« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Only Potential-Bhutto-Culprit Rundown That Matters
... is at Danger Room. Watch Noah Shachtman play the Usual Suspects.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
Josh
Zachary
by TheraP
by SleepinJeezus
by dickday
by trblmkr
by Rutabaga Ridgepole
by COLINDALE
by Angellight
by refreyuik
by The Obnoxious American
by witty1
TPM Media Sites
Talking Points Memo
TPM Election Central
TPMCafe
Approved Sites
Washington Independent
The Blotter
ThinkProgress
War&Piece
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Mother Jones
Sunlight Foundation
Harper's
POGO blog
PC Action Fund
Subscribe to this blog's feed.
The Johah analysis after viewing the WAPO video seems rationale. The explanation of the cause of death, without a cause of death is interesting along with the minimalization of the cause of death.
What was the phone chatter and calls before and after to the husband? Was the husband consulted on post mortem? What are the call patterns showing? And what is being investigated in the post mortem investgation by Pakistan?
And then there is the first person account with initial photographs, again all including shots fired.
And then the adamant assertions of a shot to the stomach and the head, which suggests that the wounds were received outside of the protection boundary of body armor.
The Frost interview body profile and the photographs by Getty Images and other pre-assasination photos suggest that she appeared to be wearing non-plated armor.
My question is this: Was she wearing body armor as a reasonable precaution?
In closing, unless the other occupants in the car sustained injuries, the injury if sustained to the abdomen by exhuming the body, would suggest a sniper from an elevated position.
There are three areas of inquiry, call patterns, injury to the abdomen assertion, and an inquiry if body armor was worn, with an analysis of the automobile damage and injuries if any to other occupants.
The non-response to US offers to assist in the investigation is interesting as well.
I will close by saying that there is more unanswered questions as a result of an official narrative on lieu of one, and the shoot to kill orders make asking questions dangerous.
There might be an equally sensational comment about the murder of Bhutto as was made by Bhutto in the interview with Frost, at some later time, by people whom have the above info.
Without exhumation of the body, it would seem that the answers remain speculation, you would imagine that an investigation into post mortem decision making would require an autopsy.
An absence of an autopsy makes this even more interesting.
I wonder of the husband was consulted and the husband had been threatened into not allowing a post mortem cause of death to be established?
December 28, 2007 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhmmm reposting 4 days later
Having seen the video Britain's Channel 4 has released that shows what appears to be a bullet to the lower left side of the head, I have to again inquire about body armor?
A simple search of alibaba + body armor on google will reveal the availability of these vests, bought over the counter or COTS.
Level III and level IV armor would make a handgun a poor choice for an assasins weapon as it is a rather logical assumption that Bhutto would be wearing protective armor.
I interpreted the video differently and inquire along the lines of a shot being received in the upper left shoulder, and causing the hair and scarf to rise, I think simple ballistic analysis would show that this is the pattern that one would expect from the force of the bullet being displaced by armor and consistent with the body moving forward, instead of the neck reeling back from the impact of a shot to the head.
The other questions of my inquiry, post-mortem analysis, absence of more video covergage, (rare in this ubiqious media age,) and the questions of the conditions of the interior of the car, now lead me to believe that the two in the crowd were actors in the assasination, and that the shot that killed bhutto was from a sniper that also detinated the explosion, and that the sophistication of the attack was advanced and planned.
It is astonishingly odd that there is no mention of body armor, as this would be a factor in planning an assasination, I think that the two actors in the crowd were of the belied that they were the assasian team, but that the team was supplemented by snipers and that the wound to the abdomen will be consistent with a shot from an elevated position.
It would not surprise me if that the trigger to the detonation was effected by equipment on a snipers rifle to obfusicate the actual shot that assasinated bhutto and that the blast itself was a poor choice considering a formed projectile using the monroe effect could have pierced the vehicle if that had been the assasians intent.
The choices of weapons and the attack are at operational odds with pre-planning and the supposition that bhutto was wearing protective armor.
I still think that she died from an assasians shot from an elevated position and from a rifle powerful enough to deafeat level III and level IV armor.
JMHO
January 1, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink