(NOTE : This is a comment I posted a few minutes ago on a Huffington Post article, and there was an option to post it directly to Blogger. Given that what appears offers very little clue to the fact that it's a comment from elsewhere, I'm not sure I'll be trying this again!)
After all this time, I genuinely cannot believe I am reading yet another article based on so much ignorance. How many times do the Scottish government have to set the record straight before the message finally gets home? Let's take it in turn...
"Dr. Sikora quickly backtracked from his latest calculations, but that was only after it became known he was picked by Libyan officials..."
Incorrect. It's been known since last year that Sikora was paid by the Libyans, a fact which isn't terribly important given that his diagnosis played no part whatsoever in the decision to release Megrahi. And, as it happens, he didn't actually backtrack on his comments about the possibility of Megrahi surviving ten years - he simply clarified them for the benefit of a media that seemed determined to misconstrue his meaning.
"a Scottish doctor might have a different diagnosis than one from Libya..."
Just as well, then, that the only diagnoses that were taken into account were from Scottish doctors.
"But what would the families of the Lockerbie dead say about what happened?"
For starters, they would disagree sharply with each other. The majority of British families supported Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds, and many of them have severe doubts about Megrahi's guilt - understandable given the SCCRC report that referred Megrahi's case back to the Court of Appeal. That appeal would have started last autumn had it not been for Megrahi's illness, and might well have cleared him by now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost