In the first, the defence said the court was wrong to rely on the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who said al-Megrahi bought the clothes which were wrapped around the bomb at his shop.
The judges ruled that Mr Gauci's evidence was enough to prove that the bomb had been placed on a plane at Malta and travelled via Frankfurt to Heathrow, where it was loaded onto Pan Am Flight 103.
The defence also claimed, in its second line of appeal, that that ruling was mistaken.
Al-Megrahi's lawyers were given approval to bring fresh evidence which they said supported their contention that the bomb began its journey at Heathrow.
Here are some extracts from the grounds for appeal:
A1. The court erred in finding that the date of the purchase of the clothes from the shop at Mary's House, 63 Tower Street, Sliema, Malta, was December 7 1988.
There was no proper basis on the evidence for the finding that the date of the purchase of the clothes was either November 23 or December 7 1988.
A4. The court failed to advance adequate reasons for preferring Gauci's identification of the appellant by resemblance of a photo, at identification parade and in court, to earlier descriptions of the purchaser which did notmatch the appellant.
A5. The court failed to deal with and resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of Gauci regarding the date of the purchase andthe identity of the purchaser.
A6. The evidence of identification was not of such character, quality or strength to justify a finding that the appellant was the clothes buyer.
The court failed properly to take account of the significant body of evidence referred to above which pointed away from December 7 as the date of purchase.
B1. The court misdirected itself as to the accuracy of the records from Frankfurt Airport from which it found that an inference could be drawn that an unaccompanied bag travelled on KM 180 from Luqa airport to Frankfurt and wasthere loaded on to PA103A.
B4. The documents and other evidence from Frankfurt, properly construed,were not of sufficient strength, quality or character to enable the court to conclude that an unaccompanied bag from KM 180 was transferred to and loaded on to PA103A.
B10. The court failed to take account of the defence submission that the fact that the primary suitcase was located at or near to the optimum position to achieve its destructive purpose gave rise to an inference that the device was ingested at Heathrow airport.
B11. There exists significant evidence which was not heard at the trial. It demonstrates that at some time in the two hours before 12.35am on December 21 1988 a padlock had been forced on a secure door giving access to airside in Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport, near to the area referred to in the trial as the "baggage build-up area".
Had this evidence been available at the trial it would have supported the body of evidence suggestive of the bomb having been infiltrated at Heathrow.
E-mail this story to a friend
%7eRS%7ea%7eRS%7eDomestic%7eRS%7eq%7eRS%7e%7eRS%7ez%7eRS%7e38%7eRS%7e&f=jpg&w=240)
