Something I forgot to mention, which could be worth pondering, is why there was no jury at al-Megrahi's trial. Could it be that the authorities realised that any ordinary panel of jurors would look at the evidence proffered and say to themselves, This does not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and refuse to convict. Even if the jury returned a verdict of Not Proven al-Megrahi would have had to be released, and that verdict would have caused as much outcry as the eventual release of the man to spend his last days with his loved ones.

The panel of judges had no such scruples.

But if you cannot prove the man is guilty, you should not imprison him - unless, that is, you are conducting a show trial.

This point was utterly lost on the Appeal Judges ... but when you realise that they were the same judges who heard the trial at first instance, it is not entirely surprising. What were the odds of them over-ruling themselves?

It is worth pointing out that many of the British victims' relatives are not protesting against al-Megrahi's release, because they do not believe in his guilt. They prefer the theory that the bomb was planted by Abu Talb, a Palestinian terrorist, and that is where the investigators should be looking ... rather than paying - so it was alleged - a simple-minded shopkeeper a couple of million pounds to testify against one of the suspects identified by British/American investigators (the other of whom turned out to be able to prove he was in Scandinavia at the time). However, his incontestable innocence did not help his co-accused, as someone, preferably a Libyan, so Gadaffi could be made to pay compensation - who would take the fall.

$3 billion. That's how much it costs to buy off the US Army from invading you!