The Appeal - week 2
The Lockerbie Bombing Trial
Start: 28/10/2002 *** Updated: 03. 02. 2002
This page will keep you informed about the second week (28.01-01.02) in the appeal of the Lockerbie Bombing Trial in Camp Zeist.
Latest and updated news at bottom of page.
Come and join the discussion: Was the verdict of the Lockerbie bombing trial unjust ?
What is going on inside and outside the court ? Is Al Megrahi going to win his appeal ?
Lockerbie Crisis Discussion Room - your opinion !

Tony Gauci managed to run a shop despite serious memory problems !Lockerbie evidence unfair

28/01/2002 AP/BBC (!), Reuters et. al
More questions have been raised at the Lockerbie appeal about the credibility of a witness whose evidence helped to convict a Libyan man of the bombing.  Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was said by his lawyer to have been prejudiced because the witness had seen his photograph in a magazine several weeks before picking him in an identification parade.

Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci picked out Al-Megrahi in a line-up of suspects in April 1999, more than 10 years after he said the former Libyan intelligence agent bought clothing in his store. Investigators said those clothes were used to pack the suitcase in which the bomb was concealed. Defence lawyer Bill Taylor QC said Mr Gauci had seen a magazine article in late 1998 or early 1999 about the Lockerbie case which displayed Al-Megrahi's photograph and said he was a suspect. "There was a very direct way in which the witness may have been influenced in his identification," Mr Taylor argued. The appeal hearing is expected to last up to six weeks.

Meanwhile, a Scottish MP has called for the government to respond to a newspaper report that police organised holidays in Scotland for Mr Gauci. The Mail on Sunday reported that it had obtained secret tapes in which Mr Gauci claimed he had been flown from his home in Malta to Scotland for fishing, hiking and bird-watching trips. The paper said Gauci was also taken to Lockerbie to be shown the damage caused by the plane crash.
 

  •  Tony Gauci´s holiday trip to Lockerbie - SUNDAY MAIL article 27/01/02


    • Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, plans to submit a House of Commons question to Prime Minister Tony Blair about the trips in the House of Commons. "If Gauci was brought to Scotland before the trial, why were the defence and the judges not told?," he asked.

    Tony Gauci - a travelling salesman ?Taylor also said Gauci had seen a magazine article in late 1998 or early 1999 about the Lockerbie case which displayed al-Megrahi's photograph and said he was a suspect. ``There was a very direct way in which the witness may have been influenced in his identification,'' Taylor argued. The attorney also raised discrepancies in Gauci's earlier statements to police and his testimony in court about his al-Megrahi's height and age.

    Taylor was painstakingly working his way through 17 points of appeal before the prosecution responds, and the hearings were likely to last several weeks. Unlike in the trial in 2000 before a three-judge court, the defense rather than the prosecution bears the burden of proof before the five appellate judges. In London, Tam Dalyell, a member of Parliament, said Monday he wanted the government to respond to reports that police organized vacations for Gauci in Scotland. It was not clear whether the trips occurred before or after the trial, which was held in the same former air base at Camp Zeist where the appeal was being heard.

    Veteran MP Tam Dalyell said that if the new claims about Mr Gauci's holidays to Scotland were true, they would "lob an explosive device" into the appeal process. Mr Dalyell said he would raise the matter with the Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Labour MP for Linlithgow, who has been a prominent campaigner on Lockerbie, said: "If Gauci was brought to Scotland before the trial at Zeist, why were the defence and the judges not told?

    "At the very least, transparency and explanation were vital. The fact that it seems to have been hush-hush naturally arouses suspicion of subversion of witnesses." He added: "If Gauci came after the trial, what is the purpose of an ongoing relationship? Who in the police and the Crown Office knew? Who paid out of what funds? "I shall pursue the question of the authorisation of payment. I shall be tabling House of Commons questions both to the Prime Minister and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary.

    "I hope it will be pursued with the law officers and by members of the Scottish parliament."

    A spokeswoman for Strathclyde Police said: "We have a policy not to comment on issues concerning witness protection. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for us to comment on any case where an appeal is being heard. "This particular case is within Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's jurisdiction."

    Robert Black, professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said the claims about Mr Gauci's treatment by the police would raise questions about the quality of his evidence. "If it transpires that Gauci was being treated in this way before or during the trial, or indeed understood that he would be given trips after the trial, it would require his credibility as a witness to be re-examined and could alter the outcome of the case. "Senior police officers and prosecutors worked very closely on this case. If the prosecution was aware of the arrangement, it ought to have alerted the defence."
     

  •  Professor Black´s Lockerbie Appeal News Website


    • Day One, Week Two by the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit Glasgow University
    The Appeal hearing continued today in Camp Zeist with Mr Taylor submitting that pre-trial publicity particularly in the form of photographs of Mr Megrahi affected his later identification. He suggested that this pre-trial publicity amounted to contempt of court.

    He continued addressing the court in respect of the second ground of appeal. This is essentially challenging the conclusion of the trial court that the suitcase containing the bomb began its journey at Luqa airport in Malta. The prosecution argued during the trial that the unaccompanied bag had travelled on KM 180 from Luqa airport to Frankfurt and was there loaded onto PA103A which travelled to Heathrow airport in London. Mr Taylor submitted that the trial court had misdirected itself as to the accuracy of the Frankfurt Airport records.

    In his submission Mr Taylor referred to the fact that the conviction of the appellant was dependant in part on proof of the bag beginning its journey in Malta on KM180 and its transfer to PA103A at Frankfurt. He referred to the fact that sections of the worksheets of the coders who worked at Frankfurt airport were illegible and that the author of some of these records, which he described as crucial evidence, was not called as a witness. This relates to Crown Witness Koca who was not called during the trial. The failure of the Crown to call this and other witnesses is ground C of the appeal. Mr Taylor submitted that the court had misinterpreted, ignored or gave insufficient weight to the evidence which undermined the accuracy of records at Frankfurt airport. (End LTBU)

    Defense Appeals Lockerbie Decision

    29/01/2002 AP/BBC (!), Reuters et. al
    Evidence used to convict a Libyan in the 1988 Lockerbie airline disaster fails to support the conclusion that the bomb was loaded onto Pan Am 103 in an unaccompanied suitcase, defense lawyers said Tuesday. As the Lockerbie appeal went into its fifth day, counsel for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi argued that the initial trial judges overlooked records from airport authorities in Malta showing there had been no irregularities pointing to a security breach.

    Airline documentation "does not record that any unaccompanied baggage traveled on KL180," as the prosecution claimed, said lawyer William Taylor. All 55 pieces of luggage onboard the plane from Malta were accounted for, Taylor said, and there was no evidence of irregularities. The court "gave insufficient weight" to the luggage records and therefore "misconstructed evidence," which led to a miscarriage of justice, Taylor argued.

    Tuesday 29 January the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit Glasgow University
    The appellants submission to the court centred on the evidence of baggage processing at Frankfurt airport. Mr Taylor said that the court had ignored or given insufficient weight to its own finding that documentation indicated that there were no unaccompanied bags travelling from Luqa to Frankfurt airport. He referred to the fact that the passenger list of flight KM180 referred to 55 bags having been checked in and other documentation referred to 55 bags having been loaded onto the plane. In addition, the court failed to take account of the defence submissions regarding the factors that would have deterred a terrorist from attempting to introduce a suitcase with a bomb at Luqa airport.

    He submitted that the evidence from Frankfurt airport suggested that there were errors in the system of encoding bags and that it was possible that baggage from more than one flight was encoded at the same station, at the same time. Reference was made to the evidence of the witness Whittiker, who described a single suitcase being encoded without a single record being made. Mr Taylor suggested that there were errors in both the systems employed and the records of Frankfurt airport. He referred to the prior statements from Mr Maier, who was employed to operate the x-ray procedures at Frankfurt airport, where he said that there were no explosives in the bags for flight 103. The judges noted that due to ill-health this witness had been unable to give evidence at the trial and therefore, he had not been cross-examined by the Crown. Mr Taylor suggested that the trial judges had attached too much weight to the evidence from Frankfurt airport which suggested that an unaccompanied bag had travelled from Luqa airport and too little weight to the evidence from Luqa airport that there were no unaccompanied bags on KM180. (end LTBU)

    Plea for admission of new evidence

    30/01/2002 AP/BBC (!), ANANOVA et. al
    The lawyer acting for the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has asked a special appeal court in the Netherlands to consider new evidence. Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty in January 2001 of murdering 270 people.

    And on Wednesday - the fifth (hello BBC!)  day of the appeal - Bill Taylor QC said the new evidence concerned the forcing of a padlock at the secure baggage area at Heathrow Airport. He told the five appeal court judges at Camp Zeist that if the evidence had been available at the original trial it would have supported defence claims that the bomb could have got on to the doomed Pan-Am jumbo jet in London. The conviction was crucially based on arguments that the device had been planted at Malta before passengers, destined for New York, flew on to their next stop in London. The court also heard that at least 14 unaccompanied bags travelled on a feeder flight for the Pan Am plane which exploded over Lockerbie.

    Mr Taylor said his Libyan client had suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of the judges' failure to deal with the issue of the 14 bags. The bags were carried on board Pan Am flight 103A to Heathrow, where passengers were transferred to the New York-bound flight 103, Mr Taylor said. The three judges who heard the original Lockerbie trial decided that Al Megrahi placed an unaccompanied bag containing a bomb on board a flight from Malta to Frankfurt. The bag then travelled on flight 103A to London where it was loaded onto flight 103.

    At least 14 unaccompanied bags were loaded onto the Pan American flight that exploded over Lockerbie, an appeal court has heard. Defence lawyer William Taylor says the original trial, which convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, did not pay enough attention to security at Heathrow. Mr Taylor said there were 14 unaccompanied bags on that flight. Airport records showed 132 pieces of luggage were loaded onto the plane but passenger records accounted for only 118.He said: "The general submission is that if there is one unaccompanied bag on an airplane, it might give rise to a strong inference that it contained the bomb.

    "If, on the other hand, there are at least 14 unaccompanied bags, it rather weakens any inference which could be drawn." Mr Taylor said the trial judges failure to deal with that question amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

    Wednesday 30 January by the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit Glasgow University
    The appellant’s submissions began with Mr Taylor dealing with ground of appeal B7. He submitted that according to airport record 14 unaccompanied bags travelled on PA103A from Frankfurt to London. He suggested that if there were 14 unaccompanied bags it rather weakened any inference that could be drawn by the trial court.

    The submissions then turned to ground of appeal B9. This ground of appeal centres on the position of the suitcase containing the bomb in baggage container AVE 40/41. Mr Taylor reflected on the twenty points he made in his submissions to the trial court. These points include reference to the evidence of Mr Bedford that a brown Samsonite type suitcase was already in container AVE 40/41 before flight PA103A arrived in London. Evidence heard during the trial concluded that when the plane exploded the case containing the bomb was on top of an ‘American Tourister’ case which had arrived on flight PA103A from Frankfurt. The only way the ‘tourister case’ could have been on the bottom of baggage container AVE 40/41 was if the bags already in container AVE 40/41 were moved around. Taylor submitted that the luggage in AVE 40/41 had been re-distributed when the Frankfurt bags were added to the container. He referred to Mr Bedford’s identification of a brown Samsonite suitcase already being in this container and suggested that the finding of the trial judges that this suitcase ‘might have been placed at some remote corner of the container’ was an error by the court and that it had misdirected itself. In absence of an alternative explanation for the brown Samsonite suitcase that Mr Bedford saw and the fact that it matched the case which contained the improvised explosive device provides an inference that Mr Bedford saw the suitcase which contained the device. He said that there was no evidence that another passenger had a case similar to the one seen by Mr Bedford. He said that the crown did not lead evidence to demonstrate that in addition to the suitcase containing the bomb there was a similar suitcase which had been seen by Bedford. Referring to the Crown response to his skeleton arguments, he submitted that the Crown should not now be able to refer to additional evidence on possible fragments found or recovered at Lockerbie.

    Dealing with submission B10 Mr Taylor said that the trial court did not take account of the defence submission that the introduction of the suitcase containing the improvised explosive device at Heathrow airport would have been more likely. This was based on the defence submission that if the suitcase was introduced at Heathrow the chances of it being interfered with before it was loaded onto PA103 were reduced and it was more likely to be loaded at or near the optimum position on the plane to achieve its destructive purpose. Given the random nature of baggage handling it would be impossible for a terrorist to orchestrate control over the positioning of a suitcase containing an explosive device. Either the device was introduced at Heathrow or it was achieved by extraordinary chance. This submission by the appellant during the trial was not regarded as material. Mr Taylor suggested that the case could have been introduced by a number of means in Heathrow.

    Mr Taylor provided a summary of his submissions in respect of those grounds of appeal in B1 – B10.

    The court erred in assuming that the Frankfurt documents were accurate. Other discrepancies in the evidence included, variations in time in the computer clock, discrepancies in coders worksheets, the absence of the evidence from Koca and the fact that 1.5 wagons of luggage were absent from the records. Many of the flaws in the evidence were either tacitly or explicitly ignored by the court. In consequence the court erred in inferring that the suitcase containing the bomb began its journey in Luqa. Having erred in applying a presumption, having overlooked contrary evidence and having overestimated the strength of the inference that could be drawn, the court underestimated evidence which highlighted the difficulties of introducing an unaccompanied bag at Luqa. The court made a number of errors in its assessment of the relevant evidence including that of Maier that there were no explosives in the bags for flight 103. Submissions made by the defence to the court as to the difficulty of introducing a bag at Luqa were ignored as were those relating to the difficulties of predicting the positioning of an explosive device if the case was introduced at Luqa. It was noted that predicting the location of a suitcase would be easier if the suitcase was introduced at Heathrow. The Samsonite case seen by Bedford suggests that it was the case containing the bomb and the court misdirected itself in respect of the significance of this case. The significance of the case seen by Bedford is increased by the fresh evidence referred to in B11.

    Ground of appeal B11 states that there exists significant evidence that was not heard at the trial. Mr Taylor submitted that if this evidence had been available at the trial it would have supported the body of evidence suggestive of the bomb having been infiltrated at Heathrow on which the defence found. The new evidence provisions are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 at s.106(3). The existence and significance of evidence not heard at the original hearing may be the basis of a miscarriage of justice where there is reason why it was not heard. The Crown have accepted in their skeleton submissions that this evidence was not heard at the trial and that there was a reasonable explanation for this, namely, that it was not available at the time of the trial. Mr Taylor explained to the court that defence preparations for the trial started more than 10 years after the event. Since the time of the Lockerbie disaster the Crown had prepared for and conducted a Fatal Accident Inquiry and the Police had investigated the matter. The Crown approached the trial case on the basis of the principle of disclosure and assisted the defence. The Crown was not aware of this new evidence and in the circumstances, there is a reasonable explanation as to why the defence were also not aware of this new evidence.

    The issue therefore rests on the question of the significance of the evidence. Mr Taylor referred to case law which ruled on the question of significance in new evidence. In the case of Cameron, two tests were laid down. First, the new evidence would fulfil the test of significance if the court was satisfied that if the jury had heard the new evidence it would have been bound to acquit. However, problems arise where the court can not be so satisfied that the jury would have been bound to acquit. The court would require to be satisfied that the evidence was relevant and that it was of such significance that the verdict of the jury reached in ignorance of its existence was a miscarriage of justice. (end LTBU)

    Court adjourned until Thursday January 31, 2002

    Padlocks and spareparts

    31/01/2002 AP/BBC (!), ANANOVA et. al
    William Taylor, QC, continued today saying fresh evidence, which was not heard at the trial of convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was enough to cast a "reasonable doubt" over the Libyan's guilt. Retired security guard Ray Manly came forward after Al Megrahi was convicted last January to tell lawyers that a door leading to the baggage build up area at Terminal 3 was forced on the night of December 20 1988.

    In a statement read to judges at Al Megrahi's appeal hearing at Camp Zeist, Holland, Mr Manly told lawyers acting for his defence team that he discovered the break-in, at a padlocked rubber door known as CP2, at 12.30am on December 21. He said: "The padlock was on the floor to the left of the doors and had been cut through in a way which suggested that bolt cutters had been used."

    "I am also able to say that in the check-in area, Pan Am baggage labels of various types were left unsecured at the check-in desk. I believe it would be possible for an unauthorised person to obtain tags for a particular Pan Am flight and then, having broken the CP2 lock, to have introduced a tagged bag into the baggage build up area. Such baggage would be tagged for loading into the flights.  "I am also able to say that in the check-in area, Pan Am baggage labels of various types were left unsecured at the check-in desk.

    Mr Taylor told the appeal judges Mr Manly's evidence bolstered the defence argument at the trial that the bomb was most likely to have got onto the plane via the baggage handling area at Heathrow. The prosecution case, which the three trial judges accepted, was that the bomb had been loaded onto a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a feeder flight for Pan Am 103.

    Mr Taylor said records from Luqa airport in Malta showed no evidence that an unaccompanied bag had been placed on board. He said: "There was a substantial body of evidence and inference which suggested that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow." Mr Taylor went on: "Had the court known that someone had taken the trouble to force a padlock on a door giving access to airside at Terminal 3, then they would have a material consideration for the court in determining whether the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. Such a doubt would have given rise to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant."

    ``The new evidence is of such significance that the verdict, reached in ignorance of its existence, must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice,'' counsel William Taylor told five appeal judges sitting at a special Scottish court in the Netherlands.

    Taylor read on: "It is apparent from the Crown's outline, paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5, that there is no dispute that the damage must have been occasioned between 2230 hours on the 20th of December and 0030 hours on the 21st of December 1988. The lock must have been broken after normal baggage handling activities had concluded. There was no impediment to a member of the public reaching the
    door through Terminal 3. The door which was forced was the only post which was unmanned at night."

    Luggage trouble
    "A powerful circumstance, in my submission, is that this occurred for the first time on the eve of the departure of Pan Am 103 from Heathrow on the 21st of December 1988. It is relevant to recall that this can be compared to the circumstantial case for introduction at Luqa, which lacked any indication of a breach of security, lacked any sighting of a case matching the forensic description of the primary case, and was apparently disproved by the documentary record."

    LORD OSBORNE: Mr. Taylor, there is one aspect of this on which I would welcome your comment. We understand from what you have just read that the breach of security occurred shortly after midnight in the night of 20th/21st December.

    MR. TAYLOR: Yes, My Lord.

    LORD OSBORNE: Now, we also know that the flight involved in the disaster left Heathrow, as I recollect, around 6:30 in the evening of the 21st.

    MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

    LORD OSBORNE: So there is something like 18 hours between the breach of security and the flight departure.

    MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

    LORD OSBORNE: Without knowing exactly how baggage may be handled or may have been handled in Heathrow at that time, one does ask oneself, suppose that your hypothesis is correct. I mean, how would an intruder who had a bomb to plant, having broken the security, go about ensuring that that bomb was placed in a location where it would be loaded onto the relevant flight? It seems to me that there is potentially a question here, because - there is quite a gap of time between the breach of security and the time when one supposes the aircraft would be loaded.

    MR. TAYLOR: I understand that, My Lord, and that may very well be the points figured by Your Lordship may very well be a good reason for hearing the evidence, because the witness can tell us. But there was, at the course of the trial, in the course of the trial, considerable evidence as to what happened at baggage build-up, for example, at the interline shed, for example. There was evidence of individuals who, apparently, had credentials to be at Heathrow Airport who were wandering about with suitcases on them at all times of the day of night. There was evidence that the conveyor belt which took baggage into the interline shed.

    LORD OSBORNE: Yes.

    MR. TAYLOR: Was on the outside of the building and anyone could put a bag on the shed - on the conveyor. And when the conveyor was activated the following morning --

    LORD OSBORNE: Yes. I mean.

    MR. TAYLOR: Sorry.

    LORD OSBORNE: I do understand that there is some evidence about baggage build-up. It's just that what puzzles me is whether it would have been to be expected that any baggage build-up for that particular flight would have commenced around or shortly after the time of the intrusion.

    MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think - my answer to that would be that the person who wished to introduce the bomb at Heathrow, firstly, had to get the bomb through from landside to airside.

    LORD OSBORNE: Yes.

    MR. TAYLOR: Once in airside, the least conspicuous thing possible is a suitcase, because there are hundreds, thousands of suitcases airside.

    LORD OSBORNE: Perhaps you can answer this. I understand that, but in the nature of things in this airport, would one have expected to find suitcases destined for a flight which was going to take off 18 hours after they were put there?

    MR. TAYLOR: Well, Your Lordship did hear evidence read in the affidavit of Manly that in the area where this door was, there were frequently suitcases lying about.

    LORD OSBORNE: Indeed.

    MR. TAYLOR: And they would lie there all night. If Your Lordship has ever had the unfortunate experience of the airline losing a bag before arrival at, let's say, a holiday destination or a business destination, then that bag has been somewhere since it failed to be on the flight that Your Lordship was on, until eventually you and your bag were reunited.

    LORD OSBORNE: Yes.

    MR. TAYLOR: At a busy airport like London, Heathrow, there are a whole meread of possibilities. And what I say is that in a circumstantial case at the Terminal 3, which is the right terminal, at the right time, namely, the early hours of the morning on which Pan Am 103 took off, an unusual breach of security occurred, namely, the breaking of a padlock. Compare that with Luqa Airport, where the bag was allegedly introduced.

    LORD OSBORNE: I take that point.
     

  • Full transcript available at www.thelockerbietrial.com


    • Timers and passports
    Mr Taylor also said the court had wrongly taken al-Megrahi's association with the head of a Swiss electronics firm as evidence of his guilt. Edwin Bollier, who was a key witness at the trial, told the court his Zurich-based company, MEBO, manufactured timers which were used in bombs and had sold equipment to al-Megrahi. He said he had witnessed the timers being used in bombs during tests at a special forces training area in Libya. But Mr Taylor argued there was no evidence to show Mr Bollier ever sold such a timer to the Libyan.

    Bill Taylor also talked about the false passport issued to Mr. megrahi, saying that the fake passport could have been used by Megrahi while looking to obtain spare parts for equipping aircrafts belonging to the Libyan Arab Airlines. Due to UN sanctions against Libya introduced in 1992, Libya could not legally purchase any spare parts for their aviation industry. However, since the LAA was still operating, spare parts must have been obtained by undercover purchases during the sanctions.

    Defence Submissions on New Evidence by the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit Glasgow University
    Ground of appeal B11, which refers to significant evidence not heard at the trial, dominated Mr Taylor’s submissions this morning. He has requested that the court hear the evidence of two witnesses, Raymond Walter Manly and Philip Gordon Radley, who were both employed at Heathrow airport in December 1988. Both men are now retired from their former employment as security men at Terminal 3. Mr Taylor read affidavits from both men which referred to a breach of security been 2030 hours on 20 December and 0030 hours on 21 December 1988. This breach of security involved the padlock being broken on a door described as CP2. This door was described as giving access to airside and the baggage build-up area in the interline shed. Mr Manly referred in an affidavit to Pan Am luggage labels being left unsecured and that it would have been possible for an authorised person to get labels for a Pan Am flight.
     

    Mr Taylor submitted that this evidence is significant and should be heard. He referred to the Crown submission in their skeleton arguments that the door was forced by trapped baggage handlers and said that there was no evidence to support this. He stressed that this evidence of a breach of security at Heathrow contrasts with the fact that there is no evidence of any security breaches at Luqa airport. In addition, whereas Mr Bedford gave evidence of seeing a brown Samsonite type suitcase at Heathrow, there is no evidence a suitcase of this type having been seen at Luqa. This is suggested as pointing towards Heathrow as the place of ingestion of the suitcase containing the improvised explosive device (IED) rather than Luqa.
     

    The judges sought clarification in respect of the time delay between the breach of security and the departure of PA103. Mr Taylor was asked how an intruder with a bomb would go about ensuring that it was placed in the correct location to lead to it being loaded onto the relevant flight. Mr Taylor responded by saying that this was a good reason for hearing the witnesses because they would be able to tell the court. He also referred to evidence heard at the trial of baggage being held in the interline shed and the fact that the conveyor belt used in the interline shed went outside the building at one point and that a bag could have been placed on this belt. Further clarification was sought as to whether there would already have been baggage for PA103 in the interline shed at the time of the intrusion. Mr Taylor did not answer this directly but said that there would have been cases lying around this area. The question was asked again and Mr Taylor said that Mr Manly said that suitcases would lie around if they were delayed or had not been loaded onto the correct flight. He said there were a whole myriad of possibilities and in a circumstantial case an unusual breach of security must be compared with the evidence from Luqa airport where there was no suggestion of such a breach occurring.
     

    Mr Taylor submitted that whatever the view of the appeal court of the ‘Bedford bag’ (which is the brown Samsonite suitcase referred to in yesterday’s submissions), when viewed alongside the new evidence, there is a substantial body of evidence that the suitcase containing the IED was introduced at Heathrow. This raises a doubt as to the ingestion of the suitcase at Luqa and therefore the guilt of the appellant. The new evidence was described as both credible and reliable and he submitted that the verdict which was reached in its absence is a miscarriage of justice and he invited the Court to hear the new evidence.
     

    Mr Taylor then summarised the evidence relating to Mr Bedford’s identification of the brown Samsonite type suitcase. He focussed on the fact that a second case had not been recovered from the debris of PA 103. Mr Faraday had said in his evidence that it was possible that a suitcase in a more remote part of container AVE 40/41 would have survived in tact or with minor damage. Mr Taylor suggested that if the Bedford case had been placed at some remote corner of the container, as the trial court suggest may have happened, then the case would have been recovered. He said that there was no evidence that a London interline passenger had a case which matched the one seen by Mr Bedford. He referred to the systematic process which identified the luggage recovered and thereby located the owner of the ‘American Tourister’ case which was underneath the suitcase which contained the IED. He suggested that the type of suitcase Bedford described would be unlikely to be placed in a remote corner of the baggage container. Mr Taylor referred to the Fatal Accident Inquiry when Mr Bedford was asked whether the suitcase could have been blue with a brown or maroon trim to which Bedford replied that it could have been. He suggested that a case matching the suitcase containing the IED was seen by Bedford before the arrival of the Frankfurt flight and it either was the IED case or there were 2 cases which were very similar and one of them can not be accounted for.
     

    Mr Taylor then moved in his submissions to Ground of appeal C which states that the court erred in failing to deal with defence submissions as to the effect of the Crown’s failure to call witnesses Paul Gauci, Koca and Tuzcu. Paul Gauci’s evidence was described as significant in the identification of the first accused as the purchaser of the clothing from ‘Mary’s House’. Koca’s evidence related to ground of appeal B1b and the illegible entry on records from Frankfurt airport and the issue of the accuracy of these records. Tuzcu was involved in loading PA103A at Frankfurt airport and Mr Taylor submitted that he would have been able to speak to the loading of this flight and whether this involved loading an unaccompanied bag. Mr Taylor then made submissions in respect of grounds of appeal D, E and F.
     

    Having concluded the submissions in respect of the grounds of appeal, Mr Taylor sought some time to prepare his concluding submission. As the court was only due to sit until lunchtime tomorrow and was not due to sit again until Tuesday, the judges accepted Mr Taylor’s submission that the court be adjourned until Tuesday at 10am. (end LTBU)

    Court was adjourned until Tuesday, february 5, 2002 at 1000 hours MET