# Lockerbie: do you think Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted beyond reasonable doubt? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 20, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849 "2010-08-20T08:01:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/1 "2010-08-20T08:01:45Z")
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi#Verdict): “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. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/2 "2010-08-20T08:28:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/3 "2010-08-20T09:52:17Z")
The [Scottish Criminal Cases review commission](http://www.sccrc.org.uk/home.aspx) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/4 "2010-08-20T10:35:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ticker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@ticker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ticker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/5 "2010-08-20T10:44:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/6 "2010-08-20T10:57:37Z")
> [@ticker](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/7 "2010-08-20T10:58:49Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/8 "2010-08-20T12:27:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/9 "2010-08-20T12:33:20Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. 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](http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22conviction+beyond+reasonable+doubt%22)). 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”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/10 "2010-08-20T12:35:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/11 "2010-08-20T14:10:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/12 "2010-08-20T14:43:15Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 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. BUT…😛 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 ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/13 "2010-08-20T15:42:41Z")
[The relevant statutory provison](http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=criminal+procedure+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=2&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2351946&ActiveTextDocId=2352218&filesize=45071) > [@](#): > > 194A. Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. — (1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (in this Act referred to as “the Commission”). > (2) The Commission shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Commission’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown. > (3) The Commission shall consist of not fewer than three members. > (4) The members of the Commission shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. > (5) At least one third of the members of the Commission shall be persons who are legally qualified; and for this purpose a person is legally qualified if he is an advocate or solicitor of at least ten years’ standing. > (6) At least two thirds of the members of the Commission shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system; and for the purposes of this subsection the criminal justice system includes, in particular, the investigation of offences and the treatment of offenders. > (7) Schedule 9A to this Act, which makes further provision as to the Commission, shall have effect. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F2 > S. 194A inserted (1.1.1998) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1997/3004, art. 2, Sch. > References to High Court > > F3194B. Cases dealt with on indictment. — (1) The Commission on the consideration of any conviction of a person or of the sentence (other than sentence of death) passed on a person who has been convicted on indictment [F4or complaint] may, if they think fit, at any time, and whether or not an appeal against such conviction or sentence has previously been heard and determined by the High Court, refer the whole case to the High Court and the case shall be heard and determined, subject to any directions the High Court may make, as if it were an appeal under Part VIII [F5or, as the case may be, Part X] of this Act. > (2) The power of the Commission under this section to refer to the High Court the case of a person convicted shall be exercisable whether or not that person has petitioned for the exercise of Her Majesty’s prerogative of mercy. > (3) This section shall apply in relation to a finding under section 55(2) and an order under section 57(2) of this Act as it applies, respectively, in relation to a conviction and a sentence. > (4) For the purposes of this section “person” includes a person who is deceased. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F3 > S. 194B inserted (1.4.1999) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1999/652, art. 2, Sch. (subject to art. 3) > F4 > Words in s. 194B(1) inserted (1.4.1999) by S.I. 1999/1181, art. 3(a) > F5 > Words in s. 194B(1) inserted (1.4.1999) by S.I. 1999/1181, art. 3(b) > > \*\*F6194C. Grounds for reference. The grounds upon which the Commission may refer a case to the High Court are that they believe— > (a) > that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred; and > (b) > that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. > Annotations:\*\*Amendments (Textual) > F6 > S. 194C inserted (1.4.1999) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1999/652, art. 2, Sch. (subject to art. 3) > > F7194D. Further provision as to references. — (1) A reference of a conviction, sentence or finding may be made under section 194B of this Act whether or not an application has been made by or on behalf of the person to whom it relates. > (2) In considering whether to make a reference the Commission shall have regard to— > (a) > any application or representations made to the Commission by or on behalf of the person to whom it relates; > (b) > any other representations made to the Commission in relation to it: and > (c) > any other matters which appear to the Commission to be relevant. > (3) In considering whether to make a reference the Commission may at any time refer to the High Court for the Court’s opinion any point on which they desire the Court’s assistance; and on a reference under this subsection the High Court shall consider the point referred and furnish the Commission with their opinion on the point. > (4) Where the Commission make a reference to the High Court under section 194B of this Act they shall— > (a) > give to the Court a statement of their reasons for making the reference; and > (b) > send a copy of the statement to every person who appears to them to be likely to be a party to any proceedings on the appeal arising from the reference. > (5) In every case in which— > (a) > an application has been made to the Commission by or on behalf of any person for the reference by them of any conviction, sentence or finding; but > (b) > the Commission decide not to make a reference of the conviction, sentence or finding, > they shall give a statement of the reasons for their decision to the person who made the application. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F7 > S. 194D inserted (1.4.1999) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1999/652, art. 2, Sch. (subject to art. 3) > > F8194E. Extension of Commission’s remit to summary cases. — (1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for this Part of this Act to apply in relation to convictions, sentences and findings made in summary proceedings as they apply in relation to convictions, sentences and findings made in solemn proceedings, and may for that purpose make in such an order such amendments to the provisions of this Part as appear to him to be necessary or expedient. > (2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and shall not have effect unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F8 > S. 194E inserted (1.1.1998) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1997/3004, art. 2, Sch. > > F9194F. Further powers. The Commission may take any steps which they consider appropriate for assisting them in the exercise of any of their functions and may, in particular— > (a) > themselves undertake inquiries and obtain statements, opinions or reports; or > (b) > request the Lord Advocate or any other person to undertake such inquiries or obtain such statements, opinions and reports. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F9 > S. 194F inserted (1.4.1999) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1999/652, art. 2, Sch. (subject to art. 3) > > F10194G. Supplementary provision. — (1) The Secretary of State may by order make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing this Part of this Act into operation, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, of dealing with any cases being considered by him under section 124 of this Act at the time when this Part comes into force, and an order under this section may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case. > (2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. > Annotations: > Amendments (Textual) > F10 > S. 194G inserted (1.1.1998) by 1997 c. 48, s. 25(1); S.I. 1997/3004, art. 2, Sch. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/14 "2010-08-20T16:09:42Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/15 "2010-08-20T16:28:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/16 "2010-08-20T17:18:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/17 "2010-08-20T17:24:00Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > > [@Steophan](#): > > > > 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. > > 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. 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… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lockerbie-do-you-think-abdelbaset-ali-mohmed-al-megrahi-was-convicted-beyond-reasonable-doubt/550849/18 "2010-08-22T00:30:54Z")
I’m a US resident and a UK citizen, so I (somewhat amusingly) felt I had to vote as an “other”.