Wednesday, 19 August 2009

Lockerbie bomber released on 'compassionate' grounds

Well, it looks like he's about to be. Sorry for my language; but what the fuck is that about?


  1. I'm not that well versed in the facts of the case, which is odd given my interest in matters legal and aeronautical...

    I gather from the news though that his appeal wasn't exactly groundless, and that many people - including many relatives of the victims - think that a miscarriage of justice has been done.

    If this was the case, then it should have been addressed a lot sooner - the wheels of justice do not grind fast enough.

    But, without going through the process of an appeal, we have no credible alternative other than to consider the man guilty - and that being the case, we have to treat him as such. How many other prisoners are released so early - given that this chap was told he would have to serve 27 years before even being CONSIDERED for parole?

    We should keep him where he is, and start the appeal process NOW. For one thing, if he didn't do it then someone else did - and someone else needs finding!


  2. My thoughts exactly, Martin. I just couldn't be arsed writing much at the time.

    Whether he is guilty or not is moot at this point; he is convicted of the murder of 270 people, 'compassion' should not come in to it.

    I'd be interested to hear Bystanders views on this, given his joy at Ronnie Biggs's release.

  3. I kind of think everyone is missing the point with this one. If there really are compassionate grounds for his release then I don't have a problem with it. I think that a society that can display forgiveness and compassion is to be commended.

    The real point is just how ill was this chap? I dealt with someone who was so sick that he could barely walk, required oxygen and had been given two-years to live... two-years ago! He was refused compassionate release! Yet this fellow was well-enough to wander out of the prison, hop on a plane and join a big party at the other end.

    I can't help thinking that maybe there was more to this release than meets the eye!

  4. I agree, there's a LOT more to it than we think. Various 'diplomatic' discussions have been going on with Libya for a while now, all to do with the big O-I-L in that there ground out there.

    His reception as a hero out there really did stick in the throat though.

  5. Hibbo

    I suspect that the reason for the trial being held under Scottish law was the simple expedient of the choice between three verdict.

    Guilty, not guilty, and the spanner in the works, not proven. I believe the legal team was of the opinion that the evidence would fail to satisfy the test for a guilty verdict, and the logical return would be a not proven verdict.

    Not so, and the alleged offender was sent down. However, I tend to agree with some of the families, and suspect that this man was a patsy.

    Very uncomfortable reading and circumstances. Who knows?

  6. Hi Tom, I actually think that the 'not proven' verdict in Scotch law is a very sensible measure.

    My views on this particular case are that as far as the law was concerned; this man was guilty, and thus a mass-murderer. The grounds of his convictions are an entirely different story to the grounds of 'compassion'.