Kenny MacAskill (and – I am told – Alex Salmond) recently admitted that Megrahi did not buy the clothes that – allegedly – were wrapped around the bomb that exploded on Pan Am 103. This is not a detail. It was key evidence against him. Without this, there could have been no case against him.

As Professor Black wrote a couple of days ago:

“It is sufficient to say that in the Commission’s view any finding that a reasonable court could not have inferred that the applicant was the purchaser would render the remaining evidence against him insufficient to convict.” SCCRC 21.100

I have  explained long ago why I did not believe that Megrahi had bought these clothes. (See for instance: Lockerbie: J’accuse.) There is no doubt that Megrahi was NOT the buyer of these clothes. But, what else may be wrong in that story?

Today, I will share with you some basic observations about PK/339. Remember that the infamous timer fragment PT/35(b) was “extracted” from PI/995, that is the collar of that shirt.



Pieces of the SLALOM shirt recovered among the debris of PA 103


Here is a control sample of a similar shirt. (Dr Hayes p 153)


Dr Hayes - Page 153

Dr Hayes – Page 153


And finally, here is the first examination by Dr Hayes of PK/339.




I suggest a few anomalies.

To start with the obvious, I notice that Dr. Hayes had initially written: ” No IED fragments recovered”. Then, he goes on to describe the “frags” he recovered..

Less obvious is the length of the material: 320 mm. However, under close inspection, it appears that the 3 was initially a 5.

ADDED 20/05/2016 – Here is a magnified view of “320 mm”:




Last but not least, let us pay attention to the “buttonholes”. You can see two of them. Then, about 10 cm below, you will notice a third hole, exactly at the right distance where you might expect a buttonhole. Question: is it or not a button hole?

Who cares? Well, here is the issue. It is or it is not a buttonhole.

Now, if it is a buttonhole, we have a problem. Because we have 4 of them under the pocket (3 on PK/339 as well as one on PK/1978) and this shirt should only have three of them…

But, if it is not a buttonhole, the length of the shirt under the last buttonhole is much too long.

Stay tuned…

This entry was posted in SCCRC, SLALOM Shirt, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “SLALOM” SHIRT : PK/339

  1. George Thomson says:

    Welcome back Ludwig I thought that you had given up. You make good points with the shirt but I disagree with you in relation to the three previously being a 5. If you study the way Hays does his 3s then you could suggest that many of them could originally have been 5s. I am sure that you will cover it but my favourite discrepancy in relation to the shirt was the fact that the Fragment PK1978 which featured the pocket area was produced in court showing that the pocket area was fragmented into two pieces, however the Photograph we were able to access in the BKA files had been taken with the pocket area intact. This of course means that the pocket area had been fragmented after the piece came into possession of the Police

    I drew this to the attention of the SCCRC in my initial report to them, but they chose to completely ignore it. ??


  2. Craig says:

    All the very best to both respected Ludwig and George Thomson.
    The next few weeks could be interesting times.
    Sincere thoughts to effected families and friends with regard to the atrocity.

    My first thought of the change from 5 to 3 was fairly conclusive, I’m not sure if this represents a change from boys shirt to a gents shirt, however I very much respect George views on the matter, also interested with regard to the difference to the shirt pocket.

    Other aspects of the examination note which cause concern, the mention of IED fragments which note either not present or subsequently were present.
    I’m unsure as to why an examination note dated 22/5/1989 could declare either or as the record shows it wasn’t until months later RARDE representatives suggested IED related information with regard to the infamous fragment.

    In my view, the statement “No fragments of IED recovered” is peculiar, the basis being IED fragments have already been recovered and a comparison match is being initiated.
    If one doesn’t know the IED composition which RARDE repeatedly claimed, one cannot recover same.

    “N.B see pg 142 (of DC/34)”
    I think this written statement confirms forever more these ‘examination notes’ do not represent contemporaneous notes and findings.
    The examination page 75 which also references page 142 and exhibit DC/34;

    Trial Transcript, PDF Page 786;
    Do you have on the screen now, DC/34, the control sample? Would you read what the report says about that, please.

    A Yes, sir. DC/34. This is a proprietary babies’ all-in-one sleeper suit, submitted as a control sample for comparison purposes, which is shown in photograph 139.

    The fact of the matter is the aforementioned examination page 75 could have been written at any time or event, the note clearly does not represent examination of 22/5/1989.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s