Bhutto Murder

[Mike Tribe]

This really is a sad commentary on the decline in the quality of the contributions to this forum. People have claimed on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever that Bhutto was murdered in a plot organized by the CIA/MI5/Mossad/Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden and when hard evidence is produced from independent experts, this is dismissed as "part of the plot"...

[Guest David Guyatt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL20840120080208

British police say blast killed Pakistan's Bhutto

Fri Feb 8, 2008 5:42am EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (1) [-] Text [+]

1 of 2Full Size

RELATED NEWS

British team in Pakistan for Bhutto killing probe

04 Jan 2008

Seventeen dead in Bhutto protests in Pakistan

28 Dec 2007

About 15 dead in blast outside Bhutto rally

27 Dec 2007

powered by Sphere

Featured Broker sponsored link

Learn to Trade with a FREE Guide.

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - British police investigating the murder of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto concluded she was killed by a head injury caused by the impact of a bomb blast, not by a bullet, drawing skepticism from her close aides.

The British High Commission released a summary of their report on Friday, which backed up the government's version of the assassination in Rawalpindi city on December 27.

It also said it was probable that Bhutto was killed by a lone assassin, who fired shots and detonated explosives, and was not attacked by two people as many Pakistanis had speculated.

"The only tenable cause for the rapidly fatal head injury in this case is that it occurred as the result of impact due to the effects of the bomb-blast," British government pathologist Nathaniel Cary said in the report.

"In my opinion ... Benazir Bhutto died as a result of a severe head injury sustained as a consequence of the bomb-blast and due to head impact somewhere in the escape hatch of the vehicle," he said, referring to the sunroof.

Scotland Yard's conclusion drew skepticism from members of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party who were with her when she was killed, and runs counter to what senior hospital officials say they were told privately by doctors who attended to Bhutto.

"We find it difficult to agree with the report about the cause of death, that she was not killed by the assassin's bullet," Sherry Rehman, the PPP spokeswoman who prepared Bhutto's body for burial, told Reuters.

Two-time prime minister Bhutto was killed as she stood up through the sunroof of her armored land cruiser to wave to supporters as she left an election rally.

Her killing raised grave fears about stability in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Continued...

[Guest David Guyatt]

This really is a sad commentary on the decline in the quality of the contributions to this forum. People have claimed on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever that Bhutto was murdered in a plot organized by the CIA/MI5/Mossad/Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden and when hard evidence is produced from independent experts, this is dismissed as "part of the plot"...

Which "independent experts" would those be, Mr. Tribe? What "hard evidence" are you referring to? Have you considered the possibility that, perhaps, the "fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden" are pulling the wool over your eyes? I'm not saying this is the case but surely we should consider all alternatives, all facts and all evidence before taking possession of final conclusions...

[Mike Tribe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

[Charles Drago]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

"Rant," sir?

It is you, sir, who is burdened with the task of demonstrating governments' honesty and integrity in their respective investigations of political assassinations of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Arrogance and ignorance make such a cute couple.

[Mike Tribe]

I wondered how long it would be before you were around to insult me. I don't think I need to prove anything. After all, it's you who's accusing British public servants of dishonesty, not me. Do you have any evidence at all to support such libel? I thought not. As for the arrogance and ignorance slur, all I can say is that I expect little better from you.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Mike Tribe

[Guest David Guyatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

I felt that my post was more than moderate in tone and possessed a certain politeness in posing the question of what evidence you considered reliable and what experts you considered to be 'independent'. Your somewhat emotional response raises questions in my mind about your ability to engage in rational discussion.

In any event, regarding the integrity of Scotland Yard then I would remind you of the recent events surrounding the brutal murder of an innocent Brazilian electrician in the heart of London by officers from Scotland Yard. The fact is that the 'Yard' these days are a tarnished force. The British police force have been politicised these past two decades (from my memory this began in earnest back in the Scargill/miners strike days but very likely dates to before that), and do not exhibit the independence and integrity they once claimed to be proud of -- and were noted for throughout the world.

So to that extent yes, I do doubt the integrity of Scotland Yard, and in particular, the ethics, integrity and honesty of its CEO... Sir Ian Blair.

If you have reason (rahter than opinion) to suppose they and he are honest and aboveboard then I'm all ears.

I must now toodle off and put my granddaughter to bed...

Edited February 8, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Mike Tribe]

So, because of a bungled Metropolitan Police operation in which an innocent man was killed, which was subsequently the subject of exhaustive and very public investigation and condemnation, it's OK -- and "rational" -- to accuse every expert in the employ of the Met on the basis of no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty. Indeed, according to Mr Lemkin, this condemnation should be extended to all British government employees anywhere in the world. And it's up to ME to produce evidence they're innocent... An interesting new take on "innocent until proven guilty". Try reading through Mr Lemkin's post above. I think "rant" is a fairly accurate description...

[Guest David Guyatt]

My answer to your slanted question is that each event has to be weighed on its own merit. As I have remarked elsewhere, it is usually impossible to achieve this as an ordinary individual who does not have access to classified material. But even so, in my experience, there is a certain odour to some things that alert one to it not being entirely right.

I think the argument here is that while you appear to accept anything and everything that the authorities do as being fair, above board and without reproach, others do not so willingly surrender their god given facility for critical judgement to such a passive and willful myopia.

This myopia extends to seeing, in my view, the shooting of an innocent man as a "bungled" operation -- whereas I am far from alone in considering it was outright murder (or manslaughter at the very least). That "event" was then subjected to a politically inspired fixitinvestigation that was always going to minimise the governments and the Met's culpability. And in case you or anyone was wondering why none of the policer officers involved were considered for prosecution no matter what evidence was submitted, it was because several months earlier, firearms officers had threatened the government to turn in their arms and return to ordinary police work unless they were given an exemption from prosecution for killing innocent people (this followed another "bungled" operation [not the first either] in which another innocent man carrying a deadly table leg was shot and killed as an armed terrorist). The government complied with this demand and consequently, hey presto! it appears they can now shoot and kill innocents without fear of reproach or prosecurtion; makes pulling the trigger so much sweeter...

The myopia also extends, again in my view, to the suspicion (mark the word please) that there is more to the Bhutto assassination than meets the eye. That is to say a critical eye, anyway. Harbouring a suspicion is far removed (in my world) from anything like the exaggeration you penned about it being okay to accuse every expert in the employ of the Met.

[Guest David Guyatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

Pray tell Mr. Tribe why the claims of the PPP are unsupported?

This was the party of Benazir Bhutto, a previous ruling party. Moreover, Bhutto had been given international protection to return to Pakistan by the international community (much good it did eh) to help stabilise the Pakistan political landscape. Seems to me that the international community didn't have the qualms you have about the PPP before Bhutto was assassinated, so I wonder what it is about the PPP today that causes your wrath?

Is it that they are aligned to the Socialist International? Commie swine eh?

Evidence is a two way street Mr. Tribe. And since it is a fact in this instance that it is you who are the accuser, do YOU have any evidence that Scotland Yard are "independent experts" and that their report is to be trusted as the last word, simply because the British government sent them to conduct an investigation at the request of the Pakistan government to combat a groundswell of public suspicion that something fishy had happened? Perhaps you are one of those naive souls who never doubts the authorities in power? Perhaps you cannot imagine any form of political chicanery that the body politic may be party to? Perhaps that's it.

Why do I doubt that possibility, I wonder?

That Scotland Yard may claim to be independent (a truly farcical perception to begin with, in my opinion), and that the British government dress them that way (unquestionably a farce, especially these days), and the Pakistan government desire them to be (yes, well, 'nuff said)... none of this is prima facia evidence in and of itself. What it is, is political spin and your personal preference masquerading as righteous fact.

Perhaps you are just a gullible sort, then?

As you have taken exception to the views of others in this thread whose suspicions have been aroused that it was not simply another "lone gunman" in a never-ending list of lone gunman -- then it stands to reason that the burden of evidence is on you to show that these suspicions are the fallacious nonsense you so forcefully proclaim them to be.

Do you have any evidence Mr. Tribe? Any evidence at all? Did Scotland Yard confide in you? Have you conducted your own on-the-ground investigation and found our suspicions to be empty. Is that it? If so please do share your evidentiary findings?

I'm sure you will agree that without actual evidence to hand your allegations about the views expressed are no less unsupported than those of the PPP. At least what they allege does have a certain worldliness about it which - in my humble opinion - your didactic diatribe does not.

[Charles Drago]

I wondered how long it would be before you were around to insult me. I don't think I need to prove anything. After all, it's you who's accusing British public servants of dishonesty, not me. Do you have any evidence at all to support such libel? I thought not. As for the arrogance and ignorance slur, all I can say is that I expect little better from you.

You're quite capable -- and extraordinarily eager -- to insult yourself.

I'm just piling on because nothing exceeds like excess.

British public servants accused of dishonesty?

Next thing I know you'll be claiming that it's a man's life in the British Dental Association.

Why don't you go off in a corner somewhere and salute something?

[Michael Hogan]

This really is a sad commentary on the decline in the quality of the contributions to this forum. People have claimed on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever that Bhutto was murdered in a plot organized by the CIA/MI5/Mossad/Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden and when hard evidence is produced from independent experts, this is dismissed as "part of the plot"...

From an article from the International Herald Tribune by John F Burns:

London: Who killed Benazir Bhutto? How was it done? By bullet or bomb, or both? And who sent the killer - Islamic militants with links to Al Qaeda, rogue elements of the Pakistani Army, or political rivals in the election scheduled for Feb. 18?

Six weeks have passed since the assassination, and Pakistan seems no closer to a consensus on some of the most basic facts, making it ever more likely that the circumstances of Bhutto's death will become grist for the political mills that grind remorselessly in that country, revitalizing the revenge and mistrust that have poisoned public life almost since the country's founding in 1947.....

....The British entered the investigation with several major handicaps, beginning with the grotesque bungling of the assassination's immediate aftermath by the Pakistan authorities. There was no autopsy and no CT scan, and her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, rejected any suggestion of an exhumation, citing Islamic sensibilities.

There was little forensic evidence gathered at the scene, which was washed down within hours of the killing. The main forensic clue lay in X-ray photographs taken at the hospital where Bhutto was declared dead, showing only her head. In effect, Scotland Yard was left with deductions, not proof.

And the agreement between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Gordon Brown limited the British team to helping establish the cause of Bhutto's death, not the identity of the killer or killers, or who sent them. Those were issues, Musharraf insisted, for Pakistani investigators.

So it seemed sure that any conclusion the British reached would be heavily discounted in advance by Pakistanis who distrust the Musharraf government or seek, as in past political murders, to make political capital out of the killing.

But that was not all. The British carry considerable freight from their times as colonial rulers in the subcontinent, and they are rarely regarded as disinterested parties. In any dealings with Pakistan over police and security matters, their bona fides are bound to be questioned.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/10/asia/bhutto10.php

[Guest David Guyatt]

Queen Benazir's vile and notoriously corrupt consort, Asif Ali Zardari, may have been the project manager for the hit - he may have cut some deal with Musharraf/ISI/Taleban/Al Qaeda/MI6/CIA/MOSSAD etc etc.

MUGSHOT

AAZ plays Ali Baba at Bournemouth Rep this Xmas - tickets available from Thames House.

Fatty Balllaty's return to Pakistan looked foolhardy to say the least - I don't buy this 'woman of courage' line. My instincts tell me that she was coaxed into it by someone VERY close to her.

The whole state of emergency that arose over the lawyer protests in reponse to the sacking of the Chief Justice (remember that most legal beagles there are loyal to the PPP) was probably a carefully contrived 'revolutionary situation' to lure her back. She was obviously persuaded that Musharraf needed her to bring stability.

The two things though, that hint at AAZ's possible involvement in the assassination of 'her indoors' are (a) the fact that he was widely reported as having urged his wife by phone on the night before to address the rally that was to witness her demise (as she was expressing reluctance about attending) and, more crucially, ( that it was he who turned down Musharraf's offer of an autopsy on his wife (on the false grounds that it was 'unislamic').

I don't know exactly why Big Bum was bumped off. Her international lobbying against Musharraf and the type of alliances she was forming with a new US administration (is this just one of the reasons why Hillary is being shafted by Obama?) may have unnerved the current Pakistani administration in Vauxhall Cross. MI6/CIA are keen to rid their Anglo/Dutch/American paymasters of meddling feudal dynasties in the 'New Great Game' (oil, gas & drugs).

My case is, admittedly, a circumstantial one. Deeper probing of AAZ's activities will probably reveal more. Twitchers have spotted 'The Great Drago' swopping and soaring over 'The North West Frontier.' What does he make of all this?

Chappers

[John Simkin]

There was little forensic evidence gathered at the scene, which was washed down within hours of the killing. The main forensic clue lay in X-ray photographs taken at the hospital where Bhutto was declared dead, showing only her head. In effect, Scotland Yard was left with deductions, not proof.

Yet several aides at the scene claimed she had been shot in the neck. So also did the woman who washed her body for burial.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Twitchers have spotted 'The Great Drago' swopping and soaring over 'The North West Frontier.' What does he make of all this?

Chappers

I used to have a "twitcher" when I was younger. I'm pleased to report that the life was drained out of it by a big-breasted hen with skinny legs who's mating call sounded remarkably similar to that of a the genus Columba (i.e., a pidgeon...not to be mistaken for the point of departure of cocaine mules) -- a loud and insistent coo, coo, coo - but without the "c" sound. But this particular species was a member of the much rarer genus, the purple headed gobble throbber.

I heartily recommend a big pair of milk bottle glasses to anyone wishing to creep up and spot this rare bird unawares, as an unprotected glimpse is likely to cause severe damage to the retina.