|BOMBING OF PAN AM 103
By John Parks - Explosives Engineer
As an unpaid volunteer on the night of the Bombing and someone who rendered further assistance in the ensuing operations I feel it my duty to make you aware of the following facts. I respectfully add that recent evidence given in Court and my study of the AAIB report has prompted this approach. If I may explain.
1. On the night of the Bombing I recruited one of my then employees, a trained mine rescue operative and one further colleague, an experienced Steeplejack, and made our way to Locherbie to assist the emergency services.
2. My team was effective and among other things we demolished the dangerously weakened chimneys at Sherwood Crescent and recovered the body of a female victim from a seriously weakened roof in the Rosebank area. We also covered up the bodies and body parts of the countless victims scattered in and around the gardens of the aforementioned house.
3. Returning to Edinburgh the next day I closed down my business for the Christmas break and returned to Locherbie the day after to offer my assistance.
4. Eventually getting to work I organised and oversaw the following
works in Locherbie Ice Rink
5. Having made myself and my qualifications known to Professor Anthony Busitil he invited me to inspect three bodies, which he suspected of being in close proximity to a bomb blast. Studying a young girls body, the most obvious of victim, I observed her back and other rearward facing parts of her body had been impacted with high velocity fragments. Further to the fragmentation strikes the soles of her socks had sustained multiple holing.
Closer inspection of this phenomenon confirmed that the holes had not been caused by solid fragments, as the skin on the soles of the victim’s feet was unmarked. My conclusion was that this holing had been caused by minute jets of hot gasses, minute particles of burning explosives or an acid. A combination of all three could not be ruled out. I could see no evidence of scorching on any part of this victim’s body.
6. The distribution of fragmentation strikes sustained by this victim showed typical and unmistakable signs of blast shadow protection. At the time I deduced the victims seat squab to have been the receptor responsible for this protection. This phenomenon may also have been due to the fragmentation cloud being arrested by a substantial structural element lying in the flight path of the explosively projected debris.
APPENDIX A number three
7. Discussing my findings with Professor Busitl I said that if I could see the victim’s aircraft seat I could have deduced the angle from which the fragmentation cloud had impacted her body. Later on I witnessed the Professor remove fragments from the victims back.
I would have remained at Locherbie and continued to help had it not been for a Strathclyde Chief Superintendent. Returning from his Christmas holiday he verbally abused my every effort. Notwithstanding his hostility to myself he also verbally abused two RAF Odontologists and a physically exhausted Dumfries and Galloway CID Officer. Further to these outbursts he systematically began destroying the pathologists morale for no apparent reason.
Indeed such was this mans intransigence and belligerence, notwithstanding his failing to capitalise on his assets I decided to make mention of his behaviour in my subsequent report to the Secretary of State. Stress may have been a contributory factor in this mans behaviour but his determination to ensure that he would be acclaimed the Hero of the day appeared a likely cause. Receiving compliments from the pathology team for providing them a purpose built facility rather than the cold basement floor in the Town Hall was my only crime.
Several days after my return from Locherbie and after the submission of my report to the Scottish Office, I was approached by a CID officer from the Lothian’s and Borders CID. Wishing to take a statement on my involvement on the night of the bombing he was unaware I had been further involved. Providing the names and addresses of my team members I passed the officer a copy of my report. Returning the next day the officer told me that his superior officer had invited me to make an official complaint on the Superintendents behaviour. As a volunteer with no official standing, and by then wishing to put the disaster behind me, I declined his offer. I would add the officer’s words here “my boss told me to tell you that we don’t like Bastards like that in the Police either” - unquote.
Since the bombing I have made repeated and unsuccessful approaches to the office of the Prime Minister in an attempt to have Professor Busitil and the Steeplejack Joe Pendrick rewarded for their efforts. On the tenth anniversary of the disaster I made one final attempt. Receiving a further acknowledgement but no sign of any awards I have abandoned these efforts.
Over the years I have kept my Locherbie involvement to myself holding firm in the belief that this crime would be eventually solved and the perpetuators brought to justice. Ashamedly I have only taken a casual interest in the subsequent developments. I am now saddened to hear expert witnesses make erroneous statements. Deciding to take a more professional interest in the technical aspects of the bombing I secured a copy of the AAIB report. Studying the report I was flabbergasted to read there was no evidence of Shrapnel being found in any of the victims! The report actually uses the word Shrapnel which, is incorrect terminology. Shrapnel is an antiquated Anti Personnel Artillery Shell named after its inventor. Studying the AAIB report I am concerned that disclosures relating to the explosive event may be in question primarily the reported Net Explosive Quantity (NEQ) of the reputed device.
I respectfully mention that I speak from 36 years practical experience in explosives engineering and military endeavours and I am currently supplying bomb blast mitigation systems to the U.K. Military. Furthermore while on active service in HM forces I planned, executed and destroyed two aircraft with the use of controlled explosives. One of these being a large RAF Transport the other was a bombed Civil Aircraft located 80 metres from the Airport terminal. As the youngest Sergeant in the British army on active service (20) I also won an award for capturing terrorists in Aden during 1966 and 1967.
I have recently voiced my disquiet to both the Procurators Fiscals office in Holland and the Dumfries and Galloway Police Force however; the response to my approaches has only heightened my concerns.
Like my involvement in the disaster I seek no reward or glorification but rather I wish to see justice properly served. My experience of the actual event combined with my study of the AAIB report, not withstanding recent courtroom revelations leads me to believe the prosecutions case is seriously and monumentally flawed.
John H Parkes
cc The Lord Advocate. NB.
APPENDIX A number four
Messrs A Duff / Glasgow lawyers also received a copy
10 / 6 / 00
BOMBING OF PAN AM 103.
I have vital evidence relating to the above event. If justice is to be properly served my revelations are crucial and must be presented to the trial Judges at the earliest opportunity.
I have taken this course of events in the light of recent evidence provided in court. Further to this erroneous evidence I have at last taken the trouble to read the AAIB report pertaining to the bombing. The report is seriously flawed in as much as it denies that any fragments were found in the bodies of any of the victims. In fact the report states that no Shrapnel was found in any of the victims, which is the wrong terminology.
I was the first Explosives qualified person to quantify that wounds in the back of one of victims was caused by explosively driven fragments and that during Post Mortem investigation fragments would be recovered from some if not all of the wound sites.
Fragments were indeed recovered from this young girls body and I witnessed Professor A Bustle remove at least one fragment.
The suitcase containing the explosives device or IED could not have been at the bottom of the container. It would have been virtually impossible for fragments from such a small device to escape through overlying luggage and baggage of a thickness of one metre (probably less) be driven through the luggage container roof, the flight cabin floor and subsequently impinge on any passenger in the flight path of the fragmentation cloud.
I would add that immediately upon hearing the news that a Crown witness had stated that the device was not at the bottom of the container and then further said that it might have been at the bottom of the container prompted me to contact the PF’s Office in Holland and the Locherbie Police. I was assured from both sources that further expert witnesses would firmly establish where the suspect suitcase was located. This does not now appear to be the case.
I have everything to loose by bringing my evidence to light and absolutely
nothing to gain. Furthermore, and like my efforts at Locherbie I seek no
JOHN H PARKES
NB AFTER ANOTHER COLD RESPONSE I BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE AAIB REPORT IN DETAIL.
LOCKERBIE BOMBING - SECOND REPORT 15 / 6 / 00 - Updated 18 / 6 / 00
History and background - See appendix A.
It is with great sadness I put my findings on paper but personal concerns must be put aside at such times. Whereas I have used my real name I do not wish my address disclosed.
In the interest of brevity I have broken down my report into numbered paragraphs. Throughout my findings I will make references to the AAIB report pertaining to the disaster. Not withstanding my own knowledge of the disaster I have found compelling evidence within the pages of the AAIB report to indicate further explosive events took place aboard Pan Am 103. The AAIB report is readily available from HM Stationers and from the internet.
1. We must first ask this question. Why was the most crucial piece of evidence in the trial cut in 2 pieces to facilitate it being brought into court when the thing was already in 2 pieces the original halves of which were capable of being carried into the courtroom? From a news report the Prosecution made issue with the fact that the container base was too large to be brought into the courtroom. This requires confirmation.
I conclude that the original dismembering of this production was carried out to hide the fact that a remote site from that of the alleged single explosive event had been seriously damaged by a further explosive event. This second event could not have taken place inside AVE 4011 PA. I suspect that a quarter of container base outer rim has been substituted with an undamaged section. Heavy saw cuts are obvious and I deduce these had been made with a high speed carborendum disc or “buzz saw”.
The fact that the defence requested that this container base be brought into court played into the hands of those who had effected the substitution. However, this deception could not have been hidden, as a second cut is wholly unwarranted. I find that this production is not representative of the actual container as evidence bearing areas have been removed.
2. The argument about where the IED had been laid is a red herring. While everyone focuses on the AAIB’s and DERA’s version of events and tries to prove or disprove the exact position of the weapon the real sequence of events concerning the bombing is denied in a most scurrilous manner for reasons I can only guess.
3. The inboard floor area of AVE 4011 PA displays 2 distinct failure characteristics. While the aft inboard section has been forced in an upward direction the forward outer section displays a downward attitude. Had a single explosive event taken place inside this container the majority of the floor pan would have been moved in downward manner.
Not so the case, We clearly see one quarter bent upwards and one quarter bent downwards. An obvious downward force has been applied to the inboard forward outer section. My conclusion is that explosives energy from a second source impinged on this area and that it was this energetic event combined with supersonically driven fragments that forced the floor down and occasioned serious damage to the missing section of outer member. I would be surprised if any trace of the original section of side rail will have survived the AAIB enquiry.
4. Let us now consider the damage to the outboard half of the container floor of AVE 4011 PA. This area exhibits undeniable evidence of an explosive event having take place inside the intact component and I would basically agree with the findings concerning the location of this weapon. (I now know this to be a mainstream component) Never the less, I still have serious misgivings about the reputed NEQ of the alleged bomb. In any event the positioning of this alleged device + or _ 50 cm is now totally irrelevant.
My main concern with the position issue is because it appears to have been an attempt to cloud the remaining facts within the AAIB report as to whether the outboard rail is broken through or not. My conclusion is that a length of forward inboard support rail was seriously if not completely destroyed by this event and the substitution of this was to deny a second explosive event had taken place in the cargo hold. This event along with the second event had almost certainly split the bottom of the container in half. I base this on the following;
a/ Within the 2 photographs of the containers base there appears to be a concerted attempt to draw the eye away from a non-existent area of the outboard face. From bridging the gap with a severely damaged and alien item of wreckage - perhaps even the missing section from the inboard side rail - to some kind of tape being wound around the side rail. The underlying timber support frame also draws away the eye and gives the illusion that the container member is continuous. This vanishing rail act is quantified on the sketch drawing of this production at Fig F4.
Viz Areas not recovered unq It is first hatched (signifying not recovered) and then coloured over in red to signify severely blast damaged. The lost components WOULD HAVE probably exhibited a mainstream components' signature.
b/ Black lettering appears all over the container floor, which is not apparent on the top photograph, which was been taken in another locus. Writing on productions with a felt tip marker is not my idea of preserving evidence!
c / The floor of the container is SPOTLESSLY clean but there would have been undeniable evidence of black sooting or weapon fragment splashing . Again this is not my idea of preserving evidence!
5. Forward face of AVE 4041 PA. Fig 7 This again displays signs of 2 separate forces reacting upon it. The Inboard half of this face is forced inwards and towards the rear of the aircraft and the outboard half has been forced outwards towards the front of the aircraft. The lower left edge exhibits heavy sooting and the outer lower rail has been heavily impacted from the outside. This sooting is synonymous with the detonation of oxygen deficient high performance explosives. I am convinced that this photograph has been deliberately taken off centre to hide this area.
Why, when we clearly see a square piece of aluminum on the aft outer strut are we not shown this from the other side in a photograph. We are shown 2 struts but no evidence of the remaining skin of the container. One can fully appreciate that the aft face was the open side of the container and that the open faces of containers are only closed off with a tarpaulin but we should be shown the aft facing view or at least the inside of the remains of the container. This is extremely odd. The lower left section of the containers skin, including the supporting strut shows a break, which is not depicted on the sketch. There is a foreign object laid against or attached to the strut for no good reason.
There is no mention of any blast vent holes, which could have allowed soot to escape from the inside of the container so we can deduce that this area of the container was blasted with soot from the outside. Indeed the sketch of the panel showing what aluminum skin was actually recovered indicates no sign of lost material or puncture wounds of any description. Quote e Forward face panel complete with top, left and lower edge members unq. A ragged section of outer skin is also seen half way up the inboard strut, which seems to appear again and authenticate that this is the same strut. I am concerned also by what appears to be an engineered cut near the top of this strut however this may simply be tape. No aluminum paneling appears to be “wrapped” around the protruding strut at the lower left of the picture however, aluminum paneling appears to be wrapped around the leg when viewing the inboard face of the container. The appendage on this strut on figure F7 looks like a box or something similar. It may even be an alien corner piece.
Inboard face of AVE 4041 PA Firstly what is the section of paneling shown to the extreme left The alleged left hand strut shows straight marks or possibly tape at the area of the bend. What is this and why was it done? The angle of this element is consistent with the panel being blown outwards as would happen when the blast wave exited that container at a low level. The SQUARE hole shown left of centre top exhibits many features consistent of being blown inwards namely inward pettaling and shear bending however, the section of paneling lying at the 8 o’clock position does not marry up with the damaged container skin. The NG letters may be significant. This rough section is shown to be under the Pan Am logo and again it does not marry in with the localised damage. One can quite clearly see the letters AV bent inwards. The central area of paneling has been forced against the central strut and shows crease lines. Again consistent with having been forced against the bracing strut. Looking to the right of the picture one sees that the skin has separated from the outer edge and has either impacted against luggage by an external force or has been impacted with luggage from an internal source. This characteristic buckling was caused by an outside influence as the top right hand corner displays clear signs of being pushed inwards.
The real problem here is reconciling the REPAIR PATCH with the fixed area of paneling behind the same and which displays quite obvious signs of being pushed inwards. This convenient patch is taped or tied onto the damaged area with tape/ twine or whatever but this “patch” did not originate from this area in the first place. If it is a patch it certainly is a rough patch and one would have expected PanAm's artisans to have made a tidier job of it. The bending of the “patch” is not commensurate with the bend of the fixed panel below it nor is the damage to the paneling commensurate with the “patch”. This so called “patch” could not have remained undamaged while the material that is was “reputedly repairing” is so seriously damaged and torn.
Directly below this patch there is a section of paneling (called E in the sketch), which does not marry up to the REAL fixed section of panel. Again the bending of this piece is not consistent with the bending of the fixed section above it. The lower section of the right leg shows signs of a section of paneling wrapped around it and this could not have happened in this area. In the sketch we see a wavy edge of torn paneling attached to the corner strut but this wavy section paneling is not visible on the actual strut so I conclude that this strut is completely alien to this area. Again a straight mark is evident at the top of the strut and we must ask the question if this is tape or a saw cut and if it is only tape then what is it doing there. This section of the container is highly suspicious and lies directly above the alien section of the containers base. Namely the section with the 2 distinct saw cuts though it. Something is seriously wrong in this whole region and has been fabricated to fit a false chain of events.
Outboard face of AVE 4041 This clearly indicates that a lot of the explosive energy exited the container in this area and the Aircraft’s outer structure bears witness to that. Regularly shaped crease lines are evident on the recovered paneling and I conclude that most, if not all of these were caused by fairly solid objects impinging on the inside face. However, I am concerned about the attitude of this panel. We appear to be looking up at it rather than directly at it and this is because there is something to hide on the topside. Indeed strange marks and or writing are visible - what are they. Nothing is shown of any other element of this container except a strut on the left hand side to which a rectangular section of paneling appears to be fastened to. I suspect that could we see the top section properly we would definitely find evidence of a hole being blasted from the inside. This contentious area marries up with the SQAURE hole in the inboard face. My conclusion here is that an “object” was propelled through the top of the container and that “object” originated from with the starboard container containing the explosive material or materials Again I have no dimensions to work with but this can be easily quantified.
Summary. There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that a minimum of two high explosive events took place onboard PAN AM 103. One inside a container located on the Starboard side and one located inside a container on the Port side. In the light of what I personally witnessed in Locherbie Ice Rink and after an in depth study of the AAIB report leads me to the following conclusion.
The first device detonated in a starboard container and did the following damage.
1/ Severely disrupted the cabin floor and sent high velocity fragments into that area some of which impacted upon the victim I personally witnessed. This event also blasted luggage through the fuselage floor forward and below of the container position (Region E figure B20) - I then interrupted my report at this stage to state what I now believe to be the case. - 0330 HRS 7 / 6 / 00 (Young girls socks come to mind)
THERE WAS NO IED INSIDE CONTAINER AVE 4041. THAT AN EXPLOSIVE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN OR AROUND THIS CONTAINER IS NOT IN QUESTION BUT THIS EVENT WAS UNDOUBTABLY CAUSED BY A MAIN STREAM MUNITON, WHICH WAS MOST PROBABALY, A H.E.A.T. ROCKET PROPELLED ROUND. (HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTI TANK)
I was blinded by certain things but now I see the truth.. Like so many others I was side tracked by DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION . Based on what little evidence and enlarged photographs I can glean from the AAIB report and my own observation in Locherbie Ice Rink (Temporary morgue) my findings are.
A/ A catastrophic explosive event took place in a container located STARBOARD SIDE FORWARD. (see immense damage to floor in this area - plus missing structural elements) This was either the accidental self detonation of main stream MUNITONS or the deliberate explosively promoted detonation and or functioning of the main stream munitions The initial sequence would have blasted into the cabin area with tremendous force - hence the fragments in the wee girl - the other phenomenon I witnessed namely the minute holes burnt in the young girls socks bears witness to the fact that burning rocket propellant was undoubtedly in this area.
B/ It is impossible at this time to say how many mainstream weapons were involved - certainly more than one, probably three and possibly more. A mixture of high temperature gas was produced which opened up the starboard side of the aircraft and blew a hole in its underside - pieces of wreckage from the aircraft and the container including most of its contents were blown into the atmosphere to become what I suspect the first separate radar blip. This high-pressure high temperature gas was most likely caused by an “all burnt on launch propellant” and perhaps a mixture of the gasses from a detonating high explosive.
C/ The aircraft’s controls were severely effected in this area if not completely destroyed causing the aircraft to immediately dive to the port side.
D/ Within - Milliseconds (THOUSANDS OF A SECOND NOT MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND) the warheads from these weapons went propulsive and at least 2 and perhaps even 3 of these impacted the now infamous AVE 4041 container on the port side.
E/ One of these warheads either functioned inside the container and caused the effects seen to the port side adjacent to same or functioned against the aircrafts side and damaged container 4041s outer port gable end - One possibly went through the container at high level and another went through the forward in board bottom corner. I also suspect that a further weapon functioned further aft on the port side. See cabin floor damage in that location. (FIG B 18 AAIB report) What we do know is that one impacted the inner forward lower container rail - hence its substitution. This warhead may have then functioned under the container when striking the under cargo floor area or traveled further aft and functioned in the area of the hold where the pallets were stowed (Station 900). It is difficult to see how such a projectile could have been propelled down the hold without functioning but I am convinced an explosive event also took place in that area. There will be clear evidence to indicate what caused the aft event even if some materials have been accidentally LOST.
F/ Due to the catastrophic failure and separation of the nose of the aircraft I suspect that both if not three of these warheads functioned in the forward port area but I cannot say for certain until I see further evidence. Everything now falls into place - The deliberate hiding of damage, the substitution of damaged of components or the LOSS of components bearing weapon signatures and the undeniable and deliberate attempt not to photograph certain areas and or adulterate photographs of these areas - the cutting and bending of components that could not have been caused by an explosive event in the aircraft destruction sequence I describe.
G/ There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am on the correct track here - I have wasted six valuable days either looking for the wrong thing or following the official line with a great degree of skepticism. The evidence is all contained within the AAIB report without me having to say if I saw fragment impacts in a victim or whether I witnessed minute holes in her socks or not.
H/ The aft fibre Glass container behind AVE 4041 also gives clear indication of the secondary effects of a mainstream muniition. Sections of this container appear to have been SURGICALY removed.
18 / 6 / 00 I have just discovered another adulteration within the AAIB report (figure F 8)
I/ Inboard gable of AVE 4041 - I can no longer trust that this view represents a true gable element belonging to container AVE 4041. I have no wish at this time elaborate on this adulteration but it is significant and quite obvious. If the reputed inboard gable end of this container is not the original gable from 4041 then we must ask the question then from which container is it from. However the square hole depicted top left of centre top still shows definite characteristics of having being punched inwards. Looking at the sketch of the recovered container skin it claims this hole to be square. I can see no reason for a square hole to have been formed other than by hand. A Rocket projectile would produce a fairly round hole in taught aluminum and cause the edges to petal inward. Hitting a soft target such as a container side may not necessarily cause the warhead to function however, as I am ignorant of the particular weapon we can only guess at the detonation mechanism. Having seen the effects of shaped charge warheads or HEAT rounds on miscellaneous targets I do not need to guess at such a weapons performance. I fully appreciate that container AVE 4041 also impacted the ground after being separated from its host never the less, explosive blast damage and or weapon impact damage is entirely different from that produced by mechanical trauma by whatever means.
J/ As I am reliant on the AAIB report which is seriously flawed I have no way of effectively plotting the flight path of the projectile that destroyed the “spar cap” on the port side (Fig B 22). Furthermore if we are to believe the tremendous power of this REPUTED device it not only totally shattered and dislocated this Spar Cap it also melted the aircrafts skin after blasting its way out of a container. It is impossible for this melting to have taken place within the time available from the heat energy released from such a small charge.
What is for certain is that the pre impacted spar cap could not have been totally destroyed by the energy generated by the reputed Net Explosive Quantity of explosives contained within the reputed Improvise Explosive Device. Not withstanding destroying this heavy structural element it blasted it out of the aircraft. I claim that this is a physical impossibility and this fact can be empirically proven.
1/ There is clear evidence that the reputed container AV 4041 has been adulterated after recovery.
11/ There is clear evidence within the AAIB report to show that a catastrophic explosive event took place on the Starboard side of the aircraft. This is also backed by my own observation of the body of a young female victim seated in the starboard side of the aircraft forward of the main event.
111/ There is evidence to show that more than one explosive event took place in the aircrafts hold
1V/ The AAIB report is inconclusive where it relates to container damage.
V/ The AAIB report relies on computer generated images to present its findings.
V1/ The AAIB report mentions the power of an explosive that is yet to be invented
Conclusion; The real sequence of explosive events is denied within the AAIB report and has been substituted with a mythical chain of events. The real explosive events leading to the total loss of this aircraft was on a far greater scale and leads me to believe that anyone involved in producing this aspect of the report has not had any practical experience of explosive engineering or aluminum structures not least aircraft containers construction.
As to the science behind the mach stem theory this is one situation where science cannot be made to fit the bill.
This explosives aspect of this report is an insult to any self respecting Explosive Engineer not least anyone with an interest in forensic science. To ask us to believe that 300 gms of explosives could tear such a massive and well-built aircraft in half and cause it to fall from the sky within 5 seconds is like asking us to believe in fairies.
The fact that such an elaborate attempt has been made to hide something leads me to believe that my explanation is nearer the truth than that given in the AAIB report.
I John Parkes declare that this is a true account of my findings concerning
the loss of Pan Am an 103 and 270 souls. It gave me no pleasure to find
the truth. The production of this report has caused me more heartache than
my involvement in the actual disaster. Had the authorities approached me
at any time and explained why this fabrication had been engineered I would
have looked no further. I walked away from this tragedy 11 years ago and
like a naive explorer I returned to that dangerous time and joined the
casualty list. It is a sad day for mankind when a man who seeks and finds
the truth in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice is damned for his
JOHN PARKES Explosive Engineer
SECOND LOCKERBIE REPORT - ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
AT 9 / 7 / 00
Ref - AAIB report Fig B - 22. Spar Cap embedded in fuselage.
Again the photographic aspect of the AAIB report is a disgrace and begs the questions a/ why are the photographs so small - especially the donor site and b/ why do we not see more of the surrounding area of the supposed borrowed image.
My findings on these issues are;
1/ The images are of separate areas of the aircraft namely the “supposed donor” image is of the aircraft’s fuselage and the supposed borrowed image is of an area of the aircraft’s thick underbelly skin.
2/ The “protruding” items are not one and the same.
3/ The split running up the fuselage in the supposed donor image at the 5 o clock position runs all the way up to the protruding element. There is no sign of this split in the supposed borrowed image. Indeed so severe is this split I cannot see how this reputed spar cap stayed in position.
4/ The secondary hole shown in the borrowed image has been formed from the inside and I am convinced that the protruding element was also driven from the inside out. There are also several smaller holes through this section of bodywork, which I suspect were caused by high velocity fragments driven from the inside.
Conclusion. I suspect that the protruding element shown in the borrowed
image is a section of baggage container that has been blown through the
underbelly skin after being blasted from a complete component. As to the
protruding element in the “supposed donor” site I would agree by its dimensions
that it is a structural element form the aircraft - possibly a section
of a main stringer. The “supposed borrowed image” shows the majority of
the area was pushed inwards and I suspect this was caused by mechanical
trauma however, this does not detract from the fact that the 2 main holes
were formed from the inside.
JH Parkes 10 / 7 / 00
First letter to HSE
ALSO SENT TO MR DUCKWORTH AT HES HQ BOOTLE
Dear Sir, THE LOCKERBIE DISASTER 22 / 11 / 00
I hereby make a formal report that I have discovered that illegal explosive substances were carried aboard Pan Am 103 the detonation of which caused the loss of the aircraft and 270 souls.
The following report is base on my study of the AAIB report and my own findings in the temporary morgue set up in Locherbie Ice Rink during the investigation.
Second letter sent 17 / 6 / 00
FAO Mr. A Duckworth
I am in receipt of your letter dated 17 / 6 / 00. I trust the Locherbie police will be in touch in due course. I will of course refer them back to yourself as the offence I reported was carried out before Pan Am 103 was lost.
With respect I have not reported the use of explosives for criminal use but have reported the illegal movement, handling and carriage of explosive substances and I must insist that you take this matter seriously. The fact that these substances subsequently detonated in the air above Scotland is not relevant.
I again wish to report the fact that illegal explosive substances were handled and transported in an unlicensed premises and put upon public transport within the confines of the United Kingdom in December 1988.
Upon studying the Health and safety at work act I have found many sections related to this offence. Studying the Guide to the Explosives Act I also find this was also breached. I am fully aware that your executive has no responsibility for aircraft in flight however, it is impossible for such materials to have been put aboard Pan Am 103 without a criminal act having been carried out in the first place. The law therefore had to have been broken in at least the baggage handling facility within Heathrow Airport, the loading apron and the airports runway.
If you are not prepared to take my report seriously then I must insist
that you pass my complaint to your superior.
JOHN H PARKES
SENT 18/ 6/ 00
The Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC
29 Chambers Street
Your Ref 1406/OO/G
18 / 6 / 00
Thank you for your correspondence dated 14th June Further to my letter of 10th June I have since carried out an exhaustive and in depth study of the AAIB report pertaining to the disaster. I now beg to report that I have deduced the chain of events that lead to the loss of Pan AM 103 and 270 souls. This is certainly something that I did not want to find but once having found it I have made my findings public in order to try and preserve the safety of my family.
I have also reported a serious criminal offence concerning illegal explosive substances being handled in an unlicensed premises and then being carried aboard public transport in December 1988. I am fully aware that the HSE regulations pertaining to such violations of the law do not apply to aircraft in flight but the law was broken before the aircraft took off. The fact that the illegal explosive substances subsequently detonated aboard Pan Am 103 does not detract from the earlier offences. Mr. Duckworth the principal inspector has passed on my report to the Locherbie Police. He is also passing my complaint to the relevant authorities responsible for Heathrow Air Terminal.
I have attached a copy of my findings. however, the AAIB report is so seriously flawed the scenario I have outlined pertaining to the precise activity that took place on the hold of the aircraft may not be an exact reproduction of the true events. What is certain is that multiple detonations took place within the hold and at least one Rocket Propelled Munition of some kind was responsible for at least one of these events.
The original source of this munition was not container 4041 but a container on the Starboard side. As to what functioned that munition I have outlined 2 possible explanations within my report. I have passed on my findings to Dr Jim Swire and the relatives have been made aware by way of the internet. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to Dr Jim Swire and the HSE Explosives Inspectorate.
Again I reiterate that having found out something approaching the truth concerning Pan Am 103 prior to its total destruction, and having discussed these findings to someone in the USA I have had to take drastic measures to safeguard my family and myself.
I have subsequently discovered that further undeniable adulteration of the AAIB’s s forensic report has taken place, which is not enclosed within my report.
It is a sad day for human decency when a diligent hard working man with no aspirations for greatness has now to fear for his family in a country that he loves and has served to the best of his ability.
I would respectfully add that I am not in contempt of the court but rather I am in contempt of the contemptuous evidence that has been presented to yourself the Procurators Fiscal and the three trial Judges.
John H Parkes Explosives Engineer
To/ A RELATIVE
I apologise from my heart and soul for adding to your grief but I have
discovered something monumental about the downing of Pan AM 103 in 1988.
Over the years I have often felt like making contact with you and no one
more than myself has shared in your grief and frustration. Alas and to
my shame I have never done so until now.
I have discovered the truth about what downed Pam Am 103 and I have sent my findings to the Health and Safety Executives Explosive Inspectorate by fax and hard copy. The faxes were sent yesterday and the letters will be arriving this morning. I am now concerned that in the light of what I have discovered my own life has become forfeit to what I can only say is the most despicable and horrendous chain of events that one could ever imagine.
I carried out my duty to my fellow man woman and child in December 1988 and left that sad place called Locherbie with a broken heart. In the light of what I have discovered and in the interest of justice and human decency I am now drawn back to that time and place.
I would add that this is Poetic Justice unfolding as I had originally
and ashamedly contacted the authorities with what I thought was overwhelming
evidence with which to convict the accused. Brushed aside like the village
If anyone cares to condemn me as an idiot or a clown then ask them to study what I have found and all will be revealed. Seek and ye shall find. However, for your own verification of my work you must enroll independent and non-government persons or laboratories associated with the government or who receives government funds. A magnifying glass is all that you will initially need to prove my findings and from then it will all fall into place.
A competent laboratory will find many discrepancies within the photographic material. Any weapons / explosives specialist worth his salt will find all the signs that I have found. After that ask any professional photographer how he would have approached the photography aspect of the forensic enquiry. He / she will be appalled when seeing the repeated and deliberate attempt to hide mislead and or falsify the evidence. Then lastly ask any self respecting aircraft accident investigator to look at the AAIB report once armed with my findings and my revelations concerning my intimate knowledge of aftermath.
If the weapons functioned accidentally then I suspect that it was the
first radio call to / from Shanwick ATC that activated the firing
mechanism. Indeed several years ago in the USA there were many problems
associated with the movement of redundant 3.5 H.E.A.T. Rockets through
built up areas due to Radio Hazards.. If it was a terrorist device that
functioned the weapons then one must look at the implications as to where
any such “counter charge” was laid. Like yourself I am who served
our country well and none of us deserve to be treated in this
I would add that a few years ago the DERA blew up a redundant 747 in Bruntingthorpe using no less than 4 simultaneously detonated explosive devices The hull was pressurised as it would have been in a flight level of 30.000 to 35,000 ft. The devices were laid in 4 different locations. I believe this event was shown at the trial. This ex Air France aircraft would not have had a specially strengthened floor (CRAF) as did the Locherbie aircraft.
Please find following my report and copies of my correspondence to / from others. I now seek to protect my family and my friends.
John Parkes Explosives Engineer
Home - Last Updated: