DP/10 is undoubtedly the smallest and most important piece of evidence Lockerbie experts have never heard of.
Before and after the identification of PT/35(b), the police consulted a British company called Circuit Foil UK about the copper used on both PT/35b and the Thuring boards.
One of their projet managers – Michael Whitehead – looked at both PT/35(b) and DP/347(a) – The Thuring board supplied to MEBO – and concluded that the copper on the Thuring boards had been made earlier.
(Unfortunately, the police officers seemed to have completely misunderstood his statements…)
The consequences are far-reaching. His statements clearly support the theory that the board from which PT/35(b) originated was produced at a later date than the Thuring boards.
I have some reason to believe that this copper was not produced — at the earliest — before the end of 1989. If true, it would be proof that PT/35(b) was fabricated AFTER the Lockerbie tragedy. It would also destroy the “legend” that PT/35(b) was examined by Dr Hayes and Feraday in May 1989!
On 15/02/1990, Williamson and Harrower visited Yates Circuit Foils, Silloth, Cumbria, and met Michael Whitehead (S5587), chemical process manager, who analysed the copper foil used to manufacture the board from which PT/35(b) came.
Whitehead removed from PT/35(b) a tiny (in his defence precognition and his evidence Whitehead said the sample was about 1 mm X 3 mm and triangular in shape, visible to the naked eye) fragment of copper conducting track, designated DP/10, and it was treated for microscopic examination (an account of this treatment is contained in Whitehead’s defence precognition) and positioned on an examination stud, and microscopic examination of the “matt side topography” on the underside of the sample was carried out and comparison made to samples of copper foil produced by Yates and by their main competitor, Gould Electronics.
Below, you will find the three sets of pictures: PT/35(b), Gould and Yates. As pointed out by Michael Whitehead, the three samples look totally different from each other. This is rather obvious even to people with no expertise in this area.
On 03/09/1990, … Internal Memo from Williamson to SIO Henderson:
On 15th February 1990, Mr Michael Whitehead, Chemical Process Manager, Yates Circuit Foil, Silloth, Carlisle, carried out an examination of the copper of PT35. This test required the removal of a small sample of copper from one of its tracks and its examination and on a scanning electron microscope.
This topography showed that the matt side of the copper foil was characteristic of the foil produced by the company Gould Electronics the main competitor to Yates in this industry.
On 7th March 1990, Mr Robert Lomer, Quality Assurance Manager, Gould Electronics Limited, Southampton, examined the copper sample removed by Yates Limited but was unable to reproduce the findings of Yates and concluded that the sample which had been mounted on an examination stud had come away at some stage and been lost.
Mr Lomer removed a further sample of the copper track from PT35 and mounted it on a stud in a similar manner to that of the test carried out by Yates but again was unable to produce any results as the sample removed was unsuitable for examination.
Mr Lomer viewed photographs of the copper sample removed by Yates and the results of high magnification of that sample and was of the opinion that the matt side topography did show signs characteristic of the copper produced by Gould’s and agreed that in all probability the copper was of their manufacture.
This is beyond comprehension. Firstly, this is NOT what Whitehead told Williamson. Secondly, one wonders how Lomer could possibly see a similarity between PT/35(b) and the GOULD copper? We will come back to this but let us keep going.
After the identification of PT/35(b), the police officers returned to see Michael Whitehead. Here is the SCCRC description of this meeting:
On 06/03/1992, Police officers travelled to Circuit Foil UK (formerly Yates Circuit Foils) at Silloth, and interviewed Michael Whitehead, who examined the matt side topography of the copper tracks on DP/504 (label 406) by using a scanning electron microscope and produced 2 micrographs, A and B, designated DP/508 (prod 347).
(NB: DP/504 is a small part cut from DP/347(a) i.e. the Thuring board supplied to MEBO.)
Michael Whitehead was also of the opinion that the copper foil for DP/504 was manufactured some time earlier than the copper foil for PT/35(b).
Whitehead’s manuscript statement (prod 359) gives further details of the testing he conducted, and explains that micrograph A shows in general the result of the preparation, and micrograph B shows the matt side topography of one of the peeled tracks at magnification of just in excess of 1000 times.
The statement records that the relationship of the dendrites to the base foil pyramids was representative of a product manufactured by Gould, but that the previous micrographs (DP/14) of DP/10, the sample from PT/35(b), suggested that DP/504 was manufactured earlier because the number of peaks per unit area was less that depicted for DP/10.
(NB. That is to say, this surely indicates strongly that PT/35/(b) was manufactured later than the board provided by Thuring.)
There is indeed no doubt that the copper from PT/35(b) is not similar to the copper from the Thuring boards. Moreover, the difference is understood. In the very late 80’s and well into the 90’s, the industry modified the production of the copper and the laminating process to improve the adhesion of the copper to the board. The characteristics of the copper on PT/35(b) reflect this improvement.
Williamson Memo 03/09/90 (Copper test -Page 5)