(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.
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
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.