I hope that, in due time, you will write a post in which you temporarily but explicitly abandon your admirable rigor and "just the facts" approach to formulate what seem to you to be the most reasonable conclusions to draw from the evidence as you see and present it. It seems to me that what emerges from your research is an "involvement" of "intelligence organizations" within the bowels of the clandestine organizations held to be responsible for the bombings. Clarifying and corroborating this is a difficult task, but you seem to be uniquely "up to the job". Keep writing. Hannah K. O'Luthon
I hate to draw conclusions which are anything out of the ordinary. And that's why I've had to stand back as far as I can from this case. In fact, when I first started to hear stories that didn't fit in (esp the Kingstar incident), I wanted to run away as far as possible. I even considered not investigating this case all.
Over a year ago I fell down the rabbit hole when it came to Nicholas Berg. And I really don't want to do that again.
Eventually of course I'll have to sum up what's going on. I've had the (mis)fortune of working on terrorism cases before, the most famous of which was the "Beltway Sniper" one. And back in the days when I was inside the loop, many many oddball things came down the pipeline. In the end the correct guys got picked up for it. I'm hoping the same happens here, I really really am.
Pax Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian
