Lockerbie Bomber

[Brian Cross]

Whats the story behind the release of the lockerbie bomber what sort of idiot would let a madman loose from incarceration on compassionate grounds i bet the person had no relatives on the Pan Am jet...

[Vic Patterson]

Not a bleeding heart this time! it's got to some devious underhanded dealings. Keep an eye on the trade between countries!

Vic

[threegee]

I don't think he did it! Neither do some of the more intelligent members of the victims families.

The evidence doesn't stack up. And explain how his companion is innocent and he is guilty? He's going to publish his side of things, and he should be listened to with an open mind. If he was guilty its unlikely that he'd want to take the matter further. History indicates that the vast majority of people who continue to protest innocence after such a length of time are indeed innocent.

There's too many vested political interests involved in this thing ever to get at the full truth. But the guy himself needs to be listened to over the obscene baying-for-blood noises of the gullible, uninformed, and plain dumb.

[Hamburger Pimp]

The late Paul Foot reckoned it was the Iranians wot done it

[Monsta®]

I don't think he did it! Neither do some of the more intelligent members of the victims families.

that's funny cause he got a heroes welcome! cause he done it him and some other member of libians secret army. he should have be left to rot in a cell.

i just dont get this compationate release stuff any way, if some one murders someone they sure dont give the victim any compation.

so basically what the uk money fiddling members of parliment have done is let a convicted terrorist go to secure trade links with the libians as the libians have an enourmous oil field! pity its rubbing up are nearest allies the wrong way.

[threegee]

that's funny cause he got a heroes welcome! cause he done it him and some other member of libians secret army. he should have be left to rot in a cell. ...

Shines a new light on all the British and USA Nationals who have been incarcerated abroad and then returned to heroes welcomes. Clearly they were guilty after all, and should have been left to rot in foreign jails! Or is there something different about the situations - like maybe race and ethnicity?

Ever read Mein Kampf? Yeah, go on, Google it!

[Monsta®]

Shines a new light on all the British and USA Nationals who have been incarcerated abroad and then returned to heroes welcomes. Clearly they were guilty after all, and should have been left to rot in foreign jails! Or is there something different about the situations - like maybe race and ethnicity?

Ever read Mein Kampf? Yeah, go on, Google it!

so how many british and american terrorists do you know? if any did they kill 200+ civilians i don't think so. suppose you would let those behind the 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 bombing go home to?

mein kampf hilters book about killing jews etc plus its in german

[threegee]

so how many british and american terrorists do you know? if any did they kill 200+ civilians i don't think so. suppose you would let those behind the 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 bombing go home to?

mein kampf hilters book about killing jews etc plus its in german

If you'd lived a little longer you would know about the Irish people who were framed by "British Justice" for crimes they didn't commit. Their crime was that they were Irish. The subsequent gradual climb-down by our great and good was sickening. The same gutter press that was baying for blood then is baying for blood now.

There's no evidence anyone with half a brain would accept that this guy is a terrorist. BTW the people who did the bombings you mention ARE HOME! They are the product of the same sort of half-understood sycophantic ramblings that characterise your BNP meetings.

[Vic Patterson]

I didn't follow his trial, but he was found guilty, and he was just recently given a hero's welcome home by government officials, the same ones who handed him over in the first place.

What was the evidence that fooled everyone (at least those with less than half a brain!)

[threegee]

I didn't follow his trial, but he was found guilty, and he was just recently given a hero's welcome home by government officials, the same ones who handed him over in the first place.

What was the evidence that fooled everyone (at least those with less than half a brain!)

Ah well, we are not allowed to know that. More spectacular in its disregard for the traditional standards of justice the defendant and the defence team were not allowed to know this either. Nor was the jury, because in a further perversion of basic British justice there wasn't one!

But we can take on trust the remarks of the honorable Lord who drew up the indictment on behalf of HMG. He says the one Maltese witness produced to give evidence at the show trial, and on which the conviction hangs, was "not quite the full shilling" and an "apple short of a picnic". Presumably to distance himself from the whole charade which he anticipates will start to unravel at some point. It's believed by many that this sole witness is a well paid CIA plant.

The charge is that the guy conspired with another. But the co-conspirator isn't guilty of conspiracy. Odd that the English language shouldn't mean what we all accept it to mean.

Now explain why this "hero's welcome" thing is so important in your thinking? The pair were handed over, not voluntarily but under extreme pressure and threat, with assurances that they'd get a fair trial. Very many people believe they didn't.

[Monsta®]

Ah well, we are not allowed to know that. More spectacular in its disregard for the traditional standards of justice the defendant and the defence team were not allowed to know this either. Nor was the jury, because in a further perversion of basic British justice there wasn't one!

But we can take on trust the remarks of the honorable Lord who drew up the indictment on behalf of HMG. He says the one Maltese witness produced to give evidence at the show trial, and on which the conviction hangs, was "not quite the full shilling" and an "apple short of a picnic". Presumably to distance himself from the whole charade which he anticipates will start to unravel at some point. It's believed by many that this sole witness is a well paid CIA plant.

The charge is that the guy conspired with another. But the co-conspirator isn't guilty of conspiracy. Odd that the English language shouldn't mean what we all accept it to mean.

Now explain why this "hero's welcome" thing is so important in your thinking? The pair were handed over, not voluntarily but under extreme pressure and threat, with assurances that they'd get a fair trial. Very many people believe they didn't.

What a load of Sh*te he was found guilty there for he should serve his term otherwise whats the point in the justice system?

conspiracies are your one of them that say it was the U.S that flew two planes into the twin towers and it was a rocket not a plane that hit the pentagon. or even better it was a controlled demolition.

and he did get a heroes welcome and behind doors he'll be sitting laughing his !*!@# off at the soft scottish legal system while getting a big fat medal of colonel gaddafi for services to his regime.

[threegee]

"The point of the Justice System" is to bring guilty people to book for their crimes and not to make more victims out of the innocent. It's to apply the same fair rules for all. One of those fair rules is trial by your peers, another is to be allowed to se the evidence against you so you can challenge it. Neither happened in this case.

I'm not proposing any conspiracy myself; I'm simply repeating what the lawer for the prosecution - the guy who brought the charge - now says.

If he is a terorist then why isn't he glorying in this act of terrorism? Other terrorists do; so what's different here? He's now free from any consequences, and would (according to your warped view of his people) have much to gain. But he continues to protest his innocence. We'll at least get to see his side of the story even if we are not trustworthy enough to see HMG's. Anyone with basic intelligence will listen with an open mind.

And no, the book wasn't about "killing jews", that came much later. Hitler's book was about many other things including how easy it was to manipulate minds of the dumb masses who couldn't/wouldn't think for themselves. A conjecture he went on to prove admirably.

[threegee]

Oh, and if you are looking for conspiracy theories Monsta, then look no further than the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.u...and/8211596.stm

Which concludes:

Megrahi is now dying, but he may have been a convenient scapegoat for a much bigger conspiracy.

And this is what a Maltese Journalist who covered the trial at the time says: http://www.mathaba.n...erbie/gauci.htm

And... Dr Hans Köchler, the UN-appointed international observer at the trial:

"there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items (clothes that were found inthe wreckage of the plane) from Mary's House (in Malta) took place on 7 December 1988."

That's the only date Megrahi was in Malta

And, an article alleging that Gauchi was paid $2M by the CIA.

http://www.maltatoda.../05/03/t13.html

[mercuryg]

An interesting conversation, this, and an interesting story also.

The consensus among many who were involved in the original investigation appears to be that this guy was simply offered up by the Libyans as a token; there's very little actual evidence that he had anything to do with the event itself.

Conspiracies will always rage with such as this, as there is much emotion in play and, also, a lot of political machinations that do not allow us to see a clear cut version of events.

the 'he was found guilty so he should serve his sentence' line is on that is oft trotted out, but there have been many, many examples of people being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit; likewises, there have also been - although it would appear to surprise some - many, many British and American terrorists throughout history. We can start, if you like, with Guy Fawkes and his friends.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is a diplomatic release that, as we don't KNOW whether or not this bloke did it should never have been comtemplated.

[Blank]

It's horrifying isn't it, when innocent people are jailed for something they didn't do? It's also sickening when people guilty of murder are allowed to walk free among us.

Whether he is guilty or not is something that should be debated separately surely – the point is, we have a person who has been convicted of committing a serious crime who has been allowed to walk free - like Ronnie Biggs not long ago – on 'Compassionate' grounds.

The Scottish government have a funny way of showing compassion.

Being allowed to die in prison surrounded by one's family- isn't that compassionate enough? Being sent to a country that hails you as a hero for blowing up Americans and making friends with the countries leader - that is not compassion.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Blank

[threegee]

...Being sent to a country that hails you as a hero for blowing up Americans and making friends with the countries leader...

That's not true at all! He's being welcomed back in just the same way as any Brit who'd been unjustly incarcerated. He says he didn't do it, Gaddafi says Libya wasn't involved. Where does all this "hero for blowing up" nonsense come from?

"My message to the British and Scottish communities is that I will putout the evidence (to exonerate me) and ask them to be the jury,"Megrahi said, without elaborating.

Gaddafi is playing to his electorate in exactly the same way that Brown is. He's actually very careful to avoid saying anything of significance about the matter - also just like Brown.

http://www.algathafi...glish/audio.htm

[Vic Patterson]

A little bit off topic and I can't speak for the UK but we are getting many people being freed from jail because of being wrongly convicted (only based on the evidence presented in court) I don't remember seeing any of them being found not guilty!

[mercuryg]

A little bit off topic and I can't speak for the UK but we are getting many people being freed from jail because of being wrongly convicted (only based on the evidence presented in court) I don't remember seeing any of them being found not guilty!

Surely they are not guilty until proven guilty.

[Monsta®]

Surely they are not guilty until proven guilty.

in Megrahi's case should it not be guilty until proven innocent? as he has already being convicted!

Must be al that sun and figs that makes them middle eastern lot al gan mad

[mercuryg]

in Megrahi's case should it not be guilty until proven innocent?

No, it shouldn't. he maintains he is innocent, and there is little in the way of evidence to prove otherwise.

as he has already being convicted!

Absolutely, but convicted thanks to a very flimsy set of circumstantial evidence in a case where the powers that be were desperate for a scapegoat.

I'm not defending the man - he may well be a hideous madman who killed a few hundred people - but pointing out the flaw in the system.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the key, Monsta, and the very fact that there is much doubt means this conviction certainly does not fall into that category.

Must be al that sun and figs that makes them middle eastern lot al gan mad

Of course.

[Vic Patterson]

Surely they are not guilty until proven guilty.

Not quite so, being guilty or innocent is a fact but normally people are presumed not guilty until it is proven.

[Brian Cross]

I would just like to say this man was found guilty in a legal court of law and sentenced to how ever many years of jail and then he was released on compassionate grounds but if one of us were convicted of the same crime in his home country we would have been beheaded or worse very soon after the conviction, no chance of compassionate release.

[mercuryg]

Not quite so, being guilty or innocent is a fact but normally people are presumed not guilty until it is proven.

Nothing is a fact until proven.

[Monsta®]

I would just like to say this man was found guilty in a legal court of law and sentenced to how ever many years of jail and then he was released on compassionate grounds but if one of us were convicted of the same crime in his home country we would have been beheaded or worse very soon after the conviction, no chance of compassionate release.

well said!

Nothing is a fact until proven.

and your point being?

[mercuryg]

and your point being?

Exactly that - Vic mentioned that being guilty or innocent is fact; I disagree - its not fact until its proven.

Getting back to the Lockerbie bomber and while you're right to hail Brian's well put remarks about the situations as 'well said' - indeed it was - the same could be said of Barry George, james Hanratty, and a whole load of other less high profile cases where people have been wrongly imprisoned. I'm not saying that I know the Lockerbie accused did no do it, but pointing out - as is another on here, I believe - that the evidence upon which he was convicted was flimsy at best, and that there are very solid claims that it may not even have been Libya that committed the atrocity.

To decry someone the right to protest innocence as they have been convicted in a court of law is to deny them there right; sadly for James Hanratty he didn't get a chance.

What will be your response, I wonder, should Iran - who many suspect to be the real perpetrators of this terrible crime - admit to it at some point in he future?