So Camoron says BP had nothing to do with

[Guest]

I thought it had recently been said that that is exactly what happened... which makes perfect sense

oops, forgot the link

here 'tis

Edited July 20, 2010 by tonyblair

[ampersand]

why would bp want him released? not quite up on my politics see...

[llcoolphil]

I dont thionk it had anything to do with BP. I do, however, think it had everything to do with British and American intelligence services (and their respective governments)wanting him out the way so that there wouldn't be an inquiry into why an innocent man was fitted up for a crime he didnt commit by those intelligence services. The BP link is only being made because its the american mid term elections coming up and they all want to look like they are asking the right questions.

[llcoolphil]

why would bp want him released? not quite up on my politics see...

[Cardboard Box City]

I thought it had recently been said that that is exactly what happened... which makes perfect sense

oops, forgot the link

here 'tis

[Cardboard Box City]

why would bp want him released? not quite up on my politics see...

[Alcatraz]

why would bp want him released? not quite up on my politics see...

[Kowalski]

It was nothing to do with BP, but everything to do with the SNP.

[eFestivals]

I dont thionk it had anything to do with BP. I do, however, think it had everything to do with British and American intelligence services (and their respective governments)wanting him out the way so that there wouldn't be an inquiry into why an innocent man was fitted up for a crime he didnt commit by those intelligence services.

That's my take on it too, and the take of many others.

Matey was going thru the legal appeal process prior to his release. He only became eligible for release if he dropped the appeal.

Within that appeal, there was legal argument going on about whether matey and his legal team were allowed to see secret 'evidence'. All legal opinion seemed to be that this 'evidence' would have to be disclosed, and the presumption was that the evidence would bring huge doubts about the safety of his conviction.

From stuff I've read (and which is believed by quite a number of the families of the victims) there's more evidence which points to the bombing having been done by a Syrian group than by the Libyans. There's also various things which weren't properly investigated (such as break-in at Heathrow luggage handling around the time the plane was loaded), and of course a prime 'witness' who paid to give evidence by the CIA but whose credibility as a witness is zero, and matey being ID-ed by a Cypriot shopkeeper who had been shown matey's photo before doing the ID parade. And finally ... there was a second person on trial, for which there was identical evidence - yet that second person was not convicted.

Whether or not matey was responsible for the bombing I don't know, but it certainly appears to many people far better informed on the case than me that his conviction wasn't as sound as it should be.

[windy_miller]

That's my take on it too, and the take of many others.

Matey was going thru the legal appeal process prior to his release. He only became eligible for release if he dropped the appeal.

Within that appeal, there was legal argument going on about whether matey and his legal team were allowed to see secret 'evidence'. All legal opinion seemed to be that this 'evidence' would have to be disclosed, and the presumption was that the evidence would bring huge doubts about the safety of his conviction.

From stuff I've read (and which is believed by quite a number of the families of the victims) there's more evidence which points to the bombing having been done by a Syrian group than by the Libyans. There's also various things which weren't properly investigated (such as break-in at Heathrow luggage handling around the time the plane was loaded), and of course a prime 'witness' who paid to give evidence by the CIA but whose credibility as a witness is zero, and matey being ID-ed by a Cypriot shopkeeper who had been shown matey's photo before doing the ID parade. And finally ... there was a second person on trial, for which there was identical evidence - yet that second person was not convicted.

Whether or not matey was responsible for the bombing I don't know, but it certainly appears to many people far better informed on the case than me that his conviction wasn't as sound as it should be.

[dakyras]

So know we know who the real culprit is!