News Flash!!! Air India Bombers NOT GUILTY!!

[Gary]

The local news has just reported that the accused bombers of Air India
Flight 182 have been found Not Guilty by a judge in Vancouver BC Canada!

Ripudaman Singh Malik age 58 and Ajaib Singh Bagri age 55 were found not
guilty in the Bombing of Air India flight 182 that crashed into the Atlantic
Ocean just off the coast of Ireland on June 23 1985. Killing 329 people many
of them women and childeren!

They were also found not guilty in the death of two baggage handlers at
Tokyo's Narita Airport in Japan as the handlers where transfering luggage
from a CP Air Flight that originated in Vanvouver to a Air India that was
waiting at Narita!

Ripudaman Malik is a millionare who socializes with India's consul-gerneral
in vancouver,
Ajaib Bagri is a supposed sawmill worker.

I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20 years
and over $200 million of my tax dollars to finaly bring someone to trial,
only to have them be set free!!

Take it as you will but my opinion is this!!!

-You can get away with mass murder in canada if you have lots and lots of
money!
-If you are a member of a terroist organization you can get away with mass
murder!
-The RCMP and CSIS are completely incompetant when dealing with organized
crime or terrorist cells!
-If you socialize with high ranking goverment officials in canada you become
omnipotent!

Welcome to Canada, a terrorist friendly country!


DAMN I AM MAD!!!!!

[Stefan]

Gary wrote:

> Take it as you will but my opinion is this!!!
>
> -You can get away with mass murder in canada if you have lots and lots of

There's also another possibility: They were simply innocent (and have
spent four years in prison for nothing). Or what do you know that the
judge didn't?

Stefan

[Gary]

That is entirely true and possible. However I have a feeling that justice
was not served and that the defence lawyers are paid much more money than
our crown prosecutors.
This was brought up in the news yesterday about the pay difference between
defence and prosectution lawyers and this outcome would be possible!
I really don't know much about what evidence was brought up in court and the
media was blocked out. I was angry and frustrated and had to vent!

The facts are that it has taken almost 20 years and $200 million to bring
this to trial
These two accused have been under investigation for many years for the
bombing. I remember reading about these two in the news many years ago.

Someone is responsible for bringing that plane down and killing all the
passangers and crew. As well as the two workers in Japan, and if it is not
these two then who???? and how much more time and money is it going to take
to find and jail those responsible??

There used to be a saying "THE MOUNTIES ALWAY GET THIER MAN"
Any of you remember the cartoon Bullwinkle and Rocky? Remember Constable
Dudley Doright? Well that sums up our RCMP
I am starting to lose faith in not only our judicial system but in the
investigative practices of our police forces!

I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
cumon!!!! after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
would have been a open and shut case!





"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Gary wrote:
>
> > Take it as you will but my opinion is this!!!
> >
> > -You can get away with mass murder in canada if you have lots and lots
of
>
> There's also another possibility: They were simply innocent (and have
> spent four years in prison for nothing). Or what do you know that the
> judge didn't?
>
> Stefan

[Ben Hallert]

Your messages seem to imply that it's obvious that they are guilty. It
might be prudent to wait a little to hear why they were found innocent.
If they didn't do it, then they shouldn't be convicted. I have no
knowledge about whether they did it or not, and I suspect you don't
either.

I'm a bit leary of the bloodthirstiness I read. It might be my
imagination, but it seems to me that I might interpret your message as
saying 'considering the time and money spent, they should have been
convicted because _somebody_ must pay, whether or not they did it.' If
I am in error, I apologize for the insinuation, but that's how I
interpreted it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary" > wrote in message
news:rP1_d.701509$8l.360449@pd7tw1no...
> [...]
> I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
> cumon!!!! after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
> would have been a open and shut case!

By definition, a case that takes 20 years and $200 million to try is NOT
"open and shut".

Furthermore, to insist that the length or cost of a trial should somehow
imply a guilty verdict at the end is just stupid. If the length or cost of
a trial was in any way an indicator of what the final judgment should be, we
could simply set a threshold for time and/or cost and say that any trial
that exceeds that threshold will automatically return a guilty verdict.

The cost in time and money for a trial reflects the complexity of the case,
the seriousness of the offense, and amount of evidence, and similar issues.
It's not a metric that's useful for determining guilt or innocence.

Basically, your entire premise is just plain dumb. Sorry, no offense
intended. It's just that you're not being rational.

By the way, it's a well-known established fact of most Western justice
systems (Canadas included) that not every guilty party is found guilty in
court. Even if the defendents in this case are guilty (and so far you've
failed to show you have any reason to believe they are), there is still the
possibility that they would *legitimately* be found not guilty. There are
good reasons for our justice systems being designed this way, and anyone who
expects a 100% conviction rate of guilty parties has simply set themselves
up for disappointment.

As far as the Mounties "we always get our man" claim, the Mounties don't try
the case, and that statement has nothing to do with whether a conviction
happens or not. It's not even a legally binding claim, but if it were, it
would apply only to the initial criminal investigations and arrests.

You're welcome to vent, but don't be surprised when people point out how
foolish your venting is.

Pete

[Icebound]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> news:rP1_d.701509$8l.360449@pd7tw1no...
>> [...]
>> I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
>> cumon!!!! after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
>> would have been a open and shut case!
>
> By definition, a case that takes 20 years and $200 million to try is NOT
> "open and shut".
>
....snip...
> Basically, your entire premise is just plain dumb. Sorry, no offense
> intended. It's just that you're not being rational.
> ....snip...
> By the way, it's a well-known established fact of most Western justice
> systems (Canadas included) that not every guilty party is found guilty in
> court.

Agreed.

The politicians who are lining up to criticize now, conveniently forgot that
they were the ones in power for the first 8 years of the investigation.

And no doubt the Secret Service may have screwed up, but there are lots of
Democratic countries where the Secret Services have been known to screw up
:-)

[Ron McKinnon]

"Gary" > wrote in message
news:rP1_d.701509$8l.360449@pd7tw1no...
> That is entirely true and possible. However I have a feeling that justice
> was not served and that the defence lawyers are paid much more money
> than our crown prosecutors.

Yet you point out later that more than $200 million was spent on this.
How does *that* stack up against the money paid to the defence??

> This was brought up in the news yesterday about the pay difference
> between defence and prosectution lawyers and this outcome would
> be possible!

This outcome is *supposed* to be possible, regardless of any alleged pay
difference between the lawyers involved, or the effort and expense of
the investigation and trial. If it's not a possible outcome, there's no
point
to the trial.

> I really don't know much about what evidence was brought up in court
> and the media was blocked out. I was angry and frustrated and had to vent!

This is a telling fact. Given that you "don't know much about what evidence
was brought up in court" your above noted 'feeling', and your 'anger
and frustation', with regard to these defendants at least, is misplaced.

> The facts are that it has taken almost 20 years and $200 million to bring
> this to trial These two accused have been under investigation for many
> years
> for the bombing. I remember reading about these two in the news many
> years ago.

Given that it has taken "almost 20 years and $200 million to bring this to
trial"
and that "these two accused have been under investigation for many years"
and given all that, and we have the now further established fact that the
Crown was not able to adequately prove their case, it seems to me you
ought to take the attitude that a) the Crown mishandled the case, or b)
there
was just insufficient legitimate evidence to establish the accused as
guilty,
or c) the accused are in fact innocent.

> Someone is responsible for bringing that plane down and killing all
> the passangers and crew. As well as the two workers in Japan, and
> if it is not these two then who????

The objective of the trial was to determine if it was or was not *these*
accused. "If not these two, then who" is not a question relevant to the
trial nor its outcome.

> and how much more time and money is it going to take to find and jail
> those responsible??

It sounds like you're more concerned about the cost than that justice
was or was not done? You sound like you're pleading to move from
a "presumption of Innocence until proved Guilty" approach, to a
"presumption of guilt until we can find someone else we can presume
guilty approach."

> There used to be a saying "THE MOUNTIES ALWAY GET THIER
> MAN" Any of you remember the cartoon Bullwinkle and Rocky?
> Remember Constable Dudley Doright? Well that sums up our RCMP
> I am starting to lose faith in not only our judicial system but in the
> investigative practices of our police forces!

But here again I recall your earlier admission that you "don't know
much about what evidence was brought up in court". Hence I can
see no reason that this outcome should produce a lack of faith in
either the judicial system or the investigative practices of our police
forces.

The fact of a long, involved, expensive investigation, and twenty or
so years of trial by press, should in fact not produce a slam-dunk
verdict. The result *should* depend on the evidence put
forward, not upon how much it cost nor how long it took to develop
it.

If the Crown could not present a convincing case despite such long
and expensive preparation, the accused *should* be acquitted, and
we ourselves should hold them so.

> I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
> cumon!!!!

Perhaps that's not what you want, but it sounds like that's exactly what
you're asking for.

> after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
> would have been a open and shut case!

As above. The accused are entitled to a fair trial: To answer the
evidence and face their accusers. They did this. Perhaps the links
were too tenuous. Perhaps the Crown messed up. Perhaps the
Crown accused the wrong people. I don't know. But we know
that in the end they didn't prove their case. In the end, the accused
are established as Not Guilty of the charges brought against them.

[George Patterson]

Gary wrote:
>
> I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20 years
> and over $200 million of my tax dollars to finaly bring someone to trial,
> only to have them be set free!!

Unless there's something newfangled (like DNA evidence) in the case, if it took
nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost certainly didn't do it.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Gary]

Your right it does sound bloodthirsty and maybe I should take another look
at what I had written after I cool down a little.
If they are innocent then I am glad that the judge ruled in their favor.

Now the judge didn't say they where innocent but rather the prosecution was
unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

I am more upset I guess in the fact that all this time and money has been
spent possibly going after the wrong people. Like I said "someone placed a
bomb on those two planes". I guess I feel a little let down in the fact that
our goverment was unable to find the ones responsible and the familys of the
victims have not yet had closure in this case!

Maybe someday the guilty ones will come to trial and be scentenced for this
terrible crime!!

Of course there is the possibility that this will never be solved. Kinda
like the perfect murder isn't it?


"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Your messages seem to imply that it's obvious that they are guilty. It
> might be prudent to wait a little to hear why they were found innocent.
> If they didn't do it, then they shouldn't be convicted. I have no
> knowledge about whether they did it or not, and I suspect you don't
> either.
>
> I'm a bit leary of the bloodthirstiness I read. It might be my
> imagination, but it seems to me that I might interpret your message as
> saying 'considering the time and money spent, they should have been
> convicted because _somebody_ must pay, whether or not they did it.' If
> I am in error, I apologize for the insinuation, but that's how I
> interpreted it.
>

[Ron McKinnon]

"Gary" > wrote in message
news:Hj7_d.705670$8l.82730@pd7tw1no...
> Your right it does sound bloodthirsty and maybe I should take another
> look
> at what I had written after I cool down a little.
> If they are innocent then I am glad that the judge ruled in their favor.
>
> Now the judge didn't say they where innocent but rather the prosecution
> was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

The innocence of the accused was not a question before the court.
Only allegations as to their guilt, and it is only to these allegations
that the court was addressed.

And being unable to render a judgement of guilty, the judge doesn't
need to speak to the innocence of the accused. They were always
presumed innocent, and absent a verdict of guilty, the presumption
remains.

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:
> if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost
certainly didn't do it.

That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200
million on the trial, they must have been guilty."

It appears, according to reports this morning, that the investigation
may have been bungled by Canadian authorities from the beginning, and
the extreme cost and duration of the case may have been due to futile
attempts to overcome fatal blunders made early on.

Did they do it? We probably will never know, now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[private]

snip
> Of course there is the possibility that this will never be solved. Kinda
> like the perfect murder isn't it?
>
snip

I thought the definition of a perfect murder to be one where there is doubt
that a murder was commited.

I have read a lengthy report on the net (sorry but I cannot find the link)
which maintains that there have been several 747 fuselage failures in the
cargo door areas and while I do not believe everything I read, does make me
ask just how confident we can be that this tragedy was in fact caused by a
bomb. Is the bomb hypothesis confirmed by hard evidence or could the damage
have been caused by rapid depressurization? It has been reported that there
were crash survivors who perished in the cold water so the ac can not have
hit that hard.

Blue skies to all

[Gary]

My thoughts exactly!!

I have the same feeling that the Canadian investigators screwed up right
from the start!


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" wrote:
> > if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost
> certainly didn't do it.
>
> That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200
> million on the trial, they must have been guilty."
>
> It appears, according to reports this morning, that the investigation
> may have been bungled by Canadian authorities from the beginning, and
> the extreme cost and duration of the case may have been due to futile
> attempts to overcome fatal blunders made early on.
>
> Did they do it? We probably will never know, now.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[George Patterson]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "George Patterson" wrote:
> > if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost
> certainly didn't do it.
>
> That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200
> million on the trial, they must have been guilty."

That's not a rationalization. It's simply an observation made to me by judge
Richard Ray Ford of Tennessee. Basically, the fact is that, if the prosecution
has a case, it will be made fairly rapidly. Cases brought long after the
incident rarely are based on provable fact.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[tony roberts]

> Ripudaman Malik is a millionare who socializes with India's consul-gerneral
> in vancouver,
Why shouldn't he? Not that Indias consul-general in Vancouver is anyone
special - he's just a civil servant, and not a particularly senior one.

> Ajaib Bagri is a supposed sawmill worker.
What do you mean, supposed?
He was employed in the sawmill in Kamloops BC - there is no supposed
about it.

> I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20 years
> and over $200 million of my tax dollars

OK I'm much happier now - I thought for a while that some of them were
my tax dollars.

> -You can get away with mass murder blah blah blah . . .

What an asshole you truly are

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE






In article <ld1_d.701235$8l.145955@pd7tw1no>, "Gary" >
wrote:

> The local news has just reported that the accused bombers of Air India
> Flight 182 have been found Not Guilty by a judge in Vancouver BC Canada!
>
> Ripudaman Singh Malik age 58 and Ajaib Singh Bagri age 55 were found not
> guilty in the Bombing of Air India flight 182 that crashed into the Atlantic
> Ocean just off the coast of Ireland on June 23 1985. Killing 329 people many
> of them women and childeren!
>
> They were also found not guilty in the death of two baggage handlers at
> Tokyo's Narita Airport in Japan as the handlers where transfering luggage
> from a CP Air Flight that originated in Vanvouver to a Air India that was
> waiting at Narita!
>
> Ripudaman Malik is a millionare who socializes with India's consul-gerneral
> in vancouver,
> Ajaib Bagri is a supposed sawmill worker.
>
> I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20 years
> and over $200 million of my tax dollars to finaly bring someone to trial,
> only to have them be set free!!
>
> Take it as you will but my opinion is this!!!
>
> -You can get away with mass murder in canada if you have lots and lots of
> money!
> -If you are a member of a terroist organization you can get away with mass
> murder!
> -The RCMP and CSIS are completely incompetant when dealing with organized
> crime or terrorist cells!
> -If you socialize with high ranking goverment officials in canada you become
> omnipotent!
>
> Welcome to Canada, a terrorist friendly country!
>
>
> DAMN I AM MAD!!!!!

[Dave B]

This IS your tax dollars at work too pal!!
Although I don't agree with everything this guy says and the justice system
is supposed to work for everyone, something went terribly wrong and possibly
a couple of guys got away with murder!! There is no disputing this!

The investigation was clear that a explosive device brought this plane down
and someone placed it onboard the plane. I just hope that someday the person
(s) responsible are brought to justice and put away for a VERY long time

Dave



"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-678072.19010517032005@shawnews...
> > Ripudaman Malik is a millionare who socializes with India's
consul-gerneral
> > in vancouver,
> Why shouldn't he? Not that Indias consul-general in Vancouver is anyone
> special - he's just a civil servant, and not a particularly senior one.
>
> > Ajaib Bagri is a supposed sawmill worker.
> What do you mean, supposed?
> He was employed in the sawmill in Kamloops BC - there is no supposed
> about it.
>
> > I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20
years
> > and over $200 million of my tax dollars
>
> OK I'm much happier now - I thought for a while that some of them were
> my tax dollars.
>
> > -You can get away with mass murder blah blah blah . . .
>
> What an asshole you truly are
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Ron McKinnon]

"Dave B" > wrote in message
news:UMr_d.712770$6l.575085@pd7tw2no...
> This IS your tax dollars at work too pal!!

I believe you missed the sarcasm in Tony's post.

> Although I don't agree with everything this guy says and
> the justice system is supposed to work for everyone,
> something went terribly wrong

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this remark seems founded on a
belief that the verdict was erroneous. Unless you sat
through all the testimony and examined the evidence,
you would not have a basis for such a belief, except
perhaps the common misconception that 'if they're
charged, they musta done it!'.

In simple fact, the judge who did sit through the testimony
and did weigh the evidence did not agree that the Crown
made their case. The judge did not feel that the allegations
against the accused were supported by the testimony and
evidence. That's what he's there for. If there was not a
sufficient case, and the accused were not convicted, then
something went right here.

Though we'd all like to see that the perpetrators of this
crime are brought to justice, it does not follow from this
outcome that this will not come to pass, nor that anyone
will get off scott free. Perhaps more evidence will
be discovered or more advanced analysis techniques
to interpret the existing evidence, and the path will
lead onward to other people. Perhaps not.

It might also be that the perpetrators are never found
nor convicted. There might just be not enough evidence
to track down and convict anyone. If this is so, it also
does not follow that the investigation was bungled, as
some others have suggested; it might just be that there
is no evidence to be found. Crimes go un-solved
everyday - just because this crime involved the deaths
of so many people does not change that.

> a couple of guys got away with murder!! There is no
> disputing this!

Yes there is. This remark implies that because these
accused were not convicted that 'a couple of guys got
away with murder'. If no one is ever convicted of
this crime then someone will have 'got away with
murder' - but this does not necessarily follow
from this particular verdict.