Cisc0 K1d Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 How the hell can people come to the conclusion that he didn't do it. You all sure that he had nothing to do with it in any way? I'm not. Donno about others but I came to this conclusion based on what I've read from a number of broadsheets, general opinion amongst them is that he is just a fall guy and they are generally all convinced that US/UK/Israel intelligence have a good idea of who was really responsible but that has all been lost in the politics of it all. Do you think these guys are all wrong ? I don't think it is common for there to be such a consensus about a miscarriage of judgement. Don't get me wrong, if I thought he really did do it he should rot in jail regardless of his illness. Although there will be another "al-Megrahi" who did carry this out like a lot of these things it's never just one man who is responsible, in reality the responsibility for this crime and all the other related criminal acts that led up to it lies ultimately within a number of governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I do not think he is solely responsible, but am positive he played a part in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Megrahi's entire conviction is circumstantial and based entirely on a dodgy witness, who was paid $2million to testify that Magrahi bought some clothes in a shop in Malta http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/03/lockerbie.scotland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If Libya wasn't involved then why did they pay out millions of dollars to the victims' families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If Libya wasn't involved then why did they pay out millions of dollars to the victims' families? They were cast as international pariahs, the payout bought them enough goodwill to return to "the international community" and appear as repenting sinners. Thus allowing them to return to the current mutually beneficial arrangements whereby BP are being given free rein to scour the countrys vast remaining oil reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Donno about others but I came to this conclusion based on what I've read from a number of broadsheets, general opinion amongst them is that he is just a fall guy and they are generally all convinced that US/UK/Israel intelligence have a good idea of who was really responsible but that has all been lost in the politics of it all. Do you think these guys are all wrong ? I don't think it is common for there to be such a consensus about a miscarriage of judgement. Don't get me wrong, if I thought he really did do it he should rot in jail regardless of his illness. Although there will be another "al-Megrahi" who did carry this out like a lot of these things it's never just one man who is responsible, in reality the responsibility for this crime and all the other related criminal acts that led up to it lies ultimately within a number of governments. There's quite a few people out there who think they know who did it. I'd expect some new information to start dripping out soon, because now that the appeal has been dropped, all that new evidence that was going to be used by Megrahi's legal team can now just be released to the public via the media. The man's innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I hope his plane gets blown up on the way home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If Libya wasn't involved then why did they pay out millions of dollars to the victims' families? If Libya really did it this should have lead to sanctions which would have cost Libya an estimated $30 billion, the few million they paid out was peanuts to an oil rich country. Put it this way if Bin Laden paid out a few million to the 9/11 victims and gave up some of the people who organised it, do you think he would find himself now accepted by world leaders in the same way as Gadafi, a bit far fetched I know but not really that different when you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I do not think he is solely responsible, but am positive he played a part in it. It would be more than a bit naive to think that anyone could be solely responsible. If he played any part in this whatsoever I'd be happy to see him stay in prison but from what I have read this is very unlikely, now his appeal has been dropped I would certainly like to see an investigation into the truth but the powers that be will never let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic1874 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 QUOTE=Fun Boaby;1172176]I hope his plane gets blown up on the way home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If Libya wasn't involved then why did they pay out millions of dollars to the victims' families? Libya admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing in a deal to get trade sanctions removed and also to be removed from the US State Department's list of states sponsoring terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ian Huntly Myra Hindley The people who murdered Baby P Would all the folks who think the convicted Lockerbie bomber should be let out, think the same about the people mentioned above if they were dying of cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tynie b Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ian HuntlyMyra Hindley The people who murdered Baby P Would all the folks who think the convicted Lockerbie bomber should be let out, think the same about the people mentioned above if they were dying of cancer? No, BUT, I'M 100% sure they C**** are Guilty...I'm NOT 100% sure HE is!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 The view of a high-ranking international independant legal observer present at the trial. Dr. Hans Kochler was nominated by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to be an observer during the court proceedings. http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm Its a perfectly readable document for most of us non-legal types... amongst many of the points he makes... "It was a consistent pattern during the whole trial that − as an apparent result of political interests and considerations − efforts were undertaken to withhold substantial information from the Court. ... As a result of this situation, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court...The Opinion of the Court is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and on a series of highly problematic inferences. As to the undersigned's knowledge, there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 For anyone wanting a bit of actual info about this, follow this link and pay ?5 for Paul Foot's report (publishing in 2001 I think): https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.uk/PEYE/digital_downloads.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vulture Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I don't believe he or any Libyan did it. Nor, more to the point, do many in the CIA and in Israeli intelligence, not to mention the men who have probably done more research into the incident than anyone - The Jerusalem Post?s David Horovitz and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack. Did you realise that five months before Lockerbie, the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner - killing all 290 aboard - with a guided missile. Iran claimed the attack was deliberate and vowed revenge. The skies, promised Ayatollah Khomeini, would ?rain with blood.?. You can't accidently shoot down an airliner, when the captain of the USS Vincennes gave the order for that missile to be fired, he knew what the damage would be if the missile hit. The mistake made was that they thought it was a military plane when it was in fact a passenger plane. Was anyone ever brought to justice for that or was it swept under the carpet? American forces are known to be quite trigger happy, they like to use their toys to show who is boss. When you hear of friendly fire incidents, it always seems to be because American forces taking the gun ho approach that leaves their allies dead, very rarely do British forces or forces of other nations cause friendly fire incidents. I take the word of Dr. Swire more than I do the American politicians who are calling for him not to be released. He seems a person of dignity unlike people like Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. This being the same ted kennedy who openly supported IRA fundraising opportunities in the USA during the Troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 For anyone wanting a bit of actual info about this, follow this link and pay ?5 for Paul Foot's report (publishing in 2001 I think): https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.uk/PEYE/digital_downloads.cfm It's a pity that Paul Foot's not arround to do a follow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 How the hell can people come to the conclusion that he didn't do it. You all sure that he had nothing to do with it in any way? I'm not. He got done on evidence not lack of it. Shame he will die, but thats life A wee town in our homeland and 200s got murdered due to someone or him. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 If Libya wasn't involved then why did they pay out millions of dollars to the victims' families? In the strange game of political poker, I think that was simply the amount required to buy themselves back into the game and need not suggest any real guilt at all ? Taken from a link in an earlier post - In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. The United States did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government.[7] the incident was the 'downing' of an Iranian Airways Airbus 300, which the 'eagle eyed' missile operators on a US warship believed was an attacking F15 fighter ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamTarts1874 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Should never be freed in my opinon. People are saying he should b freed on compassionate grounds, where was his compassion for the hundreds of innocent people he killed? I know that there is debate surrounding whether he actually did it or not but as he was found guilty in a court of law he should never be freed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 You can't accidently shoot down an airliner, when the captain of the USS Vincennes gave the order for that missile to be fired, he knew what the damage would be if the missile hit. The mistake made was that they thought it was a military plane when it was in fact a passenger plane. Was anyone ever brought to justice for that or was it swept under the carpet? Pretty incredible but the USS Vincennes had actually invaded Iranian territory before shooting down the aircraft :- Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. This contradicted earlier Navy statements that were misleading if not incorrect. Imagine the Iranians sent a warship into Iranian territory and shot down a US passenger plane ! The Iranian Government account :- Iran expressed skepticism about claims of mis-identification, noting that the Vincennes had advanced Aegis radar that correctly tracked the flight and its Mode III beacon; two other U.S. warships in the area, Sides and Montgomery, identified the aircraft as civilian; and the flight was well within a recognized international air corridor. It also noted that the crew of the Vincennes was trained to handle simultaneous attacks by hundreds of enemy aircraft. Iran found it more plausible that the Vincennes "hankered for an opportunity to show its stuff". Interesting US Quote from another US ship Commander :- Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness I guess this sums up both the Bush administrations :- The US government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident. The United States government never admitted wrongdoing, nor apologized for the incident. In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president George Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 attack and as early as January 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Should never be freed in my opinon. People are saying he should b freed on compassionate grounds, where was his compassion for the hundreds of innocent people he killed? I know that there is debate surrounding whether he actually did it or not but as he was found guilty in a court of law he should never be freed. The same (Scottish) legal system that found him guilty agreed that there was sufficient new evidence/doubt over the conviction, that he should be allowed to apeal. Even if he was guilty (which I do not believe for a minute) how could we critisise him for showing a "lack of compassion", if as a society we show none either ? To my mind letting someone who is dying, out of jail to spend their last few days with their friends and family is the sort of behaviour which raises our society about the level of terrorists. I'm no bleeding hearted liberal, and for mass murder such as the bombing of the Pan-Am flight I'd like nothing more than to see ALL those involved up in court. I'd like to see those found guilty thrown in jail for life, and I'd like life to mean life, or at least within a few days of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vulture Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 For those that think AM is guilty, what do you think of the opinions of Dr Swire? Here is someone who wants justice done for all, a victim of terrorism as he lost his own daughter yet he believes that AM did not do it and should be released. That is good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth to Paisley Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 My opinion . * He was found guilty - [however wrong that maybe; but that is a different discussion] * Until that decision is reversed he is still guilty. * Whilst still guilty he should remain in Greenock Prison. * His health should not be a factor [opinion would be softened if he had 'days' but ........] * Effectively been given a free pardon Bad decision by Scottish Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 My opinion .* He was found guilty - [however wrong that maybe; but that is a different discussion] * Until that decision is reversed he is still guilty. * Whilst still guilty he should remain in Greenock Prison. * His health should not be a factor [opinion would be softened if he had 'days' but ........] * Effectively been given a free pardon Bad decision by Scottish Parliament. You seem to be saying that you think the that the guilty decision was wrong but you think forget that cos its a different discussion. You therefore conclude it's the wrong decision to free him ? despite the fact you seem to agree that he is probably innocent. Free Pardon ? WTF ! Spend years in a prison for a crime you did not commit and finally get free for the last few days of your life before you die ! (I suspect in the later stages of terminal cancer your life quality is so low it will barely feel like freedom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It does beg the question as to whether there any crimes where the perpetrator shouldn't be allowed compassionate release when near to death? If killing hundreds of people doesn't fit that category it's hard to think anything will. The fact that he might be wrongly convicted doesn't come into it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 You seem to be saying that you think the that the guilty decision was wrong but you think forget that cos its a different discussion. You therefore conclude it's the wrong decision to free him ? despite the fact you seem to agree that he is probably innocent. I think his logic is right though. If we are to free him on compassionate grounds his supposed innocence should not be a factor in this. That could only be ascertained through the correct appeals procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey Dosser Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 And he' out! Just on the news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey Dosser Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Sorry, my bad. Decision reached, but not announced. Itchy fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It does beg the question as to whether there any crimes where the perpetrator shouldn't be allowed compassionate release when near to death? If killing hundreds of people doesn't fit that category it's hard to think anything will. The fact that he might be wrongly convicted doesn't come into it imo. I'm not really sure if I agree with anyone being released on compassionate grounds for serious crimes. I do think being wrongly convicted does come into it. Wrongly convicted usually means innocent, call me crazy but I don't think innocent people should be in jail. The fact that he has wrongly been in jail for such a long time and is now about to die a slow painful death makes me feel compassionate towards the poor guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I'm not really sure if I agree with anyone being released on compassionate grounds for serious crimes. I do think being wrongly convicted does come into it. Wrongly convicted usually means innocent, call me crazy but I don't think innocent people should be in jail. The fact that he has wrongly been in jail for such a long time and is now about to die a slow painful death makes me feel compassionate towards the poor guy. Until he has been confirmed as wrongly convicted he has to be treated as guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I think his logic is right though. If we are to free him on compassionate grounds his supposed innocence should not be a factor in this. That could only be ascertained through the correct appeals procedure. He's got terminal cancer, he will be dead before the appeals procedure even starts and the governments in the know are not going to put the truth in the public domain anyway. Given the reality of the situation there are only two choices, what is the right thing to do ? Let him die at home or let him die in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 He's got terminal cancer, he will be dead before the appeals procedure even starts and the governments in the know are not going to put the truth in the public domain anyway. Given the reality of the situation there are only two choices, what is the right thing to do ? Let him die at home or let him die in jail. Easy - die in jail. Thats not showing a lack of compassion. He's been well looked after and will continue to be. Just out of interest, if he was released and somehow made a miraculous recovery, what would happen then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 He's got terminal cancer, he will be dead before the appeals procedure even starts and the governments in the know are not going to put the truth in the public domain anyway. Given the reality of the situation there are only two choices, what is the right thing to do ? Let him die at home or let him die in jail. I'm sorry but the reality of the situation is the only two choices available to the Government are - release him as a guilty man on compassionate grounds - detain him until his death as a guilty man Without carrying out a full appeal to find him innocent then supposed innocence can't be a factor. No matter the reasoning. Otherwise the whole judiciary system in Scotland will become a farce. FWIW I don't know enough about the case to comment on his guilt or lack of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Until he has been confirmed as wrongly convicted he has to be treated as guilty. In normal cases I would agree but the politics involved mean that even if he lives for another 10 years, he is never going to be confirmed as guilty. I'm assuming that our government know he was not guilty and don't really need any further confirmation. I'd just like to think that we as Scots are above all the politics of the situation and will just do the right thing on a human level and not get bullied by political pressure from the US to help hide their cover ups. Funny thing is that in the US when the President is about to leave office he usually pardons a few people he and everyone else knows is guilty, usual as a reward for political funding or favours (The Clinton's know all about that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 In normal cases I would agree but the politics involved mean that even if he lives for another 10 years, he is never going to be confirmed as guilty. I'm assuming that our government know he was not guilty and don't really need any further confirmation. I'd just like to think that we as Scots are above all the politics of the situation and will just do the right thing on a human level and not get bullied by political pressure from the US to help hide their cover ups. Funny thing is that in the US when the President is about to leave office he usually pardons a few people he and everyone else knows is guilty, usual as a reward for political funding or favours (The Clinton's know all about that). He already has been confirmed as guilty by due process of law. He needs to provide new evidence to prove he isn't. That's why his potential innocence can't and shouldn't be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Suggest reading a few serious newspaper articles about the case or watching a couple of news reports. Then give the matter a bit of thought before making a more informed decision in your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Easy - die in jail. Thats not showing a lack of compassion. He's been well looked after and will continue to be. Just out of interest, if he was released and somehow made a miraculous recovery, what would happen then? My opinion he was not innocent, and i missed corrie that night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Not sure if he did it or not. But the bottom line is the justice system thinks he is a mass murderer, but want to let him go on compassionate grounds? If he did it, did he show any compassion the the people he killed? No. Let him rot. Agreed he has been found guilty so he deserves no compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Suggest reading a few serious newspaper articles about the case or watching a couple of news reports. Then give the matter a bit of thought before making a more informed decision in your mind. Surely you agree he can't be released as an innocent man before he has been found innocent by the judicial system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 He already has been confirmed as guilty by due process of law. He needs to provide new evidence to prove he isn't. That's why his potential innocence can't and shouldn't be taken into account. I guess when you watched the Shawshank Redemption you were gutted at the end when Andy got free thinking he should have just waited to get an appeal and go through the proper process rather than escaping ? Bet you've been waiting for ages on a Shawshank Redemption 2 hoping they catch him and lock him back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Surely you agree he can't be released as an innocent man before he has been found innocent by the judicial system? Bet you also hated the Shawshank Redemption ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I guess when you watched the Shawshank Redemption you were gutted at the end when Andy got free thinking he should have just waited to get an appeal and go through the proper process rather than escaping ? Bet you've been waiting for ages on a Shawshank Redemption 2 hoping they catch him and lock him back up. I cried when Bambi's mum was killed but that was fiction as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth to Paisley Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 You seem to be saying that you think the that the guilty decision was wrong but you think forget that cos its a different discussion. You therefore conclude it's the wrong decision to free him ? despite the fact you seem to agree that he is probably innocent. Free Pardon ? WTF ! Spend years in a prison for a crime you did not commit and finally get free for the last few days of your life before you die ! (I suspect in the later stages of terminal cancer your life quality is so low it will barely feel like freedom) Badly worded on my part. I don't know sufficient details of the new or old evidence to decide whether he is guilty or not .....(do you?) ...... all I know based on the evidence already presented he was found guilty. Until that evidence is officially discredited or new evidence is presented in a court of law then he is still 'guilty' and as such he should remain in Greenock prison. I would be more supportive of a prisoner swap rather than a 'free pardon'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Scenario: Luke Mitchell, who is about to appeal his conviction is diagnosed with terminal cancer and has weeks to live Do you a) let him out becuase he's dying keep him in jail because he's a convicted murderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Badly worded on my part. I don't know sufficient details of the new or old evidence to decide whether he is guilty or not .....(do you?) ...... all I know based on the evidence already presented he was found guilty. Until that evidence is officially discredited or new evidence is presented in a court of law then he is still 'guilty' and as such he should remain in Greenock prison. I would be more supportive of a prisoner swap rather than a 'free pardon'. The defence know there were documents which they are sure will prove his innocence but they were not allowed to be released in court during the original case, David Milliband has used his position to make sure these documents will now never be released (probably under pressure from the US) So all the evidence was not released during the original trial and it now can't be released during an appeal either so there is now no prospect of a fair retrial. Forget new evidence and fair trials, I agree that is what every sane person would prefer but the government has already pretty much made that impossible so it is not an option. That is why the UK victims families despite wanting to know the truth and wanting the perpetrators prosecuted accept he is innocent. He is Andy in the Shawshank Redemption he is not going to get an appeal and he is also about to die, the compassionate grounds is his tunnel to freedom albeit belatedly and to die a slow painful death. Not exactly the justice he or the families and victims really deserve but the best the Scottish Government can do within its powers to right a wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisc0 K1d Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Scenario: Luke Mitchell, who is about to appeal his conviction is diagnosed with terminal cancer and has weeks to live Do you a) let him out becuase he's dying keep him in jail because he's a convicted murderer Ask yourself that question but the joker in the pack is that you also need to imagine that there was evidence not produced at court which most informed people think proved his innocence, Jodi Jones's family know this and also think he was innocent and should be released, the key evidence is going to compromise government so the Secretary of State has effectively buried it so that it can never be released and he will never get a fair appeal trial. (This is clearly not the situation with Luke Mitchell and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the comparison given that this happened so close to us and recently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ask yourself that question but the joker in the pack is that you also need to imagine that there was evidence not produced at court which most informed people think proved his innocence, Jodi Jones's family know this and also think he was innocent and should be released, the key evidence is going to compromise government so the Secretary of State has effectively buried it so that it can never be released and he will never get a fair appeal trial. (This is clearly not the situation with Luke Mitchell and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the comparison given that this happened so close to us and recently) I notice you didn't bother to answer the question. We'll need to agree to differ. I'm off to bed. If I'm ever up in Court, I hope I have someone like you on the jury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic1874 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 Not every one on board were British as below states - what do fellow Jammbo's from any of the countries below think - please have your say and let us know where you from - cheers Nationality Passengers Crew Total Argentina 3 0 3 Belgium 1 0 1 Bolivia 1 0 1 Canada 3 0 3 France 2 1 3 Germany 3 1 4 Hungary 4 0 4 India 3 0 3 Ireland 3 0 3 Israel 1 0 1 Italy 2 0 2 Jamaica 1 0 1 Japan 1 0 1 Philippines 1 0 1 South Africa 1 0 1 Spain 0 1 1 Sweden 2 1 3 Switzerland 1 0 1 Trinidad/Tobago 1 0 1 Utd Kingdom 40 1 41 Utd States 169 11 180 Total 243 16 259 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Until he has been confirmed as wrongly convicted he has to be treated as guilty. Despite the fact I firmly believe he is innocent, I do also fully agree with your point here DM. At this moment in time, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty. The descision is should a terminally ill guilty man be released on compasionate grounds ? I believe that as a society we must show that compassion, and therefore he should be released on these grounds. I'm still convinced that he is innocent, convicted on no more than incredibly flimsy, suspect, circumstantial evidence. Having said that his guilt or innocence is a red herring, it is not relevent to the question in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.