PI/995 Label Issues

Completed March 9 2010

PI/995 is the evidentiary designation given to a 4" bomb-damaged shred of a shirt collar, Slalom brand, gray in color. It became relevant first for being near the bomb, later for yielding pieces of the IED radio case and electrics, paper user's manual, and the famous timer fragment PT/35(b). All this magicall assortment plus the pregnant find PI/995 can be seen in this photograph. Here we'll deal with its evidence label, which has some interesting issues.

DC Gilchrist under questioning at Camp Zeist (witness 257, day 5, May 9 2000)

Q I wonder if we can magnify on the word "debris." 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. [p 845]

Mr. Gilchrist could not recall doing so, but guessed that he had re-written carefully over the fainter word "cloth" when "on closer examination ... I put down "debris" ... in case it isn't cloth." One simple reason to do some overwriting (one would presume of the same words of course) is the original pen being almost dead for ink. "The "debris," certainly, appears overwritten," the witness noted, "and the "(charred)," if you look, "Where Found," I Sector, the pen looks as if it's almost running out there, and the "debris" is in heavier writing." [pp 860-61]

From there it gets interesting - he didn't do the re-writing, once he started thinking about it. Tangled together here are two pieces of evidence, PI/995 and PI/990, with their separate tags.

Q Label Number 82 refers to PI 990, Lockerbie air crash, charred pieces of a suitcase found in I, 502 858, by T. Gilchrist, on the 13th of
856
January '89.
A secondary label, "Debris (charred), found I Sector, 502 858," in my writing. Refers to the same.
Q Do we understand that there are two labels attached --
A Yes.
Q -- to Label 82?
Can we first of all be clear whether it's possible to say from which police force these labels are?
A The first one is a Dumfries and Galloway label. The second one is a Strathclyde one.
Q And which of these have you signed?
A The second one, the Strathclyde one -- or the first one; I don't know which.
Q Well, if we call it the Strathclyde one, you've signed the Strathclyde label?
A Yeah.
Q All right. And who has filled in the details on the Strathclyde label?
A I have.
Q And what have you written?
A "Debris, charred, found I, 502 858," and signed by myself.
Q And is there a date?
857
A There is a date in the column, but it's not my writing.
Q What's the date?
A 13/1/89.
Q And what's the grid reference?
A 502 858.
Q Will you have before you at the same time Label Number 168. And will you confirm that Label Number 168 is PI 995?
A Yes.
Q How many labels are attached to it?
A One.
Q And I think you've told us earlier that you completed that label?
A Yes.
Q And you've told us that that was on the 13th of January 1989?
A Yes.
Q Is that the same date on which you found Label Number 82?
MR. KEEN: With respect, My Lord, the witness has already said in respect of the earlier label that he did not complete the date.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes.
MR. KEEN: Although my learned friend chose
858
not to take up that point with the witness, he very clearly said that.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Well, the witness did say that, Mr. Depute, that the date is not in his handwriting.
MR. CAMPBELL:
Q Is the date which you've entered on Label Number 168 the same date as appears on Label 82?
A I've entered the date on Label 168. I haven't entered any date on Label 82. There is a date entered, but it's not in my writing.
Q What is that date?
A 13/1/89.

Q I wonder if it's possible to put both of these labels together on the document imager, please. […] On the bottom label, the one for PI 995, there appear the words "Debris (charred)"?
A Yes.
Q The word "charred" in brackets, whose
859
writing is that in?
A I can't be specific about that. It looks like mine, but --
Q It looks like your writing?
A I'm not 100 percent convinced.
Q Is there any difference between the entries on the two labels?
[…]
A I don't think PI 995 is my writing.
Q You don't think it's your writing?
A It's not the way I would do a "D".
Q You signed the label attached to it, the label itself?
A Yes. Yes.
860
Q Who else has signed the label?
A Several people. Cal Mentoso (phonetic), Derek Henderson -- no, I think it's -- I think it's Derek Henderson, Tom Hayes, Allan Feraday, Tom McColm, Ron McManus.

This is supposed to PI/995's label, with seven signatures, but only the three Thomases (Gilchrist, McColm, and Hayes) are visible to me. The lower right writing seems like a reference note, possibly "MOD PER16 D&G", where D&G refers to the leading Dumfries and Galloway police department. The lower left could be a jammed in signature, but "TCP Scribble" isn't a match for any of those names. The remaining two were done in pens completely out of ink, one must presume, or we're mixed up here and he's referring to an attached form or writing on the back, or something. It's not a big deal.

Q Looking to the other label [PI990], you see the words "Debris (charred)"?
A Yes.
Q You explained to the Court earlier that you had written these words.
A Yes.
Q Is that the position?
A Yes, it's my writing.
Q And what about the position on the other label, PI 995?
A Part of it's mine.
Q Sorry?
A Part of the writing is mine, but I am not convinced it's all mine.
Q Well, with respect to the words "Debris (charred)," what do you say?
A I can't give an opinion on it. I don't recall overwriting it, and I'm not convinced that "charred" is my writing.
Q I see. But the phrase "debris (charred)" is a phrase that you clearly used --
A I normally use.
862
Q -- on the other label; is that right?
A Yes. Yes.
[...]
Q The phrase "debris (charred)" is a phrase that you had in mind to use in relation to the other item that you have before you, the one that's Label 82?
863
A Yes.
Q And it's a phrase that you used in relation to that item, which you found at exactly the same spot that's referred to in the label on PI 995, isn't it?
A Yes.

From there Campbell was happy to draw the parallels - if these two items PI/990 and 995 were found same day and same spot by same witness, who signed off on both, then clearly the witness wrote these out. All this was just to carry out what was supposed to be a simple exercise - introducing a piece of evidence that was found by a cop at the site. It's a highly significant, charged, piece of evidence, yielding that infamous timer fragment PT/35(b), and along the way the basic cop with the basic "yes sir" script revealed a possible red flag of manipulation. It was written using someone else's hand, the witness says. 'But it's phrase you would use if you'd written it?' Campbell in essence asks, and moves on. Same guy, same spot, same phrase, same day - except the other tag's date was written in later by someone else, the witness says. So it all ties up (??), PI/995 duly noted as legitimate evidence and ready to elaborate on...

(see PT/35(b) Papers, Photos, Details for the ensuing shadiness)

PT/35(b) Papers, Photos, details

(incomplete)

In this post I will relate all direct visual evidence, gathered from different sites, relating to the circuit board fragment found in the evidence of the Lockerbie bombing. These should be official photographs and documents, mostly from the British side of the investigation. My sources are a few, but mostly websites run by Mebo, the board’s manufacturers and confusing advocates in the trial and its controversies. I accept these images, if not the commentary, as accurate (aside from some color issues with the fragment), and simply lay them out in approximated chronological order with some of the available information on them.

Discovery of PI/995

The fragment was allegedly first gathered by DCs Thomas Gilchrist and Thomas McColm, unseen within a piece of cloth logged in mid-January 1989 as item PI/995, “Cloth (charred).” Note here how the date (13/1/89 as on the left side) seems faintly penciled in for "introduction in case against," and the loaction found line seems written over with invisible ink. The resolution on these is not good - here I took the full tag and a clearer zoom-in and merged them for the best effect. [image source page: Mebo] In the 2000 trial, Gilchrist was able to read it from the real item, as I Sector, grid reference 502 858. More specifically, this was near the the intersection of grid lines 86 and 50 on Ordnance Survey maps they used to keep track of ground covered. Fellow researcher Rolfe helped narrow this down to an area 35km east of Lockerbie, betwixt Newcastleton and Newcastelton forest, Blinkbonny Height and the town of Blinkbonny. It's been alternately said to be the forest itself, or even Kieldere forest to the south in which the scrap of cloth, 4" of shirt collar, was recovered January 13, and later logged on January 17. Te delay might be interesting, or perhaps not.

Anomalously, and famously, the label was later changed with “debris” written right over “cloth” in a non-standard way - usually stricken out and re-written, rather than replaced. Under questioning at Zeist, Gilchrist was faced with this and other controversies, at some points refusing to acknowledge some of the writing as his own, at other spots confused and noncommittal, almost as if he worries someone else has given a different story and he doesn't want to contradict them. Not the most encouraging midset to encounter, if so. (this is all covered in detail in another post.) The Zeist judges, in their Opinion of the Court [PDF], found his explanations "at worst evasive and at best confusing," but found no "sinister connotation" in this (and neither do I, in particular).

On the tag above, note a third signature on the line for "Nature/Locus of Crime" - this is given as "T. Hayes." [More detailed info on P!/995's controversies]

Discovery and Examination of PT/35(b)

That would be Dr. Thomas Hayes [wiki] of RARDE (Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment), who analyzed this material more closely on May 12, 1989, according to his lab log (on page 51, left - r-click new window for readable view).

This was the first mention anywhere of the pivotal timer fragment, as item b) at left - "a fragment of green coloured circuit board." Reportedly, the pages following this in Hayes’ loose-leaf binder of notes were renumbered, which he was unable to explain in later testimony.  [more on the page re-numbering]

This could well mean this page was inserted after the fact, as widely speculated, to introduce a backdated paper trail for a later plant. It's a little sloppy to my eyes, and doesn’t add much detail to the record; there is nothing about the board other than a simple note of “a fragment of green coloured circuit board." He offers no drawing, no details. Note that the paper fragments, carefully re-sketched here (five sheets, 2 sides each, lower half of page), were identified early and given the evidence no. PT/2. The exploded electrics of items a-c, on the same page here, are "raised" collectively as PT/35 “assorted materials RECOVERED from clothing PI995.” (caps in original). This suggests 31 pieces of evidence were catalogued between these identifications allegedly discovered the same day.

The famous photo shows the shirt collar and all the evidence taken from it, with the circuit board chunk circled in red in the publicly available version. Considering the quality of blow-ups possible from this (see below) it is presumably 35mm, and not one of the "polaroids" mentioned below. It seems to be the first photograph to be taken of the fateful fragment, just prior to Hayes' May 12 entry, as the lumpy shape to the right of the fragment seems to be the paper fragments prior to being separated and drawn therein. (Original Image source)

At left is the best blow-up of this available, from a higher resolution original than is up anywhere on the Internet. Here can be noted the “1” shaped touch pad, twin solder lines beneath this, the intact top edge, rounded corner, crumbly edges. The "etched" sideways “M" and "scratches" beneath it have been called clues of forgery, but likely are fibers of fabric like those clustered on the left side. The color of this board's coating plastic, described as green by RARDE people, and as evidently BROWN by Mebo missives, seems to me no particular color, but more precisely off-black or muted dark gray-blue with a slight greenish hue. It's probably supposed to be burnt, so green-blue seems closer than brown. (source)

Another to take a crack at this fragment was Alan Feraday [wiki] the director at the time of DERA (Defense Evaluation and Research Agency), who at some point made a study using another shot, straight on, with another view of it flipped over on its back. Using enlarged photos (“approx X 3”), perhaps photocopied on paper, he added notes around the mirror-flipped dark shapes - the following are my best reading:
"straight edge" pointing to the straight top edge.
"curved edge" pointing to curved edge
"trimmed copper" pointing to solder lines. ("track pattern on underside" added)
"Green top surface" pointing to back view.
There isn’t much resolution here to work with, but that back view is totally unique. So I used a separate layer with maxxed out contrast to pop out all details (below, right). There seems to be a small bump corresponding to the middle of the touch pad, and some roughness (fracture? bubbling?) around the edges, quite a ways in at bottom and right. Otherwise little can be seen. image source

On September 15 1989, judging by the header, Feraday sent a memo to Detective Inspector William Williamson, a counterpart in the Dumfries and Galloway police (along with the FBI, they were the official investigators). This was to explain “some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board,” which he found "potentially most important," depending on what ID the D&G could come up with. Feraday apologized for the quality of these pictures, noting “it is the best I can do in such a short time.” Some have presumed he was sending the circled photo above, but the use of plural photographs, could mean what he sent was the analysis above, having two photos in it. It’s not entirely clear what the rush was all about or why that precluded better pictures. (source)

Following this is a long gap in the timeline of what I've sorted out, from later '89 into early 1990. Investigators analyzed the fragment (though not for explosives residue), searched for matching board patterns, and so on. According to a Mebo site, on February 8, 1990 “a needle-thin section” was removed from the evidence, apparently for forensics work, “by Mr. French from CIBA-Geigy." Four days later, the site continues,

“Mr. Roderick MacDonald, withness no. 589, had been called into Strathclyde police-station to take some photographs of an allegedly Lockerbie-recovered MST-13 timer fragment with the allocated no: PT/35 (evidence: production no:1754) According to Court-documents, the alleged MST-13 timer fragment PT/35 was at that time no longer in its orginal condition and in one piece!” (source)

For a good trans-Atlantic, Anglo-American (sorry, Scots-American) investigation, it only seems appropriate to bring in some expertise from across the pond. Investigator Paul Foot (Flight from justice, PDF, page 11) reports a July 1990 call from FBI forensic authority and political scientist James "Tom" Thurman [wiki] offering a lead to DCI Williamson on the fragment Feraday told him of. Reportedly Feraday and Williamson both went to Virginia to meet him. Although some have said this fragment was physically taken there, and the controversy recently upped with Levy’s Lockerbie Revisited video, the preponderance of testimony suggests to me, so far, that it was just a photo. I may sort it out in a separate post.

At any rate, Thurman was able to get pictures also of a captured Libyan MST-13 timer and, on June 15 as he recalls (not July as Foot reported) found a perfect match to the fragment from Scotland. He kept some photos on file to show reporters later, including a giant blow-up, heavily blue-tinted, of the fragment, perhaps MacDonald's view. This is shown alongside a comparison board with unfilled solder lines and some odd spatterings off the touch pad. (this Mebo photo seems to be the same board Thurman compared to, here in odd color, a different angle, and labeled). The image at left also is from a Mebo graphic, with the backdrop only altered by me for aesthetic reasons. (Original Image) This is the earliest view I know of showing he top sliver missing, as well as the lower right corner cut out or at least deeply scored. Otherwise, it appears to be the same piece, if perhaps a bit bluer, probably due to photo tinting. Also note, the “M” is missing, supporting the idea it was a transitory fiber since cleaned off.

I’m still vague as to when the famous trial photo below was taken. Showing evidence PT/35(b) and, apparently, the separated corner labeled DP/31, compared to model DP/347(a), an intact MST-13 timer. This might seem the photo taken by MacDonald on Feb 12, which would leave one wondering why the trip to America if they already knew what to put it alongside. It may have been after Thurman’s ID in June, as a verification with cleaner sample, and done in 3-D. Or as some have stated, this side-by-side was done by Thurman himself, with access to both real items. Whenever, wherever, and by whomever it was captured, again with intense blue tinting of the whole evidence photo. Here I’ve color-corrected to the best (app) nexus of natural whites, standard blue backdrops, and fragment plastic color. I’m not sure where this model is from, but it’s clearly different from the one Thurman used for comparison.

In the end, counter-claims aside, the fragment looks the same throughout, other than the noted diminishings, so if any planting happened it was at the beginning, which could be later than the paperwork suggests. But the case was made and handed to us thusly: this was from the wreckage, near the bomb, perhaps part of it. It was handled carefully by trained and diligent professionals leaving a clear paper trail. It was rigorously matched, with photos AND microscopes, to a style used by Libyan operatives. And it all came down to a fragment of circuit board, and wound up appealing to the kind of late-90s popular TV fiction mentality needed to win crucial public/political support for the indictment. As agent Thurman bragged to the TV news just after the 1991 indictment, "when that identification was made, of the timer, I knew that we had it." Whether by accident or staging, it was brilliant theater.