Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quite sad, really. In case you didn't notice, the case against PFLP-GC is entirely circumstantial, and also doesn't fit a substantial portion of evidence. If the evidence implicating them was looked half as hard as it was looked at the evidence implicating Megrahi, there is near certainty at least some of that evidence would be explained away and shown not to be connected to the case. However, that didn't happen, because the investigation focused on Megrahi for one reason or another, his case went to court and the evidence implicating him was scrutinized for years after his conviction.

Unfortunately I don't have the resources (or a reason) to pursue the case against PFLP-GC. However declaring them guilty - and Megrahi completely uninvolved - on the presented evidence is simply ridiculous.

Actually, sometimes you investigate evidence and by doing so confirm it. It's not always the case that you examine evidence and by doing so explain it away. It would be a very strange world if it worked that way.

I don't know how you think you can know that further investigation would exonerate the PFLP-GC, given that you admit yourself that you are not capable of carrying out such an investigation.

 

[McHrozni]

Actually, sometimes you investigate evidence and by doing so confirm it. It's not always the case that you examine evidence and by doing so explain it away. It would be a very strange world if it worked that way.

I don't know how you think you can know that further investigation would exonerate the PFLP-GC, given that you admit yourself that you are not capable of carrying out such an investigation.

Any evidence that goes into a trial will (almost certainly) be weakened by the defense in one way or another. This was the case with Megrahi, whose evidence was scrutinized for years after his conviction. This wasn't the case with the evidence against PFLP-GC. From that perspective, both bodies of evidence haven't been equally treated yet, and there is very little doubt that the evidence against PFLP-GC would be weakened if it went into a trial. It is questionable by how much, yes, but it would be weakened. This is what I was referring to. Irrespective of how strong the evidence against PFLP-GC would be, any competent defense will weaken it.
In other words, it is similar as if the case against PFLP-GC has only had the prosecutors have their say, but not the defense. Declaring them guilty here and now in a thread dedicated to miscarriage of justice in another trial is, not to be too rude, silly.

You're right, however, that an investigation into PFLP-GC could uncover more damning evidence against them, especially if they were indeed the perpetrators. This is not in doubt, but not what I was referring to.

I would again like to point out that the case against Megrahi is weak because the evidence against him is suspect. If the evidence against him is legitimate and accurate, then the conviction is sound. On the other hand, even if all the evidence that we have against PFLP-GC is taken into account, I doubt it's enough to even begin a trial, much less win it. Once again: there is enough to warrant investigation, but not enough to convict. Not by a long shot.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Any evidence that goes into a trial will (almost certainly) be weakened by the defense in one way or another. This was the case with Megrahi, whose evidence was scrutinized for years after his conviction. This wasn't the case with the evidence against PFLP-GC.

Something like that seems true enough on the surface, and I started out wanting to agree with you. the PFLP leads were not fully investigated, partly for lack of access to the crucial bombmaker Khreesat, sitting in Amman... but as a side effect maybe less debunking, as sometimes heaped on "official" decisions.

But actually, There were dismissals, counter-arguments, and so on formulated by investigators and prosecutors and the Zeist Judges. Khreesat's was not the right radio model, no evidence the GC had a MST-13, various lesser points.

On the model of radio, if I may, we have Khreesat's assertions only as to whether such a bomb existed, whether it was one or more, and what kind. If we're considering his as a suspect, should we trust him when he says
“he does not think he built the device responsible for Pan Am 103, as he only built the four devices in Germany which are described herein.”
There were five devices described. And that he never used two-speaker models like the Toshiba RT-SF16 identified in PA103. Which we're accepting as from the IED.

Which brings us to an anwkward spot - if the plastic and paper debris shows the BOMB was in a RT-SF16, then did PK/689 come from the IED or a coincidental Xmas present nearby? If we're ignoring the prospect of planting...

For missing bomb no. 5, Khreesat pointed to a one-speaker Toshiba model RT-F423. "It was bronze in colour just like the model in the catalogue.” He did specify some knob modifications in the one he saw.
Read more here
Everyone gives a pass - he's well-known for one-speaker radios, record players, and computer monitors. But never ever a two speaker model... Could we speculate he used a two speaker model to look less like his handiwork (perhaps slip through a warning about single-speaker radios) and then just flat denied it? Yes, it's possible.

Khreesat is reported to have had a brown Samsonite, one bomb disappears six weeks, and then brown Samsonite appears in the deadliest corner of container AVE4041 in London, following a covered-up security breach at the very terminal. That same corner has a brown Samsonite with a RT-sf16 bomb detonate 38 minutes after PA103's takeoff.

A ferry ride across the Channel and a casual cover story is all that might be keeping this from being "all too clear." The MST-13 timer was there... to frame Libya? And Megrahi's role was...

...?

 

[Rolfe]

Could I say once more that whether or not a legally water-tight case can be made against the PFLP-GC or not has no real bearing on whether or not the case against Megrahi stands up. The subject of the thread is whether Megrahi bombed that aircraft - not whether the Libyan regime was involved, or whether the PFLP-GC did it.

You [McHrozni] are moving the goal posts here. First you demanded evidence that there were other credible suspects apart from Megrahi. You've been given that evidence. Now you insist that a legally-watertight case be made against them, before you'll doubt Megrahi's guilt in any way. You're pushing the bar irrationally high. Also, you're taking any evidence that might point to a Libyan involvement of any kind, and asserting that is evidence for Megrahi's personal involvement. It isn't.

I would again like to point out that the case against Megrahi is weak because the evidence against him is suspect. If the evidence against him is legitimate and accurate, then the conviction is sound.

I'm going to assume that what you mean by that is that the only reason to doubt the case against Megrahi is the suspicions that certain pieces of evidence may have been tampered with or fabricated. While there are certainly legitimate reasons for suspecting tampering may have occurred, I think several of us have shown in this thread that even if that timer fragment is entirely genuine, it doesn't prove Megrahi's guilt in any way.

First, there's no reason to believe another terrorist group couldn't have got hold of one of these timers. Dammit, the CIA had one - who else might have got hold of one in the two years since they were supplied? You don't know and I don't know, but to suggest that's impossible is just plain ridiculous.

Second, even if the timer did come directly from Libyan central ordnance, that still provides no proof of Megrahi's involvement. To make a case for Megrahi's personal involvement, you either have to prove he bought those clothes from Gauci (which as you've already essentially admitted is beyond tenuous), or you have to prove the bomb went on board KM180 at Luqa. You haven't even touched on that little difficulty.

To repeat. The documentation of the loading of KM180 at Malta that morning was tighter than a duck's arse. The investigators tried everything they could to chip a hole in it, up to and including tapping the private telephone lines of baggage handling personnel, and they couldn't dent it. Not only that, Megrahi was apparently alone at Luqa airport that morning, and never went airside. There's no possible way he could have got that suitcase anywhere near the baggage of KM180 without an airside accomplice. The man originally accused of being his airside accomplice wasn't even at the airport that morning.

How do you think he pulled off this trick?

You assert you still think he bought the clothes despite the solid evidence (attested to by the SCCRC investigation) that the purchase took place on a day when Megrahi couldn't possibly have been the purchaser. Why? Because of all the other evidence, you say.

What is that evidence? Oh, he was at the scene of the crime. No, it looks as if he wasn't. It looks as if he was somewhere that specifically wasn't the scene of the crime.

So what else have you got? At this stage you seem to be falling back on a fantasy that the authorities had some sort of sooper-sekrit killer evidence that they aren't telling anybody about. An argument that would get a 9/11 twoofer laughed off the forum.

Just waving your hands around asserting what plainly isn't so does not an argument make.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Something like that seems true enough on the surface, and I started out wanting to agree with you. the PFLP leads were not fully investigated, partly for lack of access to the crucial bombmaker Khreesat, sitting in Amman... but as a side effect maybe less debunking, as sometimes heaped on "official" decisions.

[.... snip Khreesat's "it wisnae me!" declaration ....]

Khreesat is reported to have had a brown Samsonite, one bomb disappears six weeks, and then brown Samsonite appears in the deadliest corner of container AVE4041 in London, following a covered-up security breach at the very terminal. That same corner has a brown Samsonite with a RT-sf16 bomb detonate 38 minutes after PA103's takeoff.

A ferry ride across the Channel and a casual cover story is all that might be keeping this from being "all too clear." The MST-13 timer was there... to frame Libya? And Megrahi's role was... ?

Yeah, Khreesat, safely tucked away where he wasn't going to be extradited, declared he didn't do it. Mandy Rice-Davies had something to say about that....

CL, we cannot possibly prove to the satisfaction or a court of law, or to McHrozni's satisfaction (which seems to be even more demanding), that Khreesat built that bomb.

As I've said before, the reason for doubting Megrahi's guilt is not that the guilt of the PFLP-GC is proven, but that the evidence supporting Megrahi's guilt is smoke and mirrors. It would still be smoke and mirrors even if we'd never heard of the PFLP-GC.

McHrozni doesn't seem to have challenged the smoke-and mirrors part. He agreed that Gauci's evidence was confused and unreliable. He hasn't even addressed the Air Malta baggage records or the lack of an accomplice at Luqa.

He's done a bait-and-sitch to demanding not only an alternative suspect, but legally watertight proof that the alternative suspect is guilty. This is frankly ridiculous and I don't see any point in pursuing that argument.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

I think it's absolutely crucial that when anyone examines the 'evidence' that was presented at Zeist, and simply concludes that well, yes it was highly circumstantial and threadbare with hard facts, but there was no other evidence of any other involvement, then really they should think again.

Consideration, distinction and explanations must be sought on the other aspects of evidence, of which there was much, and far more weighty than that used to convict Megrahi, which was either waved away by the judges or simply not revealed to the court and defense lawyers.

So, while we have a very tenuous set of disputed pieces of evidence which :

1. Suggest that clothing packed around the bomb was bought by Megrahi. As is quite apparent, even to those who somewhat hesitantly accept Gauci's statements as being of honest but confused, it is a huge leap to then determine with all these inconsistencies, that Gauci's evidence should remain one of the central pillars in Megrahi's conviction.

Aside from his incoherent descriptions of the buyer, what remained relatively constant and was supported by other official sources, was that the date of the purchase, if indeed there was any such purchase, was demonstrably Wednesday the 23rd November - a date which Megrahi was shown not to be on the island of Malta. So, the judges made mental and logical acrobatics in order to skew their conclusions that the purchase was made on the 7 December, when most importantly for the prosecution, Megrahi was on Malta.

2. A personally kept computer printout showing an unidentified piece of luggage apparently arriving at a Frankfurt coding station around the same time that Air Malta's bags were being put into the system. Even accepting this very dubious record, it only shows a 'bag'. It may well have been just another one of many stray bags that circulate any large international airport, or it may simply have been a set of golf clubs or any other piece of innocent luggage. And this matter is only if you accept this one single piece of computerised record that was unveiled by the BKA over the course of the whole investigation.

Now, where a distinction and thoughtful consideration must be given is to the evidence produced at the original trial, the subsequent first appeal by Megrahi, and the SCCRC decision which was made in 2007 which showed, that far from Malta being the point of ingestion, there was more substantial evidence which pointed to the bomb being introduced at Heathrow, and that Mr Gauci and his brother had received "financial compensation" for Tony's testimony at Zeist.

It is rarely disputed that the suitcase in which the bomb was housed was a bronze - or bronze like - Samsonite hardshell suitcase. This was the suitcase that the paid CIA informant Giaka had claimed he had seen Megrahi and Fhimah with at Luqa on the morning of 21st Dec 1988. Of course, everyone now knows Giaka was simply telling anyone anything they wanted to hear in order to secure continued financial payments from the CIA, and even they thought he was a complete fantasist.

At Zeist however we had witnesses, Heathrow baggage handlers, who had given statements very early into the investigation of two extraneous suitcases, one said to be "bronze or possibly maroony coloured" suitcases being introduced into container AVE4041 just before it was loaded onto Pan Am 103.

It was this precise container which, less than a week after the plane had went down over Lockerbie, was determined by investigators the container in which the suitcase with the bomb had been inside. The damage to the container also seemed to indicate the location of this piece of luggage containing the bomb, which was near the floor on the outer edge of the container nearest the fuselage of the aircraft. This also matched the description given as the two unknown bags which were spotted by the Heathrow baggage handlers, which were placed, according to their testimony, on the bottom layers of the baggage container, near the outer edge.

At the first appeal hearing in 2002, it is also revealed that a security breach had occurred at Pan Am103's gate in the early hours of December 21st. The Heathrow guard who reported the breach from landside to airside, had duly noted this, and even more astoundingly, had been interviewed by anti-terror police in January '89, just a few weeks after 103's bombing.

The breach was not an everyday occurrence at Heathrow, and hardly something which should be just simply cast aside, especially one would think when later that day, a bomb went off in the hold of a plane which had departed from that very gate. This was the deaths of 270 people that were apparently being "investigated", the largest mass murder in British history, and yet this information of the break-in at Heathrow was subsequently suppressed for nearly 12 years, and may never have come to light had the Heathrow security officer Ray Manly not been completely perplexed at his evidence's omission at the trial at Zeist, and had contacted the lawyers himself.

Tony Gauci's testimony then comes under further scrutiny, and is most certainly critically undermined, when the SCCRC uncover and disclose publicly that he and his brother had received significant financial reward for their witness testimony at Zeist. About $4m.

So, not only do we have a severely compromised tale emanating that the clothing purchase was made by Megrahi, but that this one piece of record produced by the BKA showing some sort of unaccompanied luggage passing into their system, but we have much more weighty evidence emerging that the bag may well have been introduced at Heathrow rather that the more fanciful notion of Malta.

These areas must been given long and serious consideration before any attempt can be made to uphold the story that Megrahi did indeed buy these clothes, and he did indeed then place this bag on an Air Malta flight, hoping it would negotiate it's way around 3 airport security systems and the subsequent 'guilty' decision concluded by the Zeist court and judges.

And if you agree that the evidence presented by the Heathrow employees is far from conclusive but carries greater inference that that of the evidence from Luqa, then put simply, Megrahi is innocent of the charges laid and that he was convicted of.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I was just going all out to make sure we had that covered, and also to explore some of the connections. It's novel, just accepting the radio model and timer and trying to work it back with Khreesat's stuff. But that's all for now. It's suddenly an hour later than it really is here and I shall sleep now.

 

[Rolfe]

It's interesting to note the number of people who originally started looking at this case simply because they could see that the evidence supporting the conviction quite obviously wasn't sufficient to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", who have then gone on to become convinced that Megrahi didn't do it.

Professor Black is one of these. He's a very senoir lawyer, and has said that he's now convinced not just that the conviction was legally unsound, but that the court actually convicted an innocent man. He hopes (he says) that his readers understand the difference.

I'm perfectly open to rational arguments to the contrary. However, we seem here to be stuck on assertions of guilt in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

You [McHrozni] are moving the goal posts here. First you demanded evidence that there were other credible suspects apart from Megrahi. You've been given that evidence. Now you insist that a legally-watertight case be made against them, before you'll doubt Megrahi's guilt in any way.

Stop lying Rolfe. I said Megrahi's guilt is in doubt many times over. I just think he was still a crucial part of the plot, based on the evidence that we have, and I don't think that doubt about his guilt could preclude me from thinking he's guilty anyway. I have told you that before.
In a court case, things would be different. But since my opinion carries no legal weight it is also not burdened by the same standards of evidence. I believe something that is in doubt is still probably true. Is that a crime now?

I believe I also told you before that if Megrah was involved in the bombing doesn't mean PFLP-GC wasn't involved at all. I also told you it is entirely plausible Megrahi was a minor agent in the operation and was scapegoated by the investigators, for whatever reason.

I see no real need to respond to the rest, seeing as you ignored a very large portion of what I explicitly told you many times over now, and resorted to a straw man instead.

Would you care to tell me what it is about this man that drives you to such passion?

I'm going to assume that what you mean by that is that the only reason to doubt the case against Megrahi is the suspicions that certain pieces of evidence may have been tampered with or fabricated. While there are certainly legitimate reasons for suspecting tampering may have occurred, I think several of us have shown in this thread that even if that timer fragment is entirely genuine, it doesn't prove Megrahi's guilt in any way.

There is also the (again, suspect) Gauci testimony, that implicated Megrahi quite strongly. The timer strongly implicates the Libyans, and Gauci's testimony strongly implicates Megrahi. If you assume these two pieces of evidence are correct, then the best explanation is that Megrahi was involved in building and concealing the bomb.
That's why I asked for a different suspect, but Rolfe wasn't listening. If Megrahi bought the clothes and the Libyans were involved, this would be a rather unbelievable coincidence, and he would almost definitely be involved in some way.

Legally, I wouldn't expect these two pieces of evidence to stand, of course, but that's another story altogether.

How many more times do I need to repeat myself anyway? I better do it again.

I believe the evidence we have shows Megrahi is guilty. I don't believe the evidence we have should stand in court, based on the doubts around the evidence that were expressed here and elsewhere.
Yes, I'm quite happy with that. A court decision must necessarily interpret all doubt in the favor of defendant to avoid false convictions. But I'm not burdened by that, and I think the evidence implicating him is strong enough to formulate a personal opinion that he is indeed guilty. If I were in a jury, I'd declare him not guilty.

And again, I think his guilt is not proven to the extent the law requires. I do not think only what can be proven to that extent is true, and I do think Megrahi is guilty.

And yet again, if evidence for an event isn't strong enough to prove a certain version of events in court, it doesn't mean the said evidence is necessarily false.

And yet again, courts standards of evidence are set to favor declaring a guilty man not guilty over declaring a not guilty man guilty. What exactly makes you think a not guilty verdict should be seen as more credible than a guilty verdict? That's where your reasoning leads, Rolfe. Both can be wrong, by the way.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Professor Black is one of these. He's a very senoir lawyer, and has said that he's now convinced not just that the conviction was legally unsound, but that the court actually convicted an innocent man. He hopes (he says) that his readers understand the difference.

You, Rolfe, apparently don't. You also don't appear to understand the difference between an opinion and reality. I think the events happened in a certain way, and this produced (some of) the evidence we have. Fine, that lawyer disagrees with me, if you're looking for a better source than me he is a good choice, I suppose. I still think Megrahi was an important part of the bombing, however, and I explained the rationale for that several times by now. If my rationale is wrong the world will not end, and neither will he go back to prison, so I'm quite unburdened by that. Why you are, Rolfe, remains a mystery to me.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

....
There is also the (again, suspect) Gauci testimony, that implicated Megrahi quite strongly.
....

This might be one of the areas where you're going wrong. Not least the contradiction between 'suspect' and 'quite strongly' that shines out in the quoted section above.

The Gauci testimony should have led towards 'not guilty'. Gauci - in the cold light of day - provides an alibi. As Buncrana points out above, it required extreme logical gymnastics on the part of the judges to attach any incriminating weight whatsoever to the Gauci testimony.

He described a different man.
He described weather that wasn't there when Megrahi was.
He described an absence of Xmas street lights that excludes Megrahi being there on the day of the mystery shopper.

What else did he say that constitutes positive evidence against Megrahi? Have you actually studied the evidence, or do you respond to what's presented to you on a post-by-post basis, knee-jerk fashion?

ooops wrong thread. Oh well.

 

[Rolfe]

Stop lying Rolfe. I said Megrahi's guilt is in doubt many times over. I just think he was still a crucial part of the plot, based on the evidence that we have, and I don't think that doubt about his guilt could preclude me from thinking he's guilty anyway. I have told you that before.
In a court case, things would be different. But since my opinion carries no legal weight it is also not burdened by the same standards of evidence. I believe something that is in doubt is still probably true. Is that a crime now?

I don't appreciate being called a liar, when I'm doing my best to understand you.

You seem to me to be saying that you believe in his guilt in spite of the evidence. That's your prerogative, and it's not a stance I can debate with.

I believe I also told you before that if Megrah was involved in the bombing doesn't mean PFLP-GC wasn't involved at all.

And I agreed that it wasn't beyond the bounds of possibility that Libya and the PFLP-GC were both parties to the bombing. That still doesn't address the question of whether Megrahi was the Libyan agent involved, in that case.

I also told you it is entirely plausible Megrahi was a minor agent in the operation and was scapegoated by the investigators, for whatever reason.

Indeed. The problem is that you haven't put forward any reasonable case for him being involved at all.

I see no real need to respond to the rest, seeing as you ignored a very large portion of what I explicitly told you many times over now, and resorted to a straw man instead.

It seems to me that you've ignored the most important part of what I've been saying, for several posts now. If you think I'm misunderstanding your position, perhaps you could re-state it. I'm not aware of having ignored anything you've said, and I'm trying to make allowances for someone debating in a non-native language.

Would you care to tell me what it is about this man that drives you to such passion?

Nothing at all. The mystery of how Pan Am 103 came to fall out of the sky is however an extremely interesting one. Unfortunately it seems scarcely possible to debate this without someone coming into the thread asserting that Megrahi actually did it, which leads to discussions such as this.

You're beginning to sound like a homoeopath running out of excuses - the standard ploy then is to accuse the sceptic of being "emotional" about the issue.

There is also the (again, suspect) Gauci testimony, that implicated Megrahi quite strongly.

How? Have you actually read the testimony? Please explain how a purchase which was apparently made on 23rd November could have been made by Megrahi, who was somewhere else entirely on that day. (And just as a comment, if you're going to maintain that Gauci was so confused that all the evidence of the Christmas lights and the rain and the football game is wrong, how can you possibly say that his remark - for which he was paid $2 million - that Megrahi resembled the purchaser, is such strong evidence? Please note that at a different time he said that Abu Talb looked even more like the purchaser than Megrahi did.)

The timer strongly implicates the Libyans,

How so? I've agreed weak implication, certainly. However, what evidence do you have that they never, ever passed any of these timers on to other groups? How did the CIA get one, if they were so tightly controlled?

and Gauci's testimony strongly implicates Megrahi.

No, it doesn't. The strongest thing about Gauci's testimony is the evidence of date of purchase - 23rd November. Which rules Megrahi out. As far as identification goes, he never positively identified Megrahi as anything more than bearing a resemblance to the purchaser. He also said that Abu Talb looked even more like the purchaser than Megrahi did.

You're free to believe any damn thing you like, but if you can't at least show your working, then it becomes credulity, not rational argument.

If you assume these two pieces of evidence are correct, then the best explanation is that Megrahi was involved in building and concealing the bomb.

But I've pointed out to you repeatedly that these two pieces of evidence simply don't bear that interpretation.

That's why I asked for a different suspect, but Rolfe wasn't listening. If Megrahi bought the clothes and the Libyans were involved, this would be a rather unbelievable coincidence, and he would almost definitely be involved in some way.

Legally, I wouldn't expect these two pieces of evidence to stand, of course, but that's another story altogether.

Please, please, explain why you remain certain that Megrahi bought the clothes! Any rational examination of Gauci's various statements reveals someone being constantly prodded and hinted at to get the "right" identification, with various inducements up to a $2 million dollar reward being offered for a satisfactory performance. Tony Gauci is now living in luxury in Australia on the proceeds, by the way.

Tony was obviously less willing to come out with blatant, confident lies than Giaka was, but it's the same situation. Giaka was paid a lot of money, and eventually relocated to the USA at the CIA's expense, for inventing the fairy-tales about Megrahi and Fhimah. Unfortunately all that was detailed in douments made available to the court, and so his evidence was disallowed.

And yet you believe the other witness proven to have been bribed for his evidence is reliable? Why?

How many more times do I need to repeat myself anyway? I better do it again.

I believe the evidence we have shows Megrahi is guilty. I don't believe the evidence we have should stand in court, based on the doubts around the evidence that were expressed here and elsewhere.
Yes, I'm quite happy with that. A court decision must necessarily interpret all doubt in the favor of defendant to avoid false convictions. But I'm not burdened by that, and I think the evidence implicating him is strong enough to formulate a personal opinion that he is indeed guilty. If I were in a jury, I'd declare him not guilty.

And again, I think his guilt is not proven to the extent the law requires. I do not think only what can be proven to that extent is true, and I do think Megrahi is guilty.

And yet again, if evidence for an event isn't strong enough to prove a certain version of events in court, it doesn't mean the said evidence is necessarily false.

And you're entitled to believe anything you like. I was looking for reasons why you believe that way, based on the evidence. That seems to be a little more difficult.

And yet again, courts standards of evidence are set to favor declaring a guilty man not guilty over declaring a not guilty man guilty. What exactly makes you think a not guilty verdict should be seen as more credible than a guilty verdict? That's where your reasoning leads, Rolfe. Both can be wrong, by the way.

Of course courts can get it wrong either way. Plenty people who were guilty as hell have walked free, as well as plenty innocents being convicted. That's why we're considering the evidence, and not what the court decided.

I thought you were so certain of Megrahi's guilt because he was at Luqa that morning, and you thought the suitcase had been proved to have gone on the plane at Luqa. However, as you haven't pursued that one at all, do you now realise it doesn't fly?

So he didn't put the suitcase on the plane, in fact he was somewhere the suitcase wasn't, at the time.

The MST-13 timer is only weak implication of Libya, given the two years between the batch being sold to Libya and the bombing, but even if it does point to Libya, it doesn't point specifically to Megrahi.

Your only reason that I could see for preferring Gauci's "identification" of Megrahi in the face of all the doubts I've detailed above, was that it fit with "other evidence".

What other evidence, for goodness sake?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You, Rolfe, apparently don't. You also don't appear to understand the difference between an opinion and reality. I think the events happened in a certain way, and this produced (some of) the evidence we have. Fine, that lawyer disagrees with me, if you're looking for a better source than me he is a good choice, I suppose. I still think Megrahi was an important part of the bombing, however, and I explained the rationale for that several times by now. If my rationale is wrong the world will not end, and neither will he go back to prison, so I'm quite unburdened by that. Why you are, Rolfe, remains a mystery to me.

You've stated your opinion. You've been quite unable to explain to me the reasoning behind that opinion. You're quite free to go on holding that opnion if you like, though for my part I'm at a loss why you seem to have such a strong need to believe this man guilty in what seems to be complete defiance of a balanced view of the evidence.

As I said, I'm interested in the mystery of Pan Am 103. Since it seems to me pretty obvious that it didn't happen the way the court at Camp Zeist decided, what the hell did happen? Or at least, how much can we figure out given the information available?

You chose to come into a thread dealing with one aspect of that, announcing your conviction that Megrahi did it. I found this intriguing, because the discussion in my opinion would benefit from someone well-informed about the evidence prepared to support that viewpoint with reasoned reference to the evidence. Such people are as rare as hens' teeth.

Unfortunately I can't see you've said anything but, I choose to believe Megrahi bought those clothes because that's what I want to believe. And I don't even know why you're so invested in that belief.

Oh well.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I was just reviewing where we'd got to. I notice my two quotes from McHrozni in the OP.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi [Megrahi] had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.
You can't claim the only man in the world could do an act that did happen (Lockerbie bombing in this case) didn't do it, unless you can show another person who could've done it.

We've progressed from that to this....

Just so you know I never thought that Megrahi was a very solid case. All evidence against him is circumstantial [....]

I'm prepared to believe the investigators scapegoated Megrahi, who was a minor player in the operation, and overlooked the bigger players of PFLP-GC [....]

And then to....

[....] if Megrah was involved in the bombing doesn't mean PFLP-GC wasn't involved at all. I also told you it is entirely plausible Megrahi was a minor agent in the operation and was scapegoated by the investigators, for whatever reason. [....]

If I were in a jury, I'd declare him not guilty.

I realise the selective nature of the second quote is a bit misleading. However, McHrozni, is it fair to say you've altered your viewpoint somewhat over the past few days?

You said several times that Megrahi was "at the scene of the crime", apparently referring to his presence at Luqa airport on the morning of the 21st. However, I haven't seen you defend that or even discuss it. Would it be fair to say you no longer maintain that Megrahi put the bomb on the plane? In that case, would it be correct to say you accept that someone else put the bomb on the plane?

In that case, would it be fair to say that Megrahi specifically isn't "the only man in the world" who could have carried out this attack?

I appreciate you still believe he bought the clothes from Gauci, but forgive me, I'm still struggling to understand why you believe that, given that you've described Gauci's evidence as "weak", "unreliable", of "very low evidence value" and "questionable". You supported your belief, in part, by saying that for him to have purchased the clothes was consistent with other evidence. However, we don't actually seem to have any other evidence left.

The MST-13 timer might implicate Libya in general, but it doesn't implicate Megrahi personally at all. Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence agent, but he was scarcely the only one.

I appreciate you still think he did it, but I'm just trying to get the basis for this clear in my mind. Is there anything else I've missed?

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

I was just reviewing where we'd got to. I notice my two quotes from McHrozn
I realise the selective nature of the second quote is a bit misleading. However, McHrozni, is it fair to say you've altered your viewpoint somewhat over the past few days?

I did give the whole thing a bit more thought, and I do admit the case against him is weaker than I initially thought. I may have used the "never said" phrase a bit more liberally than I should have, but by very little, if at all.

I'll stop debating in this thread now, since it is highly unlikely that anything new will come up. You're apparently expecting that anyone who thinks he's guilty will be able to give you some new, solid evidence that would stand in court, but wasn't used for some reason. You aren't very likely to get that, unless the case goes to a new trial. Which is possible.

Now, just to sum up my position: I think that in the light of all the evidence and all the scrutiny, he should have been found not guilty in the court, even though he was in fact guilty. This might seem a bit contradictory, but it isn't, it's just a strict application of due process. Guilt was not proven, therefore he shouldn't be punished for it, even though he did commit the crime.

If you can't understand it, picture a murder taking place, and being filmed by an illegal police surveillance camera, and the murderer can be positively identified with practically no chance of mistake. No other solid evidence exists of the guilt of the man who did the crime, just some highly circumstantial evidence and he can't be ruled out as a suspect. Other circumstantial evidence points to one or two other possible suspects. This murderer would also have be declared not guilty, although there can be no doubt at all he really did do the crime. Our case is more murky, this was just to illustrate my position. OJ Simpsons' murder case is also similar. Evidence of his guilt was considerable, but so badly mishandled as to be questionable, so the only just verdict was not guilty.

Law can we weird sometimes. It's a price we pay for a reasonably just society.

Oh, and:

I appreciate you still believe he bought the clothes from Gauci, but forgive me, I'm still struggling to understand why you believe that, given that you've described Gauci's evidence as "weak", "unreliable", of "very low evidence value" and "questionable". You supported your belief, in part, by saying that for him to have purchased the clothes was consistent with other evidence. However, we don't actually seem to have any other evidence left.

I also believe life exists on some other planets (or moons), even though it was not yet shown that conditions suitable for life even exist anywhere else in the universe. Does that also disturb you?

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

I think that in the light of all the evidence and all the scrutiny, he should have been found not guilty in the court, even though he was in fact guilty. This might seem a bit contradictory, but it isn't, it's just a strict application of due process. Guilt was not proven, therefore he shouldn't be punished for it, even though he did commit the crime.

Isn't this what is known as the Scottish verdict of "not proven"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

(Has anyone already said that?)

 

[GlennB]

Now, just to sum up my position: I think that in the light of all the evidence and all the scrutiny, he should have been found not guilty in the court, even though he was in fact guilty. This might seem a bit contradictory, but it isn't, it's just a strict application of due process. Guilt was not proven, therefore he shouldn't be punished for it, even though he did commit the crime.

I read this a while ago but passed out from absurdity-overload, and have only just managed to regain consciousness.

Bye bye McHrozni.

 

[McHrozni]

Isn't this what is known as the Scottish verdict of "not proven"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

(Has anyone already said that?)

Yes, it is and yes, I have.
I thought it was done away with, tho. Interesting.

I read this a while ago but passed out from absurdity-overload, and have only just managed to regain consciousness.

Bye bye McHrozni.

Cya. I don't see where the absurdity is, by the way.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

Isn't this what is known as the Scottish verdict of "not proven"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

(Has anyone already said that?)

Oh, it was said plenty at the time! However, it would have been a problematic verdict.

The history of that verdict is that it was originally the one of a binary choice - "proven" or "not proven". This is strictly correct - the case against the accused is either proven or it isn't, and the verdict wasn't saying anything about actual guilt or innocence.

However, a case arose where the actual innocence of the accused was felt by the jury to be so self-evident that they insisted on bringing in a "not guilty" verdict (which wasn't proper in Scots law and shouldn't have been accepted). However it was, and this led to the three-way choice at present on offer.

This situation is actually completely iniquitous, because it has led to the "not proven" verdict being used to imply that the jury think the accused did it, but they evidence isn't completely watertight. Thus the accused may go free, but the stigma remains.

If it had been returned in this case there could well have been a bloody riot.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I did give the whole thing a bit more thought, and I do admit the case against him is weaker than I initially thought. I may have used the "never said" phrase a bit more liberally than I should have, but by very little, if at all.

Mmmm, yes. Just a bit.

I'll stop debating in this thread now, since it is highly unlikely that anything new will come up.

Do I get the million bucks?

You're apparently expecting that anyone who thinks he's guilty will be able to give you some new, solid evidence that would stand in court, but wasn't used for some reason. You aren't very likely to get that, unless the case goes to a new trial. Which is possible.

No, I'm merely asking for a reasoned explanation, based on the evidence available, why you or anyone else holds the belief that he's guilty.

Now, just to sum up my position: I think that in the light of all the evidence and all the scrutiny, he should have been found not guilty in the court, even though he was in fact guilty. This might seem a bit contradictory, but it isn't, it's just a strict application of due process. Guilt was not proven, therefore he shouldn't be punished for it, even though he did commit the crime.

Well, whether you or I or anyone else think he should or shouldn't be found guilty by a court is fairly irrelevant, because he was in fact found guilty. All I wanted was a coherent explanation of why you believe he actually committed the crime, based on the evidence available.

You haven't even attempted to maintain that he put the suitcase with the bomb on KM180, and you've consistently agreed that Gauci's evidence is weak, confused and unreliable. You haven't dealt with the fact that the least confused part of Gauci's evidence is the part where the clothes purchase happened on a day when Megrahi was nowhere near his shop.

There's pretty much nothing left after that. You can of course believe what you like. Some people believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If you can't understand it, picture a murder taking place, and being filmed by an illegal police surveillance camera, and the murderer can be positively identified with practically no chance of mistake. No other solid evidence exists of the guilt of the man who did the crime, just some highly circumstantial evidence and he can't be ruled out as a suspect. Other circumstantial evidence points to one or two other possible suspects. This murderer would also have be declared not guilty, although there can be no doubt at all he really did do the crime. Our case is more murky, this was just to illustrate my position. OJ Simpsons' murder case is also similar. Evidence of his guilt was considerable, but so badly mishandled as to be questionable, so the only just verdict was not guilty.

Law can we weird sometimes. It's a price we pay for a reasonably just society.

Oh, I don't have any trouble at all believing O. J. Simpson was guilty, even though he was acquitted. I've read a number of very rational, sensible explanations of why people believe this, based on the evidence available. I'm still waiting for anyone to attempt a similar explanation as regards Megrahi.

The little problem with your little tale above is that there's no equivalent of your illegal surveillance camera footage in the case under discussion. Your analogy therefore makes no more sense than your "two men in a spaceship" one.

You seem to be reduced to the assumption that the authorities had some sort of killer secret evidence we haven't been told about. The trouble with this assumption is not just that it's unprovable, it's actually irrational. Police prosecute the wrong guy quite often. The fact that someone is prosecuted on weak evidence doesn't necessarily mean there's some great killer evidence hidden somewhere, even in terrorist cases. Usually it just means this was the best case they could scrape together against somebody, so they're going with it. Compare the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven.

I also believe life exists on some other planets (or moons), even though it was not yet shown that conditions suitable for life even exist anywhere else in the universe. Does that also disturb you?

Not at all. That is a matter of faith - you've chosen to believe in something for which there is at present no evidence.

You choose to believe Megrahi guilty as a matter of faith, in spite of the evidence - as I said, that's your privilege.

Rolfe.