Evidence questioned in Lockerbie appeal

The appeal has entered its third day at Camp Zeist

The Lockerbie appeal has heard that a key witness in the original trial repeatedly contradicted himself while giving evidence which helped identify the man convicted of bombing Pan AM flight 103.

The claim was made by the lead lawyer representing Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who was found guilty in January 2001 of murdering 270 people.

He was jailed for life with the minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Lawyers for the Libyan are attempting to overturn the verdict and are focussing during the third day of the appeal on evidence given by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.

Bill Taylor QC: "Contradictory piece of evidence"

Click here for details of continuous live coverage of the appeal from BBC News Online.

He told the original trial that al-Megrahi bought clothes, including a baby's romper suit, at his store two weeks before the flight exploded over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988.

On Thursday, Bill Taylor QC, representing al-Megrahi, said Mr Gauci's original testimony was "fraught with confusion".

He argued that the three Scottish judges who convicted his client were wrong to use Mr Gauci's evidence about Christmas decorations to work out when al-Megrahi visited his shop.

The trial judgement said Mr Gauci's evidence that the sale happened at about the time Christmas decorations were being put up on the island pointed to December 7 as being the date.

'Christmas decorations'

That, combined with evidence that al-Megrahi was staying in Malta at the time and Mr Gauci identifying the Libyan as his customer, led the court to decide that the clothes which were later packed around the bomb were bought by al-Megrahi that day.

But Mr Taylor said the trial judges had wrongly ignored the fact that Mr Gauci gave two different versions of the story in court.

He said Mr Gauci initially said that the decorations had been put up, then "changed" his evidence to say that they were in the process of being put up.

The appeal is taking place under tight security

He also said that Mr Gauci had given a third version to police when they interviewed him in September 1989, when he said the decorations were not up.

Mr Taylor said: "The court had a duty not only to record the contradictory piece of evidence, but also to give reasons as to why the other statements could be ignored.

"There would only be consistency within these two pieces of evidence if it could have been established in the evidence that the Christmas decorations did go up about two weeks before Christmas.

"The only information on the matter of when the Christmas decorations were put up is from Gauci himself.

"His evidence about Christmas decorations therefore fell to be accorded very little weight."

Police interview

Mr Gauci also told the original trial that he sold the clothes to al-Megrahi "about two weeks" before Christmas.

But Mr Taylor argued that the trial judges failed to take into account his admission that he was better able to recall the date when he was interviewed by police 10 years earlier.

Mr Taylor said Mr Gauci's failure to link the sale to a public holiday on 8 December should have been considered by the court as evidence that the clothes were unlikely to have been bought on 7 December.

Mr Taylor said: "At no time during many police interviews did he mention that the day of the sale preceded a public holiday. That matter alone militates against December 7 1988 being the day of the sale."