Excerpts from the protocol:
Q - I see. Would you look for me at an object which will be shown to you, Label 353.
A - May I ask you to put this on the table? I could wear gloves, if need be.
Q - Before we do that, can I ask you to confirm something for me. You've seen that fragment before, haven't you?
A - That is correct. Yes. I've seen it in Scotland. This is what it looks to me right now. I would have to look at it more closely.
Q - And is it in a container or something at the moment?
A - It is here on the table. All you need to do is open the lid.
Q - And can you see it adequately?
A - Yes, if I open it. Might I open it?
Q - And what do you want to do with it once it's opened?
A - I'd like to look at it with my magnifying glass.
Q - Well, if that's acceptable to the Court, the Crown have no objection.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Fine.
MR. BURNS: Nor I, My Lord.
[THE INTERPRETER: The English channel is asking for a brief interruption.]
Q - Now, Mr. Bollier, how are you getting on?
A - Yes.
Q - Have you had a chance to look at it?
A - Yes. No. I haven't opened it yet. May I take it out now? I am wearing gloves. Is that allowed?
Q - Yes. I think the Court granted you permission to do that.
A - Thank you.
A - My Lord, I am sorry, this is not what I saw in Scotland. From what I can tell, this has been burnt afterwards. The other that I saw was shiny green, and now it looks as if it had been burnt afterwards.
I don't even have to take out the second piece from its glass container. It used to be brown, TPT 35; now it is burnt.I'm sorry, I'm not trying to implicate anyone, but this has been altered, both of these pieces.
Q - Now, when was it that you saw this fragment in Scotland?
A - I saw it -- I arrived on the 13th. A, I saw on the 14th, I believe, and B, on the 15th of September 1999.
Q - So in September of last year at the police station in Dumfries, you were shown --
A - Yes, in +. Yes.
Q - Make --
A - The police. And I had a witness because I wanted to have a report. She was assigned to me.
[Not in the protocol: Name of Police witness: Kate Thomson] She, too, saw both fragments. And now they have been modified. I swear they have been modified.
Q - Well, I can hear you, but I want to be clear about where we stand. You saw, at the police station in Dumfries, a fragment in September of last year; is that correct?
A - That is correct.
Q - And it was a fragment which was similar to the one which you have in front of you; is that correct?
A - That is correct. Yes. It was shinier than it is now -- green part.
Q - Just bear with me. It was a fragment which was about the same size, was it?
A - Correct.
Q - And did it have the same numeral "1" -- sorry, did it have the same pattern of a number "1" on it?
A - The pattern -- yes, it's been burnt. I'm sorry, I have to say it. This fragment has been burnt, and it's different from what we've seen. The fragment that I saw was shiny on the green side. There was -- it was shiny, and now it has been burnt.
Q - I heard you say that just a moment ago, Mr. Bollier. I am really just trying to understand where we stand and how similar they were. Now, are you listening to me?
A - Yes. Yes. I'm sorry.
Q - Let's just talk about the fragment you saw in Dumfries. Did it have a number "1" on it, as this one does?
A - It was DP/31, I believe. DP/31, and 35. thatThe small one was 35, I believe. And the other -- well, the small one was 35 B, and the first one -- well, I can't remember now. 35 A or 31 -- PT/31. I can't remember now. A record was being made of it.
Q - But, Mr. Bollier, didn't you hear what I asked? I simply asked if the fragment you saw at the police station in Dumfries had a number "1" on it, as the fragment that's in front of you at the moment does. Now, could you answer that?
A - A number "1"?
Q - Well, on the fragment there is what might be --
A - On the fragment, a number "1"? No.
Q - All right. Mr. Bollier, perhaps we are at cross purposes. On the fragment which you have in front of you, there is a silver portion which rather looks like the numeral "1." Do you see it?
A - Oh, yes. Yes. Yes, of course. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q - And did the fragment that you saw in Dumfries have a silver portion that looked a little like the numeral "1"?
A - Correct. Yes.
Q - The fragment that you have in front of you also has two silver parallel lines just below the portion that looks like the numeral "1." Do you agree?
A - That is correct. Yes.
Q - And did the fragment that you saw in Dumfries also have two parallel silver lines below the portion that looked like a numeral "1"?
A - Yes.
Q - All right. But, in fact, are you saying that the fragment you now have in front of you is not the same as the fragment you saw in Dumfries?
A - Yes.
Q - I see. Are you saying that the fragment has been altered in some way, or that there exist two fragments?
A - As far as I can see, this fragment, it has been exposed to a flame.
Q - Well, does that mean it's the same fragment you saw in Dumfries, which has subsequently had something done to it, or are you saying that there are more than one fragment of this sort?
A - I think that there must be more than one fragment of this type.
Q - I see.
A - But I -- this fragment is not the same one that I saw in Dumfries. It's different. And there is this numeral "1." It wasn't quite so damaged as here. It has been burnt additionally. Furthermore, this fragment is shorter than the Thuring boards.
The one you see at the top has an additional rim. It has been sawn off here. And the last time, in Dumfries, I asked the prosecutor whether this was the original that was sawn off, and the question was: If something was -- had been sawn off, the sawn-off material would still be available.
And now we have a little glass tube. I don't know where it belongs to, but it is certainly not the bit that has been sawn off. It's something different. So what is missing here is something like 4 millimetres of print material, of this green circuit material that you can see at the top of the photograph.
There you can see a rim, an edge, and on this fragment, this rim has been cut off right down to the "1," the numeral "1," top.
Q - And let's just stop there so we understand what you are telling us. Are you pointing at one of the photographs on the screen at the moment?
Is 334 suitable to use for you to explain? Are you explaining that there is a difference above the numeral "1" portion of the fragment on 334 as compared to the fragment that you have in front of you?
A - Yes.
Q - Right.
A - We see on the screen 334. The "1" at the top -- there's a horizontal line at the top, about three millimetres on the photograph. Material has been removed from the board. And this fragment has been cut off quite close to the top of the "1," the numeral "1," flush with the top.
Q - Mr. Bollier, we've heard evidence in the court that the fragment that you have in front of you has been examined by a number of different scientists. Do you follow that?
A - Yes.
Q - And that in order to carry out their examinations, they required to remove certain fragments -- certain portions of the fragment that you have in front of you. Do you follow?
A - Yes, I can understand that.
Q - And that one of the portions that was removed was along the top of the fragment, above what might be thought of as the numeral "1." Do you understand that?
A - Yes, I can understand that.
Q - All right.
A - But then the remainder of this cut-off piece should be a piece of evidence, and it should be added to the fragment, even if it has been removed. You cannot put a fragment on the table where one no longer has the original piece of evidence as found.
What forensic experts have done, if they have removed something -- well, that's quite clear. But then the remaining bits should have been joined or added to the fragment. It's a very important matter.
Q - Well, that's understandable, Mr. Bollier, and that's your view on the matter. We can hear that.
[What follows is the story about the first fragment photo presented to Mebo]
LORD SUTHERLAND: [.......]
I think the fragment should be restored to its glass bottle.
MR. TURNBULL: Yes. I am grateful to Your Lordship for that.
LORD SUTHERLAND: It being very small.
Q - Mr. Bollier, can you allow the macer to remove the fragment, please, from you.
A - I have to say something further about this. Perhaps we could keep it here. May I speak?
Q - Well, Mr. Bollier, you've been speaking a lot. Can we just focus for a moment on what I asked you, [........]