JUDGES investigating the mysterious death of a British defence journalist found hanged in his hotel room in Chile are convinced that he was murdered. Tests will be carried out on the sedatives found in the body of Jonathan Moyle, the editor of Defence Helicopter World, to determine whether he was drugged by his killers before being suspended with one of his shirts in a wardrobe. Staff at the Hotel Carrera in Santiago will be interviewed by the elite investigation unit SO-7. The unit was called in after a preliminary police inquiry, which concluded that Moyle had committed suicide, was discredited. A senior official in the Chilean justice department said yesterday: ''It is Impossible to commit suicide in such a small closet. The tests next week are crucial.'' The Chileans have also dismissed claims circulated by British embassy and Chilean officials in Santiago that Moyle asphyxiated himself while trying to obtain sexual pleasure. Moyle, 28, was found naked and hanging by the neck from a clothes rail in a cramped wardrobe 8in shorter than his body. The door was shut from the outside. His head was covered by a pillow case, his hips were bound with plastic and padding and his legs showed signs of having been bound. There was blood at the foot of the bed and two files and a briefcase were missing. The death has left his parents, Tony and Diana Moyle, convinced that he was murdered to suppress a scoop. The smear campaign has intensified their sense of loss. ''This calculated attempt to soil my son's name is hateful. I want the name of the man who started this,' Tony Moyle said. He had spoken to his son by telephone less than half an hour before his estimated time of death. ''We have always said Jonathan was murdered. He was fearless to the point of recklessness, but suicide was not in his character. Moyle, a former RAF helicopter pilot, arrived in Santiago on March 24, a week before his death, to cover an international aerospace fair. He was investigating reports that Cardoen, Chile's largest arms manufacturer, had agreed to supply 50 attack helicopters to Iraq. The helicopter, a conversion of the Bell 206L-111, is undergoing certification tests in Texas, and is expected to be armed with Chinese missiles. Cardoen denies that the design is for military use. PAGE 42 (c) 1990 Times Newspapers Limited, June 3, 1990 However, Western intelligence sources are increasingly worried about reports of a more threatening trade. Cardoen, which supplied Iraq with thousands of cluster bombs, is suspected of trans-shipping sophisticated oscilloscopes from Europe to Iraq for testing nuclear detonators. Cardoen denies it has any part in such shipments. What Moyle discovered may never be known. He is said to have interviewed Carlos Cardoen, 47, head of the arms company, and on the night before his death met Raol Montesino, the Cardoen press officer, in the hotel bar. Both Cardoen men deny the meetings took place. To those who knew him, Moyle was a brilliant and opinionated defence specialist. He turned down a place at Oxford to read international politics and strategic studies at Aberystwyth University on an RAF bursary. While still a student he was recruited by Special Branch and is reported to have helped break a university drugs ring. Last week the Ministry of Defence denied that Moyle was an intelligence agent. A spokesman said: ''He left the RAF and became a private citizen. That is the end of it.'' A Foreign Office spokesman refused to comment on the smear against Moyle. Moyle gained a first-class degree and wrote an MA thesis on Air Attack on Britain, which is now a classified document. His tutor, Professor John Garnett, said: 'He was an excellent scholar and delivered the goods. He was confident to the point of being slightly brash. Any notion that he committed suicide is ludicrous. Moyle graduated from the RAF Cranwell and trained on Jet Provosts and Gazelle helicopters. However, he left in 1988 to become a journalist. Moyle had planned to marry Dr Annette Kissenbeck, a German paediatrician, on June 16, and they had booked a castle near Bonn for a wedding ball. She said: ''Jonathan was at the happiest point in his life. We both were.'' TERMS: Jonathan Moyle 51-840 - 92 - 8 Mr. ANTHONY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Deliberti. I think part of the problem the committee would like to look at is the fact that you have dual use. I have some questions kind of leading into some final conclusions, so if you would bear with me on the preliminaries. Was there anything illegal about Carlos Cardoen purchasing the used Bell helicopter in 1988? Mr. DELIBERTI. That particular question really relates to the licensing of the helicopter rather than an enforcement issue. Mr. ANTHONY. Well, it was licensed. They got a license for export. Is there a presumption, then, that it was a legal transaction? Mr. DELIBERTI. Right, at the time when the helicopter was known to be a civilian helicopter, a general license of G-Dest would have been appropriate for that helicopter. Mr. ANTHONY. And that is what he got, did he not? Mr. DELIBERTI. That was before the attempted modification. Mr. ANTHONY. The question was in 1988. Mr. DELIBERTI. In 1988, the general license Mr. ANTHONY. I clearly do not see anything difficult about the question. I think all you have to do is say no, it was not illegal. We can stand here for an hour and hammer it all out, but I think I know the answer to the question I just asked. Mr. DELIBERTI. You are correct, sir, a general license applied. Mr. ANTHONY. Unless you can tell me that it was illegal. If you are going to tell me it was illegal, then you have just shot holes in the licensing procedure and you have just shot a hole in your whole testimony. Mr. DELIBERTI. In 1988, it was not illegal. Mr. ANTHONY. Thank you. Would it be illegal for him to do that today, under the same set of circumstances, general use for aviation, a used helicopter, getting a general license? Has anything changed since 1988 that would make that illegal today? Mr. PATAK. Obviously, with the embargo on Iraq, if the helicopter was in the same commercial configuration as it was in 1988Mr. ANTHONY. Going to Chile. Mr. PATAK [Continuing]. It could go to Chile under a general license. That is my understanding. Mr. ANTHONY. Just a good, straightforward, simple question. The answer is it would not be illegal? Mr. PATAK. That is correct, sir. Mr. ANTHONY. I am not trying to throw any trick questions at you here. They come later. Mr. DELIBERTI. You are absolutely right. A lot of this depends on whether the end-use/end-user are appropriate, and we have to consider that, that is why I say it is partly a licensing determination issue. Mr. ANTHONY. So, it was not illegal to purchase it, it was not illegal to export it to Chile, as long as under general license for export it was used for civilian purpose? Mr. DELIBERTI. Exactly. Mr. ANTHONY. And that would not be illegal to do that today, either, would it? Mr. DELIBERTI. Again, it depends on the end-use and end-user. Today, I think there is enough public information about Mr. Cardoen that we may not have a question now as to whether or not he can receive these helicopters. Mr. ANTHONY. All right. Question 3, was there anything illegal about Global Helicopter contracting with Carlos Cardoen to assist in the FAA certification of the modified Bell helicopter? Mr. PATAK. No, sir, there was not. Mr. ANTHONY. All right. Setting aside for the moment the issue of the value of the helicopter when it was reimported to Fort Worth, was there anything illegal about that reimportation? Mr. PATAK. I am sorry, sir, that is a pending matter and I cannot comment on that importation. Mr. ANTHONY. And what is the reason that you cannot comment on the reimportation? Mr. PATAK. That is a pending matter before Customs issue, sir. Mr. ANTHONY. If it is determined that the modified helicopter is still a civil aircraft, would it be illegal for Cardoen to reexport it to Chile? Mr. DELIBERTI. Again, it goes back to the end-use and end-user, and it would depend on that. Mr. ANTHONY. And I assume that what made you think that the modified helicopter in this case was not for civil use was the fact that the company that was going to do the modification was asked to actually put gun turrets on it and also to put some steel up underneath where the pilot was going to be, and that-here is a little photograph of it. You know, down home, we have some boll weevils in cotton, maybe he was going to go down there and shoot those little weevils out of the cotton, since it was for agricultural spraying, spraying with bullets, rather than herbicides. Is that what made you change your mind? It was really the company itself that notified you, and then your investigation after that? Mr. DELIBERTI. Right. Mr. ANTHONY. If the modified helicopter is a military aircraft, then it would require State Department license, am I correct in that? Mr. DELIBERTI. If it were determined to be a munitions item, that is correct. We are waiting for the State Department to make that determination as to whether or not they control the export of that helicopter. Mr. ANTHONY. You just jumped to my next question, and that was whether or not they had made a determination. You are saying you are waiting on them to make a determination? Mr. DELIBERTI. That is correct. They are still looking into it. Mr. PATAK. As far as we know, the U.S. Customs Service has not received a determination from the Department of State. We detained the helicopter on August 6, pending their determination, and I am not sure what the timeframe is now. I do not know if Customs has received that determination. Mr. ANTHONY. Well, this is the middle of April. You seized it in the first part of August Mr. PATAK. We actually detained it Mr. ANTHONY. Sir? Mr. PATAK. We actually detained the helicopter, not seized it. Mr. PATAK. We detained it. In other words, we prevented it from going anywhere. Mr. ANTHONY. If it had been mine, I would have said you seized it. You still have hold of it, right? Well, you have got it stored some place in protective custody? Mr. PATAK. At that time, yes, sir. Mr. ANTHONY. Well, we can quibble over words. The bottom line of what I am trying to get to is that the State Department still has not rendered a determination as of this date, and I am trying to find out why. Have you asked them? Have you prodded them? Do you think we are going to know tomorrow? Are we going to know next August? Mr. PATAK. In August we requested a determination. We have conferred with the U.S. Customs Service, who now has the helicopter, and to our knowledge they have not received a determination yet. I do not know why. Mr. ANTHONY. Well, we will ask them and maybe we can find out from them. If you have the authority to answer this question: If Cardoen were successful in developing the Cardoen 206L-3 Light Attack Helicopter, in your opinion, who do you think would be interested in purchasing them? Mr. PATAK. Based on the information that we obtained in the investigation, I think he would like to have marketed the helicopter obviously to Iraq, and perhaps to other countries-Jordan, Egypt, Ecuador, and Brazil in South America. Mr. ANTHONY. But still he would have to wait on the State Department to give him that specific license to be able to do that? Mr. DELIBERTI. If the State Department controls it. Mr. ANTHONY. The State Department controls it, after we now determine that there is something suspicious, then the dual-use now has gone from civilian to military. What if this were a legitimate business case, where they were going to sell to our friends and our allies to protect their countries? What takes so long for the State Department to make a determination on dual use? Mr. DELIBERTI. I do not know. Mr. ANTHONY. You do not know. We will have to ask the State Department that. I understand that your inquiries into the ownership of this helicopter generated another investigation involving other Cardoen companies in Miami. Is that assumption correct? Mr. DELIBERTI. I cannot comment on that. Mr. ANTHONY. You cannot comment on whether or not that was a correct assumption? Mr. DELIBERTI. I cannot at this time. Mr. ANTHONY. You cannot even state as to whether or not there is an investigation going on? Mr. DELIBERTI. I cannot. Mr. ANTHONY. Can you not comment because the Department of Justice has told you not to discuss this case with the subcommittee, |