Evidence from Moussaoui Trial

Donkey® · 08-01-2006, 01:45 AM

Very interesting to look through. My personal thoughts are that the trial was a sham...but who cares anymore?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...aoui/exhibits/

Kytro · 08-01-2006, 09:51 AM

What the hell is 1/2 that evidence? is it just there to piss off the jury?

7960 · 08-01-2006, 10:06 AM

My personal thought was he was involved and would have actually been on a plane but for some unforseen circumstance and he deserves what he got for being an accomplice.

Kytro · 08-01-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

My personal thought was he was involved and would have actually been on a plane but for some unforseen circumstance and he deserves what he got for being an accomplice.

But there seems to be a lot evidence about what others did, rather than what he did.

Is there a reason for it being introduced or was it to make him look worse so the jury would be more likely to convict.

Was the evidence to prove he was involved, or was it to make people angry at him.

I really didn't follow the case, so I don't have an opinion on his guilt

7960 · 08-01-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Was the evidence to prove he was involved, or was it to make people angry at him.

Without having watched every minute of the case I'd guess it was to tie him to the group with which he was involved so the jury could see him for what he was and convict him as an accomplice.

People who think it was a sham trial probably think it was to inflame the jury.

Phantom · 08-01-2006, 10:36 AM

Chances are most of the stuff was used to ask him do you know so and so, what type of interaction did you have with him, did you know about this wire transfer, did you know why this money was transferred etc.

The idea is to tie him to the other conspirators and show he was to participate in the crime. There's rarely the smoking gun in conspriracy cases, just piles of evidence that show unusual interactions that suggest his involvement along with a stupid alibi and some dishonest answers from the defendant.

It will go something like this:

P: did you know so and so?

D: no

P: you never met or spoke to this person?

D: no

P: did you receive a wire transfer on XX/XX/2000?

D: don't remember

P: is this your signature on the receipt?

D: it could be

P: is that your name signed on the receipt?

D: looks like it

P: can you read the name of the sender?

D: ya, it says Osama Bin Ladin

P: but you never met or spoke to OBL?

D: uhhh no

P: do famous terrorists often randomly wire you money?

D: uhhhhhh

you get the idea... there's no smoking gun, but the evidence adds up and the defendant's story becomes so stupid that there is only one logical inference.

SoFlaJDM · 08-01-2006, 10:42 AM

i think he was a crazed muslim extremist that wanted fame through martyrdom, but it just backfired

motivez · 08-02-2006, 03:55 AM

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Al Qaeda basically said he wasn't connected with it?

Either way, sucks for him that he didn't get death. Now he'll wither away instead of going out in a glorious bang. No virgins for him!