Rana trial draws to a close, all eyes on verdict now

Washington: The prosecution and the defence presented their final arguments for and against Tahawwur Rana’s culpability in 26/11 attacks, with the former pleading for justice to the Mumbai victims and the latter portraying the Pakistani-Canadian as a man duped by conman David Headley. [caption id=“attachment_22121” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Rana himself, however, chose to remain silent at his trial that stretched for a fortnight. Reuters”]  [/caption] A federal jury hearing the case is now set to begin its final deliberations to decide Rana’s fate after the closing arguments were presented in the court that is set to deliver the verdict. Rana himself, however, chose to remain silent and did not testify at his trial that stretched for a fortnight. In the ongoing trial, Rana’s defence attorney is going all-out to prove Rana’s innocence. He is making every possible effort to convince the jury members that 26/11 terror suspect David Coleman Headley is a conman who fooled everyone in the world, including the FBI. “Headley fooled everyone. Don’t let Headley fool you. Please do not convict Rana in this case,” defence attorney Patric Blegen pleaded in the final moments of his closing argument. In an emotional appeal, he said his client was a religious man and was duped and fooled by Headley for executing his terrorist plans. “Headley lies under oath… to accomplish his goals,” the defence attorney said. “Headley sacrificed Rana for himself and his family,” Blegen argued as he reiterated that he and his team had presented enough evidence before the court over the past two weeks that Rana had no knowledge about Healdey’s terrorist intentions. Rana, he said, was simply a businessmen and interested in expanding his business overseas, including Mumbai, Lahore, Karachi and Denmark. Headley exploited Rana’s business expansion plans and tricked him as he used the business to serve the terrorist interest of both the Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba, he argued. Arguing that Rana was not involved in the conspiracy of either the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack or the Copenhagen plot, Blegen told the jury that one can’t rely on Headley for anything. The entire argument of the defence lawyer was that Headley is a liar. “Headley betrayed his friendship to Rana. He is spewing lies,” Blegen said, adding Headley has mastered the art of becoming a government witness to save himself. “This is not the first time that he has entered into a guilty plea,” he said, adding that this is for the third time he has turned into a government witness. In another attempt to prove his client’s innocence, Blegen said Headley told only two individuals about the Mumbai terrorist attacks – Rana and Rahul Bhatt. This is a strong proof that Rana did not know about the Mumbai terrorist attack. No one else in the Headley close circles received the warning because everyone else knew about it, he stressed. Strongly objecting to this argument, government prosecutor Daniel Collins said Rahul Bhatt and Rana could not be compared. “Defence is trying to take your (jury’s) focus away. There is no comparison between Rahul Bhatt and Rana. Rahul Bhatt did not get Headley his visa. Rahul Bhatt did not open an office for him (Headley),” Collins argued. Blegen also argued that Rana, unlike other members of the Headley team, did not see any of the videos taken by him. “Rana never saw a single moment of these videos. Videos were seen by those who were part of the conspiracy. Rana was never part of it, so he never bothered to see these surveillance videos,” he argued. The defence attorney argued Headley used the ISI to cover Lashkar-e-Taiba, for whom he worked for. Making his final argument, Blegan said there is nothing simple when it comes to Headley. “He is a conman. He thinks he can fool everyone. For instance, when he was really training with Lashkar in Pakistan, he told FBI that he was their man," Blegan said. Till the last minute, Headley hid information about Mumbai from Rana. Headley was fooling Rana around because he wanted money from Rana. The emails show that Rana was trying to keep the office open even after Mumbai attacks. “Headley wanted to write a book make a movie and make money. He has no remorse,” Rana’s defence stated. According to the defence attorney, Headley warned only two persons about the Mumbai attack, that is Bhatt and Rana. This means that none of the two were aware about the attack. “Rahul Bhatt got warned about Mumbai attack. Remember Headley is working for a Pakistani spy agency. Rana is not the only one who got the warning. Who did not get warned about the attack because they were all part of the plot. Headley wanted to warn Rana prior to the attack,” Blegen said. “Why did Headley not send any email from LeT to Rana?” he asked. “All Rana knew was about the ISI and not Lashkar. Headley was controlling the flow of information.” PTI