Do you think Megrahi did it?

[Rolfe]

Carried out the Pan Am 103 bombing, I mean, either single-handedly (unlikely) or as part of a gang/team.

Since the howls of outrage over his compassionate release have abated slightly, I'd just like to see how opinion on the forum splits on this point, and how this relates to familiarity with the evidence presented against him.

If you want to become familiar with the evidence, the Private Eye report (https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.uk/PEYE/digital_downloads.cfm) is a good place to start. This is behind a £5 paywall, but well worth shelling out for - the journalist who wrote it sat through the entire trial at Camp Zeist.

Other people who sat through that trial are Hans Kochler, the official UN observer (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm), and Robert Black (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html), the senior lawyer who set the trial up and persuaded Megrahi to agree to be extradited to get a "fair trial".

Kochler's two official reports (one on the trial itself (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm) and one on the appeal (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm)) are highly illuminating. I've linked above to Black's first blog post on the matter, which dates from the granting of leave for the second appeal in 2007, which is another excellent summary.

Rolfe.

[Shadowdweller]

In the absence of evidence, my inclination is to trust the court.

[Rolfe]

What do you mean by that? That a court can magically determine guilt and innocence even when there is no evidence?

Rolfe.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I was living in Scotland when it happened, and have vague memories of following the newspaper reports of the investigation, but when it came to the trial I could never convince myself that the evidence presented there was enough to convict someone 12 years after the fact.

[GlennB]

In the absence of evidence, my inclination is to trust the court.

The evidence was put before the court and is in the public domain, so it's quite hard to understand your comment here.

My opinion on the subject is known and I've voted accordingly.

[Rolfe]

From the earlier threads on this subject, I think there are a lot of people who have no idea what the evidence was, but who simply assume that as he was convicted he must be guilty.

That's understandable, although it does require quite a lot of trust in a system that has been proven to be fallible.

I'd be interested in hearing an explanation from the people who are familiar with the evidence and think he did it though. Do we have Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield, Lord Maclean or David Shayler posting in the forum?

Rolfe.

[Shadowdweller]

What do you mean by that? That a court can magically determine guilt and innocence even when there is no evidence?

Rolfe.
No. I mean that when I personally haven't bothered to read the evidence, my tendency is to trust the court. :D

[Number Six]

I don't know the details of the case and I'm not going to since I don't have the time to devote to it. That's why we have a court system to determine guilt or innocence instead of having every citizen try to figure out every case.

Either he should be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in jail (which is a small price for killing 270 people) or he should be found not guilty and not made to spend any time in jail. But I don't think justification for letting him out after eight years should be "It's okay to let him out because maybe he didn't do it."

[Rolfe]

That's a derail, really. Nobody let him out "because maybe he didn't do it". He was let out because he has terminal cancer.

The point of this thread is to explore people's opinions on whether or not he actually did it, and see if this varies depending on how familiar they are with the evidence presented.

Rolfe.

[Number Six]

Who is going to know the details of the case in depth? Not many people. People assume the court system did a good job because it usually does, although not always.

As far as if he really did it goes though, if you were truly interested in that then I suspect you'd have been here asking about it long before he was released. I think you're trying to get to the point of "You can't even prove he did it so how can you say he shouldn't have been let out?" He was convicted of killing 270 people. Letting him out after 8 years is ridiculous, terminal cancer or not. Letting him out because you deem he wasn't truly guilty is a separate issue. I don't know or care (except in the abstract sense) if he did it and neither will 99.9% of the people reading this. He was convicted for it and therefore it's insulting to let him out without overturning the conviction. If being convicted of killing 270 people doesn't merit a sentence of more than 8 years then what does?

[Giz]

Who is going to know the details of the case in depth? Not many people. People assume the court system did a good job because it usually does, although not always.

As far as if he really did it goes though, if you were truly interested in that then I suspect you'd have been here asking about it long before he was released. I think you're trying to get to the point of "You can't even prove he did it so how can you say he shouldn't have been let out?" He was convicted of killing 270 people. Letting him out after 8 years is ridiculous, terminal cancer or not. Letting him out because you deem he wasn't truly guilty is a separate issue. I don't know or care (except in the abstract sense) if he did it and neither will 99.9% of the people reading this. He was convicted for it and therefore it's insulting to let him out without overturning the conviction. If being convicted of killing 270 people doesn't merit a sentence of more than 8 years then what does?


Agreed

[Ambrosia]

He was convicted of killing 270 people. Letting him out after 8 years is ridiculous, terminal cancer or not. ... He was convicted for it and therefore it's insulting to let him out without overturning the conviction.

The whole thing is very political. As I understand it there are BIG holes in the conviction and it ought to have been thrown out of court at the time.

The whole trial at the time seemed to be Libya vs UK. The original defense lawyer for the two accused resigned in protest when a new defense lawyer who had previously held high office in Libyas govt. was bussed in. After that the defense dropped most of their defense completely and most of their witnesses were cancelled.

Most of the prosecution witnesses were shaky at best. In a report to the UN, their observer states:

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. Particularly as regards Mr. Bollier and Mr. Giaka, there were so many inconsistencies in their statements and open contradictions to statements of other witnesses that the resulting confusion was much greater than any clarification that may have been obtained from parts of their statements. Their credibility as such was shaken. It seems highly arbitrary and irrational to choose only parts of their statements for the formulation of a verdict that requires certainty "beyond any reasonable doubt." [Hans Kochlers report linked in the OP]


If being convicted of killing 270 people doesn't merit a sentence of more than 8 years then what does?

Being convicted of something and doing something are not the same.

The whole thing looked to me like a trial by people who wanted to be seen to be doing something for the victims/families.

Megrahi had an appeal pending IIRC - my guess it was simpler to let him out on compassionate grounds rather than open the whole can of worms that a successful appeal for Megrahi would.

[Number Six]

If his conviction was invalid then say that and overturn it and let him out. If they had done that instead of saying he did the crime but we'll let him out anyway because he's dying then there would have been less of a negative reaction IMO, at least in the US.

[Rolfe]

Who is going to know the details of the case in depth?


There are plenty of sources to find the information, and I linked to some of the principal ones.

People assume the court system did a good job because it usually does, although not always.


Agreed. It's not an unreasonable assumption that a guilty verdict is well-founded. However, miscarriages of justice aren't exactly rare. I could mention quite a few.

As far as if he really did it goes though, if you were truly interested in that then I suspect you'd have been here asking about it long before he was released.


Just sayin' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85523).

I think you're trying to get to the point of "You can't even prove he did it so how can you say he shouldn't have been let out?" He was convicted of killing 270 people. Letting him out after 8 years is ridiculous, terminal cancer or not. Letting him out because you deem he wasn't truly guilty is a separate issue. I don't know or care (except in the abstract sense) if he did it and neither will 99.9% of the people reading this. He was convicted for it and therefore it's insulting to let him out without overturning the conviction. If being convicted of killing 270 people doesn't merit a sentence of more than 8 years then what does?


As I said, that's a derail. I could have started this thread any time in the past three years or more. I'm interested to see whether familiarity with the evidence correlates with a belief or opinion that he probably or definitely didn't do it.

Rolfe.

[gtc]

From everything I have read it seems likely that the Scottish government believed that there were doubts about his conviction. Instead of risking the damage to the reputation of Scotland's justice system from an appeal, they released him on compassionate grounds on the basis of dubious reports as to how short a time he has to live. This is a strange thing to do as, if shown to be true, these actions would actually compound the damage to the reputation of Scotland's justice system.

At the same time, the British government was desperate to secure a trade deal with Libya which required the release of Megrahi. It seems they let the Scottish government know that there would be no real objections to his release.

Geoffrey Roberson, QC, had an interesting opinion peice in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/lauding-this-good-terrorist-is-perverse-20090911-fkon.html)this week which sums up the issues nicely.

[Rolfe]

That article is factually wrong in a number of respects.

However, I agree that the second appeal was very much not desired by a number of people, and possibly for different reasons. The show trial at Camp Zeist was an affront to Scotland's justice system, and it's not the only one in recent years. Sadly, the legal establishment would rather sweep the whole thing under the carpet than clean up its act.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I see we have seven posters who are familiar with the evidence, and think Megrahi was guilty. I would be very intersted in hearing the logic.

Do you think it was raining in Sliema on 7th December 1988?
Do you think Gauci positively identified Megrahi?
Do you know how the bomb suitcase got past security at Luqa?

Or what?

Rolfe.

[Architect]

From everything I have read it seems likely that the Scottish government believed that there were doubts about his conviction. Instead of risking the damage to the reputation of Scotland's justice system from an appeal, they released him on compassionate grounds on the basis of dubious reports as to how short a time he has to live. This is a strange thing to do as, if shown to be true, these actions would actually compound the damage to the reputation of Scotland's justice system.

His picture was all over the Scottish press this weekend and I have to say that Megrahi looks gey close to popping his clogs; the reports may not be as "dubious" as some might think, or at least like to think. It'll be interesting to see how long he hangs on.

At the same time, the British government was desperate to secure a trade deal with Libya which required the release of Megrahi. It seems they let the Scottish government know that there would be no real objections to his release.

Looking at the Straw comments and the like, it would be fairer to say that Westminster actively wanted him out and the Scottish Government actually held out for some time.

Geoffrey Roberson, QC, had an interesting opinion peice in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/lauding-this-good-terrorist-is-perverse-20090911-fkon.html)this week which sums up the issues nicely.

I had to laugh at the fellow's claim that McAskill was an "undistinguished" lawyer; the snobbery of the QC wins out again. And, after all, it's not like the Justice Minister might have sought opinion from learned counsel (Advocates; we don't have QCs in Scotland per se).

[Rolfe]

His picture was all over the Scottish press this weekend and I have to say that Megrahi looks gey close to popping his clogs; the reports may not be as "dubious" as some might think, or at least like to think. It'll be interesting to see how long he hangs on.


I don't know if you read that long interview with Megrahi in the Herald - Lucy Adams, they sent her out to Libya practically on the next plane. (Damn, the interview was online, but they seem to have taken it down and only left the front page article (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-truth-never-dies-megrahi-demands-lockerbie-inquiry-1.825143).) This happened in his own home, before he was readmitted to hospital. She said she was quite convinced he wasn't faking anything, and was genuinely in a lot of pain. Nevertheless, he didn't look so bad in her pictures as he has more recently. However, in the interview he told her that the doctors wanted him back in hospital very soon to re-start chemotherapy, and he expected to be in hospital for at least two weeks.

So I wonder if he looks so bad right now because they have hammered him with more chemotherapy, which the Scottish consultants didn't deem advisable, and that's knocked him back. If that's the case, he might improve again if it all goes to plan. But on the other hand I can't help remembering my cousin's husband who died of the same condition ten years ago. That didn't end well, despite all efforts.

And oh yes, Robertson's snide little article is as biassed as hell, as well as being factually inaccurate.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Here's some other articles by people who actually understand the issues, some of whom have been involved from the beginning.

The truth about Lockerbie - that's the last thing the Americans want the world to know (http://i-p-o.org/Mail_on_Sunday-Dalyell-Lockerbie-16Aug09.pdf)
I saw the Lockerbie trial, and the verdict made no sense (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hans-kchler-i-saw-the-trial-ndash-and-the-verdict-made-no-sense-1775217.html)
Compassionate release in Scotland: the actual policy and the law (http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/09/02/compassionate-release-in-scotland-the-actual-policy-and-the-law/)
Why Libya welcomed Megrahi (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388643841875578.html)
Megrahi's release: how Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing (http://jontxe.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/megrahi%E2%80%99s-release-how-libya-was-framed-for-the-lockerbie-bombing/)

I'd still like the people who have studied the evidence and believe Megrahi to be guilty to come and explain the grounds for that belief.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Who is going to know the details of the case in depth? Not many people. People assume the court system did a good job because it usually does, although not always.

As far as if he really did it goes though, if you were truly interested in that then I suspect you'd have been here asking about it long before he was released.

People have been but well a case of someone quietly rotting in jail is of only limited interest.


I think you're trying to get to the point of "You can't even prove he did it so how can you say he shouldn't have been let out?" He was convicted of killing 270 people. Letting him out after 8 years is ridiculous, terminal cancer or not.

Releaseing terminaly ill prisoners is an accepted practice. It's not as if he presents a further risk.


Letting him out because you deem he wasn't truly guilty is a separate issue. I don't know or care (except in the abstract sense) if he did it and neither will 99.9% of the people reading this.

You should. If he didn't do it your goverment worked to frame him while whoever did do it is still around somewhere. Or perhaps you have no problem with that kind of Realpolitik. If thats the case you can hardly have a problem with his release.


He was convicted for it and therefore it's insulting to let him out without overturning the conviction. If being convicted of killing 270 people doesn't merit a sentence of more than 8 years then what does?

The sentance was for more than 8 years but release due to terminal illness.

[Rolfe]

I don't know or care (except in the abstract sense) if he did it and neither will 99.9% of the people reading this.


I just noticed this bit. So go for the Planet X option. You only care that someone is convicted, not whether or not they got the right guy.

The subtleties of a conviction on such shaky grounds that the UN observer at the trial has been campaigning for a rematch ever since, an appeal that was lodged in 2003 only being given permission to proceed in 2007, still not having come to court in 2009 and the applicant now being certain to die before if could possibly come to court clearly mean nothing to you.

The scandal of the prosecution withholding evidence from the defence and the ramifications attached to that one also mean nothing.

OK. You don't care if he did it or not. Point taken.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

Do we have Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield, Lord Maclean or David Shayler posting in the forum?

Rolfe.
you haven't heard much about shayler recently then ?
I would imagine any opinion he may well hold will not now be based on reality since he recently claimed to be Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#Claims_of_divinity
and took to wearing a dress
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/12/article-1206002-05BBA4DF000005DC-636_224x532.jpg
:p

[Rolfe]

I mentioned Shayler because he seems to be the only source who is prepared to declare a belief that Megrahi did it, as opposed to simply stating that Megrahi was convicted.

His two arguments seem to be first, that the court should have admitted Giaka's evidence (oh dear), and second that since Libyan Arab Airlines had a desk near to Air Malta's at Luqa airport of course it would have been perfectly simple for the case to be slipped on to KM180.

Since the court judgement explains quite clearly that Giaka was exposed as a lying toad, in effect being bribed to give evidence that would convict Megrahi, and that there was clear evidence that nothing was slipped on to KM180, he's on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

I didnt know about the dresses and Jesus bit though. Sounds like David Icke all over again.

So if that's the best the "Megrahi did it" camp can produce, I'd really, really like to see something a bit more persuasive. We have seven posters here who are well-versed in the evidence and think he did it, and are presumably more rational than Shayler. I'd very much like to hear their reasoning.

Rolfe.

ETA: I've just noticed that Shayler is a troofer as well. (Sorry, I don't keep up on these things.) This is quite priceless. The troofer is the only one supporting the Official Version on Lockerbie! (I certainly came across the information that Shayler was of that opinion on a troofer web site which was supporting the theory, so that fits.)

:id:

[Rolfe]

OK, so the only person who is prepared to say he's familiar with the evidence and he thinks Megrahi did it, and explain why, is a known Troofer who thinks he's Jesus.

And further takers?

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

OK, so the only person who is prepared to say he's familiar with the evidence and he thinks Megrahi did it, and explain why, is a known Troofer who thinks he's Jesus.
.

lol, thats pretty succinct, but you forgot that hes known as 'Delores Kane' now
:p

[Number Six]

I just noticed this bit. So go for the Planet X option. You only care that someone is convicted, not whether or not they got the right guy.

No, that is not true, which is why I added "in the abstract sense," which may have not come across clearly, but you'd have to think I was an absolute moron to think I thought the guy should stay in jail even if he didn't do it. And on top of that, I stated clearly a couple times that if the evidence isn't there then simply overturn the conviction.

[Number Six]

Releaseing terminaly ill prisoners is an accepted practice. It's not as if he presents a further risk.

Does that mean that if a terminally ill person kills 270 people we wouldn't put them in jail at all? If releasing someone just because they're terminally ill, no matter what they've done, is an accepted practice then our practice needs to change IMO. And you talk as if the only criteria is whether they present a further risk. First of all, that ignores the concept of justice. And secondly, if presenting risk is the criteria then that opens the door to putting someone in jail even if they haven't committed a crime because we think they present a risk.

And as I said _many_ times now, and which people that disagree with me on this issue conveniently ignore, if he didn't do it then release him because he didn't do it.

[Giz]

Releaseing terminaly ill prisoners is an accepted practice. It's not as if he presents a further risk.



In your view, was it worth jailing Nazi war criminals after WW2? I mean, after the Third Reich was defeated they could hardly re-offend could they?

Sometimes justice has to be seen to be done.

Now - back to our regularly scheduled Megrahi - as I keep saying, if he didn't do it then they should have raised heaven and earth to get an appeal heard (I am sure Kenny could have made a stink if he wanted to). By letting him out on a "maybe he didn't do it" he is hoping two wrongs will make a right. Sorry, that's not the way I want the justice system to work.

[Rolfe]

And on top of that, I stated clearly a couple times that if the evidence isn't there then simply overturn the conviction.


Your faith in the justice system in Scotland is touching. I wish I could share it, I really do.

The original conviction stank to high heaven. I posted a selection of links in my OP which give some idea of the machinations. The short version is that it had been decided ten years previously that the Libyans were guilty, and would of course easily be convicted if evil Libya would just allow their extradition. Then finally the extradition happened, brokered by Nelson Mandela and a senior Scottish legal expert Robert Black. When the much-vaunted evidence was aired in court it fell to pieces. It appears that the panel of judges simply couldn't accept the idea of that whole three-ring circus at Camp Zeist being for nothing, and convicted one of the two defendants on evidence I personally wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on. Robert Black is certainly horrified by what happened, as is the official UN observer Hans Kochler, and I don't think Mandela is too happy either.

There was an appeal in 2002, which was dismissed on technical grounds. Kochler was even more condemnatory of the proceedings in that case, and had some very very harsh things to say both about the legal system and about the defence strategy. And remember, Megrahi didn't get to choose his own defence team.

In 2003, permission for a second appeal was applied for, citing many grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The SCCRC didn't report on this until 2007 - a four-year delay which probably single-handedly prevented the appeal coming to court, though they couldn't have known about Megrahi's cance at the time.

The SCCRC report (http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293) allowed the appeal, saying that there were six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Oddly, though, they only listed four of them. That was in 2007. The appeal still had not come to court two years later, due largely to the Crown refusing to release documents to the defence on grounds of national security - specifically, there was a particular document that the USA authorities were refusing permission to release, apparently something casting doubt on the provenance of a particular piece of evidence.

So while I wish it had been possible to have a fair trial, and/or a timely and diligent appeal, the system clearly wasn't having it.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Now - back to our regularly scheduled Megrahi - as I keep saying, if he didn't do it then they should have raised heaven and earth to get an appeal heard (I am sure Kenny could have made a stink if he wanted to). By letting him out on a "maybe he didn't do it" he is hoping two wrongs will make a right. Sorry, that's not the way I want the justice system to work.


See my post above. The Scottish criminal justice system did not want that appeal heard.

Megrahi was quite specifically not released on the grounds of "maybe he didn't do it". He was released on the explicit assumption that he did do it, but because he has terminal cancer.

That last fact really isn't directly relevant to this thread. The poll could just as easily been conducted two years ago, before the diagnosis of the cancer, and while the appeal was pending.

I'm interested to know how informed people are on the facts of the case, and what conclusions they've come to.

I'm particularly interested in hearing explanations from those why say they are familiar with the evidence, and believe Megrahi did it. I've yet to hear anyone who isn't called David Shayler (or maybe Dolores Kane) put forward such an explanation.

olfe.

[Ambrosia]

And as I said _many_ times now, if he didn't do it then release him because he didn't do it.

I agree!

He should never have been convicted in the first place, his first appeal was deemed by the UN observer to be a breach of his human rights.

His most recent appeal started in 2003, and as of early this year still hadn't got to court. He decided to drop his appeal, and shortly afterwards was released on compassionate grounds.

He himself described it as an appauling choice, to choose to go home to spend his last days with his family as a guilty man, or to die in prison and have his name cleared posthumously.

In a case where the UN observer is making a loud fuss about his trial being unfair, where some victims believe he is innocent, and where senior lawyers/judges familiar with the case are calling the conviction shaky, it should never have taken over 6 years for his 2nd appeal to get heard at a fair trial.

[Elaedith]

Based on what I know I think the conviction was unsafe, which is not quite the same thing as 'I don't believe he did it'. But perhaps 'I don't believe he did it' is not meant to mean the same as 'I believe he didn't do it'?

[Rolfe]

Based on what I know I think the conviction was unsafe, which is not quite the same thing as 'I don't believe he did it'. But perhaps 'I don't believe he did it' is not meant to mean the same as 'I believe he didn't do it'?


I was trying to keep the options simple.

A few years ago, I'd have gone for the third option. I wasn't familiar with the details of the evidence, but I'd read a sufficiently large number of articles by journalists not normally given to printing nonsense to realise that there was a huge problem with the conviction.

When I started familiarising myself with the evidence, the first position I reached was that the conviction was quite clearly unsafe. No way was that case proved "beyond reasonable doubt" and the fact that the judges delivered a guilty verdict on that basis makes me weep for the justice system of my country.

It took a fair bit more digging into the affair to bring me to the same conclusion as Robert Black - not only was the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but there is simply no evidence to implicate Megrahi at all. (At its simplest, given that Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothing clearly falls, and given that the suitcase was almost certainly not introduced into the baggage system at Malta on 21st December, and yet Megrahi was in Malta on that day, there's nothing left apart from his business connection with MeBo, which is no evidence at all.)

The internet is absolutely stuffed with web sites and articles arguing this position, from people as eminent as Robert Black and Hans Kochler to the decidedly kooky. It is quite conspicuously not stuffed with any arguments supporting the position that on the basis of the evidence, Megrahi is probably guilty.

That's why I'd like to hear from the JREF posters who have voted for the second option. What is it about the evidence that leads to to your belief in Megrahi's guilt?

Rolfe.

[volatile]

OK, so the only person who is prepared to say he's familiar with the evidence and he thinks Megrahi did it, and explain why, is a known Troofer who thinks he's Jesus.

And further takers?

Rolfe.

The BBC often seem to wheel out an American guy "representing the families" of the victims (who is, one imagines, cognisant of the evidence) to vehemently defend the court's findings... he popped up on both R5 and R4 rather angrily proclaiming his shock not just that Megrahi was being released, but because he was being released in the face of, in his opinion, overwhelming evidence.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that one. The British families have said that the American families were very much quarantined by the US security forces, however you'd have thought that 20 years and one internet later, that would have broken down a bit.

I've never heard that guy or indeed any of the others explain what he means by "overwhelming evidence". I can only assume that he thinks Giaka is credible, and doesn't want to accept the evidence that Giaka's main concern was to supply his CIA handlers with whatever information they wanted him to produce, so that they'd keep paying him.

I wish now I'd made the poll identifiable, so I could ask the eleven people voting for the second option why they hold that opinion.

I mean, surely nobody would just check option 2 because they were annoyed about the compassionate release, knowing nothing about the issues - would they?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Where's the "I'm quite familiar with the evidence presented, and I don't know if he did it or not" option? :)

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, which side of the fence do you lean to?

I'd honestly like to hear someone who is familiar with the evidence present a reasonable case for him being guilty, even on the "balance of probabilities" test.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Does that mean that if a terminally ill person kills 270 people we wouldn't put them in jail at all?

Cases have been quietly droped because the person was terminaly ill.



And you talk as if the only criteria is whether they present a further risk. First of all, that ignores the concept of justice.

Families recived millions in compensation. For being on the reciveing end of an act by a hostile power that is considered to be justice under historic norms.


And secondly, if presenting risk is the criteria then that opens the door to putting someone in jail even if they haven't committed a crime because we think they present a risk.

Various mental health acts tend to do just that.


And as I said _many_ times now, and which people that disagree with me on this issue conveniently ignore, if he didn't do it then release him because he didn't do it.

Would have taken too long to ge through the courts and would have been politicaly embarrassing to too many people.

[geni]

In your view, was it worth jailing Nazi war criminals after WW2? I mean, after the Third Reich was defeated they could hardly re-offend could they?

Of course they could. Mid 20th centry? Lot of demand for amoral people prepared to get their hands dirty. Thats before you get into the problems of haveing a bunch of people for neonazis to work with around.

[Soapy Sam]

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?

I did not trouble to follow the Hague travesty, as it seemed from the start to be the biggest fit-up since the trial of James of the Glens in 1752.
If anyone in Libya was responsible for the bombing, it would be Gadaffi, but frankly, I've never even been convinced he was involved.
I'm intrigued by Tam Dalyell's comments. I've always had a lot of time for auld Tam the Bam.
No, I don't think Megrahi did it - and if he did , I can't bring myself to care. If the conviction was safe, he should have been hanged in my opinion, but from what I can see the only safe verdict was "Not Proven".
For once, (and there's a first time for everything), I agree with Mcaskill, if for no better reason that I see no cause to feed foreigners at taxpayers' expense.

[Ambrosia]

The BBC often seem to wheel out an American guy "representing the families" of the victims (who is, one imagines, cognisant of the evidence) to vehemently defend the court's findings...

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohen_(children%27s_author)). Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541003,00.html) August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.

"I cannot imagine having compassion for a mass murderer and terrorist who killed 270 people," said Susan Cohen ... "My daughter is dead. She is the one who deserves compassion."

"The Scots have folded very cowardly," she said. "The only sliver of justice we had was al-Megrahi — and now we don’t even have that."

[Rolfe]

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?


No and no and no. To be fair, it was an accident. But then, on the other hand, the captain of the other US ship in the area was telling the Vincennes that the plane was climbing and not a threat, but the Vincennes captain fired anyway. He had a reputation for being trigger happy.

But you still ought to apologise for accidents, not lie about what happened so as to blame the victim. And not giving the captain a medal might have been a tactful move too.

Some of the documentaries have footage of the bodies being fished out of the Gulf. Many of them were children. It's as bad as Lockerbie, easily. I now work beside someone who served on the York, which did the body-fishing after the two US ships promptly sailed away after the crash. I've had some pretty graphic details, first-hand.

Dead Iranians don't count, or something.

I did not trouble to follow the Hague travesty, as it seemed from the start to be the biggest fit-up since the trial of James of the Glens in 1752.


Uh, exactly. The verdict had been decided ten years before.

If anyone in Libya was responsible for the bombing, it would be Gadaffi, but frankly, I've never even been convinced he was involved.


Which is why all the screaming hate against Megrahi while shaking hands with Gadaffi was completely nauseating.

I'm intrigued by Tam Dalyell's comments. I've always had a lot of time for auld Tam the Bam.


Tam has been crusading on this one from the beginning. I was surprised by the up-front assertion of a LIHOP that was almost a MIHOP, but he is in a position to know more than the rest of us. (It wasn't quite the LIHOP I was contemplating, actually - the one involving the release of Khreesat seems more plausible.)

Geni said he'd gone a bit odd since the (second) Iraq war, but a lot of his comments on Lockerbie pre-date that.

No, I don't think Megrahi did it - and if he did , I can't bring myself to care. If the conviction was safe, he should have been hanged in my opinion, but from what I can see the only safe verdict was "Not Proven".


I think that's why we don't have the death penalty. We can so seldom be sure that an accused really is definitely guilty.

I don't think it would have been politic to use the "not proven" verdict. You know and I know that simply means the case has not been proven. Many people think it means the accused is guilty, but the evidence hasn't quite achieved some technical standard. To have sent Megrahi off as "not proven" would have started an absolute storm.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohen_%28children%27s_author%29). Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541003,00.html) August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.


To be honest, I could be wrong, but I wonder how closely the US families really did follow the evidence. We had all been told from 1990 that it wos Libya wot done it, and that the evidence against Megrahi and Fhimah was "overwhelming".

The US families were shepherded and quarantined by the security forces during the trial. Which went on for ages and by all accounts was very very boring for about 95% of the time.

If you really, really want these guys to be guilty, and you've believed in their guilt for ten years because you were told the evidence was incontrovertible, is it really so hard not to notice that the evidence is actually thinner than tissue paper?

Rolfe.

[volatile]

That would very likely be Daniel Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohen_(children%27s_author)). Presumably because he's an author and "Paranormal Researcher" and has an easily contactable agent. The Cohens cowrote a book on PA103 "Pam Am 103: The Bombing, The Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice" which is on my reading list, but I've not got to it, yet.

Here's a piece from Fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541003,00.html) August 2009 featuring Daniel and his wife Susan.

Oh yes... he's the chap. His daughter's dead; I understand why he's bitter and vitriolic. But Rolfe's right - I only ever heard him assert that the evidence is overwhelming, never actually explain his reasoning.

[Ambrosia]

I agree. I feel for the guy, no ones daughter should get blown up, not his, not Gadaffi's, not any of the parents bereaved by the Vincennes disaster, no one.

I am assuming that some of his reasoning is explained in his book. I can quite understand his point of view though.

[Rolfe]

There was something peculiarly horrible about Pan Am 103. The plane blew apart, not up. Probably nobody was killed by the explosion. Most people probably saw the cabin disintegrate around them and realised they were falling through space before they blacked out due to the decompression.

Even worse, it's believed that a number of victims came round while they were still falling, as they fell into breathable air. They were conscious and uninjured, and didn't die till they hit the ground. One was even found alive, although she died very soon afterwards. Some seats fell still linked together, and people were found holding hands. Someone else was holding a cross that was round their neck.

For all I know the same thing happened to some people on the Airbus, though the ditching into the sea means the evidence wasn't there.

I wouldn't blame anyone for being absolutely blind with hatred, knowing that had happened to their son or daughter. If anything, it's Swire and Cadman and Dix who are the anomalies, in that they don't believe Megrahi was the culprit.

Rolfe.

[GlennB]

Polls tend to have inherent biases and flaws. Rolfe's poll, while pretty well devised, has a flaw. It will tend to attract those who have not studied the evidence in depth - as presented at the court - but who are still angry and aggrieved at the whole Lockerbie atrocity into voting for the second option. Which, putting it harshly, is a form of denial. I read that G.Bush Snr, after the Iranian airliner downing stated "I will not apologise for the USA, no matter what the facts" or very similar words. That kind of thing.

It would be interesting, still, if anyone who chose the second option would be willing to try to reconcile the evidence with the verdict. And I don't mean "well, if the evidence is crap it should have gone to appeal' which is merely a reflection on the interminable procedure rather than evidence itself.

I simply cannot help but look at the evidence and conclude that the verdict is perverse.

[Rolfe]

Yes, that's the conclusion I've come to.

Silly me, I assumed people would vote honestly, and those who didn't know about the rainfall statistics for Sliema on these two days in 1988, or the date a certain football match was played, or that Gauci did not in fact identify Megrahi, or the details of the baggage loading of KM180 out of Luqa, or the matter of the orphan luggage loaded on to PA103 at Heathrow, and so on, would go for option 4 if they thought Megrahi was guilty.

I wish now I'd made the polling public, so that we could ask those who ticked the second option why they hold that opinion. As it is, I think the fact that not one of them has posted to explain their position, says it all.

Rolfe.

[Giz]

Hmmm, intersesting snippit from today's Telegraph:

"But Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister who freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds, has repeatedly stressed that the bomber did not have to drop his appeal before being allowed home. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6206693/Lockerbie-relatives-condemn-Megrahi-website.html


I have to confess, it had been my understanding that Megrahi had had to drop the appeal before being allowed home. Does anyone have more detail on which is correct?

[Darat]

If there were ongoing appeals he couldn't be released under the terms of the "prisoner release scheme", that's not the case for release under compassionate grounds.

[Rolfe]

More evidence/information posted today, though I think there may be nothing new in this batch.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Does this add anything to proceedings?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

[Rolfe]

Does this add anything to proceedings?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/


Dunno, haven't read it yet. But since it's what was argued before the court before they ajourned the appeal because one of the judges was ill, I suspect we may have heard it already.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Ha! We posted at bang on the same time. Sorry. I've not read it yet either.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I wish now I'd made the polling public, so that we could ask those who ticked the second option why they hold that opinion. As it is, I think the fact that not one of them has posted to explain their position, says it all.

Rolfe.

I'll be glad to

This was a case of state sponsored terrorism rather than an isolated group or individual.

There were also a lot of things discovered regarding other people and activities that never went into the public view.

He was a part of the function of the bombing and thus guilty.

There was also circumstantial evidence ( his false passport and his never fully explaining things about another trip) that makes hin suspect.

That said, more likely than not, he didnt directly plan it, build it and probably wasnt the mole at the airport who loaded it- I'm reasonably sure it was a group effort.

Honestly- as far as the literal whodunnit- even from intelligence gathered that I personally know to be true- a lot of people ( myself included) believe the actual plan and execution was done by Abu Nidal and his group merely under the auspices of Libya but then they realized there might be military ramifications- they sacrificed their officers for trial. I dont have enough information to say for certain he is the "true" guilty party ( or one of his guys actually) but it would shock me if he wasnt deep into it somewhere.

[Jungle Jim]

Here's some other articles by people who actually understand the issues, some of whom have been involved from the beginning.

The truth about Lockerbie - that's the last thing the Americans want the world to know (http://i-p-o.org/Mail_on_Sunday-Dalyell-Lockerbie-16Aug09.pdf)
I saw the Lockerbie trial, and the verdict made no sense (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hans-kchler-i-saw-the-trial-ndash-and-the-verdict-made-no-sense-1775217.html)
Compassionate release in Scotland: the actual policy and the law (http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/09/02/compassionate-release-in-scotland-the-actual-policy-and-the-law/)
Why Libya welcomed Megrahi (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388643841875578.html)
Megrahi's release: how Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing (http://jontxe.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/megrahi%E2%80%99s-release-how-libya-was-framed-for-the-lockerbie-bombing/)

I'd still like the people who have studied the evidence and believe Megrahi to be guilty to come and explain the grounds for that belief.

Rolfe.

The first link above is a story by a bloke who contends that the Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive?

[LONGTABBER PE]

The first link above is a story by a bloke who contends that the Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive?

Like most things, theres some truth to that- back when this was happening, I was fully in the system and operating in this theater

Americans knew ahead of time that the Pan Am flight would be blown up and thus removed some military personnel from the flight, as well as a South Africa delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha. Do you expect this the type of information to be persuasive

You get information on these plans "most' of the time- its a question of how much of it is an empty threat ( wishful thinking) or an actual operation. Then theres the question of what exact flight.

Its always an educated guess so it shouldnt surprise anyone that if there was a potential risk- people would be rerouted. Doesnt mean anyone "knew" this flight would go down but there was reason to expect "A" flight would.

I cant go into great detail without violating security statements but regarding this particular bombing

I would be surprised if Libya and Daffy KaDaffy or any of his people thought it up, planned and executed it- it wasnt his style and it didnt directly benefit him. Its no secret he had a boner for Reagan personally and the US specifically but ( unlike most terrorists) he knew his place in the world stage and greatly feared a US military reprisal plus he was focused on building his country and personal power.

He also was and still is a conduit, place of refuge and assists in everything he can for other groups.

I have little doubt he was in on it but I doubt seriously he was an actual participant in it.

His guys were most likely sacrificial lambs- their hands were dirty but maybe not fully bloodstained. ( depending on your point of view)

[applecorped]

http://megrahimystory.net/

[Big Les]

^Er, look up

;)

[geni]

Elish Angiolini's reaction is entertaining:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8264119.stm

[Uzzy]

I took the fourth option, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice, if the evidence is as clear cut as those who believe Megrahi's innocent keep putting forward. The fact Megrahi dropped his second appeal, despite not needing to in order to get compassionate release, is rather odd too. Add in the stench of conspiracy theory from those who think Megrahi's innocent, and it all adds up to me giving the benefit of the doubt to the legal system.

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.

[Ambrosia]

I'll be glad to

This was a case of state sponsored terrorism rather than an isolated group or individual.

There were also a lot of things discovered regarding other people and activities that never went into the public view.

I'd certainly agree with this.

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.


There was also circumstantial evidence ( his false passport and his never fully explaining things about another trip) that makes hin suspect.


Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)


That said, more likely than not, he didnt directly plan it, build it and probably wasnt the mole at the airport who loaded it- I'm reasonably sure it was a group effort. ... I dont have enough information to say for certain he is the "true" guilty party ( or one of his guys actually) but it would shock me if he wasnt deep into it somewhere.

It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy.

[Ambrosia]

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice...

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.

They didn't, they got it wrong once.

The first appeal was thrown out on a legal technicality. After which the SCCRC took an inordinate amount of time to refer the case back to the appeal courts.

The UK has a developed legal system with sound legal courts, and there are many instances of miscarriages of justice where it was got wrong several times.

As far as "the stench of conspiracy theory" - just because most CTs are bunk it does not follow that all of them must be bunk.

For 9/11 for example much evidence has been released about it from government sources, evidence which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 9/11 CTs are bunk.

The UK blocked an independant enquiry at the Prime Ministerial level into Lockerbie from early 1989 onwards, and the US continually refuses to release evidence on it which it holds, even when ordered to do so by the courts, citing state secrets. Investigation into Lockerbie has been thwarted by the highest levels of government for over 20 years.

[fuelair]

Do you think Megrahi did it?

Yes, I do think Megrahi had sex with a pig and then barbecued and ate it.

[FireGarden]

On a side issue- I wonder if any of the Vincennes' crew were ever tried in civilian court?

I think I need not ask if they were extradited to Iran for trial.

But was compensation paid , for example?

No and no and no.

Compensation was paid, in 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,[26] together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.[5] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner). It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned. Further compensation was paid for the 38 non-Iranian deaths. The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what had occurred.

That's interesting.
I think I'll start a court case against America and, if I nag them enough, they'll pay up even if they aren't liable for whatever I blame them for.



As for the OP, I think he didn't do it. But, if I'm wrong, I blame Rolfe -- who convinced me that there is more than reasonable doubt after all the evidence is considered. I haven't looked all that deeply at the evidence on my own, and I haven't seen any serious challenges to Rolfe's research on this forum.

So it's all on Rolfe's shoulders. :D

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'd certainly agree with this.

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.



Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)



It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy.

I still don't understand why there was so much resistance from government on both sides of the Atlantic to releasing documents and evidence to people like Pan Am, so that for example Pan Am could prepare a defense against the action brought by the families.

I get that there may well be some legitimate "National Security" considerations for some aspects of it, but from the outside layperson looking in it looks very suspicious.

I can tell you that the Intelligence community as a whole is anally secretive with everything. Its sometimes difficult for "US" ( the military and civilian LE) to get information from them and we are on the same side.

I can assure you they dont give a tinkers damn about a civilian lawsuit and wouldnt have lifted a finger even if the alleged information was declassified.

In this case specifically ( based on the information floating around in the day- this was a hot topic) I'm certain they witheld evidence and VERY possibly fabricated/planted some. I cant prove that but I would bet you a weeks pay on it.

Megrahi was a member of the JSO. He was on JSO business in Malta. If he "fully" explains things to authorites here about the nature of that business then doesn't he get nailed to the wall in Libya on his return there for revealing classified information?

If they waited that long- operatives who compromise "the business" generally have very short life spans or their families.

There is no evidence that the bag was even loaded at Malta at all. Or at least none that was presented at trial that wasn't thrown out for coming from a hugely unreliable witness (Giaka)

I personally dont buy that whole line either. I've done too many operations in my day and done my share of explosives/demolitions.

If the story happened like the "witnesses" allege- this guy would qualify for the Darwin Award for Intelligence types.

And the bomb theory? Thats a sick joke. Contrary to Hollywood representations. bombs like this are made by specialists, they are SIMPLE and made from COMMONLY available materials. They are the charge, detonator and trigger/fuse- thats what makes them reliable.

My mind will not allow me to even believe ( much less accept) that PROFESSIONALS ( which these people were) who had ACCESS to everything needed would go to the effort ( not to mention leave the potential for identification should parts be discovered or the bomb itself disarmed) for such a "special" timer and set up when your basic hobbyist could go to Radio Shack and buy/build it for about $10.

Then they want me to believe such a weapon ( which could be discovered, detonate prematurely, get lost, miss its target and a whole lot of things) went around the world in 80 days UNESCORTED?

I dont know what the truth is- but the story as told aint it.

Thats what makes me believe theres a whole lot more known but never released and the guys convicted probably "knew" about it and had a role but not a direct role.

It was clearly a group effort. Megrahi was convicted for buying the clothes packed around the bomb, and going on Gaucis information it's highly likely that it wasn't him, and for being in Malta for unexplained reasons at the material time, despite the prosecution not having any Malta was the point of ingestion.

There is no doubt about it. Thats also assuming the evidence surrounding the "bomb" isnt itself a red herring. ( which I believe to be a STRONG possibility)

He could have been mixed up in it, it's nigh on certain that Libya had a hand in the bombing somehow, but he should not have been convicted on the basis of evidence brought against him at trial. If there is better evidence against him it should have been presented at trial, even if it was presented at a sealed session for "National Security" reasons.


It doesnt work that way in the real world tho despite the fact i agree with you in principal.

It was a circumstantial case- many people have been convicted in the same manner with a whole lot less ( as far as trials go). Also, there is the factor that evidence and information does exist that was witheld and possibly even manipulated. ( you also will never see an intelligence agency trust a courts level of security with sensitive information- courts have no real security)

Also, this guy ( by virtue of position and location) probably was involved at some level he bears responsibility whether he physically did it or not since this was a state sanctioned group act.

I believe that the bomb plot originated with the PFLP-GC, that Libya was mixed up in it somewhere, and that Megrahi was very likely just a politically convenient fall guy

I've heard that version many times- I just dont buy it for a variety of reasons but the main one being that if they had done it, they wouldnt have involved anyone but their group( especially Libya as a security risk). I do believe it was the preferred cover story.

[Rolfe]

I took the fourth option, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, I don't believe the Scottish Courts could get it wrong twice, if the evidence is as clear cut as those who believe Megrahi's innocent keep putting forward. The fact Megrahi dropped his second appeal, despite not needing to in order to get compassionate release, is rather odd too. Add in the stench of conspiracy theory from those who think Megrahi's innocent, and it all adds up to me giving the benefit of the doubt to the legal system.

Scotland isn't some third rate military junta. It's a developed, democratic system with sound legal courts.


That's not an unreasonable position, however you overestimate the quality of the Scottish legal system I'm afraid. The proceedings at Camp Zeist were little short of a national disgrace, and the official UN observer was scathing about the conduct of both the original trial and the first appeal - which was dismissed on a technicality.

Report on original trial (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm)
Report on 1st appeal (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm)

The Scottish legal system does not have a spotless record. Look up the case of Shirley McKie, which is tangentially related to the Megrahi affair - once it makes a mistake and starts covering its backside, heaven help you.

And I live in the place.

The dropping of the sevond appeal is being discussed in the thread in the CT forum, so I won't repeat it all in this one.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

[....] if he didn't do it then release him because he didn't do it.


Elish Angiolini's reaction is entertaining:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8264119.stm


I hope Eilish gets slated in the letters columns tomorrow for that lot. Number Six obviously doesn't know about the history of the court case, but Eilish has no excuse. I thought she was an improvement on the pernicious Boyd, but I'm beginning to wonder.

2001 - Megrahi convicted, with Kochler stating he believed it was a miscarriage of justice.
2002 - First appeal dismissed on "the most technical of technicalities", with Kochler even more condemnatory of the procedure.
2003 - Megrahi files for leave to mount a second appeal.
2003 to 2007 - deathly silence.
2007 - SCCRC grants leave to appeal, citing no less than six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice might have occurred (but oddly, only naming four of these).
2007-2009 - Sterile wrangling about certain documents the defence wishes produced in evidence which the UK government slaps a "public interest immunity certificate" on to keep them secret. Megrahi and his legal team denied access to these documents.
2008 - Megrahi diagnosed with metastatic prostate carcinoma.
April 2009 - Appeal finally gets to court.
May 2009 - Appeal adjourned, because one of the judges is ill. To be recommenced in November. No consideration given to replacing the sick judge, even though the appellant is terminally ill, may have only a short time to live, and it is already six years since leave to appeal was first sought.
July/August 2009 - Megrahi withdraws his appeal, and is granted compassionate release.

Let's leave the question of why he withdrew the appeal for the CT section. However, Eilish is saying his only recourse was to leave the appeal underway, to proceed at its glacial speed, in the hope that he might be acquitted posthumously.

Has she never heard the bit about justice delayed being justice denied?

Can anyone really blame Megrahi if in fact his decision to withdraw the appeal was based on the fact that the material would then no longer be sub judice, and he could put it to the court of public opinion during his lifetime?

If Eilish has some killer evidence to show that he was actually guilty, it's a pity her predecessors never produced it at Camp Zeist.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

He was a part of the function of the bombing and thus guilty.


I would be surprised if Libya and Daffy KaDaffy or any of his people thought it up, planned and executed it- it wasnt his style and it didnt directly benefit him. Its no secret he had a boner for Reagan personally and the US specifically but ( unlike most terrorists) he knew his place in the world stage and greatly feared a US military reprisal plus he was focused on building his country and personal power.


In this case specifically ( based on the information floating around in the day- this was a hot topic) I'm certain they witheld evidence and VERY possibly fabricated/planted some. I cant prove that but I would bet you a weeks pay on it.

[....]

And the bomb theory? Thats a sick joke. Contrary to Hollywood representations. bombs like this are made by specialists, they are SIMPLE and made from COMMONLY available materials. They are the charge, detonator and trigger/fuse- thats what makes them reliable.

My mind will not allow me to even believe ( much less accept) that PROFESSIONALS ( which these people were) who had ACCESS to everything needed would go to the effort ( not to mention leave the potential for identification should parts be discovered or the bomb itself disarmed) for such a "special" timer and set up when your basic hobbyist could go to Radio Shack and buy/build it for about $10.

Then they want me to believe such a weapon ( which could be discovered, detonate prematurely, get lost, miss its target and a whole lot of things) went around the world in 80 days UNESCORTED?

I dont know what the truth is- but the story as told aint it.

Thats what makes me believe theres a whole lot more known but never released and the guys convicted probably "knew" about it and had a role but not a direct role.


I realise I've only excerpted a few snippets of what you say, but I don't really follow you.

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court. Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?
Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

Because, frankly, I can't see any other evidence available to ordinary mortals, and that includes any jury that might hypothetically have been involved, that would indicate Megrahi's guilt.

If he did buy the clothes, he's almost certainly guilty. However, Gauci's identification was never better than tentative, he was prompted shamelessly, and bribed, and his original description of the purchaser was of someone 20 years older and significantly taller than Megrahi.

If the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa, then we have to note that Megrahi was in Luqa that day. (I don't rate the coded passport very strongly, because he was a security officer.) It doesn't prove he put the bomb on the flight, or knew it was going on, but it's at least a connection. But the evidence that there was no stray luggage on KM180 seems watertight.

Beyond that, what do we have against Megrahi? That he had business dealings with MeBo, and it was a fragment of a MeBo timer found in the wreckage. Even if the timer fragment is genuine, the timers were sold to Libya two years before the bombing, and you already said you didn't think this was a Libyan operation. This really doesn't seem a close enough connection to pin guilt on Megrahi.

Is anything left? Do you perhaps believe Giaka? I got the feeling the court would have loved to have believed Giaka, but the evidence that he was a lying toad was simply too strong to ignore.

So with all due respect, I can't see what you're saying. It wasn't a Libyan operation, and it didn't happen the way the Official Story relates, and the evidence was interfered with and manipulated, but nevertheless you have inside information that Megrahi was guilty anyway.

Maybe you need to write a book about this version, everybody else seems to have their book coming out to explain it, so why not?

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I'm presuming the other 13 people voting for Megrahi's guilt on the basis of knowing the evidence are only aware of what the rest of us are aware of. Maybe some of them would like to come up with a straightforward explanation?

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I realise I've only excerpted a few snippets of what you say, but I don't really follow you.

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court. Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?
Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

Because, frankly, I can't see any other evidence available to ordinary mortals, and that includes any jury that might hypothetically have been involved, that would indicate Megrahi's guilt.

If he did buy the clothes, he's almost certainly guilty. However, Gauci's identification was never better than tentative, he was prompted shamelessly, and bribed, and his original description of the purchaser was of someone 20 years older and significantly taller than Megrahi.

If the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa, then Megrahi was in Luqa that day. (I don't rate the coded passport very strongly, because he was a security officer.) It doesn't prove he pput the bomb on the flight, or knew it was going on, but it's at least a connection. But the evidence that there was no stray luggage on KM180 seems watertight.

Beyond that, what do we have against Megrahi? That he had business dealings with MeBo, and it was a fragment of a MeBo timer found in the wreckage. Even if the timer fragment is genuine, the timers were sold to Libya two years before the bombing, and you already said you didn't think this was a Libyan operation. This really doesn't seem a close enough connection to pin guilt on Megrahi.

Is anything left? Do you perhaps believe Giaka? I got the feeling the court would have loved to have believed Giaka, but the evidence that he was a lying toad was simply too strong to ignore.

So with all due respect, I can't see what you're saying. It wasn't a Libyan operation, and it didn't happen the way the Official Story relates, and the evidence was interfered with and manipulated, but nevertheless you have inside information that Megrahi was guilty anyway.

Maybe you need to write a book about this version, everybody else seems to have their book coming out to explain it, so why not?

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I'm presuming the other 13 people voting for Megrahi's guilt on the basis of knowing the evidence are only aware of what the rest of us are aware of. Maybe some of them would like to come up with a straightforward explanation?

Rolfe.

OK, let me try a little different way

First you say you think Megrahi is guilty, but apparently because you have confidential information that never made it to court.

Let me define guilt- I think he is guilty of being a participant in the mission with culpability- I do NOT specifically believe he was the "hands on" guy. Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all) but other ops I was involved with and information in "other areas".

Sorry, with all due respect, the number of people with confidential information about this who have their own theories about what happened would probably fill a 747. I don't know who to believe and who to doubt among all that lot, so I'm not meaning to be rude when I say, get in line.

I'm offering it as information- I'm not attempting to sell it nor am I "certain" its complete.

Then, you seem to have the same doubts as a lot of the rest of us as regards the integrity of the evidence, and the implausibility of the plot alleged by the Official Version. So again, it gets hard to see why you're so sure that Megrahi is guilty. (You speak of "the guys convicted" - you do know there was only one person convicted, right?)

Me personally, I'm convinced the official version is "created" regarding the bomb and its details. ( speaking from a great deal of knowledge on those areas) so I have no problem believing the rest is equally "sanitized" as well. Thats all. ( Having seen it done personally in other places)

My reference to "guys" was in reference to Daffy KaDaffy releasing them for prosecution not their conviction. I'm certain he waited long enough for everyone to get their stories straight.

My reference to his guilt is again- he had a role in it thus culpability.

Do you believe that it was indeed Megrahi who bought these clothes from Tony Gauci?

Dont know but since I personally believe the whole story is a red herring- it wouldnt matter whether he bought them or not.

Do you believe the bomb went into the baggage system at Luqa?

No, I refuse to believe that from reasons of experience. If you believe the "story" regarding its design and construction ( which I dont for a second) I cannot accept that professionals would take so many risks. ( they aint stupid) Too much room for discovery and mission failure or malfunction.


You then go on to say that you don't believe this had anything directly to do with Libya (although I appreciate that you have also said you believe Libya knew about it). Why, in that case, should Megrahi have had any hand in it? The only reason ever advanced for Megrahi having been involved was that he was doing Gadaffi's bidding, presumably to avenge the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the death of his daughter.


Thats not quite how it works over there ( then or now) Daffy and his ducks as well as other countries have a direct support role in terrorism.Everything from intelligence, training,support,money,alibis and the whole shebang.

They do that as insulation from military reprisal. ( him having good reason since he had experienced it)

But in the mean time, this isn't doing it for me. All these inconsistencies and theories and discrepancies and cover-ups, but one anonymous guy on the internet says he knows Megrahi did it on the basis of evidence that nobody else has access to.

I think you misunderstood me- I didnt say that

[Rolfe]

OK, let me try a little different way

Let me define guilt- I think he is guilty of being a participant in the mission with culpability- I do NOT specifically believe he was the "hands on" guy. Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all) but other ops I was involved with and information in "other areas".

I'm offering it as information- I'm not attempting to sell it nor am I "certain" its complete.


Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.

Me personally, I'm convinced the official version is "created" regarding the bomb and its details. ( speaking from a great deal of knowledge on those areas) so I have no problem believing the rest is equally "sanitized" as well. Thats all. ( Having seen it done personally in other places)


I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

For a start, I would have thought this was reasonably convincing as regards involvement of that luggage container.

http://admatch-syndication.mochila.com/pimg/ZUMA_Press__Inc_142340/ZUMA_Press_Inc297063/2008/12/18/COPY_NEG___Lockerbie_bomb_baggag-13442.largeslideshow.jpg

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

My reference to his guilt is again- he had a role in it thus culpability.


But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.

Dont know but since I personally believe the whole story is a red herring- it wouldnt matter whether he bought them or not.


But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.

No, I refuse to believe that from reasons of experience. If you believe the "story" regarding its design and construction ( which I dont for a second) I cannot accept that professionals would take so many risks. ( they aint stupid) Too much room for discovery and mission failure or malfunction.


No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

I also wonder why the entire appearance of the incident, right down to the make and model of the radio-cassette player, and the time of explosion (38 minutes after takeoff) was exactly according to the modus operandi of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt - except for the fragment of the timer. If it wasn't Jibril and his cronies, then how come the Toshiba bom-beat, and the 38-minute detonation? If it was them, then why the MST-13 fragment?

The rest of that train of thought really belongs in the CT section.

I think you misunderstood me- I didnt say that


Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.

If he didn't buy the clothes, and he wasn't at the airport where the bomb was loaded on the day it was loaded, and you don't believe Giaka (or do you? - you didn't say), and you don't even believe that Libya was the prime mover, then there is no evidence that we know of to link him to the incident.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.




I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

For a start, I would have thought this was reasonably convincing as regards involvement of that luggage container.

http://admatch-syndication.mochila.com/pimg/ZUMA_Press__Inc_142340/ZUMA_Press_Inc297063/2008/12/18/COPY_NEG___Lockerbie_bomb_baggag-13442.largeslideshow.jpg

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.




But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.




But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.




No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

I also wonder why the entire appearance of the incident, right down to the make and model of the radio-cassette player, and the time of explosion (38 minutes after takeoff) was exactly according to the modus operandi of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt - except for the fragment of the timer. If it wasn't Jibril and his cronies, then how come the Toshiba bom-beat, and the 38-minute detonation? If it was them, then why the MST-13 fragment?

The rest of that train of thought really belongs in the CT section.




Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.

If he didn't buy the clothes, and he wasn't at the airport where the bomb was loaded on the day it was loaded, and you don't believe Giaka (or do you? - you didn't say), and you don't even believe that Libya was the prime mover, then there is no evidence that we know of to link him to the incident.

Rolfe.

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see you offering any information other than that you think Megrahi was involved in the plot, but not telling us your grounds for that belief, and at the same time rejecting the accounts of what the plot actually was.


Thats because theres a limit to what specifics I can go into without violating my NSA statement. Sorry

I really don't know how far down this rabbit hole to go at all. If you're saying that the bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, in a brown Samsonite suitcase together with a number of pieces of clothing bought from Tony Gauci on either 23rd November or 7th December, which was placed near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041 in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas, then you're denying even the most basic forensics that were performed on the case. Only de Braekeleer, so far as I know, attempts to place the explosion outside the luggage container, and as he has made a number of what seem to me to be errors of fact and reasoning I don't give his theory a great deal of credence.

I'll be direct there. I dont accept it in any part

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

Thats possibly because I have field experience in that specific area and you may not. I'll just say the evidence and its reliability are highly suspect.

But again, you haven't given us a shred of reason for believing he had a role in it.

No and thats why I'm not pressing the point past casual discussion.

A lot of that forensic work was done early in the investigation by ordinary operatives who would have had to be bribed or threatened wholesale for the suitcase story to be fabricated. So I'm having difficulty in seeing where you're comong from here.

Option 3- simply fooled. In the intelligence community bribes and threats carry a high risk of exposure.

Well, what are you saying? Because right now, all I'm reading is that you don't believe even the most basic facts of the case, the ones that haven't been challenged by any but the most way-out CTers, but nevertheless you know (or believe), for reasons you aren't telling us, that Megrahi was involved in the plot.


I assign him guilt and have no problem with it for the same reason it was a state sponsored act thus culpability attaches. Its no different when "I" give an order to fire or authorize the action. I have the attached responsibility even tho I didnt pull the trigger.


But if the clothes were in the suitcase where the bomb was located, then whoever bought them was almost certainly implicated. And if they weren't? Well, for goodness sake, whoever bought them must have been part of the fabrication team. (Well, de Braekeleer seems to think Giaka bought the clothes, which is at least original.) Whichever way you slice it, the identity of the purchaser is relevant.

Yes, it would be relevant IF you believe the states theory- I dont


No, I don't believe it either. Mainly because I don't believe anyone with an MST-13 timer would have set it to go off at 7 o'clock rather than, say, midnight, to allow for the aircraft to have cleared land even if it was several hours late, and especially to reduce the chance of the device exploding on the ground at Heathrow. I'm also rather sceptical that any group would send an unaccompanied device on three flights with two changes of aircraft through three baggage x-ray systems in winter in northern Europe, with a simple non-barometric timer detonator, unless they really had no option. And given what we've heard about luggage security at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, it seems clear they had other options.

Now you are catching on. If this was a "mom and pop" cell doing this as an independant- I could see that and relying on blind luck. Not people at this level

[Rolfe]

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

Yeah, and all the threads protesting about Megrahi's release were started for no other reason than to piss off Scottish posters. Two can play at that game.

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

On the other hand, if it was fabricated, then the whole thing becomes much stranger, just as you suggest - who had motive, means and opportunity to do that? What, precisely, is being covered up?

Lack of political will to foster enmity with Iran in the run-up to Desert Storm?
Failure of intelligence to identify a threat?
Misjudgement in underestimating the threat posed by the PFLP-GC?
Some sort of LIHOP relating to protecting sources?
A MIHOP connected to the South African delegation?
A MIHOP connected to a drugs-for-hostages operation?

I've heard all of these advanced as possibilities. If at least some of the evidence is reliable, then it's possible to make some conclusions. However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

And I still have no idea why you think Megrahi is guilty, if you disbelieve all the evidence in the case including that which links him to it, and don't believe that Libya was even the main operator.

If this is no more than saying, "I think Libya knew about the plot, and Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer, therefore he is guilty", then I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.

Its not so much information regarding this case specifically ( I had no involvement in it at all)


So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

O.... K....

I'm sure there's a book in there somewhere.

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

Yeah, and all the threads protesting about Megrahi's release were started for no other reason than to piss off Scottish posters. Two can play at that game.

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

On the other hand, if it was fabricated, then the whole thing becomes much stranger, just as you suggest - who had motive, means and opportunity to do that? What, precisely, is being covered up?

Lack of political will to foster enmity with Iran in the run-up to Desert Storm?
Failure of intelligence to identify a threat?
Misjudgement in underestimating the threat posed by the PFLP-GC?
Some sort of LIHOP relating to protecting sources?
A MIHOP connected to the South African delegation?
A MIHOP connected to a drugs-for-hostages operation?

I've heard all of these advanced as possibilities. If at least some of the evidence is reliable, then it's possible to make some conclusions. However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

And I still have no idea why you think Megrahi is guilty, if you disbelieve all the evidence in the case including that which links him to it, and don't believe that Libya was even the main operator.

If this is no more than saying, "I think Libya knew about the plot, and Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer, therefore he is guilty", then I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.




So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

O.... K....

I'm sure there's a book in there somewhere.

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

Rolfe.

So all this is just generic "I don't believe a word of it on principle", despite not knowing anything concrete at all? But still believing in Megrahi's guilt, despite not believing any of the evidence, or even in Libya's direct participation.

Thats not it at all. All I said was I didnt have an active role in THIS investigation in any capacity. There were many ops that went along side this one that the information never got over the line.

Why not take this to one of the threads in the CT section, where it would be more appropriate?

I read CT's at times but find most of them too silly to comment on. They have some entertainment value but nothing I'm going to invest any great deal of time with.

Well, "now I'm catching on?" Thanks a bundle, I've been trying to make sense of this lot in the CT section for some time, but apart from a small number of posters genuinely looking for answers, I've just been accused of "starting a thread simply to piss-off US posters".

I dont see you that way at all- just somebody digging to the bottom of it- if it pisses them off, they will get over it

If you think the entire forensic evidence was fabricated, then I don't see what anyone has to go on, and we're wasting our time even speculating.

not fabricated in the sense that the investigators did it- but planted/tainted to lead down a preconstructed road to an alternate conclusion. ( done all the time)

I'm particularly interested in whether the mutitude of assertions that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted in the evidence are credible. If that fragment was real, then it has to be accounted for when trying to make sense of the whole affair, and that's difficult, because even if you accept the three-flights story, why on earth set it for 7pm?

I believe it to be. For a multitude of reasons

However, if the whole thing is fabricated, right down to the most basic forensics done in the first few weeks by the UK authorities, working with the CIA breathing down their necks, then one can get nowhere, beyond asking who fabricated so much evidence, so convincingly, and why?

Its a different set of objectives. A court is interested in bringing criminals to justice. The intelligence community understands that if you take one out- another steps in and you may not find that one.

Also, theres the problem about getting to them

This smells of a sacrificial lamb operation

[Ambrosia]

A court is interested in bringing criminals to justice. The intelligence community understands that if you take one out- another steps in and you may not find that one.

So you're basically saying, that on the basis of work you have done on other ops, and the things you have seen on those lead you to believe that:

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Please correct me where I am wrong.

[LONGTABBER PE]

So you're basically saying, that on the basis of work you have done on other ops, and the things you have seen on those lead you to believe that:

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Please correct me where I am wrong.

Thats essentially correct with a few very minor additions

The "intelligence community" knows who was responsible for bombing 103. Perhaps even as far as knowing in advance and letting it happen for political reasons.

I wont go as far to say "know" ( defined as absolute certainty) because getting accurate/reliable and ENOUGH information out of those groups is almost impossible under the best of circumstances but otherwise yes to a high degree of reasonable certainty.

As to knowing in advance and allowing it- no. They are worthy of most of their reputation but they are "the good guys" and mass murdering isnt something they do. A few select individuals, maybe and probably- random mass casualties like in this case- not a chance. If they really do know about it in advance- it wouldnt have happened. ( as evidenced by all the plots discovered and avoided since 9-11)

That they will make dam sure that they never get close to any court.

Thats yes and no depending on the specific circumstances.

If its a small "mom and pop" group operating independantly or rogue faction then yes. Those are finite entities and when they are done- they are done. They will normally allow LE and the courts to have their way with them.

In the event of state sponsored or complex groups- more than likely no. Even tho I personally dont always like that view- a court and civilian LE simply isnt designed or equipped for things of that nature especially when it directly involves sovereigns, politics and multi national operations.


That any "evidence" in the public domain is so tainted/manipulated as to be worthless.

see above- I answered Rolfe in the CT thread about the timer issue and why I feel IN THIS CASE the evidence is in fact fabricated.

Simply because it's much easier to keep tabs on those specific people who are known, to potentially prevent a n other terrorist act in the future and perhaps save many more lives.

That is the best method. The first goal is always to protect the public. If that means they "get away" at the cost of a no "body count"- thats a win

Also that Megrahi is very likely involved either with terror plots, perhaps not Lockerbie specifically, but has hands dirty enough that he deserves to be jailed. That the intelligence community wouldn't just pin the whole thing on some random innocent, that there is "method to their madness"

Thats how I see it. I have never seen or heard of anyone being "framed" that was a true innocent ( of everything). It would be difficult to do and hard to prove.

[Rolfe]

Thats how I see it. I have never seen or heard of anyone being "framed" that was a true innocent ( of everything). It would be difficult to do and hard to prove.


Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.

This from yesterday's Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6841390.ece).

A report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), due to be published later this year, is said to suggest that the testimony of Abdul Majid Giaka, a paid informer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should have been discounted by judges at Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s trial in the Hague in 2001.

Giaka testified that Megrahi was an agent for the Jamahiriya Security Organisation (JSO), the Libyan intelligence service. He claimed to have seen Megrahi carrying a suitcase containing the bomb used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie in December 1988 killing 270 people, and to have discussed the plot with him.

[....]

The judges at Camp Zeist in The Hague discounted most of Giaka’s testimony on the grounds that his co-operation with the American authorities was “largely motivated by financial considerations”. However, they accepted his testimony that Megrahi was a member of the JSO, a suggestion the accused denied.

[....]

A source who has seen the SCCRC document, told The Sunday Times: “The report says there was no sufficient explanation made of why the court discounted him as a credible witness yet seemed to accept elements within his evidence which asserted that Megrahi was a senior member of the Libyan intelligence service and was involved in the wider conspiracy.

“There was no actual evidence to support that, but the court accepted it. It undermined [probably a typo for "underlined"] the Crown’s narrative of the offence — that Megrahi was acting on behalf of Libyan intelligence. That information came from Giaka and all his other evidence was utterly discredited — yet they accepted that element.”

[....]

At the trial, Megrahi’s defence team denied their client was employed by the JSO and dismissed Giaka’s testimony as “pure fantasy”.


Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. On these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.

This article, however, calls that into question. It asserts that the only place that information came from was Giaka. Giaka, who had been a humble motor mechanic who helped maintain JSO vehicles, but who thought he could feather his nest by pretending to the CIA that he was a senior JSO official willing to pass on information to them. Giaka, whose subsequent job was a station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, and who would naturally have known Megrahi (Head of Airline Security) and Fhimah (a Libyan Arab Airlines manager at Luqa). Giaka needed someone to make up stories about, and seems to have picked on Megrahi and Fhimah.

Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.





Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. In these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.


Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

Rolfe.

Heres where the "we will never know for sure" part comes in

Is that what is basically comes down to? That if he was capable of being framed, he must have been involved in some way?

No, framing is a risky business. Theres always the possibility the frame will be discovered ( worst scenario) and expose operatives or the alibi ( which a real innocent person will probably have to some degree since they in fact are innocent) will carry the day. If you intend to frame with the expectation it will work- you had damn well better start from the premise that there is already reasonable suspicion and you just "prod" it along.

I found out something today that I was unaware of. Megrahi has never admitted to being a member of the JSO; on the contrary he has always strenuously denied it. That doesn't meant he wasn't of course, but it does mean we have to look at the evidence.

This is where the rules change and the "evidence" ( as defined by legal standards) cannot carry the day. Contrary to Hollywood- real intelligence operatives( in the field) almost always have "day jobs", careers, families and so forth. This builds in plausible denial as well as it makes them "fit" in the community. You "always" notice a "new guy".

I wouldnt expect him to admit it ( that would get him killed by his own probably) or deny it either.

You cant go by the "evidence" either because its common for operatives to have detailed ( government supported) false life histories ( I mean that would pass any background check and YES the bad guys use them too and run background checks) that are detailed and go from birth to present. Those things are THERE to be found.

Then of course you have the "non employee" sympathisizers who do it part time ( the hardest ones of all to identify because unless you have access to top secret information- they arent in the system)

Dont look for proof positive from the intelligence community

Megrahi's "day job" was Head of Airline Security for Libyan Arab Airlines. I admit I had assumed that the information he was also a JSO operative was soundly based. In these grounds, I was always inclined to think that he was probably no angel, and even if he wasn't involved in the PA103 bombing at all, he probably had a hand in other unsavoury affairs.

That alone would make him a prime candidate

Unless you have more information, it seems to me that the widely-held belief that Megrahi was indeed an intelligance officer and possibly up to no good on that account, is not necessarily well grounded.

all I can say that I know to be true ( and it aint much) is that he has come up before.

The biggest thing that leads me to believe his hands are dirty ( without debating degrees of dirt) is Libya's actions. They refused to extradite him for a long time then after negotiations did. Thats plenty of time for sterilization and dirty deals done dirt cheap.

If he was truly innocent ( which would mean he would also be wholly ignorant of everything and couldnt spill any beans) then theres no reason to protect him because the state wouldnt have much of anything.

If he was dirty as mud- releasing him would be a death sentence plus run the risk of him dealing to save his neck and compromise "other" things.

They met in the middle- that tells me more likely than not the events were altered and he stood his own. To me, that smells of a lot of behind the scenes activities.

Maybe you've never heard of anyone being framed who wasn't involved in some way, but I can actually see how it might have happened in this case.

if by frame- you mean an "out of the blue" frame- thats doubtful- a "prodding" frame is a different story

[Rolfe]

I honestly don't know. I agree that Head of Airline Security would be a reasonable cover for a JSO operative. I simply hadn't been aware that this had been consistently denied, or that Giaka was the only source for the allegation.

I'd agree that if Libya really did have some involvement in the bombing, then it's not an unreasonable inference that he knew something about it. I'm not entirely convinced that Libya did in fact have any significant role, however. And I still believe that the evidence as presented at Camp Zeist was wholly inadequate to support a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt".

The single piece of evidence that has made me a little suspicious about all this comes, ironically enough, from Saif Gadaffi.

INTERVIEWER (BBC)
What do you believe?
INTERVIEWEE (Saif Gadaffi)
I believe in one thing, that someone bombed Pan Am 103?
INTERVIEWER
Was it - was it your intelligence agent, Mr Megrahi?
INTERVIEWEE
I think that there was – there was a crime, and I’m sure there are criminals, who they are I don’t know.
INTERVIEWER
In your view, though, was Mr Megrahi one of them?
INTERVIEWEE
I don’t think so.
INTERVIEWER
You don’t think so?
INTERVIEWEE
I don’t think that – that poor guy is – is behind that sophisticated operation, don’t think so.
INTERVIEWER
The prosecution said that he was part of that conspiracy to bomb, because he was the man who had actually planted the suitcase with the bomb inside.
INTERVIEWEE
And a prosecutor is a prosecutor, his job is to find him guilty and he can, he can – he can say whatever he wants. But I’m sure that that poor guy he is not sophisticated and clever, and clever enough to carry out that job.
INTERVIEWER
Do you think the real story will ever come out?
INTERVIEWEE
One day.
INTERVIEWER
And do you think it has anything to do with Libya?
INTERVIEWEE
Again I hope not, I think not. But one day we’ll get the real story.


I don't recognise that characterisation of Megrahi. Fhimah, perhaps, but not Megrahi.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

Second off topic thought:-
When a conviction is later overturned in either Scots or UK courts - is any investigation made of the legal teams / judges / juries in the original trial?
In the case of new evidence changing an apparently safe conviction, well that would seem to be unavoidable on occasion- but for example, if the defence team had access to that evidence but failed to use it, are they in any legal sense held culpable?

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'd agree that if Libya really did have some involvement in the bombing, then it's not an unreasonable inference that he knew something about it. I'm not entirely convinced that Libya did in fact have any significant role, however. And I still believe that the evidence as presented at Camp Zeist was wholly inadequate to support a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt".
The single piece of evidence that has made me a little suspicious about all this comes, ironically enough, from Saif Gadaffi.

Rolfe.

I dont dispute that ( much) but I have seen it deeply from both sides, have a true conflict of conscience with what I'm about to say but have to point out that they are 2 totally different roles.

The difference is in magnatude,resource and potential danger

In the case of John or Jane criminal or even organized crime- I agree. LE and the courts as well as individual rights trump everything else ( even tho the guilty often get away)

However in the case of organized terrorism with or without state support- all the rules and risks change.

First, criminals generally have a profit motive and dont generally attack the populace at large, inflict random terror, kill for agendas( in mass i mean), target innocents or whatever. They dont commit crimes for "no reason"- they want the money.

The odds of the mafia or even drug lords investing the money and all to build or buy an atom bomb just for the sake of "killing Americans" is very LOW.

Terrorists are a different animal altogether. They will do all of the above if they can. Like the terminator- thats what they are programmed to do and they WILL NOT STOP. There is no reasoning, intimidating or negotiating with them.

They dont fight by the rules ( even criminals have some rules at times) or care who or what they destroy in their wake.

They also have state support from adverse governments ( I hope nobody believes that terrorist cells could even exist without state level financing,training and support)

To mandate that they be treated as or fought like conventional criminals and hold those agencies to the letter of the law as you would Gotti is a death sentence for innocents.

Yes, that exponentially multiplies a lot of bad things and rights infringements and other dirty things. I know that as i type it. ( one of my internal conflicts when i think about this crap)

If you have to have the letter of the law as in the judicial system with all of its evidenciary standards and protections- dont be surprised or bitch about 9-11 or 9-12 or 13 and 14 when they happen. They WILL because those who do it know our laws ( weaknesses in their minds) will exploit them and continue to kill and laugh about it.

The other side is equally as bad. You cannot allow witch hunts and actions without support. You have to fight fire with fire and meet them at their level.

There is no "good" or "right' answer- only the lesser of 2 evils. You cannot have it both ways. I guess the end question is: Which way do YOU want it?

I find the only workable way is to let them do their jobs ( even when bad things happen- define them as you see fit) but keep a TIGHT LEASH on them at ALL TIMES. ( lest they become the enemy)

If anyone has a better answer that will WORK and protect the innocent masses from entities that kill for the sake of inflicting terror and no legitimate cause- I'm all ears

[Jungle Jim]

Like most things, theres some truth to that- back when this was happening, I was fully in the system and operating in this theater



You get information on these plans "most' of the time- its a question of how much of it is an empty threat ( wishful thinking) or an actual operation. Then theres the question of what exact flight.

Its always an educated guess so it shouldnt surprise anyone that if there was a potential risk- people would be rerouted. Doesnt mean anyone "knew" this flight would go down but there was reason to expect "A" flight would.



Please educate me. Military personnel, as well as a South Africa delegation, were allegedly rerouted from the Pan Am flight. You contend this was normal as no one knew which flight was targeted, just that "A" flight might be targeted. So what about the 100 or more flights across Europe on that day, were military personnel rerouted from them? And how were the presumably safer flights they were rerouted on determined? Oh, and I don't want you to compromise your security clearances. A general overview will suffice.

[Ambrosia]

entities that kill for the sake of inflicting terror and no legitimate cause

To play devils advocate for a moment. There are next to no people that do stuff without a "legitimate cause"

In the case of the PFLP-GC Jibril founded this group in '67 to fight the Israeli occupation of palestine.

He's an evil murdering bastard for sure, but from his point of view he fights a "just cause"

How much trouble the world stored up for itself by creating Israel is another topic and could fill pages upon pages.

History is replete with examples of religous based "just causes" where (usually white) people take over entire countries and exterminate the natives. Only because they write the history books it's all OK(?)

Spanish Inquisition, British Empire, American Colonisation, South Africa, Israel, etc etc etc.

We create "just causes" often, then we marginalise people to such an extent where they feel their only recourse is violence. The worlds a complicated and murky place and working out solutions for these problems is difficult to nigh on impossible.

/devils advocate

Of course govts have a duty to protect their citizens, the best way to actually do this is far from black and white as well.

[Caustic Logic]

It's true that al megrahi's touted intelligence agent qualifications are based on allegations only. One small point I picked up a while back, before Rolfe, haha!

If you intend to frame with the expectation it will work- you had damn well better start from the premise that there is already reasonable suspicion and you just "prod" it along.

Too bad we have no other grounds except fabricated, planted, and paid for informaion to base this reasonable suspicion on.

Contrary to Hollywood- real intelligence operatives( in the field) almost always have "day jobs", careers, families and so forth. This builds in plausible denial as well as it makes them "fit" in the community. You "always" notice a "new guy".

Yeah, and IF he were an agent of the JSO, as paid liar Giaka and no one else I know of has claimed, which is possible in the stopped clock sense, he would be more suspect of involvement in shady operations, as well as having the day job just for cover. Too bad, again, this is such a big friggin' IF. Hey, do intel agents routinely pay people to implicate them AS intel officers sloppily and get the testimony tossed out? because THAT might fit the pattern here (with a big backfire of course).
ETA: The "Hollywood" part reads a little condescending.

I wouldnt expect him to admit it ( that would get him killed by his own probably) or deny it either.

Well he's denied it. So that would mean what to you?

You cant go by the "evidence" either because its common for operatives to have detailed ( government supported) false life histories
I'm sorry, but I think you might be getting ridiculous at this point. A lot of what you're saying rings totally true and amazingly insightful, and I'm glad to hear your thoughts on this fascinating new subject. At other times, it seems like you're just mixing and matching bits of reality and speculation to form some intriguing/absolving/dazzling/confusing scenario that allows you to be more right than everyone else combined based on experience and smarts and not "selling" anything. ??? I don't mean to be too critical, but I'm really confused here.

[JihadJane]

For 9/11 for example much evidence has been released about it from government sources, evidence which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 9/11 CTs are bunk.



A ridiculous assertion.

[Ambrosia]

Well if you want to be pedantic I suppose.

How about "evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the overwhelming majority of 9/11 CTs are bunk"

In either case going more into that here is way off topic and there's a whole subforum that such a thread would be much better suited in.

[Aepervius]

However in the case of organized terrorism with or without state support- all the rules and risks change.




I fully disagree. By creating a class of crime where basic right are lost, you are openning those right not to be anymore universal right supported by the governement but simply "option" one can override by accusing somebody of the "correct crime" (BTW if this interrest you I do not think there are ANY universal right, only those a society afford to its individual which compose it).

A right of the accused should not change whatever the crime. Be it a simple Murder or terrorism. If this means a few terrorist avoid prison, SO BE IT. You may want to give different punishment depending on the crime, but UNTIL conviction everybody should have the same right.

To give you an analogy, ACLU support freedom of speech to everybody evene those which by excellence says the most terrible and hateful things. I support the right of accused to have the same right as other criminal no matter the crime.

The same hold true IMHO for any of the other rules. Nothing change with terrorism.

ETA: the fact that people give terrorism a higher recognition, is what make them shake in their boot, especially with media bombarding. If it was recognized for the rare crime it was and equated to simple multiple murder, it would not be so sucessful in the west, since it is so rare. But look at the media fray. Look at all the liberty lost due to those special rules. It is a shame really. Terrorism is the new booman , the new "scare". By attributing special rule tos earch a crime, you FALL into that scare.

[Rolfe]

It's true that al megrahi's touted intelligence agent qualifications are based on allegations only. One small point I picked up a while back, before Rolfe, haha!

Too bad we have no other grounds except fabricated, planted, and paid for informaion to base this reasonable suspicion on.


There is one other point. The coded passport (note, this was issued to him, it wasn't a forgery). This doesn't seem to have been especially secret, and as a means of concealing that Megrahi was in Malta on 21st December, it was a miserable failure. Nevertheless, it existed.

I'm inclined to put little significance on this, because the chances of the bomb suitcase having gone into the system at Luqa seem to be remote in the extreme. So if Megrahi was in Malta that day, as he in fact was, that arguably places him away from the suitcase rather than implicating him.

Nevertheless, the fact that he was travelling on a coded passport at all suggests some sort of nefarious activity, and possibly supports the suggestion that he was JSO.

However, as regards actual guilt over Lockerbie (as opposed to over something else unspecified), I'm very much influenced by Robert Black here. He is one of the few people who is genuinely familiar with all the evidence in intimate detail, and he has gone on record as saying he believes Camp Zeist convicted an innocent man, as opposed to there simply being insufficient evidence to convict someone who was possibly guilty.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

It's true that al megrahi's touted intelligence agent qualifications are based on allegations only. One small point I picked up a while back, before Rolfe, haha!



Too bad we have no other grounds except fabricated, planted, and paid for informaion to base this reasonable suspicion on.



Yeah, and IF he were an agent of the JSO, as paid liar Giaka and no one else I know of has claimed, which is possible in the stopped clock sense, he would be more suspect of involvement in shady operations, as well as having the day job just for cover. Too bad, again, this is such a big friggin' IF. Hey, do intel agents routinely pay people to implicate them AS intel officers sloppily and get the testimony tossed out? because THAT might fit the pattern here (with a big backfire of course).
ETA: The "Hollywood" part reads a little condescending.



Well he's denied it. So that would mean what to you?


I'm sorry, but I think you might be getting ridiculous at this point. A lot of what you're saying rings totally true and amazingly insightful, and I'm glad to hear your thoughts on this fascinating new subject. At other times, it seems like you're just mixing and matching bits of reality and speculation to form some intriguing/absolving/dazzling/confusing scenario that allows you to be more right than everyone else combined based on experience and smarts and not "selling" anything. ??? I don't mean to be too critical, but I'm really confused here.

Too bad we have no other grounds except fabricated, planted, and paid for informaion to base this reasonable suspicion on.

Thats the difference between "we" and "they". Thats why you cant accept any released information at its face value.

Yeah, and IF he were an agent of the JSO, as paid liar Giaka and no one else I know of has claimed, which is possible in the stopped clock sense, he would be more suspect of involvement in shady operations, as well as having the day job just for cover. Too bad, again, this is such a big friggin' IF. Hey, do intel agents routinely pay people to implicate them AS intel officers sloppily and get the testimony tossed out? because THAT might fit the pattern here (with a big backfire of course).
ETA: The "Hollywood" part reads a little condescending.

I have stated ( but apparently not clear enough) that I have no problem accepting the premise that he may be a scapegoat. I just dont believe it based on what I've heard over the years. There was a reason he was connected so early on.

What tilts the scales for me ( just an observers opinion) is his eventual release for trial and the time inbetween. I dont believe he was released by Daffy KaDaffy for any sense of "justice"- it all seems like some kind of behind the scenes action to me.

Well he's denied it. So that would mean what to you?

Nothing- the only thing I would accept ( either way) is his career file, associates, travels and such. He could be what we used to refer to as a "ghost in the machine".

I'm sorry, but I think you might be getting ridiculous at this point.

Dont see why. I myself have one. Most operators ( especially Delta) do, every undercover type I've ever known did and its done all the time in witness protection. Contrary to what the books at Paladin press say ( yeah we read them- thats how many get caught LOL) The only way to "hide" or truly be covert in this day and age is a true alternate identity. It also has to be in conjunction to government agencies as well ( if you want it to pass)

This sad point was really rammed home when it was discovered that most of the DEA agents outed and killed down south were discovered because they didnt go deep enough. Thats when FLE got the message too.

At other times, it seems like you're just mixing and matching bits of reality and speculation to form some intriguing/absolving/dazzling/confusing scenario that allows you to be more right than everyone else combined based on experience and smarts and not "selling" anything. ??? I don't mean to be too critical, but I'm really confused here

No, just knowing how the system works and the tools they routinely use.

Just as an example right now this second. Come over here to any ODA compound. All the operators have full beards, long hair, travel in civies ( depending on the op) and many live in the cities. ( terps too). Back in my day, we were even called "long hair" teams.

See, we ( and they) live in a world where "non conformity" and "mix and match" is the normal daily routine. Thats why these are "unconventional" forces. What often appears to be "odd" to outsiders is SOP. The fact many dont accept it as true shows how well it actually works.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I fully disagree. By creating a class of crime where basic right are lost, you are openning those right not to be anymore universal right supported by the governement but simply "option" one can override by accusing somebody of the "correct crime" (BTW if this interrest you I do not think there are ANY universal right, only those a society afford to its individual which compose it).

A right of the accused should not change whatever the crime. Be it a simple Murder or terrorism. If this means a few terrorist avoid prison, SO BE IT. You may want to give different punishment depending on the crime, but UNTIL conviction everybody should have the same right.

To give you an analogy, ACLU support freedom of speech to everybody evene those which by excellence says the most terrible and hateful things. I support the right of accused to have the same right as other criminal no matter the crime.

The same hold true IMHO for any of the other rules. Nothing change with terrorism.

ETA: the fact that people give terrorism a higher recognition, is what make them shake in their boot, especially with media bombarding. If it was recognized for the rare crime it was and equated to simple multiple murder, it would not be so sucessful in the west, since it is so rare. But look at the media fray. Look at all the liberty lost due to those special rules. It is a shame really. Terrorism is the new booman , the new "scare". By attributing special rule tos earch a crime, you FALL into that scare.


This is where the rules change. Terrorists are "criminal" in the dictionary sense true. However, the organization, make up, methods and such are not.

In addition, their goals and such arent "criminal" in the literal sense either.

Also, they have official governments backing and support.

They are an army ( by definition)- just an un-uniformed one and not under a specific flag of a nation

[Taarkin]

What crazy definition of "army" are you using that includes all terrorists?

[ddt]

I fully disagree. By creating a class of crime where basic right are lost, you are openning those right not to be anymore universal right supported by the governement but simply "option" one can override by accusing somebody of the "correct crime" (BTW if this interrest you I do not think there are ANY universal right, only those a society afford to its individual which compose it).

A right of the accused should not change whatever the crime. Be it a simple Murder or terrorism. If this means a few terrorist avoid prison, SO BE IT. You may want to give different punishment depending on the crime, but UNTIL conviction everybody should have the same right.

To give you an analogy, ACLU support freedom of speech to everybody evene those which by excellence says the most terrible and hateful things. I support the right of accused to have the same right as other criminal no matter the crime.

The same hold true IMHO for any of the other rules. Nothing change with terrorism.

ETA: the fact that people give terrorism a higher recognition, is what make them shake in their boot, especially with media bombarding. If it was recognized for the rare crime it was and equated to simple multiple murder, it would not be so sucessful in the west, since it is so rare. But look at the media fray. Look at all the liberty lost due to those special rules. It is a shame really. Terrorism is the new booman , the new "scare". By attributing special rule tos earch a crime, you FALL into that scare.

QFT - on all counts.

I may have missed some of the details in LE's posts, but I think his basic stance comes down to: "we in the intelligence community know X did it, but we can't tell you for other reasons". That's not the way it works. Evidence is only evidence if it's public - that's the way our justice system works. If you can't release your evidence to the public, it doesn't count and it means the guy is not guilty - period. You can't compromise on that aspect of our system - that's the way to a dictatorship where the justice system can't anymore be held accountable by the public.

LE also claims that "the intelligence community" can't release this sensitive information because you want to get to the higher-ups in the terrorist organization - and that this aspect is unique to terrorism too. Correct me if I got that wrong.

That's not unique to terrorism either. Take organized drug crime for instance. As law enforcement, you're not really interested in convicting the drug runners who hide a few grams of cocaine in their stomachs, or in the local drug dealers who operate on the streets - you're interested in the big bosses behind it. At least, that's the way the Dutch justice system and the Dutch public views it.

So, what do you? You let police officers infiltrate in drug gangs. In order to be credible to the rest of the gang, these officers will let shipments of drugs they know about get through, but also trade in drugs themselves or do other criminal acts. When there's not enough oversight over the police officers by their superiors, the DA's and the judges, they'll go way out of line in the way they operate. This is exactly what happened with the Dutch "IRT team", an investigation team that was set up in the end of the 1980s to combat drug crime. The methods they used were exactly as described above, and came to light after a new chief of police didn't want to carry responsibility for it and a Parliamentary enquiry in 1995 looked into it.

The aims are identical, whether it be terrorism or drug trafficking or other organized crime - you want to get the big bosses. The only thing that differs is that law enforcement must answer to public scrutiny, and intelligence agencies don't have to. It makes you wonder, however, what unsavoury methods they use and, instead of letting a shipment of drugs through, letting terrorist organizations they know about carry on while they have evidence to put them in jail.

[LONGTABBER PE]

QFT - on all counts.

I may have missed some of the details in LE's posts, but I think his basic stance comes down to: "we in the intelligence community know X did it, but we can't tell you for other reasons". That's not the way it works. Evidence is only evidence if it's public - that's the way our justice system works. If you can't release your evidence to the public, it doesn't count and it means the guy is not guilty - period. You can't compromise on that aspect of our system - that's the way to a dictatorship where the justice system can't anymore be held accountable by the public.

LE also claims that "the intelligence community" can't release this sensitive information because you want to get to the higher-ups in the terrorist organization - and that this aspect is unique to terrorism too. Correct me if I got that wrong.

That's not unique to terrorism either. Take organized drug crime for instance. As law enforcement, you're not really interested in convicting the drug runners who hide a few grams of cocaine in their stomachs, or in the local drug dealers who operate on the streets - you're interested in the big bosses behind it. At least, that's the way the Dutch justice system and the Dutch public views it.

So, what do you? You let police officers infiltrate in drug gangs. In order to be credible to the rest of the gang, these officers will let shipments of drugs they know about get through, but also trade in drugs themselves or do other criminal acts. When there's not enough oversight over the police officers by their superiors, the DA's and the judges, they'll go way out of line in the way they operate. This is exactly what happened with the Dutch "IRT team", an investigation team that was set up in the end of the 1980s to combat drug crime. The methods they used were exactly as described above, and came to light after a new chief of police didn't want to carry responsibility for it and a Parliamentary enquiry in 1995 looked into it.

The aims are identical, whether it be terrorism or drug trafficking or other organized crime - you want to get the big bosses. The only thing that differs is that law enforcement must answer to public scrutiny, and intelligence agencies don't have to. It makes you wonder, however, what unsavoury methods they use and, instead of letting a shipment of drugs through, letting terrorist organizations they know about carry on while they have evidence to put them in jail.

Good way of putting it and basically correct.

They are both similar but there are a few differences. Its at the ORGANIZATIONAL level and civilians dont understand the difference.

You want to stop a CRIMINAL- you arrest and prosecute the MAN

You want to stop CRIME- you have to attack the entire infrastructure. Theres no other way.

2 totally different things and sets of rules.

In this case ( terrorism specifically)- the individual terrorist ( or small cell) isnt the main focus.

You take them out- 20 replace them. Its a never ending battle and resource drain that we will eventually lose if for no other reason than logistics.( people bitch because it happens- they bitch because we didnt know about it or stop it, you cant win)

Taking out the organization and infrastructure is a long and drawn out process that ( by nature of what it is) requires a lot of "unsavory" and even downright illegal things to get everything you need to know to do it.

I'm not arguing "right or wrong" because in the eyes of the law its "wrong" and there are no 2 ways about it.

If you want to assign fault or guilt- is the true guilty party the agencies who are fighting it or the evil that created the system that dictates the tactics that have to be used?

If you didnt have drug cartels- you wouldnt need the DEA

If you didnt have terrorists and spies- you wouldnt need the CIA and Delta

If you didnt have state sponsors- you wouldnt need to break all those rules.

Since THEY have dropped the fight in our laps- THEY dictate the terms of engagement.

People want a neat and tidy solution to an "evil" problem- it aint happening.

So, if those who bitch and moan dont mind being at the mercy of terrorists and have no issue with large body counts- thats fine, I know a lot of agents and operators who would like other jobs that are much safer.

THEY arent going to stop unless WE stop them.

What do you want?

Do you want to be at the mercy of the wolf and hope he isnt hungry when its your turn?

You want the hunter to use whatever means the wolf dictates to eradicate him so you dont have to worry?

You cant have it BOTH ways- make a decision and inform us so we can inform the wolf. We and the wolf will both appreciate the guidance.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, that's the conclusion I've come to.

Rolfe.
What a pity you weren't on the jury, eh? You'd have set things to rights. :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

What a pity you weren't on the jury, eh? You'd have set things to rights. :rolleyes:

There was no jury. :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

What he said. No jury. Three judges who seem to have been very much vested in supporting the establishment line. Three judges who owed their positions to the Lord Advocate - the guy bringing the prosecution. Three judges who really, really didn't want the embarrassment of an acquittal after a ten-year hiatus during which we'd all been told there was "incontrovertible evidence" if only it could be brought to court. (Pity they gave us the embarrassment of a kangaroo court instead.)

Why don't you have a look at some of the evidence - in particular the evidence that shows the suitcase pretty much definitely couldn't have been put into the system at Luqa, and the extraordinarily tentative nature of Gauci's identification (he actually never identified Megrahi at all - he just said he looked like the man, but was too young).

The evidence surrounding the timer fragment is for the CT forum, quite frankly.

Why don't you look at the report of the official UN observer of the trial? Main web site. (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm) Report on the main trial. (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm) Report on the first appeal. (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm)

From the main report.

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. The trial has effectively created more confusion than clarity and no rational observer can make any statement on the complex subject matter "beyond any reasonable doubt."


From the report on the appeal.

From the circumstances of the appeal described above (as well as from the circumstances of the trial itself described and analyzed in the undersigned’s report of 3 February 2001) it is evident that the appellant did not get a fair trial according to the requirements of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


That was kind of my point. That people are pontificating and taking up positions on this subject with little or no knowledge of the circumstances. That someone should express an opinion from the extraordinarily ignorant position of not even knowing that the defendant was denied the right to a trial by jury almost beggars belief.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

Be fair. Two of the five poll options start with the words "I'm not familiar with the evidence but..."

In my case I recall at the time thinking the trial was (to use a legal term) ...bogus,
- but I am not familiar with the evidence and only kicked in my 2 cents worth because you put those options in the poll.

[Darth Rotor]

There was no jury. :rolleyes:

What a pity ...

[Rolfe]

I'll be glad to

This was a case of state sponsored terrorism rather than an isolated group or individual.

There were also a lot of things discovered regarding other people and activities that never went into the public view.

He was a part of the function of the bombing and thus guilty.

There was also circumstantial evidence ( his false passport and his never fully explaining things about another trip) that makes hin suspect.

That said, more likely than not, he didnt directly plan it, build it and probably wasnt the mole at the airport who loaded it- I'm reasonably sure it was a group effort.

Honestly- as far as the literal whodunnit- even from intelligence gathered that I personally know to be true- a lot of people ( myself included) believe the actual plan and execution was done by Abu Nidal and his group merely under the auspices of Libya but then they realized there might be military ramifications- they sacrificed their officers for trial. I dont have enough information to say for certain he is the "true" guilty party ( or one of his guys actually) but it would shock me if he wasnt deep into it somewhere.


OK, I know, zombie thread. I just wanted to remark that the only person who voted for the second option (even though he didn't actually believe Megrahi was directly involved), and was prepared to come on the thread and explain the reasons for his choice, has had his claim (of inside security service knowledge) and credentials (industrial-grade military connected to special forces) seriously questioned.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone who checked the second option as to what it is about the evidence that leads them to believe Megrahi actually was "The Lockerbie Bomber".

Rolfe.

[Slayhamlet]

Is it just me, or does Planet X sound curiously like planet earth? Realistically speaking, of course.

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, you may choose to think so, I couldn't possibly comment.... :nope:

Rolfe.