Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[Rolfe]

I certainly see your point about that day being memorable. The bomb exploded only about 3 hours after all this happened, and even people who had gone home would have heard something the same evening, probably even including the number of the flight by the 9 o'clock news. You'd think anyone who was involved with the baggage for that flight would start trying to remember, and hold the memory of what had happened at the loading. In fact, why wasn't there a contingency plan to debrief all relevant staff ASAP as soon as any incident like this happened? Never mind the PFLP-GC, we had the IRA to worry about. And at Frabkfurt too, come to that.

However, that assumes the ordinary Joes are reasonably bright. But then, if you're reasonably bright, are you lugging suitcases around an airport for a living? It also assumes the higher-ups actually want to find out what happened. But did they? Both here and at Frankfurt, there's at least a hint that the priority was blaming somewhere else.

I'll look at the detail you've posted though. Open mind, and all that.

olfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I certainly see your point about that day being memorable. The bomb exploded only about 3 hours after all this happened, and even people who had gone home would have heard something the same evening, probably even including the number of the flight by the 9 o'clock news. You'd think anyone who was involved with the baggage for that flight would start trying to remember, and hold the memory of what had happened at the loading. In fact, why wasn't there a contingency plan to debrief all relevant staff ASAP as soon as any incident like this happened? Never mind the PFLP-GC, we had the IRA to worry about. And at Frabkfurt too, come to that.

However, that assumes the ordinary Joes are reasonably bright. But then, if you're reasonably bright, are you lugging suitcases around an airport for a living? It also assumes the higher-ups actually want to find out what happened. But did they? Both here and at Frankfurt, there's at least a hint that the priority was blaming somewhere else.

I'll look at the detail you've posted though. Open mind, and all that.

olfe.

There's something uniquely charming about Olfe. Seems like a great name for a wishnik troll.

Buncrana:

Kamboj doesn't deny putting the 2 additional bags into container 4041, as Bedford claimed he had said on his return from his break, he states simply “he can't remember”.

Yes and no. At the trial he deferred to everyone else, while also standing beside what he said to the cops AND the Fatal "Accident" Inquiry. At least Walker had started lining up with Bedford by the FAI in late 1990. Kamboj still insisted he didn't and would never place such a bag [sic] in the tin.

Q Did you ever put a bag in a container? Have you ever done that in the whole of your time with Alert?
A No, I don't, never.
Q You took a little time to think about it. Is it possible you may have done that?
A No, no.
Q Have you ever seen other Alert Security staff not only x-raying a bag but also putting it into a container?
A I have never seen.
[…]
Q If Mr. Bedford were to tell us at this inquiry that he went away from the interline area some time during the afternoon and that when he came back, you told him that you had put a couple of cases into the tin, might he be right in that?
A No, I can't say that would be right.
Q I am sorry.
A No.
Q You are not happy about that?
A No.

So that does still suggest the weirdness and suspicion are on his end. But really - it's all uncertain.

On the Heathrow image, that seems like a good guess, but I'm not even sure a current image like this is really relavant to 1988. I was surprised study the Pentagon end of the 9/11 attack that 2006 overheads were significantly different that 2001 imagery. I've always wanted to get a good image of the spaces involved, and it is described in the testimony. A good contemporary view should fit quite nicely with what's said.

If you get bored? I've got other fish to fry...

 

[Buncrana]

In true fashion of this case folk might be best advised to ignore my post before last as it's simply a dogs breakfast of conjectures!

Weary and frustrated last night after reading some of statements at Zeist and desprately trying to make some sense of them..

 

[Caustic Logic]

In true fashion of this case folk might be best advised to ignore my post before last as it's simply a dogs breakfast of conjectures!

Weary and frustrated last night after reading some of statements at Zeist and desprately trying to make some sense of them..

I admit I just skimmed that one, but I'm sure there some good thoughts in there I missed doing so. It shouldn't be ignored.

Ah, 1737 sounds just about right.

I think it's fairly safe to presume the container was at build-up until 103A. everything points to that. And the time is clear - just before 5:00 to 5:37-45-ish. Bedford's time card is cited, punched at like 5:02 IIRC, a few minutes' walk up from the build-up shed.

The interline shed and the anonymity of the conveyor is compelling, but so is the abandoned container sitting around the corner from Walker's window and he plays Donkey Kong inside. I'm in no rush to figure it out exactly.

Excellent thoughts, everyone.

 

[Rolfe]

By the way, I was toying with the idea that Bedford's recollections might have been influenced by already knowing that the bomb was in a maroon Samsonite suitcase. However, according to Paul Foot, he told his tale to a police interviewer on 3rd January 1989, less than a fortnight after the disaster. This was probably before most of the bits of brown Samsonite were even picked up, never mind identified as the bomb suitcase.

The break-in also was reported to the police within a few days of it happening. So, within two weeks of the bombing, the police knew that there had been a break-in at Heathrow the night before, and that a baggage handler saw a mysterious suitcase of the right description materialise in pretty mught the right location in AVE4041, before PA103A landed.

So they announced that the bomb "almost certainly didn't go on at Heathrow".

What on earth was that about? The plane was loaded from empty at Heathrow, so the bomb for sure did go on there. There was this one single baggage container that went out on the tarmac and fetched a relatively small number of cases from another plane directly. So we've decided this early (long before Bogomira took her souvenir out of her locker) that the bomb was in one of these bags, and that counts as "not going aboard at Heathrow". All the other luggage is in the clear, including the bags already in that container.

I'd dearly love to know who took that decision, and on what evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

By the way, I was toying with the idea that Bedford's recollections might have been influenced by already knowing that the bomb was in a maroon Samsonite suitcase. However, according to Paul Foot, he told his tale to a police interviewer on 3rd January 1989, less than a fortnight after the disaster. This was probably before most of the bits of brown Samsonite were even picked up, never mind identified as the bomb suitcase.

I'm not leaning towards that thought myself, but not so sure it can be ruled out like that. As soon as pieces of the "primary" suitcase started turning up, they were suspected to have held the bomb. And they started turning up in late December. So that possibility is only in the who-said-what-to-whom category.

But even by that, Jan 3 is at about the edge of plausibility. And for some reason Kamboj was already on the 28th saying he always just put the bags through X-ray, suggesting the allegation was already on record.

"throughout my tour of duty, and all I do, once I've x-rayed the baggage, is to put a security band round them."

So I'd venture we can pretty much rule out that possibility (besides there being no clear motive for such coaching). I think Bedford saw (or learned of) these bags - description, placement, etc. and seemed almost eager to say so.

<snip> I'd dearly love to know who took that decision, and on what evidence.

Rolfe.

I'd wager it's the same evidence we've been looking at, and whoever it was, it had to be a few people.

 

[Rolfe]

I've been trying to get my head round the thinking process of the enquiry.

Plane falls out of sky, very messily. The possibility that this was terrorism is in everybody's minds from the minute they hear about it. Within days, evidence has emerged to support that view, and indeed implicating a checked-in suitcase as the source of the explosion.

Police are on their way to Heathrow, we hear. Well about time. Neverthess, you'd think there shoud be some security procedure in place at the airport concerned to secure all baggage records and any possibly important evidence ASAP, but we never hear about that.

Police are also on their way to Frankfurt, we hear at the same time. Is that because we already know about AVE4041 and the origin of most of its bags, or just because PA103A was an official inline feeder flight, or because we're already thinking about Autumn Leaves?

So what happens? Police at Heathrow hear about AVE4041, and discover that while it was mainly filled with bags transferred straight from PA103A, it also contained a few bags interlined into Heathrow. Also, that one of the loaders saw a couple of (presumably interline) bags appear mysteriously in it, in about the position of the explosion, at least one of which matched the description of the bomb suitcase.

So they announce that the bomb almost certainly didn't originate at Heathrow. Almost true. It's virtually certain that the bomb bag wasn't checked in at Heathrow. However, it could have come from Frankfurt, or it could have been interlined from somewhere else (or it could even have been smuggled airside and mixed with the inerline baggage). In the first case the blame might reasonably be shoved back at Frankfurt, because of the way the transfer was done - quickly, plane-to-plane, with no x-ray but also bugger-all chance of getting anything in at that stage. But in the second case, blame would certainly apply to Heathrow, because the interline bags should have been properly x-rayed. And as for the third, well don't even go there - that break-in isn't even worth mentioning, it obviously had nothing to do with this incident.

Whatever, everyone seems to have been extremely keen to discount the Heathrow interline luggage (+/-the Bedford suitcase) from the get-go.

Why?

I'm surmising because of Autumn Leaves. Obvious culprits are obvious. There were all these warnings of exactly this being planned, pity we didn't pay more attention. But these guys were based in Frankfurt, and the container was mostly filled with bags from Frankfurt, so it's obvious, innit? (So why didn't the feeder flight blow up over Paris, or hadn't they figured that bit out yet?)

So for whatever reason, everyone is dementing on about Jibril and Khreesat and Abu Talb, and Frankfurt is in the firing line, and Heathrow is off the hook. (I've heard it said that Thatcher particuarly wanted Heathrow off the hook so that the investigation could be palmed off onto the D&G constabulary rather than the Met, the D&G being small and unused to major investigations of this nature, and so possibly less likely to make big breakthroughs, but who knows, that's just a bit more conspiracy theorising.)

So Frankfurt is the key. But at Frankfurt, despite everyine realising from the get-go that the flight had in a sense originated there, and knowing all about Jibril and the modus operandi, the baggage records vanish. Only stored for a week, oh sorry. But for goodness sake, what were airport security doing in that week? What were the police doing in that week? And what happened to the bloody backups too? Sorry, all gone, can't really explain it, too bad.



That's it, for eight freaking months. Nobody is investigating Heathrow because they're sure the case came in on PA103A. And all the relevant records at Frankfurt are unavailable. Stalemate.

Quite early on, the Erac printout surfaces. But still Frankfurt don't say anything. We're supposed to believe they spotted tray 8849, and realised it came from Malta, and presumably knew about the Maltese clothes, but they didn't say a word. Everybody is assuming Frankfurt security let a Khreesat/Jibril special through, and here's some evidence that in fact it may have interlined from Malta, and they say not a word.

Until August.

This is doing my head in.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

By the way, on the subject of who knew what when, I note Paul Foot says Channon announced that the bomb had been in a suitcase and that this had almost certainly not originated at Heathrow, on 16th February 1989.

I can't honestly remember that far back, other than that I for one assumed it was probably a terrorist incident from the moment I heard about it (about 7.55pm that evening) and this was a common perception. So exactly when this was publicly confirmed I can't remember. It could well have been in the media before Paul Channon's announcement, but on the other hand 16th February is only about seven weeks.

What I'm pretty sure about is that the "brown Samsonite" part was not part of the public record at that stage. Yes, suitcase. It might have been public that the bomb was in a suitcase before 3rd January. I really don't think the words "brown Samsonite" were in the public domain at that stage at all.

I don't think it's possible for Bedford's evidence about the description of the suitcase he saw to have been informed by media stories about the nature of the fragments, if he said "brown Samsonite" to the police on 3rd January - which it appears he did.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

By the way, on the subject of who knew what when, I note Paul Foot says Channon announced that the bomb had been in a suitcase and that this had almost certainly not originated at Heathrow, on 16th February 1989.

I don't think it's possible for Bedford's evidence about the description of the suitcase he saw to have been informed by media stories about the nature of the fragments, if he said "brown Samsonite" to the police on 3rd January - which it appears he did.

Rolfe.

Not media. I was considering behind the scenes coaching from police, but the motive would then be theirs and I'm not seeing why they'd want a Heathrow employee to have seen the bomb.

Oh, also I said "learned of," and by that I was thinking not the news, but from Peter Walker perhaps, in the scenario where he first saw the cases after his own lapse at baggage build-up. So on this outside chance, he'd learn from a more direct source than the media, but less direct than his own eyes. He's got some real knowledge either way, and it's a major clue.

You know, it's too bad none of these people were a little extra vigilant that day, considering the Toshiba warning that was supposed to go out, and cond considering the terminal three break-in warning that should have been issued. That was an absolute crap day to be business as usual at Heathrow.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, for goodness sake! Who do you think knew about the brown Samsonite by 3rd January?

The D&G constabulary were picking things up off the fields. Personnel from RARDE and the FBI were there too. If they already had sufficient pieces of suitcase to have made a decision that was what the bomb bag looked like less than two weeks after the crash, they were not going to be telling the world. And the world would include random Heathrow staff, and even the Met (who probably got the job of interviewing the Heathrow staff).

The main text of the Autumn Leaves warning seems still to have been lying on someone's desk at the DoT, waiting for better photographs of what to look for. Something may have been circulated but it's clear the Heathrow staff were not on the alert for Khreesat-style devices the way the Frankfurt staff were.

And you know, closing the airport because of a cut padlock on a door - dear boy, think of the disruption to travel, four days before Christmas! We couldn't justify such a thing, we'd be pilloried for over-reacting. (Then when a plane blows up, it's maybe best if we just don't mention it, can't have had anything to do with it anyway, it was many hours earlier....)

Assuming random and counterproductive interference with witnesses at this early stage is rabbit-hole material, you know.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh, I was just being open-minded. The Bedford story is a big aspect, and I wanted to consider all the possibilities before deciding it's the clue it seems. I retain the right to question whether it's as direct a clue as it seems, but it's a clue alright.

Or rather, we're down to clue or coincidence. And I can't buy the latter, that these two bags existed where and how he says but were moved to the Bermuda Triangle corner of the container and never able to just be shown. "Here they are, intact, tagged, and owned by ___" Never happened, for some reason.

 

[Rolfe]

Bedford seems to have said the words "brown Samsonite" on 3rd January, and I'm damn sure the discovery of shards of brown Samsonite was not common knowledge outwith a few people close to the centre of the enquiry at that stage.

This is either a clue, or another coincidence as big as the Erac printout ostensibly fingering KM180 as the source of a mystery bag, and Megrahi having been right there when KM180 was checking in.

And I'm still wondering if that was a coincidence either.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

I certainly see your point about that day being memorable. The bomb exploded only about 3 hours after all this happened, and even people who had gone home would have heard something the same evening, probably even including the number of the flight by the 9 o'clock news. You'd think anyone who was involved with the baggage for that flight would start trying to remember, and hold the memory of what had happened at the loading. In fact, why wasn't there a contingency plan to debrief all relevant staff ASAP as soon as any incident like this happened? Never mind the PFLP-GC, we had the IRA to worry about. And at Frabkfurt too, come to that.

However, that assumes the ordinary Joes are reasonably bright. But then, if you're reasonably bright, are you lugging suitcases around an airport for a living? It also assumes the higher-ups actually want to find out what happened. But did they? Both here and at Frankfurt, there's at least a hint that the priority was blaming somewhere else.

I'll look at the detail you've posted though. Open mind, and all that.

olfe.

Well, exactly. Even IF Walker himself was too much of a dullard NOT to make the most obvious of connections between his actions and the aircraft disintegration over Lockerbie,, certainly his superiors should have and dragged all and sundry into a debrief or Post Incident Review.

 

[SnidelyW]

By the way, I was toying with the idea that Bedford's recollections might have been influenced by already knowing that the bomb was in a maroon Samsonite suitcase. However, according to Paul Foot, he told his tale to a police interviewer on 3rd January 1989, less than a fortnight after the disaster. This was probably before most of the bits of brown Samsonite were even picked up, never mind identified as the bomb suitcase.

The break-in also was reported to the police within a few days of it happening. So, within two weeks of the bombing, the police knew that there had been a break-in at Heathrow the night before, and that a baggage handler saw a mysterious suitcase of the right description materialise in pretty mught the right location in AVE4041, before PA103A landed.

So they announced that the bomb "almost certainly didn't go on at Heathrow".

What on earth was that about? The plane was loaded from empty at Heathrow, so the bomb for sure did go on there. There was this one single baggage container that went out on the tarmac and fetched a relatively small number of cases from another plane directly. So we've decided this early (long before Bogomira took her souvenir out of her locker) that the bomb was in one of these bags, and that counts as "not going aboard at Heathrow". All the other luggage is in the clear, including the bags already in that container.

I'd dearly love to know who took that decision, and on what evidence.

Rolfe.

I really think you've hit the nail on the proverbial head, Rolfe. You've crystallized the entire problem into one line and I think that is positively brilliant thinking.

Where in the published accounts do we first learn of the 'disavowment' of Heathrow as the place the bomb did not go on? By whom? Why did they make that statement? Who was directly responsible for making that statement?

 

[SnidelyW]

By the way, on the subject of who knew what when, I note Paul Foot says Channon announced that the bomb had been in a suitcase and that this had almost certainly not originated at Heathrow, on 16th February 1989.

I can't honestly remember that far back, other than that I for one assumed it was probably a terrorist incident from the moment I heard about it (about 7.55pm that evening) and this was a common perception. So exactly when this was publicly confirmed I can't remember. It could well have been in the media before Paul Channon's announcement, but on the other hand 16th February is only about seven weeks.

What I'm pretty sure about is that the "brown Samsonite" part was not part of the public record at that stage. Yes, suitcase. It might have been public that the bomb was in a suitcase before 3rd January. I really don't think the words "brown Samsonite" were in the public domain at that stage at all.

I don't think it's possible for Bedford's evidence about the description of the suitcase he saw to have been informed by media stories about the nature of the fragments, if he said "brown Samsonite" to the police on 3rd January - which it appears he did.

Rolfe.

So it appears Charron was the lackey charged with the initial part of the disinformation campaign, allegedly at the behest of his American masters, with express permission from his Prime Minister.

"On November 2, 1989, the news leaked of a report on the Lockerbie bombing by Interfor, a New York corporate investigative company hired by Pan Am and its insurers. The report suggested that the Dalkamoni gang had got the bomb on the airliner at Frankfurt by exploiting a security loophole."¹
Does any one know anything about this guy?

"...although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop."²
1. http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html


2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...erbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html

 

[SnidelyW]

Snip...
And you know, closing the airport because of a cut padlock on a door - dear boy, think of the disruption to travel, four days before Christmas! We couldn't justify such a thing, we'd be pilloried for over-reacting. (Then when a plane blows up, it's maybe best if we just don't mention it, can't have had anything to do with it anyway, it was many hours earlier....)

Assuming random and counterproductive interference with witnesses at this early stage is rabbit-hole material, you know.

Rolfe.

I absolutely agree- I think you have it spot-on. Think of the 'cover your butt' justifications and fear of demotion if the cut lock had resulted in the closure of the airport for even the briefest length of time! I'm actually a bit amazed the information regarding the cut lock even made it to the investigators in the first place.

 

[SnidelyW]

Regarding David Wright- never mind.

"Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.

A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser."¹
1. http://www.heraldscotland.com/lockerbie-appeal-to-hear-new-witness-statement-1.908707

 

[Caustic Logic]

On Mr. Wright here was the last I saw anyone here mention him:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5366970&postcount=62
This was the wrong thread, BTW.

On the early elimination of Heathrow, it was obviously reflexive and based on how obviously the bomb did first leave the ground there. Officially, however, the pre-printout reason was logical/forensic. I've ripped on the decision before, but it does have some points.

Leppard, P 60

“Sir Peter Imberth, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, was naturally concerned about the possibility that the bomb had slipped through security at Heathrow […] The German BKA were to spend more than a year publicly claiming that the bomb must have been put aboard at London […] Certainly, if Heathrow had been to blame, the ramifications would have been severe: it would have meant that the bomb had probably been constructed in England by a new terrorist cell whose activities were unknown to the British security authorities […] Fortunately for the British, no such evidence was ever uncovered. All the political embarrassment would fall on the Germans. It was therefore a great relief when it was proved within the first weeks that the bomb had been inside a pallet containing luggage which had passed through Heathrow from other airports.”

So initially, it was "interline shed" that was key to saying it didn't first leave the ground there. Remember that fact was quite important at the time, with the Frankfurt busts and altimeter bombs such recent news. And it's true - Bedford's story has the bags appearing at the shed where normally all bags are coming in from another flight, not from the surface.

They eliminated Bedford's bags at interline by finding the blast wasn't against the floor, but one layer up with a case beneath it. They decided it's high enough up it must be from Frankfurt, which did fill the bulk of the container.

March 28 1989 SIO John Orr at the Lockerbie Incident Control Center (LICC):

“Evidence from witnesses is to the effect that the first seven pieces of luggage in the container belonged to Interline passengers and the remainder was Frankfurt luggage. […] To date 14 pieces of explosive-damaged baggage have been recovered and enquiries to date suggest that on the balance of probabilities the explosive device is likely to be amongst the Frankfurt baggage items. Of all the currently identified explosion-damaged luggage all but one item originated from Frankfurt.” [emph in original]

It hardly seemed justified, but the printout proved them right all along. Leppard agreed and summarized the findings pointing to Franlfurt: "Kamboj was in the clear." So were a lot of other people.

 

[SnidelyW]

snip...They eliminated Bedford's bags at interline by finding the blast wasn't against the floor, but one layer up with a case beneath it. They decided it's high enough up it must be from Frankfurt, which did fill the bulk of the container.

...snip...

It hardly seemed justified, but the printout proved them right all along. Leppard agreed and summarized the findings pointing to Franlfurt: "Kamboj was in the clear." So were a lot of other people.

So, given the effort already put into the 'Heathrow origin' by The Metropolitain Police, they just shrugged and left it at 'balance of probability'? I realize that at some point the investigation must halt somewhere, but was the possibility the Bedford bags were moved at any point in the loading procedure accounted for? We have the anomaly of the two Bedford bags, and my inclination is to ask some very pointed questions of anyone who had touched, seen, or been in the vicinity of the interline shed and baggage build up. However, the political situation demanded a shift of focus to Frankfurt, and the Heathrow situation, however promising it appeared, spun its investigative wheels.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, exactly. Even IF Walker himself was too much of a dullard NOT to make the most obvious of connections between his actions and the aircraft disintegration over Lockerbie,, certainly his superiors should have and dragged all and sundry into a debrief or Post Incident Review.

Indeed. But this also applies to Frankfurt. There, we have a little window into the workplace the day after the bombing. Bogomira says everybody was talking about it. It was the sole topic of conversation.

She worked in the baggage department, specifically in the area of record-keeping. She was an early IT person. But all she describes is gossip and chit-chat. Not a single word about anyone asking any questions, or debriefing the staff concerned, or trying to establish which records should be preserved. Not even any initiative by any of the staff to do anything like that. She only made her printout from idle curiosity.

I find this deeply strange. Even stranger than the equivalent Heathrow situation. At least there we have Bedford talking to police and giving a witness statement by 3rd January. In contrast, all we hear about in Frankfurt is Bogomira, on about 25th January, saying to Berg, by the way is this any use to you?

Do you know what that's all about? Because I sure as hell don't.

Rolfe.