|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 20, 2009 10:34:47 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 20, 2009 11:20:03 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure they're releasing an innocent man. I'm normally not a fan of conspiracy theories, but if you look at the evidence in this case, it's incredibly weak and suspect. The case basically rests on one key piece of evidence (the timer), one key witness (the shopkeeper in Malta who identified Meraghi as the one who bought clothes that were found with the timer), and one key assumption (that the bags on the flight were not tampered with). But all of those keys have flaws in them. The timer was the key to the case. It was a limited production model, and almost all of them were sold to Libya. Only one fragment of the timer was ever found, but it was enough for an engineer from the company that made it to identify it during the trial as the model that had been sold to Libya. But that engineer later admitted that he had lied during the trial, and that shortly after the crash he had stolen one of the timers from the lab and given it to somebody investigating the bombing. The Maltese shopkeeper was the key witness in the case. Fragments of clothing that were found from the suitcase that had the bomb were traced to his shop, and he identified Meraghi as the one who bought the clothes. He was the one and only link between Meraghi and the bomb, but it later emerged that he had seen a newspaper article with Meraghi's picture speculating that Meraghi had planted the bomb before he identified Meraghi to the police. He also gave contradictory and inconsistent statements to investigators. Finally, the case against Meraghi rests on the assumption that nobody from the outside could have put the bomb in the bag - in other words, the bomb had to be in the bag when the passenger checked it in. The prosecutors say that Meraghi flew the bag from Libya to Malta on a Libyan Arab Airlines flight. It has been confirmed that Meraghi did indeed enter Malta on a false passport on the correct date. At Malta's airport, they say a LAA baggage handler switched the tags on Meraghi's bag to route them to PanAm 103 and put them on an Air Malta flight. From that point, the bag was allegedly flown on Air Malta to Frankfurt, where it was put on PanAm 103A to London Heathrow, where it was transferred to PanAm 103 itself. There are some holes in this story. First, the LAA baggage handler who allegedly made the switch was found not guilty at the trial that convicted Meraghi. The evidence against him was basically one ambiguous diary entry. Second, Air Malta has denied that there were any unattended bags on their flight that day from Malta to Frankfurt. Baggage handlers always record how many bags they load on a flight (for weight purposes), and on that flight the number of bags loaded matched the number of bags checked in by passengers on that flight. Finally, the baggage area at London Heathrow was broken into on the same day as the bombing. This fact was hidden from the families of the victims until after the trial. There were also other irregularities in the way evidence was handled, the statements of witnesses, political interference, and the trial itself. I don't buy some of the wilder conspiracy theories about PanAm 103, like those who say it was a CIA job, or that the US had advance knowledge of it. I believe that it was an act of terrorism carried out by a foreign group against the US and UK. However, I don't think that Meraghi was the one who carried it out. The real shame isn't that Meraghi is being released, it's that the full truth about this crime will likely never be known. A good article that touches on some of the irregularities: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8211596.stm |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 21, 2009 8:28:34 GMT -5
And yet he was convicted in a UK court. Doubts about the soundness of the case are one thing, but that is not the purpose of compassionate release- which has no business whatsoever being invoked for a man who has served only 1.5 weeks per victim he is convicted of murdering.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 21, 2009 9:21:49 GMT -5
I agree that the compassionate release wasn't the best thing to use, but I think it's better to release an innocent man for the wrong reasons than to keep him in jail for even worse reasons.
The best solution would have been for the Scottish authorities to give him a new trial, but given his health that wasn't going to happen.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 21, 2009 9:34:39 GMT -5
The US government -- both the past and present administrations -- sure seem to remain convinced that he is guilty and should never have been released from prison.
For me, I almost never agree with Aaron Sorkin on anything (except that writers are underappreciated, heroic figures ;D), but my sentence for him, if he is going to be released from prison, would be to have to sit at home for the remainder of his days watching home movies of all of the flight's victims....with one of their relatives coming in every night to punch him in the face.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 21, 2009 9:57:19 GMT -5
I think there's a lot of groupthink about his guilt. Getting Meraghi and his alleged co-conspirator (who was found not guilty at the trial) out of Libya and on trial was a major issue in American foreign policy for over almost a decade. During that time the US had to act like we were 100% certain of their guilt, a slam dunk case so to speak. Because of that stance, their guilt became an undisputed fact in American circles. The US can't really turn around now and say that we're not so sure about their guilt after all, not when their guilt was such an important part of our policies towards Libya.
Another reason the US can't backtrack is that most of the evidence at the trial was American. The FBI were the ones who dealt with the timer, and the US paid most of the witnesses millions of dollars to testify against the Libyans. If we admitted that Meraghi wasn't guilty, we'd have to admit that the FBI screwed up big time, and that we were paying people to commit perjury.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 21, 2009 11:13:11 GMT -5
Hmmmm.....nope. I don't buy that argument.
If you want to posit that there were questions about this conviction, I won't argue with you on that. There are a lot of people (and only a few of them are truther-style nutbars) who have those questions. Nor would I take significant issue with those who think he deserved another trial.
But this argument that the US's hands are inextricably tied to his guilt is not really plausible, not for me.
Take Iraq. Hell, even George W. Bush eventually came out and said the evidence about Iraq was wrong (even though some continue to contend that he never did so). It took a few years, but it happened. Not cop to the invasion itself being wrong, no, but that the things they thought were "facts" leading up to it were wrong, yes. And just about everyone in that administration, save Dick Cheney I think, has copped to that.
And that's the LAST administration. The current administration has shown no compunction whatsoever in expressing American culpability (even, IMO, where it doesn't really exist) in international affairs and foreign policy. If anyone in this administration truly thought that the conviction was wrong, or that the FBI was wrong, I have no doubt they would say so....or at the very least not oppose the release in such a full-throated manner and with such strong language that was used by the White House, State Department and Congress.
Personally, I have another theory as to why the US remains convinced of his guilt, but since it's one I can't ever prove, I'll keep it to myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 21, 2009 13:32:37 GMT -5
I agree that the compassionate release wasn't the best thing to use, but I think it's better to release an innocent man for the wrong reasons than to keep him in jail for even worse reasons. The best solution would have been for the Scottish authorities to give him a new trial, but given his health that wasn't going to happen. What you're essentially saying is that it's okay to ignore the rule of law when it comes to a person's perceived innocence. Jail administrators should not use "compassionate release" as a tool for releasing the people they personally believe are innocent. The "Scottish authorities" don't grant new trials. Scottish courts do. I don't know much about this case, but it seems highly likely counsel would have moved for new trial, and I assume that motion was denied. So, actual innocence has not been proven (except possibly on the Internet) and the perception of possible innocence doesn't provide a reason for release. And there's a good reason why this guy shouldn't have been released. Namely, that the nation of Libya disagrees with you on his innocence, and they're having a big-ass party to celebrate the killing of hundreds of innocent people. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 21, 2009 15:16:11 GMT -5
Hmmmm.....nope. I don't buy that argument. If you want to posit that there were questions about this conviction, I won't argue with you on that. There are a lot of people (and only a few of them are truther-style nutbars) who have those questions. Nor would I take significant issue with those who think he deserved another trial. But this argument that the US's hands are inextricably tied to his guilt is not really plausible, not for me. Take Iraq. Hell, even George W. Bush eventually came out and said the evidence about Iraq was wrong (even though some continue to contend that he never did so). It took a few years, but it happened. Not cop to the invasion itself being wrong, no, but that the things they thought were "facts" leading up to it were wrong, yes. And just about everyone in that administration, save Dick Cheney I think, has copped to that. And that's the LAST administration. The current administration has shown no compunction whatsoever in expressing American culpability (even, IMO, where it doesn't really exist) in international affairs and foreign policy. If anyone in this administration truly thought that the conviction was wrong, or that the FBI was wrong, I have no doubt they would say so....or at the very least not oppose the release in such a full-throated manner and with such strong language that was used by the White House, State Department and Congress. Personally, I have another theory as to why the US remains convinced of his guilt, but since it's one I can't ever prove, I'll keep it to myself. Don't tell me you think we were in on it? Either way, why bring it up at all without telling us what that theory is? Since when you do you have to "prove" something to state an opinion on this board? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 21, 2009 15:21:48 GMT -5
Don't tell me you think we were in on it? Either way, why bring it up at all without telling us what that theory is? Since when you do you have to "prove" something to state an opinion on this board? Sorry I shouldn't have mentioned it, you're right. No, I don't want to elaborate, but believe me, the US or Britain or anyone like that being "in on it" never even crossed my mind. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 21, 2009 16:08:59 GMT -5
I agree that the compassionate release wasn't the best thing to use, but I think it's better to release an innocent man for the wrong reasons than to keep him in jail for even worse reasons. The best solution would have been for the Scottish authorities to give him a new trial, but given his health that wasn't going to happen. What you're essentially saying is that it's okay to ignore the rule of law when it comes to a person's perceived innocence. Jail administrators should not use "compassionate release" as a tool for releasing the people they personally believe are innocent. The "Scottish authorities" don't grant new trials. Scottish courts do. I don't know much about this case, but it seems highly likely counsel would have moved for new trial, and I assume that motion was denied. So, actual innocence has not been proven (except possibly on the Internet) and the perception of possible innocence doesn't provide a reason for release. And there's a good reason why this guy shouldn't have been released. Namely, that the nation of Libya disagrees with you on his innocence, and they're having a big-ass party to celebrate the killing of hundreds of innocent people. I agree that compassionate release is not the best way to release a person who may be innocent. Basically, I would have been outraged by this if I thought the guy was guilty, but because I don't think he was I don't have a problem with it. The Scottish courts denied Meraghi's first appeal, but since then new evidence has emerged (such as a key witness admitting he lied on the stand). Meraghi put in a second appeal, which was still pending when he dropped it because of his illness. Boz - I still think that groupthink argument holds water. Groupthink tends to gain steam as time passes. I have little doubt that Obama and people in his administration honestly think that Meraghi is the man who committed the crime. I'm also pretty sure that they haven't analyzed the evidence in any serious way. They simply trust the statements of those who came before them, who all said that Meraghi was the guy who did it. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 21, 2009 18:18:08 GMT -5
The common thread that virtually all the alternative theories share is that the Lockerbie bombing was a multinational effort and that for a number of reasons it was ideal for the U.S., UK, and its allies to allow a partly culpable pariah like Libya to take the fall for the whole incident, and thereby enable us to continue our diplomatic outreach to the principal actors (usually alleged to be the PLO, Syria and/or Iran).
I don't doubt that countless variations on this narrative exist. If there was a conscious effort at a coverup by the U.S. Government of course, it's staggering to believe that the secret's been successfully guarded for twenty years (by both parties no less!!!!).
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 21, 2009 20:25:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure there has been a conscious coverup for the full 20 years. Once Libya became the primary suspect, nobody really challenged the assumption that they were guilty. The indictments were written up in 1991, from then on Libya's guilt was accepted as fact.
Like rosslynhoya said, there are tons of theories out there over who actually did it, and most of them are BS. The evidence I've seen against the Palestinians/Iranians/Syrians/CIA is even weaker than the evidence against Meraghi. I honestly don't know who actually did it, I'm just pretty sure that Meraghi wasn't involved. One real possibility is that the investigators couldn't find who was responsible. Simply saying "we don't know who did it" wasn't acceptable to the US and UK governments, so they took the group they had the most evidence against (the Libyans) and pinned it on them.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 30, 2009 13:40:20 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 15, 2010 9:16:24 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 15, 2010 9:36:54 GMT -5
That's hardly an admission. Note that the British government and the Scottish government operate independently from each other. If I recall right, the British government was not at all happy with the Scottish government's decision in this case. On a side note, articles on MSNBC's website are virtually unreadable now with all those ads and social networking tie-ins. Ugh. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 15, 2010 10:24:35 GMT -5
That's hardly an admission. Huh? They applied political pressure not based on facts in the case but in order to get a fast track on their exploration : Who else inside the UK or Scotland was pushing for this guy to be released? |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 15, 2010 11:54:30 GMT -5
But Meraghi wasn't released on a Prisoner Transfer Agreement - he was released on compassionate grounds, which is a normal procedure in Scotland. Meraghi didn't need BP or anybody else pushing for his release - it would have been highly unusual for the Scottish government to NOT release him under those circumstances.
There's also the next quote from the article: "The decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government," the company said. "It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish government. BP was not involved in any such discussions with the U.K. government or the Scottish government about the release of al-Megrahi."
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 15, 2010 13:24:17 GMT -5
There's also the next quote from the article: "The decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government," the company said. "It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish government. BP was not involved in any such discussions with the U.K. government or the Scottish government about the release of al-Megrahi." Except they just admitted they did that in this article with the UK government! You're really going to cite some BP PR doublespeak as evidence of anything? Believing anything that BP PR puts out is like believing in Santa Claus, except in this case Santa Claus is a terrible monster that pours crude down your chimney and calls it a present. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 15, 2010 13:39:29 GMT -5
Which is why everyone should adamantly oppose cap and trade, since that was all BP's idea to begin with!
;D
|
|
