes as " anunfathomable mystery," for which he did propose an explanation, but unfortunately one that does not work. The memorandum of the 15th of September 1989 is difficult to understand if the fragment was found on 12th of May 1989. PT/35(b) is an important piece of evidence on which the Crown rely and in respect of which it is for the Crown to satisfy the court as to its provenance. I submit that the irregularities and peculiarities which attend this item are some which the court ought to have some hesitation in being satisfied as to the items proenance. And that would be a convenient moment.------
Summary of the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 MEBO timer-fragment:
- spring of 1989: Scottish police examines a burnt T-shirt, discovering that is was a piece of clothing from container AVE 4041 PA. The T-shirt is handed over to Dr. Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday, both with RARDE, S12, S...
- a MST-13 timer-fragment was then discovered in the pre-examined T-shirt (pre-examined by the Scottish police). The discovered fragment was then formally photographed in its original condition on May 12, 1989; (Polaroid-photograph, ref. no. PI-995).
- only shortly before producing this MST-13 timer-fragment, Dr. Hayes and Mr. Feraday had already discovered an almost equally sized fragment from a Toshiba-radio-recorder: no. (AG/145).
- September 15, 1989: Dr. Hayes and Mr. A. Feraday (RARDE) discover after four months inexplicably that the MST-13 timer fragment was of immense importance and marked the then still complete fragment no: (PT/35). The fragment was then Polaroid-photographed for the second time. The photographs and accompanying report then went to chief- inspector William Williamson with the following remarks: Production 333.----Q: And Mr. Feraday explained that the fragment could be potentially most important? A: Yes, sir, he does,----
- The fragment was so critically important, that explosives powder-residue-testing had been completely omitted by Dr. Hayes and Allen Feraday!
We therefore know today that two Polaroid-photographs exist, showing the complete MST-13 timer-fragment (PT/35).
- Thereafter it was only the two Polaroid photographs with the picture of the still complete MST-13 timer-fragment (PT/35) that had been carried to FBI-forensic expert Thomas Thurman, Washington. DC! (according to Tom Thurman's statement in a 1991-ABC- video-interview).
- The Court activities at Kamp van Zeist did not reveal so far what had been done
with or to the complete MST-13 fragment (PT/35) between September 15, 1989 and January 1990.
- Following the return of Mr. Feraday from Thomas Thurman (FBI- forensic)/ Washington DC., it was inspector W. Williamson who ordered a complete green MST-13 timer-fragment no: (PT/35) to be surprisingly examinend. The technical and physical research-activities were obviously heavily exaggerated! An indepth examination shall determine if this actually was the orginal, allegedly Lockerbie-recovered fragment.
- MEBO believes that there must have been a reason far beyond the scope of tedious forensic research that called for such all-out research-exaggeration! Illogically there was hardly any research performed on the equally sized fragment from the Toshiba radio-recorder no: (AC/145).
- MEBO will prove that the MST-13 timer fragment no: (PT/35) , pictured on the Polaroid-photographs, is from a handmade prototype-timer. No such prototype MST-13 timers have ever been delivered to Libya!
- Beginning of January 1990 saw a largely organised, exaggerated and conspicuous technical research-program ordered on this MST-13 timerfragment by inspector William Williamson:
- Examination by witness no. 261, inspector Keith Harrower, sworn:
Strathcliyde police, based at Kirkintillok.
-1.--- Q In January of 1990, did you become aware of the existence of a piece of evidence wich you were asked to make further inquiries into? A Yes, I did. Q- And was that Label Number 353? We can perhaps just confirm that in a moment, Inspector Harrower. But by description, was it a small fragment of printed circuit board? A- Yes, that's correct. Q- And along with Detective Inspector Williamson, did you then carry out some inquiries in relation to that fragment? A- I did, sir, yes. Q- What was the purpose of those inquiries? A- To try and identify where the circuit board had come from. Q- And did you make those inquiries in the printed circuit board industry. A- I did, yes.-----
-2. ----Q- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New England Laminates Company? A- I did, yes. Q- When did you first meet Mr. Wheadon in this regard? A- It was at the end of the January 1990. Q- Where was that, Inspector? A- At the Lockerbie incident centre.------- Q-Thank you. And did Mr. Wheadon, who we've just discussed, come to Lockerbie in order to examine the fragment? A- Yes, he did. Q- And having done that, did he give you some advice as to where you may make furter inquiries? A- He did, yes.
-3. Q- As a result of the advice given to you, did you go in February of 1990 to a company known as CIBA Geigy? A- Yes, I did.------- ----- Q- Thank you. Did you see a man there by the name of Mr. French? A- did, sir, yes. Q- No doupt you would explain to Mr. French the purpose of your inquiries and ask him assist if the could? A- I did, yes. Q- And did he make a request of you in order to carry out any further inquiry? A- He did, yes. Q- What did he ask to do? A- He asked to remove a very small sample from the piece of circuite board. Q- And was that permitted?
A- It was, yes. A- It was, yes. Q- Thank you. When you say " a very small sample". Mr. Harrower, are you able to help us understand what you are speaking of? Because the fragment itself is, of course, small. A- Yes, a sort of pin-head size. Q- Thank you. And can you look for me now at Label 414, please. Can you tell me if you recognise what you now have? A- Yes. This was what was removed from the piece of board at the premises of CIBA Geigy. Q- By Mr. French? A- Yes. Q- Thank you. And in order to date that, would it be helpful to look at a production, Nummer 338? Do you recognise this particular document, Inspector? A- I believe this is a print-out that Mr. French produced from his laboratory. Q- I understand. So he gave this to you on the occasion we are speaking about? A- I'm not sure. It was either handed over at the time or it was sent to us later by him.
Q- Is there a date on the label, Inspector? A-Yes, there is, the 8th of February, which is the same date that's on the sample that was removed from the circuit board. Q- Thank you. So we should understand, then, that the pinhead sample was removed on the 8th of February of 1990? A- That's correct, sir, yes. Q- Thank you. Once this first sample had been removed from the fragment, was it decided to make any record of the condition of the fragment? A- Yes, it was. Q- And what was done? A- It was photographed. Q- Where about? A- At police headquarters at Strathclyde in Glasgow. Q- Thank you. Do you recollect who did that? A -I believe it was Roderick MacDonald, one of the scenes of crime officers at Strathclyde. Q- Thank you. .------
-4.------ Q-Was the next stage in the inquiry to make contact again with Mr. Wheadon? A- That's correct, sir, yes. Q- And you explained to us that he was of the New England Laminates Company?A- That's correct.-----Q- Did you go to visit him? A-I did, yes. Q- And when you visited Mr. Wheadon at his own premises, did he make any request of you? A- He did, yes. Q- What was that? A- He said to follow the examination, he would have to remove a cross-section of the board, if that was permissible. Q- And was he given permission to do that? A- He was, yes. Q- Did he do that personally, or did he require assistance from one of his colleagues? A- He had one of his colleagues the cross-section from it. Q- Thank you. Would you look for me at Label Number 415. And do you have Label 415, Inspector? A- I do, sir,yes. Q- Do you recognise it? A- Yes, I do. Q- As being? A- That's the part that was removed from the circuit board on the 14th of February at New England Laminates. Q- Thank you. So this second sample was removed on the 14th of February? A- That's correct, yes.
-5. Q- Was the next stage in these inquiries to go to a company by the name of Yates Circuit Foils in Cumbria? A- It was, sir, yes. Q- And there did you meet a Mr. Whitehead? A- I did, yes. Q- Which was what? A- To remove a sample of the copper foil from the board. Q- And was this request granted? A- It was, yes. Q Would you look for me, please, at Label Number 416. Do you recognise that, Inspector? A- Yes, sir, I do. Q- As being? A- That's the sample that was removed from board at Yates Circuit Foils on the 15th of February.
-6. Q- Thank you. Did you attempt to follow up the inquiry made at Yates Circuit Foils by going to Strathclyde University? A- I did, sir, yes. Q- And there did you speak to a Dr. Rosemary Wilkinson? A- Yes, sir. Q- Did Dr. Wilkinson require to take any samples from the original fragment? A- No.
-7. Q- Having been to Strathclyde University, did you continue these inquiries by visiting a company in Southampton-- A-Yes, sir. Q-- by the name of Gould Electronics? A-Yes, sir. Q- And was the purpose of going to Gould Electronics in order that thev could examine the sample that had been removed at Yates Cirquit Foils? A- That's correct, yes. Q- And that, you told me just a moment or two ago, was Label 416? A-Yes. Q- At Gould Electronics, did you deal with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lomer? A- Yes, I did. Q- When Mr. Lomer examined the sample, Label 416, was he able to assist? A- Not at that stage, no.
Q- Did you understand why not? A- Yes. Q- What was your understanding of why he couldn't assist? A- That the sample that was on the examination plate, a small round plate, was no longer there, was no longer there. It was extremely small, and it would appear to have been dislodged from the examination plate. Q- Was the sample taken at Yates Circuit Foils capable of being observed with the naked eye? A- No. Not to my recollection, no.
-8. Next visit was with Morton International Limited, Warrington; witness No. 577, Mr. Steven Rawlings. --------Q- What does the companie do? A- The company makes materials for the manufacture of printed circuit boards.-------Q- When you examined the fragment of the printed circuit board, were you able to tell whether it contained any solder mask? A- Yes. Q- And in 1990, were you visited by police officers from Scotland and asked to assist in an inquiry they were conducting? A- i was. Q- Did they ask you to examined the fragment of the printed cirquit board, were you able to tell wheter it contained any solder mask? A- yes. Q- Could you help us to understand what solder mask is, please. A- Solder mask is a protective layer which is coated in some way onto printed circuit boards, at the end of the manufacture of printed circuit boards, and it masks the board and components against solder, that's the name, "solder mask".------
-------Q- And in order to answer that, were you given permission to remove a sample of the solder mask? A- Yes, I was. Q- Would you look for me at Label Number 418, please. A-Yes. Q- Now, attached to the object you are examining, Mr.
Rawlings, is, I think, a buffidentification label? A-Yes. Q- And have you signed that to acknowledge removing this sample of solder mask from the fragment? A- I have, yes.-----
-9. Inspector Keith Harrower was then replaced in May of 1990 by witness. no. 118, detective Inspector Michael Langford- Johnson, Strathclyde police, based in Glasgow;- on orders from inspector W. Williamson.-----Q- And in May of 1990, did you assist in a particular line inquiry along with Detective Inspector Williamson? A- I did. Q- Was that into manufacture of a small fragment of printed circuit board? A- Yes, identified as (PT/35). Q- Thank you. And did you understand that Inspector Williamson had been conducting these inquiries for some monts prior to you joing him? A- I was aware of that, yes. Q- Had he been assisted up until then by another officer, Mr. Harrower? A-I believe so, yes.
-10. In May of 1990, along with Mr. Williamson, did you go to the premises of Ferranti at Oldham? A- Yeah, Ferranti International Computers and System Limited. Q-Theredid you meet a gentleman by name of Mr. Worrol? A- By arrangement, that's correct. Q- Could you have before you, please, Label Nummer 353 and Label Nummer 419. Now, is Label 353, Inspector, the fragment of the printed cirquit board refered to by as PT/35? A- Yes. And it bears my signature on it as well. Q-Thank you. Now, is label number 419 apperently a sample removed from that fragment? A- It is. And it bears my signature on the label again, sir.
Q-Had that sample already been removed by the time you began assisting Inspector Williamson? A- It had, yes.
Q-Thank you. And did you take both of these items with you when you went to see Mr. Worrol? A- Yes. Q- And were you hoping that he might assist in taking the inquiry forward? A- Yes, in relation to the fiberglass laminate. Q- Sorry? A In relation to the fiberglass laminate, trying to identify it. Q- Thank you. When you spoke to Mr. Worrol on this occasion in May of 1990, did he require to do anything to any of the fragments that you took in order to assist you? A- Yeah. He required to take the solder mask off one side of the laminate in order that he could carry out further examination.
Q- Now, of which item are you speaking? A- 419 is your reference number. Q- 419. That's the sample removed from the original fragment known as PT--. A- Correct, giving the number DP/31. Q- Thank you. And do we understand, then, that you are explaining to us that Mr. Worrhol had to do something, with this cross-section area? A- Yes. Q- And you said he did something in relation to the solder mask? A- He removed it. Q- How do you know? A- I was there. Q-I see. Did you discuss with him what he would be able to do for you prior to this action?
A- He was hoping to take it to the university in Manchester in order that a more detailed examination could be done on some spectometer. Q- In order to do wath it was he had in mind, did he make a request of you? A- Yes. Q- And is that what you've explained to us? A-Yes. Firstly, we had to get--sorry, authorisation from LICC before that could be done. Q-And that's the Lockerbie Incident ControlCentre? A- That's correct. Q- So in order to permit Mr. Worrhol to proceed, you would need to contact your own superiors?
A- Yes. Q- And I take it from what youve told us that you received confirmation to proceed in that fashion? A- We did, yes. Q- And then you observed Mr. Worrol do something, did you? A- Yes. Q- Wath was it you observed him do? A- He removed it. Exactly how he removed it, I cannot remember. Q- When you say removed "it", what do you mean? A- The solder, solder mask. Q- And where did you understand the solder mask to be? A- On the back side of the laminate. Q- Is that Label 419? A-Yes. Q- All right. On Label 419, there are two tracks visible on one side, is that correct? Can you have it in front of you. A- There are so many tracks on one side, and I believe the solder mask was on the other side. Q- And you would not understand the precise nature, perhaps, of Mr. Worrol's examination, but you've told us what you saw him do? A- Yes. Q- Did that have any effect on the colour of the cross-section? A- I can't remember. Q- All right.
Do you remember wath colour the fragment of prined circuit board itself was? A- I can't remember. Q- Is it obvious, perhaps, from--. A It's hard to see from-- through plastic. No, I can't say. Q- Perhaps I may just ask you one other thing, Inspector. Did you later visit Mr. Worrhol again? A- The following day. Q- Did you visit him any time, perhaps, in the year afterwards? A- No. I only met him once. Q- Thank you very much.
- Despite the non-transparent statements from Mr.Worrol, it is known today that the MST-13timer fragment had been cut into two segments as of May 1990 by Mr. Worrol from the Ferranti Computer Systems Company. From then on we learn of fragment (PT/35) to have been seperated into fragment (PT/35b) and (DP/31a).
-11. Witness No. 581, Mr. Alan Worrol, Ferranti Computer Company.
-------Q- And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers? A-Yes. Q- And Scottish police officers, I take it? A- Yes. Q- And did they have with then that items that they wanted you to examine? A- An item, yes. Q- Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board? A- Yes, it was. Q- Would you look for me, please, at Label 353, and perhaps also Label 419. Do you recognise these items, Mr. Worrol? A- Yes, I recognise 353. I presume that 419 is the piece that-- yes, the piece--yes, I do. Q- And was that smaller piece in 419 already removed when you saw the fragment? A- No.No. It was removed subsequently. Q- I see. In order to assist the police, did you carry out an examination of the fragment? A- Yes. Q- Did that examination require you to do anything to any part of the fragment? A- Not initially, no. We were just allowed to look at it using a microscope. Q- And were you able assist them by simply examining the fragment with the microscope? A- Not specifically. Q- And so did it go on to having to do something else? A- Yes, it did. Q- And what did you go on to do in order to assist the police? A- We wanted to remove the fragment and examine it by microsection, look through a cross-section of a fragment of it containing cracks.
Q- And did you do that? A- Well, I didn't--I didn't remove the fragment. It was not-- it wasnt removed-- well, the police eventually came with a mounted microsection that had been removed from the fragment of the board. Q- By somebody else? A- Yes. Q- Now, was the removed section that they brought to you what you now have in Label 419? A- 419, I think it was a furter fragment taken from that. Q- All right. Wath was it that you did to wathever the police brought to you on this subsequent occasion? A- I think we looked at it by microscope, and then I remounted it in a larger microsection to alter the handle to view it on the microscope. Q- We understand, Mr. Worrol, that on printed circuit boards you can sometimes find a solder mask, is that correct? A- Yes. Q- And was there a solder mask on the fragment that you were asked to examine? A- Yes. Q- On one side, or both? A- We could only--it was only visible on one side.
Q- I see. And when you carrid out your subsequent examination for the police, did you do anything to the area of the solder mask? A- No. Q- Did you have to do anything in the nature of grinding? A- Yes. Once I'd-- once we realigned it, yes, we'd have to grind it and repolish it. Q- And to which side of the fragment would that grindling and repolishing--.
A- Well, it happened to bot of it, to both sides of it. Q- I see. Would that have any effect on the colour to the naked eye? A- No. Q- How many times, did the police come to see you, do you think, Mr. Worrol? A- I can't exactly remember, but at least on three occasions. Q- I see. And was the last occasion something in the region of a year, perhaps, after the previous one? A- as far as I can remember, yes. Q- I see. This is not something that you have a good memory of, thinking back now in terms of dates? A- Difficult to put the time scale on, yes. Q- Of course. Are you able to help me with this, Mr.Worrol. On the last occasion that the police came to see you--. A- yes.
Q-- did they bring the same fragment as they had on the earlier occasions? A- As far as I remember, yes. Q- Did they ever bring an entire circuit board? A- Yes. Q- Which occasion was that? A- On the last occasion that I saw them. Q- I see. Allright. And did they ask you to perform some tests on the entire circuit board? A- No. Q- Not at all? A- Only to view it. Q- Did you ever replicate for them on an entire cirquit board an examination that you had conducted with the fragment? A- No. Q- And so your recollection is that you would just visually examine the circuit board? A- Yes. Q- All right. If there was evidence from the police officers, Mr. Worrol, that they asked you not only examine the entire circuit board but to replicate examination of it in the way that you had examined the orginal fragment, would that be incorrect, do you suppose? A- Would it be, I'm sorry? Q- Would it beincorrect? A.- Would what be incorrect? Q- I'm sorry, it's my fault. If there was evidence from the police officers that they asked you to do exactly the same to the complete circuit board as they had previously asked you to do the fragment, would that be correct or incorrect? A- I'm sorry, I' don't understand what you are--. Q- Well, let me -- it's my fault. Let me start again. The police first of all asked you to look at the fragment? A- Yes. Q- And you were able to examine that for them? A- yes. Q- And tell me again, please, wath you recollect doing with the fragment. A- We looked at it visually first under a microscope.
An then eventually, when the fragment had been removed, when the section had been removed, we looked at the section.
I'm pretty sure we did a test on the solderable finish on it. Q- On, what, sorry? A- The finish on the tracks, the metal on the tracks, and looked for tin and lead. And that's basically more or less it. Q- All right. You did mention to me a moment or two ago something about grindling and polishing? A-Yes. Q- Would that have anything to do with the fragment? A- Yes, that was what we did to the fragment. Q- I see. So would that be-- the grindling and the polishing would be part of some of the examination process, would it? A- Yes.
Q- And then there was another occasion when they brought to you an entire circuit board? A- Yes. Q- And that was the last occasion they visited you, I think? A- Yes. Q- And what was it that they asked you to do with the entire cirquit board? A- Just to look it visually. Q- Not to carry out any tests? A- No. Q-Or do anything else by way of comparing it with the fragment? A-Only visually. Q- All right. Thank you. I have no furter questions. Thank you.
-All extensive MST-13 timer fragment-testing and resaearch had been completed by March 7, 1990. It is absolutely strange and mysterious that inspector William Williamson from the Scottish Police ordered inspector Michael Langford-Johnson on May 7, 1990 to visit the Ferranti company and ask Mr. Worrol to cut the PT/35-fragment into sections. All of Mr. Worrols forensic research-results had already been double-checked by special companies beginning 1990! MEBO suspects that this incident is connected with the criminal manipulations surrounding this vital piece of evidence (MST-13 timer-fragment PT/35).
-On June 15, 1990 it was FBI-forensic expert Thomas Thurman who explained that this allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer-fragment (PT/35) was part of the timing device that then triggered the PanAm-103 explosion. T. Thurman insists that he only had the Polaroid-picture of the MST-13 timer-fragment to reach his identification-result and all subsequent assumptions. -This Tom Thurman was later fired on the spot after internal FBI-controls revealed Thurman having manipulated evidence for several other Court-cases, in order to then solidify and bolster the prosecution's cases. One such case ended in the application of the death-penalty!
-Attorney Dr. D. Neupert has used registered mail end of May 2001, to request from Mrs. Monique Saudan, the Swiss Federal Investigating Judge in the Lockerbie-matter, to order the Polaroid- photographs used during the events under the provision of "Swiss legal assistance", to be produced for his own and MEBO's viewing! (MEBO timer-fragment (PT/35), (PT/35b) and(DP/31a).
- It is these photographs only that can document that the timer-fragment no: (PT/35), photographed on May 12 and again on September 15, 1989,that are is from a handmade MST-13 MEBO-timer, of which none has ever been sold or sent to Libya. The urgency to produce these photographs had been well underlined, considering a decree from the Superior Court in Edinburgh-/Scotland; -which also had set a final deadline for the appeal-submission in the Lockerbie-matter to be June 12, 2001!
According to MEBO-research there are two MST-13 timer fragment forgeries! This brings the total number of known fragments to four:
- one orginal MST-13 timer fragment no: (PT/35), photographed on two Polaroid-photographs on May 12 and again on September 15, 1989. This fragment is very decisively from a handmade prototype MST-13 timer and shows eight layers of fiberglass (8-ply)
- one MST-13 timer fragment, also (PT/35), photographed on a Polaroid-photograph on February 12, 1990, is a forgery, a duplicated fragment, and is from an industrially manufactured Thüring PC-board. This fragment had been shortened (cut or sawed) on February 8, 1990 to match the alleged original fragment with a count of nine layers of fiberglass (9-ply)!
- one MST-13 timer fragment no: (PT/35b), photographed in May 1990, is another forgery, duplicating a section from an industrially manufactured Thüring-PC-board, counting nine layers of fiberglass (9-ply)!
- one MST-13 timer fragment no: (DP/31a) that had been photographed together with fragment no: (PT/35b), is part of the alleged original Lockerbie-recovered fragment,;-therefore part of a handmade prototype PC-board made of 8 layers of fiberglass (8-ply)!
MEBO requests a full criminal investigation into these key-evidence forgeries and manipulations!
Stay tuned important edditional information to follow soon+++