Is it time to put Lockerbie to bed

[Harleyman]

Ah, but no. I say "would have been," and my choice of words is deliberate. The appeal was cancelled, at al-Megrahi's own request, because he believed he would be released on compassionate grounds if he agreed to have the appeal cancelled. Therefore, the documents never were released - moreover, since it's now a closed case and al-Megrahi has served his time and is released, they never will be.

 

 

If this smells as bad to you as it does to us, well - you can't do anything about it either. The case is closed, the guy has gone home, and that's that. Whoever really was responsible will never be caught, because al-Megrahi has effectively accepted the guilt in exchange for getting home before he dies.

 

 

So no documentation available, no evidence of his innocence just speculation in it's place.

 

Sounds a bit like the never ending controversy about another shooter besides Oswald in JFKs assassintion. Just another subject for idle discussion without any proof either way

[Harleyman]

So in conclusion he was found guilty based on the evidence given at the time but later on the Scottish judiiciary said "Hang on a mo i reckon we've got evidence for an appeal"

 

But Mahagri said "I've changed me mind. I dont want no appeal even though there might be evidence that I didnt do it cos if me prostate's playing up i might get freed on medical and compassionate grounds instead" (who was his lawyer Groucho Marx?)

 

Then the Scottish judiciary next said "Dont ask why we think there should be an appeal. We got reasons but it aint none of your business"

 

So then Mahagri could be said to be "Guilty until innocence is proven"

[HeadingNorth]

So in conclusion he was found guilty based on the evidence given at the time but later on the Scottish judiiciary said "Hang on a mo i reckon we've got evidence for an appeal"

 

But Mahagri said "I've changed me mind. I dont want no appeal even though there might be evidence that I didnt do it cos if me prostate's playing up i might get freed on medical and compassionate grounds instead" (who was his lawyer Groucho Marx?)

 

Then the Scottish judiciary next said "Dont ask why we think there should be an appeal. We got reasons but it aint none of your business"

 

So then Mahagri could be said to be "Guilty until innocence is proven"

 

The thing is, it's not up to the Scottish case review board - or whatever the proper name is - to release the information. They ordered an appeal hearing, at which the information will come to light anyway.

 

Once he was offered compassionate release in exchange for requesting the appeal be dropped, that rather went belly-up. Under English law, it wouldn't have happened, because his original conviction would be quashed the moment it was ruled unsafe. (I believe, under American law, the same would apply; an unsafe conviction is no longer a conviction, and a retrial is held.)

 

It's only because of the iniquities of Scottish law that a man can still be considered guilty even though his original conviction cannot be said to hold water.

[horribleblob]

... who was his lawyer Groucho Marx?

 

Aka Waldorf T. Flywheel.

[Harleyman]

You're missing the point. Al-Megrahi almost certainly was not a mass murderer - and it's not even much of an "almost." Even at the time of the original trial, the relatives of the victims who attended, did not believe he was guilty based on the evidence they heard at that trial.

 

 

Again that is just no argument in a court case. Thats why we have a juror system.

 

If every person on trial was judged by his family then the prisons would be practically empty

[Harleyman]

The thing is, it's not up to the Scottish case review board - or whatever the proper name is - to release the information. They ordered an appeal hearing, at which the information will come to light anyway.

 

Once he was offered compassionate release in exchange for requesting the appeal be dropped, that rather went belly-up. Under English law, it wouldn't have happened, because his original conviction would be quashed the moment it was ruled unsafe. (I believe, under American law, the same would apply; an unsafe conviction is no longer a conviction, and a retrial is held.)

 

It's only because of the iniquities of Scottish law that a man can still be considered guilty even though his original conviction cannot be said to hold water.

 

What a mickey mouse system.

[Eater Sundae]

[/b]

 

 

Again that is just no argument in a court case. Thats why we have a juror system.

 

If every person on trial was judged by his family then the prisons would be practically empty

 

HeadingNorth was referring to members of some of the victims' families, not the accused's

[Harleyman]

HeadingNorth was referring to members of some of the victims' families, not the accused's

 

My mistake but again it's not what the victims families think. A jury is picked to hear evidence from both sides then deliberate for as long as it takes and either reach a guilty or not guilty verdict accordingly. When a jury cannot reach an unanimous verdict after lengthy deliberations and examination of all the evidence presented then it's what's called in the US a "hung jury" and a new trial is then ordered by the judge with a new jury and a new judge presiding

 

The very fact that after deliberating and examining all the evidence the jury reached a unamimous verdit of guilty speaks for itself.

 

If there was any additional evidence that was not made available at the time counts for nothing if the due process of the law does not allow for a retrial. Therefore it must be assumed that he was guilty.

 

The Home Secretary should have had the ultimate authority to order a retrial based on the unsafe verdict and the power to overrule any Scottish law.

Personally I think this Scottish law and Scottish pounds deal is a lot of crap.

Are they part of the United Kingdom still or not?

 

American states have many laws of their own but the Supreme court can overrule them if it becomes necessary as in the case of the recent Arizona Immigration law and we still all use the same looking currency as well

[taxman]

My mistake but again it's not what the victims families think. A jury is picked to hear evidence from both sides then deliberate for as long as it takes and either reach a guilty or not guilty verdict accordingly. When a jury cannot reach an unanimous verdict after lengthy deliberations and examination of all the evidence presented then it's what's called in the US a "hung jury" and a new trial is then ordered by the judge with a new jury and a new judge presiding

 

The very fact that after deliberating and examining all the evidence the jury reached a unamimous verdit of guilty speaks for itself.

 

If there was any additional evidence that was not made available at the time counts for nothing if the due process of the law does not allow for a retrial. Therefore it must be assumed that he was guilty.

 

The Home Secretary should have had the ultimate authority to order a retrial based on the unsafe verdict and the power to overrule any Scottish law.

Personally I think this Scottish law and Scottish pounds deal is a lot of crap.

Are they part of the United Kingdom still or not?

 

American states have many laws of their own but the Supreme court can overrule them if it becomes necessary as in the case of the recent Arizona Immigration law and we still all use the same looking currency as well

 

Well there was additional information, it wasn't made available and that is precisely why there is still a question mark over the conviction.

 

Many people, including relatives of those killed, have campaigned for a full disclosure. The fact that successive Government's still refuse to allow public access is suspicious.

 

If they've nothing to hide, why are they being so damned secretive?

[MadnBad]

I really can't be bothered to go into detail because for some reason i find myself nearly asleep at the helm today, but the whole conviction hinges on the identification of al megrahi as the bloke that bought the clothes that were wrapped round the bomb in the case.

He was identified by Tony Gauci proprietor of the shop the clothes were bought at it was he who identified al megrahi as the buyer of the clothes but never with any greater certainty than "Not exactly like him" or "very close".

The second evidence is that al megrahi is thought to have used a passport under a different name to visit malta and some other places.

For further reading on the subject look here for the official verdict http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/guardian/pdf/0131lockerbieverdict.pdf

 

And here for part of al megrahis appeal http://www.megrahimystory.net/

 

And here for a good article about how suspicious a lot of the case is http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi.

 

Happy reading.