<p> “Kaha suna maaf,” said David Coleman Headley, the Pakistani-American as the Mumbai special court wrapped up his deposition on Saturday, amid intense argument in the courtroom.<br /><br /></p>.<p>From February 8-13 – for five days, his examination-in-chief was conducted by special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, while his cross examination was conducted from March 23-26, four days by advocate Abdul Wahab Khan, the Defence Counsel for Sayed Zaibuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, the Indian accused facing trial.<br /><br />Incidentally, not even on a single occasion, there was any question on Abu Jundal. <br /><br />The 56-year-old Headley alias Daood Gilani had deposed through video-conference from an undisclosed location in the United States, before Additional Sessions Judge G A Sanap, who presides over anti-terror cases in Mumbai. <br /><br />During the nine days of his appearance, Headley faced close to 1,400 questions — around 750 by Nikam and some 650 by Khan. <br /><br />Around 50-odd journalists covered the proceedings which used to generally commence at 7 am and end around 1: 30 pm.<br /><br />Top officials of the Mumbai police including Additional Director General of Police (Crime) Atul Kulkarni and on some occasions officials of the National Investigation Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation were also present. <br /><br />The judge specifically thanked the US authorities and attorneys for the deposition and the cooperation extended. <br /><br />Khan pleaded that he be allowed for one more day to ask questions so that he takes a brief from Ansari, Nikam objected and said how can he carry out the cross-examination without the brief from his client. <br /><br /> The judge, however, asked him to take a brief on video-conferencing and would ensure that there would not be anyone in court. <br /><br />“I do not feel it is reliable,” Ansari said and Khan immediately added that he has to ensure privacy. “It would also be wrong to say that I had not consulted him... during his appearance in Aurangabad arms haul case, we spoke,” he said, and added that neither he or anyone from his chamber had gone and met him in jail.<br /><br /> “Because of successive holidays I could not do so,” he said, however, the judge said that this argument is “ridiculous” as he has always obliged with special permissions. <br /><br />Sense of humourTo a question on plea bargain and a condition put by him in US that he would not be extradited, Headley said in lighter vein: “If I knew Wahab Khan would be my defence attorney, I would have insisted to be extradited... its not a joke.” On one occasion when Khan asked him when the audio of the instructions from control room to Mumbai attackers were played was it audible, he said it was not of good quality. When asked whether he could hear blasts and gun fire, he said: “main logo ke aawaz sun raha tha...goli ki nahi.” <br /><br />Headley admits knowledge of IshratAs the deposition of David Coleman Headley drew to a close on Saturday, the Pakistani-American admitted to having knowledge about Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist Ishrat Jehan, but said he came to know more about the Gujarat’s botched-up operations from the media, DHNS reports from Mumbai.<br /> However, the 56-year-old terrorist-turned-approver who did reconnaissance ahead of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, raised doubts about the statement of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) when advocate Abdul Wahab Khan referred to it and posed a barrage of questions. <br /><br />“My statement was recorded (by NIA in the US)... but not a single line was read out,” he said. Asked whether he requested a copy from the NIA, he said: “No, I did not” — and when asked another question whether NIA on its own gave a copy to him, he said, “negative”. He admitted that Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the chief-of-operations of LeT has told him about the operation and he had mentioned this to the NIA when he was interrogated by the agency in the US. Asked why it was not there in the statement of NIA, he said: “I don’t know.” He also said he told that female member of LeT who died was Ishrat Jahan but said he does not know why that was ignored by the NIA and not recorded in its statement.When asked whether Lakhvi told him that Ishrat Jehan was part of a botched-up operation and Muzammil Bhat was head of the module for Gujarat and Maharashtra, he said: “Not in these words... when he introduced Muzammil to me, he told me that he is one of the top LeT operatives.”<br /></p>
<p> “Kaha suna maaf,” said David Coleman Headley, the Pakistani-American as the Mumbai special court wrapped up his deposition on Saturday, amid intense argument in the courtroom.<br /><br /></p>.<p>From February 8-13 – for five days, his examination-in-chief was conducted by special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, while his cross examination was conducted from March 23-26, four days by advocate Abdul Wahab Khan, the Defence Counsel for Sayed Zaibuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, the Indian accused facing trial.<br /><br />Incidentally, not even on a single occasion, there was any question on Abu Jundal. <br /><br />The 56-year-old Headley alias Daood Gilani had deposed through video-conference from an undisclosed location in the United States, before Additional Sessions Judge G A Sanap, who presides over anti-terror cases in Mumbai. <br /><br />During the nine days of his appearance, Headley faced close to 1,400 questions — around 750 by Nikam and some 650 by Khan. <br /><br />Around 50-odd journalists covered the proceedings which used to generally commence at 7 am and end around 1: 30 pm.<br /><br />Top officials of the Mumbai police including Additional Director General of Police (Crime) Atul Kulkarni and on some occasions officials of the National Investigation Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation were also present. <br /><br />The judge specifically thanked the US authorities and attorneys for the deposition and the cooperation extended. <br /><br />Khan pleaded that he be allowed for one more day to ask questions so that he takes a brief from Ansari, Nikam objected and said how can he carry out the cross-examination without the brief from his client. <br /><br /> The judge, however, asked him to take a brief on video-conferencing and would ensure that there would not be anyone in court. <br /><br />“I do not feel it is reliable,” Ansari said and Khan immediately added that he has to ensure privacy. “It would also be wrong to say that I had not consulted him... during his appearance in Aurangabad arms haul case, we spoke,” he said, and added that neither he or anyone from his chamber had gone and met him in jail.<br /><br /> “Because of successive holidays I could not do so,” he said, however, the judge said that this argument is “ridiculous” as he has always obliged with special permissions. <br /><br />Sense of humourTo a question on plea bargain and a condition put by him in US that he would not be extradited, Headley said in lighter vein: “If I knew Wahab Khan would be my defence attorney, I would have insisted to be extradited... its not a joke.” On one occasion when Khan asked him when the audio of the instructions from control room to Mumbai attackers were played was it audible, he said it was not of good quality. When asked whether he could hear blasts and gun fire, he said: “main logo ke aawaz sun raha tha...goli ki nahi.” <br /><br />Headley admits knowledge of IshratAs the deposition of David Coleman Headley drew to a close on Saturday, the Pakistani-American admitted to having knowledge about Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist Ishrat Jehan, but said he came to know more about the Gujarat’s botched-up operations from the media, DHNS reports from Mumbai.<br /> However, the 56-year-old terrorist-turned-approver who did reconnaissance ahead of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, raised doubts about the statement of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) when advocate Abdul Wahab Khan referred to it and posed a barrage of questions. <br /><br />“My statement was recorded (by NIA in the US)... but not a single line was read out,” he said. Asked whether he requested a copy from the NIA, he said: “No, I did not” — and when asked another question whether NIA on its own gave a copy to him, he said, “negative”. He admitted that Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the chief-of-operations of LeT has told him about the operation and he had mentioned this to the NIA when he was interrogated by the agency in the US. Asked why it was not there in the statement of NIA, he said: “I don’t know.” He also said he told that female member of LeT who died was Ishrat Jahan but said he does not know why that was ignored by the NIA and not recorded in its statement.When asked whether Lakhvi told him that Ishrat Jehan was part of a botched-up operation and Muzammil Bhat was head of the module for Gujarat and Maharashtra, he said: “Not in these words... when he introduced Muzammil to me, he told me that he is one of the top LeT operatives.”<br /></p>
