1. You have explained it plainly and perfectly. Way too big for an ordinary event. (not that suicide bombings are ordinary, that's plain inhumane to suggest)
2, 6 and 8. The reluctance of the then government to conduct a transparent inquiry, the washing of the murder scene, the lack of the autopsy, the hurried lever theory, the retraction of bullet wounds statement by Prof. Mussadiq and numerous other events point in this regard.
The bridge around Ammar Chowk in Chaklala remained closed (completely and later partially) for over a week, twice when Pervez Musharraf was attacked. The scenes were preserved and I saw evidence being collected even a day after the event.
Surprisingly, it took only an hour to collect all "27" pieces of evidence from the BB assassination crime scene, it was hosed and later the car was swept clean as according to the Scotland Yard and UN reports, no blood, hair or DNA samples were collected from the sunroof hood, a violent hit with which allegedly was the cause of death. The car had been swept clean when the Scotland Yard went to see it.
Autopsy of a criminally murdered person, a legal compulsion on the MLO was not conducted. Yet another brilliant and glaring error.
Prof. Mussadiq claimed that there was a bullet entry wound on her lower left side of the head. Video evidence suggest this and the probability that a bullet hit her
dupatta, but did not wound her head or even leave a scratch is very very low. Prof. Musaddiq retracted his statements when within hours Brig. Cheema released statements, audio recordings and "proofs",
As for the "establishment" never having had anybody killed, that is a controversial statement. Ask the son of Liaquat Ali Khan. He names the "establishment" and the "military". He names them specifically. I do not mean to say that this is necessarily the truth but I have read much to speculate.
Similarly, ZAB was a victim of Zia and the establishment's wrath. They could not left him to live after usurping power. He was too big a force to be tackled alive.
5. Pointless to even suggest. But Mian Sb's rally was attacked earlier in the day and left 3 dead. Nobody has ever suggested that this might have been an attempt to show that they were being attacked themselves and killed BB, as it is completelty bonkers.
7. The international community only wanted to get her back to power, no reason to remove her from the picture.
4 and 5. I replied to a complete Zardari-did-it comment a couple of weeks earlier.
I find it inherently amusing that people always, without any proof and/or evidence, blame somebody for crimes that they "suppose" the other person must have committed.
I never heard anybody, literally anybody, suggesting even in his wildest conspiratorial imaginations that Zardari could have been a possible suspect in the earlier days that followed the assassination or on the fateful day. The next day when Zardari held a press conference and talked about peace and calm, most people were praising him. But as time would tell, Zardari later assumed the highest public office in this country but nobody, literally nobody could have imagined, planned or thought of such a scenario. Zardari assuming the reins of the PPP would have been out of anybody's imagination as well. To think of Musharraf resigning and Zardari assuming the office of the President was simply out of question. Zardari was thought to have occupied the position of a king maker, a power broker but him holding a public office had not been imagined by anybody.
But let me move on to the real topic. As we have seen, the perfect criminal, the perfect person to blame for anything from clogged sewers, to electricity theft to adulteration of drugs to traffic jams is the "corrupt politician" in the country. Common sense and basic logic is alien to most people and therefore came the usual idiotic, lunatic heresay, gossip, conspiracy theories and figments of imagination which have linked Zardari to the BB assassination. I do not claim to be the ultimate arbitrator, or in knowledge of "secrets", but common sense, public evidence and logic demands that he had nothing to do with her assignation. I find it beyond comprehension that people would be believe such stories without any material, forensic or oral evidence or any testimony. The nature of such statements is highly amusing for most of these people would reject any legal insight into the case and shrug off new investigations as biased or giving a clean chit to Zardari. to such illogical and irrational people, I have nothing to say and can only wish that you gain some rationality.
From everybody claiming through their every ready "knowledgeable insiders" and "uncles" that Zardari had asked Asifa/Bakhtawar to call Benazir to come out of the sun roof to stories of a unproven life insurance policy, the value of which ranges between millions to billions and trillions depending on the level of insanity that the narrator suffers from, I have listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry to personally have complete confidence in Zardari being the sole perpetrator for he turned out to be a benefactor (albeit an year later and out of the blue).
The only thing that irks me are the unfounded accusations, unproven claims of conspiracies to assassinate and general lack of common sense that originate within the realm of these stories.
Zardari refused a postmortem citing that people won't accept it, even though her chest had already been cut open, and her heard massaged by doctors trying to save her life. Could've just allowed the postmortem at that stage.
Zardari is nobody to "reject" an autopsy. An autopsy should have been ordered. I do not claim to be a legal expert, but I have studied law, legislation and legal procedures well enough to understand basic interpretations, statutes and procedures as a knowledgeable citizen. Had we been taught about basic laws and been taught to respect the law through our textbooks, many of us would have had a different attitude towards legal procedures.
While not having a good library in front of me, I can at least direct your uniformed mind to the basic legal tenants behind autopsies in homicides (murder with criminal intent).
The investigating officer does not need order the autopsy of the victim, nor does he require the will of the next of kin. The autopsy is ordered by the MLO (Medico Legal Officer) and is performed by the person authorized by him. Suicides require the investigation officer's approval for autopsy if he is unsure about cause of death (174(3) CrPC) but this was not a suicide.
I can reference only a little bit in this context right now, but I'm inherently sure of what I've stated above.
The medicolegal system of Pakistan is based on an inquest by the Police which investigates the crimes and seeks the help of the medical profession in relevant cases. In most cases, now there is a legal requirement of a medicolegal examination/or an autopsy as the case may be ....... Autopsies are performed only for the purposes of investigation of death due to a criminal act.
S. Hadi "Medicolegal impact of the new hurt laws in Pakistan"
It was a violation of Pakistani criminal law and prevented a medical conclusion about what killed the former prime minister, said Athar Minallah, who serves on the board that manages Rawalpindi General Hospital.
Pakistan's caretaker prime minister, Mohammadmian Soomro, told the Cabinet that Bhutto's husband had insisted on no autopsy. But according to a leading lawyer, Athar Minallah, an autopsy is mandatory under Pakistan's criminal law in a case of this nature.
"It is absurd, because without autopsy it is not possible to investigate. Is the state not interested in reaching the perpetrators of this heinous crime or there was a cover-up?" Minallah said.
Read more:
Pakistan government skips autopsy, shifts story on how Bhutto died | McClatchy
In fact, it was CPO Saud Aziz who denied Dr. Musaddiq's and the RGH staff's request for an autopsy not once, but thrice. The UN report states this clearly
146. The Commission does not find that there are credible reasons for failing to carry out an autopsy on Ms Bhuttos. The body had already undergone invasive medical
procedures when the open heart massage was undertaken. Moreover, a post-mortem
examination limited to a complete external examination and not involving any
invasive surgery could have been carried out. Even that limited exam was not
conducted in this case. While one doctor did take a general look over the body, the
doctors admit that this did not constitute a proper external post-mortem examination.
147. It is odd that Ms Bhuttos remains were moved to the Pakistan Air Force base
(Chaklala Airbase) in Rawalpindi before Mr Zardaris arrival from Dubai. According
to sources, the body was taken from the hospital around 2300 hours, on 27 December.
The note signed by Mr Zardari accepting his wifes remains is timed 0110 hours on
28 December. If the police were genuinely waiting for Mr Zardaris permission
before requesting a post- mortem examination, they should have left Ms Bhuttos
remains at the hospital. Instead they moved her remains to Chaklala Airbase, thereby
rendering such an examination more difficult. When questioned about this, senior
Punjab officials stated that the plan was to carry out the examination at the base
which also had medical facilities. However, the fact that Ms Bhuttos coffin was not
taken to the medical facilities, but placed in a room at the base makes this assertion
doubtful.
148. There was a series of memos from CPO Saud Aziz and his superiors regarding
the absence of a post-mortem examination. The CPO wrote a memo to his immediate
superior, the IGP of Punjab, dated 27 December, but actually written in the morning
of 28 December, in which he reported that an autopsy could not be conducted because
her husband had refused to authorize one. The IGP then sent a memo, also dated 27
December (and written on 28 December), to the Home Secretary of Sindh Province
reporting Mr Zardaris refusal and suggesting that the matter be taken up by the
Home Department of Sind h Province. On 28 December, a letter was written from the
Punjab Additional Secretary, Internal Security, to the Sindh Home Secretary,
requesting that the latter seek Mr Zardaris permission to conduct a post-mortem
examination on Ms Bhuttos remains prio r to burial.
149. The Commission finds the letter written by CPO Saud Aziz to be fundamentally
misleading. Nothing in the letter explains why the autopsy had not been carried out
earlier, during the preceding five hours while Ms Bhuttos remains were at RGH.
Rather, the letter focuses solely on Mr Zardaris refusal to approve an autopsy and
portrays even that refusal in misleading terms. The letter is clearly intended to hide
CPO Saud Azizs fundamental failure to carry out his legal obligation regarding the
autopsy and, instead, to redirect blame for this failure to Mr Zardari. The effort to pin
responsibility for this failure on Mr Zardari is unacceptable. No autopsy had been
carried out even though five hours had passed since Ms Bhutto had been declared dead. The body had been placed in a coffin and brought to the PAF airbase. CPO
Saud Aziz placed Mr Zardari in an impossible situation one which almost
compelled Mr Zardari to refuse the request for an autopsy.
150. The subsequent letter by the IGP, Punjab reiterating the misleading summary of
events set out in CPO Saud Azizs letter reflects the willingness of his administrative
superior to further this shift of responsibility and perpetrate a cover- up of the true
reason behind the lack of a post-mortem examination.
151. In short, CPO Saud Aziz did not fulfil his legal obligation to order an autopsy.
Having failed in that regard, he sought to cover up his failing by putting Mr Zardari in
a situation designed to elicit his refusal of an autopsy. CPO Saud Azizs further effort
to cover his failings by writing a memo pinning blame on Mr Zardari was highly
improper. On their face, these factors taken together strongly suggest a preconceived
effort to prevent a thorough examination of Ms Bhuttos remains.
152. CPO Saud Aziz, an experienced senior police officer, refused to allow a postmortem
examination. He certainly knew the requirements of the law and the practice
of law enforcement in such cases. He need not have waited for Mr Zardari. He was,
furthermore, aware of the importance and status of the person involved. All these
factors together support the view held by many Pakistanis that CPO Saud Aziz did
not act independently in this matter. CPO Saud Azizs insistence on justifying his
actions has made it difficult for the Commission to inquire any further and attempt to
unearth who might have been behind the decision.
Why is Zardari the biggest hindrance in the investigations? Why isn't he championing the cause? Who in Pakistan believes him when he says "I don't want to take revenge". The top candidate for premiership was assassinated, the nation wants answers!
I cannot answer that, only Zardari can but again you have no evidence as to ho he's been a "hindrance". The lack of will to pursue the investigation is far from "hindrance". Even then, he is not the biggest hindrance as far as I see it.
The biggest hindrance is the lack of evidence (only
27 pieces of evidence were found to be necessary and then the crime scene washed up), and then
conflicting stories that Brig Cheema had to come up with in haste.
Dr Musaddiq had to backtrack his statements because of the ever "invisible forces" and later he agreed to the lever theory as well. The bullet wound has never been conclusively proven but as far as I see it there's a million to one chance that the bullet had hit her
dupatta, waved it and then not wounded her fatally. The lever might have been fatal and would have definitely given a heavy concussion in addition to skull fractures and/or skin lacerations but the lack of a bullet wound, to me, is a mystery.
Also, if there exists a conspiracy that was involved in the assassination of BB, then nobody will ever reach to the bottom of the case. Or if indeed Baitullah Mehsud ordered her assassination, as Brig Cheema claimed within a few days and CID Punjab reached the conclusion as well, there is no point in further pursuing the case as Baitullah is dead and the supposed involved in the case are under trial already.
Why did Zardari order the crime scene by sanitized?
Another of your bigger goofs,
Id say the biggest goofy of all.
I should believe that the husband of a former Prime Minister who has not been in Pakistan for years and is absolutely not in power in any way, orders the hosing down of the crime scene? Am I to believe that Zardari was as powerful as you describe while having no political and/or legal authority in Pakistan? Your logic is mind boggling to me.
Well if the UN and most of the media is to be believed, it is more likely to be
DG MI Maj Gen Nadeem Ijaz who ordered the hosing down to
CPO Saud Aziz who ordered it to the senior most officer on the crime scene,
SP Khurram Aziz. Now that seems like a much more plausible explanation. Im not sure anybody in the right state of mind would believe that Zardari ordered the sanitization of the crime scene.
Why did Zardari's closest aides (Interior Minister Rahman Malik, and Federal Law minister Babar Awan) drive off with her decoy/backup car - and that too sped off from the scene.
Now that is indeed a relevant question and demands investigation and both peeople will have to testify as to why they jumped into a car reserved as the back up and drove the other way.
But Rehman Malik and Babar Awan werent close confidants to Zardari or anybody back then. Rehman Malik was Benazirs in charge of security and Babar Awan an articulate, well spoken, shrewd and cunning opportunist who was climbing the ladders of power. The corridors of power might never have welcomed Babar Awan in such a way had BB been alive, for Babar Awan was not such a main guy back then (but this does not mean that he was close to Zardari). He became close to the Zardari circle when he saw that Zardari needed people around him who would suck up to him and Awan has sunken the boat quite a few times already with his bad advice. Babar Awan holds the bullet-killed-BB view though :-
Babar Awan, a senior official of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, said of the sunroof theory: "That is a false claim." He said he'd seen her body after the attack and there were at least two bullet marks, one in the neck and one on the top of the head: "It was a targeted, planned killing. The firing was from more than one side."
Nobody needed to be a Zardari confidant, friend or
chamcha until after he became the defacto head of the PPP. There was no point in sucking up to him when BB was alive, for he had no visible political future.
Why was PPP's own security protocols not followed as cited by the UN report?
Like Muhammad Aslam, the Protocol Officer said in a interview a couple of days back, the squads got confused as to which car BB had been sitting in.
Khalid Shahanshah, the man who was making those neck clenching signs during the speech and got murdered later has been a mystery man as well. A journalist (albeit of average credibility) penned down a book on the BB assassination and just yesterday this popped up:-
The author of the book by the title WHO ASSASINATED BENAZIR has revealed that the security incharge of Benazir was in contact with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mehsud .
The writer of the book Shakeel Anjum was speaking exclusively to Dunya News claimed that the security incharge Benazir, Khalid Shahanshah of was in contact with Baitullah Mehsud. He travelled to Waziristan several times during 2007.
Well I am in no position to vindicate Zardari of being a suspect, but the mainstream narrative that runs among the people and the stories that are cited in this regard are highly amusing to me. He might just have planned a super big political game, ordered and planned the assassination of BB and have conspired to capture the reins of power in a giant and genius criminal conspiracy, but the evidence in this regard is non existent. There's not even circumstantial or inadmissible evidence or any testimonies in this regard. There exists nothing that supports common conspiracy theories and however bad his Presidency may be for our country, it does not make him BB's murderer.
