Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[LittleSwan]

Does that fly with you?

Oh yes, I totally agree. There is a lot of pitting on the frame, so it was very close to the centre of the explosion.

One thing I think we have to bear in mind is how far to the left the explosion was, even in relation to the luggage in the left-hand stack. Given that the explosion was right into the overhang, it's perfectly possible that even left-hand-stack items are going to show damage as if from a blast coming at them from the left-hand side.

Yes, the IED suitcase was on the left side of the container and the IED itself was on the left side of the suitcase. Therefore, almost every damaged suitcase will show damage on his left side. This makes things more complicated.

Hell's bell's, LittleSwan, the closer I zoom, the more it looks like a blue deposit on top of the black fabric, in the most damaged parts. I know it's not that badly damaged, but the explosion seems to have dissipated fairly locally, and that blue is extraordinarily striking. However, if the Schauble case was right on top of the Coyle case, I'm not quite sure how the wire frame part of the Coyle case managed to get mixed up with the Thomas and Coursey cases.

Please have a look at the .tiff file and tell me what you think.

The Schauble case is dark brown on my screen and the deposit looks blueish.

Maybe the Coursey case was on top of the Thomas case, and the steel frame of the Coyle case joined the base of the Thomas case and the lower side of the Coursey case together. I really don't know yet.

I'm more surprised that the damage to the Coyle case isn't more obviously asymmetrical.

Yes, but of course we haven't seen the missing parts. I'm sure we don't have a complete picture of the Coyle case.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, I totally agree. There is a lot of pitting on the frame, so it was very close to the centre of the explosion.

Oh sure. I'm just asserting that, like PD/889, the pattern of damage supports the exploding suitcase having been on the floor of the container (possibly hiked up a bit at its left-hand side).

Yes, the IED suitcase was on the left side of the container and the IED itself was on the left side of the suitcase. Therefore, almost every damaged suitcase will show damage on his left side. This makes things more complicated.

Doesn't matter hugely. We don't have to complete a faultless jigsaw of all the luggage in the container, or even in that corner. All we need is sufficient evidence of Coyle case contact with Frankfurt-origin luggage to exclude it from being on the floor of the container blasted downwards and away from the rest of the Frankfurt suitcases. I think we've got it, though I'd like to firm it up as much as possible.

The Schauble case is dark brown on my screen and the deposit looks blueish.

Dull black more than brown on both of mine. I can't honestly see it as olive green any way I look at it.

I see pale fibres that are quite large, whether the blue is the same thing or not I don't know. I did wonder if the blue appearance was something to do with the way the surface damage to the canvas was showing up in the photo, but there are very obviously scuffed parts on the case that are not showing up blue, and some of the blue seems to be on the tan leatherette trim as well.

Also, the case has been flat-side-on to the bomb suitcase, and is showing blast damage across its flat side. Clearly, it wasn't flat against the bomb suitcase itself, but it has still been exposed to the blast across that surface. What else do we have that could have been between it and the bomb suitcase but the (blue) Coyle case?

Anything wrong with this logic?

Maybe the Coursey case was on top of the Thomas case, and the steel frame of the Coyle case joined the base of the Thomas case and the lower side of the Coursey case together. I really don't know yet.

I think Thomas was on top of Bernstein. If Coyle, Thomas and Coursey were all found in association, that would tend to suggest Coursey was on top of Thomas. The Coyle part that was involved was the handle piece by the way. Here are the three items that comprised JDG/2, unfortunately photographed individually.

I still don't know exactly how they were associated or indeed why they were given the same number.

I don't really know where the Walker case (also with some Coyle found in/on it) fits in.

Or Costa, which also had Coyle traces on it - both Costa cases actually. I have images of Costa now, bear in mind this was loaded as one case - one was packed inside the other.

Yes, but of course we haven't seen the missing parts. I'm sure we don't have a complete picture of the Coyle case.

You're right. There's probably a bigger chunk of one side mouldering in the Newcastleton forest or rotting on the bottom of the Winterhope reservoir.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

I think Thomas was on top of Bernstein. If Coyle, Thomas and Coursey were all found in association, that would tend to suggest Coursey was on top of Thomas. The Coyle part that was involved was the handle piece by the way. Here are the three items that comprised JDG/2, unfortunately photographed individually.

Yes, I believe you're right.

The steel frame of the Coyle's is open. Probably one of the open ends pierced the other two items.

I think both Costa's were on the Carlson with the handle pointing to te right. However, I would expect some bits of grey plastic in them. Maybe the Walker or the Bennett was on the right side of the Costa's??

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I believe you're right.

The steel frame of the Coyle's is open. Probably one of the open ends pierced the other two items.

Possibly. I would like to see a picture of JDG/2 showing all the pieces as they originally related. Indeed, I would like to have it confirmed exactly why these three items were given the same number.

I think both Costa's were on the Carlson with the handle pointing to te right. However, I would expect some bits of grey plastic in them. Maybe the Walker or the Bennett was on the right side of the Costa's??

Hard to say. Given the relatively light damage on the top of PD/889, I'm unsure about this. I wonder what was on top of Schauble? If I'm right about Schauble being on top of Coyle that is. Do you have any other explanation for Schauble?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I've tried to blow Schauble up a bit, to get a better idea of the blue stuff.

This shows quite a wide area of the damaged part.

This one zooms in about as far as it'll go before the resolution starts to go. I think it shows that the blue colour is something different from the patina the canvas takes on where it's a bit rubbed. Indeed, as the pattern of the canvas seems to be covered by it, I think it has to be a deposit on top of the canvas of the case.

What is this if it isn't Coyle? There isn't anything else blue in the vicinity apart from Gannon, and it can't be that.

The white-ish fibres seem to be something else. Bear in mind Patricia's case had Patricia's clothes in it. (Or maybe even some of Karen's clothes, given what was actually found.)

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

What is this if it isn't Coyle? There isn't anything else blue in the vicinity apart from Gannon, and it can't be that.

The white-ish fibres seem to be something else. Bear in mind Patricia's case had Patricia's clothes in it. (Or maybe even some of Karen's clothes, given what was actually found.)

In Feradays notes (pg 31) regarding PT32 (the black stuff removed from the Schauble case):

"A quantity of partially carbonized fibres and plastics. Some of the black plastics bears a diamond shaped surface cross pattern."

This diamond shape thing is a feature of the tourister.

Bingo. The Schauble was on top of Coyle's tourister

 

[jargon buster]

Bear in mind Patricia's case had Patricia's clothes in it.

Im pretty sure I could have guessed that without ever opening it.

 

[Rolfe]

In Feradays notes (pg 31) regarding PT32 (the black stuff removed from the Schauble case):

"A quantity of partially carbonized fibres and plastics. Some of the black plastics bears a diamond shaped surface cross pattern."

This diamond shape thing is a feature of the tourister.

Bingo. The Schauble was on top of Coyle's tourister

Yes, I think so. I was confused because one of Karen's holdalls also had a lining with a diamond pattern on it. And it was blue, too. And it was severely blast-damaged. It may be that the items of Karen's clothes that were found blast-damaged came from that, thought at one point they were thought to have come from the Tourister and that the Tourister was Karen's case. Or maybe that was just the journalists getting it wrong.

However, the diamond pattern is indeed a feature of the Tourister. And the holdall would have been in the overhang, not underneath a suitcase. It's the blue that does it for me, not the diamond pattern, but it's all the same conclusion.

I've got the Indian Head test reports you wanted. The pdfs are huge, and are still downloading, but when they're all here I'll wrap them up and send them the same way as the other stuff.

PS. The pink stuff seems to be from a towel. I don't suppose it was ever confirmed whose towel it was. Handy if it had been Patricia's though.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

LittleSwan, I have all the Indian Head reports. These paper-copy originals scanned into pdf format make absolutely huge files. I have zipped them up and they are uploading, but it will be lunchtime tomorrow before the upload is done.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

Uploading will be faster during the night. I think the upload is done by the morning. We will see.

 

[Rolfe]

Tomorrow I will upload Hayes's notes, for public consumption. It may be they will download quickly enough to be usable.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Still saying more than three hours uploading to go! Patience, mes braves.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

I have it! I tried to download it at work, but it didn't get through the firewall. Thanks again, it's amazing stuff.
Bell was right, test no 5 came closest to replicating the damage, but.....apart from some tearing, the floor panel remained intact and the extrusion didn't break completely.

BTW your mailbox is full

 

[Rolfe]

So sorry. I have cleared some useless rubbish that was cluttering it up - you should get through now.

Well, not my field, but only five tests, all different, and only one with the bomb on the floor of the container. That one went wrong and "yielded little useful data" I believe.

How can you possibly exclude that position, completely and confidently, on that result? It's ludicrous.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Something I've been thinking about this. The clearer pictures of the baggage container in the Indian Head report seem to suggest there was a lip of a couple of inches or so between the flat floor of the container and the overhang part. I was never quite sure about this from the pictures we had.

It's obvious from the BBC picture that a big soft-sided case could be loaded flopping over that lip and partly into the overhang. It's less clear that a not-oversized hardshell like the Samsonite could be loaded like that and not look odd. And a lip would make it less likely that it would slide there in-flight.

We know the bomb suitcase was on the bottom layer, but you think Claiden was right about the explosion being in the overhang. I've always found this a hard circle to square. Especially given the packing issues (bomb in radio-cassette player in box wrapped in Babygro and packed in a suitcase. The initial 7th January 1989 sketch showed the explosion clearly in the main volume of the container. The pattern of damage to the plane might be more consistent with the explosion a bit further to the right, too.

I have read assertions that some part of the container was placed wrong way round when they reassembled it, and that's why they thought the explosion had been in the overhang. Is this possible, from what you can see?

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

Something I've been thinking about this. The clearer pictures of the baggage container in the Indian Head report seem to suggest there was a lip of a couple of inches or so between the flat floor of the container and the overhang part. I was never quite sure about this from the pictures we had.

A cross section of this lip is shown in photograph 31 from the joint report (sorry, I don't know how to copy and paste it). The lip is app. 8 cm high. The construction of this lip is different for different brands of containers.

We know the bomb suitcase was on the bottom layer, but you think Claiden was right about the explosion being in the overhang. I've always found this a hard circle to square. Especially given the packing issues (bomb in radio-cassette player in box wrapped in Babygro and packed in a suitcase. The initial 7th January 1989 sketch showed the explosion clearly in the main volume of the container. The pattern of damage to the plane might be more consistent with the explosion a bit further to the right, too.

Yes, I think they were right. The photographs (26-30) show that the blast was coming from the direction as indicated in photograph 31. If the explosion was in the main volume of the container the lip, extrusion or whatever you call it, would be bended outwards (t.i. in the direction of the fuselage of the airplane).

I have read assertions that some part of the container was placed wrong way round when they reassembled it, and that's why they thought the explosion had been in the overhang. Is this possible, from what you can see?

I have checked it and I don't think this is possible.

 

[Rolfe]

Fair enough. Do you know if AVE4041 itself had that lip? I ask because in his closing submissions Taylor suggested that Sidhu might have pushed the Bedford suitcase to the left to fit something else in to the right of it. He didn't do that and he wouldn't have done that so it was an unrealistic suggestion anyway, but it would have been a very unlikely thing to do if there was a 3-inch lip to overcome. Of course, Bill Taylor is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, unfortunately.

While it's clear that a large suitcase might be loaded flopping into the overhang, especially if it was a soft-sided case, the cases we think were at the front weren't that wide and the left-hand one was a hardshell, so I'm not that persuaded the cases were originally loaded that way. (Though I suppose it's possible if the bomber was very keen to get the IED in the overhang.)

I think the flight of PA103 was pretty bumpy, with that 90 mph crosswind, and even very heavy things can become weightless and shift alarmingly during a sudden lurch. And that left-hand suitcase had a shiny lacquer finish and was slightly convex with rounded corners. Nevertheless, 8 cm is quite a bit.

Does it mention anywhere whether there was a lip like that on the actual container involved in the crash?

ETA: The joint report? They're actually talking about AVE4041 itself then? This is anomalous. I still go for the turbulence causing the load to shift, but how would you explain it?

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

Do you know if AVE4041 itself had that lip?

Yes, as far as I know every aluminium LD3 container has a lip.

Does it mention anywhere whether there was a lip like that on the actual container involved in the crash?

I don't know, but there is a lip on the photographs.

The thing that is realy bothering me, are the seven grey fragments with PI/1550 etc. (photograph 73). Where the hell do these come from? The last thing you need when trying to prove that the IED suitcase was on the bottom layer are unexplained fragments. There are four options:

1) The Williams case. This was ruled out by Feraday.
2) The McKee case. This was more or less ruled out by Hayes in his notes (page 81. PI/1549. No- origin uncertain. Sim leather finish is a smaller and more regular pattern than PD/889)
3) An unidentified gray suitcase as suggested in the joint report (the grey hardshell suitcase A, section 4.2.11). I find this hard to believe and if it is true, where is the rest of this suitcase?
4) The IED suitcase. This is suggested on the LockerbieDivide. The IED suitcase is made of brown laminated ABS. The grey fragments are fragments of the brown samsonite with the brown laminate cooked off.

I go for option 4. At the moment I'm trying to find a vintage brown samsonite to verify this option. We will see.

 

[Rolfe]

Funny, I'd been thinking exactly the same thing. Are you sure Hayes's reason for ruling out PD/889 were valid? As you said, we'd have expected some smaller fragments of PD/889 considering where it was situated with respect to the explosion.

I see that lip/shelf/whatever the the diagrams in the Ashton book. It's a pity the suitcases in these diagrams are so appallingly not to scale. I'm not that worried about it. Cargoes shift in rough weather conditions, even cargoes heavier than that pile of luggage, and that lacquered surface was very low-friction and the corners were bevelled.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

I just bought three vintage blue Samsonite Silhouettes