Thursday 31 July 2008

US and Libya close to agreement on compensation

Reuters reports that US and Libyan negotiators have reached tentative agreement on the outstanding compensation issues between the two countries, including the final tranche of the $10m payable to the family of each Lockerbie victim. The report reads in part:

'Under the deal, Libya would set aside $536 million to pay the remaining claims from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and $283 million to compensate those killed and injured in the bombing of a West Berlin disco in 1986, said attorney Jim Kreindler, whose law firm represents 130 Lockerbie victims.

'Two hundred and seventy people died when a bomb destroyed a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. The Berlin disco bomb killed three and injured 229.

'The deal would also set aside additional funds to compensate victims of other incidents blamed on Libya, possibly bringing the total payout to more than $1 billion.

'To implement the tentative agreement, however, Congress would have to relieve Libya of the effects of a law enacted this year making it easier for terrorism victims to collect damages by having the assets of target governments frozen.'

The full report can be read here, and earlier relevant posts appeared on this blog on 31 March, 5 May and 31 May 2008.

7 comments:

  1. When Gadhafi accepts responsibility and pays compensation for Pan Am 103 and other treachery, are you and Dr. Swire STILL going to maintain that Libya was innocent in this terrorism?
    Frank Duggan
    franc49108@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I have always said is that the evidence led at the trial was insufficient to warrant Megrahi's conviction. The SCCRC appears to agree with me; and I predict that the Appeal Court will agree with the SCCRC. Libya has never accepted responsibility for the affair. What it has done is accept responsibility for the acts of state employees, whatever those acts may have been. The payment of compensation was accepted as a political necessity for the removal of UN and US sanctions, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's see: 1. Fragment of clothing found at Lockerbie which was purchased at Malta. Shopkeeper IDs him--albeit not the best ID in the world. Megrahi in Malta the day the clothing was purchased.
    2. MEBO timer fragment found at Lockerbie. Megrahi has business connections with MEBO and denied knowing the company. Recall that Bollier ID artist sketch of clothes buyer as resembling Megrahi.
    3. Megrahi in Malta the day the bomb suitcase left there. Not only that he was there in a false name and denied this when initially asked (I think his arrogance got the better of him).
    4. Notations in Fhimah diary about getting Air Malta luggage tags the week before the Pan Am plane was downed. For what purpose? Lets not forget that Fhimah and Megrahi flew in to Malta together on the evening of 12/20 and phone records tied them together on 12/21.
    5. Megrai was a member of the Libyan intelligence service which also (see all your reporting on Iran) vowed revenge on the US for the raid on Libya in 1986 and in fact a senior Libyan official inquired about it in Malta shortly after the attack.
    The above is certainly stronger than all the allegations about the PFLP-GC, Iran and all the other nefarious people and groups who hate the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From the summary of findings issued by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on 27 June 2007 when it referred Mr Megrahi’s case back to the Criminal Appeal Court:

    ‘…the Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary's House, took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant's case.

    ‘New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary's House is situated. In the Commission's view,taken together with Mr Gauci's evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.

    ‘Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission's view evidence of Mr Gauci's exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

    ‘Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci's identification of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court's finding as to the date of purchase.’

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Gauci ID is only a part of the circumstantial evidence. Show me one other piece of credible "evidence" which implicates anyone else---ONE!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You seem to have a very odd idea of what criminal proceedings are about. It is for the prosecution to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. It is no part of the function of the defence (or of those who contest the accused's guilt) to provide evidence that someone else is. The evidence at Zeist was insufficient to justify Mr Megrahi's conviction. That is what the SCCRC report indicates and that is what, I believe, the Criminal Appeal Court will decide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The SCCRC report states that a miscarriage of justice MAY have occured. It does NOT (as you repeatedly and inaccurately purport) say that a miscarriage of justice DID occur. Megrahi IS guilty, as proven TWICE at trial and at the first appeal. It's hight time that he, you and all of the other conspiracy theorists stop wasting time and money on this GUILTY MURDERER.

    ReplyDelete