PT/35(b) TIMELINE – PART VI. Feraday Examination

Feraday examination

The movements of PT/35(b) and various other productions to and from RARDE in
March 1999 are recorded in the HOLMES statements of DC Stryjewski (S1138AX)
and Barry Fyffe (S4260D).

The examination by Feraday at RARDE in March 1999 corresponds to his report,
prod 185, which was co-signed by Kim Simpson. This report is a direct response to
the allegations about the fragment that were contained in the Dispatches documentary,
contributors to which were Bollier and Major Lewis. The report addresses the
suggestion by Bollier in the programme that the Lockerbie fragment was handmade
and was therefore from a prototype timer he had supplied to the Stasi; and that the
timers supplied to Libya were stamped out mechanically and therefore were very a precise.

The report points out that the “replica” fragment Bollier had produced in the
programme was around 3 times the size of PT/35(b). The report then addresses the
allegation of Bollier that his technician had sawed the edge of the Lockerbie fragment
and that the saw marks were clearly visible on the fragment. The report lists the
measurements of 18 control sample MST circuit boards and notes that all those that
had the edges cut had them cut by hand and not by mechanical pressing, contrary
to Bollier’s claim. A photograph of DP/118, one of the control sample circuit boards,
is included which clearly shows the curves on it have not been cut precisely along the
guide line.

The report then addresses allegations made by Major Lewis about the proportions of
the fragment in a photograph compared to a photograph of a control sample board.
The report refutes, amongst other things, Lewis’s suggestion that the curve was not
part of a circle; that the two curves are not the same and that the proportions of the
”land” are not the same. The report also refutes the suggestion that the gaps in the
fragment are different from those in the control sample, pointing out that the gap in
the fragment is in fact midway in the length of gaps on the 18 control samples.

PT92-P9

In short, the report appears to deal persuasively with the various criticisms raised by
Bollier and lewis in the Dispatches documentary. Note however that according to the
defence experts’ examination of PT/35(b) they considered the curved edge to have
been very smooth, almost polished, with no saw cuts or other tool marks present.

DP140

PT/35(b) (DP/140)

This would be inconsistent with the conclusions of Feraday and Simpson, but would
also be inconsistent with Bollier’s allegation that the fragment was hand cut. There is
a suggestion by the defence that PT/35(b) was not machine dye cut, that there was
manual input, but that it was possibly machine tool cut and filed down rather than
hack sawed. (See under defence expert examination, below.)

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

One Response to PT/35(b) TIMELINE – PART VI. Feraday Examination

  1. Craig says:

    From the timeline it’s evident there was significant doubts and concerns of various organisations with regard to PT/35b for many years.
    I think it highlights the mistrust of all the parties involved and amateur way the investigation was conducted.
    For a documentary programme or an allegation to cause such noted activity, it looks like everyone agreed the circumstance of this fragment was concerning at best and the investigation was anything but conclusive.

    One of the problems with this apparent 1999/2000 review is the same individual Feraday OBE who was initially involved and the strongest voice many years was also heavily involved with the review.
    If significant questions are presented with regard to any subject matter, allowing the same individual initially involved the same provenance if not more through further years standing in the organisation, well, that’s not a review, that is allowing the same individual to compound the same finding.

    Several years later SCCRC are involved, they conduct a review and parts of it were laboriously more detailed than anything in 1999/2000 but what did they actually do, yeah that’s right they refer to the previous review. Usual game plan.
    What is presented supposedly as a complete review becomes a review of a review.

    I think folks should be asking many questions, there were multiple procedural and compliant failures with regard to this investigation – Altering evidence labels, lack of document control, failure to record evidence, questionable photographic evidence etc.
    There are still more questions than answers.
    Lets face it, this lot rewrote the rule book with regard to evidence and it’s ‘control’.
    ———————————————————–

    Although SCCRC findings appear conclusive of significant failures. SCCRC did not choose to refer any individual or organisation to any complaints or disciplinary procedure ?
    I have no idea why SCCRC can present and conclude the findings they have with regard to a miscarriage of justice but refuse to present or put forward any complaint with regard to the parties involved.
    How can that be the case ?

    We should never forget the actual findings of the SCCRC;

    27.216
    In accordance with the principles set out at the beginning of this chapter the Commission has also considered whether, notwithstanding its conclusion that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, the entirety of the evidence considered by it points irrefutably to the applicant’s guilt. The Commission’s conclusion is that it does not.

    27.217
    In these circumstances the Commission believes not only that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the applicant’s case, but also that it is in the interests of justice to refer the case to the High Court. The Commission accordingly does so.

    Note:
    ‘In the interests of justice’ it is the SCCRC who refer this case to the High Court.
    Any Citizen of a functioning democracy with a functioning judicial system should expect the referral to be continued ‘in the interests of justice’.
    Only a banana republic such as the now failed state Libya would not proceed with this referral.
    As we know the case was not referred to the High Court, the ‘interests of justice’ have not been served.

    Scotland = Libya

    Both Hayes and Feraday know the score when the aforementioned is pronounced, they’ve been found out before and it doesn’t go to court.
    A whitewash inquiry is conducted, the officials who lied are given a pass and an OBE, the innocent parties who have been convicted are denied any redress and told to lump it.
    Same old same old.
    ————————————————————————

    Photograph No: 116 – FC 4374
    File date 6/4/1990
    From RARDE photograph library register FC 4373 to FC 4386
    Ref: Lockerbie clothing
    Originator: A Feraday
    Remarks: Restricted

    Photograph No: 117 – FC 3521
    Negative date and stamped: 22/5/1989
    No further information

    Clearly the FBI was present in and around Dextar property store;
    The SCCRC submissions also refer to the RARDE report, reference is made to a memorandum of 8 May 1989 by FBI Special Agent Harold Hendershot, in which he described the item as having two outside sheets of paper and further pages sandwiched in between.

    Lockerbie Case Conference, Germany
    14/9/1989

    Hayes & Feraday visit Dextar property store to examine selected electronic parts laid out by previous arrangment.
    Lockerbie investigators in Germany.
    14/9/1989

    Feraday Memo to Williamson.
    Memorandum and Polaroids physically sent to Williamson.
    Must be by courier with logistics receipt, no fax or scan in 1989.
    15/9/1989

    Photograph No: 334
    Fragment PT/35b
    Photograph not returned from RARDE lab until 22/9/1989
    Cannot be Polaroid sent in Memorandum
    15/9/1989 – [Lads & Lassies memo]

    September 1989 to January 1990
    Nothing to report.

    January 1990 – Lockerbie Case Conference
    SIO Henderson implies restrictions of photographic distribution at this time was on the basis the CIA have continually been in before the Scottish police.
    This explanation does not hold water and cannot be accurate as the only place Scottish police had been prior to January 1990 was Malta in joint investigations with FBI.

    February 1990 – Photographs taken of PT/35b
    On a slide with 20mm ruler to show approx size but photos suggest size altered x 3 and x 6
    Two Scottish police officers note FBI was provided photographs February 1990.

    Cannot be same polaroids provided by courier on or around 15/9/1989 as samples removed.

    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