ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Ahmed Jibril , Kenny MacAskill , Lockerbie bombing , Marwan Khreesat , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 15th February 2012, 07:03 AM   #641
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,713
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
That appalls me. I just assumed that they were going along with the charade for misguided political reasons.

Wouldn't you be even more appalled if they were "just going along?"

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
I don't know how anyone with a brain, who has read the media and watched the events unfold can believe that Megrahi is guilty. I took Salmond for an intelligent man. I must be wrong. Surely even he must see the 'coincidence' that after years with no mention at all of Libya for the first couple of years, the attention turns to them at exactly the same time that we need Syria 'on side' in the Middle East.

I know of many such people; the problem is they assume that, because the British judicial system generally doesn't screw things up to this extent, that al-Megrahi must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, coincidence does not equal conspiracy.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
I find it hard to believe that Salmond is arrogant enough to ignore the observer's comments.

The fact that some observer, no matter how distinguished, feels that a person didn't receive a fair trial does not automatically equate to that person's being innocent.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Maybe he is keeping quiet for political reasons. Misguided silence is less alarming than having an idiot in charge of the country.

That answers my question. I think I'd rather have a well-meaning idiot than someone who'd condone such a miscarriage of justice, but I suppose that's something about which reasonable people might disagree.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
I thought the court case where Air Malta sued Granada had pretty much proved it wasn't loaded at Malta? And the testimony of the London luggage guy had shown that a samsonite case had 'appeared' for loading in London while he was on a tea break?

First, civil suits generally have lower probative value than criminal cases because there's a lower standard of proof; second, the public tend to pay less attention to civil suits because less is at stake.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Apologies of all this has been covered before, I haven't read the whole thread yet.

Don't worry; I haven't read the whole thread either. I stop in sometimes primarily because I'm interested in air crash investigations, though I'm finding the story of al-Megrahi's wrongful conviction more and more compelling.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 07:27 AM   #642
pete2
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
I thought the court case where Air Malta sued Granada had pretty much proved it wasn't loaded at Malta?
Granada settled out of court, so that point hasn't been proved in court.

Quote:
And the testimony of the London luggage guy had shown that a samsonite case had 'appeared' for loading in London while he was on a tea break?
The feeder flight PA103A arrived late at Heathrow, so baggage handler Mr Sidhu had only fifteen minutes to load bags from that flight into container AVE4041. Accordingly, he removed the maroony-brown hard-shell case from the bottom layer and replaced it with Karen Noonan's soft-sided bag. He then loaded an identical brown hard-shell case from Frankfurt on top of the Noonan bag, and put the original case he had removed in the far right corner of the container, where it entirely escaped damage in the explosion and in fact disappeared entirely, never to be found.

This is the explanation offered in all seriousness by the Zeist tribunal. As well as being patently ridiculous, it also (as Rolfe has pointed out) contradicts the reason given for excluding Heathrow as a possible point of ingestion of the bomb: namely, that the bags seen by Mr Bedford were not moved, and that the bomb, which was in the second layer of bags*, must have been among the Frankfurt bags.

* There's plenty in another thread showing why this is also false: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=165824

Last edited by pete2; 15th February 2012 at 07:30 AM.
pete2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 08:16 AM   #643
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
That appalls me. I just assumed that they were going along with the charade for misguided political reasons.

I don't know how anyone with a brain, who has read the media and watched the events unfold can believe that Megrahi is guilty. I took Salmond for an intelligent man. I must be wrong.

Hi Jools! I sometimes forget you joined the forum quite so recently, so these discussions will be new to you.

Salmond is an intelligent man. He is also an extremely busy man, with an enormous amount to assimilate on a day-to-day basis. We have the luxury of sitting up at night reading the judgement, or Paul Foot, or David Leppard, or even the actual court transcripts if the insomnia is really getting to us. He doesn't. He has to deal with a lot of not-top-priority stuff by taking briefings and summaries from his advisors. And let's face it, Lockerbie is not top priority for a man with a country to run and an independence referendum to win.

Whom did Salmond appoint to be his chief legal advisor, when he became FM? Eilish Angiolini, that's who, the LA who served Labour, a Labour appointee and Labour loyalist. Labour of course was in power all through the Zeist farce, and it was Angiolini's immediate Labour predecessor who lied to the Zeist court to try to get Giaka's lying lies admitted as evidence. Salmond's confirmation of Angiolini's appointment was seen at the time as an olive branch, to try to maintain continuity and show that the SNP wasn't just chucking out Labour's appointees for the hell of it. I think that was the motive, indeed, but I think it was largely what led to this. Mulholland, the new LA, is another in the same mould, more's the pity. Someone else wedded to maintaining the reputation of the Scottish prosecution service above all else.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Surely even he must see the 'coincidence' that after years with no mention at all of Libya for the first couple of years, the attention turns to them at exactly the same time that we need Syria 'on side' in the Middle East.

'Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice' by Paul Foot

Also, he must know that a UN special observer seems to doubt Megrahi had a fair trial:

I find it hard to believe that Salmond is arrogant enough to ignore the observer's comments.

I must disagree with you there. I think Salmond is arrogant enough to ignore GOD. It pretty much comes with the territory - you don't get where he has got without strong confidence in your own opinions, and actually, you can't do the job without that mindset either.

However, that's not my main point here. I would be astonished if Salmond had read Foot, or Kochler, or is in any way familiar with the way the investigation unfolded. Salmond is a politician, not a Lockerbie buff. He does what senior politicians do - he asks those he believes to be in a position to advise him to brief him on the important points. If he's being briefed by "guilters", who are assuring him that JfM and the rest of us are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists, that's the line he'll take.

[And as an aside, Foot is actually wrong about this "switch from Syria to Libya" thing. The timing is all wrong, and it's actually quite a bit more complicated than Foot suggests.]

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Maybe he is keeping quiet for political reasons. Misguided silence is less alarming than having an idiot in charge of the country.

I'm with Spitfire here. If I thought Salmond was as corrupt and self-serving as you suggest, my estimation of the man would go down a great deal. However, I have met him a few times, and discussed SNP tactics with him, back in the 1990s. I have never seen any sign that he is in any way corrupt. Or an idiot. One thing that came over very clearly was his absolute refusal to consider doing anything that was inherently unfair, just because it might be politically expedient.

I couldn't quite make any of this out myself, until one wet Sunday during last year's Festival I had an encounter with Ming Campbell about Lockerbie. Ming was loftily superior in his absolute certainty that Megrahi's conviction was sound. He knew this because he is a lawyer and understands the rules of evidence, unlike us mere mortals who rely on flawed concepts like common sense. His mind was made up, and he was not going to listen to me, he was just going to tell me that he was right and I was an amateur idiot.

Jim Swire has said that in order to have faith in the verdict one must either be ignorant of the evidence for it, or dishonest. I agreed with him, until I met Ming. Ming was flat wrong, but he was neither ignorant of the evidence, nor dishonest. He was the victim of faulty reasoning. And he was so certain of his own rectitude that he was beyond even listening to any other opinion.

Obviously Ming Campbell is not advising Alex Salmond. However, I suspect Salmond is being advised by people with the same mindset as Ming. Starting with Angiolini, and possibly including MacAskill. I'll expand on this in a separate post.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
I thought the court case where Air Malta sued Granada had pretty much proved it wasn't loaded at Malta?

Um, no not exactly. The original German analysis of the Erac printout was a load of mince, and when it came to that court case the experts Air Malta had retained shredded it to bits. Air Malta's own records also showed that what Granada had "reconstructed" did not happen - an Arab terrorist checking the case in for the flight from Malta to Frankfurt to New York then sloping off without boarding the plane - and Granada folded. However, the Erac printout was re-analysed, and the modus operandi suggested by the prosecution was different.

That doesn't mean there was ever any evidence the bomb was or could have been loaded at Malta, it just means the judgement against Granada was never a viable precedent to show it had not been.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
And the testimony of the London luggage guy had shown that a samsonite case had 'appeared' for loading in London while he was on a tea break?

You know this and I know this, but we have had the luxury of making up our own minds, at leisure, by way of an in-depth reading of the sources and commentary. The First Minister doesn't have that luxury.

Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Apologies of all this has been covered before, I haven't read the whole thread yet.

It's worse than that, Jim. There are about a dozen threads, discussing different aspects of the evidence. Some of them meander a lot before settling down on a rational conclusion, as I and others were figuring it out in real time on the forum. It's not an easy subject to get to grips with.

Rolfe.
__________________
"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; 15th February 2012 at 09:04 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 11:37 AM   #644
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
To expand a little. I think the main driving force within the Scottish legal establishment is to save face. This is the highest profile investigation Scotland has ever undertaken, and it screwed up royally. I don't think the Crown Office really wants that acknowledged.

I think there is an important point that may be being overlooked here. There is a distinction between the evidence being too weak to support a conviction, and the accused being innocent. Defence advocates naturally bang on about the former, and JfM takes the same line, for legal reasons. That's the main thrust of the SCCRC report also. Not that Megrahi is factually innocent, but that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.

I didn't mention the SCCRC report above, but it's obviously crucial. Salmond and MacAskill are both aware of it, obviously. However, what does it actually say? It says Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the clothes purchaser is flawed, and it says Gauci was bribed.

If I was deeply wedded to the conviction, as the Crown Office are, I would regard these as "technicalities". How could Gauci be sure Megrahi was the purchaser after ten years? Obviously that's a huge stretch. And the bribery? Well who colluded in that, again? The Scottish police. There's a (false) view of this that says, they're trying to throw out Gauci's evidence because the cops made the mistake of allowing the Americans to bribe him, and that technicality could see a murdering terrorist's conviction overturned.

Then, one would go over all the rest of the alleged evidence against Megrahi, without going into too much detail, and declare how terrible it would be if this evil murdering terrorist were to be acquitted because the Scottish police bribed a witness. If you were the Justice Secretary getting briefings like that, would you be keen to allow the appeal to come to court if there was a way to avoid it?

I think that's what's going on. Everyone is putting forward the flaws in the identification evidence, because without that there is really no case, but not pointing out the deeper flaws.

If the bomb had really been introduced at Malta, I'd have some suspicions that Megrahi might have been mixed up in it too, although obviously simple presence at the airport at the relevant time should never have been enough to convict. I don't think MacAskill et al. have ever really been exposed to the depth and breadth of the evidence that the bomb was never anywhere near Malta. It isn't and shouldn't be necessary to acquit Megrahi, because if the clothes purchase ID falls, there isn't a tenable case against him.

I think it is necessary, though, to get over the fact that we're not aerated about this because we think a murdering terrorist shouldn't have been convicted. We're aerated about it because we can see that the entire modus operandi proposed by the Crown was a heap of nonsense, and the evidence in fact points to a completely different modus operandi which Megrahi clearly had no part in.

The problem is, that is not going to be a position the legal establishment is receptive to. And if the legal establishment doesn't want to listen, can the Scottish government be brought to that realisation?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 11:49 AM   #645
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Wouldn't you be even more appalled if they were "just going along?"
Not necessarily. I think that occasionally (very rarely) there might be strong political reasons for backing up a bad decision if it is a 'least worst' scenario, eg a documentary recently showed that people would naturally redirect a killer away from a room with five people in it into a room with only one person in it, even though they knew that the one person would probably be killed. I can't imagine any scenario where it would be prudent to back up the bad decision on Lockerbie, but I was prepared to consider the possibility that a senior politician had, after serious consideration, chosen to make a decision like that.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
I know of many such people; the problem is they assume that, because the British judicial system generally doesn't screw things up to this extent, that al-Megrahi must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, coincidence does not equal conspiracy.
I think the English judicial system has had plenty of major screw ups and, reluctantly, I accept that the Scottish system is not perfect either.

Correct, further coincidence in itself doesn't equal a conspiracy, but there are so many anomalies in this case that make it more likely, I just didn't list them all.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
The fact that some observer, no matter how distinguished, feels that a person didn't receive a fair trial does not automatically equate to that person's being innocent.
Correct again, one person is relatively insignificant, but the observer made several criticisms of the trial and those, together with the layers upon layers of lies and deliberate misinformation, add up to significant doubt about the verdict.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
That answers my question. I think I'd rather have a well-meaning idiot than someone who'd condone such a miscarriage of justice, but I suppose that's something about which reasonable people might disagree.
I've explained my reasons above. Sometimes politicians need to make tough decisions.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
First, civil suits generally have lower probative value than criminal cases because there's a lower standard of proof; second, the public tend to pay less attention to civil suits because less is at stake.
Noted, I take your point.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Don't worry; I haven't read the whole thread either. I stop in sometimes primarily because I'm interested in air crash investigations, though I'm finding the story of al-Megrahi's wrongful conviction more and more compelling.
I've always been concerned about it and was disgusted when he was found guilty. I'm not as well researched as Rolfe, but I've followed quite a bit of press coverage, read some of Robert Black's blog and seen Jim Swire interviewed on the topic. I've also seen some of the rabid US attitude and, whilst I have total empathy for the families, I was shocked by an interview I heard with their 'rep' Frank Duggan in which he showed blatant contempt for Jim Swire and refused to have a rational conversation.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 11:56 AM   #646
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And if the legal establishment doesn't want to listen, can the Scottish government be brought to that realisation?

Rolfe.

If the Scottish government are brought to that realisation, what can they do about it? Does the justice system not trump the government in legal matters?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 12:38 PM   #647
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
If the Scottish government are brought to that realisation, what can they do about it? Does the justice system not trump the government in legal matters?

Not if the justice system is in the wrong. The Scottish government can convene an independent inquiry into the affair with as wide a remit as possible. That's what they are being asked to do. I could see why they might not want to do it for a terrorist who was convicted on evidence that was technically too weak to stand up in court. They might be less reluctant if they really understood that the whole thing was a complete cluster, with the investigation having completely misidentified the essential modus operandi.

Or then again, maybe not.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 12:39 PM   #648
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Hi Jools! I sometimes forget you joined the forum quite so recently, so these discussions will be new to you.
Hi! I've bypassed several of the threads on this as I have already formed my own opinion that Megrahi is innocent and I doubt much could shake that, but when I saw activity on a thread that implied people still have doubts about him I thought I should check it out.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Salmond is an intelligent man. He is also an extremely busy man, with an enormous amount to assimilate on a day-to-day basis. We have the luxury of sitting up at night reading the judgement.......
As you know, Salmond has gone up a lot in my estimation recently, which is why I was prepared to consider that he had taken a deliberate decision to support a 'least worst' scenario, as I mentioned to Spitfire.

Your comments here though throw doubt on that. I accept he is a busy man, but no politician should be too busy to listen to the people. There has been so much publicity and public debate on this issue, much triggered by the decision to release Megrahi, that I don't believe he can possibly be ignorant of it, so the question is why does he not take action? Does he have his ears blocked against people who disagree with him? I don't think that's the case, so I want to know why he isn't considering the possibility of error. Perhaps he feels supporting the wrong verdict is better than admitting to the world that Scotland screwed up?

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Whom did Salmond appoint to be his chief legal advisor, when he became FM?.....
I take your point about Angiolini, and you know we agree on Mulholland, but Salmond should be wiser than that and look around at the opinion of the people of Scotland, the UN, etc etc. He must read the papers.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I must disagree with you there. I think Salmond is arrogant enough to ignore GOD. It pretty much comes with the territory - you don't get where he has got without strong confidence in your own opinions, and actually, you can't do the job without that mindset either.
But you shouldn't be so arrogant that you are not prepared to question whether others may be right when they are highlighting so many errors in this case.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
However, that's not my main point here. I would be astonished if Salmond had read Foot, or Kochler, or is in any way familiar with the way the investigation unfolded. Salmond is a politician, not a Lockerbie buff......
A politician is very narrow minded if they don't step outside the inner circle to ascertain what is going on in the world.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
[And as an aside, Foot is actually wrong about this "switch from Syria to Libya" thing....
I thought the war dates tied up with his piece? I know you have read widely on this so I'm sure you are correct and I'll certainly have another look at his statements.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm with Spitfire here. If I thought Salmond was as corrupt and self-serving as you suggest, my estimation of the man would go down a great deal.....
I wasn't suggesting he was 'corrupt and self-serving', quite the oppisite. As I explained to Spitfire, I felt he may have believed there was a genuine reason not to stir things up, meaning that he was suppressing his natural instincts in order to support the greater good.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I couldn't quite make any of this out myself, until one wet Sunday during last year's Festival I had an encounter with Ming Campbell about Lockerbie. Ming was loftily superior in his absolute certainty that Megrahi's conviction was sound. .....
Salmond should not be loftily superior though, he's better than that. Yes, he's a legal bod, but he is supposedly for the people.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Jim Swire has said that in order to have faith in the verdict one must either be ignorant of the evidence for it, or dishonest. I agreed with him, until I met Ming. Ming was flat wrong, but he was neither ignorant of the evidence, nor dishonest. He was the victim of faulty reasoning. And he was so certain of his own rectitude that he was beyond even listening to any other opinion.
I think Jim Swire was right. Ming Campbell is being dishonest if he can't see what the evidence adds up to. He is also deluding himself if he believes that judges never get it wrong, especially when all the evidence and witnesses were not tested in court.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Obviously Ming Campbell is not advising Alex Salmond. However, I suspect Salmond is being advised by people with the same mindset as Ming. Starting with Angiolini, and possibly including MacAskill. I'll expand on this in a separate post.
Again, are there no people challenging his decision on who he believes? He can't live in an ivory tower.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Um, no not exactly. The original German analysis of the Erac printout was a load of mince....
I've withdrawn the Granada point. As Sptifire said, it didn't go to court.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You know this and I know this, but we have had the luxury of making up our own minds, at leisure, by way of an in-depth reading of the sources and commentary. The First Minister doesn't have that luxury.
So it's acceptable to be wrong if you have duff advisers? I'm sure that's not what you mean, but surely Salmond is aware of the controversy and should seek opinions from both sides before making his mind up?
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 12:52 PM   #649
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Well I would imagine that all parties involved would drag their feet as much as possible in the hope that Megrahi dies soon.

Then everyone concerned will breathe a huge sigh of relief and promptly forget about the whole sordid affair.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:07 PM   #650
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Joolz, I didn't say Salmond was right. Or perfect. I'm just trying to understand his motivations as best I can. But he's not a legal bod. He's an economist, and his degree is in history and economics. So I could believe he is listening to his legal advisors, who being as they are the Crown Office, are feeding him crap.

Bear in mind all the dialogue so far has been with Holyrood committees, not the parliament and not the FM. I question how much thought he has ever given to this.

Spitfire Skwinty, when Megrahi dies it becomes legally possible to mount another appeal. Just sayin'.

Rolfe.
__________________
"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; 15th February 2012 at 02:16 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:34 PM   #651
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Joolz, I didn't say Salmond was right.
I realise, and I wasn't saying he was wrong, I don't have evidence either way.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Or perfect. I'm just trying to understand his motivations as best I can.
Ditto.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
But he's not a legal bod. He's an economist, and his degree is in history and economics.
My error. <makes another note never to believe Paxman>


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Spitfire, when Megrahi dies it becomes legally possible to mount another appeal. Just sayin'.

Rolfe.
Shouldn't this say impossible?
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:38 PM   #652
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
No, possible. Anyone with an interest in the case can attempt to mount an appeal. Megrahi's children would get first refusal, but if they decline, others may step forward. Close family of victims would qualify, as far as I understand.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:45 PM   #653
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,713
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Spitfire, when Megrahi dies it becomes legally possible to mount another appeal. Just sayin'.

Sorry if I'm a bit dense; to which of my points was this a response? Also, I initially assumed you meant "impossible," but I think I see what you mean now. Megrahi had to abandon all appeals in order to gain his "compassionate release," did he not? So once he dies that restriction is lifted, and others can then pursue appeals on his behalf?
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:53 PM   #654
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No, possible. Anyone with an interest in the case can attempt to mount an appeal. Megrahi's children would get first refusal, but if they decline, others may step forward. Close family of victims would qualify, as far as I understand.

Rolfe.
WoW! I thought the right of appeal died with you, sure I heard it somewhere. I was thinking of Derek Bentley being given a pardon after being executed, but just checked and saw he subsequently had his conviction quashed by a posthumous appeal.

I live and learn!
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 01:56 PM   #655
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Rolfe mixed up Skwinty with Spitfire. No big deal.

I would think whoever appealed after Megrahi died would have to be extremely wealthy and have the constitution of ten oxen to get through all the obstacles that await them.

IMO, it would be better to let the matter rest after his death.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 02:20 PM   #656
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Sorry, Spitfire and Skwinty, I mix up words that begin with the same letter. That's how I failed a pharmacology exam once....

Megrahi didn't have to give up his appeal to get the compassionate release. He was basically treated like a mushroom and dealt a three-card trick so that he thought he needed to do that. By MacAskill.

You make a good point as regards funds to fight another appeal. These may not be easily come by in Libya these days, by a family which was on the wrong side in the revolution. Even though Megrahi's daughter got herself a law degree in part to help her father clear his name.

On the other hand, bear in mind what I said about close relatives of the victims. And the point that the SCCRC report has not been tested in court and there is a lot of public concern about the case might be important.

Rolfe.
__________________
"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; 15th February 2012 at 02:22 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 02:52 PM   #657
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Rolfe mixed up Skwinty with Spitfire. No big deal.

I would think whoever appealed after Megrahi died would have to be extremely wealthy and have the constitution of ten oxen to get through all the obstacles that await them.

IMO, it would be better to let the matter rest after his death.
Or be able to find a lot of people interested enough in justice to offer donations to an appeal fund.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 03:10 PM   #658
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Or be able to find a lot of people interested enough in justice to offer donations to an appeal fund.
People with a sufficiently thick hide to endure the vilification of "donating money to whitewash the reputation of a mass-murdering terrorist", or something like that.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 03:19 PM   #659
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
People with a sufficiently thick hide to endure the vilification of "donating money to whitewash the reputation of a mass-murdering terrorist", or something like that.
No. I made no such appeal to emotion. I specifically referred to 'justice' without pre-empting a verdict. If there's an appeal where all the evidence is presented then there would be less disagreement over the verdict it reaches.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2012, 03:34 PM   #660
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Oh look, the random drive-by trolling, just as predicted....

Rolfe.
__________________
"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; 15th February 2012 at 03:48 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 05:39 AM   #661
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Oh look, the random drive-by trolling, just as predicted....

Rolfe.
If you mean Chaos's intervention, I think that can be taken 2 ways. It could just be a valid prediction that a campaign to re-open the case will face this kind of accusation, and pointing this out isn't necessarily the same as making the accusation.

Of course, it may be a case of Chaos being deliberately ambiguous.
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 06:42 AM   #662
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
You're quite right, I think that's probably what he really meant.

Mea culpa, and apologies.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 06:59 AM   #663
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
No. I made no such appeal to emotion. I specifically referred to 'justice' without pre-empting a verdict. If there's an appeal where all the evidence is presented then there would be less disagreement over the verdict it reaches.
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You're quite right, I think that's probably what he really meant.

Mea culpa, and apologies.

Rolfe.
I was just trying to predict the likely response of the people whose calm, rational and well-thought-out replies to your posts have been giving you so joy... (Am I being too sarcastic again?)

No offense taken, by the way. Youīve seen worse meant completely seriously, so I should have known your irony meter isnīt reading well in this thread.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 07:07 AM   #664
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
Ah, if you visited more often, I'd remember....

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 08:00 AM   #665
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Ah, if you visited more often, I'd remember....

Rolfe.
I think Iīm not nearly enough of a condescending jerk. If I were, you wouldnīt forget about me so quickly.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 09:44 AM   #666
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
I was just trying to predict the likely response of the people whose calm, rational and well-thought-out replies to your posts have been giving you so joy... (Am I being too sarcastic again?)

No offense taken, by the way. Youīve seen worse meant completely seriously, so I should have known your irony meter isnīt reading well in this thread.

I reset my irony meter to zero when I came to this thread as I haven't been involved in any of the CT threads before but had heard that you were all a joyless bunch of pedantic, argumentative buggers!



A sarky smilie would have helped your post too!

I'll add my apologies too.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 10:23 AM   #667
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
I have to say, his post was a dead ringer from some serious posts on here, from people like WildCat.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 10:48 AM   #668
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I have to say, his post was a dead ringer from some serious posts on here, from people like WildCat.

Rolfe.
Damn it, I am too good.

Just saying (and back to topic)... anyone who does choose to contribute to that legal fund will inevitably be branded a terrorist supporter by the "Megrahi did it" faction. Thatīs pretty much a law of nature.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 11:30 AM   #669
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
A question to those more familiar with the case:

How many family members of the Lockerbie crash victims believe Megrahi is innocent?

Is Dr Jim Swire the only one?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 03:13 PM   #670
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,340
No. There's a group of (mainly) British relatives who at the very least have serious doubts. Jim Swire is the spokesman for that group. Matt Berkeley, who is one of these, is a JREF member who has posted occasionally on the matter.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 03:44 PM   #671
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Damn it, I am too good.

Just saying (and back to topic)... anyone who does choose to contribute to that legal fund will inevitably be branded a terrorist supporter by the "Megrahi did it" faction. Thatīs pretty much a law of nature.
Just add it to the list of complaints - socialist, atheist, feminist, vegetarian, Scot, terrorist supporter! I'm going to hell anyway so what's one more label in the meantime!
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 03:48 PM   #672
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
A question to those more familiar with the case:

How many family members of the Lockerbie crash victims believe Megrahi is innocent?

Is Dr Jim Swire the only one?
In addition to Rolfe's reply, this is Jim Swire's website http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ It currently has some bad stuff (aka truth!) about David McLetchie, tory MSP.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by joolz; 16th February 2012 at 03:48 PM. Reason: sp
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 04:02 PM   #673
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
Just add it to the list of complaints - socialist, atheist, feminist, vegetarian, Scot, terrorist supporter! I'm going to hell anyway so what's one more label in the meantime!
You could aim for getting the complete set...
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 04:33 PM   #674
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by joolz View Post
In addition to Rolfe's reply, this is Jim Swire's website http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ It currently has some bad stuff (aka truth!) about David McLetchie, tory MSP.
Thanks for this link - I for one didn't know about this website. The 20th Jan entry refers to a TV documentary due to be broadcast in February. Does anyone know: has this already gone out? Is it on BBC iPlayer or the equivalent?

I see the 19th January programme on Swire's visit to Libya is on ITV player.

(Both the above are UK TV channels, btw.)
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 04:36 PM   #675
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
You could aim for getting the complete set...
Not possible, I'm white and heterosexual

__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 04:49 PM   #676
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Thanks for this link - I for one didn't know about this website. The 20th Jan entry refers to a TV documentary due to be broadcast in February. Does anyone know: has this already gone out? Is it on BBC iPlayer or the equivalent?

I see the 19th January programme on Swire's visit to Libya is on ITV player.

(Both the above are UK TV channels, btw.)
George Thomson is shown in the AlJazeera one, below, but I presume you are referring to one newer than that so I'll keep looking as I haven't seen a new one with him in it

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2012, 05:29 PM   #677
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
<snips>Does anyone know: has this already gone out? Is it on BBC iPlayer or the equivalent?
Robert Black has info about the documentary [http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...lusively.html] but doesn't say when it will be on. He mentions it's a follow up to the AlJazeera one so it may end up on you tube too.

He also links to a couple of other documentaries here [http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...ockerbie.html] but one is bad quality and the other needs special software and may be in Dutch.
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2012, 08:55 AM   #678
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,713
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
You could aim for getting the complete set...

The only problem is some of them are mutually exclusive, depending on who's criteria you're using, of course.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2012, 01:28 PM   #679
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
The only problem is some of them are mutually exclusive, depending on who's criteria you're using, of course.
So? Why let logic stand in the way of a good insult?

Look, Iīve been called Nazi so many time I can trade of those for... does anybody have a "cantankerous bitch" they arenīt using? Iīve been envious of Slingblade ever since she got called that by Penn Jillette. Maybe joolz would like to trade a "Scot" for it, too - I canīt get one of those except by trading.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2012, 02:59 PM   #680
joolz
Medusa
 
joolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Maybe joolz would like to trade a "Scot" for it, too - I canīt get one of those except by trading.
No, niet, nein, non, no way, fat chance, on yer bike! If I lose 'Scot' I may have to replace it with an 'English'

I could give you a 'bad work ethic' I filed away ages ago? I got that from someone who didn't work with me in the same week I got a bottle of yummy champagne from a big boss on behalf of people who did work with me - to thank me for going 'over and above' in the job <shrug>. I could even take back the 'torn faced, ignorant, clueless, interfering bitch' back from her and trade you that?


Back to the OP - has anyone else found a planned date for the release of the new version of the documentary mentioned above?
__________________
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking
joolz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.