10 guilty people they always say are innocent

1) James Earl Ray

First he confessed. Then he didn't. Then he pleaded guilty. Then he didn't. Although he was ultimately convicted of shooting Martin Luther King Jr in April 1968, James Earl Ray spent the rest of his life hinting at conspiracies and trying to withdraw his plea. Despite the fact Ray admitted to his wife that he fired the fatal shot, many backed his efforts for a retrial. In his corner (tragically): the King family who protested his innocence until his death. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

2) Osama Bin Laden

Conspiracy theorists have had a field day with the events surrounding 9/11. Bin Laden initially denied responsibility for the World Trade Center attacks but in 2004 stated that he had been in charge of the hijackers. He's continued to do so ever since. But the admission has not deterred the 9/11 Truth Movement. They still, ludicrously, blame the collapsing towers on a controlled demolition ordered by the US government. All the planes we saw were a hologram, of course. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

3) Sirhan Sirhan

The assassin of Robert Kennedy shot the presidential candidate on June 5th 1968 at Los Angeles. He was found and disarmed at the scene. During the trial, Sirhan clamed '20 years of malice aforethought.' Later claims that he could not recall the crime fell flat but there are still some who believe he is effectively a Manchurian candidate and that Kennedy was really killed by a second gunman. Notebooks found among his possessions that read 'RFK must die' have not helped his cause. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

4) Richard III

Pay £24 and you too can be a member of the Richard III Society, devoted to protesting Richard III's innocence. History suggests that the king placed his nephews in the Tower and later had them murdered. But his defendents blame Shakespeare for villainising Richard in his plays. But Shakespeare had a point. The king refused to speak on the subject or produce the children. The young princes were never seen again. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

5) Lee Harvey Oswald

The conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. President Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963 and Lee Harvard Oswald was arrested the same day when, in his rush to flee the scene, he killed a policeman. Oswald's own assassination en route to the police station triggered a rush of suspicions. Had he acted alone? Were there additional shots fired from the Grassy Knoll? And what about CIA involvement? The Warren Commission found Oswald the sole culprit. The brilliant Case Closed by Gerald Posner confirms it. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

6) James Hanratty

One of the last Brits to be hanged, James Hanratty was accused of the "A6" murder in 1961 following the killing of a motorist and rape and shooting of his companion. The case was dogged by missing statements and limited forensic evidence and death penalty opponents launched a vigorous defence. One small flaw in their argument? Hanratty's last-minute change of alibi from Liverpool to Wales. An exhumation in 2002 ultimately proved his guilt. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

7) Dr. Crippen

The American doctor was hanged for the murder of his wife in 1910. His claims that she had returned to America were slightly let down by the discovery of a body in the basement. Crippen fled but was famously arrested after a telegram was sent from his ship. Although some now argue that the remains were not Cora's, our own David Aaronovitch has sworn to eat his hat if Dr. Crippen was innocent. In Crippen's corner: Raymond Chandler (who didn't believe anyone could be stupid enough to dissolve a head in acid and then bury the torso) Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

8) Jeremy Bamber

In August 1985, three adults and two children were found dead in an Essex farmhouse. The accused was Jeremy Bamber, adopted son of the family. The case against him? Fingerprints on the gun and the fact that he had told a former girlfriend that he wanted to kill his parents. Bamber was sentenced to life but continues to blame his sister, a schizophrenic who had not taken her medication. He has appealed three times. Fighting in his corner, George Galloway. Enough said. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

9) Sid Vicious

The 'Live fast, die young' message hit home when the star of the Sex Pistols found his girlfriend Nancy Spungen stabbed to death on their bathroom floor. Arrested for the crime, Vicious attempted suicide in jail and later died of a heroin overdose while on bail. Devotees refuse to accept his involvement, blaming two drug dealers who were in the apartment that evening. Despite the best attempts of the song "Sid Vicious was Innocent," most believe the drug-addled musician was involved. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

10) Marinus van der Lubbe

In February 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames, sparking off the Nazi's suppression of civil liberties. Van der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist, confessed under torture and was executed a year later. History has fought over him. The verdict was overturned in 1980, reinstated in 1983 and overturned again in 2003. One small problem? Van der Lubbe was seen buying kindling charcoal that very evening. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.

Comments

[Sam B]

What a lovely post. "Guilty - guilty - guilty". Let's sack all our Appeal Court judges and just have David Finkelstein judge everyone based on his holiday reading. Alternatively, we could cut out the middleman, give him a .44 and five boxes of ammunition then let him loose in Belmarsh.

I love the train of logic that tells us Bamber is guilty because the word of George Galloway is suspect, but van der Lubbe is guilty because the word of the Gestapo (on which all 'evidence' from that era, including sightings of him buying charcoal, depend) is.

And condemning men who were never convicted in court and can't ever clear their names, because they're dead, is just sick. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Brendan]

What a load of bollocks. I'd write more, but why bother... it is a load of bollocks.

[Stu]

Hanratty may have been correctly convicted, but the exhumation in 2002 certainly didn't prove it. Had the DNA evidence been brought before a court it would have been chucked out. Remember it depended on the (now discredited) low copy number technique, previous attempts to extract a usable sample having failed. Also remember that the pair of Valerie Storie's underwear that the sample was extracted from had been stored for 40 years in a box containing many of Hanratty's own personal property that would be expected to hold traces of his DNA.

You may well be right about the others though...

[David Boothroyd]

I like this post although there are some comments - for example that while Richard III may have killed the Princes in the Tower, that was the sort of thing Kings had to do in those days. Also, while van der Lubbe is guilty, he is almost certainly not the only person responsible for the Reichstag fire. The identities and political allegiances of those who set him up are uncertain and a matter of interminable but fascinating debate.

[Darren]

Hang 'em and flog 'em, huh Finkel?

Actually there are reports that Sid Vicious was so wasted the night that Nancy died that he couldn't have raised an eyebrow, let alone a dagger.

Sid loved Nancy and despite being in the throws of addiction would surely not have wanted her to come to any harm. There were plenty of miscreants from the seedy underbelly of New York that had visited their room and had the opportunity to carry out the killing.

It seems very likely that Sid became a scapegoat and lost his life, and the love of his young life, in the process.

[Jay]

And it now seems that Crippen may not have been guilty either if the recent DNA analysis of the autopsy slides is accurate. The body in the cellar seems to be that of a male and while Cora may have had many faults, being a man was not one of them...

[Alastair]

911 - "They still, ludicrously, blame the collapsing towers on a controlled demolition ordered by the US government."

I suppose it's only "ludicrous" if you want to ignore the testimony from the head of the fire department that the towers were rigged with explosives, if you want to ignore the quote from the owner of the buildings that the towers were rigged with explosives, and if you want to ignore the photgraphic evidence that at least one of the planes had a long cylindrical missile shaped object joined to its fuselage and that both planes' cockpits exploded prior to impact. Sure, ignore all that stuff, it's obviously "ludicrous".

[McG]

Yet another columnist paid to write poorly researched, unbalanced rubbish.

[harryfreeloader]

and Lee Harvard Oswald…killed a policeman…The brilliant Case Closed by Gerald Posner confirms it. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty.>>>

How do like the scenery in Langley? Nice isn’t it?

[Corin Keiler-Lloyd]

Richard III had no reason to kill the princes. Killing them wqould cast doubt on his claim to be th legitimate heir. On the other hand, there were plenty who wanted all the Plantagenets dead including the Tudors. Murder was inconsistent with Richard's known good character and genuine Christian faith. On the other hand, the Tudors were not known for their good character and Christian faith.

Cui Bono? Richard loses on all counts if he kills the princes. The Tudors gain especially if they can blame Richard. They altered Richard's portrait to portray him as humpbacked and squinting - obviously evil, then. Shakespeare wrote the proaganda. The Tudors are known liars with everything to gain, must be innocent!

[Edward Rynearson]

The book . . An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King now has a website:

http://www.actofstate.org

A Memphis jury in 1999 found that James Earl Ray had nothing to do with the murder of MLK in a civil suit filed against the actual conspirators.

You may claim that this is all nutty but how can you summarily dismiss 30 years of research that led to an American jury finding that the real perpetrators were the DOD, CIA, FBI and organized crime.

I am so tired of the official name calling and middle school ad hominems delivered in the form of swirling conjecture.

You lose if you look at the facts so you are left to paint your opponents with the "crazy" paint brush.

[Judge Dredd]

No-one is innocent, citizen. The justice system is here simply to determine the level of your guilt.

Mind how you go.

[Andrew Milner]

"They still, ludicrously, blame the collapsing towers on a controlled demolition ordered by the US government."
So explain the pools of molten iron in the basements of the buildings up to six weeks after 9/11.
Suggest you start polishing your, "Truth Movement" credentials, because you are painting yourself into such a corner that your options will come down to with or without a blindfold.

[Freedom Fred]

Lets talk about WTC building 7!

"Conspiracy theorists have had a field day with the events surrounding 9/11. Bin Laden initially denied responsibility for the World Trade Center attacks but in 2004 stated that he had been in charge of the hijackers. He's continued to do so ever since. But the admission has not deterred the 9/11 Truth Movement. They still, ludicrously, blame the collapsing towers on a controlled demolition ordered by the US government. All the planes we saw were a hologram, of course. Comment Central Verdict: Guilty."

The 911 Truth Movement doesn't assume that the commercial planes didn't exist but instead insist that the planes could not have knocked down three (3) buildings by fire or impact alone. I say three buildings because everyone seems to have forgot that WTC building number 7 fell even though no airplane or falling debris came into contact with this building. Building seven was a controlled demolition and it fell a lot like the two main towers.

I wont even mention the demolition experts, engineers, and architects who strongly disagree with the mainstream story fed to the people.

In conclusion, because the American government and media never reported on why and how tower seven fell without being struck, the 911 Truth Movement actually has a pretty good reason to assume 911 may have an inside job.

We the people will not simply 'take your word' on the issue. Only when we are presented with FACTS on who was behind 911 (facts, as in things that are proven to be true and not just printed on paper) will we stop pointing fingers at suspects. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many the US government is a suspect
until factually proven otherwise. A man is innocent not because he says he is, but because it is proven he is.

If you still strongly believe the mainstream story after researching the inconsistencies involving Tower Seven, you should probably stop writing. Telling a lie doesn't become truth just because you printed.

[Peter Johnson]

9/11 doubters? Hmm.
Let us for a moment discard all controversy.
But...
I have yet to hear an adequate explanation as to why the twin towers collapsed at freefall rate, thus defying the Laws of Physics.
This is fact.
Explanation please.

[Karim]

Not exactly a balanced article is it...
Comment Central Verdict: Can I have that 30 minutes of my life back?

[Alex]

Twerp.

[John Bargh]

Great article, Mr Finkelstein.

Hilarious seeing all the nutcases and freaks come out of the woodwork to screech about their favourite pet conspiracies being squashed.

The most ludicrous of all, of course, is the "9/11 Truth Movement". The most singularly ridiculous, paranoid, utterly discredited pile of excreta yet to be produced by modern society. It's truly a mass mental illness.

[David Knight]

One of the most least thought provoking articles I've ever read. Nothing else to say.

[P. Jekk]

What's the official explanation for the third WTC tower (WTC7)? It wasn't hit by any airplane or debris and it was some distance away from the Twin Towers so why did it fall?

[John Bargh]

P.JEKIK:

As with every other 9/11 Truther, you're either unaware of the facts or mentally unbalanced. Which is it?

Debris did in fact WTC7. Extensive debris. There are pictures of the damage on the internet, including its Wikipedia article. There were also many high-intensity fires which, though not burning for a long time, were able to structurally weaken the building until its collapse.

As for the main buildings, the structural damage inflicted by the airplanes combined with massive air fuel fires weakened the main metal supports until they buckled, causing a chain reaction of sequentially collapsing floors.

If you're actually interested in learning about what happened, it's all available in the 9/11 Commission Report, the Popular Mechanics articles and a hundred other reputable journals.

But you do look rather pathetic when you peddle the conspiracy theory based on sheer ignorance of the most simply known facts, such as the debris damage to WTC7.

Absolute fruitcakes.

[Roddy Nicolson]

Putting the ludicrious conspiracy theories to one side, perhaps the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" could be handy for a couple of these cases. Or in other words: "Not Guilty, but don't do it again!"

[Steve]

John Bargh - you are everything that is wrong with the world today. You quite happily trudge along believing everything the media tell you.

If you are so clever, then can you explain the facts surrounding the attack on 9/11 at the Pentagon? Do you HONESTLY believe that an aeroplane hit the building? Wait! Before you answer that question, go and have a look at the pictures of the hole in the Pentagon and ask yourself where the wings ended up.

[why bother?]

Would have been more interesting if they hadn't all been summarily judged 'guilty'. What was the point in that?

[Jon Dawkins]

How do you know the CIA were not involved with JFK's assasination?

He's dead isn't he?

[Ivan Davies]

"Hanratty may have been correctly convicted, but the exhumation in 2002 certainly didn't prove it" I rather think it did! There was a blood test done in the 60's on her underwear which showed the blood group of the killer was different to her boyfriend's. If the presence of Hanratty's DNA was a result of contamination then there would have been another, unknown DNA present, but there wasnt, only Gregson's, Storie's and Hanratty's.

Guilty as charged!

[Dan Xuereb]

On the subject of 9/11, I think South Park sums it up nicely. They have a scene in which George Bush explains how the Government was behind it all...

George Bush: "Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever."

I'm all for freedom of opinion and all that, but if you believe that, you're a drivelling idiot.

[GB]

Conspiracy theorists especially the 911 mob always say 'tell us the truth. show us proof and we will believe you'. Okay so the quotes from the fire chief, were taken out of context - the actual quote was 'pull them' which the nutters have said means set of the explosives, when in fact it referred to pull the firefighters out. Nobody has said anything about explosives that was not taken out of context, rehashed or twisted by the lunatics. the free-fall speed of building 7 - was not! the lack of debris hitting 7 - was not, there were huge chunks of building hitting it.
the pentagon, there is a security video showing the plane hitting. The pictures that state there was no debris - were doctored by a french magazine.
The ultimate aim of the 911 conspiracists is to claim that GW Bush was smart enough to develop this whole complex plan, execute it and fool the world, keep the whole thing secret and to then keep the whole thing so well organized on an international stager that it allowed him to invade Iraq for oil. So the biggest conspiracy in the world went off without a hitch but he couldn't run a simple war after that!

[Niall]

another lazy article from the times!

[C Bozner]

Wow, the 9/11 conspiracy folks (cannot call them theorists, as their work is in hypotheses not theories) are coming out today. Yes, there are 'some' engineers who question the official story. But people, the grand majority of experts - real experts who were there and assessed what happened first hand (I know some of them) - all agree in the official (true) story. I know you wish the world was more intriguing and that Bush/CIA/zionists/etc are devils, but it isn't and they aren't.

Unless you have proof, evidence or even sound mathematics on your side, keep your so-called theories to your websites and stay off of this one.

[ceetee]

I have to say that this article is utter crap.

What's even worse are the people who apparently know that the people who think 9/11 was planned are "lunatics"

you are as bad as you make them out to be... especially that you believe what you read, surely you've realised that you are constantly being fed what you need to be told? e.g.

We invaded iraq for the 2nd time, bbc/sky etc had reporters riding on tanks in what was dubbed a clean invasion, no deaths, apparently. So i believed this, only when i scraped the surface of the internet i uncovered footage of a completely different invasion... It was at this point that i realised i couldn't believe a word the bbc or any news agency told me again. Blatant lies fed to the masses to get them on side.

Open mind

[Chris]

I think the 9/11 Truth commission is a secret government organisation set up to have us believe anti-government organisations actually exist, whereas we all know they are crushed the moment they form to prevent anyone finding out about Roswell and the fact Lucille Ball killed Kennedy.

[Douglas]

Oswald killed JFK? hahahahahahahaha good one! I didn't realise there was still idiots out there who believed this nonsense. And James Earl Ray did NOT kill MLK. Most conspiracies are nonsense of course, however, some clearly aren't. I bet you think our government doesn't lie to us and also has our best interests at heart as well. You Sir, are a sucker.

[Jamie May]

Is Sid Vicous dead then?

[Brendan]

Have you considered applying for a job at the Daily Mail?

[pete woodhouse]

wow you've got a right load of tinfoil hatters commenting on this thread eh? better read this then.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

[acb]

Sid Vicious was a nihilistic moron who went about in swastika armbands and revelled in mindless destruction. He'd probably have thought that stabbing his girlfriend to death was "well 'ard" or something like that.

[Dixies Boots]

Can't really argue with any of the verdicts but calling Sid Vicious a musician? well that is a heinous crime in itself.

[darren]

Richard III - he was appointed guardian of the princes by his brother Edward IV - even if he didn't personally order their deaths or actually wield the weapon of choice he certainly carries blame as he failed in his duty to protect them.

[m wilson]

If in doubt, especially in possession of a firarm, hang them. If itis a mistake, the planet will suvive.

[John Bargh]

Steve:

What on earth do you mean, where are the wings? It was a commercial airliner flown into a building. What makes you think the wings would survive such an impact?

Is that all you have to go on? Mindless little things like that? Why don't you actually stack that up against the overwhelming evidence of the involvement of 19 hijackers, their movements, their training, the physical evidence of the planes and all the people on them being tracked, etc. etc.

You're a lunatic. Really, you are.

[Peter Johnson]

So can any of you that accept the official version of events explain the freefall of the twin towers?
I know you can't!

[Tom Varley]

¬_¬ rubbish

[JECG]

David Philistine offends us all once more with his incessant ramblings. What a load of easily-influenced cobblers. Sam B is absolutely right to question your logic; that the Gestapo are a more trustworthy source than George Galloway is ever-so-slightly silly to suggest.

[David]

DNA from the body found in Crippen;s cellar have proved to be NOT his wife's.
Visit the Chelsea Hotel in NYC where Sid & Nancy lived and talk to some of the old timers there...Sid wasn't capable of Nancy's murder as he was unconscious at the time.
What a poorly researched article. One would have hoped that a journalist writing for the Times would have held himself to a higher standard.

[luke]

Charcoal kindling to burn the Reichstag? Tsk tsk. What could be more incriminating? Burning Liebwurst on said barbie?
hmm.

[Ian]

The interesting question about Kennedy's assassination is not was Oswald guilty but was anyone else involved. The shooting was exceptional, better than would be expected from one man alone, and I have always assumed that Castro was involved,in payback for Kennedy's attempts to kill him. Posner does not convincingly address these points.

[Alex]

What a surprise, Finklestein thinks they were all guilty, in spite of there being very compelling evidence in all cases to suggest otherwise.

You sir, are a moron and should never be allowed near a news office again, as you never right anything of any value.

[musings]

Mr. Finkelstein is more involved in the political bona fides of the various parties' opinions about who did the crime. His interest in evidence which argues against open and shut cases, solved on the day as it were, is nil. Yet we know that many cases have lately been broken open by DNA evidence in the more simple murders and rapes, and people once convicted have gone free. How much more complex is the fall of THREE buildings into their footprints, one announced by the BBC just before and as it happened.

[musings]

What motive does a 9/11 "Truther" have to create falsehoods, as opposed to a government bent on waging war pre-emptively? What's the pay-off?

Also - Finkelstein conflates the evidence of oddly falling buildings, which look only like one thing, controlled demo (complete with explosions) and the controversial "no planes, holograms" theory which serious scientists who see evidence of Controlled Demo have always rejected as too speculative and potentially damaging to their credibility. By design, probably. Finkelstein actually deliberately places the reasonable and the nutty together and says all 9/11 Truthers swallow the same. He has misled.

[Frank Upton]

Peter Johnson:

If you take out the middle of a building, the top part collapses. It then falls on to the bottom part which also collapses. Not so difficult.

[pete woodhouse]

"You sir, are a moron and should never be allowed near a news office again, as you never right anything of any value."
hehehehehehehehe!

right or left?

[Peter Johnson]

Frank Upton:
I feel I should explain "freefall" to you.
Gravity is a force which attracts physical objects toward the centre of the Earth.
Numerically, it is expressed in the form 9.81 metres per second per second.This means that a ball bearing for example, dropped from the top of a building will fall at this rate of acceleration and will continue to accelerate until it's downward motion is constant due to air resistance.
When the towers fell, this was recorded with video. Analysis of the recording showed that they fell at the same rate as the ball bearing.There were 110 floors in those buildings,they weren't all damaged so should have offered some resistance to collapse.Because they fell at freefall, there was no resistance.
This could only happen if successive floors were progressivly detached from their fixing points.
The Firemen, and many others present, heard explosions.
Are you starting to understand?
As a footnote, 49 percent of NewYorkers want another enquiry.
9/11 Doubters indeed!

[mang]

So what's the point of appending "OUR VERDICT? GUILTY!" after every entry? Not exactly a bold stance to take, as well as being completely redundant.

[Gordon the spook]

You know a good blog when people are frothing at the keyboard, as for Richard 111, innocent as nothing can be proved otherwise. The deaths of both Princes in the tower is also in doubt as Prince Edward could have died of natural causes and Prince Richard could have survived until 1550 and may be buried at Eastwell in Kent. See excellent book by David Baldwin "The Lost Prince". Thanks Dan. Loyaulte me lie

[Phil Draper]

What a load of ill researched and argued tosh. Several of these cases need a much more careful look than is provided by your ever so glib article. This was just lazy, cheap and for the most part uninteresting journalism.

This is not what I read or expect to find in The Times. I would like to see some more intellectual rigour employed.

Not even vaguely entertaining! Seriously, please take a look at this article (for want of a better word) and decide if this is the fodder that you wish people to base their opinions of your fine news outlet upon.

Thank you if you have got so far in reading this.

[Hank M.]

Absurdly badly researched article. Example: RFK was killed by a shot to the back of the head. Sirhan Sirhan was in front of him the entire time. Bullets don't fly U-turns.

The rest of the article is similarly poorly written.

The article author is a hack.

[Karl Hart]

Do you get paid for this? How can you begin to think anyone will take you seriously when almost immediately you comment "They still, ludicrously, blame the collapsing towers on a controlled demolition ordered by the US government. All the planes we saw were a hologram, of course" You're an idiot and under researched. I'm a Englishman living in the USA, people like you make me ashamed of my country. Why can't we have a newspaper that we can read rather than a mouthpiece for uneducated imbociles like you to throw their rubbish into, once again you are an idiot.

[Josh]

Daniel Finkelstein - greatest internet troll so far? Comment Central verdict: Guilty as sin.

Brilliant work :)

Can I just pick out a few of my favourites from the fine collection of idiots this thread has attracted? (Well, I have my tinfoil hat on, so you can't stop me.)

Firstly, a special award for dafter-than-a-brush-ness goes to everyone complaining that in a list of guilty people no-one was innocent. I'm not sure how many innocent people they think should have been included, but it got the thing off to a good start.

Secondly, since we've had a regurgitation of one of my favourite 9/11 "facts", can we have a big round of sarcastic applause for everyone who thinks there is a problem with the lack of wings from the plane which hit the Pentagon. Let me rephrase the last part of that sentence: ...wings, which are hollow, and filled with fuel (or fuel vapour), making them, in sum, not entirely unlike giant sticks of explosive, which were smashed into a wall more than hard enough to ignite the contents, of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Next, a short intermission before the main feature for something I didn't notice on first readthrough: "The 911 Truth Movement doesn't assume that the commercial planes didn't exist but instead insist that the planes could not have knocked down three (3) buildings by fire or impact alone. I say three buildings because everyone seems to have forgot that WTC building number 7 fell even though no airplane or falling debris came into contact with this building. Building seven was a controlled demolition and it fell a lot like the two main towers."

Is it just me, or is that paragraph suggesting(by stressing three (3)) that two towers may have been hit by planes flown by terrorists, but the third, most minor one, was demolished by planted government explosives? And that was in his opening salvo...

Lastly, back to people who really should know better: the number one special award for lazy thinking goes to all the people who think 'innocent until proven guilty' is anything more than a legal technicality. Given the difference my opinion makes to a dead man's life, I don't see any need to give the benefit of any possible doubt - the balance of probabilities (and an awareness of the commensurate probability of my being mistaken) will do me just fine.

[Kekkler]

So I'm curious, what do you truthers do with the majority of your days? I'm trying to gauge how afraid I should be of the people I encounter in my day to day life.

Now do you really spend all day on the internet looking for articles like this to comment on? Or do some of you actually have jobs that involve roaming about unattended in public? Please tell me it's the former...

[Greg]

1. Read Popular Mechanics--debunking the 9/11 myths. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
These guys are engineers so they actually know what they talk about.

2. Read Gerald Posner's Killing the Dream--http://www.posner.com/articles/washpostking.htm

3. Read Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaimng History. http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250

[james brownley]

Couldn't the Times set a filter up so that any post which used the phrase 'we the people' would automatically be binned? As a phrase, it's pompous, self-righteous, presumptious, arrogant, opinionated, self-righteous - oh, I already did that one. You get the idea.

[ian cooper]

The Dr Crippen one was very timely.

As reported recently in the Sunday Times, a new book from years of research & DNA tests shows the body parts were from a man and not his wife. Concusion was that the police stitched him up.

[Marlboro Man]

I suppose it's only "ludicrous" if you want to ignore the testimony from the head of the fire department that the towers were rigged with explosives, if you want to ignore the quote from the owner of the buildings that the towers were rigged with explosives, and if you want to ignore the photgraphic evidence that at least one of the planes had a long cylindrical missile shaped object joined to its fuselage and that both planes' cockpits exploded prior to impact. Sure, ignore all that stuff, it's obviously "ludicrous".

Posted by: Alastair

Care in the community at work again! The sad thing is that people believe this crap.

[Jacob]

Daniel, this is a tour de force of investigative journalism.

Well Done.

[Michael]

Finkelstein must have known while writing this bit of tat that it would just descend into another 9/11 conspiracy/not conspiracy debate. There are highly accomplished people on both sides of the debate, making it impossible for the non-physicists among us to come to a meaningful conclusion. The problem is Bin-Laden, the CIA/NSA (insert whatever organization is subject of most spy novels at the time) not only had to convince the world Bin Laden dunnit, but also they will have had to convince him that he did it too. Were the explosives just waiting the whole time for bin laden's people to attack, or are all high rise building rigged with explosives in case of terrorist attacks?
When things dont add up its either because our underlying assumptions are wrong or our logic is wrong. No one has yet questioned the assumption that the towers were in fact made out of the reinforced steel we are told they were. I for one find it easier to believe that a construction company in the 70's took a gamble that these towers would never have to withstand the force of fully laden passenger airliners, filled with fuel and traveling at high speeds, and cut corners on materials.
PS, ALASTAIR anyone who believes the aircraft had cruise missiles stuck to the bottom of them doesn't quite understand the point of having a cruise missile, its a vehicle for a small warhead, usually less than ten pounds or an even smaller shaped charge. If you think all the fuel and kinetic energy in a passenger airliner couldn't take out a building but the ten pounds or so of high explosives contained in a cruise missile could then you are truly guilty of being an IDIOT!!

[Tony Coleby]

To paraphrase David St. Hubbins: "I believe EVERYTHING I read, I think that makes me MORE of a selective person..."

[Esther]

Daniel F, you have been a very naughty boy yet again!
I always marvel at your ability to hit on a topic that will set the loons, conspiracy theorists, evangelists, bible-bashers, Disgusteds of Tonbridge Wells tapping at their keyboards in fury. Or is that an increasingly easy task in this wonderful age of information technology where everyone knows everything, has all the facts to back up his case at his fingertips and a groundswell of support for every cause? Anyhow, keep up the good work and I know you won't run out of steam but here are a few suggestions for future blog topics
Is Excalibur buried in Jerusalem?
Will Barack Obama's Polynesian influence result in a collapse of Christian family values a'la Marlon Brando?
Should the people of Britain be forced to install flap-poles in the gardens and to shout "woo-woo,UK, UK, UK, GO GO GO!!! at international sporting events?

[Sarah]

Sid was innocent.
If you look behind the facts of the newspapers, and image of him, it is easily seen that he was most likely drugged and sleeping at the time of Nancy's death. And according to reports, a drug dealers were there at the time. If you go on basic facts of course it is meant to look like Sid did it. Everyone thinks his a stupid punk, maybe, but having researched the facts, I think it was one of the drug dealers.

[paul]

The reason so many people believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11 is precisely because the mainstream media treat them with such contempt, without ever trying to answer the questions they raise.

As for the rest of this article, let's just hope it's your last, very poor indeed.

[Tony]

Regarding the Reichstag fire: Find out who Rudolf Augstein and Rudolf Diels were. Find out their connection to each other and to the Reichstag fire.

[Esther]

I'd like to endorse James Brownley's excellent suggestion and request that any post featuring the phrase "I have researched the facts" be added to banned list.

[Andy]

The thing about conspiracy nuts is that there's no point getting involved because you can't win, can you?

If the mainstream media publishes the obvious, rational demolition of the conspiracy theories, then it's "treating them with contempt".
If it doesn't, then it's "without ever trying to answer the questions they raise."

[AJ]

Useless journalism.
With regards to 9/11 debate; no matter what side of the debate you are on, it is undebiable that the questions posed by the truth movement could, and should have been answered by the Bush administration to a level that leaves no room for argument. At all.
The fact they have failed to do this at all is the single greatest motivation behind the conspirator movements.
Verdict: Finklestein, do one. You are useless.

[Tony]

But then again: Obviously, the government (and the media) only tell the truth - and only lone-lunatics (TM) commit such atrocities.

[Scott Ryan]

This article is so terrible that I feel compelled to post a comment. What was the purpose of this article? Do we now finally feel that all these cases can be put to bed thanks to the great investigative journalism by Mr Finkelstein? I feel so happy for the friends family and indeed the all other people that have been campaigning for these people that they can soundly know now that all of the above are guilty as the evidence and and circumstances have been proved beyond measure. Idiot. Was probably paid for this as well...

[richard mullens]

Daniel seems to have omitted the most notorious criminals of them all - responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq - not to mention our own servicemen - and still not brought to justice.

[Anon]

Its totally believable that someone was able to coordinate one of the most complex and devastating attacks in the history of the world...all from the technologically advanced safety of a cave in afghanistan (and continues to do so apparently).

[j]

Whoever wrote this: "...to ignore the testimony from the head of the fire department that the towers were rigged with explosives, if you want to ignore the quote from the owner of the buildings that the towers were rigged with explosives," - This is utterly false! How can you write such lies? Head of department = Daniel Nigro, who isn't a fan of conspiracy theories for obvious reasons never said such a thing, and the owner = Larry Silverstein, is still paying a huge lease on the destroyed WTC towers, also never said anything about explosives. You must be mad.

[Joey]

Sod the article - the comments which follow are far more entertaining.

[Andy]

I don't know why we waste our time, but anyway...

"Anon"'s clever little post neglects a few things:
1. Osama bin Laden was virtually in charge of Afghanistan before the US invaded, not hiding in a cave.
2. He might have been behind it but, believe it or not, he didn't do all the details.
3. Finally, and most obviously to anyone with a brain, it was not a "complex and devastating attack". Flying a plane into a building is a pretty simple and devastating attack!
Which illustrates one of the conspiracists' main failings - they clearly haven't heard of Occam's razor.

[Benjamin]

"I love talking about Kennedy. I was just down in Dallas, Texas. You know you can go down there and, er, to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated. And you can actually go to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. It's a museum called... 'The Assassination Museum'. I think they named that after the assassination. I can't be too sure of the chronology here but... Anyway they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it's really accurate, you know, cos Oswald's not in it."

Rip Bill Hicks

(Back and to the left, Back and to the left)

[Martin Edwards]

Regarding Crippen, why would Inspector Dew want to stitch up a man whom he liked and had no reason to regard as a criminal until he discovered the flesh in the cellear?
And if the flesh didn't belong to Cora, what happened to her?
The DNA 'evidence' is interesting, but it would be a mistake to put too much blind faith in a theory that raises many more questions than it answers.

One question for the conspiracy theorists;

The passengers on the United Airlines Flight 93 made calls aboard the flight to family members. How do you explain these?

[Benjamin]

One question for the conspiracy theorists;

The passengers on the United Airlines Flight 93 made calls aboard the flight to family members. How do you explain these?

-------------------

I'm no expert in the field but I think they used mobile phones and "air phones"

[GRAHAM]

The most telling fact of the Kennedy conspiacy is Ruby, a career criminal shooting dead the supposed lone assasin thereby proving other people were involved, somebody somehow got to him to destroy the evidence

Bush and his backers must love the conspiracy theorists because they
1 smokescreen the total incompetence of the CIA, FBI and the Military to defend their country against a bunch of nutty students despite the billions of dollars spent and years in which to plan
2The embarasing close relationship between the USA, Bush and cronies and Saudi Arabia (who provided most of the HIjackers)and in particular the bin laden family and its business interests.

PS has nobody considered that most big skysrapers in western cities may be designed to fall like the twin towers after a few hours of fire to prevent colateral damage to people and other expensive buildings. This might be a genuine conspiracy worth investigating.

[Mark]

Wow! Investigative journalism at it's best. Let's give Finklestien the Big Brother Blog. I think he could handle a promotion.

[Alastair]

John - "What on earth do you mean, where are the wings? It was a commercial airliner flown into a building. What makes you think the wings would survive such an impact?"

The wings would cause damage to the building on impact, yet the hole left by the "airplane" was round. There was no airplane detritus at all, no seats, no 'plane parts, no bits of the wings whatsoever and absolutely no fire damage or spilled fuel (from an apparently heavily fuel-laden "plane" that had just taken off).

All the EVIDENCE, even to a total sceptic, points to a missile strike. Check your facts.

[Josh]

More nutjobbery...

"The wings would cause damage to the building on impact"

Why? They're hollow, thin-skinned, low-powered bombs, as explained above. When you smash a hollow, thin-skinned bomb into a thick, not-hollow concrete wall, the wall tends to win.

"There was no airplane detritus at all, no seats, no 'plane parts, no bits of the wings whatsoever and absolutely no fire damage or spilled fuel"

Ah, I see the problem you're having - you're in fact *not looking at pictures of 9/11*, but at some random other event. Are you in fact investigating photographs of your last family picnic by mistake?

In fact, I have to point out that the Pentagon was not hit by anything, because Washington doesn't exist - that's right, the whole of Washington DC is a long-standing hoax, and so a plane could not possibly have crashed into it. The films we see of Washington are faked, taken in other US cities.

Have you ever met anyone who's been to Washington? They're a government shill.

Ever been to Washington yourself? Yes? How do you know? I bet you sat in a metal tube until a pilot told you you were at Washington...

[Eileen]

Sid Vicious did not attempt suicide while in jail. He attempted suicide in a room at the Saville Hotel in New York where he was staying with his mother while he was out on bail. Some of the information in Wikipedia is incorrect too. Most of the information in the press about Sid and Nancy is incorrect, because it is based on fabrications, and poorly researched hack jobs that were published in the tabloid press 30 years ago. Anyone who has an opinion about Sid and Nancy which is based purely on news articles should reconsider, and not convict them without any evidence. There was no trial and no conviction by a jury because he died.