tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post2231958063592920995..comments2023-10-25T05:21:38.824-07:00Comments on The Lockerbie Divide: Parviz Taheri, TestimonyCaustic Logichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-68925889791113888482010-10-05T15:19:42.965-07:002010-10-05T15:19:42.965-07:00Thanks, Charles. I'm not sure just yet what to...Thanks, Charles. I'm not sure just yet what to make of this all. Taylor's coincidence mongering is far from conclusive about any direct role in the bombing. Why mention weapons training, but fail to uncover any evidence that he had luggage on the way out? <br /><br />It's all weird. His wife was in Sweden in 1988, but he was visiting her in London at Christmas? The busiest travel time of the year, and a presumably Muslim couple have to spend it together? <br /><br />The evidence definitely doesn't speak for itself, clearly. But what it does say is what we've got to work with as for clues to what it's keeping mum about.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-18101589379900798012010-10-04T04:46:13.903-07:002010-10-04T04:46:13.903-07:00I think the Crown is just trying to make the point...I think the Crown is just trying to make the point that they think PT had nothing to do with the matter, and by producing PT with his anodyne evidence they a preventing an appeal by the defence to the criminality of person or persons unknown. Keen speaks for the defence, for he is certain that his client can be demonstrated not to have been at Luqa Airport and therefore falls to be found not guilty. <br /><br />Remember he is not fighting for Mr Magrahi's acquittal, as the defence of him is Mr Taylor's responsibility alone. <br /><br />That is why each is separately represented, so that each may, if they so wish back a cut-throat defence.<br /><br />Taylor is in a more difficult position a he cannot deny his client was at the airport and so has to elaborately prove that the case was not at Frankfurt or London and that Luqa security had not failed, which implicitly the bench rejects for they find Mr Magrahi guilty. <br /><br />It would not have been in Taylor's interest to cross-examine Taheri unless he could put a lot of flesh on his lying - but T is a transparently honest witness, so its probably not worth the effort.<br /><br />Understanding how lawyers manage cases is very important indeed, and seems beyond members of the Lockerbie-ocracy, who tend to go on about the evidence, as if it speaks for itself clearly, alone.<br /><br />Which unfortunately it does not do.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.com