View Single Post
Old 25th November 2009, 07:14 AM   #31
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,351
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If that was all that was weird about the case, I'd probably agree with you. You may well be entirely right about that. This is more about testing each point in the evidence chain to see how secure it is, than shouting "oh hey, look at this anomaly!"

As this is only one of many strange things about this case, and far from the strangest, I'd just like to figure how well it stands up to scrutiny, or whether it's possible it's dodgy.
Once you call the integrity of investigators into question, literarily anything can be made to appear dodgy. The trick is in not doing it backwards - would anything of what you stated be only possible if he was being framed? The answer is obviously no. Is anything of what you stated considerably more plausible as a result of framing? Again, the answer is no.

The possibility that the terrorists were trying to kill people on the ground has been discussed in detail in other threads. The fact is that nobody could have predicted which course the plane would take (it usually flew a more southerly route), and at 38 minutes out of Heathrow the chances of hitting habitation are low. It really was sheer bad luck that it landed on a very small town in the middle of a lot of scenery.
Perhaps. This was just one of the options. What if he calculated that the most likely delay was 36 minutes and hoped for the plane to crash on a part of London? I wouldn't do it, neither would you, but can you discount the possibility? Again, the answer is no.

I would agree, planning would also have wanted to ensure the device didn't explode before the plane landed. However, this was a London to New York flight. They usually take about 8 hours. I don't think I've ever heard of one being 7 hours early on that route.
Suppose someone warned the airline that there was a bomb on board of this flight. It could be connected to this attack, or just a random threat. Impossible? Definitely not.

I certainly agree his choice(s) aren't the best that could be made to futher his goals. That being said, had they been, that would be a strong indication he indeed had surprisingly good inside information - much stronger than lack thereof implicates a conspiracy.

Again, you may be right. One still wonders why it was necessary to go to a shop and buy such a strange assortment of stuff, brand new.
A strange assortment of stuff can be highly useful. Had the bomb been found, there would be nothing that should connect him to the crime, since it wasn't the clothes he wore or used. Perhaps he didn't consider it likely the shopkeepers would remember him (highly plausible), or perhaps someone else did the shopping for him (also highly plausible) - and the two are not mutually exclusive, either.

If you wanted to make sure the hidden bomb couldn't be traced to you, putting new clothes you don't use besides it makes perfect sense. If the assortment is highly unusual, it might throw the investigators off your scent, so this is an added bonus.

I find the behavior fairly consistent with hiding his identity. I know it backfired, but that was because a shopkeeper had a surprisingly good memory.

The other oddity is the high correlation between what the investigators found in the wreckage and identified as "blast damaged" and the list of shopping Tony Gauci says he clearly remembers selling to this particular customer, nine months before anybody came asking him about it.

Not necessarily anomalous though.

Perhaps he had a good memory, or perhaps Tony Gauci had a complexity that made people recognize and remember him easily. As you said, not necessarily anomalus, but even if it is, it doesn't mean anything else you have is anomalus - it is quite reasonable if you look it from the perspective of the terrorist, as you should.

McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top