Do you think Megrahi did it?

[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]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

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]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

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!

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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!



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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

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]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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

There was no jury.

[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. Report on the main trial. Report on the first appeal.

From the main report.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by GlennB

There was no jury.

What a pity ...

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

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....

Rolfe.