Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Who bombed the Hilton Hotel? [Repeat of program originally broadcast on Sunday 10 Feb. 1991 with additional evidence and information]

EVAN PEDERICK: I recall Mr Anderson's words verbatim, at this point. He looked at me and he said, quite deliberately: 'No, we're going to kill the guy'. And that's the only part of the conversation I recall, but that part of the conversation is extremely clear in my mind.

LIZ JACKSON: That's the self-confessed Hilton bomber, Evan Pederick, giving evidence at the committal hearing of Tim Anderson. It was Pederick's evidence that was critical in the subsequent finding that Anderson, too, was guilty of the bombing. Despite that finding of guilt, Tim Anderson and his supporters continue to maintain his innocence. With his appeal being heard in Sydney this week, we're replaying our special report - 'Who Bombed the Hilton?'. Since this program first went to air, there have been a number of interesting developments.

Tim Anderson was arrested 13 years after the Hilton bombing on the basis of a statement made by notorious prison informer, Ray Denning. Last week, a British linguistics expert concluded that Denning's statement was not the work of one author. The New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption is now investigating the widespread use of prison informers, but Ray Denning is still looking sweet. As a reward for his information in a number of trials, his life sentence now expires in November this year. But in today's program we'll be concentrating on the evidence of Evan Pederick. Anderson's appeal papers cite 30 specific instances in which that evidence was shown to be unreliable. We'll test the evidence ourselves using original tape recordings of police interviews, re-creations of those interviews and court transcripts. The results may surprise you.

'Who Bombed the Hilton' is presented by Sharon Davis.

EVAN PEDERICK: The most important reason in my coming forward was the personal, spiritual reason, the desire to be able to come to terms with myself, to be able to live with myself. Letting sleeping dogs lie is perhaps one thing - a thing which I was able to do for almost 12 years - but when I heard of Anderson's arrest, I felt that it was quite another thing to stand idly by and do nothing and listen to lies. I felt that that would amount to condoning the crime all over again. There's a personal thing there. I wanted to put myself right with God and with myself. I don't separate those two things. It was that. There was another thing which is, I guess, a lot less noble and larger, and that is revenge. I had, for many years, nursed a hatred of Tim Anderson.

SHARON DAVIS: Evan Pederick and Tim Anderson were both members of the Ananda Marga sect in 1978 when a bomb exploded outside the Hilton. Two council workers and a policeman were killed when a garbage bin containing the bomb was emptied into the back of a council truck. Asleep inside the hotel were the leaders of 12 Pacific and Asian nations, in Australia for the first Regional Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. According to the authorities, the bomb was planted by terrorists. Indian Prime Minister, Moraji Desai, said that the blast had been the work of Ananda Marga members, who'd been campaigning internationally for the release of their religious leader, Babar, imprisoned in India. Ananda Marga were already under surveillance. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - ASIO - was conducting regular phone taps, and the New South Wales police special branch had planted an informer, Richard Seary, inside the organisation.

No evidence was found of their involvement with the bombing, but Seary came up with another story that found Tim Anderson, Ross Dunn and Paul Alister convicted of conspiracy to murder National Front leader, Robert Cameron. The court cases and subsequent enquiry made legal history in Australia. Anderson, Dunn and Alister were gaoled for seven years. A public campaign resulted in their release and pardon in 1985. All three received compensation from the New South Wales Government. Four years later, early on the morning of 30 May 1989, Tim Anderson was visited by the police.

TIM ANDERSON: There was a ring on the intercom - I'm in a block of units - and I was told by my girlfriend that there's a .. police are downstairs with a warrant. I immediately thought it was parking fines. And they came up and they said: 'No, we've got a warrant to look for things in relation to the Hilton bombing' and that was a shock. And I had a look at the .. I still didn't put two and two together then. I had a look at the warrant, and I said: 'Oh, well, go for your lives'. They looked around for a while. Still, I didn't think that I was going to be arrested. And only at the very last moment, when they were about to go, did they say: 'Well, will you come with us'. And I said: 'No thanks, I'm not interested in going with you'. And they said: 'Well, I'll have to arrest you then'. I said: 'What for?'. And Aarne Tees said: 'The Hilton'. And I still recall that shock. At the time I said: 'Aarne, that was all over many years ago. We've been through that'. And we went to Central Magistrates Court and got charged with three counts of murder.

SHARON DAVIS: Tim Anderson was charged and released on bail. The next day, in Brisbane, Evan Pederick heard the news of Anderson's arrest and confessed to a priest that he'd planted the bomb, at the instigation of Anderson. In a taped interview, Pederick then confessed to the Queensland police. Pederick himself later complained that they scarcely even believed his name. Rather than charge him, they drove him home. They later notified the New South Wales police who flew to Brisbane the next day and taped another interview with Pederick. He was charged and extradited to New South Wales. The police then took Pederick to identify a number of locations in Sydney. This was also taped. It's those tapes and Pederick's evidence at his own, and later Anderson's trial, that we'll be examining today. But first, here's a summary of Pederick's account of the Hilton bombing.

UNIDENTIFIED: His basic story is that as a member of Ananda Marga, he came to Sydney in January 1978 to attend a retreat, and although at that time he didn't know Tim Anderson very well - they certainly had no close personal relationship - during the course of that retreat, Tim Anderson took him to one side, and in a conversation lasting some hours, I think, recruited him into a plot to assassinate the Indian Prime Minister, Moraji Desai, during the CHOGRM conference. And the plan was that Evan Pederick would detonate a bomb as Moraji Desai arrived at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney. In the following weeks, he claimed that Tim Anderson had several meetings with him in which the details of that plot were fleshed out, and during which Tim Anderson supplied him with explosives and other instructions. He claims then, he read up on how to make a bomb, duly made the bomb, after carting these explosives around Sydney over a nine-day period. Tim Anderson drove him, on Saturday the 11th, late Saturday or early Sunday morning of the 11th or 12th of February 1978, to the vicinity of the Hilton, where he planted the bomb in a rubbish bin outside the Hilton. The following day .. he says he spent the better part of the day outside the Hilton, waiting for the arrival of Moraji Desai - this is in George Street, Sydney.

He sought to detonate the bomb when an Indian-looking gentlemen - as he referred to - arrived and was welcomed by Malcolm Fraser. The bomb failed to detonate. He left the scene, hitch-hiking his way back to Brisbane. And of course, the bomb went off in the early hours of the following morning.

SHARON DAVIS: Russell Hogg is a senior law lecturer at Macquarie University and a founding member of Academics for Justice. They've written a detailed paper which examines Pederick's evidence. The paper has found major discrepancies in Pederick's account of the bombing. Central to that account is his description of the arrival and attempted assassination of Indian Prime Minister, Moraji Desai. We begin with the original tape recording made by the Queensland police, and then our re-creation because of the poor tape quality.

EVAN PEDERICK: I think it was a little after two when Desai came up in a limousine - before three. It would have been in that hour, somewhere, when Desai got out of the limousine. Fraser was with him - Malcolm Fraser, the then Prime Minister of Australia, who was greeting Desai. He wasn't in the limousine with Desai, from my memory. My memory is of Fraser greeting Desai as Desai stepped from the limousine.

UNIDENTIFIED: How did you know this person, Desai?

EVAN PEDERICK: I recognised him from photographs.

UNIDENTIFIED: Had any other limousines been passed or stopped?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes. There had been other limousines with other people, whom I didn't recognise, but assumed to be other visiting heads of government. Now, there was a considerable number of people at that stage - onlookers - and this was, I suppose, the reason why I was very distraught, because I was thinking, you know, what's going to happen. This is going to be absolute carnage. And, oh, God. Anyway, Desai assisted .. Fraser assisted Desai out of the limousine - it was a white limousine. There was a red carpet rolled out on the usual steps. I, at that stage, was exactly .. I was on the other side of the road, exactly opposite the rubbish bin, so I would have been one road-width away from that scene and I could see exactly what was happening.

I reached my hand into the airline bag and I activated a switch, and nothing happened. And I tried it again and nothing happened. And then I thought, I'm not going to try it a third time. I thought, well, I was grateful that nothing happened.

SHARON DAVIS: To re-cap, Pederick attempted to detonate the bomb between two and three pm, as Desai arrived at the George Street entrance of the hotel and was greeted by Malcolm Fraser. The bomb failed to detonate. Pederick repeated this account to the New South Wales police. It was Malcolm Fraser who realised, before Pederick's own trial, the errors in this account. Russell Hogg.

RUSSELL HOGG: Malcolm Fraser became aware of the evidence and made it known that, indeed, Moraji Desai had not been welcomed at the George Street entrance at all, but had arrived at the Pitt Street entrance. So Pederick's account couldn't possibly be true. It's, of course, relevant here to note that the police had available to them documentary evidence which established the same thing, but they chose to disbelieve that and believe Evan Pederick's account. The Crown case then shifted significantly. They had to find another head of State who might fit in with the account provided by Evan Pederick, and the one selected was the then Sri Lankan Prime Minister, Junius Jayawardene, who arrived and was welcomed on that day at the George Street entrance to the Hilton.

So, basically, Pederick's account became, in some sense, credibly so, if you like, that the gentlemen who he thought was Moraji Desai obviously must have been Junius Jayawardene arriving between two and three on the afternoon. And that's when he sought to detonate, unsuccessfully detonate the bomb. And he gave a very, by his own account, vivid recollection of these events.

SHARON DAVIS: Here's how Pederick described the arrival, at Anderson's committal. He gave a similar account at Anderson's trial.

EVAN PEDERICK: Between two and three, a car drew up outside the Hilton Hotel and a dignitary alighted from the car and was greeted by Malcolm Fraser.

UNIDENTIFIED: And who did you think that dignitary was?

EVAN PEDERICK: I believed that person to be Moraji Desai.

UNIDENTIFIED: What was there about him that led you to that view?

EVAN PEDERICK: He was small brown man, dressed in white. When the person alighted from the car, I was more or less exactly opposite the garbage bin. As he alighted from the car, he was momentary looking south, along George Street, and so I had a side-on view of him, but only for a fraction of a second because he then immediately turned towards the curb where he was greeted by Malcolm Fraser.

RUSSELL HOGG: After he'd given this evidence and was out of the witness box, in the trial, it was demonstrated beyond doubt that Junius Jayawardene arrived at the Hilton early in the morning, rather than during mid afternoon, and that, indeed, no head of State arrived during the course of the afternoon. It was also demonstrated beyond doubt, relying on video evidence and such like, that most of the other details that were so apparently, vividly recollected by Evan Pederick simply did not happen - such as: there were no cordons of police; the demonstration he refers to didn't occur, when he said it occurred; there were no barricades; there were no demonstrators; there were no heads of State, in fact, in the afternoon.

So what we have here is a situation in which after he's given his evidence, it is agreed by all Crown and defence, that these events that he so vividly recollects simply did not happen.

SHARON DAVIS: In their summing up, the Crown acknowledged that Pederick's account of who arrived when was wrong, but they said he'd simply made an error. Instead of seeing Desai or Jayawardene arriving at the hotel between two and three in the afternoon, what he'd really seen was Desai leaving the hotel at 5.30. The problem with that changed account is that Desai left the hotel unaccompanied, and Pederick had repeatedly given a detailed description of an Indian-looking man stepping from a limousine and being greeted by Malcolm Fraser.

EVAN PEDERICK: I thought of myself as a soldier in a battle. The more I saw the innocent people there, I could not imagine any afterwards. I realised the only way I could do it was to allow myself to be killed or seriously injured and share what happened. Then I thought the Indian Prime Minister arrived. Everything slowed down to slow motion. The only way I can live with myself now is to say exactly what I did. He got out of the car; I pulled the lever of the device.

SHARON DAVIS: On Pederick's own account, he has a vivid recollection of the events of that day.

EVAN PEDERICK: And I could see exactly what was happening. Everything slowed down to slow motion.

SHARON DAVIS: And yet it was wrong. Pederick was never tested on the Crown's change of story. Anderson's defence could have asked for the jury to be discharged on the grounds that this new theory had not been part of the Crown's case. But they were confident that the jury would take this into account before reaching their verdict. At this stage it's important to examine the role of the New South Wales police.

As Russell Hogg mentioned, the police had documents which showed that Desai had arrived at the back entrance of the hotel in Pitt Street, and yet they chose to believe Pederick's account that he'd arrived at the George Street entrance. Here's Pederick speaking to Detective Aarne Tees from the New South Wales police. Tees was the detective who arrested Anderson and the next day travelled to Brisbane to hear Pederick's confession. Again, we've re-created the original recording because of poor sound quality.

EVAN PEDERICK: The guys, last night, here, were saying what .. how did you work out which entrance to plan it at. And I had to think about that again last night. It was a calculated guess as to what was going to happen. We figured eventually that they're not going to bring the dignitaries to the back door; they're going to bring them to the front door. They're going to let them off and then go, and then going to whip him up that way. We could have been wrong. So we didn't know what time Desai was going to be in. I had telephoned a number of newspapers, earlier on in that fortnight, trying to get information.

AARNE TEES: Just on that point, of course, they took him up the back door. They did take him up the back way.

EVAN PEDERICK: No, he arrived at the front.

AARNE TEES: Did he?

EVAN PEDERICK: The car pulled up the front. They didn't come up the vehicular access. You know Hilton Hotel in Sydney?

AARNE TEES: Yes.

EVAN PEDERICK: The one up and the one down - that spiral around each other.

AARNE TEES: Yes.

EVAN PEDERICK: The car didn't come up. The vehicles come up on the Pitt Street, isn't it, on the Pitt Street side; and that's where the blast was.

AARNE TEES: No, the blast was George Street.

EVAN PEDERICK: What?

AARNE TEES: The front.

EVAN PEDERICK: The front?

AARNE TEES: The front, yes, the main street - that's George Street.

EVAN PEDERICK: That's George Street. That's where this guy came.

AARNE TEES: He could have done too. Did they roll out the red carpet for him?

EVAN PEDERICK: But Muldoon went up the back way, probably.

AARNE TEES: Muldoon? Yes, they were demonstrating against Muldoon.

EVAN PEDERICK: That's right, yes. Sorry, Desai come up the front way, yes. I could be confused.

AARNE TEES: Did he come in that morning - Muldoon?

EVAN PEDERICK: There was a demonstration about Muldoon.

AARNE TEES: Yes, that's right. Anyway, I'll leave that there.

SHARON DAVIS: And how did they explain that? How did they explain that they ignored what was available to them and what they knew and took Evan Pederick's word for the arrival of Desai.

RUSSELL HOGG: Well, the police officer in charge of the case, Aarne Tees, suggested, at one point I think, that Pederick's account was so convincing that it led him to believe Pederick over and above what, from other sources, he knew to be quite incorrect evidence. So what it indicates, I think, is the predisposition of the police here to believe an account of events which fitted in with their own theory of what happened, or with their own commitment to gaining a conviction against Tim Anderson.

SHARON DAVIS: Following Pederick's first interview with the New South Wales police, key parts of his story begin to change. For example, he told the Queensland police that Anderson had given him 200 sticks of gelignite and he'd used 50 to make the bomb. Here's what he said to the New South Wales police 24 hours later.

EVAN PEDERICK: I was exactly opposite. I was on the other side of the road, but exactly opposite, so that would have been where the road is, and I figured with 50 sticks of gelignite I'd either be killed or I'd be severely injured, and I thought, well...

AARNE TEES: Fifty? It wouldn't be 50; it would have been 15.

EVAN PEDERICK: It wasn't 15. Fifty is in my head. Look, I'll give you an idea of the size.

AARNE TEES: You couldn't fit 50 in the bin.

EVAN PEDERICK: There was more than 15, much more than 15. They're the size of candles - about that long. You know what they're like - about that wide. The way we arranged them was in a cylindrical package about that long. So that would have been three lots, about that wide, taped up. So there'd be probably three times, probably, only be about 20. Don't know why I had 50 in my head.

SHARON DAVIS: It couldn't have been 50. You couldn't fit 50 in the bin, says Detective Tees. This is but one example of many where Tees is leading Pederick. This influences his story, if you like, making it more plausible when he testifies in court. Andrew Lohrey is an applied linguist at the University of Technology in Sydney. He's analysed the way the New South Wales police have interviewed Pederick, with particular emphasis on the types of questions asked. He focused on tag questions which imply that there can be only one way to answer.

ANDREW LOHREY: Fifteen per cent of their questions were tag questions - like, I want you to tell me, you know, answer it in this way. And they, in fact, not only asked tag questions, but they introduced a new category to this format by actually giving direct information to the witness. The New South Wales police made history on this one, that they were actually giving direct information. So if you add the direct information with the tag questions, I think you come up with something like over a third - 34 per cent of all questions were directed at imparting information to Pederick, of one kind or another.

Again, this contrasted dramatically with the Brisbane police, who didn't have any tag questions, no direct information at all. So the Sydney police questioning technique was obviously skewed to one thing - to make sure that Pederick's evidence would stand up in court. They didn't question whether Pederick was telling the truth or not, at all. In fact, the Brisbane police, apparently, didn't believe him; and also, apparently, Father Brown, who he first spoke to, had great reservations about his story. But the Sydney police didn't bother about asking that question at all.

Aarne Tees, the day after Anderson was convicted, said about arresting Anderson: 'When you haven't got much, pull them in. The brief will only get better'. To my mind, that's an extraordinary thing to say, given the evidence of the analysis I've done on the feeding of information to Pederick.

SHARON DAVIS: Apart from directly giving information to Pederick, which shored up his story, the questioning by New South Wales police led, over time, to Pederick adding to his story so that it corroborated other evidence that was available. One important variation concerned the taxi ride that Pederick alleges to have taken with Anderson just before planting the bomb. First, here's what he told the Queensland police.

EVAN PEDERICK: I had a meeting with him in the taxi, where he met me in town, and drove me around the block a few times to discuss a few things.

UNIDENTIFIED: What sort of taxi was that?

EVAN PEDERICK: A Yellow Cab I think.

UNIDENTIFIED: When did this take place?

EVAN PEDERICK: Okay. The way we planned it was that, once again, I was posing as a derro, and I had 50 sticks of gelignite wrapped up in a newspaper, looking like some old grubby pieces - a package that a derro would have - without the detonator. And that was about six o'clock in the evening before.

SHARON DAVIS: Now the New South Wales police.

EVAN PEDERICK: The incident, so far as we were concerned, was going to happen during the day...

AARNE TEES: Anderson drove you around in a taxi?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes. So he drove me around the streets in a taxi while we talked. And eventually, he said: 'Look, I can't place it. I can't actually go up there and place the device with you, but I'll help you as much as I can'. And in the event, he let me down out of the taxi with the package.

AARNE TEES: Did you stop anywhere and have a look at the thing, when you were in the cab?

EVAN PEDERICK: As to what things?

AARNE TEES: You know, the...

EVAN PEDERICK: The hotel?

AARNE TEES: Did you stop the taxi and actually get out and have a look?

EVAN PEDERICK: No, but we drove past a couple, once or twice.

AARNE TEES: Outside the hotel?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes.

AARNE TEES: When you say the 11th, when you were driving around, was it before or after midnight on the 11th? Could it have been after midnight, which has buggered the 12th?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes. Look, I told the cops last night that it was early evening. It was only sort of seven or eight, but after thinking about that, I'm not sure. It could have been later, because, in fact, it most likely was because my recollection is that there were very few people on the streets.

AARNE TEES: Yeah, but see, Saturday's the 11th, and it comes midnight, and suddenly it's Sunday the 12th, see. So you could have started before midnight and gone till after midnight.

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes, it could have been. Yes, I'll think about that some more. But I told the guys, last night, that it was early evening, and now I'm not too sure about that. It might have been later in the evening. I know I didn't get much sleep that night.

SHARON DAVIS: After being led by police in that interview, Pederick's account changes. As you've just heard, he's prepared to move the time of the taxi ride from 6.00 pm to around midnight. But the time of Anderson's committal, he also remembers that the cab stopped, and he got out and looked towards the Hilton. Again, this is critical evidence implicating Anderson. At Anderson's trial, Pederick says he remembered this because a police officer told him it was very important. He doesn't remember which police officer. It's important because it's one of the few pieces of evidence that's independently corroborated. In 1978, another taxi driver gave evidence that he saw Anderson driving a cab near the Hilton, around midnight.

He says the cab was stopped and the passenger stepped out of the cab and looked towards the Hilton.

UNIDENTIFIED: Now, given the Crown's view that Pederick can't be tied to specific recollections in relation to a whole range of remarkable features of this story - I mean, it is quite unbelievable that all of a sudden Evan Pederick recalls the most trivial details of these specific events; and they just happen to be trivial details that are corroborated by independent evidence in this case.

SHARON DAVIS: Detective Tees has admitted that he's always believed that Tim Anderson was involved in the Hilton bombing. Tees had arrested Anderson on the basis of evidence given by the notorious criminal Ray Denning. Denning said that while they were both in prison, Anderson told him several times that he was the Hilton bomber. Denning is a self-confessed liar. At the time of one of the alleged confessions, the two weren't even in the same prison. Detective Tees was interviewed by the ABC's Fran Kelly, outside the court after Anderson was convicted.

FRAN KELLY: Your original case was brought forward on the evidence of Ray Denning. That evidence has been discredited during this trial. What does that make you feel about the original charge?

AARNE TEES: I'm not going to speak about the case at all. It's the end of it here, as far as we are concerned. Whether he gets legal appeal or not, that remains to be seen.

FRAN KELLY: Do you have faith that there won't be a Royal Commission, that that won't get off the ground?

AARNE TEES: I don't know. That, again, is a matter for people other than myself. I've always held the belief that Tim Anderson was involved in the matter; but it was somebody else's decision, not ours.

FRAN KELLY: Detective Tees, you said you've always held the belief that Tim Anderson was guilty of this crime, does that mean for 12 years?

AARNE TEES: I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all.

FRAN KELLY: You said you've always held the belief that he was involved in this crime.

AARNE TEES: No, I didn't say that. What I said was that there has been suspicion attaching to Tim Anderson, but I didn't com in until late.

SHARON DAVIS: In fact, that's not what Detective Tees said. Here's his first comment again.

AARNE TEES: I've always held the belief that Tim Anderson was involved in the matter; but it was somebody else's decision, not ours.

SHARON DAVIS: The question that needs to be asked is what effect did this belief have on the way Detective Tees conducted his interviews with Pederick; and what was the impact of Detective Tees on the evidence finally given by Pederick, in Anderson's trial?

Another key aspect of Pederick's evidence relates to a university locker. He testified that he placed left-over gelignite and other material in the locker after he'd constructed the bomb. In 1981, three years after the bombing, staff at the University of New South Wales were clearing out lockers when they found a black zipper bag containing gelignite, a newspaper dated 11 February 1978, detonators and other material. It also contained stolen credit cards.

During the interview with Detective Tees and Godden, Pederick gets the name of the university wrong and the type of bag.

AARNE TEES: Anderson give you the key?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes.

AARNE TEES: To the locker?

EVAN PEDERICK: Locker key. Macquarie University, not Sydney University. Macquarie University.

AARNE TEES: Sure it wasn't New South Wales?

EVAN PEDERICK: Macquarie is in my head. I'm not going to swear to it, but I've just got it in my head that it was Macquarie University.

SHARON DAVIS: Later in the interview:

EVAN PEDERICK: All I can be certain about, it wasn't Sydney University...

AARNE TEES: No, it wasn't.

EVAN PEDERICK: Okay.

AARNE TEES: Well, it could have been a university other than Macquarie; that's what we're getting at.

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes, well. Yes. Okay.

SHARON DAVIS: In fact, the locker was at the University of New South Wales. Later in the interview, Pederick describes a brown suitcase used to transport the gelignite and place it in the locker. This is Detective Tees' response.

AARNE TEES: Just on that locker, now you say the suitcase - you swear it was a suitcase and wasn't a zip-type bag?

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes, I was carrying them around in a suitcase.

AARNE TEES: In a suitcase?

EVAN PEDERICK: I'm trying to recall whether I swapped the suitcase for some other container when I placed it in the locker. I'll take that one on board too, please.

SHARON DAVIS: Five days later, Pederick is shown a photograph of the zipper bag, and then is able to recall it in considerable detail.

EVAN PEDERICK: This is the photograph that I identified, this photograph number one, on the tape recording that you made this morning; and at that time, I said that it wasn't familiar to me. In the previous statement I made, the previous written statement I made, Detective Sergeant Tees asked me whether when I placed the gelignite into the locker at the university, whether I placed it in a suitcase or a zipper bag, and I told him that I wasn't sure, that I couldn't quite remember. This morning, when I looked at this photograph, I said that it wasn't familiar to me. I gave it some more thought when I returned to my cell afterwards, and do now recall having purchased a bag for the purpose of putting gelignite in the locker.

The purpose from my memory being that the locker would not have been big enough for the suitcase, and this was on Anderson's advice. My memory of buying the bag is that it had the appearance of being a good quality black vinyl bag; fairly heavy duty bag, vinyl bag. From memory, it cost me about $20 to $30. This was in 1978, so it's a reasonably good bag. And the photograph here, in front of me now, now does appear familiar. Before I positively identify it I would like to see the actual bag if it's still being kept.

AARNE TEES: Mr Pederick, we'll make arrangements to get the bag, and we'll show it to you when that's done. Is there anything further you'd like to say, sir?

EVAN PEDERICK: Oh, yes, the other thing I have to say is that I'm .. in relation to that too, I've been trying to think what I did with the suitcase, because I'm absolutely positive that Anderson gave me the gelignite in - and other items - initially in a suitcase. I must have done something with the suitcase, once I transferred the gelignite to the bag, but at this stage I'm unable to recall whether I gave the thing back to Anderson or made some other arrangements. I'll take that all on board and try to remember.

AARNE TEES: Thank you very much. Time completed, 5.05 pm.

SHARON DAVIS: It should be repeated here that Anderson denies any involvement in these events. And there's other evidence that casts further doubt on whether Pederick ever used the locker. Five months after the Hilton bombing, in July 1978, the locker was hired in the name of M.J. Melton. By that time, Tim Anderson was in gaol and Evan Pederick was back in Brisbane. There was no M.J. Melton enrolled at the university at the time, but there was a John Melton. His father was M.J. Melton.

In 1978, John Melton was training as a weapons officer with the Australian Navy. He committed suicide last year - two months after Anderson's arrest. Melton's business partner has since made a statement saying that at the time of his death Melton was worried about how he was going to explain the contents of the locker to police and some purchases he'd made using his father's forged signature. Melton also told him that he and his Navy friends planned to hijack an Australian submarine and sell it to the highest bidder. The hiring of the locker and the role of John Melton, if any, in the whole affair, remains a mystery. The mystery is compounded by the fact that the police have either lost or destroyed what could have been vital material found in the locker.

UNIDENTIFIED: This evidence could have been regarded at the time as the first significant breakthrough in the Hilton bombing investigation, given that at that time nobody had been arrested or charged. In subsequent years, much of this evidence was destroyed or seemingly lost or simply dispersed in one way or another throughout the New South Wales police force. We don't know whether there was anything in the way of forensic testing done on it, or what were the results of their follow-up investigations in relation to this evidence. Some of it was destroyed remarkably enough, upon the order of a senior Special Branch officer. I say remarkably there because while Special Branch would have, obviously, had an interest in the Hilton bombing and the investigation, Special Branch, under no circumstances, would have carriage of an investigation like that. But the mere fact that evidence is destroyed or lost in a crime of this enormity, before anybody is arrested and charged, is remarkable in itself.

To add to that, we have a situation in which the only inquiry into the bombing, the inquest which was held in the following year, that that inquest, about a year after the explosives were found, there doesn't appear to have been any reference to this evidence at all. And, I mean, that is truly remarkable negligence, or worse, I think, on the part of the authorities.

SHARON DAVIS: Throughout the interviews with police and the various court appearances, Evan Pederick has talked of his need to tell the whole story, to unburden himself because of the terrible crime that was committed. However, during Anderson's committal, it came to light that Pederick had obtained a false passport in 1978. This was something he'd never mentioned before. It led Anderson's counsel to question whether there was anything else of substance that hadn't been mentioned.

UNIDENTIFIED: The passport, I'd agree, was a significant omission from your evidence in chief.

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED: And, indeed, a significant omission from your cross examination.

EVAN PEDERICK: It was a significant omission.

UNIDENTIFIED: Now, is there any other significant omission in any other area at all?

EVAN PEDERICK: There is no other omission regarding the facts of this matter, no.

UNIDENTIFIED: Is it the fact that we now know all of the testimony that you are likely to give in any other place, regarding this matter?

EVAN PEDERICK: It is a fact that you now know all the testimony which I know.

UNIDENTIFIED: When did you first tell anyone from the prosecution's side - and by that, I mean my learned friend or the police officers - about this passport.

EVAN PEDERICK: As I explained to Mr Tedeschi, I did raise it with my solicitor just after Christmas...

UNIDENTIFIED: No, no. Would you listen to my question please.

UNIDENTIFIED: He was answering it.

UNIDENTIFIED: No, he was not, with respect. And if ...... has an objection, there's a proper way to take it.

UNIDENTIFIED: He hasn't .. he's really not answering the question. You were asked a specific question, Mr Pederick. Try and answer the specific question.

EVAN PEDERICK: Yes, I understand.

UNIDENTIFIED: When was the first time you told anyone connected with the prosecution about this document?

EVAN PEDERICK: Last Tuesday.

SHARON DAVIS: That was a year after he'd first contacted the police. Once he elaborates on the passport, he then weaves it into his account of the bombing. He says he discussed it with Anderson and it was obtained so he could leave the country after the bombing. This ability to add new dimensions to this story is a feature of Pederick's many accounts of the Hilton bombing. Russell Hogg.

RUSSELL HOGG: He knew that there was a bomb and he knew it was planted in the bin. In fact, when he first went to the priest and confessed, he didn't even refer to gelignite, he referred to dynamite. It subsequently becomes gelignite. But to take that as an example, he just refers to a large quantity of gelignite - 50 sticks - which is way out from what was conceivably involved in the making of the bomb. And on evidence like that, his very general estimates, his very general claims, tend to be refined down progressively so that they come into alignment with the actual known facts or with the credible account of the events. So, aside from the sort of gut credibility that he derives from coming forward and admitting to the crime himself, his grasp of the details is minimal, or it is shown to be absolutely wrong, as in his account of the actual day when he sought to detonate the bomb.

He gives an enormously detailed account, a vivid account, but it's shown to be wrong, and is agreed by everybody to be wrong. So his actual knowledge of the events, which has been corroborated, is very limited. So you're left, basically, with his central allegation and the credibility that derives from the fact that he's admitted to the crime himself. So what you're confronted with in this case, I think, is, sort of, two sets improbabilities: one, that somebody would admit to a crime like this if they hadn't committed it; but on the other hand, there is the improbability that anybody who had committed this crime would know so little about it and would get so many of the basic details so thoroughly wrong.

SHARON DAVIS: Our legal system places great weight on the fairness of the jury system. What we've examined is some, but by no means all of the inconsistencies in Evan Pederick's evidence. How is it then that the jury can set aside these inconsistencies and be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Tim Anderson is guilty of three counts of murder?

RUSSELL HOGG: Well, I think it's not so much what went wrong in the trial, but perhaps what goes wrong before the trial actually takes place. The jury can only decide a case on the basis of the evidence that's put before them. And in this case, what we see is a very thorough going process of renovation of the Crown evidence throughout the pre-trial process to try and, as much as possible, strip away the contradictions, the great gaps and problems in the Pederick evidence. And of course, many of those remain in the trial, but there has been an attempt to shore up Pederick's credibility and the creditability of his account from the time he's adopted by the New South Wales police as a credible witness.

It must be very difficult for a jury confronted with somebody who's serving a sentence for this crime, to fathom why he would be saying these things if they weren't true, because on the face of it, they're obviously not in any way self-serving from his point of view. So what this emphasises is the responsibility that devolves on police and Crown authorities. And the point is, going back to the very early stages of his account of events, there was clearly an unwillingness on the part of the police to treat as incredulous evidence of his, which they knew to be wrong themselves. They were happier to accept things which they knew to be wrong, because in some sense they clearly did fit their theory about the case, their objective in pursuing a prosecution against Tim Anderson.

So, the jury can only bear responsibility for so much, I think. They can't correct all the problems that exist within the pre-trial process.

SHARON DAVIS: Tim Anderson has appealed his conviction. The grounds of appeal include that the jury's verdict was unsafe on the evidence, and it's questions like the ones raised in this program that will be occupying the minds of the judges. There's one more irony in this twisted tale: if you believe that Evan Pederick's evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, then Tim Anderson has, once again, suffered a grave miscarriage of justice. If he has been convicted on Pederick's false evidence, then Pederick, too, is innocent of the crime. Who then, bombed the Hilton?

EVAN PEDERICK: And I could see exactly what was happening. Everything slowed down to slow motion. The only way I can live with myself now is to say exactly what I did.

RUSSELL HOGG: What you're confronted with in this case, I think, is sort of two sets of improbabilities: one, that somebody would admit to a crime like this if they hadn't committed it; but on the other hand, there is the improbability that anybody who had committed this crime would know so little about it, and would get so many of the basic details so thoroughly wrong.

AARNE TEES: I've always held the belief that Tim Anderson was involved in the matter; but it was somebody else's decision, not ours.

TIM ANDERSON: I said: 'What for?'. And Aarne Tees said: 'The Hilton'. And I still recall that shock. At that time, I said: 'Aarne, that was all over many years ago. We've been through that'.

LIZ JACKSON: Tim Anderson's appeal against conviction is being heard in Sydney, this week. 'Who Bombed the Hilton' was produced by Sharon Davis; production assistance - Linda McGinness; technical production - Andrew Clark Nashe. Thanks to Geoff Parish and Jeune Pritchard and Matthew Davies from ABC Radio archives. Readings by Max Phipps, Rob Steel and Brendon Higgins. I'm Liz Jackson.