DP/10: Lockerbie Witness Michael Whitehead

10           WITNESS: MICHAEL WHITEHEAD, sworn
11            LORD SUTHERLAND:  Advocate Depute.
13            Q    Mr. Whitehead, are you Michael
14  Whitehead?
15            A    Correct.
16            Q    Do you work with a company by the name
17  of Eltech?
18            A    That’s true.
19            Q    And are they based at Silloth in
20  Cumbria?
21            A    We are now based at Maryport (phonetic)
22  in Cumbria.
23            Q    Thank you.  What age are you, please,
24  Mr. Whitehead?
25            A    47.

1            Q    In 1990, did you work for a company by
the name of Yates Circuit Foils?
3            A    Correct.
4            Q    Were you the technology manager there?
5            A    Correct.
6            Q    How long did you work with Yates Circuit
7  Foils?
8            A    From 1973 until 1993, when it closed.
9            Q    What did Yates Circuit Foils do, please?
10            A    Yates Circuit Foils manufactured
11  electrodeposited copper foil for use in printed
12  circuits.
13            Q    Do you remember, Mr. Whitehead, being
14  contacted by police officers in February of 1990
15  regarding a small fragment of printed circuit board?
16            A    I do.
17            Q    And did they come to your premises and
18  show you the fragment?
19            A    They did.
20            Q    Did they ask you to carry out an
21  examination of the fragment?
22            A    They asked me to pass comment.
23            Q    Were they seeking from you information
24  about any particular aspect of the fragment?
25            A    I was led to believe they were seeking

1  any information.
2            Q    I see.  And were you in a position to
3  assist them with any particular component of the
4  fragment?
5            A    The copper foil that was present on one
6  of the surfaces of the fragment was of a type that I
7  was familiar with.
8            Q    I see.  And did you ask their permission
9  to remove a fragment from one of the conductor tracks?
10            A    I explained that I could only offer more
11  detailed information by subjecting a particle of the
12  sample to SEM examination.
13            Q    Okay.  And did you remove what’s now
14  Label Number 416, which will be shown to you?
15            A    Correct.
16            Q    Thank you.  And would you look with me,
17  please, Mr. Whitehead, at some photographs, Production
18  No. 340.
19            Do we see from what’s on the screen and what
20  you are being given, Mr. Whitehead, that these are
21  photographs of the copper sample taken by you?
22            A    Okay.  Of the mike (phonetic) drafts
23  that are in front of me, one of them is from the sample
24   — sorry, two of them are from the sample, yes.
25            Q    It may be that these will not mean an

enormous amount to a lay person, but can we have a
look at the photograph on the screen next, please,
picture 1.  Thank you.

4            Is this one of the photographs of the samples
that you — the sample that you took, Mr. Whitehead?
6            A    I don’t think so.
7            Q    Well, let’s look at the next photograph.
8            Are we now looking at the photograph of the
sample that you took?
10            A    No.
11            Q    Is it the third?
12            A    Yes.

DP/14 (From DP/10)

DP/14 (From DP/10)

13            Q    All right.  And were these taken under
14  magnification —
15            A    Yes, they were.
16            Q    — in an attempt to identify the
17  manufacturer of the copper within the printed circuit
18  board fragment?
19            A    That was the attempt, yes.
20            Q    Thank you.  Was the sample that you
21  removed, Mr. Whitehead, big enough to see with the
22  naked eye?
23            A    The sample itself was, yes.  It was
24  approximately three millimetres long by a millimetre
25  wide.

1            Q    And what — did you fix it to anything
2  in order to carry out your examination?
3            A    Yes.  In order to conduct an SEM
4  examination, it was necessary to adhere this sliver of
5  copper foil to a support stub, which is the large piece
6  that’s in the evidence pack that I looked at first.
7  And this sample of copper foil was adhered to that
8  using solvent silver paint.
9            Q    Is it still there?
10            A    I couldn’t tell you.
11            Q    Could you have a look again at the item
12  I asked you to look at, Label 416.
13            A    It’s difficult for me to say, as it
14  were, with the naked eye, but I don’t think so.
15            Q    All right.  Thank you.  And were you
16  able to assist the police from this inquiry in
17  understanding where the copper had been manufactured?
18            A    I was able to identify that the company
19  that I worked for had not manufactured the product.  I
20  was able to suggest an alternate source, but the — I
21  couldn’t be definitive.
22            Q    Thank you.
23            I have no further questions.  Thank you, My
24  Lords.
25            LORD SUTHERLAND:  Questions?

1            MR. BURNS:  No, thank you, My Lord.
2            MR. MACLEOD:  No, thank you, My Lords.
3            LORD SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Mr. Whitehead.
4  That’s all.


Is this a clear case of inadequate and defective representation by Megrahi’s lawyers?

This entry was posted in Chronology, DP/10, Whitehead. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s