Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

[Skeptic]

The way things are going, he'll bury us all.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I refer to sentences 4-6 of my post above.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Contrasting Time's article by Vivienne Walt, the Christian Science Monitor has posted a very poorly though-out article on Megrahi's release, survival, and "conspiracy theories" like those expressed in Walt's article. My critique of it can be read here.

Also I've been meaning to come back to the maneuvers leading up to Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal, MacAskill's decision to free Megrahi,and the relation between the two.

I wanted to mention it was UK family member Matt Berkley (lost his brother Alastair) and his analysis of the chain of decvisions that got me interested in looking at it all more closely. From a PDF he put together, an analysis of what MacAskill communicated in his 5 August jail cell meeting with Megrahi. These seven relevant facts about the decision to abandon his appeal could or should have been communicated to the prisoner, to help him make a balanced, informed decision.

Apparent selectivity of information to the prisoner

At the prison, there were seven facts Mr MacAskill could have told the appellant on the relevance of the conviction appeal to the decisions:

a) he would have to drop it to be transferred;
b) he would not have to drop it for the Minister to refuse transfer;
c) he would not have to drop it for the Minister to release him;
d) if he did drop it, he could not be transferred unless the Crown decided to drop their sentence appeal;
e) the Crown would decide independently;
f) the Minister currently had no information on what the Crown would do;
g) the Minister would not find out in advance what the Crown would do.

Mr MacAskill appears to have mentioned only one of these – (a), that he would have to abandon the appeal to be transferred – while omitting both the possibilities which did not need the appeal to be dropped and the one
which would defeat his stated purpose of doing so. This impression from the Department's note is bolstered by Mr MacAskill's statements in Parliament on 2 September in reply to Margo MacDonald, that what he said to Mr Megrahi was in the note and "no further matters beyond that were discussed".

Now what could make him neglect to mention the other six points?

And another point, something of kite-flying, I had some interesting thoughts on the relevance of the Ronnie Biggs parallel. http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/08/19-august-2009.html
I admit it looks less impressive once written down than it did in my head, but it might still be worth considering.

Biggs had a period where he seemed to qualify for compassionate release, even if he wasn’t quite at death’s door. After a series of strokes in January 2009, he had his walk date scheduled for 6 August –two days prior to his 80th birthday. Yet U.K. Justice Secretary Jack Straw, given a chance to let him out just a month early as the parole board was recommending, refused on 1 July, as the prisoner had evaded justice for decades and still remained “wholly unrepentant.”

This was a startling and unusual move in itself; many could see a cheap ”tough on crime” stance and chasing headlines. But the headlines were mostly negative and he was seen as just mean. Was this a badly planned PR maneuver? Or did he have another motive altogether?

A month later his scheduled release date called and Biggs was wheeled out to hospital, perhaps having established his contrition, perhaps not. Straw only cited that he was quite sick, specifying pneumonia. Biggs’ son called his father a “political prisoner” during this last month, and the phrase could be more apt than he realized. Whether intended or not, the notion was inserted, and starkly, that a lack of remorse or of respect for the judgment imposed was suitable grounds for rejecting compassionate release.

Mr. Al-Megrahi too was unrepentant in his way, in fact as of 6 August brazenly insisting his innocence and trying to establish that as legal truth with his second appeal. It’s not much further from there to wonder if Mr. MacAskill managed to construe it this way, equating the appeal with Biggs' globe-trotting defiance. He might call on Straw’s message for a temporary philosophy: Megrahi had to be broken and made subservient by surrendering that appeal, as some equivalent to showing repentance for his sins.

 

[Matthew Best]

Contrasting Time's article by Vivienne Walt, the Christian Science Monitor has posted a very poorly though-out article on Megrahi's release, survival, and "conspiracy theories" like those expressed in Walt's article. My critique of it can be read here.

That second link just takes me to the CSM article again. Where can I read your critique?

 

[Caustic Logic]

That second link just takes me to the CSM article again. Where can I read your critique?

Oh! Thanks for catching that. The link is here (for traffic if nothing else), but it's small enough I'll just re-post it here. With links, and no guarantees these all work right. I was only critiquing the writer's errors, and ignoring the vapid and self-serving statements of the FBI men. Article excerpts in italics.

Last week Abdelbasat al-Megrahi, the convicted murderer of 280 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, celebrated the first anniversary of his release on "compassionate" grounds by the Scottish government at his lavish home near Tripoli.

270, not 280. Celebrations were muted. Compassion shouldn't have quotes here; that is the legal basis of the rule. I thought a Christian might understand.

The fact that the former Libyan intelligence agent has now lived nine months longer than doctors predicted has rekindled conspiracy theories of Megrahi's innocence. The thinking goes that "compassion" for Megrahi was merely a pretext to release a man secretly known to be innocent without having to make embarrassing admissions of error.

Well,that's part of it. The other part left out, that strongly suggests that interpretation, is Megrahi's 12 August decision to abandon his appeal, following on actions by MacAskill and his advisers that all but necessitated that outcome, and apparently being the deciding factor in his release.

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please do not post lengthy cut & pasted tracts available elsewhere. Rather, just post a short quote and a link to the other source.

 

[Rolfe]

Caustic, I've spent hours reading over yours and Rolfe's so called 'proof' and find it rather long in assumptions, short in substance, and heavy on emotional baggage. It definitely belongs in CT. The 'theory' foundation being that vast swaths of European courts are inept, stupid, easily manipulated, and perhaps corrupt - and it is all the US's fault.

You can't have read it all that carefully then. Nobody said anything about "vast swathes of European courts". Only the judicial bench at Zeist, a completely unique jury-free set-up cobbled together under Scots law for the single purpose of ending the 8-year Mexican Standoff that Lockerbie had become.

There were three judges involved. They published a written judgement. That written judgement is available to be read. Anyone reading it can easily see that the case was so riddled with entirely reasonable doubt that there should never have been a conviction. Not only that, but that the evidence actually pointed to Megrahi's innocence. The judgement goes through all this, and then suddenly announces that the judges have decided to convict him anyway.

Kopji, if you steadfastly refuse to look at the evidence, and merely intend to sit there saying "but the court can't have come to the wrong decision", then there's no much point in having this conversation. Do you seriously think there have been no cases where an innocent person was convicted? What about those who later successfully appealled?

The case against Megrahi hinged in the end on two clear points. Was he the person who purchased the clothes from Tony Gauci? No, he wasn't, and the SCCRC report in 2007 makes that even clearer than it is in the original trial verdict. And, was tray B8849 in the Frankfurt baggage records the bomb suitcase, coming through from Malta? No, it wasn't, because repeated and exhaustive enquiry had shown that there was no unaccompanied baggage on the flight from Malta to Frankfurt, and on top of that, whatever was in tray B8849 was x-rayed at Frankfurt by "a careful and conscientious operator", who was specifically alert for exactly the type of bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103.

The thing is, both these points had to be held against Megrahi, because they each were used to support the other, in the judges' findings. It was decided that somehow, nobody has the remotest idea how, an unaccompanied suitcase was smugged on to the Malta flight by a person unknown, and somehow, the "careful, conscientous" x-ray operator must coincidentally have been asleep at the wheel - because Megrahi, the man who bought the clothes, was passing through Malta airport at the time that flight departed.

Separately, it was decided that the clothes must have been purchased on 7th December (even though 23rd November fitted the description of the date very much better), because Megrahi, the man who was at the airport when the bomb was smuggled on to the plane, was in town on 7th December and not on 23rd November. (And for the same reason, the shopkeeper's statement that Megrahi was not the man who bought the clothes but simply looked like him, was interpreted to mean that it was actually him.)

This is pure circular reasoning. The bomb went on at Luqa because Megrahi was at Luqa that morning. Megrahi bought the clothes because he was at the airport the morning the bomb was smuggled on to the plane. Knock either one of them down, and they both fall. Both points were weak to the point of insubstantiality in the first place, and one of them (the clothes purchase) has since been completely destroyed.

Now please explain to me how what I have just said is "short on substance and heavy on emotional baggage"?

You're right about one thing though. It was the US authorities who set it all up in the first place, although the Scottish legal system obediently rolled over for it.

The international court had all the information you have, and still found him guilty. They interviewed over what, 400 people? And I might agree or disagree with them, but... so what?

I know the difference between a mountain and a molehill and I think you do too. I also know that to turn a molehill into a mountain takes a lot of mud.

There was no international court. The court did not "interview 400 people". And indeed, the court did not have all the information we have.

You seem to be confusing the court with the SCCRC, which did interview 400 people (well, I'm not sure about the exact number but it was a lot), and found out some new evidence (principally showing that the clothes purchase didn't happen on 7th December), and referred the case back for a second appeal because it had identified no less than six points in which there was a suspected miscarriage of justice. Most convicts would be ecstatically happy with one point, by the way.

It was a stitch-up, for purely political reasons. Libya had been subjected to severe sanctions for eight years over the affair, sanctions which caused the deaths of thousands. The prosecuting authorities had been telling the world that they had "irrefutable evidence" of the guilt of the accused if only they could bring them to trial. And then this huge, multi-million pound exercise at Zeist was set up.

And it turned out that the key witness the US had promised would prove the guilt of the accused was lying for money. And that the US knew that all along.

A decent court would have acquitted. These three judges chose not to.

Hyperbole about "international courts" and "huge swathes of the European justice system" (neither of which were involved) doesn't alter that. If you think it's impossible for three judges to cave in to political pressure under such circumstances, then you're more naive than I had imagined.

Rolfe.

 

[Kopji]

Kopji, if you steadfastly refuse to look at the evidence, and merely intend to sit there saying "but the court can't have come to the wrong decision", then there's no much point in having this conversation. Do you seriously think there have been no cases where an innocent person was convicted? What about those who later successfully appealled?

The fact that you keep getting wrong what I'm saying indicates you aren't really getting it - "but the court can't have come to the wrong decision" Did I ever say that?

And this conspiracy theory is not of my making, but yours. Don't accuse me of hyperbole when it is simply the consequence of your own conspiracy.

Did these judges just wake up one morning and decide to become corrupt?

Maybe I'm just confused by all the links and wrongly deciding that this is nonsense. But I'm going to try and help.

Post right here the passages that show the FBI knowingly corrupted the process, or paid off the informants knowing that they would perjure themselves. Or the judges. And don't send us on some wild goose chase through half a dozen pdfs and legal mumbo jumbo like you did me.

Be clear and concise. State your facts not your guesses or suspicions or what you think the FBI does with small children. I promise to read.

The general argument so far is that I'm simply not smart enough to understand your conclusions. I do try to balance my ignorance, stupidity, and inattention with persistence.

 

[zooterkin]

The fact that you keep getting wrong what I'm saying indicates you aren't really getting it - "but the court can't have come to the wrong decision" Did I ever say that?

I'm not sure how else you construe this:

The international court had all the information you have, and still found him guilty.

 

[Rolfe]

The fact that you keep getting wrong what I'm saying indicates you aren't really getting it - "but the court can't have come to the wrong decision" Did I ever say that?

And this conspiracy theory is not of my making, but yours. Don't accuse me of hyperbole when it is simply the consequence of your own conspiracy.

Did these judges just wake up one morning and decide to become corrupt?

Maybe I'm just confused by all the links and wrongly deciding that this is nonsense. But I'm going to try and help.

Post right here the passages that show the FBI knowingly corrupted the process, or paid off the informants knowing that they would perjure themselves. Or the judges. And don't send us on some wild goose chase through half a dozen pdfs and legal mumbo jumbo like you did me.

Be clear and concise. State your facts not your guesses or suspicions or what you think the FBI does with small children. I promise to read.

The general argument so far is that I'm simply not smart enough to understand your conclusions. I do try to balance my ignorance, stupidity, and inattention with persistence.

It wasn't the FBI. It was the CIA and the US Department of Justice.

I've posted a long exposition of this in a different thread in the CT section, which is where you say you'd prefer to discuss the matter. Try that.

The reasons why the judges did what they did has been discussed by many people also. Probably even by me in this thread. Which is why I rather doubt your claims to have read much of this at all.

Rolfe.

 

[bit_pattern]

Epic pwnage, Rolfe! My hat goes off to you, good Sir!

 

[Rolfe]

Why thank you kind sir! I'm rather prouder of this bit of pwnage in the other thread,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6277070, but it's all good!

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

And don't send us on some wild goose chase through half a dozen pdfs and legal

Yes, don't bother with all these pesky cross-references and similar sources. If you can't learn what you want from a couple of paragraphs, then I'm not interested.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe I'm just confused by all the links and wrongly deciding that this is nonsense.

I've dont my best to link to the most important primary sources and the clearest and most helpful commentary. In my honest opinion, you haven't spent hours reading any of this, you've just made a presumption that it's nonsense.

Post right here the passages that show the FBI knowingly corrupted the process, or paid off the informants knowing that they would perjure themselves. Or the judges. And don't send us on some wild goose chase through half a dozen pdfs and legal mumbo jumbo like you did me.

I've already posted a link to another thread where I've gone into this all in extreme detail (and, as I said, it's not the FBI who did this, it was the CIA and the DoJ). However, it occurs to me that reading the first page of that thread and following the links in my posts there is exactly what you're saying you're not prepared to do.

You appear to be saying that short explanations don't have sufficient detail or credibility to convince you, and you refuse to read the citations which back up these short explanations, so you're just going on declaring that "it's all nonsense". Is this really a sceptical, enquiring attitude?

The general argument so far is that I'm simply not smart enough to understand your conclusions. I do try to balance my ignorance, stupidity, and inattention with persistence.

So far, the only persistence I see from you is the persistent declaration that you won't be persuaded by anything I post - either it's too synoptic and thus not persuasive, or it's "some wild goose chase through half a dozen pdfs and legal mumbo jumbo" which you seem to lack the stamina to read. You can't have it both ways.

If you really do "promise to read", then please read the first page of the thread I linked to above. And follow the links to the citations for anything I have claimed that you don't accept. It's all totally backed up by references to original sources that, sadly, are legal pdf documents in some cases.

However, Ducky asked for an easy primer to the issues in a different thread. I'm re-posting here part of the answer I gave him.

I would recommend Hans Kochler's reports on the trial and first appeal - he was the official UN observer to the trial who was horrified by the bias and illogic of the judges' findings. Also the writings of David Morrison, a journalist who published a couple of excellent analyses without mentioning any possibility of forensic dishonesty.

Kochler's report on the trial
Kochler's report on the first appeal
Morrison on the original verdict
Morrison on the first appeal
Morrison on the second appeal

Morrison is an easier read, and also more direct. Kochler has more official standing of course. I think Morrison is probably the best introduction to the case.

If you really need to be spoon-fed, start with Morrison.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

...

If you really need to be spoon-fed, start with Morrison.

Rolfe.

Thanks for that, Rolfe, and it's good to have you back in the discussion. Hope you enjoy the play and I look forward to hearing about it. Arts forum? I'll check...

But surely you know, just linking to some boring article by a known Socialist isn't sufficient to counter a legal ruling by some guys in wigs. You'll ahve to do better than that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Another article on Megrahi's release:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/08/cia_retirees_call_for_esclated.html

An influential organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the U.S. government to cooperate with a U.S. Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of a Libyan agent convicted in the 1988 Pan-Am Flight 103 bombing.

And my rebuttal:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/08/afio-on-megrahis-release.html

Mr. Poteat further prophesized to Stein, "As the layers are peeled away, we will see what was at the center of the early, and unexpected release, of this malingering convicted terrorist.” These professionals will surely know just when to stop peeling that onion and it'll be well before the rotten center. Just beneath the surface is not faked cancer, but Megrahi's assassinated second appeal. Just beneath that is evidence that the CIA, among others, manipulated the investigation to fit the crime to the selected villains.

 

[zooterkin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100815/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie

The cancer isn't as deadly as it was originally thought.

More or Less on BBC Radio 4 recently very briefly touched on this. The three-months estimate is a median figure. Half the people with the diagnosis will die within three months, the other half after. However, it is a very skewed distribution, since the second period is open-ended, so if you survive past the three months, the chances are you will survive a lot longer.

 

[Rolfe]

Just beneath that is evidence that the CIA, among others, manipulated the investigation to fit the crime to the selected villains.

The evidence that the CIA (among others) procured perjured evidence to support Megrahi's conviction, is hardly "beneath" anything. It's right out there in the light of day, and has been since these CIA cables were released to the defence at Zeist in 2000. Talk about hiding something in plain sight!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

More or Less on BBC Radio 4 recently very briefly touched on this. The three-months estimate is a median figure. Half the people with the diagnosis will die within three months, the other half after. However, it is a very skewed distribution, since the second period is open-ended, so if you survive past the three months, the chances are you will survive a lot longer.

Ronnie Biggs isn't dead yet either, and he was released before Megrahi.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

For the record I wrote a long and detailed (rambling?) post on the involvement/non-involvement of Karol Sikora in the controversy over Megrahi's release. How is it a man paid by Libya said the same thing as the prison doctors at the same time, was completely irrelevant to the formal decision, and yet is constantly talking to the media implying it was him that made the call and o how he regrets it...

And how is it the media has so widely either said as much, implied as much, or just let their confusion show while dutifully repeating Sikora's latest outlandish statements...

The "bomber" could live "ten or twenty years" - if he had a time machine he'd PROBABLY be "more vague" - "Megrahi's doctor: 'I just provided an opinion. Someone else let him go free'" - and so on...

Also, here's an article I just saw on a blog that is spot on:

There is another possibility of course, that maybe Sikora is using his peripheral involvement as a medical advisor (paid for by the Libyans), whose advice was not considered, as an opportunity for self-promotion. In this Sikora has caused distress to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, facilitated the misinterpretations of US senators and failed to correct erroneous assumptions. Just to see his name in lights.

Any thoughts, anyone?

 

[Rolfe]

I already posted my thoughts, based on David Colquhoun's assessment of him, and my own observation of his behaviour when acting as an expert witness in the Lisa Norris case.

In my opinion, Gimpy is spot on. Hired gun who is only interested in promoting himself as an expert witness, and the money that can bring. His involvement in the Megrahi affair appears to have been peripheral at best, but he's milking it for publicity for all its worth.

I'm actually doubtful that he ever set eyes on Megrahi. Expert medical witnesses often do it all by examining the medical records and test results. I'm open to correction, but as far as I know that's all he did. May have been all most of the specialists giving opinions on the case did, of course.

Rolfe.