“That man did not buy any shirt, I am sure.”
Tony Gauci — Lockerbie top witness (January 30 1990)
“Even if we assume that the clothing in that bag was actually found on the crash site as claimed, I suspect that the clothing might therefore have been a ‘red herring’ placed there very possibly from Abu Talb’s stock of Maltese clothing, deliberately to mislead potential investigators. The clothing (with its labels) was quite easily identified as being Maltese in origin and so limited in its manufacture within Malta as to make the tracing back to ‘Mary’s house’ possible. Neat. Too neat.”
Dr. Jim Swire — Email to Intel Today (December 9 2019)
Q — Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
A — Yes. But presumably our definitions of “contemporaneous” are different.
Testimony of Dr Hayes at the Lockerbie trial (Page 2592)
“As an afterthought I think that had the original Scottish Police Investigators obeyed their political masters by introducing the fragment into the chain of evidence in or around December 1989 then they may have got away with the deception but due to the fact that they chose to alter Forensic notes and photographs and change production labels and attribute Memos in relation to other pieces of evidence to PT/35(b) it was fairly easy to pick holes in their case.”
Lockerbie Investigator George Thomson — (Email to Intel Today)
June 29 2020 — PT/35(b) — the infamous timer fragment linking Lockerbie to Libya — was discovered in the collar (evidence PI/995) of a grey “Slalom” shirt. Lockerbie experts have long noticed that the story of this shirt is highly suspicious. After years of research, I have come to the conclusion that this item was planted among the evidence in the Autumn of 1989. The technical documents regarding PI/995 will be posted in Appendix A of this book. Follow us on Twitter:@INTEL_TODAY
RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!
RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter I : A week in December]
RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter II : The Usual Suspects]
RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter III : Operation Autumn Leaves]
RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter IV : The ‘Wait & See’ Strategy]
RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter V : Blame it on Gaddafi!]
RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter VI : A spectacular miscarriage of Justice]
Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!
QUICK NOTE — To make it easier for the readers to retrieve various chapters of this book, I have created a special page “Lockerbie” where all the links to the chapters will be listed with a brief description. You can access that page directly as it appears at the far right of the top bar of this blog.
Chapter VII : The SLALOM Shirt
The discovery of a tiny fragment of a Swiss timer — known as PT/35(b) — played an essential role in the Lockerbie investigation.
In fact, according to Richard Marquise — the FBI agent who led the US part of the investigation — an indictment would have been impossible without that piece of evidence.
PT/35(b) was allegedly discovered in the collar (evidence PI/995) of a grey “Slalom” shirt.
According to his examinations notes, Dr Hayes examined PT/35(b) on May 12 1989 after dissection of PI/995 first described as part of the neckband of a grey shirt, and later identified as a SLALOM shirt.
Who discovered PI/995? And When?
We have been told at least four different stories about how and when PT/35(b) was found and when it was examined. Let us review the various statements.
A. Lord Colin Boyd  — “On 13 January 1989, Detective Constables Thomas Gilchrist and Thomas McColm found a fragment of charred clothing in search sector I, near Newcastleton. This piece of charred grey cloth was bagged, labelled ‘Charred Debris’ and given a reference number: PI/995.
On 12 May 1989, Dr. Thomas Hayes examined PI/995. Inside the cloth, Dr.Hayes found fragments of paper, fragments of black plastic and a tiny piece of circuitry. Dr. Hayes gave to these items the reference number PT/35 as well as an alphabetical suffix to each one of them. The fragment of the circuit board was named PT/35 (b).”
B. Richard Marquise (FBI)  — “Although it [PT/35(b)] had been located early on in the search, the piece of cloth [PI/995] in which it had been blasted was not examined until a year after the attack.”
C. The Central Intelligence Agency  — “The sequence of events that really changed the focus to the Libyans occurred in the fall of 1989. Months after the plane went down, the Scots discovered a piece of a circuit board from the timer that came from the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103.
A shredded shirt containing the fragment was found by a Scotsman walking his dog after the formal recovery effort had ended. (…) This farmer saw this fabric, looked at it, knew, of course, the plane had crashed… and brought it to the attention of the Scottish police. The shirt had been destroyed . However, … the label in the back of the collar had a tag that linked it to Mary’s House.”
D. The BKA (BUNDESKRIMINALAMT)  — “On 22 January 1990, Scottish scientists of the Royal Armement Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) found a fragment of a green circuit board lodged in the cuff of a ‘Slalom’ shirt which was identified as ‘PT 35’, and could have possibly been part of the detonator.”
According to the official line, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found, on January 13 1989, a piece of charred material which was given the police number PI/995.
The original inscription on the label was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’.
At the Lockerbie trial, DC Gilchrist could not provide an explanation for the alteration of the label. 
Q Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered?
A I can see writing underneath it.
Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word ”debris,” we can make out, can we not, the word ”cloth,” with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of ”debris,” and a T under the R, and a H under the S?
A It’s possible, yes, sir.
Q It’s more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it?
Q Well, why didn’t you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A I didn’t notice it. It’s the first time it’s been brought to my attention.
The judges concluded that:
“There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing.”
According to page 51 of his notes, Dr Hayes examined PT/35(b) on May 12 1989, after dissection of the neckband of a SLALOM grey shirt.  Really?
Page 51 is actually a loose leaf of his examination book and the original pages 51 to 55 have been renumbered 52 to 56. There is no drawing of the fragment on page 51.
Also, the text written on that page 51 is not indented on the following page. And the words indented on page 52 do not appear to be related tho the Lockerbie investigation.
None of these anomalies have ever been explained.
From May 12 to September 15 1989
According to their recollection, Dr Hayes and Allen Feraday immediately realized the importance of PT/35(b) when it was discovered on May 12 1989.
So, it is quite puzzling that there is no record of any work whatsoever being done in relation to this item during the next four months.
Even more disturbing is a memo written by Feraday on September 15 1989. When he finally informed Detective Inspector William Williamson, Feraday wrote:
“Sorry about the quality [of the photos] but it is the best that I can do in such a short time.”
The memo came to be known as “the lads and lassies memo” because Feraday went on to write:
“I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important so any light your lads/lassies can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome.”
Neither Hayes nor Feraday have ever been able to explain why no high-quality picture of PT/35(b) was taken in May 1989.
Even the numbering of this item appears suspicious as PT/30 was examined on June 8 1989.
And it is certainly very strange that the Police did not investigate the SLALOM shirt (in which PT/35(b) was allegedly found) until January 1990 when they began to convince Tony Gauci — 1 USD million at the time — that he had sold this shirt to Megrahi.
Was the SLALOM Shirt Evidence Antedated?
There is something very peculiar about PI/995. In his report, Dr Hayes presents photos 116 and 117 as pictures of PI/995 before and after its dissection that led to the discovery of PT/35(b).
At the trial, Dr Hayes confirmed that information. The exchange went as follows. 
Q Could we return to the report now, please. And if we could have photograph 116 on the screen, that’s of Production 181. Do we see “PI/995” in the bottom centre of the photograph?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the report tells us that, “This is a severely damaged fragment of grey cloth which is shown after its partial dissection in photograph 117, and at the bottom centre of photograph 116 (before dissection).”
A Yes, sir.
Q Are we seeing it, then, before dissection in this photograph?
A Yes, sir.
Dr Hayes examined PK/339 and PK/1973 on May 22 1989. PK/1978 was examined on October 10 1989. 
Therefore it is rather obvious that PI/995 could not have been dissected before October 10 1989.
And the key piece of evidence that led the investigation towards Libya could not have surfaced before that date.
The US investigators (FBI) were told about PT/35(b) for the first time on January 10 1990. 
The consequence is inescapable and indisputable. The key piece of “evidence” surfaced between October 10 1989 and January 10 1990.
For some reason, this finding was antedated to May 12 1989. Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?
Was the SLALOM Shirt Evidence Fabricated?
The description of PK/1978 is rather peculiar, as it is labelled as trousers! It is not easy to confuse a shirt with trousers…
And, even though I am not a linguist, I would think that “MELTED” would better apply to “SLALOM” trousers (the kind that people use for skiing in Europe at that time of the year) than to a shirt. What exactly is melted in PK/1978 anyway?
Now, allow me to share with you some basic observations about PK/339. Here is a control sample of a similar shirt. (Dr Hayes p 153)
And 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.
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 another buttonhole.
Question: is it or not a buttonhole?
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. What do you conclude from all this nonsense?
And by the way, Detective Sergeant Nigel Gray made a surprising statement during precognition regarding item PK/339.
“I can also say with certainty that the label attached to the item (PK/339) is not the label I attached to it. For some reason, the item has been re-labelled.
According to the entry, the item was found by a Strathclyde officer. This is not the case and I have no idea why I am not recorded as the finder.”
According to the official narrative, Dr Hayes and Allen Feraday examine PI/995 on May 12 1989 and from the collar of this SLALOM shirt, they extracted the foreign materials shown at the bottom of photograph 117.
These items were collectively identified as PT/35 (a), (b), and (c) and PT/2. They comprise:
PT/35 (a) — nine fragments of black plastics from the Toshiba RT-SF16.
PT/35 (b) — a fragment of circuit board from MEBO timer.
PT/35 (c1) — a small fragment of tinned copper wire
PT/35 (c2) — a small fragment of loudspeaker mesh from the Toshiba RT-SF16.
PT/35 (c3) — a small iron-based fragment.
PT/2 — parts of a Toshiba RT-SF16 manual
This story is pure nonsense. If Dr. Hayes and Allen Feraday had the manual and fragments of a black Toshiba RT-SF16 in May 1989, why did they claim for months after that the IED was hidden in a white Toshiba RT-8016? 
And why did they not ask the police to investigate the origin of the Slalom shirt until January 1990?
Obviously the SLALOM shirt is a fabrication and therefore, so must be the items discovered inside it, including PT/35(b) the infamous fragment of the MST-13 timer.
PS — The SLALOM labels were sourced by a Maltese agent from a Belgian manufacturer. George Thomson visited the factory in Brussels and they provided him with authentic sample labels. When you put a lit cigarette near the sample labels they immediately start to melt. Thomson concluded that this label could never have withstood the heat of the alleged explosion.
Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!
Chapter VII : The SLALOM Shirt
I wish to dedicate this story to Professors Elizabeth Loftus and Tim Valentine. Both have studied the Lockerbie Case and both have come to the conclusion that Tony Gauci’s testimony and statements are simply not credible.
Professor Loftus concluded that Tony Gauci was trying hard to please the investigators.
” My general view is that Tony Gauci changed his testimony to fit what the investigators wanted to show.”
After researching and studying all of Gauci’s statements, Professor Valentine came to the following conclusions.
“Tony Gauci didn’t mention (SLALOM) shirts in his first statement, and is adamant that he did not sell any shirts when first specifically questioned about shirts. However, at that time he did sell Slalom shirts to the police.
Some months later he recalled selling shirts to the man. This pattern in the statements is consistent with post-event information becoming incorporated into the memory (a process known as memory distortion).
For this reason I regard the first statement made prior to questioning about the shirts to be more likely to reflect Tony Gauci’s original memory for the event because there is no possibility for it to be influenced by the subsequent questioning.”
1) See Gideon Levy’s documentary: “Lockerbie Revisited”
Gideon Levy: Would you have a case without this piece of evidence [PT/35(b)]?
FBI Richard Marquise: It would be a very difficult case to prove. […] I don’t think we would ever have had an indictment.
2) THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL by RT. HON COLIN BOYD QC, LORD ADVOCATE, SCOTLAND
3) SCOTBOM : Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation by Richard A. Marquise
4) CIA’s role in the Pan Am 103 Investigation — CIA website
6) Lockerbie trial transcript — Page 845
7) Dr Hayes examination notes — Police number PT/90
8) Lockerbie trial transcript — Page 2484
9) See Appendix A
10) Former FBI Richard Marquise confirmed that information to me.
11) At the trial, Dr Hayes could not explained the timeline of his research regarding the Toshiba manual.
“Q [Keen] If we look at page 107, halfway down, we see that what the report tells us is that “on 30th June 1989 some explosively damaged paper fragments which bore indications that they originated from the owner’s instruction manual for a Toshiba were received at this laboratory, thus conclusively establishing which of the seven models of the Toshiba had been employed in the Lockerbie bomb.
Q But we know that all of the dates predate the 30th of June. We’ve just looked at them, Dr. Hayes.
A [Hayes] In which case we might reasonably assume that the date listed in this report is in error.
Q Well, there appear to be two alternatives, do there not, Dr. Hayes? One, page 107 of the report is referring to different fragments to those which you found during your forensic examination.
Q The alternative is that the — this part of the report is simply completely erroneous in ascribing to the 30th of June the receipt of any fragments of the Toshiba owner’s manual?
A It could be the date is in error, yes, sir.” [p 2692-2697]
Moreover, Mrs Gwendoline Horton has always insisted that she had found the Toshiba manual in perfect condition.
Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter VII : The SLALOM Shirt]