MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: part 1/10
3 August 2010
Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.
Next: 5 August >>
One year ago today, "Lockerbie bomber" Abdelbaset al Megrahi was still imprisoned in Scotland, convicted for the murder of 270, with an appeal of that endlessly stalled, and advanced prostate cancer drawing the grave closer to him. He was desperate to return home to Libya before the end, and the Libyan government was nearly as set on getting him back.
One way home had presented itself up to that point - a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that had been Libya's brainchild, sponsored by Libya-UK business interests, and adopted by the UK government. One of the keen provisions of the PTA was that all legal proceedings - like Megrahi's dangerous second appeal - had to be closed first.
Another provision of the agreement, ratified on 5 May 2009, was its 90-day life span [1], which expired on this day last year, August 3. But Justice Secrtary Kenny MacAskill, had already "extended the deadline of the prisoner transfer request,” despite its being implausible to execute. [2]
Curiously, the same day one track was slated to stop (but didn't), a second way home came within reach. Megrahi had formally applied for Compassionate Release less than two weeks earlier, in late July. His original prognosis had been only in September 2008, when he was given “an informal mid-estimate of 18-24 months.” [3] Compassionate Release rules, first set-up in 1993, have no firm life expectancy standard, but do cite three months as a reasonable guideline.
By some time in July 2009, a "firm consensus" was reached by "a range of specialists" that Megrahi's cancer had become "hormone resistant," and so the prognosis has "has now moved to the lower end of expectations from ten months ago." [3] That had been 18-24 months, so minus ten from the low end leaves about eight months left.
An unnamed consulting doctor for the Scottosh Prison Service (SPS) looked Megrahi over again a year ago today [3]. This is widely believed to be Karol Sikora, but is apparently not. [4] (see also comments, below) Having last seen the prisoner on 26 July, the specialist - not paid by Libya that we know of - reported an alarming deterioration in the short interim. A report from a week later explained "the clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient." [3]
The 10 August report that passes this on was from Scottish Prison Services health director, and expressed his own and a general agreement that the prisoner was suitable for compassionate release. There was no other specific agreement with three months offered. And of course none was needed; as explained above, that benchmark is a guideline, not a requirement.
But it was an important guideline, and it was on the record to inform the choice in Mr. MacAskill's hands alone. He had two tracks to consider now, one of which (the PTA) would cost Megrhi's appeal if used, and the other of which (compassion) could leave the way open to challenge the tenuous conviction...
Sources:
[1] http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n2009/may/0509nwsc.htm
[2] Times Online. 21 August 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6804645.ece
[3] Medical Report, 10 August 2009. PDF download page: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie/CompassionateReleasePro/medical-report
[4] STV. 6 Sept.2009. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/
Showing posts with label Sikora K. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sikora K. Show all posts
One Last Time: Sikora was not THE Doctor
13 September 2010
last edits 14 Sept
I just stumbled onto a New York Daily News article from a month back titled "Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's cancer doc: I would've been more vague on terrorist's fate." This in reference to a Dr. Karol Sikora, who is widely perceived as the or a doctor whose advice to the Scottish government was paid for by Libya and freed Megrahi a year ago.
The Illusion
Dr. Sikora (pictured at left posing with a large book) has a colorful history in medical consultancy. He's apparently something of a hired gun, or acts like one, and has worked with an American political campaign to counter the move towards "socialized medicine." He was first mentioned in connection with the Megrahi case by Herald Scotland, 20 August 2009, just hours before MacAskill's announcement. After speaking with him, Lucy Adams reported (incorrectly as it turns out):
Seven months later in April, as all other involved doctors remained fairly quiet, Sikora said the clues suggested Megrahi "will be dead within four weeks." (Times) Twelve weeks later, on July 4, he gave an interview with the UK Sunday Times (unavailable online, but re-quoted by the Daily Mail and many others). Sikora found it "embarrassing" his irrelevant three-month call was so wrong. He acknowledged that he was aware of what the prognosis meant,:
Sikora did in fact receive money from Libya and tried to lobby Kenny MacAskill - but the justice secretary had already decided based on another prognosis by proper authorities with no such (known) conflict of interest.
As our oncologist explained to the Daily Mail "I got invited (by the Libyan government) because I had been to Tripoli a few times." Once on the job:
Conclusion
From all the above, a clear pattern has emerged of a Libya-tainted man whose thoughts paralleled a separate decision, and has attached himself to the case, dug in like a tick. He's persistently taken every chance to re-affirm the illusion of his relevance to the media, and occasionally has added other fuel to the fire along the way. As he says, his report was submitted in time, and so he may genuinely believe he's involved. But the effect is not the intent is hugely dishonest.
In his 4 July statement Sikora, trying to explain the uncertainties of diagnosing cancer, unfortunately stated:
Again on 14 August NYDN repeated as relevant that Sikora "added that the released terrorist could even survive another 10 years." And he speaks of time travel that would give him today's knowledge then, in which case he "would have probably been more vague." It was less than comforting, especially given that his decision still didn't matter. "Some families of the victims," who fail to grasp this, "were livid over Sikora's musings," NYDN reported.
last edits 14 Sept
I just stumbled onto a New York Daily News article from a month back titled "Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's cancer doc: I would've been more vague on terrorist's fate." This in reference to a Dr. Karol Sikora, who is widely perceived as the or a doctor whose advice to the Scottish government was paid for by Libya and freed Megrahi a year ago.
A cancer doctor who predicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had just three months to live now thinks he should have hedged his bets. [...] "If I could go back in time, I would have probably been more vague and tried to emphasize the statistical chances and not hard fact," Dr.Karol Sikora, one of several experts who examined Megrahi, told Britain's Observer newspaper.
This has been repeated by many, many others before and after that and widely taken as fact - a characterization Sikora himself did nothing to discourage. A later article of 1 September in the Charleston, SC Post and Courier said "according to a Scottish doctor paid by Libya, he had only months to live. [... MacAskill later] released al-Megrahi, citing the doctor's opinion."
No one can know what really happens in the shadows, but there's no reason to believe Sikora was actually relevant to the decision made. The image of such is like cotton candy - a little sugar, no nourishment, some color, hot air, and abundant spin.
No one can know what really happens in the shadows, but there's no reason to believe Sikora was actually relevant to the decision made. The image of such is like cotton candy - a little sugar, no nourishment, some color, hot air, and abundant spin.
The Illusion
"...the assessment given by Professor Karol Sikora goes some way to explain why the Justice Secretary may have reached the decision he has.
Dr Sikora, who visited Megrahi in prison, had called for an "urgent" decision on the future of the Lockerbie bombing prisoner before his condition worsens further. "We believe he has only a very short period of time to live," said Dr Sikora, who assessed Megrahi last month."Around 6 September, a few weeks after the release, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Libyans had paid for the medical advice of three doctors including Sikora and "encouraged" them to form the opinion that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live. ( The Daily Mail) Coincidentally, at least one of them quite vocally did.
Seven months later in April, as all other involved doctors remained fairly quiet, Sikora said the clues suggested Megrahi "will be dead within four weeks." (Times) Twelve weeks later, on July 4, he gave an interview with the UK Sunday Times (unavailable online, but re-quoted by the Daily Mail and many others). Sikora found it "embarrassing" his irrelevant three-month call was so wrong. He acknowledged that he was aware of what the prognosis meant,:
"It was clear that three months was what they [the Libyans] were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that). [...] There was a 50 per cent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 per cent chance that he would live longer."Scottish Denials
Sikora did in fact receive money from Libya and tried to lobby Kenny MacAskill - but the justice secretary had already decided based on another prognosis by proper authorities with no such (known) conflict of interest.
There was a summary of medical reports that was publicly available, but it did little to clear up the issue, with all the names of all relevant consultants redacted. Sikora either fits or comes darn close for the first listed oncologist. (this only fits with Hammersmith hospital, where he served 12 years as clinical director of cancer research - source - but he seems to have moved onto other things before August 2009)
But as pointed out to me, this would be a rather stupid and unwarranted thing to do, including Libya's consultant in the official decision. They specifically denied this shortly after the release last year. In the Daily Mail's 6 September article about the suspect three, they included this response from the Scottish government:
The Director of Health and Care at the Scottish Prison Service drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for the patient.
These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient.
They did not include Karol Sikora, Jonathan Waxman or Ibrahim Sherif, whose assessments played no part in considerations – including no part in the report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care.
I had originally been taken by the confusion as well, and called Sikora the responsible doctor. But with prompting from "Jo G," I corrected that to "unnamed doctor" on 7 August (see comments here). As the articles we started with shows, some journalists are still behind in coming to their senses here. A conscious media campaign could hardly have done a better job of helping create the illusion (which does persist here heavily) that Scotland under the dread SNP freed the bomber based on Libya's paid prognosis.
The Actual Relevant Doctor
Before the health director, Dr. Andrew Fraser made his decision to call three months reasonable, he read one opinion to that effect from an unnamed "primary care physician" of al-Megrahi's. He examined Megrahi on 26 July 2009 and again on 3 August. The deterioration he perceived between the two is what led him to state "the clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient." [PDF source]
Peter Kay rather is the name, rudely announced 15 August, the day before the NYDN article we started with. the UK Express reported on the actual doctor who made the crucial call.
Dr Peter Kay can now be named as the primary care doctor at Greenock Prison from the time Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s prostate cancer was discovered in autumn 2008 to his release one year ago this week.
And while official records – published in the aftermath of the decision to send Megrahi home – revealed four specialists were unwilling to say how long the bomber had left to live, it was a prognosis by Dr Kay that his condition had “declined significantly” that led to his eventual release.
Interestingly, the article manages to raise questions even about this doctor, who was found to be shy of attention:
Sikora's Actual InvolvementAllegations have also surfaced the relatively inexperienced GP, believed to be in his late 30s, may even have been put under pressure by Megrahi and the Libyan authorities after he initially described the symptoms as “minor”.I've seen anonymous US family member "Bunntamas" suggest just this, but that person has a vivid imagination and littlegrasp of the facts. But that's another issue - this post is about chatterbox Sikora.
As our oncologist explained to the Daily Mail "I got invited (by the Libyan government) because I had been to Tripoli a few times." Once on the job:
"At first sight I thought it was more likely that his life expectancy was six to 18 months. But we went up there and saw him, and looked at everything, talked with the prison doctor. After that, I thought it would be three months, and I stand by that."Sikora's last look at the prisoner was on July 28, meeting prison doctor (presumably Dr. Kay) two days after Kay's most recent check. Sikora came along with Ibrahim Sheriff from the Tripoli medical centre, and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi (or Abdullah Swissi), Libya's consul-general in Scotland. (Herald Scotland) Sikora's report, specifying three months, was apparently lodged soon thereafter, but as the Daily Mail reported:
"The Scottish government claimed the advice arrived too late to be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, but Professor Sikora said he doubted this. 'We submitted our report three weeks before his return so I think there was plenty of time to consider it.'"That would be somewhere around the beginning of August - just about when Dr. Kay himself decided three months on the 3rd. It seems the timing wasn't so much the issue as the source, but this first or second opinion, depending, was officially irrelevant.
Conclusion
From all the above, a clear pattern has emerged of a Libya-tainted man whose thoughts paralleled a separate decision, and has attached himself to the case, dug in like a tick. He's persistently taken every chance to re-affirm the illusion of his relevance to the media, and occasionally has added other fuel to the fire along the way. As he says, his report was submitted in time, and so he may genuinely believe he's involved. But the effect is not the intent is hugely dishonest.
In his 4 July statement Sikora, trying to explain the uncertainties of diagnosing cancer, unfortunately stated:
This was widely and predictably taken by the American media to say the ten or 20 year "prognosis" was more real than the "sort of justified" three month one. That a doctor they believed responsible so "erred," pleasing his Libyan customers, enraged the empty-headed poseurs in the U.S. Senate. Armed with Sikora's nonsense plus a revived, post-spill reminder of the BP angle, within days Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Menendez, and Gillibrand were urging an inquisition into the black magic that freed Megrahi. Within days of that, Sikora stated with annoyance that his recent talk of decades was taken out of context, but it fell on deaf ears as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set to requesting audiences."There was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years ... But it's very unusual."
Again on 14 August NYDN repeated as relevant that Sikora "added that the released terrorist could even survive another 10 years." And he speaks of time travel that would give him today's knowledge then, in which case he "would have probably been more vague." It was less than comforting, especially given that his decision still didn't matter. "Some families of the victims," who fail to grasp this, "were livid over Sikora's musings," NYDN reported.
"This is an added kick in the face and another example of them throwing rocks in the face of the families," said Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., who lost a daughter, Theodora, 20, in the attack.The effect of this behavior, which Mrs. Cohen senses most acutely in the face, is keeping the American victims and public nice and angry, feeding into confusing misinformation and pressure for the proposed Senate investigation into the release. This is ultimately a probe into the imaginary conspiracy theory that has arisen to explain the "terrorist's unjust release." Again, as usual, Sikora's antics are convenient for someone, but not for the purpose of calmly establishing truth.
"The Advice of Just One Doctor..."
Who said Megrahi had Three Months?
July 13 2010
last edit August 8
This post will address, if not resolve, some of the confusion about just who was responsible for that controversial decision that Abdelbaset al Megrahi was likely to die within three months or less. As the span since then stretches to a year, the pressure has risen to investigate just how this decision was made in the first place.
First, the "three months" benchmark, while important, is over-stated in its importance. The rules on Compassionate Release state as one of its main criteria:
That is, the "bomber" could have been sent home even without this supposedly pivotal prognosis. To actually do so would court criticism that the 3-month guideline hadn't been met, however, so it was useful in that regard.
One Doctor = Sikora
The recent slew of press reports is a little vague and confused on the number and identity of the doctors responsible for the prognosis in question. But the over-arching impression is most sources originally citing "one unnamed doctor," who later seemed to be questionable cancer expert-for-hire, Karol Sikora. He was paid by “Libyan officials,” and so, as one comment grossly summed it up, Scotland allowed “one terrorist diagnose another terrorist.”
MSNBC, July 4 2010
CNN, July 5 2010
Daily Fail, 5 July
New York Daily News, July 7:
SF Gate, July 7:
Scotsman, July 8
A Panel and No Sikora
One Man = Andrew Fraser and/or an Unnamed Doctor
Besides MacAskill, at least one other decision-maker in the Scottish justice system, who is in fact a doctor, did make the, or a, crucial call in all this:
Daily Record, August 26:
The Times, August 28 2009
Daily Mail,28 August 2009
Telegraph, August 25
Daily Record, August 26:
Many sources in fact cite or collectively suggest a panel of four doctors, voting either 3/4 or 4/4 against three months, but overridden by Dr. Fraser and/or the fourth doctor. The balance suggests Dr. Sikora was the dissenter.
At least one of these reports stands out for differing. From early April, well between "three months" and "ten or 20 years":
Scotsman, April 5 2010:
This last oddball aside, it seems Dr.Sikora was indeed the one doctor on a panel of four, once anonymous but now named, who gave Fraser a possible 3-month message. And urgently, according to the Daily Record's report. From there, of course, it had to be accepted by Fraser and reccommended in his report to the Justice Secretary. And from there, Secretary MacAskill had to make the decision that he alone claims responsibility for - to release what he considered to be a man responsible for the murder of 270 souls.
Libya's payments to Karol Sikora do little to explain any of that. Other interests must be considered to get even the faintest understanding of how compassionate release was leveraged here. Looming above all considerations, I suspect, was Megrahi's second appeal and its ominous threat to the Scottish Justice system. Perhaps a magic ticket like Dr. Fraser proposed, with strings attached (or rather implied) by that system's guardian, Mr. MacAskill, could be used as the lever to pry that appeal away from its rightful owner. If one also considers the urgency of death some months off, and a conspicuously stalled appeal process, stretching out like a sunset shadow well past the grave, it becomes clear just how absolutely ripe the situation was to exploit this way. As Rolfe puts it:
July 13 2010
last edit August 8
This post will address, if not resolve, some of the confusion about just who was responsible for that controversial decision that Abdelbaset al Megrahi was likely to die within three months or less. As the span since then stretches to a year, the pressure has risen to investigate just how this decision was made in the first place.
First, the "three months" benchmark, while important, is over-stated in its importance. The rules on Compassionate Release state as one of its main criteria:
"Those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period."
Scottish Government Website, Sept. 1 2009
That is, the "bomber" could have been sent home even without this supposedly pivotal prognosis. To actually do so would court criticism that the 3-month guideline hadn't been met, however, so it was useful in that regard.
One Doctor = Sikora
The recent slew of press reports is a little vague and confused on the number and identity of the doctors responsible for the prognosis in question. But the over-arching impression is most sources originally citing "one unnamed doctor," who later seemed to be questionable cancer expert-for-hire, Karol Sikora. He was paid by “Libyan officials,” and so, as one comment grossly summed it up, Scotland allowed “one terrorist diagnose another terrorist.”
MSNBC, July 4 2010
“The doctor who said he would maybe only have three months to live now says he could live another ten years.”
CNN, July 5 2010
"... the Sunday Times said it could only find one doctor who admits giving three months to live. Dr. Karol Sikora was hired by Libyan officials, who asked him to assess the patient. He told the Times, "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for"...
Daily Fail, 5 July
"The cancer expert who predicted the Lockerbie bomber would die within three months of his release from prison has admitted he could live for another ten years or more."
New York Daily News, July 7:
"It's bad enough that Megrahi still hasn't died. It's even more stomach-turning that the doctor who provided the convenient initial prognosis now says the released terrorist might live 10 years, maybe even 20. That's the latest word from cancer specialist Dr. Karol Sikora ..."
SF Gate, July 7:
"Megrahi's doctor [sic], Professor Sikura [sic], was the only expert who would assert Megrahi had only three months to live."
Scotsman, July 8
The senators [Schumer, Lautenberg, Menendez, Gilibrand] wrote: "The doctor responsible for the key medical opinion has told the media that not only could Mr al-Megrahi live another ten years, but that the Libyan government had commissioned the doctor to make his assessment, expressly because the Libyan government hoped for a three-month prognosis. This is outrageous."
A Panel and No Sikora
Four senators, including a Kirsten Gilibrand, wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald,asking for answers about what Sikora had said. NY Daily News, Mouth of the Potomac:
Sheinwald denies the physician influenced the release at all, saying a panel of doctors made the recommendation. “This group did not include Prof. Sikora,” Sheinwald wrote in a letter to Gilibrand obtained by The Mouth.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/brits-deny-docs-libyan-tale.html
Earlier, the Scottish government had said the same thing:
Earlier, the Scottish government had said the same thing:
"The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Libyans had paid for the medical advice of three doctors and "encouraged" them to form the opinion that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live.
A [Scottish Government] spokesman said: "This report is false and factually incorrect.
“The Director of Health and Care at the Scottish Prison Service drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for the patient.
These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient.
They did not include Karol Sikora, Jonathan Waxman or Ibrahim Sherif, whose assessments played no part in considerations – including no part in the report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/
One Man = Andrew Fraser and/or an Unnamed Doctor
Besides MacAskill, at least one other decision-maker in the Scottish justice system, who is in fact a doctor, did make the, or a, crucial call in all this:
Daily Record, August 26:
"Four specialists said in June and July that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could live for up to 10 months and was not sick enough to be released.
But less than a month later, prison service medical director Andrew Fraser told MacAskill that in his opinion, Megrahi's prostate cancer had got much worse.
He said it was now "reasonable" to predict that he would be dead within three months."
The Times, August 28 2009
"The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scottish Prison Service."It seems worth wondering if Andrew Fraser is that "one doctor" whose opinion was relied on. But it seems there was another one consulting, who supported or informed this endorsement.
Daily Mail,28 August 2009
"It emerged that the doctor who advised that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had fewer than three months to live was not an expert in prostate cancer.
[…]
The report to Mr MacAskill […] contains a reference to an unnamed doctor who 'dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer'. It added: 'Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week [26 July to 3 August]. The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.'"
Telegraph, August 25
Bill Aitken, Scottish Tory justice spokesman, said: “In June and July, there was a consensus on prognosis of eight months. Where is that consensus now? ”We only have the opinion of one anonymous individual - not the range of medical experts promised.”Following Fraser'sreport, but just prior to MacAskill's decision, a clue emerges:
[...]
Dr Simpson [...said] ”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”
Daily Record, August 26:
On August 20, the day before MacAskill announced Megrahi's release, a cancer specialist asked by Libya to examine the bomber told the minister to make an "urgent" decision.Telegraph, 4 July 2010
Professor Karol Sikora said: "We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
Sikora said he visited Megrahi in Greenock jail on July 28, along with Professor Ibrahim Sheriff from the Tripoli medical centre and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul-general in Scotland.
"The Scottish government insists Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who took the final decision to release Megrahi, based his ruling on a medical report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). A spokesman said Professor Sikora’s advice to Libya “had no part to play in considerations on the Megrahi case."A Panel With Sikora
Many sources in fact cite or collectively suggest a panel of four doctors, voting either 3/4 or 4/4 against three months, but overridden by Dr. Fraser and/or the fourth doctor. The balance suggests Dr. Sikora was the dissenter.
At least one of these reports stands out for differing. From early April, well between "three months" and "ten or 20 years":
Scotsman, April 5 2010:
"Karol Sikora was one of three specialists who refused to concur with the prognosis by a prison doctor last August that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live when he was released last year.
[…]
"I say he will be dead within four weeks," said Mr Sikora, the medical director of Cancer Partners and Dean of Buckingham University medical school."
This last oddball aside, it seems Dr.Sikora was indeed the one doctor on a panel of four, once anonymous but now named, who gave Fraser a possible 3-month message. And urgently, according to the Daily Record's report. From there, of course, it had to be accepted by Fraser and reccommended in his report to the Justice Secretary. And from there, Secretary MacAskill had to make the decision that he alone claims responsibility for - to release what he considered to be a man responsible for the murder of 270 souls.
Libya's payments to Karol Sikora do little to explain any of that. Other interests must be considered to get even the faintest understanding of how compassionate release was leveraged here. Looming above all considerations, I suspect, was Megrahi's second appeal and its ominous threat to the Scottish Justice system. Perhaps a magic ticket like Dr. Fraser proposed, with strings attached (or rather implied) by that system's guardian, Mr. MacAskill, could be used as the lever to pry that appeal away from its rightful owner. If one also considers the urgency of death some months off, and a conspicuously stalled appeal process, stretching out like a sunset shadow well past the grave, it becomes clear just how absolutely ripe the situation was to exploit this way. As Rolfe puts it:
If it was actually possible to infect someone with prostate cancer, I'd suspect Kenny MacAskill (or his predecessor, since the diagnosis was actually made in 2008) of doing just that. It's the most convenient diagnosis since Socrates swallowed the hemlock.---
Is Schumer 'Shrooming? Return Megrahi to Jail?
July 13 2010
In the unfolding brouhaha over some nonsense spouted by quack doctor Karol Sikora, one headline that popped up: U.S. senators demand Lockerbie bomber is sent back to jail. Nothing in the article actually said that, but it mentioned the activities of four US Senators: Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez, and Kirsten Gilibrand - all four of the Senators from New York and New Jersey, all Democrat, all united in fury to hear some stuff.
They wrote a letter to the UK's ambassador in Washington, Nigel Scheinwald, who said he'd pass on their questions to the proper Scottish authorities, who would answer. After being denied by those officials, Mr. Schumer and Menendez got fed up and just yesterday made an open call for just what that headline said. Press Release from the office of Senator Schumer:
Dear Mr.Schumer and Mr. Menendez (and/or Lautenberg, Gilibrand, others):
Oh boy, guys, the wrongness is just so thick with this headline and with the text beneath it ... where to begin? Well, most glaringly, as always, you neglect completely to consider the mountains of available evidence that Megrahi was framed by your own government. Loyalty to on high be damned; if you care about the families and justice, you know you'd look into even a slight chance that we got the wrong man. If the real killer of your constituents' relatives may still be at large in, for example, Reston VA, maybe with his kids attending the same school as some younger PA103 relatives, you'd want to know. If witnesses were paid millions and still never really made an identification, wouldn't that be pretty weak for the single direct connection to the bomb? What if there were legitimate concerns that at least two important pieces of physical evidence were planted? There's well more than a slight chance of these and other possibilities, and you show no sign of caring in the least. Can either of you explain this?
Next, "Reports" of a ten year life span (it was "ten or even 20," by the way) is misleading. "Reports" sounds possibly medical, but really what's concerned you is news media repetition of a hypothetical musing from a man of little repute to begin with, Dr. Karol Sikora.
He said there was "always a chance" of this, but it is "unusual" and, by extension, highly unlikely. Megrahi has cancer of the pelvis now too, among other things, and no medicine but a morphine drip. That's a real-world sign of the end, compared to words from an apparent charlatan. The Senators have chosen, and have set about making it noisy.
Like so many, the Senators are badly confused in thinking Dr. Sikora, who was paid by Megrahi's Libyan team (I'm not sure by whom exactly), was the sole doctor who examined the prisoner. But that examination is mentioned here to bolster the irrelevant musing cited; Sikora knows Megrahi's health and says he'll live a decade. Like so many, you guys are using Sikora to debunk Sikora, besides confusing that loop with the actual release decision.
This has been suggested before by you, Mr. Schumer, in November 2009. Now you're back on it backed with Sikora's well-timed Fourth of July words, with Mr. Menendez alongside, and, near the end of the PR, it again looks like Sens. Lautenberg and Gilibrand signed the letter to State:
The overriding reasons given for the Obama administration to demand such a return trip are "for the families whose loved ones were murdered, for national security, and for fundamental justice." These are all excellent reasons to look into this confused mess of a release, but only after a thorough review of the original case. Sure, Megrahi decided to drop his own appeal, but why take that as a free ticket to avoid a review, unless you’re afraid of a review? I urge the Senators to pressure the UK and in fact Scotland itself, if they can be bothered, to revive the appeal themselves and look it over in the wide open. You wouldn’t fear that, would you, good Senators?
To Senator Chuck in particular: I know it can be frightening to confront the possibility that you’ve been lied to and deceived by a conspiracy so huge. It’s okay to ask advice and draw on the courage of others. I suggest you ring up your "old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey." They’re imaginary, and so are another part of you, of course. But that kind of externalization can help you scrape up the courage to look long and hard at the facts that are available at, for example, this site.
- Caustic Logic, 13 July 2010
---
In the unfolding brouhaha over some nonsense spouted by quack doctor Karol Sikora, one headline that popped up: U.S. senators demand Lockerbie bomber is sent back to jail. Nothing in the article actually said that, but it mentioned the activities of four US Senators: Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez, and Kirsten Gilibrand - all four of the Senators from New York and New Jersey, all Democrat, all united in fury to hear some stuff.
They wrote a letter to the UK's ambassador in Washington, Nigel Scheinwald, who said he'd pass on their questions to the proper Scottish authorities, who would answer. After being denied by those officials, Mr. Schumer and Menendez got fed up and just yesterday made an open call for just what that headline said. Press Release from the office of Senator Schumer:
AFTER SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO REINVESTIGATE EARLY RELEASE OF LOCKERBIE BOMBER:http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=326309&
SCHUMER, MENENDEZ CALL ON STATE DEPARTMENT TO PRESSURE LONDON TO RETURN LOCKERBIE BOMBER TO PRISON; AL-MEGRAHI WAS GIVEN 'THREE MONTHS TO LIVE' - REPORTS SAY TERRORIST COULD LIVE ANOTHER TEN
Dear Mr.Schumer and Mr. Menendez (and/or Lautenberg, Gilibrand, others):
Oh boy, guys, the wrongness is just so thick with this headline and with the text beneath it ... where to begin? Well, most glaringly, as always, you neglect completely to consider the mountains of available evidence that Megrahi was framed by your own government. Loyalty to on high be damned; if you care about the families and justice, you know you'd look into even a slight chance that we got the wrong man. If the real killer of your constituents' relatives may still be at large in, for example, Reston VA, maybe with his kids attending the same school as some younger PA103 relatives, you'd want to know. If witnesses were paid millions and still never really made an identification, wouldn't that be pretty weak for the single direct connection to the bomb? What if there were legitimate concerns that at least two important pieces of physical evidence were planted? There's well more than a slight chance of these and other possibilities, and you show no sign of caring in the least. Can either of you explain this?
Next, "Reports" of a ten year life span (it was "ten or even 20," by the way) is misleading. "Reports" sounds possibly medical, but really what's concerned you is news media repetition of a hypothetical musing from a man of little repute to begin with, Dr. Karol Sikora.
Schumer and Menendez noted the release of al-Megrahi was predicated on his only have [sic] three months to live, yet the doctor who examined him now suggests the bomber of Pan Am flight 103 may well live for another ten years.
He said there was "always a chance" of this, but it is "unusual" and, by extension, highly unlikely. Megrahi has cancer of the pelvis now too, among other things, and no medicine but a morphine drip. That's a real-world sign of the end, compared to words from an apparent charlatan. The Senators have chosen, and have set about making it noisy.
Like so many, the Senators are badly confused in thinking Dr. Sikora, who was paid by Megrahi's Libyan team (I'm not sure by whom exactly), was the sole doctor who examined the prisoner. But that examination is mentioned here to bolster the irrelevant musing cited; Sikora knows Megrahi's health and says he'll live a decade. Like so many, you guys are using Sikora to debunk Sikora, besides confusing that loop with the actual release decision.
"[T]he Scottish government on Friday rejected reinvestigating al-Megrahi’s release, claiming due process had been followed and there was no further need to investigate the decision any further. The senators are demanding the US State Department pressure London to have him returned to prison immediately."
This has been suggested before by you, Mr. Schumer, in November 2009. Now you're back on it backed with Sikora's well-timed Fourth of July words, with Mr. Menendez alongside, and, near the end of the PR, it again looks like Sens. Lautenberg and Gilibrand signed the letter to State:
"In their letter to Secretary Clinton, Schumer, Menendez, Gillibrand, and Lauenberg stated the US Government must do everything in its power to pressure London to put a facilitate a return of this convicted mass murderer of 270 people, 189 of whom were Americans, to Scotland to serve out the remainder of his prison sentence."Wow. How far should this one go, guys? To the shores of Tripoli itself? Again, please recall that you are still strangely ignorant of the high likelihood that you're flat wrong and deceived about how PA 103 was destroyed. And please consider that before pushing this nonsense any further.
The overriding reasons given for the Obama administration to demand such a return trip are "for the families whose loved ones were murdered, for national security, and for fundamental justice." These are all excellent reasons to look into this confused mess of a release, but only after a thorough review of the original case. Sure, Megrahi decided to drop his own appeal, but why take that as a free ticket to avoid a review, unless you’re afraid of a review? I urge the Senators to pressure the UK and in fact Scotland itself, if they can be bothered, to revive the appeal themselves and look it over in the wide open. You wouldn’t fear that, would you, good Senators?
"The families of the 270 people who were murdered have already once lived through an unthinkable, real-life horror story. It’s as if they now are being forced to live through a sequel. They believed that justice had found the man who killed their loved ones, onlyWith the edits above I could agree with you guys here. The bandage placed over their wound had to come off, and the justice-starved scar was left raw and exposed again. To heal it right will require another painful re-living yet. You're helping stall that, you know. At the rate we're going, only their great-grandkids will finally get to know the truth. Please – you’ve become encrusted with the need to uphold an artificial status quo. Just step aside and stop prolonging the inevitable. Or, get involved in a useful way.to see thatthe system was riggedand that this terrorist is having the last laugh. This is outrageous and cruel."
To Senator Chuck in particular: I know it can be frightening to confront the possibility that you’ve been lied to and deceived by a conspiracy so huge. It’s okay to ask advice and draw on the courage of others. I suggest you ring up your "old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey." They’re imaginary, and so are another part of you, of course. But that kind of externalization can help you scrape up the courage to look long and hard at the facts that are available at, for example, this site.
- Caustic Logic, 13 July 2010
---
Some Background on Karol Sikora
July 12 2010
Form the moment I heard about Megrahi's magical three-months prognosis, I was a bit suspicious. His appeal was dropped, apparently due to confusion that was allowed to linger, to speed the process that call allowed. As the prognosis gets more and more wrong by the month, that feeling grows. A Dr. Karol Sikora was generally cited as the source of that assessment. Recently, he came out as saying he has no idea - Megrahi could live for ten or twenty years. He's embarrassed to have been wrong, but did nothing wrong.
Below is some information on Dr. Sikora gathered by my compatriot at the JREF Forum, Rolfe, who knows more than I and I'm grateful to her for putting this together. Commentary follows. (original link)
---
(I have memories of him as a well-respected expert, from many years ago. Either he has changed his approach as he became more senior, or I was mistaken in the first place.)
Look at his involvement in the case of Lisa Norris.
That is absolutely classic "hired gun" behaviour. Oh, you think the radiation overdose killed your little girl? Yes, I can go along with that, here's an expert witness report saying so. Then they get to the point where the experts from both sides confer to try to reach an agreement, and he realises he's not on solid ground at all. He revises his report to be less certain than it was originally, and the case collapses.
It's not really, consciously dishonest. It's unprofessional. It's an outlook that aligns itself too closely with the side of the dispute you're talking to, and fails to take a properly professional, unbiassed, disinterested view. I've seen it scores of times in the witness box, often from senior academics.
As y'all know, I'm a big fan of David Colquhoun. What David has to say about Karol is quite distressing.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2073
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1466
I happened across this lot after I'd posted my out-dated opinion about Karol Sikora being a respected expert. He may have been at one time. Now he's something else.
Which is actually fairly peripheral to the Megrahi affair. In that situation, all parties involved in the decision were aligned in their wishes. Libya wanted their human sacrifice home, being as they didn't believe Lockerbie was a Libyan operation in the first place and had only agreed to pay compensation for political advantage. The Westminster government wanted him home to get rid of this perennial bump in the road that was complicating their oil deals. And the Holyrood government wanted him home so they could get that appeal stopped. Having Megrahi die in a Scottish jail was also politically unacceptable, as it would have done lasting damage to UK/Middle Eastern relations.
In that situation, just who was paying whom to come up with an agreeable opinion really isn't all that important.
Rolfe.
---
Form the moment I heard about Megrahi's magical three-months prognosis, I was a bit suspicious. His appeal was dropped, apparently due to confusion that was allowed to linger, to speed the process that call allowed. As the prognosis gets more and more wrong by the month, that feeling grows. A Dr. Karol Sikora was generally cited as the source of that assessment. Recently, he came out as saying he has no idea - Megrahi could live for ten or twenty years. He's embarrassed to have been wrong, but did nothing wrong.
Below is some information on Dr. Sikora gathered by my compatriot at the JREF Forum, Rolfe, who knows more than I and I'm grateful to her for putting this together. Commentary follows. (original link)
---
(I have memories of him as a well-respected expert, from many years ago. Either he has changed his approach as he became more senior, or I was mistaken in the first place.)
Look at his involvement in the case of Lisa Norris.
Miss Norris was given 58% too much radiation during her treatment at the Beatson and died at her family home on 18 October 2006.
An internal inquiry following her death found that she had died from her tumour and not from the overdose.
However, that was disputed by an independent report from one of the country's top cancer experts. [....]
Miss Norris's father, Ken, did not want to comment directly on the proceedings.
But his lawyer, Cameron Fyfe, said: "We had a report from Professor Sikora, an expert in oncology, who confirmed that Lisa would probably have survived had it not been for the overdose.
"After further inquiry the professor revised his report to say it was a possibility, not a probability.
"Proof in Scots law is based on the balance of probabilities and that is not enough for the fiscal to proceed with the fatal accident inquiry.
"I think the family are disappointed that Professor Sikora was unable to adhere to his initial view but they accept that it was not appropriate for the FAI to proceed in these circumstances."
That is absolutely classic "hired gun" behaviour. Oh, you think the radiation overdose killed your little girl? Yes, I can go along with that, here's an expert witness report saying so. Then they get to the point where the experts from both sides confer to try to reach an agreement, and he realises he's not on solid ground at all. He revises his report to be less certain than it was originally, and the case collapses.
It's not really, consciously dishonest. It's unprofessional. It's an outlook that aligns itself too closely with the side of the dispute you're talking to, and fails to take a properly professional, unbiassed, disinterested view. I've seen it scores of times in the witness box, often from senior academics.
As y'all know, I'm a big fan of David Colquhoun. What David has to say about Karol is quite distressing.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2073
CRC Public Relations is a conservative PR firm previously known as Creative Response Concepts. ‘Creative’ appears to mean ‘lying’, but I guess that is what PR is all about.
Disgracefully, Karol Sikora, a former oncologist at the Hammersmith Hospital, supported CPR on US television. See Karol Sikora makes a fool of himself at NHSblogdoctor.
“Karol Sikora had been duped by a slick American businessman into providing a “rent-a-quote” service for a notorious right-wing American organisation”
Sikora now works for the UK’s only private university and a private cancer treatment company. He is also famous for claiming, falsely, to be a professor at Imperial College (he has an honorary contract with the Imperial College Hospital Trust but nothing with the University). And for promoting a load of nonsense about alternative medicine (a lot more on that coming up shortly).
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1466
Karol Sikora, formerly an oncologist at the Hammersmith Hospital, is now Dean of Medicine at the University of Buckingham (the UK’s only private university). He is also medical director at CancerPartners UK, a private cancer company.
He recently shot to fame when he appeared in a commercial in the USA sponsored by “Conservatives for Patients’ Rights”, to pour scorn on the NHS, and to act as an advocate for the USA’s present health system. A very curious performance. Very curious indeed.
His attitude to quackery is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. One was somewhat alarmed to see him sponsoring a course at what was, at first, called the British College of Integrated Medicine, and has now been renamed the Faculty of Integrated Medicine That grand title makes it sound like part of a university. It isn’t.
The alarm was as result of the alliance with Dr Rosy Daniel (who promotes an untested herbal conconction, Carctol, for ‘healing’ cancer) and Dr Mark Atkinson (a supplement salesman who has also promoted the Qlink pendant. The Qlink pendant is a simple and obvious fraud designed to exploit paranoia about WiFi killing you.
The first list of speakers on the proposed diploma in Integrated Medicine was an unholy alliance of outright quacks and commercial interests. It turned out that, although Karol Sikora is sponsoring the course, he knew nothing about the speakers. I did and when I pointed this out to Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of Buckingham, he immediately removed Rosy Daniel from directing the Diploma. At the moment the course is being revamped entirely by Andrew Miles. There is hope that he’ll do a better job. It has not yet been validated by the University of Buckingham. Watch this space for developments.
Stop press It is reported in the Guardian that Professor Sikora has been describing his previous job at Imperial College with less than perfect accuracy. Oh dear. More developments in the follow-up.
I happened across this lot after I'd posted my out-dated opinion about Karol Sikora being a respected expert. He may have been at one time. Now he's something else.
Which is actually fairly peripheral to the Megrahi affair. In that situation, all parties involved in the decision were aligned in their wishes. Libya wanted their human sacrifice home, being as they didn't believe Lockerbie was a Libyan operation in the first place and had only agreed to pay compensation for political advantage. The Westminster government wanted him home to get rid of this perennial bump in the road that was complicating their oil deals. And the Holyrood government wanted him home so they could get that appeal stopped. Having Megrahi die in a Scottish jail was also politically unacceptable, as it would have done lasting damage to UK/Middle Eastern relations.
In that situation, just who was paying whom to come up with an agreeable opinion really isn't all that important.
Rolfe.
---
Megrahi's Three-Month Prognosis
Caustic Logic
April 4 2010
last update July 12
I wanted to bump this old aimless post as a spot to sort out details on Megrahi's prognosis, with links to other posts on specific aspects.
- Confusion over who was responsible for the prognosis are addressed here: Dr.Karol Sikora does appear to be the "one doctor" who was willing to say three months.
- Dr. Karol Sikora has some troubling suggestions of being a "hired gun" and his findings being suspect. He was paid by Libyan clients in mid-2009 when he reached the prognosis he understood them to want. That's clearly troubling from a standpoint of professional ethics.
- Then Dr. Sikora was unfortunately quoted July 4 ruminating that hypothetically, "there was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years . . . But it's very unusual." It was July4. "British Petroleum's" oil was/is still gushing into the Gulf. BP had also lobbied for Megrahi's release. Somehow...the story resonnated and sparked a s**tstorm of fury and indignation and words.
- Four senators wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald July 8, asking for an investigation. Rebuked, they called on the State Department July 12 to press for Megrahi to be put back in jail.
---
Original Test, April 4
The 21-year old Lockerbie case has enjoyed an increased profile over the last six months, and that has of course been due to the early release, last August, of convicted conspirator Abdelbaset al Megrahi. Have no doubt, innocent though he surely is, the man was legally convicted and stands legally guilty (right?), and was released with that assumption, based on something disbelievingly quoted in quotes as, quote, "compassion." Meaning, to so many minds, some Scottish (?) greed for Libyan oil, or something.
But in fact, as they know, the compassionate release was based on al Megrahi's prognosis of terminal prostate cancer, set to kill him within three months. Scottish law demands a prisoner with three months or less to live should be allowed to die at home - compassion, if not for the prisoner, than for his innocent family. People were angered immediately that mr. Megrahi should be given that privelege when the people he was convicted of killing recieved no such "compassion." And as three months stretched to four, five, six, and now seven, with conflicting reports and opinions on his life expectancy from here, well, people might start wondering if he could be taken back to jail...
I'm no expert on the relevant laws, nor on the medical angle, nor on oil negotiations where Libya demanded its terrorist back. So I won't even try for an eludicating post on this for the moment. Rather, I'm hoping this time for comments from other readers. It's been a hot issue at Professor Robert Black's blog The Lockerbie Case recently. But for my own part, to start or in case no one else comments here...
I understand there is some room for improved condition with family support and a home environment that would turn three months into something longer. But it's starting to push that envelope as well, and as I've said elsewhere, I can also see the logic of manipulating the science to fit a political agenda. I of course see it less as trading terroritst for oil as trading a framed patsy home-death for the dropping of his appeal. After he released his appeal documents to the court of public opinion instead, it became confusing why he dropped it with such an amazing case and a third try at clearing his name - unless he knew it was required in order to leave.
And then there are the valid question about the diagnosis. Perhaps these two questions of political medicine and perplexing surrender answer each other?
The Scottish Governments deny any connection to the release aside from the 3-month prognosis - it was decided on the medical records only. To my knowledg no one had specified if the diagnosis itself (or rather its acceptance) was the result of any such deals ...
There are numerous related issues here - Megrahi's secret meeting with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the medical details of the diagnosis, the (still?) unnamed doctor originating the opinion, the dropping of Megrahi's appeal so soon after the prognosis, the relation between Prisoner Transfer Agreements, compassionate release, standing appeals, Megrahi's understanding and his legal team's maneuvers, and, yes, UK political concerns, Libyan relations, oil and business deals, etc. Here are some excellent insights on the PTA phase of talks from Professor Black, from his own dealing between Libya and the UK government.
Thoughts?
April 4 2010
last update July 12
I wanted to bump this old aimless post as a spot to sort out details on Megrahi's prognosis, with links to other posts on specific aspects.
- Confusion over who was responsible for the prognosis are addressed here: Dr.Karol Sikora does appear to be the "one doctor" who was willing to say three months.
- Dr. Karol Sikora has some troubling suggestions of being a "hired gun" and his findings being suspect. He was paid by Libyan clients in mid-2009 when he reached the prognosis he understood them to want. That's clearly troubling from a standpoint of professional ethics.
- Then Dr. Sikora was unfortunately quoted July 4 ruminating that hypothetically, "there was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years . . . But it's very unusual." It was July4. "British Petroleum's" oil was/is still gushing into the Gulf. BP had also lobbied for Megrahi's release. Somehow...the story resonnated and sparked a s**tstorm of fury and indignation and words.
- Four senators wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald July 8, asking for an investigation. Rebuked, they called on the State Department July 12 to press for Megrahi to be put back in jail.
---
Original Test, April 4
The 21-year old Lockerbie case has enjoyed an increased profile over the last six months, and that has of course been due to the early release, last August, of convicted conspirator Abdelbaset al Megrahi. Have no doubt, innocent though he surely is, the man was legally convicted and stands legally guilty (right?), and was released with that assumption, based on something disbelievingly quoted in quotes as, quote, "compassion." Meaning, to so many minds, some Scottish (?) greed for Libyan oil, or something.
But in fact, as they know, the compassionate release was based on al Megrahi's prognosis of terminal prostate cancer, set to kill him within three months. Scottish law demands a prisoner with three months or less to live should be allowed to die at home - compassion, if not for the prisoner, than for his innocent family. People were angered immediately that mr. Megrahi should be given that privelege when the people he was convicted of killing recieved no such "compassion." And as three months stretched to four, five, six, and now seven, with conflicting reports and opinions on his life expectancy from here, well, people might start wondering if he could be taken back to jail...
I'm no expert on the relevant laws, nor on the medical angle, nor on oil negotiations where Libya demanded its terrorist back. So I won't even try for an eludicating post on this for the moment. Rather, I'm hoping this time for comments from other readers. It's been a hot issue at Professor Robert Black's blog The Lockerbie Case recently. But for my own part, to start or in case no one else comments here...
I understand there is some room for improved condition with family support and a home environment that would turn three months into something longer. But it's starting to push that envelope as well, and as I've said elsewhere, I can also see the logic of manipulating the science to fit a political agenda. I of course see it less as trading terroritst for oil as trading a framed patsy home-death for the dropping of his appeal. After he released his appeal documents to the court of public opinion instead, it became confusing why he dropped it with such an amazing case and a third try at clearing his name - unless he knew it was required in order to leave.
And then there are the valid question about the diagnosis. Perhaps these two questions of political medicine and perplexing surrender answer each other?
The Scottish Governments deny any connection to the release aside from the 3-month prognosis - it was decided on the medical records only. To my knowledg no one had specified if the diagnosis itself (or rather its acceptance) was the result of any such deals ...
There are numerous related issues here - Megrahi's secret meeting with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the medical details of the diagnosis, the (still?) unnamed doctor originating the opinion, the dropping of Megrahi's appeal so soon after the prognosis, the relation between Prisoner Transfer Agreements, compassionate release, standing appeals, Megrahi's understanding and his legal team's maneuvers, and, yes, UK political concerns, Libyan relations, oil and business deals, etc. Here are some excellent insights on the PTA phase of talks from Professor Black, from his own dealing between Libya and the UK government.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
