Is it time to put Lockerbie to bed

[Harleyman]

again none of which actually makes him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even some of the victims families dont trust the guilty verdicttheres been a suspicion of doubt since the trial, i for one am not saying hes innocent............or even guilty but there is doubt, surely you can see that? or has the emotion of the victims clouded your judgement aswell?

 

So the jury system is no good then. The jury were a bunch of idiots who couldnt figure out that there must have been "some reasonable doubt" and just decided on a guilty verdict instead of bringing the "reasonable doubt" issue into their deliberations and logically reaching a "not proven" verdict instead.

In other words they couldnt differentiate between "conclusive evidence" and "dubious evidence" The evidence of his involvemet was concrete beyond a doubt

 

Maybe they should have brought some of the victims families into the jury room to get their input into it

 

All this suspicion since the trial is based on what? Something that an outside observer brought up on Google? I reckon this is just another theory based on pure conjecture and nothing else

[callippo]

The Conspiracy Files : Lockerbie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVmD9ZUzruk

 

take a look at this video, Harleyman. Now, it's not the usual five or ten minute adolescent conspiracy theory job, but a properly produced hour long documentary BBC tv series.

 

other episodes totally debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the Building 7 collapse on 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, but this one really ought to suggest to anyone that there really are a LOT of unanswered questions about Lockerbie.

[Harleyman]

An answer which just goes to show your level of knowledge on the subject and answers my question about whether you read the links i put up earlier!.

The case was presisided over by three senior judges who could vote and one who could not there was no jury.

 

The actual trial or the decision to set him free?

[JFKvsNixon]

The actual trial or the decision to set him free?

 

The trial.

[Harleyman]

The trial.

 

I was under the impression that a jury was involved. This makes it worse however. Trials of this nature should not be undertaken by two or three judges in my opinion. Only a jury will do.

[melthebell]

The trial.

yeah just noticed it says

"William Taylor QC, leading the defence, said at the appeal's opening on 23 January 2002 that the three trial judges sitting without a jury had failed to see the relevance of "significant" evidence and had accepted unreliable facts"

 

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

[sandie]

Our system is based on the far superior English system of justice thank god.

 

Old has nothing to do with it being a sound and sensible system

 

You seem to have a problem with Scotland and the way it works, you say "far superior English System" please expand are you one of those people that thinks that the UK should be nothing but English and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish have no place in the UK.

well I have news for you, I and the rest of the Uk accept all people for what they are and it is not what you say it is the way you say it.

 

You seeem to require an attitude adustment, and as my previous question "do you live in the UK".

I dont give 4 cakes and a bun about America and the way they do things, our lads are bieng killed overseas and all you are moaning about is Lockerbie 22 years ago. The guy has been set free just leave it.

 

I lost a brother in Iraq in the early years I dont go on about it.

Get a life and find another crusade and leave Scotland alone, because you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

[callippo]

I was under the impression that a jury was involved. This makes it worse however. Trials of this nature should not be undertaken by two or three judges in my opinion. Only a jury will do.

 

again this is Harleyman just assuming that the jury system is the best system, just because that's the system the United States uses, and that, therefore, it must be the best system.

 

plenty of countries have come to the conclusion that the jury system is not an effective

one in delivering justice, and that's after they've tried it in some cases. They reckoned it was found wanting. Few people would straight out say that nation states like Germany, Italy, and France are corrupt, or that they have very bad criminal justice systems. They don't use juries. They think the propensity for a jury, most of whom are too dumb to have figured out a way of skiving jury service, are too likely to deliver perverse verdicts.

 

I'm pretty sure that if I were a professional criminal, and knew damn well I was guilty, I'd fancy my chances of getting an aquittal better with a jury than a panel of legal professionals.

 

not that panels of legal professionals are incapable of delivering wrong verdicts, which is what I think happened with Lockerbie.

[Harleyman]

again this is Harleyman just assuming that the jury system is the best system, just because that's the system the United States uses, and that, therefore, it must be the best system.

 

plenty of countries have come to the conclusion that the jury system is not an effective

one in delivering justice, and that's after they've tried it in some cases. They reckoned it was found wanting. Few people would straight out say that nation states like Germany, Italy, and France are corrupt, or that they have very bad criminal justice systems. They don't use juries. They think the propensity for a jury, most of whom are too dumb to have figured out a way of skiving jury service, are too likely to deliver perverse verdicts.

 

I'm pretty sure that if I were a professional criminal, and knew damn well I was guilty, I'd fancy my chances of getting an aquittal better with a jury than a panel of legal professionals.

 

not that panels of legal professionals are incapable of delivering wrong verdicts, which is what I think happened with Lockerbie.

 

 

I'm sure some legal experts would agree but here's the downside. When the powers that be decide that people are too dumb to be able to deliver a proper verdict then sooner or later these powers may one day decide that voters are too dumb to be able to decide which political party is best suited to run the country and you know what the alternative to that is.

 

The trial by 3 judges kind of system may work in advanced European countries such as Germany or France who have never had the jury system but that is no guarantee that it would work anywhere else and the trial by judge system is an easy target for corruption.

 

Judging from the opinions of most on this thread the trial by judges in Mahagri's case didnt work either

 

Anyway the jury system used in the US came from England and comes under "We the people"

 

Democracy isnt perfect and neither is the jury system and neither system ever will be but as Churchill once said about democracy and this could apply to the jury system "It's the best thing we have until something bettter comes along" or words similar to that

[Harleyman]

You seem to have a problem with Scotland and the way it works, you say "far superior English System" please expand are you one of those people that thinks that the UK should be nothing but English and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish have no place in the UK.

well I have news for you, I and the rest of the Uk accept all people for what they are and it is not what you say it is the way you say it.

 

You seeem to require an attitude adustment, and as my previous question "do you live in the UK".

I dont give 4 cakes and a bun about America and the way they do things, our lads are bieng killed overseas and all you are moaning about is Lockerbie 22 years ago. The guy has been set free just leave it.

 

I lost a brother in Iraq in the early years I dont go on about it.

Get a life and find another crusade and leave Scotland alone, because you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

 

 

 

 

First let me say I truly regret the loss of your brother if that's worth anything to you. I'm sure when he decided to serve his country he must have considered the possibilities of eventually having to go into harms way as any serving soldier in any army in the world must also consider before donning the uniform.

 

It doesnt make any sense to equate Lockerbie with what goes on in Iraq or Afghanistan which is totally irrelevent to this discussion. I dont like these wars either but if you must blame someone then blame Tony Blair. He got you into it and not George Bush who I blame as he was my president. I assume Tony Blair had a mind of his own when he decided to get involved

 

I feel no wrong in criticizing the Scottish judicail system as it pertains to the release of Mahagri. There was something wrong about it from the start and since nearly all of the victims were US citizens the refusal of the Scottish parliament to answer any questions placed by Obama just reinforces the feeling that they have something to hide.

 

You dont speak for Scotland either as I'm sure there are plenty of Scots who think the release was wrong so quit acting like you do.

 

You obviously didnt like the idea of me putting my two centsworth into this discussion but that is my right and plenty of members of this forum have no hesitataion in doing the same when it deals with things that happen in America and most of the posts are negative too I might add.