TOWARDS
the end of the trial, while defence witnesses were still giving their evidence,
an Israeli journalist was caught talking to one of the jurors and saying something
like: "I've got a telephone number if you want it." The juror stated that the
approach was about the outcome of the trial. The journalist was interviewed
by the police but he denied what had happened. However, despite this blatant
interference with the jury and the clear risk of bias and outside influence
it represented, the judge refused to take any action and both the journalist
and the juror were allowed to remain in court for the rest of the trial.
The journalist, Mr Jerry Lewis, was from Israel Radio and several newspapers
including the Jewish Chronicle. "The reporter concerned has made no secret of
his pro-Israeli sympathies," said the judge. However he ruled that there was
no real risk of bias to the jury, declined to exclude the journalist from the
court and although he accepted that the journalist may well have committed a
contempt of court, a criminal offense, he took no action against either other
than a verbal warning.
But as Gareth Peirce explains, "What was truly terrifying is that a journalist
during the case, who had a view, who no doubt had prejudices, and who had a
clear interest in the conviction of these defendants and clear opposition to
the views they were expressing, spoke in full view of the clerk, and had sufficient
confidence to engage in conversation with at least one of the jury."
What had made the journalist think that juror would be receptive to his approach?
Was that the first such approach that had been made? Had other jurors been approached?
"That gives one extreme pause for thought in any event about the outcome of
the trial", said Mrs Peirce, "If one had no other cause for concern about this
case, that would be the one." One can only imagine how different the outcome
would have been if the journalist in question had been Arab or Palestinian.
This incident of Israeli involvement, way outside the confines of the courtroom,
went some way to explaining the fears and 'paranoia' felt by Samar and Jawad.
Now, their 'secretive' behaviour, and concerns about revealing the nature and
purpose of their crackpot experiments, seemed reasonable.
DURING
the defence summing up near the end of the trial, a documentary was due to be
shown on television in the evening about the hijacking of an aircraft in Somalia
in 1977 by members of a splinter group of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine). At such a sensitive point in the trial there was an obvious risk
that this portrayal of Palestinian activists who were terrorists would prejudice
the jury's view of Samar and Jawad. It could only reinforce the hostile impression
of Palestinians as given by the prosecution. But the judge not only refused
to order a delay in the screening of the programme, he also specifically drew
the jury's attention to it by giving them the details of when it was going to
be shown at the same time as telling them not to let it influence them.
The documentary was likely to be especially damaging to Samar and Jawad as the
police had found an unsent letter of application to join the PFLP that Samar
had written back in 1989. For a while during the Intifada she had been interested
in the PFLP, she has made no secret of this, but after a couple of years her
interest dwindled which is why she didn't send in the application.
In fact, the PFLP renounced all violent activities outside the Occupied Territories
back in the late 1970s. Expert witnesses called by the defence, such as Professor
Yazid Sayiegh and George Joffe, confirmed that there is ample evidence that
the PFLP had not been involved in military activities for a least a decade before
Samar considered joining. It is now a mainstream political party and a member
of the PLO. This was accepted by the prosecution. Indeed, the unofficial PFLP
spokesman in London openly discussed these bombings with the police; he was
helpful, answered all their questions and made a statement that was read out
in court confirming that the PFLP had no involvement whatsoever in the explosions.
Nevertheless, the prosecution insisted that the PFLP was still a 'terrorist'
organisation and claimed that Samar's old, unsent application showed some sort
of a connection. In the light of the television documentary about a PFLP splinter
group which the judge allowed to be screened, this was especially damaging to
Samar in the eyes of the jury.
