4 March 1992 (French – see also 8 February 1990 above)
According to their HOLMES statements, on this date McAdam and Buwert travelled
to Ciba Geigy and interviewed John French, who removed from DP/347(a) a small
sample, DP/505 (Crown label 407) to allow infrared spectrometry, and a spectrum,
DP/506 (prod 346) was produced. Mr French then examined DP/12, a sample
removed from PT/35(b), and subjected it to the same test as had been done for
DP/505, and produced another spectrum, again labelled DP/506 (prod 346). French’s
conclusions were included in his statement.
According to the police report the result of French’s analysis was that both samples
from PT/35(b) and from DP/347(a) showed bisphenol A epoxy resin cured with
dicyandiamide, both samples being made from chemically similar materials.
The manuscript statement of French was prod 358. Its terms generally conform to the
summary above. The wording of the statement is not clear, but it seems that DP/505
was not removed direct from DP/347(a), but from DP/504. The terms of the
statement suggest that French was told DP/504 was a section that had previously
already been removed from DP/347(a).
In his CP French at first did not recollect the return visit of officers in 1992. He was
shown DP/347(a) and vaguely recollected it, and he saw his signature of its label. He
recalled noting that certain elements of the board were visually similar to the
fragment. He did not recall analysing the sample. He was then shown DP/504, from
which it seems he removed DP/505, but he did not recall it and did not see his
signature on the label. He was then shown DP/505 and saw his signature on that label, stating that the sample was in a typical Ciba tube. He said it was gradually
coming back to him, and he accepted that he removed this piece, and said he would
have done this to carry out the same tests with a view to comparing the results. He
was shown the spectrum DP/506 and confirmed he had signed that label and had also
signed and dated the spectra, which he accepted was his work. He stated that on
comparing the results, he was prepared to say that the sample was constructed using
the same type of resin as the sample taken from PT/35(b). The same curing agent had
been used, and both samples had been made using chemically similar materials. He
said it was not possible to state that they had been made by the same manufacturer.
A note at the end of the CP states that the police officers would have to speak to
removal of DP/504 from the circuit board as the witness did not recollect this. The
terms of the police statements indicate that he did not remove DP/504, although he
removed DP/505 from DP/504. The implication from the HOLMES statements of
McAdam, Buwert and Philip Walker is that it was Walker at Morton International
(see 2 March 1992, above) that removed DP/504.
French’s DP does not mention the 1992 enquiries (he might have been precognosced
by the defence before the Crown). He did not give evidence.
Comparison between control sample and fragment: it seems to be confirmed that the
resins used to make both samples could have been the same (despite comments made
by French in 1990 that comparison between PT/35(b) and control samples would be
difficult if PT/35(b) had been subjected to extreme heat, which could have changed its
NB French’s signature is visible on the label for DP/347(a).