|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th February 2011, 06:48 AM | #481 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Not really, apart from why is it extraordinarily difficult to get anyone to take seriously the idea that Megrahi didn't do it and was framed, even though there's credible evidence by the shedload to support it, but the minute one of Gadaffi's ex-thugs deserting the sinking ship makes a completely unverified and actually quite senseless statement, the media are all over it like a rash?
ETA: Oh yes another question. Why has everybody deserted the thread that was started yesterday in CE&SI about this? We had Scrut doing his usual, and Wildcat, and a few others pointing fingers and sniggering about CTs. All I did was suggest they read some stuff and come back and argue on the basis of the evidence. Tumbleweed. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th February 2011, 10:29 AM | #482 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
In a parallel universe, where there was actual evidence that Megrahi did what he was alleged to have done, I'd say it was a sure thing. You don't blow your nose in Tripoli without written permission in triplicate from the colonel. There would have been no other possible reason for him to have done such a thing.
And anyway, he certainly didn't act alone, even in this parallel world. He was never convicted of having put the bomb on the plane - it was recognised he couldn't possibly have done that. He was only convicted of being at the airport where the prosecution had hallucinated the bomb went on the plane, and the inference made that he must have had a hand in it somehow. But he was there alone, and never went airside, and never met anybody, and didn't even have any checked-in luggage with him. And there was strong evidence that there was no unacccompanied luggage on the flight the bomb was supposed to have been on. Yet, somehow, it was decided that somebody else put the bomb on the plane, but because Megrahi was catching his plane for Tripoli at the same time, he must have had a hand in it. That's what he was jailed for life for. So no, even the prosecution didn't think he acted alone! Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th February 2011, 12:13 PM | #483 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
24th February 2011, 01:12 PM | #484 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
24th February 2011, 03:20 PM | #485 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
CIA. Might be some Jews in there, I dunno. Jalil is full of hot-air. Hi s supposed real-world evidence only lines up with the paper version of the attack, not the 3-D version. The best clues there (not accepted but still the best) have the bomb entering container AVE4041 at about 4:30 PM up in London.
Darat, sorry. But it's important in considering this guy's veracity when he says he's got real-world clues of a crime that only seems to have happened on paper and in legal technicalities. |
24th February 2011, 03:29 PM | #486 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Go read the thread on this forum and otherwise on the story. And you know, sometimes being declared guilty does not mean you are. There were even people which were condemned to death and executed by over zealous prosecutor. Albeit a small minority but the point is , non zero.
I am not saying that that guy was innocent, I am saying there is suffisent doubt on the story to take a skeptical "undecided" opinion. |
24th February 2011, 03:34 PM | #487 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
24th February 2011, 03:35 PM | #488 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
24th February 2011, 04:53 PM | #489 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Okay then, for the purposes of this thread Megrahi was obviously ordered to cary out the bombing by Col. Ghaddafi. And while this man Jalil claims direct knowledge of that order, I propose that the two things are not really related. I can't explain why, of course. But I predict no proof forthcoming, with some lame excuse, or perhaps of great interest, a forged document on official paper signed by some other high-level defector. (There seem to be a lot of them all of a sudden). Or something like that. We shall see where it goes.
|
24th February 2011, 04:55 PM | #490 |
Howling to glory I go
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
|
|
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. |
|
24th February 2011, 04:59 PM | #491 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
24th February 2011, 07:30 PM | #492 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
RE: "actual evidence" are you referring to the actual evidence presented at trial and at appeal, which resulted in actual guilty and refused verdicts? Or are you referring to the tabloid trash, blatherings, scribbelings and seriously laughable cartoon animations of CTers on blogs and forums? As you very well know, methinks (and the courts, as well as the mods who - rightly so - consistently send your "two years of 'research' " to the CT forums) the former is considered actual evidence, (hence Megrahi will die guilty as tried and convicted) and the latter is... well... relegated to the CT forum.
"Bad guy with an agenda mouths off"??? You think the Libyan Ambassador is a bad guy? HAHAHA! Sorry darling. The real bad guy is the dearly close ally of the Gaddafi Regime, reporting as a Libyan secret service agent to Gaddafi's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi - same guy (Senussi) who fled the UK after threatening to assassinate Brittish officials and the Saudi Prince. Bad Guys??? The bad guy is one, so dear to the Libyan regime that Gaddafi sends his thug Sennussi in to argue with the UK and Scottish government whores, who are so hungry for their BP oil deal with Libya that they will do and say anything for Megrahi's release; even bow to the Libyan terrorists' threats that the UK will suffer dire consequences, if Megrahi dies in scottish prison. And of course, the Scottish government whores itself out (once again, for the gazillionth time, over hundreds of years) to the UK and releases the real bad guy. Libyan ambassador is a bad guy? No, Don't think so. The bad guy is not one who is saying Gaddaffi ordered the bombing of PA103. The real bad guy carried out the bombing of PA103, on orders from his boss and his boss' boss, and is now (hopefully) dealing with the karmic consequenses of hanging by his family jewels (allegedly, according to Scottish government whores and doctors consulting with lame medical consultants; some - if not most- paid for by Libyan legal defense); henceforth in a coma in Libyan hospital on life support (unless that's another CT you cooked up, which I wouldn't doubt). What, you think you, the Justice For Megrahi group, and the other CTers are the only ones who can "play" in this arena? I'm quite certain that A LOT of folks have been sitting on the sidelines after having gotten fed up with the bullying by you and yours. Now they're speaking, you bully / accuse them of "wetting" themselves, being drunkards, and now, "suddenly" playing. Wow. Sorry to enlighten you darling, but it's not sudden. We've all been watching. Some of us have endured your bullying. Others (probably more rightly so, in not wasting their time on responding to your CTs, nasty remarks and bullying) have been watching and waiting for a break on (in addition to the rulings of the courts) what we've known all along as true, to come forth - AGAIN,: Gadaffi ordered the bombing of PA103, just like all of the other terrorist attacks Libya conducted, Senussi followed Gaddafi's orders, and Megrahi followed Senussi's orders. And Boom. Lockerbie is littered with airliner wreckage and 270 INNOCENT DEAD -at the hands of Gaddafi, Sennusi, MEGRAHI and yes, Bollier. If you and/or CT would have bothered to look into the Gaddafi / Sennusi / Megrahi relationship (instead of hand waving it when I brought it up eons ago when I first joined JREF) in your "research" you might have noticed the issues and complicities here. But no, you're so hell bent on Megrahi's innocence, you accuse others of ignoring the facts and yet you ignore them yourselves. You can blather all day long for two years and then some. Not everyone will stand up to your bullying or bother to waste their time on your silly CTs. Bottom line is, Megrahi was, is and forever will be a terrorist, aligned with Gaddaffi, via the same family tribe as Sennussi, who is in the same family as Gaddafi. Blood seems to be thick in the Libyan tribes and Megrahi's blood is intertwined with Gaddaffi's via his tribe being the same as Sennusi's. Sadly, the blood on the streets in Libya and Lockerbie is on Gaddaffi's and his thugs hands, same as it is now with the Scots and the UK in releasing Megrahi the terrorist to his terrorist family / tribe in Libya. Trust me, more of those whom you view as "bad guys" will undoubtedly come forth with REAL evidence; thicker than a flimsy piece of paper (how interesting that R. Black predicted this. He must have a great PR agent playing back-up for him) and the blood on the Libyan regime's (including Megrahi's) hands. Whatever now / then will you do with all the screeds of text on forums and blogs and time you spent in the Lockerbie CT forums? Whatever could you have done with those two wasted years? Again all around... sad. ~B. |
24th February 2011, 07:33 PM | #493 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
|
24th February 2011, 09:41 PM | #494 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
|
24th February 2011, 09:49 PM | #495 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
FYI - for those of you in the UK, who are new to this argument; I'm an an American, and a family member of one of the victims of PA103. I have been accused by CT comments in this forum of drunken posts, because opposing commenters perceivedthe time-frame of my posts a result of "drunken partying in the wee hours" Said comments were made by those who are apparently are unable to decipher/ comprehend world time differences between the UK / Scotland and that the world does not reovolve around them - go figure.
Admittedly, I made a few posts including typos and run-on rants - out of passion, NOT drunkedness. I have also been accused of having to be treated with "kid gloves" and responders to my comments having to "walk on egg shells", due to my status as a famiy member of a victim of PA103. Please be advised, that I never requested, nor expected responses to my comments to be treated with any sort of bias, per above as a result of my being a family member. However, I did expect the comments to twist my comments in such a manner, based on their grasping at having nothing else to which to resort to outside of lame rag media straws and their own scribblels, blatherings and b"Bart Simpson" like cartoons. Just sayin'. CT Bullies will go to no end to "try" to (unsucsessfully) "prove" their points. ~B. |
25th February 2011, 02:03 AM | #496 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Yes, she does mean, and I mean, that actual evidence, as well as the manner (slipshod at best in spots) it was considered. You are pretty adamant about avoiding the evidence, and the absurd intepretations twisted into it, and just skipping to the legal technicality that you've become so deeply attached to (for understandable reasons). Do you ever wonder why the evidence seems so blurry? Is it the always zipping past it without looking clearly?
Quote:
Youtube link to first half Hint for the observant: I gave Tony an extra finger! And admittedly I set up the height change poorly so it seems less impressive a difference than it is ("six feet or more" to 5'8"). And the shopper's wiggling didn't do what I meant it to. The easily amused could easily bust a gut laughing at this, it's so totally amazingly horrible. But please do see the second half, at 1:50 in for a sequence that should be unsettling to anyone who believes in Megrahi's guilt. I'm sure Bunny gets a giggle too from watching Tony reveal, under oath at the solemn Camp Zeist, that he knows just where his evidence contradicted Megrahi's guilt, that Megrahi must be found guilty for Tony to get his $2 million and avoid a beating from Paul for forfeiting his $1 million, and alters or fudges it at every single discrepant point. Flippin' hilarious, side-splitting comedy gold. Black comedy, of course.
Quote:
I'd be sickened, Bunntamas, if I could really make a leap like that. I'll leave such acrobatics to others, however. If I'm still "walking on eggshels," I'm just enjoying the soft crunching sound they make. |
25th February 2011, 03:12 AM | #497 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Quote:
Anyone, pointedly those who are breathlessly parroting that Megrahi was found 'guilty', wish to offer any comment on the above? We are all only too well aware that Megrahi was found 'Guilty' at Camp Zeist and rather that working yourself into an unnecessary lather, which is what it appears, it'd be curious if anyone from the 'Guilty' camp can actually address these critical issues. Anyone? Come on don't be shy, let's hear it, because as you know only too well, the 4 year investigation carried out by the SCCRC quite evidently concluded that "that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta." And that being the case, you and I know quite explicitly that this means one thing and one thing only: Megrahi was not the purchaser of the clothing and any tenuous connection between the bomb and Megrahi alluded to at Zeist is severed. Oops! Thus, the courts original 'Guilty' verdict, no matter how endlessly repeated, becomes an untenable and invalid point of argument and looks, quite frankly, desperate and irrational. |
25th February 2011, 03:23 AM | #498 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Yeah, you CT bully, with your deceptive so-called "legal rulings by an independent review body." The point Bunntams is trying to make, and it seems to slip by you, is he dropped that appeal they authorized, and the judges' ruling stands. Basis in reason or not, they decided that's when the sale happened and so it MIGHT have been Megrahi, despite no identification from Gauci or anyone. And so it was Megrahi, since blah blah blah, and that's all that matters. Guilty=guilty, her side wins, we lose, haha. Shows us bullies right.
|
25th February 2011, 03:25 AM | #499 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
25th February 2011, 03:47 AM | #500 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
25th February 2011, 03:54 AM | #501 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Well of course Gadaffi's thug Megrahi the terrorist dropped the appeal. Sure, he doesn't want us to know the truth about his terrorist activities, bombs, millions of dollars and past transgressions...etc etc So, yes indeedy, Megrahi dropped the appeal, denying us all the truth and has the temerity to usurp our democratic justice system. Dang, those pesky terrorists foil us again! Well, how about we, through er, critical examination, bypass these unsatisfactory conditions seemingly dictated by the convicted terrorist and arrive at a conclusion we have been denied? Our integrity of the democratic justice system and the deaths of 270 people are worth more than this. |
25th February 2011, 04:03 AM | #502 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
|
25th February 2011, 04:07 AM | #503 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
|
25th February 2011, 05:39 AM | #504 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
Well, there's two parts I don't understand. First, is it alleged that Megrahi actually was hung up by his 'family jewels', or am I completely misunderstanding the remark? Secondly, if that's what is being alleged, surely any karma would be acting on the people who did it, not him?
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
25th February 2011, 08:20 AM | #505 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
This bit that was moved from the thread in SI&CE makes no sense in here. I very much doubt that Scrut will come into this forum area and argue his case, though.
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th February 2011, 09:22 AM | #506 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
That's all very well, Bunntamas, but it doesn't bear to the point at issue, which is whether the Lockerbie bomb travelled on KM180 that morning as unaccompanied baggage. If it did, then all that is relevant. If it didn't, then Megrahi was a thousand miles away from the scene of the crime when the crime happened. I do not know whether Megrahi personally was involved in nothing more reprehensible than sanctions-busting and smuggling, with his worst crime being that he knew (and is related to) some serious bad guys, or whether he had a past that would shock Ivan the Terrible. I officially DO NOT CARE. There are many bad guys in the world. Just being a bad guy, even being a very bad guy indeed, is not proof that an individual committed a particular crime. Look into the pasts of some of the other people who have been linked to the Lockerbie bombing. All a bunch if innocents? No I don't think so. First, establish that there is specific evidence connecting the bad guy to the crime in question, before claiming that the mere fact that he is (or may be) a bad guy is relevant to the discussion. If the bomb did not travel on KM180 that morning, Megrahi could not have committed the crime. There is no evidence AT ALL that the bomb travelled on KM180 that morning, and "considerable and quite compelling evidence" (that's a quote from one of the Zeist judges by the way) that it did not. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th February 2011, 09:32 AM | #507 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I know it has been said that we shouldn't care if Megrahi was wrongly convicted because he was a bad guy anyway. That is such an affront to justice I don't know where to start.
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th February 2011, 09:13 PM | #508 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
Oh, "enlightened" CTers with your all knowingness about "evidence", do tell about your knowledge of "evidence" or lack thereof, surrounding Abdeljalil. And how this relates to your "arguments".
~B. |
26th February 2011, 01:43 AM | #509 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
26th February 2011, 01:43 AM | #510 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Hmm... haven't we been trying to do just that for however many months now, only to get silence and drivel about clan affiliations?
Look, I'm not up for wasting time these days, but since you asked so nicely, I will briefly entertain your (sincere?) request to hear it again. But only in trade. You owe me an answer to Buncrana's post above. How do you support your inconsistent acceptance of Scottish legal decisions? You embrace without question or critical though the guilty verdict, and seem completely unaware of the official finding that the former might well have been a miscarriage of justice. Seems a bit FISHY, y'know. And consistently so. I won't even wait for your half to come through, in good faith. Unfortunately, I don't know how to answer this:
Quote:
As for
Quote:
As you know, we have many lines of qestioning, covered here in the last couple of years, with you here for some of it. Essentially, how this relates is about what I bolded above - it doesn't seem that Megrahi bombed that plane, so any claim of an order to do so is dubious at best. Is that so hard to grasp? You're still having a hard part with "no credible evidence." Keeping it simple and to one point, and without re-explaining what we've already been over repeatedly, let's just look at one of the more central parts, the one the SCCRC focused on , the "identification" of Megrahi as the clothes buyer. As you're surely aware, Tony Gauci never identified Megrahi. Someone else did it for him, pretty much ignoring his testimony along the way. As I recall, all you've said about Tony's contribution to the case was in reference to his 2000 testimony, where he contradicted himself in numerous ways to be less discrepant with Megrahi. As I recall, you praised his memory there as remarkably good for such a long time after the event. But still no word on how his memory improved so much, or why his recall of Megrahi visiting on December 7 came out so muddled in his 1989-91 police statements as to seem very much like a different man on a different day. And you can't chalk it all up to bizarre memory problems. The umbrella testifying to the rain that was totally absent on December 7 was found in blasted bits across Scotland. Rather than explain each of the points above for you, why not point out what you disagree with or need to see the work for, and I will provide that as time allows. So long as you hold up your end and let us know one good reason to simply ignore the SCCRC's findings as you have chosen to. |
26th February 2011, 04:33 AM | #511 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Could I second that? Bear in mind that Fhimah was ACQUITTED by the Zeist court. And it was a "not guilty" too, not even a "not proven". (I bitterly oppose that dual verdict, but given that it exists, we can draw certain conclusions from that.) And yet Bunntamas repeatedly posts accusations that Fhimah was involved in bombing the plane. How's that for selective application of the evidence? And also, as you say, the SCCRC findings. Most accused would be ecstatically happy with one ground of appeal to be identified by the Commission. Megrahi had six. Here's a sample.
Originally Posted by SCCRC
This report is the result of a four-year intensive inquiry into the evidence. The commission tasked with reporting on the safety of the conviction has concluded that it does not appear to be safe. Anyone debating in good faith on the legal position has to acknowledge this. Bunntamas, are you prepared to take the SCCRC findings on board? If we're going to return to the unreliability of Tony Gauci's identification, I think we should go back to the thread in question. But make no mistake, it's crucial. Tony never identified Megrahi as the buyer of the clothes. His original descriptions of the buyer are nothing like Megrahi. The photo he picked out of Megrahi is one which isn't actually recognisable as being a photo of Megrahi. By the time he got to Zeist, he had learned very well what the man n custody looked like, whom he was supposed to be identifying. The identity parade was a farce, with Megrahi being forced to wear red shoes while all the other men were wearing trainers. And even then all Tony could say was that Megrahi wasn't the buyer but resembled him. It's important because if the identification falls, so does the rest of the case. There is no evidence Megrahi did anything out of the ordinary at Malta that morning - he didn't have a suitcase with him and he didn't go airside. There is no evidence there was any unaccompanied luggage on KM180, and "considerable and quite compelling evidence" that there wasn't. The x-ray operator at Frankfurt didn't see anything suspicious among the luggage transferred to PA103A at Frankfurt. There is literally not a shred of evidence to show that the bomb travelled on the route it is said to have travelled. The only reason the judges decided that must have happened, despite the "considerable and quite compelling evidence" that it didn't, is that the man they had decoded bought the clothes from Tony Gauci was at the airport at Malta that morning. If the identification falls, and in my opinion it should never have stood in the first place, the entire case falls. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th February 2011, 04:08 PM | #512 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
The above post was moved out of context from a different thread. I'm moving this one from the same thread because of course the question keeps coming up but we've been forbidden from talking about it there.
This is for Wildcat, and he might also like to read the post above. If it had stayed where it was originally posted he might not have had so many questions. I'll try it this way. There was no evidence at all that the bomb was ever anywhere near Malta, or travelled on KM180 from Malta to Frankfurt. On the contrary, intensive and prolonged investigation ruled it out. Despite this, the court chose to decide that had actually happened, because they believed Megrahi (who had been at the airport catching another flight when KM180 left) was the man who had purchased the clothes identified as being in the suitcase with the bomb. This relied on identification evidence given by the shopkeeper who sold the clothes. Here's how that worked. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postid=6920925 In addition, the date he appeared to be describing was a day on which Megrahi wasn't on Malta at all. This is one of the bits of circular reasoning. They first decide that the less likely day is the day when the clothes were bought, for no readily apparent reason, but in fact because that is the day that will allow them to find that the purchaser was Megrahi. They then decide that the shopkeeper's non-identification of Megrahi as the purchaser (he only said Megrahi resembled the purchaser) was a positive identification - because Megrahi had been on the island on the day in question, and because he had been at the airport when the bomb was undetectably smuggled on the plane. Then they decided the bomb must have been on that plane even though there was no evidence to that effect, plenty evidence it wasn't, and plenty evidence it had been introduced at Heathrow - because the man who bought the clothes was at the airport when that flight left! I'm not making this up, I wish I was. There's a lot more, proven stuff about bribing witnesses and suppressing evidence, and suspected but unprovable fabrication of evidence. But really, if Megrahi didn't buy the clothes he didn't do it. It's that simple. And this is the what the official Scottish legal body which spent nearly four years looking into that said.
Originally Posted by SCCRC
He didn't buy these clothes, and he was nowhere near when the bomb was introduced into the baggage container at London. There was no other evidence linking him to the bombing. All that can be appreciated by reading the Opinion of the Court. Which is why Damien Evans said that the evidence presented in the trial showed he couldn't have done it. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th February 2011, 07:41 PM | #513 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
For not being up for wasting time, you sure do waste a lot of it here, on R. Black's and your blog with your CTs.
http://www.bokbluster.com/wordpress/...24boklores.jpg Oh, the irony. If he doesn't croak first, it may just become a reality that Megrahi once again resides in a prison cell, where he belongs. along with his fellow terrorist bosses; Senussi and Gaddaffi (if Gaddafi doesn't first off himself on those drugs that he alleges were supplied by al qaeda, resulting in the Libyan uprising; the idea of which, (al qaeda suppliying drugs to Libyans, that is) uncannily resembles the CTing that has gone on here, for years on end, hence the relegation of all of these comments to the CT forum, much to Rolfe's chagrin, yet nontheless, as appropriate as Megrahi, et al, belonging in prison). Cheers, ~B |
||
26th February 2011, 08:38 PM | #514 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
[deleted]
You are so on ignore now. Ta-ta. |
27th February 2011, 01:22 AM | #515 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,164
|
Quote:
We don't even know if it was a bomb. |
27th February 2011, 03:27 AM | #516 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Yeah, we do, barring an insane no-planer-level conspiracy. The physical science is around, photos, etc. You should find little if anything amiss with it.
The detonation time happens to match perfectly with a Khreesat bomb loaded at London, commissioned by the Iranians, with one missing and no Iranian revenge for IR 655 unless that was it. London's security was severely breached, of all days, on Dec 21 1988. And a case of the bomb style was reported in the same corner of the luggage container blown outward by the bomb. The time it was seen clarifies this something other than the Libyan brown Samsonite, which magiically replaced the "Bedford suitcase" and did the bombing, with inexplcable timing from a non-Khreesat-bomb perspective. So yeah, there is good reason to speculate just the type of bomb used and it didn't have a MST-13 in it. And as such, didnt't have those disinfo jabberjaws at Mebo attached, until the planted evidence brought them in. Don't buy anything they say. Bollier was the first one to suggest the CIA should frame Libya and pay for his help doing so. The Mebo files. |
27th February 2011, 03:45 AM | #517 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,164
|
If true he should go to jail also. Although to be honest I find it doubtful he could have initiated such a plan, all he could do was assist once requested.
But at least his evidence is consistant. All Bollier can tell us is what didn't happen. If he didn't supply the timer and the timer used in evidence was fabricated by his employees at the request of the British police that is the information he can usefully provide. You provide no reasonable motive about why Britain should wish to protect Iran (and no oil is not a reasonable motive) |
27th February 2011, 04:24 AM | #518 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Ever heard of the "special relationship"?
Though at bottom, I don't think the UK cared who got the blame so long as there was no finding that the bomb had been introduced at Heathrow airport. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
27th February 2011, 11:04 AM | #519 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
|
27th February 2011, 11:07 AM | #520 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
|
A whole lot of "special relashioships" are being revealed, now that Gaddaffi's grip has been removed from the Libyans' throats.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...nd-Pan-Am-103/ |
Thread Tools | |
|
|