Pan Am 103: Unaccompanied bag from Malta: Evidence?

[Klimax]

Try this page. The image is smaller, but you'll get it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1145884.stm

Rolfe.

Thanks. Looks familiar.(Probably my mother had two-tape deck version of this)

 

[Caustic Logic]

Do you really think the first reaction of airport authorities and managers, faced with a completely unexpected air disaster to a plane which hadn't even taken off from their airport, would be to conceal a heap of baggage loading records, just in case?

I'm not sure where that question came from. Someone seems to have, quite possibly, concealed all relevant records. Someone with at least a suspicion something went on that plane that regular investigators couldn't see, and the power to keep them from seeing it. It could have been an airport authority decision, but somehow I think otherwise. I'm not sure who was in charge there, in occupied West Germany; I've heard PanAm had their own shady deals at CIA-type levels. We're speculating on a drug-trafficking system that would have to have security people, plumbers who can get around and plug leaks.

I think it's quite hard to postulate even in the situation where some spooks and law enforcement people are more than half-expecting an incident and hope to cover it up if it happens. It's surely kind of hard to swan into a major airport and make the people there co-operate with your cover-up without being exposed by someone.

It might not have anything to do with the bomb other than worry over the investigation following it. No prior expectations are necessary, just nimble reaction, and I can't say how hard it is or isn't, for whoever this was, to compel anyone to play in. And as for this plot being exposed, it's true that no one has come forward to speak of records being disappeared before their own eyes.

But what were these deletions to oppose or expose? With the computer backup tapes, we have an allegation of a week-later deletion preceded by no action from either the airport nor German investigators to examine it. If this be a cover story for a quicker deletion before anyone COULD look at it, then we need only one or two well-placed accomplices on board.

KM180's unloading papers - I'm not sure about this, if they were usually kept, when they went missing... I would presume they weren't even worth looking at until after the printout emerged pointing to station 206 at 1307. Were they just routinely scrapped sometime in the preceding 7-8 MONTHS?

PanAm's papers are indeed absent from the investigation AFAIK as if deleted, and Mr. Jones says they were gone from the airline's files before early 89. Any inside accomplice with access could do this and whatever settlement follows, the papers are gone and that's the main thing. Apparently this one was exposed, unless Jones is hoaxing. Otherwise though it's been kept pretty quiet and papered over by all 'reputable' parties.

So for waltzing in and removing what you need, Yes you'd need accomplices with security clearances and access to 103A's loading papers and the central computer. there's a danger they'll talk, but is this is what happened, then the danger was apparently manageable.

That's the trouble with this affair, it's just crawling with weird anomalies, but they aren't necessarily easy to explain either innocently or as some sort of cover-up. You expect some anomalies in any incident like this, that in the end simply have to be written off as "stuff happens", but the sheer number fouling up this case is extremely peculiar.

Anomalies? Haven't you crossed over yet to where these are nomalies, considering what's going on here?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I just finally had an important insight I wish one of us all had already thought of. First, a graphic that helps visualize the situation - useful for anyone wanting to get involved but too confused. I hope this doesn't come through tooo huge:

Number of bags can't be seen not because they didn't count it at the plane. They wouldn't. Wagons to coding stations - standard procedured meant a certain time = a certain flight's luggage. So the full computer tape should have so many items coded then = number of bags from flight.

If all records available like normal, this could be established - only so many wagons could be needed for 55 or 56 bags from KM180. Just one maybe? So you check how many stations took that luggage and at what times was it coded? Items were coded at station x between, lessee, paper says 1304-1310. The time difference was a real issue it seems, known and app. corrected for. Checking the computer system for S0009, 1303-1309 frame. Ah, 55 items. A seconds counter might really help here, perhaps that was optional data. plus distinct work pauses between coding flight batches. Anyway...

But the full data set is needed to pull it up under different headings. According to Bogomira's printout, exactly one item was coded there at that time. And of course that's because this is just a snapshot, only those items destined for PA103A and routed to gate 44, or alleged items.

What this does, swapping out the full data tapes for a printout of one heading, is two things: it gives the investigation just what it needs so from their POV, the record is fine and complete, on the important part. On the other hand, it removes all context, depth, and verifiability.

 

[Buncrana]

First, as someone who has been an avid follower of the PanAm 103 tragedy, I would like to thank all the contributors on this and the other threads. Especially Rolfe and Caustic Logic. Posters have been erudite and objective in their examining the many curious and complex circumstances around Lockerbie and Pan Am 103. Reasoned and plausible debate is often a scarcity when involving major disasters and/or terrorist attacks.

In reply to CL and his excellent diagram above (pictures often help the 'layman'), I would contend that 'a bag' seems to have been introduced at 'coding station 206', but from what is evident, it could not be 'a bag' that had travelled on KM180. The triple checking of KM180 bag-passenger reconciliation, before departure, with no passengers joining PA103a, together with the bags uplifted at Frankfurt, by all passengers, surely rules out any possibility of unaccompanied bag?

The 'bag' must therefore be inserted between journey of wagon from KM180 to coding station 206 - OR, introduced at station 206 itself? Still, if we believe what sketchy information and records that are available pertaining to wagon/baggage amounts from KM180 and station 206 and the Frankfurt operation. It is 'a bag'. Not neccessarily a 'bomb'.?

Frankfurt baggage examiners were aware of 'toshiba bomb' threat and surely would be alerted by a 'bomb bag' passing through their system?

My own belief is that a rogue bag did enter the system at Frankfurt and was loaded onto Pan Am 103a. Possibly through a bag switch, which according to official records, was a known technique for drug smugglers using Frankfurt and Heathrow. Whether this was the 'bomb bag' I am doubtful. I think the 'bomb bag' was inserted at Heathrow - anything else is too great a gamble on being discovered, disturbed - the Heathrow break-in, and the time lapse from take off to the explosion on 103 is simply too much a coincidence for it not to have a connection with the barometric timers as used by the PLFP group in Neuss. Surely?

I do have other contributions I would like to make to the debate, however, time has been an enemy for me recently due to other commitments. However, I will endeavour to comment further soon on the events leading up to 21 December, the subsequent investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, the documentaries and books.

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome indeed, Buncrana!

I'm off for an evening out, but I look forward very much to your contributions. My head was beginning to spin with the sheer amount of information available (not all of it accurate of course), and I very much appreciate your summary above. I think you make a most excellent point.

My belief (pace Klimax) is that the evidence that the bag was not introduced at Malta is as good as it gets. Accordingly, I'm really not interested in Megrahi, because he was in Malta at the relevant time. Whether he, or any Libyan, knew about what was going on is not really the issue. He can't have put the bag on board, because he actually has an alibi.

I realise I have been repeatedly accused of trying to spin the argument this way because I'm Scottish, and a supporter of the SNP - the party of government, which chose to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, I don't think that's relevant at all. I've believed Megrahi to be innocent for years, and Kenny MacAskill's decision isn't important to the discussions except insofar as it raises the profile of the incident and gets people examining it.

I have been continually conflicted as to whether Heathrow or Frankfurt is the more likely point of entry of the bomb.

Frankfurt is attractive, partly because Jibril's group was there, and partly because that's the modus operandi favoured by some of the best-described conspiracy theories, and by this I mainly mean The Trail of the Octopus and The Maltese Double Cross. Hoever, there are also arguments against it, which are possibly better located in another thread.

The Heathrow loading has two great arguments in its favour - the "Bedford suitcase", which is one hell of a coincidence if it wasn't the bomb suitcase (or a fairy story), and the 38-minute detonation, which is almost pathognomonic of a Khreesat device loaded at Heathrow.

Which is why I keep coming back to the timer fragment. A simple Khreesat device at Heathrow makes a nonsense of that timer. The internet is crawling with suggestions that it was planted, however I have not yet decided whether or not I think that really flies. Alternatively, if the device really did incorporate an MST-13 timer, what was its role? Could it have been to allow a Khreesat device to be loaded at Frankfurt, preventing the decide from arming on the first leg of the flight, giving the same result as if it had been loaded at Heathrow but allowing it to be loaded remotely? But if we postulate that, what the hell is Bedford's story all about?

Meh, I'm off to the cinema.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

First, as someone who has been an avid follower of the PanAm 103 tragedy, I would like to thank all the contributors on this and the other threads. Especially Rolfe and Caustic Logic. Posters have been erudite and objective in their examining the many curious and complex circumstances around Lockerbie and Pan Am 103. Reasoned and plausible debate is often a scarcity when involving major disasters and/or terrorist attacks.

What an excelent introduction, Bruncana, and welcome to the forum! A certain restraint on the part of our would-be official story supporters is at fault for the steady forward movement here. Bless their prudence! And County Donegal is in the house! ? !

In reply to CL and his excellent diagram above (pictures often help the 'layman'), I would contend that 'a bag' seems to have been introduced at 'coding station 206', but from what is evident, it could not be 'a bag' that had travelled on KM180. The triple checking of KM180 bag-passenger reconciliation, before departure, with no passengers joining PA103a, together with the bags uplifted at Frankfurt, by all passengers, surely rules out any possibility of unaccompanied bag?

You're in good company there. I for one am not as sure - relatively sure, but who knows - that Air Malta's claims are fact. And as you probably caught, I also doubt this very item 8849 ever existed besides on paper here. I'm having fun pushing that, because it's original and going to stimulate original thought, but it could well be wrong.

The 'bag' must therefore be inserted between journey of wagon from KM180 to coding station 206 - OR, introduced at station 206 itself? Still, if we believe what sketchy information and records that are available pertaining to wagon/baggage amounts from KM180 and station 206 and the Frankfurt operation. It is 'a bag'. Not neccessarily a 'bomb'.?

Could be a box full of pamphlets, or a giant stuffed bear. Could be intoroduced at the station from who knows where. Could be introduced into the data after the fact. There was clearly a cover-up going on in general and the data was apparently safely removed from view in time.

Frankfurt baggage examiners were aware of 'toshiba bomb' threat and surely would be alerted by a 'bomb bag' passing through their system?

Opinion of the court, p 29

PanAm had x-ray equipment at Frankfurt, which was used to x-ray interline
baggage. The system was that baggage arriving at the departure gate for a PanAm flight would be separated into categories, according to the flight programme. In the case of PA103A, that meant that the loaders would separate baggage for London, baggage for New York, and interline baggage. The last category would be taken to the x-ray equipment and examined and returned to be loaded.

As the airline and airport mentioned in the Helsinki warning at least, they should have been well on guard for electronic radios of this type. Page 37 also covers operator Kurt Maier, as Rolfe mentioned earlier, who swears he would have caught it, and he was the one running the stuff. The Court disagrees (since *obviously* he didn't catch it).

My own belief is that a rogue bag did enter the system at Frankfurt and was loaded onto Pan Am 103a. Possibly through a bag switch, which according to official records, was a known technique for drug smugglers using Frankfurt and Heathrow. Whether this was the 'bomb bag' I am doubtful. I think the 'bomb bag' was inserted at Heathrow - anything else is too great a gamble on being discovered, disturbed - the Heathrow break-in, and the time lapse from take off to the explosion on 103 is simply too much a coincidence for it not to have a connection with the barometric timers as used by the PLFP group in Neuss. Surely?

Interesting... would this bag be something suspicious, and if so what? You did say rogue. If it didn't have the bomb, it probably didn't have the Maltese clothes, I'd guess. But then it's just a coincidence such clothes were app. connected to the bomb, and an Air Malta flight connected to a blamable rogue bag... and the headache's coming back so for now... Busy Friday myself, back way later.

I do have other contributions I would like to make to the debate, however, time has been an enemy for me recently due to other commitments. However, I will endeavour to comment further soon on the events leading up to 21 December, the subsequent investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, the documentaries and books.

Ooops, yep. Please do!

 

[Caustic Logic]

My belief (pace Klimax) is that the evidence that the bag was not introduced at Malta is as good as it gets.

For all my contrarian stances, ultimately I agree there's no sound reason for denying their claims. I'd like to see some summaries of who said what and what evidence they have - the paperwork Phipps said he saw and found way more satisfying than Frankfurt's. All this nitpicking aside, what did or didn't happen at station 206, it really does seem 55 bags were carried, unloaded, and later claimed. This means no bag from Malta was passed onto the Pan Am flight. Therefore...

Accordingly, I'm really not interested in Megrahi, because he was in Malta at the relevant time.

zing! The Malta connection ship has sailed, and our alleged bomb bag from there wasn't there. End of story.

...

But I can't really feel that's the end.

And then what we have, if we embrace the claim of no bag from Luqa via KM180, and accept the printout as legitimate (or rather accurate) as most of us are, this would clearly prove some definite non-KM180 item coded along with that stuff at that time. And we have some co-incidences to consider (not necc. "coincidences")

Unless we call the Maltese clothes at the crash site plants, we have clothes apparently associated with the bomb pointing to Malta.

If the item introduced from 206 was not the bomb bag, and not from KM180, then we have a remarkable coincidence that it could <i>appear</i> Maltese with no big stretch.

And if this was the bomb bag, we have the question of why it got by security, AND app. had Maltese clothes AND was loaded so as to appear Maltese. And it had the timer set to as to make sure these clues would be found across some lovely countryside. This scenario can't be coincidence, can it?

 

[Caustic Logic]

County Donegal is in the house! ? !

I must apologize for that nerdy outburst. Combining some early-90s fake street cred lingo along with amateur Google-fu to show "I know where you're coming from, I know about the world, not just some dumb yank." Perhaps the breach of erudition was borne of my penchant for raining on parades, to see how good a parade it really is. If it keeps moving, all right! If not, well I feel kinda bad but figure I just hastened the inevitable.

I'm off for an evening out,
...
Meh, I'm off to the cinema.

Rolfe.

That must be a pretty long movie there.

But no, it's good to take a break when you're thinking so hard the rest of the time. I've kind of paused too, but I'm back with a few things.

Denis Phipps is alright, pretty convincing and fairly level. I heard in the Dispatches episode he did his examination of Frankfurt Airport on behalf of Air Malta. Apparently Paul Foot did not mention him (by word search). Another source, a transcript of Frontline Scotland says he "was employed by Air Malta to review security on flight KM180." I was wondering, Rolfe in particular, or anyone, what's up with that? Was this for their lawsuit against Granada? How much weight should we assign to charges of partiality? Some of his phraseology and emphasis makes me wonder if he's slanted, but though he doesn't explain fully that I've seen, there's plenty of reason for a person who's looked close to be slanted to accept Air Malta's claims over Frankfurt's.

He's also very convincing IMO to Western minds, very British and proper. He lends serious weight to the tightness of AM's evidence and the flimsiness of FA's records. One may recall that 2008 Conspiracy Files episode that so blandly stated a bag DID travel unaccompanied, and cast absolutely zero doubt over the whole episode there (aside from admitting the *apparent* lack of police inquiry was "surspising"). I felt this section was very calculated, the central thesis and true movie set between some collected (relatively) insubstantial controversies. Please note, this is one of the few videos claiming to explore Lockerbie controversies that DID NOT include even a second of Mr. Phipps. Further evidence.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, went to see "Up" on Friday. Good film, by the way. Lots to do Saturday. Visitors Sunday. I logged in a couple of times, but (don't take this the wrong way, CL!) I was hoping for another post from Buncrana, maybe with some new insight.

I'm not sure why you're so suspicious of Luqa airport. OK, the clothes were bought in Sliema, we agree on that even if that is one more oddity (why use a small shop where you might be remembered, rather than a charity store or an anonymous branch of a big chain store?). But is that not likely to be an argument against the bomb going on at Luqa? Surely, if you're a terrorist, you don't advertise your plan by buying the clothes only a few miles from the airport you plan on using? Especially if your cunning plan is to obfuscate the issue by feeding the bomb on in a remote location using feeder flights? To me, buying the clothes in Sliema is more suggestive of a plan to put the bag on board at Heathrow - or Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Damascus, or Warsaw....

The investigators knew about the Maltese clothes before they saw the Erac printout. As a result, that anomalous bag coming from station 206 seems to have leapt out at them and taken on more significance than it really warranted.

• It could have been from another flight that was coded at the same time as KM180
• It could have been misrouted baggage taking the "scenic route" round the system
• It could have been introduced at station 206 by other staff for innocent reasons
• It could have been introduced at station 206 (or later) for nefarious reasons which had nothing to do with the bomb

There's evidence to support all of these possibilities. What we do not appear to have is evidence to support the theory that it actually came from KM180.

The thing that weighs most with me on this one is the fact that the prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to show there was some tiny chink in the Luqa story where the bomb bag might have been introduced, and failed. They didn't even manage to establish that Fhimah was at Luqa airport that day. (And since Fhimah had worked at Luqa airport until not long before that, he was well known there and one would expect someone to have noticed him if he had been there.)

And here's another version. Now, how much credence you put on The Trail of the Octopus is quite another story, but as far as the facts of the case are concerned they seem to be reasonably accurate.

Further undermining the government's contention that the bomb was contained in an unaccompanied suitcase from Malta was Rowan's revelation that James Shaughnessy [Pan Am's solicitor] had taken depositions from 20 officials who had been on duty at Luqa airport on 21 December 1988, 'including the airport security commander, the bomb-disposal engineer who inspected all the baggage, the general manager of ground operations of Air Malta, the head loader of Flight 180 and the three check-in agents. Their records showed that no unaccompanied suitcases were put aboard the flight, and some of the staff Shaughnessy interviewed are prepared to testify under oath that there was no bag that day destined for Pan Am Flight 103.

And again, if you think the bag might have been put on at Luqa, who do you think did that? Megrahi couldn't possibly have done it on his own, this is accepted by all parties. It would have required the assistance of someone with an airside pass. This was where Fhimah was supposed to come in, but it appears Fhimah wasn't even at the airport that day.

So, we don't have anyone who could have put the bag on board at Malta, we don't have any evidence there was such a bag, and we don't even have any serious evidence it was possible for such a bag to have been there, even though the prosecution tried extremely hard to find some.

So, I don't see much percentage in continuing to probe the possibility, to be honest.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Who is this wingnut?

Looney tunes.

The official UK AAIB report never says the word 'bomb' in the entire report; it calls the blast source an 'improvised explosive device'. The English writing in English about an English accident would have said 'bomb' if they wanted to mean bomb. They meant and said 'improvised explosive device'. They could have said 'plastic high explosive bomb' but they didn't. They didn't because the evidence is not there. There is evidence of an improvised explosive device, so they said it, leaving many choices but still unnamed specifically.

Sorry, IED is standard terminology for "home-made bomb". Like the IRA devices, or all these things bringing down military vehicles in Iraq at the moment, and so on.

Bomb theory as presented in AAIB report is contradictory, evasive, inconsistent, and has several errors of fact. There is mistaken grammar in verb tense and poor choice of verb 'exhibit.' These types of error are not made by British authors writing in English for an official United Kingdom report. This section was written by different person than rest of report. Later the same writer states noise is no doubt bomb. Next page of report, written by different person, refers to noise as most likely aircraft structure break-up. Serious contradiction in same report one page apart.

The English usage referred to is entirely correct, unexceptional, and standard terminology for the type of report. This is nearly as bad as Bollier!

I know you only linked to it for the Frontline transcript, and it's useful for that, but I just thought I'd comment on the main thesis on the page.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt. (From that transcript.)

I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that will allow the prosecutors to present the chronology of the operation from its very inception, and that chronology would start even before Malta, go to Malta and then..you know..describe and in almost excruciating detail exactly how they made the bomb, how they secreted it, how they got it on board the aircraft, and I think that's a fairly strong case.

They had none of that! Unfortunately, this is what we were all being fed for ten years before the actual trial. The US has the evidence, it has a witness, the evidence is incontrovertible, the Libyans are guilty.

I think the sheer embarrassment of throwing the case out after all that was more than the Noble Lords could take, quite frankly.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Reading through this and the other threads, it appears many, if not all, the uncertainties and inconsistencies have been touched upon. Many of the points I would've raised have already been addressed and illustrated to be upheld or dismissed..

However, given that Air Malta's records, with the exception of the unloading of the Air Malta KM180 at Frankfurt, their records of baggage loaded, inspected and reconciled with passengers at departure from Luqa and uplifted at Frankfurt, appear impeccable, where does this leave us with the 'unaccompanied bag'?

Even if we are to accept that an unaccompanied bag arrived at Station 206, from Malta or elsewhere, through Mrs Erac's production, (which alone is ambiguous at best), I still find it difficult to accept this was the 'bomb suitcase'.

How would it be possible for it to circumvent the further security checks it would still have to go through while passing along the Frankfurt system on it way to the Pan Am feeder flight?

In addition, also pass security systems and screenings with operators already vigilant to, not only a bomb threat, but a bomb contained within a Toshiba radio player? Precisely the kind that we're told did indeed pass through?

Now, I also find that the lack of records from Frankfurt extremely disconcerting.

Given the intelligence, warnings received and the rumbled PLFP cell just outside Frankfurt in October, am I unreasonable to suggest that investigative minds, and those aware of the BKA raid in Neuss and the warnings, would/should have immediately focussed on whether 103 had any connection with flights from Frankfurt as a matter of urgency?

And yet there are no records?

Even allowing for records only being kept for a week, that is surely ample time to realise the passenger list included about 47 people who had travelled from the connecting PanAm flight originating at Frankfurt?

I have read that within days, and certainly within a week, it was determined that 'an explosion' had occurred with container AVE 4041 - which apparently contained luggage from the Frankfurt feeder flight.

Everything is screaming Frankfurt! Yet we have no records of luggage loaded onto 103 except the printout kept by Mrs Erac?

Why was obtaining records from Frankfurt not a priority within days, if not hours?

In any case, aside from all this, would it not, if someone wanted to introduce a unaccompanied item aimed at PA103a, at Frankfurt, be easier and less of a gamble to do so at Gate 44?....

Then why did it appear at station 206? Was this after the suitcase had been found to contain clothes from Malta? 206 links this suitcase with the Air Malta flight, assuming that the clothes, the bomb and the suitcase were all introduced at Malta.

 

[Buncrana]

So, not only do we appear to have wholly imcompetent investigation while allowing all/any evidence from Frankfurt to be destroyed, bar the for fortuitous printout found months later, we also have the systematic disregard, or deliberate omission, of all details and information of the security breach at Heathrow.

A former Heathrow Airport security guard has said he found a baggage store padlock "cut like butter" the night before the Lockerbie bombing.

Ray Manly was giving evidence at the appeal by Abdelbasset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi against his conviction for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing.

This is something that was never revealed at the original trial. The details of the break-in were only revealed at the first appeal by Megrahi. To this damning revelation regarding the security at Heathrow, we can also add the Bedford 'suitcases' testimony.

Why the deliberate disregard of the Heathrow? Why the complete disregard of the lack of reliable evidence from Frankfurt?

There appears to be a concerted effort to deflect any and all attention away from the two most obvious points of entry for a rogue suitcase. Frankfurt and Heathrow. Although from what is eventually revealed, an unaccompanied suitcase introduced at Frakfurt would still have to negotiate a number of security hurdles including examiners given advance warnings about a bomb being disguised as Toshiba Radio's.

Instead we have maltese clothes and ergo an Air Malta flight which appears to, at a much later point, have evidence supporting an unaccompanied bag inserted at the Air Malta arrival at Frankfurt and it's luggage arriving at Station 206.

 

[Rolfe]

Reading through this and the other threads, it appears many, if not all, the uncertainties and inconsistencies have been touched upon. Many of the points I would've raised have already been addressed and illustrated to be upheld or dismissed..

I don't really think that's the case. Well, maybe touched on, but there are so many different facets to this and we've really only been looking at the MST-13 timer fragment and the Frankfurt baggage records in any detail.

What about the warnings?
The re-routed South Africans?
The numerous strange events recorded on the ground during the search?
Jafaar and the drug smuggling?
The CIA agents and what might they have been carrying?
The Bedford suitcase and the Heathrow breakin?
Khreesat's release in October, and his connection to the CIA?

And there are more. We could have a productive thread on any of them, except there's only so much a small number of people can concentrate on at one time.

Now, I also find that the lack of records from Frankfurt extremely disconcerting.

Given the intelligence, warnings received and the rumbled PLFP cell just outside Frankfurt in October, am I unreasonable to suggest that investigative minds, and those aware of the BKA raid in Neuss and the warnings, would/should have immediately focussed on whether 103 had any connection with flights from Frankfurt as a matter of urgency?

And yet there are no records?

Even allowing for records only being kept for a week, that is surely ample time to realise the passenger list included about 47 people who had travelled from the connecting PanAm flight originating at Frankfurt?

I have read that within days, and certainly within a week, it was determined that 'an explosion' had occurred with container AVE 4041 - which apparently contained luggage from the Frankfurt feeder flight.

Everything is screaming Frankfurt! Yet we have no records of luggage loaded onto 103 except the printout kept by Mrs Erac?

Why was obtaining records from Frankfurt not a priority within days, if not hours?

This is something that seems to be soft-pedalled by most commentators, but as you say, it's extremely peculiar. Why no explanation of how this happened? I'm having great difficulty trying to figure out who might have decided to do that, and why, and on what authority he did it, and why he hasn't been pilloried as an incompetent.

Was no evidence led during the trial to explain these missing records?

In any case, aside from all this, would it not, if someone wanted to introduce a unaccompanied item aimed at PA103a, at Frankfurt, be easier and less of a gamble to do so at Gate 44?....

Then why did it appear at station 206? Was this after the suitcase had been found to contain clothes from Malta? 206 links this suitcase with the Air Malta flight, assuming that the clothes, the bomb and the suitcase were all introduced at Malta.

I'm back to, if the bomb was introduced at Frankfurt, what was Bedford's story all about? Did he make it up? Was it an enormous coincidence that a stray interline bag appered under mysterious circumstances right where the bomb suitcase would have been, and mathcing its description, only to be moved far away from the locus during the later lart of the loading?

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

I don't really think that's the case. Well, maybe touched on, but there are so many different facets to this and we've really only been looking at the MST-13 timer fragment and the Frankfurt baggage records in any detail.

What about the warnings?
The re-routed South Africans?
The numerous strange events recorded on the ground during the search?
Jafaar and the drug smuggling?
The CIA agents and what might they have been carrying?
The Bedford suitcase and the Heathrow breakin?
Khreesat's release in October, and his connection to the CIA?

And there are more. We could have a productive thread on any of them, except there's only so much a small number of people can concentrate on at one time.

Sorry, yes you're absolutely correct Rolfe. There are indeed many other aspects which deserve closer scrutiny. I was however, trying (at the moment) to stay primarily within the parameters of this specific thread. As you rightly say, the thread could quite easily digress to any number of curious, unexplained, possibly innocent or troubling aspects.

This is something that seems to be soft-pedalled by most commentators, but as you say, it's extremely peculiar. Why no explanation of how this happened? I'm having great difficulty trying to figure out who might have decided to do that, and why, and on what authority he did it, and why he hasn't been pilloried as an incompetent.

Was no evidence led during the trial to explain these missing records?

I'm back to, if the bomb was introduced at Frankfurt, what was Bedford's story all about? Did he make it up? Was it an enormous coincidence that a stray interline bag appered under mysterious circumstances right where the bomb suitcase would have been, and mathcing its description, only to be moved far away from the locus during the later lart of the loading?

Rolfe.

As far as I remember, and can locate while browsing the court judgement, there was no expression of inquiry or disbelief at the lack of documentation from the Frankfurt operations. It seems a complex, and at times haphazard, system that was being operated at Frankfurt thereby to me inferring the possiblilty of an unaccompanied suitcase being injested into the system. However, one which contained a bomb?? I still, simply cannot envisage that. One which has innocent components like any normal suitcase? Possibly yes.

From the statements made by those working at Heathrow, an unaccompanied suitcase could most certainly be introduced. With an estimated 50,000 passes comfirmed as being issued for 'airside' at Heathrow during 21 dec, many unaccounted for, it would also appear that not only is Heathrow more susceptible for injestion of unaccompanied bag, but at least two witnesses gave statements that two unknown bags appeared in the luggage build-up area for PanAm 103.

All of these appear far more likely and plausible. Certainly more likely, and with more evidence, than from what is known of the procedures at Luqa. Without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Rolfe]

So, do we think the disappearing baggage records were just incompetence, or deliberate?

How soon would the investigators have gone after these records? Pan Am's own investigator was there in about four weeks. But surely law enforcement would have been there a lot sooner? I also believe they discovered about container AVE4041 very early on. I think the skeleton of the container was found on Christmas Eve, and surely it didn't take much longer for them to realise the explosion had probably been in there and it had mostly been filled with Frankfurt bags?

But not only that, OK it wasn't the same actual aeroplane, but the Frankfurt flight was called PA103A, it was the official feeder flight. Surely the minute they realised it was a bomb, they would have been trying to secure those records? Even before then - hell, you didn't have to be clairvoyant to realise a bomb was a possibility - Christmas or not, I'd have expected law enforcement to be looking for these records within days.

This has always been downplayed, and I haven't heard anyone trying to make a big deal about it, but what does it imply for a conspiracy theory? Who destroyed the records? Why? Where did the authority come from? And how come they weren't hung out to dry?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Oops, simultaneous posting.

Sorry, yes you're absolutely correct Rolfe. There are indeed many other aspects which deserve closer scrutiny. I was however, trying (at the moment) to stay primarily within the parameters of this specific thread. As you rightly say, the thread could quite easily digress to any number of curious, unexplained, possibly innocent or troubling aspects.

I was thinking of starting new threads when we'd come to some reasonable consensus (I won't say conclusions!) about the existing ones, but I'm struggling on the timer fragment. My heart says it was a plant but my head isn't sure it can see how that was done.

I was also hoping that others might be interested enough to start specific threads, though so far we've just got Caustic Logic and this topic going. There's a huge scope though.

As far as I remember, and can locate while browsing the court judgement, there was no expression of inquiry or disbelief at the lack of documentation from the Frankfurt operations.

That could mean there was a perfectly innocent explanation, or it could be another aspect of the cover-up which I think is pretty inescapable here.

It seems a complex, and at times haphazard, system that was being operated at Frankfurt thereby to me inferring the possiblilty of an unaccompanied suitcase being injested into the system. However, one which contained a bomb?? I still, simply cannot envisage that. One which has innocent components like any normal suitcase? Possibly yes.

I'm wondering. Coleman (and others) suggest that Frankfurt airport was riddled with drug smuggling. He declares that the bomb was got on board by taking advantage of this crack in the security. But of course if there wads simultaneous heroin smuggling going on, one of these illicit bags could easily be showing up as an anomaly on the records without necessarily having anything to do with a bomb.

In fact, could covering up of a regular drug smuggling operation explain the disappearance of the baggage records?

From the statements made by those working at Heathrow, an unaccompanied suitcase could most certainly be introduced. With an estimated 50,000 passes comfirmed as being issued for 'airside' at Heathrow during 21 dec, many unaccounted for, it would also appear that not only is Heathrow more susceptible for injestion of unaccompanied bag, but at least two witnesses gave statements that two unknown bags appeared in the luggage build-up area for PanAm 103.

I wonder how carefully Kamboj's background was investigated? Nah, that's so obvious he must have been looked at and discounted.

We need a thread on the Heathrow events also.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'm not sure why you're so suspicious of Luqa airport.

Not suspicious, just being a contrarian evidence purist.

OK, the clothes were bought in Sliema, we agree on that even if that is one more oddity (why use a small shop where you might be remembered, rather than a charity store or an anonymous branch of a big chain store?). But is that not likely to be an argument against the bomb going on at Luqa? Surely, if you're a terrorist, you don't advertise your plan by buying the clothes only a few miles from the airport you plan on using? Especially if your cunning plan is to obfuscate the issue by feeding the bomb on in a remote location using feeder flights? To me, buying the clothes in Sliema is more suggestive of a plan to put the bag on board at Heathrow - or Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Damascus, or Warsaw....

As a suspicious-minded person, if I were investigating that, I'd think the clothes could point towards or away from Malta, depending, but it'd be on my radar. As soon as I saw what station 206 at 1307 meant, I'd still be a little cautious but start thinking this might well be the bag I was looking for.

Now after realizing how weird and partly obliterated the records showing that are, and after checking Air Malta's records, and/or after seeing Gauci's shifting testimony on who bought which of those clothes, or heard about Giaka's fanciful account filling in the middle spaces, I like to think I'd be looking down a different route for the explanation to that coincidence. But then, I'm not the guys put in charge, and they think differently.

The thing that weighs most with me on this one is the fact that the prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to show there was some tiny chink in the Luqa story where the bomb bag might have been introduced, and failed. They didn't even manage to establish that Fhimah was at Luqa airport that day. (And since Fhimah had worked at Luqa airport until not long before that, he was well known there and one would expect someone to have noticed him if he had been there.)

Another thing that should make one stop wonder about that leap of logic, good as it might have seemed.

And here's another version. Now, how much credence you put on The Trail of the Octopus is quite another story, but as far as the facts of the case

are concerned they seem to be reasonably accurate.
Further undermining the government's contention that the bomb was contained in an unaccompanied suitcase from Malta was Rowan's revelation that James Shaughnessy [Pan Am's solicitor] had taken depositions from 20 officials who had been on duty at Luqa airport on 21 December 1988, 'including the airport security commander, the bomb-disposal engineer who inspected all the baggage, the general manager of ground operations of Air Malta, the head loader of Flight 180 and the three check-in agents. Their records showed that no unaccompanied suitcases were put aboard the flight, and some of the staff Shaughnessy interviewed are prepared to testify under oath that there was no bag that day destined for Pan Am Flight 103.

That sounds pretty good and not made up. Hadn't heard of that separate verification. I'm suspicious of that book, but for no particular reason. I haven't more than skimmed it yet.

And again, if you think the bag might have been put on at Luqa, who do you think did that? Megrahi couldn't possibly have done it on his own, this is accepted by all parties. It would have required the assistance of someone with an airside pass. This was where Fhimah was supposed to come in, but it appears Fhimah wasn't even at the airport that day.

Theoretically, he could have had other accomplices, sure. But for my part I'm just saying the Erac printout does seem to indicate, more than anything else if not 100%, a bag from KM180. And I suspect it was planted for that purpose. Now why would they plant something that only shows something vague entering the system at that spot and time that's not the bomb bag and/or not from KM180?

So, we don't have anyone who could have put the bag on board at Malta, we don't have any evidence there was such a bag, and we don't even have any serious evidence it was possible for such a bag to have been there, even though the prosecution tried extremely hard to find some.

So, I don't see much percentage in continuing to probe the possibility, to be honest.

Rolfe.

I agree.

 

[Rolfe]

So OK, I didn't mean to kill the thread with that.

Even if the bomb bag didn't come off KM180, it could still have been introduced at Frankfurt. That's what Coleman alleges, and Frankovich suggests.

Where did these baggage records disappear to, and why? Buncrana, if you're still reading, do you have any thoughts?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So OK, I didn't mean to kill the thread with that.

Even if the bomb bag didn't come off KM180, it could still have been introduced at Frankfurt. That's what Coleman alleges, and Frankovich suggests.

Where did these baggage records disappear to, and why? Buncrana, if you're still reading, do you have any thoughts?

Rolfe.

You didn't kill nothing. Injured, maybe... And then failed to feed it. And me too. I was going to come back to that coincidence in consecutive tray no.s putting the two later bags bracketing our no. 8849. I had this neat theory that reduced the odds to 1 in 110, where someone had re-ordered the trays at station "S0541" sequentially, maybe to kill some downtime earlier in the day. But then I checked for any corroboration, and otherwise it's pretty random for coding time-container no. relation at that station. So that's apparently just a coincidence.

Then I had another thought for this, but got sidetracked and forgot it now.

The bomb could very well have originated at Frankfurt, and if the records really were wiped out almost immediately, at the very least someone was apparently worried that something shady had gone on there.