Media convicted "London bombers" did NOT travel to Pakistan together!

[stickdog]

From a widely circulated BBC/CNN/AP/Reuters/AEP report that came out this morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4693001.stm

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, flew into Karachi together on Turkish Airlines flight 1056 on 19 November, 2004 and both left on Turkish Airlines flight 1057 on 8 February this year.


HOWEVER:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/4693243.stm

Education Leeds, the body which runs the city's schools, said Khan was employed at the primary school in Hunslet between March 2001 and December 2004.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15729250&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=the-suicide-murderers-name_page.html

ANOTHER raid was carried out at Lees Holm, Dewsbury, where Mrs Patel's (Khan's Indian mother-in-law) married daughter Hasina (Khan's Indian wife), 27, is believed to have lived with her husband. It is thought Hasina reported her husband missing to police last week.

A neighbour said: "No one really knows him round here. They moved in at Christmas but he's never been seen at the mosque. He's a mystery."


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12138795.htm

Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, born in Pakistan and another of the suicide bombers, is known in his neighborhood as an exemplary community worker. A father of an 8-month-old baby girl, Khan was a popular former teacher of children with learning disabilities.


*****


Are we really supposed to believe that Khan worked for Hillside Primary School and moved to Dewsbury with his wife and newborn infant daughter while he was in Pakistan? Or that he left his wife and newborn infant to fend for themselves during his first child's first three months so he could tool around in Pakistan with a 22-year-old he hardly knew?

Whatever happened to journalists who check facts and confirm stories, anyway?

[wli]

1. pure propaganda, as usual

[1932]

2. The logic is circular. A suicide bomber might be that callous.

If you don't believe he was the suicide bomber, then you might not believe he'd take time off from work and leave his young family to rely on extended family rather than him.

If you believe that he's the kind of guy who'd kill innocent people with a suicide bomb, then you might believe that he'd put his family at a lower priorty than jihad.

[stickdog]

3. That only explains the infant, not the work history or the Christmas move.

Furthermore, the facts weren't checked with his family or his neighbors or against his work history or his property owning/renting history.

Do you really think if he abandoned his newborn infant for the first three months of her life that nobody would have dissed him in the press for that by now?

[1932]

4. I would believe a suicide bomber would put jihad before family.

I don't see the press doing any dissing at all, by the way. It's mostly just the facts.

[shance]

6. You may not forgive me, but that is a biased, narrow minded assumption.

How can you assume you know that these were suicide bombers to begin with???

You are taking the mainstream media at its word, which is amazing in and of itself considering the circumstances.

And as such, you should make clear your conventional assumptions of Islamic individuals, versus the probable or possible reality that they had absolutely no affiliation with each other, other than being of the same cultural background, if even that.

[1932]

7. That's why I said the logic was circular.

Reread my first post in this thread. I've addressed this paradox.

These guys either were or were not suicide bomberts. If they weren't, they still could have been bad family men. If they were suicide bombers, I'm more inclined to believe their families came second.

The problem isn't with my assumptions or stereotying.

The problem is with the logic of saying these guys were not the bombers because nobody would abandon their families like that.

[stickdog]

10. Oh, really?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005330263,00.html

GRAINY CCTV images show bomb ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan and evil henchman Shehzad Tanweer arriving in Pakistan.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article299871.ece

Khan, a one-time primary school teaching assistant from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, killed six other passengers when he triggered the Edgware Road station bomb. The death toll from the four blasts reached 55 at the weekend.

...

But he also went to Pakistan on more than one occasion, visiting madrassas (religious schools) run by Jaish-e-Mohammed, a group that has staged terrorist attacks in Kashmir and has ties to al-Qa'ida.

...

Khan's links to the Mike's Place bombing remain uncertain. Israeli security services refused to confirm or deny reports in Ma'ariv, an Israeli mass-circulation daily paper, that he visited Israel in 2003. But informed sources believe he did help plan the bombing.


In what universe are these confirmed facts?

[1932]

21. The question here isn't whether DU'ers can confirm these facts.

The question is whether the facts are believalbe.

That a guy who ended up being a suicide bomber would abandon his job and his family to travel abroad is believable.

That a guy who worked at a school would have time to travel is believable.


I appreciate the drive to convince people that these guys didn't do these bombings. But the argument outlined in the OP is not enough to shatter the theory of the case that exists now.

[stickdog]

30. It's not believable unless and until the little issue of Khan moving into

his new place with his wife and kid at Christmas-time, 2004 is addressed one way or another.

Finally, has the standard of journalism now changed from accuracy to believability?

[1932]

33. I'm not talking about journalism. I'm talking about what you're doing.

The newspapers are reporting the facts as they are revealed.

What you're doing is trying to make those facts seem unbelievable. But, every post other than yours in this thread which addresses your implications shows that they facts being reported are believable.

I acknowledge that you don't think the facts make sense. However, very reasonable posters here have posted very reasonable arguments suggesting that the theory of the case is still very reasonable.

[stickdog]

35. I have clearly demonstrated that the "reported facts" are contradictory.

By definition. That much has been admitted by all every "very reasonable posters here."

I doubt the Pakistani report because the preponderance of our current contradictory evidence strongly argues against it. Many, like you, don't seem to particularly care about these contradictions or what the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates, but only to demonstrate that it's conceivable that the Pakistani travel report could potentially be accurate.

As one of the "very reasonable posters here," I admit as much. However, as things stand currently, the Pakistani report is at minimum quite dubious.

[John Doe II]

8. Good finding, stickdog, as usual!

In fact I really love to read a single witness from his school stating that Khan was off for that period...

[Tom Bombadil]

9. Some more info on Khan

He was patient, said the staff, and great with the kids. But there was trouble at home. As Khan became increasingly serious about his religion he clashed with his wife, who had far more liberal views about family life. The marriage, which had not been arranged by the families, was not approved of by his mother-in-law.

The couple split up a year ago, just before Khan went on sick leave in September 2004, said to be suffering from depression. He finally resigned from the school in December. Visits to his wife and 14-month old daughter Maryam became less frequent, although as he made his journey to London 10 days ago his wife was heavily pregnant.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article299674.ece

[stickdog]

14. Once again, this article leaves us with more questions than answers.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article299674.ece

Suicide bombers do not buy return tickets. Theirs is a one-way trip. When four young men met at Luton railway station a week ago last Thursday, however, they gave every impression of going to London and coming back. They paid and displayed, leaving valid tickets on the windows of a Nissan Micra and a Fiat Bravo in the station car park. They boarded the 7.48am to London carrying return tickets.

Why would they do that, if they knew they would be dying very soon? The car park can be explained: perhaps they did not want to attract attention or get stopped. But the question of the train tickets has no obvious answer, unless the bombers were not aware that they would be among the casualties at Aldgate, Edgware Road, King's Cross and on the No 30 bus. They may have thought that they could leave their deadly bags on the train or the bus and walk away, merging safely into the crowd by the time a detonator set off the plastic explosive they called Mother of Satan to kill and maim in those enclosed spaces. Or were they told the bombs would go off later than they did?

... But there was trouble at home. As Khan became increasingly serious about his religion he clashed with his wife, who had far more liberal views about family life. The marriage, which had not been arranged by the families, was not approved of by his mother-in-law.

The couple split up a year ago, just before Khan went on sick leave in September 2004, said to be suffering from depression. He finally resigned from the school in December. Visits to his wife and 14-month old daughter Maryam became less frequent, although as he made his journey to London 10 days ago his wife was heavily pregnant.

Who made these claims about Khan supposed marriage trouble? Where is this personal information about Khan coming from?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050715/asp/foreign/story_4992707.asp

Hasina (Khan's wife) worked in schools in Dewsbury as a neighbourhood enrichment officer.

After she became pregnant, the couple moved to her mother’s home in Thornhill Park Avenue, Dewsbury. Hasina gave birth to their daughter in May last year and at Christmas they moved to a council house in Lees Holm, a mile away.

So if Khan and his wife moved to his wife's mum's house in May and to there own house at Christmas, how could Khan have been separated from his wife a year ago? How could he have been in Pakistan with Taneer from tha middle of November 2004 to the beginning of February 2005?

And just how "heavily pregnant" is Khan's wife?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/18/nbomb118.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/18/ixnewstop.html

Khan and his wife Hasina, who is four months pregnant, and their 14-month-old daughter Maryam, had moved to a new home on a former council estate at Lees Holm, Dewsbury, West Yorks, last Christmas.

Consider that no matter how "heavily pregnant" Khan's wife is today, they could not have conceived before 10/04 or their second child would already be born. So if you are impregnating your wife and moving from home to home with her, just how "split up" are you?

More about Khan:

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=283&fArticleId=2624661

Simultaneously, police raided the nearby Lees Holm house of Patel's son-in-law, British-born Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30, of Pakistani descent. Patel's daughter Hasina, 27, married Khan two years ago. They have a one-year-old baby daughter. It is thought Hasina reported her husband missing to police last week, hours after the explosion.

"No one really knows Khan around here. The couple moved in at Christmas, but he's never been at the mosque," a neighbour said.

Hours later, police confirmed that Khan was one of the four suspected suicide bombers. At the same time, they confirmed that the other bombers, aged between 19 and 30, were also from West Yorkshire.

Yesterday, I interviewed a member of the Muslim community who knew Khan. "He was always quiet. We travelled to Saudi Arabia together two years ago to perform haj (pilgrimage). We also travelled to Jerusalem. Khan was well-mannered, soft-spoken and an intellectual. I am shocked. I never for one moment pictured him as a suicide bomber. I can't believe what he did. Why?" said the man, who asked not to be named.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15733474&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=7-7--war-on-britain--the-four-fanatics--name_page.html

(Khan) met his future bride Hasina at Leeds University, where they were students. Her family were from India. It caused friction at first, which soon vanished. They wed at a mosque in Dewsbury three years ago. It was a traditional Muslim ceremony, at which Khan sported a beard, which he later shaved off.

The couple lived in a terraced house in nearby Batley. Then next-door neighbour Freda Senior, 76, said: "They told me they were both teachers. You would not expect teachers to be mixed up in something like this. He was clean shaven and wore western clothes. He did not seem particularly religious."

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

17. It Is Hard To See What Excites You So, Sir

There are no major differences in these accounts, and nothing contradictory.

If, as in the most precise report, the wife is four months pregnant in early July, conception would have occured in March. Seperation does not mean breaking off all contact, nor even the suspension of all sexual relations. There is also the possibility another man is the father. Nor is a seperation or estrangement between a couple always immediately apparent to all on-lookers; people in that situation very frequently try and maintain a good face on matters publicly, as people often feel failure of a marriage as a personal failure, and are embarrassed and distressed by it. There is often a period of vacillation, in which attempts to re-kindle vie with periods of renewed revulsion. Changes in residence are sometimes seen as a means that might patch things together.

There is a bewildering variety of likely sources for the accounts of their marriage: family, employer, neighbors. Given that, where people are free to divorce, roughly half of all marriages are dissolved, there cannot be a reasonable presumption that any marriage is particularly happy and trouble free, and it is a fact that the latter stages of pregnancy and the early period after birth are particularly trying times. The man was on sick leave for depression, and from this it is quite possible to infer marital difficulties: depressed persons are difficult to live with.

[stickdog]

19. Look closer, Magistrate. I'm certain you have the cognitive ability to

figure this out, if you just set your mind to the task.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050715/asp/foreign/story_4992707.asp

Hasina (Khan's wife) worked in schools in Dewsbury as a neighbourhood enrichment officer.

After she became pregnant, the couple moved to her mother’s home in Thornhill Park Avenue, Dewsbury.

Hasina gave birth to their daughter in May last year and at Christmas they moved to a council house in Lees Holm, a mile away.


*****


Do you understand now, Magistrate? From sometime near the end of 2003 to May 2004, Khan and his wife lived at his MOTHER-IN-LAW'S house. Then they moved into their own place -- about a mile away -- at Christmas.

Do you really expect us to believe that Khan, his wife and her mother decided that the time for her and her months' old infant to move from her mother's home and into their own family home was during the middle of Khan's supposed nearly three month journey through Pakistan?

Surely that makes as little sense to you as it does to everybody else.

And surely you realize -- what with journalistic "standards" being what they are today -- that there's a high probability that NOBODY who relayed the Pakistan report as God's own truth even so much as attempted to confirm Khan's supposed dates of travel with his employers (at least one of which had him on their books until at least the beginning of December), his primary school students (who reported seeing him in December 2004), his neighbors (who said he moved next to them at Christmas 2004), his mother-in-law (who almost certainly would have scoffed at the idea of kicking her daughter and her infant out of her home while Khan was off on an extended international journey), his wife (who is perhaps less than accessible at the moment being held under house arrest and all) or Khan's Great British (as opposed to Pakistani) flight history.

Furthermore, if Khan REALLY traveled to and from Pakistan on the dates reported, he also traveled from and to Britain on (at least nearly) those exact same dates. So why has every media service under the sun decided to rely on Pakistani flight records when British flight records are undoubtedly superior?

Finally, since the very day Khan was first mentioned as a suspect by the press, we've been treated to all manner of negative aspersions and innuendos about the man, from his supposed depression to his supposed marital separation to his supposed Svengali-like radicalizing influence on youngsters to his supposed long associations with both Al Kayda and Terry Est. Please note that not one of these dubious, albeit extremely ubiquitous, allegations has been graced by so much as a single identifiable source. So if Khan in fact had actually abandoned his wife and 6-9 month-old infant daughter to traipse around Pakistan for almost 3 full months just 5-7 months ago, why hadn't even the barest wisp of a rumor of Khan's completely outrageous marital and parental lapse been reported by ANY media outlet until our intrepid Pakistani travel "agents" weighed in yesterday?

[1932]

22. If you finally get off the list to get a council flat, you don't pass on

it just because your husband is travelling.

EU citizens correct me if I'm wrong: in international airports in the EU, there are two lines: EU passport and non EU passport lines. You can walk through the EU passport line, wave your EU passport, and they don't even enter your information in the computer.

If he flew from Pakistan into any EU interntaional airport into a terminal where other intra-EU flights were landing, becuase he was a British citizen he would have been able to arouse the minimum of suspcision and tracking -- he might have merely opened his passport for a 3-second visual inspection, and wouldn't have had to answer any questions.

Therefore, the best way to know he was in Pakistan would have to come from the Pakistan port of entry.

[stickdog]

24. So no airlines keep passenger logs in Great Britain?

Is that your final answer?

[1932]

25. He could have flown AirPakistan into any European city and then taken

a bus, train, or any one of dozens of airlines to Leeds. You don't need a passport to fligh internally in the EU, so he could have used his first initial and last name to travel in the EU.

All this could make it incrediblely difficult to track down the final leg of his journey back from Pakistan.

Being an EU citizen makes it very easy to travel around the EU and it makes it very easy to enter the EU.

[stickdog]

28. Whatever. Could or could not Turkish Air's British manifests be used

to confirm whether or not Khan traveled with Hanweer on the exact flights the Pakistanis claim they did?

And please don't pretend that Interpol has no way of determining an EU citizen's transcontinental flight history because that claim is absurd. European intelligence certainly does NOT depend on the ISI to know which of its citizens are booking flights from Europe to Pakistan.

[Igel]

27. I once tried to find out if my wife was on a flight.

It was a puddle-hopper from Phoenix to LA.

The airline was prohibited from divulging the information: it was against US regulations. Now, I don't know about EU/British requirements, but there may very well be something similar.

You're also asking us to believe that two unconnected strangers entered Pakistan under the names of two of the current suspects, and looked similar enough to them that the grainy pictures taken by Pakistani border control don't disconfirm identification. One wonders why that would be so.

[stickdog]

29. You aren't every major newspaper chain/news service in the world, are you?

You are not Scotland Yard, now are you?

[Igel]

32. No, I'm her husband, with community property and shared resources

and child. I have visitation rights in a hospital, and a claim on her financial resources and possessions. We share a residence and debt. In fact, her airplane ticket was purchased on a credit card with my name on it. If she's in an accident and can't speak for herself, I'm the one legally responsible for speaking for her.

Contrast this with a newspaper chain. No shared property, no shared financial resources or claims on my wife's possessions; no shared residence or debt. No connection whatsoever, in fact, legal or social.

So I can see how you'd quite logically assume the newspaper chain would have more of a legal right than I would. I'm certain that if my wife gets in a car accident and is in a coma, they'd do the right thing and call Knight-Ridder or Reuters to discuss treatment, just as you'd want them to do with you.

[stickdog]

36. You have the right. They have the means. (nt)

[Igel]

40. I don't have the right.

And if they have the means and dig out such information, they're breaking the law and should be arrested.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. It took a court subpoena to get British Ariways to release records

which led to the conviction of an ex-Conservative cabinet minister. Horray!

After the first week of the Aitken libel action last June, the Guardianand Granada journalists looked glum. The former MP (he lost his safe seat in the May landslide) was lying all right, but he was lying with such charm, verve and enthusiasm that he looked and sounded like a winner. The case seemed lost. The dramatic story of how Aitken was finally defeated by his own lies is superbly set out in the final chapters of this book. The truth came out not by due process of law, but thanks to a mixture of journalistic diligence and sheer good fortune. The Swiss hotel where Mrs Aitken was in fact staying that September weekend had, by chance, gone bust. A Guardian reporter, Owen Bowcott, begged the receivers for access to records which would normally have been kept miles out of his reach. Against all the odds, permission was granted. By chance, the records included a reference to an American Express account, which revealed that Mrs Aitken had hired a car and dumped it in Switzerland at precisely the time she was meant to be paying the bill at the Paris Ritz. If Mrs Aitken had flown to Switzerland on Swissair, the flight documents would have been kept secret. By chance, she flew British Airways, whose staff, after the inevitable subpoena, released the necessary documents to the court in the nick of time: Mrs Aitken, it turned out, had flown directly to Switzerland. She had not been in Paris that weekend. She did not pay any bill at the Ritz. Aitken was a liar. To defend his own lies, he had enlisted his wife and teenage daughter to lie on his behalf in witness statements which, but for the last-minute revelations, would have added up to perjury.

http://lrb.veriovps.co.uk/v20/n01/foot01_.html

There is no way the media can get hold of flight records without a court order.

[stickdog]

37. Surely, you jest.

Any REAL reporter would simply ask his or her Scotland Yard contact to confirm or deny the Pakistani report with the advisory that the Yard's answer (or nonanswer) would be explicitly highlighted in any article concerning the report.

Confirming your story is one of the most basic fundamentals of responsible JOURNALISM. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[Tom Bombadil]

23. Re. some of your claims

Then they moved into their own place -- about a mile away -- at Christmas

Much of your argument hinges around this statement which comes from an anonymous source. Based on your own standards in previous posts anonymous sources can't be considered evidence.

his primary school students (who reported seeing him in December 2004),

Evidence please?

why hadn't even the barest wisp of a rumor of Khan's completely outrageous marital and parental lapse been reported by ANY media outlet until our intrepid Pakistani travel record keepers weighed in yesterday?

There were reports in the British media on 16th July regarding the couples estrangement, which was BEFORE the Pakistani travel records were publicised by the BBC.

[stickdog]

26. I wasn't talking about the estrangement. I was talking about abandoning

your wife and 6-9 month old first child to mess around on the other side of the globe.

I can't find the link right now, but early on when Khan was first named a suspect, some of his former students said he told them he had to leave the school in December 2004 to visit his father in Pakistan.

Please not that I don't dispute that Khan traveled to Pakistan recently, just that he came and went on the same flights and dates as Tanweer and stayed in Pakistan for the almost three month period in between.

[shance]

5. Another fact that notes investigation.

n/t

[The Magistrate]

11. There Is Much Less Here than Meets The Eye, Sir

The teacher is reported to have gone to Pakistan late in November, and to have resigned in December. He may well have thrown up the employment prior to formally resigning, and would have been carried on the books until the latter was done.

"Around Christmas" is a pretty indeterminant statement; doubtless somewhere there is a lease record or some such with a date. In combination with the neighbor's claim that he was something of a mystery, and not seen much, it would tend to argue for the proposition that his wife moved in without him. That is not such an unheard of thing. Birth of a child, popular sentimentalities to the contrary, is not always a time of unmixed joy and connubial bliss. It frequently puts great strain on a married couple's relationship, infants being demanding critters, and greatly changing the focus of attention in a marriage, as well as inducing a state of sleep deprivation that must be experienced to be understood. Men, particularly domineering and immature men, often have great difficulty adjusting, and someone who had recently taken up the patriarchal extremist of Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in face of opposition from the wife to such beliefs, might well have had an especially hard row to hoe in that regard, and been more than happy to leave the thing behind for the company of men who believed as he did.

The trip to Paksitan seems to be pretty well established, with dated documents in support. It would take reliable reports of seeing the fellow elsewhere during that time to cast any real doubt on the trip.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The school said he had been on sick leave since September

and they said that a few days ago:

Ms Balfour confirmed that Khan left the school in December last year after three-and-a-half years, although he had been on sick leave since the previous September.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/14/ureaction.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/14/ixportaltop.html

[The Magistrate]

13. Thank You, Sir

That would seem to settle the matter regarding employment....

[stickdog]

15. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. The idea the Khan & Tanweer traveled

through Pakistan together is complete bullshit.

Your neighbor isn't going to report that you, your wife and your little baby moved in around Christmas when in fact you spent the middle of November to the beginning of February in Pakistan.

Khan and Tanweer were NOT traveling together in Pakistan for almost three months while Khan's wife and 6 to 9 month old infant moved from her mother's house to their own place a mile away.

Please think this through again, Magistrate, because your claims couldn't sound more ridiculous.

[The Magistrate]

18. You Do Not Have, Sir, Anything Like Sufficient Evidance To Make That Claim

A person contacted more than half a year after an event is quite likely to mis-remember it, particularly if, as is the case here, it was something that at the time seemed of no importance whatever. If the fellow was recently about the place, it would be very likely he was remembered casually to have been about it from the begining.

It is certainly conceivable that there is some mis-identification in the Pakistani journey, though there is at present no reason to believe that the case. Variety in journalists accounts do not convey anything like the signifigance you seek to attach here: journalism is called "the rough draft of history" for good and well-established reasons.

[stickdog]

20. But Pakistani officials are celebrated for their honesty and integrity,

and Pakistani record keepers are renowned for their fastidiousness and accuracy, right?

I'll put my money on Khan's neighbors and former employers for all the reasons I've exhaustively outlined above. If you truly disagree and are yourself inclined to wager, may I suggest we discuss terms?

[Igel]

34. People should be careful in their parsings.

"Your neighbor isn't going to report that you, your wife and your little baby moved in around Christmas when in fact you spent the middle of November to the beginning of February in Pakistan."

"A neighbour said: 'No one really knows him round here. They moved in at Christmas but he's never been seen at the mosque. He's a mystery.'"

Two points:
The "aboutness" of the text is "we don't know him", not "the Khan family's move-in". The middle sentence could be replaced by "they've been in the neighborhood about 7 months, and weren't in the neighborhood before that". It may be that the neighbor doesn't know when Mr. Khan actually showed up. All that's required is that the speaker say everything relevant that he knows and that he thinks is proper to the discourse, and commit to believing that what he says is true. By saying "they" and not "Mr. Khan" the neighbor may well be saying he doesn't know when Khan himself moved in. He is giving a time frame that he believes is probably suitable for getting to know Khan, and can be assumed to be providing the information he knows, allowing us to draw the appropriate inference. He is not saying Khan was there at Xmas.

Compare
"The Khan family moved into the flat just before Xmas, but Mr. Khan was out of the country",
"Mr. Khan moved into the flat just before Xmas, but he was out of the country at the time," and
"Mr. Khan moved himself into the flat just before Xmas, but he was out of the country at the time."
I find the first sentence to be perfectly well-formed, the second to be ok, and the third to be thoroughly anomalous. You're imply the first is as bad as the first.

I don't find that the quote necessarily means what you claim it says. And it's fairly crucial that it mean only what you claim.

[stickdog]

38. Are you contending that we haven't even yet been informed the

most basic and cursory facts about Khan like his residence history for the past 12 months?

With all the millions of inches of newsprint that have been devoted to dissecting Khan's life, actions and motivations, why do you think that would be?

[JackieO]

39. "media convicted"

It's very disturbing that corporate media has completely done away with terms like "alleged", "suspected", etc.

- and that that seems to be totally OK with so many people.