FG

To Statira re: Who cares who killed Khomeini's son?

You should if you despise the regime as much as you say.

This is the one crime which, if exposed, would do more  than anythng else to bring down the regime by depriving it of its strongest supporters-- the conservatives who still idolize Khamenei.  If he personally killed Khomeini's son and you can show it most would no longer support him. 

That's why the opposition should focus on exposing Khamenei's role in ordering the murder.  There's no doubt in my mind that he did it.

You don't have to love the regime's founder to agree my point.  Think strategically not emotionally.  Whatever weakens this regime, especially exposing a crime few can defend, is good.   It may be OK with these conservatives to kill protestors but this killing is a different  story--a total no-no.

As for the Khomeineis, they hardly support the regime. The victim had turned against the regime.  One grandson  said the Americans should invade Iran too and that Iran needs an American-style democracy.  He regards the regime as a tragic mistake now in the hands of thugs and incapable of reform.

Who cares

if Ahmad Khomeini or Ahmede geryan, was killed or saghat shode by himself. He and his father Khomeini were the same crap as khamenei, if not worse!They used to say the same for Khomeini first son, Mostafa khomeini, who was killed by Shah. No, they were just a bunch of potato couch moft khor eating like pig and died of Hrt attacks.

Rebutting the defense

Q: Don't you need eyewitnesses?

Not necessarily. If eyewitnesses were required, most murderers and burglars could never be convicted.

Any law student learns that eyewitnesses are among the least reliable evidence (40 percent unreliability)--contrary to public perceptions. 

Q: I heard you can't convict a man based on circumstantial evidence alone.  Is it true?

False.  It's another popular myth.  Circumstantial evidence may be the strongest of all especially when it comes from many different directions as in this case.

Thousands of prisoners have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

Q. How much evidence do you need to convict a defendant?

A prosecutor does not have to prove guilt beyond a doubt.   That's impossible since the most improbable story could be true--in theory.

All the prosecution must do is prove guilt beyond a REASAONABLE doubt.   The word was inserted for good reason.

Q. Are you giving Khamenei a fair chance to defend himself?

Imagine an accused person who is given two things for more than a decade prior to trial:

--Total possession of the evidence room (with prosecution denied same).

--The right to "protect" witnesses against himself.

I'd say that--compared to ordinary defendants he has had more than a fair chance.

Q. In that case is any more evidence likely?

Yes.  Despite the best effort to cover such crimes, some people will talk.   Look at what happened to the Nazis and Slobodan Milosevic.

Some people will talk out of disgust--people who feel like the prison doctor but have less nerve when it comes to speaking up until the regime falls.

Others will seek to plea bargain in return for a lesser sentence.  We'll be glad to give little fish a break in return but there will be no plea bargains for men like Taeb and Khamenei.

Q. Is the public at large "required" to meet the same stiff requirements as a jury when it comes to Khamenei's guilt?

No.  The public can use its common sense ( visible in the eight items above).  For example, in American criminal trials a jury's verdict must be unanimous except in two states.   If any overwhelming portion of Iran's population concludes Khamenei murdered Khomeini's son, that will suffice to sink the ship.  I'd urge readers pass along this post to Ianian friends via the safest means available (tweets). 

What conclusions the public reaches concerning Khomeini's murder will be critical in determining when people have had enough, how fired up they get, whether they join the opposition, etc.

The same is true of soldiers and officers have had enough of he regime.  How many have considered the evidence of Khoumeini's murder?   Would their attitudes to protestors change as they become better acquainted? 

The opposition would be wise to demand an impartial inquiry into Khamenei's death. It won't get one but the point is to draw public attention to the crime at a time when Khamenei's brutality has created receptive ground.

8 Good reasons to conclude "Khamenei did it"

1. NO ONE BUT KHAMENEI HAD A MOTIVE

The victim was too popular--far more than Khamenei even in conservative neighborhoods.  More importantly, the victim openly and loudly criticized Khamenei's Borgia-like excesses.

2. DID KHAMENEI HAVE A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO MURDER?

ALTERNATIVE A: House arrest (for his own protection of course) or prosecution (Khoumeini was a foreign agent, or a “secret" MKO member or had committed“crimes against God.” In the latter case, trust in the regiime’s honesty and fairness would substitute for defense attorney, evidence or an open and public trial, Since Khamenei had not consolidated power and Jafari, Taeb and their ilk were not in control the Republican Guard and Basilj, this alternative was too risky.

ALTERNATIVE B: Let “the kid” live. Alas he wouldn’t shut up. The more people who listened to him, the greater the threat to Khamenei’s legitimacy.

ALTERNATIVE C: Murder. The problem here is that it would enrage the public who would demand nothing short of a real and impartial investigation. Hence, any murder must appear to be a “natural” death. To eliminate Khoumeini would do more than eliminate a threat. His removal was the key to making all else possible.

3. THE VICTIM WAS IN GREAT HEALTH PRIOR TO HIS “HEART ATTACK.”

The younger Khamenei was in prime health. He came from a long-lived family with no history of youthful “heart attacks.” Khamenei would say, “Coincidences happen.”

4. THE TIMING LOOKS SO ODD

By a strange coincidence, the death occurred while the regime’s death squad was in full swing, killing dozens of journalists, intellectuals and other regime critics. I suppose we can pass this off as another odd coincidence. Some folks believe young Khomeini was always the main target while others deaths served as “icing on the cake” and a convenient distraction.

5. KHAMENEI’S STRONGLY BACKED THE DEATH SQUADS WHO DID THE KILLING.

In Iran, we would not see plainclothes thugs operating freely, rigged elections and trials, trashing of opposition clerics homes unless Khamenei endorsed it. Death squads too had all the time in the world. Who gave them such freedom? Once they were exposed, an innocent Supreme Leader would have been outraged. Instead, Khamenei ordered the arrest of the muckraking journalists, introduced broad censorship and ordered the usual beatings and worse for students who protested.

6. WE KNOW DEATH SQUADS USED"INJECTION" KILLINGS ELSEWHERE:

Several death squad victims were killed by injections designed to feign heart attacks. The same procedure was used more recently to eliminate an embarrassing witness to prison rapes and murders--a doctor who spoke up.

7. THE INJECTOR ALSO HAS AN UNLIKELY HEART ATTACK TOO

Having been outed by journalist, he died from a very similar, injection-style "heart attack." Given his relative youth and the convenient timing of his “heart attack,“ isn’t this one coincidence too many?

8. CONSIDER KHAMENEI’S KNOWN “CRIMINAL RECORD” BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE

As I asked above, would such a man hesitate at murdering young Khomeini if he thought he could get away with it?   

Some ultraconservative favorites in Khamenei's entourage have their own militias. These are the same people who set the Abadan fire and who came up with the technique of throwing acid in young women’s faces to break mass resistence when hajib laws were imposed.