Lockerbie guy - when is he going to kick the bucket?

[nonconformist]

Alleged victims fwiw.

 

[MobBoss]

Alleged victims fwiw.

Uhm. No. He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no 'alleged'.

 

[nonconformist]

Now, Mobby, you wouldn't be so stupid as to believe a conviction is a decent arbiter of guilt?

 

[MobBoss]

Now, Mobby, you wouldn't be so stupid as to believe a conviction is a decent arbiter of guilt?

Would you be so stupid as to assume its not? He was found guilty and it was held up on appeal. Unless there is something that changes that outcome there is no alleged. He was found to have commited the crimes he was accused of. End of story.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Don't you mean that you have personally decided he must be guilty, despite many indications that may not actually be the case?

Court proceedings started on 3 May 2000. The crucial witness against Megrahi for the prosecution was Tony Gauci, a Maltese storekeeper, who testified that he had sold Megrahi the clothing later found in the remains of the suitcase bomb.[12] Meanwhile, the defense showed that his co-defendant, Fhimah, had an air-tight alibi having been in Sweden at the time of the sabotage.

The judges announced their verdict on 31 January 2001. They said of Megrahi: "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment as amended." [13] Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole.

The judges unanimously found the second accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, not guilty of the murder charge.[14] Fhimah was freed and returned to his home at Souk al-Juma in Libya on 1 February 2001.

Megrahi's appeal against his conviction in January 2001 was refused on 14 March 2002 by a panel of five Scottish Judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.[16] According to a report by the BBC,[17] Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings and spoke of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice".[18]

On 23 September 2003 lawyers acting for Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for a review of the case (both sentence and conviction), arguing that there had been a miscarriage of justice. On 1 November 2006 Megrahi was reported to have dropped his demand for the new appeal to be held at Camp Zeist.[21] In an interview with The Scotsman newspaper of 31 January 2006, retired Scottish Judge Lord MacLean – one of the three who convicted Megrahi in 2001 – said he believed the SCCRC would return the case for a further appeal against conviction:

"They can't be working for two years without producing something with which to go to the court."
MacLean added that any new appeal would indicate the flexibility of Scots law, rather than a weakness:

"It might even be the strength of the system – it is capable of looking at itself subsequently and determining a ground for appeal."

In January 2007, the SCCRC announced that it would issue its decision on Megrahi's case by the end of June 2007.[22] On 9 June 2007 rumours of a possible prisoner swap deal involving Megrahi were strenuously denied by prime minister, Tony Blair.[23] Later in June, The Observer confirmed the imminence of the SCCRC ruling and reported:

"Abdelbaset al-Megrahi never wavered in his denial of causing the Lockerbie disaster: now some Scottish legal experts say they believe him."[24]

On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, the Commission granted Megrahi leave to appeal against his Lockerbie bombing conviction for a second time.[25] The second appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was abandoned in August 2009, as an impediment to the legal power to release him to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme then operating in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, he was not released under this scheme, rather, on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. There was in the event, no requirement to drop his appeal against conviction.

New information casting fresh doubts about Megrahi's conviction was examined at a procedural hearing at the Judicial Appeal Court (Court of Session building) in Edinburgh on 11 October 2007:

His lawyers claimed that vital documents, which emanated from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and related to the Mebo timer that allegedly detonated the Lockerbie bomb, were withheld from the trial defence team.[26]

Tony Gauci, chief prosecution witness at the trial, was alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi.[27][28]

Mebo's owner, Edwin Bollier, claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya.[29]

Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case".[30]

On 1 November 2007 Megrahi invited Professor Robert Black QC to visit him at Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock. After a 2-hour meeting, Black stated "that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction."[31]

And now, this breaking news story:

Lockerbie details could be released
(UKPA) – 5 hours ago

A body which investigates alleged miscarriages of justice has been given permission to release details of the case of the Lockerbie bomber, it has been announced.

But it will be for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to decide what - if anything - to release, said the Scottish Government.

The move came on the 21st anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing outrage, and at a time when the Libyan convicted of it, Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al Megrahi, is reported to be in worsening health.

 

[nonconformist]

Would you be so stupid as to assume its not? He was found guilty and it was held up on appeal. Unless there is something that changes that outcome there is no alleged. He was found to have commited the crimes he was accused of. End of story.

Birmingham Six, yo

 

[MobBoss]

Don't you mean that you have personally decided he must be guilty, despite many indications that may not actually be the case?

Again, he was convicted, it was upheld on appeal. Until something alters that legally, he is convincted of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no 'alleged' to it.

I didnt presonally decide that - a court of law did. Twice.

Its not really a hard concept to be honest.

Birmingham Six, yo

Which means nothing, yo. Its logically false to assume that since that occurred to the Birmingham six, it also applies here. Until it is factually proven that he was convicted in error (and it wont be) he is guilty as convicted. Twice even. Yo.

 

[nonconformist]

It was never proven that the Birmingham Six were innocent


The evidence against Meghrabi was mostly materialised by US intelligence agencies of dubious moral standing, and indeed, the British Press has quite a few documents pertaining to this miscarriage.

 

[MobBoss]

It was never proven that the Birmingham Six were innocent


The evidence against Meghrabi was mostly materialised by US intelligence agencies of dubious moral standing, and indeed, the British Press has quite a few documents pertaining to this miscarriage.

All of which mean nothing in the face of his conviction and it being upheld on appeal.

You can assume he is innocent all you want. But he was legally found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....twice. Until that changes legally, thats the result. His victims are indeed victims and not 'alleged' victims at all.

Thats how it works. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

 

[Ecofarm]

I love how someone being convicted of a crime in court and losing an appeal is no longer a decent measure if someone is guilty.

Exactly WTH do you think guilt should be established by then??

If that doesn't mean they are guilty, then noone is guilty of anything - ever.

 

[nonconformist]

Plenty of people do; especially in the US of A.

 

[MobBoss]

I love how someone being convicted of a crime in court and losing an appeal is no longer a decent measure if someone is guilty.

Exactly WTH do you think guilt should be established by then??

If that doesn't mean they are guilty, then noone is guilty of anything - ever.

This.

People fail to realize that presumption of innocence ends once a guilty verdict has been given. Doubly so once its upheld on appeal. And remains guilty until a court finds otherwise.

 

[nonconformist]

You sound as if you're seriously denying the existance of miscarriages of justice. For a person who purports to have at least a basic knowledge of law, you're being astoundingly naive.

In any case, you're deflecting the point at hand, I'd say let's return to it, aight?

 

[MobBoss]

You sound as if you're seriously denying the existance of miscarriages of justice. For a person who purports to have at least a basic knowledge of law, you're being astoundingly naive.

Not at all, I am merely respecting the process. To do any less is to make (possibly false) assumption based simply on the media. Courts decide these things. Not reporters, nor even you or I.

I will be more than happy to recognize it as a 'miscarriage of justice' once its actual found by a court to be so and he is cleared of his convictions. Until that time he is a convicted terrorist. And should be treated as such.

Simple.

In any case, you're deflecting the point at hand, I'd say let's return to it, aight?

/shrug. It was you that started said deflection.

 

[Ecofarm]

Any case, ever, can be picked apart and hacked and misrepresented to create an illusion of injustice.

Why someone would do that for a terrorist?

 

[nonconformist]

Because at the time, and sicne then, there have been major issues with the evidence and trial, all of which were excellently documented by Paul Foot.

The court observer wrote:

"The Opinion of the Court is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and on a series of highly problematic inferences. As to the undersigned’s knowledge, there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime."

"A general pattern of the trial consisted in the fact that virtually all people presented by the prosecution as key witnesses were proven to lack credibility to a very high extent, in certain cases even having openly lied to the Court."

" 8. As a result of this situation, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court."

"On the basis of the above observations and evaluation, the undersigned has — to his great dismay — reached the conclusion that the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner. Indeed, there are many more questions and doubts at the end of the trial than there were at its beginning."

 

[Ecofarm]

There is probably classified evidence against him, that the "observer" was not privy to.


Duh


You think we just parade our active terrorist informants before a public court??

 

[Karalysia]

I stand by my original vote. He will become immortal.

 

[MobBoss]

Because at the time, and sicne then, there have been major issues with the evidence and trial, all of which were excellently documented by Paul Foot.

The court observer wrote:

"The Opinion of the Court is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and on a series of highly problematic inferences. As to the undersigned’s knowledge, there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime."

"A general pattern of the trial consisted in the fact that virtually all people presented by the prosecution as key witnesses were proven to lack credibility to a very high extent, in certain cases even having openly lied to the Court."

" 8. As a result of this situation, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court."

"On the basis of the above observations and evaluation, the undersigned has — to his great dismay — reached the conclusion that the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner. Indeed, there are many more questions and doubts at the end of the trial than there were at its beginning."

Then by all means lets have a third trial and see what happens. But until his status officially is changed by a court of law, he is still proven guilty of the crimes he is accused of. There is simply no assumption of his inncence in this particular case. He is now assumed guilty until proven by a court otherwise.

If the trial was so jacked up to begin with why was it upheld on appeal?

Nah, dont answer that. Because that would simply be your opinion, which doesnt really count in a situation where the only thing that does count is the courts verdict.

Like I said, you can assume things all day long. It doesnt change anything until a court officially acts on it.

 

[Ecofarm]

It's so ridiculous that people do not realize some testimony and evidence remained classified.