HeadingNorth Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I reckon BP were involved. BP could have requested he be released under an entirely different program, which is explicitly about releasing Libyan prisoners in exchange for oil rights in Libya. Megrahi wasn't any part of that program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 [/b] Should we have compassion for everyone that's locked up ? It's hard to argue we should not, if we are also taking their own lack of compassion into account. Otherwise we're just being hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadnBad Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 It is typical of the current mood of the US against BP that they would try to get them involved, the fact that BP were conducting negotiations at the same time is not necessarily related. I am more convinced that scotland were trying to find a way to release him back to libya because the original conviction was so shaky and they needed to find a way to get rid of him without suffering the embarrassment of having to make him a free man on a successful appeal. Which would mean the case was reopened we're back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 It's hard to argue we should not, if we are also taking their own lack of compassion into account. Otherwise we're just being hypocritical. There must be something wrong with me then. Try as hard as I might I just cant feel a grain of pity for mass murderers, child kidnappers and rapists or terrorist bombers. I guess I wasnt blessed with Mahatma Ghandi like qualities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 It is typical of the current mood of the US against BP that they would try to get them involved, the fact that BP were conducting negotiations at the same time is not necessarily related. I am more convinced that scotland were trying to find a way to release him back to libya because the original conviction was so shaky and they needed to find a way to get rid of him without suffering the embarrassment of having to make him a free man on a successful appeal. Which would mean the case was reopened we're back to square one. The only people who could know all the details of the evidence were those that sat on the jury. Unless they were bribed or corrupt then their findings must have been fair. Had there been some doubt the verdict amongst them would not have been unanimous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I reckon BP were involved. Everything seems to be negotiable in this sad, profit driven global economy that we have created. I just wish the people in power would be honest about it for a change. I don't think it had anything to do with BP. IF there is a conspiracy it's probably to do with the reluctance to make public certain documents that raise doubts over the conviction. Documents that could have been made public if Abdulwottsit had got his day back in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 The only people who could know all the details of the evidence were those that sat on the jury. Unless they were bribed or corrupt then their findings must have been fair. Had there been some doubt the verdict amongst them would not have been unanimous Just because it was fair doesn't mean it was correct. There has been enough doubt since to initiate an appeal. Now it would seem that the appeal will never go ahead. Because the appeals process has not reached a conclusion, we can never be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 The only people who could know all the details of the evidence were those that sat on the jury. ...and even that only extends to the evidence which was presented to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Just because it was fair doesn't mean it was correct. There has been enough doubt since to initiate an appeal. Now it would seem that the appeal will never go ahead. Because the appeals process has not reached a conclusion, we can never be sure. Who are these doubters and what do they know that the jury didnt know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 ...and even that only extends to the evidence which was presented to them. As in any trial. If further evidence came to light why wasnt a retrial ordered? This is normal procedure in any case such as this unless the Scots judges have a tendency to become somewhat fuzzy minded through too much imbibing of the old Drambuie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.