[This is the headline over a report on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
The senior pathologist who supervised the examination of more than 250 victims of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken out in support of the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
This weekend marks six months since the Libyan was freed on compassionate grounds after he was judged by prison medics to have less than three months to live.
Now, in an exclusive interview with STV News, Professor Anthony Busuttil said he was "not remotely surprised" Megrahi has outlived the short prognosis that led to his release.
Professor Busuttil supervised the team of pathologists which examined the bodies of more than 250 victims at Lockerbie. He has vast medical experience, having investigated more than 900 murders during a long career.
Megrahi's release was criticised by many - particularly by relatives of the American victims.
However, Professor Busuttil, who witnessed the carnage at Lockerbie first hand, says it was the right thing to do - even though doctors could not say with absolute certainty how long Megrahi would live.
Megrahi started to undergo chemotherapy on his return to Libya and has not been seen in public since last September. Professor Busuttil says he has learned through contacts that the Lockerbie bomber is receiving the highest standards of care.
Professor Busuttil told STV News: " ... Some people get slightly better for a period before they get worse again, so it's part and parcel of how the disease affects the human body."
Asked if it was possible Megrahi would live for more than the three-month prognosis, he added: "I would have thought so. No clinician can tell you, look you've got six weeks and then after six weeks, you drop dead.
"I very much suspect that he is getting the best treatment that is available worldwide.
"He is going to die quite soon. It is appropriate to show compassion at that particular stage in life. I think it shows a strength of a country which is able to put away vengeance."
This is indeed interesting.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Busutill was not, I recall, a witness at the Zeist trial.
Had he been, I think the evidence that he would have given that bodies break up owing to "air friction" would have been challenged by the defence.
Indeed whole bodies were found at Lockerbie that had been flung out early on during destruction of the aircraft, while those found at the back of Rosebank Crescent were in small pieces about the size of a hand (say 10 cm).
That was said to be air friction, or perhaps we should say "air fiction". It gives considerable credence to the view there was a second larger explosion on the aircraft which is covertly referred to in the AAIB report (see page F-4, which says: "No evidence was seen to suggest that more than one IED had detonated on Flight 103". IED is not a synonym for explosion,and an alternative and valid reading of this sentence miight be:"There was evidence of a second explosion, not attributable to an IED".
Professor de Braeckeleer says the New Mexico inquiry claimed that a device of 20-30 lbs had blown up on the aircraft, not comparable with an IED of 380g-480g.
And there we must leave it until the real perpetrators come clean, or are forced to do so.
It's interesting in that someone medical and involved in Lockerbie investigations, who saw the bodies, can still muster the compassion to support the release.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't really say much to Megrahi's innocence or anything. But it's related so it has to go here. This is the big net blog.
No comment on the other points you raise.
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteAt the end the "Lockerbie-Hunters" become to Hunted >>> in preparation
on our website: www.lockerbie.ch
Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
It gives considerable credence to the view there was a second larger explosion on the aircraft which is covertly referred to in the AAIB report (see page F-4, which says: "No evidence was seen to suggest that more than one IED had detonated on Flight 103". IED is not a synonym for explosion,and an alternative and valid reading of this sentence miight be:"There was evidence of a second explosion, not attributable to an IED".
ReplyDeleteI see. When an Air Accident investigation thinks a 20lb military ordnance bomb has detonated on a plane as well as the terrorist's suitcase IED, it's normal practice to indicate this by referring to the IED as an IED, and leaving the rest as an exercise for the reader.
ROTFLMAO.
Charles, are you going for the double? Back to back, no less? You're still leading in the January poll, though the holocaust denier in second place is creeping up on you.
Good luck!
I have coplained directly to Professor Black about this response.
ReplyDeleteCharles Norrie.
My "no comment" was loaded, but it did say only that.
ReplyDeleteRolfe is a big meanie. ;)
I do not moderate comments and have no intention of starting to do so. Nothing on this thread has as yet contravened my (confessedly idiosyncratic) minimum standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Robust debate is entirely acceptable, at least to me.
ReplyDelete