• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

Agnapostate said:
Blind trust in the law and bodies of government when it's clearly undeserved is among the most sickeningly irrational forms of appeasement to injustice. Considering the realities of advancements in forensic technology having revealed the wrongful convictions of numerous "guilty" persons, any reasonable analyst would be wary of pronouncements of ethical guilt based on ambiguous legal conviction, especially in this case.
Click to expand...
That's not a "blind trust" in the justice system, that's simply rationality.
If this thing was innocent, he would be acquitted.
He wasn't acquitted, and was convicted, he's guilty.
While there were some cases when the Justice system was wrong, those rare cases are, as they're called, rare cases.
The justice system isn't perfect, but that's not a reason to go around questioning the guilt of low-life mass murderers.
It would be. That's probably why I did not claim that he was innocent, and instead claimed that there appeared to be insufficient sound evidence to legally convict him, and deficiencies present in his legal trial that prevented a respectable ruling on his innocence or guilt
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, other people think differently, the Scottish justice system was with the 'other people' on that thought, he was found guilty and was convicted.
 
Apocalypse said:
That's not a "blind trust" in the justice system, that's simply rationality.
If this thing was innocent, he would be acquitted.
Click to expand...

I really don't care how many times you repeat such a nonsensical statement; it will continue to be blatantly wrong. Actual innocence or guilt cannot be altered by judicial rulings.

Apocalypse said:
That's your opinion, other people think differently, the Scottish justice system was with the 'other people' on that thought, he was found guilty and was convicted.
Click to expand...

Yes, we've established that he was convicted. There's also been an attempt to identify substantial deficiencies in the nature of his trial and the evidence submitted therein. You've not attempted to address this; you've merely repeated the already established fact that he was convicted.
 
Agnapostate said:
I really don't care how many times you repeat such a nonsensical statement; it will continue to be blatantly wrong. Actual innocence or guilt cannot be altered by judicial rulings.
Click to expand...
But society has to define its criminals, so we let the Justice system decide who's a criminal and who isn't.
That's the best option there is, no justice system would simply mean anarchy and chaos, with criminals and innocents roaming the streets alike.
You've not attempted to address this; you've merely repeated the already established fact that he was convicted.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we are in agreement?
 
Wait, isn't whole point of a life sentence is that the convict, you know, dies in prison?
 
Apocalypse said:
But society has to define its criminals, so we let the Justice system decide who's a criminal and who isn't.
That's the best option there is, no justice system would simply mean anarchy and chaos, with criminals and innocents roaming the streets alike.
Click to expand...

This has absolutely no relation to the fact that the judicial process cannot alter actual innocence or guilt, and that it is therefore crude and inaccurate to refer to a disputed judicial conviction as evidence of such.

Apocalypse said:
I'm glad we are in agreement?
Click to expand...

Apparently. Since you haven't attempted to dispute the suspicious nature of some of the evidence that contributed to his conviction, I'll have to assume that you've conceded that this is a problem.
 
Agnapostate said:
This has absolutely no relation to the fact that the judicial process cannot alter actual innocence or guilt, and that it is therefore crude and inaccurate to refer to a disputed judicial conviction as evidence of such.
Click to expand...
It's deadly accurate, while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't, the law system exists so society would know to define who is guilty and who isn't.
In most of the cases, statistically, the justice system is correct, that is why it is the favored system in Mankind's eyes.
Apparently. Since you haven't attempted to dispute the suspicious nature of some of the evidence that contributed to his conviction, I'll have to assume that you've conceded that this is a problem.
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about him being convicted, which an agreement on would pretty much end the debate for my side.

The evidence being in question is your opinion, it is satisfying enough in my eyes.
 
Apocalypse said:
It's deadly accurate, while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't, the law system exists so society would know to define who is guilty and who isn't.
In most of the cases, statistically, the justice system is correct, that is why it is the favored system in Mankind's eyes.
Click to expand...

I notice that you continue to avoid the pertinent issue: Judicial rulings are not able to alter factual reality. Since there is significant dispute about the nature of Megrahi's trial, mere reference to his legal conviction is insufficient evidence of his actual guilt. Reference to the evidence itself would be more appropriate, but I'm quite convinced that everyone in this thread who has referred to his guilt knows very little of that, as indicated by the previous references that someone made to a jury trial.

Apocalypse said:
No, I'm talking about him being convicted, which an agreement on would pretty much end the debate for my side.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would, but that's mere indication of the insufficient basis for your "side's" position. Legal conviction cannot alter actual innocence or guilt if what actually occurred is different from the judicial outcome.

Apocalypse said:
The evidence being in question is your opinion, it is satisfying enough in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is, but since you have not offered arguments or evidence as they relate to the actual nature of the court evidence, that's merely a conclusion without supporting premises, and is thus not logically sound.
 
Agnapostate said:
I notice that you continue to avoid the pertinent issue: Judicial rulings are not able to alter factual reality.
Click to expand...
You noticing that comes as a surprise, as I have indeed referred to this claim in the quoted post.
Since there is significant dispute about the nature of Megrahi's trial
Click to expand...
A significant dispute? How so?
mere reference to his legal conviction is insufficient evidence of his actual guilt. Reference to the evidence itself would be more appropriate
Click to expand...
And the evidence is satisfying.
I would repeat that his actual guilt is indeed defined by the Justice system, while factually a person may be innocent, the definition whether he is one or not is in the Justice System's power, and has always been so since humanity grew a brain.
One cannot call the establishing of the rule of law a "blind faith" in the justice system, as not following the rule of law would simply be forsaking it, and no sane society can do that.
but I'm quite convinced that everyone in this thread who has referred to his guilt knows very little of that, as indicated by the previous references that someone made to a jury trial.
Click to expand...
You being convinced so cannot alter factual reality.
They may know very little of it, and they may know a lot of it.
Perhaps it would, but that's mere indication of the insufficient basis for your "side's" position. Legal conviction cannot alter actual innocence or guilt if what actually occurred is different from the judicial outcome.
Click to expand...
No, it just shows you that we live in a society that abides the law system, and lets it define its criminals and its innocents.
Unless you have a better system to suggest, I think we'd stick to it.
Perhaps it is, but since you have not offered arguments or evidence as they relate to the actual nature of the court evidence, that's merely a conclusion without supporting premises, and is thus not logically sound.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof lies on you as you are the one who claims that the evidence brought against the terrorist were not satisfying.
 
Apocalypse said:
You noticing that comes as a surprise, as I have indeed referred to this claim in the quoted post.
Click to expand...

No, you've not done so. Instead, you've commented on the unrelated issue of a sound judicial system being necessary to uphold "order." The merits or demerits of that claim are not at issue in this discussion; what is pertinent is the possible nature of judicial or prosecutorial corruption in this specific legal process. You've not commented on any aspect of that, but have instead pointlessly repeated that Megrahi was convicted. However, since judicial rulings cannot alter reality and there appears to be reasonable doubt about the validity of his conviction, that is quite useless.

Apocalypse said:
A significant dispute? How so?
Click to expand...

In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."

Apocalypse said:
And the evidence is satisfying.
Click to expand...

Mere statement of such is purposeless and irrelevant unless you can provide supporting arguments or evidence. A conclusion without premises is not logically sound in nature.

Apocalypse said:
I would repeat that his actual guilt is indeed defined by the Justice system, while factually a person may be innocent, the definition whether he is one or not is in the Justice System's power, and has always been so since humanity grew a brain.
One cannot call the establishing of the rule of law a "blind faith" in the justice system, as not following the rule of law would simply be forsaking it, and no sane society can do that.
Click to expand...

This is all quite pointless. It's clear enough by now that my contention was that mere reference to his legal conviction provided nothing of any value or substance, since it was that conviction itself that was being questioned. Your task is thus to defend the nature of his conviction rather than repeat the established fact that he was legally convicted, as the nature of that conviction is being challenged.

Apocalypse said:
You being convinced so cannot alter factual reality.
They may know very little of it, and they may know a lot of it.
Click to expand...

They may and they may, but since I've provided evidence that the former case is true, I'm of the opinion that my claim is rather well-supported. Conversely, you've not attempted to offer any arguments or evidence for the claims that you have made, and have really made statements rather than claims anyway.

Apocalypse said:
No, it just shows you that we live in a society that abides the law system, and lets it define its criminals and its innocents.
Unless you have a better system to suggest, I think we'd stick to it.
Click to expand...

No, it just shows that you're not prepared to discuss the actual nature of his conviction instead of repeat established statements about it. Feel free to discuss the nature of the alleged deficiencies in his case if you can contribute more than this.

Apocalypse said:
The burden of proof lies on you as you are the one who claims that the evidence brought against the terrorist were not satisfying.
Click to expand...

Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt. But even if the burden of proof lied entirely on me in the sole context of this exchange, I've offered substantial evidence to support my claims, while you've not attempted to support what claims you have in fact made.
 
Agnapostate said:
No, you've not done so. Instead, you've commented on the unrelated issue of a sound judicial system being necessary to uphold "order." The merits or demerits of that claim are not at issue in this discussion; what is pertinent is the possible nature of judicial or prosecutorial corruption in this specific legal process. You've not commented on any aspect of that, but have instead pointlessly repeated that Megrahi was convicted. However, since judicial rulings cannot alter reality and there appears to be reasonable doubt about the validity of his conviction, that is quite useless.
Click to expand...
In the post that you've quoted, I said:
"while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't".
Captain Agnapostate, your fleet of ridiculous accusations has just been obliterated.
In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
Click to expand...
A significant dispute would be if both of the sides were equally supported, and they are not.
Nobody in the 'control room' believes that the terrorist should be acquitted.
Mere statement of such is purposeless and irrelevant unless you can provide supporting arguments or evidence. A conclusion without premises is not logically sound in nature.
Click to expand...
My claim is well supported by the justice system declaring the evidence satisfying and the terrorist guilty, it is illogical to assume that the law system declaration has no weight on the argument.
[/quote]This is all quite pointless. It's clear enough by now that my contention was that mere reference to his legal conviction provided nothing of any value or substance, since it was that conviction itself that was being questioned. Your task is thus to defend the nature of his conviction rather than repeat the established fact that he was legally convicted, as the nature of that conviction is being challenged.[/quote]I am still awaiting that alleged challenge in the form of you analyzing the trial and bringing forth your claims as to why the evidence was not satisfying instead of just pointlessly claiming that it isn't.
They may and they may, but since I've provided evidence that the former case is true, I'm of the opinion that my claim is rather well-supported. Conversely, you've not attempted to offer any arguments or evidence for the claims that you have made, and have really made statements rather than claims anyway.
Click to expand...
You have brought no evidence whatsoever, yet you claim that you did.
Please point out as to where, so I could be standing corrected.
No, it just shows that you're not prepared to discuss the actual nature of his conviction instead of repeat established statements about it. Feel free to discuss the nature of the alleged deficiencies in his case if you can contribute more than this.
Click to expand...
This is a baseless claim, I am still awaiting your evidence for the court being wrong on convicting the terrorist.
Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt. But even if the burden of proof lied entirely on me in the sole context of this exchange, I've offered substantial evidence to support my claims, while you've not attempted to support what claims you have in fact made.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on the one who claims that a socially accepted decision such as the law system's is wrong.
This is why people have to appeal to the court when they think its wrong on a specific decision.



By the way, I have a question for you.
Let's assume the evidence that was brought against the terrorist was not satisfying, do you support the immediate release of convicted people who's evidence was apparently not satisfying?
Without any renewed trial? Simply releasing him?
 
Apocalypse said:
In the post that you've quoted, I said:
"while the justice system is not a knows-all entity and cannot see who is truly guilty and who isn't".
Captain Agnapostate, your fleet of ridiculous accusations has just been
obliterated.
Click to expand...

Not at all. While you've attempted to cloak your nonsensical assertions in the garment of some rational argument, it's quite apparent that you're not interested in examining the actual nature of Megrahi's trial and the evidence presented, as you have still not attempted to do so. Instead, you have incessantly repeated a statement about his legal conviction, which is irrelevant, since that is being challenged. Things should work more like this:

1. You make Point A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Point A.

3. You issue a response to my rebuttal. You do not simply repeat Point A; it has already been addressed.

It's in the third portion of that process that you're unsuccessful.

Apocalypse said:
A significant dispute would be if both of the sides were equally supported, and they are not.
Nobody in the 'control room' believes that the terrorist should be acquitted.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. In this thread, at least, there's been no rational attempt to discuss the actual evidence submitted in the prosecutorial effort against Megrahi; there have merely been utterly useless repetitions of statements about his legal conviction. There's apparently an asymmetry of sorts between the two "sides" in that the side that challenges the fairness of Megrahi's trial is relatively well-informed, while the side that upholds the fairness of the trial is not, as evidenced by someone's mention of a jury trial, which did not occur. Regardless, a significant dispute or contention is constituted by sufficient evidence that the prosecutorial case against Megrahi was plagued by deficiencies so severe that his actual guilt and legal conviction are both legitimately in question. There's substantial evidence that that is the case here, all of which you've chosen to ignore.

Apocalypse said:
My claim is well supported by the justice system declaring the evidence satisfying and the terrorist guilty, it is illogical to assume that the law system declaration has no weight on the argument.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Firstly, you've made no claim as to his actual guilt or innocence; you've merely repeated established statements about his legal conviction. You have not attempted to address challenges to the conviction, and as seen here, base the entirety of your commentary on that conviction, despite the fact that I've provided evidence of deficiencies present in the nature of his trial that you've not commented on.

Apocalypse said:
I am still awaiting that alleged challenge in the form of you analyzing the trial and bringing forth your claims as to why the evidence was not satisfying instead of just pointlessly claiming that it isn't...You have brought no evidence whatsoever, yet you claim that you did.
Please point out as to where, so I could be standing corrected...This is a baseless claim, I am still awaiting your evidence for the court being wrong on convicting the terrorist.
Click to expand...

The evidence was offered in the form of the UN observer's complaints about the nature of the trial and my own mention of additional disputes. That would be the portion of my post that you offered a two-sentence and off-topic reply to.

Apocalypse said:
Wrong, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on the one who claims that a socially accepted decision such as the law system's is wrong. This is why people have to appeal to the court when they think its wrong on a specific decision.
Click to expand...

Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt, as I commented. That is the case both inside and outside of the courtroom. But no matter who the burden of proof lies on, the more relevant fact is that I've named several alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you've simply ignored and chosen not to comment on. The apparent reason for this is that you do not know of any response to offer, which is hardly surprising. That there were unjust elements in the prosecutorial case seems rather apparent.

Apocalypse said:
By the way, I have a question for you.
Let's assume the evidence that was brought against the terrorist was not satisfying, do you support the immediate release of convicted people who's evidence was apparently not satisfying? Without any renewed trial? Simply releasing him?
Click to expand...

If it was legitimately unsatisfying so as to have resulted in an acquittal in his first trial, then perhaps, since the imposition of double jeopardy is also unjust. In this specific case, I'd say that his release was probably acceptable, since the purpose of criminal justice is and must be deterrence.
 
Agnapostate said:
Not at all. While you've attempted to cloak your nonsensical assertions in the garment of some rational argument, it's quite apparent that you're not interested in examining the actual nature of Megrahi's trial and the evidence presented, as you have still not attempted to do so. Instead, you have incessantly repeated a statement about his legal conviction, which is irrelevant, since that is being challenged.
Click to expand...
Now you are just trying to dodge it, but it is unavoidable.
You claimed that I did not refer to this claim, and yet I have.
Your fleet was already obliterated, there's nothing you can do about it, it's nothing but space junk now.
Things should work more like this:

1. You make Point A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Point A.

3. You issue a response to my rebuttal. You do not simply repeat Point A; it has already been addressed.

It's in the third portion of that process that you're unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that this had something to do with no. #3's success relying on no. #2's success, which was, unfortunately, a failure.
That's probably true.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we are in agreement again.
No, it isn't. Firstly, you've made no claim as to his actual guilt or innocence; you've merely repeated established statements about his legal conviction. You have not attempted to address challenges to the conviction, and as seen here, base the entirety of your commentary on that conviction, despite the fact that I've provided evidence of deficiencies present in the nature of his trial that you've not commented on.
Click to expand...
I am here to counter your argument that the evidence is non-satisfying.
To do that you need to bring your claims as to why it isn't, I'll quote them using the quote button in the lower-right corner of your message box, and then I'll reply to those claims by saying that they're ridiculous and explaining why are they so ridiculous.
So just bring your claims already.
The evidence was offered in the form of the UN observer's complaints about the nature of the trial and my own mention of additional disputes. That would be the portion of my post that you offered a two-sentence and off-topic reply to.
Click to expand...
That is your holy evidence?
A complaint by a UN official?
You just said that my evidence being the Law system's decision is not an evidence, and now you declare a UN official's complaint against the trial handling by the court "an evidence"?
Seriously, don't you see the bizarreness and hypocrisy in this statement?
Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt, as I commented. That is the case both inside and outside of the courtroom. But no matter who the burden of proof lies on, the more relevant fact is that I've named several alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you've simply ignored and chosen not to comment on. The apparent reason for this is that you do not know of any response to offer, which is hardly surprising. That there were unjust elements in the prosecutorial case seems rather apparent.
Click to expand...
Where are those several alleged deficiencies that you had pointed out? Where are they, Agna?
Correct, right up there in space, together with your ruined fleet.
Now would you kindly bring them back to Earth so I could debate them?
If it was legitimately unsatisfying so as to have resulted in an acquittal in his first trial, then perhaps, since the imposition of double jeopardy is also unjust. In this specific case, I'd say that his release was probably acceptable, since the purpose of criminal justice is and must be deterrence.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that a renewed trial where he'd be acquitted is unnecessary, and that he should just be released while still being a convicted murderer?
Do you realize that there is no sense of rationality in your words, and that you advocate the forsaking of the law system and its procedures?
 
Apocalypse said:
Now you are just trying to dodge it, but it is unavoidable. You claimed that I did not refer to this claim, and yet I have.
Your fleet was already obliterated, there's nothing you can do about it, it's nothing but space junk now.
Click to expand...

Nope, you've simply engaged in purposeless repetition of an irrelevant statement about his legal conviction without actual discussion of the nature of his trial or the disputes related to his trial. If this were a True Debate, you would have long since lost, and even the casual reader of this thread can quite easily see that you're not faring especially well.

Apocalypse said:
I would suggest that this had something to do with no. #3's success relying on no. #2's success, which was, unfortunately, a failure.
Click to expand...

If #2 was a failure, it was because #1 was a failure also. You never made any particularly sound claim to begin with, so there was really no need to issue a sound rebuttal. All you did was claim that Megrahi was guilty merely by virtue of his legal conviction and ignore the contentions that had arisen about the nature and alleged deficiencies of his trial. You continue to do so even now. :shrug:

Apocalypse said:
I'm glad we are in agreement again.
Click to expand...

So am I. Based on the length of your responses (despite their lack of content), I was concerned that there might be some misimpression that you were informed about the case.

Apocalypse said:
I am here to counter your argument that the evidence is non-satisfying.
To do that you need to bring your claims as to why it isn't, I'll quote them using the quote button in the lower-right corner of your message box, and then I'll reply to those claims by saying that they're ridiculous and explaining why are they so ridiculous.
So just bring your claims already.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned six separate claims at this point and have repeated them after the first time you've ignored them. I'm not interested in repetition of facts that you will continue to ignore and not reply to anyway; look at previous posts for consultation of the evidence that you have simply dismissed without reply of any sort.

Apocalypse said:
That is your holy evidence?
A complaint by a UN official?
You just said that my evidence being the Law system's decision is not an evidence, and now you declare a UN official's complaint against the trial handling by the court "an evidence"?
Seriously, don't you see the bizarreness and hypocrisy in this statement?
Click to expand...

No, that's merely a fallacy bred by your apparent confusion. If I'd merely mentioned that there was a complaint by a UN official without offering further elaboration, you might have a point. However, I instead offered detailed criticisms of alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you chose not to respond to. Their source wasn't even relevant to their validity.

Apocalypse said:
Where are those several alleged deficiencies that you had pointed out? Where are they, Agna?
Correct, right up there in space, together with your ruined fleet.
Now would you kindly bring them back to Earth so I could debate them?
Click to expand...

I already stated that they 'involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."' You simply ignored that entire comment and delivered an irrelevant ad hominem attack against a UN official so as to avoid actual response to these charges.

Apocalypse said:
So you're saying that a renewed trial where he'd be acquitted is unnecessary, and that he should just be released while still being a convicted murderer?
Click to expand...

If there was no legitimate risk of him engaging in violent or threatening actions, then he perhaps should be, especially if any trial would simply result in acquittal anyway. In the U.S., we have a Constitutional prohibition of "double jeopardy." I know that you unfortunately don't live in a democratic country with a Constitution, so you'd perhaps be unaware of this. ;)

Apocalypse said:
Do you realize that there is no sense of rationality in your words, and that you advocate the forsaking of the law system and its procedures?
Click to expand...

Which one? Considering the many irrationalities of the legal system itself, your claims seem to be contradictory. :rofl
 
Just show us your damn evidence Agna
 
Jesus titty****ing Christ, man! For the third time:

In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
any chance this happened so they did not have to pay the medical expenses? ?
 
I'm just sick of Agna going on for pages about the need for some evidence, and he won't show it. Come on Agna, bring it up. Why not? He was convicted in a fair trial where he was assumed innocent until proved guilty. For all intents and purposes, unless you or someone else can show that their is a reasonable doubt, he's now assumed guilty now.

Tell us, why should we let the f*cker out?
 
Ugh, what the ****? Unless you're packed with more demerol and pixie dust than Michael Jackson and Billy Mays put together, LOOK AT POST #91! :rofl
 
Agnapostate said:
In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation."
There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
Click to expand...

This is all hearsay. He is now presumed guilty, show evidence that there's reasonable doubt, not hearsay, and then there will be reasonable doubt again.
 
Didn't see the last post there mate
 
Agnapostate said:
In addition to the aforementioned impropriety that would be involved if key prosecution witness Gauci had again been payed for his submission of evidence, there were four separate issues mentioned in the report of UN observer Dr. Hans Koechler. They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,” the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias, and the "mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation." There have also been complaints by Megrahi's defense team related to the non-release of documents that may have diluted the credibility of the evidence of timer fragments found in his clothing. The source of these documents was the CIA, which insisted that they not be released. BBC News reports that these documents "may have undermined the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
Click to expand...
This is by no means anything close to an evidence that the court conviction of the terrorist was wrong.
And now I shall dissolve this to parts and give you further details as to why it is so.
They involved the lack of credibility of a "key" forensic witness, the claim of a retired Scottish police chief who stated that “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan,”
Click to expand...
A witness is a witness, his testimony is not taken as an evidence, by rather as a testimony, and is used to make it easier for the judge to reach the final judgment.
Most of the witnesses in the regular trials against criminals have an unknown credibility.
the lack of credibility of an FBI forensic specialist who may have had an inappropriate ideological bias
Click to expand...
May have had an inappropriate ideological bias my ass, he did his part in the trial and that's all, you cannot go around declaring that people with specific ideologies, that are against the charged person or the act, are probably biased and shouldn't be taken into mind.
mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation.
Click to expand...
While this might be a problem, the mix-up was brought into the judge's sight and has played its part in the trial in favor of the terrorist, it was not enough to damage the entire evidence against the terrorist.

I'm sorry but if this is all you have to declare the court's decision wrong then you are way off the line.
This is simply a regular trial's defense claims, most of the trials are a situation when both of the sides have claims, the charged and the charging.
It's just that those puny arguments are all the defense could bring up, and therefore the terrorist was convicted for the act and was found guilty.
 
No it's hearsay that the evidence may be flawed. It doesn't amount to anything more than speculation.
 
Apocalypse said:
A witness is a witness, his testimony is not taken as an evidence, by rather as a testimony, and is used to make it easier for the judge to reach the final judgment.
Most of the witnesses in the regular trials against criminals have an unknown credibility.
Click to expand...

Tony Gauci's testimony was the only concrete evidence of a link between Megrahi and the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103, without him there quite simply was not a trial to be had.

Gauci allegedly sold Megrahi clothes which were present in the suitcase which contained the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103. However after the trial it came to light that Gauci had seen a picture of Megrahi in a magazine prior to identifying him in a line-out and further that he had been paid $2 million by the CIA to testify. He would later be described by the man responsible for the investigation as "not the full shilling" and other unflattering terms.

There are, as has been mentioned, other issues with other pieces of "evidence", however, to me those issues are basically irrelevant in comparison. If Gauci was telling the truth, Megrahi at least had significant involvement, if Gauci is not quite the "full shilling" then a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom