Doctor: 'Dying' Lockerbie bomber may live 10 years

alexa said:

The last time this case came up I managed to find some reports which indicated pretty well why it was unlikely that this man was the bomber and how indeed he was released on condition he withdrew his appeal.

Many reason have been given for his release including our desire for oil from Libya.

However the chances that this man was innocent are very strong.



Swire offered cash help to al-Megrahi - Scotland on Sunday

I would agree that a proper appeal would be in order but given that the man is dying, and that he is whatever time he takes to achieve it, it seems right he has been released. If a miscarriage of justice has happened he already lost several years of his life to it.

Hopefully in time truth proper will come out.

Click to expand...

That the father of one of the victims has offered a financial aid to the convicted bomber is legally irrelevant.

PeteEU said:

Yes, if there is major doubt on a persons conviction and guilt then I do believe that said person should be freed while there is a new trial and investigation. I would rather have 10 guilty people go free than throw one innocent person behind bars.. That USE to be a principle that the US lived by .. but guess not any more.

Click to expand...

I promote a different method; if and when there is a major doubt on a person's guiltness after he was already convicted, and by doubt I mean contradicting evidence, then his case should be re-opened and reviewed.
If the investigation finds that he was guilty, then he should remain in prison. If the investigation finds out that he was innocent, however, he should be freed and receive compensations.
I believe the US law system follow that line of thought as well.

I strongly disagree however with the notion that if there is a doubt about a person's guiltness he should be unconditionally released. That is repulsive and is against the entire value of justice.

PeteEU said:

Yes, if there is major doubt on a persons conviction and guilt then I do believe that said person should be freed while there is a new trial and investigation. I would rather have 10 guilty people go free than throw one innocent person behind bars.. That USE to be a principle that the US lived by .. but guess not any more.

Click to expand...

How do you say that with a straight face? He wasn't parolled he was released to another country.

Explain how you use your personal opinion to jusitfy releasing a person who was convicted?

Any idiot can file for appeal. Should we just let them all go to a different country because they filed an appeal? Stop for a moment and listen to yourself.

jamesrage said:

I wonder if the victims families feel like the British government just took a big **** right in their mouths by allowing Scotland to free a terrorist due to some retarded idiotic notion of letting some scumbag out of prison due to compassionate grounds. There is such a thing as misplaced compassion and this is an example of it. Misplaced compassion just makes compassion synonymous with stupidity.

Doctor: Lockerbie bomber may live 10 years - World news - Europe - msnbc.com
LONDON — A doctor who said the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had only three months to live now says the Libyan could survive another 10 years, London's Sunday Times reported.

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of 270 counts of murder for being behind the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, was released on compassionate grounds in 2009, after doctors said he only had a few months to live.

Specialist Karol Sikora told the newspaper it was "embarrassing" that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer and received a hero's welcome upon his return to Libya, had managed to outlive the prognosis.

The report is sure to re-ignite accusations that Scottish authorities bowed to pressure from Libya and the British government to release al-Megrahi, who American officials accuse of being an officer of the Libyan intelligence service.

Click to expand...

Well you win some and you lose some. No use crying over spilled milk

texmaster said:

How do you say that with a straight face? He wasn't parolled he was released to another country.

Explain how you use your personal opinion to jusitfy releasing a person who was convicted?

Any idiot can file for appeal. Should we just let them all go to a different country because they filed an appeal? Stop for a moment and listen to yourself.

Click to expand...

Have you not been following the case? He HAD appealed and the UK and US government has delayed said appeals at every possible moment! If they were so sure of the evidence then why not let him appeal and get over with it? If they were so sure of the evidence then why make it as a condition of his release that he drop his appeal process? The Scottish system that looks at court cases said clearly that they suspected a gross miscarriage of justice in this case. The UN observer said the same. And yet appeals were delayed by the prosecution time and time again.... wonder why.

As for my opinion to justify releasing a person who was convicted.. if that person was wrongly convicted the he should be release immediately. We have had enough cases coming out of the US and other parts of the world where people have been in jail for decades wrongly convicted, because the trials were politicly tainted from start to finish.

If there is doubt about his conviction being correct, I mean serious doubt, then said person should be released under bail while the case is taken up. And in this case there was serious doubts under the trial that were ignored because of political pressure from Downing Street and Washington.

Add to that clear evidence tampering and witness tampering then you have more than enough not only to reopen the case but to release the man. The problem is that the UK and US governments did not want to reopen the case because it would expose their illegal actions to the world and make it part of public record. Hence he was only released if he dropped his appeal, and hence that is why 40+ pieces of evidence are still considered top secret in the case.

Like it or not, this whole case stinks of injustice from start to finish and that is based on the evidence that has come to light after the trial. Things like the key witness who picked him out of a line up, saw a picture of him 4 days before.. under questioning of the FBI. Or the same witness being given millions and relocated to Australia.. on YOUR tax dollar. Or the fact that the detonator involved was tampered with so much that the manufacture could not recognize it during the trial and that before the trial he had been given access to the very detonator, and told the FBI that this was not one of his detonators.. a fact that was never passed to the defence nor came up in the trial. The detonators were the key physical evidence linking Libya to the bombing and we now know today that there is serious doubt even over that. It goes on and on and on with these "issues".

PeteEU said:

The man was most likely innocent any ways.

Click to expand...

This was not proven at his trial and no one has since his release even attempted to prove his supposed innocence!

PeteEU said:

They only let him go because he dropped the appeal... that pretty much sums up the injustice in this case.

Like it or not legal procedures can be manipulated and evidence can be manipulated and in this case there is more than enough evidence that both were and the UK government with US backing wanted to avoid the embarrassment of getting this all exposed. As it stands now it is just legal opinions by experts and analysis of the evidence from the outside. If it had gone to appeal and gotten into court, then all the dirt would become a matter of public record and it could seriously hurt the credibility of the UK and US justice systems.

Click to expand...

It would not have been Legal for him to have been released while Legal status was in abeyance.
In other words in order to be released it was required of him that he drop his appeal.

Apocalypse said:

That the father of one of the victims has offered a financial aid to the convicted bomber is legally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I am aware of that Apocalypse. You should also have read what I said. The last time this was discussed, which may have been when it happened I was able to provide substantial information from the Scotsman which showed the degree of doubt concerning his guilt. This I cannot find easily today and having other things to do cannot spend hours searching. However I know that I found enough to convince myself. As you can see one of the bereaved was as convinced as myself and what the bereaved would like, I imagine, is for the people who are responsible for their loves ones death to be the one's in jail, not someone who is not.

In the meantime this man is still dying. As I have said before with terminal cancer it is difficult to give an exact time. We had one woman who lived 5 years after she was given no more than 6 months. However despite someone saying he could live ten years he is now expected only to last a few weeks.

jujuman13 said:

This was not proven at his trial and no one has since his release even attempted to prove his supposed innocence!

Click to expand...

Considering much of the key evidence in the case has been classified as state secrets, so that not even the defence is allowed to see it then how exactly do you expect to prove his innocence? What I base my view on, is the stuff that we do know, the evidence that is available that has been debunked and the witness statements that have been cast serious doubts over, not to mention and I can not mention this enough.. the Scottish legal system has stated that there was a big chance that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case. And yet the case was not reopened in due time and all appeals were delayed year after year. That is not justice, that is a cover-up.

I fully understand the need to believe in our legal systems are perfect, but in the real world we KNOW they are not. And this is especially in cases like this, where the political pressure was insane to convict anyone for the bombing. I want our legal systems to be as perfect as possible, but we can not achieve this if we do not speak out and correct cases of possible miscarriage of justice and in this case there is plenty of evidence that screams of huge issues with the ruling and trial.

I also understand the American's hatred of Libya and their blind trust in their government who claims it was Libya. That the evidence linking the two is at best circumstantial and at worst planted, then we must ask our governments.. now wait a minute. I for one refuse to have another case of miscarriage of justice like the Russians did in the Katyn massacre. I aint saying the US was behind Lockerbie btw, but in the Katyn massacre the Russians blamed the Nazi's and everyone ate it up... 40+ years later we learn, it was the Russians themselves that killed 22000 polish soldiers and not the Nazies.

PeteEU said:

Considering much of the key evidence in the case has been classified as state secrets, so that not even the defence is allowed to see it then how exactly do you expect to prove his innocence? What I base my view on, is the stuff that we do know, the evidence that is available that has been debunked and the witness statements that have been cast serious doubts over, not to mention and I can not mention this enough.. the Scottish legal system has stated that there was a big chance that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case. And yet the case was not reopened in due time and all appeals were delayed year after year. That is not justice, that is a cover-up.

I fully understand the need to believe in our legal systems are perfect, but in the real world we KNOW they are not. And this is especially in cases like this, where the political pressure was insane to convict anyone for the bombing. I want our legal systems to be as perfect as possible, but we can not achieve this if we do not speak out and correct cases of possible miscarriage of justice and in this case there is plenty of evidence that screams of huge issues with the ruling and trial.

I also understand the American's hatred of Libya and their blind trust in their government who claims it was Libya. That the evidence linking the two is at best circumstantial and at worst planted, then we must ask our governments.. now wait a minute. I for one refuse to have another case of miscarriage of justice like the Russians did in the Katyn massacre. I aint saying the US was behind Lockerbie btw, but in the Katyn massacre the Russians blamed the Nazi's and everyone ate it up... 40+ years later we learn, it was the Russians themselves that killed 22000 polish soldiers and not the Nazies.

Click to expand...

My personal opinion is that it was likely not Libya involvement, I am of the opinion and belief that it was the Syrians who were responsible for the Lockerbie Terrorist act.
Being of Polish descent nothing that the Russians have done or will in future do, surprises me, in my opinion they are the most distrustful of people, even to the point I would trust a Camel's fart before I would trust a Russian.