Lockerbie bomber to be released

[Abraham]

Yes, he was found guilty - though they had to bend the rules for it. Denied a police interview? Trial without jury? Yeah, that sounds fair.

Trial without jury? like any trial that only goes as far as Magistrates?
If it's an unjust conviction then an appeal should be successful, however as I said, until the original decision is overturned he remains guilty.

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

****ing scum, should be made to rot and die in prison! Don't you just love the way this Country's justice system is the laughing stock across the World. It used to be classed as the best, but just look what Labour and it's ****ty left-wing, do-gooding policies have done to it.

I hear Ian Brady is feeling a tad under the weather these days. There are reports that the poor sod was heard to sneeze the other night, and also he apparently has a splinter in his finger.

Ian Brady killed children, fact, he was tried by his peers and found guilty.

The Lockerbie "bomber" was handed over as part of a political manoeuvre, he never had a trial, so to harp on about "justice" is quite amusing.

Is it the norm to see a headline and react without delving into the details?

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

Trial without jury? like any trial that only goes as far as Magistrates?
If it's an unjust conviction then an appeal should be successful, however as I said, until the original decision is overturned he remains guilty.

Are you aware that any trial can go before Crown court if the defendant so wishes?

 

[Sankari]

Trial without jury? like any trial that only goes as far as Magistrates?

No, like a murder trial, which is very different to minor matters which only go as far as magistrates. Under British law, serious crimes (such as murder) must be tried before a jury.

In fact, it was not until June this year that the first criminal trial without a jury was heard (see BBC story here). That case has set a legal precedent.

If it's an unjust conviction then an appeal should be successful, however as I said, until the original decision is overturned he remains guilty.

Agreed. But we're unlikely to see an appeal at this late stage. The case was dealt with very cleverly at the time.

 

[Stretch]

There's no way anyone should be left to die alone in prison. It's just not practical for a start.

 

[Azagoth]

Ian Brady killed children, fact, he was tried by his peers and found guilty.

The Lockerbie "bomber" was handed over as part of a political manoeuvre, he never had a trial, so to harp on about "justice" is quite amusing.

Is it the norm to see a headline and react without delving into the details?

Never had a trial? What was that trial held at Camp Zeist then, a figmant of imigination? He was convicted of the crime and thus should serve the sentence handed down. If he's innocent then he has the right to appeal. What he doesn't get is a free pass because of his itchy arse and bloody stool.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Isn't the issue here that there are serious doubts about his guilt, an appeal has been approved but he won't live long enough to see it through?

Some prior witnesses have now said under sworn affidavit they were bribed.

Made larger for the people ranting about "Yaa boo, typical England" etc

 

[leaskovski]

I dont know why, but I get the opinion that the guy didnt do it. Maybe I think that anyone in their right mind would come out with the truth on their death bed.

If he did do it, then yeah, he shouldnt be allowed to go home just because he is popping his cloggs even if there is allowed in Scotland.

 

[Sankari]

Made larger for the people ranting about "Yaa boo, typical England" etc

+1

Well said that man.

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

Never had a trial? What was that trial held at Camp Zeist then, a figmant of imigination? He was convicted of the crime and thus should serve the sentence handed down. If he's innocent then he has the right to appeal. What he doesn't get is a free pass because of his itchy arse and bloody stool.

Why wasn't he given a Jury trial?

The problem with this debate is that his guilt and his release on compassionate grounds are not the one and same.

Do I think he was guilty, that is questionable, do I think he should be released on compassionate grounds, no.

Separating the two issues is not black and white though as they are inherently linked to each other.

 

[scorza]

No, like a murder trial, which is very different to minor matters which only go as far as magistrates. Under British law, serious crimes (such as murder) must be tried before a jury.

No such thing as British law really - this case was tried under Scots law and was perfectly legal. He was found guilty of murder and has now been released on compassionate grounds because he is dying, not because there's any sort of doubt over the conviction.

 

[Conscript]

Aren't you forgetting how he came to be tried in the first place? The trial would not even have been possible without Libya's co-operation.

It was Libya which agreed to the extradition of two Libyans for trial (only one of whom was convicted) and it was Libya which set the conditions of extradition:

(a) No-one else in Libya would be pursued as a suspect
(b) The two suspects would not be interviewed by the police
(c) The trial had to be held before three Scottish judges without a jury

Those were Libya's demands, and they were agreed and met by the UK. So, we have two men extradited from Libya on the basis of questionable evidence, who are denied a police interview and denied trial by jury. We also have a neat little clause in the extradition which says that nobody else in Libya can be blamed for the bombing.

Scapegoats ahoy!

I see, thanks for setting me straight.

 

[ac1d1ty]

if hes truly guilty sod that! what about the hundreds of innocent lives he ended short and the pain for all families involved. if hes religious the only place hes going is hell.

Who are we to judge?

If he is guilty then yes, he will have a reckoning with God, but it is God who will condemn/forgive him.


We have earthly trials, but I feel they must be tainted with mercy.


The guy has been punished, and doubly punished with prostrate cancer. Showing some mercy is a sign of strength not weakness.

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

Who are we to judge?

If he is guilty then yes, he will have a reckoning with God, but it is God who will condemn/forgive him.


We have earthly trials, but I feel they must be tainted with mercy.


The guy has been punished, and doubly punished with prostrate cancer. Showing some mercy is a sign of strength not weakness.

Is that a tongue in cheek remark? Are you Glenn Hoddle?

 

[Azagoth]

If he is guilty then yes, he will have a reckoning with God, but it is God who will condemn/forgive him.

You do realise that the big Sky Wizard actually doesn't exist, and is nothing more than a myth don't you?

 

[Abraham]

No, like a murder trial, which is very different to minor matters which only go as far as magistrates. Under British law, serious crimes (such as murder) must be tried before a jury.

In fact, it was not until June this year that the first criminal trial without a jury was heard (see BBC story here). That case has set a legal precedent.

Agreed. But we're unlikely to see an appeal at this late stage. The case was dealt with very cleverly at the time.

I'm aware of the legal manner regarding crown court cases, however was just pointing out that we do have criminal trials without jury. Given the profile and media involvement in the case I can see logic in not being able to get an unbiased jury, although that may well not have been the reasoning behind it.

As for the appeal, I was under the impression that steps were successfully under way for an appeal but it was thought that he wouldn't survive to hear the outcome (mentioned earlier in the thread)

 

[Abraham]

If he is guilty then yes, he will have a reckoning with God, but it is God who will condemn/forgive him.

And if he doesn't believe in god then what justice will ever be served on him.

 

[Viper²]

Aren't you forgetting how he came to be tried in the first place? The trial would not even have been possible without Libya's co-operation.

It was Libya which agreed to the extradition of two Libyans for trial (only one of whom was convicted) and it was Libya which set the conditions of extradition:

(a) No-one else in Libya would be pursued as a suspect
(b) The two suspects would not be interviewed by the police
(c) The trial had to be held before three Scottish judges without a jury

Those were Libya's demands, and they were agreed and met by the UK. So, we have two men extradited from Libya on the basis of questionable evidence, who are denied a police interview and denied trial by jury. We also have a neat little clause in the extradition which says that nobody else in Libya can be blamed for the bombing.

Scapegoats ahoy!

You're praising Colonel Gaddafi there...?

 

[Building Candy]

No he shouldnt be let out because he has an illness.

If they found out he had "terminal cancer" a month after they jailed him do you think they would have said "yes you have been found guilty of killing 270 people, but you are a bit ill...... ok off you go then"

only in the UK

 

[DominicStar]

I recall at the time it was shady evidence for conviction, let alone the rest of what went on. Analysis of the evidence showed that if it was correct that the second defendant was innocent, that means that the evidence which convicted this guy can not possibly be correct.

It looks like one of those cases where somebody had to pay for it to show justice had been done.