Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[CTB]

Hmm, I don't really want it any longer, or to attach lists or anything. If the problem is that the dramatis personae are insufficiently well delineated, maybe I need a few extra words when each one is first mentioned to make it clear who they are?

I don't think we need to know anything more about the passengers than that they were passengers.

Could you folow it as it stood?

Rolfe.

I could, yes, but I have been following the Lockerbie threads here for a couple of years.

You're right about the passengers, I was thinking more of the baggage guys, for example, as it was only quite recently that it dawned on me they weren't all working for the same company. Probably unnecessary info, I s'pose.

 

[Rolfe]

It's a difficult balancing act. It's probably impossible to explain it succinctly for someone who has no familiarity at all with the case. However, you shouldn't have to be a certified expert to follow it. I probably need a couple of volunteers to read it, who are only slightly acquainted with the case.

I've marginally changed it, and replaced the image of the container floor.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I keep coming back to that eye-in-the-sky view of the container floor. I don't know if anyone ever put the control Samsonite Silhouette on that reconstructed floor to see how it would fit. I would certainly like to see that.

I said in the article that none of the forensic scientists' statements about what they could divine from the condition of the floor was self-evident, and I stick to that. It's like Mystic Meg reading a palm. Indents caused by another suitcase being blasted down on it. Really? For sure? No pitting on the part of the floor that was recovered - which wasn't the part nearest the explosion and which was undoubtedly protected by things like a tweed jacket and other items of clothing, which we know were recovered with only partial damage. Not enough damage if the suitcase had been "in contact with" the floor - but it isn't in contact with the floor in position 3.

This is not my area of expertise, but the minute I saw PD/889 I could see that the blast had come at it more or less at floor level, just as Hayes showed in his diagram. The minute I saw the lining panel from the hinge end of Mr. Carlsson's case I realised that wouldn't have got like that if there had been another suitcase at floor level protecting it from the blast. If the forensics scientists had said that in court, everyone would have been able to follow their thinking. Not so with what they said about the container floor.

No, I am not an expert on this, but if they had been promoting position 3, and had pointed to that split in the aluminium and declared that that had been where the right-hand edge of the suitcase had been sitting when the bomb went off, I'd have nodded sagely and agreed with them.

It's 2 to 4 inches further to the right than I would have expected. It may suggest that the bomb suitcase was further into the overhang than I thought it was. I thought four inches, maybe six. The position of the split suggests eight inches into the overhang, which would suggest the case had been flung further to the side than I thought.

It's far from impossible though. I find it a lot harder to envisage how that split happened as a result of an explosion in the overhang impacting down on another packed case, as well as the contents of the bomb suitcase itself. And if the bomb suitcase was indeed in position 3, as seems pretty much certain to me, then why would the floor split 2 or even 4 inches to the left of where the edge of the suitcase was sitting?

LittleSwan didn't really respond to this idea earlier, but it's a thought that keeps niggling at me. They thought the split had been caused by the floor dishing out and hitting the airframe itself, but it's hard to see. The only picture I can find of the inside of the hold is this one.

These ribs run at right angles to the split in the container floor. It's perfectly possible I'm missing something here. There are sort of rail things visible further away, presumably tracks to wheel the containers in, which are missing where the actual explosion happened. Maybe the split was caused by the floor hitting one of these. I haven't seen enough detail to know whether that fits.

Why was it not the edge of the Samsonite though, just a couple of inches out from the position we thought it was?

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

Maybe the split was caused by the floor hitting one of these. I haven't seen enough detail to know whether that fits.

I think it fits. The split is app. 33cm from the strut. The gap between the rail closest to the fuselage and the floor is app. 30 cm.

 

[Rolfe]

33cm? I thought it was more than that, but I was just measuring the photograph, I haven't seen any measurements taken from the real thing.

So where was the side of the bomb suitcase, on the reconstructed floor? The left-hand edge of the dished area?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, that went quiet very suddenly, just a week before I started to write the book as it happens. There's been a lot of wrangling and bickering over on the thread about the Malta/Frankfurt routing, which would be better buried, and in any case the place for discussion of the Heathrow loading and the suitcase jigsaw is here.

In October I spent several hours with a documentary film crew (well, the producer and a cameraman, plus another interviewee) trying to explain the suitcase jigsaw on camera, and why it showed the Bedford suitcase was the bomb. I was told it had come out well, and it was originally supposed to have been broadcast on 15th December. Then it was bumped to 22nd December, but that didn't happen either. (Sadly, that was the day the producer died of liver cancer.)

The problems were down to Iran not liking some of what was being said in the film. On one hand this was odd because everybody and his budgie has been blaming Iran for the atrocity for 25 years, and the planet is lousy with documentaries and articles alleging exactly that. On the other hand the current political situation with the USA making belligerent noises at Iran is possibly making them nervous.

Anyway, this blog post says the documentary will now be broadcast on either 25th February or 5th March, and repeated thereafter. It'll be interesting (or perhaps embarrassing) to see how it turned out.

Rolfe.

 

[LSSBB]

Well, that went quiet very suddenly, just a week before I started to write the book as it happens. There's been a lot of wrangling and bickering over on the thread about the Malta/Frankfurt routing, which would be better buried, and in any case the place for discussion of the Heathrow loading and the suitcase jigsaw is here.

In October I spent several hours with a documentary film crew (well, the producer and a cameraman, plus another interviewee) trying to explain the suitcase jigsaw on camera, and why it showed the Bedford suitcase was the bomb. I was told it had come out well, and it was originally supposed to have been broadcast on 15th December. Then it was bumped to 22nd December, but that didn't happen either. (Sadly, that was the day the producer died of liver cancer.)

The problems were down to Iran not liking some of what was being said in the film. On one hand this was odd because everybody and his budgie has been blaming Iran for the atrocity for 25 years, and the planet is lousy with documentaries and articles alleging exactly that. On the other hand the current political situation with the USA making belligerent noises at Iran is possibly making them nervous.

Anyway, this blog post says the documentary will now be broadcast on either 25th February or 5th March, and repeated thereafter. It'll be interesting (or perhaps embarrassing) to see how it turned out.

Rolfe.

Where will it be broadcast, and will it be available in the US?

 

[Rolfe]

It's on Aljazeera, and I gather there is some sort of problem with people in the USA being able to access Aljazeera English. The computer geeks probably have some solution to this.

I just have to type "Aljazeera English" into Google and it takes me right there. I believe the channel is even available free to air in some of the city areas.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It's on Aljazeera, and I gather there is some sort of problem with people in the USA being able to access Aljazeera English. The computer geeks probably have some solution to this.

I just have to type "Aljazeera English" into Google and it takes me right there. I believe the channel is even available free to air in some of the city areas.

Rolfe.

Not at all, the denizens of the Great Satan have their very own Al Jazeera Channel although I don't know if it will be showing your Lockerbie interview

 

[catsmate]

It's on Aljazeera, and I gather there is some sort of problem with people in the USA being able to access Aljazeera English. The computer geeks probably have some solution to this.

I just have to type "Aljazeera English" into Google and it takes me right there. I believe the channel is even available free to air in some of the city areas.

Rolfe.

It's on Freesat too.

 

[Rolfe]

This exercise is turning into an interesting demonstration of what happens when you try to change the minds of the authorities about such a big issue. The various debunker cohorts often taunt CTers, saying things like, have you reported this to the police, have you taken this to the authorities? The implication being that if the CTers' theories were correct, then the authorities would be only too happy to accept their reasoning instantly, and perform a u-turn on their previous position.

I think we all know that would never happen, even if the CTers were demonstrably correct, and this is panning out exactly as anticipated. In November 2012 (ironically on 9/11 - 9th November) a report detailing our findings which raise serious concerns about the Lockerbie investigation and verdict was passed to the police. This was followed up in March 2013 with additional material which blew a complete hole in the Malta ingestion theory - essentially the evidence teased out in this thread during February 2013.

The names on the submissions are too eminent to be ignored, including as they do the emeritus professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, a retired senior police officer and the father of one of the victims. (I suspect the whole thing would simply have hit the round filing cabinet without the support of these people.) So they are basically treading water. As far as I could make out, the original Senior Investigating Officer was indulging in cargo cult investigation - going through the motions of looking at particular points without actually taking on board what was being alleged. He retired in October 2013, and we were only told who the new SIO is last week. The new guy doesn't appear to have done anything, and is fobbing off inquiries.

This was laid before the Justice Committee of the Scottish parliament yesterday, with the deliberations reported here.

http://www.holyrood.com/2014/02/msps-vent-frustration-at-police-inquiry-on-megrahi/?

Independent MSP John Finnie said: “I think all of this is [an] extremely dismissive approach by the authorities to the Justice for Megrahi committee and I would suggest by default to this committee, which has an important oversight role. I think the timing of that letter is entirely cynical. What we’ve seen is procrastination and obstruction and I would ask whose interests are served by that.”

Convener of the committee, SNP MSP Christine Grahame, added: “I am very cross about this. You [John Finnie] talk about procrastination and obstruction. I call it long grass. If there is any strategy here with regard to the whole Megrahi issue it seems to me to kick things into the long grass, wear people out, hope that those who are pursuing this fall off their perches, and it all goes away.”

The response is to some extent political, though it doesn't divide along party lines entirely as you'd expect. I think they're right, the authorities are hoping that they can resist the pressure until we give up. The information is public, of course, but without anyone pushing for action it becomes a curiosity. Everybody "knows" Megrahi didn't do it, but life goes on, the conviction stands, and everyone can avoid doing what they really don't want to do and that is get back to looking for the people who really did it.

We'll see who rusts first.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In other news, the ZDF German documentary Todesflug Pan Am 103 is being broadcast at the moment. I haven't seen it, not having access to German TV, although I thought Childlike Empress said she was looking out for it. I think I'm in it, I ought to be in it, I did some filming for it last October at the same time as the Aljazeera filming, but I've heard no more since.

This should be a translation of an article about the programme.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fgeschichte%2Farticle124957142%2FDie-Spur-zum-Lockerbie-Attentat-fuehrt-in-den-Iran.html%3F

As usual, it goes on and on about how it was really Iran that carried out (or rather commissioned) the atrocity. That may very well be correct, seems quite likely to me, but it's way beyond my pay grade. I really wish the journos would take a step back and simply show that the evidence proves the bomb went on board at Heathrow, and how conclusive that is. If that was hammered home, one could then demand an investigation into what really happened, wherever it might lead.

But that's too simple. They have to have this "Iran did it" narrative. And in doing that they allow the Heathrow evidence to be sidestepped, with the authorities simply taking the line that the idea that Iran was responsible is a conspiracy theory, now go away oiks.

I hope Aljazeera show their film as announced, but I won't believe that until I'm actually watching it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I still don't know whether the documentary is to be shown tomorrow or not, as I can't figure out how to check the Aljazeera English schedule in advance of the current day. I haven't heard any further updates.

At least they haven't completely binned the whole thing and still seem to be making an effort to show it, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In other news, the ZDF German documentary Todesflug Pan Am 103 is being broadcast at the moment. I haven't seen it, not having access to German TV, although I thought Childlike Empress said she was looking out for it. I think I'm in it, I ought to be in it, I did some filming for it last October at the same time as the Aljazeera filming, but I've heard no more since.

I just found this post by scanning AAH.

I DID check their website and youtube once or twice for the Swiss broadcast, but without success. It seems, and says so in the linked article, that it was broadcasted on arte on Feb 18, 22h. You can watch stuff on arte for seven days after broaadcast, at least if you have a German or French IP (arte is a co-produced station of German and French public TV).

I found the thing and it's online until tomorrow 22h CET (21937 views online so far). Will watch if I find the time. Here is the link. If it doesn't stream for you bloody foreigners, you can go to proxfree, choose a German "IP Adress Location" in the drop-down menu, plug the link into the textbox and try that.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks very much for that, CH. I've just watched it through - the regular link worked fine. My German is a bit rudimentary, but I got the gist.

I see I hit the cutting-room floor. I'm not really surprised, because the short segment Chris filmed with me for this production didn't say any more than John said. As far as I recall, he didn't have me go into any real detail about the suitcase jigsaw. (He had me change my pullover for the ZDF shoot, because he wanted them to look like two different interviews.)

John's position is now anomalous. For 20 years he believed the bomb went on at Frankfurt, in Khaled Jaafar's luggage. He wrote two books saying so - rather more obliquely in the second one. However, he has seen my suitcase jigsaw - he provided some of the evidence it's based on - and he now believes me. He knows the bomb went on at Heathrow, and he said so on camera in the film.

However, what they filmed with him was only about the break-in, and the Iranair presence at Terminal 3. The suitcase jigsaw didn't get a mention. Indeed, the ZDF producers probably didn't really know about it, because while Chris had read the typescript of my book, they hadn't, and all this was filmed two months before it was published, while it was being type-set.

So really, although they said "John Ashton believes the bomb went on board at Heathrow," they didn't adequately explain why, and they glossed over that part to fixate, once more, on Khaled Jaafar. Guys, if the bomb was in Khaled Jaafar's luggage it was not introduced at Heathrow, that's axiomatic. John has accepted it was introduced at Heathrow, but this production wasn't giving up on Jaafar so easily.

They made a good circumstantial case for Iran as the instigator and the PFLP-GC as Iran's agent. They shredded the Gauci identification. (Richard Marquise was absolutely fisked.) They explained about the tinning issue (although they used that bloody BBC "reconstruction" of the finding of the fragment which is totally wrong). They interviewed Lumpert, which was fascinating, because he again repeated the stuff about having scratched an "M" on the prototype circuit board which I am 100% sure is a lie. Probably solicited by Bollier, who is up to something fishy.

What they didn't do was tackle the "how was the bomb put on the plane" properly. It was all left a bit in the air between John's assertion of London, and all the fussing about Jaafar and his luggage. It did have some really interesting stuff though, and I'd kill for a subtitled version.

Good to see Till Nowak's great animation getting another airing. And indeed I think he added an extra bit. I would kill to have him animate the suitcase jigsaw, but he's too expensive. Chris said he was going to try to get it animated for the Aljazeera film but I don't know if that came off. Tueday's schedule for Aljazeera English is now up and there's no sign of the bloody thing.

Why are Iran having kittens about the Aljazeera film when they don't appear to have batted an eyelid at the ZDF one? The ZDF one came straight out and accused Iran too. But it's only the Aljazeera one they're blocking. Peculiar. I don't think Chris is right about Abu Talb in London, but this carry-on is making me reconsider that assessment.

Rolfe.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Why are Iran having kittens about the Aljazeera film when they don't appear to have batted an eyelid at the ZDF one? The ZDF one came straight out and accused Iran too. But it's only the Aljazeera one they're blocking. Peculiar.

Possibly because they didn't think there was anything they could do to stop ZDF, but they think they have some leverage with Al Jazeera. Also, ZDF might be dismissed as "Western propaganda"; Al Jazeera, not so much. Finally, a documentary in English is likely to reach a far larger audience than a documentary in German, for obvious reasons. Could be any or all of these.

 

[Chaos]

Iran is used to being accused of naughty things by Germans, it seems. Remind me to one day tell you about the angry letters the Iranian ambassador to Germany, Alireza Sheikh Attar, regularly writes to a German human rights NGO...

 

[Rolfe]

I think the difference was that Aljazeera made the mistake of showing their film to Iran and asking for comment. Presumably ZDF didn't. And of course it's a lot easier for Iran to put pressure on Aljazeera than on ZDF. They could close Aljazeera's Tehran office for a start.

It's still a little odd though. Accusations like the ones in the ZDF film are in a majority of all the films made about Lockerbie. It's really common knowledge. Most people who know little about the case know about IR655 and the Vincennes and how 2+2 usually adds up to 4. I'm surprised Iran has come over so sensitive about Aljazeera saying what pretty much everyone on the face of the planet who isn't a hardcore Libya guilter has already said, many times.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just read the Al Jazeera English schedules for 5th March, the second of the two dates proposed as likely for the documentary to be broadcast. No mention of it at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, this isn't very informative, but it suggests progress.


It also suggests that they've changed the title, from "If not Megrahi, then who?" to "Lockerbie: what really happened?".

Rolfe.