Lockerbie appeal grounds show that the Scottish judiciary is not infallible
You allude to the fact that grave disquiet about the handling of the Megrahi case continues ("New plea by LibDems for Lockerbie public inquiry", The Herald, January 3).
The concerns that Britain's worst terrorist atrocity may additionally have become Scotland's greatest miscarriage of justice are now so deep-seated that a full public inquiry is required to establish the truth and restore faith in the justice system.
That view is not shared by the legal establishment. Last month, Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, went on public record and stigmatised those who question the validity of the Lockerbie verdict as "conspiracy theorists".
In support of his contention, he alluded to the number of judges (the trial judges and the appeal court judges) involved in the case and, in effect, concluded that the verdict was therefore unassailable.
Others, with perhaps a more sophisticated grasp of elementary logic, could point to the number of grounds which were used by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to justify the case being referred back to the Court of Criminal Appeal and conclude that Scotland's judges are not necessarily deities.
Thomas Crooks
Edinburgh
I cannot agree with Christopher Frew, who is opposed to the holding of a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case because it would upset US public opinion (Letters, January 4). Far too many questions hang over the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the horrific bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, and these questions will not go away.
If Megrahi was innocent, justice demands that his name must be cleared for the sake of his family, for all the bereaved families, and for the reputation of the Scottish justice system.
Anything less than the truth should be unacceptable to the public on both sides of the Atlantic. Let a full public inquiry be held and the true facts be known.
Ruth Marr
Stirling
No comments:
Post a Comment