Now this should piss both sides off, left and right.? It appears that the Moussaoui trial has been sabotaged, not because some silly lawyers decided to get creative in winning their case, but because the Airlines wanted to avoid a huge judgement against them in the upcoming civil trial:
Lawyers for two airlines being sued for damages by 9/11 victims prompted a federal lawyer to coach witnesses in the trial of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui so the government’s death penalty case would not undercut their defense, victims’ lawyers allege.
The victims’ lawyers, Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, claim that one of the airline lawyers forwarded a transcript from the first day of the Moussaoui trial to Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla J. Martin.
In violation of an order by Moussaoui trial judge Leonie Brinkema, Martin forwarded that day’s transcript to seven federal aviation officials scheduled to testify later in the sentencing trial of the 37-year-old Frenchman.
Martin’s e-mailing of the transcript and her efforts to shape their testimony prompted Brinkema to toss out half the government’s case against Moussaoui as contaminated beyond repair.
?
The contacts between lawyers for United and American Airlines and Martin were detailed in a legal brief filed on Moussaoui’s behalf Thursday. That brief contained a March 15 letter from Clifford and Joseph complaining about Martin’s actions to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the civil damage case in New York.They wrote Hellerstein that the government’s opening statement in the Moussaoui case “took the position that the hijackings were completely preventable and that gate security measures could have been implemented to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes had security been on the look out for short-bladed knives and boxcutters.”
“This stands in stark contrast to the position that has been repeatedly articulated by counsel to the aviation defendants in the September 11 actions.”
Big Lizards has summarized the story here:
As near as Big Lizards can figure out the agendas, here is what the AP story seems to say….
- The allegation comes from Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, lawyers for family members of victims of the 9/11 attack. The lawsuit filed by the family members claim that United Airlines and American Airlines could have prevented 9/11 by stopping the hijackers from getting on the planes with knives and boxcutters.
- The government also wants to prove that: if they can show that 9/11 could have been prevented if Moussaoui had told them about the knives and boxcutters, then Moussaoui should be put to death.
- Contrariwise, the lawyers for the airlines clearly want for their jury to believe that 9/11 could not possibly have been prevented; that it would have happened the way it did regardless of any attempt to prevent boxcutters from being carried onto the planes. That way, it wouldn’t be the airlines’ fault.
- And of course, Moussaoui’s lawyers would also like to prove that, since then their client’s lies would not have led to any deaths that wouldn’t have occured otherwise. It wouldn’t be Moussaoui’s fault, either.
You follow?
So the plaintiff’s lawyers and the prosecutors both want to show that 9/11 could have been prevented; and the defense lawyers in both cases want to prove that it could not have been prevented.
This in itself pisses me off, but what did the judge do?? The judge threw out most of the Prosecutions case, in effect helping the airlines and the TSA in finishing their objective which was to save the airlines.
Incredible!
This case SHOULD be declared a mistrial and a new trial started, with a new judge.?
Other’s Blogging:

See author page