Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:16
29 Comments
On Thursday 19th January at 7.30 PM ITV1 and STV are due to broadcast a programme about a visit by Dr Jim Swire to Libya in December 2011.
During this visit Mr Swire met with Abdel Baset al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and also a number of key figures in the Libyan Interim Government.
At present the group called Justice for Megrahi (JFM), of which Mr Swire is a member, have a petition before the Holyrood Justice Committee, and also the SNP Government are currently taking steps which may make the findings of the SCCRC on Lockerbie more publicly available.
The conviction of Mr Megrahi has been the subject of debate and doubt ever since he was convicted. This escalated in August 2009 when the Libyan was released on compassionate grounds by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
Many people believe that Mr Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. The imminent publication of John Ashton's biography of Megrahi is expected to reveal the evidence that led the SCCRC to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.
Comments
#
2012-01-17 23:29
My heart always goes out to Dr Swire, he must be a very fine man, with more integrity in his little finger than the "cast of thousands"; led by Scottish Labour and Glenn Campbell!
I'm still looking for a refund on my License Fee which paid for the Scoop Glenn to go off to America to try to find someone to speak ill of the Scottish Government!
I'm still looking for a refund on my License Fee which paid for the Scoop Glenn to go off to America to try to find someone to speak ill of the Scottish Government!
#
2012-01-18 08:13
I have listened to Dr Swire on a number of occasions and I don't think any who have heard this man speak can have any doubt about his honesty, integrity and humanity. I fervently hope that the SG carry out their promise to release this report and that a renewed effort is put into reinvestigating the Lockerbie atrocity.
#
2012-01-18 18:00
I went to a talk yast year in Perth. The background detail left me in no doubt that Megahi was wrongly convicted. The detailed documentry he uses can be see all over Europe - I've see another with much the same detail on Aljazeera but nothing on any UK channel or mentioned in MSM. If nothing else this proves state control of media.
#
2012-01-18 22:55
This man and indeed all of the victims families deserve peace clootie. That trial was a travesty. When Ashton's book comes out hopefully along with the release of the report, I'm hoping for a shockwave response which will result in, as I posted earlier, a renewed investigation. The only peace and reward they want is the actual killers facing true justice in a proper court.
#
2012-01-18 09:27
A humanitarian visit by a great humanist. When the truth emerges that Megraghi had absolutely nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy Dr. Swire's compassion will be rewarded.
#
2012-01-18 15:35
The depressing thing is that the truth that Megrahi had absolutely nothing to do with the Lockerbie atrocity is already plain to see for anyone who simply takes the trouble to look at the evidence in the public domain, especially the "Opinion of the Court".
Why the entire Scottish establishment, including the SNP who had nothing to do with either the original botched investigation or the kangaroo court at Zeist are intent on denying this patently obvious fact, I don't know.
Why the entire Scottish establishment, including the SNP who had nothing to do with either the original botched investigation or the kangaroo court at Zeist are intent on denying this patently obvious fact, I don't know.
#
2012-01-18 16:27
Agreed. I have read the original judgement in its entirety and was appalled at its conclusions.
It was far below all reasonable doubt and in places constructed arguments based entirely on conjecture and theoretical possiblity, rather than it being the most likely course of action.
And this is before you even consider the maneouverings around financial rewards for witnesses and all the other stinking goings on.
History will show the Lockerbie trial as one of the most shameful episodes in Scots Law.
On a more positive note I think it will also clearly demonstrate why Scotland needs permanent independence from the rotten London influence and interference as they continue to conduct dodgy deals on the international stage for the benefit of a few. Megrahi was the fall guy for a disgusting affair involving the worst elements of American imperialism and London eagerness to tag along with it.
Scotland must not settle for anything short of independence, otherwise we will always be dragged into such foreign policy disasters as Lockerbie, Iraq, Libya, etc.
It was far below all reasonable doubt and in places constructed arguments based entirely on conjecture and theoretical possiblity, rather than it being the most likely course of action.
And this is before you even consider the maneouverings around financial rewards for witnesses and all the other stinking goings on.
History will show the Lockerbie trial as one of the most shameful episodes in Scots Law.
On a more positive note I think it will also clearly demonstrate why Scotland needs permanent independence from the rotten London influence and interference as they continue to conduct dodgy deals on the international stage for the benefit of a few. Megrahi was the fall guy for a disgusting affair involving the worst elements of American imperialism and London eagerness to tag along with it.
Scotland must not settle for anything short of independence, otherwise we will always be dragged into such foreign policy disasters as Lockerbie, Iraq, Libya, etc.
#
2012-01-18 17:38
Sure, but why is Salmond continuing to insist that he has no doubts about the safety of the conviction? Torrance says he thinks Salmond genuinely believes Megrahi is guilty, which suggests either complete ignorance of the evidence, or some sort of agenda. I don't get it.
I don't profess to understand exactly what the Americans were up to, but the failings in the British side of the inquiry are all too obvious and distressingly mundane. Mounting evidence that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow was ignored because it was just too embarrassing for BAA to be found to be the agency at fault - and maybe because if Heathrow had been the crime scene, the D&G would have had to yield control of the inquiry to the Met? A spurious lead pointing to Malta was seized on, and they simply refused to back away when it turned out to be a dead end. Because that would have meant having to revive the very cold trail at Heathrow.
Finally, they discovered Megrahi in the right place (Malta) at the right time to fit in with the Malta-origin fantasy, and proceeded to fit him up in text-book Birmingham Six style. They even used the same forensics guys. And the judges bought it, for no reason at all that I can see, other than the classic "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee" (John 18:30).
Megrahi has a better alibi for that crime than I have. At 4pm that afternoon, I was within 50 miles of Heathrow airport, where the crime clearly took place. Megrahi was verifiably in Tripoli. I'm just appalled by the entire debacle - especially by the fact that the real terrorists have been at large for over 20 years, and no doubt laghing themselves sick every time they hear Megrahi referred to as "the Lockerbie bomber".
I don't profess to understand exactly what the Americans were up to, but the failings in the British side of the inquiry are all too obvious and distressingly mundane. Mounting evidence that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow was ignored because it was just too embarrassing for BAA to be found to be the agency at fault - and maybe because if Heathrow had been the crime scene, the D&G would have had to yield control of the inquiry to the Met? A spurious lead pointing to Malta was seized on, and they simply refused to back away when it turned out to be a dead end. Because that would have meant having to revive the very cold trail at Heathrow.
Finally, they discovered Megrahi in the right place (Malta) at the right time to fit in with the Malta-origin fantasy, and proceeded to fit him up in text-book Birmingham Six style. They even used the same forensics guys. And the judges bought it, for no reason at all that I can see, other than the classic "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee" (John 18:30).
Megrahi has a better alibi for that crime than I have. At 4pm that afternoon, I was within 50 miles of Heathrow airport, where the crime clearly took place. Megrahi was verifiably in Tripoli. I'm just appalled by the entire debacle - especially by the fact that the real terrorists have been at large for over 20 years, and no doubt laghing themselves sick every time they hear Megrahi referred to as "the Lockerbie bomber".
#
2012-01-18 18:24
I've wondered why Salmond says this myself. Others say that this is his view, indeed duty, as the First Minister, i.e. he can't be seen to question decisions from the judicial arm of government, but I'm not convinced, as plenty of other comments and debates arise from much more mundane cases. In recent years it seems that there's been nothing but interference in the judicial arm by the executive arm, both here and in Westminster.
Perhaps his private views really are different from his public views. Salmond can't possibly be perfect. Perhaps this is an example where he is seriously wrong. It is healthy to consider this possiblity, as no man can be right anything like all of the time.
Perhaps he is party to information that none of us know. Perhaps he has even had discussions with Megrahi and knows the truth, but knows it can't be revealed at this stage for whatever reason.
People rather cruelly question Megrahi's withdrawal of his appeal, seemingly failing to understand that being with family as a seriously ill man trumps even fighting for your innocence. I do not regard his withdrawal of his appeal as anything like an admission of guilt.
Perhaps Salmond and Megrahi both know the futility of attempting to get the truth out today, but know that it will be out soon.
But I agree, expressing a view that there is no doubt over the safety of the conviction seems strange. Perhaps expressing concerns when not in the position to do anything about it would be counter-productive.
Perhaps his private views really are different from his public views. Salmond can't possibly be perfect. Perhaps this is an example where he is seriously wrong. It is healthy to consider this possiblity, as no man can be right anything like all of the time.
Perhaps he is party to information that none of us know. Perhaps he has even had discussions with Megrahi and knows the truth, but knows it can't be revealed at this stage for whatever reason.
People rather cruelly question Megrahi's withdrawal of his appeal, seemingly failing to understand that being with family as a seriously ill man trumps even fighting for your innocence. I do not regard his withdrawal of his appeal as anything like an admission of guilt.
Perhaps Salmond and Megrahi both know the futility of attempting to get the truth out today, but know that it will be out soon.
But I agree, expressing a view that there is no doubt over the safety of the conviction seems strange. Perhaps expressing concerns when not in the position to do anything about it would be counter-productive.
#
2012-01-18 23:36
I suspect a great deal of political expedience was involved by the SG. The SG knew of the hot potato landed in their laps by Labour and the deal in the desert. They knew of Westminster's machinations and the views of the ever pragmatic USA. They were also aware of Libya's ever increasing influence in the middle east and the lobbying of the various states and last but by no means least of Mr Megrahi's own pending appeal and worsening health. It was always a poison chalice.
Westminster had layed a beezer of a trap for Holyrood, it was the perfect wheeze for the likes of Blair and Brown. Meanwhile the true victims such as the Lockerbie families and Mr Megrahi have their lives thrown to the wolves for the price of a full tank of petrol.
Westminster had layed a beezer of a trap for Holyrood, it was the perfect wheeze for the likes of Blair and Brown. Meanwhile the true victims such as the Lockerbie families and Mr Megrahi have their lives thrown to the wolves for the price of a full tank of petrol.
#
2012-01-18 09:47
I sincerely hope that Dr Swire lives to see those responsible brought to justice. I fear, however, that is highly unlikely. I'm not even sure we'll ever know the truth.
#
2012-01-18 15:56
The admiration of all of us who live in Scotland for the persevering integrity of Dr Swire should be reflected in an honour bestowed upon him in the name of the Scottish people as soon as we are in a position to take such measures. For anyone who doesn't doubt the innocence of Al Megrahi, Dr Swire's own website is a starting point. www.lockerbietruth.com/
#
2012-01-18 23:19
That would be the kind of genuine honour that would knock all the OBE's in the world into a cocket hat. A more worthy person to receive such a thing I cannot think of.
#
2012-01-18 18:49
If any one retains any doubt of innocence they need only remember that the chief witness, and one of his close relstives, were paid a vast sum of money by the USA Government for the very chancy and disputed evidence that convicted the man. Strange that the USA thinks both torture and bribes are reasonable methods of getting to the truth of a matter.
#
2012-01-18 19:42
One might also remember that Gauci (and his brother) weren't really crucial to the prosecution until another witness, Abdulmajid Giaka, was completely discredited and his testimony thrown out. He was shown in court to have invented his testimony to order, for the US DoJ. The case should have been abandoned at that point, but instead of doing that, the Crown pressed on regardless.
While of course it's important to know that Tony Gauci was paid $2 million by the DoJ, and his brother Paul (who didn't give evidence) $1 million for "maintaining the resolve of his brother" (aka coaching him to recognise Megrahi's photograph), this can give a misleading impression of his evidence being confident and reliable, merely tainted. In fact the identification Gauci made was beyond tenuous, and would have been so even if he'd received nothing but a damp sandwich and his bus fare.
Here's an overview of the visual identification. vetpath.co.uk/.../photoid.pdf
While of course it's important to know that Tony Gauci was paid $2 million by the DoJ, and his brother Paul (who didn't give evidence) $1 million for "maintaining the resolve of his brother" (aka coaching him to recognise Megrahi's photograph), this can give a misleading impression of his evidence being confident and reliable, merely tainted. In fact the identification Gauci made was beyond tenuous, and would have been so even if he'd received nothing but a damp sandwich and his bus fare.
Here's an overview of the visual identification. vetpath.co.uk/.../photoid.pdf
#
2012-01-18 21:44
Perhaps once we have gained our rightful place in the commonwealth of nations it will be time to excoriate all the corrupt prosecution lawyers and the judges involved in this case, sequestrate their goods and gear and escort them to the border. A new Scotland will have no place for their likes.
#
2012-01-19 21:03
Yes I do, but then consider that they are part of a conspiracy that sent an innocent man to jail. A conspiracy that refuses even now to allow the results of the SCRC to publish why in their learned belief there at least 6 reasons to suggest there was a travesty of justice. Most importantly part of a conspiracy that deny the Scottish people answers to the greatest terorist act that has ever occured on the British Isles. Unlike a defence lawyer who must argue for his client irrespective, the prosecution must be absolutely convinced in the case. They lied to the Scottish people.
#
2012-01-20 12:13
You can say that again!
I think the Scottish cops and probably the FBI really thought they had the right man - or at least somebody who was part of the conspiracy. They became obsessed with the Malta theory, even though the more they investigated the more there was absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Then the CIA put Megrahi's name forward as someone who might be looked at, and it turned out he'd been in and out of Malta around the right time. They became unprofessionall y excited about this, and prompted Tony Gauci quite shamefully to identify him as the man who had bought the clothes in the bomb suitcase, even though he was too young, too light-skinned, too short and not burly enough to fit the original description.
After they'd done that, and Tony had said, well I suppose if you insist, that picture looks quite like the man, they were absolutely certain. It was only AFTER that, they discovered Megrahi had been at Luqa airport using a passport in a false name, at the time the flight they thought the bomb had been on was checking in.
Knowing how that panned out, I almost think sometimes, can you blame the police? But yes you can. Coincidences happen, and this one wasn't even all that unlikely. There was actually no evidence at all to support their theory, apart from the ridiculous Gauci identification. They should have stood back and re-thought it.
However, the CIA got cleverer. They bribed and threatened Majid Giaka to invent a string of fairy-stories about seeing Megrahi with a brown Samsonite case at the airport the previous day. They then told the Scottish police and prosecutors they had an eyewitness who absolutely confirmed Megrahi's guilt. I suppose the Scots contingent believed them.
That was the basis for the indictment and the trial. Without Giaka's evidence there was no case. But Giaka's evidence, which the prosecution had not seen in detail, was presented as conclusive. Of course it was the duty of the prosecution to satisfy themselves of the strength of that evidence, but they didn't. They took the Americans' word for it.
The thing is, there wasn't supposed to be a trial. It was all about imposing sanctions on Libya, and an excuse to do that. But they squeezed too hard, and Libya was really hurting, and Megrahi agreed to surrender himself for trial to get the sancions lifted. He thought he'd get a fair trial. Oh dear.
So the Crown had to put together something from the evidence it had, and it wasn't nearly as good as it had been cracked up to be while everyone was just sabre-rattling at Libya. But Giaka's evidence was going to do the trick - it wasn't really that much, but added to the coincidence of Megrahi being at the airport that morning, they thought it was enough.
Then Giajka was exposed in court as having made the entire thing up under pressure from the CIA and the US DoJ. Colin Boyd should have withdrawn the case then and there. He had lied to the court that there was nothing in the redacted passages that impinged on Giaka's reliabilty as a witness. Then the redacted passages were unredacted, and they blew Giaka out of the water. But Boyd gathered himself together and pressed on with what he had left. God only knows why the judges convicted - the press were all expecting an acquittal. But it seems two of the three judges simply couldn't believe there would have been ten years international fuss and sanctions over so little, so he must have done it even though the evidence wasn't there.
Yes, it's disgusting. And it's disgusting that the Scottish government is continuing the cover-up.
I think the Scottish cops and probably the FBI really thought they had the right man - or at least somebody who was part of the conspiracy. They became obsessed with the Malta theory, even though the more they investigated the more there was absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Then the CIA put Megrahi's name forward as someone who might be looked at, and it turned out he'd been in and out of Malta around the right time. They became unprofessionall y excited about this, and prompted Tony Gauci quite shamefully to identify him as the man who had bought the clothes in the bomb suitcase, even though he was too young, too light-skinned, too short and not burly enough to fit the original description.
After they'd done that, and Tony had said, well I suppose if you insist, that picture looks quite like the man, they were absolutely certain. It was only AFTER that, they discovered Megrahi had been at Luqa airport using a passport in a false name, at the time the flight they thought the bomb had been on was checking in.
Knowing how that panned out, I almost think sometimes, can you blame the police? But yes you can. Coincidences happen, and this one wasn't even all that unlikely. There was actually no evidence at all to support their theory, apart from the ridiculous Gauci identification. They should have stood back and re-thought it.
However, the CIA got cleverer. They bribed and threatened Majid Giaka to invent a string of fairy-stories about seeing Megrahi with a brown Samsonite case at the airport the previous day. They then told the Scottish police and prosecutors they had an eyewitness who absolutely confirmed Megrahi's guilt. I suppose the Scots contingent believed them.
That was the basis for the indictment and the trial. Without Giaka's evidence there was no case. But Giaka's evidence, which the prosecution had not seen in detail, was presented as conclusive. Of course it was the duty of the prosecution to satisfy themselves of the strength of that evidence, but they didn't. They took the Americans' word for it.
The thing is, there wasn't supposed to be a trial. It was all about imposing sanctions on Libya, and an excuse to do that. But they squeezed too hard, and Libya was really hurting, and Megrahi agreed to surrender himself for trial to get the sancions lifted. He thought he'd get a fair trial. Oh dear.
So the Crown had to put together something from the evidence it had, and it wasn't nearly as good as it had been cracked up to be while everyone was just sabre-rattling at Libya. But Giaka's evidence was going to do the trick - it wasn't really that much, but added to the coincidence of Megrahi being at the airport that morning, they thought it was enough.
Then Giajka was exposed in court as having made the entire thing up under pressure from the CIA and the US DoJ. Colin Boyd should have withdrawn the case then and there. He had lied to the court that there was nothing in the redacted passages that impinged on Giaka's reliabilty as a witness. Then the redacted passages were unredacted, and they blew Giaka out of the water. But Boyd gathered himself together and pressed on with what he had left. God only knows why the judges convicted - the press were all expecting an acquittal. But it seems two of the three judges simply couldn't believe there would have been ten years international fuss and sanctions over so little, so he must have done it even though the evidence wasn't there.
Yes, it's disgusting. And it's disgusting that the Scottish government is continuing the cover-up.
#
2012-01-20 10:04
I watched this documentary yesterday and agree that Dr Jim Swire is a thoroughly decent and honest human being. He's a man to be admired.
I have always felt that Mr. al-Megrahi was 'framed' and used as scapegoat while the real Lockerbie bomber/(s) still remain at large.
If I remember correctly, even the UN Observer at the trial in Holland said that the evidencee had all the makings of an intelligence cover-up.
I have always felt that Mr. al-Megrahi was 'framed' and used as scapegoat while the real Lockerbie bomber/(s) still remain at large.
If I remember correctly, even the UN Observer at the trial in Holland said that the evidencee had all the makings of an intelligence cover-up.
#
2012-01-20 12:16
Prof. Hans Kochler.
i-p-o.org/.../
It's absolute dynamite. Read his actual reports on the conduct of the trial and the appeal.
i-p-o.org/.../
It's absolute dynamite. Read his actual reports on the conduct of the trial and the appeal.
#
2012-01-20 12:24
I didn't see the programme, but I gather there was a short section where a representative of the new Libyan regime said that as far as they were concerned Gaddafi was behind Lockerbie, and that being so, Megrahi would have been involved. The usual stuff - small player, acting under orders. The Herald claims this "blows out of the water" claims Megrahi is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Of course it does nothing of the sort. The spokesman doesn't even indicate he has any familiarity with the case or the evidence, never mind that he has any additional evidence. Prof. Robert Black sums it up quite well.
lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/.../...
Quote:
It's been quite obvious for quite some time that the West was pressurising the new Libyan regime to come up with something to shore up the Lockerbie conviction. And obviously these guys are happy to say anything that will discredit Gaddafi, and will ingratiate them with the Western powers.
I've been half-expecting some fabricated documentary evidence linking Megrahi to the bombing - though that would have to be quite clever to fit in with the modus operandi alleged by the Crown, and maybe not that easy to do. If this statement is the best they can come up with, they aren't trying very hard.
Of course it does nothing of the sort. The spokesman doesn't even indicate he has any familiarity with the case or the evidence, never mind that he has any additional evidence. Prof. Robert Black sums it up quite well.
lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/.../...
Quote:
Megrahi "would have had a part to play"; "he was only a small player"; "if he was told to do something he would have done it". This does not amount to an admission by Mr Shamis that Megrahi was the person who placed, or arranged for the placing of, a bomb on Pan Am 103 (which is what he was accused and convicted of), far less evidence of such involvement. It sounds like a brazen attempt by the NTC to incriminate (i) the regime which they supplanted and (ii) an official of that regime (Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and later director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli).
It's been quite obvious for quite some time that the West was pressurising the new Libyan regime to come up with something to shore up the Lockerbie conviction. And obviously these guys are happy to say anything that will discredit Gaddafi, and will ingratiate them with the Western powers.
I've been half-expecting some fabricated documentary evidence linking Megrahi to the bombing - though that would have to be quite clever to fit in with the modus operandi alleged by the Crown, and maybe not that easy to do. If this statement is the best they can come up with, they aren't trying very hard.
#
2012-01-20 17:13
Exactly the impression I had of the comments made by the Libyan representative.
Rhetorical placebo springs to mind, and I'm sure Dr Swire was of a similar opinion.
I just felt sad that his persistence and integrity was not rewarded.
Rhetorical placebo springs to mind, and I'm sure Dr Swire was of a similar opinion.
I just felt sad that his persistence and integrity was not rewarded.
#
2012-01-21 12:42
I watched the programme on catchup last night and wasn't very impressed. I was impressed with Jim Swire, but not the programme.
The programme seemed to be a bit keen to tidy things up and put across the new regime's view that Gaddafi and Megrahi were involved. It didn't seem to give much time for Dr Swire's thoughts on this.
However, on his own website he strongly rejects this argument:
Quote:
Now, these are Dr Swire's comments having had time to reflect on his meeting, and he would also be too polite to disagree with the man to his face. However, Tonight should have put across these views before airing the programme, even if just in a final summary piece like often happens in documentaries where they sum-up events since the programme was made.
Watching the programme you would think that Dr Swire accepts this new information from the new regime, but his own website clearly indicates that he doesn't.
More spin from London-dominated media.
The programme seemed to be a bit keen to tidy things up and put across the new regime's view that Gaddafi and Megrahi were involved. It didn't seem to give much time for Dr Swire's thoughts on this.
However, on his own website he strongly rejects this argument:
Quote:
Mr Shamis added that al-Megrahi was involved in the bombing, if “only a small player”. He went on: “Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security there is no doubt about it — of Libyan security. And if he was told to do something, he would have done it.” Dr Swire said he had not accepted that argument. Mr Shamis, along with the rest of new government, had simply not had time to consider the case with any thoroughness. “I found Tripoli percolated with the desire to pin everything imaginable under the sun on the defunct Gaddafi regime, because the people are so delighted to have got rid of him,” said Dr Swire. “Mr Shamis certainly believes al-Megrahi was guilty. I tried to make plain that if you look at the evidence that it is not at all likely.”
Now, these are Dr Swire's comments having had time to reflect on his meeting, and he would also be too polite to disagree with the man to his face. However, Tonight should have put across these views before airing the programme, even if just in a final summary piece like often happens in documentaries where they sum-up events since the programme was made.
Watching the programme you would think that Dr Swire accepts this new information from the new regime, but his own website clearly indicates that he doesn't.
More spin from London-dominated media.
#
2012-01-21 14:11
It appears to be quite sad that Dr. Swire is allowing himself to be misled and manipulated in his fruitless search in Lybia for answers to who was responsible for the death of his daughter Flora.
There was no involvement whatsoever by the Lybians in the actions that led up to the downing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the tradgey that followed over Lockerbie.
The incredible charade that played out at Camp Zeist was a travesty of justice on a monumantal scale.
Full disclosure of the facts on 103 is not just damning for the Scots legal establishment but for all those involved. It is no small wonder that the fog and obfuscation covering the facts is a well oiled publicity machine engineered by more than one country, none of which is called Lybia.
There was no involvement whatsoever by the Lybians in the actions that led up to the downing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the tradgey that followed over Lockerbie.
The incredible charade that played out at Camp Zeist was a travesty of justice on a monumantal scale.
Full disclosure of the facts on 103 is not just damning for the Scots legal establishment but for all those involved. It is no small wonder that the fog and obfuscation covering the facts is a well oiled publicity machine engineered by more than one country, none of which is called Lybia.
#
2012-01-21 17:23
Why is it that Jim Swire - a doctor of all things - is suddenly "misled"?
Does anyone here have concrete evidence Megrahi is either innocent or guilty?
What the hell does it matter now?
Salmond won't give his personal opinion because that would almost certainly derail any legal process, and would also raise questions as to why he has changed his mind.
I have a personal interest in Lockerbie. But this has been going on now for over twenty years.
Leave it be.
Does anyone here have concrete evidence Megrahi is either innocent or guilty?
What the hell does it matter now?
Salmond won't give his personal opinion because that would almost certainly derail any legal process, and would also raise questions as to why he has changed his mind.
I have a personal interest in Lockerbie. But this has been going on now for over twenty years.
Leave it be.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Getting ahead of yourself Newsnet report... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Absolutely Govanite, but listening to th... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Good points Nautilus. Lesley says, “Depr... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
The pantomime horse is called 'Secretari... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Can't wait until they start moaning to t... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
o/t great news for the people who voted ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
One point I would like to make is in reg... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Aplinal 2012-05-17 13:17 I take your poi... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
When they act in concert and have a lead... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
This is bizarre. Loony Labour councillor... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
I never watch FMQs on telly. Far better ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
It's interesting - but not alarming. My ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Really? Apart from the 1945-50 governme... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Lesley says, “Deprivation for example is... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
Thanks for these three. I viewed the Ale... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
bbc website first minister questions! bb... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Ha ha, I know that - no worries. Just aw... - Conservatives at war over Came...
They should have gone with Murdo ! - Conservatives at war over Came...
"cannot stand the sight of each other" I... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Was just listening to that in the radio ...