Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

[Rolfe]

Here's the clip. 20 minutes. Available for the next 7 days, to everyone in Britain and with a suitable proxy server.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t4pzh

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Here's what's been bugging me about the withdrawal of the appeal. The official explanation, so far as there is one, is that Megrahi had applied both for prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. Since the former required the withdrawal of the appeal, he decided to withdraw it to maximise his chances of getting home.

This is slightly odd for a start. And you know what? A few pennies are dropping with me right now.

This simply doesn't make any sense though. Megrahi had a TV in prison, that was well-known. (Gadaffi bought him a large-screen plasma TV, and the other prisoners liked to watch football on it - this was a random news story years ago.) He also read newspapers. He gave an interview to a Herald journalist in which he said the Herald was his preferred newspaper. He had tried to persuade his fellow-prisoners of its merits, but they stubbornly favoured the Sun.

So, Megrahi was following the same news sources as I was. I knew all along that an SNP government would never grant him a prisoner transfer. Alex Salmond spoke out bitterly against it right at the start, tried (unsuccessfully) to have Megrahi exempt from it, and denounced it as a shabby deal for commercial interests. Just as Jim Swire said. It never got any better. SNP disapproval of the Labour Deal in the Desert never waned. It simply was not going to happen. If I knew that, Megrahi knew that.

So why bother with the prisoner transfer at all? It was quite obvious from 6th August (the release of Ronnie Biggs, the precedent that nobody seems to be mentioning at the moment) that Megrahi would be freed by compassionate release also. It was only a matter of time. And interested parties were all pleased that this would allow the appeal to continue. Which should have suited Megrahi as well.

At the very least, why not wait and see what happened? If compassionate release had been refused, he could always have withdrawn the appeal then and re-applied for the prisoner transfer. But he didn't do it that way.

So the "he wanted to maximise his chances of getting home by keeping the prisoner transfer option open" argument doesn't hold water. He wasn't going to get prisoner transfer and he must have known that. Not until a future time when the SNP was no longer in power, anyway.

Kochler thinks Kenny went to Greenock and twisted his arm, basically saying I'll grant the compassionate release if you withdraw the appeal, face to face with no written records to give away the deal. And this may be so. But Jim Swire's take on it has made me think of a completely different angle.

Someone asked, some time back, so they were dragging their feet on the appeal, what would they have done if Megrahi hadn't contracted cancer? I said, go on dragging, and hoped they were either out of office by the time it was finally decided, or that something would come up. And prostate cancer came up. I was making the astonishingly naive assumption that without the cancer, the appeal would have got to court in the end.

The penny that just dropped is that, no, that appeal was never going to make it. What was going to come up was the prisoner transfer agreement. The prostate cancer was just a complication.

Swire is right. Libya moved on from Lockerbie years ago. They wrote a weasel-worded letter "taking responsibility for the actions of our agents", and turned over a couple of Libyans for trial, and made all the Lockerbie relatives who could stomach to take his money even wealthier than they were already (they received millions in the 1990s from a lawsuit against Pan Am). This all happened gradually, as Libya was gradually rehabilitated back into the community of civilised nations.

The last of the money was paid over in 2008 I think, but even before that, the rehabilitation was proceeding apace. The Deal in the Desert in 2007 was an important milestone, oil deals for BP and prisoner transfer agreements and so on.

Obviously, Libya accepting responsibility for Lockerbie was always part of it. Making sure Libya went on accepting resonsibility would be an important part of it. Of course Libya wanted Megrahi home. But it was also in everyone's interests (except his and the people who would rather like the truth to come out) for the appeal to be stopped.

Libya applied for the prisoner transfer on Megrahi's behalf. We know that, and that's the way it would work anyway. Who knows what conflicts were going on between Megrahi, who wanted to stay in jail for the appeal to be heard, and Libya, who (I think) had come to an agreement as part of all these deals that the appeal would be withdrawn, urging going the prisoner transfer route?

I strongly suspect that's what a lot of the delay was about. Keep that appeal out of court, play for as much time as possible, so that the prisoner transfer agreement can eventually come into action.

There was stalemate in 2007 and 2008, as the Scottish government wouldn't wear prisoner transfer anyway, and Megrahi didn't want to withdraw the appeal. In September 2008, Megrahi was diagnosed with cancer. This opened the compassionate release route, which was acceptable to the Scottish government, but didn't require the appeal to be withdrawn.

In the end it came to the same thing. Megrahi was told, withdraw the appeal, and you can go home. The day after he flew out, his solicitor Mr. Kelly came on TV and said his client had been pressurised. Later, he himself said the same thing. He never said who pressurised him. Was it Kenny, as Kochler thinks, or Gadaffi, as Swire thinks?

It could very well have been both of them.

Rolfe.

Very interesting Rolfe, and I agree. Considering what we were also discussing just the other night in relation to Megrahi's defence during Zeist, and the Libyan advisors, it was something that had crossed my mind that may have also played a part in his decsion to drop the appeal.

My goodness, quite a price for one man to pay. And, not just for Megrahi, but the family name forever to be stained with the conviction of the murder of 270 ordinary innocent people.

I think though that MacAskill's visit to Greenock was very badly advised. No matter how high the stakes were perceived. Anyone who scratches the surface of the trial and 2nd appeal, and then following the steps leading up to his release, will be of the opinion that MacAskill went there with an ultimatum. You're never going to see the conclusion of the appeal, and if it were possible to make the situation for Megrahi even more immediate, you've about 12 weeks to live. So, either, die on your own in Scotland and never see the appeal concluded, or drop the appeal and go home to spend the final few weeks around your family.

Not much of a decision to make, is there? Quite clearly, and I'm certain just about everyone one else would make the same choice: Let me go home, I'll do anything.

 

[Alt+F4]

Megrahi seems to have been a semi-willing sacrificial lamb. He could quite probably have got an acquittal by being a lot more forthcoming to the court about what he was actually doing on 20th-21st December 1988. However, his acquiescence never extended to admitting guilt, and the appeal seems to have been very important to him. Interesting dilemma.

If everything you are saying is true Rolfe than Megrahi is at least guilty of obstruction of justice and concealing evidence in the murders of 270 persons. Eight years in prison seems like a fair sentence to me.

I have little sympathy for Megrahi even if he didn't physically plant the bomb. He knows more than what he's told and if he really is dying why not tell all now and help the families have some peace?

 

[Rolfe]

Very interesting Rolfe, and I agree. Considering what we were also discussing just the other night in relation to Megrahi's defence during Zeist, and the Libyan advisors, it was something that had crossed my mind that may have also played a part in his decsion to drop the appeal.

Good point. Libya didn't really want him acquitted even at Zeist, so far as we can see.

My goodness, quite a price for one man to pay. And, not just for Megrahi, but the family name forever to be stained with the conviction of the murder of 270 ordinary innocent people.

Who thinks that, who matters? Nobody in Libya. That wasn't a welcome for a successful terrorist, it was a welcome for an innocent man who had been wrongly imprisoned. If he's in Libya, he's probably quite well insulated from all that.

I think though that MacAskill's visit to Greenock was very badly advised. No matter how high the stakes were perceived. Anyone who scratches the surface of the trial and 2nd appeal, and then following the steps leading up to his release, will be of the opinion that MacAskill went there with an ultimatum. You're never going to see the conclusion of the appeal, and if it were possible to make the situation for Megrahi even more immediate, you've about 12 weeks to live. So, either, die on your own in Scotland and never see the appeal concluded, or drop the appeal and go home to spend the final few weeks around your family.

That was my immediate assumption. And I'm not at all sure it wasn't a bit like that. Except I'm starting to think it was also a lot like something else.

Not much of a decision to make, is there? Quite clearly, and I'm certain just about everyone one else would make the same choice: Let me go home, I'll do anything.

And that's what he did. He then started releasing some of his legal papers, but stopped fairly soon afterwards. I don't know if he's simply not well enough, or if he's been told, don't push it. I suspect the latter.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

You know, I posted a link and a quote from that this afternoon, but took it down when I read the full article. Most of it is extraordinarily good. But the bloody man is a Lockerbie no-Samsoniter. He thinks all the evidence of the suitcase and the clothes was planted. There are only about three sentences to that effect, but the trouble is, nonsense like that just allows the entire brilliant production to be dismissed.

Rolfe.

Hmmm..Yes, I see what you mean. I just took it they are just tossing everything into the ring and weren't really concentrating on the more obvious and publicly known facts that have come to light during and since Zeist.

It is odd however, that the editor is clearly comfortable in making such claims. It make me think back to an article in Private Eye last year where an article they printed really suggested that they themselves had seen or known of the existence of far more damning documentation which allowed PE to conclude that evidence was planted and/or fabricated. They made a specific reference to the clothing being fabricated and also asserted that Jafaar was himself a memeber of the PFLP.

Now I know PE also have a fairly long history, aside from exposing abuses of power and miscarriages of justice, but they're also known for making allegations that turned out to not be entirely true , but usually there is fire around the smoke that they sniff out.

It'd be interesting if Raeburn or The Firm Magazine could explain fully their allegations and present a plausible narrative that supports the known facts. If we do know the facts at all I suppose.

 

[Rolfe]

If everything you are saying is true Rolfe than Megrahi is at least guilty of obstruction of justice and concealing evidence in the murders of 270 persons. Eight years in prison seems like a fair sentence to me.

I have little sympathy for Megrahi even if he didn't physically plant the bomb. He knows more than what he's told and if he really is dying why not tell all now and help the families have some peace?

I think it's important not to get too misty-eyed over Megrahi, right enough. (The trouble was, Fidelio was on the radio the evening he was released, and it kind of seemed appropriate.) He was a Libyan secret agent of some sort. We don't know a huge amount about him. It's always easier to frame somebody with a murky past or something to hide.

He didn't ask to be accused though (and neither did Fhimah, who really seems to have been an ordinary little man doing an ordinary little job). He must have been in a bit of a bind when the trial was arranged. He was told it would be fair, Robert Black and Nelson Mandela assured him it would be fair, and then it turned out to be a kangaroo court.

He was obviously doing something clandestine for Gadaffi when he passed through Malta on his coded passport that day. He never said what. Maybe he could have been acquitted if he'd been able to prove he was engaged in completely separate business. But he certainly couldn't say that without Gadaffi's permission. How could he go back to Libya a free man, having grassed on whatever mission he was engaged in?

He trusted there wasn't enough evidence against him, even without that explanation. He was right. He trusted the court would acquit in that case. He was wrong. But if Gadaffi wouldn't let him divulge any more, what was he supposed to do? He's always said he didn't do it, and why should he have any information on who did?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm..Yes, I see what you mean. I just took it they are just tossing everything into the ring and weren't really concentrating on the more obvious and publicly known facts that have come to light during and since Zeist.

It is odd however, that the editor is clearly comfortable in making such claims.[....]

It'd be interesting if Raeburn or The Firm Magazine could explain fully their allegations and present a plausible narrative that supports the known facts. If we do know the facts at all I suppose.

I don't know what to make of it. Robert Black often posts excerpts from his articles, without any more comment but "excellent" or something like that. The magazine is hard to fathom. On one hand there are links to ordinary legal articles, and advertisements from legit sources aimed at lawyers. On the other hand, the editor prints a helluva lot of CT material about Lockerbie.

Did you see this link?
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/20...te_Crown_Office_blacklisting_of_The_Firm.html

‘The Deputy Crown Agent John Dunn has confirmed that the Crown Office will no longer communicate with the Firm or engage with its legitimate media inquiries. The action comes as a direct response to prior concerns expressed by the Firm's editor to Parliamentary Justice Spokespersons over the Crown Office’s consistent failure to address media inquiries put to it.

The Crown Office have classified the Firm’s approach as “unacceptable” and accused the Firm of “persistent rudeness and abusive communication.”

“Accordingly, I write to advise you that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will not enter into further communication with you as an individual or in your capacity as Editor of the Firm,”

Something mildly odd going on there.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I was typing this response when the announcement came on about the Newsnicht feaure. Maybe some of the subsequent discussion has illuminated the points a bit?

I don't think the issue is that Libya wasn't involved but that al-Megrahi isn't involved.

Well, who knows. The smart money says a bunch of Palestinian terrorists based in Syria did it, because they were paid $10 million by Iran. See the USS Vincennes and IA655. There's a fair stack of evidence to that effect, but it hasn't been tested in court. The main problem is that nobody knows who actually placed the bomb into the luggage system (though where and when seem pretty certain, and it wasn't 9 am at Luqa airport either).

But if -- as it appears Rolfe is indicating -- the compassionate release was engineered to terminate an appeal that would probably have reversed the conviction, then I think Scotland is getting all the bad press is deserves.

Have the courage of your convictions (literally). If the guy is innocent, let the appeal play out. Don't abuse some other process (compassionate release) to avoid the embarrassment of having the conviction overturned on appeal.

I think you need to realise that the politicians are not the general public. That part of your post is so confused I hardly know how to respond. Are you talking to the Scottish people, or the politicians? You seem to think the ordinary people can just tell Kenny MacAskill what to do, and he'll do it. I'm probably as close to the Scottish government you'll get on the forum - long-time party member and activist of the party of government. And I'm absolutely furious with the government about this.

I don't know why the politicians are so hell-bent on covering up the Lockerbie affair, but they're all at it. The USA, the UK, Libya and probably Germany. Now the SNP, who had less than nothing to do with either the original investigation or Camp Zeist, seem to have joined in.

The compassionate release was engineered to bring the whole interminable saga to an end. Acquitting Megrahi would have achieved the exact opposite. The rest is international politics, in which the Scottish government seem to be co-operating to at least a limited degree.

I wish Kenny MacAskill had announced compassionate release free and clear, with the appeal to continue. I wish he'd instructed the court to refuse leave to withdraw the appeal, on the grounds of public interest, and waved Megrahi off with a smile.

Kenny decided to do something else. Who are you actually addressing in your post?

If Scotland wants to do the right thing, someone in the government should stand up and say, "We sent him home because he wasn't guilty. We knew it, and the appeal would have confirmed it. We didn't feel like waiting for our own appeals process to play out in the normal course, so we got a doctor to say al-Megrahi had 3 months to live, and used 'compassionate release' to justify it."

It might not stop the hoopla, but at least it would be honest and forthright. Right now, the Scottish government is stuck defending what appears to be a very shaky compassionate release determination, rather than upholding the more laudable concept of releasing an innocent man.

Why is it shaky? Merely, because Megrahi (now at home and with his family and getting international-grade oncology treatment) has outlived the original prognosis.

It was always recognised that the three months was an estimate, and that it might be longer - particularly if his environment underwent a marked change for the better. Kenny has never wavered. It was the right thing to do and all the advice he received said Megrahi was eligible for compassionate release. He said he'd do the same thing again.

I strongly suspect some very high-level opposition to the very suggestion that Megrahi was innocent. It's OK for us, we just want the truth. But the truth is Pandora's Box, if we're right. All the sanctions against Libya, unjustified. $2.7 billion paid by Gadaffi in blood money - under false pretences. 270 unsolved murders and a cold case to re-open 22 years after the event.

If you want honest and forthright, ask the US government why they paid Majid Giaka to invent a pack of lies about Megrahi and Fhimah planting that bomb, and went to court with a witness they knew was lying for money? Actually, ask them why they were running the prosecution case with their hands up the Lord Advocate's backside.

Ask them why they paid Tony and Paul Gauci $3 million and relocated them to Australia. You could even try asking them what happened to the baggage records at Frankfurt airport, and see if you get an answer.

The USA is into this a lot deeper than the Scottish government is.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

By the way, one of the tabloids was shown at the end of Newsnicht crowing that Kenny had lied to get Megrahi released. Kenny explained this morning that the three-month prognosis was based on what was likely to happen if Megrahi remained in jail, and that it had always been possible that going home would give him renewed will to live. We always knew that. It was talked about at the time.

But no, Kenny "lied" about the prognosis, on the basis of that. So what do we do? Say the guy can never go home, because if we grant that concession, it might extend his life longer than our prejudices can cope with?

I don't think there's any sophistry the anti-SNP press will stoop to, to make a cheap point.

Rolfe.

 

[marksman]

I think you need to realise that the politicians are not the general public.

I do realize that. I didn't know specifically the branch of the government responsible for choosing the compassionate release, so I used "Scottish" as a proxy.

The compassionate release was engineered to bring the whole interminable saga to an end.

Didn't seem to work on that way, did it?

It's OK for us, we just want the truth. But the truth is Pandora's Box, if we're right. All the sanctions against Libya, unjustified. $2.7 billion paid by Gadaffi in blood money - under false pretences. 270 unsolved murders and a cold case to re-open 22 years after the event.

That only emphasizes the cowardly nature of what they did. If he's innocent, all that's been done is confirmed in many people's eyes the nature of his and Libya's guilt.

The USA is into this a lot deeper than the Scottish government is.

Let's not play the tu quoque game, okay?

 

[Rolfe]

I do realize that. I didn't know specifically the branch of the government responsible for choosing the compassionate release, so I used "Scottish" as a proxy.

And I still don't know whether you're aiming your criticism at me or Kenny MacAskill.

Didn't seem to work on that way, did it?

It's doing just fine. This current spat is an irrelevance compared to what would happen if Megrahi's conviction was overturned.

That only emphasizes the cowardly nature of what they did. If he's innocent, all that's been done is confirmed in many people's eyes the nature of his and Libya's guilt.

Come back when you have the first clue what you're talking about.

Let's not play the tu quoque game, okay?

It's not tu quoque. The Scottish government didn't pay witnesses millions of dollars to provide perjured evidence to convict Megrahi. The CIA and the US DoJ did that.

Rolfe.

 

[marksman]

And I still don't know whether you're aiming your criticism at me or Kenny MacAskill.

Since you're not "responsible for choosing the compassionate release" I'm not sure how you can continue to be confused on this point.

This current spat is an irrelevance compared to what would happen if Megrahi's conviction was overturned.

Speculation.

Come back when you have the first clue what you're talking about.

Now that's putting the "Educational" in the James Randi Educational Foundation!

It's not tu quoque. The Scottish government didn't pay witnesses millions of dollars to provide perjured evidence to convict Megrahi. The CIA and the US DoJ did that.

That's a tu quoque. A tu quoque is deflecting from the topic (Scotland's action) by saying someone else (US) did something else that is as bad or worse. What you have done is precisely a tu quoque.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It sounds like a horrible bit of FUBAR. Letting the US get involved with what sure seems like a dubious conviction doesn't make anybody look good. I think there really should be a thorough investigatory commission into all this new information. But....who would do it?


And one thing keeps gnawing at me though. Why? Why go through the mechanics of rigging things to get this guy? Why blame it on Libya if it was likely someone else that the US and UK hated?

It sounds like you're making progress away from the brainwash beams. The question of why is not answered,, but it pops up when you realize how huge this had to be to be a frame-up, which it seems like. . There are some good reasons, however.

We have a darn good greivance behind the attack, the Vincennes thing. Wrong foot to start on if you're gonna let it escalate. There is the Gulf War re-alignment issue where Iraq is the enemy, no time to tangle with Iran too. There's the embrassing security and intelligence failures, the clever plot and its propaganda value, the way Western infiltrators were co-opted and danced around (or were involved??)... heck, they couldn't evan say it was atotal clash of civilizations thing since the most likely bomber, Abu Elias, was Christian. It was one of those things that had CIA people rubbing their heads, cursing and fretting...

I'm not up to offering a better analysis than that, if it seems inadequate. Sry.
ETA: And that's the one list - why Libya would be easier is another whole other list of points ...

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't think the issue is that Libya wasn't involved but that al-Megrahi isn't involved.

That would be the main point to stick to at the moment, but IMO the Libya evidence is all fake and no one there had a lick to do with it.

But if -- as it appears Rolfe is indicating -- the compassionate release was engineered to terminate an appeal that would probably have reversed the conviction, then I think Scotland is getting all the bad press is deserves.

But for quite the wrong reasons, don't you think?

Good points otherwise.

Sorry to be so drive-by these days, but I'm real busy here. Haven't even got to check out the new stuff from Dr. Kochler. I hope this helps a few people get some context.

[QUOTE-Buncrana]Not much of a decision to make, is there? Quite clearly, and I'm certain just about everyone one else would make the same choice: Let me go home, I'll do anything.[/QUOTE]
But he is a shrewd man. He submitted his papers to the Cort of Public Opinion. That's awesome for me, as I'm a judge on that circuit and can make my OWN judgment, free of the normal rules on judges like never, ever, question what some "scientist" says, no matter how preposterous it is.

Rolfe: He might have stopped short on releasing docs to save the rest for his book, to raise money for his family in the process. I'll be plunking down the $$ it takes for my copy, and John Ashton had BETTER NOT screw it up with more Khaled Jafaar crap....

I see a rapid back-n-forth betwixt Rolfe and Marksman.
Mark, trust me. IF that appeal hadn't been dropped and was actually heard, rather than stalled into oblivion, and IF the judges had considered it reasonably... (two big ifs) well, it's better for the Scottish and UK systems this way (no appeal) and waaay better for the American side.

You can judge for yourself - this is the Grounds of appeal (pdf), just taking a narrow focus on Gauci's "identification" and its reliability. Consider what a reasonable judge would think reading this, and reflect on what Gauci's "ID" means to the case against Megrahi.

And they aren't even getting into the passing-off of Giaka as a witness (another $2 million wonder), and Bollier (I suspect he got $2 million or more as well but not like in his stories, where he refuses it), and the discrepancies surrounding physical evidence like the timer fragment, radio manual, etc, the questions surrounding the "unaccompanied suitcase from Malta," the dismissal of the London clues...

Whether or not any of this on-subject enough by your measure to not be "tu quouque." Whatever.

 

[Rolfe]

Since you're not "responsible for choosing the compassionate release" I'm not sure how you can continue to be confused on this point.

Maybe by your persistent use of the word "you". Kenny MacAskill is not a member of this forum. I'm the one who said I was furious with Kenny, and at one point declared that I'd love to get him in a dark alley with a set of thumbscrews, remember?

The discussion coming from the Scots side is expressing incomprehension at Kenny's insistence that the conviction is sound, and his apparent machinations to get Megrahi to drop his appeal. We know he's doing this, but we don't understand why. It is not especially helpful to counter this with "you" should do this or "you" should do that, directed at Kenny.

I'm perfectly clear what I think Kenny should have done. I think he should have allowed the compassionate release, and allowed the appeal to continue, even taking steps to prevent the appeal being abandoned if someone else was making moves to do that. The question is, why did he do what he did, and why are both he and now Alex Salmond taking such pains to insist that the conviction is sound, when any fool reading the court judgements can see it was a travesty, and there's a whole big SCCRC enquiry says the same thing.

Speculation.

Well done, Sherlock. We don't know why Kenny did what he did, or is taking the line he's taking, so speculation is quite appropriate.

As I said, the SNP had less than nothing to do with the original enquiry or Camp Zeist, so they as a party have nothing to cover up. Why have they now fallen into line with the rest of the "establishment" - that is principally the US and UK governments, who most assuredly have a great deal to cover up - at this stage of the game?

I speculate that perhaps some argument has been made that the stability of the Middle East (such as it is) would be adversely affected by opening the whole can of worms about who really bombed Pan Am 103, rather than letting sleeping dogs lie. If you have a better suggestion, I'd be interested to hear it.

Now that's putting the "Educational" in the James Randi Educational Foundation!

I apologise, I was typing very late at night - or rather early in the morning. The education is in this and other threads, and I know it's a chore to wade your way through and find the relevant posts, but it's also a chore to have to keep re-typing the same explanations.

You're trying to shoehorn this affair into an incomplete understanding of what is actually going on. The Scottish government wants Megrahi to go on being seen as the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing, in common with the UK and US governments. It seems to have no interest in drawing attention to his probable innocence, indeed quite the opposite. Since it hates the UK government with a fiery passion, and has no particular axe to grind for the US government, this is difficult to explain.

Megrahi wasn't given compassionate release in order to compensate him for being wrongly convicted, or as a quick way out of jail rather than wait for the appeal process to take its course. He was released in order to stop the course of events that would have led to his conviction being overturned, because it is not in the interests of our government (any flavour) or yours for that to happen.

Some of us don't understand why this is the case, and don't believe we would agree with the reasoning even if we did understand.

That's a tu quoque. A tu quoque is deflecting from the topic (Scotland's action) by saying someone else (US) did something else that is as bad or worse. What you have done is precisely a tu quoque.

No, I'm pointing out that the US government is the prime mover in this affair and always has been. To try to understand why the Scottish government is behaving as it is, without understanding that what is going on is essentially a closing of ranks with the authorities who carried out the framing of Megrahi in the first place, is futile. See this article for example.

Amid all the bellowing about the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in 1988, all current commentary ignores the hippo in the room - which is the powerful evidence that Megrahi was innocent, framed by the US and British security services and originally found guilty because Scottish judges had their arms brutally twisted by Westminster. The conviction was one of the great judicial scandals of the 20th Century.

As I said, it was the CIA who paid Giaka large sums of money to induce him to make up fairy-stories about Megrahi and Fhimah. They then presented Giaka as a prosecution witness in the full knowledge that this was the case. This was actually uncovered in court and his evidence thrown out, so it's not exactly secret.

It was the US Department of Justice prosecutors who were sitting with the Scottish prosecution team in Camp Zeist, pretty much directing their every move. It was the same department which paid out $3 million to the Gauci brothers, apparently as a reward for managing to provide a tentative identification of Megrahi which the court (against all apparent reason) accepted.

I'm not making this up - this is not some weird conspiracy theory, this is all a matter of public and legal record. It's extremely difficult to believe Kenny MacAskill is not also aware of these facts. However, rather than take the opportunity to right this wrong and set the record straight, a positively heaven-sent opportunity which placed him in a position to do this, with no prior involvement in the affair at all, he has chosen to continue with the cover-up.

Enquiring minds wonder why.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I'm not making this up - this is not some weird conspiracy theory, this is all a matter of public and legal record. It's extremely difficult to believe Kenny MacAskill is not also aware of these facts. However, rather than take the opportunity to right this wrong and set the record straight, a positively heaven-sent opportunity which placed him in a position to do this, with no prior involvement in the affair at all, he has chosen to continue with the cover-up.

Enquiring minds wonder why.

Rolfe.

Am I missing something here? As far as I can see the intitial reason to drop the appeal was to avoid the Scottish Justice system being shown up as the tragic farce it was (In this instance, it may well be excellent overall). My understanding is Camp Zeist was a Scottish Court, with Scottish lawyers and Judges ruling on Scottish law, if it was revealed to have poodled to the UK and US and banged up the wrong man then some of the dirt would splash onto the new Scottish Government, far better to hush it up and let Megrahi die quietly and everyone would forget.

Now Megrahi has inconveniently not died he's getting some grief about it, but MacAskill can't backtrack now without admitting he was wrong before, which politicians don't do.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, that's one possible reason. It's never seemed sufficient to me though. Maybe you're right.

The Shirley McKie case was another tragic farce, and if I recall correctly they coughed up about £750,000 rather than have any more light shed on that.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If everything you are saying is true Rolfe than Megrahi is at least guilty of obstruction of justice and concealing evidence in the murders of 270 persons. Eight years in prison seems like a fair sentence to me.

I have little sympathy for Megrahi even if he didn't physically plant the bomb. He knows more than what he's told and if he really is dying why not tell all now and help the families have some peace?

Oh my God, I just caught that. Alt... "in the death" of who, if what Rolfe says istrue? He denied his whereabouts at one point,whilesimultaneously being framedfor Lockerbie. Rolfe is on record and I agree as speculating that Megrahi was framed BECAUSE he was on some unrelated secret mission on Malta that day. False passport, denails.both support this.

Also, the bomb went onboard in London 1000 miles away, but I don't blame you for not knowing or believing this. But it kinda makes his Malta mission a perfect alibi when you look at it one way.

He knows nothing about the bombing except what he's found in research, trying to clear his name. He had mentioned this in his appeal, or something related, something about Abu Elias... There's a book coming up, keep your eyes out. He's doing his part to help the families, but the rest of the road is long and rocky and we'll have to walk it without the Megrahi to look to anymore.

Something tells me you're very confused now.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Threep, Rolfe, how's this:

Something larger, something a wide establishment wouldn't want, a scope he doesn't even fully grasp, allows MacAskill (et al) to allow himself to justify his compromise with that basic protect Scotland instinct? IF this thing ever is able to come level, it will hurt worse now. Every decision to insist on Megrahi's guilt is an investment, and they were all in way too deep long ago. It won't be allowed.

I'm still doing it, of course.

Rolfe, as an old SNP hand, you say the line has generally been to criticize the conviction and question the guilt. do you have old materials with quotes from any relevant players? Who within SNP said stuff like that? Etc. Not for me, as I'm so behind, but just a thought for something useful to the world maybe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Something larger, something a wide establishment wouldn't want, a scope he doesn't even fully grasp, allows MacAskill (et al) to allow himself to justify his compromise with that basic protect Scotland instinct? IF this thing ever is able to come level, it will hurt worse now. Every decision to insist on Megrahi's guilt is an investment, and they were all in way too deep long ago. It won't be allowed.

I'm still doing it, of course.

Two answers.

1. I don't believe in huge NWO illuminati conspiracies, I have never seen credible evidence of one.
2. And this one applies a bit even if there isn't a gigantic co-ordinated conspiracy. What is Megrahi doing alive? If he was dead the whole thing would disappear apart from this thread and a few obsessive journalists. He's got terminal cancer and is living in a totalitarian state which has done far worse things than bump off an inconvenient citizen.