Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[Rolfe]

Personally, I find looking at alternative Lockerbie CTs to be quite instructive. It's an unusual situation, where the Official Version is itself a complete stitch-up, and we don't actually know what happened. Therefore, anyone with a theory is in principle worth listening to.

When Charles started giving out oblique hints that he had a complete thesis worked out about what actually happened, I was initially interested. When he revealed that it involved sabotaging the actual luggage container 18 hours before the plane took off, a second bomb actually planted and triggered by the CIA, and the assumption that virtually every piece of relevant evidence found on the ground was fabricated, I kind of lost the will to live on this one.

Nevertheless, one can often learn something even from batsqueak crazy CTs like Charles's. Anyone who has looked into this complex incident may have picked up some relevant fact that has escaped me, at least, or had an idea that isn't entirely crazy and might even be on the money. For example, if the story about McKee's suitcase being found and tampered with by the CIA at an early stage is true, and it could well be, then Charles's idea that it had a built-in transponder may not be completely off the mark. In addition, I really wish he would give his source for this thing about first-class luggage, because I want to know where it came from even though I think it's wrong.

But for the rest - it's Malcolm Kirkman all over again. There are so many glaring, obvious, killer flaws in his thinking you just want to see if you can persuade him to accept even one of them by reasoned argument.

Probably not, but it's fun trying.

And then Sabretooth found a CT which is completely new to me, this Smith shotgun thing. Now that's how to do it, Charles. Nearly 400 pages in pdf, full of technical detail, meticulously presented, and looking exactly like an official Air Accident Report. Still barking, but about a million points for style and effort.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

By the way, look at this from that Smith pdf - pages 119 and 120.

7. Observations:
In the AAIB report there is a grammatical error in verb tense and irrelevant inclusions of phrases and conclusions for bomb explosion which are unsupported by evidence.
AAIB 2/90:
'The datum line, discussed at paragraph 1.12.1.6, was derived from a detailed analysis of the distribution of specific items of wreckage, including those exhibiting positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive.
'The items used to define the datum line, included those exhibiting positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive, would have been the first pieces to have been released from the aircraft.'
A. Bomb explanation:
Any time an opportunity arises to declare a bomb exploded in Pan Am Flight 103 is a good time.
B. Shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation:
The AAIB report is generally well written, precise, grammatically correct, and punctuation is perfect; however, the only two exceptions deal with statements about the 'plastic explosive'. The text reads clearer: 'The datum line, discussed at paragraph 1.12.1.6, was derived from a detailed analysis of the distribution of specific items of wreckage.' The inclusion of the phrase "...including those exhibiting positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive", is irrelevant and incongruous in context of datum lines.
And:
'The items used to define the datum line would have been the first pieces to have been released from the aircraft.' The inclusion of the almost identical strange phrase, "...included those exhibiting positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive", is appended, grammatically incorrect as written, and incongruous in context of datum lines.
C. Conclusions:
It makes little sense that AAIB investigators who have written an important document which is precise and grammatically correct in most respects would make grammar errors in two sentences concerning a detonating high performance plastic explosive. It makes greater sense that the the phrases were inserted as changes at the last minute by a non-AAIB official to bolster a weak case and the insertions were not caught by AAIB officials.

Is this guy Charles's literate twin?

At least he has the decency to quote the typos he thinks are so significant, and explain why he thinks so. It's a step up from rudely telling people to read the whole thing and look for a significant typo!

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Jings!
Definitely a superior class of crazy.

Spitfires's "Lurkers" argument is always valid of course. I've used it myself in other fields. But there can be obsession on both sides of a debate. I just worry that people get so sucked into dealing with extreme entrenched viewpoints (in whatever area), that they either waste huge swathes of time they might have spent on having a life, or worse, they may be sucked ino the silly swamp themselves.

 

[Rolfe]

Jings!
Definitely a superior class of crazy.

What, Smith? Definitely! I had to scan quite a bit before I realised it was a CT with superior production values. I doubt if Sabretooth realised he was linking to a CT document, as it looks so much like an official report.

Spitfires's "Lurkers" argument is always valid of course. I've used it myself in other fields. But there can be obsession on both sides of a debate. I just worry that people get so sucked into dealing with extreme entrenched viewpoints (in whatever area), that they either waste huge swathes of time they might have spent on having a life, or worse, they may be sucked ino the silly swamp themselves.

Well, you can waste huge swathes of time doing a lot of things. Watching soap operas, playing computer games, jogging, gardening, knitting, doing crossword puzzles, reading detective novels, whatever. I just wasted an entire fortnight watching opera in Germany.

Whatever floats your boat, really.

Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

...I doubt if Sabretooth realised he was linking to a CT document, as it looks so much like an official report.

As much as I hate to admit that, you're right. I pulled it off an official site, so it seemed valid.

Honest mistake.

 

[catsmate]

And bloodspots.

But a little bit of civil action would have kept "she who must be obeyed" happy about the bills.

Blood and Typewriters. He'd far rather a nice little murder.

Hantzauman had a proper radar set capable of receiving secondary radar controlled by NATS in Southern Scotland and also the reflected primary response.

Absolute and utter drivel. As has already been stated, to successfully track an aircraft at ~10km altitude and >30km slant range would not have been possible with hand-held equipment. You simply don't understand, or don't want to understand this reality.

Oh dear. I thought only Kumar indulged in argument by Googlefight (is that the term, Zep?).

Rolfe.

No, Argument ad Googleum is popular with 911 nuts also, especially the Jammy Dodger.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I generally stay out of CT and reading this convinces me I'm wise. A week or a year from now, this guy will still be spouting nonsense and ignoring or being rude to anyone who disagrees with him. Why bother?

Furthermore, he can't tell a web board from a blog, he can't or won't learn how to use the quote function, he writes incomprehensibly and he doesn't think too clearly. He is pretty obviously headed for a ban in fairly short order, as he will continue to be abusive and to ignore mod instruction. He will ascribe this to CIA influence. (I'm fairly sure Darat is MI6 myself. I mean, English and gay- stands to reason. And Randi is a perfidious Yank as well- case closed!)
So what makes him worth the trouble?

What he said. I can't disagree with that at all. However:

I and others have addressed this question here and elsewhere, both online and in the real world. For most of us, the answer is, we don't expect to convince the true believers of the error of their ways; we know that's virtually impossible. Rather, we do it for the benefit of the uninformed who might be exposed to conspiracist garbage and wonder whether there's any truth to it. We are quite confident that as long as we make an effort to present the truth, it will win out eventually.

Also, for me personally, I see conspiracists as [Rule 10]ing on the graves of, variously, the Americans (and Japanese) killed at Pearl Harbor; JFK and Patrolman J.D. Tippit; all of the astronauts who have given their lives in pursuit of the exploration of space; and all of the victims of the various terrorist attacks that have become fodder for conspiracy theories. This angers me, and I feel an obligation to attempt to call attention to this behavior.

ETA: I don't consider Holocaust denial to be a form of conspiracism, even though the two phenomena appear superficially similar, and there is certainly a significant amount of crossover. Deniers are in a special category of particular loathing and contempt.

In principle, I also agree with that stance even more. But obviously there's the time issue, and also the value of curt dismissiveness and even ridicule where it's warranted. A nice mix is often best.

For example, if the story about McKee's suitcase being found and tampered with by the CIA at an early stage is true, and it could well be, then Charles's idea that it had a built-in transponder may not be completely off the mark.

There was absolutely a suitcase - gray hardshell, IIRC - that was taken away, had a square hole cut into it, and was replaced. I'm pretty sure the CIA acknowledge it. The issue caused some degree of fiction. Specifics are in the transcripts somewhere. It seems to have been McKee's, presumed as such, or something, and I agree this particular point is worth considering. I just don't buy his reasons to suspect that this means anything of any direct relevance to crime.

I can also add, as Aku informed me (comments here), Charles was right that the Iranian Airbus is more properly referred to as IR655, with IA denoting Iraq Air.

And as Rolfe notes, questions in this particular case are all inherently worthy of hearing out, due to the marked lack of consensus over the truth of Megrahi's - and indeed Libya's - actual guilt. The forum here has shown that to be the case. With regard to Mr. Norrie's ... (theory really isn't the right word, is it?) ... we haven't been graced with a clear explanation, so it can't be said to have gotten a hearing in full detail. Nonetheless, it's clear there's nothing down that road.

 

[Rolfe]

There was absolutely a suitcase - gray hardshell, IIRC - that was taken away, had a square hole cut into it, and was replaced. I'm pretty sure the CIA acknowledge it. The issue caused some degree of fiction. Specifics are in the transcripts somewhere. It seems to have been McKee's, presumed as such, or something, and I agree this particular point is worth considering. I just don't buy his reasons to suspect that this means anything of any direct relevance to crime.

Are you sure? I thought the interference with McKee's suitcase was one of the things the SCCRC specifically ruled out in its report. Not that I believe that proves it didn't happen, but it leaves it a bit up in the air. If you can point to some primary evidence that it was acknowledged, that would be very interesting.

Charles may have hit on something there. I always wondered why someone would cut a hole in the side of a suitcase to get at the contents, rather than forcing the lock. The latter would give far better access. It's also a reasonable question as to how the CIA found it so quickly. The crash happened on the winter solstice, and there's only about six hours of decent daylight even in good weather. In low cloud and rain, it's a lot worse. These hills are daunting for people not familiar with the area. And the CIA must have had far fewer people available than the official search. It took the official search, with large numbers of people, two or three weeks to cover the area systematically.

How did the CIA find that suitcase so quickly? Maybe it did have a transponder in it, incorporated into the side of the case, and that's why the hole was cut in it - to remove the transponder. (I questioned whether such an item would be permitted in an aircraft, but I don't actually know the answer to this.)

However, there's no reason to suspect there was anything more to this than the CIA being anxious to locate and remove anything sensitive McKee might have been carrying in his luggage. It doesn't imply anything was planted. And as for using McKee's case to pinpoint the location of AVE4041 - not only is that ridiculous, given the height that stuff fell from, the wind speeds, and the fact that the luggage container came apart and was found in several locations, Charles isn't even sure it was that container that was sabotaged, or how he or anyone else knows McKee's suitcase would have been in that particular container in the first place.

I can also add, as Aku informed me (comments here), Charles was right that the Iranian Airbus is more properly referred to as IR655, with IA denoting Iraq Air.

Ah, that's helpful. As I said, when I first typed that designation I checked it on Wikipedia, which at that time had the flight designated IA655. I note this has since been changed, but someone needs to fix the German version too, because that still has the IA designation. I'll make sure to get it right in future.

And as Rolfe notes, questions in this particular case are all inherently worthy of hearing out, due to the marked lack of consensus over the truth of Megrahi's - and indeed Libya's - actual guilt. The forum here has shown that to be the case. With regard to Mr. Norrie's ... (theory really isn't the right word, is it?) ... we haven't been graced with a clear explanation, so it can't be said to have gotten a hearing in full detail. Nonetheless, it's clear there's nothing down that road.

If that's the result of 20 years of study and obsessing about the case, I'm underwhelmed. Particularly as regards Charles's scornful assertions that others haven't done their basic reading. I had hoped that he might have something to contribute, even if his detailed thesis wasn't convincing, but it seems not. Recourse to insults instead of argument never augurs well, and if he can't figure out how to use the quote function, or what PM is, or even the difference between a blog and a forum, then I have to revise my estimate of his intelligence also.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Are you sure? I thought the interference with McKee's suitcase was one of the things the SCCRC specifically ruled out in its report. Not that I believe that proves it didn't happen, but it leaves it a bit up in the air. If you can point to some primary evidence that it was acknowledged, that would be very interesting.

Sorry, still half-busy today, but at least I'm back in town now and on the computer. That's from a few things I read but didn't cite
one I had pulled out but didn't get the day

PD/889. This is a partially disrupted grey hardshell suitcase. The suitcase measured 685 millimetres by 510 millimetres by 190 millimetres and was constructed from a rigid dark grey sheet plastics with a simulated leather finish, lined with a woven cream-coloured material backed with a white fibrous material which adhered to the grey plastics skin. The suitcase was fitted with a rigid plastics handle, bright metal trim and locks, which were devoid of any proprietary or owner's identification. A rectangular hole had been cut in the hard shell above the handle.

The left-hand edge of the suitcase showed evidence of having been damaged by an explosion, with disruption and blackening of the outer skin and bright metal body frame. Several small fragments of plastics were recovered from the suitcase and collectively identified as PT/46 including:

A, a fragment of pink plastics sheet.
B, four fragments of white plastics tape.
C, a fragment of brown plastics tape."
And to continue with PD/889:
B, this is one tubular metal-wheeled case trolly. It was found to be essentially undamaged.
C, this is a quantity of assorted clothing. It was found to be essentially undamaged.

Paul Foot, p 9

In the recent murder trial of two Libyans for the Lockerbie bombing, reference was made to the fact that a suitcase belonging to Major Charles McKee, a senior CIA agent who had been involved in the negotiations for the release of hostages in Beirut, had been mysteriously carried away from the piles of wreckage left by the crash and even had a large hole cut into it before it was returned to the investigators. The specific intention of cutting the hole, it was agreed, was to inspect the contents of the suitcase long before its evidential value could be established.

Someone else, perhaps Marquise or Crawford, mentioned this episode aswell, but I'm not going to dig those up just yet.

 

[Rolfe]

So where did I read more recently that nobody had interfered with any of the suitcases or cut any holes in them or anything....?

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

So where did I read more recently that nobody had interfered with any of the suitcases or cut any holes in them or anything....?

Don't know.

While I was digging throug trial transcripts though..

(my emphasis)

Q Now, I would just like to examine your contemporaneous note of this case a little further, Dr. Hayes. If we look to the right of your diagram, we see the reference "Unidentified suitcase"; is that right?

A Yes, it is.

Q And then the entry "Labels, name tag, brand name apparently removed."

A Yes.

Q All of these items had been removed from the suitcase. And then, if we look to the left at the diagram, we can see the notation "Hole cut"?

A Yes, we can.

Q Do you recollect this case and its examination, Dr. Hayes?

[2638]


A No more clearly than any other examination, I'm afraid.

Q Perhaps you could have before you Label Number 96, which is PD/889.
Now, Dr. Hayes, we've already noticed that when you examined the case, you found that labels, name tag, brand name have all apparently been removed. If you look to the top of the case, in the vicinity of the locking mechanism, is it not apparent that a hole has been sawn into the case?
It may be easier if the top of the case is removed from the plastic covering, but perhaps you would like to wear gloves, if you're examining the case itself.

A I can agree with your observation. Yes, there is a hole apparently cut.

Q I wonder if the macer might actually show Your Lordships what the witness is referring to, as there is no photograph or other record, except that in Dr. Hayes notes.
It may be apparent to Your Lordships that there is a rectangular hole sawn into the top of the suitcase in the vicinity of the locking mechanism.

LORD SUTHERLAND: I'm not sure, from the view we had of it, you could necessarily say that it was

[2639]

sawn into it, but we will accept certainly there is a cut, a defined rectangular hole.

MR. KEEN: Cut into it perhaps might be appropriate. I think the term you employed in your note, Dr. Hayes, was hole cut, was it not?

A That's correct, sir.

Q And, clearly, that was not as a result of blast or impact damage in the disaster?

A Clearly not.

Q Taken together with the removal of all labels, name tags, brand names, would that perhaps attract your attention, Dr. Hayes?

A Yes, it would.

Q And if we go on in your notes, after you record "clear indications of explosives involvement", do we see in the margin towards the bottom of the page PD/889 attached above"?

A Yes, we do.

Q And then plastics bag and contents with attached ID label marked "Contents of grey suitcase belonging to Charles McKee."

A Yes, I see that.

Q Was it disclosed to you that Charles McKee referred to there was in the service of the United States government?

[2640]

A No, it wasn't.

Q Or that this case had been returning from Beirut?

A No.

Q I see. You then make this entry:

"Contents: Assorted clothing with unlike the suitcase from which it was supposedly taken showed little evidence of explosives involvement."

A Yes, I did.

Q Now, I see the use of the word "supposedly" employed by you, Dr. Hayes. And I take it you chose that word with care?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that intended to convey that in your own mind the assorted clothing which had been passed to you labelled as the contents did not appear on the face of it to represent the contents of the suitcase which had been damaged in the way already described?

A Yes, that's certainly one interpretation.

Q Indeed, looking to this case and the examination note on page 22 as a whole, the reasonable inference, is it not, is that some party has interfered
with the case following the disaster and prior to it

[2641]

being made available to you for forensic examination?

A That is an inference that could be drawn.

Q It would not be an unreasonable inference, in light of what you found when the case was presented to you, would it, Dr. Hayes?

A I would offer no opinion on that.

Q Well, let us look at page 22. "All means of identification, such as labels, name tag and brand name have apparently been removed?

A Apparently so.

Q A rectangular hole has been cut in the top of the case, and that cannot be attributed in any form to blast damage or impact damage in the disaster,
can it?

A No, it cannot.

Q You are presented with the alleged contents in a bag marked with the name of the owner of the case?

A Yes.

Q That wasn't usual, so far as the presentation of evidence to you at RARDE was concerned, was it?

A I don't think I can helpfully answer your question. I don't know.

Hilites are the bits that make my head spin. It's worth noting that this evidence is being presented to court by Hayes who is being questioned by Mr Keen. Richard Keen QC, who was one of the defense lawyers.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So where did I read more recently that nobody had interfered with any of the suitcases or cut any holes in them or anything....?

Rolfe.

Hell if I know.

Ambrosia, again, sweet to have you back. That is quite an interesting passage I hadn't seen yet. Clothes replaced (Who knows?) and case markings removed (select proprietary company?), but the passenger name, being McKee, was kept the same. It's odd, but still feels like random CIA procedures type of weird. Makes it interesting, perhaps relevant, likely not, not resolvable either way. What do you think?

 

[Rolfe]

Personally, I think it's a red herring. McKee was carrying something they seriously didn't want to fall into the hands of the searchers, who after all included local mountain rescue teams and farmers as well as police and army personnel. They managed to get hold of his case (transponder? just luck and throwing their weight about a bit?) and maybe over-reacted a bit and/or didn't do a very neat job in the heightened adrenaline of the moment?

Johnston found out about it and broadcast it, and the same adrenaline high sent the cops after him, but when everybody had calmed down a bit they realised the best course of action was to play it as low-key as possible.

Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anybody planting anything. I think if anything was planted, it was Thurman pretty much single-handed at that point, if my suspicion that he was the CIA's little pet operative within the FBI is anywhere close to right.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

I don't know what to make of it to be honest.

One thing that has always bugged me about the case with a hole in it, is why on earth did they go to all the bother of putting it back?

McKee is a US intellingence agent carrying sensitive information, no problem there. The US get people on the ground at Lockerbie asap to retrieve this info as well as any other info that was being carried by the other 3 or so agents aboard the flight, makes sense to me.

They find the McKee case either by luck or by transponder, why then do they not substitute a dummy case, or simply keep the case entirely, why bother to return it at all?

 

[Rolfe]

Somebody might miss it, or even its positioning might turn out to be important for determining what happened to the flight?

Rolfe.

 

[realdon]

McKee is a US intellingence agent carrying sensitive information, no problem there. The US get people on the ground at Lockerbie asap to retrieve this info as well as any other info that was being carried by the other 3 or so agents aboard the flight, makes sense to me.

QUOTE]


Sensitive information or items?. If McKee was carrying senstive information would this not probably be in the form of documentation/computer discs etc?

Why put this in a suitcase that is out of his sight from check in to arrival and not in a briefcase or holdall that would remain with him at all times as carry on.

If sensitive items why not use diplomatic baggage? Unless items were not officially meant to be in McKees possession.

I did read somewhere that the hole cut in the suitcase was to remove a secondary security lock that incorporated some kind of anti tamper device that would destroy the contents if activated. May have been in an article Jim Swire wrote.

David

 

[Ambrosia]

Somebody might miss it, or even its positioning might turn out to be important for determining what happened to the flight?

Now I think more about it then perhaps if all the other debris was recovered and this case was missing it would draw attention, if a dummy case showed no signs of explosives, it would draw undue attention too. Not sure how many plane crashes of this type have ever had all or very close to all of the debris recovered though.

McKee is a US intellingence agent carrying sensitive information, no problem there. The US get people on the ground at Lockerbie asap to retrieve this info as well as any other info that was being carried by the other 3 or so agents aboard the flight, makes sense to me.

Sensitive information or items?. If McKee was carrying senstive information would this not probably be in the form of documentation/computer discs etc?

Why put this in a suitcase that is out of his sight from check in to arrival and not in a briefcase or holdall that would remain with him at all times as carry on.

If sensitive items why not use diplomatic baggage? Unless items were not officially meant to be in McKees possession.

I did read somewhere that the hole cut in the suitcase was to remove a secondary security lock that incorporated some kind of anti tamper device that would destroy the contents if activated. May have been in an article Jim Swire wrote.

Well there's the line that McKee was flying back to the US somewhat unannouced with info that exposed some intelligence shenanigans of some kind (it's the basis for a theory that this was why the US allowed the plane to be destroyed) - there is evidence to suggest this might have been the reason for McKee returning.

So you can infer that the US wanted to mop up any and all info that McKee might have been carrying. Tho this could well have been the case even if the trip back was planned, that US intel was just being thorough. You'd also think that very sensitive info would never leave an agents sight so to speak, as you point out, and would be taken on as carry on luggage and not abandoned in the cargo hold.

We can all speculate all day as to the reasons for cutting holes in his case, but that's one of the things that noone will ever get an answer to.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't suppose we will. I don't think it follows that this episode has anything to do with the actual crash though. Mounting a security operation to retrieve a dead CIA officer's luggage is a fairly long way from faking and planting evidence.

By the way,
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2...howComment=1283869514703#c7948260870601723574
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2...howComment=1283875785570#c1520214850300134616

Silly us, it's all about how many hits a certain search term turns up on Google.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Bump for Charles, who is declaring elsewhere that there have been no messages in this thread since he was suspended.

ETA: I hope he hasn't done a "suicide by mod". On Prof. Black's blog, after slagging off the JREF again, he said he'd been as rude as he could to Lisa. This isn't going well....

Rolfe.