By Dr. Ludwig de Braeckeleer ——Bio and Archives--July 2, 2011
Guns-Crime-Terror-Security | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
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.
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.
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?
View Comments
Ludwig De Braeckeleer has a Ph.D. in nuclear sciences. Ludwig teaches physics and international humanitarian law. He blogs on “The GaiaPost.”