is that al megrahi still alive? nearly a year after his release - another lefty

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Such as? There are very, very few cases where someone "gets off on a technicality", outside Daily Mail Planet, anyway.

I know someone who works in forensics and despite the evidence they can produce, it's amazing how many cases are discmissed, because a procedure isn't exactly followed in the courts process.

IveSeenTheLight

Degenerate wrote: »

So are you saying it would have been preferable to let him die in jail while the wheels of justice slowly turned to eventually exonerate him posthumously?

Many reasonable people were staggered by the court's verdict on the non-evidence it was presented with.

I believe that we need to have confidence in the justice system.
To call it in disrepute is to say there is no justice at all.

The facts remain that he remains a convited criminal and has not been proven otherwise.

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I agree, ti should be done that way. His appeal was dropped when he was released, though.

NDG, If you were innocently convicted, would you drop your appeal when you were released?

I wouldn't, I would continue to fight until I was exhonourated.

As it is, he remains a convicted criminal responsable for the Lockerbie Bombing.

adouglasmhor

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I know someone who works in forensics and despite the evidence they can produce, it's amazing how many cases are dismissed, because a procedure isn't exactly followed in the courts process.

So "getting of on a technicality" actually means getting off because a professional public servant can't do the job they are paid for properly.

IveSeenTheLight

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So "getting of on a technicality" actually means getting off because a professional public servant can't do the job they are paid for properly.

Indeed and the inverse seems to be considered here in that the defense has been incompetant enough to let a supposed innocent man be found guilty.

StevieJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I believe that we need to have confidence in the justice system.
To call it in disrepute is to say there is no justice at all.

The facts remain that he remains a convited criminal and has not been proven otherwise.

I suppose we have to be thankful we don't live in West Memphis where three guys are locked up on the flimsiest of evidence (for a heinous crime I may add). The DNA profiling that our police seem to be mopping up old crimes with was enacted here and no defendants DNA was found, but some known DNA was found but did not result in a retrial. Ironically the only new person that ended up in the dock was Natalie from the Dixie Chicks who was sued for defamation, fortunately she was cleared, but the judge of the original trial insisted he was the one to decide if a re-trial was necessary and guess what he decided? :eek:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002775-504083.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6227677n&!!!!!contentMain;contentBody

http://www.wm3.org/

Degenerate

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

NDG, If you were innocently convicted, would you drop your appeal when you were released?

He didn't drop his appeal when he was released, he dropped it before he was released, as a condition of his release. Do you not see the catch here? - Continue to protest your innocence and you die in jail, stop denying your guilt and we let you out to enjoy what time you have left with your family.

Unrepentant criminals are not eligible for early release, and anyone who denies their guilt is considered unrepentant. In several cases this catch-22 has led to innocent people who were eventually exonerated serving much longer terms than if they had dropped their appeals.

StevieJ

Degenerate wrote: »

He didn't drop his appeal when he was released, he dropped it before he was released, as a condition of his release. Do you not see the catch here? - Continue to protest your innocence and you die in jail, stop denying your guilt and we let you out to enjoy what time you have left with your family.

Unrepentant criminals are not eligible for early release, and anyone who denies their guilt is considered unrepentant. In several cases this catch-22 has led to innocent people who were eventually exonerated serving much longer terms than if they had dropped their appeals.

Yes that is a disgrace and needs to be changed.

Degenerate

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I believe that we need to have confidence in the justice system.
To call it in disrepute is to say there is no justice at all.

The facts remain that he remains a convited criminal and has not been proven otherwise.

The testimony of a storekeeper 12 years after the fact that he sold a shirt to a guy that looked like the defendant is simply way too ridiculously flimsy a basis for a conviction. The prosecution case should have been laughed out of court.

The "justice system" brought itself into disrepute with this verdict, although in reality it was hardly a routine act of the system - The Lockerbie trial was a one-off that was extraordinary in many ways.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess he means me I had a vague recollection that some people thought the guy may have been a patsy, so I googled and quoted a piece from the Wiki, not sure what is wrong with that though?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.