"

 Bias? 

It seems a little weighted towards Al-Megrahi being wrongly convicted, just does not read neutral to me. I've subsequently tagged the article, to see if anyone could take a look and see if they can do anything about it. Cheers.   

Well, according to the article:

...the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred...

So, giving some considerable weight to doubts about his guilt would be justified.   

That is true, but it stands that he is a convicted mass murderer who took the lives of hundreds of people. To have the majority of the article weighted towards his alleged innocence/appeals etc seems disproportionately biased in his favour. While I know that there is obviously a distinct article on the bombing, it doesn't quite seem appropriate that the article about the guilty party is leaning heavily towards innocence. In light of the dropping of the appeal, it seems somewhat unlikely that he will be exhonerated, so it's not even as if Megrahi's status, in a legal sense, will alter (in terms of innocent vs guilty, rather than incarcerated vs free). I'm not sure what to do to alter the article, which is why I tagged it, to see if anyone else had any ideas. I accept entirely what you're saying, and I even agree, I just, like I said, find that focus disproportionate.   

This legal speak is very cautious. ""A miscarriage of justice could have occurred"" means in reality that it is practically certain that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. So, he is convicted, yes, but a mass murderer, no, the guilty party, no, most likely not. Concerning the future, nobody knows, but there remains a strong pressure to reopen the case.213.84.53.62  

My understanding of the legal status is that ""A miscarriage of justice could have occurred"" does not, by any stretch, mean that the occurrence of such a miscarriage is ""practically certain.""  If you have evidence to that effect, I would be happy to see it.  It only means that there is sufficient reason to justify the time and expense of further investigation.  We should also be wary of political pressures on the relevant actors in this case, coming from both directions, and to me this diminishes the weight of several quotations in favor of al-Megrahi; there was significant pressure on law enforcement agencies to put someone away for the Lockerbie bombing, and just as surely there was just as much pressure on Libya and its friends to exonerate him, due to the sanctions and damage to international reputation and etc.  This is why I think less weight should be given to quotations and more weight to the hard evidence. 

Perhaps the article would read a little less biased if it actually included some of the relevant points from the original case against him? It doesn't really tell a reader why he was convicted in the first place.-12.70.92.162  

I absolutely agree.  First, the weight of the evidence in favor of a conviction should be given.  The page says nothing about what he is accused of doing and why the judges reached the conclusion they did.  Second, even though reasons have been given to doubt the conviction, responses to those reasons should also be given.  Presumably those who remain convinced of al-Megrahi's guilt, especially those who were involved in the initial trial, have offered responses to the allegations of a miscarriage of justice.  Al-Megrahi was convicted; this much is fact.  Voices should be heard that believe the conviction was wrong, and voices should be heard that believe it was right.  It is partly the absence of this secondary response that gives the article a prejudiced feel to me.  

Having read the entire article, I must agree with Sky83 and 12.70.92.162. How many times is the phrase ""miscarriage of justice"" used here? There is actually very little information provided to show a miscarriage of justice took place (One of Hans Koechler's reason for doubting the validity of the conviction: ""A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005)."" [http:/