Playing Chess With The Dead

The Explosives And The Contaminated Samples

2011-06-08T13:01:00.000+02:00

I wasn't intending to write any more on this blog about the issue of the explosives used in the train bombings, I've already covered the issue in some detail before and there have been no significant developments. But then a couple of days ago a Google Alert I have set for news on the Madrid bombings caught my eye, and I found something that potentially sheds light on a genuine mystery to do with the analysis of the explosives used in the bombs.

When the analysis of the samples recovered from the bomb sites and other locations associated with the attacks was carried out for the trial, some curious results were returned. Traces were found of substances that are not present in the dynamite which was used in the train bombs, Goma-2 Eco. The conspiracy theorists have made a great deal of these unexpected findings, indeed their whole case that a different explosive was used in the attacks is based around this data. In particular, they have used the detection of nitroglycerine in one sample from one of the bombed trains to argue that the explosive used must have been Titadine, and in the process keeping alive the allegation that ETA were somehow involved in the bombings. Nitroglycerine is not a component of Goma-2 Eco and is for at least one type of Titadine, an explosive often used by ETA in the past.

Another substance not present in Goma-2 Eco but which is a component of Titadine, dinitrotoluene (DNT), was also detected in the same sample. A problem for the conspiracy theorists, however, has always been the fact that the same substance was also revealed in the tests on samples of Goma-2 Eco that were recovered from different sites connected with the bombings. No definitive explanation was ever established at the time of the trial for what appeared to be some kind of contamination of the samples. Suggestions were made that contamination could have occurred in the factory, in the Asturian mine where the explosives used were stolen, or in the storage facilities used by the police.

The conspiracy theorists would have none of this, as any credible theory of contamination wrecks their insistence on Titadine having been used in the bombs. Numerous pages of El Mundo and even a whole book have been produced all based around the slender proposition that a tiny trace of nytroglycerine proves their theory. But then the only explanation they have been able to offer for the contamination of the other samples has been that someone sneaked into the place where the explosives samples were being held and deliberately contaminated them! Evidence for this assertion? Don't ask, we're back in the territory of imagination.

All of this brings me to the reason for this new post. In the real world of science where theories are tested there has been some interesting work done. The study described in this link has tested whether any cross-contamination could occur between explosives samples held in polyethylene bags at the police storage facility. The results, which included tests with DNT, have demonstrated that volatile components of explosives can escape from these bags. Not only that, but traces of these components over time can enter into other bags containing different substances.

The importance of this study is twofold. Firstly, it suggests that the storage method used by the police at the time of the bombings was not sufficiently secure as samples of different explosives could have been held in the same place and cross-contamination could occur. Secondly, it might be the explanation for why substances like DNT were not identified in the samples immediately following the bombings, but did show up in the tests carried out 3 years later for the trial. Presumably the tests carried out by the scientists for this research are reproducible and therefore verifiable. Precisely the kind of test that those who still persevere with more bizarre explanations will be keen to avoid.

Wikileaks And The Madrid Bombings

2010-12-19T12:35:00.001+01:00

The US diplomatic cables from Spain released by Wikileaks contain little unknown information about the Madrid bombings, but they do shed some light on the handling of the bombings by the government in power at the time. On the day of the bombings, March 11th 2004, it is clear that the US embassy in Madrid believed the story coming from the Spanish government that that attack was the work of the Basque group ETA. What is emphasised in the cable sent from the embassy is the intense diplomatic pressure from the Aznar administration to consider only the possibility of ETA authorship.

The cable was sent just before 2 p.m. on the day of the train bombings, before any of the key evidence of Islamist responsibility started to emerge. It quotes the then interior minister, Angel Acebes, as saying "I will not accept the intolerable assertion by those who try to divert the culpability to other groups." At this point on that day virtually the only person publicly suggesting Islamist responsibility was Arnaldo Otegi, a leader of ETA's political wing Batasuna. The cable states that the Madrid embassy received direct contacts from Aznar's office to say that the government was sure that ETA was responsible. "They request that the USG support this in its declarations and not express any doubt in public comments about the party responsible."

When the US ambassador spoke to Spain's foreign minister, Ana Palacio, she additionally requested that all references to ETA should describe them as "ETA terrorists" rather than "Basque separatists". This is a long standing demand of many Spaniards who appear to believe that reality is determined solely by the language you choose to describe it, and who constantly pressure international media groups to always describe ETA as terrorists. The cable comment section does not dispute the Spanish government's assertions regarding ETA but does note that such an attack by them represents a major shift in their modus operandi. It concludes by recognising that the government might benefit politically from ETA being held responsible, whereas any doubt about authorship could focus attention on the disastrous Spanish involvement in the Iraq war. The key issue at the heart of the Spanish government's handling of the bombings in the days between March 11th and the election on March 14th.

A few days later, on the 15th March, a further cable recognises that the focus of the investigation has now shifted to Al-Qaeda and describes the first arrests that were made by following the trail of the mobile phones used to detonate the train bombs. The cable also records the recovery on March 13th of the video tape in which a claim of responsibility was made for the Madrid attacks. Later on in 2004 the political fallout from the bombings was captured in a cable describing how the former prime minister José Maria Aznar was kept out of the Partido Popular's campaign for the European elections because he was seen as being "too radioactive to help in the campaign."

Then, in 2006, a cable updating the situation on terrorism related cases makes reference to the campaign behind the conspiracy theories concerning the bombings. The cable states "a segment of the opposition Popular Party (PP) and the newspaper El Mundo continue to allege a Socialist party conspiracy and cover up and claim that the Basque terrorist group ETA had some link with the March 11 attacks." It goes on to note that the attitude of the PP is slowing the pace of the prosecution of those charged with the bombings. These cables were issued under the Bush administration which was far more favourable towards the Aznar government than the successor one led by Zapatero. A real coup for Wikileaks would of course be the release of the documentation concerning the bombings that was either removed or destroyed by Aznar's government before leaving office. That would have much to tell us about the days between March 11th and the 14th 2004.

Those That Got Away

2009-05-21T13:00:00.004+02:00

Several suspects connected by the Spanish police to the Madrid train bombings have never been captured, as they fled Spain in the aftermath of the bombings. In one or two cases it was thought that the fugitives may have ended up in Iraq. Now it turns out that at least one of these, Mohamed Belhadj, has been living in Syria. This is the person who is accused of having rented the apartment in Leganés that was used as a hideout by the cell responsible for the bombings. Belhadj has now been extradited to his native country, Morocco, and is expected to stand trial in this country for his alleged participation in the bombings. Morocco does not extradite its own citizens to other countries, which explains why Belhadj will not end up on trial in Spain.

Other recent reports have suggested that the escape of the fugitives was not as difficult as might have been thought given the massive investigation launched by the police following the bombings. It seems that another of those who escaped, Daoud Ouhnane, stayed for some time in a house in Santa Coloma de Gramanet (near Barcelona) that was under police surveillance as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism. Those entering and leaving the building were being secretly filmed, yet Ouhnane was not recognised. This was despite him being one of the most wanted people in Spain at the time. The train bombings were made much easier to carry out as a result of mistakes or incompetence on the part of different police forces, most notably in the area of control over explosives. Nevertheless, it is quite shocking to find that someone wanted for their participation in the attacks can be filmed a short time after in the context of a similar investigation and yet not be identified.

El Haski Loses His Appeal

2009-05-21T12:40:00.002+02:00

Hassan el Haski has in the end received a sentence of 10 years imprisonment in Morocco for his alleged participation in the Casablanca bombings of 2003. Although he was initially found not guilty of these charges, a court of appeal in the Moroccan city of Sale has overturned this decision. El Haski is of course one of those sentenced as a result of the Madrid bombings trial.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Marruecos también condena a El Haski a diez años de cárcel

The Madrid Train Bombings....Five Years On

2009-03-20T00:18:00.002+01:00

I still remember very clearly the day of the Madrid train bombings, the 5th anniversary passed just last week. The impact of what happened on the 11th March 2004 was tremendous, and even though I was away from my adopted home city at the time I still picked up much of the atmosphere of a city in shock. Then came the reaction, and the subsequent rise in tension as it became clear over the following couple of days that the Spanish government was still trying to maintain that ETA were responsible for the bombings even as clear evidence of Islamist authorship was emerging. I watched live on CNN the footage of the demonstration outside of the headquarters of the governing Partido Popular on the day before the general election; images which I believe many people in Spain never got to see.

That day, March 14th, was a turning point. The administration led by Jose Maria Aznar was thrown out of office on a wave of indignation over their attempts to mislead public opinion for short term electoral benefit. That should have been the end of attempts to use the Madrid bombings for political advantage. Unfortunately it was just the beginning. On the same day that the outgoing caretaker government handed over power to the new administration the first article of what were to develop into the conspiracy theories about the bombings appeared in El Mundo. That marked the beginning of a still unfinished campaign that seeks to use the bombings as an instrument of political revenge for the election result that followed.

Now conspiracy theories surrounding terrorist attacks are common, particularly in cases when many of the perpetrators are dead or missing. The difference in the case of Spain is that the conspiracy theorists had the full backing of the principal opposition party and the second biggest selling daily newspaper in the country. You have to try and imagine a situation where the Democrats and any major media outlet accuse the Bush administration of organising 9-11. Or where the Conservatives in Britain claim that the 2005 bombings in London were the work of an alliance between Tony Blair, the IRA and foreign intelligence services. In short, the reaction of those who were caught out trying to manipulate public opinion was to try and do more of the same; but on a bigger scale!

I’d never witnessed anything quite like it anywhere. I know of course that there are those who regard a major terrorist attack as a political opportunity, there is sadly no shortage of examples, but the campaign organised in Spain was still quite shocking. There was a sustained attempt to discredit both the investigation into the bombings and the subsequent trial, the objective always being to sow the maximum doubt possible about the authorship of the attacks. It failed, in the sense that the trial proceeded and that sentences were handed down as recorded on this blog. It succeeded in the sense that many people today in Spain have accepted at least some of the grotesque distortion of events sold by the conspiracy theorists. In the process, those behind these theories have created the kind of sectarian divide where some victims of the bombings are denied funding from the regional government of Madrid because they refuse to subscribe to the conspiracy theories. Nothing is too shameful for those responsible for such decisions; they still turn out to “commemorate” each anniversary.

Things have quietened down since the general election of 2008, when the opposition PP finally realised that accusing the Spanish Prime Minister of complicity with terrorists wasn’t going to be their route back to power. Since then, the media outlets behind the conspiracy theories have found themselves marginalised for choosing the wrong side in the PP’s internal power struggles. The foot soldiers of the campaign, the Peones Negros, have been reduced to a rump grouping that spend their days bemoaning the inability of the Spanish people to rise up against an imagined alliance between the left and regional nationalists to destroy the country.

But then came the anniversary. El Mundo could think of no better way to mark it than handing over their front page to Luis del Pino, leader of the Peones Negros, so that he could treat us to more examples of his particular journalistic technique. Del Pino’s big scoop was that Jamal Zougham (convicted as one of those who placed the bombs on the trains) had been in the gym the night before the bombings, when according to Del Pino he should have been busy preparing the bombs for the next day. Therefore he must be innocent. That’s about the standard of the conspiracy theories these days. There are also still books being published suggesting, but of course at no point demonstrating, the existence of a hidden hand behind the bombings. The now thoroughly discredited attempts to implicate ETA in the bombings have been given a new twist by the chess players, so very, very clever were the true perpetrators that they left false clues pointing toward ETA involvement.

This blog was never really intended to be an account of the train bombings, although obviously it has been necessary to enter into occasionally minute detail on aspects of what happened 5 years ago. However, the main focus has always been on what drove me to create it in the first place, the political abuse of terror. The blog isn’t quite finished yet, there are still trials taking place with a direct or indirect relation to what happened in Madrid. Also, there are a few posts waiting to be written on some of the myths propagated by those who thought the horrible death of almost 200 people provides a suitable platform for combining politics and business in the same neat package.

El Haski Found Not Guilty In Morocco

2009-02-14T16:44:00.006+01:00

Hassan el Haski, already serving a jail term in Spain for terrorist activities, was found not guilty last week of accusations that he was involved in the Casablanca bombings in 2003. The court in Morocco decided that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The question now arises of whether El Haski will be allowed to serve the rest of his Spanish sentence in Morocco, his home country. There is an agreement between Spain and Morocco to permit this, but that does not necessarily mean it will be applied in this case.

In another Moroccan trial held in December and directly related to the Madrid bombings, Abdelilah Hriz received a sentence of 20 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation. The main evidence against him was based on DNA samples which were found in different sites linked to the train bombings.

The Focus Shifts To Morocco

2008-12-07T16:32:00.003+01:00

Three separate stories connected to those accused of involvement in the Madrid bombings have made the news in recent weeks; and they all have a Moroccan connection. Several weeks ago Hassan el Haski, sentenced in the Madrid trial for membership of a terrorist organisation, was handed over to the Moroccan authorities to face trial over charges that he particpated in the Casablanca bombings in 2003. El Haski was said by the prosecution in Madrid to be a leading member of the Morrocan Islamic Combat Group.

Then last week saw the sentence in the case against Hicham Ahmidan, a cousin of Jamal Ahmidan - one of the principal leaders of the group that carried out the Madrid bombings. Hicham was found guilty by a Moroccan court of being involved in the preparation of the Madrid attacks and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The prosecution had requested a 20 year sentence. Ahmidan was already serving a sentence in Morocco for drugs related offences and was said by the Spanish investigating magistrate to have left Spain days before the train bombings took place. Morocco does not extradite its own citizens, and for this reason Ahmidan was tried in his home country rather than in Spain.

Finally, the trial of Abdelilah Hriz also saw its preliminary hearing in Salé this week. Hriz is one of those who were not captured in the intiial aftermath of the bombings, but whose DNA has been detected in key sites related to the Madrid attacks. He is regarded as being potentially one of the group who actually carried out the bombings. His trial has been deferred for 2 weeks at the request of the defence to have more time to prepare their case.

El Egipcio Loses His Italian Appeal

2008-10-25T15:59:00.002+02:00

The beginning of October saw a development which has an impact on the trial for the Madrid bombings. Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (nicknamed El Egipcio) had his sentence for membership of a terrorist group confirmed by the Italian courts. Although many people believe that El Egipcio was completely absolved in the trial held in Madrid, it’s important to point out that his Italian conviction was the reason why no sentence at all was delivered against him in Spain. He was found not guilty in Madrid of the charges of inducing others to commit terrorist acts, and the court decided that they could not sentence him for membership of a terrorist group because the Italians had already done so. In the appeals process following the main trial it was argued that the charge against El Egipcio in Spain was not exactly the same as that in the Italian case and that the Italian verdict was not a firm one, leaving open the possibility of him escaping conviction there too. These arguments were not accepted by the Spanish appeals court, who ruled that the Italian sentence precluded any possibility of finding El Egipcio guilty on a similar charge. The main evidence against him in the Spanish trial was that gathered by Italian police using electronic surveillance.

The Appeals Against The Sentence

2008-07-17T12:55:00.002+02:00

In between the hearings and the verdict of the boric acid case, the Supreme Court in Spain heard all of the appeals concerning the sentence in the main trial for the Madrid train bombings. The outcome of those appeals has been announced this morning and contains some significant rulings for several of the accused. In the Spanish legal system an appeal cannot be lodged to re-examine the evidence presented in the original trial. Instead the appeal is focused on the correctness of the sentence for the crime, or on other legal technicalities.

The state prosecution service did not support most of the appeals presented, and the case they presented to the Supreme Court was mostly one of support for the sentence delivered at the end of October 2007. An important exception to this was the appeal against the absolution of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (known as El Egipcio). This person escaped a sentence last year for membership of a terrorist group on the grounds that he had already been sentenced for the same offence in Italy. The prosecution appealed this verdict on the basis that the sentence in Italy had not yet been confirmed, and also alleging that the basis for the Italian conviction was not the same as that presented by Spanish prosecutors. The court today has rejected this appeal, so El Egipcio has in the end not been convicted of any offence in Spain.

The Supreme Court has also decided to free some of those convicted in the original trial for offences related to terrorism. Basel Ghalyoun, Mouhannad Almallah Dabas, Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil and Raúl González have all been absolved in today’s hearing. None of these were accused of being direct material participants in the bombings; González in particular was a bit player in the trafficking of the explosives used in the bombs. However, the freeing of Ghalyoun and Almallah Dabas is something of a blow to the case presented concerning the use of the dwelling in the Madrid street of Virgen del Coro as a centre for Islamist propaganda and recruitment.

The only person to come out worse from the appeals process is Antonio Toro, who was found not guilty in the original trial, along with his sister Carmen. Both were accused of being active participants in the plot to sell the dynamite used in the train bombings. The Supreme Court has found Antonio Toro guilty of explosives trafficking and sentenced him to four years imprisonment. There has been no change to the sentence for Rafa Zouhier, his defence claimed it was illogical for him to be sentenced whilst people like Toro were found not guilty. Those who appealed for a higher sentence for him argued the opposite case that he was a key figure in the trafficking and supply of the explosives.

Other minor changes include a reduction of two years for Otman el Gnaoui, who nevertheless faces a long time in prison as he was convicted of being one of those who placed the bombs. Hassan el Haski has had his sentence reduced by one year on the grounds that it exceeded the maximum for the offence on which he was convicted. Apart from these changes the great majority of the appeals lodged have been rejected by the court. So far I haven’t seen the sentence, when I have a chance to study it I hope to flesh out some of the details behind the court’s decisions. Although these hearings are the end of the process against most of those accused of the bombings, there is still some unfinished business including the trial of Moutaz Almallah Dabas, whose brother Mouhannad was set free today.

Another Nail In The Coffin

2008-07-09T16:06:00.004+02:00

Yesterday we got the verdict in the trial of the four senior police officers accused of falsifying a forensic report concerning the discovery of boric acid at the home of Hassan el Haski. Sanity prevailed, and the ridiculous charges were dismissed in a verdict that makes it absolutely clear no crime was committed. Just as they did with the sentence in the main trial for the Madrid train bombings, the conspiracy theorists pick at the wording of the verdict to see if there is anything there which they can twist in an effort to get some consolation from yet another blow to their attempts to cast doubt on the authorship of their bombings. From yesterday’s decision they have inevitably picked up on the view of the judges that the way in which the report was altered was irregular. This of course is a long way from saying that any offence has been committed, but the conspiracy theorist media use this conclusion to try and suggest that they have been at least partially vindicated. What they seek to avoid above all is any kind of admission that they may ever have been wrong in urging the conviction of the officers concerned.

The problem with their conclusion is that the court did not find any irregularity at all in the removal of the paragraphs concerning the finding of boric acid in an ETA safe house and the attempt to link this to the discovery in El Haski's house. It is this section of the report which is at the heart of the whole controversy. What the judges said was that the correct way to have proceeded would have been to assign a fresh report to another specialist, rather than the superior officer changing the original one himself. The omission of the data relating to ETA is not only not considered irregular, the verdict actually explains in considerable detail why this data was irrelevant to the purpose of the report. The judges make clear that they regard the section as unfounded speculation, lacking in scientific rigour and which could only produce confusion. After all, this document was supposed to be a forensic analysis of the substance found, boric acid, this was what was requested by the investigating officers from their forensic colleagues. If the accused had attempted to change the results of the chemical analysis then there would be cause for concern, but this is not what happened. The judges also pointed out in their reasoning the total lack of any evidence relating boric acid to any past terrorist activity and that the inclusion of the references to previous discoveries of this substance added nothing at all to the investigation of the Madrid bombings. The verdict describes it as complementary information of little or no value.

Naturally none of the pro-conspiracy theory media sees any need to report such damning conclusions for yet another of their attempts to mix ETA with the bombings. TeleMadrid yesterday demonstrated how painful it is to recognise reality by focusing its report entirely on the question of the supposed irregularities. El Mundo takes the manipulation a stage further than Telemadrid. Their edition this morning carried a headline that is not just manipulation of the verdict, it is manifestly false. They claim that the forensic police have been accused of being untruthful by the court in order to avoid linking ETA to the bombings. The word that appears in quotes in their headline, “inveraz”, doesn’t actually appear at all in the document of the verdict although El Mundo attempts to pretend it is citing that source. The only point at which the verdict questions the truthfulness of what was done is over the issue of one of the accused putting his name on the report for an analysis which he hadn’t carried out himself. The verdict itself makes clear that this is not that unusual a practice, and given that the officer concerned accepted the findings of the original chemical analysis there was no reason for him to repeat it. From such tiny crumbs El Mundo attempts to deceive its readers about what has really happened. Not surprising, because the whole sorry, crazy affair began with them.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
The verdict of the court
El Mundo - La Policía Científica fue 'inveraz' para no vincular a ETA con el 11-M
El País - Los policías no cometieron falsedad; las modificaciones eran "inocuas"

Too Much Acid Damages The Brain

2008-06-11T10:25:00.006+02:00

One of the most bizarre and ridiculous creations of those behind the conspiracy theories about the Madrid bombings has returned to haunt us, several months after the end of the trial. The case against several senior senior police officers accused of manipulating official reports began yesterday in Madrid. The background to this trial begins with a police report produced following the search of the residence of Hassan el Haski, one of those sentenced in the main trial last year. The police report focused on the finding of a quantity of boric acid in El Haski's home. The "specialists" preparing the report did some investigation in their databases and found that the same substance had also previously been recovered from a house used by an ETA commando and in a case concerning what the Spanish press refer to as an "anti-system" activist. There was no relationship between the different cases, and more importantly there is no evidence linking the presence of boric acid to the activities of any of those detained. Boric acid is sold openly and legally over the counter in Spain for a variety of uses including reduction of foot odour and killing cockroaches.

Despite the absence of any data linking the different cases the initial report produced by the police attempted to suggest that there could be a connection between the finding of boric acid in El Haski's home, and in that used some years earlier by the ETA commando. This speculative piece of guesswork was removed from the final report on the orders of superior officers. It's not hard to find good motives for doing so, given the lack of any connection between a common household substance and terrorist activities. It is reasonably likely that coffee was also present in the residences searched in these different cases, but no one would have looked favourably at a report suggesting connections between Islamists and ETA just because of the discovery of that substance.

However, with the conspiracy theorists busily working to undermine the case against those accused of the bombings in 2006, strange things started to happen. The officers responsible for the original report oddly decided to try and resubmit their original report over a year after it had first been prepared, speculative nonsense about boric acid included. The attempt failed, but the report then quickly found its way to El Mundo who immediately led in typical style with a story claiming that there were attempts to suppress evidence of ETA connections to the Madrid bombings. Supporters of the conspiracy theories then presented an accusation alleging falsification of official documentation against senior officers and managed to manoeuvre the handling of the case so that it would be dealt with by a judge in Madrid with known conservative sympathies.

The case has now come to court and will be tried even though the state prosecution service regards the accusation as completely unfounded. The accusation is instead being sustained by the usual suspects, pro conspiracy theory victims associations and their political allies. Anyone found guilty of the charges faces a potential prison sentence, yet it seems hard to believe that such an outcome is possible even with the known politicisation of the Spanish judicial system. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of judicial issues pile up in a system that is acknowledged to be failing to serve its purpose. Yet cases such as this one, which owe their existence solely to the determination of the conspiracy theorists to press anything that has even the most tenuous of connections to ETA, are allowed to proceed and clog up the courts.

Abdelilah Hriz To Stand Trial

2008-01-29T10:53:00.000+01:00

In my last post I wrote about efforts by the Spanish authorities to put Abdelilah Hriz on trial as a material author of the Madrid bombings. It now seems as if the Moroccan authorities have agreed to take action against Hriz - extradition is not permitted but he can be tried on Moroccan soil for crimes committed in Spain. Genetic traces matching the DNA of Hriz were found in the ruins of the apartment in Leganés where the nucleus of the group responsible for the bombings blew themselves up on the 3rd April 2004.

Accused But Not On Trial

2008-01-19T17:31:00.000+01:00

Whilst the appeals following the sentence in the train bombings trial are now pending, it is worth recalling that there are still some accused of participation in the attack who have not yet faced trial. One of these, Moutaz Almallah Dabas, is being held on remand in Spain following his extradition from the United Kingdom last year. He is the brother of Mouhannad Almallah Dabas, who was one of those convicted in the main trial.

There is now concern about the delay in bringing Almallah Dabas to trial for his part in the bombings. This is because he has already been held in prison for around 3 years if the period in the UK is included too, and Spanish law does not permit anyone to be held for longer than 4 years if they have not been convicted of an offence within that period. So it seems quite likely that the trial of Almallah Dabas will be held reasonably soon to try and avoid a situation where he must be released from prison.

There are also international detention orders in force against Abdelilah Hriz (accused of being one of those who actively participated in the attack as a material author), and Hicham Ahmidan (accused of being part of the terrorist cell). Both of these are Morrocan citizens and are both currently in Morocco itself. This country does not extradite its citizens to Spain, so the Spanish authorities are attempting to persuade the Moroccan authorities to try them there for crimes committed on Spanish soil. In the meantime, the international orders remain in force in case either of the 2 men travels outside of Morocco.

The Deadline For Appeals Approaches

2007-12-27T12:41:00.000+01:00

The deadline for appeals to be lodged against the sentence for the train bombings runs out in early January. According to a report yesterday in El País there may be as many as 29 appeals presented. This number includes appeals by defendants as well as those by the prosecution or by parties to the prosecution.

In the case of those who have been sentenced for participation in the bombings the appeal process in Spain does not give them a second bite at the cherry. The appeal cannot revise all of the prosecution case against them, it can only deal with defects or errors in the original trial. Despite this limitation it appears that most of those convicted are going to appeal against their sentence.

The state prosecutors intend to appeal the absolution of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed on the charges of membership of a terrorist group. He was not convicted of this offence because he has already been sentenced in Italy for the equivalent offence. According to El País the prosecution appeal will be based on the fact that the Italian sentence has not yet been confirmed (it is also awaiting appeal) and also may claim that the group with which the defendant associated in Spain is not the same as that of Italy.

Meanwhile the Asociación 11-M Afectados de Terrorismo which represents many of the victims of the attack, has indicated its intention of appealing against the absolution of some of the accused (Carmen and Antonio Toro), and also against what they consider to be light sentences for some of those convicted (including Rafa Zouhier and Abdelmajid Bouchar).

The Judge Condemned

2007-12-01T17:38:00.000+01:00

One characteristic of the political campaign organised around the Madrid bombings has been the manner in which the chess players turn on those who fail to do their bidding. Their treatment of the chief judge in the trial, Javier Gómez Bermúdez provides a perfect illustration of this behaviour. Until the day of the verdict Gómez Bermúdez was almost untouchable. The conspiracy theorists repeatedly expressed their confidence that the three judge tribunal would not fail to see through what they claim to be the obvious failings of the “official version”. Then came the 31st October, and the dreams of those who hoped for an open verdict and for the police to be accused of lying were shattered. The verdict accepted all of the main arguments of the prosecution and the key evidence in the case.

Shortly after the release of the verdict came the first suggestions from El Mundo and friends that the judge had sold his soul in return for unspecified guarantees of preferential treatment. Then things got worse, the journalist wife of Gómez Bermúdez has written a book on her husband and the trial. The wisdom of doing this can be open to question, but the decision by the conspiracy theorist media to run repeatedly on criticisms of this has much more to do with their decision to place the judge on their list of enemies. That they do this is a reminder that behind the conspiracy theories are some powerful people, and they seek to abuse their power both to influence events and to try and destroy those who refuse to help their cause.

Hechos Probados....Evidence Found In Leganés

2007-12-01T17:07:00.000+01:00

Evidence gathered by the police from the wreckage of the Leganés explosion included the remains of explosives, detonators, weapons, identity documents, other written documentation, books, video tapes, computers, storage devices and genetic traces of those who had been there.

More than 17 kilos of Goma 2 Eco dynamite was recovered, together with 238 detonators, and hundreds of wrappers and empty bags for this explosive. Many of these wrappers permitted identification of the production batch from the factory where the dynamite was made. All of the detonators had been manufactured by the Spanish company UEB (Unión Española-Ensing Bickford). In addition two Sterling sub machine guns were recovered as well as an ASTRA pistol.

Documentation was found in the names of Abdelmajid Bouchar (including a passport), Serhane ben Abdelmajid (a passport, residence card and driving licence), Abdennabi Kounjaa (identity card), and Rifaat Anouar (a passport and social security card). Also found were three false identity documents which had been manipulated by Nasredine Bousbaa on behalf of Jamal Ahmidan.

Various books were found with religious content, documents written in both Spanish and Arabic, and drafts of documents claiming responsibility for the train attacks or threatening fresh attacks. Also found were two video tapes recorded on the 27th March 2004 in which claims of responsibility for the train bombings were made by three persons who appeared with their faces covered. From a computer hard disk the police managed to recover files with Islamist content.

Hechos Probados....The Leganés Siege

2007-11-27T21:11:00.000+01:00

Shortly before 15:15 on the 3rd April 2004, a team of national police officers located an apartment at the address 1A, 40 Calle Carmen Martín Gaite in the town of Leganés, not far from Madrid. They suspected that some of the suspects responsible for the train bombings were hiding out at this address. The apartment had been rented by Mohamed Belhadj, brother of the accused Youssef Belhadj, and following instructions issued by Mohamed Afalah. Belhadj signed a contract with the agency handling the property on the 8th March 2004.

At about 16:00 one of the occupants of the apartment, identified as Abdelmajid Bouchar, came down to the street with a bag of rubbish. Noticing the police presence he left the rubbish bag on the ground and then took a different street from that which would take him back to the apartment. He then fled, crossing the railway tracks and managing to escape from the police officers chasing him. One of the officers who gave up the chase returned to the block containing the apartment and collected the abandoned rubbish bag, which he placed in the trunk of a police vehicle for later examination by the forensic police. They would subsequently identify DNA belonging to Bouchar on date and olive stones contained in the bag.

Still in the apartment were Abdennabi Kounjaa, Rifaat Anouar Asrih, Serhane Ben Abdelmajid, Jamal Ahmidan, Mohamed Oulad Akcha, Rachid Oulad Akcha and Allekema Lamari, who were now aware of the police presence and fired some shots. The police began the evacuation of the building.

Telephone calls were made by occupants of the apartment to members of their families, calls were detected by Serhane ben Abdelmajid, the Oulad Akcha brothers, and Abdennabi Kounjaa, with some information on these being received from the Tunisian and Moroccan intelligence services. Meanwhile, at approximately 17:45 instructions were issued to the special police force known as the GEOS to come to the scene of the siege. Fifteen members of this squad arrived at the scene between 19:00 and 19:15. They considered the option of directly assaulting the apartment; the neighbouring apartment was the home of a police officer, but they decided against this tactic. At around 20:30 the electricity, gas and water supply to the building was cut and the GEOS called on the occupants of the apartment to give themselves up, with no success. At this point the police decided to try and force them to leave, and 30 minutes later they blew open the front door of the apartment with a small explosive charge. Despite this, those inside the apartment refused to leave and taunted the GEOS to enter. The GEOS then fired tear gas into the apartment and seconds later there was a substantial explosion as someone inside detonated around 20 kilos of Goma 2 Eco dynamite. The explosion caused significant damage to the block and surrounding buildings, killing all of those inside the apartment as well as a member of the GEOS, Francisco Javier Torronteras.

Footnote: The dramatic finish to the hunt for the bombers, we will never know whether the decision to blow up the apartment was a joint decision by all inside, or simply one taken by the more determined members of the group. For those searching for the "intellectual authors" of the bombings, the most likely place to find them is in the wreckage of the Leganés apartment.

Hechos Probados....The AVE Bomb

2007-11-24T14:22:00.000+01:00

On the 2nd April 2004, an explosive device was detected underneath the track of the high speed rail line (AVE) connecting Madrid with Sevilla, near to the locality of Mocejón in Toledo province. This device had been placed by members of the same group responsible for the train bombings in Madrid. The bomb contained 12 kilos of Goma 2 Eco dynamite and an aluminium detonator identical to two of those recovered from the Renault Kangoo van in Alcalá de Henares on March 11th.

Footnote: The attempt to bomb the AVE was at the time frightening evidence of the continuing activity of the cell responsible for the Madrid train bombings, coming 3 weeks after the original bombings. Despite several arrests, the police had still not located the central core of the group responsible.

Hechos Probados....Hamid Ahmidam

2007-11-24T14:12:00.000+01:00

At 16:15 on the 26th March 2004, the police searched a property located at address 30 Avenida Cerro de los Angeles in Madrid. The residence they searched was rented by a cousin of Hamid Ahmidam (who was already detained at the time of the search). The police were unaware that he had been living at this address. During the search they found over 59 kilos of hashish and more than 125,000 tablets of MDMA (ecstasy). In addition the police discovered €19,010 in cash and faked identity documents including a foreigner’s residence permit and driving licence in the name of Otman el Gnaoui. A passport in the name of the latter was also found, but containing a photograph of Jamal Ahmidam.

The documentation had been given by El Gnaoui to Jamal Ahmidam in the knowledge that it would be manipulated, for which reason the former had reported the passport as lost at a police station on the 10th March 2004. Hashish was also discovered at another address associated with Hamid Ahmidam, at number 9 Calle Acebuchal in Madrid. In a Renault Megane car normally driven by Hamid Ahmidam, but belonging to his cousin Hicham, were found some possessions identified as belonging to the owner of the stolen Renault Kangoo van used by some members of the group on the day of the bombings.

Hechos Probados....The House In Morata

2007-11-20T22:53:00.000+01:00

Much of the dynamite stolen from the Mina Conchita was stored in the property rented from the end of January 2004 by Jamal Ahmidam in Morata de Tajuña, although Ahmidam had made use of it before this date. At this property various works were carried out during January and February 2004. One of the objectives of these works was to conceal the dynamite and other illegal objects or substances. To this end the accused Hamid Ahmidam and Otman el Gnaoui excavated a hole in the floor of a shed which they lined with insulating material and then covered in such a way as to disguise its existence. Frequent visitors to the property included Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil, Mohamed el Haddad, and Abdelmajid Bouchar, as well as the members of the group killed in Leganés.

El Fadoual El Akil was an intimate friend of Jamal Ahmidam, and participated in the latter’s criminal activities. Both had talked of going to Chechenia to participate in the “jihad”. He knew of Ahmidam’s radical ideas and during a visit that both made to Holland in the year 2000 they got in contact with Imad Eddin Barakat Yardas, at that time a person responsible for recruitment of jihadist fighters.

On the 27th February 2004 El Fadoual El Akil travelled to Madrid from Ceuta, one of the Spanish enclaves in Morocco. On the 1st March he visited Jamal Ahmidam at the property in Morata, where he was asked by Ahmidam to take to Ceuta the Volkswagen Golf which had been used to transport explosives from Asturias. El Fadoual El Akil agreed to do this and returned to Ceuta with this car.

Hechos Probados....The Theft Of The Dynamite

2007-11-19T20:26:00.000+01:00

As a result of his agreement with Jamal Ahmidam to provide explosives, Jose Emilio Suárez Trashorras arranged the supply of two shipments of dynamite to Madrid between the 5th and the 9th of January 2004. On the 4th January Trashorras offered €600 to Sergio Alvarez Sánchez to carry a sports bag to Madrid which he would hand over on arrival to a person waiting for him at the bus station. Trashorras bought him a ticket for the journey to be made the following day, and on the morning of the 5th he took Alvarez to the bus station in Oviedo together with the bag he was to transport. On arrival in Madrid Alvarez awaited the arrival of Jamal Ahmidam in the bus station, Ahmidam arrived 30-45 minutes later. Shortly afterwards Alvarez returned to Oviedo by bus. On arrival Trashorras was waiting for him together with Gabriel Montoya Vidal. As payment for the journey Alvarez was given two tablets of hashish, valued by the accused at approximately €700.

The second journey to Madrid was made by Iván Reis Palicio who had a debt with Antonio Toro related to hashish trafficking. Trashorras offered to cancel this debt if Reis would take to Madrid on the 9th January a bag which he was told contained hashish. After further negotiation it was agreed that Trashorras would pay an additional €300. Reis Palicio complied with the agreement and took the bus service to Madrid, he was met in Madrid by Jamal Ahmidam who took the bag. Ahmidam also demanded payment of money, and finding that Reis did not have this he took the latter’s wallet and mobile telephone. Reis Palicio was never paid for the journey, nor did he have his debt with Toro cancelled.

On the 23rd January 2004, Trashorras spoke to Jamal Ahmidam using the telephone of Iván Granados Peña. He also spoke to Raúl González Pelaez and they agreed to meet in a place known as the Mirador de Tineo. Both he and Granados went to this place. Once there, Trashorras disappeared with González during approximately 45 minutes, on return both he and Granados went back to Avilés. During this journey Trashorras asked Granados to transport a bag containing explosives to Madrid, something which Granados refused to do. Trashorras made the same proposal to Gabriel Montoya Vidal who agreed and made the journey by bus at the end of January or during the first few days of February. Montoya handed the bag to Jamal Ahmidam in Madrid and returned to Asturias. The next day Granados informed Montoya Vidal that the explosive the latter had transported had been collected from the mine where he had worked.

The dynamite was removed from the mine taking advantage of the complete absence of control over usage of explosive there. The person in charge of recording such usage, Emilio Llano Alvarez, simply noted the quantity that he was verbally provided with by the miners. Access to detonators was also not controlled as the miners simply hid the keys to the stores under a stone or behind a tree. The difference between the amount really consumed and that received at the mine was left lying in the mine in a place where it could be collected by Trashorras or anyone acting for him. There is no evidence that Llano intervened himself in the extraction of the explosive from the mine.

In February of 2004, Emilio Suárez Trashorras was driving a Toyota Corolla car which had a false number plate fitted. This car had been stolen in Madrid on the 18th September 2003 by unknown persons. The car was given to Trashorras in Madrid by Jamal Ahmidam on the 28th December 2003. It was Trashorras who decided to change the plates on the car once he had returned to Avilés in Asturias. Two or three days before the 28th February 2004 Trashorras drove with this car to the Mina Conchita in the company of Gabriel Montoya Vidal. At the mine, Trashorras got out of the car and spoke to two people wearing blue overalls whilst Montoya waited in the car. Trashorras returned to the car saying “this is done, it’s good”. On the afternoon of the 28th February Trashorras collected Montoya in the same car in the company of Jamal Ahmidam. They were accompanied by another vehicle, a Volkswagen Golf, in which were travelling Mohamed Oulad Akcha and Abdennabi Kounjaa.

Both vehicles were heading towards the mine when Trashorras received a call from his then wife, Carmen Toro. As a result of this call they returned to Avilés, collected some boots which Trashorras gave to Ahmidam and set off once more for the mine. Once at the entrance to the mine, Trashorras and Ahmidam entered the mine whilst Montoya, Kounjaa and Oulad Akcha remained with the cars. After approximately 45 minutes, both men returned and Trashorras reminded Ahmidam to remember to collect some bolts and screws that were nearby. All of them returned to Avilés where Ahmidam and his companions purchased three rucksacks, three sports bags, three torches and two pairs of gloves in a Carrefour supermarket. They then went to Trashorras home in the street of Llano Ponte.

Trashorras remained at home, whilst the other four went once again to the mine where all except Montoya entered the area of the mine itself. Several hours later Ahmidam, Kounjaa and Oulad Akcha returned to the car with all of the bags and rucksacks loaded. Once again they returned to Avilés. At the garage of Trashorras in Avilés they passed all explosives into the Volkswagen Golf, before again setting off for the mine to repeat the same operation. At around midday on the 29th February Ahmidam, Oulad Akcha and Kounjaa began the journey back to Madrid with the explosives they had removed from the mine. Ahmidam drove the Toyota Corolla and the other two men went in the Golf.

Shortly before setting off for Madrid Jamal Ahmidam phoned Otman el Gnaoui telling him they were returning. In the course of this conversation it was agreed that El Gnaoui and other members of the group would meet them on the road connecting Burgos and Madrid, Ahmidam phoned again during the journey to agree the point at which they would meet, which turned out to be the locality of Cogollos in Burgos province. During the journey the vehicle driven by Ahmidam was stopped by a Guardia Civil traffic patrol, Ahmidam showed the officers a false Belgian passport in the name of Youssef Ben Salan and was allowed to proceed after being sanctioned for speeding and not having the vehicle documentation in order.

Footnote: A further demonstration of just how easy the theft of the explosive was from Mina Conchita, and with the added twist of Jamal Ahmidam being stopped by the police whilst transporting it back to Madrid from Asturias. A mine with significant dynamite usage, and virtually no control over consumption or with any security. A perfect place for anyone looking to acquire explosives. The court has not accepted the defence of those who carried bags of dynamite to Madrid, the claim that they did not know what was in the bags has been rejected.

Hechos Probados....The Dynamite Trail

2007-11-15T20:28:00.000+01:00

Most, if not all, of the dynamite used in the train bombs, and all of that which was used in the Leganés explosion, together with that retrieved from the wreckage of that explosion, came from the Conchita Mine in the municipality of Belmonte de Miranda, Asturias. The mine belonged to the company Caolines de Merillés S.A.

In September 2001 Rafa Zouhier and Antonio Toro coincided in the prison of Villabona in Asturias where they became friends. Once both were in liberty, Toro presented Zouhier to his brother-in-law José Emilio Suárez Trashorras. During his time in prison Rafa Zouhier agreed to become an informer for the Guardia Civil, his contacts were two officer using the names “Rafa” and “Victor”. At the end of January 2003, or the beginning of February of the same year, Zouhier told his contacts that Antonio Toro was attempting to sell 150 kilograms of explosives supplied by Trashorras who had once worked in the Mina Conchita. The Guardia Civil officers regarded this information as reliable and investigated the whereabouts of Toro. Zouhier was asked to obtain a sample of the explosive, which he did by convincing Toro and Trashorras that he had some possible buyers in Madrid. This sample was handed to the Guardia Civil, who destroyed it after receiving the opinion of an explosives specialist.

Zouhier did not discuss the issue of explosives again with his Guardia Civil controllers until after the 11th March 2004, despite the fact that he carried out the role of intermediary for the supply of detonators and explosives between Trashorras and Jamal Ahmidam. As part of this process, he had in his possession in October 2003 an industrial detonator supplied by Toro and Trashorras. This detonator exploded whilst being manipulated by Zouhier in the presence of the accused Rachid Aglif, causing injuries to both.

At some point between the end of October 2003 and the beginning of January 2004, Jamal Ahmidam and Trashorras agreed the supply of dynamite from mines located in Asturias. Rachid Aglif was aware of this negotiation, it is not established that Antonio or Carmen Toro intervened in this process, although they may have been aware of it. Ahmidam and Trashorras held at least two meetings in hamburger restaurants in Madrid, as well as an unknown number of other meetings in Avilés (where Trashorras lived) and numerous contacts by telephone.

On the 28th October 2003, they met in the McDonalds restaurant in the Madrid district of Carabanchel. Also present were Aglif and Zouhier. Seated at a separate table were Carmen Toro and Pablo Alvarez Moya. During this meeting Aglif asked Trashorras to supply 60 kilos of dynamite. In the middle of November a second meeting was held in a different branch of McDonalds in Moncloa, also in Madrid. This meeting was attended by Ahmidam, Trashorras, Zouhier, Aglif, and both Antonio and Carmen Toro. Part of the discussion concerned a debt from hashish trafficking, without it being clear whether this formed part of the deal on the dynamite.

Footnote: Trashorras has ended up taking virtually all the blame for the dynamite deal, whilst others involved have either been absolved or given light sentences. The Guardia Civil does not come out of the case looking good, they had the opportunity to deal with explosives trafficking in the region and they didn't do it. Which is not to say they would have prevented the bombings from occurring, but they could at the very least have closed off an easy supply of illegal explosives.

Hechos Probados....The Telephones And The Cards

2007-11-14T20:28:00.000+01:00

The card contained in the telephone used in the Vallecas bomb had been supplied by Jamal Zougam, one of the owners of the shop Jawal Mundo Telecom – Locutorio Siglo Nuevo which was located at 17 Calle Tribulete in Madrid. The card formed part of a pack of thirty prepaid cards from the company AMENA which had been supplied together with Motorola C450 telephones. The packs containing telephone and cards had been provided by a company called Uritel 2000 S.A. to another called Sindhu Enterprise S.L. It was this latter company who separated the cards from the telephones, and who sold the cards to the shop of Jamal Zougam. Eight of the cards from this batch have been found to have a direct relationship to the train bombings.

On the 3rd March 2004 the shop Decomisos Top, located at 42 Avenida Real de Pinto in Madrid, sold to a still unidentified member of the group responsible for the bombings nine telephones of the same brand and model as that contained in the Vallecas bomb. Three of these were handed over on the same day, and the other six were collected the following day after they had been “liberated” to enable their use with any telephone company. This was because the telephones were designed for use only with cards from Movistar. Decomisos Top gave the task of liberating the phones to another company, Ayman S.L.. A tenth telephone was sold on the 8th March. Seven of these telephones have been identified as having been used together with cards from the batch supplied to Jamal Zougam’s shop. One of these telephones was that discovered in the Vallecas bomb.

The cards used in these telephones were activated, without calls being made or received, between 2:24 on the 10th March 2004 and 2:24 on the 11th. The activation was carried out in the area covered by an antenna located in Morata de Tajuña. No activity has been detected for these cards since the 11th March 2004, because they were used as timers in some of the other bombs. In the area covered by the antenna of Morata is located the property rented by Jamal Ahmidam on the 28th January 2004.

In addition, at least nine of the thirty AMENA cards were used by members of the group who carried out the bombings. Jamal Zougam was using one at the time of his detention; another was used by those who committed suicide in Leganés to make farewell calls to their families.

Footnote: The whole investigation of the train bombings is an object lesson on what information you can gather based on evidence from mobile phone usage. The telephone and card found in the unexploded bomb led directly to the first arrests in the case, and to a dramatic change in the public perception regarding authorship of the bombings.

Hechos Probados....The Vallecas Bomb

2007-11-12T20:43:00.000+01:00

Articles and possessions recovered from the trains where bombs exploded were placed inside large rubbish bags, which were then closed or sealed prior to being taken elsewhere for an inventory of the contents. Amongst the objects recovered from the station of El Pozo there was an explosive device contained in a sea blue sports bag. On the afternoon of the bombings two police vans arrived at this station to collect those possessions which had been recovered from the train. Their initial instructions were to take these belongings to the police station of Villa de Vallecas in Madrid. Arriving at this destination, the officer in charge at the station refused to take charge of the cargo, so the vans then headed towards the nearby police station of Puente de Vallecas. On arrival at this station they were then ordered to take the vans and their contents to the IFEMA exhibition centre, which was being used as an emergency morgue and reception centre. At IFEMA the bags were unloaded and deposited in one of the pavilions together with a notice indicating where they had come from. The bags remained under the custody of a police unit.

The same afternoon, the commanding officer at Puente de Vallecas was informed that one of the judges dealing with the consequences of the bombings had issued an instruction that these personal belongings should be stored at Puente de Vallecas and not at IFEMA. So once again the bags were loaded into police vehicles and taken back to this police station. Once there, four officers proceeded with an inventory of the contents of the bags. At approximately 1:30 a.m. one of these officers opened the bag containing the unexploded device and noticed a mobile telephone with cables attached to it. The alarm was raised with bomb disposal specialists being called for, and the police station was evacuated.

The specialists who arrived carried out an initial inspection of the device and decided to take it to the nearby Azorín Park to deactivate with the minimum risk. Once at the park they carried out x-rays of the device but without these providing sufficient information for a secure deactivation. Eventually they managed to deactivate the device and found that it had a Mitsubishi Trium telephone as the timer connected to a copper detonator which had been inserted in slightly more than ten kilos of dynamite. The bag also contained 640 grams of nails and screws to act as shrapnel, and a telephone charger suitable for the Trium. Subsequent laboratory examination revealed that the device did not explode because one of the cables exiting the telephone was not connected properly. The device was identical in its structure and design to those found in the train at Atocha station and the other unexploded device found at El Pozo; both of which were destroyed as part of the deactivation attempts.

The detonator was of an industrial variety and was manufactured by the Spanish company UEB. The telephone used as a timer contained a card from the company AMENA-AUNA with the assigned number 652282963. The alarm on the telephone was programmed for 7:40 a.m. From the identification of the telephone it was clear that the case of the phone had been substituted at some point by another from a telephone of the same kind.

Footnote: Another crucial piece of evidence accepted in full by the court. The only unexploded device which was recovered fully intact, the telephone and its card provided the lead that led to the arrest of Jamal Zougam. The explosive confirmed the use of Goma 2 Eco dynamite in the bombs, together with another detonator that matched those found in the Renault Kangoo van. Hardly surprising then, that those determined to create maximum confusion about the bombings have insisted that the bomb was never on the trains, and that it was planted at some point during the long journey that the bags from El Pozo took that day.

Hechos Probados....The Discovery Of The Renault Kangoo

2007-11-09T16:05:00.000+01:00

At approximately 10:30 a.m. on the day of the bombings, the caretaker of a building situated at number 5 in the street Infantado in Alcalá de Henares reported to the president of the community of owners of the building his sighting at around 7 a.m. of three individuals getting out of a white Renault Kangoo van located about 100 metres from the railway station. The president in turn informed the police. After speaking to the caretaker, the police cordoned off the vehicle and evacuated nearby buildings. At approximately 11 a.m. police specialists in terrorism arrived at the scene and made an initial visual inspection of the vehicle with the aim of detecting the possible presence of a bomb. No visible signs of any device were seen. Also sent to the scene were police dog handlers whose dogs were trained to detect explosives. An external inspection with the dogs produced no results, so the back door van was opened and one of the animals was introduced inside – again with negative results.

Having established that the van could be moved without danger, orders were received to take it to the headquarters of the forensic police in the district of Canillas in Madrid. The van arrived at Canillas at around 15:30 and was inspected there by police officers. During this inspection the officers found beneath the front seat on the right hand side, a blue rubbish bag containing seven industrial detonators and the tip of a dynamite cartridge. Two of the detonators contained a label identifying them as having been made in Spain by UEB. All of the detonators were made by the company Unión Española-Ensing Bickford, and were identical to those later found in the unexploded device deactivated in Azorín park, and those discovered amongst the wreckage of the Leganés apartment.

Other articles found in the van included a cassette tape with Arabic script. Genetic traces and fingerprint evidence was recovered from the van.

Footnote: The importance of the Renault Kangoo was that it was the first discovery of clues leading to the perpetrators of the bombings, and also because of the cassette discovered it was the first sign of possible Islamist responsibility. The detonators found in the van provided crucial evidence on the origin of the explosives used in the bombs. Because of this the conspiracy theorists have constantly attempted to suggest that the van was filled with phony evidence by police officers involved in the great conspiracy. Not surprisingly, the court has not taken this suggestion very seriously. The van has been accepted as being one of the vehicles used by the bombers.

Saved By The Supreme Court

2007-11-09T15:09:00.000+01:00

Agustín Díaz de Mera, the director general of the police at the time of the Madrid bombings, has had the charge against him of contempt of court dropped by the Spanish Supreme Court. Díaz de Mera was obliged during the trial to provide the name of his source for his claim that a report linking ETA to the train bombings had been suppressed. The police officer he named as his source denied in the trial ever having provided Díaz de Mera with such information. However, because he named someone it has been decided that he complied with the requirements of the court. He has been lucky; it is extremely unlikely that he had any source at all for his extravagant and completely unsubstantiated claims about the existence of this report. To get himself out of trouble it seems he just had to name anyone. He is not a policeman himself, the post he occupied was a political one, and Díaz de Mera was a trusted political collaborator of the then Interior Minister Angel Acebes.

The Victims Also Appeal

2007-11-09T14:50:00.000+01:00

The Asociación 11-M Afectados por el Terrorismo, representing many of the victims of the Madrid bombings, has announced its intention to appeal against some of the sentences. They want to appeal the decision of the court to not convict Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, and they also seek convictions for Carmen and Antonio Toro. In addition they are seeking higher sentences for Hassan el Haski, Youssef Belhadj, Rafa Zouhier, Abdelmajid Bouchar and Fouad el Morabit.

The Prosecution Appeals

2007-11-06T20:25:00.000+01:00

State prosecutors have announced today their intention to appeal against the decision of the court not to sentence Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed on the charge of belonging to a terrorist group. The courts absolved him of this charge because he has already been convicted of the same offence in Italy. The reports suggest that the appeal will argue that the circumstances of the charge in Spain are not the same as those used to convict him in Italy, and that therefore the principle of not convicting twice for the same offence need not apply. For the moment, there is no confirmation on whether the prosecutors will appeal on the lighter than expected sentences given to some others of the accused.

Hechos Probados....The Bombs On The Trains

2007-11-05T20:08:00.000+01:00

On the morning of the 11th March 2004, a total of thirteen bags containing explosive devices were placed on four commuter trains travelling on the line between Alcalá de Henares and Madrid. The bombs were timed to explode simultaneously, and ten of them exploded between 7:37 and 7:40 a.m. Eight devices were placed on the first, fourth, fifth and sixth carriages of the two trains with numbers 21431 and 17305, which departed the station of Alcalá at 7:01 and 7:04 respectively. Of these, all but that placed in the first wagon on train 21431 exploded. Three detonated in Atocha Station itself where train 21431 had stopped at platform 2. The other four exploded on train 17305 at approximately 7:39 when this train was passing by the Calle de Tellez, a few hundred metres from Atocha station.

Another four bags containing devices were placed on the train with number 21435 which departed from Alcalá at 7:10 a.m. This train was composed of two tier carriages, and two devices placed in the upper part of carriages four and five exploded at 7:38 whilst the train was in the station of El Pozo. The other two bombs, placed in the lower part of carriages two and three, did not explode. One was deactivated in the station itself and the other in the early hours of the next day in the Azorin park in the Madrid district of Vallecas. The remaining device was placed by Jamal Zougam in the fourth carriage of train number 21713, which had left Alcala at 7:14. This device exploded at 7:38 when the train was at the station of Santa Eugenia.

191 people died as a consequence of the explosions, 34 in Atocha, 63 at Calle Tellez, 65 at El Pozo, 14 at Santa Eugenia, and 15 died later in different hospitals in Madrid. In addition 1857 people were injured.

At 8:40 a.m., following removal of the dead and injured, the chief inspector of the Madrid bomb disposal squad ordered the searching of the train in Atocha station. The unexploded device in the first carriage of the train was discovered and removed from the train. At approximately 10:00 a,m. an unsuccessful attempt was made to deactivate it, resulting in a controlled explosion. Shortly before this the bomb disposal team received advice of another unexploded device found at El Pozo.

The device at El Pozo was discovered by members of the municipal police who had been instructed to search the train. Noticing cables in the bag and a mobile telephone, the bag was taken onto the platform and word was passed to advise the bomb disposal team of the discovery. The bomb disposal experts arrived at approximately 9 a.m. and the device was destroyed in a controlled explosion as part of attempts to deactivate it.

Footnote: The only person directly named in the sentence as placing a bomb is Jamal Zougam, this is based on witness identification of him given during the trial. For the rest of the bombs we do not know with any certainty which individuals from the group placed them, or at which stations the bombers boarded the trains. The timing of each explosion depended on the alarm of the mobile telephone used to activate the device, so it is possible they were all set for the same time yet exploded within a time frame of more or less three minutes.

The Map Of The Madrid Train Bombings

2007-11-04T18:50:00.000+01:00

Taking advantage of Google Maps allowing personalised maps to be included in blogs, I have started work on a map of the locations associated with the train bombings. It is a work in progress but already includes some of the principal locations. To view the information associated with the map I advise clicking on the link to expand it. Clicking on each icon provides an explanation and additional links where relevant.

Click Here For Expanded Map

Hechos Probados....How The Bombs Were Planted

2007-11-04T17:41:00.000+01:00

On March 11th 2004 three unidentified members of the terrorist cell travelled to the town of Alcalá de Henares in a white Renault Kangoo van, carrying various sports bags or rucksacks containing explosive devices. The van belonged to José Garzón Gómez, and had been stolen by unknown persons at some point between 13:00 on the 27th February 2004, and 01:00 on the following day from where it was parked at number 15 Calle Aranjuez in Madrid.

Shortly before 7:00 a.m. on the day of the bombings, the occupants of this vehicle parked it in the Calle del Infantado, a street close to the railway station. They were seen here by the caretaker of a nearby building. On leaving the vehicle, they made their way towards the station and placed an unknown number of bags containing explosive devices in various trains heading towards Madrid. At the same time other members of the group did the same, boarding the trains in unidentified stations on the route between Alcalá and Atocha station in Madrid.

One member of the group, who has not been identified beyond all doubt, was seen at approximately 7:45 a.m. changing his clothes between two huts on a building site located on the Gran Via del Este opposite the railway station of Vicálvaro. In this place abandoned clothes were found. Genetic profiles detected on these clothes included that of the accused Otman el Gnaoui.

Footnote: The Kangoo van has of course been one of the main targets for the conspiracy theorists because it was the first significant piece of evidence pointing towards Islamist responsibility for the bombings. The court has accepted it as valid evidence for the transport of some of the bombers and the devices they planted. However, this is all we know about the planting of the bombs. There were thirteen devices in total so it is reasonable to assume that other vehicles were involved as well as more than three people. This vehicle was left in Alcalá, it is not known how those planting the bombs managed to return to their homes or hiding places

Los Hechos Probados....The Members Of The Cell

2007-11-04T17:03:00.000+01:00

The sentence identifies the following people as being members of a "jihadist" terrorist cell that planned and carried out the train bombings:

Accused In The Trial:

Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed
Hassan el Haski
Youssef Belhadj
Abdelmajid Bouchar
Jamal Zougam
Basel Ghalyoun
Otman el Gnaoui
Mohamed Larbi Ben Sellam
Rachif Aglif
Mouhannad Almallah Dabas
Fouad el Morabit Amghar
Mohamed Bouharrat
Saed el Harrak
Hamid Ahmidan

Killed in the Leganés explosion:

Serhane Ben Abdelmajid
Jamal Ahmidan
Mohamed Oulad Akcha
Rachid Oulad Akcha
Abdennabi Kounjaa
Rifaat Anouar Asrih
Allekema Lamari
A still unidentified eighth person

Footnote: Not included in those listed by the sentence are suspected members of the group who escaped in the aftermath of the bombings, perhaps because the court has not been required to examine their involvement. If caught, they willl have to face trial although at least two are believed to have died in Iraq. More obviously, those involved in the supply of the explosives are also not named as part of the cell itself, as well as some other more marginal collaborators. Note the inclusion of Rabei Osman El Sayed Ahmed. Not sentenced to any prison term, he is still included in the group; which confirms the general impression that he was not sentenced as a member of a terrorist group in Spain because he has already been convicted of that offence in Italy.

Los Hechos Probados

2007-11-04T00:08:00.000+01:00

The sentence contains a section dedicated to what are known as the “hechos probados”. In layman’s terms this refers to what the court has accepted as valid and proven during the trial, and which therefore provides the basis for the court's verdict on each of the accused. Over the next few days I will summarise the content of this part of the sentence, it offers an account of events which may not be entirely complete but which is the closest we can get at this moment in time to a narrative of what happened before and after the 11th March 2004. It is a summary, not a translation, but I will not add anything to this account except additional information which helps to identify persons or locations. Any opinions I have on the hechos probados will be provided as separate footnotes in each section.

The Conspiracy Theorists May Get Their Day In Court

2007-11-03T18:33:00.000+01:00

Following the sentence in the trial, the SUP (the largest trade union representing members of the police in Spain) has announced its intention to launch legal proceedings against several those involved in promotion of the conspiracy theories about the train bombings. The conspiracy theorists have repeatedly implied police involvement in the planning or carrying out of the attacks, as well as accusing police witnesses of having lied during the trial. These attacks have even been aimed at officers who put their lives at risk in the deactivation of the unexploded bombs recovered from the trains. The general secretary of the SUP has identified as potential candidates for action the following: Ignacio Astarloa and Jaime Ignacio del Burgo of the parliamentary group of the Partido Popular, Federico Jiménez Losantos, Fernando Múgica of El Mundo and Luis del Pino, leader of the Peones Negros sect.

On Hunger Strike Against The Sentence

2007-11-03T15:58:00.000+01:00

Ten of those convicted on Wednesday for their participation in the Madrid train bombings have subsequently begun a hunger strike in protest against the sentence. The prisoners refusing food, who are now distributed around different prisons in Spain, include Jamal Zougam and Otman el Gnaoui who both received heavy sentences in the verdict; as well as Basel Ghalyoun and Fouad El Morabit. There was a hunger strike during the trial as well, but it collapsed quickly as it became clear that it would have no effect on the proceedings. It is hard to see how the current hunger strike can achieve anything for those participating.

The Sentences

2007-11-01T17:18:00.000+01:00

This is a listing of the verdict (and sentences where appropriate) for each of the 28 people who were still facing charges at the end of the trial.

Jamal Zougam – Charged by the prosecution with being a material author – one of those placing the bombs on the trains – he was found guilty and sentenced to a total of 42,922 years imprisonment based on a multiplier of the sentence of murder of 191 people and attempted murder of a further 1856.

Otman el Gnaoui – Also charged with being a material author, he was sentenced to a total of 42,924 years imprisonment

Emilio Suárez Trashorras – Found guilty of being a necessary collaborator through the provision of the explosives used in the bombs, Trashorras was sentenced to 34,715 years imprisonment. The multiplier used was based on 192 dead (including the policeman killed in Leganés) and 1991 attempted murders (this figure includes those present in the apartment block in Leganés at the time of the explosion there).

Hamid Ahmidam – Sentenced to 23 years for membership of a terrorist group and for offences related to drug trafficking.

Rachid Aglif – 18 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group and explosives offences.

Abdelmajid Bouchar – Charged as a material author by the prosecution, he was only found guilty of belonging to a terrorist group and explosives offences. Sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.

Hassan el Haski – The prosecution alleged he was an intellectual author of the bombings, one of those involved in the ideological preparation of the attacks. He was found not guilty of this offence but sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for his membership of the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group.

Basel Ghalyoun – Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist group

Mohamed Bouharrat – Also sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group.

Youssef Belhadj – Charged as an intellectual author, the court found him not guilty of that offence but sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group.

Mohamed Larbi Ben Sellam – Found guilty of belonging to a terrorist group and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Acquited on conspiracy charges.

Fouad el Morabit – Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group.

Mouhannad Almallah Dabas – Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group.

Saed el Harrak - Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group.

Rafa Zouhier – The prosecution charged him with being a necessary collaborator for his part in facilitating the supply of the explosives. The court rejected this, but sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment for explosives trafficking.

Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil – Sentenced to 9 years imprisonment for collaborating with a terrorist group.

Raúl González – Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for explosives trafficking.

Nasredine Bousbaa – Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for forgery of documents. Found not guilty of collaboration with a terrorist group.

Mahmoud Slimane Aoun – Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for forgery of official documents. He has already served this sentence whilst awaiting trial. Not guilty of collaborating with a terrorist group.

Iván Reis Palicio – Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for explosives trafficking.

Sergio Álvarez – Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for explosives trafficking.

The following defendants were found not guilty:

Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed – Charged with being an intellectual author, the court found him not guilty and given that he is already sentenced in Italy for membership of a terrorist group this charge was also dropped.

Antonio Toro – Charged by the prosecution of being a collaborator in the supply of the explosives.

Carmen Toro – Charged with explosives trafficking.

Emilio Llano – Charged with collaborating in trafficking explosives.

Mohamed Moussaten – Charged with collaboration with a terrorist group

Javier González – Charged with explosives trafficking and illicit association.

Iván Granados - Charged with explosives trafficking and illicit association.

The Trial....The Verdict Is Announced

2007-11-01T13:21:00.001+01:00

In a little over 50 minutes yesterday morning, the presiding judge Javier Gómez Bermúdez read a summary of the verdict in the trial of the 28 people still accused of having participated in the train bombings. His summary included reasons for rejecting defence allegations on procedures or evidence, a description of the court’s findings on the main evidence, details of compensation for the victims of the bombings, and the verdict on each of the accused. What follows here is my own summary, to be followed in the next few days by more detailed examination of different aspects of the verdict. There are 600 pages of the sentence to work my way through, it will take some time.

In the end only 3 of those accused have received the huge accumulated prison sentences that come from being found responsible for the murder of the 192 victims or the attempted murder of the 1841 recognised victims. Of these 3, Jamal Zougam and Otman el Gnaoui have been convicted of being material authors of the bombings; that is they were part of the group that planted the bombs on the trains. Emilio Suárez Trashorras was also sentenced as a necessary collaborator through his role in providing the explosives used in the bombs. It should be pointed out that a sentence of thousands of years in prison never means more than 40 years maximum in Spain.

Of the others found guilty, 12 have been sentenced to terms ranging from 12 to 23 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group and related offences. This group includes some, Hassan el Haski, Abdelmajid Bouchar and Youssef Belhadj, who faced potentially much larger sentences as a result of being accused of being material or intellectual authors of the bombings. Rafa Zouhier also faced charges similar to those of Trashorras, but in the end he was only sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for explosives trafficking. There were 5 other convictions with terms of 3-5 years for offences relating to explosives trafficking or forgery of documentation. In total, 21 of the 28 accused have been found guilty.

Of the 7 who were acquitted, 5 belong to the group around Trashorras and include his former wife and her brother. Mohamed Moussaten, whose brother Brahim had already had charges dropped against him, was also freed. Finally there was the headline grabbing acquittal of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, charged with being an intellectual author and facing one of the huge sentences that correspond to this charge. He receives no sentence at all in Spain having been found not guilty on the authorship charge and due to the fact that he is already serving a sentence in Italy for membership of a terrorist group.

Given that most of the accused have been found guilty, it follows that the court accepted the main arguments of the prosecution case. The sentence declares that the greater part, if not all, of the explosives used in the train bombs came from the Mina Conchita in Asturias. It accepts as valid the unexploded bomb that was recovered from one of the trains at the station of El Pozo. The Renault Kangoo van alleged to have been used to transport the bombs and the people who placed them is accepted as valid evidence, although only to the extent that it was used by the number of people (3) seen getting out of it by a witness on the morning of the bombings. The account of events that occurred in Leganés on April 3rd 2004 is accepted in full by the tribunal. Gómez Bermúdez also dedicated part of his summary to the question of ETA participation in the bombings, and what we got is a list of reports by the police demonstrating that ETA is nowhere to be found. Not a single one of the conspiracy theorist allegations on ETA involvement has been accepted by the tribunal.

What were the surprises? For me, the not-guilty verdict on the alleged “intellectual authors” is not one of them. At times during the trial I was wondering whether I had missed some key evidence that firmly demonstrated the connection of Hassan el Haski or Youssef Belhadj to the planning of the bombings. The case of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed is a little different, but as I will argue later in more detail he benefited from an effective defence, something which others amongst the accused cannot claim to have had. Both El Haski and Belhadj have been convicted on other offences, and Ahmed has escaped a similar fate because he is already imprisoned in Italy. The sentence on Adelmajid Bouchar was surprisingly light given that he was almost caught leaving the Leganés apartment, and his subsequent flight across Europe seemed to depend on a network of support. In the end there seems to be no evidence placing him on the trains. There is also some surprise about the complete acquittal of Antonio and Carmen Toro given their close relationship to Emilio Suárez Trashorras.

So the lucky ones are the Toro’s, Rafa Zouhier, Bouchar and Ahmed. The latter has had a particularly good week, with his sentence in Italy being reduced from 10 to 8 years as well. Many of the victims are understandably upset with the acquittals and lower sentences than were expected for many of the accused. However, the reality is that most of those who would have received harsh sentences for the massacre either died in Leganés or escaped. In the end the police cast their net very wide and it is hardly surprising that some of those linked by association only should walk free. Is it a good verdict? In general I think so, I’m not someone who has ever been uncritical of either the judicial system or the police, I’ve seen enough cases to persuade me that it’s always wise to critically examine their activities. However, in this case I think the court has done what it was supposed to do.

The chess players, of course, will not agree and will be tremendously disappointed with the result; not surprising given that they had actively sought the collapse of the case against the accused. As a consolation, they have seized on the absence of an identified “intellectual author”, in the upside down world of conspiracy theorist logic the freeing of someone accused of being an intellectual author means that the “real” authors are still out there somewhere. They now claim that the investigation must continue until an intellectual author is uncovered. This camouflaged retreat is accompanied by outrageously false claims that they never supported the theory of ETA involvement anyway. There will be no admission that they were wrong, those behind this shameful campaign have always known their claims were false and they will continue to try and cast doubt on the verdict in any way possible.

31st October, The Date For The Verdict

2007-10-12T12:15:00.000+02:00

It looks as if the lengthy wait for the verdict on the Madrid bombings is now almost over. It has been announced that the verdict will be delivered in a court session on the 31st October. The announcement has inevitably provoked speculation about the fate of the 28 accused, particularly concerning the 18 who are still held in prison awaiting sentence. Much of this speculation means little as there have been no reliable leaks on the deliberations of the 3 judges who make up the tribunal. However, it is possible to draw certain inferences from the process. Given that there have been no further moves to release any of the accused since the decision on Mahmoud Slimane Aoun a few weeks ago, and assuming that the announcement means the judges have finished with their deliberations, it suggests that none of those who are currently being held in prison can expect to receive a prison sentence less than double that which they have already served in the run up to the trial. Were this not the case, it would be normal for the tribunal to do what they have done in the case of Slimane Aoun and release them before the verdict is issued, as they would already have served their time in prison allowing for remission on the total sentence. This is not to say that the tribunal is necessarily obliged to follow this norm, but it would be odd to do it in one case and not in others. On those of the accused who are not in prison it is not possible to draw any inferences at all about their sentence, they could be freed or they could be given the sentence requested by the prosecution.

If there are guilty verdicts on all of those held in prison, that should mean that the judges have accepted the key allegations of the prosecution case. There has been some expectation about whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the 3 men accused of being intellectual authors of the bombings, Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, Youssef Belhadj and Hassan el Haski. In addition there will be much interest on the verdict concerning Jamal Zougam and Abdelmajid Bouchar who are both accused of being amongst the group who actually carried out the bombings. The main members of the group from Asturias accused of organising the supply of the explosives are also facing prison sentences, and heavy ones if the judges decide to accept the prosecution demands. I would not be surprised if some of those who are currently free receive light sentences for their participation, the police net was cast very wide and there are several of the accused whose involvement was at best incidental to the carrying out of the attacks. As well as bringing closure for the victims of the train bombings, the political impact of the sentence, coming only 5 months before a general election, should not be underestimated either. The arguments and decisions of the judges are going to be subjected to intense examination.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
El País
ABC

Conditional Release for Slimane Aoun

2007-09-06T23:25:00.000+02:00

Although the 3 judges who presided over the trial hearings are still continuing their deliberations, we now have the first open sign that they are reaching some firm conclusions. Mahmoud Slimane Aoun, one of the accused who was being held in prison awaiting the verdict, has been released on condition that he reports periodically to the police. The significance of this lies in the conclusions that can be drawn about the likely sentence he will receive. Most of those held in prison as a result of being charged in connection with the train bombings have been there for over 3 years. In the event of them receiving a sentence of 6-7 years or less they should be immediately released, having served over half of that time already. The fact that Slimane Aoun has not been released unconditionally is interpreted as meaning that he will receive a sentence of this magnitude, but not more. The judges are required to release unconditionally anyone who they intend to find not guilty when the final sentence is issued, and it will be interesting to see whether further similar decisions are made by the court in the next few weeks before they deliver their verdict. Mahmoud Slimane Aoun is a fairly marginal figure in the conspiracy, if he is being found guilty then it suggests that most of the accused could face a similar fate. No sooner was he freed than he found himself detained again because a deportation order was issued against him some time ago.

The Trial....Day 55, June 28th

2007-08-11T17:34:00.001+02:00

Ivan Reis Palicio

The final declarations by the defence lawyers continued in this session with that on behalf of Ivan Reis Palicio. His lawyer pointed out that some of the parties to the accusation have already withdrawn their accusation against his client. He recognised that Palicio had made a journey to Madrid in January 2004 carrying a bag on behalf of Emilio Suárez Trashorras. He made this journey because of a debt he had with Trashorras. The bag contained a box sealed with a padlock and his client handed it over on arrival in Madrid to Jamal Ahmidam. He said that there was no proof that his client had been carrying explosives in this bag. The lawyer also referred to witness testimony saying that explosives were removed from the Mina Conchita on the 23rd January, and his client had made the journey to Madrid on the 9th. Palicio believed he was transporting hashish and there are no grounds to accuse him of having trafficked with explosives.

The lawyer said that his client maintained contacts with Trashorras and Antonio Toro because he was a hashish user. His client did not form part of any organised group and was threatened by Trashorras and Toro to try and make him undertake the journey to Madrid.

Nasreddine Bousbaa

The lawyer defending Nasreddine Bousbaa said that his client had not been mentioned by any of the parties to the accusation during the trial. In his voluntary declaration to the police, Bousbaa acknowledged knowing Jamal Ahmidam, but not Rifaat Anouar or Mohamed Oulad Akcha. Following this declaration he was detained. He denied that his client had done anything to alter 3 passports that were given to him by Jamal Ahmidam, he said his client simply kept them whilst awaiting a call from Ahmidam to return them. Bousbaa has recognised being involved on other occasions in the falsification of documentation, but this was in 1999. Nothing has been found in possession of his client to indicate that he is a radical Islamist and he did not share Jamal Ahmidam’s ideology.

Documents found in the wreckage of the Leganés apartment bear no identifying marks of Bousbaa, neither fingerprints nor DNA. The lawyer said that Jamal Ahmidam possessed many false documents and had no need of Bousbaa. His client remained in Madrid after the bombings because he had nothing to fear, since 2001 he had led a normal life with his wife and 2 children. No evidence has been produced to show his membership of the group involved in the bombings and he called for Bousbaa to be found not guilty.

Hassan El Haski

The lawyer for Hassan el Haski opened his remarks by expressing respect for the victims of the bombings. He went on to say that the presumption of innocence meant that there were two requirements for finding someone guilty. Firstly, the level of proof should be sufficient that it does not depend on assumptions but on concrete facts, and that it should have been obtained by legal means. The silence of the accused cannot be interpreted as being a sign of guilt. Secondly, the result of assessment of the evidence cannot be arbitrary. The lawyer said that there was no significant evidence against his client, he did not know any of the accused and has never been in Madrid. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for him to be considered an intellectual author of the bombings.

On the evidence of the witness Attila Turk, the lawyer said that declarations were taken from this person by the French police without him having the right to see a lawyer. It might even be possible to say that he had been tortured, under such circumstances it is understandable that he might lie to relieve the pressure he was under. Other witness testimony only shows that El Haski spent time living with the witnesses. Another declaration on the structure of the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group made no reference at all to El Haski. The witness Bachir Ghoumid made clear that El Haski was not part of this organisation. On these grounds he said that his client should be freed.

Youssef Belhadj

The remaining part of the session on this day was taken up by the defence for Youssef Belhadj, also accused of being an intellectual author of the bombings. He said that the trial had not been a rigorous process, 120 people had been detained yet only 29 were accused in the end. If those who died in Leganés, together with those who had fled or who had still not been identified, were present in the trial there would be 47 accused and there would have been no need to bring charges against his client, Hassan el Haski or Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed.

The lawyer complained of the absence of an interpreter when his client only speaks Arabic or French, saying that this violated the rights of his client. Belhadj passed 1 year and 8 months knowing he was implicated in the case of the bombings, but without being able to know why. The indictment consisted of 1500 pages in Spanish, and it was impossible for Belhadj to understand it. This lawyer also complained of the secrecy surrounding the preparation of the case, saying that the lifting of this measure came too late to permit his client to properly prepare his defence.

He said that the decision of his client to participate in a brief hunger strike during the trial had been used against him, but that such an action cannot be interpreted in this way. On journeys made by Belhadj, he said that these were to do with family matters or work. On the accusation that his client came to Madrid to help prepare the attacks, the lawyer said that he was there to try and sort out papers for a residence permit. He did not flee Madrid in a hurry just before the attacks, he left by plane because it is not much more expensive than other forms of transport. The lawyer said that a call alleged to have been made to Belhadj by Mohamed Afalah was actually made to the number of Abdelmajid Bouchar.

On an incriminatory declaration made by Mohamed Moussaten, the lawyer said that this declaration was not sufficient on its own to accuse his client. Moussaten gave way under intense pressure from the police after 5 days of interrogation together with his family. He said that Belhadj had spoken of belonging to Al Qaeda. However, Moussaten had since retracted this declaration. The lawyer questioned the validity of evidence provided by the Belgian police. Evidence found in a property where his client stayed has not been proven to belong to Belhadj. Claims that documents or telephone cards belonged to Belhadj have not been substantiated. He ended by asking for Belhadj to be absolved on all charges.

Footnote: This session saw declarations in defence of 2 of those accused of being the intellectual authors of the bombings, Hassan el Haski and Youssef Belhadj. It will be interesting to see the verdict on El Haski because he has not featured strongly during the trial. The evidence against Belhadj appears stronger because of his connections both to Islamist militants and to others of the accused. It’s a tougher case to establish than against material authors as they are not accused of having actually participated in the execution of the attacks, and therefore there is no witness or DNA evidence to directly link them to the bombings.

The Trial....Day 54, June 27th

2007-08-11T17:30:00.002+02:00

Otman El Gnaoui

With closing statements form defence lawyers still continuing, this session was opened by the lawyer representing Otman el Gnaoui. This lawyer began by saying that neither the prosecution nor the other parties to the accusation had made a real evaluation of the evidence against his client, despite him being accused of being one of the material authors of the bombings. He supported the points made by other defence lawyers concerning the secrecy of the investigation and the impact this had on the preparation of the defence.

He claimed that several telephone calls said to have been made by his client were in fact made by Jamal Ahmidam. Additionally, he complained about the presence of only one expert in the elaboration of reports, saying that 2 specialists were required as a means of guaranteeing the integrity of the report. El Gnaoui recognised that he had been present in the house at Morata de Tajuña where the bombs are said to have been prepared. He was there working on the house as a result of his contacts with a brother of Jamal Ahmidam. He said that his client did not associate with the others at the property and was only there for one month. The telephone conversations he had with Ahmidam were all connected with the purchase of materials for work at the house. El Gnaoui did not know Ahmidam before going to work at the house.

On the clothes discovered abandoned on the day of the bombings near Vicálvaro railway station, he said that the DNA traces on these belonged to several people, not just to his client. Regarding documentation of his that went missing, El Gnaoui has already declared that this loss occurred in a discotheque. His client had no way of knowing that any of his actions might be involved with the commission of an offence. He finished by saying that his client was not an Islamist and did not hate Spain; he was simply in the wrong place accompanied by the wrong people. The lawyer called for him to be found not guilty.

Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil

The lawyer for Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil opened his statement by saying that the judicial authorisation for entry and search of his client’s home was invalid. During this search he claimed that no evidence was found incriminating his client. He was interrogated by the police without a lawyer present.

On the accusation that El Akil took over Jamal Ahmidam's drug trafficking activities whilst Ahmidam was in Morocco, he claimed that even if this were true it demonstrates nothing about his participation in the train bombings. Nor does the involvement of his client in the work carried out at the house in Morata de Tajuña imply his involvement in the bombings. Being a friend of a terrorist does not convert someone into a terrorist too. Concerning the charge that El Akil took care of repairing Ahmidam's cars, the lawyer said that this happened only once. He said that El Akil is not a religious person and is not known in the mosque. Being charged with membership of a terrorist organisation means acceptance and knowledge of the objectives of that organisation by the person accused. His client knew nothing of the plans of Jamal Ahmidam.

Mohamed Bouharrat

The lawyer for Mohamed Bouharrat began by saying she would not enter into detail on the faults of the process, because other defence lawyers had already done so. She said that only the prosecution and one of the parties to the accusation had made any reference to her client. She complained of attempts in the trial to criminalise Islam and to pass judgements on the behaviour of its followers.

On the accusation made that it was not clear how Bouharrat made a living, she said the defence had provided information on the companies where he had worked. She pointed out that her client did not follow the hunger strike initiated by some of the other accused. Of all the telephone records presented, there are no calls made by Bouharrat to any of the others accused of involvement. On the question of some passport size photographs made by her client, she said this does not mean they were to be used in false documents. On a document found in the wreckage of the Leganés apartment and attributed to Bouharrat she said that this document was in very bad condition. A witness declaration claiming to have seen Bouharrat with Mohamed Afalah on April 26th 2004 could not be correct, it has been shown that Afalah fled Spain immediately following the events in Leganés on the 3rd April 2004. Her client has not attended any of the meetings cited by the prosecution, and nothing else relates him to those committing the bombings.

The absence of proof of any involvement of her client in the group responsible meant that he could not be found guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation. She finished by noting that she herself knows the mosque in Lavapies in Madrid, she knew several of the accused from before the bombings and has frequented places associated with the accused. Perhaps on that basis she suggested that there is more evidence against her than against Bouharrat.

Saed el Harrak

The lawyer for Saed el Harrak began by complaining that he was given a week to prepare the defence case. He said that his client was religious and had never hidden that fact. He was married with 2 children and despite what the prosecution had said he was a hard working person. He had got to know Abdennabi Kounjaa because they coincided in the same mosque in Parla, near to Madrid. The wife of Kounjaa accompanied that of El Harrak on a visit to a gynaecologist. He said that Kounjaa had used his clients telephone to make several calls on a journey they made together to leave a car in a garage.

On a farewell message written by Kounjaa that was allegedly found in a bag belonging to El Harrak, the lawyer said that this message was not found by anyone checking the bag until it reached the main investigation team. He said that the authorship of the message was doubtful, not least because it was written in Latin script. He claimed the detention of his client was illegal, and that El Harrak has not been identified in relation to any of the locations associated with the bombings. The accusation of El Harrak belonging to the group responsible since 2001 has not been sustained and the lawyer stated that telephone contacts are not sufficient for someone to be arrested. He called for his client to be freed.

Carmen Toro

The lawyer for Carmen Toro began by saying that Toro was only 20 years old at the time of the train bombings and that her reaction to the pressure of being linked to the bombings shows that she is not a mature person. Despite this, she has no criminal history and worked full-time. The lawyer also emphasised that Toro was married to someone suffering mental illness, Emilio Suárez Trashorras. On phone calls attributed to Carmen Toro, the lawyer said that she left her mobile telephone at home while she was at work and that it could easily have been used by her husband to make calls. The testimony of the police contact of Trashorras made it clear that Toro was not at the centre of her husbands activities. Those of the accused who know who she is knew her only by sight. Carmen Toro never dealt with Rafa Zouhier or Jamal Ahmidam and her presence in meetings related to the sale of the explosives was only because she accompanied her husband to Madrid.

A phrase she is alleged to have said in a police station asking her husband to leave her out of what he told the police had been taken out of context. Without Carmen Toro, nothing would have changed in the preparation of the attacks as she had no function in this and knew nothing about the explosives trafficking. As a woman, she would not be allowed to participate in a conspiracy by radical Islamists.

Emilio Llano Álvarez

The representative for Emilio Llano Álvarez opened by expressing solidarity with the victims of the bombings and stating that he requested the absolution of his client on the grounds of lack of evidence. He said that his client was charged with having failed to properly control the usage of explosives in the Mina Conchita, from where the explosives used in the bombs are said to have come. The lawyer claimed that his client had simply followed the same procedures used by his predecessor and that his refusal to declare proves nothing. It is not true that his client was solely responsible for controlling the material used in the mine. Inspections had never revealed more than small errors in the control carried out at the mine. If there was a failure in control of the explosives, this failure can also be attributed to the Guardia Civil and the management of the mine.

The lawyer said that there is no evidence that the bombs on the trains used explosives from Mina Conchita, and that the case rests on leftovers recovered from the Leganés apartment. It is not possible to state definitively that the explosives found in Leganés came from Mina Conchita, they can only be traced as far as the company that delivers to several mines. There is no evidence to suggest his client knew about the removal of explosives from the mine. Although his client knew Trashorras, this was only because the latter had worked in the same mine.

Adelmajid Bouchar

The lawyer for Abdelmajid Bouchar opened by saying that no witness had placed his client at the scenes connected with the bombings. His DNA had not been found in the vehicles believed to have been used, or on the clothing recovered at Vicálvaro railway station. A witness identification had since been retracted. He said their was no telephone traffic recorded between Bouchar and the other accused, nor was Bouchar recorded as being present at the Madrid property of Virgen del Coro. Nor did he attend the meetings to do the deal over the explosives. He had not been named by any of the key witnesses familiar with Islamist activities. His fingerprints were detected on a book recovered from the wreckage of the Leganés apartment.

He stated that the participation of Bouchar as a material author of the bombings had not been substantiated, nor could he be considered as a participant in the Leganés events as he left the building well before the explosion. On the DNA identification made on a date stone found in a rubbish bag abandoned by Bouchar as he fled, his representative said that the test was not carried out until 2005 after his client was arrested in Serbia. No clothes or fingerprints belonging to Bouchar were discovered in the apartment, because his lawyer said that he was never present in this apartment. On this basis he asked for his client to be absolved.

Footnote: The cases of Bouharrat, El Akil, and El Harrak are hard to call; these are people on the fringes of the case whose level of participation in the bombings is not absolutely clear. Another fine example of defence work by Bouharrat’s lawyer, her closing argument against guilt by association based on who you know was well worked. El Gnaoui’s defence is more difficult, he is more closely associated by evidence to the preparation and carrying out of the bombings. It will be very surprising if Bouchar is freed, almost caught as he fled the Leganés apartment and only arrested after passing through half of Europe, it seems hard to imagine that he will escape punishment. The verdict on Carmen Toro will also be interesting, the charges against her have been increased as a result of the trial as her involvement appeared to be greater than initially expected. Either an unknowing bystander involved through family connections or a player in her husband’s attempts to traffic explosives. Meanwhile, the prosecution of Emilio Llano seems one of the most doubtful, clearly the control of explosives in the mine was appalling but that does still not make someone an accessory to a terrorist attack. Nor was he the only person responsible for that situation.

The Trial....Day 53, June 22nd

2007-08-11T17:30:00.001+02:00

Rafa Zouhier

The day began with the declaration by the lawyer representing Rafa Zouhier, accused of being the key intermediary in the sale of the explosives to those who carried out the bombings. As with other defence statements, this lawyer claimed that the right to defence had been violated, this time by the refusal of the prosecution to call as witnesses some of those cited in declarations by Emilio Suárez Trashorras and Carmen Toro. The lawyer also challenged the validity of the tests and specialist reports concerning the explosives used in the bombings.

He stated Zouhier was arrested on the 9th April 2004 and suffered pressure from the police. The prosecution accuses him of trafficking with explosives, yet the tests on the explosives are not reliable. This lawyer claimed that it could have been Titadine used in the bombs. He said there were also grounds for suspicion about the unexploded bomb discovered in Puente de Vallecas police station. The chain of custody was not clear, nor was it clear where this bomb had come from. Concerning the Kangoo van discovered near Alcalá railway station on the day of the bombings there are also problems; the sniffer dogs inspecting it detected no explosives and the witness who saw men getting out of the vehicle had changed his declaration.

Zouhier has been accused of making the introduction between Jamal Ahmidam and Trashorras, the lawyer said that Trashorras had done military service in Ceuta and could have made contacts there. He had also admitted to drug deals with people from Ceuta. Zouhier had informed his police controller about everything he knew and at the meeting held in a branch of McDonalds, Zouhier was only present to protect Trashorras because he had not paid for some hashish. The meeting was arranged to discuss drugs, not explosives, as has been declared by Rachid Aglif. There were others who could have told Ahmidam where to obtain Goma 2 Eco dynamite, Trashorras was very friendly with Ahmidam. Trashorras and Antonio Toro did not need intermediaries, they were openly offering explosives.

This lawyer claimed that evidence had been fabricated, and that the testimony on telephone calls was not accurate. Regarding an incident where Zouhier is said to have injured himself testing a detonator, he said that the witness testimony on this was from a resentful former girlfriend of Zouhier. He said that Zouhier did not intervene in the sale of the explosives, nor did he go to Asturias. He did not know Jamal Ahmidam, only Rachid Aglif. The only armed group his client knows is the Civil Guard, and Zouhier informed them of what he knew. The police did nothing with this information. He finished by saying that everyone was against Zouhier.

Mouhannad Almallah Dabas

The lawyer for Mouhannad Almallah Dabas began by stating that there was nothing in the trial to demonstrate the charge that Almallah Dabas was linked to an Al-Qaeda cell led by Abu Dahdah. His client was detained in the Madrid street of Virgen del Coro together with Basel Ghalyoun and Fouad el Morabit. He was imprisoned on the charge of having helped to finance terrorist activities and was accused of providing false documentation to assist those who fled. Additionally, he has been accused of belonging to the movement Takfir Wal Hijra.
He said that his client recognised knowing Abu Dahdah, Serhane ben Abdelmajid , Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, as well as Ghalyoun and El Morabit. On the accusation that Almallah Dabas travelled frequently to London to meet with other Islamists, the lawyer said that he made these journeys because his brother Moutaz was living there. He made a reference to the testimony against his client by his ex partner concerning the allegation that he gave her passport to someone who wanted to leave Spain. He said that the witness was motivated by resentment and hatred because she had been thrown out by Almallah Dabas. He also said that much emphasis had been placed on an alleged meeting between his client and Jamal Zougam in Tangiers, but that this was a very brief meeting between the 2 men and was not followed up by any other similar encounter.

The lawyer said that the property at Virgen del Coro was under police surveillance, yet no identification was made of the inhabitants before the detention of Ghalyoun and El Morabit. Concerning prints of Almallah Dabas said to have been found in cars connected with the bombings, the lawyer said that these cars were full of all kinds of stuff. He criticised the qualifications of witnesses who had declared that the words of a Koranic tape had been written down by Almallah Dabas. On a CD that was found at Virgen del Coro and which allegedly showed the effects of an explosion on a building, the lawyer said that in reality it was an architects representation of a building design. He ended by saying that the only crime his client had committed was being the “father of the bride”, or the landlord. He asked for Almallah Dabas to be absolved on all charges.

Hamid Ahmidam

Next to declare was the lawyer representing Hamid Ahmidam, who began by questioning the legality of the process given the secrecy that surrounded the preparation of the prosecution case. Regarding the accusation of drugs trafficking against Ahmidam, his representative said that the proof of this was based on drugs found in the property that his client shared with his cousin Hicham. He also claimed that the search of this property was not legal. Concerning the decision of Ahmidam not to declare, he said that this was a fundamental right.

Referring to the accusations against his client, he said that Hamid Ahmidam had lived with Hicham, the brother of Jamal Ahmidam, because he was temporarily unemployed. On the claim that he participated in construction of a cavity for storing explosives at the house in Morata de Tajuña, the lawyer said that Hamid was only there as a worker alongside Otman el Gnaoui. He had contacts with his cousin (Jamal Ahmidam) but was not part of the group organising the bombings, and no evidence has been produced to show otherwise.

Antonio Toro

The final declaration on this day was made by the lawyer representing Antonio Toro, who declared his client to be innocent and to have nothing to hide. The lawyer claimed that several witnesses had lied to the court about the connection between the bombers and the Asturian group accused of supplying the explosives. He said that Rafa Zouhier had attempted to implicate several people, including Toro. Concerning the allegation that it was Toro who introduced Zouhier to Emilio Suárez Trashorras, the lawyer said this was incorrect. Trashorras is the only one who has said that explosives were discussed in the meeting held in a Madrid branch of Mcdonalds. Toro only attended one of these meetings to protect his sister Carmen, former wife of Trashorras. Toro did not want to see his sister involved in the problems that Trashorras had with the others.

The lawyer denied that Toro had pressured Iván Reis Palicio to transport explosives to Madrid in return for cancelling a debt. He said that Toro had distanced himself from Trashorras following the Madrid meeting, and that there was no association between the 2 men. The evidence of telephone calls does not implicate his client, those between Toro and his sister always coincided with family events. There is no evidence of direct contacts between his client and Jamal Ahmidam. There was no need for his cooperation for Zouhier to get in contact with Trashorras, nor was his presence necessary for the carrying out of the attacks. For these reasons, the lawyer called for Toro to be found not-guilty.

Footnote: With today’s session we are a bit closer to the heart of what went on prior to the bombings. My guess is that Zouhier, Toro and Almallah Dabas are all in big trouble. Zouhier has seen his role magnified during the trial from being a mere intermediary to that of someone who was more actively involved in the sale of the explosives. Another police informer, his claim that the police were informed of everything he knew was not backed up during the trial. Toro is too established as a sidekick of Trashorras in their joint trafficking efforts to hope to escape by saying that they were no longer close. He may not have had the same protagonism as the other man, but my feeling is that he will share the same verdict as Trashorras. Almallah Dabas is probably too closely associated with everything that happened at the property of Virgen del Coro for his allegedly non religious lifestyle to save him – he has suffered severe damage from witness testimony in the trial. Hamid Ahmidam could suffer because of his family relationship to Jamal Ahmidam, but he has not featured heavily in the trial as a key player in the group preparing the bombings.

The Trial....Day 52, June 21st

2007-08-03T19:42:00.001+02:00

Today’s session was entirely taken up by the statement of the lawyer representing Emilio Suárez Trashorras, who is accused of being behind the sale of the explosives used in the train bombs. Like other defence lawyers, the representative of Trashorras complained about the secrecy surrounding the investigation of the bombings, saying that what is supposed to be an exceptional state became a permanent one. He said that this secrecy violated the right of his client to defend himself. The lawyer complained about the presentation of police reports as expert evidence. He also complained about the role played by the press, saying that it was not the role of the media to dictate sentence. He said that Islam had been presented as an enemy in the trial, with questions on whether someone prayed or went to a mosque.

Moving on to the accusations against his client, he said that there had been many references in the trial to Operación Pipol, which he said was a drugs trafficking case involving 17 accused. All were found guilty of drugs trafficking, but only Trashorras and Antonio Toro also received a sentence for explosives trafficking. He said that Trashorras became involved after being urged to do so by the police. He claimed there was a tape showing that the police were aware of everything going on in the case. In 2001 Trashorras did not know Rafa Zouhier, accused of being the key contact in the sale of the explosives, but that Antonio Toro did. He said that there were hundreds of telephone calls between Trashorras and his police controller, and that Trashorras told this officer about Jamal Ahmidam. When Trashorras went to the house rented by Ahmidam in Morata de Tajuña in February 2004, he had already advised his police controller the day before.

He said that in Asturias there was widespread knowledge about dynamite because it was a common tool used by miners in their work. The use of dynamite was always charged to the miner in private mines such as that where the explosives are said to have come from. Goma 2 Eco is used in 17 mines belonging to the company that owns the Mina Conchita, yet the prosecution claims to be certain that the stolen explosive came from Mina Conchita. There is no proof of the quantity of explosive that was taken from Mina Conchita. The lawyer claimed that those of the accused who transported bags to Madrid on behalf of Trashorras were carrying hashish. Concerning the testimony of Gabriel Montoya, the minor already convicted for his involvement in the explosives theft, he said that this person had changed his testimony in return for prosecution favours.

He said that his client has admitted to telling Jamal Ahmidam that there were mines where explosives could be obtained. But he also advised his police controller about this. Trashorras only told Ahmidam where he could obtain dynamite, he did not participate in its removal. His client had no way of knowing that Jamal Ahmidam was a terrorist. He said that the charge of collaborating with a terrorist organisation required knowledge of what the group was doing and Trashorras was not even aware of the existence of a terrorist group. He did not become aware of this until after the train bombings.

On the mental state of his client, the lawyer said that the retirement of his client from the mine as a result of mental illness was certified. The State granted him a pension on the basis of permanent incapacity for work. His client suffers from paranoid schizophrenia which affects his personality, and that this condition should be taken into account by the court. He asked for his client to be absolved of all charges against him.

Footnote: Trashorras is in deep trouble. The evidence presented in the trial on the theft of the explosives is not even challenged by those who would have us believe that everything is a setup. Even his own defence does not seriously challenge the accusation that substantial quantities of explosives were taken from the Mina Conchita. He is facing charges as serious as those accused of having participated actively in the bombings, and unless the judges decide to take into account the question of his mental health it doesn't look promising for him. There are serious questions marks over the actions of those in the police who were in contact with him, but I would be surprised if any of that was enough to save him.

The Trial....Day 51, June 20th

2007-08-03T19:41:00.000+02:00

Raúl González

The trial continued its final stage with further closing declarations on behalf of the accused. First to appear in this session was the lawyer representing Raúl González Peláez. He began by commenting on the open nature of the trial, and then made a special mention of the victims of the bombings, commending those attending the trial for the restraint they have shown. On behalf of his client, he said that the secrecy imposed during the investigation had affected the right of the accused to defend themselves. His client was unable to find out why he was being held in prison awaiting trial. None of the accused had made references to his client and the only evidence presented against him was a single telephone call. The fact that González had not declared or answered questions was not to be taken as an indication of guilt.

On the telephone evidence against his client, the lawyer said that there was only one short call to Emilio Suárez Trashorras. His client was not working in the mine at the time of the explosives theft and had no relation to any earlier activities by those accused of trafficking with stolen explosives. The lawyer criticized the police handling of information they had received prior to the bombings. He also mentioned the lack of control over the consumption of explosives in the mines, and the lack of security. Anyone could get access to the explosives that had been left out in the open. His client has been imprisoned for 2 years and is unemployed, those who pay for the attacks should be those who committed them but his client should be freed.

Mohamed Moussaten

The next defence lawyer to declare was that acting on behalf of Mohamed Moussaten. This lawyer questioned the legality of the police interrogation of his client, and said that he was never given an explanation for being held in isolation. Moussaten was detained in together with his father, mother and brother. He was held for 4 days without adequate food or drink, and he was threatened with being sent to Morocco if he did not declare. He was only 19 years old at the time of his detention. Because of the pressure he was under, his declaration to the police lacks validity.

This lawyer also attacked the secrecy that surrounded the investigation, saying that this prejudiced the ability of the defence to prepare its case. They were not given access to evidence against the accused and the trial commenced without the detail of the accusation being fully known. The police case against his client is based on suspicion, with the claim that Mohamed and his brother met with Youssef Belhadj between 2001 and 2003. It is claimed that in searching Moussaten’s home a photocopy was found of the passport belonging to Mohamed Afalah. The basis of the accusation is that Mohamed and his brother are nephews of Belhadj, but that this proves nothing. No proof has been provided of a link between the Moussaten family and the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group. His client has declared that his uncle came to Madrid in search of work and that he never talked to Mohamed about jihad, nor did he say that he belonged to Al-Qaeda. He said that the relationship between the 2 men was strictly a family one.

Finally he said that even if Youssef Belhadj was guilty as charged this did not mean that Moussaten had been collaborating with an armed group, or that he formed part of an illicit group whose existence has not even been demonstrated. Moussaten has not been shown to have been in any of the significant sites associated with the bombings and no objective evidence links him to the bombings.

Basel Ghalyoun

The following declaration was made by his lawyer on behalf of Basel Ghalyoun who opened his remarks with an expression of condolence to the victims. He said that the prosecution had invented theories to make everything fit into place. He compared what had happened in the trial with Guantánamo or the activities of Goebbels in Nazi Germany, or even with the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama. He criticised the number of samples from the explosion sites and the destruction of the remains of the trains where the bombs exploded and said that the trial was not valid.

He pointed to the absence of suicide terrorists in the bombings, and the absence of links between the accused and Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He claimed that both of his clients, Ghalyoun and Jamal Zougam, had shown a deep respect for the law and the court that was judging them. The prosecution had not proved anything, not even what exploded on the trains; he criticised the suggestion that the explosives samples had been contaminated. On the witness identification of his client, he said that it was now recognised by the witness that this person was in fact Daoud Ouhnane. Ghalyoun did not know Jamal Ahmidam, nor was he involved in indoctrination sessions. On the alleged relationship between Ghalyoun and Fouad el Morabit he said that they both went together to the mosque. Nobody can be imprisoned for listening to a speech. He said that in the months before the attacks the only interest of Ghalyoun was finding work. He said that the witness who claimed to have seen his client at meetings in the house in the street of Virgen del Coro was mistaken. He said that it was unbelievable that the police could not have prevented the attacks given that they were watching the house at Virgen del Coro.

He claimed Ghalyoun had always been cooperative, and had nothing to hide. He said it was claimed that his client was the owner of telephones that did not belong to him. He stated that the cap found in Leganés with DNA from his client must have been taken there by Rifaat Anouar, no fingerprints belonging to Ghalyoun were found in Leganés. He said that there were doubts over the detection of the Leganés apartment and the explosive used there, and concluded by saying his client should be freed.

Fouad El Morabit

The defence lawyer for Fouad el Morabit began his remarks by emphasising that his client was a normal person, and that the trial had violated basis rights of the accused. His client had suffered torture and threats at the hands of the police. The secrecy of the investigation had prejudiced the right to defence as they were not given time to properly prepare their defence. Much of the case against El Morabit comes from the declarations of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed and in the end this comes down to one phone call from El Sayed. His client has been accused of being one of the leaders of the group involved in the bombings, yet he did not flee after the bombings, even after being arrested the first time.

He said that El Morabit does not belong to any armed group and the way in which the accusation has been presented is not serious. He said that the accused were being criminalised because of their religion and the places they frequented, this is not sufficient to justify the charges against them. Calls to his client from others allegedly involved had been attributed to certain individuals when the phones used could have been in the possession of others. Accusations concerning El Morabit’s presence in the house in the street of Virgen del Coro come from witnesses whose knowledge is second hand. On the presence of Rifaat Anouar at the property on the day of the bombings, he said that Anouar had his own keys having lived there previously. He asked for his client to be absolved of all charges against him.

Footnote: A mixture of declarations, between those who have minor roles in the supply of the explosives, and those who get us closer to the group alleged to have committed the bombings. Even so, the case against Ghalyoun and El Morabit is not absolutely clear; even given their evident proximity to many of the accused. The case against Moussaten is not strong at all, especially given that his brother has already had charges dropped against him. Note the difference in approach by the lawyer for Ghalyoun, who has been one of those principally involved in attempting to introduce the conspiracy theories into the trial. He begins by forgetting his client and launching into the full range of conspiracy theory insinuations. Then finally he remembers his supposed role and attempts to actually defend his client. Both Ghalyoun and Jamal Zougam have been poorly served, guilty or not, by having a defence lawyer whose main interest has not been presenting their defence. The story of how this lawyer came to be their representative should be told some day, he was not appointed by rota.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - Ghalyoun, González, Moussaten

The Trial....Day 50, June 19th

2007-08-03T19:21:00.000+02:00

This session in the trial saw the end of the final statements by parties to the accusation, and the beginning of those made by defence lawyers for the accused. The first statement was made on behalf of Guillermo Pérez Ajates. His lawyer made a favourable comparison between the actions of Spanish police in relation to the train bombings and the 11th September attacks in the US. Support was given to the accusation as made by the prosecution, the lawyer said that behind the accused was Al Qaeda and that the attacks were carried out as revenge using Spanish participation in Iraq and Afghanistan as a pretext.

On the issue of the explosives used in the bombs, the presence of dinitrotoluene in samples that were tested must be due to contamination and there is no reason to believe that Titadine was the explosive used. The bombs were assembled in the house in Morata de Tajuña rented by Jamal Ahmidam and they were taken to Alcalá de Henares on the day of the bombings using stolen vehicles. The lawyer also said that there was no justification for continuing to talk about ETA involvement in the attacks, given the terrorist threats to Spain a clear sentence was needed.

The prosecution case was also backed by the representative of Maria Jesus Pérez Diaz, who said that this person no longer travelled in train as a result of the attacks and that the victims should be compensated rapidly. The lawyer representing Ana Isabel González Pizcos and others said that they supported the conclusions already presented by the Asociación 11-M Afectados del Terrorismo. The lawyer rejected speculation on the issue of the explosives pointing out that there was evidence that both Goma 2 Eco and its predecessor Goma 2 EC could have been used. The possibility of contamination in the factory or the mine could not be ruled out. The accused and those who died in the Leganés explosion together formed a terrorist conspiracy. The lawyer defended the way in which the bomb disposal unit, the Tedax, had gone about their work; saying they had done what they are supposed to do when dealing with explosives. He said that there were several cases of ETA bombings where the exact composition of the explosive used was unknown.

On the question of ETA involvement, he said that the modus operandi of the bombers meant that there was doubt from the beginning about ETA involvement. ETA members have always acted as single commandos and almost always advise about their bombs in advance. ETA does not use common criminals to steal cars or explosives. Nothing links ETA to the bombings.

The lawyer representing Celestina Piris Méndez offered support to the prosecution case, saying that the events of the 11th March were the result of actions carried out by a cell composed of those facing charges. This representative said that they considered Otman el Gnaoui to be one of the material authors of the bombings as they considered it proven that he travelled on the trains. He criticised the lack of preparation for such an attack on the part of the authorities, and the lack of control over the mine where the explosives are said to have come from. He then attacked those supporting conspiracy theories for implying that those who did not support such theories were not interested in the truth.

The last party to the accusation presenting conclusions was that on behalf of Ramón Matamoros López, and supported the conclusions presented by the prosecution. The lawyer said that they requested an increase in the sentence for Carmen Toro because of her active participation in the sale of the explosives. They also wished to maintain the accusation against Javier González Díaz, withdrawn by the prosecution team. This lawyer also emphasised failures on the part of the state in the period before the bombings.

The Defence Statements Begin

The trial now moved on to the final statements on behalf of the accused, beginning with that of Rachid Aglif. His lawyer expressed sympathy for the victims of the bombings and said that the trial had become politicised. He said that if his client was on trial for being religious, then he must be absolved. Those who coincided in the prison of Villabona made their deals without the participation of his client. He said that his client was asked by Rafa Zouhier to attend a meeting held at a branch of McDonalds in Madrid. According to this lawyer, behind the presence of Zouhier and Emilio Suárez Trashorras was that of their police controllers. It is absurd to believe that this meeting was the only event leading to the bombings. When another meeting took place in Moncloa his client was in Malaga. He declared that his client was innocent and that he was never the right hand man of Jamal Ahmidam, as alleged by the prosecution.

Aglif's lawyer questioned whether it was even possible to talk of the existence of a terrorist group in connection with the bombings; nobody can be accused of collaborating with such a group if the existence of the group itself has not been proven. He accepted that the explosives used in the bombs came from Asturias but said that there was no proof of them being handed over. His client had been a friend of Jamal Ahmidam, but could not be condemned for this. The police had opportunities to arrest Ahmidam before the bombings. The bombs could have been placed during the night when the trains were out of service. He finished by saying that a partial truth is worse than a lie.

The next defence lawyer appeared on behalf of Sergio Álvarez Sánchez. He said that his client was 22 years old at the time of the bombings and had no criminal record. He was promised €600 by Emilio Suárez Trashorras in return for taking a box of "DVD's" to Madrid, which was understood by his client to be a coded reference to hashish. On arrival in Madrid he had to wait 45 minutes until a person unknown to him arrived to collect the box. There is no evidence that his client carried out any other task at the request of Trashorras, either before or after the bombings. His client does not know Carmen or Antonio Toro, or Rafa Zouhier or any Islamists. He said that his client first got to know Trashorras in January 2004.There is no evidence that Álvarez knew what he was transporting and he asked the court to absolve his client from the charges against him.

The lawyer on behalf of Javier González Díaz brought this day's session to a close. The prosecution has withdrawn charges against his client, but other parties to the accusation maintain them. He said that his client got to know Trashorras as a result of car sales, as González is a mechanic. His client did not know about Trashorras' illegal activities. He said that an accusation cannot be sustained on suspicion alone and that his client was not involved in the theft of the explosives. He said his client should be compensated for losing his job and having to pay expenses related to the trial.

Footnote: The trial has now moved into its final stage as the defence lawyers make their closing pleas. This day saw statements from some of the bit part players in the bombings, those who are accused of having been involved in some way without being necessarily being part of the main core of the group carrying out the bombings.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
El Mundo - Rachid Aglif
ABC - Defence Statements

Awaiting Sentence

2007-07-12T20:15:00.001+02:00

Although it may not always seem like it, this blog is still being updated. Heavy personal commitments in June meant that the "production team" fell further behind than usual in recording the trial sessions. The trial came to an end at the beginning of last week, and the 3 judges have now to make their deliberations and deliver a sentence for the 28 defendants who remain accused of participating in the train bombings. In the next 2-3 weeks the backlog of trial sessions will be documented, and I will have some time to consider the possible outcome as the verdict is not expected before the autumn.

The Trial....Day 49, June 18th

2007-07-07T11:28:00.001+02:00

The session on this day continued the closing declarations by parties to the accusation against the accused. First to declare was the lawyer Juan Carlos Rodríguez Segura, representing “Angeles Pedraza Portero and others”. This lawyer thanked the court, and all of those involved in helping on the day of the bombings. He then turned to the criticisms made against some parties to the accusation, and said that there was nothing more beautiful than the search for the truth. Rodríguez Segura said that the train bombings had been presented as a consequence of the war and the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq. He claimed that Spain had not gone to war, the country provided humanitarian assistance only.

He said that there are serious doubts about Al-Qaeda being behind the attacks, the accused were a mixture of common criminals, police informers and drug traffickers. On the question of ETA involvement he claimed that this had not been investigated, those accused did not have the resources to carry out the attacks. He went on to state that there were grounds for nullifying the process, the investigation had been directed in one line only and had only set out to demonstrate the “official” truth. The evidence of declarations and tracking of telephone calls was not being questioned, but there was doubt over the explosive used and the chain of custody of key evidence. Rodríguez said that the search for those really behind the attack had been obstructed, and that we should ask who benefited from the train bombings.

He claimed that the Skoda Fabia car alleged to have been used by those placing the bombs was placed after the bombings, and not by the police. There was a fourth group involved in the bombings that placed key evidence after the attacks. He also said there were doubts about the Renault Kangoo van discovered on the day of the bombings because the sniffer dogs failed to detect explosive traces in the van. On the unexploded bomb discovered in Puente de Vallecas police station he said that this is the base for the assertion that the explosive used was Goma 2 Eco. No evidence had been found at the explosion sites of mobile telephones having been used to activate the bombs and it is not clear that the batteries of such phones carried sufficient power to do this. The chain of custody on the Vallecas bomb is not clear.

On the explosives used, the lawyer said that it was fundamental to know the weapon used in order to determine the authors of the bombings. All of the investigations had been oriented towards demonstrating the use of Goma 2 Eco, the analysis carried out by the bomb disposal squad after the bombings is questionable and there are a series of indications pointing to the involvement of others not present in the trial. On the issue of whether the explosives samples tested had been contaminated, he said that the possibility of this occurring in the factory had to be discarded. The issue of Titadine being the explosive had been avoided, because it points to ETA involvement. He declared that the association he represents did not believe that Goma 2 Eco was the explosive used on the trains.

They withdraw their accusation against Jamal Zougam, the witness identifications are not sufficiently clear. On the explosion in Leganés, Rodríguez said that here there was no doubt about the use of Goma 2 Eco and that those who died in the apartment were participants in the train bombings; but that there was another organisation involved. Those accused did not have the organisational capacity to plan these attacks without the support of another structure. On the Asturian group accused of supplying the explosives, he said the involvement of Antonio Toro and Emilio Suárez Trashorras in explosives trafficking was known to the police in 2001. This should have been investigated at the time. They maintain their accusation against the Asturian group, but only for the deaths in Leganés.

Rodríguez maintained that there was a connection between ETA and the explosives, saying that “ETA is not pardoned, we know they were involved and that’s it; but we don’t have the proof”. He also said that they were not convinced by the evidence against Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, and that he had already been tried in Italy. Finally he requested that the testimony of the former chief of the bomb disposal squad, Sánchez Manzano, and the officer responsible for the initial tests on the explosives be discarded.

Next came the statement from the lawyer representing Isabel Pinto Libramiento. His client is a surviving victim of the bombings. Her lawyer supported most of the prosecution conclusions except for 4 specific points. They want to maintain the accusation against Javier González Díaz because of his close links to Emilio Suárez Trashorras. They also seek a stiffer sentence for Carmen Toro for her involvement in the explosives sale, and for her brother Antonio Toro because of his role as the initial contact in the deal. The lawyer criticised the way in which the explosives analysis was carried out, and said that it was not possible to be sure that the explosive used was Goma 2 Eco.

Alvaro Sanz Marlasca made a closing declaration on behalf of Mario Pelicari and Remedios López Osa García, whose son was on one of the trains that were bombed. He said that the bombings were the product of exhaustive planning, several cells linked to Al Qaeda operated in Spain. This lawyer placed emphasis on meetings that were organised to recruit for the Islamist cause, and that out of these meetings emerged the group led by Youssef Belhadj and Hassan el Haski. He also mentioned the evidence of telephone communications linking many of the accused. In addition to this core group he said there was a group dedicated to forgery of documents, drug trafficking, car theft and murder. The funding for the attacks came from these activities.

He said that Rafa Zouhier was involved in all of the meetings where the explosives deal was arranged and played a fundamental role in linking the Islamists and the Asturian group supplying the dynamite. Carmen Toro was important as a point of contact between several of the accused, and had a coordinating role. Both suppliers and transporters of the explosives should be found guilty.

Gonzalo Boyé spoke on behalf of Angélica Maria Geria Cortés. He gave partial support to the prosecution case. On the question of whether Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed had been subjected to trial twice for the same offence, Boyé rejected the suggestion saying that the crime he was charged of in Italy could not be compared to the charges against him in Spain. He rejected claims by others of the accused that they had not been given the opportunity of a fair trial. Additionally, he attacked the idea that those accused were just poor immigrants or that it is Islam that is on trial. They are charged because of the danger of their actions as a combined unit. He criticised some of the accused for exercising a partial right to silence, answering questions when they wanted to. He said this could not be compared to the right to not declare.

Concerning the brief hunger strike undertaken by some of the accused he said that this was an attempt at blackmail by Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, Youssef Belhadj and Hassan el Haski. Boyé said that the accusation he represents believes that El Sayed Ahmed arrived in Spain just before the bombings to give the last touches to the plan together with Belhadj and El Haski. Of the other accused, Boyé emphasised the participation of Jamal Zougam, Abdelmajid Bouchar and Fouad el Morabit. On the connection to those accused of supplying the explosives, he also supported the key roles of Rafa Zouhier, Emilio Suárez Trashorras as well as Carmen and Antonio Toro. On the causes of the train bombings, this lawyer said that Iraq was the justification the authors needed rather than the direct cause.

The next closing declaration came from the accusation representing Maria Mercedes López Casado, represented by the lawyer María Teresa Díaz. She declared that it was not clear that Al Qaeda were behind the attacks, and that not all of the evidence against the accused was convincing; those accused are not the only guilty ones. She expressed support for the accusation representing the Asociación 11-M.

Finally came the statement on behalf of María Isabel Ruíz Borrallo. Her representative pointed to the lost opportunities to prevent the bombings even though some of the accused were known to the police. Before the train bombings the authorities were not alert to the threat. On the explosive used, the lawyer said that the commercial brand could not be identified but that it was already known the day after the attacks that dynamite had been used in the bombs. The unexploded dynamite recovered from different sites was undoubtedly Goma 2 Eco, given the link to Leganés and the theft of dynamite in Asturias it is reasonable to conclude that what exploded on the trains was Goma 2 Eco too.

Footnote: The opening statement of this session is as pure a synthesis of conspiracy theorist reasoning as you could hope to find. In the best traditions of the art, Juan Carlos Rodríguez Segura turned the burden of proof on its head to argue that ETA must have been involved unless someone can demonstrate the contrary. Completely immune to the evidence presented during the trial, when of course this same lawyer had every opportunity to demonstrate his claims, it is as if he has slept throughout the whole process. As for his claim that the Spanish intervention in Iraq was merely a humanitarian mission it would be funny were it not for the tragic events that followed and with which this trial is concerned. As with some other parties to the accusation, we get the curious situation where they do everything possible to try and undermine the prosecution case yet still maintain the accusation against the majority of the accused. The contradiction of that position escapes them, but as I think I have observed before concerning these people, logic will never be their strongest point.

The Trial....Day 48, June 13th

2007-06-26T19:08:00.001+02:00

The session began with the closing statement by the Asociacion de Victimas del Terrorismo (AVT). The AVT's lawyer cast doubt on the evidence against Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, pointing out the differences between translations of the recordings of his conversations. He said that the AVT's conclusion was that this person had knowledge of what was being planned but that does not mean he was one of the instigators of the bombings.

The lawyer then turned to criticisms of the AVT for the way they had acted in the trial, and denied that this association had acted in favour of the accused or that it had requested that they be freed. The AVT had only wanted to discover all of the truth about what had happened, and was not happy with the way the investigation had been conducted. He claimed that they had to wait 3 years to get a complete analysis on the explosives used in the bombings, and that it was not possible that the bomb disposal squad would have been unable to identify the components of the explosives used. The custody of the samples preserved from the trains had not been adequate.

The AVT's representative then talked of the existence of a "hand that rocked the cradle". He accepted that the explosive had been supplied in the way described by the prosecution, but maintained that it was not possible to insist that Goma 2 Eco had been the dynamite used on the trains. He rejected the theory that the samples tested had been contaminated. He insisted that the investigation needed to continue and that the AVT was not satisfied with the process as carried out. The AVT did not believe that the security forces were behind the attacks, but there were doubts concerning the relationship between these forces and the police informers involved in the bombings.

Next came the statement on behalf of Pilar Manjon, mother of one of the victims. Her lawyer criticised the need to prepare reports on possible involvement of ETA in the bombings, and said that the only person who had not told the truth on this issue in the trial was Agustin Díaz de Mera who was responsible for a shameful spectacle. On the explosives issue, only one of the samples from the trains showed traces of nitroglycerine, and the person carrying out this test had no experience in explosives analysis. On those from Asturias accused of supplying the explosives, the lawyer said that they formed an illegal association with the intention of committing offences. Already in 2001 it was possible to identify Antonio Toro and Emilio Suárez Trashorras as being involved in drug and explosives trafficking. Carmen Toro was also involved as part of the leadership of this group; Javier González Díaz acted as the lieutenant of Trashorras. The point of connection between the Asturian group and the Islamist cell was Rafa Zouhier, a violent and dangerous person who does not like to be called an informer, but whose defence depends primarily on being one. The role of Javier González in explosives trafficking is described in the evidence from Gabriel Montoya. Carmen Toro participated in all of the important meetings between the two groups and was fully aware of what was happening.

The final declaration in this session came from the lawyer acting on behalf of "Roberto Barroso and others". This lawyer stated that the bombings were the work of a radical jihadist group. He stressed the importance of the role played by Rafa Zouhier.

Footnote: Once again we got the contrast between those parties to the accusation who work to sustain it, and those like the AVT who have worked so hard to undermine it. On the one hand you get arguments against named persons based on the evidence presented against them; on the other you get talk of the "hand that rocked the cradle" alluding to a hidden conspiracy which those who propose it have been completely unable to demonstrate. The problem they have is that the accusation of ETA involvement which they sustained for so long has been so thoroughly discredited that they are left with nothing more than untestable insinuations of dark forces at work. Interestingly enough, none of these associations propagating the conspiracy theories have followed through on the dubious logic of their arguments, they still maintain the accusation against the accused where consistency would suggest they have to withdraw it.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - Statement by AVT
El País - AVT

The Trial....Day 47, June 12th

2007-06-13T22:43:00.001+02:00

The day began with the continuation of the closing statement by Olga Sánchez for the prosecution. She resumed the statement with the question of the supply of the explosives used in the bombs, and talked of the relationship between Emilio Suárez Trashorras and the minor Gabriel Montoya; already sentenced for his part in transporting the explosives. Sanchez said that Montoya was fully aware he was transporting explosives to Madrid, and that he accompanied Trashorras to the mine together with Jamal Ahmidam in February 2004. A further visit was made at the end of that month when several of the accused loaded rucksacks with stolen dynamite which was then to be transported to Madrid. The Asturian connection to the explosives began to become clear when officers investigating the bombings talked to Trashorras.

The attacks were thought to have been financed by the sale of drugs. Otman el Ghanoui was closely involved with Jamal Ahmidam, and was used to help transport the explosives from Burgos to Madrid. On the night of the 10th March some of the mobile telephone cards related to the bombings were activated in the vicinity of Morata de Tajuña, location of the house where the bombs are said to have been prepared. The cell used several vehicles at different times, on the day of the bombings these were the Kangoo van and Skoda Fabia discovered in Alcalá de Henares. Other properties used by members of the group included a house in Albolote rented by Abdennabi Kounjaa and the apartment in the Leganés street of Carmen Martin Gaite.
Through investigation of telephone call traffic, the relationship of Trashorras to Serhane ben Abdelmajid, Kounjaa, Antonio Toro and Raul González has been established. Sánchez said that she believed there to be sufficient proof against all of those accused.

Against Abdelmajid Bouchar there is his flight from Spain and the evidence of his presence in Morata de Tajuña and Leganés, as well as a witness identification. Mohamed Larbi ben Sellam was close to Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, and he also worked with Mohamed Afalah who he later tried to contact when the latter was in Syria. Also connected to Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed are Fouad el Morabit, Basel Ghalyoun and Mouhannad Almallah Dabas. Ghalyoun possessed two telephone cards where call traffic was registered with those who died in Leganés. Almallah Dabas travelled frequently to London where it is believed he was in contact with Islamists. He participated in the meetings said to have been held in the property located in the Madrid street of Virgen del Coro.

Mohamed Bouharrat had contacts with Jamal Ahmidam and some of his belongings were found in Leganés. Saed el Harrak was close to Kounjaa, Rifaat Anouar and the Oulad Akcha brothers. Anouar is alleged to have been one of those who helped with the transfer of explosives from Burgos to Madrid, and worked on the house in Morata de Tajuña. Abdelilah El Faoual El Akil was a long standing friend of Jamal Ahmidam and at one point helped to transport a car that Ahmidam later used on trips to Asturias. He was also present at one of the meetings where it is claimed the explosives deal was done, Rachid Aglif was also present. Hamid Ahmidam participated in the work on the Morata house, and was also later found to be in possession of significant quantities of drugs. Nasreddine Bousbaa was responsible for falsification of documents. Antonio Toro was not just involved in making the introduction of Rafa Zouhier to Trashorras, he was also present at one of the meetings between the Asturians and Jamal Ahmidam. Trashorras himself is implicated by the testimony of several of the accused as well as other evidence, his former wife Carmen Toro was fully aware of his activities and also attended meetings with Ahmidam.

Sánchez finished her statement by expressing gratitude to the different police and Guardia Civil divisions involved in the investigation. She talked of her work together with the investigating magistrate beginning on the day of the bombings itself. Additionally she paid tribute to the victims and their families, and criticised the attitude adopted by parts of the media. At this point the chief judge asked her to redirect her statement; Sánchez replied that she had been subjected to intense criticism.

The session continued with closing remarks by another member of the prosecution team, Carlos Bautista. He addressed some of the legal technicalities concerning the use of evidence such as the recordings made by the Italian police, the right to silence of the accused or the use of informal conversations as evidence in the hearing. He also talked of the meaning of some of the charges, and the difference between those charged of being part of the group committing the attack, and those who are accused of collaborating. Bautistia was followed by the closing declaration of the Abogado del Estado (State Lawyer), representing in this case the Spanish government, and also the public train company RENFE. His declaration rejected the idea that the security forces could have avoided the attacks and stated that their actions after the attacks had been exemplary.

Next it was the turn of the Asociación 11-M Afectados por el Terrorismo, one of the victims associations represented as a party to the accusation. The lawyer for this association expressed gratitude to the policeman who died in Leganés, the bomb disposal officer who deactivated the unexploded device found in a Madrid police station, to those officers who carried out the investigation, and to those who supervised it. The lawyer criticised the involvement of Spain in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying it had converted the country from being neutral to being one that wss involved in actions against sovereign states. He said that Spain had not adopted appropriate measures despite having received threats of possible attacks. These threats included the statement by Osama bin Laden in October 2003 threatening reprisals against Spain. The threats existed, and were known; but no measures were taken to prevent their realisation. He said that Al-Qaeda sets the strategy but does not need to have the pyramid structure of "classic" terrorist groups; instead they use local autonomous groups who share the ideology. This is what happened in Spain.

Combining the documentary evidence found with other evidence such as the telephone calls and genetic traces found, it is posible to see the role placed within the group by Rabei Osman al Sayed Ahmed, Youssef Belhadj and Hassan el Haski. In the active leadership of the cell were Fouad el Morabit, Jamal Ahmidam and Serhane ben Abdelmajid. The activities of the cell were then divided between information gathering, provisioning and execution, and the lawyer placed named members of the accused in each of these categories. The high command abandons the scene before the attack is committed, and he said for this reason Belhadj, El Sayed Ahmed, and El Haski left Spain just before the bombings.

On the issue of the explosives análisis, the representative of this association emphasised the mixture of Goma 2 Eco and Goma 2 EC that existed in the Conchita mine where the explosives are alleged to have come from. He said that there was no doubt that on the 28th and 29th of February 2004 a group including Jamal Ahmidan, Abdennabi Kounjaa, Mohamed Oulad Akcha, Gabriel Montoya and Emilio Suárez Trashorras removed explosives from the mine. All of the analysts involved in the tests agreed that dynamite was the explosive used in the bombs, without being able to put a commercial brand name to that dynamite.

On the translations of the taped converstaions involving Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, he emphasised that this person had been in Spain and that it was clear that he attempted to avoid talking about certain questions by telephone. It was evident that he was involved in recruitment and training, and that he was one of the heads of the Spanish cell. The lawyer quoted the passages where El Sayed Ahmed talks of those who died in Madrid being his friends, referring to theose who were killed in the Leganés explosion. This association requests that Fouad el Morabit be considered as one of the leading group, and drops any accusation against Brahim Moussaten. All other accusations remain the same, the lawyer finished by noting that those who travelled in the trains on the day of the bombings were peaceful, working people, the majority of whom were probably opposed to the Iraq war.

The next party to the accusation who declared was the representative of the Asociciación de Ayuda a las Victimas del Terrorismo del 11-M. This lawyer said that the arguments of the association had been much criticised, but that the trial was not uncovering the full truth of what had happened. They believe in the existence of a fourth group involved in the bombings, without excluding the possibility of ETA or of corrupt policemen. He denied that their participation in the trial had benefitted any of the accused. According to him, the 3 other elements of the conspiracy are:

The Asturias group formed by common criminals. There is no evidence of the presence of Goma 2 EC dynamite, only Goma 2 Eco. Of the explosive used in Leganés, there was no doubt this was Goma 2 Eco, but in the case of the trains there was room for doubt.

The group led by Jamal Ahmidam, and also composed of common criminals.

The Jihadist group, led by Serhane ben Abdelmajid.

On the explosives, this lawyer said that the analysis carried out by the forensic police should be more credible than that conducted by the bomb disposal squad. He said the full tests should have been carried out in March 2004, not in 2007. He accused the former head of the bomb disposal squad and the officer responsible for testing samples from the explosions of false testimony and covering up of evidence. He rejected the possibility of the explosives samples being contaminated in the factory or the mine. It must have occurred in the base of the bomb disposal unit since 2004. Since there is a sample containing nitroglycerine and dinitrotoluene it is logical to think that Titadine was used in the bombs on the trains.

The existence of the fourth cell is backed up by the evidence of the informer Cartagena who said that those accused lacked the resources and knowledge to carry out such a perfect attack. He said it was not logical that those placing the bombs would do anything to stand out, referring to witness testimony on heavily dressed men seen near Alcalá railway station. The doubts over the unexploded bomb found in Puente de Vallecas police station have not been cleared. The main proof of the existence of a fourth group is the Skoda Fabia car that was also found near to Alcalá railway station – he claimed this vehicle was not in Alcalá on the day of the bombings, it must have been placed by someone later.

He said that it was grotesque to claim that the presence of Titadine did not mean ETA involvement when it is the only terrorist organisation known to possess this explosive. He called for an open sentence which would not lead to the investigation being closed.

Footnote: The statement by Olga Sánchez puts just about all of the accused in the position that the prosecution alleges they occupied in relation to the bombings. It's easy to see the case against those alleged to have supplied the explosives, not so clear still is that against all of those accused of being intellectual authors of the bombings; Hassan el Haski and Youssef Belhadj do not have a clear cut case defining their role even though it seems likely that they are committed Islamist activists. On the others it is evident that the majority of the direct perpetrators are dead or missing, those killed in Leganés or those who escaped are the ones linked most clearly to the different sites involved. Several of those accused have relatively marginal involvement based on the evidence presented, in several cases it seems unlikely that they can be given heavy sentences. The rebuke by the chief judge to Olga Sanchez when she complained of the media treatment she had received was harsh considering the leeway given to those propagating the conspiracy theories who have been allowed to dominate long sessions of this trial. The contrast between the 2 victims associations declaring could not be greater, one does the job they are there for; to support the accusation they have presented. The other floats the involvement of unnamed conspirators with no evidence to back up the accusation. Those who have abused the trial as a platform for conspiracy theories are immune to all facts presented, cherry picking only those parts which cast doubt on the authorship and ignoring everything else. So one sample containing nitroglycerine continues to be brandished as proof of another explosive used; the many other samples tested are rejected because they provide the wrong result.

The Trial....Day 46, June 11th

2007-06-13T22:42:00.002+02:00

The Prosecution Presents Its Closing Statement

The trial has now entered into its final stage with the closing statements by the prosecution, other parties to the accusation and the defence. This session began with the defence lawyers for the accused confirming their rejection of the charges against their clients. Next, Javier Zaragoza opened the final statement on behalf of the prosecution. He said that the final toll of the train bombings was 191 killed and 1841 wounded, to this should be added the effects of the bombings on hundreds or thousands of others who are not counted as victims but who travelled on the trains and witnessed what happened. Zaragoza said that the attacks were committed under the influence of Al Qaeda, with the direct precedents of bombings in the US, Tunisia, Bali, and Casablanca.

Two other precedents considered in the trial were an attempt by ETA to blow up a train at Chamartin station in Madrid, and the detention of ETA members carrying explosives not far from Madrid a short period before the Madrid bombings. By the afternoon of the bombings the use of Titadine had been discarded and there was the discovery of the van in Alcalá de Henares containing a tape of Koranic verses. On the 12th March the only unexploded device was discovered, and the card from the telephone contained in this bomb led to the detention of Jamal Zougam. From this point onwards the investigation clearly pointed towards Islamist terrorism. Meanwhile, the detonators led to the discovery of the Asturian connection with the supply of the explosives. Finally came the suicide in Leganés of 7 of the group said to have carried out the bombings.

Zaragoza said that the trial had seen some grotesque situations, a kind of schizophrenia caused by some of those who supposedly formed part of the accusation seeking to hold a parallel trial based on preconceived and baseless suspicions. They had claimed that the unexploded bomb was never on the trains, that the evidence found in the van in Alcalá had been planted, that another car involved was placed by intelligence agents and that there was an attempt to present an electric timer used for washing machines as if it was a timer used by ETA.

There had been some previous indications of Islamist threats to Spain, a report found in October 2003, a message from Bin Laden calling for attacks against all US allies, a message found on a web site threatening reprisals against those who had participated in the Iraqi invasion. After the attacks there were different claims of responsibility, on the 11th March it was claimed by the Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades, on the 13th came the appearance of the video tape left near the main mosque in Madrid. Following the Leganés suicide a fax was found with the writing of Serhane ben Abdelmajid which announced further attacks. In the wreckage of the Leganés apartment 2 further video tapes were found.

The principal evidence guiding the investigation was the following:

- The Kangoo van discovered in Alcalá de Henares on the day of the bombings and which contained detonators, the Koranic tape, remains of a cartridge of Goma 2 Eco dynamite, genetic traces from Allekema Lamari, Abdennabi Kounjaa, Rifaat Anouar and Daoud Ouhnane. The chain of custody of the van after its discovery was correct.

- The unexploded bomb discovered amongst personal effects in Puente de Vallecas police station in Madrid. It contained 10 kilos of Goma 2 Eco dynamite, and a mobile telephone with the alarm set to activate the device at 7:40 a.m. The telephone and its card led to the suppliers of both, which in turn led to the detention of Jamal Zougam. The cards sold were activated in the area of Morata de Tajuña, where a property was discovered containing fingerprints and DNA traces and where the prosecution believes the bombs were prepared.

Also important was the additional discovery in Alcalá of a stolen Skoda Fabia car containing genetic traces from Allekema Lamari and Mohamed Afalah; traces of explosives components were also detected in this vehicle. The prosecutor said that it was absurd to question the chain of custody of the unexploded bomb. On the question of visual recognition of the accused by witnesses, he said that the identifications from photographs at police headquarters were valid, and that additionally there had been identification parades and identifications made in the trial itself. One witness identified Jamal Zougam on 3 separate occasions, the first time on the 13th March 2004. Other witnesses also identified him.

In the apartment in Leganés those killed were identified as Serhane Ben Abdelmajid Fakhet, Jamal Ahmidan (aka “Mowgli” Y “El Chino”),Mohamed Oulad Akcha, Rachid Oulad Akcha, Abdennabi Kounjaa, Rifaat Anouar Asrih and Allekema Lamari. Zaragoza said that there had been much speculation over the finding of the Leganés apartment by the police, especially after testimony from the police informer known as Cartagena who claimed that the police wanted him to go there. Some parties to the accusation and defence lawyers had even questioned whether the explosion was genuine. The apartment was located initially as a result of investigation of telephone calls by suspects made by the police officer Rafael Gomez Menor. Abdelmajid Bouchar managed to escape from the apartment.

Concerning Rafa Zouhier he said that there were multiple contradictions in his declarations, that he did not inform the police about a detonator given to him by those accused of supplying the explosives and that he never talked about explosives with his police contacts between July 2003 and the bombings in March 2004. Emilio Suárez Trashorras has made 6 declarations. He recognised that Jamal Ahmidam and Zouhier asked him to supply explosives when they met in a Mcdonalds restaurant in Carabanchel, Madrid. Trashorras did not provide his police controller with information about Ahmidam.

The question of the type of explosives used, according to Zaragoza, is an additional proof but not a definitive one. The bomb disposal squad already made clear shortly after the bombings that the commercial brand of explosive could not be identified. The unexploded dynamite recovered from different sites is all Goma 2 Eco and all of these present evidence of contamination with the substance dinitrotoluene (DNT). Contamination also explains the appearance 3 years later of traces of nitroglycerine. Dibutyl phtalate, only found in Goma 2 Eco, appears in tests carried out on samples from the trains. The presence of nitroglycerine in one such sample cannot be extrapolated to suggest the use of Titadine in the bombs.

On the issue of links to ETA, the use of mobile telephones to activate the bombs in the way used in Madrid is not known to be a technique used by ETA. It has been identified as something taught in the training camp inn Jalalabad, Afghanistan, run by the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group. The police report on possible links between ETA and Islamists forms part of the indictment and it's content has been ratified by those who prepared it. The opinion expressed by the authors of the report is that no connection has been established between ETA and the Madrid bombings, contrary to the claims made by Agustin Diaz de Mera

The latter part of the session was taken up by the conclusions of another of the prosecutors, Olga Sanchez. She also talked of the implication of Al-Qaeda in the attacks and how they promote the creation of local terrorist groups. The group in Spain has formed around Abu Dahdah and other individuals belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood. She named other key members of the group as Mustafa Maymouni, Driss Chebli and Serhane ben Abdelmajid. Sanchez claimed that Serhane ben Abdelmajid and Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed had agreed with each other to carry out attacks in Spain, under the encouragement of Al-Qaeda and in response to the arrests of Muslims and the participation of Spain in the invasion of Iraq. She said that the date of the Madrid attacks was decided following the warning to US allies issued by Bin Laden. On the 3rd December 2003 a message warning of attacks on Spain was published on the internet site Global Islamic Media. She said that the decision to attack 911 days after the World Trade Centre attack in New York did not appear to be a coincidence, especially as it occurred just before the general elections in Spain. She noted that Spain was amongst those countries specifically named by Bin Laden in his warning of reprisals. On the 15th April 2004 a message from an Al-Qaeda leader shown by Al Jazeera television claimed indirectly responsibility for the Madrid attacks.

Sanchez said that until the end of 2003 the Islamist activities detected in Spain mostly concerned financial support and recruitment of activists. There was a network of activity covering Spain, France, Holland, Germany, Belgium and Italy. The planning of the Madrid attacks began in October 2003 and was carried out by those accused of being intellectual authors together with Serhane ben Abdelmajid. Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed left Spain for France in February 2003; he had already been investigated by the authorities and his relationship with some of the accused was established. She claimed that his later move to Italy was a consequence of the detention of Islamists in Milan in October 2003. His role in the attacks is established by the recordings of his conversations, and Sanchez expressed satisfaction with the work of the translators on these recordings.

The relationship of Hassan el Haski with the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group has been established via the collaboration between police and judicial authorities in several countries. This group is known to have had contacts with Bin Laden. Youssef Belhadj has been linked with Al-Qaeda by one of his own nephews; it is believed that Belhadj left Spain for Belgium on the 3rd March 2004. The operational preparation was done by Jamal Ahmidam, whose previous criminal experience was useful. He was supported by 4 of those who died in the Leganés explosion. Rafa Zouhier was the key contact between Ahmidam and those from Asturias accused of supplying the explosives.

Olga Sanchez then described to the court the events on the 11th March 2004, detailing the explosions that occurred on each train and the number of victims at each site. She said those responsible for the placing of the bombs were the 7 killed in the explosion in Leganés together with Abdelmajid Bouchar and Jamal Zougam. Both Bouchar and Zougam have been identified by witnesses, as well as one of the Oulad Akcha brothers. Key to the acquisition of the explosives was Rafa Zouhier who got to know Antonio Toro when both men coincided in the same prison in 2001. Toro was an associate of Emilio Suarez Trashorras. The access to the explosives in the Conchita mine in Asturias was made easier because of the lack of control over the use of dynamite at this mine. Some of the explosives were transferred to Madrid by associates of Trashorras.

At this point the session for the day was closed.

Footnote: The final declarations made by the prosecution finish in the next session of the trial, but this day more or less gives an overall summary of the prosecution case. It also shows where some of the weakest links are, as the evidence against those accused of being the intellectual authors of the train bombings still looks a bit fragile, and seems to depend on guilt by association rather than clear evidence of involvement. The chief prosecutor took a swipe at those who have abused their position as parties to the accusation to try and attack the prosecution case in their efforts to keep the conspiracy theories alive. The pattern of the closing stages of the trial is now set, the closing declarations by prosecution, then parties to the accusation and the defence.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
El País - Conclusions Zaragoza
ABC - Conclusions

The Trial....Day 45, June 4th

2007-06-13T22:42:00.001+02:00

A busy day in the trial, with the conclusion of that part of it dedicated to the examination of documentary evidence, and the presentation of revised charges against the accused. Following the presentation to the court of photographs of the trains following the bombings, the court moved on to consider evidence of telephone conversations affecting the accused. This evidence consisted of recordings of conversations between the witness Lofti Sbai and two unidentified persons in which references are made to Rafa Zouhier. These conversations were recorded in April 2004. The court also heard some conversations recorded of calls made by Rafa Zouhier and Jamal Ahmidam.

The Key Evidence Against El Egipcio

Next the court moved on to consideration of the main evidence against Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (El Egipcio); the transcriptions of conversations recorded by the Italian police during their electronic surveillance of this person. The transcriptions were read to the court. These conversations contain references by El Egipcio to the Madrid bombings that the prosecution alleges show his involvement as one of the organisers. In particular there is a conversation where he is alleged to claim that it was his idea to carry out the attacks. This was followed by the reading of transcriptions prepared by translators appearing for the defence of El Egipcio. The defence disputes the validity of parts of the translation of these conversations.
The session continued with the reading of a report on explosive material discovered during an inspection of the Conchita mine in Asturias; from where it is claimed the explosives used in the bombs were stolen. This material consisted of detonators and cartridges of the dynamites Goma 2 Eco and Goma 2 EC. This was followed by the reading of police and Guardia Civil reports from Asturias concerning the information they had on those who were attempting to traffic with explosives in the region.

Later the session returned to El Egipcio as a report was read to the court on a request by the Spanish police for information from their Italian counterparts concerning their surveillance of El Egipcio. This part of the session was then expanded into a joint appearance between translators who had acted for the Italian police, those who had worked for the Spanish police, and those proposed by the defence for El Egipcio. One of the witnesses declared to the court that they had made a joint analysis of points where there had been disagreements of interpretation, and that they had reached agreement on all of these apart from two points where the specialists representing the Italian authorities were not in agreement. These two points of disagreement concerned parts of the recordings that potentially link El Egipcio to the bombings. The witnesses declared on their use of equipment for analysing recordings, including techniques for slowing down conversations or removing background noise. They also declared on their familiarity with variants of Arabic and interpretations of the Koran.

On a section where it is claimed that El Egipcio said "there is something I will not hide from you, the Madrid attack was my project and those who died like martyrs are my friends", one of the witnesses stated that not all of this section was clear; particularly a part where it is claimed he said "the trains, the Madrid attacks, everything depends on me". The Italian witnesses insisted they had heard this part. Another disagreement was over a fragment where the Italians had heard the Arabic word meaning "planned" in relation to the attacks, the witnesses from Spain had heard the word for "previous".

The Accusation - Revised Sentences

At this point the trial ended the examination of evidence concerning the bombings. The rest of the session on this day was taken up with the different parties to the accusation presenting their revisions to the case they make against the accused. In some instances the sentence requested is simply revised upwards because the official figure of those wounded is now 1841 rather than 1824. As sentences requested for the more serious charges are based on a multiplier of the number of those killed and wounded, these means an automatic revision of the sentences requested. However, in other cases the accusations have been changed or even withdrawn for some of the accused. The main beneficiary of this process has been Brahim Moussaten, neither the state prosecution or the other parties represented maintain charges against him and in view of this the chief judge decided to release him from the trial; leaving 28 defendants formally charged. In other cases the dropping of charges by some parties does not mean they cannot be convicted of those charges, in the end this is a decision taken by the judges.

The state prosecution also announced that they will not proceed with the accusations against Javier González Díaz. On the other hand they raised considerably the sentence they seek for Rafa Zouhier, considering that the trial had demonstrated a greater involvement on his part in the organisation of the supply of the explosives. Basel Ghalyoun has seen the more serious accusations against him of being a material author of the bombings dropped, although he remains accused of belonging to a terrorist organisation. The charges against Carmen Toro have also been increased on the grounds that she was more involved in the explosives supply than initially suspected.

Next came the turn of other parties to the accusation to present their conclusions on the sentences they request for the accused. The Association 11-M Afectados por Terrorismo maintain the accusation against Javier González Díaz. Another victims association, the Asociación de Ayuda a las Victimas del 11 de Marzo, called for the number of those counted as surviving victims to be raised to 1867 to include policeman involved in the siege of the Leganés apartment and the neighbours of that same apartment. The Asociación de Victimas del Terrorismo said that they were also withdrawing the accusation against Brahim Moussaten’s brother Mohamed. They also called for charges of illegal association to be dropped against Raúl González Peláez, Iván Granados Peña, Javier González Díaz, Sergio Álvarez Sánchez, and Antonio Iván Reis Palicio. Additionally, they wanted the charge of trafficking explosives to be dropped for Raúl González Peláez, Iván Granados Peña, Sergio Álvarez Sánchez, and Antonio Iván Reis Palicio. One party to the accusation, acting in the name of “Angeles Pedraza Portero and others”, also called for the accusation to be withdrawn against Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed and Jamal Zougam.

Footnote: An example in the trial of a defence lawyer doing what he is supposed to do. The lawyer for El Egipcio, instead of relying on conspiracy theories to try and distract attention from his client, has done a good job of casting doubt on the main evidence against this person. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen, in the end the translators managed to agree on almost everything. Meanwhile, with the revision of the sentences there are now only 28 accused as Brahim Moussaten goes free. Things have also got better for Basel Ghalyoun who is no longer being accused of being one of those who planted the bombs, because of the weak identification evidence against him. The revision of sentences is bad news for Antonio and Carmen Toro, and especially for Rafa Zouhier whose involvement in the whole issue of supplying the explosives is now seen as being more extensive and serious. It shouldn't go unnoticed that those associations that have done so much to try and introoduce conspiracy theories into the trial still maintain their accusations against the accused. Logic would seem to suggest they should call for their absolution, but as I have pointed out before logic is not a major influence in their deliberations.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - Translators
El País - Accusations

The Trial....Day 44, May 30th

2007-06-01T17:47:00.001+02:00

The day began with the appearance by expert witnesses Y-40036-P, M-96780-Y, 19568 and 66646, continuing examination of reports on the explosive used in the train bombings. These witnesses testified on an assessment of the quantity of explosive used in the different bombs, and reached the conclusion that it was generally similar with around 10 kilos of explosive in each bomb. Each bomb also contained a detonator and a mobile telephone with the alarm set to activate the bomb at 7:40 a.m. Shrapnel consisting of nails or screws recovered from the explosion sites presented similarities to that contained in the only unexploded device. The estimate on the quantity was not just based on assessment of the unexploded bomb, but also on the reach of the explosion. They declared that it is difficult after an explosion to determine the precise type of dynamite used, to do this it is necessary to have some unexploded samples.

The next part of the session was taken up with the reading of declarations made by witnesses who have not appeared personally in court. One of these was the declaration to the Italian police of Belal Ghazi, an Egyptian citizen. This witness acknowledged knowing Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (El Egipcio) because they had been neighbours in Egypt. He declared that El Egipcio arrived in Italy in December 2003. The witness said that El Egipcio prayed, but that he never heard him saying anything bad about Americans. The declaration made by the witness Bachir Goumid to the French authorities was also read to the court. The witness admits in this declaration to membership of the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group (MICG), and declared that in 2004 he offered accommodation to Hassan el Haski who he knew because they had studied together in Syria.

Following this came the appearance of professional interpreters at the request of the defence of El Egipcio. These witnesses testified on the translation of the recordings made by the Italian police who had El Egipcio under electronic surveillance. The witnesses testified that the translations contained several defects concerning the meaning of phrases or words in Arabic. Some of these defects concerned passages in the recordings where El Egipcio is said to have made reference to the trains bombings and those accused of participation.

The session finished with the viewing of two video tapes. The first of these was a tape of an Islamist training camp in Jalalabad (Afghanistan) which was recovered from the wreckage 0f the destroyed apartment in Leganés. The other tape was made by the police during their inspection of the house at Morata de Tajuña where the bombs are alleged to have been prepared.

Footnote: The issue of the translation of El Egipcio's conversations is an important one. These recordings are the only significant evidence against him and he is charged with being one of the intellectual authors of the bombings which carries one of the heaviest sentences. Otherwise, an uneventful day as the trial gets nearer to the closing stages.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - El Egipcio

The Trial....Day 43, May 29th

2007-05-29T23:53:00.002+02:00

This session began with continuing testimony from expert witnesses concerning explosives associated with the train bombings. The witnesses 47, 9278365-G, F-37053-V, 1457157-S, 26722108-H, 22411749-C, 12151358-K, Z-43731-T, F37053-V and B-45001-Z declared concerning a report on dynamite cartridges found during an inspection of the Conchita Mine in Asturias in June 2004. This mine is where the explosives used in the bombs are said to have come from. The report stated that they found 4 bags of explosives, 3 of which contained Goma 2 Eco, and one its predecessor; Goma 2 EC. Later they said they realised that another of those labelled as Goma 2 Eco was really Goma 2 EC. The explosives were tested for their components. The difference between the two explosives was the presence of dibutyl phtalate in Goma 2 Eco, and dinitrotoluene (DNT) in Goma 2 EC. The witnesses testified that production of Goma 2 EC ceased in 2002, but that there was a period of joint production of this dynamite and Goma 2 Eco between 1999 and 2002.

The specialist police witnesses 72622, 17632 and 28225 then appeared with the others (apart from F37053-V and B-45001-Z) to testify on a report concerning detonators and explosives recovered from the wreckage of the flat in Leganés destroyed in an explosion on the 3rd April 2004. They declared that a total of 17.4 kilos of Goma 2 Eco was recovered from the wreckage together with 14 green bags labelled with the name of the same explosive. Detonators were also found as well as almost 600 wrappers of dynamite cartridges. Analysis of the components of the explosive found confirmed that they matched the specification of Goma 2 Eco, no other explosive was identified.

Next came the declaration of witnesses 77626 and 81642 on a report they prepared concerning the stolen Skoda car believed to have been used by the bombers to help transport the bombs. These experts analyzed traces of explosive found in this vehicle, and testified that they were unable to formally identify a brand of explosive from the components found. Expert witness 16233000 declared on traces of nitroglycol found in a Golf car linked to the bombers.

The specialist witnesses 47, 9278365-G, F-37053-V, 1457157-S, 26722108-H, 22411749-C, 12151358-K, Z-43731-T took the stand to declare concerning the definitive report on the analysis of samples to ascertain the explosives used. A total of 88 different samples were tested of which 23 came from the sites of the explosions on the trains. The differences between the witnesses concerned a particular sample from the train that exploded at the station of El Pozo, with some of the analysts suggesting that the tests suggested the possible use of Titadine dynamite at this site, based on the traces of nitroglycerine that emerged in the analysis. Others suggested that the presence of this substance could only be due to contamination of the sample, previous tests on the same sample did not reveal the presence of nitroglycerine. There was also discussion of the presence in the same sample of dibutyl phthalate, a component of Goma 2 Eco.

3 samples of explosives recovered from the destroyed apartment in Leganés also showed traces of nitroglycerine, even though that explosive has been identified as Goma 2 Eco. Traces of the same component were also detected in samples of the bomb left on the high speed railway line, the explosive recovered from the van found in Alcalá on the day of the train bombings, and in the unexploded device found amongst personal effects from the trains. Some of the analysts suggested that this could be the product of contamination in the storage of the samples, or in the laboratory. Under questioning on whether the contamination could have occurred before bombings, the answer given was that such contamination was not detected in the tests carried out in 2004. There was discussion over whether the predecessor product of Goma 2 Eco, Goma 2 EC, contains nitroglycerine or not.

Footnote: Much of the day was taken up with debate on the results of the explosives analysis. It is important to bear in mind that the expert witnesses declaring were a mixture of police analysts, and those named by the defence or victims associations sympathetic to the conspiracy theories. Hence the emphasis by some of these "experts" on the only sample from the trains that contained nitroglycerine, vital to their case that Titadine could have been used. They offer no explanations for the presence of the dibutyl phtalate which does not belong to Titadine, or for the presence of DNT or nitroglycerine in samples of Goma 2 Eco explosive. It turns out that none of the analysts that were not from the police or Guardia Civil had any previous experience in explosives analysis. They looked for something to back their pre-prepared argument, and ignore anything that does not support that argument. Again, I refer anyone interested in more detail on this topic to my previous posts on it.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
El País - Explosives Contamination

The Trial....Day 42, May 28th

2007-05-29T23:53:00.001+02:00

The Mental State of the Man Accused of Selling the Dynamite

The day began with the appearance of expert witnesses Juan Miguel Monje Pérez, Sira Peña López, José Luis Morán Junquera and Julio Bobes Garcia. These witnesses testified on the psychiatric condition of Emilio Suárez Trashorras. They declared that Trashorras had a personality disorder but that this did not affect his capacity to understand things. They said he presented no psychotic symptoms, although the only test on which their report was based was an interview with the accused. The witness José Luis Morán had treated Trashorras for several years and testified that he had observed a paranoid personality disorder in his patient, with additional symptoms resulting from alcohol and substance abuse. They said that Trashorras’ condition was permanent. They also said that he was not a schizophrenic. The witnesses believed that Trashorras was fully aware of the danger of dynamite given that he had worked in the mine from where the explosives used in the bombs are said to have been stolen.

Next the specialist witnesses from the Guardia Civil, identified by numbers M-95317-B and X-16151-P declared on their report on clothes that were abandoned near to the railway station of Vicálvaro on the morning of the bombings. From this clothing they recovered genetic profiles identifying Rifaat Anouar and Abdennabi Kounjaa.

The witnesses from the Tedax (bomb disposal squad) identified by police numbers 58655 and 66646 testified on a report they prepared on some detonators connected with the bombings. They were joined by another witness, with number 27390, to declare concerning a report they prepared on shrapnel associated with the bombs. They studied nails and screws that were recovered from the bombed trains and they found similarities between them; they were of a type that is freely available commercially.

The Explosives Used

The trial then entered into the issue of the explosives used in the bombs. The experts declaring came from the police, the Guardia Civil together with representatives of victims associations and the defence of some of the accused. These were the experts who had carried out the latest explosives analysis requested for the trial. Chief judge Gómez Bermudez began the questioning by asking about the components of Goma 2 Eco, the explosive said to have been used in the bombs. These components were identified as ammonium nitrate, nitroglycol, nitrocellulose, dibutyl phthalate and calcium carbonate. Next came the components of Goma 2 EC, the explosive that was the predecessor of Goma 2 Eco. These were listed as ammonium nitrate, nitroglycol, nitrocellulose and dinitrotoluene. Finally, the judge asked about the components of Titadine, and these were given as ammonium nitrate, nitroglycol, nitrocellulose, dinitrotoluene and nitroglycerine. It was made clear that none of the mentioned components are contained in the detonators used to explode the bombs.

The experts present were joined by other expert witnesses who declared on the unexploded bomb discovered in the early morning of 12th March 2004 in a police station in Vallecas, Madrid. These witnesses declared that this device was set to be activated by a mobile telephone connected to the detonator. The telephone was turned off and the reason the bomb did not explode was due to the poor connections made in the modification of this device. Despite this, the telephone itself was in perfect working order.

On the detonators discovered in the van found at Alcalá de Henares on the day of the bombings, the witnesses declared that 3 of these were identical to those discovered in the unexploded bomb. The telephones in the bombs were set to activate via their alarm facility. The witnesses also analysed the detonators discovered following the explosion in Leganés. They affirmed that the intensity of the current provided via the connection between the telephone and the detonator was sufficient to activate the bombs.

Next declared the expert witness with number 17632 from the bomb disposal squad (TEDAX). This witness declared to having prepared many reports on explosives used in bombings by ETA and other incidents involving the participation of bomb disposal units. The witness testified on the methodology used in the analysis of the samples collected from the sites of the train explosions. She declared that she analyzed 12 samples from sites of the explosions, and that these tests revealed the presence of components of dynamite; ammonium nitrate and nitroglycol. Based on this analysis she said that it was impossible to determine the commercial brand of dynamite used, because in the explosion the traces of additives or other components are lost. She told her superior officers only that the explosive used was “dynamite”. At no point did her tests detect either nitroglycerine or dinitrotoluene (DNT).

On the possibility of the samples being contaminated, the witness could not rule out this possibility although she emphasised that the presence of a contaminating agent in the atmosphere would have to be high. One of the analysts present expressed disagreement with this view. The witness carried out tests on the, now famous, sample of fire extinguisher powder recovered from the bombed train at the station of El Pozo. She declared that she found no other relevant substance in this sample.

The same witness declared also on the issue of master samples of explosive used for comparison purposes, she said that these came clearly labelled from the manufacturer. She said that the component dibutyl phthalate discovered in many of the analyzed samples is only a component of Goma 2 Eco, whilst DNT (also detected in many samples) is a recognised component of Titadine and Goma 2 EC. Questioned on the analysis of the samples using water and acetone, the witness said that only part of the sample was treated in this way. She was also questioned on the presence of metenamine in samples, and said that she concluded this must be a contamination as it was not present in the master samples of Goma 2 Eco. Another of the analysts present intervened to say that this substance could be produced as a by-product of analysis, or via contamination.

The witness declared on the conditions under which the samples had been stored, saying that they were kept in a closed and unlit storage place with constant temperature and humidity. They were stored in bags kept inside boxes that were in turn covered by other bags. She said that she never detected DNT in any of the samples. Those samples where there were doubts about the possible presence of other substances were sent for examination by the forensic police. All of the expert witnesses present acknowledged that the unexploded substances recovered from different sites connected to the case consisted of Goma 2 Eco. The witness was asked to provide her notes made on the initial tests to the court and after a recess these were presented. She said that she presented her initial conclusions to her superior officers between 14-14:15 p.m. on the day of the bombings.

The session ended with the testimony of different experts on the analysis of panels found lining a hole in the grounds of the house in Morata de Tajuña said to have been used for the preparation of the bombs. The only components of explosive detected were ammonium nitrate and nitroglycol.

Footnote: A big day as the analysis of the explosives finally made its entrance into the trial itself. Those who are interested in more details on the issue might like to read my post on the report that was presented to the court. The claim that no proper analysis of the explosives used on the trains was ever carried out took a knock today; the witness from the Tedax made it clear that she tested the samples recovered, and that the idea that you can identify a particular brand of explosive from such samples is not sustained. No nitroglycerine was found, the crutch of those who cling to the idea that Titadine may have been used; a past favourite of ETA. None of this means that the conspiracy theorists will drop their campaign, but they had their representatives from the analysis in court today and when they had the chance to make their case they failed to do so. A constant theme of the trial, those who believe in such theories can never complain that they had no opportunity for their outlandish claims to be tested, they have been present throughout the whole process.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - Trashorras
ABC - Explosives

The Trial....Day 41, May 23rd

2007-05-29T21:15:00.000+02:00

The Road From Asturias to Madrid

The day began with testimony from expert witnesses Y-57188-A and E-80152-J from the Guardia Civil. These witnesses testified on a report they had prepared concerning payments made on toll roads that supported evidence of journeys said to have been made by those involved in supplying the explosives for the bombs. The payments were traced to the accounts of Emilio Suárez Trashorras and Carmen Toro and were made at points between Asturias and Madrid. Under questioning from defence lawyers the witnesses conceded that use of the cards was not proof that the owner of the card made the journey. These witnesses also prepared a report on a BMW car belonging to Jamal Ahmidam, which has also been linked to Mahmoud Slimane Aoun and Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil because of repairs that were carried out on it.

In addition, the same witnesses declared on estimates they had made of the maximum amount of stolen explosives that the bombers could have taken from the mine. They estimated that as much as 270 kilos could have been taken on the weekend of the 28th and 29th February 2004 from the Mina Conchita in Asturias. The estimate is based on the capacity of rucksacks which those accused of the bombings are said to have bought in a Carrefour supermarket in Avilés that weekend. The witnesses declared that the estimate is compatible with evidence of explosives consumption at the mine. They also declared on other quantities of explosives said to have been transported to Madrid by associates of Trashorras. They stated that based on declarations by some of the accused they reached the conclusion that the bags were more likely to have contained explosives than drugs. Overall, they estimate the maximum amount of explosive likely to have been transported at 312.5 kilos.

Other Police Experts

The national police witnesses with numbers 17608 and 18502 declared on a report they prepared analysing the video tape claiming responsibility for the bombings that was left near the main mosque in Madrid. They also examined a tape found in the wreckage of the apartment in Leganés that was destroyed in an explosion on April 3rd 2004, as well as a video camera. They stated that the tapes had been recorded with the same camera.

Next came testimony from police specialists 148 and 51884822 on plastic bags found at different scenes associated with the bombings; Leganés, the house at Morata de Tajuña where the bombs are said to have been prepared, the Kangoo van discovered on the day of the bombings, and the unexploded bomb found amongst personal effects in a Madrid police station. The witnesses said that the bags compared had the same composition, and that those from Leganés and the Kangoo van were identical.

Expert witnesses 17587, 18479 and 19425 declared on prints found in the Kangoo van. Some were from the owner of the vehicle but of the others they were able to identify prints from Daoud Ouhnane. Witnesses 19245 and 19273 declared concerning a property in Albolote, Granada that is linked to those accused of carrying out the bombings. At this property prints were collected and identified as belonging to Rifaat Anouar and Jamal Ahmidam.

Reading of Witness Declarations

Next came the reading of the declaration made to the police on the 13th March 2004 by a protected witness, S20-04-R-10. The witness stated in this declaration that he took a train leaving Alcalá de Henares at 7 a.m. on the morning of the 11th March 2004. At the station of Torrejón de Ardoz the witness saw two individuals carrying large black rucksacks who spoke to each other in Arabic and then separated. The witness thought it strange that they sat in separate places. The declaration by the witness contains a description of these individuals and of the moment of the explosion in the train.

The declaration of another witness, Nafia Nouredine, was also read to the court. The witness declared in this statement about having carried out military training in Afghanistan and also admitted connections with the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group (MICG). The declaration details how he travelled through several European countries and then later through Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The witness states that he was leader of the GICM from 1998 to1999 but that he left the leadership because of problems he had with the activities of the organisation. At the request of the prosecution, a part of the declaration was read concerning the position of Hassan el Haski in the GICM, and another concerning a meeting with Osama bin Laden in August 2001 where Bin Laden gave permission for the GICM to use Al Qaeda training camps.

Another witness whose police declaration was read to the court is Mauricio Andres Soto Gómez. This person is accused of having sold a stolen Skoda car to those who carried out the bombings; the car was stolen in Benidorm.

The witness Santiago Delgado Bueno is a psychiatrist. He testified on the effects of the bombings on victims and the relationship between these events and the symptoms he witnessed in his patients.

Following these witnesses the trial was halted by appalling weather conditions in Madrid, a lightning strike prevented use of the electrical recording equipment.

Footnote: The trial has entered into often dense detail based on the investigation, we have reached the point where the similarities between plastic bags can help to make connections between the different sites involved.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - The explosives

The Hunger Strike Collapses

2007-05-22T20:01:00.000+02:00

A hunger strike by several of those accused in the trial collapsed on the 21st May, after several of those participating had already given it up. The action was initiated by those accused of being the intellectual authors of the train bombings (Hassan el Haski, Youssef Belhadj y Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed), in protest at the way the trial was being conducted. Defence lawyers for the accused became alarmed as the strike spread to other defendants, they felt that it undermined any effort they might make to demonstrate that their clients were not part of an organised conspiracy. The chief judge, Javier Gómez Bermudez, also made it clear that he would not permit this action to interrupt or slow down the progress of the trial.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
El Mundo - Patatas con bacalao...

The Trial....Day 40, May 22nd

2007-05-22T20:00:00.001+02:00

The Moroccan Islamic Combat Group

The witness Attila Turk was another witness declaring via videoconference link, this one from Versailles in France. The witness declared that he got to know Hassan el Haski in Paris in 2003. He declared that El Haski stayed at his home at one point, but that he cannot recall if this was before or after the Madrid bombings. He said that he could not recall having told the French police that El Haski was very nervous at the time of the attacks. The witness said that El Haski stayed 2 weeks and that he did not know where he went after that. He also testified on a meeting he attended where leadership of the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group was discussed, although he also stated that he did not know about this group.

Ahmed M'Saad was another witness declaring via the same link from Versailles. This witness was unsure when he first met El Haski, he believed it was in 2004. He said his mother and brother had stayed with El Haski at one point. He declared that El Haski was staying at his parents home until the 8th March 2004. The brother of this witness, Youssef M'Saad, also declared and said that he got to know El Haski in Syria when he accompanied his mother on a journey to that country. The witness confirmed that they stayed some days in El Haski's house. When El Haski was in France he stayed some time at the home of the witness, and then later with his parents. This was before the train bombings occurred. He said that at some point in April 2004, El Haski travelled to Belgium.

Police Experts

The police specialists 16365, 84114, 82663, 73929, 17855 and 82657 terminated their testimony on their reports concerning the telephones linked to the attacks by responding to questions from defence lawyers. .

Next appeared 2 expert witnesses in acoustic analysis, with numbers 78903 and 196, who testified on analysis of 3 video tapes connected to the bombings; one tape was left near the main mosque in Madrid shortly after the bombings and the other 2 were recovered from the wreckage of the apartment in Leganés. They declared that those who appeared in the tape found near the mosque were not the same as those appearing in the Leganés tapes; their voices were different.

Two other police specialists in DNA analysis, with numbers 21 and 176, testified on comparative DNA tests carried out on members of the family of Allekema Lamari. They said these tests coincided with a percentage of 99.9999999999991% with one of the genetic profiles found in Leganés. The analysis of the remains of the person identified as Allekema Lamari was carried out by police specialists 161 and 74131. They said they analysed a fragment of the person's head and compared it with police data.

Expert witnesses 31, 32 and 97 declared on an inspection made of the bodies found in the wreckage of the Leganés apartment. They declared that 2 bodies were identified genetically, 4 by other means, and 1 was unidentified. These experts also analysed date and olive stones found in Leganés and DNA extracted from these was later matched to that of Abdelmajid Bouchar. His DNA was also detected on a razor found at the house in Morata de Tajuña where the bombs are said to have been prepared. DNA from Mohamed Oulad Akcha, Rifaat Anouar, Abdennabi Kounjkaa, Allekema Lamari, Saed el Harrak, Jamal Ahmidam, Serhane ben Abdelmajid, Mohamed Belhadj, Hamid Ahmidam, Basel Ghalyoun, Otman el Ghanoui and Mohamed Bouharrat was also detected in tests on evidence or sites related to the bombings.

The final witness on this day was Mohamed Chettouf who testified on the translation he had made to Spanish of the recordings that the Italian police made of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed. He also declared on other translations he had made of material recovered from Leganés.

Footnote: Little of note on this day, except that the case against Hassan el Haski continues to look fragile, even if the prosecution does link him to the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group that does not demonstrate his leading role in organising the Madrid bombings. Meanwhile, the DNA evidence establishes direct connections between sites related to the bombings and several of the accused.

The Trial....Day 39, May 21st

2007-05-22T19:59:00.000+02:00

Another Witness Refuses to Declare

This day began with a refusal by a witness to declare. The witness, Bachir Goumid, was appearing via a videoconference connection to Paris. Instead, the declaration made by the witness to the French police was read to the court. This witness is currently facing charges of being associated to Al Qaeda and the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group (MICG). When he made his declaration he was shown photographs of suspected Islamists and identified Hassan el Haski, who he declared he had known in Syria. In the declaration he said that he did not know El Haski was a leader of the MICG, and said that he put up El Haski at his home for a couple of days in March 2004 for reasons of hospitality. He offered no explanation of how El Haski managed to arrive at his home in Paris.

The police witness with number 79651 declared on cooperation obtained from other Police forces in Belgium, Italy, Morocco and France. The data they received from other forces concerned Hassan el Haski, Mohamed Afalah and the Moussaten family. The information they received on El Haski concerned his possible membership of the MIGC. On Youssef Belhadj, they believed he had lived in the Place Duchesse in Brussels, and that he arrived there on the 3rd March 2004. The witness testified on mobile telephone cards that were found by the Belgian police, including a Spanish card. From the Italian police they received the report on the electronic surveillance carried out on Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed.

The Financing of the Bombings

The expert witnesses from the national police, identified by numbers 87724, 84101 and 87492, declared on a report they had prepared concerning the financing of the train bombings. They declared that Jamal Ahmidam and his trafficking in drugs was the main source of funding. They also stated that the overall cost of the bombings was relatively low.

The Video Found in Leganés

The police specialists identified by numbers 13610 and 73929 declared on video tapes discovered in the wreckage of the Leganés apartment where 7 members of the group said to be responsible for the bombings blew themselves up in April 2004. They analysed one of these tapes, in which 3 individuals appeared. The central figure was accompanied by one person bearing a book, and another carrying a weapon, the witnesses declared that this was a symbolic arrangement. This central figure has been identified as Jamal Ahmidam.

The Connection to ETA

Two expert witnesses from the Tedax bomb disposal division, identified by numbers 58655 and 80212, declared on the use of mobile telephones by ETA compared to their usage in the Madrid bombings. The principal difference is that ETA has used telephones to detonate from a distance, whilst the Madrid bombers used them as timers on the bombs. The witnesses also testified that the models of telephone used by ETA and the Madrid bombers were also different.

In the afternoon session came an appearance by expert police witnesses 17855, 13617, 18028, 73929 and 18972. These witnesses were called to declare on 2 reports they had prepared concerning possible connections between ETA and Islamist groups. The witnesses testified that they had discovered no relationship between ETA and the Madrid bombings. Taking into account the numbers of ETA and Islamist prisoners in Spain, they had only detected 3 possible contacts of any interest at all; none of which was found to go beyond normal contacts between prisoners. They declared that ETA had normally stolen explosives in France (Titadine), or used explosives that they prepared themselves. They stated that ETA never bought explosives from common criminals. On an ETA explosives shipment that was intercepted shortly before the Madrid bombings, these witnesses noted nothing different about this event to separate it from other ETA actions; nor anything that connected it with the group preparing the Madrid bombings.

The witnesses denied any suggestion that they had been put under pressure concerning the conclusions of their reports, nor had these conclusions been changed. Under questioning from chief judge Gomez Bermudez, the witnesses stated that even if the explosive used in the bombs had been Titadine this would not necessarily mean that ETA was involved in the attacks, because of all the other evidence which did not support such a hypothesis. Not only did ETA not claim responsibility for the Madrid bombings, they explicitly denied their participation.

Experts on Telecommunications

Next declared the specialist witnesses on telecommunications, numbers S20-04-X-00 and S20-04-C-72. These witnesses declared on the issue of the activation of the telephone cards used in the bombs or by members of the group carrying out the attacks. One issue was being able to identify when a telephone card had been first used, the witnesses said that in the case of a prepaid card this happens with the first outward call. Even if the first call has not been made, the telephone number is registered as being in use. The information on card activation is stored for 72 hours after the event, this enabled the police to track the activation of the cards suspected to have been used in the bombs. On the cards that were known to have been active in the vicinity of the house in Morata de Tajuña (where it is alleged the bombs were prepared), there is no definitive way of knowing whether they were activated somewhere else outside of this 72 hours data storage limit.

Also declaring with relation to the telephones used in the bombs were the police specialists with numbers 16365, 84114, 82663, 73929, 17855 and 82657. They testified concerning a report on the tracking of the telephone card found in the only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains. They also declared on analysis of telephone usage by several of the accused.

Footnote: The headlines of the day naturally concern the never ending search by the representatives of the conspiracy theorists for any kind of connection to ETA. Those who testified on the issue today were involved in preparing the report which Agustín Díaz de Mera alleged was manipulated to remove evidence of such connections. Nobody at all has said anything to back up his allegations. Most of the evidence they testified on is simply common sense to anyone who looks coldly at the facts. Meanwhile, the refusal of witnesses to testify is making the case against the alleged intellectual authors of the bombings look a little fragile. Whilst there might be enough to convict them of association with terrorist organisations, their role as being the inspirers of the train bombings is not established. The evidence on telephones is important to the trial, although it probably goes over most peoples heads. For those with an interest in such things, the trial is turning into a master class on how people can be tracked through their usage of mobile telephones.

The Trial....Day 38, May 17th

2007-05-21T20:40:00.001+02:00

Establishing the Number of Victims

The day began with the appearance of a forensic expert, José Luis Miguel Pedrero. This witness testified that the officially registered number of wounded as a result of the train bombings is 1841, 17 more than the figure mentioned in the indictment.

The witness Elisabeth Helen Shirley Jeanneret declared on the situation of a Nigerian victim of the bombings called Kenneth. The witness works for an NGO and stated that Kenneth, who was present illegally in Spain, was caught in the explosion at the station of El Pozo. Following the explosion, Kenneth stayed at El Pozo attempting to help other victims of the explosion but left when the police arrived because of his illegal situation in the country. The witness said that he was scared after the explosion and that she had to convince him to go to a doctor. Because of this he is not officially registered as a victim of the bombings, the witness said that he remains in Spain.

The Neighbour in Leganés

Alberto Maeso lived in the apartment building in Leganés where 7 of the alleged perpetrators of the bombings blew themselves up on April 3rd 2004. He said that after 17:30 they heard sounds like firecrackers, and that a neighbour confirmed that shots had been fired. They could see the street was full of police, and could hear chanting. At 19:00 the police evacuated the building, they were not able to return to see the consequences of the explosion until 2 a.m. The witness described the continuing psychological effects of what had happened. For 18 months afterwards they had not been able to live their normal life. The building has been reconstructed but the witness said they continued to suffer problems connected to this reconstruction.

Relatives or Associates of the Accused

The witness Yahya Mawed Mohammad Rajed appeared via a videoconference connection with Spoleto in Italy. This is the person who is alleged to have been recruited to the Islamist cause by Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (El Egipcio) in Milan. Having set up the videoconference the results were disappointing, the witness declined to testify on the grounds that any declartation could be damaging to him. The witness is not covered by the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts but the chief judge warned that action could be attempted at international level over his refusal to declare. In the end the declaration to the police taken from this witness in Italy was read to the court. In this declaration the witness acknowledged knowing El Egipcio, but denied that they had discussed issues related to jihad or that he had been shown radical videos by the other man. He also denies ever having heard El Egipcio talk about the Madrid bombings.

Rachid Bendouda testified on those of the accused that he knew. He declared on having seen Jamal Zougam together in a bar with Abu Dahdah, Serhane ben Abdelmajid and Said Chedadi. The witness said they discussed business matters. He also said he had seen Allekema Lamari with Mohamed Afalah in the area of Lavapíes. On Jamal Ahmidam, he said he had known him many years ago when he dedicated himself to drug trafficking. He also admitted knowing Mouhannad Almallah Dabas and Said Berraj. He claimed that Rachid Aglif was not a friend of Jamal Ahmidam, although this is not what he had declared to the police.

Abdesalam Bouchar is the father of the accused, Abdelmajid Bouchar, and is not obliged to declare against his son. He said that his son used to live and work together with him, but that later he dedicated himself to running, and that he threw him out of their home at the beginning of 2004 because his son did not want to work. From April 2004, he said that he did not see his son until after his arrest. He claimed that his son was not radical in his religious beliefs.

The Identification of the Victims and Those Killed in Leganés

The joint appearance of the expert forensic witnesses Carmen Baladía Olmedo, Juan Miguel Monje Pérez, Miguel Angel Castillo and Francisco Pera Bajo concerned the identification of the victims of the bombings. Carmen Baladía was involved in setting up the emergency morgue at the IFEMA exhibition centre on the day of the bombings. She declared that the bodies were grouped according to the explosion site from which they came, and that they set up an area for autopsies. By the 17th March there were 187 fatal victims of the bombings, 3 of which had still not been positively identified. In the end they identified a total of 191 victims.

Juan Miguel Monje was present at Atocha station on the morning of March 11th, but said that the activities of the bomb disposal squad (Tedax) meant they could do nothing there. The witness said that the injuries observed on the victims were those likely to have been caused by an explosion, and that death would have been instantaneous for many of the victims. The witness also worked at the emergency morgue at IFEMA. The doctors Castillo and Pera testified on the autopsy of the policeman killed at Leganés

Next the witnesses Castillo and Pera remained together with doctors Prieto Carretero and Conejero Estévez. Together they declared on the forensic analysis of the bodies recovered from the Leganés explosion. They said this analysis was equivalent to an autopsy process because the aim was to identify the bodies and establish the cause of death. They declared that the number of identified victims was 7. The witnesses declared that they could be sure that the victims were alive at the time of the explosion from study of the burns and wounds on the bodies.

Finally the expert medical witnesses José Luis Miguel Pedrero, Sara Bosch Carretero and Plaoma Fuentes González declared on the after effects of the bombings for surviving victims.

Footnote: The evidence against El Egipcio remains confined to that of the tape recordings made by the Italian police given the refusal of one of his main contacts in Italy to declare. Apart from this, the most significant evidence of the day is perhaps that concerning Leganés. It has always been difficult for conspiracy theorists to suggest that Leganés was not a suicide, but the problem they have is that none of their theories survive if Leganés is not discredited. Hence their often bizarre attempts to suggest theories on how the police could have staged this event. These theories include suggestions that the bodies found following the explosion were already dead when it occurred. The evidence presented by the forensic experts does little to help this theory, as they demonstrated that there are ways of knowing whether someone was dead or alive at the time of the explosion.

Explosives Analysis....The End Of The Road

2007-05-18T19:41:00.000+02:00

With the presentation to the tribunal of the final report on the analysis of the explosives used in the bombings, the conspiracy theorists are now playing their last card in their efforts to establish any kind of connection between the train bombings and ETA. This is a fairly lengthy post, although significantly shorter than the report itself. A certain level of detail is the only way to explain what the issues are here. The prosecution case is that the bombers used Goma 2 Eco dynamite that was stolen from the Mina Conchita in Asturias.

The tests carried out for the trial have been exhaustive, and the length of the resulting report is testimony to that. They were carried out in a transparent way and were even recorded on film to avoid any disputes over the methodology used. In addition to expert analysts from the police and Guardia Civil, the team carrying out the tests also included nominated experts from the defence and victims associations. The tests carried out have in the end confirmed something that has been said repeatedly since the bombings occurred; that it is not possible to identify the commercial brand of explosive used from the analysis of samples taken from the sites where bombs exploded. All that can be said definitively on these samples is that they contain generic components of dynamite. The conspiracy theorists have constantly rejected this idea and insisted that it meant that proper tests had not been carried out following the train attacks. Now, after months of analysis in which pro-conspiracy theory specialists have participated, the result is the same.

The noise that comes from those that promote the connection to ETA is now based entirely around the results of tests on one sample of fire extinguisher powder recovered from one of the trains where bombs exploded (at the station of El Pozo). All samples recovered from the explosion sites on the trains are of materials that may contain traces of explosive components, rather than being samples of the explosive itself. The tests on the powder have revealed the presence both of nitroglycerine and dinitrotoluene (DNT), neither of which are components of Goma 2 Eco. Followers of the conspiracy theories use this fact to suggest that the explosive used was probably Titadine, a past favourite of ETA although it is several years since they last managed to obtain any. Some, and only some, varieties of Titadine do contain these two components although they are of course present in other dynamites too. The problem for those who want to argue that Goma 2 Eco was not the explosive used in the bombs is that both of these substances have also been detected in several samples of Goma 2 Eco! The quantitative analysis of their presence in these samples of explosive reveals percentages which are far too low for either substance to be a considered a component of the explosive, leaving the conclusion that their presence must be due to some form of contamination.

The sample from El Pozo

Where such contamination might have occurred is an open question, there is no definitive explanation of how several samples of the Goma 2 Eco explosive contain substances that are not recognised components. The possible sources of contamination could come in the factory where the explosive was produced, in the mine from where it was stolen, in the preparation of the bombs, or even in the storage of the samples taken following the bombings. Although it is impossible to explain with the facts we have to hand, let’s take a brief look at each possibility

The factory is probably the least likely source of this contamination, although it cannot be ruled out. The conspiracy theorists deride the possibility by arguing that the company has quality controls which preclude the presence of foreign substances, and also by arguing that the master samples provided by the manufacturer do not contain traces of either DNT or nitroglycerine. This is what I call the "tin of paint" argument. Let’s say you buy a tin of blue paint to paint a wall at home and when you open the tin you find it contains red paint. The conspiracy theorist reacts to this situation by denying reality, if it says on the label that the paint is blue then it must be so; the wall will be painted red but our conspiracy theorist will still insist that in fact the colour of the wall is blue. I would return the paint to the shop where I bought it. Let’s hope that none of these people are ever put in charge of a factory producing food or drink, I can just see them assuring poisoned clients that it is impossible for their product to contain any contaminating substance because they have quality controls!

The Conchita mine in Asturias, where it is alleged the explosives and detonators used in the bombs were stolen, presents a more interesting case for consideration. Interesting above all because it raises the possibility of explaining the contamination through contact between the Goma 2 Eco and another dynamite which does contain both DNT and nitroglycerine; Goma 2 EC. This explosive is the predecessor product of Goma 2 Eco, and evidence has already been presented to the trial on how unused Goma 2 Eco was found scattered around the mine together with some quantity of Goma 2 EC. The mine had used both explosives and it seems perfectly possible that at least some of the stolen explosive could have been in contact with GOMA 2 EC or that both had been stored in the same places. Indeed, it can’t be completely ruled out that the stolen explosive contained some of the older brand, those who stole the explosive would not have been too fussy about what they found at the mine. No Goma 2 EC has been recovered from sites related to the bombings.

Another possible source of contamination has been the storage of all the samples during the last 3 years. Although at first sight this did not seem to me a very likely explanation of the contamination, the results contained in the report do throw up some interesting pointers. There are samples of explosive which come from the same source, but which do not all reveal the presence of the additional substances. Also, and this is probably why the conspiracy theorists are also so very keen to reject this explanation, the all important powder from the train at El Pozo that reveals the presence of nitroglycerine was tested previously in the aftermath of the bombings, and no DNT or nitroglycerine was found in these tests! These are factors which are not conclusive but which do open the possibility of contamination which occurred after the bombings.

We are left with the doubt over the source of contamination, but the verdict of the results cannot be ignored. There is also a wide variation in the proportion of substances detected, even in those samples which are from the same explosive. Some samples were obviously recovered in better condition than others; the dynamite from an unexploded bomb is likely to be in much better condition than the smaller pieces that were recovered from the wreckage of Leganés for example. The stolen explosive itself was not all from the same batch, and some of it was probably already in a more degraded condition. Couple this with the volatility of some of the components and the different storage conditions and you have a recipe for a wide range of results. Some of the samples were washed with water and acetone as part of a previous testing phase, something which the conspiracy theorists also seize on to back their case, the fire extinguisher powder does not seem to have passed through this process: No evidence has been provided to show why this process would remove nitroglycerine traces without also removing other soluble components of the explosives.

Despite the variation of the results, and all the evidence suggestive of contamination, one of the analysts involved - almost certainly the one representing the Asociación de Victimas del Terrorismo - insists in the report that the presence of nitroglycerine and DNT in the fire extinguisher powder makes the use of Titadine "highly probable". Why this should be the case when we know that the same substances have been found in some samples of Goma 2 Eco, or when we also know that they are also components of Goma 2 EC, is something that only this person can answer, he offers no further explanation for his conclusion.

One of the pro-conspiracy analysts even complains in his conclusions that there is too much emphasis in the samples on Goma 2 Eco. Well there is of course a fairly simple explanation for the overwhelming presence amongst the samples of this explosive. Traces or even significant quantities of it have been recovered from the only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains, the Kangoo van found near Alcalá railway station on the day of the bombings, the wreckage of the apartment that was blown up in Leganés, the device that was found on the high speed railway line connecting Madrid to Sevilla, and the house where the bombs are alleged to have been prepared. It needs to be emphasised that no other identifiable explosive has been found at any of the sites connected to the bombings. The Titadine that was used for comparative purposes only in the explosives tests came from the capture of ETA members transporting explosives towards Madrid in a van; an event which has no demonstrated connection to the train bombings. I won’t even go into the significant body of evidence that surrounds the supply of stolen Goma 2 Eco from the Mina Conchita in Asturias. So there we have it, a small sample of powder from one of the trains containing tiny traces of components that are found in Titadine, but not exclusively in Titadine, against all of the above evidence.

Far from revealing evidence of a cover up or even involvement of the government in the train bombings, the explosives analysis reveals very clearly the political intention that lies behind the conspiracy theories. You cannot look impartially at the results of the analysis and come away with the conclusion that Titadine must have been the explosive used. Anyone who wants to believe that media such as El Mundo are simply doing a straightforward task of journalistic investigation should take a look at the selective and distorted presentation of the issue by that newspaper. All facts inconvenient for the Titadine theory are ignored and swept aside, anything at all which supports it is treated as being beyond reproach. That’s why they cling to that small bag containing reddish powder as if it was the only significant evidence that had emerged in the entire case, it might not seem much but it’s all they have left. At least they have not confused it with another sample containing white powder that was recovered from Leganés. In this sample the tests also detected the presence of components of explosives, the substance being tested was....cocaine.

The Trial....Day 37, May 16th

2007-05-18T19:40:00.000+02:00

The day began with a reference by the chief judge Javier Gómez Bermudez to a hunger strike which has been begun by some of the accused – Abdelmajid Bouchar, Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed, Hassan el Haski and Youssef Belhadj. The judge declared that the law would not permit the suspension of the trial as a result of this action, and that the hearing could continue even in the absence of the hunger strikers.

Continuing the declarations by expert witnesses, came a joint appearance by two specialists from the Guardia Civil, identified by the numbers Y-57188-A and E-80152-J. The court was shown a video made of an inspection carried out in the area of the Conchita mine in March 2005. This is the mine in Asturias where it is alleged the explosives used in the bombs were stolen. Also shown were diagrams and photographs of different parts of the mine and the places where explosives were stored, and images of explosives.

These witnesses also declared on the tracking of telephone records, and said that the first mobile telephone card they investigated was that of Carmen Toro; from that they got to the telephones used by Emilio Suárez Trashorras (4 in total). These cards registered traffic to telephones used by Jamal Ahmidam. There were also calls registered on telephones used by other members of the group from Asturias charged with supplying the explosives. Overall the connection between those in Asturias and those accused of committing the bombings was established via Abdennabi Kounjaa, Rachid Oulad Akcha and Jamal Ahmidam. There was a also a record of a call from Serhane ben Abdelmajid to Trashorras. On the journeys made by Trashorras to Madrid, they managed to find some evidence because of a credit card he had used.

The witnesses declared that Trashorras used only prepaid telephones and cabins to get in contact with Jamal Ahmidam, but that the mobile telephone of Carmen Toro was used to call Ahmidam. Calls have been registered from a cabin just 50 metres from the home of Toro and Trashorras to Jamal Ahmidam. The witnesses said that Rachid Aglif and Rafa Zouhier acted as intermediaries. They detected telephone traffic between Ahmidam (who used 3 different phones) and Zouhier, and that the contacts went up to the 18^th March 2004.

The afternoon session began with 3 police ballistics experts, identified by their police numbers 18522, 18851 and 18452. They declared on the Sterling submachine guns found following the explosion at the apartment in Leganés. They said one was fit to be used once cleaned, but that the other had a fracture caused by the explosion. They said that the weapons were identifiable by serial numbers.

Next to declare were 3 police experts on document analysis, numbers 16579, 74964, and 77639. They testified on documents alleged to have been written by Serhane ben Abdelmajid, Mohamed Bouharrat and Rachid Oulad Akcha. They also declared concerning falsified identity documentation recovered from the wreckage of the Leganés apartment. They stated that false passports found were authentic documents with replaced photographs.

The next 3 police specialists, numbers 85513, 67147 and 19245 testified on fingerprint evidence. They said they found prints of Mohamed Bouharrat on a book recovered from Leganés, as well as other prints belonging to Jamal Ahmidam and Abdennabi Kounjaa. All of the prints were recovered from printed matter, which was protected a bit from the explosion.

The testimony was then continued by witness 19245 together with another specialist 18479. They declared on evidence recovered from the Kangoo van found in Alcalá de Henares on the day of the bombings. They said that the FBI gave them an identification of a print belonging to a US citizen, but that they did not agree with this identification. From other prints found they made a positive identification of Daoud Ouhnane.

The witnesses said that prints for Abdelmajid Bouchar were discovered in Leganés and in the house at Morata de Tajuña said to have been used for preparing the bombs. A print from Saed el Harrak was also discovered in the Kangoo van.

Footnote: If the constant switching between expert witnesses seems strange, with some continuing and others going, it is because they are testifying on the reports that they have been involved in preparing. So when one report is finished with, the witnesses change.

The Trial....Day 36, May 10th

2007-05-18T19:39:00.000+02:00

Tracking The Dynamite Used in the Bombs

This day in the trial saw a single appearance by a specialist from the Guardia Civil, identified by number Y-57188-A. This witness is a sergeant who was involved in the investigation into the source of the explosives used in the train bombs, and prepared a report on the issue. He testified that the explosive used was Goma 2 Eco manufactured by the company Unión Española de Explosivos based in Páramo de Masa. The judgement was based on examination of actual explosives and on wrappers recovered from the wreckage of the apartment in Leganés where 7 suspected members of the group who carried out the bombings blew themselves up.

The investigators tracked the identified batches of explosives from the factory to their destination. From the identification numbers found they were able to identify shipments delivered to the Conchita mine in Asturias in January and February 2004. The investigators also tracked shipments of detonators that matched those found at scenes associated with the train bombings. The shipments of Goma 2 Eco that they tracked were not delivered exclusively to the Conchita mine, but the detonators of the type recovered were only delivered to this mine. It was the only mine in Spain using these detonators. From the wrappings recovered from Leganés they were able to estimate that they had held approximately 90 kilos of explosives.

The witness stated that Conchita mine was out of the way and not somewhere where anyone would normally pass. He also stated that it was an area where it would not be difficult to hide significant quantities of explosive. He declared that the mine was operating a double accounting system, the real consumption was not revealed to inspectors from the Guardia Civil.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC
El Mundo

The Trial....Day 35, May 9th

2007-05-16T19:57:00.002+02:00

The day began with the appearance of two national police experts, identified by numbers 17855 and 13610. They were the authors of reports on the analysis of a computer recovered from the wreckage of the apartment in Leganés where 7 of those held responsible for the train bombings blew themselves up on the 3rd April 2004. These 2 witnesses also participated in the preparation of reports on Islam and on possible links between Islamists and the Basque group ETA. They declared that the latter report concluded that no such links existed, and that the contacts which had taken place between prisoners were a normal occurrence. Questioned on the allegation that an Islamist prisoner, Abdelkrim Bensmail, was found in possession of a formula for an explosive mixture used by ETA, the witnesses testified that the formula discovered was not the same as that normally employed by ETA.

The witnesses declared that the information on Islamist groups recovered from Leganés was all about groups that operate within the orbit of Al-Qaeda. The Takfir sect and the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group belong to the Salafist current which is considered to be part of Al Qaeda in North Africa.They had also worked on a report on the mobile telephones used in the bombs which concluded that there could have been more than one provider of telephones. These witnesses also testified on the tracking of calls made by Jamal Ahmidam on the 28th and 29th February 2004, when he travelled from Madrid to Avilés in Asturias. Investigation of the calls revealed that some were made close to the Conchita mine from where it is alleged the explosives were stolen. During these 2 days Ahmidam had conversations by telephone with Emilio Suárez Trashorras, Otman el Ghanoui, Mohamed Oulad Akcha and Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil.

Next the witness 13610 declared together with another specialist, identified by number 84114. The 2 experts were questioned concerning a report on the Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade, in whose name a claim of responsibility was made for the bombings. The witnesses said that intelligence information pointed to this organisation being an offshoot of Al Qaeda. They declared that the London bombings were also claimed in the name of this organisation. They also investigated the use of an Internet site called Global Islamic Media, they had been unable to access the site directly, but from material recovered they found items taken from it. These specialists were also questioned on a report they prepared on the Renault Kangoo van found in Alcalá de Henares on the day of the bombings, the Leganés apartment, and other properties related to the bombings. Amongst other things, this report referred to documentation recovered in Leganés. The witnesses were not involved in the investigation, their task was to compile information that the investigation uncovered.

Witness 84114 was then joined by another police specialist with number 82663 to declare on a report they prepared on documentation recovered in Leganés. They said that almost all of the documentation found was in Arabic and that thousands of documents had to be checked from the computer and memory sticks. They declared that a fax sent to the newspaper ABC claiming responsibility for the attacks had been written by Serhane ben Abdelmajid. They also testified on a document divided into 19 separate files which contained information on military training and the use of explosives. On weapons discovered in the wreckage of the apartment, they said that a pistol had belonged to a former member of the Guardia Civil, and that the origin of the Sterling submachine guns found was not clear. They also testified on a document discovered on a laptop computer belonging to Jamal Ahmidam, the document had chapters on guerilla warfare, the use of weapons and communications security.

Footnote: The existence of any kind of contact between Islamists and ETA is something the conspiracy theorists still attempt to place in the trial, yet no witness has provided any significant evidence of such contacts in the entire course of the trial. One of the lawyers representing the pro-conspiracy theory victims associations was slapped down very hard by the chief judge Gomez Bermudez in this session after he tried to insist on this issue. Again he was reminded that the role of these associations in the trial is to support their written accusation, despite this they never lose an opportunity to abuse their position and introduce conspiracy theory material whenever they can. The question of the affiliations of the perpetrators is more interesting, as we enter into the question of how formal the links are between Al Qaeda and groups which are said to be under its influence.

The Trial....Day 34, May 8th

2007-05-16T19:57:00.001+02:00

The Surveillance of El Egipcio

The day began with the resumed declaration by witness 32372 from the Italian police anti-terrorist division (the DIGOS). This witness continued to testify on the surveillance in Italy of Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (“El Egipcio”). In reply to questions from defence lawyers, the witness said that the name of Larbi ben Sellam came up during the investigation as someone who had the confidence of El Egipcio. However, the only names of the accused that appear in the recordings made of telephone conversations are those of Serhane ben Abdelmajid and Fouad el Morabit.

This witness was in charge of the electronic surveillance of El Egipcio, but did not listen to every conversation recorded. He was present during the transcription of some of the most important recordings, and signed these documents. The analysis of the contents of El Egipcio’s computer was also carried out by the DIGOS, and the witness was involved in approval of this process. He declared that in May 2004 the accused downloaded images from Internet of suitcases containing explosives and connected to a mobile telephone.

The Guardia Civil and Explosives Trafficking in Asturias

A witness from the weapons inspection service of the Guardia Civil, identified by the number 660, testified on the control of explosives consumption. The witness said that from 2002 there were obligations on the mine security guards to control the use of explosives and to prevent removal of unused supplies. The witness said that all unused explosive should be returned to stores. He testified that the Guardia Civil did not have the resources to closely monitor this situation, and that they were unaware on any significant disappearance of explosives.

Another witness from the Guardia Civil in Asturias, with witness number 662, declared that in 2003 the division in Oviedo was aware of attempts by Emilio Suárez Trashorras and Antonio Toro to traffic in explosives. He remembered a meeting where the possibility was mentioned that ETA might be interested in these explosives. The witness was instructed to investigate the issue and was aware that a sample of explosive had been supplied by an unidentified source (said to be Rafa Zouhier).

The witness from the Guardia Civil in Asturias, identified by number C-21968-A, was involved in mine inspections of the company that owns the Mina Conchita, Caolines de Merillés. He declared that they detected no problems in control of explosives in 2003 and that the inspections were carried out on an annual basis. During these inspections they would check the storage of explosives and the documentation on consumption. Since the train bombings the measures to control explosives have been tightened considerably. The witness said that they detected errors in 2004, but after the bombings occurred. Even in 2004 they noted no signs of the stores having been forced. The witness said it was impossible for them to exercise complete control over the explosives consumption in the mine.

Another witness from the Guardia Civil, a Lieutenant Colonel identified with number 621, made a report on an inspection of Mina Conchita in July 2003 in which no items of importance were recorded. The witness said he had seen an information report concerning the possible trafficking of explosives by Trashorras and Toro. After a meeting with prosecutors in Avilés he was informed that there were no results on the issue. Nobody ordered further investigations on Toro and Trashorras, and Rafa Zouhier was not put under investigation.

The next Guardia Civil witness from Asturias, identified as Q-972838-H, holds the rank of General and was in charge of the Guardia Civil for all of Asturias at the time of the bombings. He declared that he was informed in February 2003 about the police informer José Ignacio Fernández Díaz (known as “Nayo” ) and his information on possible explosives trafficking. The witness said that it was agreed with other divisions that the investigation would be led by the Guardia Civil from Oviedo. Later he received a report on the possibility of Trashorras and Toro being in possession of 150 kilos of explosive. When the investigation turned up nothing concrete concerning explosives, it became focused on drug trafficking.

The next witness from the Guardia Civil, identified as Q-077185-Q, was in charge of the Guardia Civil in the town of Gijón. He declared that Nayo was not their informant; his relationship was with the Guardia Civil in Gijón. This witness was removed from his post as a result of a recording between one of his agents and another informer, Lavandera, that referred to explosives trafficking in 2001.

The declarations from Guardia Civil members in Asturias continued with witness T-53739-V. This witness, general secretary of an association representing members of the Guardia Civil, was involved in the preparation of 2 reports on the lack of resources dedicated to controlling arms and explosives trafficking in Asturias. He testified on a change of regulations which meant less control by the Guardia Civil of explosives usage in mines. He said that the agents inspecting the mines would not enter the mine galleries, as they were not equipped for this.

The witness I-57655-Z was a lieutenant in the judicial police in Gijón. He said he was informed by members of the Guardia Civil from Oviedo that they had received information about explosives trafficking. The witness attended an interview with the informer Lavandera but that no new information resulted from this and no report was prepared. A different conversation on another occasion was recorded but the witness never heard this tape.

Realtives and Contacts of the Accused

Samir Suleyman rented a room, together with his brother, in the property in the Madrid street of Virgen del Coro where several of the accused lived. The witness said that he lived there between August and October of 2003, and that amongst others living in the property were Fouad el Morabit and Basel Ghalyoun. He said that he and his brother lived independently in the property and had little contact with other residents. He did declare that he saw Serhane ben Abdelmajid at the property.

Allal Moussaten is the father of Brahim and Mohamed Moussaten. Another of the accused, Youssef Belhadj, is the brother of his wife. This witness testified that in the period before the train bombings Belhadj spent 15-30 days in Spain, but that he then returned to Belgium. He declared that Brahim was “normal”, not especially religious and not a follower of Takfir doctrine. They never talked together about jihad or about Brahim going to fight in Iraq. He also testified that Mohamed was not strongly religious. He said that his sons knew Mohamed Afalah, and that he knew Afalah’s father well. According to the witness, Youssef belhadj also knew Afalah. The witness said that he was in a mosque on the day of the Leganés explosion and met Afalah’s father who was preparing the wedding of another son. Mohamed Afalah also arrived at one point. The witness was detained by the police during several days, and questioned about the bombings. He said the police hit and threatened him, asking him why he had come to this country to kill people.

Footnote: Much of the day has been dominated by further evidence of the failure of the Guardia Civil in Asturias to act on information about explosives trafficking in the region in the years preceding the bombings. Further confirmation also of the lax controls in the mines which made it so easy for such trafficking to take place. The trial is now reaching the end of witness appearances in preparation for moving onto the stage of examining the material evidence.

The Trial....Day 33, May 7th

2007-05-14T22:27:00.001+02:00

The Bombings According to Kamal Ahbar

The day began with the resumption of the declaration begun on day 32 by Kamal Ahbar, following the dramatic claims he made in that session about the authorship of the attacks. Once again he testified on time he spent with Mohamed Afalah in Turkey after the bombings. The witness said they travelled on false passports, but that he did not know who provided these. He also claimed that Daoud Ouhnane left Spain on May 20th 2004, and that he died around the 7th or 8th June. He stated that the 7 who died in Leganés, together with Afalah, Said Berraj and Ouhnane were those who carried out the preparation of the attacks.

Another claim made by Ahbar was that the group carrying out the bombings were assisted by Emilio Suárez Trashorras and Antonio Toro in the purchase of weapons from a member of the Guardia Civil. The witness said that he was only in contact once with Safwan Sabagh, who he accused in the previous session of being an organiser of the attacks. He said that the attacks were financed by part of the proceeds from a theft of hashish, the share that belonged to Jamal Ahmidam and Mohamed Oulad Akcha. Also concerning Amidam, he stated that the Renault Kangoo van used on the day of the attacks was also used to go to Asturias to collect the explosives, although two vehicles were used for this. Ahbar said that the bombs were prepared at the house rented by Jamal Ahmidam in Morata de Tajuña. He also said that Afalah was present in Leganés on the day of the explosion, but that he left the apartment to send messages claiming responsibility for the attacks.

Questioned on whether he had been in contact with any of the accused in the prison of Alcalá Meco, the witness said he had no such contacts in the past week, but there were some before. He denied that he had prepared his declaration with anyone, including those accused in the trial. A further claim that he made was that the original objective of the bombers was going to be the academy of the Guardia Civil in Jaén, he did not know who gave instructions to change the plan. On another of the accused, Basel Ghalyoun, the witness said that he had met him in prison but that he was told by Daoud, Afalah and Berraj that Ghalyoun was not involved.

El Egipcio and the Italian Police

A witness identified by the number 4833 is a member of the Italian special operations police, known as the DIGOS. This witness was based in Milan and from the end of March 2004 took part in an investigation concerning Rabei Osman el Sayed Ahmed (El Egipcio). The Italian police had received information from their Spanish counterparts concerning this person and mobile telephone cards. They tracked the card and were able to find Ahmed as a result of this, he was working as a painter in Milan. The police then obtained judicial authorisation to tap the telephones being used by the accused, and to install microphones in his home. They also set up camera surveillance of his home address. He said that Ahmed was in contact with people from Milan, with an Egyption known as Yahia, with a Moroccan citizen living in Belgium (Mohamed Chabarou), and with Mohamed, the brother of Yahia. The witness said that there were regular conversations with Yahia and that the latter went to live at the home of El Egipcio. He stated that many of these conversations involved El Egipcio teaching Yahia about radical Islamist ideas. El Egipcio also showed him videos of Islamist fighters.

The police investigation also revealed that El Egipcio visited radical Islamist web sites on the Internet, and that after his arrest many files were found on the computer containing declarations from radical leaders or suicide activists. The witness said El Egipcio also visited sites containing instructions on bomb making and activation. He also declared that El Egipcio made references to the Madrid bombings in the conversations that were recorded; in one conversation with Yahia which lasted several hours, El Egipcio talked about being one of those behind the bombings saying it was his project and that those who died in Leganés were friends of his. By checking telephone traffic, the police in Italy concluded that El Egipcio first arrived in the country at the end of 2003, and that he returned again at the beginning of February 2004. Between the 8th and 12th March 2004 no traffic of any kind was recorded for his Italian or Spanish phone cards. On the 17th April 2004 El Egipcio attempted to call Fouad el Morabit, and there were also references to El Morabit in the calls between Chabarou and El Egipcio.

A second witness from the DIGOS, identified by number 32372, also declared concerning El Egipcio. He stated that they received information that a card belonging to an Italian mobile telephone was amongst those identified as having been in contact with Fouad el Morabit. The witness said that El Egipcio was first located in Milan on the 15th April 2004. The witness said he worked with the translators who listened to the recordings made of El Egipcio's conversations, and that he realised that this was a potentially dangerous man. He also confirmed what the other witness had told the court about the reference made by El Egipcio to the Madrid bombings in the conversations that were recorded.

Footnote: The story of the bombings as told by Kamal Ahbar came under much closer inspection in this session, there is a strong suspicion that his version of events has been agreed together with some of the accused; the only living people who he accuses of involvement are those from the side of the explosives provision. He got caught by various contradictions in his account during this session. His testimony also seems to have caused tensions amomgst the accused, and Rafa Zouhier was removed temporarily from the glass enclosure where all the accused normally sit. Meanwhile, the evidence from the Italian police is crucial to the case against El Egipcio as being one of those behind the bombings; without this he hardly appears in the trial.

The Trial....Day 32, May 4th

2007-05-09T23:38:00.000+02:00

A Witness Who Names the Bombers

Kamal Ahbar is currently awaiting trial for another case (named Operación Sello), and was advised by the chief judge of his right not to incriminate himself. The witness declared that Larbi ben Sellam lived with him for several months, and that he knew Daoud Ouhnane. He also declared that he was in Turkey with Mohamed Afalah and was detained by the Turkish authorities; although he was later released. He said the last time he saw Afalah was in Syria in February 2005, after which Ahbar returned to Syria. The witness also declared on the relationship between Afalah and Mohamed Belhadj in Holland; he said that both had plenty of money and were able to obtain false documentation. The witness had known Afalah since childhood in Morocco. He said that either at the end of April 2004, or the beginning of May, Said Berraj and Afalah went to Belgium on their way to Iraq.

Ahbar said that Jamal Ahmidam was looking for weapons and got in contact with Antonio Toro and Rafa Zouhier, who bought 3 Kalashnikovs together with Mohamed Oulad Akcha and Daoud Ouhnane. The witness stated that Afalah, Berraj and Ouhnane did not have any relationship with Youssef Belhadj or Hassan el Haski. They were in contact with a man called Sabagh from Valencia, and someone else from a mosque in Madrid, as well as Allekema Lamari. Ahbar then claimed that the train bombings were prepared in Valencia, but that they had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The telephones were supplied by the iman from the mosque in Madrid, Abu Jaber. He said that Larbi ben Sellam did not offer any assistance to Afalah.

According to this witness, the explosives were financed by a robbery of 200 kilos of hashish. Ahmidam, Ouhnane and Akcha travelled to Asturias the week before the attacks to obtain the explosives; the witness said he was told about this by Afalah and Ouhnane. He declared that those who placed the bombs were the 7 who died in the explosion in Leganés, together with Ouhnane and Afalah. He also said that he did not know Jamal Zougam, and that he had been told Zougam was not involved, Basel Ghalyoun was also not part of the group.

Contacts of the Accused

Mohammad Suleyman rented a room in the property in the Madrid street of Virgen del Coro, where some of the accused also lived. He lived there for several months in 2003. The witness was working at night and said he did not have much relationship with the others living at the property. The witness declared that he did not see any meetings where pro-Islamist videos were shown, and said that he would have been aware if many people had arrived for a meeting. He did declare that he knew Serhane ben Abdelmajid (“El Tunecino”), and testified that Basel Ghalyoun, Mouhannad Almallah Dabas, and Fouad el Morabit were all friends of El Tunecino.

Abdul Karim Rahim Awleya testified concerning Mouhannad Almallah Dabas. He said that Almallah Dabas had family problems and that in the mosque they attended the iman was trying to deal with this. The witness said he also knew El Tunecino.

The Arrest of Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil

The police witness with number 13404 was a brigade chief in the Spanish enclave of in 2004, and received orders from Madrid to arrest Abdelilah el Fadoual el Akil. This witness said they managed to locate him via his brother. He participated in a search of the arrested mans home, and all personal effects removed from the property were sent to Madrid. Police witness 65094 was also involved in the detention of El Akil, and participated in his transfer to Madrid. He said the search of El Akil’s home involved the removal of documents and a computer which filled 7 bags in total. El Akil was taken to Madrid by helicopter. A third police witness involved in the arrest, number 53445, also stated that they located El Akil through his brother.

Footnote:
The evidence from Kamal Ahbar could potentially be sensational in that he points the finger directly at named individuals as being responsible for the bombings. However, if any of what he says is true then the only guilty ones amongst the accused are those said to have supplied the explosives, Ahbar has drawn a line which puts those who are dead or missing one one side, and those who are alive but facing charges on the other. The iman who he named as being amongst the organisers is the police informer known as "Cartagena", a favourite of the conspiracy theorists. Ahbar's declaration continues in the next session. The rest of the witnesses from today's session add extra information but shed little light on events, it seems clear that we are reaching the end of the witness appearances.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
Datadiar - Daily Summary
ABC - Kamal Ahbar