The Chronology of PT/35(b): 10 January 1990 – Update

10 January 1990

The fifth internatonal conference took place at Lockerbie. The minutes for this meeting are contained in Volume D of the application, at footnote 347. There is no specific mention of any fragment of circuit board in the minutes. A further copy of these minutes was obtained from D&G. Again, there is no mention of the circuit board fragment.

PT/35(b)

PT/35(b)

(NB. The page dedicated to the history of PT/35(b) since its alleged discovery on 12 May 1989 has been updated.)

Let me get this straight.

PT/35(b) was discovered on May 12 1989.

The 3rd Lockerbie Investigation international conference was held in Washington DC at the end of May 89. No information about PT/35(b) is given.

The 4th Lockerbie Investigation international conference was held in Germany in mid September 89. Again, not a word about the discovery of PT/35(b).

According to the official SCCRC investigation, nothing of significance happened from May 12 1989 till January 1990 as far as PT/35(b) is concerned.

But, at the 5th Lockerbie Investigation international conference held in Lockerbie in January 1990, Henderson felt necessary to speak (privately) to FBI Marquise and Kelso about the existence of PT/35(b)?

“Henderson wanted to ensure that we (Marquise and Kelso) were aware of this development.” (Scotbom; Marquise page 58.)

Why? Can anyone explain to me why this information was shared at this point in time and, I must add, “in a corner of the conference room”?

To be continued.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chronology, Dr Hayes, Feraday, Lockerbie Investigation, PT/35(b), SCCRC, Timeline and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 10 January 1990 – Update

  1. Craig says:

    One of the issues that has always puzzled and concerned me about this time line and chain of events relates to the now infamous Fereday ‘lads / lassies’ memo.

    1. The diameter drawn on the memo does seem to be a circular match for a fixing rather than the approx J shaped curvature of PT35b.
    There is one thing for sure, Fereday drawn diameter does not relate to PT35b curvature at all.
    The noted drawn diameter can only be anything other than PT35b.

    2. Folks should understand the noting of these terms ‘lads & lassies’, it is jovial, it is an off the cuff remark, a slight remark from an Englishman to a Scotsman about Scots words and meanings as a Scots term for young men and women.
    The whole paragraph about ‘lads/lassies’ is frivolous and could be construed as mischievous.

    3. Following on, one of the issues if not the main issue that concerns me about the memo, is the evident procedure of identification which is being applied.
    Supposedly we have items/evidence being found, in this instance incredibly small parts of electronic components sent to RARDE for inspection and analysis by Feraday, who from the record is the forensic chap.
    There is no record of what Fereday did with PT35b between May and the September ‘lads/lassies’ memo but the content of the memo is Fereday [the dogmatic forensics chap] selflessly throwing is hands up and giving up on identification and handing this task to young ‘lads/lassies’ to deal with.

    4. Keep in mind Feraday actions with other items such as the likes of AG/145.
    Feraday went to Japan on his quest to identify items, also to Germany with Williamson to attempt to identify items, conducted numerous tests APRIL 1989 in the USA with the noted Tom Thurman, all this to identify and supposedly complete the jigsaw of events.

    5. Somehow in September 1989, Feraday as employed by one of the major forensic and ordnance identification labs in the world, also extensive knowledge of IRA events, just hands back the identification and possible puzzle completion to Williamson and the young ‘lads/lassies’.

    What exactly did Feraday think Williamson and the young ‘lads/lassies’ could do to identify PT35b that RARDE could not ?

    Look at this as risk and liability;
    Why is there a Feraday note and memo of which there is no lead up information of, there is no subsequent recorded action after which also completely transfers liability and risk to the Scottish Police ?

    Like

    • Morag says:

      While I agree with much of what you say, the curvature as drawn is actually a match for PT/35b. Like you, I thought it wasn’t, but if you do the measurements, it is.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s