Response to “Lockerbie Forensic Notes: Page 49”

A reader sent the following comment:

With reference to examination page 49, I think it’s damning with regard to the examination notes and dates. I thought the second date 15/5/89 could be a genuine mistake, the month noted as a 5 instead of a 3 but the 5 is very clear, this cannot be a mistake.

The reason being – the initial examination date top right hand corner ’15/3/89′, if the noted items were examined on the same date there is no reason or requirement to provide a secondary date further down the page.

It’s clear the examination notes abruptly cease Tuesday 15/3/89.

Paul Channon met journalists at the Carrick Club Wednesday 16/3/89 apparently arrests were imminent etc which was subsequently denied.
Also, UK Prime Minister further confirmed to Parliament Monday 20/3/89 both the item of baggage and tape recorder were known.

As examination page 49 confirms the next date is Monday 15/5/89. [12/5/89 is a Friday]

Agreed, whichever way you look there are two months between 15 March 1989 to 15 May 1989 where RARDE as the forensic examiners of this case effectively down tools.

In my view, the related issue is what made RARDE cease 15 March 1989, was it top down instructions or was it the evidence was wholesale toward PFLP-GC.

For RARDE to very abruptly stop examinations of the largest terror act of the time there must be a reason why ? There must be internal RARDE instructions or even Scottish police, Crown correspondence or an associated report with cease and desist inclusive of the reasons for same.

Has there been an explanation why RARDE stopped 15/3/89 ?

Forensics usually stop when the evidence is irrefutable, mostly rightly due to costs and resource.

April 1989 there was numerous controlled explosives tests carried out in the US supervised conducted by Feraday and Thurman. Where these exploration or confirmation tests ?

The real issue and problem I have is this, either 12/5/89 or 15/5/89 there is an inescapable factually recorded two month inactive period with no items examined.

The next listed item examined is not only significant but the item which will determine the whole case.

This is the equivalent of pulling a white rabbit out of a hat.

This entry was posted in Comment. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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