���I should perhaps clarify that my comments on Dr Hans Koechler in my previous posting in this thread were not meant to impugn his integrity, only his judgement (in more than one sense). As one of five observers appointed by the then UN secretary general Kofi Annan to attend the Lockerbie trial, his ill-advised political contentions based on self-acknowledged "guesses" were made in an address to an Arab League conference in Cairo.
http://i-p-o.org/Observer.jpg Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 25 August 2009 Allen Esterson wrote [snip]: Mike also links to a n article by Dr. Hans Koechler, an international observer at the Lockerbie trial at the Hague held under Scottish law. http://i-p-o.org/nr-lockerbie-14Oct05.htm At first sight this seems impressive, and no doubt the article contains important points, but my confidence in Dr Koechler ebbed away the more I read around the subject. The article is on the website of the International Progress Organization, a non-governmental organization. I was prepared to be impressed until I looked into some of the articles on the website. When I see an article with the following concluding sentence I tend to look elsewhere for the facts about a given situation: >Thus Congolese man and woman where you are stand [stand where you=0 D are?] and cut the string [held by international "Capitalist Interests"] that prevent each of you to transform this country into a land where flows milk and honey.< http://i-p-o.org/congodem.htm More on Dr Koechler (a professor of political philosophy at Innsbruck University, not a legal expert), who is quoted as saying about the original trial: "You cannot come out with a verdict of guilty for one and innocent for the other when they were both being tried with the same evidence. In my opinion there seemed [sic] to be considerable political influence on the judges and the verdict. My guess [sic] is that it came from the United Kingdom and the United States. This was my impression [sic]." How seriously can you take an assertion from someone who resorts to "seems" and guesses? From my own very limited knowledge of the case, I know that there was evidence relating to Megrahi that did not relate to the other defendant. More important is Koechler's ignorance of the independence of the judiciary in the UK. And the notion that *Scottish* judges would be influenced by behind-the-scenes representations from the *Westminster* government in London displays an ignorance of UK affairs of some magnificence! But let the Scottish Crown office speak for itself: >A spokesman for the Crown Office in Edinburgh said… that Koechler's views were based on a "complete misunderstanding of the function and independen ce of the judiciary". He added "In particular he misunderstands that in Scotland, as in other English-speaking systems, criminal proceedings are adversarial, that is, involving a contest between prosecution and defence, rather than an enquiry carried out by judges.< http://i-p-o.org/times.jpg --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
