tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post4655656753559252468..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Seven years' hardRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-83161738698103005632014-07-09T09:22:37.146+01:002014-07-09T09:22:37.146+01:00I wouldn't get your hopes up, Professor....I wouldn't get your hopes up, Professor....Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-85210660381216097672014-07-09T07:07:39.156+01:002014-07-09T07:07:39.156+01:00This is utter nonsense, Dave. The Crown were as su...This is utter nonsense, Dave. The Crown were as surprised as everyone else in the courtroom (and beyond) when the judges returned a verdict of guilty against Megrahi. If you are going to continue contributing, please stop posting comments about what "must" have happened and start concentrating on what actually did.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-15241928622300522022014-07-09T00:14:10.747+01:002014-07-09T00:14:10.747+01:00There was a conspiracy charge against both and no ...There was a conspiracy charge against both and no evidence against either and a guilty verdict against one but not the other, but only possible because the conspiracy charge was dropped.<br /><br />But why would a conspiracy charge be dropped when the evidence against both was so strong, unless the selected judges were not impressed with the evidence, clearly evident in their summing up.<br /><br />Thus a deal must have been done, normally known as a plea bargain, but with the judges, not the defendants! <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-71371919698137830812014-07-08T19:52:26.585+01:002014-07-08T19:52:26.585+01:00Re your first paragraph, that was what I suspected...Re your first paragraph, that was what I suspected. Re your second, I wholeheartedly agree. No country should have different levels of acquittal.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-81555309548070389222014-07-08T18:45:57.998+01:002014-07-08T18:45:57.998+01:00Scuttlebutt again has it that the judges early dec...Scuttlebutt again has it that the judges early decided that, whatever happened in the trial, no acquittal would be by way of "Not Proven", for precisely the reason that most people (at home and overseas) would make the assumption that Rolfe refers to. <br /><br />How I wish that our only two verdicts were "Proven" and "Not Proven"! It's the "Not Guilty" verdict that is the nonsensical one and does not accurately reflect what 99 per cent of acquittals actually mean, viz that the accused's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be).Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-9795738997238480222014-07-08T18:18:53.672+01:002014-07-08T18:18:53.672+01:00Prof, do you think a "not proven" verdic...Prof, do you think a "not proven" verdict would have been acceptable for either defendant in this case? Given that it's popularly regarded as a "guilty on the balance of probability but not beyond reasonable doubt" judgement?<br /><br />(Yes I know you're going to say it doesn't mean that, but that's not the point. That's what people <i>think</i> it means.)Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-71309155131788777812014-07-08T17:27:50.191+01:002014-07-08T17:27:50.191+01:00I don't believe for a second that there was a ...I don't believe for a second that there was a backroom deal between the Crown and the judges. The scuttlebutt within the Scottish legal profession was that two of the judges wanted to convict both accused and one wanted acquit both. The compromise (because anything other than a unanimous verdict in this case would have been intolerable from a PR standpoint) was to convict one and acquit the other. The scuttlebutt goes on to say that the judge who was for acquittal has ever since regretted agreeing to the compromise. Maybe we'll find out if there is any truth in this once he dies. Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-5327357332004352862014-07-08T17:14:07.804+01:002014-07-08T17:14:07.804+01:00Thanks Professor,
Dropping the conspiracy charge ...Thanks Professor,<br /><br />Dropping the conspiracy charge was a remarkable thing to happen because it becomes an admission about the lack of evidence despite years preparing a case based on a conspiracy to plant a bomb.<br /><br />But without the conspiracy charge being dropped the judges would have had to find both defendants innocent or guilty.<br /><br />Thus was the conspiracy charge dropped by the Crown as a back room deal to allow the [protesting] judges to do their patriotic duty by finding one guilty without having to go completely against their conscience and the evidence by finding both guilty?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-7099003838610022242014-07-08T13:29:12.749+01:002014-07-08T13:29:12.749+01:00On 9 January 2001, which was during the trial.On 9 January 2001, which was during the trial.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90985364853630107532014-07-08T13:24:30.092+01:002014-07-08T13:24:30.092+01:00When exactly was the conspiracy charge dropped, be...When exactly was the conspiracy charge dropped, before or during the trial?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53817879973048781052014-07-08T13:03:24.432+01:002014-07-08T13:03:24.432+01:00Dave, the Crown withdrew the conspiracy charge. Al...Dave, the Crown withdrew the conspiracy charge. All that the judges were required to consider (and all that they returned verdicts on) were the murder charges against Megrahi and Fhimah.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-25394304067149656712014-07-08T12:37:36.292+01:002014-07-08T12:37:36.292+01:00There would have been considerable pressure on the...There would have been considerable pressure on the Judges to do their patriotic duty and find the two suspects guilty in defence of the system and Lord Advocate.<br /> <br />And they did their duty by finding Megrahi guilty, after saying he was innocent in their summing up!<br /><br />But to salve their conscience the judges announced to the world that Zeist was a show trial by finding Fhimah not guilty.<br /><br />Because how can you convict one without the other on a conspiracy charge?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-14670761087387081342014-07-08T11:56:03.069+01:002014-07-08T11:56:03.069+01:00I don't feel much inclined. However, my view o...I don't feel much inclined. However, my view on the judges' true (if subconscious) motivation for returning one guilty verdict can be found in the article reproduced in this very post (third para of section headed "The implications for the Scottish criminal justice system") and also in the very first post on this blog ("Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result") footnote 2 and accompanying text.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-74746792504739365962014-07-08T11:30:11.929+01:002014-07-08T11:30:11.929+01:00I think I'll let Professor Black answer that, ...I think I'll let Professor Black answer that, if he feels inclined.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-71545859094349134492014-07-08T11:22:20.506+01:002014-07-08T11:22:20.506+01:00It’s very naive [or something else] to pretend the...It’s very naive [or something else] to pretend the State would stage a show trial and allow a not guilty verdict!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-34806609554253767872014-07-08T09:48:16.918+01:002014-07-08T09:48:16.918+01:00Judges pinned up against a wall? What a very simp...Judges pinned up against a wall? What a very simplistic viewpoint.<br /><br />The mood music coming from the Foreign Office before the verdict was that they expected a not guilty pronouncement. They were pretty resigned to it. Professor Black, who actually knows these people and was right there while it was all happening, has explained the nuances of what went on and how three apparently intelligent men managed to get this so obviously wrong.<br /><br />It's all a great deal more subtle than anyone being pinned up against a wall. But then, I woudln't expect Dave to understand nuance.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33776494067747171532014-07-08T09:09:37.912+01:002014-07-08T09:09:37.912+01:00When the Attorney General was ‘pinned against the ...When the Attorney General was ‘pinned against the wall’ and told to state the Iraq invasion was legal and he obliged days before the invasion to avoid a mutiny from British military high command [who didn’t like the idea of being arrested for war crimes] was this really any different from what the Zeist judges did [indirectly at the behest of their Lord Advocate] who had probably been ‘pinned up against a wall’ too to ensure a guilty verdict for geo-political [economic] reasons.<br /><br />And yet despite no WMDs which must compound the illegality of the decision [also illegal under the terms of the UK anti-terrorism Act 2000], Blair continues to promote ‘war for personal profit’ with the backing of the US/neo-con lobby with the official title of ‘Peace Envoy’.<br /><br />And this is all in the public domain, so 7 years hard labour seeking the truth about Lockerbie, is no real surprise and will require a political voice to change. <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18319046269944166902014-07-07T11:11:49.210+01:002014-07-07T11:11:49.210+01:00How much can happen in seven years! A baby can gr...How much can happen in seven years! A baby can grow from mewling helplessness to become a person, with his own character, opinions, likes and dislikes.<br /><br />A country can grow from tame acceptance of a "devolved" puppet assembly to being on the brink of independence.<br /><br />And for my own part, I've moved from knowing little about Lockerbie other than that there seemed to be serious concerns about the safety of the conviction, to understanding a great deal about one particularly important aspect of the case.<br /><br />In 2007 I expressed an interest in finding out more, because of the constant barrage of news about the upcoming appeal that was coming over the airwaves day after day. However, I didn't follow up on this interest, partly because the computer I had then was getting on a bit, and slow. I was relying on the appeal to clarify the issues when it came to court.<br /><br />It wasn't till 20th August 2009 that I became galvanised to do some work on it for myself. I regarded the abandoning of the appeal as a scandal, and a signal that some people really didn't want these matters aired in court. I realised I had no idea at all what the Christmas lights in a town on Malta had to do with anything. I didn't even know the bomb was supposed to have started on Malta.<br /><br />It's amazing how much you can learn in five years, part time. And it's not as if that's all I was doing. I work full time. I was caring for my elderly mother, who died in 2011. I revived my interest in recorder playing, and took evening classes for two years. I sang in two choirs. But I still managed to do more research into the Lockerbie case than I did for my actual PhD, I think.<br /><br />It makes me realise how superficial many of the legal investigations and arguments have been. Learned people quibble about legal points, or whether this or that submission is admissible. About whether the court was entitled to find this or that. Nobody seems particularly concerned to ask, what ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Was Megrahi really the man who bought the clothes? Even on a balance of probabilities? Or was this a legalistic exercise in forcing a square peg into a round hole with a sledgehammer?<br /><br />As far as the Crown not being interested in a fair trial is concerned, as well as all the points raised above, I'm especially interested in how the Heathrow evidence was dealt with. I don't believe for a minute anyone in the prosecution team realised that PK/139 and the McKee Samsonite proved that the bomb suitcase had been on the floor of the container. I'm damn sure though that they realised that the impossibility of identifying a case that <i>had</i> been on the floor of the container, ostensibly under the bomb, was a serious problem for them.<br /><br />They could have presented the evidence honestly. The identification of the six legitimate Heathrow-loaded items. Bedford's evidence about the order in which he loaded these items. The reconciliation of these six items to six items recovered on the ground. Sidhu's testimony that he didn't move these cases when he added the Frankfurt luggage. Then the court could have made up its mind about it all.<br /><br />They didn't. They obfuscated shamefully, they concealed fundamental statements and evidence, and they concocted a stupid fairy-story about Sidhu pointlessly shuffling luggage he had no need to move, and the Coyle case somehow getting itself under the bomb. Did they realise the Coyle case was on top of the bomb? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Even at best, though, they were torturing the evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion, and damn the truth.<br /><br />Scotland needs better than that from its criminal justice system.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-43953304834699058292014-07-07T09:42:24.239+01:002014-07-07T09:42:24.239+01:00Happy anniversary!
And while the formal overturni...Happy anniversary! <br />And while the formal overturning of the verdict it not yet reached, great battles are long won.<br /><br />Try to google for the word "Lockerbie". You don't get far on the first page before realizing that something is wrong.<br /><br />As Robert F. wrote a couple of days ago:<br /><i>...every taxi driver in Glasgow knows that Baset was stitched up.</i><br /><br />That will have meant more for Megrahi than whatever was written in the protocols by the perverted judicial system of Scotland.sfmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02127645052255935678noreply@blogger.com