IB says Headley says it’s too hot…

…CBI says it’s the humidity.

While the implausibility of David Headley having named Ishrat Jahan as an LeT operative has already been called out, there’s another problem here. How does anyone cross-check IB’s claim considering none of us has access to Headley?

In other words, the IB can make any insinuation and say Headley said it and we’ll have to believe at as truth.

This is apart from the fact that the judicial process in the news is not about whether or not Ishrat Jahan was an LeT terrorist. It’s about whether she was murdered in cold blood by Gujarat police. To that extent the IB does have a point in arguing that it cannot be blamed for how a state government interprets its inputs. Technically, the IB cannot be held responsible for murder by Gujarat police. But does that mean the IB cannot or should not be held accountable for what inputs it sends across?

Anyway, I posted a series of satirical tweets the other day making fun of the use of David Headley to justify the murder of Ishrat Jahan. Here are some of them.

3 thoughts on “IB says Headley says it’s too hot…”

  1. Breaking News: IB says David Headley says Shivam Vij isn’t getting enough attention on Twitter and is therefore using Kafila to promote his own Tweets.

    Like

  2. Has NIA really “rubbished” the Headley angle as repeatedly claimed?

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1542579/report-nia-rubbishes-reports-that-david-headley-spoke-about-ishrat-jahan

    “Aversion made regarding David Colman Headley making statement on Ishrat Jahan is purely in the nature of hearsay, it does not have any evidentiary value,” the letter says.

    http://www.rediff.com/news/report/ishrat-case-headley-s-testimony-divides-investigators/20130617.htm

    “An NIA official told rediff.com that their probe was restricted to the Mumbai 26/11 attack case. “We have studied the FBI probe and there is a mention of Ishrat, but we also realised that Headley never interacted with her. His statements were more of hearsay.””

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-06/india/40406831_1_ishrat-jahan-nia-muzammil

    “Interestingly, the NIA did not place this part of Headley’s interrogation in the public domain, apparently on the ground that it amounted to hearsay. Intelligence sources, however, wonder how the rest of Headley’s revelations were investigated and scrutinized while the Ishrat bit was discounted.”

    Like

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s