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. Were any of the eyewitnesses you dealt with as a paranormal investigator paid $2 million 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. Were any of the eyewitnesses you dealt with as a paranormal investigator paid $2 million 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.