The Chronology of PT/35(b): 16 March 1990

(Some time prior to) 16 March 1990

“other enquiry” i.e. not evidentially significant

According to Williamson’s memo of 16 March 1990 to the SIO another of the “other
enquiries” that was carried out was that contact was made with several clock
manufacturers in the UK to establish the type of product being manufactured and the
type of circuit boards which would be contained in any clocks produced, but it was
learned that there are no companies in the UK actually manufacturing clocks
[presumably this means there are no companies manufacturing the PCBs for clocks],
all are imported from abroad.

DP-32 Page 1

DP-32 Page 1

The date of contact with the clock manufacturers is not specified, but it must have been prior to the writing of the memo on 16 March 1990.

However, it is noteworthy that although the memo is dated 16 March, in fact it seems
that the memo has been added to after that date, as there are various references to the
removal of DP/31 and to information obtained from Allan Worroll, all of which
occurred after this date (see below).

In a separate section of Williamson’s memo headed “Further lines of enquiry
considered” he states that contact had been made with Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) in the USA via the Explosives Laboratory at the FBI, but they indicated that the
only way of identifying the board would be from unique markings on it. The memo
suggests that there are no unique markings on the fragment so it would be highly
unlikely that UL would be able to progress the enquiry. There are no further details
about this enquiry or about who exactly it was who was contacted at the FBI’s
Explosives Laboratory.

The memo also mentions that Dr Colin Lea at the National Physics Laboratory was interviewed and allowed to examine the fragment and he doubted that identification would be achieved via chemical analysis. His suggestion was that a photo and detailed description of the fragment be published in PCB inhouse journals and that to generate interest reference should be made to the Lockerbie disaster.

There is no HOLMES statement for Dr Lea, nor any other information to indicate that this was course of action was followed, although no doubt the enquiries were confidential at that stage. It is not specified when Dr Lea was interviewed.

As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, although the memo is dated 16 March 90 it
was clearly added to thereafter.

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

2 Responses to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 16 March 1990

  1. Craig says:

    With reference to seeking a PCB connected with clock manufacturers, FBI Thomas Thurman precognition notes this as a line of enquiry;
    https://pt35b.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/35-thomas-thurman-pre-trial-defence-precognition-undated.pdf
    “We had a team of people in Malta at that time. I asked investigators of the FBI in Malta to buy every type of travel alarm clock they could. I got a box of them and started doing examinations. I went through our non-computerised files. I am now asked who was in Malta at that time. All I can say is I can see his face but I cannot recall his name.”

    Williamson memo 16/3/1990
    Ref: FBI Assistance
    “Underwriters Laboratories ( UL )., USA
    This organisation appears to be a safety standard organisation in the United States similar to the British ‘Kite Mark’ system. Any reputable manufacturer of electrical components worldwide wishing to export to the USA must submit samples of their product to UL for safety approval (Le. fire resistance properties, etc)
    Contact has been made with this organisation at their Testing Department, Long Island, New York and information is that they have a 50/50 percent chance of identifying the laminate of Production PT35 if it were taken to them for examination.
    This possible identification would be achieved by comparison of the chemical components of PT35 against a library of information on laminates which is maintained by them .

    Contact with UL has been temporarily suspended on the instructions of the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer after some discussion with FBI personnel.

    It would require further discussion with technical representatives of UL, in the light of tests carried out on PT35 at Ciba Geigy Limited, to evaluate any further progress could be achieved.
    This matter will be re-acessed after senior level discussion between LICC and FBI.
    It should be noted that on completion of tests carried out by UL it would required in the region of one month for them to compare these tests against their records as these records are not contained on computer.
    This assistance has been promised if an approach is made to the company from senior management level at LICC.

    Assistance from FBI;
    Mr Tom Thurman, Special Agent. Explosives Laboratory, FBI. Washington has ‘not’ been in contact with the reporting officers over the subject of PT35.
    In a recent telephone conversation to Detective Inspector Gilmour at LICC, Mr Thurman discussed Production PT35 and suggested that if taken to the FBI Laboratory Washington it was quite likely that personnel there could assist in its identification.
    SA Thurman has ‘not’ been contacted by the reporting officers and will await instruction from the Senior Investigating Officer on this matter.”

    http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/mp4/cbs-lockerbie.html
    US Sixty Minutes Documentary

    http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2010/862.html
    Two documentaries noting Thomas Thurman involvement.
    Note: Thomas Thurman comments within the ‘Video of ex-FBI expert Thomas Thurman” including quotes as “Go to the Court room and represent the US Government”
    In one of these documentaries, Thomas Thurman states the fragment was not present in the USA.
    Also, Thomas Thurman repeatedly references photographs of cross cut section known as PT35b, this confirms Thomas Thurman could only receive photographs sometime after 27th April 1990.

    Like

  2. Craig says:

    http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2010/862.html

    Ref: Video of ex-FBI expert Thomas Thurman
    “All of us were looking for a lead to really push us out in another direction, push us toward the eventual subjects in the case”

    Unless my eyes and ears are missing something – Is this not absolute evidence of professional collusion on the part of a US FBI Investigator ?

    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