On 14 November 1991, the Lord Advocate and the acting United States Attorney General jointly announced that they had obtained warrants for the arrest of Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
Thus you may believe that the investigations regarding PT/35(b) are now over. And surely logic would dictate that you are correct to think so. But in the Lockerbie Case, logic has been badly abused. (Remember the rain in Malta?)
In truth, the investigation is far from over. I will now begin the Part V of this series which covers the Scientific inquiries conducted in 1992. This is a difficult part of the Timeline and I will proceed slowly. Let us get started.
Section 30.0 of the police report deals with PT/35(b) up to the point of its identification as similar to the Togo timer, on 22 July 1990. Section 30.1 of the police report states that, following submission of section 30.0 to the Crown, it was requested
that certain further tests which had earlier been carried out on the fragment also be performed on the control sample piece of MST-13 circuit board, DP/347(a).
[DP/347(a) was one of the various control sample circuit boards obtained during enquiries at MEBO; it was Crown label 412 at trial.]
The police report records that these 5 tests were carried out in the period from 28 February 1992 to 6 March 1992, and a summary of these tests is contained in the police report. The conclusion of the report states that while none of the scientists would say conclusively that PT/35(b) and DP/347(a) were specifically the same material or from the same source, equally none were of the opinion that the two samples were radically different.
The police officers involved in instructing the tests were DS Peter McAdam (S1371X) and DC Rolf Buwert (S4649Q). Neither McAdam nor Buwert gave evidence at trial. McAdam does not have a chapter 10 CP. Buwert does have a ch10 CP but in relation to these scientific enquiries it is very bald in its terms. Both men have DPs, but they basically just reflect their HOLMES statements, which record that, starting on 28 Feb
92, at the request of a fiscal depute, they arranged the series of scientific tests on DP/347(a). Details of these tests follow below.
It is apparent from Crown precognitions that the Crown wanted to have the handwritten statements relating to the scientific examinations that had been carried out in 1990, but for some reason these could not be located and only the HOLMES prints were available. However, the handwritten statements of the witnesses spoken to in 1992 were produced and the Crown lodged these as productions 358 to 365 at trial.