key witnesses will be excluded from the trial of the underwear bomber

On Christmas Day 2009 Northwest Airlines (although in Delta Airlines livery) Flight 253 to Detroit Michigan took off from Amsterdam. The 300 passengers aboard the flight included 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Umar had checked in with only hand luggage, but, it is alleged, had explosives stitched into his underpants, and about 20 minutes before the plane landed, had attempted to set off his bomb. As it happened, his attempt was unsuccessful, the device failing to detonate and only causing a relatively small fire that was quickly dealt with.

Two of the many eyewitnesses were Kurt and Lori Haskell. They say the events of that day, which took place a few seats away from them, have changed their lives forever, although “not in the way most would think”:

The Underwear Bomber attack has fundamentally changed my life. Not in the way most would think, but it has destroyed any faith I’ve had in the U.S. Government, the media and this country as a whole. To say that I believe the government is corrupt and the media is complicit doesn’t fully explain my beliefs. Not only have I come to those conclusions, but I’ve witnessed that an ordinary person who sees something important can be silenced despite his efforts to spread the truth. Such is the Underwear Bomber case. I can do nothing but laugh at the TSA’s new policy of “If you see something say something.” That is exactly what I did, and not only did the U.S. Government not want to hear what I had to say, but it actively lied about it, attempted to get me to change my story, and hid, by withholding (secret government) evidence or putting a protective order on the evidence and nearly everything that would support my eyewitness account.

Taken from a post on the Haskell Family blog entitled “The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case”.

Here is the account that Kurt Haskell gave on Fox News on the day of the attack:

And here is a local new report in the days following the attack:

A Newport couple had a Christmas they never will forget.

Kurt and Lori Haskell sat seven rows behind a 23-year-old Nigerian man on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam who now has been charged with trying to destroy the plane in what is believed to be an attempted act of terrorism.

The Haskells were coming home from a safari vacation in Uganda and were on layover in Amsterdam on Christmas. While sitting on the floor waiting to board, Mr. Haskell said he noticed something unusual.

An Indian man who “looked wealthy and was dressed in a nice suit” approached the ticket counter with a young man.

“They looked like an odd couple because the Indian man was dressed so nice and the person, who I thought was a teen, was a scraggly dressed black guy,” Mr. Haskell said. “… The Indian man said he needed to get (the Nigerian man) on the plane, but he had no passport.”

Mr. Haskell, 38, said the Indian man told the woman at the ticket counter that “the man was from Sudan and that it was typical (to let him on the plane without a passport).”1

Their account continues:

Once he saw the smoke, Mr. Haskell unbuckled his beat and took a few steps forward.

“I saw the flames shooting up and saw the wall was on fire,” he said. “I thought we were going to die.”

A male flight attendant put out the flames. Fear took over as passengers realized the situation they just had faced.

“People were yelling ‘terrorist’ and ‘fire’,” Mr. Haskell said. “The flight attendants, who are usually calm, were screaming, and it was scary.”

That was when Mr. Haskell noticed the man who started the fire was the same man who he saw at the Amsterdam ticket counter.

The Haskells gave the same account on CNN:


As responsible citizens, and as it happens also lawyers, Kurt and Lori provided all this evidence to the authorities; their testimony being easily verifiable from security camera footage at the airport. They had seen something and so they said something. But the authorities didn’t want to know, and in particular, they didn’t want to know about “the smart dressed man”, possibly of Indian descent, who had helped Umar through the security checks without a passport.

Here is a post from the Haskell’s blog almost a year on, September 13th 2010:

For the first few months, Lori and I were very vocal over the media blackout and corresponding cover up to the real story of the Christmas Day events. If anyone is not familiar with our experience, our story can be read here in this blog. For the past few months, we have chosen to sit back and watch as the trial, or lack thereof, plays out in the courthouse we regularly practice in. While the media blackout to the true events continues, the failed attack on our credibility has been replaced with deafening silence as to our eyewitness account. To us, this matter has never been about seeking vengeance against the Underwear Bomber. When taking our eyewitness account and adding it to the small amount of honest facts that have come out, one can only recognize the Underwear Bomber as a mere patsy. It is quite shocking that, thus far, the Underwear Bomber hasn’t been forever silenced as other patsies that have come before him. What has led me to write this update is the following article:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100913/NEWS01/100913036/1318/Terror-suspect-fires-his-lawyers

It seems as though the Underwear Bomber has now decided to fire his attorneys and represent himself. I am actually not too surprised by this event. Being an attorney myself, I can see his attorneys trying to stuff a settlement down his throat while he argues in opposition that he was set up.

In the same post, Kurt Haskell continues:

It seems to me, that now that the Underwear Bomber is representing himself, or possibly using new attorneys, that the use of an entrapment defense is not out of the question. The use of such a defense could be one of the greatest moments in the history of the United States of America. Only through a defense such as this, could the full involvement of the U.S. Government be fully discovered and divulged. Please consider the following:

1. The Underwear Bomber was escorted through security without a passport by the Sharp Dressed Man who by all accounts, appears to be a government agent.
2. Congressional hearings have confirmed that the Underwear Bomber was likely let on flight 253 intentionally.
3. The bomb failed to detonate, and by many accounts, was designed so that it would not detonate.
4. The entire terrorist attack was filmed from before it started until after it ended.
5. The bomb was obtained in Yemen where the CIA has been known to have agents interacting with Al Qaeda.

Once you accept the above, it is not so far fetched to believe that the U.S. Government planted a defective bomb on the Underwear Bomber to:

1. Renew the Patriot Act
2. Get body scanners in the airports
3. Further the U.S. involvement in strategically located Yemen
4. Further the fraudulent war on terror
5. Provide further profit to the military industrial complex

Only through an entrapment defense that is fully litigated in open court could the American citizens get what they deserve, an open honest investigation into the Christmas Day events of 2009. Such a trial could possibly wake up the millions of American citizens that fail to even consider that its government is corrupt, dishonest, and working for those who only seek to consolidate their power and wealth.

Kurt Haskell also made the same allegations on Fox News:

Jury selection has now begun. Umar’s trial is set to commence on October 11th. So where are we now? asks Kurt Haskell in his latest post (in which he also outlines 33 anomalies2 in the case):

We now have The Underwear Bomber (Umar) representing himself with the help of standby attorney Chambers. Attorney Chambers has indicated to me that if he were Umar’s attorney, that the defense would be entrapment and that I would be a key witness. Of course, such a defense would expose the U.S. Government’s involvement in the plot. It is much too convenient to have Umar represent himself and be in charge of what the defense will be, what evidence is presented, what witnesses are called and what questions each witness is asked. A trial with Umar representing himself will leave the relevant facts of this case unknown for generations.

1 From an article entitled “Newport couple witnesses to airliner attack”, written by Danielle Portteus, published by Monroe News on December 26, 2009. http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/NEWS01/712279987/-1/NEWS

2 Anomalies of the case in no particular order:

1. In December 2010, Chambers told the Detroit Free Press that the Government’s own explosives experts indicate that the bomb was impossibly defective. The Free Press later erased this article from its online site, but did not erase earlier underwear bomber stories.


2. The FBI has admitted to supplying the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber and the Wrigley Field Bomber with intentionally defective bombs shortly after the underwear bomber event.


3. Janet Napolitano’s comment that “the system worked” was a Freudian slip.


4. The plane taxied to the gate. The passengers were not allowed off of the plane for 20-30 minutes (Was the bomb still on the plane?). There was bomb material that was supposedly explosive all over the cabin of the plane. Nobody took any action to make sure the passengers were safe or that the “explosives” were of no danger to the passengers. This is evidence of foreknowledge that there was no danger to the passengers.


5. TSA admitted knowledge of the threat while the flight was over Canada/Atlantic Ocean. No measures were taken to notify the pilot or to divert the flight for an emergency landing elsewhere.


6. My eyewitness account of the sharp dressed man and the related evidence as to this man. There is no other likely explanation for this man except for government involvement. The airport video has never been released and remains under protective order of the court.


7. The government’s continued release of Umar’s passport picture through the media. This was done for no other reason that to attempt to discredit me. Why such an effort to show a passport picture all over the media? In no other case has a passport picture been shown in the media. A copy of the supposed “passport” of Umar, however, was not released to Chambers until June 2011. The release of the passport to standby defense counsel was delayed 19 months in order to limit the amount of time Chambers would need to have experts verify its authenticity.


8. The explanation for the cameraman is near unbelieveable. He started filming the sky just before the attack started and then he turned to film the entire attack from beginning to end. We all thought we were going to die. The last thing on anyone’s mind at that time was to film something.


9. On 1-5-10 Breibart posted an article that indicated the Government had viewed over 200 hours of video from the airport and it showed no evidence of an accomplice. This article is contradicted by the 1-22-10 article of ABC News by Brian Ross that indicated that “The government is looking into the identity of a man that helped Umar at Schiphol.” The article fails to mention that this “sharp dressed man” escorted Umar through security without a passpot and instead tries to paint this man as Al Qaeda. The government is contradicting itself in both of these stories and is attempting weak coverups in each story.


10. Umar is charged with conspiracy. The accomplices names or contributions are never mentioned. They are not listed as wanted and they are never discussed. This is because they are U.S. Intelligence agents.


11. Customs spokesperson Ron Smith changed the official story about the 2nd man taken into custody in Detroit 5 times. Then he sent a half hearted apologetic email to the media. My story as to this man has never changed. Ron Smith eventually gave up lying and quit talking about this man who was witnessed by nearly all of the passengers.


12. Why were pictures of Umar’s underwear constantly released to the media? These pictures show Umar’s underwear is largely intact. I have information from a credible source that due to this incident, Umar “Will never have any kids”. This fact is not in line with undamaged underwear. The continued release of the underwear was used as a propaganda piece to reinforce the deceit.


13. The prosecution has continued to block evidence from Umar’s standby attorney and in some cases, has provided it late. Why? If Umar was a terrorist nut, what is it that the government does not want the defense to see? It seems to me that if the official story is true, then this is an open and shut case. It appears that the government feels a need to insulate itself from civil cases filed by the passengers.


14. Why has Chambers repeatedly indicated that Umar has a very valid defense? The answer is the entrapment defense.


15. Portions of the Patriot Act were set to expire just before Christmas Day 2009. The Congressional vote to extend them was delayed until February. Body scanning machines were already built and sitting in warehouses. Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security has ties to the body scanning manufacturers. The U.S. had no terrorist attacks from 2001 until Christmas Day 2009. A new terrorist attack was needed to get the body scanning machines in the airports.


16. If flight 253 had crashed, nobody would know that the bomb was in Umar’s underwear. An unsuccesful staged attack was necessary to show where the bomb was held. This was needed to sell the American public that body scanners were needed to prevent similar future attacks.


17. The story of Umar obtaining his bomb in another country and wearing it to Schiphol is not logical. It is much more likely that he was given the defective bomb at or near the airport. It is likely that the second man taken into custody in Detroit gave him the bomb at Schiphol. My theory is that the bomb sniffing dog (which we witnessed) in Detroit sniffed bomb residue in his bag after we landed.


18. Umar could have been stopped in Amsterdam after boarding and been charged with various charges that would have resulted in a life sentence. Instead he was allowed to fly into U.S. airspace and light his bomb there, over Detroit, on Christmas Day in order to make this a MUCH large media story to usher in the body scanners.


19. How did Umar pick his window seat over the gas tank when he paid cash for his ticket? (You must buy your ticket with credit in order to pick your seat).


20. Other terrorist attack videos are released within hours. The relevant video in this case has never been released. Note that Schiphol airport has more cameras than any airport in the world.


21. The bomb was lit in the cabin and not in the bathroom so that it could be filmed and make more of a media event than a dud bomb lit in a bathroom.


22. Obama’s “failed to connect the dots speech” is discredited by the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy of the State Department. Kennedy indicated that, in so many words, that the government was tracking Umar and did not revoke his visa in order to track him into the U.S. This is almost, but not quite an admission that he was let into the U.S. on purpose.


23. The Congressional testimony of Michael Leiter indicated that the U.S. Government frequently lets terrorists into the U.S.


24. In early 2010, a Mr. Wolf appeared on the Keith Olberman Show and indicated that the Obama administration was looking into the possibility that this was an intentional plot by a U.S. intelligence agency.


25. Watch the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy (available on the internet) and watch how he does vocabulary gymnastics to avoid saying that this was an intentional plot by U.S. intelligence.


26. Dutch military police initially indicated that Umar did not go through normal security measures. This was only reported once.


27. Why did a passenger call me in early January 2010 and attempt to convince me that I did not see Umar being escorted around security, but I instead witnessed a minor child being taken through security. This was untrue. I later found out that such passenger works for a contractor that receives a great deal of business from the Department of Defense.


28. Why does the mainstream media continue to not investigate this story and continue to not report my eyewitness account?


29. A second passenger contacted me and confirmed my account of the Sharp Dressed Man. She is scared and refuses to come forward.


30. Why have nearly all of the passengers refused to talk about this case?


31. Why were a great deal of the passengers, military personnel, government workers and government contractors?


32. Why did the prosecution indicate at a recent hearing that it was still withholding some evidence that was deemed to be secret (top secret?). What could be so secret if the government was not involved in the plot?


33. Why has the online Detroit Free Press site erased all underwear bomber articles that support my theory on the case, but retained older articles that support the official story?

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized, USA, Yemen

One response to “key witnesses will be excluded from the trial of the underwear bomber

  1. Pingback: Blackwater Watch » Blog Archive » key witnesses will be excluded from the trial of the underwear …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s