1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pan Am 103 Bomber Freed

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Armchair_QB, Aug 19, 2009.

  1. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Dignity this.
     
  2. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Except, of course, he isn't innocent. He got a fair trial the first time. The only thing wrong with the first trial is that it didn't result in his execution.
     
  3. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Not trying to start a pissing match, A_QB, but what makes you so sure?

    A 2007 official review found there was reason for him to appeal his case. Evidence was withheld at the time of his original trial, the review board found that to be true, and there is fear he was railroaded.

    All I'm saying is, why fear a new trial if you truly think he's guilty? If he is, lock him up and throw away the key. No release for compassion ... nothing.

    But if he really is innocent, it's a miscarriage of justice, a concept we believe in as much as the Scots do. I don't think that's a concept that can just be thrown to the side.
     
  4. blacktitleist

    blacktitleist Member

    was anyone else wishing they put the guy on a plane with no passengers, given the pilot a parachute, and then blown the sucker up somewhere over the ocean on his way home?
     
  5. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member

    Yeah, Westminster and Washington can publicly gnash their teeth all they want. The truth is that they're happy to see the guy gone. Al-Megrahi and the host of embarrassing questions surrounding his conviction can wander on back to Libya, where both he and them will die pretty soon.
     
  6. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    "Because SOMEBODY has to pay, dammit."

    Saw a quote from a family member who stated how it's like Lockerbee "never happened now, because nobody's in prison for it."

    As long as SOMEBODY is in jail, all is OK.
     
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Yeah that aspect of this whole deal bothers me a lot. It seems like a whole lot of people don't want to hear that he could be innocent.

    Then again, there's a shit-ton of people who want to believe implicitly that he is innocent, which is equally misguided.

    Retry if need be, and it seems like it probably should be. If he's innocent, let him go. If not, let him rot in jail for life.
     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    He was not let go because his conviction was overturned. He was not let go because his conviction is in question. There are avenues that could have been pursued toward that end in the Scotland courts. They either weren't pursued or they were deemed not strong enough.

    He was let go because some stupid bleeding-heart dumbfucks in Scotland felt bad for him because he had cancer. He should have never been allowed to live long enough to get cancer.
     
  9. verbalkint

    verbalkint Member

    I'm sure Scotland will want to hear America's opinion on the death penalty.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/18scotus.html?_r=1&sq=scalia&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=2&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1250978492-ycMtHb//S713rdOP+o34EQ

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/08judge.html?scp=1&sq=roy%20criner&st=cse

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page