"Pan AM Bomber" to prove innocence

Sky News/The Times are currently breaking a story saying that Al Megrahi has asked the people of the UK to be his jury as he releases new evidence to prove his innocence before he dies.

No links as yet, breaking on Sky News (UK)

I believe he is innocent. Those who've said he should rot/hang will hang their heads with shame if this comes off.

as far as i can tell he had no direct involvement and there are plenty of murderers and rapist and child molesters out there who get off far easier than this guy, the only reason they want him to rot in prison is political macho bullcrap. the guy is terminally ill.. hes going to die, why let him eat up resources and money in some scottish prison when you can ship him back to libya and let him to it to them.. i think its a pretty sensible act..

reply to post by phoenix103

Sky News/The Times are currently breaking a story saying that Al Megrahi has asked the people of the UK to be his jury as he releases new evidence to prove his innocence before he dies.

It begs the question as to why he or his lawyers didn't produce this so-called 'evidence' at his trial or during his 8-year imprisonment.

He'll probably introduce some untraceable, unproven statements indicting the US, and then he'll die of cancer.

It will then become another great 'conspiracy' of the ages.

He never should have been tried in the first place. He should have been permanently unavailable for trial...

Originally posted by jsobecky

It begs the question as to why he or his lawyers didn't produce this so-called 'evidence' at his trial or during his 8-year imprisonment.

Verily.

It is important however to acknowledge that we don't really know anything at all. Aside from eye-witness and first hand accounts, all we know is whatever the court allowed to be known.

He will probably use this opportunity to indict the legal system which subjected him to imprisonment in the first place. We may see either testimonial or evidenciary motions that were not officially part of his case because the court so deemed it, disallowed it, or censured it. And therein will lie his case.

Thus those with bias will always be able to stand on the grounds of it's not being legitimate. While those contrary to the position will always stand on the grounds of the failings, inadequacies, or inherent bias, in the legal machinery.

Either way, politicians win.

I suspect there was a diplomatic quid-pro-quo which contributed heavily to this mans life, as he became a pawn in a much more theatrical show; the kind we don't get to find out about until a generation later.

Respectfully

MM

[asbestos suit on]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Maxmars]