Supreme Court rejects pleas against Hafiz Saeed's release

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Hafis Saeed is innocent,
Its the guys who create things like Kashmir dispute Plus the injustice done by the UNSC permanent members to meet there narrow interests, which nurture such ideology.
The only way out for India to stop guys like Hafis Saeed from spilling hate against India is to solve the dispute of Kashmir.

These disputes create room for Global Powers to intervene and sniff out there interests.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The investigation of Pakistani authorities on the Mumbai massacre is within the realm of the topic being discussed.

AM, If you don't want to answer, thats fine.

Answer what? Does the decision of the court not indicate that neither the Indian investigation nor the Pakistani one provided any credible evidence linking HS to the Mumbai attacks?

As I said in my last post, since India is claiming that it has provided plenty of evidence in multiple dossiers establishing HS's guilt in the Mumbai attacks, perhaps you can show us what that evidence is, since India claims it exists.

 

[ramu]

Now since India claims there is evidence against HS, perhaps it is YOU who should be telling us what exactly this evidence presented in multiple dossiers is and what makes it so compelling.

HS has never come to India. India has provided circumstantial evidence and also admission of Kasab under the influence of truth serum. The planning and logistical support with training facilities was provided in Pakistan and Indian authorities cannot obviously provide this evidence. However, the evidence details the exact location where the training took place and if Pakistan has the will can unearth the truth.

India requested for a voice sample of HS and other suspects to match the telephonic voice samples but even this was denied by Pakistan. Why ? Don't bother answering to that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

HS has never come to India. India has provided circumstantial evidence and also admission of Kasab under the influence of truth serum.

Thank you for admitting that India has only provided circumstantial evidence and its own 'assumptions' that HS was invovled in the Mumbai attacks, and the Pakistan SC rightfully ruled that the evidence was not enough to condemn HS.

The planning and logistical support with training facilities was provided in Pakistan and Indian authorities cannot obviously provide this evidence. However, the evidence details the exact location where the training took place and if Pakistan has the will can unearth the truth.

Nor can Pakistan 'manufacture' this evidence. You admit that India has at best circumstantial evidence against Saeed, yet India insists he is guilty - that position is rather absurd.

You are assuming, on the basis of pretty much no evidence, that HS is guilty, and then insisting that there is a 'cover-up' because evidence, and court verdicts, that is satisfactory to your demands is not unearthed.

Again, a ludicrous position on the part of India, meant more to sully Pakistan's image than any actual search for justice and respect for the law.

India requested for a voice sample of HS and other suspects to match the telephonic voice samples but even this was denied by Pakistan. Why ? Don't bother answering to that.

What, you mean you can't get them off the 'dozens of videos' on youtube? Try that canard somewhere else.

India may have asked for voice samples of Shah and Lakhvi, but for what reason I am not sure, since the trial is in Pakistan, not India, and the voice sample comparison has to be done in Pakistan, not in India.

 

[ramu]

What, you mean you can't get them off the 'dozens of videos' on youtube? Try that canard somewhere else.

India may have asked for voice samples of Shah and Lakhvi, but for what reason I am not sure, since the trial is in Pakistan, not India, and the voice sample comparison has to be done in Pakistan, not in India.

The voice sample is a specific text read out by the person giving the sample in order to validate based on several parameters based on digital signal processing. Nope. The voice sample cannot be taken from youtube video.

 

[Jackdaws]

Hafis Saeed is innocent,
Its the guys who create things like Kashmir dispute Plus the injustice done by the UNSC permanent members to meet there narrow interests, which nurture such ideology.
The only way out for India to stop guys like Hafis Saeed from spilling hate against India is to solve the dispute of Kashmir.

These disputes create room for Global Powers to intervene and sniff out there interests.

Right. But it isn't your beloved brother China on the UNSC too? How come they didn't stop this grave injustice?

 

[Jackdaws]

Thank you for admitting that India has only provided circumstantial evidence and its own 'assumptions' that HS was invovled in the Mumbai attacks, and the Pakistan SC rightfully ruled that the evidence was not enough to condemn HS.

Nor can Pakistan 'manufacture' this evidence. You admit that India has at best circumstantial evidence against Saeed, yet India insists he is guilty - that position is rather absurd.

You are assuming, on the basis of pretty much no evidence, that HS is guilty, and then insisting that there is a 'cover-up' because evidence, and court verdicts, that is satisfactory to your demands is not unearthed.

Again, a ludicrous position on the part of India, meant more to sully Pakistan's image than any actual search for justice and respect for the law.

What, you mean you can't get them off the 'dozens of videos' on youtube? Try that canard somewhere else.

India may have asked for voice samples of Shah and Lakhvi, but for what reason I am not sure, since the trial is in Pakistan, not India, and the voice sample comparison has to be done in Pakistan, not in India.

There are 2 kind of evidences - one is tangible evidence gathered from primary crime scene - Bombay in this case- where obviously Saeed was not present and the rest is evidence gathered from secondary crime scene where the crime was plotted. Statements from witnesses at secondary crime scenes have to be verified else of course the evidence will not bear out in a court of law.

Why didn't Pakistan provide consular access to Kasab?

I am sure there was not enough evidence but was effort made to collect evidence?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The voice sample is a specific text read out by the person giving the sample in order to validate based on several parameters based on digital signal processing. Nope. The voice sample cannot be taken from youtube video.

Dozens of videos correct? So since recording are being compared, there should be no problem in putting together a string of words from both sources and comparing the signals.

In any case, have a look at this article that argues that forensic voice sampling is by no means an 'open and shut' case.

the weight-of-evidence statement that the forensic scientist presents depends not only on the similarity of the voice samples (or DNA samples), but also on the typicality of those samples. If two voice samples have very similar values on some acoustic measure, this does not mean that they were produced by the same speaker. If these acoustic values were very typical in the voices of the population at large, then pulling two samples from any two people in the population would be likely to result in equal or greater similarity. Mere similarity does not therefore lead to strong support for the hypothesis that the voice samples were produced by the same speaker. If, on the other hand, the acoustic values are similar and atypical in the population at large, then one would be unlikely to obtain these two values by picking samples at random from the population, and this would lend much stronger support to the same-speaker hypothesis. In general, more similarity and less typicality leads to greater support for the same-speaker hypothesis, and less similarity and more typicality leads to greater support for the different-speaker hypothesis.

In forensic voice comparison, multiple acoustic properties of the known (suspect) and questioned (offender) voice samples are measured and assessed for similarity with each other and for typicality in relation to a database of voice samples which are representative of the population. This is done using statistical procedures to calculate a likelihood ratio, which is a numeric expression of the strength of evidence in answer to the question: How likely would one be to obtain the acoustic differences between these two voice samples under the (prosecution) hypothesis that they were produced by the same speaker, versus under the (defense) hypothesis that they were produced by different speakers.

Forensic scientists can measure the reliability of a forensic-voice-comparison system by testing it on a large number of pairs of voice samples which are known to be same-speaker or different-speaker pairs. Likelihood ratios of greater than one favor the same-speaker hypothesis and likelihood ratios of less than one favor the different-speaker hypothesis. The larger the likelihood ratios obtained from same-speaker comparisons and the fewer which are less than one, and the smaller the likelihood ratios obtained from different-speaker comparisons and the fewer which are more than one, the more reliable the system.

In some ways forensic voice comparison is actually more complicated than forensic DNA comparison. Unlike DNA profiles, voice samples will never “match”. Whereas (if we exclude a few possibilities such as transplants) DNA samples taken from the same person at different points in time will result in identical profiles, the acoustic properties of a speaker’s voice vary from occasion to occasion – the same speaker never says the same thing exactly the same way twice. In addition there will be contextual variation, the exact words and phrases used in each voice sample will almost certainly be different. The acoustic properties of voices are therefore subject to within-speaker variability. What makes a good feature for analysis in forensic voice comparison is a feature which has low within-speaker variability, does not change much from occasion to occasion, but which has high between-speaker variability, changes a lot from speaker to speaker.

ASA 157th Meeting Lay Language Papers - Forensic voice comparison – Reality not TV

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There are 2 kind of evidences - one is tangible evidence gathered from primary crime scene - Bombay in this case- where obviously Saeed was not present and the rest is evidence gathered from secondary crime scene where the crime was plotted. Statements from witnesses at secondary crime scenes have to be verified else of course the evidence will not bear out in a court of law.

But since India has no credible tangible evidence gathered from the crime scene implicating Hafiz Saeed, why is it so adamant that he is guilty?

Why didn't Pakistan provide consular access to Kasab?

What does that have to do with Hafiz Saeed?

I am sure there was not enough evidence but was effort made to collect evidence?

Why do you assume effort was not made? Why not consider the fact that HS is innocent of the allegations made against him.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hafiz Saeed makes light of Kasab's statements
London, Mar 26 (PTI)

Mumbai terror mastermind and outlawed JuD chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed does not give much credence to the confessions made by Ajmal Kasab in the ongoing 26/11 trial in India and says it is not fair to ''base everything'' on statements made by him in custody.

Saeed, who is reportedly guarded by two policemen and moves around Lahore as a free man, denies any responsibility for the Mumbai terror attacks and blamed 'Indian propaganda' for the accusations against him.

Speaking to London-based The Independent newspaper, Saeed, one of India's most wanted terrorist, said: "He (Kasab) has been giving different stories... In court, he gave this statement. He has been saying so many things – we do not know. Do you think that it is fair that you base everything on this man who is in custody?"

On India's charge that he was involved in the Mumbai attacks, Saeed said in a raised voice: "We are Pakistanis and our organisations work under the law of Pakistan. Even though we try to abide by Pakistani law, there have been such serious allegations that I was put under arrest. A lot of people who live round my house were arrested.
"My movements were restricted. My freedom of speech was restricted. All these limits have been put on me because of the pressure of foreign governments. It isn't important that I happen to be a Pakistani citizen. I did not violate any Pakistani law. I am restricted only because India wants me to be restricted."

Recalling that a group named 'Deccan Mujahideen' had claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks, Saeed said: "But within no time, India blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba and India did not even pay attention to the claim from the Deccan Mujahideen. This 'proof' was not accepted by the (Pakistani) court. They found there was no evidence for the claims against us... Soon after the Mumbai attacks, we called a press conference. We said we were not involved. We condemned this."

Putting forth his perspective of the situation in south Asia, Saeed said: "In order to understand, you have to realise the precise situation between India and Pakistan. There is a deep conflict. India has been trying to support the separatists in Balochistan. There are so many insurgencies going on in India itself, dividing and separating the country. Kashmir has been fighting for freedom".

Insisting that he had no connection to Lashkar-e- Toiba, Saeed said his charity had hundreds of offices across Pakistan. He laughed and asked: "They make me out to be the biggest and most evil terrorist. Do I look like one to you?"

Hafiz Saeed makes light of Kasab's statements

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Jamaatud Dawa says truth has prevailed​

ISLAMABAD: The banned Jamaatud Dawa organisation welcomed Tuesday’s court ruling. “Finally, truth has prevailed,” JD spokesman Yahya Mujahid told AFP by telephone. “The world should realise now that Jamaatud Dawa is a non-terrorist organisation,” he said. “With the grace of God, the court ruling in our favour has sent a clear message that Jamaatud Dawa and its chief have nothing to do with terrorism,” Mujahid added. Mujahid said the decision had lifted the stigma from the organisation. agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I heard that Digitized evidance is not valid in US courts.It can be noted that digital evidence tends to be more voluminous, more difficult to destroy, easily modified, easily duplicated, potentially more expressive, and more readily available.

Any thing represented as digital signal like a digital image , Sound or Video has its Authentication doubtful..

 

[Jackdaws]

But since India has no credible tangible evidence gathered from the crime scene implicating Hafiz Saeed, why is it so adamant that he is guilty?


What does that have to do with Hafiz Saeed?

Why do you assume effort was not made? Why not consider the fact that HS is innocent of the allegations made against him.

a. Your first 2 questions are related. The testimony of an accused caught red-handed is part of an investigation. Providing consular access to Kasab would have helped Pakistani authorities verify the points put forth by Kasab. The fact that this was not done points to lack of a genuine effort. According to the judicial process, a man is innocent until proven guilty - so am not blaming the judiciary of Pakistan which has proven its spurs in recent times. The internal politics of Pakistan i.e. between Punjab Govt. of Sharifs and Central Govt. of Zardari obviously don't see eye to eye - and last thing Zardari wants is to see Punjab in flames if HS is indicted. Anyhow, Indians are not surprised.Just disappointed.

 

[American Eagle]

Indefinite detention of those associated with an organization defined by the FBI and other Western nations as terrorist is something a nation can do without going to your, or our, Supreme Court.

I am, my view only, suspicious of the current Pakistan Supreme Court which to me comes across as trying to be "the government" unto itself.

Defeating terrorism begins with prudent measures such as this detention which the government of Pakistan and Sind Province in my view corrected trying to do.

It, to me, is a very dangerous thing to play around with extremist terrorists folks, and their fund raisers, supporters and even general public sympathesizers. Kicking dust in the eyes of the rest of the world does not address nor help the betterment of all the people of all of Pakistan, which is that nation's great need.

1963-1965 Pakistan seemed to me based on the people I knew and delt with from sweepers to top military and government officials there to be very open minded...and except for telling me of their dietary constraints that were religiously based did not discuss religion otherwise with me. There was even a small Jewish operating synagogue in old Karachi when I was there, along with many Christian churches.

Up north around Peshawar was much more conservative in terms of religion, but not hostile nor rude, always pleasant for me to deal with at that time. There was the occasional beheading of a Christian missionary from time to time, but not like the situation in the North of Pakistan today.

Then Pakistan Army Chief of Staff Musa was himself a Hazra, ethnically. Things then, whether the type democracy then or now sought after, at least reflected a diversity of the total population of Pakistan, largely based on hard work, seeking and getting higher education, and doing the best job possible.

Off to the evening Vanderbilt vs. University of Arkansas baseball game now with my wife.

American Eagle

 

[Patriot]

Indefinite detention of those associated with an organization defined by the FBI and other Western nations as terrorist is something a nation can do without going to your, or our, Supreme Court.

I am, my view only, suspicious of the current Pakistan Supreme Court which to me comes across as trying to be "the government" unto itself.

Defeating terrorism begins with prudent measures such as this detention which the government of Pakistan and Sind Province in my view corrected trying to do.

It, to me, is a very dangerous thing to play around with extremist terrorists folks, and their fund raisers, supporters and even general public sympathesizers. Kicking dust in the eyes of the rest of the world does not address nor help the betterment of all the people of all of Pakistan, which is that nation's great need.

1963-1965 Pakistan seemed to me based on the people I knew and delt with from sweepers to top military and government officials there to be very open minded...and except for telling me of their dietary constraints that were religiously based did not discuss religion otherwise with me. There was even a small Jewish operating synagogue in old Karachi when I was there, along with many Christian churches.

Up north around Peshawar was much more conservative in terms of religion, but not hostile nor rude, always pleasant for me to deal with at that time. There was the occasional beheading of a Christian missionary from time to time, but not like the situation in the North of Pakistan today.

Then Pakistan Army Chief of Staff Musa was himself a Hazra, ethnically. Things then, whether the type democracy then or now sought after, at least reflected a diversity of the total population of Pakistan, largely based on hard work, seeking and getting higher education, and doing the best job possible.

Off to the evening Vanderbilt vs. University of Arkansas baseball game now with my wife.

American Eagle

Supreme Court does not have power like executive branch to just put someone in custody or get them out.They are not allowing to put him in because there is no evidence against him.