7 March 1990
Removal of 4th sample – DP/15 (Crown label n°.417) – sample of copper conducting track
Williamson and Harrower attended at Gould Electronics, Southampton, to allow them
to examine DP/10, previously removed by Yates, to try and confirm that Gould had
manufactured the copper. In the HOLMES statement of Robert Lomer, Quality
Assurance manager, he stated that it was explained to him by the officers that Yates
had identified the copper as possibly manufactured by Gould. Lomer microscopically
examined the examination stud on which Whitehead had fixed DP/10, but Lomer
could find no trace of copper there, so concluded that it must have become detached and was lost.
He therefore removed another sample of copper conducting track,
designated DP/15 and prepared it for examination, but found that when removing the
copper sample a part of the fibreglass laminate had remained adhering to the copper
sample, which rendered examination impossible, and because of the size of PT/35(b)
he was not confident he would take another sample without significantly damaging the
fragment. He therefore could not confirm whether Gould had made it.
At Crown precognition, while he was able to say that he removed the further sample, DP/15, from the fragment, he could no longer remember why it was that he had been unable to reach a conclusion fiom the sample. He stated in the CP that he recalled explaining the difficulty to the police at the time, and that he had no reason to believe the police statement created thereafter was inaccurate.
There is a note at the foot of the precognition stating that the manuscript statement would be necessary, followed by handwriting stating “not available”. There is no defence precognition for him.
In evidence he was asked if he was successful in his attempted analysis of DP/15, and he
said that he was not, that he was not able to identify it as being manufactured by
Gould. He confirmed that he signed the label for DP/15. In Williamson’s ch10 CP
he states that the reason Lomer did not try and take another sample was because he
was not confident he would be able to get any better a result. Williamson then states
that Lomer was shown DP/14, the photographs Whitehead had produced, and at that
time Lomer agreed with Whitehead’s conclusion that, fiom the photographs, it
appeared that the copper foil had been manufactured by Gould Electronics (although
note Whitehead’s position, at CP and DP that he did not think Gould had produced the
copper, that he thought it was made in the Far East – see under 15 Feb 90 above).
This echoes Williamson’s memo of 16 March 1990, in which he said that Lomer
agreed that, based on the high magnification photos taken by Whitehead, the copper
was in all probability produced by Gould.
In Williamson’s memo to the SIO dated 16 March he stated that the two companies,
Yates and Gould, together controlled around 70% of the world market in copper foil
production, so the fact that the copper in PT/35(b) appeared to have been
manufactured by Gould was no more than of interest.
Note also that, according to Buwert’s statement S4649U, Lomer did not sign the label
for DP/10 until 23 January 1992. NB Lomer’s signature is visible on the labels for
DP/10 and DP/15. As stated, the label for DP/10 was apparently signed by him in
1992. There is no mention of him having signed DP/15 “late”.