Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

[manxman]

You're new here, so I'll let this go. Have a good day.

I can recommend several good reads if ever you have the time..

 

[Fiona]

If everything is Kosher about the release, why are Salmond, MacAskill and Straw not cooperating by turning over these records?

It may have something to do with the fact that they are politiicians: very many people here would be really angry if they released those records to the senators who have asked for them. I think it would harm their election chances.

 

[Aepervius]

You're right, they shouldn't. The 270 families of the victims might appreciate it though.

As far as quoted before, and as far as the few itnerview on TV I saw, the family want the TRUTH, they don't want a convenient scapegoat. Which is why after seing what the appeal commision had to say, and the state of the witness/process, my best guess is that more than one i royally PO. Especially that there won't be an appeal.

 

[Aepervius]

I've read Rolfe's threads and posts and I know her opinions on the subject, but I'm asking YOU why YOU think an appeal would have been successful. It seems your answer is because Rolfe says so, which is fine, but then why even bother posting in the first place?

The main reason is that they could not have reused the same argument which were torpodoe down by the appeal commission. If argument "A" is used to condemn somebody, but argument "A" is shown as being invalid by an higher instance, Guess what will happen if the prosecussion try to furbish the same argument on appeal ? It won't be too pretty for the prosecussion.

 

[Rolfe]

I've read Rolfe's threads and posts and I know her opinions on the subject, but I'm asking YOU why YOU think an appeal would have been successful. It seems your answer is because Rolfe says so, which is fine, but then why even bother posting in the first place?

That is actually a fair point, and one that might have been in Megrahi's mind when he caved in and withdrew the appeal. The Scottish justice system proved itself utterly corrupt at Camp Zeist, twice. Why not go for the triple?

I don't think it would have worked. The first time, the driving force seems to have been a horror of having gone through eight years of sanctions against Libya (which killed thousands of people), postured for eight years about the "irrefutable evidence" against the two suspects, and set up this three-ring circus at Zeist - all to deliver no convictions?

The court judgement sets it all out - the huge masses of extremely reasonable doubt, the central point that Megrahi appears to have had an actual alibi for the bombing, and the undoubted fact that the prosecution case was a house of cards which collapsed under the weight of its own improbability - then simply says, but we've decided to convict Megrahi anyway.

The appeal judgement is if anything even more shocking. Time and time again, the appeal judges in effect say, well now, if you'd put it to us that this was a verdict that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have come to, then we may have had to agree with you. However, you didn't, you chose to highlight certain irrational deductions made by the trial court and invite us as appeal judges to say they were irrational. Well, that's not our job. The court is entitled to make irrational decisions and it's not for us to correct that.

The appeal judges apparently wanted to order a retrial, but were told it was impossible because of the unique circumstances of the Zeist set-up. They only had two options - to uphold the verdict or overturn it. In the end, they chose to hide behind the fact that the appeal had been brought on the wrong grounds, and deny it for that reason.

I don't think it would have worked a third time, so many years on. The second appeal was brought on the right grounds, for a start. Also, there was the new evidence the SCCRC had identified, which really destroyed the Gauci identification (as if it needed destroying - Gauci actually said Megrahi wasn't the man but resembled him, it was the judges who decided this actually meant he was the man!).

Once you've destroyed that identification, the slender chain of inferences hooked on to the Erac printout falls apart, because that was only held to stand up because Megrahi, identified as the clothes purchaser, had also been present at Malta airport that morning. Without that, tray B8849 is a coding anomaly.

And since that was all the evidence there ever was against Megrahi in person, that's that. I personally don't see how that appeal could have been refused.

It would be nice if all the people calling for bloody vengeance against the "Lockerbie bomber" actually knew who that person was. Whoever it was, it wasn't Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Rolfe.

 

[manxman]

rolfe is back.

And with a thread killer.
Watch em scatter, throwing rocks as they leave no doubt.

Ive just been telling a couple of these american scamps to be careful what they wish for rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe has been on holiday. Rolfe had a totally stellar time, but actually slept on the floor of the Zeebrugge to Rosyth ferry last night, so should have gone to bed hours ago.

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're new here, so I'll let this go. Have a good day.

Manxman may be new, but he's also absolutely right to ignore your demands.

Challenging someone to repeat a settled argument in their own words so you can take pot-shots at their version is inane and completely unproductive.

 

[Rolfe]

You're right, they shouldn't. The 270 families of the victims might appreciate it though.

Just going back to this quickly. I can name about six families off the top of my head who are quite convinced Megrahi didn't do it, and would really appreciate knowing who did. So don't go round assuming these people are some sort of monolithic committee.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

I can name about six families off the top of my head who are quite convinced Megrahi didn't do it, and would really appreciate knowing who did. So don't go round assuming these people are some sort of monolithic committee.

Rolfe.

So then the release of Megrahi's medical documents wouldn't matter to those families at all. Those six families can persue whatever avenue of investigation they want, shouldn't the rest be able to as well?

 

[Alt+F4]

Manxman may be new, but he's also absolutely right to ignore your demands.

Kevin, you can't "demand" anything on the Internet. I asked him a question, he refused to answer it, that's it.

No worries.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ive just been telling a couple of these american scamps to be careful what they wish for rolfe.

Rolfe can hold her own.

 

[Alt+F4]

As far as quoted before, and as far as the few itnerview on TV I saw, the family want the TRUTH, they don't want a convenient scapegoat. Which is why after seing what the appeal commision had to say, and the state of the witness/process, my best guess is that more than one i royally PO. Especially that there won't be an appeal.

I would think that what the families would want is the most information possible. If that includes his medical records, why not give it to them?

 

[Rolfe]

So then the release of Megrahi's medical documents wouldn't matter to those families at all. Those six families can persue whatever avenue of investigation they want, shouldn't the rest be able to as well?

Not at the cost of breaking our data protection laws and medical confidentiality and so on.

Enormous amounts of information have been released about the compassionate release process. Most of which the senators haven't got around to reading as far as I can see. They just assume it doesn't support their little CT and demand even more. They got down to confidential medical records, which is where they hit bottom.

Maybe you could read the rest of the information that's been released, before you start demanding breaches of data protection law and medical confidentiality.

And then maybe you could tell us all what the US response would be if a handful of maverick Scottish politicians started insisting that Obama and some of his senior officials come to be interrogated under oath at an inquiry they'd decided to set up into Gitmo.

This has gone well beyond reasonable inquiry and into the realms of interfering in another country's affairs, and the only answer is, stuff it.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Not at the cost of breaking our data protection laws and medical confidentiality and so on.

What is Scottish law regarding the release of medical records to the families of victims of a convicted murderer who has been granted a compassionate release?

Enormous amounts of information have been released about the compassionate release process. Most of which the senators haven't got around to reading as far as I can see. They just assume it doesn't support their little CT and demand even more. They got down to confidential medical records, which is where they hit bottom.

I agree that the senators may not be up to speed in regard to everything but the families are and Rolfe, they probably know more than you.

And then maybe you could tell us all what the US response would be if a handful of maverick Scottish politicians started insisting that Obama and some of his senior officials come to be interrogated under oath at an inquiry they'd decided to set up into Gitmo.

Why would anyone want Obama to be interrogated under oath at an inquiry at Gitmo? Gitmo was Bush's idea and I think at least 50% of Americans (myself included) would love to have Bush called on this. UK citizens were held at Gitmo, their nation has ever right to inquire as to what happened to them.

This has gone well beyond reasonable inquiry and into the realms of interfering in another country's affairs, and the only answer is, stuff it.

What would you consider be a "resonable inquiry"?

 

[Rolfe]

What is Scottish law regarding the release of medical records to the families of victims of a convicted murderer who has been granted a compassionate release?

Same as regards the release of my medical records, or anyone else's.

I agree that the senators may not be up to speed in regard to everything but the families are and Rolfe, they probably know more than you.

Which families would that be then?

Sadly, I've come to realise that the most vocal of the US family representatives are quite distressingly ill-informed about the case. They get their information from Frank Duggan, who seems often to be making it up as he goes along.

Why would anyone want Obama to be interrogated under oath at an inquiry at Gitmo? Gitmo was Bush's idea and I think at least 50% of Americans (myself included) would love to have Bush called on this. UK citizens were held at Gitmo, their nation has ever right to inquire as to what happened to them.

If you can't see the parallels, think about it again.

What would you consider be a "resonable inquiry"?

One conducted with politeness and proper regard for the sovereignty of other countries. One where those making the enquiry took the trouble to inform themselves and get their facts straight in the first place, and where they then actually perused the information they were sent in reply. One where they refrained from accusing my country's government of corruption, on precisely no evidence.

And one where they did not expect senior government ministers to present themselves on demand to be hectored by a posse of ignoramuses with an axe to grind, and give evidence under oath to an inquiry set up on completely false premises.

Just turn it round and ask yourself what the US government and public response to this situation would be if it was Scotland making these demands of the USA.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Same as regards the release of my medical records, or anyone else's.

Everyone already knows much about Megrahi's medical records, not much about yours Rolfe. So what's the difference?

Sadly, I've come to realise that the most vocal of the US family representatives are quite distressingly ill-informed about the case. They get their information from Frank Duggan, who seems often to be making it up as he goes along.

The most vocal families and the most informed families may not be the same.

If you can't see the parallels, think about it again.

Nope. What is the correlation between the Lockerbie prosecution and Obama/Gitmo?

One conducted with politeness and proper regard for the sovereignty of other countries.

Don't worry, the U.S. isn't thinking about invading Scotland and/or taking over your government.

One where those making the enquiry took the trouble to inform themselves and get their facts straight in the first place, and where they then actually perused the information they were sent in reply.

I agree that MY senators (from New York State) may not be totally up to speed with all aspects of the case but not everyone agrees with your interpretation as well.

One where they refrained from accusing my country's government of corruption, on precisely no evidence.

Yikes Rolfe, you have accused your own goverment of corruption! What difference does it make if others agree with you as well?

And one where they did not expect senior government ministers to present themselves on demand to be hectored by a posse of ignoramuses with an axe to grind, and give evidence under oath to an inquiry set up on completely false premises.

Is it any less stupid than Alex Salmond saying:

I think I'd rather be First Minister of a society with too much compassion than be First Minister of a country with too little compassion

​

Just turn it round and ask yourself what the US government and public response to this situation would be if it was Scotland making these demands of the USA.

You don't know and either does anyone else, so why bring it up?

 

[Rolfe]

Everyone already knows much about Megrahi's medical records, not much about yours Rolfe. So what's the difference?

Megrahi's confidential medical records have not been published. Nor will they be. Medical reports which formed the basis of advice to the Scottish government have been published.

The most vocal families and the most informed families may not be the same.

You're saying that there may be US families who understand the case well and are familiar with the facts, but who just aren't saying anything? Well, how would you know that? All we can go on is what is being said by those who do choose to make public statements (a tiny, tiny minority), and we observe that these statements are mostly being made by Mr. Duggan who is quite woefully ignorant, with a few actual family members who merely seem to be repeating the Duggan position.

Nope. What is the correlation between the Lockerbie prosecution and Obama/Gitmo?

If you're intent on being obtuse, what would be the reaction of US citizens and politicians to any demands from a bunch of maverick Scottish politicos that senior US government members submit themselves to questioning under oath by an ad hoc committee they set up, over a matter which is in US jurisdiction?

Yikes Rolfe, you have accused your own goverment of corruption! What difference does it make if others agree with you as well?

You know, I'm not sure I did. I have accused three judges of coming to a politically biassed judgement, and five more of supporting them. I have accused Colin Boyd of lying to the court at Zeist to conceal the fact that the US knew and now he knew that Giaka was a lying piece of scum.

This is nothing to do with government.

I have voiced suspicions that Megrahi was leaned on to withdraw his appeal as a pre-condition of being granted compassionate release, for fear of what the appeal would reveal about the above matters. That may be accusing the government of corruption, possibly. It's a suspicion I have.

But I'm not a foreign politician, demanding people show up at an enquiry I've invoked. I'm a private person, who has a right to hold suspicions and a right to voice them. For that jumped-up pipsqueak Menendez to come on UK television and accuse the Scottish government of being involved in corrupt deals relating to oil business, on not a shred of evidence, as part of an official international correspondence, is completely beyond the pale.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

And I'll just repeat my astonishment that so many people are so aerated about the compassionate release, and yet almost nobody seems to want to take on board the obvious fact that the conviction was unsound (to put it extremely mildly).

Rolfe.

 

[Ducky]

OI ROLFE! Good to see you.

For those just coming back and having not read the whole thread: What was unsound about it, and do you have links I could read? I'm not trying to be combative, I just know jack about the case.