Dec 25 1988 – Tom Thurman & Rick Hahn

You must recognize his genius. He is a super hero! Or – maybe – not…

Hahn

The following is a short extract from Thurman’s precognition.

On 25 December 1988, we established where the piece of metal had been located. It was apparently at a farm. I went with some Scots to the farm. There was a gaggle of us. I remember it was raining and it was foggy. We saw a piece of metal sticking in the ground. It seemed to be a skid rail for a baggage container.

The Scottish Police took custody of it. They seemed to be flabbergasted that we found it. I heard a yell. I was over a ridge at the time. I saw it simply sticking into the ground. I cannot actually recall if it did have pitting, but it was very close to the heart of the explosion and was blackened. The rest of the day was spent searching the field nearby and on the evening of the 25th December 1988 there was a de-briefing.

I reported to FBI Headquarters that it looked like we were dealing with a bomb. It would take time, I explained, to collect the pieces. At that stage, everyone was quite understandably concentrating on the location of bodies. I went back to the US on the basis that I could return once all the debris had been pulled out. I went back to Lockerbie in January 1989 but I cannot remember the precise date.

I brought a number of FBI colleagues with me, all from the Explosives Unit. I was in charge. There was Rick Hahn, Paul Schrecker, David Williams and Greg Carl. We were not in the evidence chain of custody. We were more advisors.

Who is Rick Hahn?

Back to Colombia… You may want to educate yourself about Avianca 203! Because it is far worse than PA 103…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Lockerbie Investigation. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dec 25 1988 – Tom Thurman & Rick Hahn

  1. Allan croft says:

    The metel he found was labeled by a Mr Douce not the police to me it looks like it was in a fire not expolision as I have photos of the said piece so Tom Whopper Thurman is telling Whoppers again and even under oath to a grand jury.

    Like

  2. PF says:

    The Avianca 203 bombing was and remains hugely controversial. Whoever carried it out, it was very unlikely to have been the man who is now serving 20 life sentences in a US Supermax prison.

    As with Lockerbie, the vital incriminating evidence around the use of explosives was provided by Thurman and his friends.

    Rick Hahn was a FBI Crime Lab investigator at the time of Lockerbie. Thurman was his line manager and supervisor. Hahn’s evidence on the Avianca bombing was vital to the prosecution and was wrong:

    “Richard Hahn was an examiner in the EU from 1987 until early 1992, when he transferred to the FBI’s office in Long Beach, California…., we conclude that in the Avianca trials Hahn did not commit perjury, fabricate evidence, or intend to mislead the court. We also conclude that he erroneously testified in the first trial that no dynamite could have caused the pitting and cratering on the aircraft, gave scientific opinions correlating the pitting and cratering with a VOD range that were unsound and not justified by his experience, erroneously failed to make inquiries about the validity of his jetting theory before the second trial, gave incomplete testimony concerning the MAU results, testified incorrectly and outside his expertise concerning a fuel-air explosion, the injuries to passengers, and other areas, and slightly overstated his experience. Hahn is no longer working in the Laboratory. If in the future he is asked to testify about his work as an examiner, we recommend that he be specifically counseled about the importance of not testifying on matters outside of his expertise. Such testimony should also be reviewed subsequently by appropriately qualified examiners in the Laboratory to assure that he has appropriately limited his testimony.” [Official report into the FBI crime lab which resulted in Thurman being removed from his job].

    That Thurman was within a hundred miles of a key piece of evidence from the Pan Am container at Lockerbie, as he alleges above, ought to make us all very suspicious.

    Like

  3. Craig says:

    Here are a few links available with regard to noted FBI procedures and other matters during 1980’s and 1990’s;
    Office Inspector General
    https://oig.justice.gov/special/9704a/06avianc.htm
    SECTION E: AVIANCA BOMBING

    5. Other Allegations
    “Hahn also testified that [m]y experience includes being called upon to do crime scene processing and make assessments of such notable causes of explosives in criminal cases such as Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and the World Trade Center in New York.”

    “This testimony overstated Hahn’s experience. In the Pan Am 103 case, Hahn’s only involvement in explosive assessments was that he examined the passengers’ personal effects for blast damage.
    In the Trade Center case, Hahn’s role was limited to management of the crime scene and did not include analysis of the evidence.”

    Comment:
    It is clear from the aforementioned statement, noted FBI personnel had access to and examined debris and other personal effects at Lockerbie.
    ———————————————-
    http://www.westword.com/news/the-hit-man-nobody-knows-5066904
    Thursday, May 17, 2001
    ‘In its investigation of the problems in the FBI lab, the Inspector General’s Office concluded that Agent Hahn had testified to matters that were “beyond his expertise” at the Avianca trials and that his notions of what constituted expert knowledge of explosives were “incorrect and dangerous.”

    Whitehurst says the same philosophy of “ends justifying means” haunts the Muñoz Mosquera case.
    “We’re at war, but we’re trying to use the mechanisms of justice.”

    “What happens at the end of the fight, when you’ve blown away your justice system?”
    ———————————————-

    http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000016111585;view=1up;seq=1
    US Senate Hearing – Threat of Terrorism And Government Responses To Terrorism
    Date: 11th September, 1989

    Witnesses include;
    Oliver ‘Buck’ Revell – FBI Associate Deputy Director, Investigations
    Noel Koch – Former Director of Special Planning, Department of Defense
    Adm Stansfield Turner – Former Director CIA

    Page 26: Oliver ‘Buck’ Revell testimony;
    Senator Cohen: What is your assessment, Mr. Revell, at this point, as to the culpability of the group involved, or groups involved in Pan Am 103?
    Mr. Revell: I believe we have identified a group or groups. I believe that we will be able to identify individuals. I believe that it is very possible that that group may lead back to a nation, but we are not in a position at this point to make THAT EVIDENCE PUBLIC or to bring it into a court of law. A decision will have to be made by the President, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others, perhaps the Congress, as to what course of action is taken if we are able to pursue it that far.
    I am confident that we will identify the individuals who committed the act.

    Page 27:
    Senator Cohen: I think you have done an extraordinary job; I’m not being critical. You have got quite an accumulation of EVIDENCE.
    Mr. Revell: Yes.

    Senator Cohen: I just want to know, at what point do you then bring it forward, to the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Congress, if necessary, before something is done?
    Mr. Revell: Well, there have been continuous briefings of the Cabinet officers on the status. There have been some briefings of the Intelligence Committees. I don’t know that we will reach a point of a magic milestone and say, well now we know all the answers. I think as the EVIDENCE and the intelligence accumulates, we come closer to that solution.

    Senator Lieberman: Let me enter this discussion if I may and ask this question. Doesn’t the fact that you have compiled EVIDENCE against a particular group as being responsible for the explosion on Pan Am103, and the fact that we haven’t acted yet, suggest the difficulty of dealing with terrorism as if it were another instance, as Senator Cohen suggested to the earlier panel, of law enforcement? In other words, hasn’t our understanding of who is responsible for 103 reached a point where it justifies diplomatic or military action—or to adopt Mr. Jenkins’ terminology—a declaration of war, as opposed to trying to build a case that a prosecutor could bring to court? I invite Mr. Revell and Mr. Busby to respond to that.

    Mr. Revell: Let me use the analogy of the La Belle Disco in West Berlin; we had given clear warnings to Libya that they should cease and desist in carrying out acts of terrorism against the United States. There was a bombing in Berlin. It was, intelligence-wise, traced to the Libyan Government and the President acted very quickly.

    Mr. Revell. That was a political decision made by the national command authority, but he believe —President Reagan believed—that he had the intelligence he needed to react because of the prior conduct of the Qadhafi regime. That is a decision that the President must make, and those of us in law enforcement can simply proceed with doing our job, along with the intelligence community, to give the President, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State and others what information they need to make those decisions.
    Senator Lieberman: That is a good point. While your investigation proceeds on a law enforcement basis, which, after all, is your jurisdiction, the information you gather is shared with the State Department and the White House. And the President certainly reserves the option to determine that the evidence has reached a point where he, as a matter international policy, feels that it is justified to respond militarily, as opposed to waiting for it to go to court. Ambassador Busby, would you like to comment?

    Ambassador Busby: I might make one additional point. Certainly, the State Department, the President, and others are aware of the progress of the investigation. And as Buck has said, we receive regular briefings as to both the intelligence and law enforcement aspects of this. I think that from a policy perspective, what is happening is that the investigation and the intelligence analysis continues to produce results. We are continuing to gain more and more information, more and more insights into that particular event. And so long as that is occurring, what you are in fact doing is continuing to broaden your options. Among the five or more responses that Mr. Reveil has laid out, you are continuing to broaden your ability to choose one or more of those options as long as that investigation continues to produce some information which is of value in making that decision. In my opinion, it would be a shame to cut off that process until it has reached its logical conclusion or until it has actually produced as much information as we can possibly provide to the policy makers.

    Page 29:
    Senator Cohen: Pan Am 103?
    Mr. Revell: Pan Am 103 is a little different. We do have some other remedies available.

    Page 31:
    Senator Lieberman: Mr. Revell, this question comes from what I have read in the public press. Isn’t the headquarters for the group that is suspected of carrying out the explosion of 103, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in Damascus and operating with the presumed consent of the Syrian Government?
    Mr. Revell: It is.
    ————————————————–
    Comment: Keeping in mind this hearing was September 1989.
    I have selected just a few statements from this hearing but would suggest a read through, particularly Noel Koch observations.
    With reference to Oliver ‘Buck’ Revell statements, I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue FBI at that time did not possess a lot more information and evidence than has never been shared.
    Revell repeatedly notes FBI ‘evidence’, Revell is very careful throughout his various statements to differ the choice of words from evidence and intelligence.
    Even the Senators present are fully aware of the FBI evidence.

    Former FBI investigator Richard Marquise continually states the argument with regard to intelligence and evidence and is quick to down play all other views including the likes of former CIA Bob Baer etc
    Well, where does this place lead US Lockerbie investigator at that time and his former boss Revell repeated statements of FBI ‘evidence’ ?
    It could look on the face of it, Marquise views his former boss Revell statements as complete fabrication.

    It appears either Oliver ‘Buck’ Revell was spinning a web of lies at a US Senate Hearing or ‘evidence’ has been suppressed from very early on in the investigation.
    —————————————
    I don’t think any post on this matter would be complete without a Vince Cannistraro quote or two;

    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-21/news/mn-4770_1_bomb-iran-cia
    21 November 1990
    WASHINGTON — A former CIA official says that the United States is “very close” to getting indictments against the terrorists who bombed Pan Am Flight 103 and that it also has evidence that Iran is responsible for the disaster.

    Cannistraro, taking the unusual step of speaking to reporters soon after leaving the agency, said investigators have made great progress in determining how the bomb was placed on board and by whom. He did not elaborate.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-04/news/mn-964_1_ex-cia-official
    4 April 1989
    WASHINGTON — A former CIA official testified Monday that William J. Casey, the late CIA director, designated Oliver L. North to assist the Nicaraguan Contras after Congress cut off U.S. government funding for the rebel forces in 1984.

    The ex-official, Vincent M. Cannistraro, said he attended a meeting that year at which Casey announced that he had obtained the approval of then-President Ronald Reagan to make North “the reference point” for aiding the Contras when Congress barred the CIA from continuing to play that role.
    Vincent Cannistraro, a longtime CIA official who worked in a suite adjoining North’s at the National Security Council, likening North to the puppet Pinocchio, whose nose grew when he lied.

    —————————————–
    Comment:
    When exactly did Vincent Cannistraro leave CIA ?
    The laddie appears to have testified as former CIA, April 1989 but subsequent news reports also suggest former CIA just left September 1990.

    One wonders under what circumstance Vincent left CIA and the apparent contra information ?

    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