tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post4454311119613041764..comments2023-10-25T05:21:38.824-07:00Comments on The Lockerbie Divide: After the Break-InCaustic Logichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-12320004329660648832011-04-05T14:29:28.838-07:002011-04-05T14:29:28.838-07:00For completeness, I'll post something I posted...For completeness, I'll post something I posted on JREF the other day. It's about the way the case was packed and its orientation in the container.<br /><br />Bedford says the case he saw was placed with its spine towards him and its handle facing into the container. We know the bomb suitcase was placed the same way, because of where its handle and spine were recovered. Interesting observation in its own right, really.<br /><br />Paul Foot reproduces the court exhibit photo of the "trial loading" of the bomb suitcase, where the cops packed an identical case with duplicates of the items that were believed to have been in it. In that photo the radio-cassette player is packed across the back, against and in line with the spine. This is obviously wrong, however.<br /><br />If the case was placed as the forensics describe it, then the radio must have been packed at right angles to that, along the side that was within the sloping part of the container. That is the only way the centre of the explosion could have been in the position determined. So, if the case was right-way-up, the radio was along the right-hand-side as shown in that photo.<br /><br />This is not an intuitive way to pack an item like that in a case. The photo is by far the most intuitive way to pack it. And if you're just going to wave it goodbye at Malta and wish it a good journey, then why would you do anything else? You would have no way to influence how it would be placed in the container, so no particular preference for one side or the other, or for a side rather than centrally.<br /><br />However, if you anticipate being able to choose the position and orientation of the case yourself, that's a very different matter. If you want to get the centre of the explosion as far into the overhang part as possible, then you would certainly pack the radio asymmetrically. You'd put it along the side of the case that would end up nearest the skin on the aircraft. Then you'd mark that side discreetly, and make sure the case was the right way round when you put it in the container.<br /><br />This isn't a huge point, but I think it's telling nonetheless. The forensics guys themselves interpreted the evidence in such a way as to necessitate the bomb suitcase being asymmetrically packed. Something it's likely only someone able to control the placing of the case would do.<br /><br />Then they either simply didn't notice this point, or deliberately concealed it by making up the suitcase exhibit with the radio in the wrong place. If that "trial loading" mock-up had been accurate, with the radio down one side, is it possible observers might have twigged that this was a funny way to pack that case <i>unless the packer anticipated being able to position it at will</i>?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-3988856888943575482011-03-23T10:51:36.349-07:002011-03-23T10:51:36.349-07:00A smaller, secondary device, small enough to leave...A smaller, secondary device, small enough to leave evidence deliberately pointing to Libya.<br /><br />It's the sharpshooter's fallacy. The chances of a plan like that working as designed, before the event, are remote. And it's way unnecessarily complicated.<br /><br /><i>I do physical work for a living and I know people have their ways and quirks and small things like this, whether someone would lift, slide, etc. a suitcase, is unanswerable. I'm bored even trying to think about it.</i><br /><br />That's a point that occurred to me several times. People who load luggage containers day in day out must have their little habits. Shortcuts to make the packing easier. Foibles about where they'll place certain types of item and so on.<br /><br />This doesn't have to be about SOPs and how workers were (or weren't) instructed to do the job. Sidhu's personal idialect as regards loading a container would have been a good thing to know about. How would he have handled a situation such as the one described? Would he have been likely to push the cases apart and put something smaller between them? Or put the right one on top of or under the left? Or remove a case entirely to put a bigger one in its place? And if he did that, would he put the first case straight back in, or leave it to the end? Just asking him about his usual habits would have been very informative.<br /><br />They didn't even put him on the witness stand. Instead they preferred to ask <i>Crabtree</i>, who took no part in the loading of the container at all, whether loaders in general <i>might</i> do something or other. And then used his "yes" answer as conclusive proof Sidhu had done something completely different.<br /><br />I wonder if either Sidhu or Sandhu gave evidence at the FAI. There's a thought.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-51231526170421802432011-03-23T02:25:50.465-07:002011-03-23T02:25:50.465-07:00Hey, 'salright. I wasn't really upset, mor...Hey, 'salright. I wasn't really upset, more amused, really, to feel smarter than you for a moment. :) <br /><br />I do physical work for a living and I know people have their ways and quirks and small things like this, whether someone would lift, slide, etc. a suitcase, is unanswerable. I'm bored even trying to think about it. <br /><br />The evidence can be fairly read as a matching set, or also as just one brown Samsonite. It's possible the floor damage is consistent with a first-level placement, but more likely second layer or some other option that leaves it off the main floor. <br /><br />Either way, we have something a good bit stronger than anything the investigation discovered, vis-a-vis any brown hard-shell Samsonite case getting into the lower outboard corner of container AVE4041. <br /><br />But hey, here's a thought ... the second case was inserted for two reasons:<br />- a spacer to help lock the bomb bag in place<br />- to frame Libya. The second case contained a small, weak bomb in a RT-SF16 radio, with Maltese clothes, and even a MST-13 timer. <br /><br />No, that won't work, I'm sure. Baying at the moon, as you say. Brainstorming, also. I'd suggest a third option, as I have, that they were planted after the fact, like the other Libya/Malta clues. I don't find that way likely, but haven't ruled it out. <br /><br />So let's just go back to sticking to what's agreed and leaving the smaller slices where ambiguity enters to someone better able to sort it out.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-36913280164407588762011-03-22T05:31:52.489-07:002011-03-22T05:31:52.489-07:00I'm sorry. Mea culpa. I did read it but my b...I'm sorry. <i>Mea culpa.</i> I did read it but my brain didn't process it.<br /><br />It's a possibility I suppose, but I doubt if it's all that likely.<br /><br />First, although I did wonder about it, I'm not that taken by the idea that the midnight burglary smuggled two cases into the terminal. It's an unnecessary complication. I mean, <i>why</i>?<br /><br />Second, I'm trying to visualise how it would have been to be Sidhu loading that container, and realistically, it's hard to see that he would have moved the existing cases by much if at all.<br /><br />I'm assuming Sidhu alone at this stage, because this all happened at the very beginning of the loading process, as the first cases were coming off the 727. Sandhu helped for much of the time, but I'm supposing he had to see the other members of the team started on their particular tasks before going to give Sidhu a hand with the part that was the rush job.<br /><br />So Sidhu is presented with the container arranged as Bedford last saw it, to the best of our knowledge. The two cases flat at the front take up most of the space on the floor of the container. Is he going to lift one or more of them out to replace them with different cases coming off the conveyor? Why would he? He's in a tearing hurry because if he doesn't get this done PDQ the 747 parked next door is going to lose its slot. This is not the time to be ultra-picky.<br /><br />Even Crabtree never said it was likely a loader would unload a case or cases already in the container. He agreed loaders might <i>rearrange the luggage on the floor of the container</i>, which is quite a different thing. It was the judges who decided, quite on their own initiative, that this meant Sidhu lifted the Bedford suitcase out of the container and didn't put it back in again until the thing was almost full. (Nobody asked Sidhu or even Sandhu what he actually did, of course.)<br /><br />If Sidhu did decide for some reason that he wanted the two flat cases one on top of the other on the left, I think it would have been far easier for him to have lifted the right-hand one on top of the left-hand one. Trying to slide the right-hand one under the left-hand one looks <i>harder</i> to me.<br /><br />I don't think we have to agree on this. There are several possibilities, and the main point is that the one the judges picked is about the unlikeliest of the lot - and still doesn't explain important facts such as none of the passengers having a case matching that description.<br /><br />My problem with the suggestion that the entire primary suitcase was obliterated and the bits found are actually from its matching twin that was underneath, is that this doesn't square with the condition the clothes were recovered in. The survival of the textiles is consistent with the survival of bits of the primary suitcase. And if those clothes weren't really in the primary suitcase, then we're all more or less baying at the moon.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-20150650341319373032011-03-22T04:57:22.112-07:002011-03-22T04:57:22.112-07:00FYI "dagabit" refers to "dagnabit,&...FYI "dagabit" refers to "dagnabit," a colloquial western American expression equating to a polite and silly version "gosh darn it." Actually, it must be from something else, but it has the same sorta usage. Also, my spelling might not be the accepted form. Hope that helps.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-5834361138336170312011-03-22T02:27:20.806-07:002011-03-22T02:27:20.806-07:00Rolfe, dagabit. I only put up one comment and you ...Rolfe, dagabit. I only put up one comment and you apparently didn't read it carefully. <br /><br /><i>There are two difficulties with the idea of the bomb bag originally having been on the right. </i><br /><br />Yes, thinking in terms of stacking to achieve the official second-level placement (which I half-accept), the top (primary) case originally being on the right makes the most sense. And I have argued that, and seen that problem, and dwelled on it. <br /><br />So, above, I specified bomb on the left. I don't know why someone would want to rearrange them, but to the extent the evidence suggests such an arrangement (not 100% but compellingly), we must consider it. So it occurred to me there was a pretty natural way the right-hand spacer bag could be <i>slid beneath</i> the left-hand (primary) case, making it the top one. <br /><br /><i>Second, there is no evidence of a second brown Samsonite having been found, intact or in bits. It seems to me that if there had been such evidence, the prosecution would have fallen on it like a pack of starving hyenas. </i><br /><br />Rather, perhaps, there was no trace left (no evidence) of the <b>first</b> case, and about 1/3 of the second one. I'm aware that's an imaginative interpretation, but again I refer to those two largest fragments, one of delicate lining material, nearly TWO FEET of it, shielded by something substantial, and the floor panels beneath that likewise protected. <br /><br />Something before either of them took a lot of abuse to shield them, I'd wager, considering the state of the container at large and the airframe and airliner skin. Half the primary case and its contents, plus half another case and its contents seems a better fit than just half the primary case's contents.<br /><br />And, of course, Bedford seems to describe a matching set, which is why I'm trying to find such clues in the first place. <br /><br />Augh, this is complicated, but I can neither convince you nor let myself be convinced by you. To me, it all fits, and we might have to just agree to disagree.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-76711411839934811402011-03-21T03:36:59.393-07:002011-03-21T03:36:59.393-07:00We don't know how big the cases Bedford saw we...We don't know how big the cases Bedford saw were, but the bomb suitcase was only medium-sized. Taylor's hypothesis about shoving them apart is based on the premise that there was still some slack available on the floor of the container even with these two cases lying there.<br /><br />If they were both large cases, there is no reason for Sidhu to have moved either of them. It's more likely that he would have moved one or both if they weren't big enough to <i>completely</i> cover the whole of the floor.<br /><br />There are two difficulties with the idea of the bomb bag originally having been on the right. First, that wouldn't have been optimum from the point of view of the terrorist, so it's hard to see why he would have placed them like that. If he did, he must have been intending to come back and re-position them - which perhaps he did, but it's getting a bit complicated. Given that he had limited time to do the positioning (Bedford could have come back any minute), and that the container had to look realistic rather than contrived, putting the bomb bag on the left and a place-holder on the right seems like the rational thing to do. Your suggestion seems to be that even though he had the opportunity to place them correctly (bomb on the left), he didn't do that, and it was only pure chance that Sidhu completed the job for him. This is doing horrible things to Occam's razor, I have to say.<br /><br />Second, there is no evidence of a second brown Samsonite having been found, intact or in bits. It seems to me that if there had been such evidence, the prosecution would have fallen on it like a pack of starving hyenas. Probably the second-biggest hole in the prosecution case (after the lack of evidence for an unaccompanied bag on KM180) was the absence of an explanation for what happened to Bedford's brown Samsonite. If the prosecution had been able to point to the remains of a second brown Samsonite which had been close to the bomb bag, that would have been ideal from their point of view. But they didn't.<br /><br />I'm not nuts about the entire theory that the terrorists smuggled two brown Samsonites into Heathrow. Why? Just to use the second as a place-holder? I don't see any evidence that there were two bombed suitcases on that plane. And if they did, we're back to the problem about what happened to the second one. As I said, there's no reason for the prosecution to have concealed its existence - on the contrary it would have been a coup, as it would have allowed them to explain the really troublesome Bedford bag as being something other than the bomb bag.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-45484444932769239722011-03-19T23:59:59.031-07:002011-03-19T23:59:59.031-07:00Sorry, Rolfe, I only skimmed this aditions before ...Sorry, Rolfe, I only skimmed this aditions before trying to FINALL finish up one of the frentic new posts I'm striggling with in spare minutes ... <br /><br /><i>Is it not possible that the floor was partly shielded by the contents of the bomb bag itself?</i><br /><br />Well, if PI/911 and the fabric lining PK/1310A are from the primary case, they both look pretty shielded from the bomb, even before the floor. <br /><br />I don't know what kind of contents that would be. A sheet of lead? clothing? My gut instinct is none of the above, it's not the bomb bag. But without any scientific credentials or way to prove it with math or recreations, it's not worth much. <br /><br />Before I forget, I did want to add another idea myself - Imagine for a moment the scenario where the cases are matching set and the bomb bag was placed on the left, the spacer on the right. <br /><br />Let's say Mr. Sidhu had a slight back problem that day (he dropped the heavy case - general weakness). He sees the two largish cases along the base shortly before that - would he bend over and pick them up to re-arrange them? Or might he tilt up the left-hand case's right-hand edge, slide the right hand case halfway beneath it, and slide both to the left? That occurred to me as an explanation for the protected floor that at least has the bomb case placed in the right corner instead on inboard. <br /><br />I will try to catch up here, but not just yet.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-86060605425312324882011-03-18T19:09:43.487-07:002011-03-18T19:09:43.487-07:00It's not the only possibility of course. It&#...It's not the only possibility of course. It's possible the Bedford suitcase <i>was</i> removed and replaced on top of Patricia's case. That's still a helluva lot more likely than an identical case from Frankfurt being placed there, and this ghost case that belonged to nobody subsequently vanishing from human ken.<br /><br />Or it's possible (though I think a lot less likely) that someone rearranged the luggage while the container was outside the build-up shed, and put a slimmer case of the existing "first fifteen" luggage under the bomb bag to get it to sit out in the overhang part. If this did happen, I propose Bernt Carlsson's case for this, simply because there is a Lockerbie legend that his girlfriend and sister never got anything of his back at all, and were shown something completely destroyed, which had allegedly been right underneath the bomb. However, I find it a bit improbable that a terrorist would risk a manoeuvre of that sort - far better to bugger off when he'd got the case in as good a position as was reasonable, and not push his luck.<br /><br />So that's my three scenarios, with a very strong preference for the one where the bomb bag is simply pushed 2 or 3 inches to the left.<br /><br />But any of these is overwhelmingly more likely that the fantasy proposed by the Zeist judges, with a loader in a tearing hurry moving a case far further than necessary or likely, and this case that didn't and couldn't have belonged to any passenger, and matched the bomb bag pretty much exactly, vanishing like a will'o'the'wisp when it becomes inconvenient.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-81587693467901898822011-03-18T19:07:20.409-07:002011-03-18T19:07:20.409-07:00Yes, we know the left-hand Bedford case must have ...Yes, we know the left-hand Bedford case must have been moved in some way. If it was the bomb bag, it may have been taken out and replaced on top of another case (Patricia's?) and slightly to the left. But for the reasons above, I don't think so. My other reason is that I don't see Sidhu lifting that case out of the container at all.<br /><br />He was in a hurry. Why would he? Also, when you do a job like that, it's like drystone walling. You don't place an item and then remove it, unless exceptionally. It wastes too much time and energy to be constantly revising the packing. Yes, the Zeist court was told by the only person asked about it, that loaders would occasionally move bags around in the base of the container to get a better fit. That person was Crabtree, who put the container into PA103, however he didn't see that container being loaded. Why nobody asked Sandhu (or even better, Sidhu), whether that had actually happened, is an unfathomable mystery. But even there, Crabtree only accedes to "move bags around the area of the base of the container" - not to taking them out and replacing them. And yet, it is the latter that would really have had to happen for Patricia's bag to have replaced the left-hand Bedford bag.<br /><br />Sidhu <i>must</i> have moved that bag, we know that. However, it seems highly unlikely he lifted it out of the container.<br /><br />Bill Taylor, in his summing up, had a suggestion. He suggested that the two bags in the front of the container might have been pushed apart to allow a smaller item to be placed between them. (He suggested a metal photographer's case, but it could have been anything. Karen Noonan's luggage was three relatively small holdalls, for example.) This would have been a much more energy-efficient way to use up any spare inches left by the two hardshells not being a snug fit in that position.<br /><br />If that was done, the right-hand case wouldn't have moved far, as it would have come up against the right-hand side of the container which was perpendicular. The left-hand case, however, would have moved further, as it would have been able to be pushed up the 45-degree slope of the angled section. In this respect, it's worth remembering that the bomb bag must have been quite light, from what we know of its contents. This could have moved the bomb, positioned in the left-hand part of the case, both a couple of inches into the sloping section, and a couple of inches higher than its starting position. Which would take it to the position of the explosion as determined by Claiden.<br /><br />Having discussed this with Adam, I know he feels this still isn't consistent with the pattern of pitting on the floor of the container, and still believes there must have been another case under the bomb bag. I'm not so convinced myself, because this scenario seems to fit so perfectly in every other respect. Is it not possible that the floor was partly shielded by the contents of the bomb bag itself?<br /><br />Then, Patricia's case was put on top of the bomb bag, and was later identified as the only case to have been lying cheek-by jowl with the bomb bag. It fits.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-22715816066112425312011-03-18T18:24:43.626-07:002011-03-18T18:24:43.626-07:00He wheeled the container to the position outside t...He wheeled the container to the position outside the build-up shed, where it waited for the delayed PA103A. Walker either didn't see anything that worried him about this, and was just forgetful and confused, or he did, and decided to "forget" all about it, hence his initial denial of having seen the container, before he realised that Bedford had reported the presence of the suspicious case or cases.<br /><br />When PA103A arrived, it was so late that the luggage had to be transferred in a real rush. Although one of the Frankfurt operators had implied the luggage was sorted on the tarmac at Heathrow (NY/Detroit, and/or First/Economy class), this was not done. Either the Frankfurt loader was mistaken, or it wasn't done because of the rush.<br /><br />Only one loader was assigned to fill the container, Sidhu. He did not give evidence at Zeist. He was assisted for part of the time by Sandhu, who was the supervisor in charge. He gave evidence at Zeist, but nobody asked him about any rearrangement of the luggage. He described none.<br /><br />So, Sidhu is presented with the container as it left Bedford's hands. He has to get it loaded in double-quick time, or else PA103 is going to lose its slot. There is a row of cases along the back, which having read the evidence I now think were not disturbed. And there were two hardshell suitcases pretty much filling the remaining flat floor space of the container, in front.<br /><br />The prosecution (at Zeist) would have us believe that he decided he didn't like the left-hand case in that position, and unloaded it, as the Frankfurt cases were starting to come down the conveyor. Instead, he picked one of the first cases (<i>the</i> first case?) off the conveyor, Patricia's canvas Tourister, and put it where the left-hand Bedford case had been. (The case that belonged to a legitimate passenger in this version, except that no passenger owned such a case....) Then, rather than put that case back on top of Patricia's, he selected one of the next couple of cases coming off the conveyor - the bomb bag, <i>which just happened to match the description of the case Bedford saw, almost perfectly</i>! The identical case Bedford saw, Sidhu left on the tarmac until the container was almost full, or maybe it was one of the supernumerary ones loose-loaded. And after the crash, that case was never recovered for some reason.<br /><br />This is ridiculous.<br /><br />The real killer point is that we know no legitimate passenger was carrying a brown Samsonite, so what the hell was it Bedford saw if it wasn't the bomb bag? And of course it disappeared as if it had never been. Which is hardly surprising if indeed it had no existence in the first place, separate from the bomb bag, which was recovered.<br /><br />But the other point is, Sidhu was in a hurry. Why would he have removed a hardshell case sitting flat on the floor, just to replace it with another case?<br /><br />If he did, the most obvious sequence of events is that he put it right back in again on top of Patricia's case, where it promptly exploded. However, I don't actually believe Patricia's case was below the bomb bag, I think it was on top of it. If it wasn't, what was, given that only one case was identified as being flat side-to-side with the bomb bag like that? And if it was, why was that not discovered for more than two years after the disaster? That timing smacks more of convenience than real forensics to me. And also, I think Patricia's case was too deep for the ten-inch explosion described to have happened in a case on top of it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-43146620427336939032011-03-18T17:54:03.614-07:002011-03-18T17:54:03.614-07:00On re-reading these comments, I see they're ou...On re-reading these comments, I see they're out of date with respect to my current thinking, in a number of areas.<br /><br />First, the navy blue canvas American Tourister said to have been under the bomb bag was not Karen Noonan's. It was Patricia Coyle's. So my point about Karen's mother and the pack of photos is totally void.<br /><br />Second, I have realised the reason for Francovich's internal contradiction as regards Gannon. Gannon definitely boarded at Heathrow, having come off the Larnaca flight, we know that. Linda Forsyth says so, and Crawford lists him as one of the "first fifteen", the passengers who interlined into Heathrow. So what's all this about Gannon being Jafaar's minder from Frankfurt? Examination of the Zeist transcripts reveals the existence of one Naim Ali <b>Ghannam</b>, who was in fact Jafaar's minder in Germany.<br /><br />So, I believe this was a simple mix-up of the names on Francovich's part, and he didn't realise that Linda Forsyth's evidence showed he must be mistaken. Francovich was dead before Zeist, so probably never realised.<br /><br />Third, I have what I think is a better idea about the possible placing of the suitcases.<br /><br />Examining Bedford's evidence, it is always the left-hand suitcase that is being described. The right-hand one is just "the same or similar". I note that there as at least one <i>grey</i> Samsonite suitcase among the "first fifteen" luggage. McKee's suitcase. Suppose the terrorist only had one extra suitcase, the bomb bag. Which makes sense. He wants this as close to the left-hand side of the container as possible, so he places it there, presumably with the bomb packed in the extreme left-hand side (i.e. not as shown in the mock-up pictures which have the radio across the back).<br /><br />Then what? He would want to do anything he could to ensure nobody casually shoved that case to the right. There were about eight cases already in the container, in a row along the back that was long enough that at least two cases were leaning at an angle in the sloping section. Suppose he just lifted one of these down, would Bedford necessarily have noticed? I think not. I suggest he happened to pick McKee's grey Samsonite hardshell, similar to the bomb bag except not the same colour, and laid it beside the bomb bag to the right. So far as I know, this is consistent with the damage McKee's case is said to have sustained.<br /><br />I think the terrorist then walked off and left the stuff like that. Bedford came back and saw the cases, and realised he hadn't put them there. He didn't realise one was just a re-positioning of one he loaded himself, not noticing that the row on the back was one case shorter than it had been. He did nothing at all about this. He did not speak to Kamboj about it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-67773237520313853272011-02-12T01:56:18.774-08:002011-02-12T01:56:18.774-08:00And I'm got a giggle for that start. :)
Very...And I'm got a giggle for that start. :) <br /><br />Very interesting thought, but no further comment just yet. I'll come back to it.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-8969757331987848312011-02-11T05:38:24.311-08:002011-02-11T05:38:24.311-08:00I'm got a supplemental thought here. If we...I'm got a supplemental thought here. If we're considering whether anyone at Heathrow might have told a little porkie in order to cover his backside, my vote unhesitatingly goes to Bedford himself.<br /><br />"Camjob told me he'd picked up another two cases for PA103, and had put them in the container after x-raying them."<br /><br />Kamboj had no recollection of doing or saying any such thing, even when interviewed very soon after the disaster. It wasn't his job to put cases into the container anyway - he usually just sat them on the floor for Bedfod to load.<br /><br />If anyone was going to be in the line of fire for letting the bomb through at Heathrow, it was Bedford. He'd seen two cases in the container he hadn't put there. He knew someone else had interfered with his container while he was off drinking tea with Walker. But he didn't say anything, he just let the container go.<br /><br />He wants to be a good citizen and help catch the terrorists, so he tells everything he saw in case it turns out to be helpful. (And boy, was it helpful!) But he realises he's open to criticism. If one of these cases turns out to be the bomb, he's the guy who could have stopped the Lockerbie disaster but didn't.<br /><br />So he tells it all, just as he remembers it, but then he invents that one little extra detail. He wasn't suspicious, because Kamboj told him he'd screened the cases and put them there.<br /><br />What do you think?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-75443574191305753442011-02-07T02:55:38.099-08:002011-02-07T02:55:38.099-08:00Sure, I can see how that could be annoying. I was ...Sure, I can see how that could be annoying. I was trying too hard to defend the idea, and giving more allowances than warranted. It can be tough work pointing out things like that, but you do it well.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-8018177528187713272011-02-06T16:25:26.656-08:002011-02-06T16:25:26.656-08:00Just consider, if you say why on earth would anyon...Just consider, if you say why on earth would anyone set a timer for less than an hour into that flight, when there was a window of 3 or 4 hours of an Atlantic crossing ahead?<br /><br />And your opponent says, people do irrational things sometimes....Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-74721662621984367522011-02-06T13:50:08.305-08:002011-02-06T13:50:08.305-08:00Well, people do sometimes do things that seem irra...Well, people do sometimes do things that seem irrational based on incomplete information. And sometimes plain irrational. I'm not usually one to just go that way blindly, usually looking for the logic in a move, but in this case it seemed worth considering. Like, what if he was just emotionally freaked and didn't want to be known as the guy on whose watch this happened, material trouble or no? <br /><br />I admit I was being a tad passive-aggressive in my concession here. But generally, I was being truthful in that you've made some good points and, while I still want this idea up for logical fullness, in an option A B C way, I shan't promote it as likely in any sense. <br /><br />The rest, later.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-38444013206963403842011-02-06T09:16:10.197-08:002011-02-06T09:16:10.197-08:00Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's j...Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's just that "but you can't prove it DIDN'T happen like that!" and "well, people do irrational things sometimes" are classic twoofer defences of wildly fanciful theories, and you managed to incorporate both of them.<br /><br />If there is compelling evidence that demands a convoluted explanation, so be it. But there is no compelling evidence to require this explanation.<br /><br />It's quite possible Walker did see the cases, and either decided to say nothing, or didn't remember when he was first asked about it. However, that doesn't in any way imply that Bedford didn't see them first and Walker bribed him to invent that! There's not one single reason I can think of to infer this. Walker wasn't even employed to count or screen the bags, and even if it was proved he must have handled the container just after the bomb appeared in it, nobody could even disprove a simple "I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary".<br /><br />However, it's entirely possible the terrorist repositioned the bags while the container was beside the build-up shed. You have made a good case suggesting that if the bomb bag was the left-hand Bedford suitcase it still must have been moved. In that case, a rearrangement at that point has to be one of the possibilities. If the terrorist had managed to get the case or cases into the container but was disturbed before he got the positioning he wanted, he might have hung around and then taken that opportunity when it presented itself.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-64856774316053939332011-02-05T22:41:30.933-08:002011-02-05T22:41:30.933-08:00I take issue with the twoofer defense claim. Serio...I take issue with the twoofer defense claim. Seriously, all I meant was that is hasn't been disproved, and probably can't be, and so is a possibility, however remote. I thought it a worthy one to explore in some detail. <br /><br />That said, and time as scarce as it is, I give up defending this theory. I consider it toast and move on with the Interline option as the only one to bother mentioning. Will add a note above to reflect this soon. <br /><br />Re-positioning is still undecided, could happen at build-up, depending if we can come to an agreement on the first or second level placement. I didn't even mention that option, will add that as well, but otherwise leave it alone.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-23032351445325817362011-02-05T15:45:08.651-08:002011-02-05T15:45:08.651-08:00By the way, I note that the court was quite famili...By the way, I note that the court was quite familiar with the concept of Zulu time.<br /><br /><i>Q Certain times are given on this document, including the time that the doors were closed and the time that the aircraft departed from Malta?<br />A Yes.<br />Q Are these times given in what’s called Zulu time?<br />A Yes, they are.<br />Q And is Zulu time Greenwich mean time?<br />A GMT, yes.<br />Q In December is local time in Malta an hour ahead of Greenwich mean time?<br />A GMT plus one.<br />Q Thank you. So should we understand, then, that the doors were closed on the 21st at 08.38 Zulu, which would be 09.38 local?</i><br /><br />We'd have been told if Frankfurt airport was using Zulu. Which it wasn't because the times don't work in Zulu, and because baggage handling is a ground-side activity, controlled by coders' wristwatches and the airport clocks, which showed the same time as the baggage handling computer.<br /><br />Don't be so fond of an idea that you can't see its flaws. Inventing an implausible complication is unnecessary. Defending it by saying "well you can't prove it didn't happen like that" and then "well OK it's irrational but maybe they just did something irrational" is twooferism.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-61793136395167571172011-02-05T15:43:58.879-08:002011-02-05T15:43:58.879-08:00Overall, I think you're being fanciful. It...Overall, I think you're being fanciful. It's a huge elaborate scenario, far more complex than needed or likely, with no compelling evidence to require it.<br /><br />If Walker sounds shifty, and you seem to have read his evidence in more detail than I have, then I don't see any more explanation needed than that he did see the same cases Bedford saw, but decided to keep quiet about it. He may have been completely thrown when he found out that Bedford had actually described the cases to the police.<br /><br />Given that precisely nothing happened to Bedford or to Kamboj, or to Maier either, and that's what I would have expected, it's a stretch to imagine that Walker would have been significantly worried. Enough to pretend he hadn't seen anything, possibly. Enough to approach Bedford with a bribe to invent an earlier sighting? I don't think so.<br /><br /><i>Can you prove that he did <b>not</b> see them in there and fid it odd enough to remember when the news came down?</i><br /><br />Oh come on Adam, "you can't prove my whackjob idea is wrong" is a classic twoofer defence. Don't do it.<br /><br />Don't get too wedded to an idea, when it really doesn't stack up. It's just invention. There's nothing there to explain, and even if there was an element of what you suggest, it would tend to provoke silence, not bribery for counter-productive fabrication.<br /><br />If nobody saw anything, Bedofrd, Kamboj or Walker, and they all say they saw nothing, the chances of it ever being proved that one of them did see something are remote. If Bedford starts saying stuff about mysterious suitcases, it only draws attention to the interline shed and that container.<br /><br />You're coming up with this because you think it would be so neat if the bomb bag went in while the container was outside the build-up shed. Which is not consistent with Bedford's evidence, and bear in mind that Bedford's evidence is one of the prime pieces of evidence in the case. I would be very reluctant to undermine it in the way you are doing.<br /><br />I repeat that the evidence is very clear that the period of waiting outside the build-up shed was not usual practice. If the terrorist had done any planning at all, and I think he had, then he'd believe he had to get the bomb on while the container was in the interline shed. And it seems to have been quiet enough that opportunities were surely there.<br /><br />Indeed, the relatively deserted nature of the interline shed is a very good reason for hitting there rather than in the build-up shed. But the judges arbitrarily decided that since the break-in was physically closer to the build-up shed, then a terrorist breaking in would inevitably have gone for that shed rather than the interline. This sort of arbitrary and illogical assumption simply riddles the judgement.<br /><br />I just think you're conspiracy theorising again, and it's deflecting you from more constructive thoughts. Give it up, like you gave up Zulu time at Frankfurt.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-70620942946874328542011-02-04T23:09:10.054-08:002011-02-04T23:09:10.054-08:00Rolfe adds a great point, at another comment threa...Rolfe adds a great point, at another comment thread.<br /><br /><i> I noticed something that would argue against any theory that the terrorist planned to place the bomb bag while the container was unattended outside the build-up shed. In the normal course of events, it wouldn't have been left there. Normally, Bedford would have taken it right out to the tarmac to meet the 727. It was only because PA103A was so late that he knocked off early and the thing ended up sitting there for close on an hour.<br /><br />Thus, although I could see it as a possibility that the terrorist took advantage of this and revisited the container to reposition the suitcases, the actual plan must have been to load the bomb bag while the container was in the interline shed. And there was plenty opportunity to do that. </i><br /><br />That I didn't think about. In fact, while it's not unprecedented, it wasn't to be expected, that the container would end up at baggage build-up. <br /><br />Unless, that <b>is</b> in fact what usually happens at the end of a Wednesday as things slow down (9/11, on a Tuesday, is the slowest air travel day. I'd guess Wed. is no. 2). They may have had an eye to traffic, with inside info, and looking for downtimes, partly with that in mind? <br /><br />The early leave was unofficial, decided at the moment, but was that really unusual? <br /><br />Otherwise, it's a fair point, and it goes towards a more literal reading of Bedford. Interline is where one can be sure it'll be for some time, with build-up at best uncertain.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-72656640499833821072011-02-01T04:30:25.410-08:002011-02-01T04:30:25.410-08:00In the end, it probably is wrong. Maybe the terror...In the end, it probably is wrong. Maybe the terrorist just re-arranged the bags at build-up, after already getting around Kamboj's x-ray. That wouldn't have worried Walker, to see two bags moved. Or would it? I don't know what passes for normal in 1988 routine there. Because that's another possibility, that actually ... explains nothing that's at issue. Nevermind. <br /><br /><i>The absolute last thing anyone in that position would do is to approach a colleague and threaten or bribe him to describe a completely fictitious sighting of these cases just before he took over custody of the container. That's only going to draw the attention of the investigators to that container and that time period, and the concept of brown Samsonite.<br /><br />Both in sensible logic, and in the mentality of a manual worker, the smart move is to say you didn't notice anything and stick to that story no matter what.</i><br /><br />Totally true, of course. But to be fair, there could be other variables we don't know of, aside from an extended panic. Say, Walker caught the perp in the act but was persuaded to let the "drugs" slide in exchange for cash, as I've speculated for Kamboj. Might that provide enough extra cause for alarm? <br /><br />It's a double-edged sword, Rolfe. I can't prove anything, and you can't really rule out very much. It remains mostly unknown, though educated guesses are better than nothing. <br /><br />Another fair point would be if Walker and Bedford had cobbled together this "Camjob-dunnit" story, why would they then disagree over the location of the container? That almost suggests they didn't collaborate. <br /><br />Such a clue can sometimes mean its opposite. Right? A clumsy way to look like they didn't coordinate ... the kind of sham that would fall apart, and did, just to no effect, as their whole sector was cleared of suspicion by early fiat. <br /><br />But who knows?<br /><br />-C.L.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-8447794032530478032011-02-01T04:30:13.786-08:002011-02-01T04:30:13.786-08:00Even if he was slightly worried that the suitcases...<i> Even if he was slightly worried that the suitcases he noticed were implicated, he couldn't possibly have been anywhere close to sure.</i><br /><br />I just don't see how that matters. Again, this would just be a fear-based thing. Why run that all the way up to "slightly worried?" I'm suspecting at least a passing moment of supreme dread in there. <br /><br />What I don't know is what he did or didn't have to fear, really, if he's the one that saw the things. I'm not sure of his responsibilities, or his perceptions of them, following something so traumatic. Sounds like you're not sure either, though perhaps better-informed there. Maybe he overreacted or something? <br /><br /><i>But suppose he was worried, what to do? He has two reasonable options. One is to tell the cops from the Met all about it, and hope this helps with the enquiry, and take any criticism that comes his way for not reacting.</i><br /><br />Good point, smart option. The sub-theory also clearly relies on him rejecting this for some reason. I've wondered about that - I wouldn't expect that the penalties for any laxness admitted to would outweigh the risks of possibly being caught fabricating. There may be other aspects we don't know that could explain that. And there might not be. <br /><br /><i> The other is to say absolutely nothing, and hope that nobody realises that isn't true.<br /><br />That would have worked.</i><br /><br />Nowtaht, finally, is a solid good point of the "so I could be just wrong" variety. It has already occurred to me, however, and found the rebuttal "people don't always make the mart move." <br /><br />One thought ... a bit like Charles McKee's suitcase - removed but put back, to excise something but otherwise not screw up the investigation - they didn't mean to throw off a vital clue in general, just move it. "Okay, it happened here at Heathrow, but just not RIGHT by me. I didn't see it, this other guy did, and he'll tell you about the circumstances that clear both of us." <br /><br /><i>On the other hand, this hare-brained idea that he rushed to the conclusion that these extra cases must have been the bomb, and that he'd get the blame because it would be proved they'd appeared on his watch (when he wasn't really supposed to be watching anyway), and that he wouldn't get away with simply denying he'd seen anything, is just silly.</i><br /><br />Not "must," just might have been. You probably know more than me what he could or couldn't expect as far as punishment, so I'd mostly defer to your judgment. <br /><br />contd....Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-55517854596553746062011-02-01T03:32:34.867-08:002011-02-01T03:32:34.867-08:00Rolfe is a seasoned debunker of irrational claims....Rolfe is a seasoned debunker of irrational claims. This isn't a de-bunk, but is similar in some ways. Moslty she makes some good points. However: <br /><br /><i>CL, your scenario appears to be that Bedford didn't see any brown Samsonite, or any suspicious bags at all. Neither did Kamboj. You are suggesting that the bag or bags mysteriously appeared in the container while it was outside the build-up shed, and that Walker noticed, but didn't blow any whistles.</i><br />Yes, that came through pretty well. It's a hypothesis, or whatever specific term ... <br /><br /><i>I should point out that you have absolutely no evidence for this.</i><br />No, I cited some. Nothing direct and conclusive, of course, but points of possible connection and mystery ... <br /> <br /><i>Walker's statements are the confused and contradictory work of someone who isn't very bright, isn't very introspective, and simply doesn't remember exactly what happened that very routine day.</i><br />Define routine. Massive airliner bombing capping it? No. Micro-memories can potentially circulate for a couple hours in short-term and then become set in cold stone by an event like that. <br /><br />"Could that shady guy I just let into the building have been connected to the brutal slaying later that night?" Eh? Normally you'd forget it - you'd be on track to. But that track was clearly interrupted. Argument denied<br /><br /> <i>Nowhere is there any suggestion that he saw suspicious luggage he isn't telling us about.</i><br />No, he just didn't remember the luggage container at all. That could mean that he just didn't remember, that there was nothing of significance to be imprinted by the bombing, and it just didn't stick. Sure. <br /><br />Could be something else too. (see below)<br /><br /><i>However, supposing it did happen exactly like that. How would Walker be expected to react, realistically? In the first two weeks after the crash?<br /><br />At that time, first there was no definite evidence there had been a bomb at all. </i><br /><br />This little sub-theory of mine, admittedly, only works if he had any prior suspicion of something he'd seen. In that circumstance, any total explosion of the plane is sufficient, as the rest would be motivated by fear. It requires no detailed investigation, just something very scary to amplify even the smallest sense of danger. <br /><br /><i>Then there was press talk of items being found that showed pitting suggestive of explosives. Maybe something about bits of a baggage container. Karen Noonan's suitcase was mentioned in general terms.<br /><br />However, as far as I can see, there's no way anyone in Walker's position could have known either that the container that had been in the interline shed was implicated, or that the bomb bag was a brown Samsonite.</i><br /><br />Can you prove that he did <b>not</b> see them in there and fid it odd enough to remember when the news came down? Please, neither one of us had first-hand surveillance proof what his position was or wasn't, in that regard. He's in the cloud of mystery, but nothing conclusive one way or the other if that means anything. <br /><br />cont'd ...Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.com