The Chronology of PT/35(b): 2 October 1990

2 October 1990

According to the CP of FBI agent Richard Marquise, a meeting took place between
security agencies to resolve “political difficulties” about the enquiries that were being
made in Switzerland, and at the end of the meeting the CIA agreed to “back off” the
enquiry.

See further detail in chapter 8 of the statement of reasons.

FBI Richard Marquise

FBI Richard Marquise

Comments:

Here is the relevant part of Marquise’s CP:

I first found out about PT/35(b)
in January of 1990 at a Scottish Conference on the
Lockerbie Air Disaster. At that time, the Scottish
Police were to make efforts to identify the
manufacturer of the printed circuit board. I heard
nothing more until June of 1990, when it became
apparent that the Scottish Police had not been
successful in identifying the manufacturer.

I believe that a photograph of the fragment was given
to Special Agent Thomas Thurman in June of 1990,
although I was not present when this occurred. As I
understand the position, within a couple of days, Mr
Thurman got a match for the fragment, having
checked with the records of the Central Intelligence
Agency.

I was not present when the Scottish Authorities
brought the Fragment of Printed Circuit Board (PT35(B))
to Washington for comparison with a timer
which Special Agent Tom Thurman had obtained
for comparison purposes. I am aware that,
following this comparison, enquiries progressed
regarding the 3 manufacturers of the timing device.

By my recollection, we did not establish that the
timing device was manufactured by the firm MEBO
in Zurich, Switzerland until August of 1990. I can
no longer recall where this information came from.

The first official contact with the firm MEBO in
Zurich by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was
by a Legat, Robert Fanning, stationed in Vienna.
The first formal contacts took place at Protocol
Hearings in Zurich in November of 1990. As far as
I am aware, there were no joint Federal Bureau of
Investigation/Central Intelligence Agency meetings
with the witness Bollier at any time.

From approximately August of 1990 until early
October 1990, there were certain difficulties with
the security services from both Britain and America,
as regards their enquiries in Switzerland. There
were political difficulties between the countries
involved in the investigations and, more
importantly, political differences between the
agencies within each country. Eventually, it
became necessary to hold a meeting to discuss these
matters. with the Central Intelligence Agency.

I believe that this meeting took place on 2 October
1990. Following the meeting, the agency “backed
off” the enquiry.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chronology, Marquise, MEBO, MST13, PT/35(b). Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 2 October 1990

  1. Craig says:

    Appears a long and winding road to Mebo with many already known knowns…..
    I await the numerous case investigators to offer up an explanation which will probably be similar to this;
    “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns.
    That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown
    unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Don Rumsfeld – Psychopath

    With reference to the two facsimile sent by UK ‘Security Services’ on 28 August 1990 and 31 August 1990 [kudos re 25 year timing].

    Interested with the subsequent fax sent 31 August 1990 which is an update of FBI Thomas Thurman current actions with regard to a re-examination but also notes Thomas Thurman known information regarding Memo – “clearly aware of Meister and Bollier and made a cryptic reference to the company already being of great interest to the investigation.”

    “………already being of great interest to the investigation”
    Note, ‘already’ being of great interest, this wasn’t the start of this section of the enquiry, this was ‘already’ a runaway train.

    Who provided the update to the UK ‘Security Services’ who them passed the info to the Scottish police ?
    Considering SIO Henderson, DCI Williamson, Feraday of RARDE all visited Washington with regard to the ‘discovery’ June 1990, and Thomas Thurman already knew of Mebo from at least 1985 reporting, together with monthly inter-agency meetings with good friend and colleague CIA Orkin.

    Why would UK ‘Security Services’ even need to issue this information to the Scottish police ?
    From 28 August 1990 to 31 August 1990, someone updated and provided further information to UK ‘Security Services’ on the day to day activities of an FBI representative.
    I think it would have been Thomas Thurman himself.

    In essence a false trail had to be invented to cover the known knowns, it is almost the complete opposite of what these investigators were at one time good and competent at.
    The very same professional, ethical, moral standards that these folk at one time held were then completely turned 180 and the same professionals then professionally distorted the investigation.

    It is the same concurrent theme throughout this whole saga, one professional states X another states Y.

    For example;
    Thomas Thurman states ‘I found this ID to a timer’ but the Scottish police matched it to Mebo.
    Orkin states ‘I know this about Mebo’ but I never connected the timer to Mebo.
    Williamson who was present at Washington states, Gilchrist told him.
    Gilchrist states ‘We were told this by UK Security Services’

    Every one of them is refusing to accept the complete linkeage that was a known known at that very time.
    Each actor is isolating information and circumstance to deliberate disassociate their organisations from the whole ID episode.

    SCCRC
    8.135
    “According to Mr Gilchrist’s Crown precognition, so far as he was concerned no restriction was placed on the dissemination of the photograph when it was passed to the FBI and he fully expected them to circulate a copy to the CIA. If that were the case one might reasonably have expected a link to have been made to the Togo timer before June 1990.
    However, in Mr Henderson’s Crown precognition he stated that he did place a “verbal caveat” on the circulation of the photograph, requesting that the FBI should not provide the photograph to the CIA, and he stated that he did not supply a copy of the photograph to the British Security Service at that time either.
    His Crown precognition states “There was nothing sinister in this action. I merely felt that the [CIA] had repeatedly carried out its own enquiries prior to sharing information with us, rather than allowing the investigation to proceed in partnership. On a number of occasions Scottish investigators arrived only to discover that agency staff had pre-emptied [sic] the visits…”
    Mr Henderson indicated that at the international case conference in Washington DC he withdrew the caveat.”

    Timeline;
    10/1/1990 – Fifth Lockerbie International Case Conference held at Lockerbie.
    11/6/1990 – Sixth Lockerbie International Case Conference held at FBI Washington DC.

    Clearly, there is an anomaly present.
    As SIO Henderson and also Richard Marquise states to the effect, SIO Henderson apparently in a quiet moment at the January 1990 Case Conference confirmed they had a fragment of interest but not to distribute photographs outside FBI.

    In the aforementioned SIO Henderson Crown Precognition, SIO Henderson states an undocumented, ‘verbal caveat’ was issued due to CIA continually arriving at places of interest ahead of the Scottish police.

    Of course, there is a major problem with this explanation.
    In January 1990 when SIO Henderson supposedly issued the undocumented ‘verbal caveat’, Senegal investigations hadn’t happened, Togo investigations hadn’t happened which were both apparently to the annoyance of the Scots.

    Unless the known public record is different from another another unknown known record, at January 1990 when the undocumented ‘verbal caveat’ was issued, CIA could not have been turning up anywhere ahead of Scottish police.

    So there would be no requirement to issue an undocumented ‘verbal caveat’ not to distribute photographs.

    To be continued/
    Case Conference 11 January 1990
    Facsimile dated 22 January 1990

    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