World today publishing new information that goes to show how the Minister Rubalcaba, once again lied to the English in relation to the 11-M. "At least" since 2006 (of note is the use of the phrase "at least"), the police knew that the man who recorded out of the house of Santa Coloma in June 2004 Ouhnane Daoud was fled. Which shows clearly a minister, Rubalcaba, who on Monday said that "or 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007" información.Pero be had that also makes it clear to the judge Olmo and, presumably, to the prosecutor. Because the General Information Office submitted in 2006 (what month exactly?) A report on the matter to Del Olmo, who did not include that fact in the record of 11-M, despite being Ouhnane a "suspect official" slaughter. How much more information regarding the 11-M has swiped the root cause, thus avoiding that it was known during the celebration trial for the slaughter in Madrid? Who decided, and based on what criteria, what they were entitled to know the English and why not? However, besides these two rebuke the minister Rubalcaba and the judge instructed the record of 11-M, there are three aspects of the information released today by Fernando Lázaro Manuel Marraco in the world that has, in my view, an important not less. The first of these aspects are the details on "how" was recognized in 2006 (supposedly) to Ouhane Daoud. According to information from El Mundo, the recognition comes on the heels of Algeria send information to the English authorities, requesting cooperation to investigate an Algerian Islamist cell. Among the information sent was a picture of Ouhane card that was used by English police identified him in the video recorded in Santa Coloma in June 2004. Observe the reader the fundamental point: if the information is correct publishes The World is not that Algerian officials identified in that video Ouhnane in 2006 and is communicated to the English police. English police was that identifies Ouhnane in the video, comparing the image with a photograph received from Algeria. "We are saying, then, that in 2004 (when the film was made) no one compared the video images with the other picture of Ouhnane that was already on the record of 11-M since at least May 24, 2004, when it is taught from a witness in the trains? "They want us to believe that? Let's assume it was true. "Not even compared the video with a picture of Ouhnane in 2005, when the cell stops Santa Coloma? "They want us to believe that too? Why wait for that Algeria needed send a passport photograph of Ouhnane in 2006, when they were Ouhnane photo from two years ago? The second aspect that catches my attention on the information in The World is the fact that Santa Coloma home and was registered in April 2004, one month after the slaughter of Madrid, identifying the occupants. Among them, indeed, another "fled" the 11-M: Abdelilah Hriz, whom we also retractable trial for the slaughter. What purport to tell us that in that home and in April and placed under surveillance in the months following the suspicion of harboring Islamists could come and go as he owned the place, under the noses of police, at least three alleged perpetrators 11-M in search and seizure, but nobody who watched it, or its police units, or the General Information Office, to wonder who were those that appeared in the videos? It is going to be that hard to believe, do not you think you? It seems far more likely to identify themselves to police officers and that was someone Ouhnane located above who decided that this information should not reach the 11-MY summary of the last interesting aspect is, of course, the fact that those responsible for organizing surveillance of the home of Santa Coloma out, according to El Mundo, that led UCAO García Castaño, who rode with Diaz de Mera in the trial of 11-M the antics of the non-existent and irrelevant reports of contacts between ETA and Islamists. A stupid question: under what research rode the UCAO such monitoring? I guess a judge would order. Who was it? A judge in Barcelona? Does anyone in the High Court? What crimes suspect under investigation for mounting such monitoring? It would be interesting to know the answer, do not you think?
Luis del Pino.
google772cd135feb3b93c.html. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment