Policy Research Group - Strategic Insight: UN Commission Report on Benazir's murder -Part III UN Commission Report on Benazir's murder -Part III ================================================================================ . on 03 May, 2010 02:15:00 ( Contd..) PART-III130. One eye-witness said that there were about 100 to 200 people present at the crime scene after the blast and about 20 to 30 police officers. One police official stated that there were about 40 police officers at the scene. The Commission finds that SP Khurram had a number of options for controlling the crowd at the crime scene short of the drastic measure of hosing down it down. He could have ordered the police officers present to form a cordon around the immediate vicinity of the crime scene; he could have redeployed any of the 1,371 police officers on duty; he could have called for reinforcements. He made no attempt to do any of these things. Senior police officials told the Commission that SP Khurram could, indeed, have redeployed police officers or sought reinforcements and should have. 131. Many senior Pakistani police officials have explained to the Commission that in law and practice, the ranking police official at the scene of the crime takes decisions relating to crime scene management. SP Khurram asserted that he made the decision to hose down the scene. Before issuing the order to the rescue and fire services, SP Khurram called his superior, CPO Saud Aziz, to seek permission, which was granted. Sources, including police officials familiar with the case, have questioned the veracity of SP Khurram’s claim that the decision was his initiative. 132. CPO Saud Aziz’s role in this decision is controversial. Many senior Pakistani police officials have emphasized that hosing down a crime scene is fundamentally inconsistent with Pakistani police practice. While they acknowledge that there is no uniformity of practice in crime scene management in Pakistan, the hosing down of a crime scene is considered extraordinary. Indeed, with the exception of some Rawalpindi police officials, nearly all senior Pakistani police officials have criticized the manner in which this crime scene was managed. One senior police official has argued that hosing down the crime scene amounted to “criminal negligence”. Several senior police officials who know CPO Saud Aziz were troubled that an officer with his many years of experience would allow a major crime scene to be washed away, thereby damaging his reputation. 133. Sources informed the Commission that CPO Saud Aziz did not act independently in deciding to hose down the crime scene. One source, speaking on the basis of anonymity, stated that CPO Saud Aziz had confided in him that he had received a call from Army Headquarters instructing him to order the hosing down of the crime scene. Another source, also speaking on the basis of anonymity, said that the CPO was ordered to hose down the scene by Major General Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad, then Director General of MI. Others, including three police officials, told the Commission that CPO Saud Aziz did not act independently and that “everyone knows” who ordered the hosing down. However, they were not willing to state on the record what it is that “everyone knows”. This is one of the many occasions during the Commission’s inquiry when individuals, including government officials, expressed fear or hesitation to speak openly. 134. Some senior Pakistani police officials identified further factors suggesting that CPO Saud Aziz was not acting independently. They point out that, while the deliberate hosing down of a scene is unheard of in police practice, it has occurred on a few occasions, in each case when the military has been the target of such attacks and the crime scene was managed by the military directly. Even CPO Saud Aziz, when asserting to the Commission that there were precedents for hosing down a crime scene, acknowledged that all the incidents which he posited as precedents actually involved a military target. The police officials who point out this pattern saw it as further indication that the military was involved in having the crime scene hosed down. 135. Some media reports tied the hosing down of the Rawalpindi crime scene to the alleged washing of the crime scene in the October attack in Karachi. However, in Karachi, the need to put out fires in the vicinity of the blast led to the presence of water at the crime scene. The police collected debris from the crime scene and did not in fact hose it down. The Karachi police actions, while flawed, led to better preservation of the crime scene and better evidence collection, ultimately permitting investigators from the FIA to recover the suicide bomber’s striker sleeve. 136. The extraordinary nature of the hosing down of the crime scene generated such controversy that Punjab provincial officials recognized that some response was necessary. A committee of inquiry was set up by the Chief Minister of Punjab, to look into the washing down of the crime scene. The committee was composed of three senior Punjab officials. The Commission requested meetings with these individuals, which the facilitation committee was not able to arrange. No credible reason was provided. 137. The Punjab committee’s mandate was limited to the following: a. Inquire into the circumstances leading to the washing down of the scene; b. Determine whether it was done with any male fide intention; and, c. Determine whether it posed any difficulty in reaching a conclusion on the cause of death. 138. The committee started work on 14 February 2008 and concluded its work the next day on 15 February. While acknowledging that a crime scene should in principle be preserved “at least till a detailed search and thorough forensic examination” has been carried out, it accepted the Rawalpindi police explanation that the decision to hose down the crime scene was formed by the investigating police officer at the scene, SP Khurram, with permission from CPO Saud Aziz, on grounds of public order. It further found that the decision was not made with any male fide intention and that washing the crime scene did not negatively impact on the conclusion as to the cause of death. 139. Several senior Pakistani police officials told the Commission that they did not consider the Punjab committee’s findings credible. Indeed, it is difficult for the Commission to credit the committee’s work. The terms of reference cast doubt on that committee’s independence. The objective of crime scene manage ment is the collection and preservation of evidence with the overall aim of solving the crime. By limiting its inquiry to the narrow question of whether washing the crime scene impeded the reaching of a conclusion as to cause of death, the committee inexp licably failed to consider the impact that hosing down the scene had on the broader criminal investigation. It was only because of the persistent efforts of FIA investigators that critical evidence was found in the sewers near the blast scene. 140. The very brief time spent by the Punjab committee in the conduct of its inquiry further compels the Commission to question its findings. In short, the Punjab committee constituted a whitewash of the actions of the Rawalpindi police in failing to manage the crime scene and destroy evidence. Not surprisingly, the work of the Punjab committee was counterproductive in that it further deepened the suspicion of many in Pakistan over the conduct of the police on 27 December 2007. Preservation of evidence 141. Even after the hosing down of the crime scene, questions continued to arise over the preservation of evidence by the Rawalpindi police, particularly in the period before investigators from the JIT started their work. 142. Ms Bhutto’s Land Cruiser was initially taken to the City Police Station by Inspector Kashif Riaz some time after midnight early on 28 December and then taken to Police Lines.5 In the early hours of 28 December, CPO Saud Aziz went to see the Police Lines, together with others, including ISI officers, who were the first to conduct a forensic examination of the vehicle. An investigating police officer on the orders of the CPO, removed Ms Bhutto’s shoes and took them to the City Police Station. Sometime thereafter, the shoes were ordered back into the car. This wasclearly interfering with the integrity of the evidence. Furthermore, while the vehicle was parked at Police Lines, it was not properly preserved. The Commission was told that during a visit by some JIT members, people were seen in the vehicle cleaning it even though investigations were still on-going. When the JIT carried out its physical examination of the vehicle, they did not find any hair, blood or other matter on the lip of the escape hatch. Forensic analysis of swabs of the lip of the escape hatch later carried out by the JIT and Scotland Yard also found nothing. It is impossible to establish whether the interference with the vehicle resulted in the elimination of any matter that may have been present on the lip, or whether there was no such matter in the first place. It is clear, however, that such interference would have damaged any forensic evidence present. On the decision not to carry out a post-mortem examination 143. The Commission was told that CPO Saud Aziz on three occasions refused the request of the doctors for permission to carry out a post-mortem examination on Ms Bhutto’s remains. Pakistani law provides that in the case an unnatural death, the police must have a post-mortem examination report as part of their investigations. This requirement places the responsibility for initiating the examination on the police and not the hospital authorities. Indeed, hospital authorities must get a request from the police before proceeding. Numerous people interviewed, including all doctors and nearly all senior police officers, have reiterated this rule. Even CPO Saud Aziz himself acknowledged that this is the law in Pakistan.6 Only a District Magistrate may waive the need for a post-mortem examination. If the family of a deceased person does not wish to have a post-mortem examination carried out, it must apply to a judge for an order waiving the requirement. 144. Some people have suggested to the Commission that the practice is different from the legal requirement. Due primarily to religious considerations, permission from the family might be sought. There are sensitivities around conducting a post- mortem examination of a woman in Pakistani culture. However, due to the forensic importance of the examination, the police might take steps to overcome any religious or cultural objections. One senior police officer explained that, in his experience, when family members have been reluctant to have a post-mortem examination, the police have taken time to convince them to change their position because the post- mortem examination is so central to the conduct of any investigations 145. While denying that the doctors requested his authority for a post-mortem three times, CPO Saud Aziz told the Commission that because of the importance of the person of Ms Bhutto, he could not just have a post-mortem examination without first seeking her family’s consent. He first sought the approval of the President of the PPP, Makhdoom Amin Fahim for a post-mortem examination. Mr Fahim told him that he was not in a position to give such approval and asked him to wait for Mr Zardari who was on his way to Pakistan from Dubai. When Mr Zardari arrived at Chaklala Airbase, the request for permission was made to him and he declined. 146. The Commission does not find that there are credible reasons for failing to carry out an autopsy on Ms Bhutto’s. The body had already undergone invasive medical procedures when the open heart massage was undertaken. Moreover, a post-mortem examination limited to a complete external examination and not involving any invasive surgery could have been carried out. Even that limited exam was not conducted in this case. While one doctor did take a general look over the body, the doctors admit that this did not constitute a proper external post-mortem examination. 147. It is odd that Ms Bhutto’s remains were moved to the Pakistan Air Force base (Chaklala Airbase) in Rawalpindi before Mr Zardari’s arrival from Dubai. According to sources, the body was taken from the hospital around 2300 hours, on 27 December. The note signed by Mr Zardari accepting his wife’s remains is timed 0110 hours on 28 December. If the police were genuinely waiting for Mr Zardari’s permission before requesting a post-mortem examination, they should have left Ms Bhutto’s remains at the hospital. Instead they moved her remains to Chaklala Airbase, thereby rendering such an examination more difficult. When questioned about this, senior Punjab officials stated that the plan was to carry out the examination at the base which also had medical facilities. However, the fact that Ms Bhutto’s coffin was not taken to the medical facilities, but placed in a room at the base makes this assertion doubtful. 148. There was a series of memos from CPO Saud Aziz and his superiors regarding the absence of a post-mortem examination. The CPO wrote a memo to his immediate superior, the IGP of Punjab, dated 27 December, but actually written in the morning of 28 December, in which he reported that an autopsy could not be conducted because her husband had refused to authorize one. The IGP then sent a memo, also dated 27 December (and written on 28 December), to the Home Secretary of Sindh Province reporting Mr Zardari’s refusal and suggesting that the matter be taken up by the Home Department of Sind h Province. On 28 December, a letter was written from the Punjab Additional Secretary, Internal Security, to the Sindh Home Secretary, requesting that the latter seek Mr Zardari’s permission to conduct a post-mortem examination on Ms Bhutto’s remains prio r to burial. 149. The Commission finds the letter written by CPO Saud Aziz to be fundamentally misleading. Nothing in the letter explains why the autopsy had not been carried out earlier, during the preceding five hours while Ms Bhutto’s remains were at RGH. Rather, the letter focuses solely on Mr Zardari’s refusal to approve an autopsy – and portrays even that refusal in misleading terms. The letter is clearly intended to hide CPO Saud Aziz’s fundamental failure to carry out his legal obligation regarding the autopsy and, instead, to redirect blame for this failure to Mr Zardari. The effort to pin responsibility for this failure on Mr Zardari is unacceptable. No autopsy had been carried out even though five hours had passed since Ms Bhutto had been declared dead. The body had been placed in a coffin and brought to the PAF airbase. CPO Saud Aziz placed Mr Zardari in an impossible situation – one which almost compelled Mr Zardari to refuse the request for an autopsy. 150. The subsequent letter by the IGP, Punjab reiterating the misleading summary of events set out in CPO Saud Aziz’s letter reflects the willingness of his administrative superior to further this shift of responsibility and perpetrate a cover-up of the true reason behind the lack of a post-mortem examination. 151. In short, CPO Saud Aziz did not fulfil his legal obligation to order an autopsy. Having failed in that regard, he sought to cover up his failing by putting Mr Zardari in a situation designed to elicit his refusal of an autopsy. CPO Saud Aziz’s further effort to cover his failings by writing a memo pinning blame on Mr Zardari was highly improper. On their face, these factors taken together strongly suggest a preconceived effort to prevent a thorough examination of Ms Bhutto’s remains. 152. CPO Saud Aziz, an experienced senior police officer, refused to allow a post- mortem examination. He certainly knew the requirements of the law and the practice of law enforcement in such cases. He need not have waited for Mr Zardari. He was, furthermore, aware of the importance and status of the person involved. All these factors together support the view held by many Pakistanis that CPO Saud Aziz did not act independently in this matter. CPO Saud Aziz’s insistence on justifying his actions has made it difficult for the Commission to inquire any further and attempt to unearth who might have been behind the decision. On whether Ms Bhutto was shot 153. Although a number of PPP members asserted publicly and in private shortly after the assassination that Ms Bhutto had been shot, none of the many PPP members, both senior and low-ranking, interviewed by the Commission could confirm that assertion. Some PPP members told the Commission that at least one of the doctors had initially stated that Ms Bhutto had suffe red gunshot injuries, implying that the doctors must have deliberately altered their findings subsequently. The Commission was unable to find any basis to support this view, however honestly held. Rather, some doctors do indeed acknowledge that they openly discussed the possibility of gunshot injuries early in their efforts to resuscitate Ms Bhutto, but excluded that possibility in their final assessment. There is one doctor who arrived during the evening at Rawalpindi General Hospital who continues to assert that there was a gunshot wound. He was not, however, an examining doctor and does not base his views on direct observation of a gunshot injury. 154. The Commission also interviewed some PPP supporters who had been injured in the blast. None had received any bullet wounds, as previously reported in some media reports. According to the police, over 25 people were also interviewed in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and none received bullet wounds. They were injured by ball bearings, but not bullets. 155. The Commission has not been provided with any credible, new information showing that Ms Bhutto had received bullet wounds. A senior PPP official, who had earlier publicly asserted that she had seen Ms Bhutto’s gunshot injuries, retracted that statement when interviewed by the Commission. In fact, she had not seen Ms Bhutto’s head wound and had been told to tell the media that she had seen bullet wounds. The Commission found that, although her supporters may have justifiably assumed that Ms Bhutto had been shot in the confusion surrounding the assassination, the continued assertion that she had been shot, without evidence, as well as the assertion of untrue eyewitness accounts, was and remains misleading. The Commission recognizes that the confusion and urgency at Rawalpindi General Hospital when Ms Bhutto was brought there would naturally have generated some discussion among the staff there about the possibility of a gunshot wound. Such discussions may have been misinterpreted by some as a medical finding The Government Press Conference: 156. At about 1700 hours on the day following the assassination the government held a televised press conference, conducted by Brigadier Cheema, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Interior at which he announced that: a. Ms Bhutto died from a head injury sustained when from the force of the blast she hit her head on the lever of the escape hatch; and, b. Mr Baitullah Mehsud linked with Al-Qaida was responsible, presenting an intercepted telephone conversation between Mr Mehsud and one Mr Maulvi Sahib in which Mr Mehsud was heard congratulating Mr Maulvi on a job well-done. 157. The decision to hold the press conference was made by General Musharraf, during a meeting on the morning of 28 December at a facility in General Headquarters known as Camp House. That meeting, at which General Musharraf was briefed on the intercept and on medical evidence, was attended by the Directors General of the ISI, MI and the IB. Brigadier Cheema was summoned to a subsequent meeting at ISI Headquarters and directed by the Director General of the ISI to hold the press conference. In attendance at this second meeting, in addition to Brigadier Cheema, were Interior Secretary Kamal Shah, Director General of the ISI, Director General of the IB, Deputy Director General of the ISI and another ISI brigadier. 158. The Musharraf government asserted that the evidence for the cause of death was clear. According to the government, video footage showed that the shooter’s bullets did not hit Ms Bhutto. Based on the medical report indicating that she died of heavy bleeding from a head wound on the right side of her head, the Musharraf government set out its conclusion, through Brigadier Cheema, that she must have hit her head on the lever of the vehicle’s escape hatch. 159. The press conference was met with widespread public scepticism and media outrage in Pakistan. The PPP and others accused the government of a cover up. Many questioned the sudden and timely appearance of the telephone intercept as well as the speed with which its contents were analyzed and interpreted. Many also challenged the view that Ms Bhutto had not been shot and questioned how quickly that purported analysis had been done. Furthermore, many senior PPP officials believed the government was suggesting, in an effort to demean Ms Bhutto, that she had caused her own death by emerging from her vehicle. In short, the press conference not only failed to provide credible answers to essential questions arising from the assassination, it triggered widespread suspicion that government authorities would not be conducting a genuine search for the truth. The First Joint Investigation Team (Punjab-led) 160. On 28 December, Punjab authorities set up a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for the assassination. The JIT declared its work finished on 17 February 2008. This section will provide an overview of the constitution, internal dynamics and focus of the first JIT established shortly after Ms Bhutto’s assassination. It does not seek to set out in detail the JIT’s findings. 161. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, when a terrorist offence has been committed, the establishment of a JIT is mandatory. The relevant provision is broad, defining a JIT as an investigation involving one law enforcement agency working together with other agencies, either law enforcement or intelligence. With other types of crimes, it is usually the provincial police that has primacy in the investigation of a crime, and for the Federal Capital Territory of Islamabad, the Federal Government takes the lead. But in terrorism cases, either the provincial police or the Federal Government can initiate a JIT. When initiated by a province, the provincial government takes the lead in selecting the team members. Due to the expertise of the Special Investigations Group (SIG) of the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA), the FIA generally assigns some of its officers from that section to the JIT.7 When a JIT is set up by a province, a notification is sent to the FIA inviting the assignment of SIG staff to the team. 162. The JIT was headed by Mr Abdul Majeed, Additional IG (AIG) for Punjab. In addition to police officials from Punjab, the JIT included three senior members of the FIA, including an explosives expert, a senior CID police officer at the rank of DIG, an expert on forensic photography and nine middle ranking police officers. At the time the JIT was established, AIG Majeed was out of the country and, for the first two days, the JIT was headed by the next most senior police officer on the team, the DIG/CID in Lahore, Mushtaq Ahmad Sukhera. DIG Sukhera and his team started work on 28 December 2007. 163. On the evening of 28 December, members of the JIT went to Police Lines where they met CPO Saud Aziz. Rather than proceeding directly to the crime site, CPO Saud Aziz laid out tea for the JIT investigators in a conference room. While the JIT members were still in the conference room, the television aired the press conference given by Brigadier Cheema. According to a credible source, at the end of the press conference, the CPO rhetorically asked the JIT members what they intended to investigate, since the perpetrator had been identified. When the JIT members pressed to visit the crime scene, CPO Saud Aziz, noting that it was already dark, stated instead that he would arrange for a visit to the scene in the morning. The source noted above interpreted these actions as a means of hindering the JIT investigators’ access to the crime site. 164. On 29 December, the following day, the JIT investigators returned to Police Lines where they were able to inspect Ms Bhutto’s vehicle. They discovered early in their inspection that there was no blood or tissue on the escape hatch lever that would be consistent with the gaping injury to Ms Bhutto’s head, suggesting strongly to the investigators that Ms Bhutto had not hit her head on the lever. 165. Following that inspection, rather than taking the investigators directly to the crime scene, CPO Saud Aziz hosted a lunch that went into the late afternoon, at the end of which he again, according to the same source cited above, indicated that it would be dark by the time the team arrived at the crime scene. It was only at around 1700 hours that the JIT investigators were taken to the crime scene at Liaquat Bagh. The Commission finds it inexplicable that the investigators were not in a position to conduct on-site investigations until two full days after the assassination. Such conduct further hampered the gathering of evidence and, at the very least, was contrary to best practices. 166. Once at the scene, the investigators could see that it had been hosed down. Despite the late hour, they spent seven hours there. They followed the water current, including wading through the drainage sewer and collected evidence from the debris. They were able to recover one bullet casing from the drainage sewer, later established through forensic examination to have been fired from the pistol bearing the bomber’s DNA. The JIT members left the scene around midnight. The Rawalpindi police provided security for them, and the road was cordoned off during the entire time. The next day, the team returned to continue the search. Upon their request, the scene remained cordoned off and the road closed. They eventually recovered other evidence in the course of their crime scene examination, including the partial skull of the suicide bomber from atop one of the buildings near the site. 167. On 31 December, AIG Majeed returned from his trip and took over the leadership of the JIT. This change at the JIT’s helm result ed in a shift in the internal dynamics of the investigation. Mr Majeed effectively sidelined the senior and more experienced officers who had started the investigations and dealt directly with the most junior investigators of the JIT. Two senior officers invited into the JIT from the Sindh police decided to return to Sindh after only two days with the JIT. Much of the work carried out by the JIT from this point was led by information Mr Majeed received from the intelligence agencies, which retained sole control over the sharing of information with the police, providing it on a selective basis. 168. The scientific analysis of the suicide bomber’s remains by the Scotland Yard team established that he was a teenage male, no more than 16 years old. According to the JIT’s investigations, this young man was named Bilal also known as Saeed from South Waziristan. This was established through the links that the accused persons admitted having had with the bomber and the ISI telephone intercept of Baitullah Mehsud’s conversation with Maulvi Sahib. The accused persons 169. Five persons were arrested by the JIT: Aitezaz Shah, Sher Zehman, Husnain Gul, Mohamad Rafaqat and Rasheed Ahmed. In addition, the JIT charged Nasrullah, Abdullah, Baitullah Mehsud and Maulvi Sahib as “proclaimed offenders”. Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a drone attack in August 2009, and Nasrullah is reported to have been killed in an attack in FATA. 170. The Commission will not address in any detail the case against these individuals. It notes generally, however, that the accused are alleged to have served as handlers and logistics supporters of the suicide bomber, or as persons who were knowledgeable about the plans to assassinate Ms Bhutto but failed to provide such information to the police. The charges against them include aiding and abetting terrorism, murder and concealing information about the commission of a crime. 171. The JIT focused its efforts on investigating the alleged role of these low-level individuals. Little to no focus was placed on investigating those further up the hierarchy in the planning and execution of the assassination. In particular, the JIT did nothing to build a case against Mr Mehsud, treating the contents of the intercept presented to the public by Brigadier Cheema as determinative of his culpability. AIG Majeed told the Commission that he saw no need to establish the authenticity of the intercept or the basis for its analysis, including the voice identification and the interpretation of the conversation as a reference to the Ms Bhutto’s assassination. The Commission finds this approach to the investigation contrary to best practices and inconsistent with a genuine search for the truth. 172. The Commission notes also with some concern the discrepancy in the detention record of some of the accused persons, particularly in light of the well-known controversy over extra-judicial detention by intelligence agencies prior to their arrest by law enforcement agencies. Baitullah Mehsud 173. The then-government’s assertion that Baitullah Mehsud was behind the assassination of Ms Bhutto was premature at best. Such a hasty announcement of the perpetrator prejudiced the police investigations which had not yet begun. Other flaws in the JIT’s approach to investigating Baitullah Mehsud’s alleged role in the assassination are also inconsistent with a genuine search for the truth. 174. The communication intercepted by the ISI is purported to be a telephone conversation between Emir Sahib (said to be Baitullah Mehsud) and Maulvi Sahib. In it, the two speakers congratulate each other on an event which Brigadier Cheema asserted was the assassination. The ISI asserts that they already had the voice signature of Baitullah Mehsud and were in a position to identify his voice on the intercept. In the English translation of transcript of the intercept, Emir Sahib at some point asked Maulvi Sahib: “who were they?” Maulvi Sahib replied: “There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.” Mehsud asked: “The three did it?” Maulvi Sahib replied: “Ikramullah and Bilal did it”. The conversation did not mention Ms Bhutto by name. The Commission is not in a position to evaluate the authenticity of the purported intercept. Any further investigation into Ms Bhutto’s assassination must include steps for such authentication. 175. It is not clear how or when the intercept from the ISI was recorded. A former senior ISI official told the Commission that the ISI had been tracking Baitullah Mehsud’s communications closely and was, therefore in a position to identify his voice. Furthermore, he asserted that the ISI had been tracking Taliban-linked terrorist cells that were closely pursuing Ms Bhutto, targeting her at a series of successive public gatherings. According to this ISI official, it was one of these cells which finally assassinated Ms Bhutto in Rawalpindi. 176. The ISI was highly confident of the accuracy of its investigations, much of which were based on the analysis of intercepts, through which it was possible to identify each cell and also the link of each of these cells to Baitullah Mehsud. On the basis of its investigations, the ISI detained four persons for involvement in the Karachi bombings within two weeks of that attack. According to the former ISI official cited above, int errogations confirmed their intercepts analysis. The Commission is not in a position to assess the credibility of this information from the ISI. However, this information does raise important questions, which are addressed further below. 177. There are media reports that Mr Mehsud denied responsibility for the assassination. Mr Saleh Shah Qureshi, Senator from South Waziristan, told the Commission that Mr Mehsud had categorically denied any involvement in the assassination attempt of 18-19 October and the subsequent assassination of Ms Bhutto on 27 December, questioning also the authenticity of the telephone intercept ascribed to Mr Mehsud. The JIT took no steps to investigate the veracity of any such denial. Rather, some government officials from that time told the Commission that any such denials would have no credibility, implying that such investigative steps would not be worthwhile. 178. After the arrest of the five accused persons, the JIT essentially ceased investigating the possibility of other perpetrators, particularly those who may have been involved in planning or directing the assassination by funding or otherwise enabling the assassination. The JIT even ended its efforts to identify the suicide bomber. Persons accused by Ms Bhutto in a letter dated 16 October 2007 179. On 16 October 2007, Ms Bhutto writing from Dubai to General Musharraf, identified three people she considered a threat to her security: (i) Brigadier (ret) Ejaz Shah, Director General of the IB at the time of the assassination, (ii) General (ret) Hamid Gul, a former Director General of the ISI, and (iii) Mr Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, Chief Minister of Punjab until 22 November 2007. 180. The Ministry of Interior responded to Ms Bhutto in a letter dated 6 November 2007, stating that the threats she related had “neither tangible basis nor is there any evidence to support the perception” contained therein. The Commission spoke with two of those named in the letter and others close to them, all of whom hold the view that the letter was baseless and politically motivated. With respect to Ms Bhutto’s close aides, none of those who met with the Commission affirmed having seen the letter before it was written, and they had varying interpretations of its contents and intentions. One believed that the letter was intended to put political pressure on General Musharraf by naming two people closely associated with him and putting him on notice of her concerns. Other sources, including a former high-ranking foreign official, thought the men posed genuine threats to her security, linking them to the Establishment and its long-standing enmity towards the PPP and the Bhutto family. The Commission received no information of specific threats that they may have directed against Ms Bhutto. 181. In the course of their investigations, neither the Karachi nor the JIT investigators interrogated or interviewed any of these people. Karachi and JIT investigators explained that they could not summon and interrogate them on the basis of Ms Bhutto’s accusations, without more information. Ms Bhutto made indirect reference to these individuals in the FIR she filed in Karachi after the attack on 18-19 October. However, while the FIR referred to the 16 October letter, it did not provide the names, nor was a copy attached. Nor did any PPP member provide the names to the investigators. These factors were raised by Karachi and JIT investigators in explaining to the Commission why they declined to approach these three men. 182. While recognizing that Ms Bhutto and other PPP members were not forthcoming with the police on this issue, the Commission believes that police investigators should nonetheless have invited the three individuals to meet with them, on a voluntary basis. The names of the three individuals had been widely circulated in the press, as Karachi and JIT investigators acknowledged. PPP interaction with the investigations 183. The relationship between the PPP and the Pakistani police was characterised by mistrust on the part of the PPP. This was evident in their lack of co-operation with the Karachi police following the attack of 18-19 October 2007, and their lukewarm attitude towards the Rawalpindi investigations. ( More in Part IV)