Document no. 507
New revalations about police label no. 168 and other documents criminally manipulated in Scotland
To the memory of FBI Special Agent und Task Force Chief Richard A. Marquise, PART 2:
Dr. Thomas Hayes, sworn witness no. 586, worked as a consulant and Mr. Allen William Feraday, sworn witness no. 355, as an expert for forensic examination of improvised explosive devices (IED) at the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) at Fort Halstead in Kent.
Dr. Hayes and Mr. Feraday carried out forensic examinations, firstly on a radiorecorder cirquit board fragment (AG/145) with police label no. 23 and secondly on a green colored circuit board (PT-35/b) with police label no. 24.
The two colleagues prepared a report (Prod. no. 181). This report begins on the 28th of December 1988, seven days after the PanAm 103 crash. Mr. Feraday was accountable for the final version of the report!
On page 106 and on top of page 107 of the report, section 6, "Concealment of the IED" (radio) is written:
"In mid-January 1989, some fragmented and charred material was recovered by the AAIB personnel from a metallic side panel of the primary baggage container (AVE 4041 PA) where it had been rammed into the convoluted sheet metal as a result of the explosion. This material was allocated the production number AG/145" -- as referred to in section 6.2.1 below -- "and delivered to the RARDE laboratory on the 17th of January 1989.
MEBO check: On the 17th of January 1989, Mr. Thomas Claiden (witness no. 317) allegedly found a piece of printed circuit board, (AG/145, label 23) in the plate of container AVE 4041.
On the same date January 17, 1989 leftovers of cloths designated as PT-95 were labeled by the Scottish police with label no. 168 and described as "cloth" (charred).
Police label no. 168 was later falsified and PT-95 became - PI-995 with the same date, January 17, 1989. The text of the discription of the article "cloth" (charred) was altered into "DEBRIS" (charred). Why?
Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) needed the manipulated police label no. 168 now designated as "debris" (PI-995) for his later falsified EXAMINATION side no. 51, from the May 12, 1989!
Backed by a photo showing debris (Prod. 117) with the same no. PI-995 and the falsified Examination side 51, Ref. PP'8932 Dr. Hayes intended to prove that PT-35 b) was a fragment of a green colored circuit board found in a portion of the? neckband of a grey? shirt, severely explosion damaged with penetration and blackening. (Original text by Dr. Hayes, on side 51).
MEBO check: under a portion of the? neckband of a grey? shirt was meant: a piece of a fragment of a green colored circuit board was found in the collar of a slalom T-shirt, allegedly bought by Mr. Megrahi in the boutique "Mary House" from shopkeeper Tony Gauci, Malta, on the dubious date of Dec. 7, 1988...
Trial Kamp van Zeist, about the police Label no.168, policy part no. PI-995, with Witness no. 257, Thomas Gilchrist, sworn, excerpt:
Q-- Well, why didn't you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A-- I didn't notice it. It's the first time it's been brought to my attention.
Q-- Do I infer from this that you did not alter the label?
A-- I've probably overwritten it at the time.
Q-- Did you or did you not alter this label, Mr. Gilchrist?
A-- It certainly looks as if I have.
Q-- And if we look to what is contained on the underside of the writing, we can see the word "cloth."
Q-- And can I suggest, Mr. Gilchrist, that the reason you, as a detective constable, wrote "cloth" on the label is because that is what you found?
A-- That would probably have been my assumption.
Q-- What do you mean, Mr. Gilchrist, "that is probably an assumption"?
A-- At first examination, I've probably written down "cloth," and on closer examination, I did not put down "cloth" in case it isn't cloth. I put down "DEBRIS". I haven't scored it out and I haven't initialled it. My mistake is I have overwritten it.
Q-- Mr. Gilchrist, can I suggest that if you were altering a label from one description to another, the practice of a police officer would be to score out the first entry and write the second entry, so that the change could be seen on the label itself?
A-- That's correct procedure.
Q-- This change can only be discerned if we magnify up the label under the conditions available in this court; is that not right?
Q-- And the reason we can only see it in these circumstances is because the word "DEBRIS" has been carefully written over the word "cloth." Is that not right, Mr. Gilchrist?
A-- I agree that "cloth" has been overwritten by "debris." I've admitted that.
Q-- In such a way that when you pick up the label itself, you would be unlikey to see that the word "debris" had been overwritten the word "cloth"?
A-- That wasn't the intention.
Q-- Whether or not that was the intention, Mr. Gilchrist, that is the position, is it not?
A-- That's how it appears.
Q-- Now, you've already told us that the item in the bag attached to the present label is the item that you recovered in the field at Lockerbie?
Q-- I wonder, then, if we could look back at this photograph for a moment, Mr. Gilchrist, and if the cameraman can give us the entire photograph. And if we can stop there. Do we see that in this photograph the designation PI-995 is attached not only to a piece of cloth, as you've already described, but to a very obvious and significant piece of electrical circuit board, which we can see with the number 1 etched on it?
Q-- You've told us that if you found two different materials together, you, as a matter of practice, would have attached two different labels to the material?
Q--Do you recall finding the piece of electrical circuit board shown in photograph 117?
Q-- If you had found a piece of electrical circuit board, it would have been of interest to you?
Q-- Did you at any stage become aware that the piece of electrical circuit board shown in photograph 117 was being associated with that item which you had designated as PI-995?
A-- I didn't designate it as PI-995.
Q-- Well, let me put the question in this way, Mr. Gilchrist. Did you at any stage become aware that the piece of cloth designated PI-995 was now being represented as a piece of cloth accompanied by the piece of electrical circuit board shown in the photograph?
A-- I had no idea that was the case.
Q-- Have you any idea what the electrical circuit board shown in photograph 117 is?
Q-- You have no idea?
Q-- Have you ever seen that photograp before?
A-- I'm not sure.
Q-- Have you ever been invited to change the label, and in particular the wording on label PI-995, from "cloth" to "debris"?
A-- Never at any time.
Q-- So you can't account for the change in the wording on the label from "cloth" to "DEBRIS"; is that correct, Mr. Gilchrist?
Q-- And you can't tell us when the label was changed from "cloth" to "DEBRIS; is that correct, Mr. Gilchrist?
A-- If I changed it, it would be on the day in question.
Q-- I'm sorry?
A-- If it was me that changed it, it would be on the day in question.
Q-- But you can't say that it was you that changed it; is that what you are now saying?
A-- I can't be certain.
Q-- I see.
MEBO Comment: An analysis of the handwriting by MEBO shows that the word "DEBRIS" was written by Dr. Hayes!
It shows how negligently the defence team Duff & Taylor worked. They did not notice that the police label no. 168 was called originally PT-95 and corrected, additionally to the manipulated designation by Dr. Hayes!
The manipulated police label no. PI-995 with the allegedly found material in Lockerbie was overwritten with "DEBRIS" (charred).
The central key piece for the criminally fabricated side no 51. of the EXAMINATION report in Dr. Hayes Feraday's report No.181!!!
With great probability this fatal manipulation was covered up by several officials during the demonstration of evidence!
It is strange and not normal that the altered police label PI-995 was signed by 7 officials;
Dr. Tom Hayes, Allen Feraday, Derek Henderson, Thomas Gilchrist, Tom McColm, Ron McManus and Cal Mentoso!
Question: Did these persons had to take the responsibility on themselves, if the criminal fraud would be noticed? And had every of these officials to secure himself face to face of the others?
For remembrance: On the falsified page No. 51 from the 12th of May, 1989, Dr. Hayes noted under designation of material: PT-35, (b), an fragment of a green coloured circuit board. Deliberately and wrongly the fragment PT-35B was later described as a green MST-13timer fragment. Because the PT-35 (b) fragment was delievered to RARDE on the 17th of Januar 1989, it must be the green fragment AG/145 of a Toshiba radiorecorder, not the fragment of a MST-13 timer fragment.
The fraud is perfect! NB: The MST-13 fragment was the first time photographed in September 1989, by Feraday (RARDE), according to a memorandum from 15th of September 1989 by the Scottish Chief Inspector William Williamson, (Witness no. 994 sworn)! (Section 6 in the RARDE Report 181, "Concealment of IED Radio" sides 106-107 show, that the belatedly indentified Toshiba radio-fragment Prod. AG/145 was allegedly found midth of January 1989 in the container AVE 4041 PA from the debris of Boeing 747 by Crown investigators - and was brought to RARDE for forensic examinations on the 17th of Januar 1989 (Section 6.2.1).
The pictures of evidence of the Crown Office (Lockerbie Trial Images) Image 9, (PP'8932 und PI-995) are provably manipulated ones. Why: On the first original picture the green fragment AG/145 of a Toshiba radiorecorder was depicted *(red circle). After the manipulation the green Toshiba fragment AG/145 was replaced on a second photo, by the brown MST-13timer fragment PT-35B, with the letter "M" scratched in (red circle). *See the Police Label no.168 / PI-995 evidence pictures (117) appendices.
From the report 181, side 6/7, the photograph 117, Image 9, and Dr. Hayes manipulated side no. 51, ref. PP'8932, PI-995:
"Amongst this charred material were several small fragments of electronic circuit board, some of which bore elements of a diagnostic tracking pattern and component identification numbers.
The circuit board fragments had clearly been intimately involved in the explosion and were considered most likely to have been part of the explosive device or its immediate surrounds. They were of commercially manufactured quality and appeared most probably to have originated from a portable radio or similar domestic electronic appliance.
It was known that a Toshiba brand radio/cassette player, model No. RT-F453D, had been recovered during a terrorist incident in West Germany, and that this unit had been modified as an altitude-operated improvised explosive device.
"The possibility that a similar device had been used as the Lockerbie bomb could not be ignored. Feraday made a visit to the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) laboratories at Wiesbaden, West Germany, between the 23rd and 25th of January 1989 to compare the Lockerbie circuit board fragments (AG/145) with the radio/cassette device recovered in Germany.
A detailed comparison of the items established that the Lockerbie fragments definitely did not originate from the same model of radio/cassette player as that recovered in Germany. However, a distinct similarity in the materials and design of the Lockerbie fragments (AG/145) and the main circuit board present within the Toshiba radio (model RT-F453D) was noted. This similarity was to such an extent that it was considered to be a possibility that the Lockerbie fragments may have originated from a different model of radio/cassette player but still of Toshiba manufacture.
Consequently a visit was made to the Toshiba UK headquarters at Camberley, Surrey, on the 2nd of February 1989, in an attempt to identify the Lockerbie fragments."
After a search of over 130 different data sheets on the same day, the 2nd of February 1989, Feraday identified the circuit board fragments AG/145 probably originating from a Toshiba portable radio/cassette player, model number RT-8016!
MEBO comment: It remains doubtful that Feraday knew immediately that the fragment AG/145 descended from a Toshiba radio recorder, since there were no characteristics on it! (only two numbers: L'106--101).
MEBO clearing-up: Ex Witness no. 334, sworn, Gwendoline Horton on Thursday or Friday, 22nd or 23rd of December 1988 found a complete manual for an radio cassette player together with a lot of debries in the fields that surrounded her house.
Mrs. Horten brought the items twice to the Northumbria police station at Alnwick to police constable Brian Walton. The material was packed in a police plastic bag, attached with a police Label no. 24, from police force Lothian and Borders, and delivered to RARDE.
With great probability Feraday knew through the delivered and complete operating instruction manual from Mrs. Horton that it concerned a Toshiba radio recorder.
Strange: the Toshiba operating instruction manual was later torn into small fragments that had been registered by Dr.Hayes on the 12th of May 1989 in his manipulated Examination report page 51!
Subsequently Feraday made a visit to the headquarters of Toshiba company in Japan, between the 23rd of April 1989 and the 1st of May 1989, where he learned that similar circuit boards as belonging to fragment (AG/145) were used in the model RT-8016/RT-SF16 "BomBeat", Toshiba portable radio/cassette recorder.
It should be clear that the RT-SF16 BomBeat has a different printed circuit board in it than the RT-F453 from the BKA in Germany.
On page 107 of Feraday's report 181, is noted:
"On the 30th of June 1989, some explosively damaged paper fragments, which bore indications that they originated from the "owner's instruction manual" for a "Toshiba RT-SF16" radio/cassette player. This date is wrong, the correct date was 11th of May 1989!
Why Feraday wrote down a wrong date and why did only paper fragments exist from the "owner's instruction manual? That is doubtful!
Gwendoline Horton as witness no.334, in Kamp van Zeist, say, excerpt:
Q-- I wonder if you would look, please, at Label 24. You'll see there is a bag which cotains items there. Do you recognise anything?
A-- Well, not in its present state. I'm sure when I handed it in, it was in one piece.
Q-- Perhaps -- I wonder if it could be put on the document imager, to see if we can see it. You can see within the police plastic bag, I think as you've described, more than one piece of a document. And you can at least see writing on it?
Q-- Do I understand you to say that when you handed it in, it was in one piece?
A-- It was in one piece, sir. I am practically sure of that, yes.
Q-- But apart from that, you recognise the item?
A-- Yes. Uh-huh.
MEBO: The wrong date of the 30th of June 1989 in Feradays report 181 has a direct connection with the complete manual for a radio cassette player...
On the 17th of January 1989 the Radio Recorder Fragment, (AG/145) was found according to Feraday und labeled by the police force Lothian and Borders with label 23.
Under the wrong date 30th of June 1989 Feraday had reported the receipt of paper fragments, "owner's instruction manual" in his report 181. In Kamp van Zeist asked by the prosecutor about the accuracy of the date, he said the date was 11th of May 1989.
This date must be corrected because Dr.Hayes on his manipulated page 51 had noted the 12th of May 1989 for the paper fragments under PT-2, d)!
Witness Allen Feraday, no. 355, Trial Kamp van Zeist, excerpt:
Q-- Thank you. Now, you've explained there that on the 30th of June 1989, some paper fragments were received which took your inquiry forward?
A-- That's correct, sir, yes.
Q-- Would you look for me, please, at photograph 266 in your report. I'm sorry, we need to look at Production 181, photograph 266. Now, do we see there a photograph from your report, Mr. Feraday, which shows the piece of paper to which you were referring in your introduction just a moment ago?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- And we can see that sufficient could be read to give you an understanding of the item to which it related?
A-- That's correct, yes.
Q-- And in particular the brand name at the top, by looking at what might be the letters "HIBA"?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- And then "cassette recorder," and then the particular type of cassette recorder, by looking to the reference SF16 and BomBeat SF16?
A-- That's correct, sir, yes.
Q-- You've just read to us from the introduction the view that this piece of paper fragment was received on the 30th of June of 1989?
Q--Is that the correct date?
A-- It is not, I'm afraid.
It's a mistake that I made when I wrote the reports. And I think the correct date is the 11th of May 1989. And the error arises on my part because sometimes items would come and go to the laboratory several times. They would be booked in and out several times...
1.> Why was the date on page No. 51 devised as the 12th of Mai 1989?
2.> The criminal machination with the MEBO MST-13timer fragment