"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us?

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Here's another good point - the actual summary of referral from the Scottish review board

I looked up the referral we're all yammering about here.

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

That's a summary.

The six grounds for referral are listed in there. Guess what?

The Bollier allegations are not among them. Neither is the timer possible being fake. Neither is the police sergeant who claimed the timer was planted.

Here are the sole grounds for referral:

A number of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant challenged the reasonableness of the trial court’s verdict, based on the legal test contained in section 106(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The Commission rejected the vast majority of those submissions. However, in examining one of the grounds, the Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant’s case.

New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.

Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification
of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the date of purchase.

So most of the things you've been trumpeting long and loud to weave your conspiracy theory? Bullshit. In fact, a couple of these things are mentioned in the report, but are expressly rejected. For example, the retired police sergeant turned out to have more contradictions in his story than claims videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers were faked. Also, claims the timer part was faked or planted? Also completely dismissed by the Scottish review board. As the report says:

In particular the Commission has found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.

The referral is not based on "maybe Libya did not do this." It's based largely on "was it proved that Megrahi had the ability to purchase the items purchased in Malta." Since that was a key part of his conviction, the prosecution needed to clear these problems up or offer evidence he was in Malta on December 6.

The other two had to do with Gauci's lineup ID being tainted and "other evidence" undermining Gauci, which may well be the CIA offer.

So the possibility of fitting Meghari into a role he may not have had in the Libyan plot to bomb Pan Am 103 is what the Scottish review board referred to appeal.

I hope we can dispense with silly conspiracy theorizing about faked evidence framing Libya for the Pan Am 103 bombing.