Thank you for taking the time to review Lockerbie — The Investigation That Still Divides the World.
I have taken particular note of your criticism concerning the MST-13 timer fragment, PT/35(b). You raise a fair point that the subsequent forensic questions surrounding the fragment deserved fuller treatment.
Although the fragment’s circuitry pattern was identified as consistent with an MST-13 timer, later examination of the forensic record raised an important issue concerning its metallic coating. Testing indicated that the copper tracks of PT/35(b) carried a substantially pure tin coating, whereas evidence concerning the Thuring-manufactured circuit boards supplied to MEBO indicated that those boards had been coated with a tin-lead alloy.
That discrepancy has become one of the significant arguments advanced by critics of the prosecution case. It does not, by itself, establish that PT/35(b) was fabricated or planted, but it does raise an important question concerning the provenance of a fragment that formed a crucial part of the evidential chain.
As a direct result of your criticism, I am going back through the forensic evidence surrounding PT/35(b), including the subsequent material that emerged after the Zeist trial. Where the evidence warrants it, this will be addressed more fully in a revised edition of the book.
I may not agree with every aspect of your review, but on this particular point you have given me something worth investigating further. For that, I genuinely thank you.
I have taken particular note of your criticism concerning the MST-13 timer fragment, PT/35(b). You raise a fair point that the subsequent forensic questions surrounding the fragment deserved fuller treatment.
Although the fragment’s circuitry pattern was identified as consistent with an MST-13 timer, later examination of the forensic record raised an important issue concerning its metallic coating. Testing indicated that the copper tracks of PT/35(b) carried a substantially pure tin coating, whereas evidence concerning the Thuring-manufactured circuit boards supplied to MEBO indicated that those boards had been coated with a tin-lead alloy.
That discrepancy has become one of the significant arguments advanced by critics of the prosecution case. It does not, by itself, establish that PT/35(b) was fabricated or planted, but it does raise an important question concerning the provenance of a fragment that formed a crucial part of the evidential chain.
As a direct result of your criticism, I am going back through the forensic evidence surrounding PT/35(b), including the subsequent material that emerged after the Zeist trial. Where the evidence warrants it, this will be addressed more fully in a revised edition of the book.
I may not agree with every aspect of your review, but on this particular point you have given me something worth investigating further. For that, I genuinely thank you.
Bill Stewart