Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[LittleSwan]

For real?

Yes, unfortunately I can't prove it without doing some experiments.

My working assumption was that Claiden was an honest investigator. I'm prepared to swallow the possibility of Feraday and/or Hayes being involved in something a bit shady towards the end of 1989, but this is a different kettle of fish. This is an AAIB investigator. How is it possible that he could either be so mistaken (if it's as clear cut as you suggest), or deliberately mislead the inquiry at such an early stage?

To my opinion there are only two problems with Claiden, Hayes, Feraday, Marquise etc.
1)They are all "confirmation biased"
2)They are screwed by the CIA.

ETA: What's your take on the horizontal position? Do you think it was actually in the overhang, as Claiden suggests, or could it have been a couple of inched into the main body of the container? For what it's worth, I always thought the position of the explosion was pretty much where the German sketch dated 7th January 1989 put it

I don't have a problem with the horizontal position (2 inch to the left in the overhang). The vertical position (13 inch above the floor panel) is guesswork. There is no strong support (experimental data, pictures taken at Indian Head) for this position. As I said before, the 13 inch is to high to get fragmentation of the extrusion.

What do you reckon? Ruled out by the Mach Stem calculations if you do them right? Has anyone done them right?

I really don't know. Mach Stem calculations are not my core bussiness

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, unfortunately I can't prove it without doing some experiments.

Tricky, in that case.

To my opinion there are only two problems with Claiden, Hayes, Feraday, Marquise etc.
1)They are all "confirmation biased"
2)They are screwed by the CIA.

The problem with this is that the investigation went pear-shaped in January 1989, when Orr decided to ignore the Bedford suitcase. Why would anyone be confirmation biassed that early in a major operation? And do you really think the CIA were leaning on him to ignore that suitcase, right from virtually the start of the investigation?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems implausible to me. CIA pressure seems to me the least likely explanation for Orr's behaviour.

I don't have a problem with the horizontal position (2 inch to the left in the overhang). The vertical position (13 inch above the floor panel) is guesswork. There is no strong support (experimental data, pictures taken at Indian Head) for this position. As I said before, the 13 inch is to high to get fragmentation of the extrusion.

Bear in mind that the figure they settled on was actually 10 inches, not 13 inches. Do you still think that's too high?

I have a problem with the 2 inches into the overhang, based on the geometry of the suitcases. Bear in mind that we know for certain that the bomb suitcase was loaded flat with its handle to the back of the container. And that Sidhu's evidence shows it was on the bottom layer. It's not impossible the side of the case slid up into the overhang area, but it's still a very weird position. Especially considering the way the Coyle case (on top of it) was also blasted to bits.

I really don't know. Mach Stem calculations are not my core bussiness

I'm not even sure what they are, so you're probably ahead of me.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

Tricky, in that case

.

Yes... don't try this at home

The problem with this is that the investigation went pear-shaped in January 1989, when Orr decided to ignore the Bedford suitcase. Why would anyone be confirmation biassed that early in a major operation?

I'm not saying they were confirmation biased in january 1989. They certainly were biased at the trial in Zeist

And do you really think the CIA were leaning on him to ignore that suitcase, right from virtually the start of the investigation?

No, but it seems obvious that the CIA was removing and placing pieces of evidence at the crash site at a very early stage of the investigation. If forensic scientists are dealing with tampered evidence without knowing it, you can say they are screwed.

Bear in mind that the figure they settled on was actually 10 inches, not 13 inches. Do you still think that's too high?

No, it was 10 inch above the floorpanel of AVN7511 and 13 inch above the floorpanel of AVE4041. AVN7511 is made of fibreglass and its floor is 3 inch thick.

I have a problem with the 2 inches into the overhang, based on the geometry of the suitcases. Bear in mind that we know for certain that the bomb suitcase was loaded flat with its handle to the back of the container. And that Sidhu's evidence shows it was on the bottom layer. It's not impossible the side of the case slid up into the overhang area, but it's still a very weird position. Especially considering the way the Coyle case (on top of it) was also blasted to bits.

If the primary suitcase was on the bottom layer with the IED in the base of the container (t.i. not in the overhang) a little to the right of the extrusion, the extrusion would be blasted away in a different manner. In this case the centre of the explosion was above the extrusion, not next to it. See for a picture: archives.syr.edu/panam/images/ead/12-1488.jpg

 

[Albazeera]

I had a look through this thread and found it quite interesting particularly Buncrana's post of the 23/10/12 which cast further doubt on the authenticity of Hayes "discovery" of PT35a & b on the 15/5/89. It is a pity that the actual statement of the SCCRC's document examiner is not in the public domain as even the SCCRC's report indicates serious irregularities in the ESDA tests.

I first read Leppard's book in early 1993 having started to research the career and activities of the late Ian Spiro. (I was intrigued by a comment in the epilogue of the paperback edition of Con Coughlin's "Hostage" of "wild allegations" Spiro betrayed the travel plans of the US agents who perished at Lockerbie.) However it was not until 1996 that the penny dropped.

Incidentally I never wrote to the Met about this. I was corresponding with Sir Teddy Taylor who sent one of my letters (concerning the Heathrow origin)to the Met. who replied to Sir Teddy that this had been refuted "beyond doubt." It would have been obvious from the address on my letter that I was not Sir Teddy's constituent.

 

[Rolfe]

Hi Baz! Welcome to the forum.

I was only guessing about the exact circumstances of your letter to Teddy. The main interest in that is the content of the reply, which is fairly startling. The Heathrow ingestion theory is described as an "allegation", which is odd for a start. Then the letter goes on to describe an investigation carried out by the Met on behalf of the D&G, which proved beyond doubt that this was not the case.

There was no such investigation. Why was someone in the Met's anti-terrorism branch telling lies to an MP?

If the Bedford suitcase had been competently investigated and ruled out as the bomb suitcase in 1989, then the results of that investigation would have been presented in court in 2000 for everyone to see and understand. They weren't, because it wasn't. All we had was a desperate "nothing to see here folks, hey look at that computer printout from Frankfurt!"

Yes it is pretty clear from Leppard's book that the Bedford suitcase was the bomb and that Orr made a colossal blunder. However, I simply don't know what any member of the public could possibly have done in 1993 or 1996 to induce the authorities to take that observation seriously.

Now, however, things are a little different.

Rolfe.

ETA: If you want to go into your thing about Ian Spiro in more detail, would it be worth starting a dedicated thread? It's not something I've ever really followed, and it might be interesting. But it doesn't fit well into any of the already-open threads.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not saying they were confirmation biased in january 1989. They certainly were biased at the trial in Zeist.

I think that is the important distinction. At Zeist, they had to go with what they were given, which was a case that the bomb had travelled from Malta. So the Heathrow evidence had to be fudged and obfuscated and glossed over to obscure the evidence of the bomb going on there.

However, why was the Heathrow evidence fudged and obfuscated and glossed over in the first half of 1989? It's not at all obvious why an inquiry would want to ignore what looks like an absolutely stellar lead, at a time when they had not yet fixed on any definite theory of what had happened.

No, but it seems obvious that the CIA was removing and placing pieces of evidence at the crash site at a very early stage of the investigation. If forensic scientists are dealing with tampered evidence without knowing it, you can say they are screwed.

In what way is it "obvious"? Which pieces of evidence are you referring to? I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because Thurman was there from the earliest days and that has to be a red flag, but I don't know of any definite evidence that this happened.

I exclude here the matter of the contents of McKee's suitcase, which certainly were removed and replaced (probably with something different). However, I'm not persuaded that had anything to do with the investigation. It seems likely that the CIA was anxious to recover the contents of the case and prevent them falling into the hands of the Scotish police, or anyone else for that matter.

No, it was 10 inch above the floorpanel of AVN7511 and 13 inch above the floorpanel of AVE4041. AVN7511 is made of fibreglass and its floor is 3 inch thick.

That's the first I've heard of that interpretation. Claiden seems pretty clear that he's talking about ten inches above the floor of AVE4041. That's the way the measurement is presented in the diagram in the AAIB report.

If the primary suitcase was on the bottom layer with the IED in the base of the container (t.i. not in the overhang) a little to the right of the extrusion, the extrusion would be blasted away in a different manner. In this case the centre of the explosion was above the extrusion, not next to it. See for a picture: archives.syr.edu/panam/images/ead/12-1488.jpg

I'm not getting that link I'm afraid.

Bear with me here. Can we regard this as the second-last chapter in an Agatha Christie? I'm Poirot, and I'm telling you that my little grey cells have deduced that the bomb suitcase was definitely the one on the bottom of the left-hand stack. That is, it was the Bedford suitcase, which was not moved by any of the baggage handlers (though it might have shifted to the left and partly into the overhang section during the flight).

Can you definitely prove it wasn't?

Think about the geometry of the base of the container, and what we know about the bomb suitcase.

We know the bomb suitcase was loaded flat, with the handle to the back of the container. We know that because the lock of the case was found blasted into one of the cases that was in the row at the back, and pieces of the hinge side were found in the luggage in AVN7511. Also, the state of the Coyle case shows it was lying flat against the bomb suitcase when the explosion happened, and that arrangement can only be achieved by both cases lying flat, one on top of the other.

We also know the explosion was very much to the left-hand side of the area that would be occupied by a flat-loaded suitcase, even allowing for a fair bit of wiggle-room. That means that the radio-cassette player was packed down the side of the case that was furthest to the left. Even so, the Semtex was inside the radio, and the radio was in its box, and the box appears to have been wrapped in the blue Babygro, and all that was inside the case. The Semtex must have been at least an inch or two inside the case.

How do you get the explosion so far to the left? Another point to consider is the pretty complete disintegration of both the bomb suitcase and the Coyle case. In neither case (especially the Coyle case) is there any sign that the explosion was in fact so very asymmetrical - though clearly it must have been.

The prosecution favoured the idea that the bomb suitcase was on the second layer, and had been pushed as far to the left as it would go, into the overhang. However, that doesn't fly very well, as that is not how the cases were loaded. The cases in that stack were dressed to the right, against the right-hand stack, which was itself built against the vertical right-hand wall of the container. This left the overhang area clear for holdalls and small stuff. A very wide case might protrude like that, but the bomb suitcase wasn't unduly wide, and there's no more likelihood of it protruding into the overhang on the second layer than on the bottom.

While it is possible that the whole stack shifted to the left in-flight, elevating the left-hand side of the bomb suitcase (bottom layer), I have serious doubts about the explosion really being into the overhang. I have read something about a suggestion that the pieces of the extrusion actually weren't put together the right way. I think Keen suggested this in court.

Any thoughts about all this?

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

In what way is it "obvious"? Which pieces of evidence are you referring to? I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because Thurman was there from the earliest days and that has to be a red flag, but I don't know of any definite evidence that this happened.

You're right. I wasn't there in decembre 1988. However, there are indications that the chain of custody was broken from the very start of the investigation.

That's the first I've heard of that interpretation.

Claiden seems pretty clear that he's talking about ten inches above the floor of AVE4041. That's the way the measurement is presented in the diagram in the AAIB report.

A Inside the container.
Perhaps -- I would like to point out that there is a slight diagrammatic error in this report.
Q Yes. What's that?
A It refers back to figure F 10, and a dimension in that figure of ten inches.
Q Yes.
A The ten-inch dimension is actually from [1537] the top of that container base to the point
in the hole, as indicated. And that figure was drawn incorrectly there, but it got transposed
onto figure F 13. So the ten-inch dimension in figure F 13 should actually have been nearer 13 inches.

…..

Q And if you could look again at figure F 13 in your report, 137.
A Yes.
Q And on this we can see the measurements of ten inches which you took up from the base of the container. [1615]
A As I've explained, that on this diagram was an error, and that should be nearer 13 or 13 and a half.

….

Q May we see figure F 10, image FF 10 in the present production, please.
491
Now, is this the diagram to which you drew attention just a moment ago, Mr. Claiden?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, we see a depiction in the upper part of the photograph of the fibreglass container,
do we?
A Yes, indeed. It's another sketch.
Q And do we see it drawn sitting on its base?
A Yes, you do.
Q And there is a measurement of ten inches present within the diagram?
A Yes, there is. And it is as drawn from the wrong datum. The ten inches refers to the height of that cross, which is -- I wouldn't say an arbitrary position, but it's just a reference position for the [1548] hole. And that is meant to be ten inches from the top surface of the base, not the lower surface.
Q I see.
A And that's the error I managed to allow into the report.
Q So if we ignored the base of the container, what would the effect be on the ten inches?
A Well, the ten inches would be from the floor, as it sits in the court, to a position indicated by that cross.
Q Yes. But, of course, if we understand that in the aircraft the container would sit on its base, then we should take account of that?
A Yes, we should.
Q What would the height then be from the base of the container to the cross?
A Well, the base of the container, I think is three and a half inches thick. And so we add that to the ten, so it would be 13 and a half inches.

Bear with me here. Can we regard this as the second-last chapter in an Agatha Christie? I'm Poirot, and I'm telling you that my little grey cells have deduced that the bomb suitcase was definitely the one on the bottom of the left-hand stack. That is, it was the Bedford suitcase, which was not moved by any of the baggage handlers (though it might have shifted to the left and partly into the overhang section during the flight).

Can you definitely prove it wasn't?

Ehhh.... no.
I go for the "third possible position" in John Ashtons book (Appendix 2) with the blue tourister on top of the bomb suitcase.

.... Another point to consider is the pretty complete disintegration of both the bomb suitcase and the Coyle case. ....

There is no correlation between the number of fragments found and the degree of desintegration. It is possible that for example 70-90% of both suitcases survived the explosion, but that only 10-20% was found.

 

[Buncrana]

Happy new year y'all...it's great to see some new faces!

Just a quick point, but Rolfe did you see the photos of McKee's suitcase (p.298 SCCRC Report) and the damage sustained? The damage seems consistent with it being positioned as you've previously suggested: pulled to the front and laid flat to the right of Bedfords bag.

Positioned as suggested, flat and handle facing to the rear - as Bedfords bag was also - then the damage to its left side, nearest the bomb suitcase, would also seem consistent with the alternative orientation inside Bedfords suitcase.

Perhaps the most damning is, aside from the photos of his damaged suitcase and its locale, is the sketching of the damage: quite clearly this illustrates the damage from a much better perspective. The damage is clearly on the left-corner and on its UNDERSIDE - if we take the positioning of the cases as we suggest.

Hardly damage to a suitcase one would expect from explosive forces that have originated above it on the secord layer of luggage.

Ms. Coyles and Mr Carlssons would be most exposed to the immediate force of the explosion, being in contact above and directly behind respectively, and the bomb placement being on the extreme left-side of Bedfords case. The clothes packed down the other side would provide some resistance and Mc(ee's bag, while suffering damage at the point in contact, was not devastated in the manner of the other two.

McKee's bag also appears somewhat darker than i'd imagined: dark silver/blue.

 

[Rolfe]

You're right. I wasn't there in decembre 1988. However, there are indications that the chain of custody was broken from the very start of the investigation.

I think we need to be more specific about this. If there was a planned effort to subvert the investigation in a particular direction by planting evidence at such an early stage, that has significant implications for the wider theories about what the hell was going on.

It's one thing to speculate that the Scottish investigators were trying to fudge the position of the explosion to absolve the Bedford suitcase. That could be explained by a desire to keep control of the investigation (not lose it to the Met), or a desire to get the blame for the insecurity landed on Germany. Postulating that the CIA or someone was planting evidence at that stage is a whole other ball game though.

What exactly makes you think they were doing that? Apart from the egregious Thurman's presence on the scene, that is.

[Snip extract from the transcript.]

I may have been misunderstanding that part of the conversation. I think this is being fudged every which way in court and even prior to that. If you put that 13.5-inch measurement accurately into the diagram from the AAIB report, it wouldn't match up with the defect in the skin of the plane at all. Anyone else want to comment on this?

Ehhh.... no.
I go for the "third possible position" in John Ashtons book (Appendix 2) with the blue tourister on top of the bomb suitcase.

Me too. I don't have the book here (I'm at work), but I think I know which diagram you mean. That's my conclusion also, and I'm pretty firm on it. Little grey cells, and all that. I just need to know how it fits with the alleged position of the explosion.

Ashton's position 1 isn't in the frame at all. The suitcase couldn't have been in that position based on where the lock and the bits of hinge end were found. Ashton was too damn fixated on Khaled Jaafar's luggage to analyse the baggage evidence in as much detail as he should have done.

There is no correlation between the number of fragments found and the degree of desintegration. It is possible that for example 70-90% of both suitcases survived the explosion, but that only 10-20% was found.

I take your point, but I'm referring to the absence of any indication, in terms of the bits that were found, that the explosion was very much at one end of the case. Both cases, in fact.

If you take the prosecution preferred position, with the Coyle case on the bottom and flat on the floor (Ashton's position 2 I think), then the bomb suitcase on top with the left side pushed into the overhang, the explosion doesn't even line up with the case - it's off one corner. I find it very hard to see how that case could have been so comprehensively wrecked with that relative positioning. Bear in mind the wire or metal stiffening frane was recovererd and had been completely blasted off the cloth, all round.

I think that explosion was perhaps in the main volume of the container, and maybe someone put the bits back together not quite right or something.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Happy new year y'all...it's great to see some new faces!

Just a quick point, but Rolfe did you see the photos of McKee's suitcase (p.298 SCCRC Report) and the damage sustained? The damage seems consistent with it being positioned as you've previously suggested: pulled to the front and laid flat to the right of Bedfords bag.

Positioned as suggested, flat and handle facing to the rear - as Bedfords bag was also - then the damage to its left side, nearest the bomb suitcase, would also seem consistent with the alternative orientation inside Bedfords suitcase.

Perhaps the most damning is, aside from the photos of his damaged suitcase and its locale, is the sketching of the damage: quite clearly this illustrates the damage from a much better perspective. The damage is clearly on the left-corner and on its UNDERSIDE - if we take the positioning of the cases as we suggest.

Hardly damage to a suitcase one would expect from explosive forces that have originated above it on the secord layer of luggage.

Ms. Coyles and Mr Carlssons would be most exposed to the immediate force of the explosion, being in contact above and directly behind respectively, and the bomb placement being on the extreme left-side of Bedfords case. The clothes packed down the other side would provide some resistance and Mc(ee's bag, while suffering damage at the point in contact, was not devastated in the manner of the other two.

McKee's bag also appears somewhat darker than i'd imagined: dark silver/blue.

I haven't got that far yet. I need to concentrate more on that report. I fear I gave up on it last year at an early stage when it seemed to be saying little of relevance, and I didn't understand how they found 117 to have been taken in May 89.

I didn't know they had that production image of McKee's case with the arrows on it. I've been wanting that.

Bear in mind that McKee's case was supposed to have been in the row on the back. If it was never moved it could quite conceivably have been the one sitting upright next to the Carlsson case - or a place or two further to the right in the row. That would put it side-on to the explosion in much the same way as it would have been if it had been the right-hand Bedford case.

That's why I wasn't totally gagging for the image, because I thought it was likely that the direction of the blast in reference to the suitcase might have been similar for either positioning, so making it impossible to tell. It could easily have been blasted from the bottom if it had been in the back row. If the direction of the blast really does favour a position in the back row, then we need to look elsewhere for the identity of the right-hand Bedford case. I then wonder about Gannon's dark blue case.

I do think, though, that Bedford's description of that case as being very similar to the left-hand one, and we all know what the damn left-hand one was I think, makes it most likely to have been McKee's Samsonite hardshell. I know it was noted as being dark grey in colour.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know if this is a syllogism or not, but here goes.

• If Sidhu didn't move the Bedford suitcase, it was the bomb
• Sidhu said (four times) that he didn't move the Bedford suitcase
• Therefore, unless Sidhu was grossly mistaken or lying in his teeth for no discernible reason, the Bedford suitcase was the bomb.

What might lead us to the conclusion that Sidhu must have been either grossly mistaken or lying in his teeth? Only the demonstration, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for a suitcase loaded as Bedford described that suitcase to be loaded, to have been the locus of the explosion.

I don't think that can be done, but I'm interested in LittleSwan's take on it.

I'm also interested in the extreme left-hand location of the explosion, as estimated by Claiden, in the context of the bomb suitcase having been either of the two flat-loaded cases (bottom or second layer), and in the context of the extent of the damage to the structure of the aircraft as it appears on the AAIB diagram.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I've looked at the pictures of that case, and I'll tell you what, if it was still where Bedford put it when the bomb went off (that is, in the row on the back), the bomb suitcase was definitely on the floor of the container. (You know, I'm rather going off the idea of the right-hand Bedford case being that one.... )

Since we pretty much know what the order of the cases at the back was, putting them back in that order would be pretty revealing about how high up the explosion was. I wonder why nobody did that? That we know about, of course.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Oh, you have have you?!

I see what you're saying about the damage to McKee's case if they remained in the same positions we think is suggested by arrival times, loaders usual methods and the reconstructions carried-out in Jan 89.

So, what's your thoughts now? Was the other case on the floor another put there by the bomber - so, whoever they were introduced two illigitimate suitcases?

Or do you think the 'other' Bedford case was another one of the legitimate suitcases the Bedford loaded before going on his break?....Mr Carlsson's perhaps?

It certainlyy seems as though his 'grey Presikhaff' was pretty badly damaged. Perhaps, in order of levels of damage, third behind the primary suitcase itself and Ms Coyle's.

 

[Rolfe]

[Sorry, this was actually a cross-post, but I seem to have answered your questions anyway!]

Having digested the appearance of McKee's Samsonite, I think I must give up the theory that it was the second Bedford suitcase. The pattern of damage is far more consistent with its having been in the row at the back, than flat alongside the bomb suitcase. It's a pity, in a way, because it solved the conundrum of that second case rather neatly, being such a close visual match for the bomb suitcase. However, we have to go with the evidence.

Nevertheless, leaving aside the identity of the second flat case for the moment, the appearance of that grey Samsonite is absolutely damning to the "bomb-on-second-layer" theory. I can't get the images into the thread from this computer, but I mean, look at it!

http://www.megrahiyouaremyjury.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SCCRC-Statement-of-Reasons-red-pt3.pdf

Page 156 of this pdf, page 298 of the actual document. Hayes's drawing is jaw-dropping. The photograph, taken to highlight the hole beside the lock, doesn't show it so well, but in conjunction with the drawing it's still perfectly clear. This case was upright, handle up, in the row behind the bomb suitcase, and the explosion was at floor level. It's a complete slam-dunk.

In fact, if I had noticed this a few months ago (silly, silly me!) I'd have included that in the "allegations" document submitted to the D&G. It's stunningly obvious.

We're running out of options for the second Bedford suitcase, but I still think it has to be one of the six legitimate Heathrow interline items. We can rule out the Carlsson case, because that was definitely on the left-hand end of the row and right behind the bomb. We can rule out both McKee cases, because the Samsonite seems definitely to have been in the row at the back as explained above, and the Tourister didn't sustain sufficient damage as far as I can see. It wasn't actually damaged at all by the explosion, just showing "explosives contamination". Surely the second Bedford case would have been damaged down its left-hand side?

We can rule out Bernstein's smaller case, because it totally wasn't a visual match for the bomb suitcase, being a sort of tan check. We can also rule out whichever of his cases had the bomb suitcase lock embedded in it, but I don't know which one that was. Could have been the smaller one again.

Gannon's blue Samsonite is still available, as is Bernstein's maroon suit carrier unless that was the one the lock was found in. Both were Samsonite brand, but both were soft-sided. The damage to Gannon's case is described in the Zeist transcript - "The distribution of the explosion damage is "rather peripheral" and there is no suggestion that this case was in contact with or in very close proximity to the improvised explosive device case."

I'm not sure about that. If the bomb suitcase had indeed slipped to the left, the right-hand flat case might have been shielded from the explosion to some extent, perhaps by the Coyle case. Bear in mind the Semtex was in the far end of the bomb suitcase from the end that was alongside the right-hand case. I'd very much like to see a photograph of Gannon's case.

Bernstein's maroon case is also possible, and although it was also a softshell, it was a maroon Samsonite so again it might have been a decent visual match for the bomb suitcase. It's usually described as a "suit carrier" though, not a suitcase as such. I don't have a description of the damage it sustained, except that I think it was recovered in two pieces.

Still, the right-hand case was something. No doubt it will become clear as more detail emerges. What is certainly clear now is that the condition of McKee's case again proves the explosion was on the bottom layer. It's so obvious, I just can't see how the forensics guys and/or the cops didn't draw that conclusion.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I've also been reading the SCCRC's conclusions about the hole in the case, and I find myself agreeing with them.

Although the luggage reconciliation lists record McKee's cases as being a grey Samsonite hardshell and a grey American Tourister hardshell, the two cases look virtually identical in the photographs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were actually a matching pair. The hole in the damaged case is in exactly the same position as the combination lock of the undamaged case. It's not a very big hole, and it seems senseless for anyone to have cut such a thing to gain access to the case, when the case had a dirty great blast hole in one corner.

I think the SCCRC are right. The hole is unsuspicious. It's a hole cut when the case was manufactured, in order to fit a combination lock. The lock has been dislodged and blown out of position by the explosion, and left the neatly-cut hole visible. And the rest of their findings suggest that the important papers were removed from the case and its mate by the police, at the request of the US authorities, while the stuff was at Dextar. Without cutting any pointless little rectangular holes.

And Hayes is an idiot. His description of that lot seems grossly suspicious, but it's not really suspicious at all. A little bit of further thought, such as the SCCRC applied to it, would have cleared the whole thing up.

So, exit one "definite" example of evidence being tampered with by the CIA. In fact it was our only example. Hanlon, again.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here are the pictures in question, extracted from the SCCRC report.

I don't think there's any doubt at all. Bomb on floor of container, case closed.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

I have a problem with the 2 inches into the overhang, based on the geometry of the suitcases. Bear in mind that we know for certain that the bomb suitcase was loaded flat with its handle to the back of the container. And that Sidhu's evidence shows it was on the bottom layer. It's not impossible the side of the case slid up into the overhang area, but it's still a very weird position. Especially considering the way the Coyle case (on top of it) was also blasted to bits.

Me too. I don't have the book here (I'm at work), but I think I know which diagram you mean. That's my conclusion also, and I'm pretty firm on it. Little grey cells, and all that. I just need to know how it fits with the alleged position of the explosion.

If the primary suitcase was in the "third possible position" the suitcase was not lying completely flat and the IED was positioned a few inches into the overhang, directly above the extrusion. I don't understand why you consider this position as the most favourable one, while you are having a problem with the two inches into the overhang.

I don't know if this is a syllogism or not, but here goes.
If Sidhu didn't move the Bedford suitcase, it was the bomb
Sidhu said (four times) that he didn't move the Bedford suitcase
Therefore, unless Sidhu was grossly mistaken or lying in his teeth for no discernible reason, the Bedford suitcase was the bomb.
What might lead us to the conclusion that Sidhu must have been either grossly mistaken or lying in his teeth? Only the demonstration, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for a suitcase loaded as Bedford described that suitcase to be loaded, to have been the locus of the explosion.

If the Bedford suitcase was the bomb and nobody moved it, it has never been lying (completely) flat on the floor of the container. I don't believe it has moved by itself with so many suitcases on top of it.

Having digested the appearance of McKee's Samsonite, I think I must give up the theory that it was the second Bedford suitcase. The pattern of damage is far more consistent with its having been in the row at the back, than flat alongside the bomb suitcase. It's a pity, in a way, because it solved the conundrum of that second case rather neatly, being such a close visual match for the bomb suitcase. However, we have to go with the evidence.

Although the quality of the pictures is terrible, I'm not convinced this suitcase is explosion damaged. I don't see any sooting, burn marks, small puncture holes, craters, etc.

 

[LittleSwan]

I don't think there's any doubt at all. Bomb on floor of container, case closed.

Rolfe.

Well, we don't have a picture of the other side.

 

[Rolfe]

If the primary suitcase was in the "third possible position" the suitcase was not lying completely flat and the IED was positioned a few inches into the overhang, directly above the extrusion. I don't understand why you consider this position as the most favourable one, while you are having a problem with the two inches into the overhang.

Sorry, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I think that is the most probable position if Claiden's estimated position of the explosion (two inches into the overhang) is correct. I still think it's a stretch to get the explosion so far to the left whichever way you slice it.

If the Bedford suitcase was the bomb and nobody moved it, it has never been lying (completely) flat on the floor of the container. I don't believe it has moved by itself with so many suitcases on top of it.

It's a pity nobody ever asked Bedford whether that suitcase was absolutely flat when he saw it, or whether it was partly into the overhang. While the case in the equivalent position in the BBC mock-up photo is indeed in the overhang, that's a big, floppy soft-sided case. I'm not that convinced the Silhouette-4000 would have been likely to have been placed like that, as it was less than half the width of the container, and hard-sided. Even if the terrorist had placed it like that, I think it might have looked contrived. But it's possible, certainly.

The weight of the luggage above it is neither here nor there if the plane had banked or hit turbulence in just the right way. The contents of the container could easily become more or less weightless for a second or two.

Although the quality of the pictures is terrible, I'm not convinced this suitcase is explosion damaged. I don't see any sooting, burn marks, small puncture holes, craters, etc.

As you say, the quality of the pictures is terrible. Hayes, who actually handled and examined the thing, recorded it as explosion damage. He drew that beautiful arrow indicating the direction he thought the blast had come from. I see no reason to argue with him.

Rolfe.

 

[jargon buster]

And Hayes is an idiot. His description of that lot seems grossly suspicious, but it's not really suspicious at all.

As you say, the quality of the pictures is terrible. Hayes, who actually handled and examined the thing, recorded it as explosion damage. He drew that beautiful arrow indicating the direction he thought the blast had come from. I see no reason to argue with him