Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

Carlsson - PD/889 - Bernstein - Gannon - PD/120

That's my current thinking on the matter, given all the information we now have. It's the position of both Bernstein items that's the anomaly. The suit carrier flat at the front when Bedford would have placed it in the row at the back, and the saddlebag in betwen two of the Larnaca items, which arrived about an hour and a half earlier.
Click to expand...

I agree!

Let's move to some of the Frankfurt stuff.

And if we move onto the next item, which is 4.2.20, a green softshell suitcase. Could you close [2441] that image, please, and bring up 85. And the report tells us that the single recovered piece of this suitcase is shown in this photograph. It's PF/37. What does the report say about it?
A "PF/37. This is an olive green canvas softshell suitcase. The suitcase was found to be tightly packed with a quantity of undamaged clothing which was removed and separately bagged. The suitcase measured 710 millimetres by 430 millimetres by 200 millimetres and was constructed from a woven olive green canvas cloth backed with soft black plastics with a simulated leather finish and lined with a black cloth. The suitcase was trimmed with
tan-coloured simulated leather and a similar soft handle and fitted with two base wheels and a side-fitted bright metal drag handle. Attached to the handle was a broken rigid plastics label with integral strap and buckle. On the label was printed the legend "JOHANNES ...KAPELLB ... 7407 ROTTENB ...." The top surface of the suitcase lid, base and left-hand edge bore explosion damage, showing evidence of minor disruption, penetration holes, blackening and extensive deposits of partially carbonised fibrous materials. A self-tapping
screw, shown in close-up in situ in photograph 86, was found to be embedded at the centre of the left-hand [2442] decorative strip of tan simulated leather stitched to the lid of the suitcase."
Q Could I interrupt you there and ask that this photograph 86 be put on the screen. Do we see there the screw to which reference is made in the report?
A Yes, we do, sir.
Q You go on, I think, to record in the report what you did, so far as the screw was concerned.
A Yes. "This screw, together with the bulk of the deposited material." I think there must be an omission here; it was raised as PT/32. And this comprised:
"A, a screw from the Toshiba RT-SF16 cassette mechanism.
"B, a black plastics fragment from the Toshiba RT-SF16.
"C, a fragment of plastics from the primary suitcase.
"D, a quantity of fibres and plastics, some with diamond pattern thereon.
"E, a magnet fragment from the Toshiba RT-SF16.
"F, a fragment of cardboard, red/blue, white/blue." [2443]
Q Could we go back to photograph 85, please. You had said that the screw, which we saw in close-up on photograph 86, was found to be embedded at the centre of the left-hand decorative strip of tan simulated leather stitched to the lid of the suitcase. Are we able to see that in this photograph?

....
Click to expand...

I bet this one was on top of the blue tourister

Pictures, please
 
Last edited:
:)

Q The next item of baggage is 4.2.22, a black nylon canvas suitcase. Close the present image and open 88, please.
And the report tells us that the single recovered piece of this suitcase is shown in this photograph as PH/7. Will you read what the report says.
A "PH/7. This is the fabric edges and the centre frame with attached handle from a black softshell suitcase. The suitcase frame, which was distorted by a violent sideways impact, measured approximately 660 millimetres by 483 millimetres. It was constructed from a woven black nylon canvas possessing a black thin-sheet plastics backing. The suitcase was equipped with a circumferential black plastics zip fastener, a plywood reinforced black
plastics simulated leather covered base, and four [2445] rubber-shod castors fitted to a pair of brass finished mounting plates. The suitcase had apparently suffered considerable disruption with its top and bottom side panels torn away at their stitched periphery. The plywood reinforced base had been shattered and one corner of the frame folded by a violent side-on impact with a localised disruption of the black simulated leather trim. Deposits of partially carbonised and fused debris, including fragments of blue foamed plastics, were recovered and identified as PT/65."
Click to expand...

And maybe this was the one on the right side of the blue tourister. I don't know who's suitcase it was.
 
Photograph 85? I'll put in a request....

I'm not sure why it's important to establish the arrangement of the Frankfurt items, given that the only real question is, was the bomb suitcase on the bottom or the second layer. However, knowledge is always good, and understanding the wider context might help clarify the central issues.

It's interesting the Coyle case was so thoroughly pulverised, and yet from what you're suggesting the case on top of it was relatively intact. I'm getting the impression that the destructive power of this explosion was limited to a couple of feet at the most. Would that be right? (What would have happened if the bomb suitcase had been loaded near the top of the container, to the right?)

I'd like to find a case containing some fibres from the Coyle case. That would be a cracker. I would have thought that if such a finding had been made, someone would have seized on it and highlighted it. But given the huge amount of incompetence kicking around this area, I wouldn't bet on that.

Rolfe.
 
I'm not sure why it's important to establish the arrangement of the Frankfurt items, given that the only real question is, was the bomb suitcase on the bottom or the second layer. However, knowledge is always good, and understanding the wider context might help clarify the central issues.
Click to expand...

Establishing the arrangement of the Heathrow interline items is not conclusive enough. The big question is "What would the pattern of damage to the Heathrow luggage be, if the IED was on the second layer (just a few inches higher? I don't think this pattern would be very different.

If Bedford was somehow mistaken, and the suit carrier was the right-hand item, then a bag from Frankfurt must have been loaded on top of it. The lower half, or more, of this item must have been level with the bottom left-hand case.
Click to expand...

I agree with Pete. If the Bernstein suit carrier was the case on the right of the IED suitcase, there must be a case from Frankfurt that has faced the explosion from the left.

It's interesting the Coyle case was so thoroughly pulverised, and yet from what you're suggesting the case on top of it was relatively intact. I'm getting the impression that the destructive power of this explosion was limited to a couple of feet at the most. Would that be right?
Click to expand...

Yes, in suitcases it's even less than a feet, a feet at the most. I think the Schauble-suitcase was a little to the left compared to the Coyle-case. That's probably why some much of the radio was found inside.

(What would have happened if the bomb suitcase had been loaded near the top of the container, to the right?).
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I don't think there would be much damage to the fuselage of the plane
 
Last edited:
LittleSwan said:
Establishing the arrangement of the Heathrow interline items is not conclusive enough. The big question is "What would the pattern of damage to the Heathrow luggage be, if the IED was on the second layer (just a few inches higher? I don't think this pattern would be very different.
Click to expand...


Looking at the state of PD/889, with the severe damage to the bottom of the case and nothing much on the handle end, you still think second-layer is respectably in the frame?

LittleSwan said:
I agree with Pete. If the Bernstein suit carrier was the case on the right of the IED suitcase, there must be a case from Frankfurt that has faced the explosion from the left.
Click to expand...


I agree too, it's a very good point.

LittleSwan said:
Yes, in suitcases it's even less than a feet, a feet at the most. I think the Schauble-suitcase was a little to the left compared to the Coyle-case. That's probably why some much of the radio was found inside.
Click to expand...


I'd be more impressed if there was a Frankfurt-origin case with some of the Coyle case in it or sticking to it, which was damaged in such a way as to suggest it was on top of it. That would be quite a find.

LittleSwan said:
I don't know, but I don't think there would be much damage to the fuselage of the plane
Click to expand...


I don't think so either. But we're supposed to believe that this suitcase was waved away from Malta to make its own way to Frankfurt and then to Heathrow, just hoping that it would be placed in the container close enough to the hull to cause sufficient damage.

And sure enough, not only was the case positioned in just the right corner of the container, but the side the bomb was asymmetrically packed into just happened to be positioned right against the most vulnerable part of the container side.

When this was suggested to the judges as an argument in favour of the bomber being more likely to have tried for a Heathrow introduction, the answer was, but the bomber would know the luggage would inevitably be rearranged later, so would know it wouldn't confer any advantage....

You couldn't make it up.

Rolfe.
 
Here's a point, LittleSwan. We know that the Coyle case was flat against the bomb suitcase. The London origin proponents believe the bomb suitcase was on the bottom, and the Coyle case on the second layer on top of it. The Malta origin proponents believe the Coyle case was on the bottom and the bomb suitcase on top of it.

It was agreed in court that only one suitcase, the Coyle case, was fragmented in a way consistent with its having been up close and personal with the bomb suitcase - that is flat against it. However, if the bomb suitcase was on the second layer, and the Coyle case below it, what the hell was on top of it? Would we not expect to see a third case in smithereens in that case?

If the bomb suitcase was on the bottom, that neatly explains that conundrum - there was only one other suitcase flat against it. However, given the state of the Coyle case, if it was on the second payer, I'd expect something to be identifiable as the case that was on top of it - bits of blue foamy plastic identified somewhere?

Any thoughts?

Rolfe.
 
If we postulate two hypothesis

H1: The bomb suitcase was on the floor (first layer)
H2: The bomb suitcase was on the second layer

What do we have?

We have the pattern of damage to the Heathrow interline luggage. To my opinion this result is (a little?) more consistent with H1.

We have the fragmentation of the extrusion. This result is more consistent with H1. As I said before, to my opinion, the Claiden spot is to high.

Than we have the damage to the floor panel itself. It shows fragmentation and petallling. I don't think you get this if the floor is protected by a suitcase. So again, this result is more consistent with H1.

On the contrary there is the absence of pitting. According to mr. Cullis this is the result of the floor being protected by a suitcase. However a large part of the floor panel closest to the extrusion is missing and pitting is a close range effect. Therefore, I think the absence of pitting is not very conclusive.

And of course there is the dishing. As I said before this effect has probably something to do with the 747 cargo floor (explosive shaping). This result is also not very conclusive

Finally there is the absence of a second secondary suitcase. This result almost rules out H2.

If we combine these pieces of evidence what do we get?

Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
Secondary suitcases. Indeed. I'd never quite thought about it from this angle before.

We're arguing about the relative positions of the two suitcases on the bottom and second layers of the container. Coyle on the floor, or "primary suitcase on the floor". It comes down to that simple distinction.

But whichever way round it was, there was a suitcase on the third layer. This suitcase was either on top of the bomb suitcase, or it was on top of the Coyle case. And it must have been one of the 25 blast-damaged items. Even if the Coyle case was between it and the bomb suitcase, given the disintegrated state of the Coyle case, the third-level case must have had blast damage.

So, somewhere in that list of 25 items, in fact within the subset of (I think) 20 Frankfurt-origin items, there is a suitcase that was either above the bomb suitcase when the explosion happened, or above the Coyle case. Surely, that case has some of the case that was under it blasted into it?

We've already remarked on the absence of any case presented in court as having been above the bomb suitcase in a second-level explosion. Somehow, I feel that if there had been a case capable of bearing that interpretation, we'd know all about it. Would such a case inevitably have been very seriously disrupted? I imagine so.

However, the alternative is that there is probably a case in there with evidence of its having been in contact with the Coyle case. LittleSwan, you've been going through the descriptions of these cases. The Schauble one doesn't seem to have Coyle bits in it. Is there another one that has? If there was a Frankfurt-origin case with Coyle bits in it in such a way as to suggest it had been flat against the Coyle case, I think we'd be home and dry.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
It's a good question, but I have a small amount of sympathy. They had far less time than we've had to assimilate all this, and although they had all the evidence we've been dragging out piecemeal, that must have been quite overwhelming. They had to worry about Edwin, and the Goben memorandum, and Abu Talb, and all the other important things like the Gauci identification and PT/35b as well as a huge amount of stuff that now seems to us to be mere padding and distraction.

I also think they were far too keen to admit the possibility that Sidhu moved these suitcases, so they could claim he put the Bedford case back on top of the Coyle case. I agree that is such a cracker of a possibility that it should have been enough reasonable doubt to get an acquittal. However, reading Sidhu's FAI testimony in detail, it was dishonest.

Some bright spark (Miss Larracoechea?) asked him to explain, IF he had thought the case flat at the front wasn't suitable for that position, maybe too small or something, what would he have done with it? He said, he'd have chucked it on top of the row at the back. So if he had moved that case, it would have been in "some more remote corner of the container". Or at least, potentially high enough not to have been seriously involved in the explosion. He would not (as we thought he would) have put it back on top of the Coyle case.
This makes slightly better sense of the universal aversion to calling Sidhu. The prosecution knew they had to get those cases moved, or at least the front one(s). They didn't dare call Sidhu, because he had been so firm in his testimony that he didn't move them. The defence weren't thinking too clearly. They were being bombarded by forensics reports saying the explosion was on the second layer. Rather than think through, WHY don't the prosecution want to fix that case on the bottom layer, they seized the opportunity to claim it might then have been moved to the second layer. Thuis they couldn't call Sidhu either, because he would have explained that it was not possible for that to have happened. The left-hand Bedford case was either still on the bottom, or it was somewhere in the upper back of the container, possibly on top of the Carlsson-PD/889-Gannon array.

Why do they play these games? Seek the truth, and deal with it, you bampots.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Indeed, seek the truth, wherever that may take you.

I’m still flabbergasted that the defence opted for a stratagem that would require speculative reasoning and a generous element of charity from their Lordships interpretation. This was two Libyans for goodness sake. And the court would also, in a sense retrospectively, find either in favour or in fault of the sanctions Libya had been served with for almost the previous decade.

With this, unsurprisingly as it turned out, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and any thought of a charitable repositioning of the luggage – in the favour of a Heathrow introduction – were in short supply at Zeist.

Okay, the defence knew that the forensic evidence posited by the AAIB estimated a height of 10” – which is really on the cusp of first and second layer – and that would be a matter of debating the strengths and weaknesses of each possibility. In conclusion, it was also thought that the base of 4041 didn’t exhibit damage wholly consistent with a bottom layer bag, but that this issue had also been a matter of some inconsistent determinations. Initially Hayes’ first examination noted that the largest piece of the primary suitcase, PI/911, had resulted from the bomb suitcase being supported from below by something relatively substantial, like the base floor.

The other evidence to be led by the crown in favour of a ‘second layer explosion’ is that other forensic evidence asserts that a blue Tourister bag from Frankfurt was on the base of the tin, and therefore the luggage must have been rearranged. It was the only other bag in direct contact with the primary suitcase.

So, fair enough. If you arguing that the Bedford suitcase was the bomb, it might appear you need to have it slightly higher, allow it to be moved, but the above argument on its own is hardly ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Alternatively, grounding your defence on available facts, and you do decide to call Sidhu, how does this potentially impact the crown’s case?

Well, you immediately call into question the crown’s forensic conclusion that a Frankfurt bag took the position of a previously accepted Heathrow interline brown Samsonite. Sidhu’s statements to the police and at the FAI are consistent and irrefutable: the luggage was not repositioned. The point about the blue Tourister being the only item in direct contact can then be plausibly explained by the defence, unlike the crown who can offer no explanation for their scenario being missing a critical piece of evidence: if the bomb bag was second layer, then what was directly above it?

Whether the Lordships find on balance in your favour or not, at this point, is neither here nor there. The point you’ve made is to raise strenuous questions and cast significant doubt on the forensic conclusions promoted by the crown. This then allows the defence to challenge the proposed estimation of explosion height and the damage sustained to 4041’s base and panels.

As said earlier, 10inches is just on the cusp between bottom and second layer of luggage. The defence have already provided a clear and consistent witness who makes clear that, if we accept that Bedford did witness a brown Samsonite in 4041, and we do, then we have no reason or basis to assert it left that position on the evidence heard. It is impossible for the blue tourister suitcase to have been in that position.

Accepting the proposition that the blue Tourister was the only bag in direct contact with the primary suitcase, then the defence have irrefutable reason and sound logic to infer this bag, arriving from Frankfurt, was placed at least on the second layer of luggage, and therefore above the bomb bag whose other substance of direct contact was with the panels of AVE4041.

The defence are attempting to assert that Bedford’s brown Samsonite, during the loading on luggage on top, or during the banking and turbulence experienced by the aircraft, it shifted slightly into the overhang section and exploded 38 mins later. Perhaps then the base of 4041 wasn’t the panel of the tin that felt the full impact of the explosion. This impact was primarily taken by the overhang and sloping section of 4041, which is why sooting and pitting are exhibited on the outer frame edges.

No other suitcase, or portions of suitcase matching a brown Samsonite were ever identified other than the suitcase containing the bomb.

Present McKee’s suitcase to back up your theory. Maybe Gannon’s. And finally, while leaving the court in little doubt that, not only was there a suitcase of mysterious provenance in 4041 before 103A arrived, it was not repositioned and so remained where it was last observed except for an inch or so right or left during take-off and so on – to the left means upwards too, slightly.

Then introduce DC Henderson to the Zeist court to illustrate that the primary suitcase could not be assigned to any passenger on PA103. And if no passenger whose bags should have been in AVE4041 were in possession of a brown Samonite, then accepting his evidence, whose bag did John Bedford see?


If the crown or anyone wishes to challenge this position, they need to first tell us whose bag this was that Bedford saw at 4.40pm? Two other loaders evidence also indicate this bag was there, and since no passenger has ever been assigned to be in possession of a brown Samsonite, whose was it?

Then tell us why the think Sidhu is mistaken or lying.

Then explain what must have been above the bomb bag.

Then explain how no other brown Samsonite was ever found.

The defence had a huge pool of mental resources, legal brains, academics, investigators, all at their disposal, and I find their collective reasoning to opt for some cunning scheme involving wild speculation, to be presented by both teams, and averting the true position in AVE4041, still utterly incomprehensible.
 
Tremendous summary, Buncrana, that really encapsulates the issues.

Buncrana said:
Initially Hayes’ first examination noted that the largest piece of the primary suitcase, PI/911, had resulted from the bomb suitcase being supported from below by something relatively substantial, like the base floor.

The other evidence to be led by the crown in favour of a ‘second layer explosion’ is that other forensic evidence asserts that a blue Tourister bag from Frankfurt was on the base of the tin, and therefore the luggage must have been rearranged. It was the only other bag in direct contact with the primary suitcase.
Click to expand...


I think both of these pieces of evidence are the same thing.

Early on, Hayes noticed that PI/911 seemed to be "compacted", and he attributed it to that face of the suitcase having been blasted against something, as you say, relatively substantial. He speculated that this something was the base of the container.

However, he then noticed that the same piece of suitcase had blue bits adherent to it, that were consistent with the material of the Coyle case. This seems to be genuine evidence that this piece of suitcase had in fact been flat against the Coyle case, not against the base of the container. I don't know what they did with that information in 1989-90. I see no evidence of any attempt to do what LittleSwan is very sensibly trying to do, and that is try to figure out how the various items were positioned in the container in relation to one another.

However, in the witness box in 2000, it was put to Hayes that the compaction of the plastic of PI/911 was due to its having been blasted downwards on to the Coyle case, which was itself supported by the base of the container. Hayes acceded to that interpretation, but apparently without much confidence or enthusiasm. (Come on! Hadn't he even thought about this during the initial investigation?)

I think it all hinges on what you mean by "relatively substantial". Relative to what? Is a single sheet of aluminium more "substantial" than over 100 kg of stacked suitcases? I think not.

PI/911 was blasted upwards against the lower side of the Coyle case, and if there is compaction there, then that aspect is clearly the more "substantial" of the two sides.

I know of no other forensic evidence suggesting the Coyle case was on the base of the container. There were no blue bits adherent to the aluminium base, for example.

Rolfe.
 
LittleSwan said:
Did I miss something?
Click to expand...


Actually, there is one more thing. If you look at the red shaded area in the AAIB diagram of the positioning, it's almost all under the floor of the container. The main petalled hole is to the side, but there is very little damage left of that, with all the red shading being to the right.

twotins.jpg


It's a bit weird. The line giving the perpendicular to the assumed position of the explosion doesn't intersect with the middle of the petalled area, it intersects with the extreme left-hand side of it. Then there's only a small area of red shading to the left of that.

Why such an asymmetrical pattern of damage? It could be something to do with the exact structure of the plane, but to a lay person like me, it sure as hell looks as if the bomb suitcase was on the bottom layer from that diagram. Any thoughts, LittleSwan?

The diagram is weird from another perspective. The height of the explosion is labelled as 10 inches from the floor of the container. LittleSwan highlighted a bit of Claiden's evidence where he seemed to be saying that was a mistake and it should have been 13.5 inches. Caustic Logic says that the actual position of the red dot, as drawn to scale, is only 7.5 inches above the floor of the container.

Claiden tried to hand-wave this away as the diagram being only an approximate sketch, not to scale, really.

You reckon?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
LittleSwan said:
:)

Q The next item of baggage is 4.2.22, a black nylon canvas suitcase. Close the present image and open 88, please.

And the report tells us that the single recovered piece of this suitcase is shown in this photograph as PH/7. Will you read what the report says.
A "PH/7. This is the fabric edges and the centre frame with attached handle from a black softshell suitcase. The suitcase frame, which was distorted by a violent sideways impact, measured approximately 660 millimetres by 483 millimetres. It was constructed from a woven black nylon canvas possessing a black thin-sheet plastics backing. The suitcase was equipped with a circumferential black plastics zip fastener, a plywood reinforced black plastics simulated leather covered base, and four [2445] rubber-shod castors fitted to a pair of brass finished mounting plates. The suitcase had apparently suffered considerable disruption with its top and bottom side panels torn away at their stitched periphery. The plywood reinforced base had been shattered and one corner of the frame folded by a violent side-on impact with a localised disruption of the black simulated leather trim. Deposits of partially carbonised and fused debris, including fragments of blue foamed plastics, were recovered and identified as PT/65."
Click to expand...


And maybe this was the one on the right side of the blue tourister. I don't know who's suitcase it was.
Click to expand...


You know, this has bits of the Coyle case in it.

Still could be due to its having been to the right of the Coyle case, as you say. And I appreciate that the Schauble case had radio bits in it, which must make it a candidate for being close to the bomb suitcase and in the left of the container.

However, I'm wondering if this is a candidate for being on top of the Coyle case. If it is, we've got them. Again.

Will try to get photos.

Rolfe.
 
Sorry, I'm rather busy today.:(

The Schauble case had quite a lot of radio stuff in it. So I think that suitcase was on top of the blue tourister, with its left side a bit in the overhang. But you're right, it's possible it was on the fourth or fifth layer and not on the third one.

I'll try to reply to the other posts later.
 
My main thought is that whatever was on top of the Coyle case must surely have had blue foamy bits in it. Especially if that black case was beside the Coyle case, and got blue bits in it. How would whatever was on top have avoided it?

Rolfe.
 
However, he then noticed that the same piece of suitcase had blue bits adherent to it, that were consistent with the material of the Coyle case. This seems to be genuine evidence that this piece of suitcase had in fact been flat against the Coyle case, not against the base of the container. I don't know what they did with that information in 1989-90. I see no evidence of any attempt to do what LittleSwan is very sensibly trying to do, and that is try to figure out how the various items were positioned in the container in relation to one another.
Click to expand...

If we have the bloody pictures, I'm confident this is possible for the suitcases on top of the blue tourister and the suitcases on the right side of the IED suitcase and the blue tourister.

PI/911 was blasted upwards against the lower side of the Coyle case, and if there is compaction there, then that aspect is clearly the more "substantial" of the two sides.
Click to expand...

I agree. Every shock loaded surface (even water) acts like a "relatively immoveable" (Hayes wording) surface.

Why such an asymmetrical pattern of damage? It could be something to do with the exact structure of the plane, but to a lay person like me, it sure as hell looks as if the bomb suitcase was on the bottom layer from that diagram. Any thoughts, LittleSwan?
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I have no idea. I don't know how bad the cargo floor was damaged.

The diagram is weird from another perspective. The height of the explosion is labelled as 10 inches from the floor of the container. LittleSwan highlighted a bit of Claiden's evidence where he seemed to be saying that was a mistake and it should have been 13.5 inches. Caustic Logic says that the actual position of the red dot, as drawn to scale, is only 7.5 inches above the floor of the container.
Click to expand...

The same diagram is on page 404 of John Ashtons book. I didn't realize that the position of the red dot in the drawing is only 7,5 inch above the floor. In his book Ashton is suggesting that based on a stand-off distance of 20 inch, this 7,5 inch is to high. This is just another indication that the Claiden spot is way to high.
 
Rolfe said:
My main thought is that whatever was on top of the Coyle case must surely have had blue foamy bits in it. Especially if that black case was beside the Coyle case, and got blue bits in it. How would whatever was on top have avoided it?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the problem. The suitcase on the right of the tourister must also have blue foamy bits in it. It'll be very difficult to distinguish these two suitcases on the basis of descriptions alone.
 
Last edited:
Please don't apologise! I asked him for 85 and 88, for now. If you see anything else promising in Hayes's testimony, let me know and I'll add it to the request.

Rolfe.

ETA: A couple more emails, and if I (and a memory stick) can arrange to be in the right place at the right time on Monday (a day I can't get off work though), I can get the whole of Hayes's notes and maybe a bundle of photos of suitcases.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom