What was said in 2006 Bombing Trial ?

September 9, 2009 7:22 PM

What was said in trials of '2006 transatlantic aircraft plot' to overcome objections to how practical manufacturing explosives in flight is ?

I'm having trouble finding this information from the recent news reports which (perhaps understandably) don't get into great detail over what was said in the case.

When a number of people were arrested (in the UK) in association with '2006 transatlantic aircraft plot' a number of 'experts' / commentators (here and here) were quoted as saying that whilst it was physically possible to create the explosives in-flight the amount of time that it would take and the amount of fumes and heat associated with the process made it an impractical proposition.

During the recently finished re-trial and the original trial of 2008 did the defence attempt to question whether or not it was reasonable to suggest that explosives might have been manufactured inflight ? If they didn't is this because the 'experts' / commentators were ill informed ?

posted by southof40 to law & government (10 comments total)

Sorry instead of "If they didn't is this because the 'experts' / commentators were ill informed ?" I mean to say "If they didn't is this because the prosecution demonstratred that the 'experts' / commentators were ill informed ?"
posted by southof40 at 7:27 PM on September 9

I have no specific knowledge of that case or trail, but I do know that it's an awfully specious claim indeed that you can't find an expert SOMEWHERE to support. The prosecution likely had their own witnesses saying "Yeah, it wouldn't be that bad".

Either that, or the experts in question were willing to admit enough of a possibility that the prosecution didn't think the jury would really put a lot of weight in their testimony.

An expert saying something is impossible is one thing, an expert saying "that would be difficult" is another thing entirely.
posted by toomuchpete at 7:30 PM on September 9

I'm not sure it would be legally relevant. If the guys thought they could do it and seriously attempted to do it, it wouldn't really matter, legally speaking, if it turned out they were wrong and their plot would have failed. They would still have been guilty of making the attempt and would still deserve jail time.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:48 PM on September 9

During the recently finished re-trial and the original trial of 2008 did the defence attempt to question whether or not it was reasonable to suggest that explosives might have been manufactured inflight ? If they didn't is this because the 'experts' / commentators were ill informed ?

Well, as far as I know the British system is similar to the American system, which is to say adversarial. If the prosecution has experts to testify on behalf of their theory, then the defense has an absolute responsibility to have experts do what they can to rebut and create doubt.

You ask as if there were one set of experts called by both sides, but that isn't the way it works. Each side picks its own experts.

If the defense did not present arguments that would create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors, when there are experts out there with that view, then you're verging on legal malpractice. So, yes, without any evidence before me one way or the other, I believe that the defense would have done so.
posted by dhartung at 9:21 PM on September 9

This case happened in the UK, not the US so the answers that reflect US law may be irrelevant. I'd check British media. Or wait for a British attorney to answer this.
posted by dfriedman at 9:30 PM on September 9

You ask as if there were one set of experts called by both sides, but that isn't the way it works. Each side picks its own experts.

Sorry perhaps I didn't explain what I was after clearly. I didn't think that one set of 'experts' had been called by both sides. I was more interested to know whether the suggestion that the manufacturing of explosives inflight was practicable had been tested in court and if so what had been said in support of both sides of the argument.

I appreciate that the defendants intent was more important than what (might have been) their capability but at least in the retrial the defendants line of argument was 'yes we were planning on doing a bomb but it was going to be in the airport buildings' (or at least as far as I've been able to determine that was their defence). So I'm surprised that the defence didn't make much of the possibility that the manufacture of such devices within the constraints of a airliner was impracticable (at least according to Expert X).

From what I've seen so far the practicability of the process was never discussed and it was more information about whether it was discussed and in what terms that I was after.
posted by southof40 at 10:30 PM on September 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide

"It takes the form of a white crystalline powder with a distinctive acrid odor."

"In addition, the participants in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot may have planned to use TATP as the liquid bombs that would destroy U.S. airliners flying from London to the United States. Initial speculation was that the explosive would be mixed in airplane lavatories. It is highly questionable whether such a plot could have been executed, due to the supplies needed, the odor that mixing would create, and the time it would take to prepare without drawing suspicion from passengers and the flight crew. UK prosecutors recently revealed that the plan was for the explosive to be synthesized outside security and introduced into apparently sealed bottles using a hypodermic needle."
posted by prak at 12:01 AM on September 10

I'm not a legal scholar, nor am I in the UK, but here's my take on it: the UK bombers were not convicted of attempted murder, but of conspiracy to murder. The definition of conspiracy in UK law is as follows (bolding mine):

... if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

Thus, the crime doesn't need to be actually possible; conspiring to commit it is the crime. See this UK legal text for elaboration (scroll down to p. 284.) One of the examples given there is that of two people who agree to break into a safe with a crowbar; unbeknownst to them, the crowbar isn't strong enough to open the safe. In such circumstances, the people are still guilty of conspiracy to commit theft.
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:41 AM on September 10

So, to answer the question you actually asked: the defence most likely didn't raise the issue of whether the bombers could have manufactured explosives in the aircraft cabin because even if it was impossible for them to have do so, it wouldn't have been a valid defence against the crime of conspiracy.
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:45 AM on September 10

Thanks for all the answers.

I was interested to know because my understanding was that the restrictions on carrying liquids onto flights is based upon the premise that innocuous seeming liquids may be manufactured into explosives inflight.

Judging by praks reference to wikipedia it seems that my original belief about the prosecutions case was flawed (ie they weren't suggesting they could be manufactured inflight).

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer Mr Assay with respect to conspiracy - good reference too which I enjoyed reading.
posted by southof40 at 5:32 PM on September 10