Bali bombing: An investigator's analysis

Bali bombing: An investigator's analysis

Robert S. Finnegan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a
terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably
well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's
history.

Investigators and forensics experts from both national and
international teams that had quickly been assembled flocked to
the crime scene, ostensibly to begin what should have been a
long, drawn out exercise in forensics and investigative sleuthing
to identify and capture the foot soldiers, coordinators and
masterminds behind the attack that has left over 190 known dead,
scores missing without a trace and hundreds more wounded.

It has turned out to be anything but that.

The Indonesian government immediately vowed to unite in the
hunt for the bombers.

The U.S. government along with the international community
seized the opportunity to point the finger at the shadowy al-
Qaeda group along with Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir as the
culprits.

In hindsight, it would appear that perhaps these individuals,
given their apparent intimate knowledge of the perpetrators
immediately following the bombing should have been included on
the investigating team. Perhaps if they had we would know more
than we do today, which is very little despite the volume of
information (or disinformation) being vomited out by the
spokesmen for the investigative teams on a daily basis.

A creeping sense of foreboding began soon after the forensics
people and other investigators (inclusive of Insp. Gen. I Made
Pastika and his army of hundreds of supposedly top-notch
investigators with virtually unlimited resources at their
disposal) announced after only a week and a half that they were
wrapping up their on-site work and retreating to the labs to
analyze their findings. Astounding work, as it must have set a
world record for crime scene forensic analysis.

Given the scope of the bombing and the sheer size of the
primary and secondary blast areas - where trace from a plethora
of different explosive compounds were swabbed from - this was a
feat that escaped even the vaunted investigators working the
World Trade Center crime scene in New York, who spent nearly a
year literally sifting by hand for evidence at the site. It
would appear that the teams on Bali possessed far superior skills
and techniques ... or was there something else responsible for
their haste in wrapping up so quickly and then sending the rest
of the evidence as quickly as possible to the bottom of the ocean
off Bali?

At this point in their investigation National Police Chief
Gen. Da'i Bachtiar states for the record that "traces of a
chemical powder used in the bomb" were found in the van allegedly
used to transport the large device. What powder? Even a cursory
examination of the crater and primary site immediately following
the bombings would make this statement laughable were it not for
the circumstances.

If indeed the Mitsubishi L300 van was used in the large blast,
the five-foot deep by twenty-foot wide crater indicates that it
would have been completely vaporized, including the engine block
which they apparently found intact - along with the victims who
instantly vanished. Indeed, this begs the question: Where did the
investigators obtain this evidence in relation to the crater?

Is it possible that if the van survived the large blast it was
because it was parked at the edge of the primary blast zone,
packed with small amounts of all the explosives - whose traces
were found at the sites - in order to throw off independent
investigators?

In addition, there is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),
allegedly signed jointly by the National Police and the
international investigation team, specifically restricting the
scope of the "investigation links" and prohibiting international
inquiries. Could this at least partially explain why Pastika has
continually stonewalled, intimidated and generally obstructed
independent investigators during the course of their work?

During the first weeks of the investigation, notables such as
State Intelligence Agency (BIN) Chief Hendropriyono, Susilo
Yudhoyono, Assembly Speaker Amien Rais and Pastika focused or
pretended to focus on foreigners - without specifying "which"
foreigners - who they said were behind the attack. Somehow this
twisting, turning trail dried up and disappeared into thin air
without explanation, along with the former retired Air Force
Officer who allegedly confessed to police his involvement in the
bombing and was then released. To this day his whereabouts
remain unknown and police investigators either cannot or will not
release any information on this man, an officer who was allegedly
trained in America in explosives and is an incredible lead that
should have been followed-up on aggressively and thoroughly. Why
was it not?

Are these the statements and actions of professional
investigators - or the actions of individuals engaged in a cover-
up?

Let's look at the myriad of explosive traces found at the site
and subsequently cited individually off and on by investigators
and police as "the explosive" used in the bombings.

First it was C-4, then RDX. These two are actually the same,
the difference being nine percent mallable plastic used in C-4.
So, which is more powerful? RDX - nine percent more powerful
than C-4.

Day after day, investigators trotted out a different explosive
and combinations of explosives purportedly responsible for the
blasts. In addition to C-4 and RDX there was now TNT, Ammonium
Nitrate, HMX, Semtex, PETN, Chlorate and napalm. Everything but
the kitchen sink. Was this gross ineptitude? Or another ploy to
throw independent investigators off the trail?

For example, had the originators of the napalm theory studied
up on the material before opening their mouths they would have
known that napalm leaves a sticky, smelly residue on everything,
including victims. This was not in evidence at the blast site or
at the Sanglah burn ward and morgue, where the burn victims were
taken. Therefore, in the absence of any physical evidence,
napalm must be excluded and the originators of this farce be
awarded a grade of "F" in "explosives analysis." In other words,
if you are going to lie, be professional about it at least know
what you are lying about and have the mental capacity to remember
what you said when you said it. This single evidentiary template
could easily be applied and extended to the entire "official
investigation" of the Bali bombings where deceit, obstruction and
obfuscation are and have been the name of the game.

To put this in perspective, let us look at three of the
explosives claimed by official investigators to have been used in
the bombings, starting with the compound that has the lowest
velocity of detonation in feet per second (FPS) which is
Potassium Chlorate at 3,500 FPS; compared to 12,000 FPS for
Ammonium Nitrate and diesel and finally 27,800 FPS for RDX. In
simple terms, at any given distance from ground zero these
different explosive compounds will exert pressure in pounds per
square inch. Damage to people and structures are a result of this
pressure in varying degrees depending on the velocity of
detonation. Even if RDX were used, the amount needed to cause the
level of destruction in evidence at the crime scene should have
been in excess of anything available through even the military,
who denied possession of the explosive. There is also the
delivery of the device to be taken into account.

Each of the explosives cited by investigators (with the
exception of napalm) have unique and individual characteristics
that vary for usage, stability and explosive yeild. They require
specific detonators for each in order to obtain maximum effect.

Also now at the bottom of the ocean off Bali is the
reinforcing bar (rebar) located more than fifty feet from ground
zero that had been completely stripped of concrete as a result of
the blast. Documented military estimates of the force required to
accomplish this is roughly 1 million to 1.5 million pounds per
square inch.

What kind of weapon or device could accomplish this? And for
that matter leave a crater of that size? Why was it filled in?
This arguably could have been one of the most important pieces of
evidence available to investigators not only for the trace
explosive in evidence, but from which also could have been
determined (roughly) the size and composition of the device.

With the police claiming (off and on) that Amrozi, Mukhlas and
Samudra (who allegedly at one point denied involvement in the
Bali bombings) were the perpetrators of the blasts, then why do
the official investigators not know EXACTLY the type of device
used in the main bombing and its precise composition? To put it
quite simply, how can we have a bomber or bombers in the absence
of a bomb?

Why were Amrozi and Samudra so quick to confess and finger
their "accomplices"? Were these the actions of dedicated,
radical, Islamic fundamentalists? "Professionals"? Did they
expect to further their cause by eviscerating their own
organization? Does it make sense that they were willing to kill
and maim hundreds of innocents - including many fellow
Indonesians - and yet implicate their comrades to save their own
skins?

Given this dismal investigative performance, exactly what role
did the international investigating team play in this debacle?

If indeed there is one thing that has been glaringly apparent
throughout this investigation, it is that perhaps nothing close
to the truth has been told as of today. It is also apparent that
something is very, very wrong not only with the procedural
aspects of this case, but also with the suppression and outright
destruction of evidence. The international investigators bear a
heavy responsibility for this, and should be held accountable.

Jakarta Post Editor Robert S. Finnegan is an internationally
published investigative reporter with over two decades
investigative experience. He currently holds an Alaska (U.S.)
Private Investigator license.