Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[Rolfe]

What, 1988 vintage?

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

I guess they are from the late seventies, early eighties. They look more like the McKee. Beautifull blue suitcases BTW.

 

[Rolfe]

I can tell you're going to do something violent with them....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

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

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

I just didn't want to get that detail wrong.

It makes it a bit less likely that the case would have been loaded part-way into the overhang section. Although it's obvious from some of the photos that cases were loaded like that sometimes. It also makes it a bit harder to envisage how the load could shift so that the end of the case ended up over that lip. But again when you see the way loads can shift in heavy weather, it doesn't seem all that unlikely.

The other side of the coin is that it makes it easier for the side of the case to have got up to the sort of height the AAIB report was suggesting for the explosion without having to imagine it shoved a very long way into the angle.

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.

Yes. That had occurred to me too. If you want the bomb suitcase on the second layer it's not the Coyle case you need. It's some unidentified bits of case that could have been part of an item sitting where Bedford saw that case, which you could claim were evidence of some obscure stray piece of lost luggage which was placed there, blown to kingdom come, and never matched to its distraught owner.

So why didn't they go for that then?

Possibly because this is simply the biggest, the most incompetent, the most monumental -up in the entire history of this space-time continuum?

I'm inclined to that view, to be honest. The other alternative is that they spotted this possibility and decided not to run with it because it wasn't plausible enough and might invite too much scrutiny of the detail of the baggage loading. But really, I think they were just thick. I don't think they analysed the evidence in sufficient detail to spot this possibility.

Of course, I also think it's not plausible enough to hold up under scrutiny, but my honest belief is that they didn't spot it as a possibility, not that they spotted it and decided not to run with it.

There are four options:

1) The Williams case. This was ruled out by Feraday.

Agreed. Feraday's rule-out of Williams appears well-founded.

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)

Not agreed. I think it is entirely clear that the McKee case was next to the Carlsson case, in the row behind the bomb suitcase. As you observed earlier, there should be some smaller pieces with more intimate blast damage. They could all have been lost, but then these highly eligible fragments just happened to be found instead, from a different case? It's close enough that I don't feel like accepting Hayes's judgement at face value. If you were examining that evidence, without preconceptions, which way would you jump?

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?

This is something that has been extremely close to the bomb. In contact with the bomb suitcase. If that was another suitcase, one we don't know about, where was it? It was another secondary suitcase, that's what. Exactly what they needed. And they didn't go for it.

As you say, where's the rest of it? We've got about 30 bits of the Samsonite and about 20 bits of the Coyle, and these include some fairly sizeable chunks. Biggish chunks of Carlsson, too. It's entirely anomalous to have so little of a case remaining/recovered.

If this was another case, it must have been under the bomb. I don't believe it.

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.

I don't entirely agree. Adam made that suggestion, but as far as I know the texture of the bomb suitcase was less like these orphan bits than PD/889's texture is. It's worth a look, of course, but I still favour PD/889 despite Hayes's opinion.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In terms of the wider debate, I have two main thoughts about this.

The first point is that the Crown never made the case that these seven fragments were the Bedford suitcase, and showed that it was an innocent case under the bomb. If they had made that case, it could have been examined, and challenged, and expert opinions sought from people who could view the actual pieces as to whether or not these fragments were actually part of one of the other identified cases.

The Crown case was that the Coyle case was on the bottom, therefore Sidhu must have moved the Bedford suitcase. We know that is not what happened. That blows the Crown case out of the water. While we may find these fragments interesting, the Crown can't simply change to that horse without testing it in court, and maintain the conviction continues to be sound but on an entirely different interpretation of the evidence.

My second point concerns the height of the explosion. I believe the pattern of damage to the Carlsson case (the lining panel, principally) and PD/889 shows to a fairly high degree of probability that the explosion was actually in the bottom case on the stack. You yourself believe that for different reasons - the nature of the blast damage to the container frame.

Establishing that point to a decent degree of probability destroys the idea of these seven pieces having been part of the Bedford suitcase. I think we need to make the case for the bottom-level explosion more rigorously.

I'm confident. These fragments were either the Bedford suitcase, or a part of something we already have the larger part of. That something pretty much has to be PD/889 or the bomb suitcase. (I take it they're not a match for Carlsson, and they're certainly not a match for Coyle.)

I'm confident they don't represent an innocent "Bedford suitcase". So they are either bomb suitcase or PD/889. And it will be possible to establish this. For now, my money is still on PD/889 as was your original opinion.

Rolfe.

 

[CTB]

I've tried unsuccessfully, a couple of times, to download the zip file. The issue is my mobile broadband link not being online long enough in one go at any given time. Ho-hum.

I know we were all asked a few weeks back, Rolfe, if there was anything we'd like but I must admit to being taken aback, even a little bit sideyways too, at a 2gig + download.

So, I've always wanted to read the official Hayes/Feraday report as given up to the court at Zeist. For me, it'd be a fantastic 'companion piece' to certain evidence in the transcripts. I'd also like the original Hayes' notes, but I'm only guessing at what was on the 'stick' you managed to grab a copy of.

I don't even know if it's possible to extricate particular items from all the data you received, but until then, please keep posting pics n docs n wotnot to accompany the thought processes that drive your investigation. It is very valuable.

Much obliged, etc...

 

[Rolfe]

Although the original tranche of stuff (the German police files on the baggage transfers) was very difficult to separate out, this new lot is much more discrete. The Joint Forensic Report and the original Hayes notes are separate documents. Hayes's notes are still a big file because obviously it's an image file of his pencil sketches and scribbles, but it's peanuts compared to the whole thing.

I'll try making zip files of these two items separately and see how big they are. I imagine it's doable. I don't imagine you want the detailed Indian Head tests so much. Hopefully LittleSwan will tell us what he thinks of that particular farce.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just thinking about where we've got to, it seems to me that we're quite well advanced.

On the assumption that Sidhu was neither mistaken nor lying, and he didn't move the interline-shed cases, we have figured out exactly where these were placed in the container.

(back row) Carlsson - PI/889 - Bernstein saddlebag - Gannon - PI/120
(flat at front) Mystery case - Bernstein suit carrier

We also know that the Coyle case was on top of the bomb suitcase, with the Schauble case on top of that. The Thomas, Costa and Coursey cases were all there or thereabouts, possibly stacked on top of the Bernstein.

What we still haven't entirely proved is that the bomb suitcase was the mystery case on the bottom layer with the Coyle case on the second layer, as opposed to the bomb suitcase being on top of the mystery case and the Coyle case on the third layer.

Points favouring a second-layer bomb suitcase are that the forensics people thought it had been second layer, and there are a handful of unattributed blast-damaged suitcase fragments that might represent the mystery case. (The investigators never made that attribution though.) One might also consider the relatively light explosion damage seen on the Bernstein suit carrier compared to the Thomas and Costa cases, although this may well be due to shifting of the load allowing one of these cases to shield the Bernstein case to some extent.

Points favouring a bottom-layer bomb suitcase are the nature of the damage to the Carlsson and PD/889 suitcases (which I personally think is a slam-dunk), and LittleSwan's observations about the severity of the damage to the frame of the container in that corner. In addition, there were bits of the Coyle case blasted into the handle of the Bernstein suit carrier, which seems unlikely if the suit carrier was on the bottom layer, below the level of the bomb, and the Coyle case was on the third layer, above the bomb.

There is also the question of the apparent shenanigans in the interline shed. A scenario where the mystery case was innocent and the bomb came in on the feeder flight requires the Bernstein saddle-bag to be loaded by Bedford before his break, in the row at the back. Then, after he went on his break, the second Bernstein case appeared along with the mystery case, and both were loaded by Kamboj after he x-rayed them.

0n the other hand there are a few problems with that. First, the saddlebag is in the wrong place. It should be at the right-hand end, but it's in the middle. It can't possibly have arrived early enough to have overlapped with the Larnaca luggage, and why would Bedford have moved two Larnaca cases aside to put it in the middle of the row? His evidence says he filled the row working left to right, and if a "holdall" had arrived he would have put it to the left of the Carlsson case.

Second, Kamboj spontaneously remembered taking the Bernstein suit carrier off the carousel and x-raying it. But he was adamant that he didn't load anything into the container. Seems a bit odd to remember x-raying it, but then not to remember deciding to put it in the container after that. Also, the handle of the suit carrier was to the left. The baggage handlers always loaded the flat cases handle to the back or possibly the front - not to the side. Kamboj would know that.

Having had another look at the seven orphan fragments, and the bomb suitcase and PD/889, I now agree with LittleSwan. The bomb suitcase is more likely to be the origin of these things, with the "antique copper" coating cooked off. The grain is a better fit than the grain of PD/899.

I note the acknowledged pieces of bomb suitcase fall into two categories. Big chunks, and pretty tiny scraps. The tiny scraps seem to have been the bits that were prised out of the other suitcases. The seven orphan fragments could represent the middle ground, but the absence of the bronze colouring has misled the forensics.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

(back row) Carlsson - PI/889 - Bernstein saddlebag - Gannon - PI/120
(flat at front) Mystery case - Bernstein suit carrier

Which mystery case? The IED suitcase or the "grey hardshell A"??

We also know that the Coyle case was on top of the bomb suitcase, with the Schauble case on top of that. The Thomas, Costa and Coursey cases were all there or thereabouts, possibly stacked on top of the Bernstein.

I put my money on Bernstein - Thomas - Coursey - SmithHall and the Costa on top of the Carlson and McKee (handle pointing to the right). The Costa is the only one with damage on the bottom.

... One might also consider the relatively light explosion damage seen on the Bernstein suit carrier compared to the Thomas and Costa cases, although this may well be due to shifting of the load allowing one of these cases to shield the Bernstein case to some extent.

The Thomas case is a soft shell. One side is missing and the other side is detached from its frame. It looks severely damaged, but actually it is not.

In addition, there were bits of the Coyle case blasted into the handle of the Bernstein suit carrier, which seems unlikely if the suit carrier was on the bottom layer, below the level of the bomb, and the Coyle case was on the third layer, above the bomb.

Yes, but please bear in mind that it is possible that the IED suitcase and the Coyle case were not lying flat.

Having had another look at the seven orphan fragments, and the bomb suitcase and PD/889, I now agree with LittleSwan. The bomb suitcase is more likely to be the origin of these things, with the "antique copper" coating cooked off. The grain is a better fit than the grain of PD/899.

I have been asking around and the "delamination" is probably the result of a process called "spalling". Spalling is a well known phenomena in shock wave dynamics.

 

[Rolfe]

Which mystery case? The IED suitcase or the "grey hardshell A"??

That's the question, isn't it?

I just mean, the case described by the Heathrow staff which can't be reconciled to known legitimate Heathrow interline luggage.

I put my money on Bernstein - Thomas - Coursey - SmithHall and the Costa on top of the Carlson and McKee (handle pointing to the right). The Costa is the only one with damage on the bottom.

I had Bernstein - Costa - Thomas - Coursey for rather similar reasons, but I'll defer to your expertise. Not sure which one is SmithHall. Given that the top of the McKee case isn't severely damaged, would a case on top of it show as much damage as the Costa case does?

What about Walker?

The Thomas case is a soft shell. One side is missing and the other side is detached from its frame. It looks severely damaged, but actually it is not.

Good point, I hadn't quite realised that.

Yes, but please bear in mind that it is possible that the IED suitcase and the Coyle case were not lying flat.

I am definitely bearing that in mind. If you're right about the explosion being in the overhang section, they can't have been absolutely flat. I also think the relatively light damage to the Bernstein case suggests one side of something slipped between that and the bomb suitcase when the latter slid to the left, and shielded it to some extent. It's tempting to imagine a neat matrix, but these containers are always a bit higgledy-piggledy.

I have been asking around and the "delamination" is probably the result of a process called "spalling". Spalling is a well known phenomena in shock wave dynamics.

I wonder if the size thing means anything. The brown bits of the bomb suitcase are three large pieces (and the fabric lining bit, PK/1310a), and a lot of very small bits that were prised out of other luggage. The grey bits are intermediate in size between those two groups.

What do you think about PK/139? I think that says "bomb on floor of container" rather strikingly.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

What about Walker?

On top of the Costa.

I wonder if the size thing means anything. The brown bits of the bomb suitcase are three large pieces (and the fabric lining bit, PK/1310a), and a lot of very small bits that were prised out of other luggage. The grey bits are intermediate in size between those two groups.

Parts of the suitcase closer to the bomb and not supported or covered by other items/surfaces are more prone to spalling.

A small partial delaminated fragment was found in a pink towel (PT/63, Hayes notes pg 124).

What do you think about PK/139? I think that says "bomb on floor of container" rather strikingly.

It says "bomb on one side of the suitcase"

 

[Rolfe]

On top of the Costa.

O.... K....

Parts of the suitcase closer to the bomb and not supported or covered by other items/surfaces are more prone to spalling.

A small partial delaminated fragment was found in a pink towel (PT/63, Hayes notes pg 124).

That was sort of what I was thinking.

It says "bomb on one side of the suitcase"

Well, yes, we know that. From Bedford's evidence, and from the state of the suitcase frame, if nothing else.

But what I'm getting at is where that piece of lining was at the time of the explosion. It's obviously the panel that goes across the hinge end, inside the case. The bit that's on the bottom when the case is sitting handle-up, as that one was at the time of the explosion.

I simply don't see how that piece of lining material got that charred if the explosion was inside a case that was on top of another one.

Rolfe.

 

[LittleSwan]

O.... K....

Well, actually I'm not sure. I don't know where to position the Weinecker and Walker.

If the Walker was on the Costa, it's bottom was relatively unprotected.

I simply don't see how that piece of lining material got that charred if the explosion was inside a case that was on top of another one.

I understand what you mean, but would it make a lot of difference if the position of the bomb was a few inches higher?? I don't know.

 

[Rolfe]

I think I see what you mean rather better, having thought about it. I was confused about how the Bernstein suit carrier showed relatively little structural damage, given that it was to the right of the bomb suitcase itself. However, as you pointed out, the Thomas case is not that severely blast-damaged either. Much of that damage is merely mechanical, due to the fall. And the Coursey case likewise. Blast damage probably comparable to the Bernstein case, or less.

This makes sense, that the luggage to the right of the bomb suitcase was relatively lightly damaged, because the bomb was packed to the extreme left of the case. The Costa case, the one that was properly shredded on one side, has to have been somewhere else. On top of the Coyle case is already taken, and we can see the Schauble case also wasn't that badly shredded, because the Coyle case protected it. So you're right, I think. Costa was above the row at the back.

However, I think in that case you're also right that these cases were loaded handle to the side, which is something I hadn't thought about. Nobody asked Sidhu that. In that case, they must have utilised the full width of the container at that level, including the overhang. Which would put the Costa case further to the left than you'd instinctively assume, mostly over the Carlsson case and the holdalls to its left. That would explain the extent of the damage.

Walker might have been to the right of Costa, on the same level. Weinacker might have been on top of Costa. Or the other way round Guessing now. The further you get from the bomb the more hypothetical it is. However, I think it was approximately like that.

I understand what you mean, but would it make a lot of difference if the position of the bomb was a few inches higher?? I don't know.

Well, you're the expert, but I think so. I think the condition of both Carlsson and PD/889 absolutely scream "bottom layer". Look at the smashed hinge end of PD/889 compared to the relatively intact handle end. It's extremely asymmetrical. And look at the charring on that piece of lining. Inches do make a difference in this blast, look at the relatively light damage to the cases on the right-hand stack for example. And we're talking probably a nine-inch difference. That scorch mark is more than a mark, the fabric is charred right through into non-existence in the middle. In the same vein as your remark about the strut, how close would that blast have had to have been? I also think that if there had been an innocent suitcase on the bottom layer it would have protected that piece of fabric to some extent. There's a lot of difference between the bottom case exploding, and the second-layer case exploding with the bottom-layer case absorbing a lot of the energy, I think.

To be honest I still see the explosion even lower than that. I see it in the bottom suitcase which was lying flat within the main volume of the container. I have to believe you when you say it was in the angle, and so the case must have had its end up on that 3-inch shelf, but I really have trouble thinking that. (OK, the scorch mark is definitely to the left of the panel of fabric, so that supports your version I guess.)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I understand what you mean, but would it make a lot of difference if the position of the bomb was a few inches higher?? I don't know.

Just to go back to this point for a minute, I realise my thoughts aren't so much predicated on the height of the explosion as such, as the presence of another suitcase protecting the bottom of the Carlsson case from such intimate blast damage, if the bomb suitcase had been the one on the second layer.

Visualise the set-up from a 90-degree angle for a moment. View the arrangement as if seen through the overhang section. If the bomb suitcase is on the bottom, even if the left-hand end is raised up on the 3-inch shelf, there's nothing protecting the lower edge of the Carlsson case at all. On the other hand, if there is an innocent suitcase on the bottom layer, that is providing quite a substantial barrier between the centre of the explosion and the bottom of the Carlsson case. That's still true even if the bottom suitcase is lying flat, meaning that the explosion is maybe only six inches higher in the second scenario.

We can see from other cases how quickly the blast was dissipated even by only a single flat suitcase between the bomb suitcase and the next one up - compare Coyle and Schauble for example. Could that very severe charring seen on the lining panel of the Carlsson case really have occurred if there had been another suitcase butted right up against the bottom of that case, between it and the explosion?

By the way, I thought of another possible position for the Costa case. Chucked into the overhang section on top of Karen Noonan's blue holdall, burned end down.

Rolfe.

 

[jargon buster]

Rolfe, why are you still confused/flip-flopping as to the position and location of the suitcases and baggage?
I previously wrote

What?
They cant be expected to remember accurately something they would have paid hardly any attention to doing.
http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress....pg?w=300&h=200
Do you think these guys will be able to remember the order in which they stacked these?

Your response was

Yes. They do the same job every day, and they have a system. They will be able to tell you which order they put the cases on the trailers, because they always do it the same way. Every time.

OK, I'm less sure about these trailers, because they're only moving stuff between the terminal building and the aircraft. But the process we're talking about here is the packing of a container to be loaded on to the aircraft. They absolutely had a system, which they adhered to, and which they were able to describe to the police.

So now whats wrong with the handlers statements?
Dont you believe them, were they mistaken?

 

[Rolfe]

If you don't understand the discussion, it might be better not to comment.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

One thing that has struck me quite forcefully looking at the extent (or lack of it) of the damage to the suitcases is how limited it actually was. Of the items around the bomb suitcase, only Coyle and Carlsson (and I think Karen Noonan's blue holdall) were really smashed to bits. PD/889 and Costa are next up, which is what makes me think Costa might have been put in the overhang with the holdalls. It was a soft-sided case that wasn't particularly large, and the baggage handlers said they occasionally put cases there.

Next layer out is Schauble, the two Bernstein cases, and Thomas. They've all got some explosives penetration and they're frayed around the edges, but they're still essentially intact - as you pointed out, LittleSwan, the Thomas case appears to have come apart in the fall rather than been blown apart. Coursey is also blast-damaged, but this is mostly confined to one corner.

The actual radius of destruction from this blast doesn't seem to have been much more than a couple of feet. I wondered whether its having vented to the open "air" through the punctured hull would have mitigated the damage to the luggage to some extent, and I suppose it did, but the diameter of the hole in the hull that was actually caused by the explosion was only something like 20 cm if I recall correctly. The explosive decompression and Mach Stem thing did the rest.

The baggage container was, crudely, a 5'x5'x5' cube. If the bomb suitcase had been loaded at random I think there would have been a much better than 50% chance the plane would not have been destroyed as the blast would have been largely absorbed by the packed luggage.

And yet the bomb suitcase was placed in one of the few positions where it was extremely close to the hull. And the bomb was packed asymmetrically, so that it was possible to get it really close to the hull, but only if the case was positioned the right way round in this extraordinarily fortuitous location. And that's exactly where it was placed.

By pure accident. Right....

Rolfe.

 

[jargon buster]

If you don't understand the discussion, it might be better not to comment.

Rolfe.

Oh I understand that 99% of the forum cant follow what you are driving at anymore.

And yet the bomb suitcase was placed in one of the few positions where it was extremely close to the hull. And the bomb was packed asymmetrically, so that it was possible to get it really close to the hull, but only if the case was positioned the right way round in this extraordinarily fortuitous location. And that's exactly where it was placed.

By......?

 

[Rolfe]

The Lockerbie bomber, doofus.

Rolfe.