As far as I can see, only two UK Sunday newspapers feature stories related to the High Court's refusal of interim liberation to Mr Megrahi.
Scotland on Sunday's health correspondent, Kate Foster, provides an article on the difficulties that face his legal advisers of supplying to the court (or to the Scottish Government, if an application were made for compassionate release) a medical prognosis that indicates how long he has to live. An unnamed source is quoted as follows:
"All the doctors will say is that this is terminal and it's not their job to predict how long he has to live. That's the problem his legal team faces. The doctors won't commit themselves. The court is saying that if he gets a prognosis, then by all means come back. But the doctors simply won't give a prognosis. It's the nature of this particular condition and the fact he is on hormone treatment."
The Sunday Express picks up the story, run yesterday as an exclusive by The Herald, about Dr Jim Swire saying that, if Mr Megrahi dies before his appeal is decided, he (Swire) might seek to be recognised by the court as having a legitimate interest to continue it. Of course, if a member of Mr Megrahi's family (eg wife, child, sibling) were prepared to take over the appeal on his death, this would spare the High Court from having to decide whether the relative of a murder victim qualifies as having a legitimate interest to continue the appeal of the person convicted of the murder. The article can be read here.
Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi had not only nothing whatever to do with the Lockerbie bombing, also the deliberately wrong statements of the accusation were not material proofs, but manipulated circumstantial evidences.
ReplyDeleteMr. Megrahi's ex defence team Duff & Taylor have lost by negligence and missing material defence evidence, the original process and the first Appeal!
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland