Lockerbie bomber: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

[Govangirl]

Eeeeeek. Sorry, I was a bit stupid and thought wrongly that you were saying the whole decision has got nothing to do with the 'PC brigade' and that they should keep out of the discussion. What an idiot. I'm even making a hash out of explaining it Sorry.

[bill]

I think most people believe though the decision to free AlMegrahai was announced by the Scottish Minister of Justice it was the British Government pulling the strings from Westminster.When it is proven that that is indeed the case,I would then like to know why Lybia has never handed over to Britain the gunman who murdered PC YVONNE FLETCHER.
The killing, which led to the formal severing of relations with Libya, and following the release of al Megrahi remains one of the key pieces of unfinished business between London and Tripoli.

The mother of PC Yvonne Fletcher, who once met Col. Gaddafi in his desert tent to discuss the case,can surely hope that Gaddafi will show her the same compassion,and hand the suspected killer to the British courts to stand trial.

[Ranald]

I think most people believe though the decision to free AlMegrahai was announced by the Scottish Minister of Justice it was the British Government pulling the strings from Westminster.

I think most people believe wrong then. Does anyone really think that a deal between the SNP and or London Labour and Libya would be kept secret? The Tories and Lib Dems for a start would be all over it. They've been bad enough as it is.

I love the way everyone is ignoring or won't accept the fact that McAskill was simply following the law when he made his decision.

[bassett]

I love the way everyone is ignoring or won't accept the fact that McAskill was simply following the law when he made his decision.

If only life was so simple.Politicians are the most duplicitous of people,the very nature of being in power means you have to lay down with the devil to walk with the angels.It's one helluva coincidece that Peter Mandleson met with Gaddafi's son,and heir apparent,two weeks prior to the release.

I think most people believe though the decision to free AlMegrahai was announced by the Scottish Minister of Justice it was the British Government pulling the strings from Westminster.When it is proven that that is indeed the case,I would then like to know why Lybia has never handed over to Britain the gunman who murdered PC YVONNE FLETCHER.

Good point,for sure as hell Gaddafi knows the identity of the shooter.

[hugh]

McAskill was simply following the law when he made his decision.

No he wasn't. The law only allows him to make a decision. It doesn't tell him which decision to make.

And I'll believe a deal was made until I hear a plausible eplanation as to why Megrahi abandoned an appeal based on new evidence in the weeks [b]before[b] MacAskill supposedly made his decision.

I'm not having a go at the S.N.P., by the way, I just think this whole thing stinks without turning into a nationalist issue.

[Tom B]

The alternate boycott scotland site....


http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/

[Sheik Yir Erse]

And I'll believe a deal was made until I hear a plausible eplanation as to why Megrahi abandoned an appeal based on new evidence in the weeks before MacAskill supposedly made his decision.

Plausible explanation:

As I understand the process, you cannot be considered for compassionate release whilst you have any outstanding actions in the legal system. Al Megrahi was informed by his legal team that, in order to be given any chance of release before dying, he would have to drop his appeal. If you look at the words of his statement he refers to this as he now has no chance of clearing his name after his death.

I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.

So he could have died in prison and his appeal could have continued, or he could give up on his appeal to be considered for release.

His legal team are now considering making the evidence they have gathered available to the public. One of the key pieces of information being about Tony Gauci the key prosecution witness.....

Some reasonably straight forward googling will find you this:

He was the only witness to link Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi directly to the IED, and was therefore instrumental in convicting Megrahi on 31 January 2001.

At the trial, Tony Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002.

Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling". Since Fraser had been responsible for the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and for indicting Megrahi in November 1991, he was called upon to clarify his remarks about Gauci by Colin Boyd, the Lord Advocate who was chief prosecutor at the Lockerbie trial.

It was clear from the SCCRC's report that the lack of reliability of Gauci's testimony as a key prosecution witness was the main reason for the referral of Megrahi's case back to the Appeal Court.

In a statement on 29 June 2007, Dr Hans Köchler, the UN-appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial, said he shared the SCCRC's doubts about Gauci's credibility expressed in the following extract:

"there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items (clothes that were found in the wreckage of the plane) from Mary's House (in Malta) took place on 7 December 1988."

In October 2007, it was reported that Gauci received a $2 million reward for testifying against Megrahi at the Lockerbie trial.

The newspaper Malta Today ran an article on Gauci in May 2009 quoting Gauci's brother Paul as complaining that their lives had become “intolerable” amid growing interest by the press and repeating "the popular claim that Gauci was planning a move to Australia with his brother".

In August 2009, the BBC reported that Mr Gauci was now living in Australia.

Guardian Article on $2m claim.......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/0 ... e.scotland

Maltese journalist who covered the case ......

http://www.mathaba.net/news/news1/lockerbie/gauci.htm

Maltese Article on new evidence .....

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/05/03/t13.html

Finally, I'd ask everyone to take yourself away from the case in question and ask yourself this ........ if you were imprisoned for a crime, which you believed you were innocent of, and were terminally ill - would you choose to die in jail with the chance of having your name cleared or see out the rest of your days with your family?

[blueboyno1]

As far as i am concerned until; any really significant evidence is uncovered this animal is guilty .Right from the start when PC Fletcher was murdered we have had everyone and their aunty putting forward two bob theories ,they tried to say she was shot by the C.I.A so as to discredit Gadaffi
Gadaffi was the man who ordered both atrocities that's for sure .
In the states before you can even apply for parole you must first admit your guilt no mater if you are terminally ill or not ,but this man was released still pleading innocent ,He should at least own up before he goes to meet his god.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

In the states before you can even apply for parole you must first admit your guilt no mater if you are terminally ill or not

It's a good job it's nothing to do with States then, and he wasn't applying for parole

but this man was released still pleading innocent ,He should at least own up before he goes to meet his god.

Perhaps because he believes he is ACTUALLY innocent. Or do you believe it's impossible for there to be a miscarriage of justice in a high profile case? Notable examples include Barry George / Birmingham Six / Guildford Four, etc?

Let's not forget this is a case where MILLIONS of pounds of trade deals between two countries was at stake. Libya paid the victims families $10m each, however has never accepted guilt. Why did they pay this then? Essentially because they were being crippled by years of UN sanctions and it was costing their economy billions of dollars. So they paid the money, handed over 2 suspects, all sanctions lifted, Libya in from the cold, huge trade deals could then be entered into between UK (& US) and Libya.

If people are looking for conspiracy theories think how much the Scottish Justice system had to lose if his appeal progressed, and he was subsequently found to be innocent. The same judiciary still reeling from the Shirley McKie affair (which thankfully Kenny McAskill has ordered a public inquiry into) Interestingly one of the key supporters of Shirley McKie is Dr Jim Swire (who's daughter died on Flight 103)

I have the 'misfortune' of having some "train mates" in the legal profession (2 barristers and 1 lawyer) and they were discussing the other day about low key 'celebrations' in the Crown Office (Edinburgh) when he was released, that's right - the Office responsible for his prosecution!

Also consider why the Scottish Lord Advocate (Elish Angiolini) asked for documents to be disclosed by UK government to Megrahi's defence team as part of his appeal. David Milliband subsequently signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate on them preventing their disclosure.

Despite everything I've said above, I believe in the integrity of Kenny McAskill and I think he made the decision soundly and without outside influence. An awful lot of people had an awful lot to lose by Megrahi's appeal, this all now disappears as a result of his release. For all their protesting I'm sure there will be many people in both the US and British governments/intelligence agencies happy that Mr McAskill made the difficult decision he did.

Tragically those who have lost the most, the victims and families, are also denied justice.

[hugh]

As I understand the process, you cannot be considered for compassionate release whilst you have any outstanding actions in the legal system.

That's not how I understood it, Sheik. I thought under Scottish law the minister concerned had the unfettered right to grant compassionate release, regardless of ongoing appeals? I thought the "outstanding actions" clause only came into play on the prisoner exchange scenario, which was never going to be a realistic outcome?

Now I'm not 100% sure on that, but maybe there's some real legal eagles or law students out there who could clear that up?
( send your bill to the mods, or do that pelican thing.)

There is also the curious fact that MacAskill chose to meet Megrahi. That is not a common occurrence in cases of compassionate release, let alone a necessary one. What exactly did he want to discuss?

Either way, I just don't like the timing of the sudden dropping of Megrahi's appeal after MacAskill's visit, with him still insisting to all and sundry in the interim that he hadn't made his mind up one way or the other. And then he talks of "sentences imposed by higher powers"? Hypocritical, pious presbyterian pash of the first order.

[Ship called Dignity]

Would it be interesting if we went in the huff every time another country made a decision we didn't like? But then again we aren't big enough to bully other nations into the way we think.....

[Govangirl]

[I believe in the integrity of Kenny McAskill and I think he made the decision soundly and without outside influence.
Tragically those who have lost the most, the victims and families, are also denied justice.

Totally disagree with the outside influence part. I know very little about the machinations of world politics but have it confirmed now that it's a stinking fog of lies and deceit.
This compassion aspect still confuses me. In my opinion, Megrahi received compassion when he didn't receive the death penalty. He received compassion when he wasn't thrown into a cold, rat-infested, dark cell. He received compassion when he received every comfort including Sky TV. He received compassion when he was granted an appeal in 2007. He received compassion when he received the best medical care for his illness. He received compassion when his family were given permission to visit him.I believe that moving him to a Scottish Hospice would have extended that compassion. Not releasing him would have disappointed only his family; releasing him has resulted in Sheik's last sentence. No, this act of 'compassion' was part of a trade deal with the Libyans. I agree with individual compassion but this debacle shows that Government compassion only shows its face when political advantage can be had. I'm not even against the idea of promoting trade with Libya, it's the lies about compassion that makes me angry.

[Ranald]

[I believe in the integrity of Kenny McAskill and I think he made the decision soundly and without outside influence.
Tragically those who have lost the most, the victims and families, are also denied justice.

Totally disagree with the outside influence part. I know very little about the machinations of world politics but have it confirmed now that it's a stinking fog of lies and deceit.
This compassion aspect still confuses me. In my opinion, Megrahi received compassion when he didn't receive the death penalty. He received compassion when he wasn't thrown into a cold, rat-infested, dark cell. He received compassion when he received every comfort including Sky TV. He received compassion when he was granted an appeal in 2007. He received compassion when he received the best medical care for his illness. He received compassion when his family were given permission to visit him.I believe that moving him to a Scottish Hospice would have extended that compassion. Not releasing him would have disappointed only his family; releasing him has resulted in Sheik's last sentence. No, this act of 'compassion' was part of a trade deal with the Libyans. I agree with individual compassion but this debacle shows that Government compassion only shows its face when political advantage can be had. I'm not even against the idea of promoting trade with Libya, it's the lies about compassion that makes me angry.

You start off by saying you know very little about the machinations of world politics then go on to assume a hell of a lot and state some blatant speculation as if it was a fact.

As I said earlier, does anyone really think the SNP would be part of any deal arranged by London Labour? And what advantage would there be to Scotland by doing our own deal with Libya?

[bassett]

As I said earlier, does anyone really think the SNP would be part of any deal arranged by London Labour?

YES

[blueboyno1]

YES YES YES