tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post358958374898916284..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Medical mystery behind bomber's releaseRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-51366310601996826412010-08-07T23:08:24.508+01:002010-08-07T23:08:24.508+01:00"A little bit of embarrassment a year ago, to..."A little bit of embarrassment a year ago, to change nothing except allow the appeal to continue, could have avoided all the current calls such as "The Scottish ministers should be forced to resign, and then tried on corruption charges. Megrahi should be returned to prison.""<br /><br />Couldn't agree more. Which brings us back to why they did it. The Professor has pointed out she was originally a Labour appointment. Why leave her there then? Fresh pair of hands was what was needed, but then remember the uproar when she was appointed simply because she was a woman? All the talk about legal glass ceilings smashing? All the talk about progress? <br /><br />As you say, MacAskill and Sturgeon are both lawyers and they know the score. They also must have known that compassionate relief would bring them more grief than the hearing of the appeal would. The hearing of that appeal would have tarnished every Party just about except them. They could have landed damaging punches to both Labour and the Tories. And yet....? They followed Angiolini's bidding which was to protect the establishement and the Scottish Justice System and add insult to injury by even declaring the original verdict safe!Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-46994443965129754212010-08-07T21:53:48.224+01:002010-08-07T21:53:48.224+01:00CL, I swear I posted the dirt on Sikora in some de...CL, I swear I posted the dirt on Sikora in some detail in the JREF forum. I'm sorry I ever described him as a respected expert, I've learned better since.<br /><br />For example.<br /><br />http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2073<br />http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1466<br /><br />You have to scroll down to get to the relevant part on both pages.<br /><br />It has been made crystal clear by the Scottish government that while Libya was entitled to pay him to give his opinion if they liked (I don't know if he even examined the patient, or if it was all done by examining the history and test results), there was never any question of his being one of the medical opinions taken into account in making the decision.<br /><br />He likes publicity, does our Karol, and he also likes embarrassing the NHS for some reason. That "he could live ten or 20 years" was quite disgraceful and simply poured petrol on the flames. He's never made it clear that his wasn't one of the opinions used by Kenny MacAskill, in fact he seems to enjoy pretending it was.<br /><br />I realise you're at a disadvantage not having direct access to the Scottish media, but this is fact.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-25681242216875454442010-08-07T20:29:47.267+01:002010-08-07T20:29:47.267+01:00I agree with you. I was just commenting on Prof. ...I agree with you. I was just commenting on Prof. Black's apparent view that Eilish Angiolini was the entire cause of it all, and the Scottish government simply had to do what she told them to do.<br /><br />Yes, they could (and should) have sacked her, as Prof. Black points out. But they weren't innocent pawns. Kenny MacAskill is a lawyer, as is Nicola Sturgeon. When handed advice that appears to pervert the course of justice, they should be perfectly able to see that for what it is and take the necessary action.<br /><br />A little bit of embarrassment a year ago, to change nothing except allow the appeal to continue, could have avoided all the current calls such as "The Scottish ministers should be forced to resign, and then tried on corruption charges. Megrahi should be returned to prison."<br /><br />Meh.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18916948508590014952010-08-07T20:12:49.350+01:002010-08-07T20:12:49.350+01:00Rolfe. The SNP know all that we know. In fact, t...Rolfe. The SNP know all that we know. In fact, that isn't true, they actually know much more. <br /><br />Angiolini isn't their boss, it is the other way around, so all along she could have been sacked if she was seen to be giving advice which was not in the interests of justice. (The advice followed, rather, seems to be to pervert the course of justice actually.) <br /><br />The Scottish Government went with it and as Prof B pointed out, they didn't have to. So they are as much part of the obstruction of justice as the rest of them. MacAskill has since called for an independent investigation into Lockerbie of course which is something. But it simply will never excuse what he was a party to last year.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-20870503760215717272010-08-07T19:07:57.030+01:002010-08-07T19:07:57.030+01:00Rolfe, apart from being head of the Scottish publi...<i>Rolfe, apart from being head of the Scottish public prosecution system, the Lord Advocate is the legal adviser to the Scottish Government. On matters of law that Government has to accept her legal advice or sack her and appoint someone else. The latter is what they should have done, of course, but (having broken every historical tradition by appointing her in the first place) that would have been just too embarrassing for the new government.</i><br /><br />Hmmm, even more embarrassing than what's going on at the moment?<br /><br />The only part of the goverment's behaviour I take issue with is the blackmailing/threatening/confusing Megrahi into dropping the appeal. That seems to have been highly ill-advised - implying to Megrahi that he had to drop the appeal to allow Prisoner Transfer to be <i>considered</i>, without even knowing if the Crown was going to drop its appeal against sentence, never mind knowing if the Prisoner Transfer was going to be granted.<br /><br />Even if there had been no question of compassionate release, and prisoner transfer was the only application on the table, no prisoner should be put in a position where he had to withdraw an appeal with every prospect of success, without certainty that he would not then find himself still facing a Crown appeal against sentence, and continued incarceration. If this is the quality of advice Mrs. Angiolini was giving the government, in my opinion she should have been sacked.<br /><br />Adding in the Compassionate Release, which would not have required the appeal to be dropped, her advice seems to have been to deliberately time matters so that the prisoner was not allowed to know the outcome of the Compassionate Release application before having to make the decision about the appeal. This is absolutely unconscionable in my opinion.<br /><br />If that appeal had not been dropped, by now I strongly suspect (barring further shenanigans) Megrahi would have been cleared of the crime, leaving the US senators and others nothing to bluster about bar insinuating that he was guilty anyway, which would have been easily brushed away.<br /><br />And to think that when her appointment was confirmed in 2007 I thought this was a conciliatory and statesmanlike gesture on the part of the SNP administration. It never occurred to me that the decision would eventually screw over any hope of clarity in the Lockerbie case.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29344324197612202272010-08-07T18:53:16.692+01:002010-08-07T18:53:16.692+01:00"There was not the slightest chance that she ..."There was not the slightest chance that she would allow any government of which she was a member to pursue a course of action that would reflect badly on the Department to which she had devoted her life."<br /><br />How much of your own life did you devote to your professioin Prof B? How much of it have you devoted to since working for real justice following the Lockerbie trial? <br /><br />I don't believe you would have done that lightly. I don't think it would have given you any pleasure whatsoever that this trial was a disgrace to the Scottish Justice System. I think you also must have had to think long and hard about what you should do. <br /><br />In the end, your priority was justice and that showed great courage. Some would perhaps say no, it is easy. I don't buy that. <br /><br />You were part of the establishment and what you went on to say damaged it whether they admit that or not. It is often easier to run with the crowd, as many other legal people and politicians have, and indeed the Lord Advocate, than to say, "These are our principles and we must apply them fully at all times." <br /><br />Even if we set all of these people at the top of twenty feet ladders you will still be head and shoulders above all of them.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-80225981260769090152010-08-07T18:19:09.808+01:002010-08-07T18:19:09.808+01:00I remember her most unprofessional public outburst...I remember her most unprofessional public outburst after Mr Megrahi launched a website following his release. It was almost a personal attack. It disgusted me coming from someone holding the office of Lord Advocate. Very common. Very vulgar.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-51307641734347118692010-08-07T16:21:32.659+01:002010-08-07T16:21:32.659+01:00Rolfe, apart from being head of the Scottish publi...Rolfe, apart from being head of the Scottish public prosecution system, the Lord Advocate is the legal adviser to the Scottish Government. On matters of law that Government has to accept her legal advice or sack her and appoint someone else. The latter is what they should have done, of course, but (having broken every historical tradition by appointing her in the first place) that would have been just too embarrassing for the new government.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-3537678379035740912010-08-07T14:40:44.566+01:002010-08-07T14:40:44.566+01:00Indeed Rolfe, tread warily. She likes to sue peop...Indeed Rolfe, tread warily. She likes to sue people and we'll only have to pay her bill for doing that to you if you upset her as she'll probably claim it out of expenses!Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-71704266881092530382010-08-07T12:58:31.752+01:002010-08-07T12:58:31.752+01:00Prof. Black has said much the same about Eilish An...Prof. Black has said much the same about Eilish Angiolini in earlier posts. If I were to say anything close to what I think about that lady, it would probably be actionable.<br /><br />I have, however, always found it difficult to see how she and she alone could have been pulling the strings of MacAskil, Salmond and Sturgeon to the extent this would imply. She's not even in the cabinet. She's a Labourite. How can she have so much influence?<br /><br />Lords Advocate have been involved in this lot up to their dirty little necks. Peter Fraser, Colin Boyd, and now the Implacable Schoolgirl.<br /><br />Why?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33317970867844784972010-08-07T12:09:00.140+01:002010-08-07T12:09:00.140+01:00Prof B, thank you for that response. It is extrem...Prof B, thank you for that response. It is extremely interesting.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29481586467441859052010-08-07T12:08:04.722+01:002010-08-07T12:08:04.722+01:00By recriminations incidentally I don't mean th...By recriminations incidentally I don't mean their professional reputations were being protected. I'm talking about their personal safety.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-49880072523276648452010-08-07T12:06:13.989+01:002010-08-07T12:06:13.989+01:00Caustic, I think the issue is that no one denies S...Caustic, I think the issue is that no one denies Sikora saw Megrahi, assessed him, made reports on him. Ultimately however his reports were not included with others from different medical personnel. How could they be? They could not be impartial. Doctors representing Libya did however have the right to access to Megrahi during his incarceration. Any foreign prisoner held here would have that right too. <br /><br />It doesn't mean anything in the light of MacAskill's decision. The reports by Sikora and other's on Libya's payroll did not play any part in the final decision. <br /><br />You mention the names of Doctor's being blacked out on the reports. All Doctors involved were not identified as far as I know. That was to protect their right to privacy and also to protect them from recriminations at a later date. Fraser was identified but that was unavoidable given his position at Greenock.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-86121022653679739942010-08-07T10:49:05.119+01:002010-08-07T10:49:05.119+01:00"That the SNP appeared to be part of the move..."That the SNP appeared to be part of the moves to get the appeal buried brings another huge question into the equation too. They were uncontaminated by the toxic stuff associated with the trial and the decisions at Westminster to keep the truth hidden, to slap privacy certificates on certain evidence pertinent to the appeal. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by wanting that appeal continued and doing everything in their power to ensure it did." <br /><br />Jo, I have always thought it's very simple. The incoming minority SNP government thought it would be good politics to offer an olive branch to Labour by retaining one of their less important Ministers. They chose the Lord Advocate (not an MSP, of course). Elish Angiolini has spent every day of her working lifetime, from traineeship to the present day, in the service of the Crown Office. There was not the slightest chance that she would allow any government of which she was a member to pursue a course of action that would reflect badly on the Department to which she had devoted her life.<br /><br />Any progress on Lockerbie was effectively stymied when Alex Salmond decided, for understandable political reasons, to keep on Mrs Angiolini. It remains, in my view, the worst mistake that the SNP Government has made.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30390052642674056422010-08-07T09:42:28.139+01:002010-08-07T09:42:28.139+01:00And another part I lost, to show how confusing thi...And another part I lost, to show how confusing this is when Dr. Sikora keeps talking: <br />The new WSJ article says:<br />"Libya retained three doctors to examine him. Two said a three-month prognosis was reasonable and one didn't, according to Karol Sikora, the only one of the three who agreed to be interviewed. Dr. Fraser didn't consider the reports filed by these Libyan-hired doctors, the Scottish government says."<br /><br />And before we've had this:<br />"Karol Sikora was one of three specialists who refused to concur with the prognosis by a prison doctor last August that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live when he was released last year.<br />[…]<br />"I say he will be dead within four weeks," said Mr Sikora, the medical director of Cancer Partners and Dean of Buckingham University medical school."<br />http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Lockerbie-bomber-39will-die-within.6203241.jp<br /><br />???Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-58066815492936532462010-08-07T09:32:15.566+01:002010-08-07T09:32:15.566+01:00Finally sit down and spend a rare hour ... Rolfe, ...Finally sit down and spend a rare hour ... Rolfe, when did Dr.Sikora's report reach MacAskill? Do you have a date? I didn't know he delivered a separate report, had presumed he was included in Fraser's. <br /><br />And one important Q, who is the doctor redacted from Fraser's report? I had presumed this was Sikora, given how he's played up his role and so much media echoed that he was <b>the</b> responsible doctor. <br /><a href="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Lockerbiedivide/10-Aug_Report_3-month.jpg" rel="nofollow">image</a> <br /><br />I had tried to rule it out, but was unable:<br /><a href="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Lockerbiedivide/10-Aug_report_consultants.jpg" rel="nofollow">image</a><br />Thanks.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-66683581956832775542010-08-07T09:27:42.517+01:002010-08-07T09:27:42.517+01:00Auugh! Giant comment lost!
Okay I'm wrong.Auugh! Giant comment lost! <br /><br />Okay I'm wrong.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-20681703226075246732010-08-06T23:51:23.893+01:002010-08-06T23:51:23.893+01:00I know this is speculative but I sometimes wonder ...I know this is speculative but I sometimes wonder what it must have been like for Megrahi trying to deal with the whole situation: we had the wait for the appeal going on and on: then his illness, the deterioration in his health and the sort of emotions any ordinary person must feel when facing up to cancer never mind a person locked up in prison. We then had this PTA business or the compassionate release and the prospect of having to drop his appeal in one of those options (or was he told both?). We had the uncertainty he faced about just how long he had .....and so wouldn't we also see a further deterioration in his condition under the weight of all this?Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-64975028273689430522010-08-06T23:37:06.548+01:002010-08-06T23:37:06.548+01:00Agreed Rolfe. To consider any advice from Libyan ...Agreed Rolfe. To consider any advice from Libyan funded medics would have been quite insane.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-64931922329124103782010-08-06T23:17:58.467+01:002010-08-06T23:17:58.467+01:00Nope. Sikora's report wasn't even receive...Nope. Sikora's report wasn't even received by MacAskill in time to be considered. Fraser wrote the definitive report, but taking into consideration reports from a number of different consultants and other experts.<br /><br />Libya had the right to pay Sikora as a hired gun, and to submit his report to the Justice Secretary (except it was late), but the Justice Secretary would not have considered that to be part of the medical evidence he based his decision on even if it had been received in time.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-23444206077335450282010-08-06T23:17:31.739+01:002010-08-06T23:17:31.739+01:00Hiya Caustic......from what I can find the SG decl...Hiya Caustic......from what I can find the SG declared quite firmly that the views of Sikora were not part of the "advice" taken. <br /><br />Great site incidentally: I'll be going back to read more.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-23285092901769874692010-08-06T22:32:54.581+01:002010-08-06T22:32:54.581+01:00It seems there's some real confusion of the ro...It seems there's some real confusion of the role of Sikora and/or other doctors. Not just here but elsewhere. Was it all Fraser's doing, or no one's, or what? I concluded that Sikora seems to be the three-month guy by some comparing sources and deducing. It might be wrong, but good enough for me at the moment. Explained here:<br />http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/07/advice-of-just-one-doctor.html<br /> Thanks for the comment, Jo. I'll look it over and comment later on today. Laundry time now. :)Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-1307872863271162492010-08-06T20:34:17.611+01:002010-08-06T20:34:17.611+01:00"I'd really like to know why everyone was..."I'd really like to know why everyone was so keen to get that appeal dropped, including SNP ministers who had nothing to do with the original legal shenanigens. All this, just to prevent the Scottish justice system looking bad? It already looks bad."<br /><br />That is the biggest question of all. That the SNP appeared to be part of the moves to get the appeal buried brings another huge question into the equation too. They were uncontaminated by the toxic stuff associated with the trial and the decisions at Westminster to keep the truth hidden, to slap privacy certificates on certain evidence pertinent to the appeal. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by wanting that appeal continued and doing everything in their power to ensure it did.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33860825416759397072010-08-06T20:25:14.788+01:002010-08-06T20:25:14.788+01:00Blogiston, with respect, what the Senate Committee...Blogiston, with respect, what the Senate Committee thinks is completely irrelevant. They have resurrected this issue for their own selfish reasons which are connected with the oil spill and BP. I think we all realise this. Nevertheless they are irrelevant, they have no jurisdiction here and their beloved country was behind the whole framing of Megrahi and burying of the truth in the first place.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90762577511303677712010-08-06T20:05:23.537+01:002010-08-06T20:05:23.537+01:00Even at the time, I harboured some suspicions that...Even at the time, I harboured some suspicions that the prognosis might have been massaged down somewhat in order to faciliate the exercise of leaning on Megrahi to drop his appeal. The timing was rather neat. The appeal was due to come back to court in early November, under three months from all these negotiations.<br /><br />I never suspected Megrahi was manipulating anything; more that he was being manipulated. Leave the three-month progosis much later, and he might decide to chance it and stick around for the next appeal hearings. But as it was, it was implied that he'd probably be dead or at least moribund by that time, making such a gesture futile.<br /><br />I'd really like to know why everyone was so keen to get that appeal dropped, including SNP ministers who had nothing to do with the original legal shenanigens. All this, just to prevent the Scottish justice system looking bad? It already looks bad.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.com