Wednesday, July 11, 2007

No Defense for Terror (Part 11)

Reporter Ann Louise Bardach, who has interviewed Luis Posada Carriles extensively, mentioned the lack of evidence at Posada's first trial in an interview on Democracy Now! (October 10, 2006):

"... almost all the evidence was ruled inadmissible. It was really stunning. All the police reports from Trinidad, the confessions of Ricardo and Lugo, all the reports out of Barbados, every shred of evidence that was extraordinarily compelling was ruled inadmissible on of the grounds of, guess what? They said, 'Well, the interviews were done in an English-speaking country,' even though there were, you know, certified Spanish language translators involved at all times. So they threw out the file -- so there was no evidence. So once you got a judge to declare it inadmissible, what was there to try Bosch [or Posada] on? So, not surprisingly, he did win an acquittal. And I found that one of the more interesting points, because you hear this endlessly in Miami, how he won an acquittal."

But, let's examine the evidence that was left to the judge, and supported by Fontova.



So, some of you might be asking: but didn't Ricardo Morales Navarrete confess to the 1976 bombing? And, thus, Fontova (or Posada) isn't totally wrong to blame Morales, right?

Correct, Fontova is partially right to blame Morales, but the evidence he provides doesn't add up.

The centerpiece to Fontova's defense lies with the examination of the forensic evidence by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE). RARDE was part of several defense establishments in the UK , which in 1991 together became the Defence Research Agency, and has gone through many changes over the years.

RARDE provided the results of their scientific examination of the Cubana flight wreckage (what was found floating) to the Venezuelan courts. According to Jay Ducassi*, reporting for the Herald, the "controversial 1980 verdict that acquitted Miami Cuban militant Orlando Bosch in one of history's most deadly plane bombings was strongly influenced by a British expert's investigation of the explosion."

The British expert in question was an aeronautics engineer named Erick Newton who was an investigator of aerial accidents for the British Royal Air Force. A man who definitely seems qualified (with 33 years of experience in this department) to investigate the Cubana flight bombing. But, it is not known how many bombing investigations he has done in all his years, unless bombings are frequent in the Royal Air Force.

But, what Fontova forgets to mention (also Ducassi) is the fact that Newton was not alone in his investigations, he had help. And how odd that his help came from a former subordinate of Luis Posada Carriles when Posada worked for the Venezuelan intelligence agency DISIP.

Carlos Fabbri was chief of DISIP's Explosives Department under Posada for two years, and an expert in the field of explosives (with an impressive resume). In a 1980 interview with a publication called ELITE, Fabbri said that he knew Posada was his boss, but only knew him by sight and never met him.

According to a declassified FBI document, a "confidential source who has furnished reliable information in the past" said that "Fabri [sic] and Posada Carriles are good friends and that [both] had actually been arrested a couple of years ago by Venezuelan authorities after it was learned they provided false documentation and explosives to Dr. Orlando Bosch Avila in Venezuela at that time."

*[The Miami Herald, May 15, 1983, "Bosch's Acquittal Hinged on British Expert's Views" by Jay Ducassi.]

[Part 12]


Manuel A.Tellechea said...


"Certified English translators?" Is Bardrach kidding? Like the translator from INS at Posada's exclusion hearing who falsified and misrepresented all of Posada's answers during the longest such interview in INS history? The judge who dismised the immigration case against Posada cited the translator's tendentious inaccuracies amounting to fraud as the principal reason she dismissed the government's case. So, in effect, the Venezuelan court was entirely correct to be wary of English "translations." It boggles the mind to think how many times defendants must have been railroaded in lesser known cases through the agency (and, indeed, the "testimony") of so-called "translators".

And again, and for the millionth time, why doesn't Bardrach release the tapes of her interviews with Posada? Posada has raised no objection. The New York Times has raised no objection. Only Bardrach herself objects. She obviously believes that the tapes would be more "incriminating" if not released. Then you and others, Pancho, can let your imaginations run wild.

Mambi_Watch said...

The correct quote is "certified Spanish language translators."

About the translations: that's why there's an appeals process.

About the tapes: Posada has raised many objections to the tapes.

Bardach's position on the tapes is about the protection of journalist sources. She is not a criminal investigator. The FBI is. They destroyed their evidence on Posada. And its very suspicious as to why they did.

Look who's talking about imaginations running wild, Mr. Posada-was-three-times-acquitted.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


Your answers were highly unsatisfactory and did not at all address the questions I raised. Your lack of candour astonishes me.

"That's why there is an appeals process?" Does that justify every violation of the law by law enforcement? Do you really think that in the ordinary course of events the appeals process can be expected to sort out and correct all the misconduct and willful fraud perpetrated by the government and its agents? Certainly you would not think so if anyone except Posada or some other Cuban freedom fighter were the victim.

So Bardrach wants to "protect a journalistic source" that doesn't want to be protected, who feels, in fact, that such "protection" is intended to inculpate him by innuendo.

Why would the FBI wilfully destroy records which might be expected to help in the government's prosecution of Posada unless said records incriminated it rather than Posada?

Certified English-Spanish translator would be more accurate, since the translator was also translating (or mistranslating) the government's questions from English to Spanish, not just Posada's answers from Spanish to English.

Mambi_Watch said...

Mr. Tellechea,

You are talking about what you believe are systematic irregularities and unlawful behavior within the judicial system and law enforcement.

Such as rampant racism in the US system as pointed out by many human rights organizations, right? Of course that would require a systematic change.

What would you recommend for systematic violations by foreign language translators?

Maybe you should write a post about it, instead of asking me if an appeals process assumes that I "justify every violation of the law by law enforcement."

I would be more than happy to contribute to your recommendations.

leftside said...

Come on Manuel, you know that both Posada and his lawyer speak fluent English, so the translation issue was BS. Even so, I read those transcipts and the examples cited were so miniscule as to be a joke. Translation is not an exact science.

There indeed needs to be an investigation of why the FBI (ordered by Ed Pesquera, son of Hector) schredded the original Posada documents in 2003. We know Hector is close to CANF leaders and Miami politicos. We know he got his job in S. Florida after his investigation into the CANF member owned boat La Esperanza, brimming with military equipment and convited drug runners, went south. We know he nixed calls for wiretaps into Orlando Bosch. We know he killed investigations into CANF members, who were hoarding high explosives and even helicopters for a terrorist assalt at the time. We know Pesquera announced the charges against the Cuban 5 within 12 days of becoming Special Agent in Charge of S. Florida...

So what we have is a man who assists real terrorists to go free and locks up people fighting terrorism for life sentences.