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

Dundee University examination

The HOLMES statements of Sutton (S27651) and Stryjewski (S1138BL) record the
movements of PT/35(b) and DP/31 to Dundee Uni on 1 March 2000 and again on 9
March 2000. There are no statements of the individuals involved in examining the
item, but they were all precognosced by the Crown.

DP-35 Page 4

DP-35 Page 4

According to the CP of Prof Alexander Fitzgerald, he was responsible for drafting the
report that was produced, prod 1816 (DP/625). His CP indicates that the fragments
were examined on 3, 10 and 11 March 2000. These dates are repeated in the Dundee
Uni report. They are not quite consistent with the police records and HOLMES
statements, which indicate the dates to have been 1, 9 and 10 March. He stated that
scanning electron microscopy and light microscopy were used, and the conclusion he
came to was that PT/35(b) and DP/31 came from the same physical PCB; and that
regions were present on the land or pad area of PT/35(b) that indicated that solder
attachment had been made.

Another expert who was part of the Dundee Uni team examining the fragments was
Prof Brim Makin. He agreed with the terms of the report prod 1816. He stated that
his initial impression of PT/35(b) was that it was a tin immersion board, typical of a
type of board produced in small numbers. He stated that it would be relatively
straightforward to fabricate boards of this nature which, with the right equipment,
could be done at home. He was asked if the use of surface mount technology would
be considered advanced in 1985, and having consulted papers he stated that it was fair
to say this technology was in its early stages at that time. He stated that as far as he
was concerned it was evident from both the fragment itself and the photographs in his
report that solder points are present on the land, the quality of workmanship being
consistent with manual rather than mechanical soldering. He stated that from a visual
examination of PT/35(b) it is apparent immediately that the non track side of the
fragment was coated with solder mask.

A third expert at Dundee Uni was Dr Brim Storey, who was involved in the optical
microscopy of the fragments. He described some of the difficulties with this, since
the two fragments were different thicknesses, and a jig and special microscope were
used. He referred to the report, that a significant number of similarities were found
between the two fragments and he said his view was that any reasonable person would
accept that there is no doubt that DP/31 formed part of PT/35(b). He agreed with the
report in as far as it related to optical microscopy.

A fourth expert at Dundee was Yongchan Fan, who basically operated the scanning
electron microscope when it was used to examine PT/35(b) and DP/31 and whose CP
records that he was satisfied that the results produced by the instrument were accurate
and reliable. He was satisfied that the results and conclusions in the report prod 1816
were correct.

The last individual who signed the Dundee Uni report was Grant Kydd, who was
simply a technician and who could only confirm that the scanning electron
microscope was working properly when the examinations were carried out. He could
not speak to the results or interpretation of them, and a precognoscer’s note states that
he was merely technical assistance and should not have been a signatory to the report.
The report of the Dundee examination concludes that the fragments DP/31 and
PT/35(b) came from the same physical PCB and that there were regions on the land of
PT/35(b) that indicated that a solder attachment had been made.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chronology, DP/31, Dundee U, PT/35(b). Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to PT/35(b) TIMELINE – PART VI. Dundee University Examination

  1. Morag says:

    He stated that his initial impression of PT/35(b) was that it was a tin immersion board, typical of a type of board produced in small numbers. He stated that it would be relatively
    straightforward to fabricate boards of this nature which, with the right equipment,
    could be done at home.

    Good God in Heaven, that’s exactly it, right there! PT/35b was produced by amateur electroless tin immersion. The Thüring boards weren’t.

    PT/35b was a one-off or part of a very small run. It was made as an exact copy of the Thüring boards, but instead of using the industrial manufacturing process for the tinning (which would have been tin/lead alloy), it was simply dipped in liquid tin.

    This saga is littered with people simply not getting it, even when the actual evidence was right in front of their eyes. And it still is, what with people who persist in dementing on about lead-free industrial tinning processes that didn’t come into use until much later.

    Like

  2. Scott says:

    Would you need the circuit board paper diagrams to create a copy or would it be possible to re-create using for example the brown prototype?

    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