User talk:Crime researcher

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Talk pages User scripts

ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you just created this sub-category. I notice that there is no such subcat for 2008, 2007, 2006 or 2005 (that's as far back as I have checked)...is there consensus for the creation of such subcat? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a rule that states or implies that similar categories for previous years must exist in order to create a category for the current year, nor that consensus needs to be obtained prior to the creation of a category. It seems to me to be a good idea to create this subcat, and that Murder in 2008, Murder in 2007 etc. should also be created. Crime researcher (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply to reverting inflammatory, unconstructive comments. See

User talk:Cyberfox1954, who is the editor repeatedly, wrongly adding unsubstantiated comments congratulating Megrahi and claiming he is innocent. Crime researcher (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That is your opinion, see WP:POV. I have opened a discussion and you continually revert it without engaging in it. This is not your article and others are entitled to discuss it. What unsunstantiated comments are you referring to exactly? Oh, you mean the fact that just about everyone in the UK believes him to be innocent and a scape-goat of US foreign policy. Do you want me to direct you to these facts? If you continue to prevent a proper discussion in the Talk Page I will have to report you for vandalism. --

talk) 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:TALK and the talkheader give guidelines for what kind of things should be on the page. Talk pages are for improving articles; congratulating people cannot do that. You repeatedly claim he is innocent. If you have proof of that, add some evidence to the article. Most people in the UK do not believe he is innocent, only a small minority do. If you claim he didn't do it, who do you think did, and how do you explain the evidence against Megrahi? Submit your evidence to the article and / or talk page; please do that without congratulating anyone. Crime researcher (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If, as you claim, Megrahi had nothing to do with it, who do you claim did do it, and why would Megrahi have been chosen as a scapegoat? If evidence has been uncovered which proves him innocent, can you show us it, or are you saying it hasn't been revealed to the media or the public? If the latter, how can you know there is evidence that would have cleared him? If what you say is true, why would Megrahi choose to abandon his appeal, and not explain what he did in December 1988, why he was where he was, and how the evidence leading to him could have been on the exploded plane? It took years and a great deal of time and effort to put him on trial and convict him. If the authorities (of any country) wanted to just convict anyone, simply to make the case appear solved, surely they would have chosen someone easy to 'fit up', not someone as educated, and fairly well-off as Megrahi, who was protected by Libya for years before he could be brought to trial. Crime researcher (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister. The deal, in June 2007, led to the first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya. You do know that Libya offered up two scape goats just to have the sanctions against them removed irrespective of who carried out the bombing.[1] --

talk) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If there was a conspiracy between the UK, US and Libya, in order to convict two men, why was only one convicted, and why did it take so many years, if Libya was keen to have the case closed in order to have sanctions revoked? Crime researcher (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Who did it?" - You asked the same questions on the talk page. I think they are a bit misguided. It is reasonable to argue that Al Megrahi did not get a fair trial, and that it was politics and not justice that he was convicted, without knowing who in fact did it.

"Why only one?" - That was a funny joke by the Scottish judges. Everybody could see that this person was convicted on essentially no evidence at all, and also that precisely the same essentially no evidence at all was present against the other. UK and US wanted both in prison. The Scottish judges said that now all is so uncertain it is better with only one possibly innocent man in prison, and they released the man against whom the evidence was most obviously fake. This was a big surprise, since the accusation was that they had collaborated.

"Why did it take many years?" - I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Many years from what to what? 213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point about why only one was convicted is that if there were an agreement between the US, UK and Libya to fix things so that two innocent people were convicted (which is what many people who claim Megrahi is innocent say), then why weren't both convicted? If there was an agreement between all authorities concerned that two were convicted, strong evidence would have been fabricated; there would be no way that one would have been acquitted. If governments conspiring with each other only required one scapegoat; it would be a pointless, embarrassing waste of time and resources to try and acquit another. Crime researcher (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So many years between the bombing and Megrahi's conviction - it was well over a decade. What is being claimed by those on the Megrahi article and talk page is that Libya quickly put up two scapegoats to get the convictions, so that sanctions would be revoked. Well, it was far from quick, it was an unreasonably long process, in which Gaddafi was reluctant to hand over any citizen of his, no matter whether they were guilty or not. If Gaddafi wanted to have sanctions lifted as soon as possible, he would have handed over Megrahi and the others involved in the bombing, years earlier. Having Megrahi convicted was a long, slow struggle, not the quick, clean-cut process that an international conspiracy to quickly convict scapegoats would be. Crime researcher (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life is not so simple. UK and US blamed Libya for Lockerbie, and wanted Libya to surrender the suspects and pay damages, and got a UN Security Council resolution requiring this. Gaddafi did not comply, and UK and US asked the UNSC to impose sanctions, and this happened. At first Libya did not worry too much about these sanctions, but the country is not very rich, and when its trade stopped the economic situation got worse rather quickly. After some years Gaddafi concluded that it was better for his people if he swallowed his pride, bowed for the demands, delivered the suspects, paid damages and got the sanctions lifted. The detailed story is long and complicated - research for yourself - Gaddafi did not trust the West and was afraid of an outcome where he surrendered two people and paid and still the sanctions were not lifted. Kofi Annan and Mandela played a role in the negotiations. So your many years are the years that Libya gets poorer and poorer until it feels it has to give in. Concerning the trial: the Scottish judges were under heavy pressure but nevertheless more or less honest. Of course they only had the facts the prosecution provided them with, especially since the defense withdrew, but the facts against number two were so obviously fake that they concluded not guilty for him. It is better to avoid the word conspiracy. This is politics, and a great many people are involved, each with own goals. You ask about the evidence. I think there is precisely one piece of evidence: it is said that the defendent bought the clothes in which later the bomb was wrapped, and the shopkeeper recognized him as the customer who, long ago, had bought precisely these clothes. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that all the victims families in the USA want is a scapegoat, any scapegoat, to be imprisoned to ease their sorrow. This is not justice and certainly not the way we do justice in the UK. It is clear that Libya offered up the two suspects in order to appease a baying State. What they didn't expect however was a conviction for something they didn't do. If the evidence was so strong, why did Megrahi's co-accused walk? --

talk) 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The evidence against the acquitted Libyan was too weak for him to be convicted. The evidence against Megrahi was only just about enough to convict him. That quite often happens in criminal trials. If, as some claim, neither of the two tried were involved in the bombing, how was there evidence against them? If the answer to that is that evidence was fabricated, then why fabricate evidence that is not substantial enough to convict both? The governments of the US, UK and Libya could have faked some really compelling evidence had they chosen to do so, if they wanted to be sure of convictions. If Libya was willing to offer scapegoats, why give Megrahi, an intelligent, educated man that held high-ranking positions? Surely they would have offered up idiots that were of no use to Libya, not someone like Megrahi, whom Gaddafi clearly likes and has valued since before the bombing. Crime researcher (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not a case of the investigators picking Megrahi? He just happened to be well connected and to Gaddafi. The evidence you talk of is the worst circumstantial evidence you could ever get. Why go to all the bother of extraditing the two accused if the evidence was rubbish in the first place? No, the whole thing stinks of conspiracy and cover up.

If they had been tried under a sensible system like in the rest of the UK or the USA, then Megrahi would also have been acquitted. You must understand that the Scots system has received much ridiule for the majority verdict and not proven rulings. In a normal Scottish court you can be convicted if 8 jurors decide you are guilty and the other 7 (yes, 15 in total!) have gone to sleep....JUSTICE or what. Personally, I call it a bloody joke. I know that it was 3 judges who made the decision but was it unnimous? --

As the bomb exploded over Scotland, and crashed there, the trial was rightly conducted under Scottish law. How does weak evidence point to Megrahi being fitted up? It could point toward careful planning and him and / or his co-conspirators destroying much of what could have been used against him. There was plenty of time to fake compelling evidence if there had been an international conspiracy to do so. You suggested that Iran did the Lockerbie bombing, but there isn't evidence for that. Iran had motive and means, but so did a few other countries. Why are you so sure that Megrahi is innocent? What do you believe he was doing in 1988, and how do you explain the evidence that was presented against him? Crime researcher (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been sockpuppet of Information yes (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned , all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

— Jake Wartenberg 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]