1 Response to MOSSAD — Test Your “SPY Knowledge” With Our Quiz! [2018]

1. Craig says:

   February 22, 2018 at 4:34 pm

   6/10 for me.
   Must study and read more !

   I recently read the following article by Otto Hostettler:
   https://www.beobachter.ch/burger-verwaltung/lockerbie-steckte-wirklich-libyen-dahinter
   ————————————–
   Google Translate:

   Was Libya really behind it?

   Probably the most important piece of evidence that led to the condemnation of a Libyan intelligence officer was probably fake.

   by Otto Hostettler

   The Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, sentenced to life imprisonment as a Lockerbie assassin, died in May. But whether he actually has 270 lives on his conscience, is not completely clear to this day. On the contrary, there are reasonable doubts as to whether he smuggled the bomb into the Pan-Am jumbo, causing him to crash over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. Observer research and findings from newly appeared files show that the official perpetrator theory must be fundamentally questioned.

   The Zurich-based electronics retailer Edwin Bollier played a central role in the Lockerbie case. The mere fact that he built timers in the mid-eighties and delivered them to Libya is the basis for the entire official proceedings: Al-Megrahi is said to have smuggled a bomb with such a timer in a suitcase aboard the jumbo.

   Bollier’s dazzling past made him suspect: he maintained intensive contacts with senior Libyan authorities for years, including intelligence. For the Gaddafi regime, among other things, he built the radio network of the police and military – and delivered in 1985/86 proven 20 so-called MST-13 timers. Since the early seventies, he also supplied the East German secret service Stasi with all sorts of electronic material, such as polygraphs and telephone surveillance. Despite embargo everything was legal and with export licenses through Switzerland approved.
   The evidence building shakes tremendously

   The investigator’s sights were on Zurich when months after the crash in Lockerbie a fingernail-sized part of an electronic circuit board appeared. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which conducted the Lockerbie investigation with the Scottish authorities, submitted the fragment of the CIA for analysis. There, the tiny find was identified in no time as part of a printed circuit board of a Bollier-produced MST-13 timer.

   The conclusion to Bollier succeeded the CIA thanks to a timer that could ensure Americans in 1986 in Togo. This allegedly came from the series that Bollier had produced for Libya in 1985. However, it is precisely here that serious discrepancies emerge, which fundamentally calls into question the authenticity of this crucial reference timer.
   With the help of a timer seized in Togo (picture above) the “piece of evidence” of Lockerbie was identified. But in it is a quartz with the final digit 4, which did not exist in 1985. For the timers supplied to Libya only quartz with the final number 3 was used (picture below).

   This timer contained a quartz that did not exist in 1985 – when Bollier produced the Libya timers. This is proven by the court photo of the timer and invoices of the Zurich-based company, which delivered the crystals to Bollier in 1985 and which are available to the observer (see pictures above). This could have a serious impact on the chain of evidence: without the “Togo-Timer”, the find could never have been assigned to Bollier and thus to Libya.

   Equally explosive are new insights into the tiny PCB fragment found at the crash site. Today, even the question arises as to whether this discovery, which is decisive for the entire chain of evidence, has ever existed. For if it had actually been part of a Libyan-supplied timer, it should have been coated with an alloy of 70 percent tin and 30 percent lead. It was proven that the other Libya timers were also coated. However, the British journalist John Ashton, who researched Lockerbie for 20 years, can now prove on the basis of a laboratory analysis of the investigators that the key piece of evidence for the indictment was undoubtedly coated only with pure tin.

   Did the Swiss help with the forgery?

   For Ashton, this discrepancy alone makes it clear: “This fragment can not come from the series that Bollier delivered to Libya in the mid-1980s.” Ashton, who also worked for Megrahi’s defense team at times, now writes “Megrahi: You are my Jury : The Lockerbie Evidence “has published a second highly respected book, is convinced:” Had the defense had these details, that would have had a decisive effect on the process. ”

   All these inconsistencies support Edwin Bollier’s constant assurances that the Lockerbie fragment had never been part of a Libyan-supplied timer. At the same time he does not dispute that the find was from another circuit board, as he had then installed in MST-13 timers.

   Bollier still suspects that the piece of printed circuit board found in Lockerbie came from a prototype. He can not prove this theory, however. However, it is on record that on June 22, 1989, a commissioner of the Federal Police in Bolliers company presented and filed a prototype of such a circuit board. What has become of it is not known.

   Documents under lock and key for years

   It came to irregularities when the tiny electronic component was found in Lockerbie: In the file the Fund is initially documented with the date January 12, 1990, later on September 15, 1989, and in the final report, the responsible experts write suddenly from 12. May 1989.

   It is clear that something is wrong at the last date. Two weeks after 12 May, three high-ranking Scottish police investigators in Bern exchanged views with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on the state of the investigation and possible perpetrator hypotheses. But a new finding of a potentially promising piece of evidence was not even a topic at the two-day meeting in Bern. In the minutes of the meeting of 24./25. In any case, there is no word on this in May 1989.

   The Federal Prosecutor wanted to keep this protocol by all means under lock and key, but had to give it to the observer after one and a half years of legal rope pulling. According to the records, the police officers then discussed as possible perpetrators exclusively the Palestinian splinter group PFLP General Command. This is the group that was also responsible for the Swissair crash of Würenlingen (1970) and other aircraft attacks.

   Other documents show that there were always worrying cases throughout the investigation. Above all, the British kept for years important documents under lock and key, which could have questioned the official Tatversion. Just recently, the Scottish Judicial Authority issued a good 800-page report. In it, she lists a whole series of serious disagreements in the investigation. The agency concludes that the prosecution withheld important files and information from the defense lawyers of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The court has therefore repeatedly violated the accused’s right to a fair trial.

   Again and again doubts about the authenticity

   Perhaps the discrepancies that have now become known were already clear to the investigators in the early 1990s – at least in part. Because even high-ranking police employees repeatedly expressed doubts about the authenticity of the electronic component found at the crash site. So even the then head of the responsible department in the Federal Prosecutor’s Office has entrusted to the FBI chief mediator Richard Marquise, he suspects that the fragment had been “placed” at the crash site. Marquise confirms this statement to the observer even today.

   Moreover, if the official thesis were inviolable, one wonders why Bollier was never called to account for mendicant action. A criminal investigation against him was opened, but only ten years after the assassination – and only a few weeks before the Lockerbie trial. In 2004, the case against Bollier was silently ended. From the employment order, in which the Federal Prosecutor’s Office initially denied the observer for reasons of state protection, but which she had to issue after a complaint before the Federal Administrative Court, it only appears that nothing could be proved against Bollier.

   After all the newly emerged facts Bollier is militant: He filed a complaint against the then Federal Police, because this employee had illegally taken his employee an electronic component in June 1989. In fact, the policeman could not even rely on criminal proceedings. And Switzerland had not granted Scotland legal assistance at the time.

   In addition, Bollier has now also sued the Swiss Confederation: to 47.7 million francs compensation.

   Published on 05. June 2012

   —————————————–

   Note:
   “It is clear that something is wrong at the last date. Two weeks after 12 May, three high-ranking Scottish police investigators in Bern exchanged views with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on the state of the investigation and possible perpetrator hypotheses. But a new finding of a potentially promising piece of evidence was not even a topic at the two-day meeting in Bern. In the minutes of the meeting of 24./25. In any case, there is no word on this in May 1989.”

   How can this be ?
   24/25 May 1989 ?
   Three high-ranking Scottish police investigators in Bern…….

   “In the minutes of the meeting of 24/25 May 1989”
   Where are the minutes of this meeting ?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.