This is the problem, Monsta, for i'm not 'going on about conspiracies' at all. If you care to read much of the detail that has been written about the case - both now and ever since it occurred - it's quite clear that there is much more to it than meets the eye. Have you, for instance, read the judgement as to why he was found guilty, and used your own intelliegence to draw a conclusion? It's easy to say 'he done it, he was convicted' but tell me, who was he convicted by? I don't think you know, so i'll furnish you: he was convicted by a Scottish court sitting without a jury in Holland, behind closed doors, and he was implicated on the say so of one witness- who was later found to have been in the pay of the CIA - who stated that he bought the clothes that were found in his luggage on a certain date, in Malta. He was tried with a co conspirator who was acquitted (how so?) He is said to have put the bomb on a plane in Malta, for it then to be transferred to another flight in Frankfurt, and then to the fateful Heathrow flight. Even those in the courtroom thought this tenuous, at the very best. This is not conspiracy, monsta, this is what was said to have happened, and people closely associated with the case have admitted on several occasions that they foudn the conviction shaky to say the least. You would think, also, that a terrorist atrocity as terrible as this one, on british soil, would merit a full and in depth enquiry: there never has been one, and there never will be, because something is not right. And how would that save any arguments? I asked you before - what, I wonder, would your response be if someone else confesses to the crime at a later date? 'Oh well, he was an arab, he deserved it!'? this is a case where the evidence - just like in teh Barry George case, and james Hanratty, and many others - was simply far too flimsy to secure a conviction, yet one was needed so it was given. That is not what the law is all about.