This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Lockerbie Bomber Released
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Lockerbie Bomber Released
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
coloradoflyer View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Location: Breckenridge CO
Points: 101 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coloradoflyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 12:02am
"Westminster agreed to devolve some of its responsibilities over the domestic policy of Scotland to a new directly elected Scottish Parliament.[47] Such matters are known as "devolved matters" and include education, health, agriculture and justice"
 
From what I read Scottish law has been devolved, although I see that Britain may have the final say, it seems from both your links that Justice is fully devolved except for drug law.  On the same note it seems this case has been very much Scottish recently and not British. 
 
EDIT: to respond to your edit after posting, Still ultimately you should protest the Scottish Govt. and or British Govt.  The US has the right to apply what ever pressure they want as the UK does to other countries.  Ultimately the British govt is at fault here if they are bowing to pressure, not the US for not wanting another investigation.  The US can want whatever, but blame your own govt for not persuing the truth as the case is in their hands.
COloradoFlyer
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 12:17am
Quote Ultimately the British govt is at fault here if they are bowing to pressure, not the US for not wanting another investigation.

...but why would we? That's the thing.

1) Why doesn't the US want another investigation?
2) Why would the UK Gov. not want to investigate, other than in order not to upset the US?

Given both our countries are currently fighting in two other countries in the name of justice (I'll leave that issue for another thread) and allegedly world peace, why is it that they are so intent on not holding another investigation in this particular case, when it couldn't be clearer than one is required?

They could find him guilty again - in which case, hang him!

or...

...they could find he is innocent after all. I think this is what they know would happen, and want to avoid it at all costs.

I'm surprised no-one is screaming about a miscarridge of justice.

Quote it seems from both your links that Justice is fully devolved except for drug law.

No. "Foreign Affairs" is covered, too. This is "foreign affairs". A crime was committed across international borders, but the were held in Scotland because that is where the evidence landed.

Did you know the evidence was shipped to the FBI labs in the US? There is a perfectly good reason for that though - I hear you have some of the best labs in the world for this kind of thing. Thumbs%20Up

I've always been intrigued as to what would have happened had it crashed into international waters.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Flightboy View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Essex, UK
Points: 7396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flightboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 6:32pm
Why would they re investigate over what they already have? if he had such evidence he would share it with the world and we would ALL be crying out and putting pressure on both goverments but were not......because he hasnt

Flightboy
Back to Top
Flightboy View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Essex, UK
Points: 7396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flightboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

He was convicted martin, dosnt matter what you claim the evidence to be it was enouth to  convict him if it wasnt he would have been released, unless you know more than the judges? And thats KNOW not think....

 

You miss the point Flighty!

 

It's really quite simple...

 

Person A: commits a crime and is convicted on SOUND evidence, fair enough, emotional outbursts in regard to his release are understandable.

 

Person B: commits the same crime and is convicted on less than sound evidence, the reasonable person would feel somewhat less hostile in regard to his release.

 

It's logical!

 
It's logical for the degree of emotion you feel and acceptance of his release to be on a sliding scale, dependant on the strength of the evidence.

 

The doubt cast, much of it plausible, in regard to his guilt should at least lessen your emotive demands for his continued incarceration, and no doubt desire for nasty penalties for his alleged crimes.

 

If he was guilty 'beyond a reasonable 'doubt' fair enough, I would be shouting from the roof tops 'KEEP HIM IN JAIL!'

 

But you have to, simply must, feel less emotional and more lenient in this respect when the evidence against him is known to be dubious.

 
You simply CAN'T conveniently ignore the doubt cast over his guilt and condemn him to the same degree you would somebody convicted on SOUND evidence. Thats not logical.
 
remains a guilty man untill this "new evidence" proves him innocent

 

You miss the point again!

 

No one is asking for you to accept him as innocent, just to have some compassion based on the fact that his conviction was less than 'beyond reasonable doubt' and to at least be less rigid in your condemnation. And accept that definitive statements and emotive outbursts aren’t appropriate when there’s doubt about his guilt.

 

And seems you call me a conspiracy nut on a regular basis that comment is baffling

 

No it's not baffling, it's an example of irony based on your hypocritical accusations of myself believing everything the authority’s say, when you demonstrate the same trait.

 

No point continuing if things get taken out of context.

 

Feel free to have the last word. I’ve said enough above for others to see the point I’m making.

 

See ya!

 



Martin it makes no diffrence if you are caught red handed or if there is other evidence against you, as long as it is enouth to satisfy a conviction your still guilty

Flightboy
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 7:02pm

Oh dear! Why are you pretending to not see the difference between ‘real’ culpability and guilt assigned by a court?

 

A conviction in a court is not always the same as true guilt. Courts get it wrong. When there's a recognized possibility that the courts did indeed get it wrong, it 'has' to temper ones vehement objection to his release. If one is logical that is.

 

Oops! Said I’d had enough. Seriously, there is no point in further discussion, no point in repeating the same ungrasped point.
Back to Top
Flightboy View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Essex, UK
Points: 7396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flightboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Oh dear! Why are you pretending to not see the difference between ‘real’ culpability and guilt assigned by a court?

 

A conviction in a court is not always the same as true guilt. Courts get it wrong. When there's a recognized possibility that the courts did indeed get it wrong, it 'has' to temper ones vehement objection to his release. If one is logical that is.

 

Oops! Said I’d had enough. Seriously, there is no point in further discussion, no point in repeating the same ungrasped point.



Doors that way martin . knew i could get you to reply!

Flightbiy
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 8:17pm
Fibber, a childlike way to escape a lost debate more like. Wink
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Tim_Capps View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Location: Belleville, IL
Points: 23 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim_Capps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 10:11pm

You do realize that the law values "getting the correct result" less highly than other things in an imperfect world?  In the US we have an exclusionary rule which, in theory, bars introduction of illegal seized evidence, even if it would prove 100% beyond any doubt that the defendant were guilty.  That is because the law values checking overreaching by the government more highly than convicting individual guilty persons.  In the same way, the law places a very high premium on what happens at a trial, where two sides have an opportunity to fight it out in an adversary system before an impartial jury.  "Do-overs" are not really part of the system, otherwise there would be no finality, which the law values highly.  Appeals test the applied law, not whether facts are correct or witnesses should have been believed.

The reason I am saying this is because one need not find something exceptional in resisting the re-opening of any criminal case.  Once facts have been determined, there are only extremely limited and rare circumstances under which a conviction may be challenged on innocence grounds, and those involve evidence that was not available at the time of trial.  If a witness recants his sworn testimony, the law is not necessarily going to re-open the case to take that into account.  Credibility assessments are made by the jury, and interest, bias, opportunity to observe, etc. are all considered at the time, with the assistance of vigorous cross examination of the witness by competent counsel.
 
There may be reasons a witness would change his story years after the trial to somethint that is not true.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but is something to consider when looking at the reasons for the general rule.  Add in the fact that there are easily discerned political reasons to challenge the results of an investigation, and you can see the potential difficulties.  (It is probably no accident that U.S. and Egyptian authorities made different findings about the crash into the Atlantic of the Egyptian airliner: U.S. said the pilot was an embittered groper who decided his last flight would be EVERYBODY'S last flight, and the Egyptians blamed the airplane.)
 
So the point of this long-winded post is to answer the question that keeps being repeated: why are many resistent to re-doing the trial?  Because it isn't ordinarily done, and one need not drag the accidental shooting of the Iranian airbus, the war on terror or anything else into the equation.  If this still does not satisfiy you, then you tell me: why do you think many do not want the case re-opened?
 
I am not saying this particular man is guilty or innocent.  Some innocent people get convicted, and there was a time when it was The United States of America vs. My Client every week. I am under no illusions about criminal justice investigations.  I am just wondering why this is somehow being placed in a political context that appears conspiritorial when there are many, many innocent people with far more legitimate doubts about their convictions to worry about.
Back to Top
Flightboy View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Essex, UK
Points: 7396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flightboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Fibber, a childlike way to escape a lost debate more like. Wink
 
 
 
 
 


Cant debate hes is still guilty Tongue even if some think less guilty based on no real evidence . them nuts

Flightboy
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 10:48pm
Quote I am just wondering why this is somehow being placed in a political context that appears conspiritorial when there are many, many innocent people with far more legitimate doubts about their convictions to worry about.

It is being placed in a political context because that it precisely what it is - political.

If todays "Daily Mail" (it's a national newspaper over here) is anywhere near the truth, they are saying we did it for the purposes of furthering trade links with Libya.

Doesn't get more political than that!

Be aware that it may not be true of course. A lot of our print media print stuff for the sake of a story, whether it is true or not (but in this particular instance, it would not surprise me if it was).

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
767nutter View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk, UK
Points: 1330 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 767nutter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 11:22pm

For goodness sake - you and half the western world don't get it do you. The clamouring masses (which if you bother to look closely at the footage numbered about 50), were not there because they wanted to welcome their "hero".

They were there because they were told to be there, and given a few Saltires to wave.

As i said then whoever arranged this was being insensitive

How people can be so blinded by the media to think that half of Libya turned out before Megrahi boarded an open-top bus and did a 3 week tour of the country is beyond me.

As is common in that part of the world, the government "arranged" a welcome for him at the airport.
 
I stick by my previous statement, and did i say it was half of Libya, don't make out i said things i didn't. This shouldn't have been arranged. A welcome is fine, but keep it low key for goodness sake.
 

C'mon guys - enagage the brain - just because there's TV pictures of some people around some airstairs doesn't mean it was a) genuine, b) unscripted and c) not staged to get coverage.

So you're saying it was staged and so therefore it was out of order.
 
Back to Top
737Chris View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Location: The Abyss
Points: 2247 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 737Chris Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 11:54pm
I feel so inadequate! haha.  I wish I could keep up with you lot!

I think FlightBoy has a good point that

 " Cant debate hes is still guilty Tongue even if some think less guilty based on no real evidence"

However, despite originally being infuriated that he had been released, after some research it does seem like he was used as a scapegoat.  Why should a man be sentenced to life and not let out whilst ill, if there was originally doubt behind his initial conviction.
Generic forum signature
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 11:08am
Quote I feel so inadequate! haha.  I wish I could keep up with you lot!

I think FlightBoy has a good point that

 " Cant debate hes is still guilty Tongue even if some think less guilty based on no real evidence"
 
Not really Chris.
 
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi claims he is totally innocent and  that before he dies he will present new evidence through his Scottish lawyers that will exonerate him.
 
Quote

He told The Times at his home in Tripoli: “My message to the British and Scottish communities is that I will put out the evidence and ask them to be the jury,” he said. He would not elaborate.

“If there is justice in the UK I would be acquitted or the verdict would be quashed because it was unsafe. There was a miscarriage of justice.”

He said he understood the anger of victims' families, saying: “They believe I’m guilty which in reality I’m not. One day the truth won’t be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: ‘The truth never dies’.”

He may be lying of course, but he obviously feels he has enough evidence to take this further.
 
If he is successful, and exonerated, how will those of you that reacted so emotionally to his releases feel then?
 
The interesting point, is that we have a man that is terminally ill, most under those circumstances, if they were guilty, wouldn't give a damn about proving their innocence. Why bother, why subject yourself to so much pain and emotional trauma. However, an innocent man might behave somewhat differently and be determined to clear his name before he dies.
 
Just speculating of course.
 
 
 
Quote "Abdelbaset al-Megrahi never wavered in his denial of causing the Lockerbie disaster: now some Scottish legal experts say they believe him."[19]
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 11:29am
Interesting stuff...
 
Quote

On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, the Commission granted Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction for a second time.[20] The second appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was abandoned in August 2009, as an impediment to the legal power to release him to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme then operating in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, he was not released under this scheme, rather, on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. There was in the event, no requirement to drop his appeal against conviction.

New information casting fresh doubts about Megrahi's conviction was examined at a procedural hearing at the Judicial Appeal Court (Court of Session building) in Edinburgh on 11 October 2007:

  1. His lawyers claimed that vital documents, which emanated from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and related to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team.[21]
  2. Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, was alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi.[22]
  3. Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.[23]
  4. Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case".[24]

On 1 November 2007 Megrahi invited Professor Robert Black QC to visit him at Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock. After a 2-hour meeting, Black stated "that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction."[25]

Prior to Megrahi's second appeal, another four procedural hearings took place at the High Court of Appeal in Edinburgh between December 2007 and June 2008.[26][27]

In the June 2008 edition of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, the UN Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Köchler, referred to the 'totalitarian' nature of Megrahi's second appeal process saying it "bears the hallmarks of an 'intelligence operation'."[28][29] Pointing out an error on the FCO's website and accusing the British government of "delaying tactics" in relation to Megrahi's second Lockerbie appeal, UN Observer at the Lockerbie trial Dr Hans Köchler wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband on 21 July 2008 saying:[30]
Back to Top
Slopey View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar
AirHauler Developer

Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Points: 8280 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slopey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 12:05pm
I've just noticed that he was tried before 3 judges, and not in-front of a jury, a fact that escaped me at the time.
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 12:29pm
Yes, that was stipulated by the Libyans.
 
Quote Libya made three stipulations, when agreeing to hand over the two accused to the Scottish police: that they would not be interviewed by the police; no one else in Libya would be sought for the bombing; and, that the trial should be before three Scottish judges, sitting without a jury.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by Slopey Slopey wrote:

I've just noticed that he was tried before 3 judges, and not in-front of a jury, a fact that escaped me at the time.

I vaguely remember this (I didn't pay too much attention at the time). I was meaning to look into it.

Quote If he is successful, and exonerated, how will those of you that reacted so emotionally to his releases feel then?

War will ensue.

Quote The second appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was abandoned in August 2009, as an impediment to the legal power to release him to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme then operating in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, he was not released under this scheme, rather, on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. There was in the event, no requirement to drop his appeal against conviction.

Was it a clever piece of diversionary tactics by someone to get him to drop his appeal and his lawyers missed it?

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Tim_Capps View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Location: Belleville, IL
Points: 23 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim_Capps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 4:17pm

Claims of innocence and promises of being vindicated at some future date are so common that no importance whatsoever should be attached to them, especially where the Libyan government has an interest in recovering a little ground.  Michael Jackson's doctor is making the same noises.  We'll see.

Forgoing the right to jury at trial was a strategic decision.  Perhaps it was thought that it would be easier for judges to set aside pretrial publicity than ordinary jurors.  Bench trials are nearly always a bad idea.  Just from the numbers standpoint, you only need one of twelve to hang a jury.
 
The federal government of the United States has been known to play games with discovery.  Former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was convicted then un-convicted after the judge found out the feds had played hide the ball.  It is not inconceivable that it was done in this case, but this would be a question for the UK prosecutors to answer.
 
"Paying for testimony" is an issue to be approached with caution.  Expert witnesses are routinely paid by both sides.  Obviously, substantiated claims that witnesses were offered bribes by prosecutors would be cause for concern.  The feds traditionally prefer the stick to the carrot, though.
 
If I got a chance to interview the convicted person here, I might enjoy my fifteen minutes of fame by crying foul afterwards.  To make a statement on the basis of a conversation with a convict that there has been a miscarriage of justice is irresponsible and highly suspect in itself.
 
I suppose I am less impressed because this does not seem all that remarkable to me, and prison is full of innocent people (not).  I am really not at all invested in this man's fate one way or another, and any poke in the eye to prosecutors anywhere is a fun read for me.  Just trying to provide a little legal perspective to the thread.  In my personal judgment, it looks like more of a spin game based on current perceptions of the so-called war on terror more than a real legal question.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down