|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 2, 2011 21:02:03 GMT
if every decision of Scottish decisions was always correct, we would have no needs of the criminal cases review office.
Is there corroborated evidence which is untainted which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi did it?
Nope.
Is there any reason why influences from outside the court may have come into play in this case, unique from other cases.
Yes
Was there public, media, and political pressure to find the man guilty?
Yes.
Did one of the UN's independently appointed officers who sat through the whole case and every second of evidence subsequently publish a report casting doubts on the fairness of the trial?
Yes. Why yes, he did.
Will we ever be allowed to know what evidence it was that persuaded the SCCR people to start reviewing the case?
. . now that would be interesting.
My point is that it's a wee bit more than just an internet theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 2, 2011 21:24:21 GMT
Aye right, let's abandon the justice system, sack all the judges, send the juries home and have trial by internet conspiracy theorists instead. That'll work. Occam's Razor. Is it a crime to not respect the system 100%? We have ample grounds to be VERY sceptical indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 3, 2011 8:51:02 GMT
...internet conspiracy theorists... Although I'm sure all the investigative work that's been done on this case is now available online, it didn't start life there, and it wasn't an invention of uninformed bloggers as that phrase implies. Here's Paul Foot in the Guardian: ...There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.
This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.
In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.
It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored. (He wrote a book as well, of course.) |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 3, 2011 9:13:43 GMT
... In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history. It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored. Good point, Jean. So many major factors point to that being the truth: 1. It's the Guardian. 2. It's Paul Foot. 3. Both Blair and Thatcher were involved. 4. And a Bush. 5. No public enquiry. 6. Recent record of criminal justice system. It all adds up. But I'm no Judge. Haven't got the Latin for it. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Feb 3, 2011 11:06:47 GMT
And all of these "theories" remain "theories" until they are tested in a court of law. But they won't be now because Megrahi dropped his appeal.
IIRC he said shortly after his party in Libya that he was going to release into the public domain evidence that would conclusively prove his innocence.
Funny that he didn't present this "evidence" at either his trial, his firat appeal or his second appeal.
And I don't recall him releasing it into the public domain either. He's had plenty of time considering he isn't dead yet.
Justice isn't done on t'internet. Nor is it done on the pages of a newspaper. Justice is done in a courtroom. How many judges have sat on this case now? I lose count, was it fifteen?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 3, 2011 11:19:02 GMT
It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored. [/url] [/quote] I disagree that it "follows" that he is innocent. But I do agree that it 'follows' that something smells a bit fishy and that the verdict was unsafe. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Feb 3, 2011 11:21:06 GMT
So many major factors point to that being the truth:1. It's the Guardian. linkFunny how bullshit is more palateable when it's spoken by an "acceptable" source. The Guardian is first and foremost in the business of selling newspapers and it does that by writing titillating stories it's mainly liberal, left-leaning readership enjoys. A conspiracy theory affecting the major bogey-men of the liberal left - Bush, Blair and (knicker-wetting time) THATCHER is manna from heaven for them. 3. Both Blair and Thatcher were involved.
4. And a Bush.See my point above 5. No public enquiry.But a hugely expensive trial, an appeal and then another appeal.
6. Recent record of criminal justice system.Aye? Like what?
It all adds up. But I'm no Judge. No shit. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 3, 2011 11:27:23 GMT
A. G. AGR A>G>R>O... agro |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 3, 2011 11:54:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 3, 2011 13:33:52 GMT
It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored. [/url] [/quote] I disagree that it "follows" that he is innocent. But I do agree that it 'follows' that something smells a bit fishy and that the verdict was unsafe.[/quote] (That conclusion was Paul Foot's, not mine) |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 3, 2011 13:35:11 GMT
...Gareth Peirce - notably not an internet conspiracy theorist. Dangerously left-wing, though. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Feb 3, 2011 15:57:42 GMT
Never trust a woman with a man's name. 'Tis unnatural and kinda creepy  |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Feb 3, 2011 18:26:43 GMT
Like Aubrey?
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on Feb 3, 2011 19:11:09 GMT
Indeed. Unnatural, ungodly and French
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 4, 2011 8:32:26 GMT
Gareth's birth name was Jean.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 4, 2011 9:05:48 GMT
Well, you can understand why she wanted to rid herself of that stigma, can't you?
Whatever it took.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 4, 2011 10:24:30 GMT
SWL took me for lunch yesterday, and we never even mentioned Al-Megrahi.
I suspect it must be because we've won him round with the force of our arguments . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 4, 2011 10:54:55 GMT
SWL took me for lunch yesterday, and we never even mentioned Al-Megrahi. I suspect it must be because we've won him round with the force of our arguments . . . He never takes me for lunch anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Feb 4, 2011 15:39:15 GMT
SWL took me for lunch yesterday, and we never even mentioned Al-Megrahi. I suspect it must be because we've won him round with the force of our arguments . . . Your Libyan bodyguard was rather off-putting. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 4, 2011 17:52:47 GMT
SWL took me for lunch yesterday, and we never even mentioned Al-Megrahi. I suspect it must be because we've won him round with the force of our arguments . . . Did he pay? Or was it a case of: "you'll have had yrrrr tea?"? |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
