News2 mins ago
Where is he, really?
Is Abu Hamza in the USA?
When did a newspaper show a recent photograph of him? When did TV show recent film of him? He did not personally appear in UK court. He was not seen when 'leaving' Long Lartin Prison or arriving at RAF Mildenhall. Neither was he photographically seen arriving in USA. Was his American court appearance covered by the Press?
Very private person isn't he?
When did a newspaper show a recent photograph of him? When did TV show recent film of him? He did not personally appear in UK court. He was not seen when 'leaving' Long Lartin Prison or arriving at RAF Mildenhall. Neither was he photographically seen arriving in USA. Was his American court appearance covered by the Press?
Very private person isn't he?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Who cares; so long as he is not here.
12:45 Mon 08th Oct 2012
Try googling ! It brings up news reports from the Guardian and others, including one on BBC News of 6th October, complete with video report from New York saying that he appeared without his prosthetics. His court-appointed lawyer asked that they be returned to him , together with his special medical shoes.
But I still think douglas is right. The man described by the BBC is a look- alike.
But I still think douglas is right. The man described by the BBC is a look- alike.
http://
You'll see from that search that his appearance in a NY court is covered by the press worldwide - unless you reckon that they're all conspiring together.
You'll see from that search that his appearance in a NY court is covered by the press worldwide - unless you reckon that they're all conspiring together.
He's been spared the 'perp walk' through the street to the courtroom because he's in custody. It is not the case that every US court has cameras or TV inside for every hearing; this hearing was only procedural, not a trial.
Either you believe eye-witnesses or you don't. Maybe they are not eye-witnesses but people describing events they didn't see. It'll get a bit embarrassing when the court has to go through the charade of trying someone who isn't actually there, when cameras and TV would be expected, but no doubt someone will think of something, and no US politician will ask questions.
Either you believe eye-witnesses or you don't. Maybe they are not eye-witnesses but people describing events they didn't see. It'll get a bit embarrassing when the court has to go through the charade of trying someone who isn't actually there, when cameras and TV would be expected, but no doubt someone will think of something, and no US politician will ask questions.
1 to 10 of 10
