The Lockerbie Bomber and the British cancer drug

[Thom987]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Well then clever clogs, how come he got convicted?

One of the conditions of his release was that he would drop his appeal, it was widely believed that he would be freed on appeal. There were a lot of inconsistencies in the evidence amd some of the witnesses had lost a lot of credibility.

[anonymous-user]

Thom987 said:

Al Megrahi took a fall for others, probably much further up the chain. I very much doubt he had anything to do with the actual bombing.

No question about it in my mind.

[jshell]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Well then clever clogs, how come he got convicted?

The only "guilty" parties remaining completely unpunished are the despicable Blair and Salmond.

Drop me a PM and I'll send you the Paul Foot report. Then come back and tell us if you stil believe it's a safe conviction...

Same for anyone, drop me a PM.

[Derek Smith]

jshell said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Well then clever clogs, how come he got convicted?

The only "guilty" parties remaining completely unpunished are the despicable Blair and Salmond.

Drop me a PM and I'll send you the Paul Foot report. Then come back and tell us if you stil believe it's a safe conviction...

Same for anyone, drop me a PM.

Can I recommend that to anyone who hasn't read the full Foot report?

I spoke with a representative of the British victims group and they, after a representaive of the group sat through every day of the trial, as indeed did Foot, are totally convinced that there was no evidence that the chap had done those acts for which he was convicted.

The American groups' points of view differ from those of the British as they depended for their information on reports, largely from American based sources.

There is a clear separation of opinions between those who sat through the trial and those who merely read reports. Foot, for all his faults, destroyed the case using facts. There's opinion in the report of course, but the main thrust is the lack of evidence.

It is a blot on British jurisprudence. The conclusion I came to from reading the report and the information I got from both the American groups and the British is that everyone, that is 100%, of those at the trial knew it was a travesty. There is no way anyone would have been convicted in a British court with a jury on what was produced at the trial.

Whether al Magrahi was actually involved in the bombing will probably never be known. What is beyond reasonable argument is that there was limited evidence brought before the trial and much of what was accepted by the judges was, at best, unreliable.

It is no coincidence that the second appeal, one of the grounds of which was that evidence was suppressed by the prosecution and that there was not full disclosure, would in this country be enough for at least a new trial to be required. In this specific case the evidence that was suppressed was critical as is brought into doubt the whole basis of the prosecution’s case.

The appeal would have had massive fallout in the judicial system and would have hurt Anglo/American relations.

The odd thing is I think that much emphasis has been placed on the suggestion that the American security services salted the scene. From the Foot report it can be seen that even this was immaterial. There is more than enough doubt even without it.

[mattviatura]

If al-Megrahi wasn't responsible.

Who was?

[jshell]

mattviatura said:

If al-Megrahi wasn't responsible.

Who was?

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

On 23 August 2009, Robert Baer claimed that the CIA had known from the start that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had been orchestrated by Iran, and that a secret dossier proving this was to be presented as evidence in the final appeal by convicted Libyan bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. According to Baer, this suggests that Megrahi's withdrawal of the appeal in return for a release on compassionate grounds was encouraged to prevent this information from being presented in court

[shakotan]

Ozzie Osmond said:

shakotan said:

There was no evidence he actually DID anything, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh...

Well then clever clogs, how come he got convicted?

The only "guilty" parties remaining completely unpunished are the despicable Blair and Salmond.

Other have already posted relevant information and links surrounding the trial, so I've nothing to add except I really suggest you read into the trial further.

[TheEnd]

There doesn't seem to be too easy to look into the info, but here's an article that covers the main parts-

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66187,news-comment,n...

Now I'm not usually a fan of conspiracy theories, or twisting evidence, but in this case you have something about Swiss timers which were sold to everyone including the CIA, a vague shopkeepers recollection of "he resembles him" which he also said about another suspect, and the testimony of this guy- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Majid_Giaka

-The court stated in its judgement: "We are unable to accept Abdul Majid Giaka as a credible and reliable witness on any matter except his description of the organisation of the JSO and the personnel involved there."

[Countdown]

jshell said:

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

On 23 August 2009, Robert Baer claimed that the CIA had known from the start that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had been orchestrated by Iran, and that a secret dossier proving this was to be presented as evidence in the final appeal by convicted Libyan bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. According to Baer, this suggests that Megrahi's withdrawal of the appeal in return for a release on compassionate grounds was encouraged to prevent this information from being presented in court

At the time it happened there was a strong feeling that this was Iran's response to the shootdown of an Iranian passenger plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Apologies if this has already been said or if its in one of the links.

[jshell]

Countdown said:

jshell said:

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

On 23 August 2009, Robert Baer claimed that the CIA had known from the start that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had been orchestrated by Iran, and that a secret dossier proving this was to be presented as evidence in the final appeal by convicted Libyan bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. According to Baer, this suggests that Megrahi's withdrawal of the appeal in return for a release on compassionate grounds was encouraged to prevent this information from being presented in court

At the time it happened there was a strong feeling that this was Iran's response to the shootdown of an Iranian passenger plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Apologies if this has already been said or if its in one of the links.

I think the 'smart' money is definitely on that being the reason for PanAm-103's demise!! Especially the public medal-awards ceremony for the crew. Shameful.

[Derek Smith]

jshell said:

I think the 'smart' money is definitely on that [the shooting down or Iran Air flight 655-Derek Smith] being the reason for PanAm-103's demise!! Especially the public medal-awards ceremony for the crew. Shameful.

They gave the captain the congresional medal of honour. If they wanted to ensure there would be retaliation then I can think of no more effective method.

Further, they hold the in-flight recorder, fished from the sea. They have refused to return it to Iran or release the contents.

The Americans had to find an offender. They had no option and that is understandable. Al-Megrahi can be considered a casualty of war. The main cause of all the problems with the trial was that to blame Iran at that time was not politically viable. However, Libya was a different matter. Two birds sort of thing. The trial was an instrument of state.

Al-Megrahi was no innocent, although innocent of what he was accused of. Noble cause corruption is hardly new. On this scale I would assume it is hardly unique. There were 40-odd British victims of Lockerbie and with the fact that the crash happened on British soil the responsible body was Britain. Discretion and valour, and all that, might have suggested letting the Americans take over.

Little coverage of the aftermath of flight 655 has graced our screens but given the impact of Lockerbie I would guess that there is a fair bit of resentment in Iran in particular and Arabia in general. It could have been handled so much better.

The Americans should have fitted up al-Megrahi with more subtlty. There were enough ex-police officer after the Countryman Enquiry to pick from for real expertise. But it was slapdash and poorly planned. The first requirement is to make it believable. The second is to cover your tracks.

As for our complicity, and the height to which it went, words fail. The legal profession, all the way through, should feel ashamed.