Memorandum, from Expert Allen Feraday, addressed to DI William Williamson, is dated September15th, 1989: This date seems to be faked.
1) Memorandum, from Expert Allen Feraday, addressed to DI William Williamson, dated September 15th, 1989, together with police label DP'137, dated September 10th. 1990, overwritten to September 15th, 1989. A Swiss graphologist came to the conclusion that the date on the label is overwritten.
The meaning and the date of the memorandum, written by expert Allen Feraday (RARDE), remains an unanswered question. This is a crucial point in the investigation of the case. If the above dates are compared with the statements in the FBI or BKA report then you realize that there is a crucial difference. (Prod. no.52)
2) Manipulated additional page No.51, in RARDE Report 181, shows the fake date - May 12th,1989 - as discovery date of a MST13 Timerfragment (PT35) in a Slalom Shirt; incl. photo with false date. (Foto no.117) Also this date is in contrast to the discovery date in the FBI and BKA documents. Prod. no.54)
3) Text Memorandum: "Willy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a short time.
I fread that the fragment could be potentially most important";
and goes on to say:
"So any light your lads/lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome" (Photo no.55/56)
Significant > supplement information on page part 6, /Q:
Why did the Polaroid Photos (according to the memorandum) have to be created in 15, September 1990, in such a short time?
As Di Williamson and his crew planned, suprising to visit 'BUPO' in Switzerland in September 1990, to inform with Polaroid Photos the 'BUPO' that the (MST13) timer fragment (after the visit of FBI laboratory in June 1990) was now definitive a "green colored" fragment (PT35) and not a "black carbonized (PT35) discovered in a slalom shirt at RARDE on 12 May 1989!
Mebo came to the conclusion that the memorandum has been re-written afterwards, with a wrong discovery date September 15, 1989, due to the following reasons. The first (black carbonised) fragment turned out - be from a handmade prototype and different from the machine made MST-13 timers (green coloured) delivered to Libya.
A green timer circuit board, had to be created which matched the MST-13 timers delivered to Libya.
This new fragment (PT35) was exchanged before June 1990, for the forensic comparison at FBI Laboratory. in Washington, and on September 1990, in short time photographed on Polaroidphoto for the provided visit to 'BUPO' in Switzerland)
A complicated task as the original fragment (PT35) as found in a Slalom shirt in the Lockerbie area was sawn into two parts (DP31/a) and (PT35/a) by Siemens Munich on April 27th, 1990.
The original date written by hand on the police label DP'137, by Dumfries & Galloway Const. was Monday, September 10th,1990, then changed back to September 15th, 1989, because the switch from 1990 to 1989, would have revealed that September 10th is a Sunday and not a working day.
Since September 10th. was changed to September 15th, it shows that the earlier date on the label was correct, and was deliberately changed to September 15th, 1989.
It can therefore be assumed that the memorandum had the same date of September 10th, 1990, as the police label DP'137 of September 10th, 1990.
4) It is outrageous that at the court in Kamp van Zeist in the "Lockerbie trial", only questioned the witnesses Dr. Thomas Hayes, (RARDE) and Detective Inspector William Williamson, in detail about the controversial memorandum by expert Feraday, although Hayes said:
"Well, I think probably it would be better to put that question to Mr. Feraday, as he wrote the memo. I would rather not speculate"!.
Mr. Feraday was never questioned by the court about this crucial subject. One could come to the conclusion that the court intentionally avoided to hear clarifying statements by witness Allen Feraday They missed an opportunity to find further irregularities in the fraud of evidence!
5) Q&A Compilation: Questioning of Witness THOMAS HAYES, under oath at the court in Kamp van Zeist 1999.
A further oddity is Production 333. Image 1, memorandum:
It was shown to Dr. Hayes on day 16, page 2602 to 3. a memorandum by Allen Feraday to Detective Inspector Williamson, dated September 15th, 1989, referring to a fragment of green circuit board:
"Willy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a short time".
Dr. Hayes was unable to explain why there should have been any shortage of time to make available in September 1989 photographs of an item which had been found on May 12th, 1989. You can see that onday 16, page 2604, line 1, to 2607, line 5.
Question: "Enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board".
Do you see that?
Answer: Yes, I do.
Question: Let us assume that that is the piece of circuit board which is now designated PT 35 letter B.
Question: And I think we will in due course see that that can be related to the diameter of the curvature of the edge?
Answer: Yes. then goes on:
Question: "Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in a short time."
Now, that, Dr. Hayes, is written in September 1989.
Question: Apparently some four months after you've recovered this fragment, examined it, and recorded it at page 51 of your notes?
Answer: That's how it appears to be, yes.
Question: Can you explain why there should be such a problem about photography or a consideration of a short time if in fact you'd recovered this fragment four months earlier?
Answer: No, I can't. I'm sorry.
Question: Well, let's go on to the next paragraph for a moment, Dr. Hayes: I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important, so any light your lads or lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome.
Do you see that, Dr. Hayes?
Answer: Yes, I do.
Question: Now, what light do you think "the lads and lasses" could shed upon something which they clearly hadn't seen if you had recovered it from the collar of a shirt?
Answer: Well, I think probably it would be better to put that question to Mr. Feraday, as he wrote the memo. I would rather not speculate.
[Mebo comment: Mr. Feraday was never questioned on this subject.}
Question: Well, you wrote the examination
notes that are now paginated as page 51, did you not, Dr. Hayes?
Answer: I certainly did.
Question: And you record in those notes on page 51 that PT 35B was trapped in the collar of a shirt or in a piece of material?
Question: Do you not?
Answer: Yes, I did. Yes.
Question: So that fragment could not, presumably, have come to light, so far as the police were concerned, prior to it being extracted from the cloth by yourself?
Answer: That is correct, yes.
Question: It would follow that it could not have been seen by the police prior to the cloth being passed to you at RARDE and the article being extracted by you from the trapped area of material?
Answer: I'm sure that is the case. (Foto no.117)
Question: So you can cast no light, however, despite that background, on the second paragraph of this memo?
Answer: I'm sorry, I can't, no.
Question: Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI 995 and the trapped material in May 1989, Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?
Answer: I would imagine that he would, yes, most definitely.
Question: And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr. Hayes?
Answer: It is most unlikely that they would be, no.
Question: I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?
Answer: No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time, no. To sum up this chapter just before the short adjournment, there is evidence which suggests that some productions were interfered with before they reached RARDE, and the label relating to PI 995 was irregularly and inexplicably altered.
Mebo comment: Dr. Hayes seemed to have no real recollection about details of his notes concerning the discovery of the 'PT35' fragment. The sequence of the PT numbering and the absence from the notes of a drawing of the circuit board are unusual features.
The pagination of the notes was described by Hayes as "an unfathomable mystery", for which he did propose an explanation, but unfortunately one that does not work.
The memorandum of September 15th, 1989 is difficult to understand if the fragment was allegedly found on May 12th, 1989.
End, about MEMORANDUM at the court in Kamp van Zeist!
And that would be a convenient moment.
LORD SUTHERLAND: We'll adjourn for lunch.
6) Q&A Compilation: Questioning of Witness 994 William Williamson, Chief Inspector, Scottish Police., under oath at the court in Kamp van Zeist 1999.
Question: And if I can just quote this following account: "In early September 1990, members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team, together with officers of the British Security Service, were making arrangements to travel to Switzerland.
Their intention was to meet members of the Swiss police and intelligence service. The purpose of the meeting was to take forward a line of inquiry suggesting that the company MEBO might have been the manufacturers of the MST 13 timing device. Such a device had already been identified as forming part of the improvised explosive device responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103.
Prior to the departure of these officers, a request was made by the CIA to the British Security Service to deter or delay" -- I'll read that again -- "to deter or delay the members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making the visit.
"This request was refused, and the visit proceeded as planned. Separately, officers of the CIA met with the Swiss police and intelligence service on the day before the visit made by the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team and the British Security Service."
Question Now, Mr. Williamson, were you made aware of these steps to deter or delay the members of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making the visit to Switzerland?
Answer: Absolutely not, sir.
Question: These were never disclosed to you?
Answer: I have no knowledge of that information you've just read out whatsoever.
Question: Was it disclosed to you that the day before you met with the Swiss police and intelligence services on the first visit the CIA had already met with them?
MR. TURNBULL (Defence): Don't answer that. My Lord, there is an assumption built in there which may or may not be accurate, and it is that this witness attended Switzerland on the occasion that Mr. Keen is referring to in his account. And I think MR. KEEN: If I can approach it in this way.
Question: Mr. Williamson, do you know of any other police officers involved as members of the Lockerbie inquiry team who visited Switzerland for the purposes of identifying whether MEBO were manufacturers of the MST 13 timer other than yourself?
Answer: Could you repeat that question?
Qestion: Yes. It wasn't a very good question, Mr. Williamson. In the period in the latter part of 1990, when you were going to make inquiries in Switzerland as to whether MEBO were the manufacturers of the MST 13 Timer, are you aware whether any other police officer who was a member of the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team made a separate visit to Switzerland to the one you made?
Answer: Yes, I am aware of that, sir. Yes.
Question: And do you know when this other visit was made ?
Answer: No, sir. But it was prior to my visit.
(MEBO comment: It seems that the Scottish officials or US/UK authorities have visited Eng.Lumpert at the Mebo Lab in Zurich. End of 1989 before X-mas. Mr.Lumpert says that someone brought the fragment and he made scratch marks and the letter “M” on it. It appears to be a secret mission because at this time there was no International legal assistance in place.)
Question: And do you know when this prior visit was made to Switzerland?
Answer: The exact date, no, I have no idea, sir.
(MEBO comment: The date was August 18th to 26th, 1990, after the visit at the US FBI-Laboratory (on June 1990) by the Scots incl. DI William Williamson.
In August, 1990, some Scottish officers visited “BUPO” in Switzerland & BKA in Germany. After the forensic comparison of the "new” fragment with the so called "TOGOtimer" - they visited again Siemens in Munich and showed them the “new” MST13 Circuit Board, (green coloured) and doublesided covered with "Solder Mask" . (Photo no.)
(Info. BKA, Meckenheim, 20.08.90 ST 33 - 068507/88 HR: 2342)
Mebo has reasons to believe that in this period of time, they presented a “new” fake fragment, made of materials from Thüring. At this time “BUPO” must have had access to this “new” fragment and they came to the conclusion that it was not the Original fragment as they have seen it on early pictures. This comment is based on a statement/letter signed by Bundesanwalt Lehmann.
Question: I see. Did you meet with Swiss police when you went to Switzerland?
Answer: Yes, sir.
(MEBO comment: Up to the year 2000 the 'BUPO' organisation, included Federal Police and the domestic intelligence service. Nicknamed “Janus face”...
Question: Do you know if members of the Swiss intelligence service were also present at such a meeting?
Answer: No, sir.
(MEBO comment: BUPO = domestic secret service and Federal Police)
Question: You don't know, or they weren't?
Answer: Well, they weren't identified as such, sir, if any person was there.
Question: Was it disclosed to you that prior to your visit, the CIA had met with the Swiss police and intelligence services?
Answer: No, sir.
Question: Was it ever disclosed to you why the CIA might have wanted to deter the Scottish Lockerbie inquiry team from making their visit to Switzerland?
Answer: No, sir, I didn't ever know that they did do.
Question: Thank you, Mr. Williamson.
I have no further questions, My Lord.
MEBO remarks: Based on Ulrich Lumperts statement in a Filmdocument there is reason to believe that officers from Scotland or member of US authorities made a visit to Ulrich Lumpert at the MEBO Lab before X-Mas 1989.
At this time he made the scratch marks and the letter "M" on the Original fragment as discovered at the RARDE Lab. Lumpert was not able (or not ready) to recall who brought the fragment. Ing.Lumpert must be interrogated by Scottish Police in accordance with international legal assistance by the swiss authorities. (Video Ing.Lumpert)
7) Key assumptions by Mebo about the confusion around the MST-13 fragment.
In order to blame Libya for the Lockerbie air disaster an extraordinary fraud of evidence lead to a wrong verdict. 3 different MST-13 fragments , at different times, created an incredible confusion and the court was mislead by false statements.
> Fact is – based on statements in FBI and BKA documents: Starting January 16th, 1990, at RARDE, Forensic expert Dr. Thomas Hayes discovered in a Slalom shirt a (1) black a Timerfragment. (Carbonized on both sides). This was the MST-13 Timerfragment as allegedly found at an earlier date in the Lockerbie area. On Photo No 117 & 334 you can see the fragment and the 3 scratch marks and the letter “M” on it.
> Fact is: April 27th, 1990, the first MST-13 Timerfragment (we call it the the real original (PT35) fragment) was brought to Siemens in Germany. They cut/sawn the fragment in two (2) pieces, (PT35/a) and (DP31/a). The Timer was now a patchwork.
The two fragment pieces (PT35/a) & (DP31/a) have been delivered to the Trail Team in Dumfries. They put them in two different glas tubes and sealed both. (Photo 4 KT)
> Started June 12th, 1990, SIO Chef Stuart Henderson, und DI William Williamson (Scottish Police) Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) und Mr. MacLean visited the FBI Laboratory in Washington. They brought a „fake“ MST-13 Timer for an important forensic comparison with the so called Togo-Timer.(K-1”) (Foto HZ).
For the fabrication of this Timerfragment (green coloured with solder mask on both sides, the same Thüring material was used as delivered to Libya. Of course the comparison showed positive results.
If they would have brought the Original MST-13 fragment for a comparison, the result would have been very different because this prototype was never delivered to Libya. At the time of the 1:1 comparison the original was already cut into two pieces. It looks as the trick worked and they were now ready to blame the Libyans.
> September 15th – 17th, 1999, Edwin Bollier, Erwin Meister and Ing. Ulrich Lumpert travelled to Dumfries in order to examine for the very first time the two fragment parts of the MST-13 timer.
The larger part was now „green coloured“ and not „black carbonized“ as before at the time of the Siemens cutting session. The smaller part (DP31/a) was still „black carbonized“ (see Police Protocol made by Scottish Police Dumfries, about Bollier's observations and comments.) (Photo No. 275)
> At the court in Zeist, June 2000, Edwin Bollier was a witness and was questioned about his observations in Dumfries. In Zeist they brought the two MST-13 fragments to the desk in front of him. Bollier saw the two fragments as seen in Dumfries – „green“ and „black carbonized“. He was telling the court that he has the impression that the smaller part is now even more burnt as before...The larger part was green and not carbonized.
All the facts and thesis in this report are based on intensive research by Mebo and shared with Operation Sandwood in order to find the people who are responsible for the various manipulations in the Lockerbie case.