Doc. 726 Chronology No. 1

A convincing study about the fraud of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) for the last "non-believers"

The regular operational sequence of the MST-13 timer fragment.

Introduction over the MEBO, MST-13 timer circuit board:

The following MST-13 timer PC boards existed, with similar design up to the end of the production 1988:

1.> MST-13 timer "Circuit Boards", by hand manufactured, so-called prototypes, consisting of 8 layers fibre glass, standard plate material, color brown. Both sides without soldering stop lacquer. (such brown MST-13 timer, circuit board was not inserted into, the 20 pieces of MST-13 timers delivered to Libya)!

2.> MST-13 timer " Circuit Boards", by machine manufactured (of print factory; "Thüring") consisting of 9 layers fibre glass, green colored. The first series had only on a side, the front side, soldering stop lacquer, color green. The second series of MST-13 "circuit boards", were covered on both sides with soldering stop lacquer, color green. (The 20 pieces of MST-13 timers delivered to Libya were with such; "Thüring" Circuit board equipped).

January, of 1989:
FBI explosive Examiner, Tom Thurman, since at the end of 1988, he was involved into the PanAm 103 Crash investigations. After its return from Lockerbie, Scotland and after a briefing of the CIA, Thurman, on 19th of January 1989, in its laboratory in Washington gave its own Briefing. He worked closely with the experts of U.K. Dr. Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday together, (both from RARDE).

April, of 1989:
The masterious way of the identification of the MST-13 timer fragment in the PanAm 103 tragedy. Evidence material for a new Investigation:

Richard Luis Sherrow, Witness no. 528, he was an ex explosives enforcement officer by law enforcement agency within the USA. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). On October 1986 he went in Togo. In the headquarters, army barracks he shown 2 piece of MST-13 Timers, supplied from Libya with other army material.

When Mr. Sherrow return to the USA in October 1986. He take one *MST-13 timer and parts of three different types of explosives, placed in diplomatic pouch !!! and retourned to USA. Mr. Sherrow return in his own headquarters and he was requested to take it to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

This *MST-13 Timer landed already on April 1989 by FBI experte Tom Thurman,s Laboratory! After the delivery of the "Libya" MST-13 timer to Thurman, he should know which was demand from it …

(important: it is a lie which Mr. Thurman said later: "On 11 June 1990, I received a photo from Scottish investigating Officer (SIO) Stuart Henderson and I found out, on 15 June 1990, that the unknown fragment was from a MST-13 Timer who had activated the IED on PanAm 103" !
After a Briefing, the TV station ABC, celebrated Thurman as a person of the week... On one of 4 polaroid-photos, with date of 6th of June 1989, is showing the out scraped company name MEBO. Thurman explained 1990 with pride in a BBC-TV interview, that he had deciphered the company name MEBO!
This fact explains, why the Swiss police knew the manufacturers company MEBO Ltd and took on order, a MST-13 circuit board in possession with Ing Lumpert, on 22th of June 1989.
(Besides the name MEBO can be read on the circuit board, also by a layman)...

12th of April, 1989:
First visit at FBI expert Tom Thurman in Washington by expert Allen Feraday, RARDE (Defense Research Agency military division at Fort Hatstead, UK.) Whether Allen Feraday of Thurman already at this time about the MST-13 timer possession was informed, cannot be proven at present.

The following facts, which correspond to the truth, were signed by Mr. Ulrich Lumpert on 18th July 2007.

1.> During the examination by the Bundespolizei (Federal Police) "BUPO" Switzerland, FBI und Scottish Police present in Zurich in 1991; and the examination of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) (Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation) by Commissioner Fuhl in Konstanz / Germany 1991;as well as in the "Lockerbie Trial" in Kamp van Zeist 2000. I had testified as witness No.550 and stated in the record, that of the 3 pieces of hand-made prototypes MST-13 Timer PC-Boards the third MST-13 PC-Board was brocken and I had thrown it away.

I built two functioning MST-13 Timers with the remaining 2 PC-Boards, which were delivered to the GDR State Security Service (STASI) by Mr. Bollier. The MST-13 PC-Boards consisted of 8 layers of fiberglass and were brown in colour.

2.> These statements recorded by me were not correct!

I confirm today on 18th July 2007 that I stole the third handmanufactured MST-13 Timer PC-Board consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on 22nd of June 1989 to a person officially-investigating in the "Lockerbie case".

3.> At this *time I did not know, that the MST-13 Timer PC-Board was used for a specific purpose in connection with the attack on PanAm 103, otherwise I would have requested permission from one of the owners of M/S Mebo Ltd (Meister or Bollier) to release the MST-13 PC-Board.

4.> In addition I have handed over without permission a summary of the production films, hand-stuck templates and the blueprints of the MST-13 Timer production in a yellow evelope to Det. Superintendent James Gilchrist, Scottish Police during a *visit to Zurich in June 1991.

(* according to Mebo: without the necessary sanction of the Swiss law enforcement).

A second possibility would be that the MST-13 Circuit board had taken the way via FBI, (the USA) and then after Scotland? …

18th of July, 1989:
Second visit by Allen Feraday and photographer Stephan Heines with Tom Thurman in the USA.
In those days already, Mr. Allen Feraday/ RARDE and FBI forensic agent Thomas Thurman (and others) conducted explosion-tests in the USA, using TNT and Semtex. aifreight-containers, Toshiba radio-recorders type RT 8016/SF16-Bombeat (made in Japan) and Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases (made in Denver, Colorado) and of antique copper-color, filled with clothing, etc. that were subjected to the explosion, with most such activities being photographically recorded.

Excerpts from the Court-documents, Kamp van Zeist:
Witness no. 355, Mr. Allen Feraday, (RARDE, Defense Research Agency Division at Fort Halstead) (sworn statemements):

Q-- Can we turn on to your report, your final report, production 181, at page 9, Mr. Feraday. And if we look to the last paragraph on that page--
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- you refer to explosion trials using luggage-filled metal cargo containers.
A-- Yes, sir. That's correct, sir. Yes.
Q-- And are these trials that were carried out in April 1989 and July 1989?
A-- I think that is correct.
Q-- And were they carried out under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Authority?
A-- Yes,essentially, yes. It was a combined effort, but essentially it was under their auspices. They provided the containers.
Q-- And I take it you attended at those tests, Mr.Feraday?
A-- I loaded all of radios with their explosives, sir, yes.
Q-- And did you also advise on the way in wich the explosive tests were to be set up and carried out?
A-- That again was a kind of composite decision. There were--myself, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the FBI all had a wiew. And so, essentially, a trial was done one way, then a trial was done another. So it wasn't only my view, if you understand my meaning, although I loaded the radios for them.

Q-- Did you perform some of this tests not only within cargo containers, but with cargo containers located within a representation of the fuselage of a plane?
A-- Yes, sir I did. At Atlantic City.
Q-- I believe you were accompanied to these tests by Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer?
A-- that's correct sir. Yes.
Q-- Did he photograph the results of these tests?
A-- He did indeed, sir. Yes.
Q-- And do you know where these photographs are now, Mr. Feraday?
A-- well, they were certainly at Fort Halstead when I last saw them, and all the negatives are there. ----

Q-- Mr. Feraday, you referred earlier in your evidence to having taken part in explosion trials in the United States in April and July 1989?
A-- Yes sir.
Q-- And every one of those trials, there being nine in total, the improvised explosive device- was contained in a Toshiba radio/cassette recorder model RT-8016, wasn't it?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- And that was because you had reported yourself completely satisfied that it was such a model which had been employed for the improvised explosive device on PanAm 103?
A-- That's correct, sir. Yes.

MEBO say: Why did the Duff-defence-team never ask for the set of photographs from all such US-tests and the relevant pictures of the various fragments, to then compare such material with the allegedly Lockerbie-recovered fragments? According to the official Court documents no such photographs were available to the Court either! It would have been interesting for the court to also examine photographs of the "shatter-Zone fragments" from the fuselage...

August-December, 1989:
For different and obvious reasons, must be assumed that between August and December 1989, the crucial Fragment was manufactured from the prototype circuit board MST-13, handed over by engineer Lumpert!

10th of December, 1989:
Third visit of Allen Feraday (RARDE) at FBI expert Tom Thurman in Washington the USA. It cannot be proven the possibility at present, whether Feraday had received the MST-13 fragment from Tom Thurman, or found in Lockerbie ?...

January 1990:
From "Logbuch", of ex FBI task Force Chief, Richard Marquise, *Scotbom, "Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation", it became admits that of expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) an unknown Circuit board was found, in a slalom shirt >>>

Williamson said that Allen Feraday, the forensic examiner, hat sent a fax to Henderson in January 1990, about items he found blasted into a Slalom shirt. The most significant item was a fingernail size chip, green in color, with solder for a circuit on one side only. This chip became known as PT-35, the evidence designation placed on it by the Scots. He spoke of the efforts which led us to MEBO, one familiar to the Swiss.
Cretton* expressed his concerns and those of Bollier. The first was that the CIA had planted the chip in the wreckage found at Lockerbie. Henderson and I told him this thought had also crossed our minds. Neither of us believed the CIA or any government official would do such a thing, but we had discussed the possibility. Henderson was convinced of the veracity of PT-35, the way it had been found, logged in and the fact it had not been identified even by the forensic examiners until January 1990. +++ (end)

This, by ex FBI task Force Chief, Richard Marquise, admits nascent fax, from 12 January 1990, (an important piece of evidence) to the Defence team of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, at the court in Kamp van Zeist, was suppressed !!!
Only by the SCCR' Commission was uncovered these faxes of Feraday, addressed to the Investigating Chief (SIO) Stuart Henderson!

For police investigations, from this original MST-13 fragment, was provided by RARDE, a professional Polaroid photo no. 334. The picture shows the MST-13, fragment, before forensic changes. This photo of the original MST-13 fragment, must be respect as crucial defence proof for Libya and Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi ! The photo No. 334, was made at the beginning of January 1990, bei RARDE, and had received later the first time the part. no. PT-35.

From the technical characteristics on the MST-13 fragment, MEBO could recognize free of doubts that the fragment descended from a brown hand-made prototype and was from a not functional MST-13 circuit board. Since the fragment (carbonize) had charred black, the brown color can among other things to be determined, by the not perfect soldering courses and the sawn out of the corner = "curve". This original MST-13 fragment was with a letter "M" designated.

After 12th of January, 1990:
Inspector Keith Harrower Strathclyde police, based at Kirkintillock Scotland, was assigned by Chief Inspector William Williamson, for investigations over the Circuit board fragment PT-35, (MST-13). The determining original Circuit board was handed over to the Chief Inspector William Williamson by the professionally RARDE laboratories, for private companies... (strangely)

Harrower visited 6 private companies, which had possibly the possibilities of finding out by forensic investigations or by professional knowledge from which this allegedly still unknown MST-13 fragment (PT-35) descends and was produced from whom it, etc. The MST-13 fragment was, neither with RARDE nor at the private companies on; Explosive Powder" examined !!!

Minutes of excerpts from the court, Kamp van Zeist (2000):
Witness, number, 261, Inspector Keith Harrower, sworn:
Q-- In January of 1990, did you become aware of the existence of a piece of evidence which you were asked to make further inquiries into?
A-- Yes, I did.
Q-- And was that Label Number 353? We can perhaps just confirm that in a moment, Inspector Harrower.
A-- Yes, that's correct.
Q-- And along with Detective Inspector Williamson, did you then carry out some inquiries in relation to that fragment?
A-- I did, sir, yes.
Q-- What was the purpose of those inquiries?
A-- To try and identify where the circuit board had come from.
Q-- And did you make those inquiries in the printed circuit board industry?
A-- I did, yes.
Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New England Laminates Company?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- Did you meet a Mr. Wheadon of the New England Laminates Company?
A-- I did, yes. It was at the end of the January 1990.
Q-- Now, 353 is available, Inspector, now Can you confirm for me that that is the fragment of circuit board that we've been speaking about?
A-- Yes, that's correct, sir. Yes.
Q-- As a result of the advice given to you, did you go in February of 1990 to a company known as CIBA Geigy?
Continuation follows after COMMENTs

MEBO Comment, No. 1:
With purposeful intention that became the original MST-13 timer fragment with that Label No.*353, wrongly marks!
Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) confirmed at the court in Kamp van Zeist the following:

Q-- If we look at 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us? A-- (Feraday) That's a photograph of fragment PT-35 as recovered in the laboratory.
Q-- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? A--That is correct. Yes sir.

The photo, No. 334 and PP-8932, PI-995, delivered after 12th January 1990, from the RARDE Labratory, shows likewise the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) in the original condition.
Importantly: At this time (end of January), the original MST-13 fragment (PT-35) was not in January 1990, divided into two parts !
Only at the 27 April 1990, the MST-13 fragment was divided into two parts at company Siemens AG in Germany.

After the division with Siemens AG on 27 April 1990, the larger part got the marking PT-35 (b) = label no. 353 and the smaller part DP-31 (a) = label no. 419.

*This deliberate mistake of Keith Harrower, served for Insp. Michael Langford Johnson, for a new forensic investigation, this time with a MST-13 duplicate and with the help from the company Ferranti internationally computer and system Limited. This duplicate circuit board was from a green colored "Thüring" print (like the Libya timer)...

The duplicate had same Disign, consisted however of a by machine manufactured "Thüring" MST-13 Circuit board, with 9 layers fibre glass, with green soldering stop lacquer on a side (front side) without marking "M"...

Mr. George Wheadon, witness number 573, said at the court in Kamp van Zeist, that it after the investigation the MST-13 fragment (PT-35) with the Microscop, it was a fairly standard piece, thus consisting of 8 layers of fibre glass !
On 14 February 1990, Inspector Keith Harrower, visited a second time those New England of Laminate company and left the MST-13 fragment examine by Mr. Wheadon's colleagues Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle found out allegedly that the fragment consisted of *9 layers fibre glass. (doubtful)…

MEBO, say:
*Supported on the visualen technical characteristics, the original MST-13 fragment was free of doubts, from a standard print board, with 8 layers of fibre glass.

Continuation: Witness, number 261, Inspector Keith Harrower
Q-- Thank you. Did you see a man there by the name of Mr. French?
A-- I did, sir, yes.
Q-- No doubt you would explain to Mr. French the purpose of your inquiries and ask him to assist if he could?
A-- I did, yes.
Q-- And did he make a request of you in order to carry out any further inquiry?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- What did he ask to do?
A-- He asked to remove a very small sample from the piece of circuit board.
Q-- And was that permitted?
A-- It was, yes.

Q-- Thank you. When you say "a very small sample," Mr. Harrower, are you able to help us understand what you are speaking of ? Because the fragment itself is, of course, small.
A-- Yes, a sort of pin-head size.
Q-- Thank you. And can you look for me now at Label 414, please. Can you tell me if you recognise what you now have?
A-- Yes. This was what was removed from the piece of board at the premises of CIBA Geigy.
Q-- By Mr. French?

Q-- And in order to date that, would it be helpful to look at a production, Number 338? Do you recognise this particular document, Inspector?
A-- I believe this is a print-out that Mr. French produced from his laboratory. I'm not sure. It was either handed over at the time or it was sent to us later by him.

Q-- Is there a date on the label, Inspector?
A-- Yes, there is, the is the same date that's on the sample that was 8th of February, which removed from the circuit board.
Q-- Thank you. So we should understand, then, that the pinhead sample was removed on the 8th of February of 1990?
A-- That's correct, sir, yes.
Q-- Thank you. Once this first sample had been removed from the fragment, was it decided to make any record of the condition of the fragment?
A-- Yes, it was.
Q-- And what was done?
A-- It was photographed.
Q-- Whereabout?
A-- At police headquarters at Strathclyde in Glasgow.
Q-- Thank you. Do you recollect who did that?
A-- I believe it was Roderick MacDonald, one of the scenes of crime officers at Strathclyde.
Q-- Thank you. Was the next stage in the inquiry to make contact again with Mr. Wheadon?
A-- That's correct, sir, yes.
Q-- And you explained to us that he was of the New England Laminates Company?
A-- That's correct.
Q-- And were they based in Lancashire?
A-- That's correct, sir.
Q-- Did you go to visit him?
A-- I did, yes.
Q-- And when you visited Mr. Wheadon at his own premises, did he make any request of you?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- What was that?
A-- He said to follow the examination, he would have to remove a cross-section of the board, if that was permissible.

Q-- And was he given permission to do that?
A-- He was, yes.
Q-- Did he do that personally, or did he require assistance from one of his colleagues?
A-- He had one of his colleagues remove the cross-section from it.
Q-- Thank you. Would you look for me at Label Number 415. And do you have Label 415, Inspector?
A-- I do, sir, yes.
Q-- Do you recognise it?
A-- Yes, I do.
Q-- As being?
A-- That's the part that was removed from the circuit board on the 14th of February (1990) at New England Laminates.

Q-- So this second sample was removed on the 14th of February?
A-- That's correct, yes.
Q-- Was the next stage in these inquiries to go to a company by the name of Yates Circuit Foils in Cumbria?
A-- It was, sir, yes.
Q-- And there did you meet a Mr. Whitehead?
A-- I did, yes.
Q-- And did you ask Mr. Whitehead to assist you in a further aspect of the investigation?
A-- We did, yes.
Q-- And did he in turn have a request to make?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- Which was what?
A-- To remove a sample of the copper foil from the board.

Q-- And was this request granted?
A-- It was, yes.
Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label Number 416. Do you recognise that, Inspector?
A-- Yes, sir, I do.
Q-- As being?
A-- That's the sample that was removed from the board at Yates Circuit Foils on the 15th of February.
Q-- Thank you. Did you attempt to follow up the inquiry made at Yates Circuit Foils by going to Strathclyde University?
A-- I did, sir, yes.
Q-- And there did you speak to a Dr. Rosemary Wilkinson?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- Did Dr. Wilkinson require to take any samples from the original fragment?
A-- No.
Q-- Having been to Strathclyde University, did you continue these inquiries by visiting a companyin Southampton?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- by the name of Gould Electronics?
A-- Yes, sir.

Q-- And was the purpose of going to Gould Electronics in order that they could examine the sample that had been removed at Yates Circuit Foils?
A-- That's correct, yes.
Q-- And that, you told me just a moment or two ago, was Label 416?
A-- Yes.
Q-- At Gould Electronics, did you deal with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lomer?
A-- Yes, I did.
Q-- When Mr. Lomer examined the sample, Label 416, was he able to assist?
A-- Not at that stage, no.
Q-- Did you understand why not?
A-- Yes.
Q-- What was your understanding of why he couldn't assist?
A-- That the sample that was on the examination plate, a small round plate, was no longer there. It was extremely small, and it would appear to have been dislodged from the examination plate.
Q-- Was the sample taken at Yates Circuit Foils capable of being observed with the naked eye?
A-- No. Not to my recollection, no.
Q-- I see. And so did Mr. Lomer make a request of you in order to attempt to assist further?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- And what was that?
A-- That was to remove another sample of the copper from the board.
Q-- And was he given permission to do so?
A-- He was, yes.
Q-- What size of sample are we talking about now?
A-- Again, a similar size to what was there previously, very small.
Q-- I see. Having taken that second small sample, was Mr. Lomer successful in his investigation?
A-- No, he was not.
Q-- Did he make a further request of you?
A-- He indicated that the sample he had removed was not suitable for examination because of the condition it was in. Something else was adhering to it.
Q-- Yes.
A-- And that to do the examination, he would have to get another sample of copper. However, he was unsure if he could be successful in doing that.
Q-- I see. So was that suggestion proceede with?
A-- No. We abandoned that side of things at that stage.
Q-- Thank you. Now, as a result of the inquiries that you've told us about to date, did you learn what the fragment was constructed from?
A-- The actual board, yes, sir.
Q-- What did you understand it to be constructed from?
A-- There was a number of layers of laminate made up the circuit board. The copper tracking was copper metal. There was also believed to be -- the silver metal on it was believed to be tin.
Q-- And a number of layers that you mentioned, did you understand them to be constructed of fibreglass?

Don't answer that question. It does appear, with respect, that the Crown is simply taking entirely hearsay evidence from the
witness, as far as I can see, My Lords. I just wonder what value that is to the Court at the end of the day.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Well, no doubt the Advocate Depute is leading to something when he is trying to find out what the state of the knowledge of the witness was. Of course we do not take evidence from this
witness that he knows that it was made of fibreglass. We are perfectly well aware of the rules of evidence, Mr. Keen.

MR. KEEN: I appreciate that, My Lord, but the witness has been asked about what he did with the piece; he's now being asked to express a view as to what he understood it was constructed from. So there has been a movement from a perfectly legitimate line of examination to the eliciting of what appears to be entirely hearsay evidence, in my respectful submission.

LORD SUTHERLAND: Advocate Depute, if you are eliciting evidence from this witness as to what he was told by other people, that, of course, is inadmissible, and we would have to sustain the objection.

Q-- And thereafter did you continue to visit other locations with the original fragment?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- Did you go to premises known as Morton International ?
A--Yes, I did.
Q-- And there did you see a gentleman by the name of Mr. Linsdell ?
A-- I did, yes.
Q-- And when you spoke to Mr. Linsdell, was he able to assist in any particular way?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- In order to assist you, did he have to make any request of you?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- Which was what?
A-- To remove a sample of the solder mask from the circuit board.

continuation after comment no. 2 >>>

MEBO Comment, No. 2:
All visits during 3 months at these companies should present the respectable investigations and a large impression, but he was a large "eyes wash" !
As can on that black "cabonize" MST-13 fragment, to be scraped off soldering stop lacquer ? Lacquer burns down first ! (doubtful, both sides of the original MST-13 of fragment, were without soldering stop lacquer. probably a further confusion)!

The entire forensic examinations at 6 private companies, served the confusion and the conversion of the formerly original, brown MST-13 fragment with the marking "M" on it, exchange with a green MST-13 fragment, without marking "M", was intentional !
All changes made in the MST-13 fragment, was alone in the command authority of Inspector William Williamson !

>>> continuation: Witness, number 261, Inspector Keith Harrower
Q-- I see. And as with the previous requests, was that acceded to?
A-- It was, yes.
Q-- Did Mr. Linsdell remove that sample himself, or was it one of his colleagues?
A-- One of his colleagues.
Q-- Was that a Mr. Rawlings?
A-- It was, yes.
Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label 418. And do you recognise that, Inspector?
A-- Yes, I do, sir.
Q-- Is that the sample removed by Mr. Rawlings?
A-- Yes, that's correct, on the 9th of March (1990).
Q-- On the 9th of March. Thank you. So we should understand that we have now moved through January, February, and into March in these inquiries?
A-- That's correct, sir, yes.
Q-- Having taken the advice of Mr. Rawlings, did you thereafter go to visit premises in Lancashire known as Ferranti International?
A-- Yes, I did.
Q-- And there did you speak to a gentleman, Mr. Worrol?
A-- Yes, I did.
Q-- Now, at this stage of the inquiry, did Mr. Worrol make any request regarding a fragment?
A-- No.
Q-- And did he give to you further suggestions as to what inquiry he might carry out?
A-- He did.
Q-- As a consequence, did you then go to Germany?
A-- I did so, yes.
Q-- And did you go to a company by the name of Siemens AG?
A-- Yes, sir.
Q-- There did you meet a gentleman, Herr Brosante?
A-- I did, sir, yes.
Q-- And did Mr. or Herr Brosante have a request to make of you?
A-- He did, yes.
Q-- Was that to remove another fragment -- or another sample, rather -- from the fragment?
A--Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q-- Was that acceded to?
A-- It was, yes.
Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label 419. Do you recognise that, Inspector?
A-- Yes.
Q-- As being?
A-- That's a sample that was removed in Munich, at Siemens.
Q-- And can you tell the date?
A-- Yes, sir, the 27th of April 1990.
Q-- Thank you. And did these inquiries into the source of the original fragment continue after this date, Inspector?
A-- Yes, they did.
Q-- Did you remain involved with them?
A-- No.
Q-- Did you move on to other inquiries?
A-- Shortly thereafter, I was returned to the force, with a number of other officers, when the inquiry was being scaled down.
Q-- And this aspect of this particular inquiry, was that continued by others?
A-- I believe so, yes.

May, of 1990:
Inspector Harrower and other officers returned with the results from Siemens AG, to Scotland.
At Strathclide police the result was played down and this particular inquiry was followed up by other police officers...

MEBO Comment, No. 3:
We hold, after the visit on 27. April 1990, with engineer Hans Brosamle, in Siemens AG, the MST-13 timer fragment were sawed into two parts. The larger part got the label No. 353 = PT-35(b), the smaller part label No. 419 = DP-31(a).
(Photo Prod. 342, and Siemens laboratory photo "ZPL TW11".

By order of Inspector William Williason, Inspector Keith Harrower was subsequently replaced in May 1990, by Detective Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson, Strathclyde police, witness no. 118, based in Glasgow.

To keep secret the change via the no. 353 from a brown to a green MST-13 fragment the continuity of the examinations from Keith Harrower to Inspector Michael Langford Johnson was thus interrupted!

Therefore practically the same investigations was made of Insp. Lang Ford Johnson, at the duplicate MST-13 fragment (no. 353) with help by another company, the Ferranti computer system company,…
See the witnesses statements from Insp. Longford-Johnson, down in the text...

The two Inspectoren William Williamson and Michael Langford Johnson, which were present with each change made in the MST-13 fragment and gave to Chief Chemist, Alan Worrol its "wishes"... Alan Worrol said it found at least on three occasions to the police. The last occasion something in the region of a year, perhaps, after the previous one.

The following investigation "scene" it is to prove that the new Inspector Langford Johnson had to work with a MST-13 Duplicate fragment ! Who had made this MST-13 duplicate, starting from of May 1990, could be not assumed until today …

After Edwin Bollier' s investigation of the different MST-13 fragments and illustrations in photos, to 15. - 17 September 1999, with the Lockerbie Criminal Trial team, in Dumfries Scotland, was obvious it for E.B. that the duplicate MST-13 fragment (PT-35(b) from a preparatory Thüring Circuit board was provided. Image U/7940.

This picture shows a green Thüring MST-13 PC-board. The curve "f" on the corner not yet being milled out indicates clearly that the PC-board does also not originate from a MST-13 timer ready for operation. A specific damage of material probably caused by an explosion on the solderpoint "r" indicates clearly that from this empty circuit board the green MST-13 fragment was fabricated.

The new green MST-13 fragment Duplicate, photographed on May 1990, slipped into the role of the first brown MST-13 fragment, photgaphed on January 1990, photo no. 334.
Only with the green fragment could be linked Libya to the PanAm 103 bombing!

Exerpt from the court protocol in Kamp van Zeist,
sworn statement by Detective Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson, Strathclyde police, witness no. 118:

Q-- And in May of 1990, did you assist in a particular line inquiry along with Detective Inspector Williamson?
A-- I did.
Q-- Was that into manufacture of a small fragment of printed circuit board?
A-- Yes, identified as (PT/35)---
Q-- In May of 1990, along with Mr. Williamson, did you go to the premises of Ferranti at Oldham?
A-- Yeah, Ferranti International Computers and System Limited.
Q-- There did you meet a gentleman by name of Mr. Worrol?
A-- By arrangement, that's correct.
Q-- Could you have before you, please, Label Nummer 353 and Label Nummer 419. Now, is Label 353, Inspector, the fragment of the printed cirquit board refered to by as PT/35?
A-- Yes. And it bears my signature on it as well.
Q-- Thank you. Now, is label number 419 apperently a sample moved from that fragment?
A-- It is. And it bears my signature on the label again, sir.
Q-- Thank you. When you spoke to Mr. Worrol on this occasion in May of 1990, did he require to do anything to any of the fragments that you took in order to assist you?
A-- Yeah. He required to take the solder mask off one side of the laminate in order that he could carry out further examination.
Q-- Now, of which item are you speaking?
A-- 419 is your reference number.
Q-- 419. That's the sample removed from the original fragment known as PT --
A-- Correct, giving the number DP/31.
Q-- Thank you. And do we understand, then, that you are explaining to us that Mr. Worrol had to do something with this cross-section area?
A-- Yes.
Q-- And you said he did something in relation to the solder mask?
A-- He removed it.
Q-- How do you know?
A-- I was there.

The following text is very much important, but at the present time, only in German language available;

Hereby it is proven that the FRAUD against Libya, was produced with a green MST-13 Duplicate !

Résumé: After the criminal preliminary work of witnesses concerned in the case of Lockerbie-Affair, abused the court in Kamp van Zeist, label number 353, for a concealment of the true; identity of the MST-13 timer fragment; after the following rows follow:

1.> Die Label No. 353 wurde nach dem 27. April 1990, einem Teilstück des original MST-13 Timer (PT-35) Fragments erstmals zugeteilt. (Siemens Besuch)

2.> Zeuge No. 261, Inspector Keith Harrower, wurde am Gericht mit einem Trick übezeugt, dass mit der Label No. 353, das komplette original MST-13 Fragment bezeichnet wurde, welches Insp. Harrower, zwischen Januar bis April 1990, in 6 private Spezial Firmen brachte, um das MST-13 Fragment forensisch zu untersuchen...

3.> Als Keith Harrower, durch Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson, ausgewechselt wurde, übergab man Langford-Johnson, Anfang Mai 1990, ein Duplikat, MST-13 Fragment. Dieses führte man am Gericht unter der gleichen Label No. 353! The new green fragment, photographed on May 1990, slipped into the role of the first brown fragment, photgaphed on January 1990. Only with the green fragment Libya could be linked to the PanAm 103 bombing!

4.> Zeuge No. 118, Johnson-Langford, und Chief Insp. William Williamson, besuchten mit dem Duplicate No. 353, die Firma Ferranty International Computers and Systems Limited. Dort wurden "zur Täuschung" am MST-13 Fragment gleiche Untersuchungen gemacht, wie zuvor am original MST-13 Fragment! Der Angestellte Allan Worrol, erklärte am Gericht, dass das zweite Teilstück No. 419 subsequently removed wurde! Die Label No. 419 wurde ebenfall für die zwei verschiedenen Teilstücke der MST-13 Fragmente missbraucht:

5.> Für das original MST-13 Teilstück, DP-31(a) = No. 419 (braune Farbe) welches am 27. April 1990, bei Fa. Siemens AG, als ganzes Teilstück entfernt wurde; und für das Duplikat MST-13 Teistück DP-31(a) grüne Farbe, welches während den Besuchen durch die Scotish Police, bei Mr. Worrol "subsequently removed" wurde!

(see testimonies, of witness, No. 581, Allan Worrol)

That Insp. Long Ford Johnson starting forensic examination after 12th of May 1990, with another MST-13 fragment (duplicate), confirms the following testimony at the court in Kamp van Zeist; witness no. 581, Alan Worrol, of Ferranti computer system company in Oldam:

+++ (Mr. Allan Worrol)
Q-- And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers?
A-- Yes.
Q-- And did they have with them items that they wanted you to examine?
A-- An item, yes.
Q-- Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board?
A-- Yes, it was.
Q-- Would you look for me, please, at Label 353, and perhaps also Label 419. Do you recognise these items, Mr. Worrol?
A-- Yes, I recognise 353. I presume that 419 is the piece that -- yes, the piece -- yes, I do.
Q-- And was that smaller piece in 419 already removed when you saw the fragment?
A-- No. No. It was removed subsequently.
Q-- I see. In order to assist the police, did you carry out an examination of the fragment?
A-- Yes. -----
Q-- And what did you go on to do in order to assist the police?
A-- We wanted to remove the fragment and examine it by microsection, look through a cross-section of a fragment of it containing cracks.
Q-- And did you do that?
A-- Well, I didn't -- I didn't remove the fragment. It was not -- it wasn't removed -- well, the police eventually came with a mounted microsection that had been removed from the fragment of the board.
Q-- By somebody else?
A-- Yes.
Q-- Now, was the removed section that they brought to you what you now have in Label 419?
A-- 419. I think it was a further fragment taken from that.
Q-- How many times did the police come to see you, do you think, Mr. Worrol?
A-- I can't exactly remember, but at least on three occasions.
Q-- I see. And was the last occasion something in the region of a year, perhaps, after the previous one? ------
(Mr. Allan Worrol)
Q-- And do you recollect in 1990 being visited by police officers?
A-- Yes.
Q-- And did they have with them items that they wanted you to examine?
A-- An item, yes.
Q-- Was the item a small fragment of a printed circuit board?
A-- Yes, it was.

At companies Siemens AG was already sawed the MST-13 fragment on 27 April 1990, into two parts, No. 353 and No. 419 !!!
The statements of Detective Inspector Michael Langford Johnson, Witness No. 118 opposite Witness No. 581, Alan Worrol, of company, Ferranti computer system in Oldam, do not thus agree ! (important difference)

September of 1990-2000:
Nach Ende September 1990, wurde für weitere polizeilichen Einvernahmen und später (2000) am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist, eine neue zuätzliche manipulierte Beweis-Foto vorgelegt !
Die Abbildung (PT-35'B) zeigte eine Zusammensetzung des MST-13 Fragments (Patchwork) bestehend aus dem grösseren grünen "Thüring" Duplikat-Teilstück PT-35(b) ohne Markierung "M" und dem kleineren braunen (Prototype) original Teilstück DP-31(a)...

Important court photos in this context: Photo No. 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 346.

MEBO say: None of this manipulated MST-13 timer fragments (PT-35) can be brought with Libya in connection.

by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Zurich/Switzerland