10 October 2010
last update 24 Oct
Yet another problem with the science of Lockerbie, discussed for years but never resolved, is page 51 of the examination notes from Dr. Thomas Hayes and the anomalies surrounding it. Hayes was the chief explosives experts for RARDE (Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment), making the often lone examination of all explosives-related evidence of the Lockerbie bombing. If Hayes vouches for it, it was in the blast. Even PK/689.
Page 51 deals with his supposed 12 May 1989 examination of the pivotal tiimer fragment, PT/35(b). But the page appears to have been inserted after the fact. As Paul Foot wrote in his seminal 2000 booklet Lockerbie: Flight From Justice:
The fragment lay in a store with quantities of other material at least until May 1989 when it was examined by Dr Thomas Hayes at RARDE. Dr Hayes saw nothing specially relevant in the fragment, and apparently did nothing about it. His own note about his examination originally appeared on page 51 of his notes. The following pages were originally numbered 51-55, but the numbers were overwritten later to 52-56. Dr Hayes was never able to explain this re-numbering. [p 11]
At trial Richard Keen, for the accused, questioned Hayes about this:
To be fair, he did then offer by way of explanation that he must have misnumbered page 52 as 51, and so on for a few pages, but corrected it later. It's one possibility, and apparently a coincidence that it occurred right after this most pivotal discovery. Perhaps the contents of page 51 were so humdrum he forgot the whole thing, turned a new leaf and numbered it 51.Q Now, when was that change in pagination carried out, Dr. Hayes?
A I'm sorry, I have no idea.
Q Why was it carried out, Dr. Hayes?
A I agree, it's a very good question. I'm sure there is a quite innocent explanation, which I have no idea of.
There is some controversy over the policy at RARDE, where bound examination books had once been the standard. But as of Hayes' work on this case, they were using loose-leaf books. Perhaps not coincidentally, this would make it easier (possible) to insert pages out-of-order.
Dr. Hayes’ examination notes were discussed in some depth at trial in 2000. The main point in questioning was to establish the unusual sequence of numbers and dates, with little or no reference to the page contents.
Page 48 is not discussed, but presumably dealt with work from 15 March, 1989, since the following page (49) starts there. What was examined isn’t clear, but the next item below it is PI/991, a damaged suitcase, exam dated exactly two months later, 15 May, suggesting a break just that long. Using a number format, it jumps from 15/3 to 15/5, so perhaps he 5 is just a goof?
Well, the page ends there and the next page is dated 12 May. An actual two-month break just after the apparent one? (Nothing is given of page 50's contents, and we don't know what his notebook shows for the first thing(s) he looked at after vacation.) Following the incongruous page 50, the pivotal page 51 continues 12 May’s work. Below is what seems to be scan of it from court productions, posted by Edwin Bollier at one of his Mebocom pages (new window for fuller view).
That day, the page says, a scrap of shirt collar called PI/995 is examined and yields a treasure trove of pinpoint clues. Their numbering is strange – all but one are listed under PT/35 (PT/35(a), etc...) and originally, the lump of radio manual is lettered (d), with marginal note of its (later?) designation, PT/2, far out of sequence. The control sample it was compared to, the intact manual, was first dubbed PT/1, even though PT is a prefix otherwise used for evidence found within other crime evidence, like PT/35. (PT/1 was later re-named to PR/1111 for unclear reasons, but PT/2 became official).
Note the paper bits of PT/2 are all carefully sketched, perhaps a clue to the name change (opening the way for PT/2(a), etc.) But the "green circuit board" PT/35(b) is not sketched, despite being by far the largest and most dramatic bit of electronics found anywhere in their work. "Photo" in the margin is checked, and as Rolfe reminds me in the comments, the photo of all items displayed (see below) was apparently taken just before this exam, and it shows the fragment still bunched up. But the date of that photo hasn't been proven, and the fragment was not followed up on in any other way until at least mid-September. A strange lack of recognition indeed, if this thing really was logged back on 12 May, and considering deputy Feraday's intense interest in all electronics.
Following 51 come the scored-out pages 51 52, 52 53, 53 54, 54 55, and 55 56, all dealing with the prolific 15 May. Finally the renumbering stops and a date change occurs to 16 May from pages 57 on. Thus the sequence, using "final" page numbers, runs thus:
49: 15 March / 15 May
50: 12 May
51: 12 May
52: 15 May ...
Dr. Hayes for his part explained that he had originally left the bottom half of page 49 blank, took a two month hiatus, and resumed on fresh pages 50 and 51 on 12 May, a Friday as it turns out. On Monday the 15th, he filled in the following pages with the wrong numbers, and somewhere along the way, also filled in the bottom of page 49 with some of that day's work. He didn't recall all of this, but presumed that must be what happened, as strange and unusual as that is. Because clearly he'd never destroy old pages to make room for backdated new ones.
Looked at more suspiciously, and if we take page 49 as the original start of 15 May’s work after exactly two months off, at least two things jump out. First, it would seem there was no examination 12 May as related on pages 50 and 51. Second, the 15th resumes only on page 52 (originally 51). Obviously implied is a missing original page 50 of 15 May.
The new page 51, however, didn't replace its predecessor, just re-numbered it. And the raising of pages 51-55 can’t avoid an effect on later pages – the new 56 bumps up against the old (or at least non-scored) page 57. Since the new 56 was once 55, that suggests further a missing original page 56, dealing with either 15 or 16 May.
So the appearance here is that two pages were inserted – 50 and 51 as it stands - and two pages were removed – the originals of 50 and 56. Was their replacement just to give space for the supposed work of 12 May, or did they also contain something best deleted?
---
See the comments below for further discussion.
15 comments:
Adam, could I expand a bit on this, specifically about the photography?
Although there seems to be no individual photo of the green fragment taken on 12th May, a photograph was taken, as noted in the margin. This is agreed by Hayes in his testimony to be the red-circle photo showing the collar with all the items recovered from it, and the timer fragment very prominent.
The crucial point about this photo is that it must have been taken during the course of the examination detailed by Hayes on (new) page 51. It was taken after the fragments of plastic and so on were prised out of the cloth, and before the individual pages of the radio manual fragment were teased out. This is clear from the fact that the paper fragment appears as a single wad, but further down the page Hayes describes separating the leaves and sketching the marks on them.
It thus becomes vitally important to know the date on which that photo was taken. If it could be established to be 12th May, then suspicions that the page was a later interpolation would be pretty much laid to rest. However, if the photo's negative can't be verified to that date, or if indeed it was a polaroid (which Edwin Bollier insists it is, for what it's worth), then I think that adds a lot of weight to the suspicions.
At Zeist, Mr. Keen raised this point, though as far as I can see he didn't realise the picture must have been taken contemporaneously with the examination.
Extract from court transcript, original page numbers in square brackets.
Q Coming back to page 51 of your examination notes, Dr. Feraday [he meant Hayes]. Do we see that at the top of page 51, beside the reference to a portion of neckband of a grey shirt, there is inserted in the margin the word "photo," with a tick beside it?
A Yes, we do. [2600]
Q And what would that represent?
A That would represent my concern that at some stage the item should be photographed. And I believe the tick means the job was done. It was photographed.
Q And is that entry made beside the portion of neckband because the photograph represented the neckband as it was received by you?
A I could only answer "Probably." I can't recall clearly.
Q Well, let us look further down the margin on the left-hand side of that page, Dr. Hayes. Do we not see there again the entry "photo" with a tick beside it?
A Yes, we do.
Q And would that not represent the taking of a photograph in respect of the particular matters referred to immediately to the right of that entry?
A That seems reasonable, yes.
Q Would that not have been your actual practice, Dr. Hayes?
A Well, the practice I have described already, which is to remind me to take a photograph at an appropriate time, and the tick to indicate the job had been performed. Unfortunately, it doesn't help -- [2601] advise me precisely when that was undertaken.
Q I wonder if we could have on the screen Production 181, photograph 117, [the red-circle photo]. [....]
Q And I think, as you mentioned this morning, this is intended to be a photographic representation of the piece of cloth, which is designated PI/995, and the material which you refer to as having been trapped therein; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q It must have been a very full piece of cloth when you received it, Dr. Hayes.
A A very full piece of cloth to contain all these component parts?
Q Indeed.
A I would agree.
Q If we look at photograph 117, would it not be fair to observe that the item that stands out most strikingly is that piece of green-coloured circuit board which appears to have on it the letter "1"? [2602]
A On this photograph it does appear to stand out, yes. I agree.
Q And you would be able, as a forensic scientist, to identify that as a piece of circuit board?
A Yes, I would. [....]
[ .... to be continued .... ]
[ .... continued .... ]
Q Now, if, Dr. Hayes, you had discovered this fragment of green circuit board in May 1989 and had the opportunity to enter it in your examination notes at that time, can you explain why Mr. Feraday had no time but to obtain a Polaroid photograph for the purposes of reference to Detective Inspector Williamson?
A I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. You are concerned about a time scale involved here, are you?
Q Well, I think the question is quite clear, is it not, Dr. Hayes? But, lest you be in any doubt, let us go back to the terms of the memorandum [2604] itself. It states: "Enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board." Do you see that?
A Yes, I do. [....]
Q And it then goes on: "Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a short time." Now, that, Dr. Hayes, is written in September 1989.
A Yes.
Q Apparently some four months after you've recovered this fragment, examined it, and recorded it at page 51 of your examination notes?
A That's how it appears to be, yes.
Q 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?
A No, I can't. I'm sorry. [2605] [....]
Q Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI/995 and the trapped material in May 1989, that Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?
A I would imagine he would, yes. Most definitely.
Q And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr. Hayes?
A It's most unlikely they would be, no.
Q I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would [2607] be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?
A No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time. No.
Q So just to summarise your position on PT/35 B, according to the examination notes at page 51, this was discovered by you on the 12th of May 1989?
A Yes, it was.
Q Do you actually recall finding this fragment in the cloth which is referred to as PI/995? [....]
A I would prefer not to rely upon my recollections but, rather, to rely upon something more concrete.
Q Do I take it, then, that you have to rely upon what is written at page 51 of your examination notes and not your own recollection of this event?
A What is written on page 51 and the photograph, which, of course, does stir memories.
Q When you refer to "the photograph," are you referring to photograph 117 in the report 181?
A Yes, I am.
Q And when was that photograph taken, Dr. Hayes?
A Well, I'm sure the information is [2609] available, but I can't answer your question from 815
my own knowledge.
Q I see.
[ .... to be concluded .... ]
[ .... conclusion .... ]
LORD MACLEAN: Could I ask you one question about that: Did you take the photographs yourself, or were they arranged to be taken by someone else?
A All the photographs, to my knowledge, My Lord, were taken by our senior photographer, Stephen Haines, as appropriate, under my own supervision.
LORD MACLEAN: Thank you.
MR. KEEN:
Q And do you know if the photographs which appear on the report 181 were taken as a complete set, or simply taken over a period of time related to your examination?
A I don't think necessarily that either of your suggestions is true. I think what the situation was more likely to have been was the majority of the photographs were taken close to the time of an examination, but there would be some, particularly composite photographs and those relating to examination of some control samples, which may have been taken at a date later than when the examination of the component parts was carried out.
Extract ends.
So near and yet so far. Hayes's evasiveness is quite blatant. It's extremely difficult to imagine he didn't realise that photo represents an intermediate stage in the examination detailed on page 51. It seems that nobody has asked to see the provenance of the negative the photo. However, Hayes has carefully left open two loopholes in case they do. He hasn't denied that it's a polaroid, and he has suggested that it might have been taken "at a later date" (as it could be described as a composite).
This is the extent of the enquiry into the provenance of the photo. Sephen Haines didn't give evidence, and nobody asked for the negative to be traced.
I think it was taken in September, I think Hayes took it himself, and I think it may be a professional-quality polaroid.
And I think Hayes is a lying toerag.
Ooh, goody, informative comments!
I did kind of forget some of the details as I traced out this thing with two, not one, page inserted. What I missed otherwise is peripheral to this post, but this stuff looks good.
Indeed, the paper fragments are separated in the drawing, and lumped together in the photo, nicely suggesting the photo was earlier yet than 12 May. Except... the paper seems backdated, the photo - well we haven't seen the negatives yet - and the order - how do we know these were lumped and then spread out? What if he drew them and then wadded them up and took the photo?
(weird thought I just had)
But more on point, now that you're shining your brain-lights on the transcripts...
(next comment)
I've updated the post, sorry your corrections will seem out of place now.
I note the order of operations - note it for photo later (as received) and later check it off. pull everything out and suggest a photo, later checked. break down the papers and sketch them then, suggest a photo.
A Well, the practice I have described already, which is to remind me to take a photograph at an appropriate time, and the tick to indicate the job had been performed. Unfortunately, it doesn't help -- [2601] advise me precisely when that was undertaken.
After he got in his time machine? This page has all steps and it's dated for one day. I'd like to see the photo of that stuffed collar, looking like Sant's bag of toys for all the good boys of the investigation.
So You say:
So near and yet so far. Hayes's evasiveness is quite blatant. It's extremely difficult to imagine he didn't realise that photo represents an intermediate stage in the examination detailed on page 51. It seems that nobody has asked to see the provenance of the negative the photo. However, Hayes has carefully left open two loopholes in case they do. He hasn't denied that it's a polaroid, and he has suggested that it might have been taken "at a later date" (as it could be described as a composite).
That's good. Yes. He did a little of everything for different reasons that can't be explained, and who can recall just what and when? It's a safe approach for a dishonest person. Very few categorical statements.
This is the extent of the enquiry into the provenance of the photo. Sephen Haines didn't give evidence, and nobody asked for the negative to be traced.
The Negatives should be demanded in any appeal. Who knows, if viewed in the right order they may show Hayes planting this stuff - first flattened papers, then the lump with the other fake materials with a brought-in collar, then all stuffed inside, and heck, why not another showing the whole thing laying next to a tree.
Otherwise, for all we know:
I think it was taken in September, I think Hayes took it himself, and I think it may be a professional-quality polaroid.
And I think Hayes is a lying toerag.
That would be smarter. If no negatives are found, or the photo is a Polaroid, well, that fits pretty well with the loose-leaf MO. A system designed to accommodate fudge and obfuscation and back-dated insertions.
This is not a good sign for the integrity of the investigation, no ma'am it's not.
Adam, the paper has not been wadded back up for the photo. That's just silly. Look at the shape, dammit! He took the photo, then teased out the paper.
Help me out here. What does page 50 actually say?
Is it just silly? I didn't mean seriously, but I thought it was a thought that ... with tweezers or something ... well, nevermind.
What does page 50 say? I was curious myself, but I don't think it was explained, and we've got no scan. Let me double-check my handy 3300 page condensed Zeist PDF...
hold on, it's indexing...
Q I wonder if we could begin by turning to page 51 in the examination notes. And do we
see that that entry is dated 12th May 1989?
A Yes, we do.
Q And that it refers to material identified as PI/995?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And if we go over to the preceding page, do we see that that is page 50? Do you see
that?
A Yes, I do. [2578]
Q And that it too is dated 12th May 1989?
A Yes.
Q If we go back to page 51 and turn over to the next page, we find that that is dated 15th
May 1989, do we not?
A Yes, we do.
Q And we find that it was paginated as 51, but that the pagination has been changed to 52?
A That's possibly a possible interpretation.
Q Well, let us not detain ourselves with possibilities, Dr. Hayes. If we can perhaps magnify
the very top of that page on the screen, we can see fairly clearly, can we not, that a "2" has
been overwritten?
A I was going to say that and the subsequent few pagesI'm not sure why.
...
I was trying once to assemble his exam notes and the final report like I did with Marshman's, as much as possible. Scanning where they read from it and mention pages, this section, wherever I could, didn't find page 50's contents yet. I won't say it's not in there... I'll try 12th May.
Ah!
The headings for each of the three columns are, firstly, indictment
number; secondly, location recovered -- the numbers referred to are grid references -- and,
thirdly, the date recovered.
243, Dextar within PK 37, 12th May 1989.
Seems to be a pair of trousers, found within another production, a suitcase, I guess. Nothing about explosives or anything, but there's a plastic bag that might be a health hazard (?) and it's somehow "special interest." It's at p 1097.
So p 51 was taken up completely with the cornucopia of PI/995 and, if this lines up with his exam, he looked at PK 37 is the or an other item looked at on the only other 12 May page, page 50. It also appears inserted after the fact, in the sense outlined above.
Interesting, might look closer later.
Mmmm. What page does the radio manual appear on? Gwen Horton's, I mean. Or even the comparison one from Japan, whatever.
Rolfe, too lazy to research it right now.
It was 16 May, after the re-numbered pages. I'm not going to see which page, but it can't be 50. That's what I was hoping at first. :)
Wasn't there something really crucial examined on 11th May? Can you remember what it was? Was that many pages back?
Wasn't there something really crucial examined on 11th May? Can you remember what it was? Was that many pages back?
Not by this sequence, which maybe I should re-summarize above. From page 49 on, using "final" numbers, it goes:
49: 15 March / 15 May
50: 12 May
51: 12 May
52: 15 May ...
then later the 16th and I think staying in order.
So, if you could find a source for an 11 May examination, that would be interesting. Otherwise, you must've just got something mixed up.
I'm probably mistaken, perhaps remembering the date something actually arrived in Kent.
Writing 15/5/89 instead of 15/3/89 would be a very unsual mistake, I think.
I feel like a dummy for forgetting where you got 11 May from:
Q What it is saying there is that this item was received at RARDE on 11/5/89, and then passed to a DC Jordan on the same date for non-destructive fingerprints, and then returned to RARDE on 16th May, passed to DC Jordan on 16th May for chemical treatment after photography –
A [Hayes] It does say all of that, yes, sir.
By the notebook, this was the last Thursday of Hayes' hiatus. He examined two items the following day it says, neither of them this one. Not until 16/5.
So where is this going?
Sorry, that was in reference to PK/689. As I just noted elsewhere, David Leppard reported that this thing sat in the store at Dexstar until August 1989.
And there are the other records read at trial suggesting it was first received 30 June. Weird stuff. I'll try and sort it out on another pass later on.
On item 243 found within PK/37, the special interest health hazard - I didn't look close enough. No explosives relevance is mentioned, and that's what Hayes was looking at. Also it's actually found at Dextar, not RARDE. So it's just a coincidence of days.
Who might be on better terms to see if Edwin's goth other pages from this report? I might try.
Post a Comment