PT/35(b) & The “Soldering” Mystery

You may remember that I recently asked you a simple question: ‘Why is there any “soldering” at the bottom of the “1” shaped pad of PT/35(b)?’

(See : PT/35(b): A Very Simple Question – UPDATE )

Several readers have suggested an explanation but quite frankly none works. (I think we all agree on that.)

Again, look at the “Lead/Tin soldering” deposited at the bottom of the two following pictures.



And now look at how the relay is mounted on the main board of the MST-13 Timer! No soldering at the bottom of the pad is needed.


Please, REMEMBER that there is no evidence that this “soldering” was present on the early pictures of PT/35(b)…

I can only think of one explanation. And it is not an “innocent” one. But, as always, I will let you come to your own conclusions for now.

This entry was posted in PT/35(b). Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to PT/35(b) & The “Soldering” Mystery

  1. George Thomson says:

    Ludwig Long before John Ashton persevered and finally destroyed the myth of what is PT35b It had always been my contention that DP137 The Lads and Lasses Memo DID NOT refer to PT35b but in fact related to PT30 which was “allegedly” recovered from the handle of a piece of luggage identifiable to the passenger Karen Noonan.

    My theory is that with the introduction into the evidence chain of PT35b around January, 1990 an attempt was made to Reverse Engineer the discovery by claiming that it had been recovered from the Slalom Shirt on the 12th May, 1989 and was referred to in September 15th 1989 in the Lads and Lassies Memo.

    There is plenty of evidence within the appendices to the SCCRC Report, See Entwhistles Contribution, which would substantiate my claim (but the SCCRC chose to ignore their own evidence)

    You appear to have a few knowledgeable contributors on line can you perhaps make some of that material available for discussion and pose the question.

    Given the facts outlined above and the description of the fragment in the Lads and Lasses Memo does it fully accord with PT35b (In particular I have doubts about the size of the curvature described in the memo but I am no expert in that area )

    Keep up the good work

    George Thomson


    • Morag says:

      George, when I measured the curvature it seemed to match. I thought it wouldn’t, but surprisingly, it did.

      I think if the lads and lassies memo is being used fraudulently, it would have to represent a complete re-write of an original which indeed referred to PT/30. I can’t see any way that text could have been intended to refer to PT/30, which doesn’t have a prominent curved feature in the way PT/35b does. So in that case, why wouldn’t the description be accurate? It would be written to order.

      My difficulty with that is that the new version of the memo would have had to have been written by Feraday. Now Feraday’s behaviour during 1991 is not that of a man who knew that PT/35b was a fraudulent plant. He seems to be genuinely analysing it, and genuinely speculating about why the metallurgy didn’t match the control. He’d never have committed to paper what he did commit to paper if he’d been party to backdating its provenance at that time.

      The only possibility there is that he was taken into the conspiracy some time after about August 1991, though in that case I have to wonder why he didn’t destroy or re-write his August notes. So do you know when the lads and lassies memo first surfaced? Could it have been fabricated (to replace an earlier, genuine memo) after August 1991?

      Feraday is a problem. If PT/35b was a later interpolation, he goes from believing it’s entirely kosher and an important clue, to co-operating wholeheartedly with the deception. He owns the lads and lassies memo as referring to PT/35b, he tells the SCCRC that he saw the fragment in Hayes’s office on 12th May 1989, and he tells a whole load of porkies about having been trying to identify the thing throughout the middle months of 1989. (I don’t think he did that, but there’s a difference between falsely pretending you were doing your job when in fact you had entirely failed to appreciate that the thing was important, and actively colluding in a fabrication.)

      I’m not saying this is impossible, but I’m having difficulty getting my head round how it might have happened.


    • Morag says:

      It all seems so seductive. The alteration on the label attached to PI/995. The incredible dog’s breakfast of Hayes’s May 1989 notes, especially the renumbered pages. The remarkable convenience of the lads and lassies memo with its polaroid photos and the cops all thinking it was PT/30 Feraday was interested in at that time.

      The trouble is, there’s a lot that doesn’t gel when you drill into the detail. What’s the point, about the alteration on the label? What was it supposed to achieve? Wouldn’t one be especially careful not to do anything questionable to that bag or its label, that might be noticed and draw unwelcome attention?

      Hayes’s notes are a horrible, horrible mess. All of them, all the way through. Pages interpolated, dates out of sequence, an absolute masterclass in Bad Laboratory Practice. (Very interesting that he’d given up using bound lab notebooks, which prevent this sort of shambolic record-keeping.) This puts the mess in mid-May into a bit of perspective. It’s all like that. No matter which part you suspect might be fraudulent, you’ll find some inconsistency to support the notion.

      However, his story about the renumbering seems to be approximately true. There’s no missing original page 56. Pages 53 to 59 were written in sequence. Pages 50 and 51 were also written in sequence. These two pages are the real anomaly, and they look as if they are later interpolations. The SCCRC seems to have been so intent on testing the defence’s (wrong) hypothesis it didn’t look for a different one.

      There are two major problems with this. The first one is that there’s no conceivable way I can think of to explain the addition of these two pages, describing work done on Friday 12th May (when everything else suggests that Hayes didn’t resume his examination of the burned clothing until Monday 15th), in the context of the fabrication we’re contemplating. It could have been done so much more easily and so much less obviously, in other ways. As a side point, if Hayes really did interpolate these pages some time after January 1990, what the hell was he thinking of, making a pig’s ear of numbering the pages and making the whole thing look even more suspicious?

      The other problem is that photo (117), which genuinely shows PT/35b and which genuinely seems to have been taken in May 1989. One might propose that it also was a later interpolation, negative and all, but that gets very complicated when we realise that it must have been taken during the dissection exercise described on page 51 of Hayes’s notes. The debris has been removed from the collar, but the pages of the manual have not yet been separated. And that dissection must have happened some time about May 1989, because there are loads of photos of the scraps of paper after they were separated that can be dated to that time, and the scraps are described in contemporaneous notes.

      It’s not impossible to formulate some story that gets round these individual points. However, it gets very complicated and eventually one starts to wonder, how complicated would anyone make such an exercise? The more fabricated detail, the higher the chance of this being noticed.

      The evidence strongly suggests (pretty much proves) that PI/995 fell out of the sky. The evidence also strongly indicates it was examined in May 1989 and the scraps of paper removed from it at that time. Suppose someone decided in January 1990 to add PT/35b to the mix, and decided to add it to the haul of debris from that remarkably handy shirt collar. All Hayes had to do was to re-write the existing page describing the examination of PI/995, adding in the bit about the green circuit board. No need for any interpolation or renumbering shenanigans. If he did that, though, he used the actual sheet of paper that had been under page 50 at the time page 50 was being written.

      The photo would have had to be faked somehow, possibly just by re-photographing the lot, but the scraps of papers would have had to be faked up to look as if they hadn’t been separated. (Why bother? No reason the photo couldn’t have been taken after they’d been separated. No actual need to fake that, but if the photo is a fake, they did.)

      I’m not convincing myself here. Maybe there’s a plausible narrative I’m not seeing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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