[This is the heading over a letter from Morag Kerr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse (“Cardinal backs call for independent inquiry into conviction of Megrahi”, The Herald October 27). Prominent among the critics was Dr Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who described the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner” .
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice. The dropping of the appeal by Megrahi does not make these doubts go away; nor does it transform the verdict into a sound one.
[I an grateful to Morag Kerr for allowing me to reproduce here the letter as it was submitted and before it was edited:]
The statement by a Scottish government spokesman that “there [is] no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction” (...) is incomprehensible.
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding the safety of that conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse. Prominent among the critics was Dr. Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who published a blistering attack on the judicial process, describing the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, further declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner.” Indeed, simply reading through the 81-page Opinion of the Court reveals so much reasonable doubt surrounding the evidence that the pronouncement of the guilty verdict comes as a bolt from the blue.
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were no less than six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice.
The dropping of the appeal by Mr. al-Megrahi, whether coerced or not, does not make these doubts go away, nor does it magically transform a perverse verdict into a sound one.
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeletesorry in "Babilon" computer english language:
Was this crucial order came to the Lords Advocates on the court in Kamp van Zeist, "give Megrahi calmly the debt (the remainder can you kept for later)" ?
Likewise the flight security organization, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) accepted the possible Miscarriage of Justice ?
That was a rough negligence for the flight Security in the world !
Piece of advice: The 'FAA' may not miss the opportunity for safety reasons in Air Traffic to know finally definitely whether the actual assassins of PanAm 103 are still in freedom!
This is a further reason to instruct the 'Scottish Parliament' to start immediately a new investigation in the case of Lockerbie. Justice for Al Megrahi…
Current: Yesterday, on 29 October '10, US and UK investigate two (2) parcel bombs on air planes from Yemen.
Materials for explosive device in courier packages alleged similarly to the explosions on board an aircraft of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland 1988 ?
Are the professionals "Air-Bomb specialists" of PanAm 103 still in freedom and active ?
Ask the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) responsible in flight security...
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
[BT=CT, anyone willing to speculate? They managed to bring down the internet in Scotland, N.Ireland and Northwest England all by themselves, or was it cyber espionage?]
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the Herald letter (which shows there are a loads of people out there with interesting points of view) contained information new to me; namely cost and length of the SCCRC review, notwithstanding the large carbon footprint. Therefore, shudder to think what a fuller inquiry might cost. I wonder if they could base it on this work and make it a bit cheaper considering the impecunious nature of the present finances?
I have an idea that's cheaper than that.
ReplyDeleteThe judges at the second appeal had already heard in full Grounds 1 and 2 about reasonableness of the verdict and sufficiency of the evidence. There was nothing left to do in court on those grounds - the judges were to rule on whether they were to decide those grounds first.
The judges had said that when they came back on 7 July they could, in effect, free him without any further argument in court.
They did say when they came back on that date that not only could they not make the preliminary decision because one judge was ill, but also that they could not have done so even if he had been healthy. But it is perhaps noteworthy that Mr Megrahi did pursue his case to a point where he could have been freed.
So I propose that an inquiry, perhaps ideally using the same judges, complete that job using the transcripts and if appropriate whatever work the judges had already done.
They might decide they could not determine those grounds of appeal without considering the others.
There would also be a question as to what should be done if they do not rule that the verdict is unsound or that there should be a retrial. In either case, they could not draw any conclusion that the verdict was sound, since the other grounds would not have been examined.
If the decision was that the verdict was unsound, the cost and time involved would perhaps be far less than any other method.
If the decision was to examine other grounds, a next stage could be for an inquiry to be set up compelling evidence to be released from the prosecution and defence.
Perhaps as an interim measure for now, the Scottish Government might, in the spirit of their stated aim to release all relevant documents, arrange for all transcripts of hearings related to the second appeal to be published.
Matt, that is all seriously interesting. Is there anywhere one can read more about that?
ReplyDelete