The Chronology of PT/35(b): 12 and 13 June 1990

12/13 June 1990

According to the SIO, Henderson’s, statement S4710J, he attended an international
conference in June 90 at which a photo of PT/35(b) and details of it were handed over
to FBI officers.

PT/35(b)

PT/35(b)

In his DP Henderson states that he agreed to provide a copy of photograph of the printed circuit board to the American Intelligence Service but stated that he was not prepared to hand over the item. He also provided British Intelligence with a copy of the photograph of the PCB. He does not state when he did this.

He does not mention the international conference. He goes on to state that, some time
later, the Americans came back and suggested the fragment could be part of a “Land”
for a timing device and in brackets in the DP it says the device was similar to one the
Americans had which eventually became K-l.

Further details about the handing over of a photograph of PT/35(b) to the American authorities are addressed in chapter 8 of the statement of reasons.

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

One Response to The Chronology of PT/35(b): 12 and 13 June 1990

  1. Craig says:

    SCCRC actually stated as a ‘fact’ –

    8.29 In the Commission’s view it is possible that confusion might have arisen as a
    result of the fact that, although the fragment was discovered in May 1989, substantive
    police enquiries to identify it only commenced in January 1990 upon receipt of Mr
    Feraday’s memo (a fact confirmed in the police report and also in the HOLMES
    statement of Stuart Henderson, the SIO (S4710J), see appendix).

    There is one other issue which I just can’t understand.
    If Feraday did discover this fragment, it’s suggested for another 4-6 months [depending who you believe] that he kept this evidence ‘in-house’ and did not declare this to anyone and then proceeded to attempt to identify same.

    Of course, SCCRC accepted this answer, the only problem is there is no documentation or evidence to support Feraday claim.
    If someone was tirelessly attempting to identify something there would be an audit trail to support this.

    SCCRC did not seek or request this information.
    The reason being is they know it does not exist.
    ‘In-house’ equals non-existent information, fabrication and lies.

    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