Lockerbie: do you think Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted beyond reasonable doubt?

In My Humble Opinion
1

In answering this poll, please concentrate on the single question in the title: abandon thoughts about his recent release, or any insinuations regarding the reasons or mechanism thereof.

The judges in the non-jury trial concluded: “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment as amended.”

Do you agree?

I’m attempting to gauge the swell of opinion on the two most affected countries on each side of the Atlantic, as pertains to this board, but if you are non-US feel free to answer, but it would be good if you could specify your nationality and vote below.

In any circumstances, please feel free to express why you hold this opinion.

2

I’m UK and voted no.

My reason is that, having read what I can about the trial I see major problems with the testimonies given by the main (and only!) prosecution witness.

I’d hazard a guess that most people in the UK consider the trial a stitch-up and the guilty verdict was born of political and diplomatic expediency. Wouldn’t be the first time.

I personally didn’t want him to be released until after the case review had taken place as I suspect the whole murky business would have been torn apart.

3

The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission found that the there was sufficient evidence to conclude that their had been a miscarriage of justice and that the verdictwould be overturned at review. The UN observer at the trial felt the same. As do most legal practioners familiar with the case. When a kangeroo court* find the case against one person not proven as was with his accomplice…you have to admit there is something fishy.

  • I have the greatest respect for the Scootish legal system and the Scottish judiciary, but the Scottish court in the Neatherlands was not its finest hour, it was a political tool and nothing else.
    Non UK, no US citizen.
4

No way. The prosecution witness was a gobshite who changed his story about 100 times and failed to identify the accused a total of 19 times before the trial. I don’t think it’s likely Libya even had anything to do with the bomb. The real suspects were likely Iran, who had a history of using very similar bombs at the time, and possibly wanted revenge for the US Navy blowing their airliner out of the sky then awarding medals to all involved.

5

I need a new category in your poll: Dual UK/US citizen who doesn’t feel qualified to comment, but who is nonetheless suspicious that the conviction was not cut-and-dried.

6

Fair enough - feel free to choose between country of ordinary residence or country of birth (what nationality do you feel like). Though “suspicious that the conviction was not cut-and-dried” sounds like “reasonable doubt” to me.

7

Tony Gauci’s evidence is clearly the weak link. Wouldn’t it be fun if it turns out he really did get $2 million from the US Department of Justice?

8

I’m having a hard time understanding the poll question.

Someone is either convicted or they aren’t, right? Factually, he was convicted. Factually, I believe that conviction had to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” otherwise the outcome would have not been a conviction.

Do I think he was actually guilty? Do I think the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt? I have no idea, I didn’t follow the case closely at all. But I do think the wording of the questions is very strange.

9

Fair enough, you have caught me out on on a semantic inaccuracy (though everyone else seems to have understood what I mean, and it’s not exactly an uncommon phrase).

I’ll rephrase: do you agree or disagree with the judges’ statement that “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused”?

10

I’m not familiar enough with the evidence or the trial procedure to offer up any criticisms of either. So right now, without knowing any reason to doubt the verdict, it’s entitled to the presumption of correctness. I didn’t see the witnesses and judge their demeanor; the fact-finders at trial did that. I don’t know of any reason to doubt them.

11

Bit behind the times Bricker. An independant statutory body setup to investigate possible miscarriages of justice has concluded that if a review was made it would have been highly likely that the verdict would be overturned, the statutory test for making a reference to an appellate court. It choose to do so.

12

BUT…:stuck_out_tongue: I am always suspicious of any body ‘set up to investigate possible miscarriages of justice…’ Just sounds like they already have a conclusion, once they have picked a case.

Best wishes,
hh

13

The relevant statutory provison

14

He absolutely was not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the evidence was not examined by a jury by itself gives reasonable doubt, let alone the fact that the prosecution evidence was internally contradictory, and there is at least a suspicion that the witness was compromised.

I’ve said this before, but the tragedy in this is not that Al-Megrahi was released early, but that no effort is being made to find the real terrorists. If the US wishes to complain about anything, it should be that.

(UK citizen)

15

A jury is not nessacery to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; in Ireland this happens in the District Court and the Special Criminal Court.

16

I recall thinking at the time that the whole thing seemed fishy - the US needed a scapegoat and Libya was a good choice for one, the evidence presented (that which made it into the media) seemed dubious and it all just felt too convenient for me. I’ve seen nothing since to change that view.

Which is not to say I’m not pissed off by yet another terminally-ill prisoner being released only to stage a miracle recovery, but that’s a different issue.

17

I believe it’s the jury that gives legitimacy to a conviction, it being the people who decide on guilt rather than anyone with an interest in the case. In this case, it’s clear that the rules were changed for a single situation, and it’s far from clear that justice was served by doing so.

This may be a bit of a hijack, as it’s not directly concerned with his guilt though…

18

I’m a US resident and a UK citizen, so I (somewhat amusingly) felt I had to vote as an “other”.