VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKH #0670/01 1401525
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201525Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3830
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC 0076

UNCLAS KHARTOUM 000670 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DOJ FOR NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION 
DEPT FOR M, P, L, AF, DS, S/USSES, CA AND S/CT 
DEPT FOR USAID 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC PTER PGOV SU
SUBJECT:  MAY 17 SESSION OF GRANVILLE/ABBAS MURDER TRIAL 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  On May 17, 2009, four U.S. Embassy Foreign 
Service National (FSN) employees from the Regional Security Office, 
Political/Economic and Public Affairs sections attended the trial of 
five Sudanese men accused in the January 1, 2008 murders of USAID 
Officer John Granville and FSN driver Abdelrahman Abbas.  The 
prosecution cross-examined the defense witness, Captain Mohamed 
Abdelgadir, a former weapons expert in the Sudanese Armed Forces 
(SAF).  Abdelgadir refuted the police investigation reports so the 
judge will have a third weapons expert examine the evidence and 
present his findings to the court at the next trial session 
scheduled for May 21, 2009.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The trial of the five Sudanese men accused of the January 
1, 2008 terrorist murders of USAID Officer John Granville and FSN 
driver Abdelrahman Abbas continued on May 17, 2009.  The prosecution 
was represented by Chair Mohamed Mustafa Musa, Granville family 
attorney Taha Ibrahim and Abbas family attorney Ismail Abu Sugra. 
The defense was represented by deputy defense Chair Adil Abdul 
Ghani, Ahmed Abu Agla, Jamel Eltahir and Wajdi Salih.  The defense 
Chair, Siddiq Kadoda, was not present.  The primary SAF 
investigator, Major General Abdelraheem Ahmed Abdelraheem, was also 
present. 
 
¶3.  (U)  The prosecution began its cross examination of the defense 
witness, Captain Mohamed Abdelgadir, a retired weapons expert in the 
SAF.  Abdelgadir mentioned three reasons why the weapons presented 
as evidence are not, in his opinion, the ones  used in the killing 
of Messrs. Granville and Abbas.  He said that the marks on the 
barrel of the weapon, the burning of the bullet in the weapon and 
the marks left on the shell casings do not match those used in the 
killing. 
 
¶4.  (U)  The prosecution asked Abdelgadir how experts compare shell 
casings with other casings.  He explained that the firing pin, the 
ejector and the combustion in the chamber of the weapon cause 
markings on each round that is fired.  The Prosecution asked about 
the "fingerprints" put on casings and how he determined this. 
Abdelgadir said that the effect of the barrel will put certain 
characteristics on the casing.  He also discussed the ejector and 
how it puts marks on the shell casing. 
 
¶5.  (U) The prosecution asked the witness how he determined the 
trajectory of the rounds.  He stated that he used a laser as well as 
mathematics to determine the angles.  The prosecution wanted to know 
if only a rope or laser could be used to find the angles.  He said 
no, that mathematics would also be needed. 
 
¶6.  (U)  The prosecution asked him if it was possible to determine 
whether a specific weapon was used by examining the markings left on 
the casings.  At first he stated that it was impossible to know 
which weapon fired a specific casing.  His testimony was 
inconsistent.  Later in the cross examination, he admitted that the 
markings left on the casings can be matched to the barrel of a 
specific weapon. 
 
¶7.  (U)  The prosecution inquired about the casings that were found 
at the crime scene and which weapon fired them.  He said that in his 
opinion the shell casings did not come from a pistol because the 
shot groupings were too tight.  Instead, he stated he believed that 
one automatic weapon was used for the shooting. 
 
¶8.  (U)  The prosecution asked if the weapon was fired from inside 
the car.  Abdelgadir said that it was.  He agreed with the initial 
investigation report that the trajectory and distance were correct. 
The prosecution asked where the casings would fall if they were 
ejected from a Kalashnikov automatic machine gun, and the barrel of 
the weapon was outside the car window.  Abdelgadir stated that the 
casings would fall inside the car. 
 
¶9.  (U) Granville Attorney Taha discussed questions about the report 
from the crime scene investigator and the location of the casings in 
relation to the accident scene.  Taha asked Abdelgadir a 
hypothetical question: "if the shooting happened from a short 
distance, would the ejector push the casings out on the right side?" 
 Abdelgadis said yes.  However, he added that all the casings were 
found on the opposite side.  The prosecution asked if someone were 
to step on the casings, would this change them.  Abdelgadir said 
that it could depending on the weight of the person.  There was then 
a discussion concerning the mathematical computations used to 
determine the angle of the shooting.  The judge raised questions 
about  Abdelgadir's calculations. 
 
¶10. (U)  Abbas Attorney Abu Sugra asked Abdelgadir what type of 
training he had received regarding crime scene investigation.  He 
stated that he had not been formally educated in this field, but had 
a lot of experience with investigating airplane crashes, car 
accidents and shootings. 
 
¶11.  (U)  On an unrelated theme, the prosecution showed the court 
the results of the handwriting expert analysis that was done on the 
dining facility receipts as discussed during the February 24th trial 
session.  The expert concluded that defense witness Yassir Elhaj 
Alhal's signature was on the receipts.  He had originally claimed 
that he was in Khartoum with a friend (one of the defendants) during 
the shootings.  However, his signature identified on the dining 
facility receipts supports the prosecution's assertion that he was 
in the field on January 1st.  The prosecution asked the judge to 
open a separate case against Eltagi for perjury.  The defense 
objected, and asked if the manifest for the flight going to Khartoum 
on the days in question had been checked. 
 
¶12.  (U)  The next trial date is scheduled for May 21, 2009, when 
the judge will bring in a third weapons expert for questioning.  The 
judge also set the schedule for submission of final pleadings.  Taha 
Ibrahim will submit on May 25, followed by Ismael Abu Sugra and the 
public prosecutors on May 27.  The defendants will present their 
final pleadings on June 4 at which time the judge will schedule a 
date for announcement of the verdict. 
 
ASQUINO