Indeed. It would be good to see that.
In addition it would be good to understand why Megrahi did not testify at trial and has never come forth with any information about what he was doing on Malta on 21 December 1988 and prior, what his business was with Edwin Bollier (I doubt it was a staircase, or "parts" other than bomb timers), what business (if not planting a bomb) he was conducting in the mid to late 1980's, (clearly it was not airport security) and why he needed a false passport to conduct said unknown business.
I've addressed this before, but you never came back to discuss the points I raised.
There are four pretty obvious reasons why Megrahi may have decided not to take the witness stand. First, he may have been advised that the prosecution case was extremely weak and as it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, then taking the stand would not be necessary. Second, the defence never admitted that he was a JSO officer (though he obviously was, I think). Explaining what he was doing in Malta that day may well have involved making precisely that admission. Third, if he was engaged in some shady operation on Gadaffi's behalf that day, then coming clean about that would hardly have been seen as something in his favour by the judges. And finally, it's probable that he
was on a covert mission on behalf of the Gadaffi regime. It's extremely likely that he was simply forbidden from revealing any details about it.
As regards Bollier and staircases, I thought you were familiar with the specifics of this case? If so, why do you make statements like that?
It is a fact that on 20th December 1988, while in Malta, Megrahi saw a Maltese joiner about getting an estimate for a staircase to be built in his house in Tripoli. The joiner later travelled to Tripoli to inspect the job and provide an estimate as requested. At one point the defence tried to suggest this was the primary reason for his journey, which was a bit lame given the use of the diplomatic passport. But it never had anything to do with Bollier.
There are a
lot of people drifting around the globe engaged in covert, semi-legal and even illegal activities. Bollier had a lot of contacts in the Libyan regime and elsewhere. Spies and intelligence agents aren't just confined to the pages of Ian Fleming's novels. That Megrahi was probably in that category does not mean he had anything to do with bombing Pan Am 103, in the absence of any actual evidence actually connecting him to the actual bomb, you know.
"He won't tell me what he was doing so he must have been bombing the plane" is a complete
non sequitur.
In otherwords, what exatctly were Megrahi's duties as an employee of the Libyan Government and why was he emplyed by LAA in 1988 and prior, and why he hasn't come forward with this information to clear his name; at trial, at appeal, with the SCCRC and in any commentary on his web site about the dropped appeal, if he is so allegedly innocent. I highly doubt he will present any of this, for the very reason that all of this information implicates him as either the one who carried out the bombing, or was highly complicit in it. And please, spare me, the "he was never known to be involved in anything before". So what. That doesn't mean he was never involved in anything for which he was not caught. And lastly, if he was such a simple man, why was the highest of high in the LIbyan government so hell bent on risking serious international relations with the UK, Scotland and the US to get him released. Simple man simply building a staircase? NO ****** way.
See my points above. There are many reasons for him not "coming clean" about what he was actually doing with that diplomatic passport that day. There's no reason at all to believe it had anything to do with bombing Pan Am 103, when the evidence indicates the bomb was introduced at Heathrow airport, not Malta, and that the clothes in the suitcase were bought by a heavily-built, six-foot-tall man of about fifty years of age, on 23rd November 1988.
The fact is that he was indeed never known to be involved in anything illegal or terrorism-related before. Which is more than can be said for a number of his compatriots. So, really, on the basis of past form he was always a much less likely suspect than Abu Talb, for example. This is something to be borne in mind.
And no, nobody here is suggesting that he was just a "simple man building a staircase". That doesn't mean he bombed that plane though.
Good point. The number of grounds that wern't upheld by the SCCRC far outnumber the ones that were. And all of the people who whine about how long it took for the SCCRC and the second appeal to come to a decision should look only to Megrahi's council for reasons about delays.
That is a very valid point. The defence went to town and flew every kite there was in the direction of the SCCRC. This had a lot to do with that body taking 3½ years to make its report. (Not so much to do with the subsequent two-year delay before the appeal actually made it in front of the judges, or the glacially slow process of the case once it was there, or the timetable set out apparently deliberately to exceed the estimated life expectancy of a dying man, mind you.)
However, the fact that the majority of these kites weren't accepted by the SCCRC has no bearing at all on the validity of the appeal process. The prosecution only has to fail on
one crucial point to fail completely. The SCCRC identified
six.
The SCCRC in effect said, "looks like Megrahi didn't buy those clothes." That being so, there is no case against him.
I have very strong suspicions that the timer fragment was in fact fabricated by the CIA and planted in the evidence trail by Hayes and Feraday. And about the provenance of one or two other items that look extremely fishy. However, even if I'm entirely wrong about that, the collapse of the Gauci identification still means there's no case against Megrahi - even if the MST-13 timer and the Toshiba manual and the rest of it are entirely on the level.
I'd like to see the SCCRC's reasons for dismissing the suggestion that the timer chip was a plant. (And for deciding that "the Golfer" is a fantasist, and other stuff like that.) I'd also like to see what this Public Interest Immunity Certificate thing was all about, and a number of other related matters.
This is about understanding the wider aspects of the case, though. The case against Megrahi stands or falls on Tony Gauci's identification, and as far as I can see, that fell in a heap a long time ago.
HA! Welcome to the party Rolfe. PA 103 Families have been put through this over and over again through multitudes of UK and Scottish bickering and politicing, only to reach serious disapointment in Scotland, whom we (the families) thought were allies, only to learn that they are nothing but whores to the UK and Libya. Sad.
I don't think the Scottish police were ever your allies. They were going after the man they were told to go after. I don't think the Scottish court system was ever your ally, except insofar as its desire to get someone convicted whether or not he actually did it, and yours, coincided.
Your interpretation of the release process is, as always, highly partisan and pretty much unrelated to the facts. However, the release process and the conviction are two completely different issues.
That said, I must say, that that during my viists to Scotland over the years, the scottish people were nothing but kind to me and my family. I truly believe that they have been caught in a web of political and "hostage taking' by their own by their government - not dissimilar to that of the Amercans now. So, my disclaimer, as regards my comments above relates to the Scottish government, and not the Scottish people in general.
You seem to feel betrayed that Megrahi was granted compassionate release, and determined to find some fault in the way that process was conducted, even though no such fault has been found despite several investigations and Wikileaks.
I too find reason to take issue with the conduct of that process, though for a completely different reason from yours. My reason is that the way it was handled seems to have been aimed at forcing or manipulating Megrahi to withdraw the appeal.
We will have to agree to differ on this. However, my concern is not the compassionate release in 2009, but the verdict in 2001 which flew in the face of the facts as presented in court, and tossed away most of the rules of evidence in the process.
It scares me far more that my country's criminal justice system can perpetrate a show trial to convict a man on evidence that says he had nothing to do with the crime, and can then engage on a ten-year coverup of this, than that a terminally ill prisoner was granted compassionate release according to due process.
Rolfe.
