The Chronology of PT/35(b): 13 September 1990 (bis)

13 September 1990

According to Gilchrist’s statement S2749K (see also statement R) he met Swiss
officials in Zurich. His CP indicates this was with Mr A and a special branch officer.

According to the disclosure letter from the Crown to the defence dated 23 April 2000,
the CIA had met with Swiss officials the day before.

cropped-blogpic

Comment: The CIA request to MI5 can be read here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chronology. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 13 September 1990 (bis)

  1. Craig says:

    In this instance I think it is important to directly note Thomas Thurman on these issues.

    Thomas Thurman Crown Precognition, 11th January 2000;
    https://pt35b.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/thomas-thurman-crown-precognition-11-january-2000.pdf

    “I had the photograph for several months. Stuart Henderson then attended a case conference at Quantico [Note: June 1990] where I asked him in person to remove the caveat.
    He agreed, I thereafter contacted a colleague at the Central Intelligence Agency (the witness John Scott Orkin) whom I have known for a number of years.

    Both of us regularly attended a monthly inter-agency meeting to discuss and exchange information on explosive devices.
    During the period in which the caveat was still in force a number of such meetings took place.

    I did not show the photograph to the witness John Scott Orkin during this period.

    It is possible that I mentioned the existence of the photograph.

    I attended at the witness John Scott Orkin’s premises on 15 June 1990 and showed the photograph to him”
    ——————————————————–

    “Together we went through a series of Technical Exploitation Reports prepared by the witness Orkin.

    These reports were prepared by him and had thereafter been circulated to various other interested parties including myself”

    ———————————————————-

    “Unusually the device itself was still at the witness Orkin’s premises.
    He was able to produce it to me. I took it apart and examined it using a microscope.
    On examination I was sure that we had found the right device.”
    ———————————————————-

    “I was told that, as far as the CIA (the Agency) was concerned, it was not to be involved in the chain of custody and that the timing device was to be regarded as having come directly from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

    This was the fist occasion on which I “fronted” a find for the Agency.”
    ———————————————————-

    The task was then to source the timer.

    I do not recall the witness Orbin mentioning the name Mebo to me on 15 June 1990.

    I recall that the Central Intelligence Agency had evaluated another item manufactured by the firm Mebo in Switzerland (the Chad device – pageboy) which had been in Production No 285 Label No Libyan hands.
    I cannot recall whether this was something which was drawn to my attention or which I established by examining the Technical Exploitations myself.
    ———————————————————-

    “I am shown Copy Document (DE53).
    This is the Technical Exploitation of the Chad device I referred to.

    This report mentions the company Mebo.

    I recall examining this document and thinking that it may be a potential lead.
    I cannot recall what link I perceived between the timing device and the pageboy.

    I decided not to go directly to Mebo”
    ————————————————————

    Timer (DP/84)
    “In order to establish whether such components were delivered to a common origin and particularly Mebo.

    Initially, I concentrated on the Nymph crystal and was able to establish that it was delivered to Mebo.

    I was still in the process of carrying out my enquiries regarding these components when the Swiss Police visited the premises of Mebo and showed them photographs of the fragment.”
    ————————————————————

    Page 10;

    “This document was prepared by me.
    The document suggests that I received the timer [DP/84] directly fiom Richard Sherrow on 15 June 1990.

    That is incorrect.

    The Scottish investigators and FBI knew that the Togo timer had come from the CIA.

    I do not have an answer as to why I drafted the ID302 of 29 August 1991 in this manner.

    I do not recall.

    I agree that the FD302 was authored approximately one month before my Grand Jury testimony where I have stated that I received the timer from Sherrow.”
    ———————————————–

    It is important to note the aforementioned statements are found within a ‘Crown Precognition’, all this information was known by the [Scottish] Crown Advocate and representatives prior to Lockerbie court proceedings.

    It appears in fairly strongly terms to be a voluntarily trail of admission with regard to material and information manipulation and deception.

    In my view, it is clear from any reading on this matter;
    To note but a few, Scottish Crown Advocate/Scottish police/CIA/MI5/FBI, all these relevant parties both individually and collectively are fully aware of numerous falsehoods and fabrications but did not address or effectively deal or declare these issues impartially, reasonably or fairly.
    Effectively, these representatives joined as one collective corrupt entity to achieve one common aim.

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive….”

    Sir Walter Scott
    Born in 1771 to Walter Scott, a lawyer and Writer to the Signet, and Anne Rutherford, the daughter of Dr John Rutherford, professor of medicine at Edinburgh University.
    His childhood was divided between Kelso and Smailholm in the Borders and the emerging ‘New Town‘ in Edinburgh.

    A sudden light on Marmion broke:–
    “Ah! dastard fool, to reason lost!”
    He muttered; “‘T was nor fay nor ghost
    I met upon the moonlight wold,
    But living man of earthly mould.
    O dotage blind and gross!
    Had I but fought as wont, one thrust
    Had laid De Wilton in the dust,
    My path no more to cross.–
    How stand we now?–he told his tale
    To Douglas, and with some avail;
    ‘T was therefore gloomed his rugged brow.–
    Will Surrey dare to entertain
    ‘Gainst Marmion, charge disproved and vain?
    Small risk of that, I trow.
    Yet Clare’s sharp questions must I shun,
    Must separate Constance from the nun–
    Oh! what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practise to deceive!
    A Palmer too!–no wonder why
    I felt rebuked beneath his eye;
    I might have known there was but one
    Whose look could quell Lord Marmion.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s