Should convicted Libyan terrorist have been released?

[Rolfe]

Interesting. I've heard of this before and I'm interested in why he was convicted and why he should not have been. Any links are appreciated, or even a couple books you would recommend.

The only book I have about it is terrible and I wouldn't recommend it.

This link is a good narrative of the most popular CT on the incident.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

A couple of BBC pages that are relevant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/736490.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm

Wikipadia has a page just on the CTs, quite apart from the page on the events themselves, and Megrahi's biography and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories

And finally, the most authoritative document, the SCCRC summary press release concerning the grounds for appeal. It's possible that more than this is credible but lacks evidence, certainly this is the bare bones of the problems with the Camp Zeist trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_06_07_reviewlockerbie.pdf

Consider. The standard of proof for a criminal convction is "beyond reasonable doubt". There are great steaming piles of extremely reasonable doubt heaped up here.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

If the Official Version of this is indeed true, one also has to remember why it was done. The USA carried out a number of bombing raids on Libya in 1986, killing several hundred Libyan civilians, including Gadaffi's step-daughter. This apparently as reprisal for a Libyan terrorist bombing of a night club where US soldiers were present.

Libya itself claims the attack only killed 40 people, the real number was likely far less.

And it wasn't just for the Berlin nightclub bombing - Libya had for years supported terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking and the attacks on the airports in Rome and Vienna. To claim that Libya had a justification for the Pan Am bombing was absurd.

And didn't Libya admit responsibility for the Pan Am bombing and pay restitution? While it would be nice to have Khadhaffi's head it doesn't make his accomplices, underlings, and co-conspirators any less guilty.

 

[Rolfe]

Just like at GZ!!!
Did they ship it off to China?
And have you got a youtube link?

The funny thing is, the only thread about this in the CT section is the one I started myself over two years ago, trying to find out if there was any claiming or debunking going on. Nothing.

I suppose when respected broadsheets and mainstream journalists and the BBC are freely giving these issues credence, it spoils the children's fun.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Libya itself claims the attack only killed 40 people, the real number was likely far less.

And it wasn't just for the Berlin nightclub bombing - Libya had for years supported terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking and the attacks on the airports in Rome and Vienna. To claim that Libya had a justification for the Pan Am bombing was absurd.

And didn't Libya admit responsibility for the Pan Am bombing and pay restitution? While it would be nice to have Khadhaffi's head it doesn't make his accomplices, underlings, and co-conspirators any less guilty.

Did you actually read the rest of my post? And my "several hundred" number related to a series of raids, not just one. How many eyes going how far back, isn't the issue. Breaking the cycle of revenge is the issue.

Libya never admitted responsibility, it "agreed to accept responsibility". Their line has constantly been that they had to do that to achieve re-entry into the civilised world, get the sanctions lifted and so on.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's the meat of the SCCRC press release.

• New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.

• Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

• Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the date of purchase.

That last bit may simply refer to the fact that Gauci has been described as "an apple short of a picnic", or to the fact that he is alleged to have been paid a large sum of money by the US authorities for testifying against Megrahi, sufficient to allow him to emigrate to Australia.

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

That last bit may simply refer to the fact that Gauci has been described as "an apple short of a picnic", or to the fact that he is alleged to have been paid a large sum of money by the US authorities for testifying against Megrahi, sufficient to allow him to emigrate to Australia.

Sorry if I don't have a link for it at hand - it must be somewhere in these threads where I read it. Gauci had been asked four different times to describe the buyer of the clothes, to pick him out of an each time different line-up of photos, and consistently failed to identify Megrahi. Only the fifth time, before which he most probably had read a magazine article with a photo of Megrahi, did he identify him.

Credible witness much, eh?

 

[Rolfe]

I have read that allegation too. I don't know about the $2 million, but he is living in Australia.

Rollo also states that Gauci originally described the purchaser of the clothes as 6 feet tall or more, and in his fifties. Megrahi is apparently 5' 8" and was 36 in December 1988.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Tch tch tch. Apparently, you've missed all the press furore.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8215706.stm

 

[Architect]

And do you think that some of a cou'ntry's top legal experts suggesting that the convinction might be unsafe, and some of our top judges granting leave to appeal, counts for nothing?

Of course, we're just talking about Advocates-it's not like it's QCs or anything. Ah, no wait a minute.....law professor, representatives of victims, Church of Scotland, political commentators.....

 

[WildCat]

Did you actually read the rest of my post? And my "several hundred" number related to a series of raids, not just one. How many eyes going how far back, isn't the issue. Breaking the cycle of revenge is the issue.

What "series of raids"? The only other one* was when Libya attacked a US carrier group (not very smart) beyond its 12 mile territorial limit in the Gulf of Sidra. And your claim was "Libyan civilians", of which there were none in this incident. It was strictly navy vs. navy.

Libya never admitted responsibility, it "agreed to accept responsibility". Their line has constantly been that they had to do that to achieve re-entry into the civilised world, get the sanctions lifted and so on.

Rolfe.

And Charles Manson never admitted responsibility either. And how does this jibe with your claim that the Pan Am bombing was in response to the air raid?

eta: Oh, there was another incident in 1981 where Libya attacked another US Navy force with MiGs and the MiGs were shot down. Also in 1989, but that was after the Pan Am incident.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat

This is the kind of thing that UK posters are familiar with. Well, except Scissorhands, who seems strangely unfamiliar with many issues around the current furore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Lockerbie/Story/0,2763,513160,00.html

Thanks for the link. A bit too many "connect the dots" stuff for me though. And a farmer who has since disappeared, CIA plot to kill a DIA honcho, well it's a bit too much for my tastes. Frankly, it's as convoluted as some truther stories. It also ignores that Iran was a prime suspect immediately following and was named as such (at least in the press of the day), but investigators later had to go where the evidence lead - to Libya.

 

[WUBRINY63]

If the guy wasn't dying of cancer he would have been out in a few years anyway. So then what?

What I want to know is why he was only given that kind of sentence for supposedly being responsible for killing so many people? And didn't one of his partners get acquitted?

 

[Rolfe]

Tch tch tch. Apparently, you've missed all the press furore.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8215706.stm

Oh, that's dynamite.

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.

Mr Blair visited Libya in May 2007, during which UK energy giant BP signed a $900m (£540m) exploration deal.

And of course that was the visit during which Blair signed the agreement to allow prisoner transfer between Britain and Libya. With the only eligible prisoner being Megrahi. Then found he couldn't deliver because a rather inconvenient election happened on 3rd May.

Do I have to provide evidence of the running of that election and what the results were, as scissorhands seems to have forgotten all about the spring of 2007 in its entirety?

I think we can see who has been double-dealing behind the scenes in this one.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

If the guy wasn't dying of cancer he would have been out in a few years anyway. So then what?

What I want to know is why he was only given that kind of sentence for supposedly being responsible for killing so many people? And didn't one of his partners get acquitted?

Well now, it rather stands to reason that one of these verdicts was a miscarriage of justice. Why assume that it was the Fhimah verdict?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

What "series of raids"? The only other one* was when Libya attacked a US carrier group (not very smart) beyond its 12 mile territorial limit in the Gulf of Sidra. And your claim was "Libyan civilians", of which there were none in this incident. It was strictly navy vs. navy.

We seem to be referring to different things, and the book I'm referring to isn't with me at the moment.

And Charles Manson never admitted responsibility either. And how does this jibe with your claim that the Pan Am bombing was in response to the air raid?

I pointed out that if we accept that the bombing was a Libyan plot, then this is the accepted motive. I hope you're familiar with arguing hypotheticals.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for the link. A bit too many "connect the dots" stuff for me though. And a farmer who has since disappeared, CIA plot to kill a DIA honcho, well it's a bit too much for my tastes. Frankly, it's as convoluted as some truther stories. It also ignores that Iran was a prime suspect immediately following and was named as such (at least in the press of the day), but investigators later had to go where the evidence lead - to Libya.

I'd be surprised if Architect was claiming that this article describes what happened. Note the date. It's merely an example of the mainstream press speculation about WTF has been going on, because a guy has just been handed a life sentence on evidence you wouldn't hang a case of illegal parking on.

It's been going on for 20 years. The case against Libya has never been accepted as probable, never mind proven, by people who have actually looked at what happened.

Rolfe.

 

[WUBRINY63]

Well now, it rather stands to reason that one of these verdicts was a miscarriage of justice. Why assume that it was the Fhimah verdict?

Rolfe.

I'm not. I'm questioning the sentence of the one convicted. 200 plus dead and not a life without parole sentence? Why is that all the court could get? And didn't the Israelis think it was Iran and not Libya? I hope this guy wasn't just the best conviction they could secure.

 

[scissorhands]

I'd be surprised if Architect was claiming that this article describes what happened.

I wouldnt be surprised.
It fits pretty well with everything else he posts without reading properly.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not. I'm questioning the sentence of the one convicted. 200 plus dead and not a life without parole sentence? Why is that all the court could get? And didn't the Israelis think it was Iran and not Libya? I hope this guy wasn't just the best conviction they could secure.

There is a fair-sized body of opinion which thinks exactly that.

Something not being talked about much is the top-secret document the defence have been trying to have disclosed for years. The court has ordered disclosure, but the prosecution still refuse to comply.

Now, it looks as if they won't have to.

Rolfe.

 

[MikeSun5]

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.

This doesn't make any sense to me... It sounds like Gaddafi is just running his mouth to make the UK look stupid. What would be the purpose? How is getting some old dude released from jail beneficial for the Libyan government? Oil is their biggest moneymaker. Why sacrifice some of that income to get some old ex-spook back? I don't see how that would be anything other than a public spectacle to embarrass Scotland's justice system.

Gaddafi's statements and Megrahi's much-celebrated welcome home seem a little too loud for me. They seem louder than Megrahi's claims of innocence.

Megrahi says he's got evidence he wasn't involved. If he's such a good guy, I hope he tells the authorities who was involved... You know, do the right thing and all - since Scotland finally did, right?