Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[Rolfe]

If we then think about the second Bedford suitcase, the answer seems to be, well that wasn't found either. So obviously it wasn't uncommon for suitcases to have vanished without trace.

That's not really true though. Most cases were found. But Bedford wasn't quite so sure about the description of the second case. How do we know it wasn't a case belonging to one of the interline passengers he saw? Why don't we know everything there is to know about the interline passengers' luggage, so we can decide whether Bedford really did see what he says he saw, and what happened to all that luggage?

Is it because quite a few of the interline passengers were US government agents? But why would that inhibit the defence questioning?

We hear from Kochler that he didn't think much of the defence strategies. He tells us they didn't always take Megrahi's instructions. He suggests, even, that they were deferring to Libyan lawyers appointed by Gadaffi to oversee the defence. I was doubtful about this, partly because Taylor is said to be an excellent, committed defence advocate, and partly because he draws praise for his handling of the Frankfurt evidence and the Heathrow evidence.

I'm wondering now how justified this praise is. Looking at the appeal judgement, a lot of the argument about the possibilities for tray B8849 seems to be spurious. Maybe he had to put these points anyway, but was it really going to get him anywhere? And thinking about the Heathrow end, we're told he had 20 points which pointed to a Heathrow introduction, but why didn't he examine the interline bags in detail?

Yes, it's possible that such an examination might have suggested either that the Bedford bag #1 wasn't the bomb bag, or that Bedford imagined the whole thing. However, if that was the case, surely the prosecution would be only too pleased to bring all that forward. And they didn't.

Was there pressure not to bring up the journeys and deaths of the US agents in court? That doesn't explain all the missed tricks though. What about declining to appeal on the grounds that no reasonable jury would have reached that verdict? There are bits in the appeal judgement where you almost think the judges are hinting that an appeal on that basis might actually have had a chance of success, too bad you didn't go that route guys.

This really is very strange. There are quite a few people in this case I'd like to get in a quiet alley with a set of thumbscrews.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry I got a little hyperbolic and ranty last page regarding the appeal judges. In general I stand by my disdain, but really it's more cmplex than I characterized (esp. Manly's story - something you're ahead of me on).

If we had all the details on the interline luggage - what was recovered and should have been in the "tin' as Bedford took his break, that would be highly useful. You say this wasn't explored enough at trial. It would help us understand the possibilities with more precision.

I latched onto the matching bags meme pretty much because nobody else really had, and I like to explore things no one else has, when possible. I admit I'm a little hung up on it. But I'm really into the notion that we're looking at that second bag when looking at "primary suitcase" debris.

Sorry to bring it up again, but some pages back I mentioned a passage from a 1990 book about suitcase debris "bleached" by the explosion. Originally copper, turned light blusih-gray. I dropped the issue when I realized the main plastic WAS gray, just coveredd in copper-color skin.

It occured to me just now tis MIGHT be worth considering after all. The possibilities are
a) mix-up where someone was looking at the inner gray part, or the outer face, where the skin was stripped away somehow.
b) the actual copper-pigmented skin was actually bleached blusih-gray by an obviously external explosion.

If no one can rule out b) then the passage is a possible clue, depending what was meant. of a second such bag beneath the primary one. I don't think we can establish either way, and typing it out now it's less compelling than in my head, but it's a thought I wanted to toss out there.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And while I'm off on a forensic tip,
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/06/avn-7511-pa-and-its-clues.html
FWIW

 

[Rolfe]

There may be more information than we have. For example, I read somewhere that all the passengers on KM180 were followed up to see if anyone might have terrorist connections. The thought being that someone might have got the bag on board as accompanied luggage, and then of course didn't report it as missing when he got to Frankfurt. However, it all checked out. All the passengers were legit, all 55 pieces of luggage were traced as having been picked up by their blameless owners at Frankfurt.

The thing is, I don't know where that information came from. I can't remember where I read it, but that's not the main point. I didn't get it from a primary source, and I have no idea where the person who stated it got it from. There is wrong information floating around out there, so everything has to be checked.

On the other hand, if that's correct, as it may well be, it's something which isn't a main part of the narrative of the case. I wonder if details of the checking of the Heathrow interline passengers simply aren't well known, but might be there if we knew where to look.

Mind you, the advocates' presentations regarding Heathrow don't lead me to believe the information is available. The guys are way too vague. Face it, there are only three realistic possibilities regarding the Bedford suitcase.

• It was the bomb bag
• It was innocent luggage belonging to an interline passenger
• Bedford was mistaken and the bag didn't exist

It was one of (maximum) ten pieces of luggage, belonging to a fairly small group of passengers. It might have been difficult to differentiate between points 1 and 3 depending on what was discovered, but it should certainly have been possible to narrow things down quite a lot simply by looking at these passengers and what was recovered and linked to them.

I don't think this was done, and I can't understand why it wasn't.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't think this was done, and I can't understand why it wasn't.

Rolfe.

Sometimes there really is a good reason for these things. As I gather we have at least one of the bags from this small number left behind.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't like massively complicated CTs involving widespread collusion by many different authorities! This line of reasoning suggests Mr. Taylor and his team were actively aware of better evidence for the Heathrow introduction, and chose not to lead it.

Yes, I know that's what Hans Kochler has been suggesting all along, but that doesn't make it much easier to swallow.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Ok, either I'm easily confused, or simply some of this stuff is upside-down, back-to-front, flip-flopped and inside out!

[...]Given the evidence of forensic scientists that the primary suitcase was not, at the time of the explosion, on the floor of the container, and was probably resting on top of an American Tourister case which had arrived from Frankfurt on PA103A, the next stage of the argument was that there had been a rearrangement of the suitcases in the container after it left the interline shed.

What? Eh? Hold on a minute.

So, the possible and probable rearrangement of container 4041, a premise the judges founded upon, would allow baggage that had arrived from Frankfurt to be on the bottom layer of the luggage stack in 4041 (which is totally at odds from what we're led to believe was the reasoning for determining 'on balance' the bomb must have arrived from 103A as the explosion occurred above the bottom layer!), but not that baggage from Heathrow could therefore just as easily be placed on the second layer?!!?

[…] The absence of recovery of fragments of a second brown Samsonite type case confirmed there must have been a rearrangement.

The absence of another Samsonite could surely simply indicate that, as Bedford himself did state, he saw ONE Samsonite and another case case of similar variety and colour. Perhaps the other one wasn't exactly a Samsonite, thereby resulting in only the remnants of one being recovered from 103's debris?? We are to believe only one Samsonite carried the bomb device and John Bedford is the only witness who can positively identify one Samsonite, possibly two, but also possibly another case that was similar but not Samsonite, at any of the airports involved in the apparent scenic journey taken by this bomb laden Samsonite suitcase.

If Bedford's testimony is accepted, as it seemingly was at Zeist, then the most blindingly obvious conclusion, given that only remnants of one case were recovered, then surely, er, on balance, Bedford was possibly mistaken about it being two Samsonite's, and it was actually only the one, which in-turn is therefore the most prospective candidate as containing the device?

[...] In that position, neither of them could be the primary suitcase, because the undisputed scientific evidence was that the primary suitcase was not on the base of the container.

Bedford's suitcase could not simply be lifted onto the top of the Tourister which arrived from Frankfurt and was deemed to be the one underneath the explosion? That's the rearrangement we have to believe happened is it not? Who says that all the cases would be rearranged? And even if they all were, there's surely as much chance it could end-up on the 2nd layer of luggage as it could in some far flung corner or the 8th layer..9th..etc??

Just bizarre, and I've only started on Bedford's section in the appeal.

 

[Rolfe]

[Sorry, cross-posting.]

Something I noted when I was reading the appeal judgement was the estimate of 10 cases in AVE4041 when Bedford knocked off. That's more than is usually quoted, and I wonder about it. If you read what Bedford said, the cases he put in the container were upright along the back. If the container was a little under 5 feet wide, which it was, you'd be hard put to get more than say six cases along the back. Then the two mystery cases took up the remaining floor space of the container. That figures, really, for a space approximately five feet square altogether.

That's eight cases, tops. Where would two more cases fit in? On top of the mystery cases? Or was it just eight cases all along?

There are two points arising from this. First, was what was in the container all the interline baggage there was for that flight? Leppard apparently says there were 13 bags. Or maybe 13 interline passengers, I don't know. If not, where did the rest of the bags go? Is it possible some cases found their way to the baggage build-up area and so to a different container? If so, do we know if the Larnaca baggage was in AVE4041? I'm not sure we have any way to know. (Sometimes the interline system falls down, if a check-in clerk has been lazy, and the passenger has to pick the luggage up and re-check it - this happened to me at Gatwick a couple of years ago, and trying to manoeuvre two suitcases and a wheelchair was no joke.)

On the other hand, if all the interline luggage went in there, did anyone add more bags after Bedford left? I think this is very unlikely, but Baz seems to think it happened. But who would have done that? Did Kamboj x-ray the things? The idea of A. N. Other adding stuff willy-nilly while the container was unattended, however legitimately, gives me the heebie-jeebies. I don't think it happened, but the fact anyone can even suggest it shows how little we know about this part of the story. Which is quite ridiculous, really.

However, ten bags in total just underlines my point about the area of the floor of the container. Five by five. I really don't think you could seriously get more than six cases flat on that. They decided Karen Noonan's case from PA103A was on the floor. Even if the other five were all "interline" bags, that's another five that aren't on the floor, but the appeal judges' reckoning. Even if they've overestimated the number, nobody thinks the five (max) that could have been on the floor were all that was in the container.

So where did "second layer, therefore Frankfurt" come from?

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

,oops..sorry, more cross-posting!>

I spent much of this afternoon on a document viewer browsing through some old editions of the UK newpapers from Dec'88 upto June '89. Interesting stuff, but unfortunately no links to these articles. I've only quoted small pieces of the articles, but what was the most interesting aspect was that, without fail, there was not one single reference to Malta by anyone involved in the investigation - most notably by any of the German spokespeople who gave any official statements.

There is a few refernces to a possible inflitration of the bad by a Heathrow employee, to the bag coming interline via Frankfurt, originating in a 'Middle East country'.

Here's a few snippets. If you want to read the full articles of any in particular, just pm me.

Financial Times (London,England)

December 29, 1988, Thursday

Bomb Caused Pan Am Crash

BYLINE: Michael Donne, Aerospace Correspondent

SECTION: SECTION I; Front Page; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 846 words

An International operation was under way last night to trace the bombers responsible for Britain's worst air disaster after the Transport Department formally confirmed that it was caused by explosives.[...]

"Much investigative work remains to be done to establish the nature of the explosive device, what it was contained in, its location in the aircraft, and the sequence of events immediately following its detonation."

The statement means police and security investigations will intensify at London's Heathrow airport and at Frankfurt to discover whether the bomb originated at Heathrow. The alternative is that the bomb was in an item of luggage on the connecting 727 jet from Frankfurt and was transferred to the jumbo in London. [...]

In Frankfurt, the state prosecutor's office said the West German investigations were continuing "but we have nothing new to report. We have no new knowledge and no hot lead."

So, eight days after 103's downfall, the German investigations are continuing. Investigations that didn't include securing the records of 103A?? Yeah, okay...

The Guardian (London)

January 7, 1989

Passengers in rush foil Frankfurt security staff

BYLINE: By DAVID PALLISTER

LENGTH: 470 words

DATELINE: FRANKFURT

Passengers at Frankfurt's international airport, where the flight began that ended in the Lockerbie disaster, often check in baggage then decide to catch an earlier plane on a different airline.

The practice means a constant headache for security staff, according to a senior source among them, especially when the traveller fails to announce the change of plan.

'They just want to get to their destination quicker,' the source said. 'It's a time-consuming business unloading and checking every piece of baggage with each passenger, but it is something we all ought to do.' [...]

In particular, the federal police, the BKA, are methodically checking the background of all baggage handlers. They are working with investigators from the FBI and at least one member of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch at the BKA's office in Meckenheim, near Bonn.

The Independent

January 7 1989, Saturday

The Lockerbie Disaster: Lockerbie bomb claim dismissed

SECTION: Title ; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 181 words

(First Edition)
THE BOMB which blew apart the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie may have been smuggled aboard by a worker at Heathrow Airport, West German intelligence sources alleged last night.

A report from Bonn suggested British investigators had told the West German foreign intelligence service that they believed the explosives were planted in a passage under the flight deck rather than in the forward baggage hold as previously suggested.

But the Lockerbie investigation operations room dismissed the report as 'pure speculation'.

Financial Times (London,England)

February 17, 1989, Friday

Lockerbie Device 'Did Come From Frankfurt'

BYLINE: James Buxton, Scottish Correspondent

SECTION: SECTION I; UK News; Pg. 7

LENGTH: 377 words

Police investigating the Lockerbie air disaster believe that the device that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 was hidden in a radio cassette player which "the balance of probability" suggests was in luggage originating at Frankfurt in West Germany.

That was disclosed in a briefing yesterday by Detective Superintendent John Orr, leader of the investigation into the disaster which killed 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 and 11 people in Lockerbie, south-west Scotland, on December 21.

The Guardian (London)

February 17, 1989

Pan Am bomb was in cassette player

BYLINE: By ROB EDWARDS and OWEN BOWCOTT

LENGTH: 440 words

DATELINE: MONTREAL

The bomb which caused the Lockerbie air disaster in December was in a radio cassette player probably among luggage loaded at Frankfurt, police said yesterday.

Detective Chief Superintendent John Orr, head of the Lockerbie investigation, strongly hinted that, as a result, the international inquiry was focusing on a particular country. But he did not say which. [...]

The suggestion that the bomb came on the flight at Frankfurt was made, according to Mr Orr, 'on the balance of probabilities'. The 700 kilogramme Heathrow luggage container in which it was held was mostly full of luggage from elsewhere.

more soon...

 

[Rolfe]

Ok, either I'm easily confused, or simply some of this stuff is upside-down, back-to-front, flip-flopped and inside out!

What? Eh? Hold on a minute.

So, the possible and probable rearrangement of container 4041, a premise the judges founded upon, would allow baggage that had arrived from Frankfurt to be on the bottom layer of the luggage stack in 4041 (which is totally at odds from what we're led to believe was the reasoning for determining 'on balance' the bomb must have arrived from 103A as the explosion occurred above the bottom layer!), but not that baggage from Heathrow could therefore just as easily be placed on the second layer?!!?

The absence of another Samsonite could surely simply indicate that, as Bedford himself did state, he saw ONE Samsonite and another case case of similar variety and colour. Perhaps the other one wasn't exactly a Samsonite, thereby resulting in only the remnants of one being recovered from 103's debris?? We are to believe only one Samsonite carried the bomb device and John Bedford is the only witness who can positively identify one Samsonite, possibly two, but also possibly another case that was similar but not Samsonite, at any of the airports involved in the apparent scenic journey taken by this bomb laden Samsonite suitcase.

If Bedford's testimony is accepted, as it seemingly was at Zeist, then the most blindingly obvious conclusion, given that only remnants of one case were recovered, then surely, er, on balance, Bedford was possibly mistaken about it being two Samsonite's, and it was actually only the one, which in-turn is therefore the most prospective candidate as containing the device?

Bedford's suitcase could not simply be lifted onto the top of the Tourister which arrived from Frankfurt and was deemed to be the one underneath the explosion? That's the rearrangement we have to believe happened is it not? Who says that all the cases would be rearranged? And even if they all were, there's surely as much chance it could end-up on the 2nd layer of luggage as it could in some far flung corner or the 8th layer..9th..etc??

Just bizarre, and I've only started on Bedford's section in the appeal.

Er, cross-posting or not, I see we're on the same page. And by the way, if you think this is bizarre, wait till their noble lordships get on to Gauci.

It was always part of the evidence, from an early stage, that a Tourister suitcase belonging to Karen Noonan (who interlined through Frankfurt from Vienna) was on the bottom layer, under the bomb bag. As I said, that reduces still further the number of interline bags that could have been on the bottom, and makes it even more inevitable that several were higher up.

I think the appeal judges' logic went, the Bedford suitcase was seen flat on the floor of the container, about where the explosion happened. It seems that Karen Noonan's suitcase was in that position when the explosion happened. So the Bedford suitcase was moved.

Or else, the bomb bag wasn't on the bottom level. So if the Bedford suitcase was the bomb bag, it had been moved. And if it hadn't been moved, it would have been among the items recovered damaged. So again, it was moved.

The bit they're side-stepping is, OK, the bag was moved. So, either it was just moved up one layer, and was recovered as a handful of exploded fragments, or it was moved somewhere else and never identified despite a fingertip search. WHY ARE THEY TREATING THESE TWO POSSIBILITIES AS BEING EQUALLY PROBABLE???

Was there evidence that one or more pieces of luggage belonging to a dead interline passenger was never recovered? How many suitcases thought to be in that container are believed to have vanished utterly? Isn't it a bit of a coincidence this postulated "other brown Samsonite" was the very one that happened to fall in the reservoir and get eaten by the fishes, or whatever?

The discussion of the Frankfurt evidence (which comes first) actually makes some sort of sense. It just gets more bizarre from then on though.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

,oops..sorry, more cross-posting!>

I spent much of this afternoon on a document viewer browsing through some old editions of the UK newpapers from Dec'88 upto June '89.

Great stuff, you're a star! By the way, can you access the Glasgow Herald (as it was then) that way? That's likely to have detail the others don't, because it's the broadsheet that covers the area in question. The paper has always had a particular interest in it. (I owned these papers once. Unfortunately they went in the bin at the end of the week, as usual.)

more soon...

Waiting expectantly....

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Great stuff, you're a star! By the way, can you access the Glasgow Herald (as it was then) that way? That's likely to have detail the others don't, because it's the broadsheet that covers the area in question. The paper has always had a particular interest in it. (I owned these papers once. Unfortunately they went in the bin at the end of the week, as usual.)

Waiting expectantly....

Rolfe.

I'll have another sift through and hopefully there will be some old Herald stuff there too Rolfe. I had narrowed the search today to 'London Broadsheets' and that alone turned up nearly 1000 articles!

..hopefully this is just whetting our appetite...

 

[Rolfe]

Since the Herald changed its web site a year or so ago, the search function has become absolutely abysmal. There's some stuff up there right back to early 1989 at least, but searching the site is beyond me.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The statement means police and security investigations will intensify at London's Heathrow airport and at Frankfurt to discover whether the bomb originated at Heathrow. The alternative is that the bomb was in an item of luggage on the connecting 727 jet from Frankfurt and was transferred to the jumbo in London. [...]

In Frankfurt, the state prosecutor's office said the West German investigations were continuing "but we have nothing new to report. We have no new knowledge and no hot lead."

So, eight days after 103's downfall, the German investigations are continuing. Investigations that didn't include securing the records of 103A?? Yeah, okay...

I've heard of elephants in rooms, but this is bloody ridiculous. If that was published on the 29th, then the FT had the article on the 28th. A week after the bombing. And investigations are "continuing" at Frankfurt.

By most accounts, the routine wipe of the computer data shouldn't have happened until the 28th anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

First, forget about Bedford's second suitcase. We know about one brown hardshell, call it the Bedford case #1. It was seen in about the position where the bomb exploded, but it might have been moved. We know about another brown hardshell, the bomb bag. The question Mr. Taylor is trying to address is, were there actually two suitcases, or is this the same one twice?

Essentially the prosecution seem to be saying, well, why should they be the same case? The loaders could move the cases anywhere they liked. The defence says, because they were both brown hardshell suitcases, and only (the remains of) one brown hardshell suitcase was found at Lockerbie, despite a fingertip search. Which is more parsimonious? That there was one case, which was never moved any great distance, and that is the one case that was found, or that there were two cases, one of which was in that position in the interline shed, but on the tarmac it was moved a long way away to be replaced by an extremely similar one, the one that was found at Lockerbie. And the first one was never found.

It seems to me that the court is treating these two possibilities as essentially of equal probability. While in fact they aren't. The scenario where the "two" cases are one and the same is by far the more likely, Occam's Razor and all that.

What happened at the store where all the passengers' luggage was being collected? Items were identified as belonging to particular passengers, and eventually they were returned to the relatives. Given that a suitcase was already known to be implicated in the bombing, is it really conceivable that all these suitcases were simply given back without their details being recorded? At least a record of size, colour and make. Surely a photograph! Didn't it occur to anyone that checking which suitcases were innocent passenger property might be important in eliminating potential candidates for the bomb bag?

Actually, as it happens, we're not even all that interested in the majority of the luggage. The passengers who checked in at Heathrow aren't really in the frame. We're interested in the luggage of two groups, the 49 passengers transferring from PA103A, and the Heathrow interline passengers. Are we really supposed to believe nobody made a detailed study of what was recovered and matched to passengers whose luggage would have been in AVE4041?

In particular, we're interested in the Heathrow interline group, because the Bedford bag belonged to one of these passengers if it wasn't the bomb bag. How many such passengers were there? I've never seen a definite list, which in itself is extremely strange. Most estimates seem to be less than about 15 though. I'm not even sure if the luggage for some of them went in a different container, though, as the highest estimate for cases in AVE4041 when Bedford went home seems to be ten (the appeal judgement).

There's a big chunk of stone in a garden about 60 miles from here, and there are 270 names on it. Surely we know which of these 270 were the 49 who travelled on PA103A, and which were the indeterminate number who interlined into Heathrow! Surely the investigators recorded whose luggage had been recovered, and what it looked like, and whose luggage appeared to have vanished!

Why are we not being told exactly who interlined into Heathrow, how many bags each was believed to have checked in, and how many of these bags had not been recovered? We're talking about less than 20 passengers, people!

I can't believe the prosecution didn't bust a gut trying to find that other brown hardshell. If it could have said, here this is, and it belonged to Fraulein Schmidt from Vienna, that could have killed the whole Heathrow theory stone dead. If it could even have enumerated the interline passengers and shown that one or two of them had had luggage that was never recovered, that would have been a plausible alternative explanation (at least, supposing nobody was able to declare that these people had never owned a brown hardshell suitcase....).

But they didn't. Nothing but handwaving about maybe the case ended up in a far corner of the container and maybe it was never recovered. Guys, there should have been plenty evidence available at Dextar to do a hell of a lot better than that!

I'm a bit surprised at the defence though. The defence is entitled to have access to all the evidence the prosecution has access to (apart from PII certificates, but that doesn't cover this aspect). So why don't we hear Mr. Taylor going through each of the interline passengers by name, and asking which one of these might have had a brown hardshell suitcase that was never recovered?

Detailed examination of this small number of passengers, the luggage that was recovered and matched to them, and any suspicion of suitcases that were never found, would have been favourable to somebody's case. So why the complete silence? Maybe this, maybe that - when the answers should have been available!

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

Two things....

This link may provide some info on the interline bags on PA103A. Bolliers' addition shows 136 bags total on PA-103A. 21 bags from PA647 from Berlin, and 4 from PA649 from Berlin. The english part is the bottom half.

It's a bit hard to decipher- if one is not in that business- as an example;

")-piece unaccompanied passenger-bags, (ex PA-637), from the early flight PA-635, + (2) piece, unaccompanied bags, from pilot John Hubbard = (11) piece on-line bags, transfered to Pan-Am, flight ex PA-637/639, coded as inter-line bags by coding-counter no.4 at hall middle (HM), code: (S-0072+Z---11'59-12'00). Rebooked from, (PA-107, off-block), to flight PA-103/A (FRA), to London (LHR), not part of bags transfer to flight PA-103/B to (NY-USA).
+ (1) on-line bag, from feeder-flight PA-643, (TXL)+(PTM), tray no. B-8849, coded as inter-line bag via counter (206,hall,V3), code: (S-0009+ Z---13'07)."


http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/inhalt1.html

It's Bolliers site so be careful! LOL

Secondly, the entire issue of what was 'recovered' and what was not is tainted beyond recognition.

Eyewitnesses have stated unidentified non-Scottish police persons removing evidence, sealing off areas, ripping ID numbers off bodies, (Fieldhouse) etc. There are huge holes concerning evidence recovered after the crash, as regards to proper chain of custody. Unless a piece of evidence was found by police, kept under police watch, not touched with bare hands, and processed by the police in a manner generally accepted by forensic experts, it seriously can not be considered evidence.

So, the fact that the 'second' case was not recovered tells us nothing at all, given security of the objects from the plane had more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[SnidelyW]

Don't want to derail this thread, but can anyone point me to whatever thread discussed Atef Abu Bakr, Youssef Shaaban and details of a Fatah Revolutionary Council meeting in 1989?

Thanks in advance.

 

[SnidelyW]

Snip...
However, I want to mention one particular thing. The positioning of the bomb. We're frequently reminded that it was in the absolutely perfect place to destroy the plane, and we think of that as meaning its position in the container as regards height and closeness to the skin. However there's also the question of the positioning of the container itself.

I was reading the "Plane Truth" web site, which is just one more guy with a kooky theory, a book he'd like you to buy about it, and a badly-designed web site. However, on this page he has an interesting point I don't think I've seen discussed elsewhere, and which I don't think he himself quite appreciates.

He points out that the plane came apart vertically pretty much at the level of the bomb. He compares this to other incidents where the side of a plane has been blown out, and the plane has landed safely. He is postulating, with some reasonable evidence I think, that the 747 had a structural weakness at that level, which was where two large sections were joined during construction. Thus an explosion at this level caused the thing to break apart exactly as Maid of the Seas did, with the nose section becoming completely detached.

Jibril's group were responsible for a failed bombing in the past, where a plane landed safely with a hole blown out of a baggage compartment. Suppose they (or any bomber, really, but Jibril had the form) had realised about the weakness in the 747 and was looking for a way to get the bomb right at the section 41/42 fuselage join?

snip...

As I pointed out in an earlier post, if someone was in a position to examine the structural integrity of the aircraft, basic research on it would have revealed;

Aircraft Specific Modifications - N739PA differed in that it had received CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) Modifications. This enabled it to carry special freight containers in the rear in place of passenger seating. CRAF modification involves changing the flooring along with the addition of a rear cargo hatch and heavy duty floor beams with a more substantial cross section that that of a standard 747-121. Effectively making N739PA stronger than the average Boeing 747."¹
So, one would think THIS particular aircraft would have been avoided as it may have been LESS likely to break up as a result of a bomb blast.

1. http://www.justiceforlockerbie.com/n739pa/

 

[Caustic Logic]

Don't want to derail this thread, but can anyone point me to whatever thread discussed Atef Abu Bakr, Youssef Shaaban and details of a Fatah Revolutionary Council meeting in 1989?

Thanks in advance.

Previously, the original (general) thread is where to discuss things that don't have their own.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85523&page=1

 

[Caustic Logic]

Awesome finds, Buncrana! If only I'd waited to rewrite my Scots-German War posts. Since they all go together, here are those links:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-did-british-know.html
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-did-germans-know.html


A few points here that pop out.

A report from Bonn suggested British investigators had told the West German foreign intelligence service that they believed the explosives were planted in a passage under the flight deck rather than in the forward baggage hold as previously suggested.

I never heard that little theory. Very interesting addition. I hear Jan 6 was the same day they said the bomb was "at least 66 pounds," which somehow also equalled Heathrow intro. Not the best kind of arguments to be making.

February 17, 1989, Friday

Police investigating the Lockerbie air disaster believe that the device that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 was hidden in a radio cassette player which "the balance of probability" suggests was in luggage originating at Frankfurt in West Germany.

That was disclosed in a briefing yesterday by Detective Superintendent John Orr,

I had March 28, LICC memo for Orr using that phrase. Maybe twice, or another of Leppard's ubiquitous little mistakes. But we know that this speculation was based on very little - all the damaged luggage but one they IDENTIFIED (were they stalling one some?) was from Frankfurt. And the container clues suggesting 2nd level placement. But suddenly a tentative statement like that, coming from investigators, becomes "Device 'Did Come From Frankfurt'" at its most potent spot - summed up in a simple headline seen by millions.

Will come back to your post above that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Ok, either I'm easily confused, or simply some of this stuff is upside-down, back-to-front, flip-flopped and inside out!

Originally Posted by Appeal Judgement, para183
[...]Given the evidence of forensic scientists that the primary suitcase was not, at the time of the explosion, on the floor of the container, and was probably resting on top of an American Tourister case which had arrived from Frankfurt on PA103A, the next stage of the argument was that there had been a rearrangement of the suitcases in the container after it left the interline shed.
What? Eh? Hold on a minute.

So, the possible and probable rearrangement of container 4041, a premise the judges founded upon, would allow baggage that had arrived from Frankfurt to be on the bottom layer of the luggage stack in 4041 (which is totally at odds from what we're led to believe was the reasoning for determining 'on balance' the bomb must have arrived from 103A as the explosion occurred above the bottom layer!), but not that baggage from Heathrow could therefore just as easily be placed on the second layer?!!?

Yes. If you were in charge of security in London at the time you'd understand anything above a certain level (the floor) is probably from Frankfurt. Probably means definitely, and why the hell won't they admit it?

I've given some thought to rearrangement and decided that "random" isn't the right word. There will be patterns and tendencies, but complex, interacting, and hard to predict. Impossible to predict with certainty. FWIW.

Originally Posted by Appeal Judgement, para 185
[…] The absence of recovery of fragments of a second brown Samsonite type case confirmed there must have been a rearrangement.
The absence of another Samsonite could surely simply indicate that, as Bedford himself did state, he saw ONE Samsonite and another case case of similar variety and colour. Perhaps the other one wasn't exactly a Samsonite, thereby resulting in only the remnants of one being recovered from 103's debris??

We could test that. Check the damaged luggage and see if there's a Samsonite-ish bag of a color similar to brown. Depending how we define ish and similar will vary the results. I've got a full list from RARDE's report, will look into it.

We are to believe only one Samsonite carried the bomb device and John Bedford is the only witness who can positively identify one Samsonite, possibly two, but also possibly another case that was similar but not Samsonite, at any of the airports involved in the apparent scenic journey taken by this bomb laden Samsonite suitcase.

If Bedford's testimony is accepted, as it seemingly was at Zeist, then the most blindingly obvious conclusion, given that only remnants of one case were recovered, then surely, er, on balance, Bedford was possibly mistaken about it being two Samsonite's, and it was actually only the one, which in-turn is therefore the most prospective candidate as containing the device?

I can see focusing on the one bag (whichever it was, perhaps the left one) and not the other, at least for reasons of keeping it simpler. But we need to be clear on the evidence. They were both "hard cases, the type Samsonite make," but otherwise not necessarily similar to each other or the IED case. It's fairly vague. He's not even sure of the actual brand on either. The color "brown" or "maroony brown" for one, and either "similar" or "the same" for the other. So we'd have to define similar tightly, with the one's shade of brown being the big variable.

And then we can speculate that he was mistaken, and either doubled his memory or merged two different bags into similar. It's certainly possible. The brain is mysterious.

If there were two, Could one case be moved to a far corner and the other moved aside for Noonan's case, then put on top? Are we even sure that case WAS beneath the bomb bag? Why did Dr. Hayes miss those blue flecks form it stuck on PI/911 the first time around, when he decided this piece of "primary case" was in fact from the case beneath the bomb? Changed his mind when he noticed the blue flecks and was converted.

Is it possible for a suitcase to effectively disappear if it holds a blast? Not really disappear, but be reduced to pebbles or 1/4" sheets of melted plastic that would drift to the north Sea or that searches would walk right past? To me that's an interesting question.

But I'll drop it there, and of course none of that changes that no one else has a good explanation for what happened to the suitcase he saw, aside from blowing up.