Bhutto and Scotland Yard: I guess Sherlock Holmes doesn't work there anymore.

[icarus]

Despite the lack of a detailed search of the crime scene or autopsy of Bhutto's body... *eyeroll* ...Scotland Yard declares Bhutto to have been killed by the bomb blast and not by bullets, as originally stated by the doctors who treated her.

Uh-huh. And the former colonial master with current political ties to Musharraf has how much credibility in South Asia?

Oh, yes. Zero! Is there a number less than zero?

Comments

numbers less than zero

[ursula]

There's negative credibility. It's what happens when people who associate with you lose THEIR credibility.

Re: numbers less than zero

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's like having Stalin lay an arm across your shoulder and say, "Oh, yes, he's a nice guy."

Of course, the Scotland Yard decision (my, have they come down in the world if they're deciding cases with no evidence *tongue in cheek*) is for the benefit of the international audience. No one Pakistan buys it.

[quasar273.livejournal.com]

Huh. I heard that one on NPR and wondered who called in Scotland Yard. I also was unsure how they could tell much under the circumstances, but the details (blast blew her back to hit her head against a sharp protruding thing on the car behind her) sounded maybe plausible as something that might look like a bullet wound during the frantic attempt to treat, but could be identified more accurately with a calm assessment later (no autopsy, but they said there were X-rays).

I'm also not sure what political capital Musharraf or anyone stands to gain if it was the bomb that killed her rather than a shooter. Okay, I guess when they thought she was shot from behind, that was evidence of more than one person involved, whereas if it was the bomb it could be just one person -- and single attacker vs. conspiracy does have political implications. Do you really think there's motivation for lying there?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Musharraf probably killed her. That's the general consensus voiced in Pakistan.

She was assassinated just in advance of the elections where Musharraf was doing very poorly and likely would have lost to her (or at least been forced to create a coalition gov't). The US was supportive of a Bhutto win, so he had many reasons to worry.

The gun shot severed her spinal cord, suggesting military training. A bomb blast can be carried out by anyone. Musharraf of course is General Musharraf, and although he had to relinquish his authority over the military, he still has pull.

The two that Musharraf has in custody (a man and his teenage son) do not have the training for a shot that accurate. They are not very credible suspects.

Now the terrorist groups that Musharraf originally blamed said, no, they didn't kill her. Given they've been targeting Musharraf over the last six months, not her, and had every reason to want someone other than Musharraf in power -- yeah, I don't think they did. Musharraf's original claim has been universally pooh-pooh'd.

What does Musharraf stand to gain? By putting the blame on the bomb and the (dead) suicide bomber, Musharraf can close the investigation.

Here's the early report leaked before Musharraf cut the cell phones in Pakistan (http://icarusancalion.livejournal.com/716907.html). The link's at the top.

[quasar273.livejournal.com]

Oh, I get that Musharraf had motive to kill her. Although, I'm pretty sure she wasn't running against him directly -- she was running for PM, and he had already won the (illegal, rigged) election for president in October. Still, a strong opposition PM would be a problem for him. And if he did have her killed, then he has motivation to lie about it, I get that. I didn't quite see how the particular lie of "it was the bomb, not a bullet" would help to exonerate Musharraf. Your points above about the military do kind of explain that, if one buys the severed spinal cord = military sniper argument (I'm not quite sure I do; it sounds more like luck to me, and it WOULD be easier to sever the spinal cord with more widespread trauma like the bomb/car impact theory). But, okay, maybe that explanation hangs together, if somewhat loosely.

I still don't get why Scotland Yard would have motive to help Musharraf lie. Even if the British government does consider him an ally, government != Scotland Yard, and there are enough degrees of separation that I would think it would be hard to bring enough pressure to bear to make people tarnish their individual and collective reputation. That part still puzzles me. So I don't think the conspiracy theorists are getting everything right, either.

I am not really well-informed on this, just a person who's puzzled from afar.

[quasar273.livejournal.com]

I guess my real problem is that I just don't understand lying, really. Not that I never lie myself, but it usually turns out badly. And when I do lie, I'm always clear that it's not just 'naughty' but also a bad idea with risks.

So I tend to think people need major motivation to lie, especially on a grand public scale. Lie to cover up one's own terrible crime? Okay, I see that. Lie to cover up an ally's terrible crime? Maybe, if it's a super-valuable ally. Lie and risk your job to cover up the terrible crime of a questionable ally of a government you probably don't always agree with? By this time I'm thinking, 'do you really expect that to work?'

But in theory I understand sometimes people lie for stupid reasons, even on a grand public scale.

Time to stop thinking about this, I think.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

You can't gauge people by what you yourself would do in a situation. That would imply that everyone is like you, and you know that's not true.

Even setting aside cultural differences (Tibetans, for example, have a shockingly broad definition of a "white lie"), projecting yourself into circumstances is the fastest way to misjudge people. You'll also misjudge the Mother Theresa-types who do things that are nobler than most of us.

The fact that Musharraf is lying about the circumstances of Bhutto's death isn't in question. He's already been caught in that lie.

The day after her assassination Musharraf blamed "Al Quaida" and the extremists who'd been attacking him, and said that he had information as to who bombers were. The thing is, there had been bomb attacks against Musharraf himself for months, and they had no information who those bombers were. They still don't know. Yet with Bhutto, Musharraf knew immediately who the guilty parties were without even 48 hours of investigation? No one buys that.

Musharraf has impeded the investigation. There was no autopsy, witnesses were not questioned, and no attempt was made to secure the scene or gather evidence at the scene.

Initial information came out of Pakistan from eye-witnesses via cell phones and international visitors. People in Pakistan had immediately blamed Musharraf and ripped his campaign posters down. A doctor who'd tried to save Bhutto (who had a lot more than just X-Rays) said she'd been shot twice: one had cut through at an angle through her chest, the other had sliced her spinal cord. The doctor did not give his name for fear of a crackdown.

Within 24 hours there was a crackdown. Musharraf closed the airports and cut all wireless service.

Bhutto's PPP party had been complaining before the assassination that the security Musharraf provided for Bhutto was lax. Their complaints went unanswered.

--

Hey, I have some family drama going on, so I'm gonna have to cut this short. But you get the idea.