On Megrahi and evidence

[Tony Williams]

The row between the USA and Scotland (with the UK earnestly trying to keep out of the way) over the early release on health grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, continues. It does raise a number of issues, most obviously whether a law intended to treat terminally-ill criminals with compassion should be applied to one of the most notorious terrorist mass murderers. There are also all sorts of rumours of conspiracies involving the UK government and the USA's favourite company, BP. However, the issue which concerns me the most is the quality of the evidence which led to Megrahi's conviction in the first place.

This report of a year ago summarises the doubts and questions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm To sum up: there was quite a lot of circumstantial evidence involving the Iranians, but nothing that could stand up in court. The only firm evidence against Megrahi himself was an eye-witness identification by a Maltese shopkeeper after he had seen a photo of Megrahi in a magazine article speculating whether he was involved.

This was brought to mind by the recent TV series Eyewitness, which subjected unsuspecting volunteers to mock criminal incidents, after which they were interviewed by the police. The discrepancies between their accounts, and with the actual incidents (which were secretly filmed), would have been hilarious if the implications were not so disturbing. The most shocking example was when two of the volunteers were allowed to watch a DVD of one of the incidents, which clearly showed one of the perpetrators full-on, and to rewind and discuss it as often as they wanted. A few hours later they were shown a photo gallery of suspects containing the "perpetrator", and they both failed to identify the right man, picking two different innocent men!

Now I already knew that eye-witness evidence, traditionally the "gold standard" in court cases, had been increasingly called into question, but I didn't realise it was this bad.

I have no idea whether or not Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie atrocity but one thing seems pretty clear - on the basis of the evidence presented, he should never have been convicted. It may be significant that the price for letting him go was that he had to drop his pending appeal. Perhaps the real conspiracy was that the authorities didn't want to run any risk of his conviction being overturned.

[Dubious Dick]

As often the case. Private Eye has followed this for a long time.

Understand also serious doubt over the id on the electronic component from the device.

There was also circumstantial evidence that a Syrian (I think) terrorist group was just as likely if not more so to be involved in the atrocity.

It may well be that they had other evidence they could not reveal of course, but like all these types of situations, it is politically so important to get results. Lynch 'em quick.

If anything is suspicious about the release it may not be unreasonable to see the pressure building on the weak evidence and the awforities finding any reason to get him out before it blew up in their faces (ooops, sorry for pun).

Be really great if the yankees could calm down occasionally. Sadly a society dominated by religious belief is not one in which evidence matters.

[panama]

Worth noting that gain his early release on compassionate grounds that Megrahi had to drop his appeal. It was thought likely that he would win that appeal. I wonder who would have gained by the evidence NOT being re-examined?

There is too much doubt in this case.

[Croydon Bob]

I broadly agree with three posters above. I suspect that al-Megrahi was not guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. But there could be "secret" evidence that shows that he was involved.

But isn't this a conspiracy theory that we are agreeing with?

[Nasib]

I broadly agree with three posters above. I suspect that al-Megrahi was not guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. But there could be "secret" evidence that shows that he was involved.

But isn't this a conspiracy theory that we are agreeing with?

More likely that there is "secret" evidence that shows he was not involved - and which covers up who actually was involved.

[Harryprice]

The only firm evidence against Megrahi himself was an eye-witness identification by a Maltese shopkeeper after he had seen a photo of Megrahi in a magazine article speculating whether he was involved.

Seriously? As a paranormal investigator I am horribly aware of how poor eyewitness evidence is. All the way from misperception to confabulation, it is truly terrible as evidence of anything! I can't believe someone could be sent to jail on something so unbelievably flimsy. Is such a thing possible in Scottish law? If it is, it most certainly should not be.

[Matt]

Seriously? As a paranormal investigator I am horribly aware of how poor eyewitness evidence is. All the way from misperception to confabulation, it is truly terrible as evidence of anything! I can't believe someone could be sent to jail on something so unbelievably flimsy.

Apparently so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gauci). Were any of the eyewitnesses you dealt with as a paranormal investigator paid $2 million (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/03/lockerbie.scotland) for their stories with a further $1 million being paid to their brother

[Dubious Dick]

As balance to the possibility that he was innocent (and as a member of Gaddafis secret service I suspect he was far from innocent of everything!) was an interview with an independent legal observer at the trial (think he was a Scottish academic- BBC 4 lunchtime news). Sorry no ref to name. However, the guy said that anyone who had been at the trial would have convicted Megrahi. A very big question is why he would not take the stand to defend himself!!

Also, it seems highly likely that there were other intel sources for info on him and obviously no one should/would expect these to be revealed. Trouble is it always sounds like a get out clause, but not to the possible agent/s in Libya for whom it would mean a wholelottagrief.

As this is all speculation it is probably worthless but highlights the conditions required for a healthy conspiracy theory to grow big and strong.

The idea that he may have been released on appeal would not indicate he did not do it. Only that the evidence was not substantive. No one can draw any conclusions from speculation as to whether he would or would not have won a hypothetical appeal.

[Dubious Dick]

Question remains. Should they have released him? Clearly there is no argument that Scottish Law allows for compassionate release. It was not brought in at the last moment just to allow them to get shot of him.

Added to which Doctors probably err on the side of caution underestimating life expectancy (perhaps they should have asked Mystic Meg instead!).

One answer may have been that it was just simpler to get shot of him, rather than have to go through the whole damn thing again. That's not to say it was right or wrong, and I tend towards believing that compassion for the non-compassionate is a sort of oxymoronic concept.

[Dubious Dick]

Apparently so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gauci). Were any of the eyewitnesses you dealt with as a paranormal investigator paid $2 million (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/03/lockerbie.scotland) for their stories with a further $1 million being paid to their brother

What motives for such payments (which remain speculative figures I understand)?

1. Buying lies.
2. Buying safety and security for witness.
3. Encouraging the reluctant.
4. Blackmail by the witness.
5. A.N. Other

Clearly a legitimate question is who was paid, how much and why? Maybe suspicious but far from certainly so.

[Tony Williams]

Seriously? As a paranormal investigator I am horribly aware of how poor eyewitness evidence is. All the way from misperception to confabulation, it is truly terrible as evidence of anything! I can't believe someone could be sent to jail on something so unbelievably flimsy. Is such a thing possible in Scottish law? If it is, it most certainly should not be.
Indeed - eyewitness identification of a stranger (as opposed to someone the witness knows) is little more than useless unless he has some unmistakable feature (like two heads).

Even if that were not the case, the fact that the witness had previously seen Megrahi's photo linked to the crime should have been enough to get his evidence thrown out of court, because his memory would have been hopelessly corrupted by that.

[polomint38]

Indeed - eyewitness identification of a stranger (as opposed to someone the witness knows) is little more than useless unless he has some unmistakable feature (like two heads).


That would be Zaphod. ::)

[Tony Williams]

That would be Zaphod. ::)
I need hardly add that it would of course be necessary to confirm that Zaphod was the only guy with two heads...

[Harryprice]

Indeed - eyewitness identification of a stranger (as opposed to someone the witness knows) is little more than useless unless he has some unmistakable feature (like two heads).

I'm not convinced that identification of someone you know is much better. I sometimes see someone I know in the street. Until I get a proper look and realise I'm wrong, of course. I've also been known to walk straight past people I know really well in the street (and I never hear the end of it!). Context and suggestion play an important part in what we see. We see what we expect to see and miss what we don't.

[tolman]

Now I already knew that eye-witness evidence, traditionally the "gold standard" in court cases, had been increasingly called into question, but I didn't realise it was this bad.
Traditionally the gold standard?

Certainly, some people find some eyewitness evidence convincing.
IIRC, people find more confident testimony more convincing, yet in reality, I understand that the correlation between confidence and accuracy in eyewitness testimony is close to zero, if not actually negative.
However, surely a great deal of the time eyewitnesses end up giving inconsistent stories over time, and also disagree with each other, which would give many people pause for thought?

Also, generally speaking, I'd have thought that even people who might be convinced by a confident eyewitness if that was the only evidence present would normally tend to give more weight )possibly *much* more weight) to forensic evidence, not merely from an acceptance that eyewitnesses may be dishonest, but also from an acceptance that they may be mistaken.

[Tony Williams]

I'm not convinced that identification of someone you know is much better. I sometimes see someone I know in the street. Until I get a proper look and realise I'm wrong, of course. I've also been known to walk straight past people I know really well in the street (and I never hear the end of it!). Context and suggestion play an important part in what we see. We see what we expect to see and miss what we don't.
That's true - context makes a huge difference. I have often failed to recognise people I know but have met in unexpected circumstances - I know that I know them, but I can't work out where, or who they are.

[Tony Williams]

Traditionally the gold standard?

Depends on how far back you look. Many decades ago, all it took was for a witness to point at a defendent and say "I saw him do it" and he would almost certainly be found guilty.


Also, generally speaking, I'd have thought that even people who might be convinced by a confident eyewitness if that was the only evidence present would normally tend to give more weight )possibly *much* more weight) to forensic evidence, not merely from an acceptance that eyewitnesses may be dishonest, but also from an acceptance that they may be mistaken.
Ironically, sometimes people give too much credence to forensic evidence. This is not usually absolute, but has varying confidence levels. For instance, DNA matches are often made by comparing only a very small part of the genome, and it is increasingly being realised that this may be misleading (especially when DNA from different people is mixed together). And of course there's the notorious "cot death" probabilities, plus the "shaken baby syndrome" which is now being questioned.

There is a willingness on the part of juries to believe expert witnesses who state their views with (often misplaced) confidence.

[tolman]

Depends on how far back you look. Many decades ago, all it took was for a witness to point at a defendent and say "I saw him do it" and he would almost certainly be found guilty.
I think you'd probably have to go a fair way back to find a time when eyewitness evidence typically trumped all other kinds of evidence.

If you go back far enough, you might find a time when there wasn't much *apart* from eyewitness evidence, pretty circumstantial evidence (the victim was stabbed and this guy owns a knife), and more solid evidence (we found easily identifiable stolen goods in this guy's room, and in his pockets). Even in those situations, it's possible that the stolen goods would be seen as as reliable an indicator of guilt as an identification.

Of course, if you go back far enough, you could also find that with people being less mobile in the past, eyewitness evidence would more frequently have been given by people who actually knew the person they were talking about, where it could have been rather more reliable than identification of strangers from among a rather wider population.


Ironically, sometimes people give too much credence to forensic evidence. This is not usually absolute, but has varying confidence levels.
But still generally rather better than things like eyewitness evidence.


For instance, DNA matches are often made by comparing only a very small part of the genome, and it is increasingly being realised that this may be misleading (especially when DNA from different people is mixed together).

[QUOTE=Tony Williams;90794]And of course there's the notorious "cot death" probabilities, plus the "shaken baby syndrome" which is now being questioned.
Generally, things that apply to relatively few cases might take a while to be properly questioned (though the simplistic cot death probabilities didn't take much time or many cases to fall apart).


There is a willingness on the part of juries to believe expert witnesses who state their views with (often misplaced) confidence.
Though in general, that is at least founded on a history of generally being right, possibly rather more often than contested eyewitnesses.
It's also maybe related to an assumption that the justice system does exercise some kind of quality control on expert witnesses, which if imperfect in practice, has at least the potential to be pretty good in principle.

[Tony Williams]

It's also maybe related to an assumption that the justice system does exercise some kind of quality control on expert witnesses, which if imperfect in practice, has at least the potential to be pretty good in principle.
Not much comfort to those on the wrong side of the imperfections...

The general point I am making is that there are many instances of juries being convinced by evidence which is less rock-solid than they are led to believe. What is really needed is a general appreciation of the different confidence levels which apply to different forms of evidence. This is increasingly widely understood where eye-witness testimony is concerned (although not widely enough, as the Megrahi verdict demonstrates), but the limitations - and sometimes misuse - of forensic evidence of all kinds are not generally known. This applies to DNA, fingerprints and even (I recall reading a while back) the way in which fires spread.

Sometimes the wish for certainty in evidence leads to practices which are obviously flawed. Many years ago I recall reading of a case of a fatal accident in which the police stated firmly that a vehicle was travelling at a certain speed before braking - they knew this because of the length of the skid marks (this was before the widespread use of anti-lock brakes, obviously). It was clear from the evidence that the police had a simple scale which said X feet of skid mark equalled Y mph speed. I thought what??? That's ridiculous - it will vary a lot depending on the car, how it is loaded, the tyres, the friction coefficient of the road surface and the weather. Such a statement could only be made if the same car with the same load on board had actually been tested on the same stretch of road in the same weather conditions - which of course it hadn't been. But this evidence was accepted in court.

[tolman]

Not much comfort to those on the wrong side of the imperfections...
But we weren't talking about perfection, just relative confidence, and relative reliability.


Sometimes the wish for certainty in evidence leads to practices which are obviously flawed. Many years ago I recall reading of a case of a fatal accident in which the police stated firmly that a vehicle was travelling at a certain speed before braking - they knew this because of the length of the skid marks (this was before the widespread use of anti-lock brakes, obviously). It was clear from the evidence that the police had a simple scale which said X feet of skid mark equalled Y mph speed. I thought what??? That's ridiculous - it will vary a lot depending on the car, how it is loaded, the tyres, the friction coefficient of the road surface and the weather. Such a statement could only be made if the same car with the same load on board had actually been tested on the same stretch of road in the same weather conditions - which of course it hadn't been. But this evidence was accepted in court.

Is that a case of a wish for certainty, or just an attempt to have some kind of objectivity (measuring skid marks rather than just saying 'long' or 'short').
IIRC, there were people in the 70s doing work on skid patterns, and being used as expert witnesses, and I'm sure the guy I read about then was doing reasonable research.

Was the evidence actually challenged in court?
If something's obviously flawed, isn't it up to the defence to point that out, maybe calling their own witnesses?
Assuming, of course, that the evidence is not merely unreliable, but that its conclusions are significantly wrong, which are not necessarily the same thing.
I'd suggest that sometimes, things can fail to be challenged not because they are assumed to be right, but because challenging them successfully isn't likely to make much difference to the outcome for the client.

Anyway, that's not an argument against expert evidence as a whole, just an argument for quality control on experts, and competence in defence lawyers.

[Tony Williams]

But we weren't talking about perfection, just relative confidence, and relative reliability..............Anyway, that's not an argument against expert evidence as a whole, just an argument for quality control on experts, and competence in defence lawyers.
I agree entirely. As I've said before, my concern is that juries may be misled by expert evidence which is presented without any information about confidence levels.

The New Scientist has just run a two-part study on the uncertainties around DNA evidence, particularly where the sample is incomplete and two or more are mixed together. In one actual court case the odds against an observed DNA match were stated to be 95,000:1 by one professional DNA analyst and 48:1 by another. Further research by other analysts after the trial resulted in figures of 13:1 and 2:1, depending on how the sample was analysed statistically. Now there is one hell of a difference between 95,000:1 and 2:1, but the jury was not given this information.

In another test carried out as an experiment, a number of DNA labs were sent two samples and asked if there was a match. Some said yes, others no, others maybe. But what normally happens is that one analyst will go to a trial as an expert witness and give his opinion which is often taken as gospel by the jury. Neither judges nor lawyers usually know enough about the technicalities of DNA analysis to challenge the expert.

Which brings me back to the point I have been making, which is that evidence (whether eyewitness or forensic) should not be presented in court without the confidence levels being explained.

[tolman]

I agree entirely. As I've said before, my concern is that juries may be misled by expert evidence which is presented without any information about confidence levels.
Surely there's as much of a problem when information about confidence is presented which itself isn't necessarily accurate, whether through incompetence of the expert, or simply a lack of knowledge at the current time.

There's also the issue of precisely how confidence and probability are presented and explained, which can require a preexisting understanding of probability in general, or an attempt to educate jury members (where the odds are reasonably good that some of them aren't particularly bright) in probability.

For example, if there's a true 1 in 100,000 probability that a clean crime scene sample would match a random citizen by chance, and there is a match to a given defendant, the correct interpretation of that 1 in 100,000 probability depends totally on how the defendant came to be identified - were they already a suspect for quite seperate reasons who then had a DNA sample taken, or were they found from a DNA database?


In one actual court case the odds against an observed DNA match were stated to be 95,000:1 by one professional DNA analyst and 48:1 by another. Further research by other analysts after the trial resulted in figures of 13:1 and 2:1, depending on how the sample was analysed statistically. Now there is one hell of a difference between 95,000:1 and 2:1, but the jury was not given this information.
At least if the figures are quantified, there's the chance that successful appeals could be launched (assuming that there wasn't sufficient other evidence to ensure conviction).
In the case of eyewitness evidence, where someone says 'I'm sure it was him', there's relatively little that could be done later to correct errors unless maybe if the eyewitness made a compelling retraction.


Neither judges nor lawyers usually know enough about the technicalities of DNA analysis to challenge the expert.
If you and I know about it, that rather seems to be as much of a failing on the part of lawyers as on the part of experts.