IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Juval Aviv , Lockerbie bombing , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 1st September 2010, 03:05 PM   #1
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
What the hell was going on at Frankfurt?

I realised all the discussion regarding the Frankfurt cover-up in the Lockerbie saga was hidden in the "Unaccompanied bag from Malta?" thread, but it goes a long way beyond that of course.

Robert Black just blogged an article that links back to an older publication that intrigues me a lot. The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103: Case Not Closed. This was written after the Zeist verdict and starts with the usual incredulity that the bench could have published a judgement explaining that Megrahi didn't do it then finished by saying they were going to convict him anyway. However, unlike the rest of the literature from that time, the author hasn't junked the Frankfurt bag-switch theory in favour of Bedford and Heathrow.

The rest of the article is an interesting assessment of the DEA/Jaafar drug-smugging bag-switch theory. It's well referenced, and although it gives Aviv and his polygraph perhaps a little too much credence it doesn't mention Coleman at all, and it's quite circumspect about Francovich's revelations. In fact, I recognise quite a lot of it from Coleman, but it's more succinct, properly referenced and balanced.

Here's a sample.

Quote:
On October 30, 1990, NBC-TV News reported that "PanAm flights from Frankfurt, including 103, had been used a number of times by the DEA as part of its undercover operation to fly informants and suitcases of heroin into Detroit as part of a sting operation to catch dealers in Detroit."

The TV network reported that the DEA was looking into the possibility that a young man who lived in Michigan and regularly visited the Middle East may have unwittingly carried the bomb aboard flight 103. His name was Khalid Jaafar. "Unidentified law enforcement sources" were cited as saying that Jaafar had been a DEA informant and was involved in a drug-sting operation based out of Cyprus. The DEA was investigating whether the PFLP-GC had tricked Jaafar into carrying a suitcase containing the bomb instead of the drugs he usually carried.

The NBC report quoted an airline source as saying: "Informants would put [suit]cases of heroin on the PanAm flights apparently without the usual security checks, through an arrangement between the DEA and German authorities."{24}

These revelations were enough to inspire a congressional hearing, held in December, entitled, "Drug Enforcement Administration's Alleged Connection to the PanAm Flight 103 Disaster".

The chairman of the committee, Cong. Robert Wise (Dem., W. VA.), began the hearing by lamenting the fact that the DEA and the Department of Justice had not made any of their field agents who were most knowledgeable about flight 103 available to testify; that they had not provided requested written information, including the results of the DEA's investigation into the air disaster; and that "the FBI to this date has been totally uncooperative".

The two DEA officials who did testify admitted that the agency had, in fact, run "controlled drug deliveries" through Frankfurt airport with the cooperation of German authorities, using U.S. airlines, but insisted that no such operation had been conducted in December 1988. (The drug agency had said nothing of its sting operation to the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism which had held hearings in the first months of 1990 in response to the 103 bombing.)

I think the evidence that the actual bomb introduction happened at Heathrow is overwhelming, compared to the evidence for the Frankfurt bag-switch. However, that still leaves the question of what happened to the Frankfurt baggage records, and was Frankfurt covering up for something regardless? Like this controlled drug-smuggling operation? Or worse?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 03:17 PM   #2
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
I'll recap what we've uncovered about the Frankfurt situation, adapted from a couple of posts I made on the Black blog, which are now long buried.

Frankfurt police were half-expecting something like the Lockerbie disaster. They had busted the PFLP-GC cell in Neuss only 2 months previously, and most of the gang and most of their devices were still at large. These devices were obviously intended to be smuggled on to aircraft. The baggage x-ray operatives had all been warned to look out for radio-cassette players with Semtex inside. Also, the Helsinki warning specifically referred to a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt to New York, which category arguably included PA103.

Contemporary press reports have the Frankfurt police starting investigations at the airport within a couple of days of the crash. And yet, somehow, all the baggage records for that day vanished. The computer records were held in the system for about a week before being over-written, and we're supposed to believe that nobody thought of backing them up in that time.

Not only that, in an article on Robert Black's blog the designer of that computer system states that routine (tape?) backups should have been kept in case of claims for lost luggage (and there were inevitably going to be claims for lost luggage after what happened at Lockerbie - there were a number of unaccompanied cases on that plane).

In addition, Bogomira Erac, she of the souvenir printout, refers to both the facility to copy data to disc, and to routine printouts that came out of the teletype machines for every flight, and which were usually thrown away afterwards. But we're supposed to believe none of this was retained at all, nobody went through the waste-paper baskets, nothing.

Other records were also missing - the loading plan for PA103A was missing, and there were no records of the unloading of KM180, how many bags came off and so on. All that seemed to have been preserved were the interline writers records and the worksheets of the coders entering the bags into the computer system, none of which were of the slightest use without the rest of the records (but without the latter, interpretation of Bogomira's printout, when it eventually surfaced, would have been impossible).

And in spite of this monumental cock-up of the most vital information relating to the biggest terrorist ourtrage in Europe, we hear no explanations of how this happened, who was responsible, what steps were taken to try to recover anything that might still be salveagable - nothing.

Mrs. Erac describes the immediate aftermath of the crash, in Frankfurt, during which she saved her souvenir printout of the baggage records for PA103A. She tells of everyone talking about it, and even an assumption it had been a direct Frankfurt-New York flight, but never mentions the presence of police or security investigators, or being interviewed about the baggage records, or being aware of anyone else being interviewed. She is aware the records seemed to have disappeared, but volunteers no opinion on how this happened, and nobody asks her.

Relations between the Scottish and German police in the aftermath of the bombing were appalling. Contemporary press reports tell of bickering and blame-shifting, and repeated requests for the Frankfurt baggage records from the Scottish police being refused, saying they were unavailable, or had been destroyed.

Suddenly, in mid-August, Bogomira's printout (which she says she handed over in late January) appears from all this mess of incompetence or worse, like the sword Excalibur rising from the lake, complete with the entry for tray B8849, the only piece of evidence in the entire investigation even to hint at a possible Malta introduction for the bomb.

How did it happen that the records vanished? Were the police complicit in this? Did they ever really vanish, or were they just taken out of the equation? Is Mrs. Erac's story completely on the level, and her fortuitous preservation of exactly that one piece of evidence that cracked the dastardly secret operation to get the bomb on KM180, sheer chance? Are we even certain that tray B8849 was part of the printout she preserved, assuming her story is true? Why did the German police sit on this for nearly seven months before suddenly giving it to the Scots, all the while denying they had such a thing? So that it appeared at just the same time as everything else interesting - the tracing of the clothes to Mary's House, and the MST-13 fragment finally entering the chain of evidence.

So what is all this about? I have absolutely no idea.

I do note though, that initially anyway, the pressure seems more for the investigation not to get too close to the (Frankfurt-based) PFLP-GC than to go after Libya as such. Various people make allegations of being targeted by the US authorities with smearing, discrediting and punitive legal action in relation to their investigation of this case. These include Juval Aviv, Lester Coleman, Allan Francovich and James Shaughnessy. All of these individuals were alleging introduction of the bomb at Frankfurt, relating to the drug-smuggling allegations.

Someone said, "the answer to Lockerbie lies in Frankfurt". Even if the bomb wasn't introduced there, is Frankfurt the key to the apparent cover-up of probable PFLP-GC involvement and the gradually increasing pressure to go after Libya instead?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 1st September 2010 at 03:20 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 03:50 PM   #3
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

Someone said, "the answer to Lockerbie lies in Frankfurt". Even if the bomb wasn't introduced there, is Frankfurt the key to the apparent cover-up of probable PFLP-GC involvement and the gradually increasing pressure to go after Libya instead?
Perhaps.

I am pretty convinced that if anything is to be resolved from Frankfurt it is to do with the BKA and Autumn Leaves, the arrest and subsequent release of Khreesat et al rather than luggage stuff.

I do find it entirely bizarre that after such a disaster (no-one knew that it was a bomb until a little while later) that luggage records/passenger lists etc are not routinely scooped up by investigators/airline operators as a matter of course. That just seems to me like a no brainer. If was running an airline and one of my planes fell out of the sky I'd dam well want to know that I had all the information to hand I could get about who and what was on my plane at the time.


I think that it's plausible that the DEA was running drug sting operations out of Frankfurt at the time using Pan Am planes. Tho I also think that this is just co-incidental and is unlikely to have anything to do with the bombing. It certainly explains the large number of US personnel that were on the scene at Lockerbie very quickly, as well as a number of other anomalies that have been documented (missing suitcase/missing body/tarpaulins etc)

I suppose it follows from that, that the non existance of baggage/passenger records from Frankfurt and foot dragging over releasing the Erac printout might have something to do with US CYA.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 04:04 PM   #4
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Yay! Ambrosia's back! (I missed you!)



Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I am pretty convinced that if anything is to be resolved from Frankfurt it is to do with the BKA and Autumn Leaves, the arrest and subsequent release of Khreesat et al rather than luggage stuff.

I totally agree. Khreesat made one phone call to his Jordanian masters, who were hand in glove with the CIA, and he and most of the gang were immediately released by the BKA. Insufficient evidence!

Frankfurt was in the US sector of West Germany post-war. How much influence does the USA have there, or did it have in 1988 rather? There are still whacking big US bases there. Most of the Frankfurt-transfer passergers joining PA103 were US service families going home for Christmas.

So the US/CIA may have been able to lean on the BKA to release Khreesat et al. Which may have led directly to Lockerbie, of course.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I do find it entirely bizarre that after such a disaster (no-one knew that it was a bomb until a little while later) that luggage records/passenger lists etc are not routinely scooped up by investigators/airline operators as a matter of course. That just seems to me like a no brainer. If was running an airline and one of my planes fell out of the sky I'd dam well want to know that I had all the information to hand I could get about who and what was on my plane at the time.

The official announcement that it was a bomb came about eight days after the crash. However, contemporary reports recount the German police beginning investigations at the airport a lot sooner than that. And indeed, given all the warnings and what was known about Khreesat's bombs and the 38-minute explosion, I'd have thought it would have taken the BKA about five minutes to work out that a Khreesat device was at least a possibility.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I think that it's plausible that the DEA was running drug sting operations out of Frankfurt at the time using Pan Am planes. Tho I also think that this is just co-incidental and is unlikely to have anything to do with the bombing. It certainly explains the large number of US personnel that were on the scene at Lockerbie very quickly, as well as a number of other anomalies that have been documented (missing suitcase/missing body/tarpaulins etc)

Yes but I'm not convinced it's coincidental. (Of course, a lot of the reason for the CIA yomping all over Lockerbie was probably the fact that their dead agents' sensitive luggage was now spread across the hillsides which were currently being combed by a bunch of Scots....) I think there may be some connection we're not getting.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I suppose it follows from that, that the non existance of baggage/passenger records from Frankfurt and foot dragging over releasing the Erac printout might have something to do with US CYA.

Er, have a coconut? I think....

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 04:24 PM   #5
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yay! Ambrosia's back! (I missed you!)
thanks

Quote:
Frankfurt was in the US sector of West Germany post-war. How much influence does the USA have there, or did it have in 1988 rather? ...
It was a Pan Am flight - how much influence does/did the US have over American airlines fillibustering over the handing over of documentation pertaining to their flights to foreign law enforcement?

Quote:
Yes but I'm not convinced it's coincidental. (Of course, a lot of the reason for the CIA yomping all over Lockerbie was probably the fact that their dead agents' sensitive luggage was now spread across the hillsides which were currently being combed by a bunch of Scots....) I think there may be some connection we're not getting.
I can quite believe there is something we are not getting.

I think it is more likely to be coincidental than connected - for it to be connected basically cements Lockerbie as a MIHOP CT with Frankfurt as the point of ingestion for the bomb doesn't it?
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 04:34 PM   #6
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
No I don't think so. I'm not into MIHOPs.

The CIA was probably using Khreesat to infiltrate the PFLP-GC. He was supposed to be making fake bombs. But he was making live bombs. Possibly because Abu Elias was breathing down his neck.

Busting the Neuss gang in October may have compromised whatever plan they were engaged in. Khreesat said himself that if they'd waited a few days, they'd have netted all the fish. So the CIA insisted the gang be freed. Then PA103 blew up....

They must have known Iran was going to act against an airliner. They could have known the PFLP-GC were aiming to do it for them. Was the operation intended to prevent that? Except, it ended up facilitating it instead?

I realise this isn't a connection, I'm just trying it for size. The other thought is that the records were simply disappeared to conceal the evidence that Jafaar's bag had been switched for the heroin bag, which was either too embarrasing per se to be revealed, or the BKA immediately jumped to the conclusion that had actually been the bomb bag and leaped into cover-up mode.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 05:52 PM   #7
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm not into MIHOPs.
me neither - there's no good evidence I can see that supports any kind of MIHOP theory.

However the harder you look at some aspects of Lockerbie the scarier/more confusing it gets.

For instance, how much stock does one place in Juval Aviv?

He has seen the "lost CCTV tape" so he says filmed by German police at Frankfurt of the bomb case actually being loaded - and has interviewed Roland O'Neill load master for flight 103A from Frankfurt who loaded said bag in this film after calling his "CIA handler".

O'Neill gave evidence to the Zeist trial and was found to be unreliable, giving conflicting stories at different times about the reconciliation of bags with passengers.

For there to be a connection between drugs ops and the PFLP-GC I think that this has to mean i) point of ingestion was Frankfurt and ii) the PFLP-GC knew about those drug ops either as a result of the whole thing being a MIHOP and them being told about them, or the DIA/DEA having terrible security and or leaks, neither of which I think is likely.

I think "something fishy" was going on at Frankfurt but I am not sure it had much to do with the bombing.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:30 AM   #8
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
me neither - there's no good evidence I can see that supports any kind of MIHOP theory.

No. I think it's preposterous per se. Particularly as regards the number of US military personnel and families on that plane, including the ordinary forces families stationed in Germany. The US people revere their troops to the point of hagiography, and I can't see an official US operation colluding in killing a bunch of them.

Jim Swire seems to believe (or at least half-believe) in a LIHOP version, because he still gives credence to the (debunked) theory that the plane was emptier than it should have been and there were a lot of late cancellations by people "in the know". I don't believe it. LIHBI (Let It Happen By Incompetence) is a possibility though, I do think.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
However the harder you look at some aspects of Lockerbie the scarier/more confusing it gets.

Indeed. And nearly all the scary/confusing stuff is at Frankfurt.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
For instance, how much stock does one place in Juval Aviv?

He has seen the "lost CCTV tape" so he says filmed by German police at Frankfurt of the bomb case actually being loaded - and has interviewed Roland O'Neill load master for flight 103A from Frankfurt who loaded said bag in this film after calling his "CIA handler".

O'Neill gave evidence to the Zeist trial and was found to be unreliable, giving conflicting stories at different times about the reconciliation of bags with passengers.

I really don't know. Aviv was the first to come up with the "controlled drugs route through Frankfurt" theory, which seems to have been true. But I wonder if he put 2 and 2 together after that and got 22.

If the bag was loaded at Frankfurt, then the entire Bedford story is a coincidence - which I find it extremely difficult to believe. (Bedford was being interviewed by the Met. The idea that they would prompt his recollection to implicate Heathrow over Frankfurt is absurd.)

More than that, if the bag was loaded at Frankfurt there would be no possible control over where it was placed in AVE4041, unless the Heathrow loaders were also suborned. This is essentially impossible. It would be very difficult to do, with one group or person inside the 727 loading the bags on the rocket, and a separate group or person placing them in the container as they came. And there's no way a routine drugs operation would incorporate such an exercise, as it wouldn't matter in the slightest where in the container a suitcase of contraband heroin ended up.

However, I'm perfectly prepared to believe there was a bag of contraband heroin loaded at Frankfurt. It was allegedly found on the ground (and disappeared), so it wasn't substituted for the bomb though. I wonder if Aviv discovered this, while he was looking for evidence of a bomb, and leaped to the conclusion of a bag-switch which didn't happen? All Aviv's alleged discoveries at Frankfurt could have been related simply to the drug-smuggling, and guilt and cover-up of that on its own.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
For there to be a connection between drugs ops and the PFLP-GC I think that this has to mean i) point of ingestion was Frankfurt and ii) the PFLP-GC knew about those drug ops either as a result of the whole thing being a MIHOP and them being told about them, or the DIA/DEA having terrible security and or leaks, neither of which I think is likely.

I think "something fishy" was going on at Frankfurt but I am not sure it had much to do with the bombing.

Now I'm brainstorming. The PFLP-GC was inflitrated, we know that. Though it's not really clear whose side Khreesat was on, fundamentally. I think there's a decent case to be made that the CIA were going along with the operation, possibly with a view to pouncing at just the right moment, catching the lot of them and putting a very final stop to the plans. (They would then have had to start tracing and infiltrating Iran's next attempt, but hey, that's their job.)

The operation the CIA thought it was going along with might well have involved exactly what Aviv alleged - a Frankfurt loading with a switcheroo with the heroin shipment. (I don't know how they were planning on preventing the bomb blowing up over France or Holland though.) However, the Autumn Leaves raid threw a spanner in the works, and the BKA had to be told to let the conspirators go.

However, at some point unknown to the CIA, possibly as a result of them realising they'd been infiltrated, the real operation was switched to a Heathrow loading. It solved the problem of positioning the device (to some extent), it solved the problem of preventing a detonation on the Frankfurt-London leg, and it took the business end right away from West Germany with its heavy US presence and influence.

Thus (maybe) the CIA were left in the very embarrassing position of having apparently been facilitating the very operation that caused the plane to blow up, by allowing it to be integrated with an already highly dubious DEA operation. Perhaps they thought right at the beginning that this was exactly what had happened, and the bomb had got through their net at Frankfurt. So, instant cover-up mode, starting with hoovering up all the Frankfurt baggage records and vanishing them.

Just guessing. But it's a line of thought.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:37 AM   #9
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
It was a Pan Am flight - how much influence does/did the US have over American airlines fillibustering over the handing over of documentation pertaining to their flights to foreign law enforcement?

The biggest part of the vanishing records was nothing to do with Pan Am. It was the disappearance of the full set of computer records from the airport baggage transfer system for 21st December. Despite these being held in live memory for a week, and paper printouts being routinely made, and back-up facilities existing which we're told should have been routinely employed anyway.

Yes, paper records were "missing from the daily file" in the Pan Am records as well, though, according to Michael Jones. And no records could be found of the unloading of KM180 either, according to Dennis Phipps. I suspect these were easier to get rid of than the computer records though.

Michael Jones said he didn't think the police had taken the Pan Am files, because SOP in that case would have been to take a copy and retain that in the file. But I simply can't see who else could have taken them. If the BKA and the CIA were wroking together on a cover-up, I don't think it would have been hard to make sure the copies simply didn't get retained.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 07:38 AM   #10
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
LIHBI (Let It Happen By Incompetence) is a possibility though, I do think.
I think this is by far the most likely explanation.


Quote:
nearly all the scary/confusing stuff is at Frankfurt.

Now I'm brainstorming.

The PFLP-GC was inflitrated, we know that. Though it's not really clear whose side Khreesat was on, fundamentally. I think there's a decent case to be made that the CIA were going along with the operation, possibly with a view to pouncing at just the right moment, catching the lot of them and putting a very final stop to the plans. (They would then have had to start tracing and infiltrating Iran's next attempt, but hey, that's their job.)
Some more brainstorming...

I think that the above is more or less about the size of it. I think the whole Frankfurt thing is that the US was trying to get several birds with one brick. I think that there was some kind of arms/drugs for hostages thing being run via Frankfurt, which the authorities hoped would also nail them a terrorist ring as well fixing the hostage situation in the Lebanon for good measure and after the recent Oliver North, Contra scandal, the US absolutely, positively did not want any more news like that coming out. Thatcher has her whole "we will not negotiate with terrorists" image to uphold so the UK has a vested interest as well in sweeping anything like that under the carpet. Who knows what would have happened in a very politically unstable part of the world, thats a key player in the oil business, if this all came out. Hence you get the meeting 3 months or so after Lockerbie where it's decided not to go after PFLP-GC but to find a n other culprit. Which leads to the employ of scientists with previous form for inventing/planting/tampering with evidence

I think that there was never any bomb plot either LIHOP or otherwise to allow Iran some meaure of revenge for the Vincennes shootdown they must have been aware that such a plot was being brewed by PFLP-GC, perhaps the Autumn Leaves was a jumping of the gun and they wanted to catch some really big fish in the act so they let most of the gang go. They "knew" that the terrorists knew about Frankfurt so assumed that is where a bomb would be loaded, instead of prosecuting people for bomb making they could prosecute people for actually planting the bomb. I can't believe for a second that any law enforcement would allow a live bomb onto a plane and then allow that plane to fly, at all, ever.

Quote:
However, at some point unknown to the CIA, possibly as a result of them realising they'd been infiltrated, the real operation was switched to a Heathrow loading. It solved the problem of positioning the device (to some extent), it solved the problem of preventing a detonation on the Frankfurt-London leg, and it took the business end right away from West Germany with its heavy US presence and influence.
This makes sense to me, perhaps the bombers thought that somehow the blame would get pinned on unsavoury US intelligence agents if they knew about the Frankfurt operations. I do think that the Bedford evidence coupled with the Heathrow breakin and acknowledged lax security at Heathrow, points pretty squarely at Heathrow being the place the real bomb was loaded, not Frankfurt and most certainly not Luqa.

Quote:
So, instant cover-up mode, starting with hoovering up all the Frankfurt baggage records and vanishing them.
This also makes a bunch of sense.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:41 AM   #11
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I think the whole Frankfurt thing is that the US was trying to get several birds with one brick. I think that there was some kind of arms/drugs for hostages thing being run via Frankfurt, which the authorities hoped would also nail them a terrorist ring as well fixing the hostage situation in the Lebanon for good measure....

That's pretty much what I think too.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
.... and after the recent Oliver North, Contra scandal, the US absolutely, positively did not want any more news like that coming out. Thatcher has her whole "we will not negotiate with terrorists" image to uphold so the UK has a vested interest as well in sweeping anything like that under the carpet. Who knows what would have happened in a very politically unstable part of the world, thats a key player in the oil business, if this all came out.

And that.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Hence you get the meeting 3 months or so after Lockerbie where it's decided not to go after PFLP-GC but to find a n other culprit. Which leads to the employ of scientists with previous form for inventing/planting/tampering with evidence.

I think it goes back earlier than that. Buncrana has been looking at some very early press reports and has shown that Reagan went after Gadaffi on spinal reflex within literally days of the bombing, although there was no evidence at all to suggest Libyan involvement at that stage. This was of course after the 1988 presidential election but before the inauguration of Bush. On the very day of Bush's inauguration we have that odd incident with the Spanish typewriter and the Vienna embassy where Bollier (alleged CIA asset) tried to blame Libyan agents. And there was something else round about that time. Of course Cannistraro was in charge of the CIA arm of the investigation, and Libya was the handy catch-all target.

I think that Bush, after the hand-over, started to think things through a bit better, and decided the best thing was to call the dogs off the PFLP-GC in the first instance. Hence that phone call, and Maggie's co-operation in shutting Channon up. Of course we have to remember that in her autobiography she essentially stated that Libya wasn't responsible for Lockerbie, anyway.

Of course the unholy trio of Hayes, Feraday and Thurman were involved from the get-go at Lockerbie anyway. Then Thurman went back to the USA, and in April Hayes and Feraday went out to join him in Maryland for the explosives tests. I think that's where the little plot to plant the evidence to point positively to Libya was hatched.

On the way back, Feraday went to Japan to the Toshiba HQ, and came away with the information that a big batch of SF16 radios had recently been supplied to a Libyan company - and that the Claiden chip was compatible with that model. He changed his identification from the 8016 he'd previously decided on, and lo and behold after that everything found was consistent with the SF16 - including the star prize, the improbable Horton fragment. Found the day after Feraday had been examining the SF16 owner's manual he'd brought from Japan.

Faking up the shirt collar with the MST-13 chip must have taken a lot longer, and it wasn't available till early September. Never mind, the loose-leaf notes could be manipulated to interpolate its examination record retrospectively, so that it seemed to be in the same run of examinations as the rest of the stuff.

Then they just waited. Since the point was to head things away from Iran and the PFLP-GC, rather than specifically to bring Libya to book, it was OK so long as the investigation wasn't getting warm. And in September it started to get very cold indeed, when the police became convinced the bomb had originated in Malta. Probably due to a red herring (the clothes) working out even better than the terrorists had hoped.

All the time the D&G boys in blue were looking for evidence the PFLP-GC/Talb had planted the bomb at Luqa, they weren't looking at Frankfurt or Heathrow, and I imagine that was fine by everybody. It was only as 1990 wore on and Saddam Hussein started making belligerent noises towards Kuwait that more active turning away from Iran and towards Libya was desirable. Thurman managed to get the as-yet-unidentified chip from Williamson, and identified it in about 24 hours flat.

That allowed them to say, definitely not a Khreesat barometric device as we'd imagined, but a Libyan digital timer. After that it really was all about Libya.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I think that there was never any bomb plot either LIHOP or otherwise to allow Iran some meaure of revenge for the Vincennes shootdown they must have been aware that such a plot was being brewed by PFLP-GC, perhaps the Autumn Leaves was a jumping of the gun and they wanted to catch some really big fish in the act so they let most of the gang go. They "knew" that the terrorists knew about Frankfurt so assumed that is where a bomb would be loaded, instead of prosecuting people for bomb making they could prosecute people for actually planting the bomb. I can't believe for a second that any law enforcement would allow a live bomb onto a plane and then allow that plane to fly, at all, ever.

I entirely agree.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
This makes sense to me, perhaps the bombers thought that somehow the blame would get pinned on unsavoury US intelligence agents if they knew about the Frankfurt operations. I do think that the Bedford evidence coupled with the Heathrow breakin and acknowledged lax security at Heathrow, points pretty squarely at Heathrow being the place the real bomb was loaded, not Frankfurt and most certainly not Luqa.

I think they saw Frankfurt as getting a bit too hot to hold them, and someone had the bright idea of going for the Heathrow stop-over. Abu Elias was the expert on airport security, and I think they must have had someone on the ground at Heathrow to see what the possibilities were. Hey, look at that nicely labelled container that just sits around for hours having the odd bag added to it, waiting for the Frankfurt luggage. If an explosion happens in that, then there's a fair chance it will be thought to have been a bag from Frankfurt anyway. And there's no need to prevent a premature detonation, and if the case is cleverly planted there's a chance of forcing it to the right side of the container.

This is going a bit off the topic of the thread, but this is my current best guess as to the overall sequence of events.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 02:28 PM   #12
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Well, to summarise, we agree the BKA were probably responsible for the vanishing baggage records. We suspect they did this either with the co-operation of the CIA, or even at the request of the CIA.

The reason we put forward for this is that the full set of records would have shown the DEA-sponsored drug contraband being smuggled on to PA103A. Worse, we suspect that the CIA, which had infiltrated the Neuss gang, might even have been co-operating with a plot involving the use of the covert drug route to introduce a bomb on to PA103 - not as a MIHOP, but as a sting. In addition, it may be that further digging would have revealed a "drugs for hostages" operation.

We suspect that the decision to remove the records was taken very early, because it was feared that the bag-switch method of introduction had actually been used, and thus a CIA operation could be directly implicated in the downing of a US airliner.

This is fairly far-out, compared to the official version, which is simply that the records were accidentally destroyed before the Frankfurt police thought of securing them. Except for the useless interline writers' records and coders' worksheets, which then turned out to be absolutely essential when the Erac printout showed up, so isn't it a good thing these were preserved!

However, I think this is in the category of "when you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable...." and so on. Anybody want to challenge that?

But that isn't the end of it. Eight months later the BKA suddenly sent the Erac printout to the Scottish police - after months of insisting that none of the records had survived. They said they'd had it since February. Bogomira Erac said she saved the printout as a souvenir the day after the crash, and handed it to her supervisor in late January.

This is the only piece of evidence in the entire case that any piece of luggage was transferred from KM180 to PA103A. Right smack in the middle of the six-minute time coding period for KM180, a bag appeared coded for PA103A. Without this, there would have been no case - timer fragments and Maltese clothes notwithstanding.

Do we think Bogomira is entirely on the level, and the mystery tray merely a coincidental coding anomaly? Do we think Bogomira is on the level, but her printout was later altered to introduce a tray with the desired provenance pointing to KM180? Or do we think that the entire peculiar story was invented to allow fabricated evidence pointing to KM180 to enter the case?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 05:01 AM   #13
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Do we think Bogomira is entirely on the level, and the mystery tray merely a coincidental coding anomaly? Do we think Bogomira is on the level, but her printout was later altered to introduce a tray with the desired provenance pointing to KM180? Or do we think that the entire peculiar story was invented to allow fabricated evidence pointing to KM180 to enter the case?
It's impossible to say.

I think Bogomira is on the level but the evidence she handed to police was not exactly what was presented at the trial, similar to Mrs Hortons Toshiba manual.

Neither witness would have taken detailed notice of their pieces of evidence, and the next time they got to see them was 12 years or so later.

If we assume that the prosecution are making up a case against Libya for whatever reason, then if the Erac evidence is not genuine, it would be necessary for them to have invented it, or something very similar to it.


I am not up to speed on the details surrounding Eracs printoutout and whether or not the interline coders worksheets point to its authenticity.

As I understand it the printout cannot be corroborated, it's the only record that exists, data from the actual computer it is from is long gone. It would be trivial for unscrupulous investigators to mock up a very similar printout but change 1 or 2 key details and later have Erac identify the fake printout as hers. We don't know much about the chain of custody of the printout or why it took the BKA some months to hand it over.

In the time that it emerges into the investigation the focus has switched to Libya(?)

I'll try and spend some more time looking at it in the not too distant future.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 07:15 AM   #14
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
It's impossible to say.

I fear so, but sometimes by speculating we can get an idea of what is possible and what is very unlikely.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I think Bogomira is on the level but the evidence she handed to police was not exactly what was presented at the trial, similar to Mrs Hortons Toshiba manual.

Neither witness would have taken detailed notice of their pieces of evidence, and the next time they got to see them was 12 years or so later.

If we assume that the prosecution are making up a case against Libya for whatever reason, then if the Erac evidence is not genuine, it would be necessary for them to have invented it, or something very similar to it.

I also have difficulty doubting Bogomira's sincerity. It's just such a convenient story! However, for it not to be genuine we'd also have to postulate that Berg was in on it and lying to the court, which multiplies the problem of that being a conspiracy.

You're right that she didn't recognise it in detail in court. She has to stop and put her glasses on before she confirms it's the same item. I suppose the risk might be that she'd taken a photocopy when she handed her souvenir over. It's clear from her account of giving it to Berg that she didn't (she takes it straight from her locker in his presence and hands it over), but I'm not sure how the BKA could have been certain of that.

However, if the BKA were on the level and the baggage evidence was accidentally lost, why sit on this until August while the D&G were howling for exactly that information? I speculate, because they were still in "there are no surviving baggage records" mode until then.

Until August 1989 it was a simple pissing contest between Heathrow and Frankfurt. Each blamed the other, Heathrow by declaring that AVE4041 didn't have Heathrow baggage in it, and Frankfurt just sitting there denying that any records existed and declaring they had (unspecified) evidence the bomb went on board in London.

However, in the spring, Pan Am had employed Juval Aviv to look into the disaster, and Aviv majored on Frankfurt. He must have spent most of the summer nosing round there, doing lie detector tests on the baggage handlers and getting hold of CCTV footage he says was suppressed after he handed it over. A lot of what was in his report seems to be spurious, but he seems to have been right about the existence of the controlled drugs deliveries in general, and possibly even that one was on PA103 that day.

Oops.

I think Frankfurt began to realise they couldn't fend that off forever by simply stonewalling, and that the proverbial was likely to hit the fan if they couldn't come up with something better than "we lost all the records". They had all the records of course, but they couldn't release them for the reasons we've already gone through - essentially, Aviv was on to at least part of why the records were being concealed.

As blaming Heathrow was beginning to look like a non-runner, what they then needed was evidence to push responsibility the other way, to an airport interlining into Frankfurt. Since the Frankfurt security for PA103A was Kurt Maier, and Kurt Maier (like Sulkash Kamboj) was an employee of Alert Security (not the airport itself), and Alert Security was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pan Am, then that would do it.

They needed to find a way to release evidence pointing somewhere else, but as a snapshot, not by revealing the whole thing. Just the loading record for the central system transfers to PA103A, plus the interline writers' records and the coders' worksheets, would do it. The latter two classes of document contained so little detail there was no problem about releasing the whole lot, so they just pretended they'd had them all along even though they hadn't been able to secure anything actually useful!

Bogomira's little souvenir was an awfully handy way of providing only the loading list for PA103A without any of the surrounding detail that might be analysed to very embarrassing effect. I suppose it's one of the coincidences that she actually did keep the souvenir, so it was available to save them having to dream up some other explanation. Sigh. Coincidences are so unsatisfactory, but they happen.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I am not up to speed on the details surrounding Eracs printoutout and whether or not the interline coders worksheets point to its authenticity.

As I understand the court evidence, it seems by and large to be authentic. It appears that all 111 entries have been traced through the relevant coding stations to the incoming flights in question (or the check-in desks in many cases). I think all but two entries match with known passengers on KM180, which suggests that the coders' timings weren't much out from the computer clock in most cases.

The two entries which don't match are B8849 which seems to come from KM180, and another tray which seems to come from a Warsaw flight which also had no passenger transferring to PA103A. Although Bill Taylor asked why nobody was investigating the latter as being the bomb bag, this was simply hand-waved away.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
As I understand it the printout cannot be corroborated, it's the only record that exists, data from the actual computer it is from is long gone. It would be trivial for unscrupulous investigators to mock up a very similar printout but change 1 or 2 key details and later have Erac identify the fake printout as hers. We don't know much about the chain of custody of the printout or why it took the BKA some months to hand it over.

It would be extremely difficult to fabricate all this from scratch, convincingly (and if one did that, one wouldn't choose to include the Warsaw bag I don't think). It would be quite easy to mock it up if one had the entire set of genuine records squirrelled away. It would be child's play to re-create an existing printout of the required data, changing only one line slightly to read station 206 at 13.07, so long as no other copy existed in the wild.

The printout looks real, but I would assume the BKA +/- the CIA would be able to get the right paper and the right printer and so on. Then you just have to let a lot of people have a look at it and highlight a few lines and make a few marks, and it looks fine. (Actually I'm surporsed these marks are there - surely the investigators should heve been using photocopies for their rough work?)

I suspect there were two unaccompanied bags initially, and one of the two was simply doctored to look as if it came from KM180. It would have been prudent to change as little as possible. Either that or the whole thing is genuine and the fortuitous coincidence of Bogomira having saved the printout is compounded into incredulity by the fortuitous coincidence of there actually being a genuine coding anomaly that pointed straight to the middle of the KM180 coding slot.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
In the time that it emerges into the investigation the focus has switched to Libya(?)

No, not really. Not overtly.

It appears just about the same time the D&G were getting interested in Malta, because the detectives spent some time in the latter part of August going through the blast-damaged clothes (Crawford's book). An earlier trip to Malta had been unproductive because the babygro had been supplied to retailers all over Europe, but they then started trying to trace the Yorkie trousers. According to Crawford it was the "Made in Malta" label on the babygro that made them think of looking in Malta for a Yorkie connection, after checks round Yorkshire woollen mills and so on had drawn a blank.

All this happened in late August, but from Crawford's book it wasn't prompted by the release of the printout on 17th August. Other sources however say it was; I don't know if that's just an inference from the timing though. It does seem as if the printout showed up just about the same time the detectives were at RARDE photographing the clothing fragments and probably before the Yorkie label was traced to Malta.

So why would they have picked on Malta for the redirection entry? It's inevitable the investigation as a whole - CIA if not BKA - would have known about the Maltese origin of the babygro, so that seems plausible.

What I simply don't know is whether even at this point the intention was to implicate Abdusamad/Megrahi who was at Malta when that flight took off, or whether he was simply a wholly unexpected Easter Egg which emerged later. It's tempting to suspect the latter, but if so, I find it hard to explain why the D&G were allowed to spend the next year or so trying to train Tony Gauci to identify Abu Talb as the clothes purchaser.

This to me is the big puzzle. If it comes down to tray B8849 being real, then the Luqa records and the presence of Maier dictate that it's a coding anomaly. It's just such an enormous coincidence if that's the case - not just that the anomaly was there, but that Bogomira preserved the printout as she did, so that it was there to emerge from the black hole of the Frankfurt cover-up just when they needed something to draw attention away from what Aviv was finding out. And that it pointed to the flight from the island where the clothes had been purchased, and where there was a convenient JSO officer present to pin the crime on.

So one concludes that Malta, almost fortuitously, seemed to be a good place to point the investigation. And yet, it seems too early to be a deliberate attempt to frame Megrahi, so what else could it be?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 10:04 AM   #15
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
However, if the BKA were on the level and the baggage evidence was accidentally lost, why sit on this until August while the D&G were howling for exactly that information? I speculate, because they were still in "there are no surviving baggage records" mode until then.

Until August 1989 it was a simple pissing contest between Heathrow and Frankfurt. Each blamed the other, Heathrow by declaring that AVE4041 didn't have Heathrow baggage in it, and Frankfurt just sitting there denying that any records existed and declaring they had (unspecified) evidence the bomb went on board in London.
Presumably because of the mother of all lawsuits that was going to be dropped on whomever could have been proved to be negligent in allowing the bomb onto the aircraft.

Eventually it was Pan Am that got hit with that.

Quote:
However, in the spring, Pan Am had employed Juval Aviv to look into the disaster, and Aviv majored on Frankfurt. He must have spent most of the summer nosing round there, doing lie detector tests on the baggage handlers and getting hold of CCTV footage he says was suppressed after he handed it over.
I don't credit Aviv much for what it's worth. He's still in business as a security consultant last I checked. Colemans credibility was destroyed by the US Govt. and is presently incarcerated last time I checked. I do think Coleman is more or less about right in most of what he claims about Lockerbie.

If Aviv is right and Pan Am have CCTV footage of the bomb being placed aboard at Frankfurt, why in the world has this video not been released by now? I would guess that such a video doesn't exist and that Aviv is lying.

Quote:
I think Frankfurt began to realise they couldn't fend that off forever by simply stonewalling,
I red somewhere and now can't recall where that Frankfurt were being obstinate unhelpful so and so's until something happened during the investigation that made them change their tune, can't remember what that thign was, or when it happened though. I shall try and refresh my memory soon.


Quote:
The two entries which don't match are B8849 which seems to come from KM180, and another tray which seems to come from a Warsaw flight which also had no passenger transferring to PA103A. Although Bill Taylor asked why nobody was investigating the latter as being the bomb bag, this was simply hand-waved away.
I'll go digging through transcripts soon and see what I can see about this other bag.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 12:18 PM   #16
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Presumably because of the mother of all lawsuits that was going to be dropped on whomever could have been proved to be negligent in allowing the bomb onto the aircraft.

Eventually it was Pan Am that got hit with that.

Yes but it was more than that. For a Heathrow ingestion there was then the implication that the bomb might have been constructed in England, by a terrorist group in that country that the the police were entirely unaware of.

In a sense Pan Am were really guilty as charged, because the alleged deficiencies at Frankfurt were exactly replicated at Heathrow, only worse. At least Maier knew about the Autumn Leaves warning. Kamboj appeared to be completely clueless. However, if the bomb was smuggled through the airport perimeter, or if the terrorists got into the airside space for any reason during the plot, then BAA were equally culpable at the very least.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I don't credit Aviv much for what it's worth. He's still in business as a security consultant last I checked. Colemans credibility was destroyed by the US Govt. and is presently incarcerated last time I checked. I do think Coleman is more or less about right in most of what he claims about Lockerbie.

If Aviv is right and Pan Am have CCTV footage of the bomb being placed aboard at Frankfurt, why in the world has this video not been released by now? I would guess that such a video doesn't exist and that Aviv is lying.

I agree, but that's not quite the point. Aviv was poking around Frankfurt asking awkward questions, and seems to have uncovered the controlled drug delivery operation. The Frankfurt authorities might actually have believed that was how the bomb got on board. However wide of the mark or flaky Aviv was, he was a big threat to Frankfurt with what he was doing.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I red somewhere and now can't recall where that Frankfurt were being obstinate unhelpful so and so's until something happened during the investigation that made them change their tune, can't remember what that thign was, or when it happened though. I shall try and refresh my memory soon.

I'm just speculating that Aviv might actually have been the something that happened. However, if you have another candidate, can you remember what it was? Crawford is quite unhelpful. According to him the investigation was busy finding its way to Malta by way of the Yorkie factory, when out of the blue the BKA suddenly sent the printout over.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I'll go digging through transcripts soon and see what I can see about this other bag.

It's certainly mentioned in both judgements.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2010, 02:45 PM   #17
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I red somewhere and now can't recall where that Frankfurt were being obstinate unhelpful so and so's until something happened during the investigation that made them change their tune, can't remember what that thign was, or when it happened though. I shall try and refresh my memory soon.
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm just speculating that Aviv might actually have been the something that happened. However, if you have another candidate, can you remember what it was? Crawford is quite unhelpful. According to him the investigation was busy finding its way to Malta by way of the Yorkie factory, when out of the blue the BKA suddenly sent the printout over.
Found it.

Originally Posted by Richard Marquise - Scotbom book pg 43
... this event so angered German authorites that they had an overnight conversion.

Many in Germany were not convinced the PFLP-GC cell was involved in
the Lockerbie bombing, but now some members of that group were responsible
for the death of one of their own. The BKA did something unprecedented. They
invited Scottish police officers and FBI agents to participate ln a series of
searches and interviews of at least fifteen individuals having a connection to the
suspected PFLP-GC cell or Jaafar. Despite these efforts nothing of substance
was developed and no evidence connected to Lockerbie was found.

As winter turned to spring the evidence collection process slowed considerably.
During early May, the lock of the IED suitcase was recovered and was
linked to a number of pieces of suitcase which had been located in the fields
around Lockerbie. A shirt wlth blast damage was recovered. By the end of May
618 bags had been recovered and 503 of them had been identified.
The German BKA turned over to the FBI 42 volumes of reports concerning
their investigations of both the PFLP-GC and their investigation into the
bombmg of Pan Am Flight 103.
While the BKA had willingly provided the information, there was a caveat specifying the information could be shared neither with the Scottish police nor the CIA.

We later learned the same information had been shared with the Scottish police.
Originally Posted by Ambrosia
[from my timeline thread]
13th April 1989 [pg 43] - BKA find 2 of Khreesats bombs in a grocery store, one of which explodes killing a technician (Hans Sonntag) and seriously injuring another (Thomas Ettinger)[pg 114]. This incident angers the German Police and after this time they share much more information gained from the Autumn Leaves raid prior to 103’s bombing.
Even so Marquise says that the April incident where the German bomb technician was killed was the catalyst for BKA being much mre co-operative, it's not until August according to Crawford that the Erac printout is handed over, thats still 4+ months later.

Not only that but why on earth would BKA hand over a ton of documents but then say, 'you can't share these with the police force that is running the enquiry' ??!

That does seem rather odd.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2010, 03:42 PM   #18
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
That's fascinating. But it's not about the Erac printout or the Frankfurt baggage transfer. It's about the PFLP-GC and Jafaar.

They may well have got more co-operative on that front after their officer was killed. Especially if the scorched-earth policy on the luggage records at Frankfurt showed every sign of being successful. But if they were being so all-fired co-operative, it makes them continuing to sit on the Erac printout even more inexplicable.

This is a bit like realising that all the while Hayes had just noted "fragment of green circuit board", filed the notes and forgotten all about it, the rest of the investigation was going mad trying desperately to find more bits of circuit board to identify!

I'm still quite suspicious that it was Aviv's unwelcome poking around at Frankfurt that spooked them into changing tack. Rather than keep on trying to push the blame on to Heathrow, which wasn't actually getting them anywhere, they would shove it in the other direction.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2010, 06:13 AM   #19
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's fascinating. But it's not about the Erac printout or the Frankfurt baggage transfer. It's about the PFLP-GC and Jafaar.
It's both the way I read it. "42 volumes of reports concerning
their investigations of both the PFLP-GC and their investigation into the
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
"

Doubtless it'll take some time to go through 42 volumes and dig up useful info, but several months?!

Also if they were instructed not to share this information, and presumably the FBI did as they were asked, then can August possibly be the date that the BKA seperately shared some or all of those 42 volumes with the Scottish police?

Marquise does not say when such information sharing happened, only that his office became aware of it "later".

Quote:
But if they were being so all-fired co-operative, it makes them continuing to sit on the Erac printout even more inexplicable.
Yup.

Quote:
I'm still quite suspicious that it was Aviv's unwelcome poking around at Frankfurt that spooked them into changing tack. Rather than keep on trying to push the blame on to Heathrow, which wasn't actually getting them anywhere, they would shove it in the other direction.
It's certainly possible.

Aviv starts his poking around in spring 1989 and publishes his report in September 1989. Much of Avivs investiagtions centred around Frankfurt, his actions would have certainly been noted by the BKA seeing as he was in fact actively investigating them.

Eracs printout is handed over from the BKA to Scots police on 13th August.

it's interesting to note that according to Coleman:

Originally Posted by Trial of the Octopus, Lester Coleman
The Observer's chief reporter, John Merritt, described how this came about in a story published almost two years after the disaster.

He wrote, on 17 November 1991:

...

A major breakthrough in the hunt for the Lockerbie bombers came to light only because of the quick thinking of a conscientious computer operator at Frankfurt airport. ... when she returned to work the next day she made her own print-out of the information and placed it in her locker before going on holiday.

On her return, weeks later, she was surprised to learn that no one had shown any interest in the computer records. She passed the print-out to her baggage section leader who gave it to investigators from the West German Bundeskriminalamt. But it was not until mid-August, eight months after the bombing, that the German authorities turned over this information to Scottish police in charge of the investigation.

The woman employee's role became known only last week when lawyers for families of the American victims took evidence from her in Germany. She had kept her own copy of the print-out and still had it in her locker.
So Erac has her own copy in 1991, apparently still in her locker.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2010, 01:34 PM   #20
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
It's both the way I read it. "42 volumes of reports concerning
their investigations of both the PFLP-GC and their investigation into the
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
"

I still think that could imply the possible role of the PFLP-GC in the bombing of PA103. It certainly seeme to be the case that they divulged nothing about the baggage system at Frankfurt until 17th August.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Doubtless it'll take some time to go through 42 volumes and dig up useful info, but several months?!

Also if they were instructed not to share this information, and presumably the FBI did as they were asked, then can August possibly be the date that the BKA seperately shared some or all of those 42 volumes with the Scottish police?

Marquise does not say when such information sharing happened, only that his office became aware of it "later".

Well, most of that is just a boggle; whatever was going on it's just beyond me. I'd quite like to hear it from the BKA point of view, but they're not telling.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Aviv starts his poking around in spring 1989 and publishes his report in September 1989. Much of Avivs investiagtions centred around Frankfurt, his actions would have certainly been noted by the BKA seeing as he was in fact actively investigating them.

I just have a feeling that something made the BKA decide very suddenly in mid-August that they had to change their strategy, and Aviv seems to fit.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Eracs printout is handed over from the BKA to Scots police on 13th August.

it's interesting to note that according to Coleman:

So Erac has her own copy in 1991, apparently still in her locker.

No, I don't think so. I think it's rather clumsy English, but he's saying that back in December 1988 she had kept her own copy of the baggage records, and still had it in her locker in January 1989.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2010, 05:17 PM   #21
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
I was browsing through some of those early articles on the 103 disaster, and thought this particular article would be of some interest in this thread.

Quote:
The Sunday Times (London)

January 1 1989, Sunday

On course to carnage; Lockerbie air disaster; Insight

[...]The bomb must have been in luggage loaded into the forward cargo bay, where the aircraft's nerve centre is bolted to a bulkhead. It is known as Station 41 and includes an electrical sub-station (big enough to power a small town), which draws power from generators on the engines to feed every system on the aircraft.

Station 41 houses the auto-pilot, radios, navigational aids and even the equipment which deploys oxygen masks in emergencies. In effect, any adjustments the cockpit crew wants to make to the aircraft's flight, speed, direction and altitude, from take-off to landing, has to be relayed through the components at Station 41.

[...]NOBODY is yet certain exactly how and where the bomb was put on board flight 103. It had begun in Frankfurt on the Wednesday afternoon before Christmas, when a Pan Am Boeing 727 took off at 4.50pm local time bound for London with 109 people on board.

It landed at Heathrow at 5pm London time and parked at Pier 7-Left in Heathrow's terminal three, immediately next to the Maid of the Seas, which would continue the scheduled 103 service to New York and Detroit.
Sixty passengers left the flight and 49 transferred to the Maid of the Seas. They were joined by another 194 passengers.

The Frankfurt baggage was manhandled off the 727 and moved across the tarmac to the 747, where it was divided. Baggage bound for Detroit and a few pieces for New York were put in a container and loaded in the rear cargo hold with the baggage checked in at Heathrow. The rest of the baggage bound for New York and first-class luggage was loose-loaded on to a pallet and placed in the forward cargo hold.

So the bomb could have been cleared in Frankfurt and loaded without going through Heathrow's security system. Equally, it could have been among the bags checked in at terminal three by passengers boarding at Heathrow. A third possibility remains: baggage belonging to a handful of passengers who had flown in from other airports was also loaded.

Pan Am officials in Frankfurt are adamant that 'security was 100% reliable'; Heathrow asserts that the bomb could not have slipped through its security net.

However, Insight's inquiries show that security systems at both airports are flawed. Through a combination of human failure and technical inadequacy, both airports' security systems appear to reduce the chances of detecting a terrorist's suitcase bomb to little more than a lottery.

ON December 7 Horst Hanstein, Frankfurt's security chief, and Martin Hupner, his Pan Am counterpart, placed the American airline's check-in procedure on the highest security alert. The US embassy in Helsinki had received a bomb threat from a caller claiming flight 103 would be bombed within two weeks.
That call is now known to have been a coincidental hoax the Pan Am 103 service is regularly threatened and the caller has been interrogated and ruled out of inquiries.

At Frankfurt the security alert that followed that call had remained in place, but Insight has established that even on the highest state of alert, Frankfurt's security measures and the safety of passengers on flight 103 still hinged on a random system of baggage searching that remained wide open to a terrorist carrying a suitcase bomb.

When the 109 passengers turned up to join the flight on its first leg to Heathrow, everyone would have passed through a routine pre-check-in procedure; the regulations say their passports should have been scrutinised and they should have been asked detailed questions about the nature of their journey, whether or not they had packed their own luggage or if they were carrying luggage for anyone else. Some of the bags would have been opened by officers of Pan Am's security subsidiary, Alert Management Systems Inc.

This routine is designed to unnerve those approaching check-in desks in the hope that an anxious terrorist might betray himself. But when a Sunday Times reporter, returning to London on flight 103, came through this same procedure just three days after the Lockerbie disaster, his passport was merely glanced at, he was not closely questioned and his bag was left untouched.

It appears the security staff assumed his innocence on the strength of his British passport. If he had been an innocent passenger duped by a terrorist into delivering a package or suitcase to Britain or America, or travelling on a false passport, he would have passed the first line of defence without discovery.

At the check-in desk, flight 103's passengers checked-in their bags, which were fed into the second line of defence against terrorism Frankfurt's computerised baggage handling system, reputed to be one of the most sophisticated in the world.

BECAUSE of the alert, the bags (as with all items of Pan Am luggage following the December 7 warning) were taken by conveyor belt to a special security bay, where they went through an x-ray machine and were subjected to a 'sniffing' device, designed to 'smell' the odour of explosives. It is here that the system's first major flaws appear.

A detailed report into the Air India disaster in 1985 severely criticised reliance on this standard x-ray machinery and sniffing equipment to detect bombs, especially plastic explosives. The report reveals that the x-ray equipment cannot detect plastic explosives which can be moulded into the shape of innocuous objects, such as bars of chocolate, or hidden in radios, cameras or the lining of suitcases. The report also described the sniffing equipment as 'highly questionable'.

If the second line of defence was next to useless, then the third was only marginally better.

After the x-raying and sniffing, security staff divided the bags into two groups. Those belonging to passengers who did not hold a US passport were 'pulled' automatically to be hand-searched by Pan Am's team of baggage handlers. But those belonging to US citizens continued through the system. Only one in every three items of luggage was chosen at random for a hand-search. Again, the security procedure relied too heavily on a passport to clear a passenger.

Middle East experts insist that false American, British and European passports are easily obtained by terrorists; it is known that terrorist leaders have recruited from the ranks of Arabs studying in America and the Continent whose acquired accents are identifiably Western.

Insight has established from Pan Am sources that of the 70 items of luggage loaded on to the Boeing 727 at Frankfurt, seven or eight were automatically searched because they did not belong to US nationals. The rest passed through the random search system.

If a terrorist with a discernible American accent travelling on a false US passport had boarded flight 103 at Frankfurt, and left the flight at Heathrow, he stood better than a 60% chance of ensuring a suitcase bomb was loaded on to the Maid of the Seas.

AT HEATHROW, where the Boeing 727 carrying these 70 bags touched down after a 65-minute flight, the defences were equally flawed. For a start, the warning that had triggered the tightening up of security at Frankfurt had not been communicated to Heathrow Airport's controllers, who take charge of checking passengers as they board flights. It is even unclear whether Pan Am's own security firm, which operates at all airports used by the airline, was on a high level of alert.

What is known is that the bags arriving from Frankfurt for the Boeing 747 connection to New York and Detroit were not checked, as Pan Am's baggage handlers rushed to transfer them from one flight to another.

They were up against the clock. The loose bags from Frankfurt had to be taken off the first aircraft, sorted and reloaded on the second aircraft in less than an hour.

Inside Heathrow's terminal three, the method of screening the 194 passengers checking on to flight 103 was different from that at Frankfurt, but similar gaps in security existed.

At Heathrow, Pan Am's Alert Inc officers greeted passengers approaching the check-in desk with a similar question and answer technique to the one practised at Frankfurt. Those with US passports were allowed to check their baggage unchallenged unless they aroused suspicions. Non-US passport holders had to put their bags through an x-ray machine before checking in, but few were hand-searched at this stage.

The baggage was then put on the conveyor belt and transported to the baggage handling area. Nobody will comment officially on what happened to the baggage there, but Insight has been told by sources inside the handling area that unless there is a high security alert at Heathrow and there was not no further security measures would have been taken between the journey from check-in to aircraft.

In effect, the cool terrorist travelling on a false US passport who stood better than a 60% chance of planting a suitcase bomb aboard at Frankfurt, stood an even better chance of escaping security at Heathrow.

THERE can be no better example of the laxity that was apparent at Heathrow on the night flight 103 took off on its course to carnage than the experience of Jaswant Singh Basuta, a New York businessman, who checked his baggage on to flight 103 but did not board the aeroplane.

I appreciate that very often the early articles can draw conclusions or work on the basis of events that may transpire as completely different as the investigation continues, but I also find sometimes they can provide wee gems of information, which all too often are then subsequently overlooked, which can help us form a picture in these discussions.
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2010, 05:29 PM   #22
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
I'm also not sure it's accurate, but it has more detail about the packing of the container than many other places.

I need to go to bed....

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2010, 05:11 PM   #23
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
I was browsing through some of those early articles on the 103 disaster
Where do you find these?

Or to put it another way whats the best method for reading newspapers circa 10 years ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by article
THERE can be no better example of the laxity that was apparent at Heathrow on the night flight 103 took off on its course to carnage than the experience of Jaswant Singh Basuta, a New York businessman, who checked his baggage on to flight 103 but did not board the aeroplane.
Originally Posted by Zeist Trial evidence, Day 47
Q Are you Christopher John Price?

A Yes, I am.

[6672]

[...]

Q And what position did you hold in December of 1988?

A I was superintendent, operations and ramp services.

Q Were you on duty on the 21st of December of 1988?

A I was.

Q On that day, were you standing in for another member of staff?

A I was at the latter part of the day, yes.

Q And who was that other member of staff?

[6673]

A Stewart West.

Q What position did he hold?

A He was a duty manager.

Q And was that a senior post to the one you held?

A Yes, it was.

Q And does that mean that you were acting as duty manager in his absence?

A That's correct.

Q Did you have dealings with Pan Am flight 103 that day?

A Yes, I did.

Q As the acting duty manager, were you responsible for ensuring that the flight was able to depart?

A Yes, that's correct.

Q In order to carry out that function, did you need to liaise with the gate staff?

A Yes.

Q And did you visit the gate lounge shortly prior to the departure time of the aircraft?

A Yes, I did. Thirty minutes before.

Q Did you speak there to a member of staff called Nicola Milne?

A Yes, I did.

[6674]

Q Were there any passengers missing who were due to board the flight?

A Yes, we departed without one passenger.

Q I see. Do you recollect the name of the missing passenger?

A I do. Jasuant Singh Basuta.

Q And did you learn from the gate staff that he hadn't boarded?

A I did.

Q Did you then make some inquiries about the passenger?

A I asked the gate staff to continue their investigations.

Q Did you know whether or not he was a passenger commencing his journey in London?

A He was returning to the States. It was a return leg.

Q I see. But was he an originating passenger or a transfer passenger at Heathrow?

A At Heathrow, he was originating.

Q Thank you. Who was responsible for making the decision as to what to do in the event of a missing passenger?

A I was, as the duty manager.

Q I see. And what decision was eventually

[6675]

made regarding Mr. Basuta?

A A decision was made to depart the aircraft while we continued investigations.

Q What factors influenced you in making that decision?

A Briefly, in my experience, the majority of times passengers are missing, it's down to human error, check-in error, something of that -- something
similar to that. It's very, very rare, in my experience, that a passenger disappears.

Q Yes. As it happens, did you find Mr. Basuta?

A Yes, I did.

Q Whereabout?

A In the corridor, just at the -- well, coming towards the boarding gate.

Q I see. And from his condition, was it obvious where he had been?

A In my opinion, he'd had a few too many drinks.

Q Yes. By the time you found him, had the flight departed?

A It had left the blocks, yes.

Q All right. Did his luggage remain on the flight?

[6676]

A It did.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2010, 01:47 AM   #24
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
Where do you find these?

Or to put it another way whats the best method for reading newspapers circa 10 years ago?
They're from a document viewer hence sadly no linkage.

PM.
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2010, 04:00 PM   #25
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
I remember the Basuta thing from the day after the bombing. They arrested him about an hour after the plane went down as far as I remember, finding him still at Heathrow trying to get booked on a later flight.

I have seen it implied that he was found running to the gate very shortly after the plane pushed off from the stand, and because he was a US citizen they decided not to lose the slot and let the plane go. I had imagined they would have stopped the take-off if he hadn't shown up before the plane got to the head of the runway, but hey, who knows? The sheer complacency in Price's evidence is breathtaking.

I note a couple of the relatives made a (slightly specious) point at the FAI that by not holding the plane back to either find Basuta or get his luggage off, Pan Am had negligently caused the crash. Not because Basuta's bag had the bomb in it, because we know it didn't, but because, assuming the bomb was triggered by the MST-13 set for 7pm, if the plane had missed its slot for that reason, the explosion would then have occurred harmlessly on the tarmac.

I can't think of a better way of demonstrating the insanity of this plot that decided to set a digital timer for only 45 minutes after the earliest moment the plane could possibly have left the runway.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2010, 05:18 PM   #26
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Blogiston on Prof. Black's blog linked to a book chapter which is slightly intriguing. Defrauding America, volume 2 (first chapter, about 50 pages). It looks vanity-published, the editing is non-existent, and there are some dreadful factual errors. The publication is very recent (last year), but the author makes no mention at all of the Bedford suitcase and majors entirely on the Frankfurt bag-switch tale. Aviv and Coleman and Francovich, served neat. Not unlike this one I linked to earlier.

He still thinks the CIA picked the timer fragment "off the wet grass" in June 1990, which is of course completely wrong. It's a mistake Francovich makes, but it's excusable in him because he didn't have access to the trial evidence. Suggests haste and sloppiness in this author. He also says Tony Gauci wasn't interviewed at all until nearly two years after the crash, when it was only eight months. So it's way not reliable.

Nevertheless, this DEA-sponsored drug smuggling stuff seems extraordinarily well-supported. I note Mama Jafaar was individually represented at the FAI, and a great deal as said about how her little boy never had anything to do with drugs and was completely innocent. Well, de mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that, but I don't believe her. And I don't believe the DEA when they said they had no such operations going on in December 1988. Or the investigators when they said there wee no drugs on the plane. The evidence says the drugs were on the plane, and weren't the bomb bag though.

Is all this just about covering up the DEA controlled drugs operatoins, that were known about less than two years later, from judicial scrutiny? Or what?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 04:30 AM   #27
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Not sure if this fits here

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5905

Quote:
Parviz Taheri was born in 1958 in Mahabad, Iran. He grew up in Mahabad and became a teacher. He left Iran in 1983 and arrived in Germany on Dec. 23 of that year. Taheri first lived in Darmstadt and then moved to Frankfurt in 1985.

On Dec. 21 1988, Taheri flew from Frankfurt to London on Pan Am 103 A. <snip>

Taheri carries with him a little bag in which he keeps a notebook. In his notebook, Fuhl found an address and phone number. The address is 28 Sandweg, Frankfurt.

According to the Lockerbie investigation, the fact that Taheri had the address and phone number of the second ranking member of the PFLP-GC in Germany was a mere coincidence.
Unusually acute case of "small world," if nothing else. Anyone else?

(sorry so short -bum keyboard, pain to type a long post, already did and lost it)
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 06:24 AM   #28
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Well, it's de Braeckeleer again, of course....

Seems to me there's little option but to read the Zeist transcripts and see how many of these little gems are really buried in there.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 19th September 2010 at 06:26 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 03:48 PM   #29
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, it's de Braeckeleer again, of course....

Seems to me there's little option but to read the Zeist transcripts and see how many of these little gems are really buried in there.

Rolfe.
Actually... on this type of stuff I've found his work useful and mostly accurate. I had thought he supported the Protheroe 12" mach stem outside the container thing, but when I looked closer,no such thing. He only said a blast of 450 grams wouldn't be strong enough to rupture the plane. As it is, I felt 350-450 as officially accepted is fudged low. I only disagree much with his acceptance of Lumpert's affidavit (that I know about).

On this one anyway, I haven't located Taheri'stestimony yet, but Fuhl's is accurately conveyed. I think it's day 60:
Quote:
Q Did you learn that one such passenger was called Parviz Taheri?
A Yes.

Q Did you also come to learn that he was due to return to Frankfurt from London on the 25th of December of 1988?
A Yes.

Q Did you go to meet him on his return at Frankfurt Airport?
A I knew which flight he was arriving on, and I met him at the airport.

Q And did you ask him some questions at the airport?
A At the airport, I interviewed him.

Q And did you want to know, for instance, where he had been?
A I asked him about his visit to London, about his flight there, who was sitting next to him, what about his luggage; that kind of thing.

Q And was that so that you could carry out some inquiries into the information that he gave you?
A I asked him if I could see what he had in his bags and pockets. He agreed to that. Among other things, I saw a notebook. I asked if I could look into that, and he agreed.

Q In the notebook, did you see an entry containing the address Sandweg 28?
A In the notebook, there was the address, Sandweg 28.

Q Did that address mean anything to you at that time?
A I was aware that the same address was a place where weapons and explosives had previously been
That was Ghadanfar's place, one of 2 or 3 raided in Autumn Leaves. Hashem Abbasi's flat was another, where the PFLP-GC were making the altimeter bombs for Iran. And we have an Iranian (no known terror links) carrying a related address, on the first leg of 103 generally thought to be carrying the bomb, and then getting off right before one of the bombs made in Abbasi's flat wasloaded in London and then blew up 38 minutes after takeoff.

So I see no mechanical connection possible with London intro here, and little if any other direct link to the plot. But I'm having a hard time with the coincidence anyway.

He says the address was one of many he'd gathered looking to start a take-out business. He was traveling to London to meet his future wife, and returned December 25.

Someone called the media from a pay phone in London within hours of the bombing claiming "the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" took responsibility for the bombing.

Fuhl again:
Q And having obtained these details from him, did you carry out inquiries to ascertain if what he had told you was correct?
A All the things he had told us were passed on to our Scottish colleagues, and we asked them to scrutinize them in London.

And additional oddities:
Taheri had some connection to Sweden, and was interviewed thereby Fuuhl a second time in I think January.

Quote:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TAYLOR (defense):
Q Mr. Reichenbach -- I beg your pardon; Mr. Fuhl. When you were taking a statement from Mr. Taheri -- do you remember?
A Yes.

Q I think in Frankfurt, and also in Sweden?
A Yes.

Q Did you make it plain to him that he had travelled on the feeder flight for the Pan American Airways aircraft which was destroyed after leaving Heathrow?
A Yes.

Q Do you recall him telling you where you might look for further information on that matter?
A I can't remember him giving me information about where I could look further.

Q Do you remember him mentioning any particular embassy?
A I don't recall.

Q If I can jog your memory, could he have mentioned to you an embassy in Helsinki in Finland?
A It's possible.

Q In particular, the Iranian embassy in Helsinki?
A I can't remember the details any more. The whole thing is, after all, 12 years ago. I've carried out so many investigations. I am familiar with this Helsinki issue, but whether it was involved in this particular interview, I don't know. I don't want to say anything that's incorrect. It must all be in the paperwork.

Q I understand. Thank you very much.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 04:10 PM   #30
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Hell, I'll email you the rest of the pdfs.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 04:31 PM   #31
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Well, it's strange. I've decided to try to read the transcripts through, skimming chunks obviously, but making an index as I go of which witnesses are up on which days, and a rough note of who they are and what they're talking about. Goodness knows how long that will take though. I've sent you the pdfs, which means you only have six documents to search for a named witness, though. Let me know how easy they are to handle.

In spite of Baz, I don't wholly exclude a Frankfurt loading, assuming Maier was circumvented. The arguments against it are Bedford, obviously, and the necessity of trusting to chance for the placement of the bomb, and the problem of the barometric timer not going off over Paris, and the drugs suitcase apparently showing up at Tundergarth Mains complete with heroin, not Semtex.

But just at the back of my mind I think about the massive cover-up at Frankfurt, as if they were covering up the actual bomb insertion, and Jibril being at Frankfurt, and the vague possibility that Bedford might have been completely mistaken. So I leave maybe a 5% possibility open for Frankfurt to be implicated.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2010, 04:47 PM   #32
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
5% sounds fair, and I don't think we need to re-think what the direct evidence already says. It went on in London, 95% sure.

I was already wondering about that Helsinki warning - who phoned that in, if not someone in the know? Please - the guy who owned the phone? Of course he didn't do it - he denies such a prank.

If it were someone in the know laundering the call by using a known hoaxster's line, why specify Frankfurt f it's a warning? The bomb was set to go on in London.

And why send an agent on the leg from Frankfurt, looking suspicious with no checked luggage and openly carrying a PFLP-GC address?

I'm thinking decoy. Confuse investigators, distract from the ground operation at Heathrow. He looks like the guy they'd suspect, but he had no checked luggage, continuing on or otherwise. But so weird...

I don'tknow.Will have to come back to it.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2010, 06:16 AM   #33
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Might be worth watching the Conspiracy Files programme again. They go to quite some lengths to debunk the Helsinki warning. It's a very weird wrinkle, but I'm not a devotee of any sort of LIHOP theory and putting out a "hoax" warning to allow those in privileged positions to avoid the flight would imply a LIHOP. Also, the presidential commission on airline security report suggests there was no systematic pattern of cancellations associated with the flight and it wasn't any emptier than would be expected.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2010, 02:55 PM   #34
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Might be worth watching the Conspiracy Files programme again. They go to quite some lengths to debunk the Helsinki warning. It's a very weird wrinkle, but I'm not a devotee of any sort of LIHOP theory and putting out a "hoax" warning to allow those in privileged positions to avoid the flight would imply a LIHOP. Also, the presidential commission on airline security report suggests there was no systematic pattern of cancellations associated with the flight and it wasn't any emptier than would be expected.

Rolfe.
That's true, and I don't buy the usual interpretation. I mean, it specified a plane from Frankfurt, when the Iranian plan (I think) was to sabotage a plane from London. Okay, it was a London-NY flight with a first leg in Frankfurt, and didn't a few cancel? I'm hazy on the details of the alleged cancellations of Pik Botha, Chris Revell, etc.

And I'm not impressed with the method by which it was found to be a hoax. I forget the names but I know the story - a call was placed from the phone of a known hoaxer, It had fake details (suggesting a Finnish origin before Frankfurt, IIRC), but was eerily prescient for a mere coincidence. I never say "coincidence" just because it's possible or convenient. Maybe someone with knowledge broke into that guy's house to launder their intel.

And then the purpose ... I'm undecided there, but with Taheri in the mix the possibility of a distraction/decoy op is strengthened. An Iranian, carrying an address of the recent bomb-making network, taking just about the flight specified in the warning,and then referring to the Iranian embassy in Helsinki?

From Taheri's testimony, under question from defense:
Quote:
Q Now, I think the West German police said to you that if you were not involved in the tragedy [7758] that happened to Pan Am 103, did you, with your connections, have any idea who might be involved; is that right? They asked you that question?
A Yes, it is correct.
Q And you told them to look somewhere in particular, didn't you?
A I don't know what you are referring to.
Q Well, let's see if I can jog your memory. Did you direct their attention to the Iranian embassy in Helsinki?
A No, I haven't contacted Iranian embassy at all. I had been to Helsinki just as a tourist.
Q We are at cross purposes. When the German police asked you if you could help them by giving advice on who might be responsible, did you say to them that they should look at the Iranian embassy in Helsinki?
A No, I was not asked about the Iranian embassy in Helsinki by the German police, but they only asked my point of view regarding that incident. And I said I don't know.
Q My Lord, that's all I ask.
When "coincidences" line up like this, I'm even less inclined to call it that. What it might mean will take some more thought.

There are other oddities- his behavior at the airport on Dec 21, and the supposed catering business - the PFLP-GC cell operating from that address had also used catering as a cover. Taheri had no background in such things, being a teacher previously.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2010, 03:22 PM   #35
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Why were these guys all called as prosecution witnesses? I can't get my brain round that. Even Talb!

The stuff I've been reading today (all about how everybody and everything that went on board KM180 was squeaky-clean) also reads like defence evidence.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2010, 07:32 AM   #36
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
The Milwaukee Journal. December 27 1988.


Quote:
A row of tables fences off the Pan Am check-in desks at Frankfurt

The Milwaukee Journal


The Argus Press. December 29 1988


Quote:
In Frankfurt, the airport security chief said today that ground personnel were being checked in connection with the bombing.
The Argus-Press


The Southeast Missourian. Dec 30 1988

Quote:
Horst Hanstein, did not elaborate other than to say, "certainly we are checking all security procedures on how luggage was handled, as they are also doing in London"
The Southeast Missourian


And so it goes on. There is absolutely no suggestion throughout any of the reports that the UK, the US or indeed any of the media, far less the German authorities themselves, weren't all too aware of the serious and critical importance and implications involving Frankfurt airport and the bombing of Pan Am 103. The investigation is fully up-to-speed and great attention to luggage details, passenger lists, destinations and backgrouds investigations are under way.

But, the actual luggage records for 21st Dec at Frankfurt, or any of the computerised information from that day, is all lost, missed, and wiped after a whole week of nobody at Frankfurt considering the importance of it all.

Yes, it is an absolutely preposterous proposition, flying in the face of all other evidence, but that is exactly what we're all led to believe occurred in the early days of the investigation!

So, if one were to quite reasonably assume this to be incorrect, mistaken or wholly false, and records were quite quickly secured, then it begs the question why withhold these records only to produce a limited and narrow snapshot of the records while using a very curious story about how an IT technician fortuitously happened to have a copy?
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2010, 02:28 PM   #37
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
How do you find that stuff?

I see the second one refers to the pressure chamber device that was apparently the reason for the ice-cube timers - to start a countdown at cruising altitude rather than simply triggering the explosion when the low pressure was reached. I've read about this before, but I've seen no indication that such devices were actually being used at Frankfurt - or at least by Pan Am.

I simply can't see any other rational explanation except that the Frankfurt police secured the baggage records, made sure there were no copies left behind, and then denied having them. But even that is hard to fathom. Why wouldn't there be a dozen employees saying, but wait, I know the cops took that stuff? (Christmas Day?)

The idea that nobody even thought about it and just blithely went on doing what they'd always done and destroyed everything is preposterous. Especially given that we're told routine backups were taken anyway. But how many people are keeping quiet about this and why?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2011, 04:21 PM   #38
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
My own little semi-relevant find. A contemporary crit of The Maltese Double Cross.

http://www.vertigomagazine.co.uk/sho...c&siz=1&id=688

Obviously I think Francovich was fundamentally wrong, in that he believed the bomb was swapped for a drugs bag at Frankfurt. I've spotted one clear mistake, that he was working on the assumption that Gannon was on PA103A when he has a clear statement from Linda Forsyth that Gannon boarded through the transfer lounge at Heathrow. And that this seems to be due to a confusion between the names Gannon and Ghannam (Naim Ghannam, Jafaar's minder at Frankfurt).

I often wonder what Francovich would have made of Bedford, if he'd lived long enough to hear his evidence. A completely new film, as Foot constructed a completely new prose treatment of the issues?

However, Francovich was on to something. The sheer venom of the opposition he met is proof of that. (I don't see anyone trying to sue Gideon Levy, come to think of it.) That article underlines how much research and backing he really did have. Remember also what Lesley Riddoch wrote about it.

http://www.lesleyriddoch.co.uk/2009/...ble-cross.html

So Francovich was wrong about how the bomb got on the plane and some other stuff too. But he was right about some, probably quite a lot. How to tell which is which?

www.vetpath.co.uk/lockerbie/mdc.pdf

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2011, 03:28 AM   #39
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
This is going off at a tangent, compared to the above, because it relates to a discussion in the London Origin thread, but I think it's more appropriate here. It concerns security procedures at Frankfurt.

We were discussing the fact that Maier only seems to have x-rayed 13 items at the departure gate at Frankfurt (ten cases, two "garment bags" and a cardboard case of wine). This is a bit odd when there were (acording to Booth, I need to check that) 49 interline passengers boarding at Frankfurt. However, I've found more clarification of the Frankfurt security procedures in David Johnston's book.

Johnston says that only the luggage of the passengers identified by "profiling" as suspect was x-rayed. This excluded everyone with German or US passports, and probably people with UK passports too. Whether the 13 items Maier x-rayed were all the "profiled" luggage from the entire feeder flight, or just from the interline transfer baggage, is not clear. I need to go back to the transcripts to read more about this.

Now Johnston's book was published in 1989. He's not entirely accurate in every respect, so I would look for corroboration about what he says. However, the small number of bags x-rayed in comparison to the number of passengers boarding suggests he's right. I also recall reading the same thing somewhere else, though of course "somewhere else" could have been quoting Johnston.

Johnston was still working on the belief that the bomb had been introduced at Frankfurt as accompanied luggage, carried on by an unwitting mule. He was criticising the profiling for the obvious flaw, that an innocent passenger with a "clean" profile could be duped into carrying a bomb on the plane. And he pointed out that the three previous successful bombings Jibril carried out were all done that way.

However, the criticism also applies to the question of unaccompanied luggage. If something unaccompanied gets into the system, and you're only screening luggage from a list of specifically identified passengers, the luggage that has no passenger is going to sail straight through.

The thing that confuses me is that this procedure doesn't square with what we've been told about Pan Am procedure, especially (if I recall correctly) at the FAI. The reason Malta was so secure was that they counted bags and reconciled them to the passengers. They knew there should be 55 bags and every time they counted there were 55. Pan Am, however, were not counting bags because they were x-raying.

This was a big point at issue as regards whether Pan Am were liable. They said they had permission not to count or reconcile baggage because of their sophisticated x-ray equipment. This was disputed, and in the end I think they lost the argument. However, if they weren't x-raying every item, then the whole thing falls completely flat. (And they were charging every passenger a £5 "security surcharge" for this, and advertising how bloody safe they were!)

What I don't understand is how this wasn't brought out at Zeist. If only a small subset of the luggage was x-rayed, and the small number of bags x-rayed (which was brought out at Zeist) supports this, then what the hell does it matter whether Maier was drunk or sober, stupid or clever, trained or untrained? Why all the hoopla at the Pan Am civil action in the USA, where the defence wanted the court to see the x-ray equipment to show that the bomb would have shown up?

If only 13 items were x-rayed, and these 13 items belonged to specific passengers "profiled" as potentially suspicious, then an unaccompanied item would not have been x-rayed anyway. It's actually a strong point for the prosecution, which was woefully lacking in strong points. Pan Am was history by the time of Zeist, so there was no motive to shield them. So why not bring it out and show that Maier, be he ever so conscientious and capable, was no barrier at all to anything taking the route of the Malta introduction?

I'm confused.

The other thing it suggests is that Khaled Jafaar's luggage wouldn't have been x-rayed, as he was travelling on a US passport. So it would hardly have taken major insider dealings (as suggested by Coleman) to get a suitcase full of drugs that he was carrying past security....

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2011, 12:33 PM   #40
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
I've now got to the end of Johnston and the plot thickens. I think I'll quote the relevant passages. The first is from the body of the text, in chapter 11.

Quote:
The day after the crash, US State Department officials made inquiries concerning the security precautions that had been in force at Frankfurt the night before the fatal flight 103. They reported back as a matter of urgency:
The following procedures have been in place for over a year:
All passengers' hand luggage is physically searched. Tickets and passports are checked, and passengers are questioned as to whether they packed their bags and maintained custody over them.
Non-American and non-German passengers are subjected to the FAA profile and if they 'fit' all their luggage is physically searched.
After check-in, German security examines all hand-carried luggage and passengers pass through a magnetometer.
Passengers who fit the profile are carefully re-checked at the departure gate.
Embassy team verified that state security advisories and FAA security bulletins have been promptly passed to airport and airline officials.
Since the report to Pan Am on December 7, 1988, regarding the threat received from Helsinki, Pan Am Frankfurt instituted an additional lookout for profile suspects. This course of action is still in effect. In addition to checks for non-Americans/Germans outlined, any profile suspects' hold baggage is subjected to an x-ray check subsequent to check-in.
Security officials confirmed that they were aware of the recent seizure of a bomb with a barometric switch in Frankfurt and were especially concerned about such devices since they are very difficult to detect.
So again it can be seen that, unless a passenger fits the profile, only the most elementary of checks was going to be made.

In fact, if the bomb carrier was a US or German citizen (and it is thought that UK passport holders were also in that category), their hold luggage would not be x-rayed. In Jibril's three previous mid-air bombing attempts, and in his one successful one, innocent passengers had been duped into carrying the bombs.

Now, from one of the appendices, following the obligatory listing of the names and addresses of the victims.

Quote:
Pan Am:
some questions and some answers


The following is a list of questions that I submitted to Jeffrey F. Kriendler, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Pan American Airways Inc., on 22 March 1989, asking for 'the fullest replies you feel able to give'. Following each question is the answer (in italic) received - or not, as the case may be - from Mr Kriendler in a letter dated 27 April 1989. [There are 40 questions, and I reproduce the relevant ones.]

4. By 21 December 1988, was it still the practice of Pan Am to x-ray only the luggage of non-American and non-German nationals starting their journey in Frankfurt?

It was not the practice of Pan Am to x-ray only the luggage of non-American and non-German nationals starting their journey in Frankfurt.

5. By the same date, was it the practice of Pan Am not to x-ray the luggage of UK passengers starting their journey at Heathrow?

It was not the practice of Pan Am to x-ray only the luggage of non-Americans and United Kingdom nationals starting their journey in London.

11. How much of the luggage, if any, of the transfer passengers who boarded flight 103 at Frankfurt from other flights was x-rayed?

The checked bags of all interline passengers were x-rayed.

The first answer is ambiguous, in that Kriendler doesn't say all the luggage was x-rayed. If they x-rayed a few bags of these nationals who also happened to "profile", or a few at random, that would still fit the answer.

The second answer is not contradicted by what we know, and in particular nobody has suggested that Kamboj wasn't x-raying all the luggage that came past him in the interline shed.

The third answer would seem to be a lie, if only 13 items of baggage were x-rayed by Maier.

I'm now looking at the Zeist evidence of Oliver Koch, Maier's supervisor, who gave evidence about security procedures at Frankfurt. This can be read on page 5929, passim.

He says in fact that only the luggage of profiled passengers was searched at check-in. He doesn't say whether he's talking about carry-on baggage or hold luggage or both. There is no mention of x-raying luggage at this stage. Koch then goes on to say that there was some "checking" of hold baggage after that stage, but only on the basis of the profiling, and also some random checks. He doesn't clarify whether this "checking" was by x-ray or other means. (As an aside, if they x-rayed all the "profile" luggage and a few random bags as well, that would make Kriendler's first answer above strictly true.)

He is then asked about the transit (interline) baggage, and replies "If it came from another airline, yes. It should have been x-rayed." Then he's merely taken through Maier's work-sheet, which shows he spent five minutes (16.25 to 16.30) x-raying the 13 items which were brought to him. Ten suitcases, two bags and the box of wine.

Nobody asks who brought the items to him, or how they were drawn out of the mass of baggage, or how anyone could be sure nothing that was supposed to have been x-rayed was missed.

And in particular nobody questions how come, if all the luggage coming from other airlines was x-rayed, as Kriendler told Johnston in 1989 and Koch himself said in 2000 should have happened, Maier only checked 13 items????

It seems from this as if Johnston's main-text assertion was correct, that only a subset of the interline baggage was x-rayed. It's interesting that he kept that in the main text in spite of Kriendler's letter, and I never heard that Pan Am tried to sue him either.

As I said, Pan Am's defence to the negligence suit was that they were permitted not to count bags and reconcile them with the passenger list, because they had these spiffy x-ray machines. But if they weren't x-raying all the bags, that all went for nothing. So far as I know, it never came out in any of the court cases that they weren't x-raying all the bags, in spite of that improbably number 13 above. If it had done, they'd have been toast. (OK, they were toast anyway, but not as far as I know on that particular point.)

Johnston is interesting because he finished that book in May 1989. He has an addendum at the end saying that in June 1989, the police believed that either Patricia Coyle or Karen Noonan had been duped by the PFLP-GC into carrying the bomb on board, presumably having been asked to post a Christmas present for an American relative in the USA. So his take on the issue is that Patricia's and Karen's luggage would not have been x-rayed, as they were American citizens.

However, the same thing applies to unaccompanied luggage. If luggage of profile suspects was specifically selected to be x-rayed, then obviously an unaccompanied bag would not be x-rayed. Not much of a substitute for counting bags, then.

I'd welcome comment on this. I can't see how Johnston can be wrong, if Maier only checked 13 items. But it really looks as if this didn't come out either in the US legal action against Pan Am, or at Zeist, despite the number 13 being specifically mentioned. I don't know about the FAI, which I think did go back as far as the loading at Frankfurt, but I would imagine not. So who's right?

If this is true, it doesn't matter how spiffy the x-ray machines were, or how expert and extra-vigilant Maier was, an unaccompanied item arriving in Frankfurt from another airline tagged for PA103 would have sailed through.

This is a bit surreal. To me, it's irrelevant, as I don't believe the bomb went through Frankfurt as interline luggage in any case. But it's a super point for the prosecution. How come nobody noticed? Obviously Pan Am were smothering it like mad, while they still existed, but by Zeist they were history, and the corpse of the airline could have been hung out to dry with no comeback.

But still nobody noticed. Unless I'm wrong?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 19th June 2011 at 12:39 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.