• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

I found another absolute howler in Leppard's book, but I can't remember now what it was. However, he's hardly the only one who knew all about Bogomira's computer printout and KM180 and even Tony Gauci, at the end of 1989. Wasn't the Granada documentary, the one they were taken to court over, broadcast about the same time? The cops had been poking around Malta since September, and their cover was blown by November at least. There's a passage in Crawford's book where he describes their fury at the journalist who leaked the news that they were investigating on the island.

So that's nearly a year before the FAI, which kicked off in October 1990. Everybody and his dog knew about Malta by then. But they somehow maintained this fiction in Dumfries that none of that was known, or relevant, or something. John Mowat was too compliant by half.

But of course it was well before that when they got the basics of the Heathrow evidence. By the middle of February they had all they needed to be pretty sure the Bedford bag was it. The thing is, the cops in Lockerbie appear not to have been briefed on the details of Bedford's statement. Nobody who is compiling the baggage reconciliation reports seems to have the foggiest notion there's anything strange about the left-hand front suitcase. I suspect nobody in RARDE knew either. If the cops didn't, why would the forensics people know?

That's two things the rank-and-file coppers weren't told. The other one was about the break-in and Manly's statement. I imagine RARDE didn't know about that either. Someone at the top in Lockerbie (I would imagine John Orr) just sat on that information. Of course he couldn't help Bedford's part coming out at the FAI because Bedford had to be called, but he did get away without calling Manly, because nobody else knew Manly had anything useful to say.

As you say, the Met knew all about it. But it wasn't the Met's inquiry, it was the D&G's. And it's not really correct to say the Met knew all about it. Adrian Dixon and his mates knew all about it, but they were just Met grunts seconded to do the D&G's legwork at Heathrow. They weren't being paid to think about what the baggage handlers were saying to them. They were being paid to write it all down, get the witnesses to agree it was a true record, and get it typed and signed. According to the journalists, there was no love lost between the Met and the D&G over any of this. Imagine if the Met had contacted the D&G and said, hey we think you're missing something here! Diplomatic incident! Even less politic for an ordinary DC to do that. But Dixon probably didn't even think about it. Thinking about something you haven't specifically been told to think about is above the pay grade of a DC.

The exact number of cases in the container is an interesting point. Bedford, Kamboj, Parmar and Sidhu were all over the place on that. Sidhu was saying five at one point. However, five cases can't be arranged in the way they described the arrangement. It has to be at least seven, or the row at the back can't cover the floor of the container. Then on 24th January when they did the reconstructions they all put seven cases in.

What I was failing to take into account was that this was way too early for them to have figured out there should only have been six cases in there. There were 17 interline passengers, with 14 suitcases between them. A surprising eight passengers in that group didn't check in any luggage. I imagine it took them a while to make absolutely sure about that, and rule out any clerical error. They probably figured out about the three items that didn't travel on PA103 quite quickly, as all three showed up elsewhere. I think it took a lot longer to be certain which cases and how many had been loaded separately though. It wasn't just when they arrived, and the general consensus that about five had been loaded in the rear, it was establishing that they'd been found separately on the ground, and didn't have any explosives contamination. It could have been 1990 before Henderson came up with the definite figure of six. By then they were right down the Maltese rabbit hole.

I believe that explains why Orr was talking about seven cases in the container in March 1989. He was going by the January reconstruction evidence, because he didn't know yet about the reconciliation evidence saying six. Of course they did by the time of the FAI, and the findings actually say "six or seven" items in the container, and that's one of the bits where I just want to grab Mowat and give him a good shake - or I would if he was still alive.

I entirely take your point about it being strange that the baggage handlers weren't questioned in more detail - especially Kamboj and Parmar, who seem to have actually been in the shed when the rogue bag was put in the container. Didn't they notice anything? Who knows, because nobody asked them. As I said, I wouldn't die of shock if they were having a bit of a kip. Did you notice, Bedford didn't say which suitcase it was he was describing as brown. He wasn't even asked to clarify that. The earliest I can find anyone asking him that question is at the FAI itself. (And yes, it was the left-hand one.)

It's not the Met or Dixon I blame for this though. It wasn't their inquiry. Grunt coppers just do what they're told to do. They were told to interview these guys, and that was all. They weren't there when the case conferences were held. They wouldn't even know about the position of the explosion or the bomb suitcase being a brown Samsonite. That's Orr's department. They were probably too busy chasing down IRA contacts even to read what Leppard was writing in his posh Sunday broadsheet. They were probably reading the News of the World. When they went back to do the re-interviews, they were just following orders again, continuing to assist the D&G by taking statements. Probably in the run-up to the FAI.

The only evidence that there was anything out of the ordinary at Heathrow was Bedford's and Manly's. The Met officers who knew about that weren't part of the inquiry and weren't a party to the briefings or how the investigation was progressing. The D&G officers who were part of the inquiry didn't know. It's absolutely clear that the information about the front left-hand suitcase having appeared mysteriously and being a brown Samsonite was not shared with the team. Neither was the information about the break-in. Why not? Not because it was so sensitive they didn't want it leaked, that's obvious. It was withheld because it was being covered up.

I'd quite like to know why.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't a dead cert, but it was a plan with a reasonable prospect of success.

Rolfe.

I think that line above cements this entire thread.

So you're the mastermind- how many variables are you willing to stake your success on?
Answer? As few as possible

So, sure, start the journey of your suitcase in Malta, and walk away. Hmmm.
or, PLACE the suitcase in the EXACT SPOT to effect MAX DAMAGE to the EXACT AIRCRAFT you'd like to have drop out of the sky.

Let's see, which one should you choose?
 
I wonder if Orr ever sat back and said to himself; " What is the simplest, most risk averse way to have effected this result?"
 
One of the problems, perhaps, is that Orr was replaced by Henderson (Stuart Henderson, that is, not to be confused with Derek Henderson who did the baggage reconciliation work) at some point during the inquiry, as Senior Investigating Officer. I'm not sure exactly when, but I think it was later than autumn 1989 when the inquiry became fixated on Malta.

It's just occurred to me that if Orr buried these two crucial pieces of evidence, that is Manly's statement about the break-in and the part of Bedford's statement where he talks about the mysterious appearance of the two extra cases and the left-hand one being a brown Samsonite, and buried them early (as I believe he did), it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Henderson didn't know about them.

Nevertheless Bedford's evidence wasn't completely buried and he was reinterviewed in February 1990 when he said it all again and changed his description of the suitcase from brown to maroon, so maybe that doesn't fly so well. Then of course everybody heard all about it in court in October 1990.

I think, though, that Henderson inherited an investigation that was already committed to Malta, and he wasn't about to do a u-turn on that. I've seen him on TV, and I didn't like what I saw. Bull-headed, arrogant, dogmatic and absolutely certain that he is the boss and the rest of us are flies to be swatted away just begins to give the picture.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me that the BKA's idiocy may have done us all a favour here.

Suppose they had come forward with Bogomira's printout when they first received it, at the end of January 1989. Suppose Orr and the rest of them had been aware of the KM180 connection from the beginning of February, which is when the BKA first looked into it. It would have been very much easier for them to have justified brushing aside the Bedford suitcase, because they had this stellar lead to Malta.

OK, we know the Malta connection was tenuous in the extreme, and far far weaker a lead than Bedford's evidence, but at least it was something. If that had been the story, it could have been difficult to see what was going on. Certainly the defence of utter incompetence would have been much easier to sustain.

However, we have that amazing eight-month gap between the Heathrow evidence being plain for anyone to see, and the emergence of the Malta connection. During that time, what the hell were they doing? They were insisting that the bomb must have come in on the feeder flight, on the basis of absolutely spurious reasoning.

That's what makes it possible to understand that there was a specific imperative not to investigate Heathrow. They didn't have anything else, they did have that, and still they ignored it.

Rolfe.
 
I'm not as sure as you, on the face of it, that Orr was the 'big bad bury the evidence guy'. Given the fact that Orr was replaced, and human nature being what it is, could it be possible that Orr misplaced, forgot, or plain witheld the entire Heathrow angle from Henderson?
If Orr didn't have any warning regarding being replaced, perhaps his investigative files weren't as organized as he wanted them to be at the time he was replaced, or in the course of the handover that area of investigation was just plain 'lost'. A bureaucratic error that must happen from time to time, except in this instance, well- it was the death knell of the most crucial of leads.

What do you think?
 
At the risk of moving slightly off the topic of the thread (but, IMO crucial to the direction the discussion is moving), does anyone have any insight into the exact circumstances regarding both the decision to replace Orr, and how the command transition was handled?

I'd be interested in why, when command consistency was crucial, it was upset.
 
I'm not even sure when Orr was replaced. But I know a bunch of guys who will....

Mind you, that stuff was being ignored to Olympic standard between January and March 1989, when it was Orr all the way down.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
I'll need to double-check but I'm pretty sure Henderson was Orr's deputy senior investigating officer from the very beginning of the investiagtion and the hand-over happened during 1990 at some point.
 
I'll need to double-check but I'm pretty sure Henderson was Orr's deputy senior investigating officer from the very beginning of the investiagtion and the hand-over happened during 1990 at some point.

So, wouldn't one keep ones subordinate/deputy fully apprised on the most critical/time sensitive aspects of the case, on an ongoing basis?
 
Naturally, you’d have thought Henderson, being Orr’s deputy, would be fully informed. Henderson strikes you as someone who relishes the spotlight when cracking a few nuts. Orr sent Henderson to Jordan to try to interview Khreesat. Apparently unsuccessfully.

Meanwhile, throughout all this posturing, and the Mets claims that the bomb must have, or on balance, arrived from Frankfurt, as that’s where most of the baggage originated, word about the Autumn Leaves operation and a PFLP cell busted by the German’s is surfacing. ‘Toshiba Radios’, ‘Barometric Timers’ (made only for aircraft use), and there’s also murmurings of a ‘bronze samsonite’ found in the car the bomb-maker, Khreesat, and head of PFLP cell Dalkamouni, were driving when arrested.

Problem being that throughout these claims and counter-claims, if everyone is assuming (which it certainly appears as so) that this group and their bombs had anything to do with PA103 destruction, then Barometric Timers necessitate a Heathrow insertion. Of course, Hayes and Feraday mention something about a dual-trigger switch along the way – with no basis whatsoever – and Bell starts bleating on about how the trigger must have failed on the Frankfurt-leg and began working again after 103 had left Heathrow. In other words desperately reaching for some theory, any theory, that supports Hayes’ and Feradays’ estimation of the explosion height and absolves Heathrow and the Brits from any culpability.

Apparently in February there was a bit of fuss made by Orr about the German’s lack of help regarding the Autumn Leaves Operation – and indeed there appears to some curious uncertainty over photos taken by the BKA of the car and radio bombs recovered with the arrest of the two PFLP members. In fact, there is some discussion among the Met and Scottish detectives that the photos and film provided by the Germans do not correspond with the known dates of the arrest of Khreesat and Dalkamouni, because the photos seem to be missing a ‘bronze samsonite’ in the boot containing the radio that they were led to believe should be there.

But still, despite ‘barometric timers’, 103’s final flight time of 38mins, very low left corner of 4041, and ‘bronze samsonite’, are all banded around......yet no one appears to thinking about John Bedford’s ‘brown Samsonite’ and its mysterious arrival into AVE4041.

And of course no one is told of the break-in at Heathrow’s T3 earlier on 21st Dec.
 
There seems to have been some element of "if the bombers were based in Frankfurt then that must have been the airport the bomb originated from" going on. As if London was too big a trip to take for this purpose.

The stuff about "balance of probabilities" going on before April 1989 is just silly. Orr seems to have thought that because nearly all the blast-damaged luggage they found was Frankfurt transfer stuff, that meant the bomb was too. Actually it means the opposite. At that stage they had 14 Frankfurt items, 1 Heathrow item, and the bomb suitcase. Given the geometry of the loading in that corner of the container, then it's obvious that if the bomb suitcase was the one loaded at Heathrow, then that actually explains a relative dearth of legitimate Heathrow items among the recovered blast-damaged luggage. And never mind that, you don't rule out something as suspicious as what Bedford saw on a mere "balance of probabilities" argument, even one that's a lot better constructed than that.

I think the Indian Head tests were also just a "balance of probability" thing, though a bit more thorough. I see a procession of witnesses saying they believe the bomb suitcase was on the second layer. I do no see anyone asking them, can you conclusively rule out the possibility it was on the bottom layer? I don't think they could.

I also detect signs that the forensics guys were biassed towards finding what the cops wanted them to find. It's not necessarily dishonest. You try to get as much background info as you can to help you interpret your findings, and if the background info is all singing the "second layer" tune, that influences you. If the Indian Head tests had been approached from the position that Orr was baying for BAA's blood because the Bedford suitcase and the break-in were his best leads, I'd take a huge bet that the conclusions from the tests would have been in favour of a bottom-level loading.

I see the same pattern in the height measurements. If you compare the 7th January BKA estimate with the final AAIB estimate, they're not that far apart at all. The main difference is that the AAIB estimate goes further into the overhang area.

sketchpos.jpg


Sure looks like the bottom suitcase to me, at that stage.

twotins.jpg


That one could be either, but it still looks like the bottom one if you just think of it as having slid a bit into the overhang section.

Now, consider. Later in January, Hayes said the explosion was at 18 inches. In Emerson and Duffy's book, published in 1990, when they discuss the Indian Head tests they note the height of the explosion as being 18 to 24 inches. Of course if it had been that high, it would have had to have been a Frankfurt suitcase. And in that case we'd know what the Bedford suitcase was, because it would have been innocent. But it wasn't that high.

The slightly odd thing about the German estimate is that whoever wrote the memo didn't seem to know about the two suitcases at the front. The note says the Heathrow items were in a row at the back, and the explosion was at the front, so it must have been one of the Frankfurt suitcases. It does not appear that they were trying to push the estimate downwards to push the blame to Heathrow.

Anyway, I call shenanigans on all those intervening estimates that were higher than the final one. It looks to me as if they were slanted to fit in with the pressure coming from Lockerbie to implicate a Frankfurt suitcase, but that continued forensic inquiry pressed the conclusion back down to more or less where it had been obvious it was in the first place.

The dual-trigger thing is more of the same. Yes, it's possible Khreesat could have added a wrinkle to count take-offs and only trigger on the second leg. But there's no evidence he did, and nobody ever asked him that as far as I know. It's also possible the PFLP-GC were really aiming to take out a humble anonymous 727 flying from Frankfurt to London carrying mostly local European passengers, but then they thought, here what if the device malfunctions, I know, let's put a luggage tag on it so it'll be transferred to the transatlantic flight in the unlikely event of it not blowing up over Belgium, and give ourselves a second bite at the cherry. But it's all way unlikely in comparison to them simply having gone to Heathrow to get the thing on the transatlantic flight there.

It seems as if any argument that was advanced showing it was possible the device might have come from Frankfurt, even if that was reaching quite a bit, was instantly interpreted as proving it must have come from Frankfurt. As an argument to the BKA saying, look, you're not really off the hook, you still have to keep an open mind about a Frankfurt loading, it was perfectly fine. But that wasn't how it was being used. It was being used to deflect the BKA in their attempts to get the Brits to keep an open mind.

It's one more example of the German cops being pretty stupid. Tepp or someone really needed to grab the British investigators by the short and curlies and say, look, what we're pointing out is that you cannot and should not and must not exclude Heathrow. What are you doing about Heathrow? How can you be so damn sure it wasn't Heathrow? (Then in October and November he asks what the Bedford suitcase turned out to be, and gets the brush-off.) Of course they were hiding stuff of their own (Bogomira's souvenir), but they could have been a lot more forceful about Heathrow needing to be taken seriously.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Apparently in February there was a bit of fuss made by Orr about the German’s lack of help regarding the Autumn Leaves Operation – and indeed there appears to some curious uncertainty over photos taken by the BKA of the car and radio bombs recovered with the arrest of the two PFLP members. In fact, there is some discussion among the Met and Scottish detectives that the photos and film provided by the Germans do not correspond with the known dates of the arrest of Khreesat and Dalkamouni, because the photos seem to be missing a ‘bronze samsonite’ in the boot containing the radio that they were led to believe should be there.


Tell me more about that. I'd heard that Dalkamoni was supposed to have had a brown hardshell suitcase when he arrived in Germany but he didn't have it later, but I'm unfamiliar with what you're saying about it supposedly being in that car the day they found the first bomb.

By the way, another thing I note is that the investigators seem a bit confused about how the barometric triggers work, in the early stages. That newspaper report you found had suggestions that the bomb could have been triggered by the Frankfurt take-off, or even an examination in the pressure chamber at Frankfurt, and still gone off over Lockerbie. It's as if they thought the time delay could be much longer than we know these capacitors were capable of, and they didn't realise that returning the device to sea lever pressure reset it.

Then later, I think it's in Emerson and Duffy, there is a report of a suggestion (I think from Feraday) that the feeder flight might not have made the length of flight at the height necessary to trigger the bomb. Something about the ATC at Frankfurt getting the plane to climb slowly in stages. Of course that was nonsense, and it was contradicted at the trial. The plane only has to go high enough to achieve in-flight cabin pressure, which is about 8 to 10 thousand feet, and there could have been no doubt it did that.

When we were discussing this way back three years ago, we found it difficult to figure out how the damn things worked. There wasn't a clear explanation anywhere, and there were a lot of explanations that were wrong. Here's my current attempt.

The devices operated by means of an aneroid barometer or altimeter, which was set to detect the relatively small drop in internal pressure that occurs in an aircraft in the first few minutes of its ascent. During this time cabin and hold pressure drop to the equivalent of the air pressure encountered at an altitude of about 8,000 feet, which is sufficient to sustain the comfort of mainly sedentary passengers and crew. Once this pressure is reached, about ten minutes after take-off, no further change occurs until the plane is descending towards its destination airport. The barometer would be set to trigger the bomb when the pressure change demonstrated that the aircraft had taken off and was actually in flight.

In their original configuration, these devices were no more sophisticated than that. They were used in this form by the PFLP-GC to attack a number of aircraft during the 1970s. Because the crucial pressure change occurs so early in the flight, the IEDs detonated while the aircraft were still relatively low, and still close to the airport. As a result, explosive decompression did not occur, and in a number of cases the pilots were able to turn back and effect an emergency landing. There was no point in resetting the barometers to a higher altitude, because hold pressure stabilises at about 11 p.s.i. in the early minutes of a flight. The barometers had to be set to trigger before that point, meaning that in practical terms they would trigger about seven minutes after take-off, or not at all.


Then you just add the capacitor delay. The point is, it's the change from sea level to in-flight pressure that triggers the altimeter, and that happens very early in the flight. How high the plane goes after that is irrelevant. It also doesn't help to set the altimeter for a higher altitude, because internal pressure in the plane will never get that low.

You see a lot of discussion about this which doesn't seem to understand that crucial point, and I don't think Feraday got it at first.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting article, which includes the reference to Khreesat's arrest and the questions over the Autumn Leaves photos, sourced via the document viewer:

The Sunday Times said:
The Lockerbie files

SECTION: Features

LENGTH: 7831 words



It was the biggest murder ever committed in Britain. Tomorrow, 21 months after a bomb sent a PanAm jumbo jet plunging into the town of Lockerbie, the public inquiry into the deaths of the 270 victims will open, at last, before John Mowat, sheriff principal of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway. He will hear dozens of witnesses and scrutinise thousands of pages of evidence over the next three months.

Since the bombing, the Lockerbie investigators have probed the depths of terrorism, challenged powerful foreign interests and extended the frontiers of forensic detection. But most of the fruits of this painstaking police investigation will not be presented at the inquiry.

Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate, the law officer leading for the crown at the inquiry, has decided not to present evidence that would cover such questions as how the bomb was put on the plane, who did it, and where. Nor will he introduce evidence uncovered by the extensive international criminal investigation evidence of security lapses at foreign airports and allegations of blunders by foreign police, including a bungle over a baggage loading list that may have enabled one of the terrorists to avoid capture by a matter of hours.


The inquiry is not equipped to probe the obstruction, bureaucracy, rivalry and incompetence that may have shielded the killers from justice. Nor is it able to consider the international political pressures behind the fact that today after an investigation costing Pounds 8.5m not one arrest has been made in direct connection with Lockerbie.

After an INSIGHT inquiry ranging over the whole breadth of police investigations in Britain and Germany, The Sunday Times is able to tell the story that the official inquiry will not hear. It is a story full of questions that the investigators still cannot answer. They may never be resolved.

NOBODY noticed the undercover police officers as they sat in their unmarked cars in a quiet suburban street in the West German city of Neuss. It was Monday, October 24, 1988. Members of the anti-terrorist unit of the federal police the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) were watching a block of grey council flats at 16 Isarstrasse in the city's Arab quarter. Their targets were terrorists belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

This group had been dormant since the early 1970s, when it carried out spectacular attacks on Western airliners. But, alerted by Israeli tip-offs that the group had smuggled weapons into Europe to attack Israeli and American targets, the BKA had begun round-the-clock surveillance of 16 suspects across West Germany. The police called the operation Autumn Leaves.

The Isarstrasse flat belonged to an Arab greengrocer. But the BKA was more interested in his visiting brother-in-law, Hafez Kassem Dalkamoni, 43, and a recently arrived companion, Marwan Abdel Khreesat, also 43.

Dalkamoni was a Syrian terrorist identified by the Israelis as leader of the PFLP-GC's European network. He had been captured by the Israelis after losing a leg during a cross-border raid in 1969 and released 10 years later in a prisoner exchange arranged by Ahmed Jibril, leader of the PFLP-GC.

Officially, the limping, grey-haired Palestinian was in Germany for medical treatment. But the BKA suspected him of smuggling detonators into the country in his artificial leg.

Khreesat's presence was even more alarming to the BKA. He had arrived on October 13 with his wife and two bronze Samsonite suitcases. Inside one, Dalkamoni admitted later, was a black Toshiba ''bombeat 453'' radio cassette recorder. Remains of a similar model were later found among the debris at Lockerbie.

Balding and paunchy, Khreesat seemed typical of the thousands of Arabs who regularly visit the large Middle Eastern community in West Germany. He was silent for most of his stay, rarely leaving his room except to listen to his hosts' young son practising on a small electric piano in the living room. His wife explained that he liked music and that he owned a television repair shop back in Amman.

But Khreesat was no ordinary TV repairman. He was one of the world's most skilled aviation bombers. Italian secret service files showed he was wanted in connection with the bombing of an Israeli airliner in 1972, when ammonium nitrate concealed in a Philips record player had exploded minutes after take-off from Rome airport.

The BKA wondered, in October 1988, whether Khreesat was now planning an attack against a target in West Germany. As the surveillance team followed Khreesat and Dalkamoni on shopping trips around Neuss and Frankfurt, they began to fear the worst. Why else were the two men buying clocks, batteries, switches and glue?

BKA wiretappers heard Dalkamoni telephone Khreesat from Frankfurt to tell him that an accomplice would deliver ''black boxes with lids'', ''gloves'' and ''paste''. Dalkamoni also promised to bring ''at least seven white pointed aluminium buttons, four of which would be electric''.

On the morning of October 24, as the BKA monitored the flat, Khreesat settled himself at a table in his bedroom with a screwdriver and a pair of pliers. Dalkamoni arrived with some packages covered in aluminium foil and sealed with black sticky tape. Khreesat opened the back of his Toshiba radio cassette player and set to work.

He worked alone for the rest of the day and the whole of the next; others in the flat were told he was putting together an amplifier. Then Khreesat made a long distance call to Damascus, monitored by the BKA, and said: ''I've made some changes to the medication. It's better and stronger than before.''

Fearing an attack was imminent, the BKA moved in next day. Manfred Klink, its senior anti-terrorism officer, was taking no chances. Armed officers seized Dalkamoni and Khreesat near their green Taunus car. In its boot they found a black Toshiba radio cassette recorder armed with about 300 grammes of Semtex-H high explosive and a barometric trigger designed to close an electric circuit at altitude.

''The detonating mechanism ... is suited to detonate explosives automatically in an aircraft,'' the BKA reported later. ''When the necessary operating height has been reached the fall in pressure connected with it will start the timing mechanism, and when the delay period has elapsed the detonator will be activated''.

The BKA simultaneously raided addresses in Frankfurt and four other cities, seizing 14 more supects and a lethal arsenal that included an anti-tank gun, sub-machine guns, mortars, rifle and hand grenades, TNT and five kilos of plastic explosives.

The Germans also issued an international alert to airline and airport security chiefs about the possibility of other Toshiba radio bombs made by Khreesat. They had reason to congratulate themselves. It seemed a massive plot to bomb an aircraft had been foiled and a terrorist cell taken out.

Events swiftly proved otherwise. For, in an astonishing decision that Scottish detectives would later believe had a direct bearing on the Lockerbie disaster, Khreesat was set free.

After holding him for two weeks on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a crime, the German police needed a new warrant to keep him in custody. On November 10, Dr Christian Rinne, an investigating judge of the federal high court in Karlsruhe, let Khreesat go.

Rinne said there was insufficient evidence to connect him with the Autumn Leaves gang's arsenal; nor had it been possible ''to discover a target or location for a crime of explosion''. If the BKA suspected Khreesat of involvement in earlier bombings, they did not disclose that to Rinne. ''According to the facts known so far, the accused is certainly suspected of the alleged charge. The strong suspicion of crime necessary for a warrant of arrest is, however, lacking,'' said Rinne.

Dalkamoni and one other suspect had been positively linked with the Frankfurt arsenal and were still under arrest. They would later be charged for bomb attacks aimed at American military trains. But the other suspects seized in the Autumn Leaves round-up were all out of custody. Marwan Khreesat, master bomb-maker, walked out of the courthouse and vanished without trace.

SEVEN weeks later, a terrorist bomb weighing less than a bag of sugar exploded on flight PA103 as it flew six miles high over Lockerbie. It was 7.03pm on Wednesday December 21, 1988. Many of the passengers were Americans going home for Christmas. All 259 people on board were killed; so were 11 Lockerbie residents.

The following day, from his temporary headquarters in the Lockerbie Academy, John Boyd, the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway police, Britain's smallest force, began a vast search and recovery effort. He appointed Detective Chief Superintendent John Orr to head a team of 130 detectives to hunt down the bombers. Orr had no experience of airline bombings; but he quickly focused on three lines of inquiry.

One was that a suicidal terrorist had smuggled a bomb aboard. But tests on the bodies of the victims showed no indication that any of them had recently handled explosives. ''Profiling'' of their backgrounds by Special Branch revealed no terrorist connections.

Another possibility was the ''mule theory'': an innocent passenger had been duped into taking the bomb aboard. This was only ruled out after every single bag belonging to every passenger had been shown not to contain a bomb.

Lastly there was the ''inside man'' theory: an airport worker had managed to smuggle a bomb on to the aircraft in unaccompanied baggage.

It would take months and a tortuous journey through more than 9,250 leads before Orr would discover the answer.

[...]

They found that a small magnet had been fused by the heat of the explosion into the metal frame of one damaged suitcase. A tangled piece of scorch-marked clothing in another case yielded a fragment of black-painted loudspeaker grille. A tiny screw melted into a third suitcase was a further pointer. By mid-February 1989, Feraday had identified a crucial piece of evidence pointing to the bomber the tiny piece of circuit board.

''I am completely satisfied that those fragments originate from a Toshiba-brand radio cassette recorder types RT 8016 or RT 8026,'' he wrote to Orr. ''The fragments are shattered in a manner consistent with their intimate involvement in an explosion and I therefore conclude that the bomb was contained in the aforementioned Toshiba-type portable radio cassette player.''

A charred instruction manual written in Arabic and English indicated that the radio had been sold in the Middle East. But there was no prospect of tracing the buyer.

Orr assigned a specialist search team to trawl five square miles of bush and shrubland on the western fringes of Newcastleton forest 23 miles from Lockerbie. It was laborious work. But the team members were fired up by the belief that they might bring the killers to justice.

They eventually found 27 pieces of a suitcase that Rarde was able to establish had contained the bomb. The pieces of scorched or melted brown plastic were all, Rarde concluded, part of a hard-sided brown Samsonite, the kind Khreesat had with him at the bomb flat in Neuss.

Harry Bell, a detective chief inspector, flew to Samsonite's headquarters in Denver, Colorado, where the suitcase was identified as an Antique Copper System Four Samsonite. The model had been manufactured between 1985 and 1988 and sold in the Middle East. But more than 3,500 had been made and there was no way of tracing the buyer. As with the fragments of the Toshiba bomb, the remains of the Samsonite seemed to lead to a dead end.

IT was time to look elsewhere for clues. Since the first days after the bombing, Orr had been aware of a possible connection between Lockerbie and the Autumn Leaves operation in West Germany. On his advice, a formal British request went to the BKA for all possible assistance. But as February turned to March, Scottish detectives began to complain of BKA obstructiveness. At first it just seemed like bureacratic red tape. ''There were delays in answering our specific requests,'' said one detective. ''Later it became deliberate prevarication.''

The BKA at first rejected requests to interview detainees connected to the Autumn Leaves gang. When interviews finally did take place, the BKA insisted on asking the questions, and in German. Orr complained privately that the Germans were withholding the full Autumn Leaves files.

It was a delicate situation. A provincial Scottish police force, with little previous experience of terrorism, was challenging the counter-terrorism department of West Germany's equivalent of the FBI; the BKA is probably Europe's most efficient police organisation.

Matters came to a head in late March at a co-ordinating meeting of Scottish and German investigators at the inquiry headquarters in Lockerbie, where Orr outlined the growing evidence of connections between the PFLP-GC in West Germany and the Lockerbie bombing.

Evidence from Autumn Leaves proved conclusively that the group was once more planning to attack aircraft, said Orr. The Toshiba radio bomb, Samsonite suitcase and the use of Semtex were common factors pointing to links between the cell and the Lockerbie bombing. Orr also pointed out that, although Dalkamoni had been in custody when flight PA103 exploded, other members of the gang, including Khreesat, had been free for seven weeks.

Orr argued that it was essential to know the whereabouts of the Autumn Leaves gang after they had been released. ''It is vital to know where the PFLP-GC people arrested and then released were from 2829 October 1988 onwards; the whereabouts of their associates; if all the property capable of being used in bomb-making had in fact been recovered?'' Orr demanded that the BKA release their full files on Autumn Leaves.

''He made it clear,'' notes of the meeting read, ''that while he did not wish to interfere in any way with the investigation of the crimes committed by these people in West Germany, his first priority lay in solving the murder of 270 people in Scotland.''

The following month the long-delayed Autumn Leaves files at last arrived in Lockerbie from the BKA. They held some surprises for Orr. For weeks, he had been puzzled by Judge Rinne's decision to free Khreesat. Now, as he sifted through hundreds of pages of the English translation of Autumn Leaves, his bewilderment turned to horror.

The prima facie case against Khreesat appeared to be overwhelming. Dalkamoni had told the BKA that Khreesat had built bombs not just inside the Toshiba radio that police had seized but also in two tuners and a video screen. He modestly explained: ''Mr Khreesat was the expert. I brought him specially to Germany from Amman.''

Traces of explosives had been found on the table where Khreesat had worked in the Autumn Leaves flat, and Khreesat himself had revealed to police an extensive knowledge of the workings of the PFLP-GC. He had admitted that, about a month previously he had been in Dalkamoni's office in Damascus when he overheard a discussion by four PFLP-GC members about an attack on an American club.

But the really stunning discovery was that on November 5, while still in custody, Khreesat had telephoned Jordan. The call was monitored by an Arab-speaking intelligence officer who reported that Khreesat appeared to be taking orders from an official of the Jordanian intelligence service.

Suddenly the whole investigation took on a different complexion. Was Marwan Khreesat, television repairman and master bomber, also a Jordanian spy? More disturbingly, had a decision been made to let the bomb-maker go free because German intelligence knew he was employed by the Jordanians as an informer on Palestinian terrorism in Europe? Had he even helped the German police to break up Dalkamoni's group?

Perhaps this explained why the case to remand Khreesat had collapsed. Had the evidence against him been ''badly led'' by the police? Did Khreesat's ambiguous role lie behind the apparent reluctance of the BKA to hand over the Autumn Leaves file? It would certainly explain why the BKA was so keen to deny any link between the Autumn Leaves gang and the PanAm bombing.

For the detectives in the Lockerbie schoolhouse, this was a glimpse of a world they knew little about, where the priorities of police work and intelligence diverged, and morality played a subordinate role.

FURTHER shocks lay ahead. In May 1989, police searchers returned from Newcastleton Forest in triumph with the lock to the Samsonite suitcase that had contained the bomb. If the key could be found, it could lead to the Samsonite's owner.

More than 100 luggage keys were scattered among the estimated 10,000 items from the wreckage stored in the investigators' warehouse. Superintendent Angus Roxburgh, the man in charge of the property store, spent the next 48 hours wrestling to fit one key after another into the lock. But none fitted. So Orr asked the BKA about keys he knew had been recovered in the Autumn Leaves raids. Perhaps one would fit: a terrific breakthrough. But the Germans prevaricated. They said no keys had been found, then that they had been house keys, and then that they had been destroyed.

Angrily, the Lockerbie detectives pursued the suitcase connection, and their suspicions about the BKA grew even stronger.

They were intensely interested in the bronze Samsonites which Khreesat had brought to Germany. One of Dalkamoni's relatives had told police that, just minutes before Dalkamoni and Khreesat were arrested, he had seen a bronze Samsonite in the boot of their car. Between this sighting and the arrests, Dalkamoni had parked the car and Khreesat had made a call from a street telephone.

No reference to a Samsonite appeared in German police files. The BKA had reported finding a Toshiba bomb in the boot, but no suitcase What had happened to it?

The Lockerbie police conjectured: ''It is possible that the brown suitcase was delivered to another person while Dalkamoni was 'parking the car', and that the suitcase contained another IED (bomb) and that the suitcase referred to is the brown Samsonite suitcase which contained the IED on PA103.''

In other words, the Scottish detectives suspected that the vanished suitcase was the missing link between Germany and Lockerbie. They surmised that, perhaps unknown to Khreesat himself, one of the bombs he had made had eventually sent 270 people to their deaths.

Such was the atmosphere in the Lockerbie incident control centre (LICC) over this question that Orr ordered an examination of the BKA's scene-of-crime photographs of the car. These showed cigarette packets and other litter in the interior yet a spotlessly clean and empty boot where the Samsonite had been seen. Suspicious, the Scots examined the film, and discovered that the picture of the boot had been taken on a separate roll. The BKA said it had run out of film. The Scots suspected dirty tricks.

What were the Germans up to? As the Lockerbie team chewed over such facts and as it knew about the arrest of Khreesat and Dalkamoni, another suspicion took shape. If Khreesat had been a known informer for the Jordanians, had he actually tipped off German intelligence that he had made his bombs and that it was time to arrest the Autumn Leaves gang before Dalkamoni could distribute them?

That might explain the BKA's apparent efforts to obfuscate what had happened. If it knew about Khreesat's double identity, it would have had to detain him to maintain his cover.

Dalkamoni also had suspicions on these lines. Months later, as he sat in a high security cell in Hessen, he reflected on whether a man he had regarded as a trusted associate in the cause of Palestinian terrorism had all along been working for the West. During a prison visit by his wife in April 1989, he told her that he thought Khreesat had ''played a double game''.

[...]

Once again the imperatives of a team of detectives pursuing mass murderers had clashed with those of the intelligence community. The Scottish investigators were under public and political pressure to get at the truth of a dreadful crime; but no intelligence service would willingly unmask its operatives to prying eyes. In their schoolhouse, some of the Scots felt that they were fighting a losing war against encircling secrecy.

Their sense of helplessness grew with the realisation that the tide of international politics was also turning against them. The West was moving towards better relations with Syria, host to the PFLP-GC, and with Iran, whose radical former interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, was suspected of instigating the Lockerbie bombing in revenge for the American destruction of an Iranian airbus in July 1988.

Orr had been told that he would be unable to produce a shred of evidence against Iranian or Syrian officials in court. But he told his men not to worry about politics.

''He repeatedly told us to keep our heads down and get on with the job,'' said one detective. ''But only a fool could ignore the implications if we got a successful result.''

WHILE gloom spread at Lockerbie, the forensic team at Rarde was trying to resolve another dispute between the two police forces. Had the suitcase packed with the bomb slipped past airport security at Heathrow or at Frankfurt, where a feeder flight to PA103 had originated?

Britons and Germans were blaming each other, and Orr was under pressure from the joint intelligence steering group of the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinates intelligence and security policy, to resolve the disagreement. There was a danger that the festering dispute would compromise co-operation between the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and its German counterparts in the hunt for IRA terrorists on the European mainland.

It was a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. Luggage pallet AVE4041, holding the bomb in the Samsonite suitcase, had been loaded at Heathrow; but Special Branch detectives had established that none of the bags in it had originated in London. Most had been transferred off feeder flight PA103A from Frankfurt, apart from seven or eight bags in the bottom layer which had come direct from Cyprus and other airports.

If the scientists could establish the exact location of the bomb suitcase within the pallet, this would indicate the airport where it had been loaded.

Feraday, Rarde's expert, flew to America for a series of secret tests at the US Navy's explosive ordnance disposal technology centre at Indian Head, Maryland. Pointedly, the Germans were not invited.

Moulding varying amounts of Semtex into Toshiba 8016 radios, Feraday built five bombs which were wrapped in clothes and packed into five Samsonite suitcases. Each suitcase was loaded into luggage pallets similar to AVE4041 and the bombs were blown up.

The test report concluded: ''Results clearly indicate that the case containing the IED (the bomb) was not ... in the bottom layer of passenger baggage.'' This meant the bag had come from Frankfurt. It was a rare victory for the Scots.

For the BKA, one embarrassment followed another. Returning in April to a greengrocer's shop owned by Dalkamoni's brother-in-law, which it had already searched during the Autumn Leaves raids the previous October, the BKA found that it had overlooked two home-made bombs in a Sanyo data monitor and an Ultrasound radio tuner. Primed with Semtex, both had barometric pressure switches linked to time delays.

To Orr's men, this discovery was more evidence that the Autumn Leaves gang had been planning attacks against aircraft using bombs made by Khreesat and powerful support for the theory that the Pan Am device had been put aboard PA103A at Frankfurt.

The Germans disagreed, and a battle of scientific memoranda began. The BKA now had three bombs in its possession: one seized with Khreesat and Dalkamoni in October, the other two found in the greengrocer's. It asked its forensic section, ST33, to report if these could survive a flight from Frankfurt to London (flight time 1 hour 18 minutes) without detonation, and then explode, as the Pan Am bomb had done, 38 minutes after take-off from Heathrow.

Unfortunately, one of the bombs blew up while being examined at BKA headquarters, killing a junior technician; and in the resulting panic, another exploded after being rushed outside and blasted with water from a firehose.

Although the BKA was left with only one fully functioning example of Khreesat's bombs, it reported that all three had a time delay of between 30 and 45 minutes, and concluded: ''Presupposing that an explosive device of the same construction was used in the attack, then this must have been taken on board for the first time in London, or at least made acute by insertion of the master switch.''

Bombs built by Khreesat had a maximum time delay of 45 minutes, argued the BKA. Therefore, if he had made the PA103 bomb it must have been loaded at Heathrow. It could not have been loaded at Frankfurt, on a flight of more than an hour, because it would have activated within 45 minutes; so it could not have been made by Khreesat and was not overlooked by the BKA during the arrest of the Autumn Leaves gang. Either way, the BKA had not been responsible.

This logic infuriated senior Lockerbie detectives, who complained that the BKA was ignoring a wealth of circumstantial forensic evidence pointing to Khreesat, Dalkamoni and the rest of the Autumn Leaves gang.

[...]

BETWEEN the rows there was important progress. By August, after months of painstaking work, Hayes and Feraday had drawn up a detailed list of clothing that had been with the bomb in the suitcase. This gave the police the strongest clue yet to its owner.

The clothing included a white singlet; brown tartan trousers marked ''Yorkie, size 34''; a grey shirt or blouse; a blue and white pin-striped shirt or blouse; a grey herringbone pattern jacket; a coarse herringbone pattern skirt, a cream and brown striped jacket and a blue Babygro romper babysuit. They all showed scorch marks. Fibres from them had been fused into parts of the Samsonite suitcase. The Babygro provided the single most important lead in the whole inquiry. It was labelled ''Malta Trading Company''.

Rarde had also identified a second category of bomb-damaged clothes. None of the clothing showed traces of the radio bomb or the Samsonite suitcase. But the damage was so intense that the clothes must have been inside or at least very close to the bomb suitcase.

These other clothes included: a pair of white jogging trousers or longjohns; a multicoloured headscarf; a purple sweatshirt; a tartan pattern grey jacket a white singlet, a white bra and part of a green slip- on tennis shoe. Most revealing of all was a pair of cream jogging trousers marked "Noonan". The passenger list revealed that Karen Elizabeth Noonan, a 20-year-old American student from Potomac, Maryland, had been on board. Her background revealed she had spent time in Vienna and had befriended an Arab called Bilbassi.

The point did not escape Hayes. "We are therefore able to conclude," he wrote, "that all of the above clothing, much of which could be regarded as lady's clothing, could have originated from within the prime suitcase and, in the case of the first listing above, in all probability did originate from within the prime suitcase,." Had Noonan been a "mule"?

Follow-up inquiries on the Babygro indicated it had been sold at outlets throughout Europe, including Dublin. Noonan had been to Dublin just weeks before the bombing to watch her college team play football.

Hayes's memo caused a stir of excitement at the Lockerbie Academy. During one of his daily phone calls to Douglas Gow, the FBI's supervisory officer in Washington, Orr made it clear that the Noonan lead was the strongest yet, Gow agreed. Noonan fitted the profile of a "mule" perfectly. Could she provide the answer the Scots were looking for?

On the morning of August 16, the telephone rang in John Orr's office. He switched the device on to the orange scrambling machine. Detective Inspector Watson McAteer, deputy liaison officer with the BKA, said the Germans had at last produced the baggage loading list for PA103A, the feeder flight from Frankfurt.

The computerised printout was an itemised list of 111 bags which had been loaded on the afternoon of December 21. Orr had been asking for it since early Janaury. "First the Germans said it didn't exist; then they said they had lost it. Finally they said it had been destroyed," claimed one detective.

This was the goldmine Orr had been waiting for. Casting his eye down the left side of the list, he saw a handwritten cross in the margin beside one entry. It referred to a bag, numbered S0009, which had been entered into the computer at 13.07pm. A separate typewritten worksheet showed that this bag had gone through handling station 206. A third worksheet revealed only one bag had been recorded at station 206 at 13.07pm. It was from Air Malta flight KM180, which had left Valletta at 9.45am that morning, docking at Frankfurt's terminal B at 13.40pm.

[...]

Police in Scotland and Germany hope the shifting allegiances and faction fighting within the world of Palestinian terrorism will produce and evidence they need. "It won't be today or tomorrow, but I'm confident that one of these days somebody involved will break their silence," said one Western intelligence official.

But as the fatal accident inquiry opens in Dumfries tomorrow, the Scots and the Germans are still far apart in their theories about what that evidence will be.

The Scots police remain convinced that the Pan Am bomb was one of those made by Marwan Khreesat as he sat at his bedroom table on October 24 and 25, 1988. They suspect the BKA missed this device when it seized the Autumn Leaves gang and that the device was subsequently smuggled out of the country and, somehow, taken to Malta via Cyprus. But this is a theory with several holes.

Principally, how could the bomb have been taken to Malta? There is the Talb link, and there is a report of a member of the Autumn Leaves gang traveling by train to Vienna with a Toshiba radio under his arm after his release from custody. But would terrorists take a homemade bomb with a propensity to go wrong halfway around Europe, rather than move a bomb-maker to the point where the device was needed?

Furthermore, if the bomb was a barometric device made by Khreesat, why did it explode neither on the Malta-Frankfurt flight nor on the Frankfurt-London flight? The fact that it blew up 38 minutes our of Heathrow when, but for a diversion caused by high winds, PA103 would have been over the Irish sea suggests that it was precisely primed to send the plane plunging into deep water, where no evidence would ever be found.

As a result, the Germans treat the argument implicating Khreesat with a mixture of irritation and contempt. They argue that a bomb originating in Malto must have been constructed to a different design by another bomb-maker.

"The Scottish evidence is rather flimsy," said one senior German security official in charge of the case. "If you have a point and you like that point you try to fit everything into that scheme. That's what they are doing." He said evidence pointing away from Khreesat is in the hands of the Scottish police, "they might not like it, but it's there". Yet just what this evidence is he would not say.

Twenty-one months on, while the police bicker, the political steam has started to go out of the Lockerbie issue. Morale amount the investigators has plummeted, and men and resources have been diverted elsewhere. Just 35 of the original team of 130 detectives remain at the Lockerbie Academy; Orr has been promoted to deputy chief constable of the region. In Germany, Klink's Lockerbie team has dropped from 20 to just a handful.

On Thursday, as Sheriff Mowat's fatal accident inquiry enters its fourth day, Hafez Dalkamoni will appear before Frankfurt high court accused of possessing weapons and membership of a terrorist organization. He is expected to plead guilty to possessing one of Khreesat's bombs. But he insists this was meant for a target in Israel. With remission for good behaviour and the time already spent in custody, Dalkamoni can expect to be free within a few years.

Khreesat himself, television repairman and bomb-maker, is believed to be living in Amman, almost certainly under the protection of the Jordanian government. Senior Western intelligence officials refuse to discuss his real allegiances.

"We never confirm or deny the identity of our agents, " said one intelligence official who has supervised the Lockerbie case. "All I can say is that if Khreesat is a penetration agent, I wish we could have many of his sort."

Compromised by such sentiments, the hunt for the truth about the Lockerbie disaster faces an even greater obstacle: the Gulf crisis.

When James Baker, the American secretary of state, visited Syria earlier this month seeking solidarity against Iraq, he indicated that the CIA and West German intelligence had extensive evidence linking the Damascus-based PFLP-GC to the Lockerbie bombing, and he asked President Assad to expel the organization from Syria. Baker said American-Syrian relations could not be normalized until Assad acted.

The Syrians replied that if there was hard evidence to link any person or group in Syria with any terrorist acts, then those responsible would be placed on trail. But pressure to make the Syrian fulfil that promise is increasingly unlikely.

For, in a world suddenly endangered by the Gulf crisis, Syria and Iran have become unexpected partners with the West against Saddam Hussein. When Syrian troops stand shoulder-to-shoulder with British and American soldiers, the 270 victims of Lockerbie take second place in the struggle for justice.

The vital questions that will not be asked.

The fatal accident inquiry that opens tomorrow in Dumfries is similar to a coroner's inquest, with slightly different powers of investigation. Its primary purpose is to consider evidence on the circumstances of the deaths of the 270 people killed on PanAm flight 103.

By the law "determination" or verdict made at the end of the inquiry cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceeding. Lord Fraser, the lord advocate, has decided, however, nor to introduce evidence on the question of criminal responsibility for the deaths. Fraser, who is Scotland's principal law officer, with responsibilities similar to those of the English attorney-general, will lead the team of lawyers representing the crown at the inquiry.

He argues that the "matter of criminal responsibility is still under investigation by the police in co-operation with overseas police and investigative agencies."

Under protest from some of the relatives of the dead, he has announced that he will introduce evidence on a narrower range of investigation. The Scottish courts administration identifies there as:

airworthiness of the aircraft

air traffic control

eyewitnesses

police and emergency response
deaths, including recovery, identification, examination and release of
bodies

destruction of the aircraft and examination of wreckage

passenger and baggage handling at Heathrow airport for flight PA103,
including relevant security arrangements.

John Mowatt, QC, the sheriff principal hearing the evidence, has no power to call evidence. He has told relatives of the dead that he will decide "at the appropriate time" whether or not their counsel can introduce witnesses on other matters. In particular, the relatives want to call in baggage handlers from Frankfurt airport. But the lord advocate has the right to object to the introduction of evidence that the crown considers "injurious to the public interest". He can also object to attempts to recover documentary evidence held by government departments of the police.

Lawyers have pointed out a possible discrepancy between the lord advocate's decision on the range of evidence to be introduced and the more wide-ranging brief established under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. This requires the sheriff to make a "determination" setting out he circumstances of the deaths on the basis of several criteria:

where and when the death and any accident resulting in the death took place

the cause of causes of such death and any accident resulting in the death

the reasonable precautions, if any, whereby the deaths and any accidents resulting in the deaths might have been avoided

the defects, if any, in any system of working which contributed to the deaths or any accident resulting in the deaths.

Relatives of the dead believe that these criteria should give their counsel the right to introduce much wider ranging evidence than the lord advocate envisages.
 
That's seriously fascinating. I need to take some time over that.

Of course, by then the investigation was changing direction and heading for Libya. Ironic, that the infamous switch to Libya happened literally while the FAI was in session. The Americans only told the D&G about PT/35b coming from MEBO in September 1990. The FAI opened on 1st October 1990 and ended on 13th February 1991. Bell showed Tony Gauci the infamous photospread that damned Megrahi on 15th February.

Rolfe.
 
Another interesting article, which includes the reference to Khreesat's arrest and the questions over the Autumn Leaves photos, sourced via the document viewer:

Hi Rolfe, Buncrana et al. I seem to have picked an interesting time to go rereading Lockerbie threads.

I'll write more later but on first read through of the Sunday Times article circa FAI time.

Times Article said:
Feraday, Rarde's expert, flew to America for a series of secret tests at the US Navy's explosive ordnance disposal technology centre at Indian Head, Maryland. Pointedly, the Germans were not invited.

Moulding varying amounts of Semtex into Toshiba 8016 radios, Feraday built five bombs which were wrapped in clothes and packed into five Samsonite suitcases. Each suitcase was loaded into luggage pallets similar to AVE4041 and the bombs were blown up. The test report concluded: ''Results clearly indicate that the case containing the IED (the bomb) was not ... in the bottom layer of passenger baggage.'' This meant the bag had come from Frankfurt. It was a rare victory for the Scots.

I'd give up some eye teeth and maybe an arm for the documents on those tests.

We know Feraday has previous form in conducting science in such a way as to find what he wants (is told to) find. What are the chances on the details on those tests coming to light and being subject to a rigourous analysis by qualified scientists??

Given what Rolfe has put together this unpossible. (2nd layer bomb bag placement) It stinks of CYA by UK authorities of the "No it wasn't Heathrow, our airport security is impeccable, honest, please keep buying plane tickets" variety.

I get the impression that it's for political and not harming the aviation industry reasons that the investigation is told not to purse Heathrow leads, despite the known about and kept quiet break in, and by all accounts pretty lax security arrangements.

Feraday gets to go and blow stuff up at Indian Head and reports back that the explosion position absolutely rules out Heathrow and that the bomb was on layer 2, 100% for certain definite sure, 'trust me I'm a Forensic Scientist.' After this it's taken for granted that "Science proves not Heathrow" and given the way that the BKA seems to be remarkably shady in how they are investigating things, at least in the eyes of the Scots investigators, they must be covering up Frankfurt ingestion, no such thing as a coincidence.


Although the BKA was left with only one fully functioning example of Khreesat's bombs, it reported that all three had a time delay of between 30 and 45 minutes, and concluded: ''Presupposing that an explosive device of the same construction was used in the attack, then this must have been taken on board for the first time in London, or at least made acute by insertion of the master switch.''

Bombs built by Khreesat had a maximum time delay of 45 minutes, argued the BKA. Therefore, if he had made the PA103 bomb it must have been loaded at Heathrow. It could not have been loaded at Frankfurt, on a flight of more than an hour, because it would have activated within 45 minutes; so it could not have been made by Khreesat and was not overlooked by the BKA during the arrest of the Autumn Leaves gang. Either way, the BKA had not been responsible.


so from what we know now, this is most likely correct. the bomb was made by Khreesat, Was likely in the boot of the car during the Autumn leaves raid, in a radio bombeat casette player, probably in what would become known as the 'Bedford case'


In other words, the Scottish detectives suspected that the vanished suitcase was the missing link between Germany and Lockerbie. They surmised that, perhaps unknown to Khreesat himself, one of the bombs he had made had eventually sent 270 people to their deaths.

Such was the atmosphere in the Lockerbie incident control centre (LICC) over this question that Orr ordered an examination of the BKA's scene-of-crime photographs of the car. These showed cigarette packets and other litter in the interior yet a spotlessly clean and empty boot where the Samsonite had been seen. Suspicious, the Scots examined the film, and discovered that the picture of the boot had been taken on a separate roll. The BKA said it had run out of film. The Scots suspected dirty tricks.

[...]

The Scots police remain convinced that the Pan Am bomb was one of those made by Marwan Khreesat as he sat at his bedroom table on October 24 and 25, 1988. They suspect the BKA missed this device when it seized the Autumn Leaves gang and that the device was subsequently smuggled out of the country and, somehow, taken to Malta via Cyprus. But this is a theory with several holes.

Principally, how could the bomb have been taken to Malta?



It wasn't taken to Malta, it was taken to London. One of Khreesats gang members got into the baggage area at Heathrow with it, and a terrorist who knew exactly where the bomb was inside the case, and where it needed to be to ensure the plane came down put the case in exactly the right spot. Apparently someone who knew how luggage containers were loaded so that the actual luggage loaders wouldn't shift it around a great deal.



Furthermore, if the bomb was a barometric device made by Khreesat, why did it explode neither on the Malta-Frankfurt flight nor on the Frankfurt-London flight? The fact that it blew up 38 minutes our of Heathrow when, but for a diversion caused by high winds, PA103 would have been over the Irish sea suggests that it was precisely primed to send the plane plunging into deep water, where no evidence would ever be found.



It was designed to send 103 to the bottom of the sea, and it obviously didn't explode on the Malta, nor the Frankfurt flights as it was never on either of those aircraft. This also lends weight to the MEBO timer fragment being a plant, but thats another topic.



As a result, the Germans treat the argument implicating Khreesat with a mixture of irritation and contempt. They argue that a bomb originating in Malto must have been constructed to a different design by another bomb-maker.

"The Scottish evidence is rather flimsy," said one senior German security official in charge of the case. "If you have a point and you like that point you try to fit everything into that scheme. That's what they are doing." He said evidence pointing away from Khreesat is in the hands of the Scottish police, "they might not like it, but it's there". Yet just what this evidence is he would not say.

There's evidence pointing away from Frankfurt certainly, but not away from Khreesat.

After Autumn leaves, according to this article, we have a missing bomb, manufactured by Khreesat with a barometric timer, tied in with the PFLP-GC, *the* de facto suspects for much of the early running, in a brown Samsonite case, and documentary evidence, i.e. photos taken by the BKA of the car boot are, one might say "rather flimsy"

We know that the bomb turned up in the luggage container at Heathrow in a Brown Samsonite. While there is nothing to say that these two cases are in fact the same case, it remains evidence that points to Khreesat. The physics of the explosion point to a barometic trigger, like the ones known to have been used by Khreesat. i.e. the plane blew apart 45ish minutes into the flight, when normally the plane is over the Irish Sea.

Both the BKA and Scots police are pointing fingers and blaming each other, and neither have got all of the details right.

That's my first impression of that article given what we can be sure about now about the Bedford case and it's placement.

No doubt Rolfe will be along soon with a longer and more reasoned explanation.
 
Hi Rolfe, Buncrana et al. I seem to have picked an interesting time to go rereading Lockerbie threads.

I'll write more later but on first read through of the Sunday Times article circa FAI time.


Hi yourself!

One thing to bear in mind is that this article was almost certainly written by David Leppard, even if it doesn't say so. As that time, Leppard was in full cry writing On the Trail of Terror, so what you are seeing is the early drafts of that book, more or less. So if you've read that book, you've got the gist. Combing the book for differences compared to the articles could be an interesting exercise though, as this was a time when the police theories were changing rapidly, and Leppard was getting his info from a police insider.

I'd give up some eye teeth and maybe an arm for the documents on those tests.

We know Feraday has previous form in conducting science in such a way as to find what he wants (is told to) find. What are the chances on the details on those tests coming to light and being subject to a rigourous analysis by qualified scientists??

Given what Rolfe has put together this unpossible. (2nd layer bomb bag placement) It stinks of CYA by UK authorities of the "No it wasn't Heathrow, our airport security is impeccable, honest, please keep buying plane tickets" variety.

I get the impression that it's for political and not harming the aviation industry reasons that the investigation is told not to purse Heathrow leads, despite the known about and kept quiet break in, and by all accounts pretty lax security arrangements.

Feraday gets to go and blow stuff up at Indian Head and reports back that the explosion position absolutely rules out Heathrow and that the bomb was on layer 2, 100% for certain definite sure, 'trust me I'm a Forensic Scientist.' After this it's taken for granted that "Science proves not Heathrow" and given the way that the BKA seems to be remarkably shady in how they are investigating things, at least in the eyes of the Scots investigators, they must be covering up Frankfurt ingestion, no such thing as a coincidence.


The whole thing stinks to high heaven. They had very good evidence that the bottom suitcase was suspicious, right from January 1989. Obviously if the explosion had clearly been right at the other corner of the container (and we know Sidhu didn't move the luggage) then there would have been an innocent explanation for that suitcase. But the explosion was IN THAT VERY CORNER. How do you justify ruling out that suitcase right from the get-go? And here I'm talking about January to March, before anyone went on a springtime jaunt to Maryland.

The line seems to have been, well we have 14 blast-damaged suitcases and 13 of them belong to Frankfurt passengers, so the bomb suitcase is probably Frankfurt-origin too.

:jaw-dropp

That is so close to brain-dead, I can't believe anyone said it. We know how the luggage was arranged in that corner of the container, and we know there were many more Frankfurt bags than Heathrow ones anyway, so that ratio doesn't really tell you anything. They already knew (or they had the information to work out) that the bomb suitcase was either the left-hand one of the two Bedford saw, or the one Sidhu put on top of it, or (just possibly) one Sidhu had chucked into the overhang section where they usually put the holdalls.

It's got to be one of these three positions. If in fact the bomb suitcase is the one of the three that came from Heathrow, that actually explains a dearth of legitimate Heathrow-origin luggage in the mix recovered to date. The observation is actually more suggestive of the Bedford suitcase being the bomb, than a Frankfurt item.

:hb:

But that's actually pretty much beside the point. From the position of the explosion, so far as they knew at that time, Heathrow-origin luggage was "in the frame". You can't go ruling that out on the basis of a 33% probability calculation, or whatever sums they did wrong. But Orr did exactly that.

Then, what the hell was the point of Indian Head? Who in their right mind would stop investigating a suitcase that was so close to the explosion, just because the boffins thought it was the one next to it? It's nuts. The explosion was pretty much at the junction between the Heathrow and the Frankfurt luggage. Forget the probabilities and the second-guessing and the dodgy inferences, you need to FOLLOW UP BOTH POSSIBILITIES!

But they didn't.

I agree with you about these results. From what I've heard of them, there's no way they could have been said to rule out the bottom suitcase conclusively. They only did five experiments, and only one of these had the bomb in the bottom suitcase, and that one went wrong and they didn't get much data from it. All the five trials were different, so nothing was even repeated.

As you say, Feraday has form in finding or concluding what the cops want him to find or conclude. I'll just bet that if Orr had approached RARDE breathing fire and fury against BAA for having let the bomb on at Heathrow, and convinced that Bedford's evidence was his ticket to the Honours List, Feraday would dutifully have reported that the bottom case was it. Maybe I said that before? Well, I think that's just how it was.

I have a bad dose of "argument from incredulity" as regards believing that anyone would decide in effect that they'd rather see the terrorists go free and the Lockerbie investigation run into the sand than solve the case in a way that would damage BAA and the British aviation industry. But that is what seems to have been done. (Then I remember this is Maggie Thatcher we're talking about, and I get just a little less incredulous. Remember her autobiography, for a start.)

The BKA weren't shady so much as stupid. So much for the famed German efficiency. They were a bunch of Keystone Kops blundering around losing evidence and getting it wrong and getting people themselves killed into the bargain. But they don't seem to have been actively covering anything up. Maybe if they hadn't been quite so dim they would have figured out what the British cops were up to better, and made their case in a way that couldn't be brushed aside. But they were very very dim bulbs indeed.

so from what we know now, this is most likely correct. the bomb was made by Khreesat, Was likely in the boot of the car during the Autumn leaves raid, in a radio bombeat casette player, probably in what would become known as the 'Bedford case'


I'm not sure where that bit about the suitcase having been seen in the boot of that car at the time of the Autumn Leaves raid has come from. I don't think it's in Leppard's book. I need to look into that further I suppose. There was certainly something about Dalkamoni having a brown Samsonite when he arrived at Neuss, and not having it when he left, and that's in Trail of the Octopus as well as Leppard's book and as I don't think Leppard and Coleman were buddies this suggests it was real evidence.

But yes, everything points to this being a Khreesat bomb. (Khreesat was a Jordanian intelligence asset, remember, and that in effect means a CIA asset, and I really don't know where that train of thought ends up.)

It wasn't taken to Malta, it was taken to London. One of Khreesats gang members got into the baggage area at Heathrow with it, and a terrorist who knew exactly where the bomb was inside the case, and where it needed to be to ensure the plane came down put the case in exactly the right spot. Apparently someone who knew how luggage containers were loaded so that the actual luggage loaders wouldn't shift it around a great deal.


Exactly. Much easier to get to London overland than Malta, from Frankfurt. Although they could simply not have primed the bomb and gone by air anyway, if they were confident security wouldn't spot the thing.

I think they had some inside help from someone who knew that an easily-identified baggage container would be left lying around for most of the afternoon collecting odd stray items for PA103. I think they broke in during the night to hide the suitcase, so that someone in fake overalls with a stolen pass could pass security empty-handed the following day. Unless of course the deed was simply done by an Iranair employee at Heathrow.

I think when the case was packed they expected to put it flat with the bomb side outboard, and maybe Bedford's arrangement of the suitcases sitting upright threw the terrorist a bit. So he placed it flat as planned, then pulled McKee's grey Samsonite from the row at the back and laid that beside it so that it wedged the bomb as far to the left as possible. (One of the court productions showed a drawing of McKee's Samsonite, with arrows showing which direction the blast had come from. I'd give a minor body part to see that.)

The bomb suitcase was a hardshell, with a shiny gel-paint surface. The sides were slightly convex and the corners were rounded. As Aku pointed out, this type of case is very liable to slide on the metal floor of a container. I think it was a turbulent flight due to the gale that was blowing, and at some point the plane has banked a bit sharpish to the left, the pile of cases shifted a bit as the bronze Samsonite slid to the left and partly into the overhang section, and it's become wedged there.

Bang.

It's odd that for the first eight months or so they were convinced that PFLP-GC meant a Frankfurt loading not a Heathrow loading, but then they were so easily diverted to a Malta loading. If maybe Malta, why not maybe Heathrow? And I never heard anyone explain how a Khreesat bomb was supposed to have travelled as far as Scotland from Malta before it blew up.

Feraday had a bunch of reasons why a Khreesat bomb might have failed to go off over Belgium, but they were pretty feeble. Once you start considering Malta, you have to be in "deliberate modification" territory. Nobody ever found a Khreesat device with any such modification, and when Marshman went to talk to Khreesat in November 1989, he didn't aske him if he'd ever modified a device in that way.

It was designed to send 103 to the bottom of the sea, and it obviously didn't explode on the Malta, nor the Frankfurt flights as it was never on either of those aircraft. This also lends weight to the MEBO timer fragment being a plant, but thats another topic.


I don't think it was designed to end up on the bottom of the sea. They couldn't control the time delay - they had to go with what they had. The Irish Sea was one possibility, but so was Dublin. These planes can set off on pretty much any course in an arc from over Cornwall to over Skye. It was just Lockerbie's bad luck it was over Skye that night.

Even if the Irish Sea was the most probable crash site, they must have known there was still a decent chance it would hit land. I wonder about these Maltese clothes. Brand new, all the labels still on, so easy to trace to the manufacturer. Such a conspicuous purchase that Tony remembered the man months later. We wonders. Yessss, we wondersssss....

I have no bloody idea what PT/35b was, now. If it was a plant, who planted it and when? All we know is that it looked hellish like a bit of one of that bespoke batch of 20 timers sold to Libya 2 or 3 years previously. But it wasn't, and competent metallurgical analysis might have been expected to demonstrate that.

There's evidence pointing away from Frankfurt certainly, but not away from Khreesat.

After Autumn leaves, according to this article, we have a missing bomb, manufactured by Khreesat with a barometric timer, tied in with the PFLP-GC, *the* de facto suspects for much of the early running, in a brown Samsonite case, and documentary evidence, i.e. photos taken by the BKA of the car boot are, one might say "rather flimsy"

We know that the bomb turned up in the luggage container at Heathrow in a Brown Samsonite. While there is nothing to say that these two cases are in fact the same case, it remains evidence that points to Khreesat. The physics of the explosion point to a barometic trigger, like the ones known to have been used by Khreesat. i.e. the plane blew apart 45ish minutes into the flight, when normally the plane is over the Irish Sea.

Both the BKA and Scots police are pointing fingers and blaming each other, and neither have got all of the details right.

That's my first impression of that article given what we can be sure about now about the Bedford case and it's placement.


I said the German cops were pretty dumb. It's perfectly possible they thought, Frankfurt = Khreesat. As you say, there was evidence pointing away from Frankfurt, but not away from Khreesat.

There is an interesting memo in the stack I have, dated November 1989. It seems that Helge Tepp has been asking questions about the Bedford suitcase, because he read Bedford's statement. So he knew that suitcase was a brown Samsonite which had appeared mysteriously. As far as I can see, none of the Scottish cops investigating this aspect of the case knew that.

Tepp asked the obvious question, I think (I haven't seen his memo, only one generated in response). He seems to have asked whose suitcase that tunrned out to be. The cop dealing with his question had no idea what he was talking about(!). He had to ask Harry Bell, and Harry Bell said it was one of the last cases put into the container at Heathrow. Here is a list of all the Heathrow interline passenger luggage.

There followed a list of the entire bloody boiling, all 11 items, including the ones that weren't in the container at all. No attempt to indicate which one was the left-hand one Bedford saw.

I only have one memo from what must have been an exchange, but someone seems to be shuffling awkwardly to me. If Tepp had been a bit brighter, he would have pressed the point, but he didn't. I think the BKA had by then figured out that if the bomb had come into Frankfurt on an Air Malta flight, it wasn't their fault anyway, so they weren't that fussed about countering the Malta theory.

No doubt Rolfe will be along soon with a longer and more reasoned explanation.


Sorry, I go on a bit. But there's a lot of information available, and a lot of it makes very very clear sense and can be explained.

And then there's PT/35b.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
I have a bad dose of "argument from incredulity" as regards believing that anyone would decide in effect that they'd rather see the terrorists go free and the Lockerbie investigation run into the sand than solve the case in a way that would damage BAA and the British aviation industry. But that is what seems to have been done. (Then I remember this is Maggie Thatcher we're talking about, and I get just a little less incredulous. Remember her autobiography, for a start.)

I think that there is a whole heap of other stuff going on at the same time that together results in the investigation being pointed away from a Heathrow bomb and from anything to do with Iran/Syria.

Iran has a slam dunk motive for wanting to blow up US planes. Namely the Vincennes shootdown. The Official version eventually pins Reagans air strike in 86 of Libya as Libyas motive for the bombing.

In 1988 US and UK troops were supporting Saddams Iraq against Iran. That war finally ended in August 1988. The Vincennes was part of the fleet of ships looking after oil interests. Iran/Syria were taking hostages (Terry Anderson, Terry Waite and 90odd others) some of whom were executed. Iran Contra got exposed in 1986.

In October 1987 we had Black Monday, by the time 103 went down George Bush the first was in the white house, and a fragile recovery from one of the worst stock market crashes in history looked to be in full swing. Consumers deserting the aviation industry could have dumped the US and the UK into a serious recession. (The recession hit anyway mid 89 onwards as it turned out)

Take your pick, there appear to be plenty of political motives around for wanting to go after Libya as opposed to Syria.
 
Sure, absolutely, plenty people wanted Libya. But the cops kept up their belief that it had been Syria/Iran, right through until late 1990. The burying of the Heathrow evidence started in January 1989.

It's way too early to have been something imposed from outside, or prompted by external concerns. The two knee-jerk assumptions were first that it was a Khreesat bomb, and second that it had come in on the feeder flight. The latter is not based on any sort of reality. Even if they initially assumed a Khreesat bomb would have come from Khreesat's base city, very very soon they had the information to contradict that, but they never wavered.

I even wonder if Maggie calling Parkinson off in March 1989 (Paul Foot's theory) was part of the "protect Heathrow" schtick. If you have the right perpetrators, and you're hot on their trail, but you've got the wrong modus operandi and you are extremely keen that the real modus operandi should not become public, maybe it would be best if you didn't pursue the real culprits quite so enthusiastically?

Rolfe.
 
Ah, I forgot something else. This is a bit strange.

I've had a short email exchange with Baz of "Masonic Verses" fame, after I posted on his blog saying he'd been the only one to spot it before the trial. (Unfortunately he also has his pet conspiracy theory which doesn't really fit the full dataset, and he doesn't want to reconsider it.) He sent me some correspondence he'd had from various authorities in the 1990s when he tried to put the case for the Bedford suitcase before them. One in particular was very very strange.

The letter was from a DS Emerton of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of New Scotland Yard, to Teddy Taylor, who seems to have been Baz's MP at the time. It says this (dated 12th June 1996).

Although the investigation into the tragedy was conducted by the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, the investigation into the allegation that the bomb was put on the aircraft at Heathrow Airport was thoroughly investigated, on his behalf, by the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch. The allegation was proved beyond question to be without foundation.


There was no such investigation. There can't have been.

It's also a bit odd to call this an allegation. Who, before Baz, had alleged it? It should have been a line of inquiry, not an allegation. And "proved beyond question to be without foundation"? How come the Crown were absolutely floundering at Camp Zeist, and had to lie about Sidhu's evidence even to achieve the possibility an outside chance of the Heathrow theory being wrong?

Why is this lying liar lying to us?

Rolfe.
 
I really don't know quite where you'd begin with that huge Times article. There's so much that is correct with some of the finer details of the operation that was undertaken by the PFLP-GC in Germany, but then on the most fundamental points, like the type of timers known to used in Khreesat's devices, any implication of a Heathrow ingestion onto PA103 is nothing more than a fleeting thought.

Incredible.

There's still talk (including some perhaps innocent or deliberately confusing) over Ms Noonan's clothing and it's closeness to the explosion and that Ms Coyle's items and bag had been identified by her family. It is also widely acknowledged by all at this stage in the investigation that we are on the hunt for an IED which was contained in a 'brown Samsonite hard-shell suitcase'.

This concerted effort to suppress information and dampen-down any suspicion or spotlight of the investigation falling on Heathrow didn't just begin with the evidence and statements provided by John Bedford on the 3rd and 9th Jan not being properly followed up; it began on 21st Dec. For it was on this date that began an active and successful effort to conceal the report of a break-in at Heathrow's T3 gate for nearly 13 years until late 2001 during Megrahi's first appeal.

And those two areas most certainly fell under the remit of the Met investiagtion.

News about a security breach hours before PA103 left Heathrow, pretty astounding as it was in itself given the magnitude of the attack on the UK and US citizens, only eventually coming to light after the Heathrow security guard himself contacted the legal team. By an awful twist of fate this new evidence was revealed to the world on September 11th 2001. Only thanks to Mr Manly conscientiousness was this information ever revealed. Sadly he died a short time after.

However, returning back, it is Mowat's determination and the FAI held during late 1990 and early 1991 that is actually worse than the Judges conclusions at Zeist in some respects. Mowat was afforded all the information at the time, and some of which was later denied to the Zeist court. Except the break-in of course which no one knew of. But the rest is all there:

  • Primary Suitcase is a Brown Samsonite in AVE4041
  • John Bedford witnesses brown Samsonite in AVE4041
  • Unresolved Discrepancy and Mysterious Ingestion into 4041
  • No Heathrow Interline Passenger in possession of brown samsonite
  • Brown Samsonite remains in original position throughout loading.
  • Explosion Estimated at 10" from Base/Floor of AVE4041



The fact that whatever the brown Samsonite was that Bedford saw, it was certainly illigitimate, which the Zeist Court was never forced to accept as irrefutable evdience illicited by DC Henderson. Nor was Zeist allowed to consider the implications posed for the Crown's argument if that bag described by Bedford as a 'brown Samsonite' was never moved from it position in AVE4041 as told by baggage handler Amarjirit Sidhu.

Like the break-in, had it not been for the FAI, John Bedford's evidence was being ignored while sitting there in plain sight. And by the FAI, it was sitting in plain sight of everyone involved. And still, not that even that would affect the determination of the FAI, the subsequent investigation for a further 10 yeras, and ultimately the conclusion at Zeist.
 
Last edited:
This concerted effort to suppress information and dampen-down any suspicion or spotlight of the investigation falling on Heathrow didn't just begin with the evidence and statements provided by John Bedford on the 3rd and 9th Jan not being properly followed up; it began on 21st Dec. For it was on this date that began an active and successful effort to conceal the report of a break-in at Heathrow's T3 gate for nearly 13 years until late 2001 during Megrahi's first appeal.

And those two areas most certainly fell under the remit of the Met investiagtion.

News about a security breach hours before PA103 left Heathrow, pretty astounding as it was in itself given the magnitude of the attack on the UK and US citizens, only eventually coming to light after the Heathrow security guard himself contacted the legal team. By an awful twist of fate this new evidence was revealed to the world on September 11th 2001. Only thanks to Mr Manly conscientiousness was this information ever revealed. Sadly he died a short time after.


The timeline is slightly odder than that. Here's the official story of what happened, from an email forwarded to me.


Chief Constable of D&G said:
  1. In January 1989 BAA security notified the Metropolitan police that an insecurity had been detected within terminal 3 at Heathrow during the early hours of 21 December 1988.
  2. The Metropolitan police passed this evidence to the Police Incident Room at Lockerbie and Actions were raised to investigate this matter.
  3. During the course of this investigation Mr Manly, the BAA Security Team Leader who discovered the insecurity, was interviewed by an officer from the Metropolitan Police and a statement was obtained from him. The interview took place on 31 January 1989. A number of other witnesses were also traced and interviewed regarding the insecurity.
  4. Mr Manly’s statement was passed to the police incident room at Lockerbie and was registered on the HOLMES system on 2 February 1989. This statement and those from other witnesses identified At Heathrow were considered by enquiry officers at the time in the context of a range of emerging strands of evidence.


This tells us a couple of things. First, that the police (Met or D&G) were not pro-active in investigating Heathrow security at the time of the disaster - Manly's report was unearthed by BAA themselves who passed it to the Met.

Second, it tells us that the Met was not running its own investigation into Heathrow, because all they did was pass the information to Lockerbie. Lockerbie then said, well kinda interesting, would you mind getting a statement from this bloke. Which the Met then did, but again only to send it straight back up to Lockerbie.

Lockerbie entered the statement into Holmes, and it was never heard of again.

I remember Jim Swire telling of a press conference called that Tuesday lunchtime to publicise the discovery of Manly's evidence. The press seemed interested at first, then they suddenly melted away. They'd heard about what was happening in New York.

Megrahi himself said of that day that first, he was horrified, and then second, he knew there was no chance of his appeal being granted. What western judge was going to allow the appeal of a Moslem convicted of an aircraft terrorist attack, after that? It seems awfully cynical, but when you look at the appeal process at Camp Zeist from 2001 into early 2002, it kind of looks as if he might have had a point.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Quite interesting exchanges there Rolfe. So, it seems that the Met and the D&G Police were jointly working on the investigation, between LICC and Heathrow although headed by Orr who had been drafted in from Strathclyde. However, as alluded to in those exchanges, it also appears the Mets anti-terrorist branch – given this was an IED on a flight from London – seem to have had some oversight of the elements of the investigation.

The Independent

January 7 1989, Saturday

The Lockerbie Disaster: Painstaking effort to track Lockerbie killers

BYLINE: NICK COHEN, HEATHER MILLS.

[…] Although there was rivalry between the Scots and the Metropolitan Police as to who should take charge of the Lockerbie investigation, Chief Superintendent John Orr, the senior CID officer in Strathclyde, was appointed head of the worldwide inquiry.

The 43-year-old is widely respected. He has a degree in forensic science and is a fellow of the Institute of British management. But he will clearly be guided by those with more experience in counter-terrorism. In reality, much of the responsibility will rest with Commander George Churchill-Coleman, the head of the Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad, SO13.

Eighteen days after the explosion, only one hard fact is on the record: it was a bomb. There are, in some cases, good reasons for the secrecy. The West Germans are refusing to name the public prosecutor who is leading the inquiries in Frankfurt. German terrorists have already assassinated a federal prosecutor and narrowly failed to wipe out another, his staff and his offices, with rockets.

The Frankfurt prosecutor will gather the results of the investigation by members of the 3,300- strong Federal Criminal Office (BKA). It has immensely sophisticated computer equipment. The computers came up with the address of a Red Army Faction terrorist when police simply fed in a series of assumptions - he would live in flats with an underground car park, be near the motorway network and would pay his water and fuel bills in cash.

In America, Pan Am 103, is 'the priority case'. At least three government agencies - the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) - are assisting in the investigation.

Charles Steinmetz, of the FBI, said its largest contribution until now had been in identifying victims of the crash through fingerprinting. The crash has led to unusual technical difficulties. Fingerprints cannot be lifted directly from some of the bodies, and have had to be taken from parts of the cabin the victims touched before the crash. So far 72 of the 216 victims have been identified this way.

Mr Steinmetz added that the British and US authorities had been 'cross-detailing agents and scientists'. British personnel are being sent to the US to work with their American counterparts and vice-versa. The FBI emphasised that they were working under British control.

[…]

They, MI5 and MI6 will report to the anti-terrorist squad in London. Working alongside the squad is a small FBI team, which set up its own secure lines to Washington. It will also make use of Europe's anti-terrorist communication lines - the Trevi network, known as Corea, and designed to enable one anti-terrorist police force to communicate directly and secretly with another.

The network - one of the first measures introduced by the Trevi group of interior ministers in charge of security and the fight against terrorism - is said to have been invaluable in amassing intelligence from Europe. Lockerbie will dominate a meeting in Madrid of the Trevi group at the end of this month.


Churchill-Coleman made a name for himself, in much the same way that Feraday and Hayes did, by tracking down and convicting folk behind some of the Irish Republican bombings in London during the late 1980’s.

Here’s another article here from 1986 about his involvement in another investigation around a potential bombing of an aircraft leaving from Heathrow: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1986/P...Boyfriend/id-ef9d97dd0aa90920763d86f1eabe2c84

I’m giving some thoughts to how the timeline of events and the investigation would have roughly panned-out. And I think it’s always worth keeping in mind that AVE4041 was identified in the very early stages as central to the investigation.

Within a week of 103 bombing, before 1989 was even upon us, AVE4041 should, and seemingly did, allow investigators to narrow their enquiries around this specific baggage container. This must’ve been a huge help to investigators as only a few handlers were directly involved in this baggage tins loading and security before 103 departed.

Better still, it allowed investigators to focus on a small number of Heathrow Interline bags, knowing the rest of the bags belonged to Frankfurt Interline passengers. Nevertheless, by New Year, investigators are in the position of being able to focus on about 45/50 items of passenger baggage including only a small number from Heathrow.

I’d imagine the relevant details of passengers on 103, including those who had checked-in at Heathrow, those who were joining from 103A, and those who arrived at Heathrow via other flights was known within 24hrs. Rumours quickly abounded that a bomb could be the only answer for the sudden and catastrophic crash of a 747 Jumbo with no indication of problems just minutes before or any mayday calls made.

Once AVE4041 was identified as the baggage tin that had experienced obvious explosive damage, the investigation was stepped up and a number of statements from Heathrow staff and baggage handlers are taken.

The small number of Heathrow Interline baggage was perhaps not precisely deduced as yet – they would have been aware that 17 passengers and 14 items of baggage were listed as Heathrow Interline for PA103 – although the investigation would quickly know that nearly half of these passengers had no checked luggage. For passengers who were Heathrow Interline and did have transferring hold baggage, the investigators now tallied the items of Heathrow origin baggage that could potentially have been in AVE4041.

So, 14 items of baggage apparently.

I think it was quickly picked-up that Ms Hall’s bag, being so early in the interline shed, had actually travelled on earlier Pan Am flight from Heathrow and not PA103; 13 Bags.

The day after the disaster 1 bag belonging to Mr Peirce and 1 belonging to Mr O’Connor, both listed as interline passengers with checked luggage for PA103, are discovered in the Interline baggage shed; 11 Heathrow bags to account for in AVE4041.

After taking statements from Sidhu, Sahota, Bedford, Parmar and Kamboj in late Dec and early Jan, this should have enough for investigators to realise that between Kamboj and Sidhu statements, there was, due to these bags arriving at the shed after Bedford had taken 4041 away, likely 5 items of the listed Heathrow interline bags that weren’t actually put into AVE4041. Going on the list provided, it wouldn’t be obvious which passenger baggage this was, although that passenger’s arrival at Heathrow would provide some idea.

However, with the recovery of debris still on-going around Lockerbie and the Scottish borders, no one could be 100% certain whose bags these were, but given they arrived at the interline shed, we can assume at this stage they were meant to be bound for AVE4041 ; that’s now 6 Heathrow interline bags to account for.

During this period a reconstruction of AVE4041 shows severe damage sustained in its lower left side into the overhang section of the baggage container. Meanwhile, in the middle of all this, they have already been presented with, by John Bedford head loader for AVE4041, an unusual instance relating to some baggage in this container.

Bedford has already brought to the attention of investigators an instance of an unaccounted introduction of perhaps two suitcases, one noted as a brown Samsonite, and its position in AVE4041 described. Further suspicion should have been raised in the clear discrepancy of how this bag or these bags were loaded during Bedford’s absence. Bedford says Kamboj told him he loaded it, and this is denied.

Only 3 staff dealt with this aspect of 4041’s loading and the very fact that numerous subsequent statements were taken from these guys shows that the investigation was only too aware of their importance.

So, investigators have 6 legitimate Heathrow interline bags to reconcile – and, of course, the noting by John Bedford of a ‘brown Samsonite’ amongst these bags. What we need to wait for now is a reconciliation of these passengers and the types of luggage they were in possession of, and more information from forensics about the bomb. Was this 'brown samsonite' included as part of these six legitimate bags - or is it in addition to the 6 bags?

By mid-February, details of the latter start to emerge, and by March John Orr is mentioning ‘7 bags’ in baggage container 4041. This statement also suggests the investigation were well advanced in deducing how many bags, through the aforementioned lists and now loading reconstructions of AVE4041 by Bedford and Sidhu, were in AVE4041 before the Frankfurt luggage was loaded. ‘All the floor space was taken-up’: 5 suitcases upright along the back, and two flat on the floor in-front, the left one a ‘brown Samsonite’. Uncertainty surrounds this specific case’s loading.

Surely there was a team looking at, filtering, and highlighting areas of note in the statements. With a focus on the relatively small staff that were working directly with AVE4041 and its baggage. You know, er, investigation and enquiry.

It is announced to the public in March that a ‘brown Samsonite suitcase’ housed the IED in container AVE4041 which had brought down PA103 resulting in the deaths of 270 people. Now, you or I might reasonably think, well on this information, there’s a very plausible reason to go back to Heathrow, and follow-up the almighty lead that should be obvious to everyone – or anyone – or whoever was looking over these statements. Where all the statements being supplied? Where some marked as ‘unimportant’? What the hell happened?

Nothing much really. The investigation seemingly ploughed on, much was being made of the radio cassette, the clothing, and of course everyone by now is on the hunt for a ‘brown Samsonite suitcase’. Seriously. But absolutely no one, not one God damn person, even so much as mentions ‘Heathrow’ and ‘brown Samsonite’ in the same breathe. Yet it’s there, in the statements, the whole time. Sure the German’s were shouting ‘Heathrow’, but only because everyone was thinking ‘Khreesat device’, which was perfectly reasonable given 103’s last flight time of 38mins. Still, the only reference of a ‘brown Samsonite suitcase’ is coming from the forensic labs at Rarde, and how it is this that is the primary suitcase.

Meanwhile, as John Orr points his finger increasing towards Frankfurt, DC Derek Henderson is busy compiling a reconciliation of the passengers and baggage who had been unfortunate enough to travel on 103. His investigation put paid to any theory of a unsuspecting mule or bag-switch by handlers: no one travelling on Pan Am 103 was known to be in possession of the type of suitcase that contained the primary device.

Nothing more is heard of Heathrow or John Bedford and by late summer 1989 the full weight of the investigation is centred on Malta. Never mind the brown Samsonite at Heathrow, we got clothing found around the bomb which has come from Malta – so the bomb must have come from there. And that, essentially, is the thrust of the investigation from here on.

Stinks to high heaven would be generous.
 
Last edited:
I note the date on that is the same day as the date on the BKA memo putting the explosion exactly where Bedford said the maroon Samsonite was placed.

I'm not sure about the timeline regarding involvement of the Met, but Crawford has a few things to say about it. The Met swanned up to Lockerbie thinking they would show these country bumpkins how it was done, and were sent away with a flea in their ear. I see no evidence at all that anyone higher up in the Met than Detective Sergeant had anything to do with this investigation. I don't think their counter-terrorism branch so much as opened a file.

All I can see is junior officers being used as gofers at Heathrow. Take statements. Go back take some more. Find out this and that. Then all that information was passed raw to Lockerbie. I don't know whether that article describes how it was going to be organised before Maggie said no not like that, or whether the journalists were just guessing how it would be, but I do not believe it was like that. (Notice that mention of "Corea" there - shades of Lester Coleman, very weird.)

We have a number of more-or-less inside accounts of the Lockerbie investigation. Johnston, Emerson & Duffy, Leppard, Crawford, Marquise. None of them even mentions Churchill-Coleman (any relation to Lester?) at all. None of them mentions the Met doing anything but taking a few statements. None of them mentions the anti-terrorism branch at all. There is literally no English input until you get to the RARDE team, and they are reporting directly to the D&G.

I have no idea if the Met would have figured it out if they had been involved, but they weren't. They just sent the statements north. DS Emerton was lying, or had been given false information by a superior to pass to Baz.

The two points I think are important in relation to what you said are first that the investigators weren't looking for a terrorist at Heathrow. Not at all. They didn't ask Kamboj or Parmar what they were doing while Bedford was on his break. They didn't ask if the container was always within their sight, or if they saw anyone loitering. They didn't even ask Bedford which suitcase was the one he was describing as brown. At all times it seems to be just a basic information-gathering evidence with no particular goal in mind except you can tell the bit where they ask several people if they saw Nicola Hall's case there in the morning. Nobody is trying to put any Heathrow-infiltration scenario together.

One of the reasons I originally dismissed the idea that Kamboj was complicit in loading the suitcase was that the cops would surely have investigated him within an inch of his life and he must have come up squeaky-clean. I still don't think he was complicit, but I note they didn't investigate him as a possible suspect/accessory at all. And what about the girl-friend? The one that was going to fly on 103 that evening and changed her shift? What was that all about? Nobody followed it up.

They're just not interested. Orr "eliminated Heathrow within three weeks of the bombing", and the rest was just routine.

My second point is that I think it took them quite a while to be sure exactly whose suitcases were in the loose-loaded batch. Arnaud Rubin's was the first of that batch, but they couldn't have been 100% certain it didn't get to the interline shed before Bedford got back. I think it wasn't until they identified the luggage and confirmed which items had no explosives contamination and were found along with the debris from the back of the plane that they could be sure. So the final tally of only six legitimate suitcases I think didn't come in until after they were well set on Malta.

I think Orr's statement of "seven" was taken from the 24th January reconstructions coming up with "probably seven", rather than having anything at all to do with the incoming passenger records or reconciliation. Also, there were examples of passengers who had luggage checked in not having that recorded on the paperwork. Kenneth Gibson for example. So they had to check up people like the Volkswagen executives to find out if they might have been carrying something - that seems to have involved talking to families and people who drove them to the airport and even other passengers who saw them board the incoming flights.

If anything, the investigators just assumed the bottom case would eventually reconcile to something, because after all everyone is telling us the explosion was on the second layer. Only the SIO and his immediate circle would have all the information, and the SIO was convinced it wasn't Heathrow, and wasn't even telling anyone else the details of what Bedford (or Manly) saw.

The BKA had a German summary of the statements, and as I said, Helge Tepp spotted the significance of what Bedford said, but when he enquired of Lockerbie whose case that had turned out to be, he got the brush-off.

It's the motive I don't get. All to protect BAA? I'm damn sure Orr didn't think of it on his own initiative though.

Rolfe.
 
Henderson's other report is the one dealing only with the Heathrow interline luggage, and it seems to be quite simple. I constructed it into this table.

Passenger | Flight | From | Landed | No of items
Nicola Hall||Johannesburg |06.46|1*
Bernt Carlsson|BA391|Brussels|11.06|1
James Fuller||Hannover|14.31|0
Louis Marengo||Hannover|14.31|0
Charles McKee|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|2
Matthew Gannon|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|1
Ronald LaRiviere|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|0
Gregory Kosmowski |BD777|Birmingham|15.07|0
Robert Fortune||Amsterdam|15.18|0
Elia Stratis||Amsterdam|15.18|0
Michael Bernstein|BA701|Vienna|15.35|2
Arnaud Rubin|BA395|Brussels|16.15|1
Joseph Curry|BA603|Pisa|16.21|2
Peter Peirce|BA603|Pisa|16.21|3*
Daniel O'Connor|CY1354 |Larnaca|16.43|1*
James Stow||Geneva|16.34|0
Richard Cawley||Dusseldorf|16.57|0

That's 14 items in total from the 17 passengers. However, three of these items (asterisked) weren't on 103. Nicola Hall's case was sent on 101, because it was there so early and the baggage handlers just wanted shot of it. Daniel O'Connor's case "travelled to the USA on another flight", but that's all they say about it. One of Peter Peirce's items was also left behind and found at Heathrow later.

...

Rolfe.

This is very interesting. Some of you seem to be well informed. After reading this thread I still have some questions:

Is the quoted table from one of Derek Hendersons reports?

Where is the second brownish suitcase Bedford saw. Is it the leather suitcase found by Jim Wilson at his farm?

Is it possible that the two suitcases Bedford saw, were uncompanied cases coming from Larnaca and that one of the suitcases containing drugs was switched for the suitcase containing the bomb? Why sending drugs to Frankfurt first when there is a direct connection to Heathrow?

How many explosion damaged suitcases were found? If the bomb suitcase was on the second row, you have to find fragments of at least two secondary suitcases (one below and one on top of the primary suitcase). I believe they only found one: the blue american tourister.
 
This is very interesting. Some of you seem to be well informed. After reading this thread I still have some questions:

Is the quoted table from one of Derek Hendersons reports?


Yes. It's a compilation from a number of reports and witness statements, but the basis of it is Henderson's report on the Heathrow interline passengers' luggage. If you read further into the thread you'll find an updated version including extra information from a witness statement Buncrana identified. The order of arrival above isn't quite right.

Where is the second brownish suitcase Bedford saw. Is it the leather suitcase found by Jim Wilson at his farm?


I don't think there was a second brownish suitcase. I think Bedford mainly looked at the left-hand one, and bear in mind we only have colour vision at the centre of our visual field. I think the right-hand one was Charles McKee's dark grey Samsonite hardshell, and Bedford mistook the colour slightly due to his eye having been mainly caught by the odd "antique copper" finish on the left-hand one.

The right-hand suitcase would have been close enough to the explosion to suffer significant explosion damage. There is no other unidentified explosion-damaged suitcase that might have been the right-hand one, brown-ish hardshell or not. And even if the Jim Wilson story is true (and it's very hard to pin it down), the suitcase he saw was never reported as having been ripped apart by the explosion.

My "best guess" explanation for the second suitcase is that the terrorist, whoever he was, approached the container carrying the suitcase with the bomb packed asymmetrically along one side, intending to load it flat with that side as close into the lower part of the overhang as he could achieve. That would put the IED as close to the skin of the plane as possible. I hypothesise that he may have been slightly thrown to find all the cases in the container in an upright row across the back.

I think he kept to the plan, and put the Samsonite flat on the floor to the left, tucked as far into the overhang as possible, and then worried about the position. It may have looked a little odd, and there was nothing to prevent the hard shiny case sliding to the right - or being slid to the right by someone adding more luggage.

I think he then pulled the case that matched his suitcase most closely from the row at the back, and used it to fix the position of the bomb suitcase, preventing it from sliding to the right. I think he then rearranged the cases in the row at the back to some extent to disguise the fact that it was now one case fewer.

There is a small wrinkle here I don't entirely understand. According to the order of arrival, the cases in the back row, left to right, should have been as follows.

Carlsson - three Larnaca cases - two Bernstein cases

However, according to the pattern of damage, the order when the container was closed up was as follows.

Carlsson - two Bernstein cases - Gannon - McKee Tourister

This suggests a bigger rearrangement that I understand the reason for, or would have thought the terrorist would have wanted to risk. But it seems to have been done.

Is it possible that the two suitcases Bedford saw, were uncompanied cases coming from Larnaca and that one of the suitcases containing drugs was switched for the suitcase containing the bomb? Why sending drugs to Frankfurt first when there is a direct connection to Heathrow?


Hi! Welcome to the forum. Nice to see you here. ;)

Not that I can tell. I've read all the witness statements from the Pan Am staff who were in the interline shed at the time, and there's nothing to substantiate that theory.

You are assuming drugs were sent at all. If they were, I don't see any particular reason for avoiding a flight with a stop-over. There were persistent rumours that Khaled Jaafar was acting as a drugs courier, and he died on the flight. I don't know if the rumours are true or not, but the circumstantial evidence is somewhat suspicious. If he was doing that, it was systematically covered up. If the Wilson story is true, I think that may be the explanation. It was a suitcase checked in by Jaafar, and the holdalls belonging to him which were recovered on the ground and were said to be his hold luggage, were actually cabin baggage.

I'm not persuaded this has anything to do with the introduction of the bomb.

How many explosion damaged suitcases were found? If the bomb suitcase was on the second row, you have to find fragments of at least two secondary suitcases (one below and one on top of the primary suitcase). I believe they only found one: the blue american tourister.


25, plus the bomb suitcase, so 26 in all. I'm not sure if McKee's other case is in that list, because it was only noted as having explosives contamination, not actual damage. I think it ended up on the right-hand end of the row along the back, which would have put it quite far from the explosion.

I entirely agree with you about the absence of a third pulverised suitcase. I think it's a crucial point. A point the defence should have stressed at trial, but didn't.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Here is the post with the full, correct version of the Heathrow interline luggage, in correct order of arrival. You may find it generally interesting, LittleSwan.

By the way, I think I realised why Orr said there were seven items in the container. This was late March 1989. The baggage handlers had established that there were seven items, in the reconstructions carried out in January. I don't think they realised as early as March just how the timing of the arriving flights affected whether luggage was in the container or not, or how the recovery position confirmed this.

Even assuming they had the details of the incoming flights pretty quickly (which I imagine they did), they had 17 interline passengers. They knew about the three cases that didn't go on the flight quite quickly too. I think it may have taken longer to establish for sure that a fair number of the passengers didn't check in any luggage. But even supposing they did know about that, there were still 11 potential interline suitcases.

Here's an updated version of the interline passenger table, in strict order of actual arrival according to the statement Buncrana identified.

Passenger | Flight | From | Landed | No of items
Nicola Hall|SA234|Johannesburg |06.46|1*
Bernt Carlsson|BA391|Brussels|11.06|1
Charles McKee|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|2
Matthew Gannon|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|1
Ronald LaRiviere|CY504|Larnaca|14.34|0
James Fuller|LH1628|Hannover|14.51|0
Louis Marengo|LH1628|Hannover|14.51|0
Gregory Kosmowski |BD777|Birmingham|15.07|0
Robert Fortune|BD108|Amsterdam|15.18|0
Elia Stratis|BD108|Amsterdam|15.18|0
Michael Bernstein|BA701|Vienna|15.35|2
Arnaud Rubin|BA395|Brussels|16.15|1
Joseph Curry|BA603|Pisa|16.21|2
Peter Peirce|BA603|Pisa|16.21|3*
James Stow|BA729|Geneva|16.34|0
Daniel O'Connor|CY1354 |Larnaca|16.43|1*
Richard Cawley|BA941|Dusseldorf|16.57|0
*three cases which didn't travel on PA103

Down as far as Bernstein is what was actually in the container. (They knew Nicola's case wasn't in it though.) Look at Rubin, though. His flight arrived too late for his case to go in the container, but that wouldn't have been immediately obvious. It was only gradually, as they figured there were five items loose-loaded at the last minute, and then of course that Rubin's suitcase had no explosives contamination and was found on the ground in the place where items from the rear of the plane ended up that Rubin's suitcase was classed with the too-late group.

It's possible nobody thought it through in as much detail as that while they were still doing the luggage reconciliation, but actually it would have been quite reasonable for Orr to have believed in the "seven cases" thing at that stage, based on the reconstructions. Henderson's report showing there were only six legitimate items probably wasn't compiled until a fair bit later. (This probably explains Mowat's "six or seven" comment, because Henderson had produced his report by then. Once again, one simply marvels that Mowat didn't get it.)

That still doesn't excuse the ignoring of the "mysterious appearance" and "brown Samsonite" parts by Orr in March though.


Rolfe.
 
How many explosion damaged suitcases were found? If the bomb suitcase was on the second row, you have to find fragments of at least two secondary suitcases (one below and one on top of the primary suitcase). I believe they only found one: the blue american tourister.


I just noticed that I seem to have been at slight cross-purposes with you on this point.

There were 26 explosion-damaged suitcases listed. however only two of these were absolutely pulverised. These are the only two we have photos of, see earlier in the thread. It was specifically noted in court that no other suitcase was recovered in that condition. The other 24 suffered less severe damage (though it appears that Bernt Carlsson's case, immediately behind the bomb bag, was also badly damaged and as a result proved difficult to identify. His sister and girl-friend appear not to have identified it, partly because he had a large collection of suitcases at home which confused them, but it was eventually identified by someone who had met with him on his Brussels visit).

The bomb could have been in either of the two pulverised suitcases on the basis if the degree of damage. One of these was a brown Samsonite mainly containing menswear, while the other was a navy blue canvas American Tourister belonging to Patricia Coyle who had interlined into Frankfurt from Vienna. However there was a serious investigation into the two students who had come from Vienna (Patricia and her friend Karen Noonan), and it was concluded they hadn't been given any nasty little "presents". Also, it seems forensics favoured the brown case as the bomb bag.

Looking at the arrangement of the luggage in the corner where the explosion occurred, it's incontrovertible that the bag in question had to be one of the two bottom cases in the front left-hand stack, or a holdall in the overhang immediately to the left of these. Subsequent investigation ruled out that last possibility, leaving the two flat suitcases in the frame.

The idea was advanced that the suitcase on the bottom layer wouldn't have been pushed into the overhang section, and the explosion was slightly into the overhang. However, the way they stacked the suitcases meant that the second case was no more likely to have been protruding into the overhang than the bottom one - they dressed the stacks to the right.

The illustration below shows that it was quite possible for a suitcase on the bottom layer to be originally loaded partly into the overhang. That picture is just a container loaded randomly as an example for a BBC documentary, and look how it came out!

twotins.jpg


I think it's less likely that the hardshell Samsonite would have been loaded like that. However it has been pointed out that the shiny, rigid, slightly convex case would have been very prone to slide up into that position when the aircraft banked. And it was a turbulent night that December.

So really, either the bottom one or the one above it, despite all the effort expended by the investigation to kid themselves (and us) that the bottom case wasn't in the frame.

We know what these cases were. The bottom one was Bedford's brown Samsonite, and the one on top of it was a case from Frankfurt.

We have two shattered cases, one brown Samsonite, and one case from Frankfurt. We know that forensics prefers the brown Samsonite as the bomb bag, and that a bomb in the upper of the two cases would be expected also to have pulverised the case on the third layer.

The Crown effort to "get out of that" at Camp Zeist has all the hallmarks of a "Hail Mary pass", and it was only successful because of what looks very much like judicial bias.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Rolfe.

There is an interesting part about Lockerbie in Alexander Beveridge, Forensic Investigation of Explosions, 2nd ed. Evidence of Explosive Damage to Materials and Structures, section 8.9.4. Pam Am Flight PA103..... page 343-347. It's about a polymeric material found in one of the pits (craters) in the so called extrusion that connects the floor panel with the sloped overhang:

" The solvent washings of the dark polymeric material recovered from one of the pits was analyzed using a combination of FTIR and XRD, which identified the black deposit as graphite bound by a resin coplymer, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).... The material could have been derived from the suitcase or container in which the explosive divice was concealed"

Does anyone know if Samsonite 4000's are made of ABS?
 
Last edited:
That's beyond me, really. However, if it was found in the overhang section, it doesn't really show whether the primary suitcase was on the floor or not.

What would be interesting to know would be whether anything was found on the actual floor section, or indeed whether there was anything that wasn't Patricia's suitcase adherent to any of the other side fragments of the brown suitcase (as opposed to evidence that Patricia's suitcase had been flat against PI/911).

Rolfe.
 
" The solvent washings of the dark polymeric material recovered from one of the pits was analyzed using a combination of FTIR and XRD, which identified the black deposit as graphite bound by a resin coplymer, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).... The material could have been derived from the suitcase or container in which the explosive divice was concealed"

Does anyone know if Samsonite 4000's are made of ABS?

Hi LittleSwan, welcome to the JREF forums.

I don't know about suitcases, but mass produced electrical goods are very commonly made with black ABS plastic, I'd guess that it was from the toshiba radio the explosive was in.
 
Thank you Rolfe.

There is an interesting part about Lockerbie in Alexander Beveridge, Forensic Investigation of Explosions, 2nd ed. Evidence of Explosive Damage to Materials and Structures, section 8.9.4. Pam Am Flight PA103..... page 343-347. It's about a polymeric material found in one of the pits (craters) in the so called extrusion that connects the floor panel with the sloped overhang:

" The solvent washings of the dark polymeric material recovered from one of the pits was analyzed using a combination of FTIR and XRD, which identified the black deposit as graphite bound by a resin coplymer, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).... The material could have been derived from the suitcase or container in which the explosive divice was concealed"

Does anyone know if Samsonite 4000's are made of ABS?


Hi LittleSwan,

welcome to the forum. You seem to have brought in some science to the ponderings! I'm very pleased about this, but I am certainly no scientist. I am, in my head at least, quite good at getting my noodle to twist around concepts here n there.

I haven't read Alexander Beveridge's Lockerbie investigation, but I am wondering what is meant by ' or container in which the explosive device was concealed' ie is he referring to the Toshiba radio or the luggage container AVE4041 ?

I haven't the faintest idea what a Samsonite 4000 is made of. Nor Toshiba radios, etc. I'm just intrigued to know that it's possible to still tell these things ( or at least the building blocks of them ) apart even after the catastrophe of panam103.



ETA: Thanks, Ambrosia! :-)
 
Last edited:
Fatal Accident Inquiry Evidence- Day 17 - Siddhu and other Heathrow loaders/drivers


The day 17 transcript ( link above! ) is seriously interesting, isn't it? It gives a really good idea of how the baggage handling team at Heathrow handled the tight turn-around ie late arriving flight from Frankfurt, PA103 on it's way on time.

Some terminology is explained. I'd assumed 'rocket' referred to some kind of conveyer belt, but it was nice to see it all explained, especially which person was where and what they were doing.

One thing I hadn't realised was that AVE 4041 was originally penciled in on the 'cool plan' - ( original loading instruction ) for position 13R, which would have put it beside the cargo door. The worker in charge of the loading explains that the 'cool plan' is not set in stone and that it's part of his duties to load the 747 as best as the circumstances at the time allow.
I'd always just assumed that some containers would go down the left and some down the right, and there's me with all my tessellating truck-loading experience ( scenery and boxes, many many boxes, for touring theatre, if you're asking )

Sure, the terrorist isn't going to know in advance which tin is getting which label and which position said tin is going, but it's another notch to the "Deliberately Placed, Not Randomly Thrown, Into Tin" scenario. I'm sure others have mentioned the absolute 'luck' of that bomb being just exactly where it needed to be. What I mean is, that as long as the suitcase is in the right place in the tin, then it doesn't really matter which tin.

One other thing I picked up was a little momentary mis-understanding between the questioner and Siddhu ( perhaps from accents, or just folks not speaking very loudly )

Talking about the two cases lying on their sides Siddhu tells of them being wide and heavy-looking. "White or light?" say the Inquiry clearly not having heard properly. "Nope, both cases were definitely dark coloured" confirms Mr Siddhu .

( The previous paragraph involves a massive amount of paraphrasing. Small apologies for being a bit vague, but it's from source material and everybody should read it for themselves. In these ' post- Leveson ' days I'm ever less keen on best buddies relationships between police and media, even if the relatioships are 'historic' )


Anyhoo, I'd thoroughly recommend Fatal Accident Inquiry Evidence- Day 17 - Siddhu and other Heathrow loaders/drivers to anyone interested in the Heathrow baggage operation that day.
 
You're right, it didn't matter which container it was, or where the container was placed, so long as it was in the right corner of the container. Left hand side near the bottom would do it, every time.

Sidhu only has one "d", by the way.

The weird part about his FAI evidence is that most of it is new, apart from the "no I didn't move that luggage" part. His original police statements went into very little detail about any of that. There's more detail about earlier in the afternoon when he was working in the baggage build-up shed loading containers from the check-in desks. The police seem to have been utterly incurious about any of the detail on the tarmac. Of course the police who interviewed him were Met officers who didn't have access to the details of the case and weren't involved in analysing the data. They may not even have known where the explosion was. They would only press points Lockerbie asked them to press and it doesn't look as if Lockerbie asked them to press very much.

Same with Kamboj and Parmar, who were apparently right there when the mystery case appeared in the container. Nobody asked them anything about that half-hour. Nobody even asked Bedford which case it was he was describing as the brown Samsonite. It beggars belief.

If I could get day 16, which I think must contain Kamboj and Parmar as well as Bedford, is anyone interested? It's possible some smart cookie asked them the stuff the cops ought to have asked them but didn't.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Hi LittleSwan,

welcome to the forum. You seem to have brought in some science to the ponderings! I'm very pleased about this, but I am certainly no scientist. I am, in my head at least, quite good at getting my noodle to twist around concepts here n there.

ETA: Thanks, Ambrosia! :-)

Well... I'm a scientist and I know a little bit of explosions.

A remarkable feature of the damage to AVE4041 is the fragmentation of the extrusion between the floor panel and the sloped overhang. You won't get fragmentation of this relatively strong part if the centre of the explosion (450gr Semtex) is app. 10 inch above it. Believe it or not, the so called "Claiden spot" is way to high.
 
Last edited:
For real?

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?

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.

sketchpos.jpg


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

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
In the early days of the investigation (correct me if I'm wrong) the working assumption seems to have been that the Neuss PFLP-GC cell had something to do with the bombing, and that the bomb had travelled via Frankfurt. If you're trying to model the explosion, and if you know that there was an 'innocent' case on the bottom of AVE4041 which had not been moved, then you might be inclined to disregard any calculation which placed the explosion slap-bang inside this case, and maybe adjust parameters until you got a more 'sensible' result. Not falsification so much as self-censorship, the a priori ruling out of any results which contradicted known 'facts.'
 
If I could get day 16, which I think must contain Kamboj and Parmar as well as Bedford, is anyone interested? It's possible some smart cookie asked them the stuff the cops ought to have asked them but didn't.

Rolfe.


Yes, please. If it's get-able I'll have some. Thank-you.
 
In the early days of the investigation (correct me if I'm wrong) the working assumption seems to have been that the Neuss PFLP-GC cell had something to do with the bombing, and that the bomb had travelled via Frankfurt. If you're trying to model the explosion, and if you know that there was an 'innocent' case on the bottom of AVE4041 which had not been moved, then you might be inclined to disregard any calculation which placed the explosion slap-bang inside this case, and maybe adjust parameters until you got a more 'sensible' result. Not falsification so much as self-censorship, the a priori ruling out of any results which contradicted known 'facts.'


But that is absolutely not how it should be happening. The people who know about which suitcases from which source went where are the police. The job of the AAIB is to model the explosion, full stop. Not to go to the police and say, where do you want it to be? And not to listen to the police if they try to pressurise them.

The thought is that in the early stages the cops thought all the luggage in the container was from the feeder flight. And that fitted perfectly with the conclusion everyone (except Ronald Reagan, apparently) leaped to that this was the work of the Neuss PFLP-GC. Then they discovered from Bedford about the few Heathrow interline cases. So they assumed the bottom case must be innocent.

But it was only an assumption, and there's no obvious reason the Neuss gang couldn't have got their bomb to Heathrow overland/sea. Why so adamant against the lower suitcase?

Orr presented a report to the Lockerbie conference in March 1989 saying that "on the balance of probabilities" the bomb came from Frankfurt. His reasoning was that nearly all the recovered blast-damaged luggage at that point was of Frankfurt origin. Presumably he was trying to say, as was proposed at the FAI, that the bomb suitcase was in an enclave of luggage from the feeder flight.

But that is faulty reasoning. The bomb suitcase had to be either the Bedford case or the one above it. If it had been the Bedford case, that actually explains a relative dearth of Heathrow luggage involved in the explosion.

Latterly, it was all about the forensics showing the bomb wasn't on the bottom layer. That was the sole reason for excluding that suitcase. I know this case is riddled with circular reasoning, but that's ridiculous.

That suitcase was sitting there festooned in fairy-lights holding up a flashing neon sign reading "bomb here!" How incompetent is it possible to get?

CTB, I'll see what I can do. Any other requests for particular pieces of evidence?

Rolfe.
 
CTB, I'll see what I can do. Any other requests for particular pieces of evidence?

Rolfe.

Oh.... Yes,

The joint report of Hayes and Feraday

The Indian Head Tests report with the pictures showing a fragmentated extrusion in test no. 5.

Pictures of explosion damaged suitcases

The report from James Wyatt who said he did 20 tests
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom