So, am I to believe that with all the oil wealth of Gaddafi he could not have hired a legal team at least as searching as Rolfe?? Have you not noticed the pull Gaddafi has at his disposal when he is upset? Why in the world would he not just hire a Rolfe type person to clear the apparent pattsie? If it is so obvious that folk on here can put together a water tight case why was it not done?
Good question. Go ask Bill Taylor why he took the line he did, and why he dropped the "special defence of incrimination", and why he only called two defence witnesses after citing a very large number originally.
You might also examine the Libyan influence over the legal team - the original Libyan defence lawyer being ousted by a Gadaffi placeman and then resigning. This was something specifically referred to by the UN observer. Not quite sure what that was all about.
However, the short version is that the evidence presented in court should never have led to a guilty verdict. The opinion of the court pretty much sets out how Megrahi didn't do it - or at least, that there's no evidence that he did - then suddenly announces the judges have determied there is a "clear and convincing pattern", so guilty.
The defence strategy, as devised by Bill Taylor, was to make the prosecution prove its case. He believed the prosecution hadn't done that, not by a metric mile (and he was factually correct in that belief). He therefore chose not to mount much of a defence. The main concern in all this is that the judges looked at a case that was at the very least absolutely heaving with shed-loads of extremely reasonable doubt, and brought in a guilty verdict anyway.
It's easy after the event to say, Bill Taylor should have said this or that, of course. And certainly as far as the appeal goes, he screwed up. But on the simple face of it, the prosecution did not have a case, but the judges convicted anyway.
As for five people being involved: that has to be wrong. Did five people do all the investigation work, including forensics, and taking all witness statements? Did five people convince all involved not to go after the actual real perpetrators be they Iranian, Syrian etc? I am sure there will have been dozens and dozens of people involved in researching this in the early days trying to find any lead, not just five. And you are saying that at each point one of those people found a clue to Iran or where ever they were just shut down?
You said you haven't read any of the threads, or the background material. I think you need to do that.
My reference to the Yvonne Fletcher and disco bomb were supposed to be sarcastic. I didn't actually expect someone to come back and refute them. Do you not realize that to Arabs Mosad it responsible for everything that ever goes wrong, including most terrorist attacks perpetrated by Arabs. According to Libyans it is mossad that continues to kill civilians in Iraq,
Also, as I remember it Libya pulled their people out of the embassy before anyone had chance to interview them. The British government had it's hands tied as there was a threat of the possibility of British people coming to harm in Libya.
Not treating the references to Yvonne Fletcher or the disco bombing as sarcastic. I'm aware of the connections, but not an expert in either of these cases. I have seen rational people question the responsibility for the Fletcher murder, but I don't know how well their case stands up to scrutiny.
If I go to JFK threads or Moon landing threads am I likely to find you guys busy there too?
No.
Rolfe.
