Ref:

CARA3162.T
Delivered

I HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL I ORTHER IRELAD

THE QUEE

-v-

JOH CHRlSTOPHER WALSH

COUNSEL In other words if that was the factual basis underpinning the
trial judges rejection of any significance could be attached
to absence of forensic traces from the jacket or indeed from
the hand, and of course if that factual basis is - as we
respectfully submit entirely misplaced. Then the trial judges
rejection of the absence of forensic traces as lacking in
significance in our submission transparent.

Dr Lloyd sworn in ...

JUDGE I think you would be most comfortable sitting down Dr

Lloyd.

But please take your own course; I know you are probably
accustomed to standing, so please do whichever you prefer.

LLOYD I prefer to be seated.

JUDGE Please do,

COUNSEL I would refer your Lordships to page one of the report. Could I
ask you first of all Dr Lloyd, your qualifications are healthily
set out in your report on page one. Your qualifications include:
1
 Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Science. Chartered
Chemist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Is
that right. ..

LLOYD That is correct

COUNSEL ... and you have more than 30 years experience in Forensic
Science - in case work, research and as an expert witness.

LLOYD Yes

COUNSEL ... and a major part of this time was spent in the Home Office
Forensic Science Services as a Senior Principle Scientific
Officer.

LLOYD That is right.

COUNSEL ... and you are now in independent practice.

LLOYD Yes .

COUNSEL ... and that your own experience is particularly - sorry you
have also been instructed as an expert witness in many
cases in the United Kingdom but also the Irish Republic,
Germany and the United States.

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL … and you have mentioned that you are an expert - you
have also been instructed as an expert witness on
Government appointed judicial enquires.

LLOYD Yes.

2
COUNSEL ... and that you are experienced particularly in the
examination and the valuation of chemical and physical
forensic science trace and contact evidence, including
evidence in explosion cases?

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL ... you are also the author of over 50 scientific publications
on your casework and research in the various areas in which
you work, including explosives?

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... and you have also consulted as a reviewer and referee in
forensic science topics by various societies and publishers
internationally, is that right?

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... and you have been awarded an OBE in recognition of your
work in forensic science, Is that right?

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL . .. then you set out the instructions that you received - as I
indicated to the court, what I propose to do is ask you this -
are the contents of your report, which brought before the
Court, are they true to the best of your belief.

LL0YD Yes they are.

COUNSEL If I could then take you to, to specifically in relation to the -

your scientific examinations of the jacket and the right hand. I
would ask you to go first of all to page 13 of your report and

3
 paragraph A, under the title Removal of Explosive Traces.
Do you see that?

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL You stated: "suggestions have been made that the outside of

the
bomb had been cleared by a solvent by the bomb maker, there
is however, no independent evidence that such an assumption
may be based. Because RDX and PTN are highly persistent
substances, a strong solvent wouldn’t necessarily remove
any contamination. Solvents such as acetatone or ethyl acetate,
solvent mixtures such as cellulose thinners or nail varnish
remover would have been necessary. As noted at trial these
would have had obvious effects on the sellotape, which the
device was strapped, and the adhesive remaining from the
label of the jar. Also the presence of the solvent residue
from the cellotape could have been easily demonstrated by
readily available laboratory tests. It's clear from the
evidence of this case that there were no explosive traces
found on the right hand of Mr Walsh.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... "and it is also clear his right hand - the both of his hands were
ungloved at the time he was detained by the military and
police witnesses."

LLOYD Yes so I understand,

COUNSEL ... and the ...

JUDGE To be precise at first and then before the police arrived - was it
not - were the gloves not put on?
4
COUNSEL The plastic gloves were put on by the military.

JUDGE Yes, before the police arrived, isn't that just to get the
sequence right.

COUNSEL Yes.

JUDGE I think that's right. ..

But at some stage, at the early stage he was ungloved, then

the one soldier is said to have placed the plastic gloves with
elastic bands at the wrists, on his hands in the course of this
episode, I think that is the sequence and as you understand
it Dr Lloyd.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL In fact, you also deal with that specifically in your report, I
think if your Lordship just looked at page 28 and the end of
paragraph C. Where the - and this is a reference to the use
of protective laboratory issue type gloves. Your Lordship
will see that he deals with that

JUDGE Yes, I have seen that. ..

COUNSEL ] don't know if it is really necessary. but your Lordship might

note the last three lines of paragraph C and ... now and also
as far as the jacket that Mr Walsh is wearing at the time he
is stopped by the soldiers, again, it is clear from the
evidence of the case, which is not in dispute that there was
no explosive traces found in Mr Walsh’s jacket.

LLOYD That is correct.

5
COUNSEL As a result of your - you have reviewed the work that was
done and the forensic science laboratory – is that right?

LLOYD That is right,

COUNSEL ... and is there any evidence at all that any attempt was
made to clean, if I can call it the jar, for shorthand, but was
there any evidence at all or any attempt made to clean the
jar by whoever prepared to remove contaminate.

LLOYD There is no evidence that anything of that sort was done.

COUNSEL ... and if had been done what would you have expected to

find?

LLOYD I understand that on the jar remained the adhesive which

had held the label in place, if solvent had been applied to that,
depending upon the nature of the solvent, there would have
been clear effects on the adhesive, it might have ended up
smeared, it could have ended up entirely removed. There
could have been some effects on the cellotape or whatever
tape was used. though these would not have been so
pronounced. But I think so far so the label adhesive was
concerned then the effect would have remained is an
important point.

COUNSEL … and you mention a number of other - various solvents -

this is in paragraph B in page 13 of your report, what effect
would the use of those solvents or other solvent mixtures,
which you have identified there, what effect, if they had
been used what effect would they have had on the jar.

LLOYD They would have caused the adhesive to soften and to smear,
the stronger solvents might have removed it, but they would
have certainly resulted in a smearing and possibly to some
extent a break up of the adhesive. When one6 wipes an
adhesive
 area on a jar with a swab containing solvent, with solvent
(inaudible) in acetatone mere is a tendency for the adhesive to
break up and break away, with some solvents the adhesive can
be removed altogether - though not the most listless of solvents.
COUNSEL ... and would the – if I understand your evidence correctly, the
results of any solvent based or related cleaning exercise, the results
of that would have been visible. Is that so?

LLOYD Yes, in my opinion, yes.

COUNSEL ... and just repeating what you have already said - there is no
. visible evidence in your examination of the jar.

JUDGE Do you have the jar.

LLOYD I have not examined the jar.

COUNSEL On the basis of the results, I beg your pardon, on the basis of
results that you have looked at.

LLOYD That is correct.

JUDGE What have you looked at Dr Lloyd to form your opinion?

LLOYD At jars with adhesive on them.

JUDGE Yes, but in this present case, did you have photographs, you
haven't had the jar we know that, did you have photographs?

LLOYD I have seen copies of photographs, the transcripts of the

evidence, and the laboratory notes.

7
JUDGE There are photographs referred to in the evidence, which we
don't seem to have - referred to as the ATO's photographs.
We have got a - unless they are included in this leaflet or
booklet, Can you say that these were the photographs you
had or were they a different lot.
.

LLOYD Yes they are - except these are rather better than the ones I
have seen because mine was black and white copies.

JUDGE Yes - those the same pictures.

LLOYD They appear to be.

COUNSEL Now from your examination of the ... sorry, so far as the
assembling of this device is concerned, you comment on the
likelihood of it being possible to assemble such a device,
without contaminating the outside of the jar.

LLOYD I believe that it would be very difficult, traces of RDX and

PETN are very readily spread around, its like foot and
mouth disease, and one would suppose that in the premises
where the bulk amount of serntex were being handled, then
the premises and anybody in it and so on, would be
contaminated, and to construct a device like this, you would
end up with the outside free from contamination is very
difficult to imagine. Of course, it can’t be entirely ruled out

JUDGE ... and when you, I just get what you are saying when you
first replied to that question from Mr Treacy, did you say
you think it would be difficult or you don't think it would be
very difficult, I didn't catch ...

LLOYD I believe it would be very difficult.

8
JUDGE You believe it would be very difficult, thank you.

COUNSEL ... and from the absence of any evidence that there has been,
that there has been any attempt made to clean this jar, is it
. likely that a person handling the jar in the way which had
been attributed to Mr Walsh, do you follow me?
.
LLOYD I do.

COUNSEL It is likely that the person handling such a unclean jar, if we

could call it that, that they would not have any forensic traces
on either the jacket from which was removed or from the hand
which they used to removed it.
,

JUDGE Is that a matter of expert opinion, or a matter for the court do

you think Mr Treacy.

COUNSEL Well it's certainly a matter in which Dr Murray commented. If

your Lordship looks at page 21 of ...

JUDGE It maybe, but that doesn't answer my question. There are some
things of which Dr Lloyd has the advantage of expert
knowledge and knows he has clearly an expert opinion to
express and other things which are a matter inference from
ordinary facts by the court in which case we all in as good a
position to each other.

COUNSEL Well - perhaps if I could ask him this way, if he is able in his
expert opinion, expert scientific opinion to comment on the
suggestion that Mr Walsh could have carried the bomb in his
jacket, in the pocket of his jacket, and removed it with his
right hand.

JUDGE Perhaps if I could approach it this way, Dr Lloyd, are there

matters from the experience-and training which would help
you
9
 to answer that, make you a better source of information than the
average person, in which case we would be very happy to listen
to you.

LLOYD I believe they are, rhave conducted research on the transfer

ability of traces of serntex and I am familiar of what has
occurred in other cases and with what other people have found
in this kind of situation.

JUDGE Well that gives a basis thank you.

COUNSEL I'm obliged, my Lord. Based on that experience what is your

answer to the question that I posed.

LLOYD Clearly what was found would depend upon the level of
contamination in the coffee jar, but I think it is more likely than
not, that the jar would have transferred traces to the hand and to
the jacket. to the hand that has handled it.

COUNSEL Now the trial judge in this case had, this and I am referring my
~ _ to the passage on the top of page 21 of the skeleton
argument, and the trial judge in this case had referred to the
fact that whoever had prepared the device would have been
likely to ensure that no traces which might contaminate a
person carrying the device would be left on it. If you have
already said that you didn't find any evidence at all in your
examination that any attempt had been made to clear the jar. is
that right?

LLOYD That is correct

COUNSEL ... and if I may Dr Lloyd, in relation to the fibres evidence and
the absence of fibres evidence, can you comment, if this jar
had been removed from the pocket in the way it described by
the soldiers, can you say in terms of fibre retention, was this jar

10
 would it have been suitable for the retention of fibres, and if
so why?

JUDGE If this your field, Dr Lloyd ... fibre is your field?

LLOYD I do have a certain amount of fibre work yes.

JUDGE Yes very good.

LLOYD r would have expected fibres to be retained and indeed

fibres obviously were retained on the edges of the table,
because some of them are reported by Dr Griffen, so the
item was clearly capable of retaining fibres. One might
have expected in view of that that some traces of fibre
might have been picked up from the pockets.

COUNSEL Were there particular parts of the jar that were more
receptive to the retention of fibres than others?

LLOYD The edges of the tape where there would have been
adhesive exposed and the remaining adhesive from the
label.

COUNSEL ... and what about the pocket of the jacket as a source of
fibres, how do pockets compare to other parts of clothing as a
source of fibres.

LLOYD A great deal of debris, including fibre debris, can

accumulate in pockets. I believe from Dr Griffen's notes
that there was a
certain amount of debris in the pockets. ,

COUNSEL ... and if this jar had been removed from his pocket in the
way described by the soldiers would you have expected to
have found fibres from Mr Walsh’s jacket on that jar.

11
LLOYD There is a chance of that, without examining the jacket and
forming some view of how transferable the fibres of the
jacket were. It is difficult to give a definitive answer, but
there is that possibility.

COUNSEL … and could 1 ask you to look if you would at what you say
on page 31 at paragraph E, this is in relation to fibres and
fibres and fingerprints. I would accept that fibres and
fingerprints relating to suspect coffee jar bomb would not
necessarily (inaudible) but there absence is a virtual
certainty given that no contact between the suspect and the
bomb had occurred. What do you mean by that?

LLOYD That if no contact with the bomb had occurred one would not
expect to see fibres that related to the Jacket or explosives
related to the bomb.

COUNSEL Thank you very much Dr Lloyd.

COUNSEL My Lord, I wonder might I ask your Lordships indulgence

perhaps for a short time, I had asked Dr Murray to attend
today so that I might be in a position to consult briefly with
him after Dr Lloyd had given his evidence, there are one or
two matters which have been expanded from Dr Lloyd's
report and I wonder might I have a few minutes at this
stage, if I can do that? I wouldn't anticipate it to take overly
long.

JUDGE Well you let us know as soon as you are ready.

COUNSEL Indeed, I will your Lord.

JUDGE Yes Mr McCrudden

12
COUNSEL My Lord, I am very grateful to the courts indulgence and
hopefully it will shorten matters considerably so far as any
group examination I may have is concerned. Dr Lloyd you
are obviously a man with some considerable experience in
the field of explosives and explosive traces would that be a
fair assumption in my part.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... and have you, have you yourself examined many coffee jar
devices.

LLOYD No.

COUNSEL No, have you examined any?

LLOYD No, they have not occurred in the United Kingdom, I beg
your pardon, in England.

COUNSEL Have you examined many devices, which originate from

lets say Republican terrorist groups? Such as under car
booby trap explosives or things of that nature,

LLOYD Yes I have examined these types of items.

COUNSEL You have examined those types but never a coffee jar.

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL In relation to your report and I want to really to focus on

those portions of which you expanded upon today. You
have said that there were no explosive traces found on Mr
Walsh's jacket, is that right.

LLOYD Yes to my understanding.

13
COUNSEL _ .. and that there was no evidence that any attempt made to c
lean the outside of the bomb in other words the jar or the
exterior of the jar containing the bomb.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL Of course, whether those traces on the outside of the jar or

whether that would readily transferred to anything else such as
the hand tor example or a jacket or any other item of
clothing, that would depend I think as you conceded on the
level of contamination of the outside of the device.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL Do you accept that Dr Lloyd for example that these devices
would well be prefabricated and the various component parts ...

LLOYD I'm not quite sure I follow ...

COUNSEL Well, it perhaps my fault and allow me to perhaps I should

explain that. that the central tube which is in the device
containing, have you seen the photographs of the device?

LLOYD I have

COUNSEL Of the device? The central tube which contains the explosive in
this case semtex, that could be inserted into the jar in other
words that could be a ready made up and inserted into the jar
and the lid put on. In other words the separate parts of the
bomb itself such as the detonator, the wire and so forth, it
could all be just put together, fairly readily.

LLOYD Yes I would accept that.

14
COUNSEL ... and would you also accept in the context of the terrorist
campaign of the last 30 years in Northern Ireland that
terrorists have become very experienced over that period of
time in the construction of explosive devices.

LLOYD Yes I am aware of that.

COUNSEL ... and are you also aware Dr Lloyd that they are very alert
terrorist organisation of whatever hue - are alert to the
possibility and the risk of contamination.

LLOYD Yes I am aware of that.

COUNSEL What I'm really suggesting to you Dr Lloyd is that it would

be entirely possible for this device to be constructed or put
together the various whole parts having already been
constructed without causing any contamination to the
outside of the jar isn’t that true.

LLOYD I would accept that this is a possibility but the fact of the
person handling a tube of semtex, or if semtex has been
cracked and then handling a jar in order to construct it in its
entirety, is going to have a considerable likelihood that some
explosives will be transferred in my view, and I
appreciate of the precautions that are taken but even so in
view of the extreme persistence of semtex and the amount
that must have been handled in this case it is difficult to see
that contamination
could have been avoided, again and I don't exclude the
possibility but I think that the likelihood is that there would
have been contamination of the exterior of this jar and quite
clearly there has been no serious attempt to remove
explosive traces that may have present upon it. Because the
only way that could have been done would have been to
remove the
15
 adhesive left from the label on the jar because that would have
been material, which would have strongly retained explosive
traces.

COUNSEL Well lets leave aside the possibility of the outside of the jar being
cleaned for the moment, but if one was assembling this device,
say for example, one was wearing surgical gloves and holding
the jar with one's left hand, on a solid surface and inserting the
explosives carefully with the right hand into the inside of the jar
and once that was achieved one removed the surgical
gloves, and then took the lid and attached the little holder at the
side of which the trial judge heard was for putting the
detonator in before it was placed into the bomb. That's a possible
way of doing it isn't it? Without causing any contamination.

LLOYD I do accept that there are possibilities, that there are counter
arguments to what you put forward, that the hand itself may
have contaminated irrespective of the rubber glove. But I do
accept that there is the possibility, it could have been done but I
do think it is unlikely.

JUDGE Can I put it in this way, and tell me if it is a fair assessment. If

a person is not taking particular precautions just putting it
together and into the jar the probability of contamination of the
jar is high, but it is physically possible if one took very careful
precautions to eliminate it, is that fairly putting to what you are
telling us.
.
LLOYD It would be possible with rigorous precautions, yes. I would
point out that rigorous precautions have been found to be
necessary for example in the laboratory to exclude traces.

16
JUDGE Yes, they are very careful to avoid contamination in
examination but it takes quite a lot of effort and skill doesn't it,

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL In your report at page 14 were you deal with the contamination
pre assembly of bombs, we are only concerned with one in
this case, you refer to that it is highly questionable this is
paragraph A my Lords. That it is highly questionable that the
extreme precautions which laboratory experience shows are
necessary for controlled explosives contamination could have
been achieved in a premises handling substantial amounts of
bulk explosives used in the manufacture of coffee jar bombs.
I am not certain Dr Lloyd that I understand- that last, where you
are leading the bulk explosives of large quantities of bulk
explosives, what do you mean by that?

LLOYD That in the handling of bulk explosives it is inevitable that tables,

chairs, people and so on will become contaminated and these
in turn can contaminate whatever is being manipulated there, it is
experience even in laboratories substantial contaminations have
occurred by this route.

COUNSEL You have said also and I accept your analysis of this if solvent
had been used to clean the outside of jar then necessarily
that would have caused some disruption with whatever was
remaining, I think that was your evidence.

LLOYD Yes

COUNSEL Either by the adhesive dissolving or very least smearing the open
surface of the glass Jar.

LLOYD Yes that is correct. '

17
COUNSEL Now we know and my Lords know you didn't examine the
jar, because the jar wasn't available,

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL ... and no examination were carried out to discover whether

there was any presence of solvents,

LLOYD That is correct

COUNSEL ... and equally no examination was carried out to find out
whether there any trace of either PTN or RDX the
constituent parts of semtex on the exterior of the jar.

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL Were you aware Dr Lloyd that Dr Noel Spence who had
formerly worked for the forensic science laboratory was
engaged at the time on behalf of the defence in this case
for trial.

LLOYD Yes, that is correct, I have seen some notes of his.

COUNSEL ... and that he didn't carry out any tests on the exterior of the
jar to find out any evidence of contamination.

LLOYD So far as I am aware yes.

COUNSEL In relation to the transfer of semtex and my apologies for going

back to this very briefly, that depends of course on the level
of contamination.

18
LLOYD That is correct, it should perhaps be added that whether a
detectable amount is transferred.

COUNSEL Detectable amount of course- and dealing with - of course

dealing stating the obvious, we have already covered ground,
if there was no contamination of the outside of the jar there
would be no transfer.

LLOYD This is correct

COUNSEL If there was for example a small amount of contamination

which was never tested for but was a small amount that
might be transferred for example to a hand or might arisen
some other way.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL We know in this case, that a small quantity and we are

talking in nanograms. Is that correct.

LLOYD Yes we are.

COUNSEL A major of the component part of RDX was found in.

the left hand of Mr Walsh after the hands had been swabbed
is that correct.

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL But there is no evidence to suggest that that came from the
outside of the jar or from where it came.

LLOYD There is no evidence of its origin, yes.

19
COUNSEL You were asked about fibres evidence and you were asked
if the jar was removed from the pocket could fibres be
retained. You said that some were reported by Dr Griffen
that was in and about the edges of the tape.

LLOYD Yes

COUNSEL But none of those fibres came from the jacket of Mr Walsh's
jacket.

LLOYD Yes that is right.

COUNSEL The tension of fibres on any surface - be it perhaps a slightly

adhesive surface or whatever or lets say a surface that
retains or be likely to retain fibres for at least some period
of time. That's dependant on the various other processes that
happens to that item between the fibre going onto it and it
being examined or type lifted from fibres.

LLOYD Yes that is correct.

COUNSEL We know in this case, that the device was dealt with and
handled by the ammunition technical officer from the army
and taken apart and made safe, would that in view have an
effect on any fibres that might be appearing to harden the
jar or which might retain them for perhaps some period of
time.

LLOYD It could have an effect on some parts in the jar, but fibres
attached to adhesive would be rather more difficult to
remove - they would be rather more persistent.

COUNSEL Again, would I be right to suggest to you Dr Lloyd - that

would depend very much on for example the degree of
contact with the item shedding the fibres. 20
- ,
LLOYD Yes that is correct

COUNSEL Dr Griffen in her evidence at the trial suggested that they

require a strong contact, in other words a rubbing contact
would you dissent from that view.

LLOYD This would remove fibres, yes.

COUNSEL What about retaining fibres or picking up fibres in that manner.

LLOYD Well, if it is suggesting an intimacy of contact then the pick of

the fibres would be increased and the evidence is that there were
fibres present on the jar.
COUNSEL There were some fibres found ...

LLOYD Yes

COUNSEL ... and again it would depend also upon the readiness or shed
ability; I think it is a phrase sometimes used by expert
witnesses in these courts of the garment or the item from
which fibres came.

LLOYD Yes that is correct.

COUNSEL Again, if you were dealing with a garment· Dr Griffen said

at the trail which did not shed fibres readily particularly in
pockets, shiny surfaces and so forth, if that was the case
might one not expect find either no fibres or perhaps one or
two fibres
which may have been lost through whatever process
intervened.

21
LLOYD That is correct so far as the fibres constitute in the fabric in the
jacket were concerned.

COUNSEL ... and in relation to the absence of fibres on the various places
that we have been discussing and the absence of any evidence of
there being contamination on the outside of the device itself. I
would suggest to you that it is inconclusive either way as to
whether the person for example stopped with such a device
had been in contact with it or not. The absence of an exclusion
the possibility of contact or indeed the probability of
contact I would suggest.

LLOYD In my view the weight of evidence is that there has been no

contact.

COUNSEL But if one accepts that there is no contamination and I am only

asking you as a premise of course but if there was no
contamination on the outside of the jar by way of either or both
of the constituent parts of the explosive and it was being held in a
pocket of itself not shedding fibres readily in any event and there
were no fibres found from the jacket would that necessarily lead
you to conclude that for exclusion the possibility and indeed the
probability of contact. In other words a negative finding I am
suggesting to you Dr Lloyd doesn't necessarily suggest that
there wasn't any contact.

LLOYD I believe that this is not necessarily that there was no contact.

COUNSEL Did you examine the, I think you did say, but perhaps you could
just remind me Dr Lloyd, I'm sure its my fault (inaudible)
evidence up. Did you examine the working papers, did you in
this case?

22
LLOYD I believe I was referring to the fibres but I can’t quite
remember the context.

COUNSEL Yes, now in relation to the circumstances which are

described by the soldiers was that this jar being allegedly
taken out from the accused's pocket in his hand, you say
anything about the degree of intimacy of contact which is
implied by the circumstances having it in his pocket in the
way it is described by the soldiers.

LLOYD Well clearly the contact of the contents of the pocket is

intimate and also the contact of the hand when it removed
the item.

COUNSEL Could I ask you to look at page 19 of your report at A - and

you make reference there to a monitoring programme
which had been instituted following the high levels of
contamination in the forensic science laboratory in
Northern Ireland and indeed in other laboratories, you were
conducting explosive work?

LLOYD Yes that is correct.

COUNSEL Could you tell the court a little about that?

JUDGE Tell me how it arises.

COUNSEL Well I am referring to the issue of being cross examined

about
· the probabilities of transferring and the fact that he had even in
forensic science laboratories which he presumably would
have been taking extensive precautions if there was this
very serious problem.

JUDGE I think Dr Lloyd has made it clear that it is very easy to get
contamination, however clever you are, but that is really self
23
evident, I don't think we have any difficulty accepting this.
COUNSEL You did, that was the laboratory documentation that was
submitted on the same file number.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... and that documentation included the Northern Ireland

Science Laboratory documents, the documents which
included the documents submitted by the same crime officers,
referring to the little outlines they gave about the circumstances
...

LLOYD Yes, yes there were such documents in the file that I saw, yes.

COUNSEL ... and Dr Noel Spence examined the working papers as

well. didn't he?

LLOYD I'm not sure, I would assume that he would have done, but I
don't know for certain.

COUNSEL It would be unlikely I would suggest to you that he would

have carried out examinations without looking through the
work that was done.

LLOYD I can only guess, I would imagine that he would look

through the laboratory papers.

COUNSEL Your Lordship would allow me just a moment. Yes thank

you

COUNSEL Dr Lloyd when you are being cross examined in the context
of the fibres evidence you said in your view that (inaudible)
evidence is that there had been no contact, were you referring
there solely to the fibres evidence or were you referring also
to the absence of forensic traces on the jacket and the right
hand.

24
COUNSEL ... and you have reviewed the records of the scientist who
carried out the examinations in the forensic laboratory - and
is it right to say that you are carrying out an examination
that if you see anything that is of forensic significance that
in the ordinary course of events agree scientists would make
a record of any significant observation.
LLOYD Yes that is correct.

COUNSEL ... and your review of the papers that there is no evidence at
all of any of these forensic scientists who carried out work
in the forensic science laboratory having made any
observations at all to have suggested that any cleaning of
the jar had taken place.

LLOYD That is correct.

COUNSEL Now I hadn't intended to – I didn't ask you any questions

about the left hand. But my friend did ask you about that,
though the trial judge didn't attach any significance to it.
Could I just ask you a little bit about the - do you have any
problems in relation to the conclusions that were drawn
about what was found to be present on the explosive swabs
from the left hand by Mr Walsh.

LLOYD I accept that the results would have been a consequence of

the presence of RDX traces on the hands. I would have
some reservations over the specificity of the tests, which
were applied, but overall I would regard the tests substantial
evidence to support the view that there were RDX traces on
that hand.

COUNSEL May I just ask you going to- you deal with this in your
report - yes, you can go to page 30 of the report • and am r
right in saying that paragraph 15 that there dealing with the
traces" from the swabs on the left hand is that right?
25
LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL Now you said that a second sentence - the status of the
identification of RDX on the left hand swab is therefore
uncertain, could you just explain to the court what you meant
by that?

LLOYD There are two points. the first is it seems that the laboratory
was not adopting its own criteria for the identification of
RDX, it allowing a rather larger spread of the results than
they had specified and secondly, since this work was done,
there has been realisation that on - common occasions there
can be other substances that appear to be explosives under
this test. These substances not being explosives there are
two incidences where that has occurred so far as I am
aware, it is not common.

]UDGE What are the substances Dr Lloyd that can be confused with
RDX contamination?

LLOYD One of the suspect substances is known as (inaudible).

JUDGE ... and when that is at home, where do you find it, what
objects is that typically on.

LLOYD It is a substance that is used in the plastics industry

particularly in foam plastics, in small amounts. Whether or
not it is a real interference under the circumstances of the
tests as they were applied by the Northern Ireland
laboratory, we don't know, but they do occur in the region
of PETN RDX and PTNR, symptomatic then, so there is no
certainty in that respect, and secondly, there has been a
comment in a symposium made by one of the staff of the
Northern Ireland laboratories that

26
 substances or a substance confusable with some of these
explosive compounds has been observed since '91.

JUDGE Do we know anything more than. ..

LLOYD It is reported that there is suspected to be a group of

substances known as nitro1.C:: :-:-. - but I think there is no
definite identification of them.

COUNSEL At the end of paragraph 3 of your report, sorry -15 b on

page 30 you said the presence of an explosives mimic
become increasingly likely - why did you say that?

LLOYD Because the measurements upon which the identification

was based became increasing separate from the
measurements expected of standard substances of the
known explosives.

COUNSEL ... and just in relation to how accurate the tests were carried
out in the forensic laboratory, you have gone into some
considerable detail in your report about the tests - I won't
take up the courts time as necessary - but the detail of that -
but in general terms what was the - there were a number of
tests that were run for example in relation to the left hand
swabs - is that right?

LLOYD Yes

COUNSEL … and if the forensic science laboratory didn't get a

positive test for example in relation to the swab, what
would happen then?

LLOYD They were repeated.

COUNSEL Until what stage.

27
LLOYD A positive result is obtained .

. COUNSEL Is that a proper way of proceeding.

LLOYD No it is not satisfactory - it is not. .

COUNSEL Now then paragraph C on page 30 you deal with the absence
of testing of likely sources of accidental contamination -
could you tell us a little about that?

LLOYD It is commonly found that in military personnel are

contaminated with explosives, the defendant was in contact
with military personnel, the gloves that were put on his
hand had been in the possession of the military and be had
been transported in a police car, It is known that some
police cars certainly in Northern Ireland are contaminated,
were contaminated.

JUDGE I think by that stage he had gloves on his hand, didn't he?

LLOYD We don't know really what the state of the gloves were. The
gloves or samples of the gloves, or types of gloves used
should have been submitted to the laboratory for testing.
There is a requirement in the laboratory notes, the pro
forma that samples of gloves should be provided, we know
that police stations may be contaminated with explosives in
Northern Ireland and there are no controlled statement,
there should have been controlled statement in my view of
the police station, at least in the areas where the sampling
was done. None of this is known, it is all assumed that there
was no chance of the contamination, but that is an
assumption, which requires scientific justification in my
view,

28
COUNSEL ... and if the - what had been on the - found on the swabs of the
left hand, if that had been RDX from the jar itself, I think it is
clear to indicate that the jar itself would therefore have been
contaminated.

LLOYD Yes.

COUNSEL ... and if that were so, what then would you have expected to
find in relation to the jacket and his right hand?

LLOYD That would have been rather more contaminated or the hand
would have been, compared like with like, and that they would
have been transferred to the jacket, and the transfer of what
seems to have been a significant amount of explosives to the left
hand would suggest, if one accepts the jar as a source, then the
jar itself was quite significantly contaminated.

COUNSEL Thank you very much Dr Lloyd

JUDGE Dr Lloyd may I pass over a coloured photographs again to you -

I don't know if it is any easier for you to say from those
photographs whether you see any signs of smearing or damaged
to the adhesive, I think photograph 6 which 1 had opened there is
probably the clearest one, but please feel free to check any that
you like. Can you tell any more than you are able to from the
black and white'?

LLOYD It is certainly a very much clearer photograph, one can see the
adhesive, it looks no more damaged or different than it would be
if label have been torn off it - there is certainly no apparent
evidence that it had a solvent on it - and certainly the adhesive is
still there. If it were necessary to eliminate explosives on the jar.
it would have been necessary to eliminate the adhesive in
my view.

29
JUDGE It seems fairly clear from that picture there is residual
adhesive on the jars, is that right?

LLOYD Yes,

JUDGE ... and looking at it as a photograph at that angle you see no

evidence of any attempt to remove it - it hasn't been
removed, but you don't see anything that shows any contact
with the material that might have taken part of it off?

LLOYD I can see no evidence.

JUDGE Does a problem arise doctor, from where you have concerns
that there maybe fingerprints on the jar or a container of
some kind and you have forensic examination by - for fibres
and for other substances, and is there an anxiety of
sometimes to protect surfaces so that the fingerprint experts
can make a proper examination which reduces the
opportunity for the
. laboratory to make a proper examination.

LLOYD That is quite correct. The laboratory clearly appreciated this

problem, to that end the fibres in the case were picked off
with tweezers they were not picked off with tape, the
preferable way of doing it. That is one of the reasons why
the jar was not swabbed for explosives; it might have been
interesting to examine it nevertheless after the
fingerprinting had been done. A useful result might have been
that there were no explosives present; a positive result
wouldn't have help very much, because an explosive could
have been ...

JUDGE A one-way test there?

LLOYD A negative result might have been informative.

30
 JUDGE May I ask you further about the pocket of the jacket? Dr Griffen
said that is was a shiny material and therefore that wouldn't
normally shed fibre easily - is that correct?

. LLOYD Yes.

JUDGE But she said that there was debris, as you would normally
expect to find a pocket?

LLOYD Yes.

JUDGE The label part of the jar does the sticky part go right down to the
bon.om or does it start a little bit up from the bottom.

LLOYD It starts up from the bottom from familiarity of coffee jars

(inaudible).

JUDGE ... and the adhesive tape appears to be round about the top of
body and when you look at the other pictures round the top of
the cap, is that right?

LLOYD Yes, it is about two thirds out on this picture and it would be the
same around the cap as well. Yes.

JUDGE If the jar is resting and the pocket isn't disturbed a lot - the
sticky part isn't actually as down as far as the: fibre, though it is
very close. A couple of centimeters, you said.

LLOYD On the evidence of either Dr Spence or Dr Griffen it was possible

or in fact quite reasonable for the jar to lie on it's side on the
pocket. apart from being upright.

31
JUDGE If it had, of course, it would have been much more easily collect
the debris at the bottom.

LLOYD Yes.

JUDGE If to take a hypothesis a person carrying that in the pocket

held it in hand so not to have it bounced about - for obvious
reasons - that again might keep it away from the debris at the
bottom.

LLOYD I suppose it might

JUDGE I appreciate it that this is speculation, but are there are any tests
about the amount to which fibre from pockets get up or does it
tend to lie at the bottom.

LLOYD I don't know, obviously the tendency for it to lie at the bottom, but
r imagine the jilting of walking, putting ones hand in the pocket
concerned would lend to keep the fibres distributed
throughout the interior of the pocket, as you say this is
speculation.

JUDGE It is not a matter of scientific experiment, it is a matter of our

own sense - or good commonsense I suppose, really.

LLOYD I think it would be possible to devise an experiment. but I am

not aware of any evidence either.

JUDGE Very good, thank you very much Dr Lloyd.

COUNSEL With your Lordships permission Dr Lloyd may be released.

JUDGE Yes, unless there is any reason ...

32
COUNSEL I have nothing my Lord.

JUDGE Please feel free to go whenever you wish Dr Lloyd.

Mr Bradley sworn in.

JUDGE Sit down please.

COUNSEL Mr Bradley what is your current address.

BRADLEY 24 (Inaudible) Drive

COUNSEL Are you married or single?

BRADLEY Married.

COUNSEL Do have any children.

BRADLEY .

COUNSEL What age are they?

BRADLEY 5 and 2

COUNSEL Do you have a clear record.

BRADLEY Yes.

COUNSEL Have you had any contact with Mr Walsh at any stage either
directly or indirectly before giving evidence in this case.
,
BRADLEY None at all.

33
34
COUNSEL Now - you made a statement to the police on 29th October 1996.

BRADLEY That's right.

COUNSEL
About your knowledge of the incident - the subject of these
proceedings.

BRADLEY Yes.

COUNSEL ... and can you just tell the court how that came about.

BRADLEY
Seen an article in the Irish News appealing for witnesses to the
case, I realised that I was there on the day.

COUNSEL
... and the article in the Irish News - I think - this appeared and
not sure where it is your Lordship - I would just like to show this
to you - can you have a look at the document - is that the article
which appeared in the Irish News- I think the date is on it - it's
the 1ST July is it?

BRADLEY Yeah

COUNSEL 1st July 1996 - is that the article that you are referring to.

BRADLEY That's it, yip.

COUNSEL What's the title of the article.

BRADLEY Prisoners Appeal for Third Man

COUNSEL Do your Lordships have that?

JUDGES Yes.

34
COUNSEL Can I just hand that back to you please - and you read that article
what was the effect on you - the contents of it.

BRADLEY That I realised that I had seen the third man.

COUNSEL
Now at the time of the incident - the incident itself of course had
occurred some time before this, some considerable time before
this, on 5th June 1991. Now at that time had you been aware that
anybody had been arrested?

BRADLEY Yeah, when I had heard on it radio.

COUNSEL What had you heard on the radio,

BRADLEY
I had heard on the radio that a man's arrested caught with a coffee
jar bomb on the Suffolk Road .

COUNSEL ... and when you heard that, what did you think?

BRADLEY
I knew that I had seen him, I just thought a fella got caught, he
was guilty, that was it.

COUNSEL Can you speak up to his Lordship.

BRADLEY
Sorry, I didn't think nothing more of it. just thought he was guilty,
just heard it on the radio.

COUNSEL
What had you, when you heard this on the radio, did you make
any connection between this and something you had seen that
day, that is on 5th June.

BRADLEY Yeah, I had seen a fella getting stopped in the entry.

35
COUNSEL
Just if you don't mind, just cast your mind's eye back to what
you now recall about what you saw on 51h June 1991. Can you
tell the court first of all. who were with?

BRADLEY Liam McGill

COUNSEL ... and is he a friend of yours?

BRADLEY Yes - a friend of the family.

COUNSEL ... and what direction were you headed.

BRADLEY
I was coming up the Suffolk Road, coming up from the bookies
walking up the footpath .

COUNSEL
. .. and as you going up the Suffolk Road (inaudible) in which
direction would you have been on the left hand or the right hand
side of the road.

BRADLEY Right hand side.

COUNSEL That's on the same side as the alleyway.

BRADELY Ahha .

COUNSEL
... and you were with Liarn McGill and you were coming from
the bookies is that right?

BRADLEY Yes.

COUNSEL ... and whereabouts is the bookies

BRADLEY Down the bottom of the Suffolk Road.

36
COUNSEL ... and after you left the bookies, were where you intending to
go?

BRADLEY Up to my mother's house (inaudible).

COUNSEL
Now - and - as you - and you were then heading towards and
approaching the entry or alleyway which takes you from Suffolk
Road into Kerrykeel Gardens - is that right?

BRADLEY Yeah

COUNSEL
... and you can you tell the court what you saw as you
approached the alleyway.

BRADLEY
I was walking up the footpath and I looked in front of me and I
seen a soldier standing on the footpath.

COUNSEL Where was he in relation to you?

BRADLEY
About, say about - 70 yards - 60 yards maybe - in front of me on
the same footpath.

COUNSEL Sorry just repeat your answer.

BRADLE
Y It was 70 or 60 yards in front of me on the same footpath - same
side of the road .

COUNSEL
... and what did you think when you saw - is this soldier you say
was on the footpath - is that right.

BRADLEY He was on the footpath, yeah .

COUNSEL ... and did you think anything when you saw the soldier.

37
BRADLEY
I just seen that one soldier there and thought we are going to get
stopped.

COUNSEL
Would there have been anything unusual about that in West
Belfast at that time.

BRADLEY No, it happens regularly.

COUNSEL Well, and what do you recall next.

BRADLEY
As I was getting closer, the fella came out of the entry and the
soldier didn't stop him, so I thought again, we are definitely
going to get stopped, now. He didn't stop that fella there.

COUNSEL
Where did the - and this person that came out of the entry you
said - where did he go.

BRADLEY
He came out, he could have crossed the road, I wasn't watching
him, I was just looking at the soldier.

COUNSEL ... and what did the soldier do?

BRADLEY Nothing. Then I thought he was waiting on us ...

COUNSEL Can you describe the person that you saw.

BRADLEY No -male.

COUNSEL Now - what about the soldier that you had seen in front of you - and
that you had been expecting to be stopped by this individual. Did
you see the soldier do anything?

BRADLEY
When we got closer, the soldier he turned round and walked
away and turned in to the entry.

38
COUNSEL Was there anyone with him at that stage?

BRADLEY
Well, we couldn't see, until we got up to the entry. As soon as we
turned round there was two soldiers in the entry and a fella.

COUNSEL
So you and Liam you walked up and did the two of you actually
go into the entry.
BRADLEY Huhhuh

COUNSEL ... and what did you see in the entry?

BRADLEY
As we turned into the entry there was a soldier holding a man up
against the fence with his hand on his chest and there was another
soldier on the opposite side of the path on a wee bit of grass. The
soldier was holding the man - he was looking at me, when we
come round the corner .

COUNSEL ... and which of the two soldiers - which one was closest to
you.

BRADLEY
The one on the left I would say - both were pretty close like.
There was about two feet three feet in it like of both of them .

COUNSEL ... and what did you do?

BRADLEY
We walked right through the middle - between the two soldiers .

COUNSEL . .. and the person of was ...

BRADLEY ... who was against the fence.

39
COUNSEL
and did you notice anything about the - did you hear any
conversation or ...

BRADLEY No -quite.

COUNSEL Was anything said to you by the soldiers or ...

BRADLEY
No nothing - the soldier that was holding the fella against the
fence was looking at me, and as we passed by he turned his head
round and he was staring at me. I turned round and was looking
as we walked on up the entry.

COUNSEL What did you think was happening at that stage?

BRADLEY Didn't know what was happening. I just thought that they had
stopped this fella .

COUNSEL
... and then - did you have a - what sort of view did you have of
the soldier that was staring at you - he was the same soldier who
had this same individual up against the fence?

BRADLEY I walked right past him - so I had a clear view like.

COUNSEL Where did you go to then?

BRADLEY
I walked on up the entry and as we were walking up, 1 just kept
looking back and I wondering why the soldiers kept staring at the
whole way up the entry. It was a good 12 yards maybe. So I
walked on up and went on up to my mothers house.

COUNSEL
Now as you had approached the entry on the Suffolk Road. apart
from the soldier who had been in front of you for a period of
time on the footpath. before he actually went in to the

40
 alleyway, had you been aware of any other soldiers on the
opposite side of the Suffolk Road.

BRADLEY
Yeah - just before we were turning in to the entry, there was
soldiers coming over a broken wall on the far side of the road, a
foot patrol, coming from the forest.

COUNSEL Coming from the forest?

BRADLEY Huh huh .

COUNSEL
... and where would that have been in relation to the alleyway
itself, that they were getting over.

BRADLEY Across the road and about 20 feet.

COUNSEL
Was it on the country ward side of the alleyway or on the
Woodburn barracks side of the alleyway -does that make sense
to you? If you are going up the Suffolk Road.

BRADLEY It's on the left had side going up the Suffolk Road.

COUNSEL
and as you were going up towards the alleyway, was the
entry, sorry was this broken wall that you refer to, was this
before you come to the entry, or

BRADLEY Just after

COUNSEL
Just after - and the solider who had this individual up against
the fence was that the same or a different soldier, from the one that
you have seen on the footpath in the Suffolk Road.

BRADLEY Different soldier.

41
 COUNSEL
... and who was the soldier that you have seen on the footpath,
where was he in the entry?

BRADLEY
On the left hand side of the entry, standing on a wee bit of grass.

COUNSEL Not the one holding the man ...

BRADLEY No

COUNSEL The other one - yes thank you very much.

COUNSEL Mr Bradley I may have missed you evidence on - what age

were you at the time?

BRADLEY 23

COUNSEL 23 and what age was Mr McGilI

BRADLEY At the time?

COUNSEL Yes

BRADLEY Don't know, 27- not really sure.

COUNSEL So you think he is bit older than you.

BRADLEY Oh, he is older than me.

COUNSEL ... and how long have you known him.

BRADLEY
Years, oh nearly since I was 12 or 13, he is a friend of my
brother, my older brother - that is how I know him.

42
 COUNSEL Where does your mother live.

BRADLEY Falcarragh Drive

COUNSEL Falcarragh Drive, and that is your mothers house. you live there
still.

BRADLEY Sorry r am at T orrence Avenue.

COUNSEL
Oh you are at Torrence Avenue, but you were living at
Falcarragh at the time, is that - and it is off to the right of the
Suffolk Road is it - as you go up country roads.

BRADLEY Yes.

COUNSEL You were coming from the bookies at the bottom of the road.
Now have you got an album of photographs there?

BRADLEY
No

COUNSEL
You haven't, I wonder .. .if you just open the first photograph
there - do you recognise that area .

BRADLEY
Yeah.

COUNSEL ... and is this the Suffolk Road end we are looking at here.

BRADLEY This is looking from the Suffolk Road.

COUNSEL Yes the Suffolk Road is nearest the camera.

BRADLEY Yeah.

COUNSEL That's really pretty much right at the end of the alley isn't it.

43
BRADLEY Huh huh.

COUNSEL
... and then that goes right through to - where is the white car parked?

BRADLEY Kerrykeel Gardens

COUNSEL
KerrykeeJ Gardens ~ and you said as you came up the road - you just
saw one soldier, is that correct.

BRADLEY One soldier, that's right, one soldier.

COUNSEL Had you just been placing a bet or had were you collecting you
winners by some good fortune.

BRADLEY I was just placing a bet.

COUNSEL Presumably you and Mr McGill were chatting as you walked

BRADLEY Yeah

COUNSEL It was a nice sunny good afternoon.

BRADLEY Yeah.

COUNSEL
Whenever you got to the - did you say within 60 or 70 yards you saw
one soldier on the footpath.

BRADLEY
They could have been closer. Say about 60 yards, it was really - a
100 yards is the length of a football pitch - so it would have been
about halfway I would say - thinking like that.

44
COUNSEL Did you see any other soldiers across the road?

BRADLEY No, just one soldier.

COUNSEL Perhaps we can come back to this, r think is would be more convenient to
ask you at this stage - you said when you got to the entry or closer to the
entry you saw other soldiers coming over a wall at that side of the road.

BRADLEY When I just got on the entry, just at the entry.

COUNSEL Are you sure about that now Mr Bradley

BRADLEY Yeah positive.

COUNSEL
That - now in relation to when you got the entry itself, the soldier you saw -
could - he have disappeared from you view is that correct as you walked
up.

BRADLEY He turned round and walked away.

COUNSEL Into the alley

BRADLEY Yeah, he turned into the entry.

COUNSEL
So when you got to the alleyway or how far were you from the alleyway
when you saw this man walking out from the alleyway.

BRADLEY Say about 15 to 20 yards.

COUNSEL
... and when he came out of the alleyway which way did he turn.

45
 BRADLEY
He came sort a - he could have went across the road or I wasn't really
looking - he come down the way 1'd say. He came down past the
soldier - the soldier wasn't at the alley he was down a bit from the
alley so he came down past him and he didn't stop.

COUNSEL
... and you think that he turned down the road, in other words - your
direction.

BRADLEY Ha ha.

COUNSEL ... and did he cross the road or did he stay on side of the road.

BRADLEY
Not too sure. I wasn't looking at him - I was looking at the soldier.

COUNSEL
You weren't looking at him, IS that why you can't really describe
him.

BRADLEY Ha ha.

COUNSEL
... and how long after this incident - you say you heard it on the radio,
Mr Bradley, how long afterwards did you hear a news item about a
man being stopped with a coffee jar.

BRADLEY
I think it might have been he next day on 'he radio. It might have even
been the same day. I remember standing on my rna's back garden
with radio on in the kitchen and it came on

COUNSEL
You heard about it - straight away did you think to yourself - I past
that.

BRADLEY Huh huh yep.

46
COUNSEL
These soldiers were in the alleyway, the, man you say came out and
then you got to the alleyway - you were about 15 or 17 yards when
you saw this man come out - so you would have come out close to
the corner you were approaching, is that correct - out of the alleyway
.

BRADLEY . Yeah

COUNSEL
I think you are saying yes, are you agreeing with my suggestion?

BRADLEY Yes

COUNSEL
... and when you got then to the alleyway, how many soldiers were
around the entrance to the alleyway there.

BRADLEY There was two soldiers in the alley .

COUNSEL
. .. and you have described I think one of the soldiers on the left hand
side, was that your left.

BRADLEY My left standing there ...

COUNSEL Where was he standing?

BRADLEY Right there, on this wee bit of ground here.

COUNSEL On the little cement bit, near the triangle.

BRADLEY Yeah the triangle. yeah.

COUNSEL
OK ... and where was the other soldier with the civilian we know as
Mr Walsh.

47
BRADLEY
He was standing on the right hand side here - beside the wooden fence.

COUNSEL Standing on the right hand side of the fence.

BRADLEY Hmm

COUNSEL Are you sure about that?

BRADLEY Positive

COUNSEL
As you walked up, and when you saw the man walk out, you were
concerned that the soldiers having left him apnarently just walk out of the
alleyway - that you were going to be stopped - you and Mr McGi11.

BRADLEY I was convinced that the soldier was waiting on us walking up.

COUNSEL
Well, did it occur to you to cross the road or keep on walking up the
Suffolk Road rather than turning into the alleyway.

BRADLEY
No, because I was going to my Mummy's house, so I always cut through
that alley, all the time.

COUNSEL Yes, but you were essentially running the risk of being stopped.

BRADLEY Well when I was going ....

COUNSEL
Inconvenienced, lets say by being stopped. Did it not occur to you just walk
on up and go through another direction.

BRADLEY
When I got up to the entry, I went to turn in thinking maybe they were
away on, cause the soldiers just turned and walked away, and walked into
the entry, maybe he is away on.

48
COUNSEL
But you saw soldiers when you got the entry or the alley, you saw
soldiers coming across the road. So the soldiers weren't going away,
if you turned into the alleyway at that stage, there were those soldiers
coming up behind you.

BRADLEY Huh huh.

COUNSEL
So - why turn into the alleyway, at this stage at the risk of being
stopped and asked.

BRADLEY This isn't really an inconvenience, I don't mind it. ..

COUNSEL Had you been stopped before?

BRADLEY Yeah

COUNSEL How many times?

BRADLEY Maybe once a month.

COUNSEL
It would have been perhaps a regular occurrence around your area.

BRADLEY
Yeah - they didn't stop you all the time, sometimes they would have
just walked on past you.

COUNSEL
Were you surprised when you walked into the entry. that the soldiers
didn't stop you?

BRADLEY
No, when they had the. I seen when they had the fella against the
fence then we just walked right through the middle. I didn't think we
were going to get stopped then.

49
COUNSEL
Yes, but this man walked out, he walked out at a stage when the two
soldiers were already in the entrance.

BRADLEY No.

COUNSEL
I thought you said that as you were at this (inaudible) distance away
from the entry the soldiers at the corner went round out of site, then
the man walked out - I'm I wrong about that.

BRADLEY I didn't say that ...

JUDGE I don't think he said that Mr McCrudden

COUNSEL
That is way I'm asking my Lord, I am just checking the note here, I
am not sure ...

JUDGE
According to my note, I thought he said, as I was getting closer a
fellow came out of the entrance, the soldier didn't stop him, so he
must have bolted in view then. So it sounds as if the soldier ...

COUNSEL The soldier was still in view.

JUDGE Indeed, that the soldier was still in view.

COUNSEL
In any event Mr Bradley, if this man - you say you weren't paying
much attention to him, how certain can you be that he walked out of
the alleyway.

BRADLEY Positive.

COUNSEL Why.

50
BRADLEY
Cause I seen him coming out of the entry and the soldier didn't stop
him. I already thought to myself we are going to get stopped and then
when I seen, the fella coming out of the entry, the soldier didn't stop.
He wasn't interested in him at all, so I thought right he is interested in
us, so we are going to get stopped, when we get up here.

COUNSEL
But when you get there, you realised that the man they were really
interested in was the one they had round the corner.

BRADLEY
When we got up there the soldier turned away from us, then walked
away into the entry, so then I thought, I just thought they were away
on up the entry then - he went round out of sight. But when we up on
the entry, we turned round a corner and there they all were, standing
there.

COUNSEL
Right - tell me this then Mr Bradley, you heard, you think it might
have been even the next day, certainly within a reasonably short time
after the incident, perhaps you heard a news report about the
incident. Did you speak to Mr McGill about it at that stage?

BRADLEY No.

COUNSEL Why not?

BRADLEY I didn't see him.

COUNSEL When did you next see him?

BRADLEY
Might have been a week or so. I just mentioned it, that there was a
fella arrested on the Suffolk Road and we walked past it, and that was
it (inaudible).

51
COUNSEL That's all the conversation you had about it.

BRADLEY That's it. ..

COUNSEL
Did you ever have any further conversation about - around that time
or within the next number of weeks or months.

BRADLEY No -forgot all about it, that was it.

COUNSEL
You know that Mr McGill went to a solicitors firm, a short time after
this, didn't you.

BRADLEY
I found that out just lately there - I didn't know that he had went to
solicitor.

COUNSEL How late.

BRADLEY When I read the article in the Irish News.

COUNSEL That was in July 1996.

BRADLEY Yep

COUNSEL
So for some 5 years you weren't aware of your friend whom you have
known since you were children, had gone to ...

BRADLEY
My brother's friend, a family friend. I don't really see Liam. I'd only
see Liam maybe once a year or once every two years. I moved to
north Belfast shortly after that.

COUNSEL How soon after that did you move?

BRADLEY I'd say 7 year ago I'd say.

52
COUNSEL 7 years ago ..... 1994

BRADLEY So that's ... 1994

COUNSEL
Which is 3 years after this incident occurred and you had no
conversation with Mr McGill over that period of time, which might
have informed you that he had gone and made a report of what he had
seen to the firm of P J McGrory.

BRADLEY
I was surprised; I was surprised to hear that he had went to a solicitor
at that time.

COUNSEL
Well tell me this, why when you - read the article, did you contact
Liarn McGill at that stage.

BR.WLEY
Because I realised that we were there at }he time and they were
appealing for witnesses, I didn't realise what I had seen was that
important.

COUNSEL I'm sorry I'm interrupting you, do finish.

BRADLEY I just realised that what I had seen was that important.

COUNSEL You thought what you had seen wasn't that important.

BRADLEY At the time.

COUNSEL
At the time, and you were with Mr McGill but apparently Mr McGill
thought if sufficiently important to go to the firm of solicitors who
were defending Mr Walsh at that time, and report what he had seen to
them.

BRADLEY Well I'd never heard ...

53
COUNSEL So he says.

BRADLEY I'd never made a statement before .

COUNSEL
. . . and are you telling the court Mr Bradley that he never said to you
- look I have gone round to see Mr McGrory here, and gone down to
his office and I have told him that I saw that fella being stopped on
the Suffolk Road, you were with me then, I think Connor you might
go down ...
BRADLEY No, didn't mention it all.

COUNSEL Didn't mention it at all.

BRADLEY No

COUNSEL
... and the first conversation then you had with him about it, or you
can aware of it, was after you read the article in the paper.

BRADLEY That's right.

COUKSEl ... and you contacted him you contacted Mr McGill.

BRADLEY Yes

COUNSEL Why did you do that?

BRADLEY Because he was with me that day.

COUNSEL
Yes, and you had never discussed it with him before that that he was
a potential witness and had gone to the solicitor's representative Mr
Walsh.

BRADLEY
No - I remember when Mr Walsh was sentenced, I remember talking
about it then, that's that fella we seen on the Suffolk

54
 Road, not necessarily Liam McGill. I remember talking saying to
somebody about it like.

COUNSEL
Well did Mr McGill not contact you, or you not contact him at that stage,
when you found that - I mean you always knew that you had seen this
incident.

BRADLEY Huh huh

COUNSEL
I presume -that you could go along a say you were there for what is worth,

BRADLEY
No I didn't think, I just thought the fella was guilty what's the point.

COUNSEL
.,. and Mr McGill despite the fact that this man sentenced in December '92
never contacted you either before the trial or subsequent to the trial, about
what Mr Walsh was sentenced,

BRADLEY No.

COUNSEL and you never tried to contact him?

BRADLEY No,

COUNSEL Why not?

BRADLEY What for. ..

COUNSEL
Well you knew that you had seen the incident. didn't you Mr BradJey.

BRADLEY Yeah.

55
COUNSEL
... and you knew, that he didn't know before the man on trial was
sentenced.

BRADLEY
I only knew when he was sentenced, that's when I heard about it
again.

COUNSEL ... and you thought nothing more of it.

No, until I had read the article in the Irish News.

BRADLEY
What made you think that this was the incident you saw.
COUNSEL

BRADLEY
Because at the time it came on the radio saying that a man was
caught or stopped with a coffee jar bomb in the alleyway of the
Suffolk Road and that day, and that was it - and I knew it was it then.

COUNSEL You didn't feel you should go along and make yourself known.

BRADLEY Well 1 just thought he was caught and we walked in the entry.

COUNSEL
You just thought he was caught ... and are you certain you saw
another man come out of the alleyway.

BRADLEY Positive.

COlJ1'\SEL
In any event the man didn't appear to be troubled by the military.

BRADLEY No

COUNSEL He was allowed to go on.

BRADLEY Yes.

56
COUNSEL
In terms of time, Mr Bradley can I just finally ask you this, that you
were walking up, how far away were you from the alley, I say that the
man came out first, the soldier was still there, I just want to in my
own mine get the sequence right.

BRADLEY Yes.

COUNSEL
The soldier was still at the corner, this is one that went round the
corner in due course, how long after the man came out did the soldier
have came round the corner.

BRADLEY Say about 5 seconds.

COUNSEL
So the man that came out of the alleyway, had he crossed the road at
the stage.

BRADLEY I'm not sure where he went.

COUNSEL
Your not sure where he went - did you not even after you heard this
on the radio the next day try and think of the man's description or
what he looked like. You didn't even try and cast your mind back
when you heard about the appeal for witnesses and article that has
been referred to July 1996.

BRADLEY
Well I tried to think but I couldn't remember who it was. I'd say I
didn't know the fella, if I knew the fella, 1 would know who he was.

COUNSEL
But you were able to describe the soldier in your statement or the
soldiers and the man they were holding.

BRADLEY Yip.

57
COUNSEL
How was that, how were you able to get a description of those
people.

BRADLEY Because I was right beside them ..

COUNSEL
But you walked past them, presumably you weren't hanging about in
case the stopped you.

BRADLEY
I was walking slowly, one soldier standing there, turned round facing
me, one soldier standing there, he was this close to me and he turned
his head as I was passing I turned my head and he is still standing
there.

COUNSEL Tell me did you see a coffee jar sitting about the place.

BRADLEY No.

COUNSEL No you didn't. Yes thank you Mr Bradley

JUDGE
Mr Bradley, you said a few minutes ago, that the second soldier was
standing on a wee bit of grass.

BRADLEY Yes.

JUDGE Where is that?

BRADLEY He was kicking his feet it must have been next to the gravel.

JUDGE
So then when you looked at the picture you referred to the cement bit
at the left front of the picture - so it is not grass. Where did the grass
come into it?

BRADLEY
(inaudible) I looked over and he was kicking his feet on the ground,
like that, as if he was looking for something, I thought

58
 it was grass, it must have been the gravel he was kicking about, I just
noticed that there.

JUDGE
Just so that I understand the geography - if you had decided not to go
down the entry you could have walked up Suffolk Road a little bit
and turned right would have brought you into the Kerrykeel Estate.

BRADLEY Falcarragh Drive.

JUDGE Yes, a wee bit further, but the alley is the nearest cut.

BRADLEY
Yes, my mother's house is just down by the end of the entry, going in
the back door.

JUDGE
I can see that's the easiest way, obviously, but if you had wanted to
avoid the soldiers you could have made a bit of a detour.

BRADLEY
I didn't really mind, I don't real1y mind being stopped by the soldiers ...

JUDGE
Just turn your mind back would you to the radio broadcast you heard
about this incident was it the same day or later date.

BRADLEY I think it could have been the same day.

JUDGE Yes and what sort of detail did it go into.

BRA.DLEY
I remember it was a hot day. I remember standing in the back garden
with door open and radio was on, and it was roasting hot still, it could
have been that evening.

JUDGE ... and what did it tell you about what had happened?

59
BRADLEY
. It said on the radio a man was arrested on' the Suffolk Road in the
alley with a coffee jar bomb.

JUDGE Did it say all those things.

BRADLEY
Something like that, in fact - I remember hearing coffee jar bomb, I
can't remember exactly what the words were like, but it was
something like that there.

JUDGE
... and you had seen nothing of a coffee jar or bomb insofar as you
were concerned, then the soldiers were talking to this man and that
was the beginning and end of it.

BRADLEY
Yeah I didn't see nothing on the ground, I was looking at the soldier
that was holding the man against the fence, he was looking at me.

JUDGE
So was it the reference to the area that made you think. that this was
what you had seen, what was it.

BRADLEY Sorry

JUDGE
What was it that linked it up in your mind that stuff that you had -
seen in that part of Belfast, did the report say anything about where it
had happened.

BRADLEY An alleyway.

JUDGE Are you sure of that.

BRADLEY
Yeah. It might have said. Suffolk Road and once I had heard Suffolk
Road I knew that was it - an alleyway at Suffolk Road probably,
definitely mentioned Suffolk Road.

60
JUDGE
Whenever you walked into the alley the man who is being talked to
by the soldiers did he have his back to the fence.

BRADLEY Yeah.

JUDGE So he would have had no difficulty in seeing you.

BRADLEY
Well he had his head down a wee bit, like that, I just seen the back of
head.

JUDGE He had his back to the fence though which is shown.

BRADLEY Yes, back to the fence yeah.

JUDGE
So there is no reason for you to think of ,why he shouldn't have seen
you.

BRADLEY Fella seen me.

JUDGE Yeah

BRADLEY Well he had his head bowed down. I didn't see his face

JUDGE He didn't try to speak to you.

BRADLEY No, nobody said a word.

JUDGE Thank you

JUDGE
I think we should suspend operations for the day. Ladies and
Gentlemen we will sit again at 10.30 tomorrow.

61