Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (1952-2012)

Subject: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:32 AM

Those who value blind vengeance above truth will now rejoice. The rest of us will regret that a monumental travesty, inspired by the CIA and seen through by the Scottish criminal justice system, remains unresolved.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 May 12 - 11:08 AM

No doubt that he was the fall guy. Whether he had nothing whatsoever to do with it is less certain, but he certainly got blamed for the sins of others.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 12 - 11:49 AM

An innocent man, a massive miscarriage of justice.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 12 - 11:52 AM

Scotland breathes a long winded sigh of relief.

Just out of interest, The General Medical Council takes a dim view of a doctor stating "six months to live." Statements to the effect of "months rather than years" or "weeks rather than months" are about as far as you can go.

The "six months to Iive" came from bureaucrats and politicians. No doctor ever said it, and the authors of the medical reports were, if the rumour mill has any substance, rather annoyed about being quoted out of context to justify a political decision.

Was he guilty? Dunno. But a court did convict him and in the absence of further evidence, we tend to draw a line after a verdict. At the same time, the Scottish prisons have approximately 70 prisoners with terminal conditions. Most will die there. Pity their wives can't strike oil in the back garden then.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 12 - 01:05 PM

"...we tend to draw a line after a verdict."

And thanks to that kind of attitude Sam Hallam served nearly eight years in prison for a murder with which he had no connection whatsoever. If just a few more people had shown Ian-Mather type indifference, the UK Court of Appeal need not have quashed Hallam's conviction last week. (Our lawyers are not exactly falling over themselves to right their wrongs.)

Ian's attitude sits comfortably with that of Lord Denning who some time after retiring as the UK's second most senior judge regretted that the Birmingham six had not been hanged, as that would have circumvented the campaign for their release. He had turned down their appeal on the basis that to have upheld it would have meant police had lied - a possibility, he said, which could not be contemplated. (Though conveniently Irish they were of course innocent.)

Anyone more curious than Ian could start HERE. As so often with these appalling cases, it doesn't take much probing to realise that Megrahi was as innocent as he continued to claim right up to his death.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 May 12 - 04:10 AM

I find it inconceivable that a religious man would be lying when he declared his innocence on his deathbed.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 May 12 - 04:21 AM

I commend to attention Dr Swire's feature in this morning's Times, on his being convinced of El-Megrahi's innocence; and he, remember, having lost a daughter in the explosion, was the chief campaigner for the case to be maintained. As he says, it is nowhere near settled yet. I think it was brave of The Times to publish it, especially as it absolutely contradicts the paper's own editorial line on the case, expressed in today's first leader.

Another point to emerge ~~ the disgraceful current rule that nobody who has been convicted can receive any sort of parole until they have admitted their guilt must be done away with. It flies in the face of any concept of justice.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (1952-2012)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 May 12 - 06:23 AM

One of the key witnesses was the shopkeeper who supplied the clothing found to have been wrapped around the bomb. His description of the person who purchased the clothing, in no way matches that of al-Megrahi.
He said the person was six foot tall, and dark complexioned. Neither of which Megrahi was!
It was a travesty, a determination to get a conviction at any cost, to take the pressure off the UK. Kangaroos would hide their head in shame should such a court bear their name.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (1952-2012)
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 12 - 09:44 AM

Peter K;

We do draw a line, and that's that. if we didn't, the miscarriage of justice in Sam Hallam's case would never get to court, as there would never be a court in the first place. A court deals out justice, and in Mr Hallam's case, has just done so. the only difference between the sentencing court and appeal court is the date and time.

Sam Hallam was freed because we draw a line. In other words, the order of the court is the legal fact, regardless of any physical fact. This is not perfect, but it served Mr Hallam wrongly and then served him justly a few years later. Regardless, his freedom is an example of drawing a line under it. If a court makes a decision, only a court, (or Royal pardon, but I digress) can alter that.

Until time travel is a realty, I will support the court system, and yes, I do feel I have lost (civil) cases unfairly in the past, including a judicial review appeal of a public bay I headed up, but respect and accept the court's decision.

One miscarriage of justice is not a pretext to going back to ordeal by fire or lynch mobs.

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (1952-2012)
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 May 12 - 09:54 AM

OK, we've decided he did not kill Cock Robin and that he was a proxy. Who was the guilty party and why was it convenient to ignore him/them?

Subject: RE: Obit: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (1952-2012)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 May 12 - 10:16 AM

British justice, Ian, is littered with cases in which convictions were upheld, even on appeal, in respect of people who were innocent, and whose innocence was eventually established - sometimes after the convicted had died from either natural causes or judicial execution. One of the most welcome developments in my lifetime is that the legal profession has been forced to recognise the reality that our courts - indeed all courts - are fallible.

To John MacKenzie's point, I would add that the shopkeeper said it was raining on the day when Megrahi called into his shop. (It was claimed that he brought an umbrella.) It was agreed by the prosecution that there was only one day when Megrahi could have called into the shop. On that day it did not rain. And much else was wrong with his statement too. (Ae the link I put in my second post above.) But I'm sure US authorities considered they got full value from the millions of dollars they transferred into that witness's bank account.

Unfortunately the Jim Swire article recommended by MthM is behind the Murdoch paywall, but it really is compelling reading for anyone who can access it - in particular the evidence pointing to an Iranian-funded Syrian faction.