lockerbie bomber or 'lockerbie bomber'
October 20, 2009 11:17am CST
in a very nasty twist to the lockerbie bombing it looks very possible that ali mohmed al- megrahi who was convicted for it nearly 10 years ago did not actually do it. there was not in fact any material evidence linking megrahi to the crime, the trial consisted of alterations to forensic exhibits which neither the police nor scientists could explain and contradictory evidence by key witnesses. also if you are aware of what happened at the trial you will also know that Megrahi was ‘identified’ by a shopkeeper. this shopkeeper actually said that he had a resemblance to the person who bought the clothes. This is not really an identification. large amounts of evidence pointing to other more likely culprits was withheld from the trial and independent witnesses have said that the whole thing was a ‘travesty’. bearing this in mind it begins to look fairly suspicious that he was released – meaning his appeal (which would have probably brought this to light) was dropped. if this was a miscarriage of justice, as is looking increasingly likely, then the actions of the governments concerned look pretty suspect. it would not have been in the interests of the uk, the usa or the libyan governments for this to have come to light. on the surface the us government may have appeared to have been exerting pressure one way and the libyan the other and the scottish parliament was standing up to them but perhaps not. in the meantime the real culprits have been free for 10 years, doing god only knows what. so is politics really this manipulative and corrupt or was it all just naivety?
2 people like this
21 Oct 09
Do we need to go past the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six to understand how good Britain is at scapegoating suspect groups? And nothing American administrations do surprises me; in a world history of corruptly pragmatic power groups many US administrations would find themselves in the top ten list. Unfortunately for humanity, people who seek power, whatever their era, race, religion, colour, or political ideology seem to be innately drawn to this form of the corruption of power. The person who seeks political power is the last person on earth who should be allowed to attain it. Lash
21 Oct 09
Quite right Grandpa Lash but it just shows that no matter how long the people decry their own leaders they are quite ready to join together and accept whatever the media tell them on such an event without being open minded enough to question the convenience of it all. There was and has been a large body in the UK all along who did not accept the Libyian angle as really just too pat but I believe the US view has been to support whatever they were told by the media. I don't know if there were any dissenting voices there but alarms must surely ring loudly over the fact that a condition of release was the closure of the appeal which was purported to certainly clear the alleged bombers name and to embarrass governments with evidence of the cover ups they employed. (standing in for rabbit here, she's busy).
20 Oct 09
No, Gadaffi pretended to admit responsibilty and pay compensation in return for the lifting of sacntions against Libyia. He made it perfectly clear that when it was shown Libyia was not responsible then he would expect the money to be returned. The appeal would have cleared the alleged bombers name but he could not take the release offered without agreeing for the appeal to be closed, although it was thoght to be certain that the appeal would embarrass various governments plus clear the name of the alleged bomber.
23 Oct 09
I know i know, but you have to admit he legitamised Libya in the eyes of the world by providing a suspect. ( If people didn't look too closely of course) They would never allow the truth to come out as it could bring down the fall of the government not only here but in the US, causing widespread problems in a time of politcal and economic unrest. Although the truth is important, for the families in Lockerbie and the accused, the governments look at it as the safety, security of their nations is also important. (devils advocate time!)
20 Oct 09
Hello, Judith. It's all too much like the plot of a movie to be anything other than subterfuge and corruption on a scale at least as big as the original incident. Truth of the matter is, at the time of Lockerbie, (1988, I think)Colonel Gadafi was perceived as a villain, so Libya was a convenient scapegoat. If we'd had televoting like we do on the X Factor etc, he'd have come top of the poll for the fit up. 2 or 3 years later, and the Lockerbie bombers would have come from Iraq, I expect. If that sounds cynical, it was meant to. 20 years down the line, Gadafi has morphed into a cuddly ol' Arab, so we want to be playground friends again. All this would be really amusing - except for the fact that, for the families of the Lockerbie victims, there is still no justice.