I think Scotland is a very compassionate country but I do resent a politician telling me I am not compassionate unless I agreed to the release of Abdelbaset Ali-al-Megrahi, the man convicted of carrying out the bombing of a Pan Am airliner in 1988, which killed 270 people.
My knowledge of this case is very limited and only gleaned from newspapers. Bloggers such as Lallands Peat Worrier and Robert Black have posted excellent articles regarding the legal aspects and Ms Graham more or less insisted on Newsnight Scotland that Mr Megrahi is innocent. Magnus Linklater has also stated in today's Times that 'from the start there have been suspicions that a vital truth was being withheld'.
What does this say about the Scottish legal system? It certainly doesn't show it in a good light. If further evidence is available, why didn't the legal system move quickly to ensure it was heard in court?
I am sure many people in Scotland consider Mr Megrahi innocent but the Scottish legal system found him guilty. The trial appeared to be a bit of a shambles to me, but as I say, I only read about it in newspapers. My compassion at the time was with the nearest and dearest of the dead and it still is, although I understand those who feel more compassion for Mr Megrahi.
If Mr Megrahi's appeal is to be dropped then there must be an inquiry into the actions of our legal system in this case but how can we be assured it would be independent? So many such inquiries achieve little of substance and unless we insist the questions of the families and other interested parties are all dealt with to their satisfaction, an inquiry would be pointless. Lawyers will protect their own as do other professions.
Should the (leaked) news that Mr Megrahi is to be released next week on compassionate grounds be correct, I wish him a safe return to Libya. It is to be hoped that his wife and family, who have been living in the outskirts of Glasgow for the past few years, will be able to accompany him on his journey home to Tripoli.
Update 12.58pm: Wardog has posted on the same subject and includes a time line of events.
Posts
9 comments:
Like you SR, I don't know whether he is innocent or guilty. It's too complicated for a non legal brain, and there are things that no one knows... American involvement, international agreements etc, and all these things dealt with by Westminster back in the day when they were in charge of our legal system. Clearly anything involving Westminster, the CIA and the middle east is suspect.
I'm also not sure about compassion in the case of illness (Biggs for example), or in the case of pregnancy (the Englishwoman in Laos). (I've never quite understood why the death penalty should apply to South East Asians but not Europeans...although I understand that in killing a pregnant woman, you would also kill her child).
I wish I were clever enough to understand the legal case, and "good" enough to understand the case for compassion.
The real worry I have in this case is that it was fixed by America, Lybia and an always-willing-to-do-anything-America-tells-it Westminster government.
I doubt if we'll ever get to the truth Tris, too many interested parties are involved I think. How sad that the families will never get closure.
Like you my knowledge of the legalities in next to nothing and no matter how much I read, I'm not really much more informed.
Maybe I have a brain block on the whole issue because the truth is too horrendous.
Am I being a bit harsh, but when someone is found guilty in court but presumed innocent by some untested public concerns the guilty remain guilty in law? I can appreciate the possibility of intrigue, deception and false accusations etc. that have instigated an appeal in this case - but appeals do not indicate definative innocence until proven beyond doubt?
I wonder how much relief certain, as yet, untried parties and many political vested interests are feeling at the prospect of his appeal being abandoned as he dies in Libya as the still single officially guilty man. I suspect his potential release has more to do with covert hush-up operations than humanitarian causes with the Scottish 'legal' system as the patsy.
No you're not being harsh in the least Clarinda. I said the same in the post.
Agree with you and that's why I think it wrong that an MSP can accuse anyone who doesn't approve of the release under these circumstances, as lacking compassion.
There are definite coverups going on. I'd just like to know who are involved, wouldn't you? We can but dream ...
The case smells to the high heavens. If a review of this case and "all" the evidence is not forthcoming then one can only assume that Scotland's legal system is politicized and corrupt.
Well we know it's politicised scunnert.
Reportedly, the evidence points to the CIA having brought down PanAm 103 0ver Lockerbie. There have in the past been excellent reports in the Herald and Scotland on Sunday suggesting that the evidence in the Lockerbie case was faked. The reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system is in tatters, as Tam Dalyell once said. Dr Hans Kochler, the UN observer at the trial, considered that the trial was 'political'. Google: Major Charles McKee Heroin Lockerbie Franklin Dutroux.
- Aangirfan
You're right Aangirfan, there have been excellent reports and many of them. The Scottish legal system will take years to recover from the disaster of this case, if it ever does.
Now I'm off to google what you suggest.
There are things we do know about this case.
We know, from the findings of the SCCRC that there were SIX grounds to believe a miscarriage of justice occurred at the original trial.
We know the Scottish Judiciary repeatedly postponed hearing that appeal for more than two years, a delay which the UN's Official Observer at the original trial called condcut "tantamount to an obstruction of justice".
We know the USA paid the star witness and his brother around $3 million for testimony which didn't include the positive identification of Megrahi. In any "just" Justice System payment for testimony is often termed bribery. There is no place for such practices in any decent court of law.
We also know the judges rejected the credibility of a man called Giaka who initially implicated Megrahi and his co-accused. He too was in the payment of the US authorities. Indeed even the US authorities admitted he was not a safe witness, a view the Lord Advocate tried to keep from the defence and even the judges at the original trial. The judges found out in time and dismissed Giaka's testimony but, astonishly, made no connection with the fact that he had implicated Megrahi in the first place.
The information is out there: this trial was a farce and the many conclusions reached by these judges in the face of evidence which said the opposite beggars belief. It is something we should all want addressed.
Post a Comment