Here is the evidence from Robert Lomer at the Lockerbie trial. Again, what is going on here? Lost in translation?
5 MR. TURNBULL: Witness number 576, My Lords,
6 Robert Lomer.
7 THE MACER: Robert Lomer, My Lords.
8 WITNESS: ROBERT LOMER, sworn
9 LORD SUTHERLAND: Advocate Depute.
10 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. TURNBULL:
11 Q Mr. Lomer, are you Robert Lomer?
12 A I am, yes.
13 Q And do you live at Landfall in Hamble,
14 Southampton, in Hampshire?
15 A I do.
16 Q What age are you, please?
17 A I am 41.
18 Q Did you previously work for a company
19 known as Gould Electronics, Mr. Lomer?
20 A I did, yes.
21 Q What did Gould Electronics do?
22 A They manufactured copper foils for the
23 use of — in making printed circuit boards.
24 Q Thank you. How long did you work with
25 Gould Electronics?
1 A Approximately nine years.
2 Q Do you recollect in 1990 being visited
3 by Scottish police officers?
4 A I do, yes.
5 Q And did they ask you to provide
6 assistance in identifying the source of some copper —
7 A They did.
8 Q — one — a small fragment that they had
9 with them?
10 A Yes, they did.
11 Q And that was a fragment of a printed
12 circuit board?
13 A It was. And also a sample which was
14 attached to a stub of a scanning electron microscope.
15 Q When you looked at the sample they had,
16 were you able to see the copper on it?
17 A No. On the sample of the stub for the
18 scanning electron microscope, we were not able to see a
19 sample of copper attached to the scope.
20 Q Did it appear, therefore, to have come
22 A It did, yes.
23 Q Did you ask their permission to take
24 another sample of copper?
25 A Yes. I believe, as I recall, there was
1 a small sample of printed circuit board, which — we
2 attempted to take a sample of copper from that.
3 Q Can you look for me, please, at
4 Production — sorry, Label Number 417.
5 And have you signed that label, Mr. Lomer?
6 A I have, yes.
7 Q And what’s the date on it?
8 A The 7th of March 1990.
9 Q Thank you. And did you sign that to
10 acknowledge removing the small sample of copper?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And was that from the fragment which the
13 police officers had brought with them?
14 A Yes, it was.
15 Q Thank you. Were you successful in your
16 attempted analysis of the small sample of copper?
17 A No. I was not able to identify the
18 sample as being of Gould’s manufacture.
19 Q Thank you.
20 LORD SUTHERLAND: Questions?
21 MR. BURNS: No questions, My Lord, thank you.
22 MR. MACLEOD: No questions, My Lords.
23 LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Mr. Lomer.
24 That’s all.
Les us now return to the TIMELINR PART II and in particular the entry for 7 March 1990.
Removal of 4th sample – DP/15 (Crown label n°417) – sample of copper conducting track
(…) In Williamson’s ch10 CP, he states that the reason Lomer did not try and take another sample was because he was not confident he would be able to get any better a result.
Williamson then states that Lomer was shown DP/14, the photographs Whitehead had produced, and at that time Lomer agreed with Whitehead’s conclusion that, fiom the photographs, it appeared that the copper foil had been manufactured by Gould Electronics
(Although note Whitehead’s position, at CP and DP that he did not think Gould had produced the copper, that he thought it was made in the Far East – see under 15 Feb 90 above).