Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Policenaut said:
Ah...so this is the irrefutable evidence he was talking about. A book. Shocking.
Click to expand...

From Matthew's link:
The freed bomber’s lawyers had collected evidence for an appeal against his conviction that he dropped last week as a necessary condition to qualify for release on compassionate grounds. The book is expected to be used as al-Megrahi’s platform to argue that he was framed for the crime.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
Robert Black's QC would be the advocate arguing Robert Black's case.

Robert Black QC's would be the possessive form you're looking for!
Click to expand...
Thanks! Post edited.

ETA: Sometimes, language is more logical than you'd expect. I wouldn't be comfortable with the first sentence, though, rather using "lawyer" instead of the abbrev. :)
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
From Matthew's link:

The freed bomber’s lawyers had collected evidence for an appeal against his conviction that he dropped last week as a necessary condition to qualify for release on compassionate grounds. The book is expected to be used as al-Megrahi’s platform to argue that he was framed for the crime.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, that's wrong for a start. Dropping the appeal wasn't necessary. We don't know why he dropped the appeal.

I thought Kenny had talked him into it, as a favour to Gordon Brown, to keep the secret document from having to be published. Not that Kenny MacAskill would be doing favours for Gordon Brown, but he might if it would lead to a united front from both governments supporting the decision for a compassionate release.

So now I think that probably wasn't the case. Kenny says he didn't talk Megrahi into dropping the appeal and I'm actually beginning to believe him.

I wonder who did?

Rolfe.
 
I am making no judgment on the book itself. It all may be true and it may prove his innocence. It's still lame. As is anyone trying to profit from all this garbage.
 
There are some absolutely dynamite blogs appearing here.

This is the start of Architect's link. http://underachievement.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-is-there-such-uncritical-acceptance.html

The US is outraged, as, understandably are many families of victims of the Lockerbie terrorist attack, and everyone, including Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, questioned the taste of the hero's welcome afforded Megrahi in Tripoli. The Libyans have pointed out that the welcome was not an official one but that's hardly going to convince the critics. But what few people have mentioned is the fact that those that welcomed Megrahi were not necessarily gloating over the murder of 270 people but because they believe that Megrahi is innocent. And they're not the only ones.
Click to expand...


Note that Black's blog is merely quoting a newspaper article. The fact that it has been published in the actual press gives it more credence, even though the fact that the paper in question is the Sunday Mail rather puts a damper on that.
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...eal-humiliated-justice-system-78057-21618329/

A CIA terror expert who worked on the Lockerbie investigation has claimed Megrahi would have been freed on appeal.

In an exclusive interview, retired case officer Robert Baer has revealed details of the secret dossier of evidence Megrahi hoped would clear his name.

Baer claims the appeal, which he worked on, could have done serious damage to our legal system.

And he insists Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had little option other than to release Megrahi.

Baer claimed: Key witnesses - including Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci - were "manipulated".

Vital details freely available to intelligence agencies were withheld from the original prosecution.

Megrahi's appeal papers would have proven beyond doubt the bombing was orchestrated by Iran. [....]
Click to expand...


It's the standard CT again, but again coming from someone who may be in a position to know. It will be interesting to see where this is all leading.

I just hope that someone will realise that Scottish justice will be better served by getting right to the bottom of this and sterilising the wound, rather than perpetually covering it up to fester.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Well, that's wrong for a start. Dropping the appeal wasn't necessary. We don't know why he dropped the appeal.
Click to expand...
Officially, no. It's clear it helped grease the wheels for his release.

Rolfe said:
I thought Kenny had talked him into it, as a favour to Gordon Brown, to keep the secret document from having to be published. Not that Kenny MacAskill would be doing favours for Gordon Brown, but he might if it would lead to a united front from both governments supporting the decision for a compassionate release.

So now I think that probably wasn't the case. Kenny says he didn't talk Megrahi into dropping the appeal and I'm actually beginning to believe him.

I wonder who did?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
The CIA spook Baer said to the Sunday Mail:
The 57-year-old, who lives in Colorado, said: "Your justice secretary had two choices - sneak into Megrahi's cell and smother him with his pillow or release him.

"The end game came down to damage limitation because the evidence amassed by his appeal team is explosive and extremely damning to your system of justice.
Click to expand...

Kenny is obviously not Caligula ;), so he chose the second option. If there's truth to this, of course. Sunday Mail is a tabloid. A lot of what he tells we already know, e.g., the incredibility of Gauci as a witness. He also says there's hard evidence against Iran, though. If that's indeed the case, I can imagine Kenny doing damage limitation. It's one thing to convict someone on thin evidence, it's another thing when it transpires that the investigation team had evidence pointing another way. You've touched on that in some posts here too. In that case, not only the US and UK investigations and the prosecution would be severely damaged, but by proxy also the current SNP government. You want that referendum in 2012, don't you? And friendly relations with the US?
 
Rolfe said:
Sort of what I was thinking.

With regard to Megrahi though, I can see that publishing a book might be his best route to getting out the evidence he thinks will clear his name. It needn't necessarily be about money.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

He would have to spend it bloody quickly if it were. Other than a transcript I can't see what else he could do. He is hardly in a position to go out and investigate. I guess we will just have to wait and see. If he doesn't really know anything it will be a bit lame.
 
Matthew Best said:
If he's innocent and can prove it in his book, one wonders why he didn't manage to do so at the trial?
Click to expand...

You could say the same about anyone who is wrongly convicted and then freed on appeal...

I note from Black's blog that the US press is starting to pay attention to the matter of the appeal and Megrahi's possible innocence.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
If he's innocent and can prove it in his book, one wonders why he didn't manage to do so at the trial?
Click to expand...


Well, now, that's a huge question. You must know the pressure the law enforcement authorities are under to get a conviction in high-profile murder cases. How come it took Barry George two appeals before he was acquitted of Jill Dando's murder? How come the Guildford Six and the rest of the Irish miscarriage cases were in jail for years before their innocence was proved? How come we've seen several people released recently who were in jail for decades on apparently sound convictions, until modern DNA technology proved they were innocent?

Remember also that Megrahi's conviction rested mainly on the evidence of one man, Gauci. Gauci was a none-too-bright shopkeeper who sold the clothes that were discovered to have been in the suitcase which contained the bomb. One wonders, actually, how Gauci could possibly remember the transaction at all, given the time that had elapsed before his evidence was taken. However, he initially described the purchaser as being over 6 feet tall, and in his 50s. He also had difficulty pinning down the exact date.

He later, and in court, changed that assessment to say that the purchaser looked "a lot" like Megrahi, who is 5' 8" tall and was 36 at the time. He also failed to pick Megrahi out of a photo-identity parade four times. He succeeded on the fifth try, which is what was presented to the court. What the court wasn't told was that he'd seen a magazine article about the case just before that fifth try, and the article had a picture of Megrahi in it.

He also became remarkably certain that the date in question was 7th December, and said so in court. Just so happens that this was the only day it would have been possible for Megrahi to have been in that shop. New evidence suggests that Gauci was wrong about this, and that the purchase was made on an earlier date when Megrahi was nowhere near the place.

Why did Gauci become so certain of the details of such a small and routine event that had happened some time previously? Maybe because the US government had agreed to pay him $2 million if he gave evidence that would convict Megrahi (and apparently pay his brother $1 million as well). Gauci is currently living in Australia on the proceeds.

You know, I'm getting slightly tired of people throwing out wild statements about how Megrahi is obviously guilty and the court's verdict is beyond question, when all this has been in the public domain for years, and was the grounds for the appeal that was ongoing until last week. Knowing that he didn't have time to see the appeal process through due to his illness, Megrahi has apparently decided to put the evidence (previously sub judice) straight into the public domain by writing a book. Interesting development.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
According to the Scottish Glasgow Herald, “sources close to the case” allege that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) offered $2 million to Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold Megrahi some clothes that were found at the Lockerbie crash site.
Click to expand...

Has the Herald ever named those sources that alleged this?
If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Well, that's wrong for a start. Dropping the appeal wasn't necessary. We don't know why he dropped the appeal.
Click to expand...


Officially, no. It's clear it helped grease the wheels for his release.
Click to expand...


Apparently so, if we accept the words of Megrahi's lawyer. However, one wonders why MacAskill would have wanted to get the appeal dropped. It's possible that he, as a Scots lawyer, simply wanted the shambles that was Camp Zeist swept under the carpet and forgotten about. Though in that case I suspect that about 50% of the SNP membership would cheerfully lynch him.

ddt said:
The CIA spook Baer said to the Sunday Mail:

The 57-year-old, who lives in Colorado, said: "Your justice secretary had two choices - sneak into Megrahi's cell and smother him with his pillow or release him.

"The end game came down to damage limitation because the evidence amassed by his appeal team is explosive and extremely damning to your system of justice.
Click to expand...

Kenny is obviously not Caligula ;), so he chose the second option.
Click to expand...


These options are incorrect. If Kenny had smothered Megrahi, the appeal could have gone ahead. The point is that if a defendant dies with an appeal outstanding, it is open to other interested parties to continue to pursue the appeal on his behalf. Jim Swire, for example, could have done that and might well have wanted to. Smothering Megrahi was the last thing that would have worked. To kill that appeal, Megrahi had to be persuaded to withdraw it while he was still alive.

ddt said:
It's one thing to convict someone on thin evidence, it's another thing when it transpires that the investigation team had evidence pointing another way. You've touched on that in some posts here too. In that case, not only the US and UK investigations and the prosecution would be severely damaged, but by proxy also the current SNP government. You want that referendum in 2012, don't you? And friendly relations with the US?
Click to expand...


As I said, maybe Kenny was simply concerned with protecting the tattered reputation of the Scottish justice system (Shirley McKie, anyone?). But you raise another interesting point. If Gordon Brown didn't "suggest" to Kenny that getting the appeal dropped would be nice, who else might have done that?

One of the key reasons the appeal was going at glacial speed was the continuing refusal of the prosecution to release a specific document to the defence. There were several hearings about this, and it was ruled that the document should be released. (At one point there was some suggestion to allow an court-appointed lawyer to look at it, but that it should not be shown to the defence team, but that was ruled unconstitutional.)

The reason given for refusing to release the document (which has still not been released but which probably would have had to be released when the appeal actually got to court) was that having it in the public domain would damage Britain's relations with "a foreign power".

I vaguely assumed that the foreign power was probably Libya, or maybe Iran or even Syria. Could be the USA though. If there really were serious US shenanigans concerning the investigation, that's quite possible. It could be the USA that doesn't want that document released, and in that case it would be very pleased to have the appeal dropped.

This doesn't quite square with the hate and vitriol coming out of the USA about the decision though. If it is indeed the case that the USA was being protected by using the imminent compassionate release to "persuade" Megrahi to drop the appeal, subsequent reaction hasn't been very nice. I could imagine that a lot of it was from people who just didn't get the memo. But Obama?

It's all very weird.

Rolfe.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8217857.stm

Calls for a boycott of Scottish goods have been made in the US following the controversial decision to release the man convicted of carrying out the Lockerbie bombing.

A website urging Americans to "Boycott Scotland" has been set up featuring a list of e-mail addresses for prominent Scottish and UK politicians, as well as contact details for Scottish newspapers and a list of Scottish products and companies.
Click to expand...

Oooops.
 
scissorhands said:
Has the Herald ever named those sources that alleged this?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...


You could ask the same of the multiple news sources that have said the same thing. Some of them have simply stated it as fact. Good luck with getting journalists to reveal the identity of sensitive sources. Most of them will go to jail rather than comply. I must remember that though, next time someone posts a link to a quality news article discussing something that's common knowledge which I don't want to accept. If it refers to "sources" anywhere, I can just ignore the whole thing. Easy!

It comes down to, how far do you respect the journalistic integrity of the Herald? More than the Sunday Mail, anyway.

I suppose it's just vague rumour in these same newspapers that Tony Gauci is currently living very comfortably in Australia? Where did a Maltese shopkeeper get the money to do that? Should be easy enough for the debunkers to prove that one wrong, it it's a lie.

Rolfe.

ETA: I suppose one source would be Robert Baer, retired CIA officer.

He claims Megrahi's defence team planned to cast doubt on forensic evidence and cast doubt over Gauci's testimony. They also say Gauci was paid £1.2million for his evidence.
Click to expand...


That puts the source as Megrahi's defence team. I do not know if we have any public domain evidence for this, however one of the grounds for appeal which was upheld by the SCCRC was

Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the date of purchase.
Click to expand...


So I think it's very difficult to dismiss this out of hand.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Given that a large chunk of your conspiracy theory relies on "unnamed sources close to the case", I would have thought you would be the one asking for verification.
Doesnt look very convincing so far.

During his 20-year CIA career, Baer worked "on assignment" across the globe and was investigated by the FBI for allegedly conspiring to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

His book See No Evil was the basis for the hit George Clooney movie Syriana. Clooney's character was based on Baer.
Click to expand...

Im convinced.
Retired CIA officers trying to sell books always convince me.
 
Last edited:
One other reason that occurs to me for Megrahi dropping his appeal is that it renders the evdence involved free of any sub judice restrictions. If you're 57 and healthy and determined to clear your name, you can afford to stick it out another five years to get your appeal before the court. If you've only got three months to live, not so much.

Carrying on with the appeal would mean that the whole thing would continue to be smothered within the justice system, as the prosecution went on dragging its heels. Giving up the appeal leaves Megrahi free to publish that evidence if he wants to.

Looked at in this way, it might have made perfect sense for Megrahi to have voluntarily decided to drop it, just as MacAskill says he did. However, that still doesn't explain the defence lawyer's statement that his client was pressurised.

Rolfe.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Must have felt fairly convincing to the SSCRC.
Click to expand...


Worth quoting what they said in a little more detail.

  • New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.
  • Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.
  • Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the date of purchase.
Click to expand...


Since the conviction would have been impossible from the rest of the evidence without it having been "proved" that Megrahi bought the incriminating items, then if Gauci's evidence goes, the conviction goes with it.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom