Zürich, 30. August 2007

The 'Lockerbie-Fraud'...... Link to AFFIDAVIT (copyright by E.Bollier)

Reproach:

After evaluating the criminal manipulation in the Lockerbie affair, it must be concluded that the “Lockerbie Criminal Team” after September 17, 1999 had themselves been convinced that the MST-13 timer fragment, allegedly found in Lockerbie, could not have come from the twenty MST-13 timers delivered to Libya.

This was the logical reason that after Bolliers personal expertise of the timer fragments in Dumfries beetween September 13 and September 17 these two crucial pieces of evidence PT/35(b) and DP/31(a) against Libya had been manipulated for a second time intentionally by Scottish "Officials".

It was only through this criminal action that it became possible to carry out the political order to implicate and maintain the country of Libya in the attack on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

Argumentation and chronology:

In 1990 and 1991 the Swiss Federal Office of Prosecution provided legal aid to the American and Scottish authorities in connection with the Lockerbie case/Pan Am 103. Thus the Swisss Federal Office of Prosecution received the legal right of reciprocation. (ART.8 IRSG)

This possibility was taken, and on July 13, 1998 Edwin Bollier (MEBO AG) filed the request to be questioned again as a witness, concerning the MST-13 timer. During this time Bollier received a high-format picture (copy), allegedly showing an original piece of a MST-13 timer board found in Lockerbie, triggering new clues as to its origin.

The process corresponds to the Swiss Federal Code of Law (Article 308 StGB), requesting such particular specifying.
On July 16, 1998, E Bollier was questioned in the presence of Schottish officials in Zürich about these new realizations.

Additionally, after 10 years of refusal, Bollier had the possibility to view in person the original MST-13 timer fragment on location at the “Lockerbie Criminal Team” in Dumfries between September 13, and 18, 1999.

Bollier´s *statements were taken down in two separate police reports on September 16, and 17, and importantparts of that statement were confirmed by the called witness Detective Kathrina Thomson.

At that particular time the MST-13 timer fragment with the police label PT/35 had been sawed into 2 separate pieces, allegedly due to forensic reasons. The larger part (of the fragment) was labeled PT/35(b) and the smaller part DP/31(a).

Bollier's important observations:

1.> Initial position:
The pictured original MST-13 timer with police label PT/35 as seen on enlarged evidence photograpy (PP 8932) dated September 12, 1989, shows clearly and precisely part of a brown handmade PC-board (prototype), manufactured by engineer U. Lumpert at MEBO AG.
IMPORTANT: MST-13 Timers with brown handmade PC-board (prototype) had never been delivered to Libya.

2.> The bigger part of the two sawn off MST-13 timer fragments with the new police label no. PT/35(b) was not consistent with the handmade brown original No PT/35, rather than a manipulated copy of an industrial manufactured PC-board of the Türing family as it was painted with green high-glossed paint (Laestoplack). Thus this fragment did without any doubt not come from any working MST-13 timer but from an empty PC-board!

3.> The smaller part of the two sawn off MST-13 timer fragments with the new police label no. DP/31(a) came from the manufactured, original MST-13 fragment no. PT/35 and was thus colored brown. The part was slightly burned on the front side.

*The fact that both fragment parts were of a different color (brown and green) was confirmed by the called witness Thomson on September 17, 1999, in the office of Procurator Miriam Watson (see protocol).

The second Scottish manipulation after Bollier´s investigation on September 16/17, 1999, in Dumfries:

9 months later at the “Lockerbie Trial” in Court Kamp van Zeist NL: Edwin Bollier was sworn witness no. 548.

After Bollier´s request during the witness stand to view the MST-13 timer fragments no. PT/35(b) and DP/31(a) not just on screen but also live, the following surprises appeared:

4.> Since Bollier´s visit in Dumfries, both fragment parts had been manipulated/changed once more, due to intentional reasons:

5.> The bigger part of no PT/35(b) had allegedly been scolded swiftly with fire. Thus the green high-glossy color had turned into matte color (Laestoplack).

6.> Since viewed by Bollier in Dumnfries, the smaller part no PT/31(a) had been totally burned by fire (charred), thus rendering the brown color unrecognizable; the fragment was now black…

7.> Logical reason for the second Scottish manipulation:
Scottisch officials had stated after the comparison of the original brown MST-13 timer in their possession with one of the machinemade green MST-13 Timers provided by the FBI that the brown handmade original fragment NO. PT35 did not originate from a green MST-13 timer delivered to Libya by MEBO LTD.
That's why before the "Lockerbie-Trial" a manipulated Duplikat of a machinemade green Türing PC-Board of the MST-13 timer was desperately needed.
Notabene: The 20 pieces of the MST-13 Timers delievered to Libya two years ago were all equipped with green machinemade Türing PC-Boards.

8.> At the Kamp van Zeist Trial 2000:
In order to keep the official accusations against Libya alive, any further connecting questions were logically terminated by the Lord Advocate – please view end of witness´ questioning.

Court excerpt: Q-Lord Advocate, A-Witness Edwin Bollier:

Q- So in September of last year at the police station in Dumfries, you were shown-- A- Yes, in Dumfries. Yes. Q- Make-- A- The police. And I had a witness because I wanted to have a report. She was assigned to me. She, too, saw both fragments. And now they have been modified. I swear they have been modified.---
---- Q- Lord Sutherland: Thank you, Mr. Bollier.That's all. A- My Lord, may I put a question? Am I allowed to do that? Q- Lord Sutherland: I think not, Mr. Bollier. Your evidence is now over, and that is all we can hear.

Mainly due to the second Scottish manipulation Libya was (falsely) implicated and remained implicated in the Pan Am 103 attack trial, the “Lockerbie Trial”! The fraud seemed to be perfect.

With the legal affidavit from July 18, 2007, engineer U. Lumpert, an ex-employee of MEBO AG, new facts have emerged, requiring (due to article 308 StGB) a new legal investigation.

That is why chairman Edwin Bollier (MEBO) on August 22, 2007, sent a new international legal request to the Swiss Prosecutor´s Office, requesting the aid of the Scottish Justice to engage into a new investigation, into the manipulation of the MST-13 timer fragments, asking to include Swiss police experts as well as E. Bollier and engineer Lumpert into the investigation.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) on June 28, 2007, rejected the latest “Lockerbie verdict” back into the hands of the Appeal Court due to “Miscarriage of Justice”. The question of manipulation of important evidence in a new legal process is of highest priority in order to rehabilitate the innocence of the state of Libya and its “official” employee Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.

view Link: Inspectors-Affair? and in general: Lockerbie Link-Page and the MST-13-Image-Raport

Edwin Bollier VR, MEBO Ltd

I.P.O. Information Service

Lockerbie case: new accusations of manipulation of key forensic evidence
Statement of Dr. Hans Koechler, international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (2000-2002), on a key witness’s admission of perjury in the Lockerbie Trial

Vienna, Austria, 28 August 2007
P/RE/20559c-is

On 4 August 2007 Dr. Hans Koechler received from Mr. Edwin Bollier, head of the Swiss-based company MEBO AG, a copy of the German original of an Affidavit, dated 18 July 2007 and signed by Mr. Ulrich Lumpert, former employee (electronics engineer) of MEBO AG, Zurich, related to the Lockerbie case.

In a statement released today, Dr. Hans Koechler, who has followed the Lockerbie proceedings since the beginning of the trial in the Netherlands in May 2000, highlighted basic aspects and questions of this new revelation that appear to be of relevance not only in connection with the upcoming second appeal of the convicted Libyan national, but also for new prosecutorial action ex officio by the Scottish authorities.

In his affidavit Mr. Lumpert implicitly admits having committed perjury as witness No. 550 before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. He states (Par. 2) that he has stolen a handmade (by him) sample of an “MST-13 Timer PC-board” from MEBO company in Zurich and handed it over, on 22 June 1989 (!), to an “official person investigating the Lockerbie case.” He further states (in Par. 5) that the fragment of the MST-13 timer, cut into two pieces for “supposedly forensic reasons,” which was presented in Court as vital part of evidence, stemmed from the piece which he had stolen and handed over to an investigator in 1989. He further states that when he became aware that this piece was used for an “intentional politically motivated criminal undertaking” (vorsätzliche politisch kriminelle “Machenschaft”) he decided, out of fear for his life, to keep silent on the matter.

The rather late admission of Mr. Lumpert is consistent with an earlier revelation in the British and Scottish media according to which a former Scottish police officer (whose identity has not yet been disclosed to the public) stated “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005).

Upon receipt of the document, Dr. Koechler informed the owner of MEBO AG on 7 August 2007 that Mr. Lumpert will have to submit his affidavit under oath before the competent judicial authorities of Scotland. In the meantime (22 August 2007), the owner of MEBO AG has requested the Scottish judicial authorities – by way of the Swiss Prosecutor’s office and on the basis of the agreement on mutual judicial assistance between the UK and Switzerland –  to investigate the alleged criminal manipulations referred to in Mr. Lumpert’s statement.

In his capacity as UN-appointed observer of the Lockerbie trial, Dr. Hans Koechler has repeatedly raised the issue of the timer fragment and expressed his amazement at the Defense team’s refusal to look into the matter during Mr. Megrahi’s appeal when questions as to the reliability of forensic evidence had already been raised. (See Dr. Koechler’s appeal report, Par. 10 [c] of 26 March 2002; his statement of 23 August 2003, Par. 10; and his statement of 14 October 2005, Par. 2.)

It is to be recalled that, as witness before the Lockerbie court, Mr. Edwin Bollier had raised the issue of the manipulation of the timer fragments, but was brusquely interrupted in his testimony by the presiding Judge and prevented from giving further information in this matter.

In the meantime (information received on 26 August 2007), Mr. Lumpert has revised part of his Affidavit (Par. 5); he now states that the letter “M” on the timer fragment (supposedly for the German word Muster: sample), unlike previously stated, has been engraved by himself. In view of this and earlier statements, Mr. Lumpert’s credibility will have to be assessed very carefully by the competent judicial authorities and he will have to be made aware of the consequences, in terms of criminal law, of lying to the Court.

At the same time, the credibility of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is also at stake. In its News Release of 28 June 2007, in which it had announced the referral of Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case to the Scottish High Court for a second appeal, the SCCRC found it necessary to “absolve” the investigating authorities of any suspicion of wrongdoing. Should Mr. Lumpert’s confession be proven to be true, the SCCRC’s statement – “The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment” – will appear highly questionable, even dubious. The public will have to ask why a supposedly independent judicial review body would try to exonerate “preventively” officials in a case which is being returned to the High Court for a second appeal because of suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.

If it is indeed the rule of law that governs the Scottish polity, the Scottish judicial authorities will have to deal with this new revelation ex officio – independently of how the appeal court in Mr. Megrahi’s case will evaluate this witness’s confession of perjury.

Those responsible for the midair explosion of PanAm flight 103 will have to be identified and brought to justice. If there was any wrongdoing, criminal and/or due to incompetence, of the judicial authorities in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case, this will also have to be dealt with through proper procedures of criminal law. A continuation of the rather obvious cover-up which we have witnessed up until now is neither acceptable for the citizens of Scotland nor for the international public, Dr. Koechler stated.