Well, it's been six months...

[Rolfe]

If you simply want to argue the point in the abstract, I think it's a pity that the Megrahi case was cited at all. A case that has so many almost unique features is not a good starting point for a discussion of general principles.

• A high-profile case of international significance with feelings running unusually high
• A prisoner detained 5000 miles from home and family, in an alien culture
• A case which has been formally declared to be a possible miscarriage of justice

For the sensible consideration of principle, why not choose something a bit closer to the norm? Why aren't we having the discussion with Ronnie Biggs as an example, say?

Rolfe.

 

[chillzero]

Sorry about the misunderstanding. But I don't think dtugg means it that way. He does think they should have died in prison.

He simply is not outraged at an event that happened 60 years ago because if we'd start with that, we'd all be constantly outraged.

Rage is something that one usually feels for a limited time, when an event is fresh, like in the case of the release of this mass murderer.

Well, I tend to reserve actual rage for things that impact me or my loved ones personally. Anger /outrage (as in a sense of injustice/frustration) over external matters I can still manage, and can recognise justice and injustice - regardless of where, when or to who they happen/happened.

I was very interested in reading the article linked just above to see the complaining that families of those who died will be outraged at this news. Well, if the media didn't keep dredging it up, in such emotive terms, then the families could possibly find it a little easier to get on with their own lives and not have this dragged up and rubbed raw in front of them continually.

I notice there are no quotes from those families so we are encouraged by the author to be outraged on their behalfs - something I detest about modern reporting. The aim is supposed to be responsible reporting but too often is actually nothing less than mob-mongering.

 

[Darat]

If you simply want to argue the point in the abstract, I think it's a pity that the Megrahi case was cited at all. A case that has so many almost unique features is not a good starting point for a discussion of general principles.

• A high-profile case of international significance with feelings running unusually high
• A prisoner detained 5000 miles from home and family, in an alien culture
• A case which has been formally declared to be a possible miscarriage of justice

For the sensible consideration of principle, why not choose something a bit closer to the norm? Why aren't we having the discussion with Ronnie Biggs as an example, say?

Rolfe.

It's not about abstract arguing Rolfe, it is arguing about his release and the legislation as it was applied in this case.

We know from the statement from the Minister that there was no consideration at all to ongoing appeals or any concerns about the safety of the conviction, his release was simply on the grounds of compassionate release.

What people who are against his release are arguing for is that the legislation should take into account the severity of the crime and I don't think anyone could argue that the crime he was convicted of (and the conviction for which he was granted compassionate release) was a terrible crime that killed hundreds of people.

Now it appears that the legislation does not allow the minister take into consideration the severity of the crime, which I think is weakness of the system, I don't think there should be an automatic release on compassionate grounds just because someone is dying and I also don't want politicians to make the decisions without having to apply some objective standards.

As for the repeated bringing of Ronnie Biggs into this. Ronnie Biggs was originally convicted for his part in a robbery, he then escaped and spent many years "on the run" (and ended a job I really loved but I don't think that should be held against him) before ending up again as a prisoner. So what is the useful comparison between the compassionate release of a convicted robber and a convicted murder of hundreds of people?

 

[Alt+F4]

We know from the statement from the Minister that there was no consideration at all to ongoing appeals or any concerns about the safety of the conviction, his release was simply on the grounds of compassionate release.

I don't think it's the compassionate release part that's troublesome. It's the "three months to live" part that stinks to high heaven. The Scottish government must have known that there is no way to determine how long a terminally ill person will live. Who were the doctors who made this determination, why did they make it and why did the Scottish government listen to them?

 

[Darat]

I don't think it's the compassionate release part that's troublesome. It's the "three months to live" part that stinks to high heaven. The Scottish government must have known that there is no way to determine how long a terminally ill person will live. Who were the doctors who made this determination, why did they make it and why did the Scottish government listen to them?

The Minister did provide those details at the time of the decision:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision

...snip...

Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner - he may live longer.
...snip...

And I remember at the time one of the consultants was on the radio discussing his diagnosis and how it was of course not a guaranteed "death date".

The problem of obtaining a precise date of death is always going to exist no matter the prisoner (or their crime) so I can't see what more you could do then have an expert or experts review the case and give their estimate?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think some of the disagreement here comes from the angle you are looking at it. Let's say you have an opinion that compassionate release should take into account severity of crime and this case is the one that has brought that to the fore. Now if you are arguing that the law should already be like that, then you are right Darat, the possibility of innocence should not suddenly also become a criteria for decision in release. However, I think Rolfe is arguing something slightly different. She is saying that given that the law does not currently allow for severity of crime to be a factor in granting release, then we should not use a case that was at that time granted leave to appeal (as a possible miscarriage of justice) as the case which motivates us to change any rules.

That make sense to anyone?

 

[Darat]

I think some of the disagreement here comes from the angle you are looking at it. Let's say you have an opinion that compassionate release should take into account severity of crime and this case is the one that has brought that to the fore. Now if you are arguing that the law should already be like that, then you are right Darat, the possibility of innocence should not suddenly also become a criteria for decision in release. However, I think Rolfe is arguing something slightly different. She is saying that given that the law does not currently allow for severity of crime to be a factor in granting release, then we should not use a case that was at that time granted leave to appeal (as a possible miscarriage of justice) as the case which motivates us to change any rules.

That make sense to anyone?

Makes sense to me, so you may want to consider rewriting it...

 

[Alt+F4]

She is saying that given that the law does not currently allow for severity of crime to be a factor in granting release, then we should not use a case that was at that time granted leave to appeal (as a possible miscarriage of justice) as the case which motivates us to change any rules.

I agree. I think what should be the motivating factor in changing the law should not be possible innocence or the severity of the crime(s) but rather the fact that "three months to live" is almost impossible to determine.

What would be so terrible about waiting for another three months after medical "experts" said there were only three months left?

I'd be curious to know how long other Scottish criminals lived after being granted a compassionate release. Wouldn't they have been treated by the same prison doctors as al-Megrahi?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't actually think length of time left should be a criterion at all. I think the criterion should be whether the patient has reached a stage of their illness where they can no longer be treated and kept comfortable (ie absence of terrible pain) in the prison environment, and this situation is unlikely to change. If it is likely to change (ie an acute condition), they should just be transferred (with guards) to a hospital where they can be treated, and then returned to prison. If it is chronic and deteriorating (ie they are in the end stages of a terminal illness), they should get compassionate release.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Makes sense to me, so you may want to consider rewriting it...

I'm sorry, I shall try to be more incomprehensible in future.

 

[Darat]

I don't actually think length of time left should be a criterion at all. I think the criterion should be whether the patient has reached a stage of their illness where they can no longer be treated and kept comfortable (ie absence of terrible pain) in the prison environment, and this situation is unlikely to change. If it is likely to change (ie an acute condition), they should just be transferred (with guards) to a hospital where they can be treated, and then returned to prison. If it is chronic and deteriorating (ie they are in the end stages of a terminal illness), they should get compassionate release.

I cannot say that this is not very close to my own views.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not about abstract arguing Rolfe, it is arguing about his release and the legislation as it was applied in this case.

We know from the statement from the Minister that there was no consideration at all to ongoing appeals or any concerns about the safety of the conviction, his release was simply on the grounds of compassionate release.

That is correct. As the law stands, the severity of the crime is not a consideration. So, this was not taken into consideration. Accordingly, there was no need to consider the other point, that the case was officially recognised as being a possible miscarriage of justice.

To argue that the severity of the crime should have been taken into consideration, even though it wasn't, but then to continue to maintain that the possibility of miscarriage of justice should not then be taken into consideration, simply because it wasn't, is just special pleading.

What people who are against his release are arguing for is that the legislation should take into account the severity of the crime and I don't think anyone could argue that the crime he was convicted of (and the conviction for which he was granted compassionate release) was a terrible crime that killed hundreds of people.

Now it appears that the legislation does not allow the minister take into consideration the severity of the crime, which I think is weakness of the system, I don't think there should be an automatic release on compassionate grounds just because someone is dying and I also don't want politicians to make the decisions without having to apply some objective standards.

You're now going back to the abstract consideration of whether the current rules are correct. I've already given my abstract reasons for believing that they are, on balance.

I then point out, yet again, that if the rules allow for compassionate release to be denied on the grounds that the offence was particularly serious, then it also becomes relevant to consider other factors. That the prisoner is 5000 miles from his home and family in an alien culture, and that his case has been officially recognised as a possible miscarriage of justice.

If indeed the decision had been made in the way you're advancing, that is to deny release because of the severity of the crime, I would definitely be advancing these other mitigating factors.

While I can appreciate the utility of having the abstract discussion about whether or not the current procedure is correct, why do you believe that the acknowledged possibility of this particular prisoner being actually innocent isn't something that needs to be considered? This seems a remarkably blinkered outlook.

As for the repeated bringing of Ronnie Biggs into this. Ronnie Biggs was originally convicted for his part in a robbery, he then escaped and spent many years "on the run" (and ended a job I really loved but I don't think that should be held against him) before ending up again as a prisoner. So what is the useful comparison between the compassionate release of a convicted robber and a convicted murder of hundreds of people?

Ronnie Biggs has a different set of special circumstances. He didn't kill 270 people, but he was convicted for participation in a brutal robbery which was itself a cause celebre for many years.

He escaped from prison in 1965 after serving only 15 months, initially fled to France, then Australia, and finally holed up in Brazil from where he could not be extradited. He lived free for 35 years, untouchable. He returned voluntarily when he was in his 70s, suffering from pneumonia. He has not had a diagnosis of terminal cancer, and he has been alive longer than Megrahi, post-release.

The three-months-to-live rule-of-thumb seems to have failed equally in this case. Again, prognoses of time-left-to-live are unreliable, in many cases. The law accepts that.

Hey, this guy had the best 30 years of his life living in luxury in Rio, when he should have been in jail. Why should we let him out just because he's in his 70s and a bit frail?

Also, as I understand it, Biggs was completely unrepentant. He didn't deny his guilt, he just didn't care. He was proud of the great heist.

So there you go. Two completely different cases, with completely different reasons why they should be treated with greater or lesser leniency. Under the present rules, none of these reasons matters. However, once you open the discussion to changing the rules, there's no reason to consider just one isolated aspect of each case.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

The three-months-to-live rule-of-thumb seems to have failed equally in this case. Again, prognoses of time-left-to-live are unreliable, in many cases. The law accepts that.

But for the most part, the families don't accept that. Considering the fact that al-Megrahi requested compassionate release in July and now it's almost March means that he has outlived the three month prediction by almost five months.

So the question becomes, were Scottish doctors pressured into making the three month prediction in August? Do most Scottish prisoner who are released on compassionate release live much past three months? I know every case is different but if most lived as along as al-Megrahi has then there is a big flaw in the system.

 

[Rolfe]

But for the most part, the families don't accept that. Considering the fact that al-Megrahi Biggs requested compassionate release in July April and now it's almost March means that he has outlived the three month prediction by almost five eleven months.

So the question becomes, were Scottish English doctors pressured into making the three month prediction in August July? Do most Scottish English prisoner who are released on compassionate release live much past three months? I know every case is different but if most lived as along as al-Megrahi Biggs has then there is a big flaw in the system.

The big flaw, as you put it, is that guesstimating the time someone has left to live is an inexact science. It can go the other way too, sometimes. Either of these men might have been dead by September. (To be clear, Biggs requested compassionate release in April, it was recommended that he be released at the beginning of July, but he wasn't actually released until early August.)

There is also the consideration, with Megrahi, that the Scottish doctors believed chemotherapy had gone as far as they could take it. However, when Megrahi returned to Libya, Italian specialists seem to have been consulted and a further round of a new chemotherapeutic agent was prescribed. It's perfectly possible this contributed to the longer-than-predicted survival time. That, and the natural effect of being in his home with his wife and extended family, rather than in jail 5000 miles from home.

With Biggs, who knows? I don't believe he has a diagnosis of cancer, so it's a lot harder to guess timings even than with Megrahi. I believe he's in a nursing home somewhere.

I just find it strange that so many people are getting so worked up about Megrahi, and challenging the system on his account, while we've got Biggs who seems to be an even bigger anomaly sitting there as well.

Indeed, many people died at Lockerbie, but to set against that we know that case was officially recognised as a possible miscarriage of justice. And then we have Biggs, who gleefully cheated justice for 35 years, and even now is "wholly unrepentant" about the crime he doesn't even pretend not to have committed.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I notice there are no quotes from those families so we are encouraged by the author to be outraged on their behalfs - something I detest about modern reporting. The aim is supposed to be responsible reporting but too often is actually nothing less than mob-mongering.

Actually, that's very true. We seldom hear anything from the outraged family members. I hesitate to say nothing at all, lest someone find something, but I haven't seen any comment. The person we do hear from is Frank Duggan, "President of Victims of Pan Am 103, Inc". He doesn't always make it terribly clear that he didn't lose a relative, or even a friend, at Lockerbie. It's all a bit hazy, but he seems to have been assigned to the US families by the CIA as some sort of minder, and sort of morphed into a front-man position.

He's the one who is to be heard on TV, loudly asserting that "the evidence is unassailable" and so on. He comes over very dogmatic and a bit aggressive, but I've never heard him discuss any actual point of evidence at any time. The SCCRC report doesn't seem even to be on his radar. Of course, the Pan Am 103 families are now mostly very rich, thanks to all the damages and compensation that were paid, so I suppose they can afford to employ a spokesman to defend their interests.

I don't know whether they're at all concerned that if the Camp Zeist case were to be overturned and it transpired the bomb got on board by a different route, all that money might be seen as being a bit tainted. Even if it finally turned out that the atrocity was perpetrated by Iran/Syria after all, I'd put the probability of them being required to return Gadaffi's money at approximately zero. It might be a consideration though.

In contrast, the British families appear on their own behalf. The usual spokesmen are Jim Swire (and his wife Jane), Martin Cadman and Pamela Dix. The most recent article seems to be this one, from four days ago.

Swire says Megrahi survival issue distracts from key question: "Was he guilty?"

Dr Jim Swire, spokesman of UK Families Flight 103 says the present debate over the health prognosis of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi distracts from analysis of the "elephant in the room", the guilt or otherwise of Megrahi in the Pan Am 103 incident.

Swire points out that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated a miscarriage of justice may have been committed against Megrahi, and it is "desperately important that the conduct and outcome of his trial be re-examined".

"How can we have confidence in our legal system which has itself - through the SCCRC - expressed doubt over the case?" he asks.

"There is 'an elephant in the room' which we ignore, as Holyrood largely did, at our peril. On its flank is written 'WAS HE GUILTY?' We ignore it at the peril of having copious doodoo dumped upon all of us. That would be hard to scrape off."

For the avoidance of doubt, Jim and Jane Swire's daughter Flora was a passenger on Maid of the Seas, travelling to spend Christmas with her American boyfriend.

I don't see how it's possible to achieve closure for something like that if you don't believe the bombers have been brought to justice. It's all very well to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud that Megrahi was found guilty by a court, but the same has been true of a lot of cases, even terrorist ones, that later turned out to be completely wrong.

The Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven cases are very comparable. In these cases, evidence was manipulated, facts were tortured to support a theory they quite patently didn't support, and the forensics department at RARDE (including one Thomas Hayes) lied in their teeth to support the police case. Initial appeals were unsuccessful, but public pressure that some here might label conspiracy-mongering kept the case in the public eye, and the verdicts were finally quashed about 15 years after the convictions.

Partick Conlon died in jail four years after being convicted, eleven years before his innocence was finally proved. Are we proud of that? Would we be happy if Megrahi's story ended the same way?

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

We seldom hear anything from the outraged family members. I hesitate to say nothing at all, lest someone find something, but I haven't seen any comment.

"I feel sick. I feel depressed and outraged. I mean, I am just heartbroken," said Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora, a 20-year-old Syracuse University music student, was killed in the bombing.

"I thought that our governments, both the U.S. and the U.K., owed it to the victims and their families to ensure that Megrahi would fulfill his sentence," said Victoria Cummock, whose husband, John, died in the attack.

"It's absolutely horrendous", said the mother of John Patrick Flynn, who died in the bombing.

Q - "Is it possible for you to feel any compassion toward this man?"
A - (by Bert Ammerman, brother of Pan Am Flight 103 victim Thomas Ammerman), "No. He got his compassionate release when he got life in prison rather than the death penalty."

Wendy Giebler Sefcik, whose husband of nine months, William D. "Jay" Giebler Jr., was killed, said she was "devastated."

"I think it's disgusting; I think it's despicable," said Kara Weipz of Mount Laurel, whose 20-year-old brother, Rick Monetti, was killed in the bombing. For 20 years, the Scottish government has shown such compassion for the families, and why they're showing compassion to this — I hesitate to use the words 'human being' — is beyond me. He should spend the rest of his life in jail."

"I think it's deplorable," said Eileen Walsh of Glen Rock, whose father, brother and sister were killed when the plane exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988. "My mother died of cancer, and she didn't have half her family here because of that man. I've lost all respect for the Scottish government."

Peter Lowenstein of Morristown, whose 21-year-old son, Alexander, perished, shared Walsh's outrage.

Glenn Johnson, whose daughter Beth Ann was studying in London and returning home for Christmas when she died, said in a phone interview from Pennsylvania that he was “just devastated. How can a person who killed 270 people, who had no compassion for them, be given compassion? It is another tragedy families have to suffer.”

"This is not fair to the families," said Stan Maslowski, whose 30-year-old daughter Diane was returning from London for Christmas when Flight 103 went down on Dec. 21, 1988. "This shows a terrorist can get away with murder."


Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/20/lockerbie.bomber.reaction/index.html

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/08/family-members-of-pan-am-flight-103.html

http://www.northjersey.com/news/int...ht_103_families_irate_at_bombers_release.html

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/21/scots-free-pan-am-103-bomber/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32494106/

 

[Alt+F4]

That, and the natural effect of being in his home with his wife and extended family, rather than in jail 5000 miles from home.

Yup, it's common sense that he would probably live longer by being home yet the doctors didn't take this into consideration when coming up with the "three months to live" determination. I wonder why?

 

[Alt+F4]

Of course, the Pan Am 103 families are now mostly very rich, thanks to all the damages and compensation that were paid, so I suppose they can afford to employ a spokesman to defend their interests.

As far as I can figure, the family of each victim was paid $6 million (US) by the Libyan government. Compared to what they lost, I don't think they are very rich at all.

 

[Rolfe]

"I feel sick. I feel depressed and outraged. I mean, I am just heartbroken," said Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora, a 20-year-old Syracuse University music student, was killed in the bombing.

[....]

OK, thanks. I hadnn't gone through the US papers. It's always Duggan who comes on TV and writes here, just asserting "the evidence was unassailable" and stonewalling.

Yup, it's common sense that he would probably live longer by being home yet the doctors didn't take this into consideration when coming up with the "three months to live" determination. I wonder why?

Maybe because the question at issue was how long would he live if he remained in prison?

Do you have any comment on the rest of my post? Would you prefer Megrahi died in prison like Patrick Conlon, even though we know he may well be innocent, just as Patrick Conlon was?

I understand very well why Kenny MacAskill was motivated not to make any reference to the SCCRC report in his speech. Lawyers are like that. Never mind the actual facts (the SCCRC report doesn't magically unwrite itself just because you pressurised the defendant into withdrawing his appeal), just spout the legalese if it suits the position you want to adopt.

I don't, however, understand why people who are aware of the contents of that report are still eager to demand harsher punishment for Megrahi that the law dictates.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As far as I can figure, the family of each victim was paid $6 million (US) by the Libyan government. Compared to what they lost, I don't think they are very rich at all.

I haven't gone into it in great detail, so I can't say if that's a more accurate figure than some of the others I've read. Of course, that's in addition to the damages they won from Pan Am in their civil action against the airline in the early 1990s.

I don't think you can really compare the loss of a family member to an amount of money. No doubt most of these people would far rather have their son or daughter back than any amount of money. That doesn't change the fact that some people are now multi-millionnaires because of this. Six million dollars is still six million dollars, even if you're grieving and miserable.

I know some of the families refused to touch a penny, on the grounds that they didn't believe Libya had anything to do with it. I don't know who these people were though.

Rolfe.

ETA: I just noticed I missed a bunch of posts above, from Darat and Professor Yaffle - from 125 to 131. I would say I'm broadly in agreement with all that, especially with Professor Yaffle's point in post 129.