Was Lockerbie Key Evidence Antedated?
Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?
Q Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right? A Yes. But presumably our definitions of "contemporaneous" are different. --Testimony of Dr Hayes at the Lockerbie trial, Page 2592.The discovery of a tiny fragment of a Swiss timer played an essential role in the Lockerbie investigation. In fact, according to the FBI agent who led the US part of the investigation, an indictment would have been impossible without that piece of evidence.
We can now reveal with certainty that this piece of evidence was not discovered in May 1989 as officially stated but in fact surfaced in the fall of 1989. According to the official line, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found, on 13 January 1989, a piece of charred material which was given the police number PI/995. The original inscription on the label was "Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’.
Q Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered? A I can see writing underneath it. Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word ”debris,” we can make out, can we not, the word ”cloth,” with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of ”debris,” and a T under the R, and a H under the S? A It’s possible, yes, sir. Q It’s more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it? A Yes. 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.
The judges concluded that “There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing. According to his examinations notes, Dr Hayes examined this item on May 12 1989 and, after dissection of the material described as part of the neckband of a grey shirt, he extracted a fragment of a green colored circuit board.
Page 51 is actually a loose leaf stapled to the examination book and the original pages 51 to 55 have been renumbered 52 to 56. There is no drawing of the fragment on page 51.
There is something very peculiar about PI/995. In his report, Dr Hayes presents photos 116 and 117 as pictures of PI/995 before and after its dissection that led to the discovery of the MEBO timer.
At the trial, Dr Hayes confirmed that information. The exchange went as follows.
Q Could we return to the report now, please. And if we could have photograph 116 on the screen, that's of Production 181. Do we see "PI/995" in the bottom centre of the photograph? A Yes, sir. Q And the report tells us that, "This is a severely damaged fragment of grey cloth which is shown after its partial dissection in photograph 117, and at the bottom centre of photograph 116 (before dissection)." A Yes, sir. Q Are we seeing it, then, before dissection in this photograph? A Yes, sir.Dr Hayes examined PK339 and PK 1973 on May 22 1989. PK1978 was examined on October 10 1989.
Therefore it is rather obvious that PI/995 could not have been dissected before October 10 1989. And the key piece of evidence that led the investigation towards Libya could not have surfaced before that date.
The US investigators (FBI) were told about it for the first time on January 10 1990.
The consequence is inescapable and indisputable. The key piece of "evidence" surfaced between October 10 1989 and January 10 1990. For some reason, this finding was antedated to May 12 1989.
Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?Read next: Evidence Showing Criminal Intent Around Property I Protected For Seven Years
View Comments
Dr. Ludwig de Braeckeleer——Bio and Archives
Ludwig De Braeckeleer has a Ph.D. in nuclear sciences. Ludwig teaches physics and international humanitarian law. He blogs on “The GaiaPost.”