Sorry to go down the Gabi route, but if it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved, then by legal definition he's innocent.
Sorry, just thought, under Scottish law the case could be found not-proven, a middle ground that would satisfy more.
You are making an assumption that the break-in at Heathrow was connected in some way. Whilst it would be a line of enquiry to be pursued, there is absolutely nothing I have seen which says that it was definitely anything to do with anything. In a complex chain such as we have here I suspect there are several unusual / potentially relevant incidents apart from that one.
That's the difficulty - I'm not sure that we, the public, can ever have sufficient knowledge of even a simple case to second guess the decision of a court ... yes, we can question particular parts of the evidence, or the weight put on them, but as for the whole verdict ... (unless of course it is clear that some particular part of the evidence we have considered undermines the whole thing).
No, I'm not, all I'm saying is that my hypothesis doesn't account for it. The break-in may have more signifigance than I give it credit. It's an avenue for investigation that, according to PE wasn't explored.
Given that Megrahi's conviction was unanimously upheld on appeal, what else are they supposed to do? Second-guessing the trial and appeal judges would just muddy the waters, and the issue will remain unresolved until a fresh appeal. The issue of whether he should be sent home is complicated enough, and needs to be treated in isolation.
This is what I mean about debate over the conviction going round in circles. You seem to be suggesting that we replace legal procedure with a vague "common sense" belief in Megrahi's innocence. I'm sure there's a perfectly good case to be made that Megrahi's judges weren't irrational (especially given that five other judges agreed with them on appeal).
Your view that commentators ought to "Say what should be obvious generally to rational human beings" instead of treating Megrahi as guilty. If you don't mean that they should say his conviction is unsafe, I'm not sure what you did mean there.
And what Jack McConnell should know - having been FM - is that it is within the remit of the Scottish Government; his own administration released convicted murderers on compassionate grounds. So it's highly disingenuous of him (and Obama and Hilary etc). They are all playing to what they think the gallery thinks, especially the American politicians, since they know all too well that this is in US interests.
I very much liked the comment from the FBI that it "made a mockery of justice". No, this is justice. A mockery would be, oh, extraordinary renditions, Guantanamo Bay, that sort of thing.
I know. What exactly is it meant to achieve?
