Incorrect, if it introduces 'reasonable doubt' then its relevant and admissable. The defence should at least have been told about it.FEOS wrote:
Of course it should have, if there is material evidence that it could have affected the proximate cause of the explosion. To just introduce things that serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue doesn't help justice in any way.
You missed the part where I said "affected the proximate cause".Dilbert_X wrote:
Incorrect, if it introduces 'reasonable doubt' then its relevant and admissable. The defence should at least have been told about it.FEOS wrote:
Of course it should have, if there is material evidence that it could have affected the proximate cause of the explosion. To just introduce things that serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue doesn't help justice in any way.
We moved on from the idea that the state controls the prosecution and defence some time ago.
Sometimes, sometimes not.Clouding the issue and reasonable doubt are different things.
In the US, that conviction would've likely been thrown out because of it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sometimes, sometimes not.Clouding the issue and reasonable doubt are different things.
In this case the information directly raised reasonable doubt and should have been provided to the defence.
Not back then. And not unless he was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq (mostly).Dilbert_X wrote:
More likely he would never have been convicted in the first place.
Oh wait he would have been tortured for five years and released without charge
Not until everyone else knew. Being kept informed by the British government (who were not the ones who made the decision - the Scottish legal system is separate and controlled by the SNP, a party that opposes the Labour government and is unlikely to be doing them any favours) is nothing like what it sounds like you are suggesting.Harmor wrote:
Oopsie...Obama knew about bomber release:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla … lease.html
He was released to avoid the CIA being embarassed over their flaky evidence.Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has denied claims he or the SNP government were involved in a deal over the Lockerbie bomber's release.
A new book claimed ministers urged Abdelbasset al-Megrahi to drop his appeal against conviction in exchange for compassionate release.
But Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Parliament: "These claims are wrong".
Megrahi, who is terminally ill with cancer, was released from prison in Scotland in 2009 by Mr MacAskill.
Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems said there were still unanswered questions on the case, including a decision by the justice secretary to visit Megrahi in prison and details of the medical advice given to the government on the convicted bomber's health before his release.
The Libyan is the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Shortly before being freed, the Libyan dropped his second appeal against conviction.
