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 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, and Robert Black, 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 and one on the appeal) 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]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

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]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Agreed

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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.

Originally Posted by Number Six

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.

Originally Posted by Number Six

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'.

Originally Posted by Number Six

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Geoffrey Roberson, QC, had an interesting opinion peice in the Sydney Morning Herald 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]

Originally Posted by Architect

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.) 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
I saw the Lockerbie trial, and the verdict made no sense
Compassionate release in Scotland: the actual policy and the law
Why Libya welcomed Megrahi
Megrahi's 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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_S...ms_of_divinity
and took to wearing a dress
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...36_224x532.jpg

[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.)

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.
.

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

[Number Six]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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 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]

Originally Posted by Giz

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]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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]

Originally Posted by 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'?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Number Six

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Giz

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.