The Chronology of PT/35(b): 27 April 1990

27 April 1990

Removal of 6th sample – DP/31 (Crown label no.419) – large corner cross section

According to Williamson and Harrower’s HOLMES statements, in the course of the
various examinations the most unusual feature about the fragment was said by the
experts to be the application of pure tin to the conducting tracks, as opposed to a
tin/lead combination, and the statements indicate that the officers had been advised
that Siemens in Munich could assist with examining this aspect of the fragment (it is
not clear who advised them of this – as stated above, Harrower’s ch10 CP indicates
that Worroll suggested they pursue the construction of the conducing tracks because
they appeared to be pure tin rather than tin and lead, and Harrower’s CP indicates that
it was as a result of this discussion that they went to Munich, but it is not clear if
Worroll specifically advised them to go there), so a visit there was paid by previous
arrangement on 27 April, when the officers met Hans Brosamle (S5580), deputy
director.

The purpose was to find out more about the application of tin to the tracks
and tin/lead to the land, and whether the fragment was solder masked on both sides.
Brosamle examined PT/35(b) and DP/11 but could add no further information without
taking a cross section of the fragment. Williamson allowed this to take place, as he
had previously received authority fioim the SIO to permit this if necessary. A corner
section, including part of the conductor tracks and part of the land, was cut fiom the
fragment.

DP/32 Page 2

DP/32 Page 2

From the officers’ statements it might be implied that Brosamle himself cut the
segment in the presence of the officers and then immediately took photos of the
changed appearance. Harrower’s ch10 CP says that Brosamle removed DP/31, and a
PF’s note that follows this states that it was Harrower’s recollection that it was
Brosamle, not another witness, Anton Wimmer, who made the cut. Likewise
Brosamle’s own statement simply says that by means of a diamond wire saw, he had
DP/31 removed, and that thereafter he had both samples photographed to show how
the cuts had been made. The photographs in question are three Polaroid photos,
designated DP/32 (prod 342, parts of the police label for which Harrower
acknowledged in his ch 10 CP had been completed by him).

Each photo is dated 27/4/90 and is signed by various people: Williamson and Brosamle, and possibly also “Tepp” – which is likely to be Helge Tepp, the BKA officer. There is no mention in any HOLMES statements that Tepp was in attendance during the Siemens enquires, although in his Crown precognition (a copy of which was given to the defence) Brosamle suggests there might have been a BKA officer there. (See below re contact between Ferrie and Tepp on 14 May 1990, which might confirm Tepp’s involvement in the Siemens enquiries.)

In his precognition Brosamle makes it clear that it was another person, Anton
Wimmer, who made the cut, and who may also have taken the photos. However in
evidence Brosamle seemed to accept that it was he who had taken the photos
(although he might just have been accepting that it was his lab). There is no mention
of Wimmer in the HOLMES statements, nor is there a separate HOLMES statement
for this witness. He is however on the indictment list (no.580, although he did not
give evidence) and was precognosced by the Crown (and a copy of the precognition
was provided to the defence). In his precognition he confirmed that he was responsible for making the cuts that separated DP/31, and that he did this with a
diamond wire saw at the instruction of Brosamle. He said that he did it in his lab and
was alone, he thought the Scottish officers were in a meeting room with Brosamle.

In Williamson’s memo to the SIO dated 3 September 1990 he did specify that DP/31
was cut by a technician, and says this was done under the control of Brosamle and in
Williamson’s presence, but that the technician was not aware of the origin or reason
for the cutting and no statement was taken from him. According to Williamson’s ch
10 CPs, he was present when the cut was made by Wimmer (who he acknowledges
was responsible for making the cuts). Wimmer stated that he did not take the photos
in DP/32 and had never seen them before. He was not involved in any other testing of
the fragments.

According to the HOLMES statement of Brosamle, the testing Brosamle envisaged
canying out on DP/31 would involve setting it in a compound overnight and, as the
next day was a Saturday, the testing would not be complete until Monday 30 April
(Williamson’s ch10 CPs indicate that the problem was that it was a public holiday in
Germany). As the officers could not leave the sample nor wait till Monday, they left
with the samples, and arranged to come back in two weeks but Brosamle told them
the testing he envisaged could be done in the UK, and he was later advised that the
officers would not be returning to Germany. Brosamle’s precognition gives further
details about the testing he envisaged. It suggests that he made handwritten notes of
the examinations carried out, and gave these to the police (it does not appear that
these were lodged as productions). It also mentions that he discussed the fragment
with a resin chemist at Siemens, Dr Hoedl, and that they advised the police about
where else to carry out investigations. Dr Hoedl is not mentioned in any HOLMES
statements and is not on the indictment list. Brosamle did not mention him in
evidence although he did acknowledge that he gave advice to the police about where
they might go to conduct further enquiries.

[NB there is mention of Siemens and Hodl in a McGrigors document which summarises the BKA papers that have been received. The suggestion is that a BKA document D6601 records a visit to Siemens (undated) to conduct an assessment of photographs of the “comparison circuit boards”, and that the specialists there were Dr Maximilian Hodl and Hans Brosanle* (sic) who gave their views on the circuit board and thought it a poor quality product; and that further opinion was sought on the components on the board so the BKA visited Mr Grammuller and Mr Wend at Securing Technology who gave a further opinion on the construction of the board. It is not clear what this relates to, but it does not appear it can relate to PT/35(b), given the absence of any components on the fragment.]

In Brosamle’s precognition he also mentions that he later saw one of the Scottish
officers again in Glasgow between 11 and 15 June 90 when he attended the PCB
conference at the SECC. He states that he was there with Dr Hoedl and another
colleague, and the officer seemed to have been expecting him to be there. He states
that he went into a separate room and proof read some flip charts that had been
prepared about the fragment, and he corrected an error about the thickness of the
copper coating where it was stated in millimetres instead of microns. NB Brosamle
and Tepp’s signatures are visible on the label for DP/31. Neither signature is clear on
the label for PT/35(b).

In Harrower and Williamson’s statements it is noted that from this point onwards
Harrower was no longer involved in the timer fragment enquiries. Harrower gave
evidence about the various enquiries detailed above, but his evidence simply
confirmed that he had been to the various companies etc. and that the various samples
had been removed from the fragment of timer.

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

One Response to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 27 April 1990

  1. Craig says:

    Lost for words…….How on earth can PBS Frontline go forward with this:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/pbs_press_tour/sets/72157656683415422/with/20248199971/

    As previously noted, Richard Marquise is an FBI Administrator, absolutely not an investigator even by his own accord.
    Young Richard followed his father in to the FBI and then advanced his career in the FBI information / records section.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjADahUKEwjDldvXmJTHAhWOwo4KHcjDAMw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nleomf.org%2Fassets%2Fpdfs%2Fnlem%2Foral-histories%2FFBI_Marquise_interview.pdf&ei=di_DVcOCEo6FuwTIh4PgDA&usg=AFQjCNG_14J97Lwf29wdC0atSSttJbdgig&bvm=bv.99556055,d.c2E

    Clearly, as the multiple records illuminate, even mundane information record keeping appears out of reach for this ‘professional’.

    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