International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

Rolfe · 18th July 2010, 03:56 PM

You know, this is making me increasingly angry. With my own government (all flavours) just as much as with the US lobby. We're all up to our necks in it together.

First we all fit up this guy for a crime we have bugger-all evidence he committed, relying on a star witness who was known to be making stuff up for money. (I'm not cetain how much the Scottish prosecution team knew about Giaka's lack of credibility, but I'm betting it was some.) On the way there, we colluded in bribing another key witness - the only other alleged eye-witness there was.

We set up a kangaroo court to try him, with no jury and judges who seem to have been hell-bent on bringing a conviction, right reason or none. At every turn, they chose the less likely explanation for the facts presented, so long as it pointed to a conviction, until each flimsy piece of evidence was propping up each other flimsy piece of evidence in a gravity-defying stunt worthy of a circus act.

We found five more judges who were prepared to stone-wall the original appeal, relying on legal technicalities to uphold the original verdict despite expressing penetrating reservations during the hearing.

We took nearly four years to approve a second appeal. (That might be quite laudable though, when you consider that the SCCRC spent that time doing some decent investigative work.)

We delayed that appeal coming to court by repeatedly pulling rank to block the production of a vital piece of evidence the court had ordered produced, on the grounds that it would upset a foreign government. Another two years went by, by which time the victim of all this was terminally ill.

Once the appeal had started, and a judge fell ill, it was adjourned for six months, despite the applicant being terminally ill.

Three months before the appeal was due to resume, we told this terminally ill man that he had only three months to live, but if he would just withdraw that appeal, he could go home and spend that time with his family. (He has now lived for 11 months since his release, and if he'd refused to withdraw the appeal there's every chance he would by now be a free man as of right - unless we managed to pull kangaroo court #3.)

We then announced that he'd withdrawn the appeal of his own free will, and implied this was an admission of guilt. We then airbrushed the appeal out of history and insisted that he was a guilty man who had been rightly convicted.

And the bigger the fuss gets, the less likely anyone in a position of influence is to call attention to the fact that the evidence he was convicted on wouldn't be enough to get most people a parking ticket.

Just what is it we're trying to cover up here?

Rolfe.

ETA: And I forgot to mention that we released a notorious criminal (coincidentally not called Barabbas) who had been refused compassionate release, just to smooth the path for Megrahi's possibly cruelly-premature release. Biggs was refused compassionate release on 1st July 2009. Might have been difficult to release Megrahi if Biggs was still banged up. The Scottish government was known to be resistant to the prisoner transfer deal. So Biggs was released on 6th August, so Megrahi's release on 20th August could go ahead.

18th July 2010, 03:56 PM	#277
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	You know, this is making me increasingly angry. With my own government (all flavours) just as much as with the US lobby. We're all up to our necks in it together. First we all fit up this guy for a crime we have bugger-all evidence he committed, relying on a star witness who was known to be making stuff up for money. (I'm not cetain how much the Scottish prosecution team knew about Giaka's lack of credibility, but I'm betting it was some.) On the way there, we colluded in bribing another key witness - the only other alleged eye-witness there was. We set up a kangaroo court to try him, with no jury and judges who seem to have been hell-bent on bringing a conviction, right reason or none. At every turn, they chose the less likely explanation for the facts presented, so long as it pointed to a conviction, until each flimsy piece of evidence was propping up each other flimsy piece of evidence in a gravity-defying stunt worthy of a circus act. We found five more judges who were prepared to stone-wall the original appeal, relying on legal technicalities to uphold the original verdict despite expressing penetrating reservations during the hearing. We took nearly four years to approve a second appeal. (That might be quite laudable though, when you consider that the SCCRC spent that time doing some decent investigative work.) We delayed that appeal coming to court by repeatedly pulling rank to block the production of a vital piece of evidence the court had ordered produced, on the grounds that it would upset a foreign government. Another two years went by, by which time the victim of all this was terminally ill. Once the appeal had started, and a judge fell ill, it was adjourned for six months, despite the applicant being terminally ill. Three months before the appeal was due to resume, we told this terminally ill man that he had only three months to live, but if he would just withdraw that appeal, he could go home and spend that time with his family. (He has now lived for 11 months since his release, and if he'd refused to withdraw the appeal there's every chance he would by now be a free man as of right - unless we managed to pull kangaroo court #3.) We then announced that he'd withdrawn the appeal of his own free will, and implied this was an admission of guilt. We then airbrushed the appeal out of history and insisted that he was a guilty man who had been rightly convicted. And the bigger the fuss gets, the less likely anyone in a position of influence is to call attention to the fact that the evidence he was convicted on wouldn't be enough to get most people a parking ticket. Just what is it we're trying to cover up here? Rolfe. ETA: And I forgot to mention that we released a notorious criminal (coincidentally not called Barabbas) who had been refused compassionate release, just to smooth the path for Megrahi's possibly cruelly-premature release. Biggs was refused compassionate release on 1st July 2009. Might have been difficult to release Megrahi if Biggs was still banged up. The Scottish government was known to be resistant to the prisoner transfer deal. So Biggs was released on 6th August, so Megrahi's release on 20th August could go ahead.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. Last edited by Rolfe; 18th July 2010 at 05:55 PM.