8 February 1990 Removal of first sample – DP/12 (Crown label n°414) – pin head size sample – resin test By previous appointment Williamson and Harrower attended Research Analysis Dept, Ciba Geigy plc, Duxford, Cambridgeshire, and met John French (S5583, although French’s ch10 CP suggests they did not have an appointment). French had agreed to assist by carrying out tests to try and identify the type of resin used in the manufacture of the fibreglass, and he was permitted to remove from one edge of the fragment a pin head size sample for analysis. According to statements the removal of this sample did not change the shape or size of the fragment. The pin head sample was designated DP/12. According to French’s statement he noticed that PT/35(b) appeared to have been subjected to heat damage and appeared charred at the edges and advised that it would not be possible to positively identify something which had been subjected to large heat exposure when comparing it to something not subjected to such heat, as the heat changes the molecular structures. According to the HOLMES statements French examined DP/12 with an infrared spectrometer and produced DP/18 – spectra printout, but in fact this should read DP/139, prod 338: DP/18 is a later spectra printout produced by French on 8 March, see below. It is clear from the CP of John French that he clarified this with the Crown. (In Williamson’s ch 10 CP dated 6&7/6/00 he states that he cannot explain why the police number, DP/139, is so high, he states that he was not responsible for the police numbering and that it was done by the production officer at a later date. In his ch10 CP Harrower was also asked about this, and it was pointed out to him that the contents of DP/139 pre-dated those of DP/18, but Harrower said he did not know why the numbers were listed in this fashion, and said he could no longer recall whether the first printout received from French, DP/139, was sent by French through the post, although he did recollect that it was decided following the visit to Ciba Geigy that all documentary productions produced during examinations would be seized immediately. Harrower also noted that he had not signed the label for DP/139, although Williamson and French had). French concluded that the board was made with bisphenol A epoxy resin, which was commonly used.
In his ch10 CP French stated that he was used to examining PCBs as companies would come to Ciba to analyse boards. He told the officers on their first visit that it would not be possible to identify a manufacturer of the board. He described the test he did on DP/12. He confirmed that he signed the labels for DP/12 and PT/35(b) and when shown them he recognised both fragments, noting that PT/35(b) had been further altered since he saw it. As stated above, he also clarified that DP/18 was the spectra printout he produced after the second visit of police (see 8 March, below) and that DP/139 was the original spectra printout. He stated that he recognised his work in DP/139, and therefore signed the label for it at the precognition, having already signed DP/18 at the time the police were there. In his ch 10 CP dated 1711 1/99, Williamson states that following the examination by French, Williamson was of the view that it would be beneficial to pursue the ID of the resin and he instructed Harrower to obtain samples of circuit board from the major producers throughout the world. (See more under 8 March 90, below.)
NB John French was also seen by police in 1992 and asked to examine a control sample MST-13 circuit board – see 4 March 1992 below. Note also that inspection of the police labels