The Chronology of PT/35(b): 12 February 1990

12 February 1990 (photo of PT/35(b) – DP/140 (prod 335) / prod 1754)

Williamson and Harrower attended at the photographic department at Strathclyde
police and arranged for PT/35(b) to be photographed in studio conditions, in order to
preserve for evidence a record of its physical appearance to allow for any future
comparison. According to the officers’ HOLMES statements, the photographs taken
by Roderick MacDonald (S1892BK) there were designated DP/140 (prod 335). In
fact this production is just a single close-up photo of the fragment. It is apparent from
his ch10 CP and his evidence that there were a number of photos of the fragment
taken by MacDonald at this time, and that a selection of these were contained in a
book of photos that formed prod 1754 (police ref CS124). From its appearance,
DP/140 was just a copy of one of these photos. According to MacDonald’s ch10 CP,
the master film for the photos in prod 1754 was numbered 9920 (which cross-refers to
the number on the front cover of prod 1754) and this film formed prod 1753 (police
ref CS1122). In his CP he stated that he had taken the photos in prod 1754 using a
“Macro lens”. He confirmed that he wrote the details on the booklet and that he was
satisfied that the film prod 1753 corresponded to the photos in prod 1754. The
flipdrive image of prod 1753 only depicts the negatives for a small number of the
photos, and the Commission’s hard copy productions do not contain photocopies of
the negatives, but given the contents of MacDonald’s ch10 CP and what can be seen
on the flipdrive of prod 1753, it seems clear that prod 1753 does indeed comprise the
negatives for prod 1754. In evidence MacDonald noted that he had not signed the
label attached to prod 1754 (it was apparent that it was only attached during the
preparations for trial), but he accepted that the date on the front cover of booklet,
12/2/90, was correct. [NB note also that in MacDonald’s chlO CP the fiscal who
inserted in handwriting the production numbers of the photos and negatives
MacDonald was shown got the number 1752 mixed up with 1754, and 1753 mixed up
with 175 1. The mix up relates to later photographs taken by MacDonald of the timer
fragment – see under 17 May 1990, below.]

DP/12 was the only sample removed from PT/35(b) prior to this photo being taken.
According to the relevant witnesses the appearance of the fragment was not altered by
removal of the sample.

In the submissions to the Commission it is questioned who took this photograph and
why the fragment required to be photographed in Glasgow in February 1990 if it was
recovered in May 1989. The answer to the first question is contained in MacDonald’s
defence precognition and in his trial evidence, so should have been clear to the
defence. As for the reasons why it was necessary to photograph it, although there are
close-up photos of the fragment (photos 333 and 334 of the RARDE report) which are
dated September 1989 (above), it seems to be a sensible investigative step for the
police to have obtained a photo of the fragment before samples were removed fiom it
(especially if, as seems possible, they were not aware of the close-ups already taken
by RARDE, which were produced after the lads and lassies memo was sent).



In a memo from Williamson to the S10 dated 3 September 1990 (which is basically the
original memo of 16 March 90 with extra information added in) reference is made to
the photographing of the fragment on 12 February 1990. It is explained that at an
early stage in the investigation it was repeatedly opined by all technical persons who
assisted with preliminary assessments that test samples would have to be removed
from the fragment, and that prior to (any such samples being taken, it was necessary
that good quality photographs be taken of the fragment to record its original shape and
condition to allow future comparisons to be made with any similar PCBs or other
fragments, and that his was done on 12 Feb 90 under laboratory conditions at
Strathclyde police.

This entry was posted in Chronology, PT/35(b) and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 12 February 1990

  1. Manipulations to match the dates of the two parts of original, black carbonized MST-13 Timer-Patchworkfragments, after Siemens, 27. April 1990, marked as PT-35/b and DP-31/a (fabricated with 8 layers of fiberglass) exchanched with a new green, entire MST-13 Timerfragment, same marked as PT-35 (Duplicate) fabricated with 9 layers of fiberglass.

    Documents from Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary in Dumfries reveal the following criminal falsifications that had been ordered by expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) prior the Scottish investigating team traveled to Switzerland on the 20th of September 1990:

    From this falsified green MST-13 Timer duplicate, a Polaroid-photo was taken by RARDE photographer Rodrich MacDonald on Wednesday, 12th of September 1990. Later the photo must be also dated back to September 1989 ?

    D&G Constabulary police produced later a label DP’137, on 10th of September 1990, for a memorandum from Expert Allen Feraday, sent to Insp. William Williamson. From the text of the memorandum it is known, that at the same time a fragment of green circuit board – (“sent by me A. Feraday to Williamson”) – was delivered to Williamson.

    Later, the Police label was DP’137 and the Polaroid-photo, from 10th of September 1990, dated back, to the 15th of September 1989! (Probably of the date when the first original black carbonized MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) was photographed?)
    The label PT’137, was signed on 10th of September 1990 by Constabels DC ##### and ##### (Names known).

    Summary, the date on the attached Memorandum of Allen Feraday, sent to Williamson, was logically, also dated back to 15th of September 1989, or the memorandum was again rewritten with the wrong date, 15th of September 1989.

    Feraday wrote in this memorandum: “Williy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a shorte time”.
    “I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important. So any light your lads/lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome.
    Allen (Feraday)

    MEBO: Williamson’s problem was that he needed a green MST-13 Fragment circuit board, fabricated with 9 layers of fiberglass, to etangle Libya with the PanAm crash.
    Apparently Insp. Williamson was in hurry about his visit on the 20th of September 1990 to Switzerland. For the exchange of the brown into a green circuit board he needed a new Polaroid-photo from a green MST-13 fragment.
    It is logic that the order for a new Polaroid-photo came from Inspector William Williamson and was transmitted to Allen Feraday.

    Significant: Even the fake green MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) fabricated with 9 layers of fiberglass, was brought for review to Switzerland! !
    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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