Thursday, 29 January 2015

"Conspiracy theorist" bites back

One year ago today, John Ashton published his demolition of Magnus Linklater’s Scottish Review article stigmatising Justice for Megrahi campaigners as obsessive conspiracy theorists, impervious to fact or reason. Mr Ashton’s rebuttal appears in the Scottish Review too, with an expanded version on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website. If you haven’t read these pieces you have a treat in store.


  1. Hmmm. That article by Linklater was the one in which he revealed that Bill Taylor was writing a book about the Lockerbie trial, wasn't it? I wonder why? You can't make money out of books about Lockerbie you know, Mr. Taylor! So one would assume that he must have something he wants to get on the public record. I wonder what that is.

    Of course it's only been a year, hasn't it. How time flies. Still no sign of the book, but then books can take a long time to gestate if you don't rush them. I wonder if Mr. Taylor intends to justify his galactic rate of fee income while in the Netherlands, by explaining how it would have been impossible to achieve an acquittal for his client. That should be good! Or perhaps he intends to go further and hint delicately that his client as guilty as charged, and therefore his failure to achieve an acquittal represents justice being done? That should be good too.

    It was somebody's responsibility to figure out the bleedin' obvious, that the only reason the Crown was likely to have for trying to pretend Sidhu had moved that luggage, when everyone with access to his statements and the FAI transcripts (which includes Mr. Taylor) knew he hadn't, was because if it was acknowledged that the luggage wasn't moved, bad consequences would flow for the Crown case. The buck stops with senior counsel, I fear.

  2. One of the most pathetic aspects of the risible "Cover-up of Convenience" was a tedious recital of some of the unrelated Legal problems of many of the so-called "witnesses", the authors' claim being that because they had these unrelated problems therefore the authors' central allegations (that the bomb and a suitcase of drugs were introduced at Frankfurt) were true. (They relied on this daft logic because they didn't have any real evidence or real witnesses. My favourite was "Major Tunyab" a PFLP-GC defector who "confirmed to us Khalid Jafaar's role in the bombing. However how the bomb was introduced he did not know."!)

    And how were these unrelated Legal problems arranged? That is a conspiracy theory.

    Of course Professor you don't want to publish anything that is actually true.

    1. "Of course Professor you don't want to publish anything that is actually true."
      The last time I banned baz I weakly relented. This time I've had enough. There will be no more baz on this blog.

    2. Thank God fasting.