tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post6840953199472400706..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Very little of the evidence now fits with the Crown caseRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-19095994355654896432016-02-25T09:12:28.150+00:002016-02-25T09:12:28.150+00:00It's not that I think the break-in was probabl...It's not that I think the break-in was probably coincidental - I have no idea about that. I maintain it's irrelevant <i>whether or not it was actually carried out by the terrorists</i> because the evidence from Heathrow is that security there was extremely lax and a determined terrorist would have had no problem gaining access to the area via a number of different possible routes.<br /><br />The evidence shows that the bomb was in the case Bedford saw at 4.45. That stands on its own merits, and it's solid. There's no question of a counter-argument saying, but airside was secure, it's not possible for anyone to have penetrated there to plant the bomb at that time. There were multiple ways that could have been done and the court acknowledged that.<br /><br />Thus, the break-in is irrelevant in that it's entirely unnecessary for it to have happened to show that the Bedford case was the bomb. It did happen, however, and we don't know if it was a coincidence or not. It may not have been.<br /><br />Ironically, the appeal judges at Zeist turned this argument on its head when rejecting this point of appeal. They noted that the trial judges had accepted that Heathrow security was as porous as a sieve. They accepted that a secure airside at Heathrow had never formed part of the argument agains the Bedford case being the bomb. Therefore, they reasoned, knowing that there had been a specific, documented breach of security in the relevant area some hours before the disaster wouldn't have changed the trial court's findings.<br /><br />The break-in is a red herring, a straw man used by dishonest commentators with an agenda to shore up the establishment line and deflect attention from the evidence that's actually important.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.com