Thread: Lockerbie bomber offered freedom

Surprised this hasn't been made more of:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6194842.ece

Thoughts?

It's pretty disgusting that the poor sod's still banged up when the evidence against him has repeatedly been shown to be unsound at best and Mickey Mouse at worst.

The real bomber must be laughing his cock off and revelling in the dosh flowing in from Anglo-Libyan oil ventures.

He was proven guilty in a court of law, and sentenced to life imprisonment. No new evidence has come to light that I can see would change the verdict so he should die in prison, in Scotland. 270 lives perished as a result of this mans actions, I see no reason for compassion in his case.

His conviction was shown to be unsound when it was proved there were other ways the luggage in question could have got past airport security. That would have been enough to have his conviction quashed in any other case.

There's also the allegation made by Susan Lindauer that a CIA regional expert claimed there was no Libyan involvement whatsoever. Apologies for the secondary source, I wasn't able to track down the original article.

The bloke was a sacrificial goat, nothing more nothing less.

Smartascarrots, im not denying the evidence was somewhat flaky, but he received a trial, he had a defence lawyer and could have contested the evidence against him. Knowing the politics that was prevailing to get a trial going for Lockerbie I would not be surprised if the evidence was somewhat tampered with, but the fact remains that he was found guilty of this crime, and no other evidence has been produced to date which could lead me to believe that he is totally innocent.

If it subsequently turns out that he is innocent, the entire justice system of this country will be held to be in disrepute.

I'm with carrots on this. In view of the nature of the crime I think that a jury would have convicted anyone brought before them. As for the entire justice ( you really mean legal) system of this country, it is living on past glory. It is in disrepute.

IMHO,a political trial and a set-up.

The finger of blame was pointed at Iran and Syria.

Originally Posted by bobthedog

Smartascarrots, im not denying the evidence was somewhat flaky, but he received a trial, he had a defence lawyer and could have contested the evidence against him. Knowing the politics that was prevailing to get a trial going for Lockerbie I would not be surprised if the evidence was somewhat tampered with, but the fact remains that he was found guilty of this crime, and no other evidence has been produced to date which could lead me to believe that he is totally innocent.

If it subsequently turns out that he is innocent, the entire justice system of this country will be held to be in disrepute.

The evidence about the alternate methods of delivery was brought out after he was convicted, as was the other stuff. He was found guilty on a combination of dodgy and incomplete evidence; and high emotions.

The fact that it was a despicable crime should mean that we're more interested in finding the actual guilty party than persecuting the patsy.

So I guess what everybody is saying is that it was a show trial, not only has democracy and freedom suffered in the past 12 years, but our justice system is in tatters. Is there anything left undamaged by New Labours desire to be tampering in everything?

It was a show trial all right. How far NL's hand was in it I'm not sure as the groundwork for a scapegoating had been laid since the bombing.

For what it's worth, HERE's the orginal verdict.

Personally I have a problem with the summing up, particularly when squaring "the identification of the first accused (albeit not absolute)" with "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused".

He couldn't be identified absolutely but was definitely guilty? Come on...