Bellemare’s Indictment: British Intelligence Composed the Communications File!

Part 2/4
Nader Ezzeddine
In the first part of the report, we presented for the nature of Bellemare's correlation between Hizbollah and the Martyr Imad Mughniyeh on one side and the names of the indicted. In addition, in the first part, we went through the suspicions raised by the judge of the SITL pre-trial procedures Daniel Fransen about the credibility of what Bellemare said regarding the Communications File on which he based his indictment. Now, in part two, we are going to answer the questions we raised earlier: Who composed the Communications File? What were the offenses Bellemare had committed when he divided the communications networks into color codes? Who was the unknown person that coordinated between A'yash on one side and Sabra – O'naysi on the other side? In addition, does "the spatial correlation" taken by Bellemare as a basis for directing his accusations have any existence in the communications field?

BRITISH INTELLIGENCE & LEBANESE COMPOSED THE COMMUNICATIONS FILE

Fransen's suspicions about the responsibility of the "employee" in Bellemare's bureau for composing this file never came from vainness, and Fransen is quite sure that the "employee" does not have the proficiency to compose such a file and that the file exceeds his expertise and authority. Upon asking Bahsoun about the possible party that could have composed such a file, he says", The British Intelligence was the composer of the file in cooperation with Lebanese parties". Regarding what was said about Captain Wissam Eid of the Information Intelligence affiliated with Internal Security Forces assuming this file before he was assassinated himself, Bahsoun says," Before Captain Wissam Eid was assassinated he was analyzing data in cooperation with an English company delegated by the Investigation Committee. He was assassinated as early as Bellemare's mission started, and he was rather killed after he had seen Bellemare!! I think his assassination would be later linked to Al-Hariri's assassination in order to accuse the resistance of assassinating a captain in the Internal Security Forces."

OFFENSES BELLEMARE MADE IN CLASSIFYING & COLOR CODING THE NETWORKS

Bellemare classified the participants in the crime when preparing, setting up the scene, coordinating, and executing based on the way of exchanged communications among them... He gathered all the participants who used those cell phones and color-coded them each of whom with one attribute. Such classification is usually used in significant crimes for clarification purposes for the public.

With this principle, Bahsoun sees that "the STL Prosecutor-General has classified and color coded the groups based on speculations and hypotheses. In addition, he attributed certain numbers to certain groups on supposition, such as saying that Mustafa Badr Eddin did not have except one cell phone in the green group while the other seven cell phones were landlines at the time that is presumed to be the leader of the group. This is sheer surprising matter! While the man Bellemare considers coordinator that is Salim A'yash, he was carrying four secret numbers (green, red, yellow, and blue) in addition to another four landlines! While both O'naysi and Sabra were carrying one secret number of the same color, purple in their case. That is, A'yash who was a coordinator was not carrying a cell phone of the same color code carried by those who played the informational distraction! Thus, according to Bellemare, he coordinates with someone who in his turn instructs O'naysi and Sabra, yet he is unidentified! This means that Bellemare knows that A'yash does coordinate with O'naysi and Sabra but never talks to them, through a man in-between but never known to Bellemare! This is the utmost inconceivable ever! And here we are before a big question mark."

We conclude that the operation leader (Badr Eddin) could not communicate but with the coordinator (A'yash) who in turn communicated with those who were in charge of informational distraction (O'naysi and Sabra) through a middle man unknown to Bellemare! The questions rising at this point are as such: How could an operational leader be completely absent from all except from the coordinator? What will happen if a mishap took place with the latter? What could the leader do in this situation? How could the operational leader carry one secret cell phone while the coordinator would carry four of them?! More importantly, how could Bellemare know of the coordinator's communication with informational distracters he made through an intermediary though he did not know who the intermediary was?!!

Bahsoun wonders in turn, "Why neither Bellemare in the indictment nor Fransen in the judicial decision pointed to their possessing voice recordings of those who had committed the assassination?! Is it possible for Bellemare to designate the communications made by the second, but he cannot secure the recordings?! This is again impossible! I think the recordings are available in his custody but he has hidden them because they do not belong to the men he indicts but to different people."

THERE IS NO SUCH "SPATIAL CORRELATION" IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATIONS

If those recordings do not belong to the indicted, whose are they then?! Bahsoun answers, "There is designation of cell phone numbers to the indicted in a conspicuous manner. This confirms how the persons were doomed before the cell phone numbers were designated, and there is quite a difference between the situation when someone talks on the phone, and an investigation team tries to uncover his identity and then they discover that it was "Badr Eddin" for instance, and the situation when the name of "Badr Eddin" is doomed and later the search goes for his cell phone number and then designate it for him! This was the mechanism Bellemare used and he called "spatial correlation"; he considered it a well-known mechanism at the time that it never has any actual existence in the field of communications."

Bahsoun informs of this non-existing mechanism except with Bellemare by saying, "According to this mechanism, the Prosecutor-General sees that if two cell phones were available simultaneously at the same place, and their carrier made a call, and even if it were discovered that the two numbers never contacted each other at all, then it would be more likely that the carrier of the two cell phones must have been the same person!!!

This is how Bellemare arrived at the name Sami Eisa and then said it was an invented name and that the true name was Mustafa Badr Eddin! This is what Bellemare called "spatial correlation" and he claimed that it was a well-known mechanism while in reality it absolutely has no existence."

In addition, Bahsoun points to the term "the same place" used by Bellemare ranges in the field of cell phones between 250 meters and 30 kilometers. Again, Bellemare did not specify "the simultaneous timing" for the tower allocating the two calls. If the difference were 5 seconds, then they would not be too far from each other, yet if the difference were 10 minutes, for instance, then they should have been too far, because in a city like Beirut, one could travel 7 kilometers in 10 minutes." For further clarification: Let us assume that an Israeli agent wants to frame (X) in a criminal act, and another agent like Tareq Al-Raba'ah or any other agent inside the communications company, the agent can easily ask Al-Raba'ah to inform him once (X) makes a call of the location of the latter. So once (X) makes a call, Al-Raba'ah will call the agent and inform him that (X) has made a call from the area of Ashrafiyeh", for instance; in his turn, the agent can go to "Ashrafiyeh" and makes a call from a different cell phone, thus repeating the operation several times; this way, according to Bellemare, the agent's cell phone becomes the possession of(X) which means they are both (X)and the agent one person. Next, the agent can contact the group assigned to commit the crime, thus Bellemare concludes that (X) is the one who contacted the criminal group!

Bahsoun comments, "This is absolutely not evidence! And I can affirm that there are 700 similar cases in any area in Beirut and the suburbs, and Bellemare absolutely knows this is not evidence and Fransen suspected it, and he wishes that no one will raise this accusation in court for future similar fabrications for other people who could be more important than those four indicted."

In Part Three of the report:
How Bellemare Claimed knowledge of the Names of the Perpetrators in 2008, Yet He Blotted out their Identities Today!
F.S. Contacts the Criminals: Hariri is on his Way to You
Why did Bellemare Blot out the Cell phone Numbers?
See also:
Bellemare’s Indictment: Skeptical Fransen Agrees with Reservations! 1/4

Source: Al-Manar Website

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Bellemare’s Indictment: Skeptical Fransen Agrees with Reservations! 1/4

-- Nader Ezziddine At last, and after waiting for long, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor-General Daniel Bellemare uncovered his "wonder" the so-called "Indictment" in the case of the former PM Rafiq Al-Hariri assassination in addition to his guarding the secrecy related to some details present in the judgment text. The indicted men unprecedentedly sighed deeply upon reading the indictment; they were rather joyfully smiling. For it is true they are confident they are unjustly judged, but they still have been hoping day and night that one day all the Lebanese people will read the verdict that Lebanon has paid for in blood, money, destruction, and enmity. Yes. It is true the resistance has wanted the "truth" seekers to examine closely 45 pages perhaps they may comprehend what they are doing! Whom they are supporting! In addition, how innocent people are wrongfully accused! On the accusing panel, the resistance wants to thank Bellemare, because if history books are scanned, one will never find an indictment acquitting the accused of the charges! Never will one ever find an indictment including suspicions in the soundness and accuracy of what came in it! What "wonder" made the judge of the SITL pre-trial procedures Daniel Fransen drive suspicion against Bellemare's indictment but then agree to it simultaneously? A remote question that has never crossed anyone's mind, nor has it drawn anyone's attention either because all the attention has been focusing on Bellemare's indictment, and none has tired out one's self to read what is more significant than the indictment, it is the approval decision that Daniel Fransen issued! After reviewing Bellemare's indictment and Fransen's decision of approval for the former's charges, we suddenly come to find first that the approval decision in addition to the indictment comprise 59 pages! Meanwhile, we find that the indictment itself is made of 45 pages! Furthermore, if we seclude the procedural and legal pages, we will remain with eight pages that consist of actual content. Therefore, Francine's decision that represented his approval of Bellemare's indictment supposedly should not be more than four pages! Nonetheless, the main reason for Fransen's elaboration in his explanation, interpretation, and justification in the approval decision results from including indications, information, conclusions, and opinions drawing up the proceedings between Fransen and Bellemare during the phase of approval that lasted for 7 months. This data is quite significant in terms of conceptualization and vision we can derive from both the indictment and the decision of approval. Bellemare's Indictment Written to Accuse Others in the Future Since the indictment, from A to Z, is based on the communications file, it was necessary to refer to an expert in international communications Riyad Bahsoun who has accompanied the cellular communications sector since it originated in Lebanon in 1994 till today; in addition, he is the Vice President of the International Union for Communications. Bahsoun started in his interview with Al-Manar Channel by saying: "As a beginning, Bellemare indictment directs charges so broadly and so intensely which represents an absolute conviction that the four accused are indeed the ones who had committed the crimes he accuses them of. Bellemare added that they were the ones who had committed it because they could do it and that they are trained to execute such an act! And that they had the intention to do that! In his interpretation for the reason for them to possess such a capability, he says because they belong to the military wing of Hizbollah that has committed well-known crimes of terror! If we depend on the principle of law that considers an accused innocent until it is proven otherwise, the acquittal of the four has become moralistically difficult after one reads Bellemare's indictment. This indictment is written in such a way that it prevents anyone to think that the four could ever be innocent. From this emerges the acute difference between the indictment text and what General Secretary of Hizbollah Sayyed Hasan Nasrullah reassures that the accused are unjustly judged heroes; this drastic difference was a basic goal for Bellemare. However, the other goal, correlating the accused with Hizbollah and Martyr Imad Mughniyeh, was his desire to bring forward additional accusations at a later stage, regardless whether Fransen would approve of them or not. Certainly, the correlations will be brought forward; Had not he wanted to broaden the circle of accusation further beyond the four members, he would not have included those clauses, mentioned Mughniyeh or Hizbollah; what arouses astonishment is Fransen's non-objection to keep those clauses in the text." In addition, an intentional error is included in the indictment text accusing Hizbollah of committing "terrorist operations" in Clause 59, but never mentions the source he based his indictment on so that he may allow to determine Hizbollah involvement in terrorism. We must Keep in mind that there has not been an international agreement or admittance that Hizbollah is classified as a terrorist party. Besides, there has been no verdict by any court or judicial corps or UN General Assembly or UN Security Council (The UN Security Council founded the SITL by resolution 1757/ 2007) that classifies or indicates the involvement of Hizbollah in terrorism. Bellemare Can Never Connect the Accused to Hizbollah If we want to speak in scientific terms away from any political context, we can assure the secrecy of Hizbollah membership, where neither online, nor on the Lebanese judicial system, or at the Ministry of Interior do listings exist for any person affiliated with Hizbollah. Thus, no one does register himself or receive a memebership card like what happens with other political parties; moreover, affiliation with the military wing in Hizbollah is strictly confidential. Consequently, Bellemare can never in any accusation assure that the indicted belong to the military wing of Hizbollah! He does not have the evidence, and it is impossible to know that. As for Sayyed Hasan Nasrullah, he can depict those as resisting heroes and they can be as such without being members or leaders in Hizbollah or in its military wing. Even if Hizbollah never denied this "information", it is very quite a surprise illegal of a judge to include it in an indictment. Furthermore, dualism that the Judge fell in lies in the fact that he depicts the accused as "fans of Hezbollah", and in the same clause there is what clearly conflicts with it when he says:" Based on their experience, their training, and their affiliation with Hezbollah." The question is how could the accused be mere fans for Hizbollah as it is stated in the beginning of the Clause, and then two of them turn out to be affiliated members? Fransen and Bellemare Debate...Skepticism about Communications File After uncovering the snare and now that it is blatant representatively in some paradoxical statements here and there, it is necessary that we go deep in some essential details in the approval decision issued by Fransen. About this Bahsoun says," the judge of the SITL pre-trial procedures Daniel Fransen uncovers that he had met with Bellemare's team to discuss the communications file and he specified the dates( March 7, 2011 and April 7, 2011) while Bellemare does not mention these two meetings. Between the two dates above there is a span of 60 days during which time Bellemare could have modified the file or rebutted by evidence or proof, particularly that Fransen had told him of his own absence of conviction. As a result, we understand from Fransen's words that there was a debate when Bellemare asked about the person who had made up the file, and the answer was that it was an "employee" in the Prosecutor's office! The term "employee" is moralistically much lighter than "member in the SITL bureau" is. Here we clarify how the dialogue went on between the two men, based on what Fransen stated in both pages 15 and 16 in his decision: Fransen: Who was the person composed the communications file? Bellemare: It was an employee in my office. (the Prosecutor's office) Fransen: An employee?! However, what is the extent of his proficiency and expertise that he composed the file, and what was his capacity or qualification? Belle mare: He is a communications data analyst Fransen: But how was the file composed? How can we tell that the analysis is up to the relevant international standard in this field? Because I do not have the capacity or the expertise to validate whether this technical file is sound and accurate or not; nor can I decide whether it is up the international standards at the international communications colleges. Bellemare: Never worry; he is an expert in such matters. Fransen: He is an expert in analyzing communications data, yet this report includes data that are wandering too far from analysis! "Here Francine adds the element of suspicion to the credibility of what Bellemare said about the responsibility of that "employee" in what he had written in that report because the file consists of certain parts which assume certain proficiency which that" employee" does not have to write about them. Fransen says in his report that based on the provided data and details in connection with the communications and "in the light of the evidence" and " at first sight", he finds accusing those men possible. Here the expressions make a significant difference, Francine assures his estimation so he uses a third term but now in Latin " prima facie," all of which denote and connote one meaning and that is "as it seems at first sight." This is what Francine conspicuously indicates in his suspicions about what Bellemare produced "(Page 9, Clause 22) informs Bahsoun. Bahsoun adds what Fransen intended, "From what has been presented and from the information provided, it is obligatory for me to go after the accused, yet before arriving at indictment, the court has to make sure that this report was wrought and composed based on international laws, and this is what I cannot assure." That is to say, that Francine reached the point of saying he cannot refuse the indictment because he does not have the expertise to determine whether the indictment is lawful or not. Moreover, he says that he has suspicions about the communications file that the indictment took as a basis! Nevertheless, if it were not Bellemare's "employee" the one who composed the communications report, then who could it be? In Part Two Who composed the communications file? Does "the spatial correlation" taken by Bellemare as a basis for directing his accusations have any existence in the communications field? What are the gaps Bellemare fell in upon using the colored coding in the networks? Who was the unknown coordinator between A'yash on one side and Sabra and Onaysi on the other side according to the indictment?

Source: Al-Manar Website

Minimum Justice Standards Absent from STL Performance: MP Raad

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian