DP/10: Lockerbie Witness Robert Lomer

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.
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
by Scottish police officers?
4            A    I do, yes.
5            Q    And did they ask you to provide
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
21  detached?
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

DP/508 A

DP/508 A

(…) 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).

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

One Response to DP/10: Lockerbie Witness Robert Lomer

  1. PaulF says:

    It seems surprising that Lomer did not mention that he had expressed his opinion that, based on the photographs, the copper foil had probably been made by Gould Electronics. Earlier on the same day at the trial (pages 2792-94 in the transcript), Inspector Keith Harrower (witness 261) in his evidence to the court also failed to mention that Lomer had said that the copper foil was probably made by Gould. Given that establishing the origin of the material was the stated aim of the technical visits to manufacturing companies, it seems very odd that when one of the experts says that he thinks he knows the origin, it gets forgotten by both the expert and the police officer. One might feel misled by the court proceedings into thinking that the meeting with Mr Lomer gave no hint as to where the PCB might have come from, when, in fact, the opposite is true.


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