Alleged 9/11 mastermind may stand trial in New York City
N.Y. 9/11 trial looms: Feds weigh moving ex-Al Qaeda 'military commander' Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
BY James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, October 13th 2009, 4:00 AM
WASHINGTON - The confessed 9/11 mastermind and four other killers from Guantanamo Bay may soon be flown to New York to face death penalty trials, the Daily News has learned.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will decide by Nov. 16 whether to yank the plotters out of the U.S. base in Cuba and send them to a courthouse blocks from Ground Zero, officials confirmed.
The Justice Department is prepared to swiftly indict five detainees linked to 9/11 - including ex-Al Qaeda "military commander" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - if Gitmo trials are scrapped, officials said.
That outcome is highly probable.
"If the decision is made to go to a federal court, there could be indictments as soon as early next year," an Obama administration official told The News.
Two other officials confirmed that.
It also is likely Holder will direct his civilian prosecutors to seek the death penalty, because Gates' military prosecutors did.
Charges could be filed even sooner because the evidence is ready, and Mohammed and fellow plotter Ramzi Binalshibh boasted of their roles on Al Jazeera TV before their capture. Mohammed was later waterboarded by the CIA, but freely took credit for attacks after the brutal interrogations ended.
The other alleged 9/11 plotters who may be sent to New York are Walid Bin Attash, Mustafa Al-Hawsawi and Al Abdul Aziz Ali.
The betting among many insiders is on the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan landing the high-profile prosecution of the 9/11 detainees.
One reason civilian prosecution is growing more probable is that the military case against them at Gitmo has been mired by legal setbacks. And Manhattan was the site of the worst 9/11 devastation.
Families of victims in Al Qaeda's attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were told by military prosecutors this month that an order will soon be issued.
But many victims' kin fear moving the trials from Gitmo's secure military court to the Southern District of New York will mean three more years of delays before the plotters face justice - which Pentagon officials predicted on a recent trip to Gitmo.
"They told us that," recounted Mary Novotny of New City, whose son Brian was killed in the twin towers .
Starting all over with new trials would be "a slap in the face," as would be giving them constitutional rights, she added.
Eunice Hanson - whose toddler granddaughter Christine was the youngest 9/11 victim when she was killed with her parents Peter and Sue Hanson - also said the trials should "absolutely not" be moved to New York from Gitmo.
"It's ludicrous," Hanson said. "I'm all for keeping it there."
- simuvac's blog
- Login to post comments
"confessed 9/11 mastermind"
That confessed through torture.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
9/11 mastermind - what does that mean?
It means a guy who puts together a groups of Saudis, tells them to go learn flying-piloting, at hit buildings. Possibly finances it.
It was a public knowledge for many years that Arabs would like, or are planning, to "ram planes into American buildings".
I think Sheik might have done something of a planning, supporting this act, but he NEVER could have known, and probably never knows now, that the whole operation was MONITORED by US services, and it was ALLOWED to happen, and ENHANCED - with nanothermite at WTC, and very likely with remotely controlled airplanes.
Without US and probably foreign secret services knowledge and active aid, the 9/11 attacks could NEVER have happened.
http://twitter.com/911news - http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
What should happen?
Ideally, sheik should be sent home for time served for his indirect role in 9/11 inside job demolition attacks.
And what prompted Arabs into such animosity towards US, after being supported friends during Soviet Afghan occupation?
It was a devastating bombing destruction of Iraq into last century in 1991, and ongoing humiliating occupation on 2/3 of iraqi air space 1991 - 2003.
2 questions, anybody.
1. Is it true that CIA tricked Soviet Union into Afghan occupation 79-91?
2. Is it true that Saddam was tricked into trying to unify Iraq with it's southern province, former British colony Kuwait?
2 questions
Two big questions, but I'll try.
Yes, from about mid-1979, the CIA worked with Muslim extremists in Afghanistan to weaken the pro-Soviet government and induce a Soviet invasion, so that the Soviet Union would then have 'their Vietnam.' Of course, in the US, we were all led to believe that everything started with the Soviet invasion that did take place at the end of that year, when in fact it was an outcome that U.S. policy had worked towards.
Iraq, 1990--the Iraqi government burdened with debts following the costly 8-year war against Iran; Saddam pissed off that governments who had been happy to see him wage war against Iran aren't showing any leninency in demanding payment of debts. The Iraqis also claim that the Kuwaitis are taking oil that properly belongs to Iraq by using a particular method of drilling (slant drilling) in border regions. When it looked like Saddam was considering military action in the middle of that year, he was informed, through the U.S. ambassador, that the U.S. would not get involved in inter-Arab disputes. Was Saddam meant to interpret this as a green light to invade? I find it hard to read it otherwise; and that's exactly what Saddam did. (None of this changes the fact that Saddam shouldn't have invaded, and should have pulled out prior to the Jan. 15 '91 deadline; it's simply that the actions/inactions of the U.S. goverment need to be understood in terms of its actual goals,--typically concealed from the public--and in terms of its subsequent actions, namely, using the dispute over Kuwait as an opportunity to dump loads of weaponry on Iraq, destroy its infrastructure, and turn what had been one of the better-off societies in the region into an international basket-case).
As I recall, there's a very good video on the '90-'91 conflict called 'The Hidden Wars of Desert Storm.' I remember a U.S. soldier being interviewed who said that, days before Iraq had invaded Kuwait, his unit had been told they might need to ship out to the Middle East because there was going to be a war there soon--this at the same time that the U.S. embassy was telling the Iraqi government that the U.S. wouldn't get involved in inter-Arab disputes.
Black ops, Afghanistan, Iraq
I see. .....
1. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 1979.
It was wrong, a mistake, as any unprovoked use of force is. I did have read that Cia worked to induce Soviet invasion, but I wonder what it actually was that succeeded. Just a threat of fall of local Afghan government on Soviet borders? Or did US and Soviets actually directly talk, and agreed Soviets can invade? I would tend to doubt the latter.
US conducted a fair role - supply arms to domestic freedom fighters, but do not get involved in armed conflicts by sending soldiers, in any role.
Anyway, nobody will ever conquer Afghanistan, for several reasons, like geography and the character, religion of that nation.
2. Iraq
Yes, the "we do not have an opinion on inter-Arab conflict" communication from James Baker State Department to Saddam gov will always remain suspicious.
The fact is Saddam Hussein, US friend and recipient of US arms, asked for US opinion before invading to reunite the souther Iraq province, extremely rich in oil - in fact, the whole rest of Iraq has the same amount of oil as the Kuwaiti sheikdom, established by departing British colonial empire during first Iraq occupation 1919- 1935/1955.
Saddam yes should have tried to reunite the country peacefully, through UN, if he didn't have US support for military option. Later yes might have pulled out before the bombing devastation started. But I think US should have gone with the UN goals only - push Iraq out of Kuwait, and that is it. Start world sanctions to isolate and punish Iraq, but do not bomb it apart.
The final pretext for occupation - WMD, was completely bogus.
One last thing.
During bloody, stalled Iran -Iraq conflict 1980-1988, as Msnbc reported, US intel services provided war situation info and disinfo alternatively to both sides, with the aim to protract the conflict, and to cause maximum damages.
Alleged 9/11 mastermind may stand trial in New York City
See these links:
1) Self-Confessed 9/11 "Mastermind" Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn't Commit, April 23, 2009:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/self-confessed-911-masterm...
2) Witness Who Fingered 9/11 "Mastermind" Was Himself Crazy April 27, 2009:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/witness-who-fingered-911-m...
3) Water-BoredAl-Qaida's plot to bomb the Library Tower was not worth torturing anyone over:
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/
Guilty before trial
"Starting all over with new trials would be "a slap in the face," as would be giving them constitutional rights, she added."
But how can their guilt or innocence be determined without a trial? Are they assumed to be guilty before a trial begins? Where does this kind of logic take us, Daily News? Is your job to print the dribble of the incoherent?
"dribble"
should read "drivel."
It starts in the very first sentence:
" four other killers," and then "the plotters." Not "accused" or "alleged," but assumed guilty in advance of trial.
"Mohammed was later waterboarded by the CIA, but freely took credit for attacks after the brutal interrogations ended." Could he possibly have done that to avoid further "brutal interrogations," (mastermind that he is)?
Where's the corroborating evidence?
Assumed guilty in advance of trial...... from torture confessions. Which were illegal and counterproductive according to Gen. David Petreaus himself.
Hell, I believe that 500 people 'confessed' to being the Black Dahlia murderer. But they weren't taken seriously if there was an abscence of evidence.... or if facts exists for which they could NOT have been responsible for.
Typically Orwellian
'...freely took credit for attacks after the brutal interrogations ended.'
How 'freely' does anyone do anything after having been brutalized--and while still in the custody of the ones who did the brutalizing?
Orwell spins in his grave--again.
Trial by media
No presumption of innocence at all, but a trial by media.
"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent." — Liz McAlister
Shouldn't Niaz Khan also be
Shouldn't Niaz Khan also be on trial?
Niaz Khan, the man who confessed to the FBI, months before 9/11, that Al Qaeda sent him to the United States to hijack airplanes: The Niaz Khan Confession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgoLwAavn0
A Major Public Relations Stunt
Very possibly due to momentum of Truth agenda locally and nationwide.
Theater aimed at causing the public to feel, not think.
Shameless.
A Great Opportunity to Protest the Mock Trial!
If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
From Military Commission to Federal Court
What ‘lawful’ action offers a better chance at prosecution (if that’s what they’re looking for)? And will any new evidence be added by the prosecution and/or defense in a federal trial?
Legal defense fund?
How about a legal defense fund for ex-Al Qaeda "military commander" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He's obviously innocent, if everything the TM suspects turns out to be true.
"One reason civilian prosecution is growing more probable is that the military case against them at Gitmo has been mired by legal setbacks. "
My understanding is that military courts do not allow someone to plead guilty, or I remember reading something to that effect. They were trying to get this rule changed, but guess they couldn't do it. If that is true, then they would naturally want to change to a civilian court so they can get guilty pleas and execute all the defendants, claiming of course that their zeal for martyrdom is what led them to cop the guilty plea. We know the government wants zero testimony in this very embarrassing case. Wonder who they could get to defend them, and if their lawyer would end up being a shill for the government. Wonder if a guilty plea could be considered proof of insanity, and therefore inadmissible.
Perhaps a team of legal
Perhaps a team of legal advisors would be a place to start. Frances Boyle would be a good person to ask for advice.
http://www.law.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/FrancisBoyle
Isn't this really really bad for the official version of 9/11?
I don't get it. If they get a fair trial, then won't the defense get to challenge all the *solid* information gathered from torture? And won't the American public get to hear how amazingly 'solid' the government's case is? If I were involved with a coverup I'd try to keep them in Cuba. If I wanted to fight the cover-up I'd try to get them a somewhat fair trial.
How would having a Trial in NY bad for the Truth movement? How is it good?
/***************************************************/
TRUTH ROCK. What would the 60's have been without music? Making Truth Rock mainstream.
/***************************************************/
"If they get a fair trial"
That won't happen.
I for one
...don't think KSM is an innocent man. I think he is a manipulated terrorist. He may be guilty of terrorism yet be forced to confess to anything else Dick Cheney wants him to.
I've listened to an MP3 (warning: link to defenselink.mil) from his Guantanamo hearings. Don't just proclaim this man innocent; however no one deserves to be tortured by "free societies", not even an alleged 9/11 mastermind. Practices such as legalized and unpunished torture (with the aid of freaking trained mental health professionals) and rendition stand as absolute proof that we are not a free society.
If Obama brings this to NYC he's walking the sharp edge of the sword. There is only one reason to do so: to kill the 9/11 truth movement. To blind the public once again by allowing their emotions to cloud their judgment. This time it will not be Bush's fifteen minutes of hate......it'll be Obama's fifteen minutes of fake righteousness right next to Ground Zero. Obama's propaganda is potentially more dangerous than Bush's propaganda.
What will definitely NOT help, will be people with signs reading "Free KSM" and "9/11 inside job" in front of the court house. That would be Obama's instakill propaganda bonus moment.
Therefore, KSM's trial if held in NYC should be met by protests by the NYCCAN group. That and that only can foil Obama's plans. Because it confuses those who let the flag do the thinking.
P.S. ... When you think of KSM, think of LHO. Was LHO completely innocent? No...he was a CIA/FBI agent set up to be a patsy. Several sources say LHO was involved with the preparations for the attack on JFK (what was a man like him doing there anyway), yet we know with 100% empirical certainty he did not fire the fatal head shot. Like we know we with 100% empirical certainty that NIST's WTC 7 report is a big lie.
I think of WTC 7 the same way
Snow Crash, we know the obvious controlled demolition and need for pre-positioned demolition devices in WTC 7 is the real smoking gun of 911.
I often think of it in the terms you mention, with the damning headshot in the JFK assassination. The only difference is this time those who committed the crime could not suppress the film of WTC 7's collapse like they did with the Zapruder film, which caught the back and to the left head motion of JFK after obviously being shot from the front. The Zapruder film was suppressed for 12 years and we may have never seen it except for Jim Garrison's subpoena of it and allowing bootleg copies to be made.
I wasn't totally sure but essentially believed Oswald did it for 20 years until seeing the Zapruder film. That caused me to look into the assassination much harder as it was obvious that LHO could not have fired that headshot.
Just like LHO could not possibly have fired that head shot from the right rear, KSM could not possibly have helped plan the demolition of WTC 7 and set up the charges in it. I often joke that KSM finally admitted he planned 911 from A to Z, as we are told, after he was shown a photo of him carrying charges into WTC 7.
The explanations for the back and to the left head motion of JFK, after it was revealed with the Zapruder film finally being shown publicly in 1975, are ludicrous. The official story defenders there try to say neuromuscular spasm or the jet effect caused it. While the jet effect can occur it is the net force which determines the direction of acceleration and in the case of a human skull the shear force in the direction of the bullet is much greater than the force to the rear by the jet effect. Neuromuscular spasm is a total joke. The large right rear head wound of JFK brought out by the Parkland doctors and the skull fragment found to the left rear of the car prove JFK received the fatal headshot from the right front.
The same type of thing is true with WTC 7 in that there is no good cover for it and it can't be explained any other way than as controlled demolition. Have you seen this short 2 minute clip comparing the actual video of WTC 7 collapsing with the NIST animations? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnXeUIaYj3k
Yes, I've seen it
I think I might have gotten there via the 9/11 free forums before. NIST stopped the animation at the press conference for a reason....
"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent." — Liz McAlister
Disagree
I'm for a free and open trial for KSM, and campaigning for it and even demonstrating for it. You want to send him back to military tribunals? Your post is a bit confusing to me.
"Therefore, KSM's trial if held in NYC should be met by protests by the NYCCAN group. That and that only can foil Obama's plans." That sounds just a little convoluted to me.
I want an NYC trial
but I also realize that the only reason for it is to make KSM into a anti-9/11 truth propaganda vehicle.
Therefore, the only sort of demonstration for 9/11 truth at this 9/11 trial in NYC that can't be abused by Obama for anti-9/11 truth purposes, is, in my opinion, an NYCCAN-type demonstration led by the likes of Manny Badillo, Bob McIlvaine, Donna Marsh O'Connor, etc. You realize the powerful propaganda potential for Obama against the 9/11 truth movement with a KSM trial near ground zero, don't you? Therefore, this movement should begin thinking ahead now.
I absolutely fundamentally, passionately, vehemently oppose the Military Commissions Act. That law itself stands as proof of tyranny. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent." — Liz McAlister
Over my head
"You realize the powerful propaganda potential for Obama against the 9/11 truth movement with a KSM trial near ground zero, don't you? " Honestly, no. I don't qute see it that way. I think a NYC trial is an ideal opportunity to make sure the trial is fair so that the facts come out....one of the few chances to have that happen. I don't think Obama is focused on the TM, but he may want to fry a couple of Republicans, and what comes out in the trial may do the trick.
Obama's war on terror
It's the same type of thing for several prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to suddenly express their wish to sentenced to death right before the end of Bush's term. It does several things: (1) It cements the belief that the United States has in its custody the sole and prime orchestrators of 9/11 (2) "Reaffirms" the legitimacy of Guantanamo Bay and the Military Commissions (3) Dead suspects cannot speak about their treatment (4) Closure and prevention of further revelations about 9/11 (5) Propaganda to support the war on terror
Obama might instead put these people front-and-center in NYC, which certainly serves to strongly support (1) and (5) at the expense of (2) and (3).
(4)....well, who knows. We'll just have to wait and see.
Obama might of course use such a trial for partisan purposes, but all this can be done without jeopardizing the 9/11 myth...It provides desperate supporters of the OCT something to latch onto. It provides America with a face to focus their emotions on while at the same time having us belief trials in the United States are fair and justice exists. Obama is here to restore the American dream, and the illusion of a just society created by the theater of a "fair trial" for the "9/11 mastermind" may drown out the real, legitimate questions as people are hypnotized by massive biased mainstream media coverage.
All I'm saying is that Obama is a masterful propagandist and that this hypothetical NYC trial is a mixed blessing. How it turns out for the truth movement depends on how we are able to counter such a powerful emotional weapon as a farcical trial in the middle of New York City.
I don't see this as an outreach or concession to the public by Obama, I see it as a propaganda tactic. We all reject Guantanamo Bay and torture. Now Obama gets to promote 9/11 myths while cultivating his image as the "changer" who brought integrity and accountability back to the White House. This is Obama's new war on terror propaganda upgrade.
I'm having a hard time explaining this because it's complex, but pduveen, I tried, and I hope you are right and not I. Given that such a trial is the only just thing to do, I support it. But this thinking only applies when one is to expect a fair trial outside of Guantanamo Bay. I doubt that. I suspect that all that will happen is injustice will get a new address.
"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent." — Liz McAlister
Thanks for taking the time
to explain your position more clearly. None of us has a crystal ball, or is infallible (except in matters of faith and morals--oh, that's the Pope). We know 9-11 is a fake, and therefore, the idea that they have the "mastermind" of 9-11 is pure hoax. I thought Bin Laden was supposed to have been the "mastermiind." My thought was that by insisting on a fair trial for these people, we would also gain support from human rights, ACLU and other constituencies that would also vigorously support a fair trial, and who probably have an inkling that these folks are being held for absolutely no good reason...a not uncommon phenomenon in the history of this country.
This is Obama's...the Pentagon's...Intel's...congress' response
...to NY CAN...
Its really as simple as that...even IF the trial is never moved to Manhattan.
They have grabbed the headlines and buried NY CAN's efforts...for the moment anyway.
AND...snowcrash's advice is solid about how to respond should the trial be held in NYC...COOL IT!
If we do anything, it needs to be professorial and fact based only. Bullhorns and banging trash can lids together just won't help us out at all.
Here's betting it will be timed for: 9/11/2011...
We see Farrakhan inserted in many posts on this blogsite...so we can PREDICT that there will be some infiltrators holding up signs damaging to the 9/11TM...and...there will be agent provocateurs to conduct CD, damage to property, vandalisms, and confrontation after confrontaion after confrontation.
And I'm not even talking about AJ being on the scene...
The Mockingbird Press is hard at work...as usual.
9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE
Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
A question
So who planted all the explosives in the WTC buildings. There are lots of dying first responders and victims families who would like to know..Oh and thanks Judge for this: Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd. Consider yourself guilty of shielding mass murderers I say.
Who planted explosives, and probably remote flew Pentagon plane?
Secret services, foreign and domestic. Highly professional operation, the knowledge and execution was highly compartmentalized. Meaning one crew brought boxes up the WTC, another one installed something, electric devices, thermal insulation paint on the steel beams, and nobody knew of each other, or knew too much anyway.
It will be VERY interesting to know who knew what and when from polygraph president down, because I think that nobody really knew everything, and many knew different stories - /yes, exercises/ and /yes, we know mr pres, we let them start it/.. /we will catch them/ ../we let them do something, no casualties/ ... /lets us handle it// ....//we need pretext for war, but make sure it is acceptable, no casualties - yes mr pres// ..... and so on .........
I think nobody will believe the stories off polygraph investigation questioning once they will start rolling in.
One more point, today, 2009, EVERYBODY knows the irrefutable evidence, and is obliged to call for an investigation.
And yes, today, we have more that a Zapruder film. We physically have that gun and that bullet that struck, and it's aerial path, and the bullet wasn't fired from a book depository either. .... Well, it never was, anyway.
Why KSM's Confession Rings False
Source: time.com
By Robert Baer
Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007
It's hard to tell what the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. It certainly suggests the Administration is trying to blame KSM for al-Qaeda terrorism, leading us to believe we've caught the master terrorist and that al-Qaeda, and especially the ever-elusive bin Laden, is no longer a threat to the U.S.
But there is a major flaw in that marketing strategy. On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated.
Just as importantly, there is an absence of collateral evidence that would support KSM's story. KSM claims he was "responsible for the 9/11 operation from A-Z." Yet he has omitted details that would support his role. For instance, one of the more intriguing mysteries is who recruited and vetted the fifteen Saudi hijackers, the so-called "muscle." The well-founded suspicion is that Qaeda was running a cell inside the Kingdom that spotted these young men and forwarded them to al-Qaeda. KSM and al-Qaeda often appear bumbling, but they would never have accepted recruits they couldn't count on. KSM does not offer us an answer as to how this worked.
KSM has also not offered evidence of state support to al-Qaeda, though there is good evidence there was, even at a low level. KSM himself was harbored by a member of Qatar's royal family after he was indicted in the U.S. for the Bojinka plot — a plan to bomb twelve American airplanes over the Pacific. KSM and al-Qaeda also received aid from supporters in Pakistan, quite possibly from sympathizers in the Pakistani intelligence service. KSM provides no details that would suggest we are getting the full story from him.
Although he claims to have been al-Qaeda's foreign operations chief, he has offered no information about European networks. Today, dozens of investigations are going on in Great Britain surrounding the London tube bombings on July 7, 2005. Yet KSM apparently knew nothing about these networks or has not told his interrogators about them.
The fact is al-Qaeda is too smart to put all of its eggs in one basket. It has not and does not have a field commander, the role KSM has arrogated. It works on the basis of "weak links," mounting terrorist operations by bringing in people on an ad hoc basis, and immediately disbanding the group afterwards.
Until we hear more, the mystery of who KSM is and what he was responsible for is still a mystery.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
KSM trial
I've just been told that the ACLU and CCR are trying to make sure KSM has first rate civilian defense counsel.
This has nothing to do with him being a good guy, of course. It has to do with his right to a fair trial. Also, many of us are certain KSM was not the "mastermind" and it may be quite useful to get some of the actual facts of the case into the open.