Scottish Parliament e-Petition 417

[jhunter1163]

Address the argument, not the arguer, and be civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Bunntamas]

And the results are in. Try as they might...

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE: PE1370

Thank you for your letter of 12 November 2010 which asks the Government the following three questions in respect of this petition. I apologise for the delay in replying.

Will you open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 as called for by the petitioner and for the reasons given in the petition?

If not, will you provide a detailed explanation why not, specifying whether there is any legislation which would prevent you from holding such an inquiry, what this legislation is and how it prevents?

Who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition?

The Government’s response to these questions is as follows:

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice made clear in his response of 16 September to a Parliamentary Question (S3W-35844) from George Foulkes on this issue that the Government have no plans to initiate an inquiry on this issue.

The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful. A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors. The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system i.e. inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. The criminal justice system already provides a mechanism for that to happen. The fact that Mr Al-Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal rather than pursue it is entirely a matter for him and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry as a result.

The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government.

Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.



Karen Rodger

(emphasis added)

 

[Buncrana]

Ahem, hold your horses there!

A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.

The Petitions Committee after meeting with the JFM group for the second time yesterday have agreed that the Scottish governments arguments for refusal for any Inquiry have been quite unconvincing and inadequate.

Therefore the Committee continue to support JFM and will pursue the matter further with the Scottish Govt, the Lord Advocate, and will also seek further information and clarification from the SCCRC.

I feel the SCCRC are the key to unlocking this obvious impasse. There is clearly a reluctance from any of the political parties to fully investigate the many questions that still surround the original conviction of Megrahi at Zeist. To the degree that even legislation was introduced for no apparent reason that would restrict the publishing of the full SCCRC conclusion which found six reasons to refer the case back to the appeal court in 2007 for fear there may have been a miscarriage of justice.


The argument that from the Scottish govt that no Inquiry is required as "we do not doubt the conviction of Megrahi", is utterly at odds with the SCCRC conclusion, or that Megrahi dropped his appeal on his own volition and therefore relinquished any rights of the appeal process, itself flies in the face of the very premise in pursuing the ends of justice which is surely the priority of any society, more so when involving the deaths of 270 innocent people and such a high profile terrorist atrocity?


I'm not entirely sure why anyone, government or individual, would be happy to see their criminal justice system usurped by any convictee regardless of the situation we find ourselves.

 

[Bunntamas]

I'm not entirely sure why anyone, government or individual, would be happy to see their criminal justice system usurped by any convictee regardless of the situation we find ourselves.

PRECICELY!!!! CONVICT. GUILTY. Should have remained in Scottish prison and / or given detailed evidence at trial and appeals about his involvement in the case (or not, as he alleges) or not dropped his appeal. HE loses, and the scottish people lose as a result of the CONVICT, now living (WELL beyon 3 months) in his palatial Libyan estate, no doubt financed by his swiss bank account, and who knows what / whom else.
Sorry Scots. You've been duped by your own, and the UK, just like the Lockerbie victims' families. Welcome to the "party".

If I were you, I would join Senator Menendez on his and the US governtment's inquiry about this, as opposed to pushing your silly, going nowhere petition to powerless, glad handing, smirked upon Scottish Parlimentary Committee.

 

[Bunntamas]

Ooops. Sorry for shouting that Guilty word again. I recognize how that sets you all into a tail spin, and I guess that's not a good way to build alliances. Apoligies again. We obviously have our differences, but that doesn't mean that perhaps there is not a possibility that we might be able to join together and push foward with our respective governments figure this out in a way that serves both our goals.

 

[Architect]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Architect]

With respect, Bunntamas, I've been (largely lurking) on this thread and its sisters for some considerable time. You have yet to present any susbtantive argument beyond the fact that the court found him guilty. Rolfe and others have pointed to some very serious questions regarding the quality of the evidence and integrity of the witnesses. You have been pointed in the direction of compelling comments made by senior legal figures and onservers. All you've done is hand-wave them away.

I'm very sorry for your loss, really. To lose a parent is a terrible thing, and in circumstances such as Lockerbie it must be about as bad as these things can get. But if you're just looking to keep shouting about what was, on any fair reading, a flawed verdict then you're in the wrong place.

I'm going to repeat this again because it remains relevant, especially in light of your most recent posts.

You have, over the course of many posts on this thread and elsewhere, supported the continuing incararation of Al-Megrahi on what appears to be the simple principle that he was convincted.

At no point, as far as I can see, have you come remotely close to adequately addressing the very real points put to you by Rolfe and others regarding the adequacy (or more specifically inadequacy) of much of the evidence. You have been particularly dismissive of many of the expert opinions by the likes of Black and others.

This is a forum for discussion and debate. An unsubstantiated argument, however dearly held and whether under very difficult personal circumstances or not, is of little worth. If you cannot engage in this manner, if you are not willing to look at the detail, then you are in the wrong place and merely putting yourself through more pain.

In short, for your own sake give it a rest. But in the meantime let me make one more point. Megrahi did indeed dropp his appeal on his own volition and therefore relinquished any rights of the appeal process, not - I would suggest - as a means of securing his release when a terminal diagnosis had been issued. To claim that this is some sort of tacit admission of guilt is simply naive.

 

[Bunntamas]

I believe others opposed to anything I've posted have done the "hand waving" anyone who posts anything about which you disagree,is either ignored, hand waved, or bullied, resulting in mod tags like the one abobe.
Knock yourselves out with the continued reiterration of nothingness, and after repeating it over and over you "think" it is evidence. If that is not naïve, I don't know what is,outside of thinking that the Scottish petitions committee and the SCCRC have any power.
.
ZZZZzzzzzzz...

 

[Rolfe]

Having read through the last page of this thread, I don't think I really have anything to say that I haven't said already.

So maybe if Bunntamas says something comprehensible, we can move on.

So far, she's failed to provide any evidence that there was any unaccompanied luggage on KM180. She has failed to show that Megrahi bought the clothes from Tony Gauci, or even that the clothes were bought on 7th December. She has failed to show that Megrahi did anything at all on 20th/21st December that might have been related to smuggling a (non-existent) unaccompanied suitcase on to KM180.

Which means that she has absolutely zero evidence to connect Megrahi to the bombing of PA103. I think if she had any, she'd have told us about it by now.

I said in a different thread that if you could persuade me that Megrahi was even likely to have been the purchaser [of the clothes from Tony Gauci], on the balance of probability (none of this "beyond reasonable doubt" stuff necessary), I'd agree that he was mixed up in the plot to bomb Pan Am 103. Several of us have gone over the identification evidence in excruciating detail, and have become even more convinced than we were before that is definitely wasn't him. You have barely participated in that discussion, and then only to make disconnected and often erroneous points.

You haven't been able to come up with a single shred of evidence suggesting the bomb travelled on KM180 from Malta, or that Megrahi had a hand in putting it there that morning - which is hardly surprising, because the court couldn't find a shred of evidence either. It was simply decided that since he'd bought the clothes, and he'd been at the airport when KM180 departed, somehow that must have been what happened.

But he didn't buy the clothes.

Now you can come back to the thread where we were discussing the clothes purchase and say something sensible. Or you can take us through the evidence regarding the Malta-Frankfurt-Heathrow route and show us something we've missed. Or you can go away and cling to your belief that court verdicts are never wrong.

But there's no point in coming here, stamping your foot, and expecting anyone on a sceptical forum just to agree with you that court verdicts are never wrong and can never be questioned.

The suggestion that court verdicts are never wrong and always reflect objective truth is so ridiculous as not even to be worth discussing. However, Bunntamas (despite her expressed desire to discuss the issues) doesn't seem able to get beyond this.

The Scottish government's attempt to "blame the victim" by castigating Megrahi for not giving evidence at his trial and then abandoning the appeal is despicable. Megrahi has stated he wanted to give evidence at Zeist but was advised against it by his legal team. Would any of us, finding ourselves on trial in an alien culture, be terribly keen to go against the advice of our lawyers who understood the court system in question? We also know that Megrahi was given to understand that he only had about three months to live, and that if he dropped the appeal his chances of being allowed to return home in that time would be much improved. Would any of us have chosen to remain rotting in jail in an alien country and culture, in order to continue an appeal we'd been given to understand we wouldn't live to see completed?

I doubt it.

I'm tired of pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the Lockerbie bomb was ever within 1,000 miles of the island of Malta. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that there was an item of unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight 180 that day. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Megrahi did anything at all untoward at Malta airport that morning other than using a coded diplomatic passport he held legally but which was not in his own name.

There is also no credible evidence to support the assertion that he bought any items from Tony Gauci on 7th December.

This all adds up to INNOCENT, INNOCENT, INNOCENT. And no amount of judges with their heads up their collective backsides changes that.

Until Bunntamas can deal with this and face these FACTS, we're not going to have much of a conversation. Nobody is hand-waving anything away. It's just that Bunntamas hasn't even come close to posting anything of substance on the crucial issues I have repeatedly outlined.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

We obviously have our differences, but that doesn't mean that perhaps there is not a possibility that we might be able to join together and push foward with our respective governments figure this out in a way that serves both our goals.

But what are your goals, Bunntamas?

My goal is to have the Zeist court process and verdict subjected to proper independent scrutiny. That includes both the behaviour of the US authorities in regard to bribing Giaka to invent incriminating evidence and in holding up the prospect of untold riches to the Gauci brothers if Tony's evidence supported a conviction, and the bench itself in ignoring the basic rules of evidence which are so essential to the justice process.

You seem to have achieved all your goals. The man you choose to believe to be guilty (against all rational logic) is legally convicted of the crime, and his appeal has been abandoned. You have received all the compensation money you campaigned for, both from Pan Am and from the Libyan government.

What more do you want?

If you want to persuade those of us who believe in Megrahi's innocence that we're mistaken, with all due respect you are not going about this the right way. (Hint: reasoned argument and facts are good.)

If you want Megrahi to be returned to Greenock jail on his deathbed, then I have to tell you that this is not going to happen. International relations simply don't encompass the possibility, so you might as well forget it.

If you want people to stop talking about it, then again, it's not going to happen. If you can't change anyone's mind with facts and logic, then you're not going to shut them up by complaining.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

the CONVICT, now living (WELL beyon 3 months) in his palatial Libyan estate, no doubt financed by his swiss bank account, and who knows what / whom else.

What do you know about Megrahi's living conditions? I know very little. I know that Lucy Adams visited him in Libya soon after his repatriation, and she described a pleasant, large house in the city of Tripoli, which was home to an extended family including Megrahi's elderly mother. I know that Jim Swire visited him late last year, at which time he was in hospital.

What palatial estate are you referring to? Do you know that he has been released from hospital? I don't.

As for the Swiss bank account, what is your implication? Megrahi states that he had access to considerable funds in foreign currency in relation to his job procuring aircraft parts in defiance of the anti-Libya sanctions. Even if that isn't true, and the money was actually his own personal property, do you have privileged information about how he came by it? No such information has been made available to my knowledge. He could have embezzled it or cheated on his taxes or won the Libyan lottery, who knows? One thing is certain, this bank account was never linked to Lockerbie in any way, and the prosecution declined to raise it in evidence at Zeist.

And talking of palatial estates and lives of luxury. How do you think Tony and Paul Gauci are getting on in Australia with their $3 million plus "rewards for justice"? Or should I say bribe money for Tony not coming out with the truth at Zeist - the truth almost certainly being that after more than ten years he had no clue what the mystery shopper looked like, just overlaid strata of memories of photofits and artist's impressions and more mug-shots of clean-shaven middle-aged Arab men than you could shake a stick at. Plus of course the half-dozen or so press articles, with photos, clearly identifying Megrahi as he looked in 1999 as the man he was supposed to be picking out.

Tony and Paul have their health and their money, and a lifestyle pretty much anyone in Libya would give their right arm for.

Then again there's Giaka. Whisked away to America in 1991 and given a new identity (with his wife and child) as a US citizen. More "reward for justice" - sorry, blatant bribery to induce him to tell a pack of lies about Megrahi and Fhimah that even the Zeist judges saw through. I'll just bet his lifestyle is pretty good too. California, I heard, with more millions from that reward cache.

Giaka has his health and a luxurious lifestyle too. All paid for by the US taxpayer, because the CIA wanted a conviction and to hell with the truth. Just like Tony and Paul's antipodean idyll.

All sanctioned in order to achieve false evidence that would support a conviction of Megrahi, because actual evidence there was absolutely none.

How do you feel about Tony, Paul and Abdulmajid, Bunntamas? And the way they achieved their luxury lifestyles?

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

In short, for your own sake give it a rest. But in the meantime let me make one more point. Megrahi did indeed drop his appeal of his own volition and therefore relinquished any rights of the appeal process, not - I would suggest - by recognition of overwhelming evidence against him but rather as a means of securing his release when a terminal diagnosis had been issued. To claim that this is some sort of tacit admission of guilt is simply naive.

Corrected to avoid confusion over cut and paste problem.

 

[pete2]

Rolfe! Good to see you're back! With all the news from Egypt I was getting worried about you.

Pete

 

[Rolfe]

Got out of Cairo three days before the riots started, and left Sharm al Sheikh for home (via Luxor) on Wednesday.

Just glad we didn't choose a later package, as we rather nearly did! I wouldn't even have known anything had happened if my mother hadn't told me when I phoned home from Sharm to check she was OK!

And to think I was more concerned about sharks....

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Talking of which, you now have to make an appointment to meet me to look at drawings.

 

[Rolfe]

You're categorising yourself as a shark now...?

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Bingo.

Surprised that Bunntamas hasn't picked up today's story regarding apparent collusion on the part of the Westminster Parliament to assist in Megrahi's release.

Personally I find this interesting because it appears to confirm understandable SNP concerns about Westminster seeking to do deals behind Holyrood's back. I am mindful, however, that the quotes in the Herald may be taken a little out of context.

It certainly made the front page on the Scottish broadsheets!

 

[Rolfe]

It's the hypocrisy of the Labour party that gets me, not that it's a surprise. We know they were gagging to get Megrahi released, but afraid that if they played their cards wrong the SNP would refuse to release him just to avoid playing into Labour hands.

They kept absolutely quiet before the release, not saying a single word to suggest they thought it was either a good or a bad thing. They released Ronnie Biggs (still not dead yet) to provide a handy precedent. And now we know they worked behind the scenes to try to facilitate the release.

Then once it was a fait accompli, they turned on the SNP and tore into them for making a bad decision they would never have made, no siree.

Same goes for Cameron of course.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

Having read through the last page of this thread, I don't think I really have anything to say that I haven't said already.

I've said a lot in my posts that this stuff has been re-hashed many, many times (how ironic).
For someone who has said it already, with nothing more to say than you've already said, you sure have alot to repeat say.

If you think you repeat yourself over and over again, do you really think that what you repeat will become evidence? I don't think so. But apparently you do. Is it pretty clear that Parliament, and the courts don't see the JFM blather as evidence either. Doubt they read the years of repeated posts here or on Black's blog. If they do, I wonder if they think (as do I and others with whom I've chatted about this): "have these people no life?" Or better put, comments I told you I quit participating in the thread and you now demonstrate why.[/QUOTE]"]from another forum, that kicked you guys out and called you CTs, it seems like a religion for you.

Ineresting that you all bash Frank Duggan (in the recent Black Blog comments) for supporting the families of the victims of PA103, and yet very few (if any) of you even know family members, yet you seem to think you have all the answers.

Though your blather does make for good "put one to sleep quickly" reading. Sorta like the failed petition.
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.....

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I noticed the irony. I said I had already said what I wanted to say, but then I went on and said a heap more!

Yes, the flaws in the case against Megrahi have been rehashed a lot. You still haven't addressed any of the points made in any meaningful way though. Care to try some time?

The SCCRC clearly agreed with a substantial chunk of what we have been saying, when it announced that the case was potentially a miscarriage of justice and recommended that it be looked at again. However, the courts were stopped from doing that, and have had no opportunity to agree or disagree.

The parliament is running its own agenda, and I'm damned if I know what that is. However, the petition is still open and the petitioning process still active.

Get a life? We all have things that interest us. Soap operas, crossword puzzles, murder mysteries, breeding cats, gardening, hillwalking, flower arranging.... Right now, the Lockerbie conundrum interests me. It's no less of a hobby than anything else. So what? And I do know a couple of the victims' relatives, not counting you. The village where I live now was heavily involved in the rescue effort - some of the men went down to Lockerbie and the women raised money. As I told you, I drove past the crater 48 hours after the crash, and smelled the smoke and the burning. It leaves its mark, a bit. I wish we'd been able to nail the actual perpetrators instead of being side-tracked into this Malta rubbish.

I wish Frank Duggan would say something either true or sensible, but I'm not holding my breath.

You lobbied your government for the right to sue the Libyan government for millions. You won. Good luck to you. You've sneered at us in the past for inactivity. Now we're lobbying our government for an inquiry into how the hell the justice process could go so spectacularly wrong. We're still at it. You sneer at us for that, too. Make up your mind.

But is sneering is all you're going to to, it's your choice. You don't actually have to read anything we type, you know. I'm glad you do, actually, because I cling to a shred of hope that one day you'll read for comprehension rather than rejection. But if you're just going to be annoyed by it, there's a simple answer. Don't read it.

Rolfe.