[This is the headline over a news report on the website on the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
Well, that is no real surprise. The EU is a kafkaesque bureaucratic monster. For the minds of most Europeans it is so far away that they know nothing about this Kremlin-like organization that keeps secret what it wants. Now you have to go the long way: Look for a parliamentarian who can raise the case.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the point of any of the observers? Hans Kochler has written a lot and made his opinion entirely clear, and as far as I can see nobody has paid a blind bit of attention to him.
ReplyDeleteMarc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
ReplyDeleteMr Jorna does not communicate very well. Did he mean:
“Unfortunately we have not been able to trace any of Mr Beereboom’s reports”? (ie no Beereboom reports exist)
Or,
“Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports”? (ie but some of his reports are in fact available).
Mr Jorna should explain himself!
Spare me for more proof of the rottenness of the system established by our elected leaders.
ReplyDeleteArticle said:
"Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments..."
And, it seems that unfortunately their reports are lost?
Why was Koechler's not? Because he didn't just deliver it to what appears to be the most expensive selective document shredder in the universe?
sfm said:
ReplyDeleteAnd, it seems that unfortunately their reports are lost?
Why was Koechler's not? Because he didn't just deliver it to what appears to be the most expensive selective document shredder in the universe?
Badda boom. Court of public opinion first, then take it back up to the top.
Don't these people ever make copies of what they write. Everyone knows that a legal system in trouble as the Scots are, the Americans, the EU and the UN deal wuth embarrassing material by hiding or destroying it. Some of us have not forgotten about the destroyed notebooks of the Strathclyde police.
ReplyDeleteOthers of us think that the penalty for failing to find a notebook or material evidence should result in a sentence equivalent to that handed down in the original trial.
That would put an end to "useful carelessness". In this case an ex chief constable would be expecting twenty- seven years in the slammer, which should account for the rest of his natural.