Saudi Journalist Disappears in Saudi Consulate in Turkey

Do you really think that while committing a murder , maybe with torture , screaming, shouting, the cutter telling the chief of the mission to stop and then hearing him being told STFU or what will happen to you if you get back to Arabia.

That those involved will remember exactly where they were?
I don't know, to be honest. I was speculating about why the recording (if there is one) has not been released. In terms of whether a recording could reveal anything the Saudis would find useful, it could be that the meeting between Kashoggi and those who ended up killing him began without screaming, etc and therefore might be useful.
However, it's just speculation on my part.
That said, I think I could recall where in a room I was during a very significant act, such as a murder.
 
I wonder what are the chances of the body or parts thereof bring found? The Saudis must have had a limited period of time in which to bury/toss into a lake the remains so the disposal may not be thorough.

I wouldn't describe Terminal's points as rubbish. I don't know much about I.T. but those in the room where the killing took place will know where they were. Therefore, they could use a form of direction finding, based on an analysis of the loudness of sounds and their likely distance from the microphone. In addition, if the source of the audio is a member of the KSA team, Turks could be protecting a source (getting into huge speculation here but not releasing the audio publicly may be the wisest course of action for Turkey. A private release to allies might be another matter).
It will be interesting to see what Turkey dies next. The story could easily drift if there are no fresh developments.
The source the Turks may be protecting may be someone on the inside in Saudi Arabia, either on the hit squad itself or someone else highly placed in Saudi Arabia. Releasing the recording may make that obvious and so undermine the trust of their source.

Or possibly the Turks don't have a source on the inside and are relying on bugs or other technical means.

Of course the Saudis don't know which, if either, is the case. That in turn means the Saudis can't know how much the Turks actually know, and there is no incentive for the Turks to show their cards at this point.
 
Do you really think that while committing a murder , maybe with torture , screaming, shouting, the cutter telling the chief of the mission to stop and then hearing him being told STFU or what will happen to you if you get back to Arabia.

That those involved will remember exactly where they were?
They don't have to remember it exactly if they videoed the interrogation.
 
If a detailed recording of the events surrounding the murder exists, then it puts the Turks in a very strong position. Neither the Saudis nor Trump want anything that is too damning and which might hinder a continuation of the mutually beneficial status quo.

Both sides would prefer that the KSA only fessed up to a cosmetically enhanced version of events that could be accepted by Trump. He could then go through the motions of expressing disapproval and issue a limited symbolic censure. Honour would have been satisfied and an early resumption of normal jogging would soon follow.

The Turks are fully aware that this would be the preferred outcome. If the Turks are holding evidence of something far more damning, they are in a very strong bargaining position with both the KSA and the US. So far they have released just enough to force the Saudis to recant their initial blank denial of everything and admit that Khashoggi did in fact die inside the consulate building.

There are only two reasons that occur to me why the release of the really sexy stuff has so far been withheld. Either it does not exist or else it is being held back as a very useful bargaining chip.
 
Last edited:
Ref the cremation theory ? WTF are you smoking.
Not the same stuff as you clearly
Not knowing much about cremation but deciding this week to cremate my just deceased Mother, discussing this with the Funeral directors and reading up on it . It’s not just lighting a big BBQ and chucking the body onto it.
If they managed to get the body back to the KSA, they don’t have crematoriums?
Saudi Arabia Cremation Services - Saudi Arabia Cremation Guide
 
Hence a number of the points I've made before, particularly about 'the tape' which tells a very different story to the one leaked initially which was supported by the known facts such as flight times and who was on the second flight - namely al-Tubaigi, the forensic expert, who was on the second flight which arrived at 17:15 by which time he was already supposed to have sliced up Khashoggi on the Consul's office desk. (...)
The BBC would beg to differ with your version of events.
Turkish officials have also said that Dr Tubaigy was carrying a bone saw when he flew into Istanbul Ataturk Airport from Riyadh at 03:13 on 2 October on a private jet with the tail number HZSK2. The jet is owned by Sky Prime Aviation Services, a company that was reportedly seized by the Saudi government in an anti-corruption drive last year.
If you have a different version you would like to talk about then please cite your sources, otherwise I'll go with the BBC's version.

h ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45906396
 
If the recording is digital, as the original almost certainly would be, then it is entirely possible. Indeed, it's routine.

If the digital recording was played via speaker, then re-recorded digitally, it's equally easy to do.

If the recording was digital, played via a speaker, re-recorded in an analogue format and subsequently converted to digital, a good deal of "technical intelligence" can still be gathered from it.

Why do you insist on habitually potificating on matters where your subject knowledge is so manifestly inadequate?

What leads you to insist that the original recording is analogue?
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely don't understand the difference between digital and analogue. To take your points in turn:
If the recording is digital, as the original almost certainly would be, then it is entirely possible. Indeed, it's routine
Of course it is - if the original's handed over or it's copied digitally.
If the digital recording was played via speaker, then re-recorded digitally, it's equally easy to do.
Again, of course it is.
If the recording was digital, played via a speaker, re-recorded in an analogue format and subsequently converted to digital, a good deal of "technical intelligence" can still be gathered from it.
Yet again, of course it is (but not, unfortunately, any of the "technical intelligence" under discussion - bitrates, compression, etc).
Why do you insist on habitually potificating on matters where your subject knowledge is so manifestly inadequate?
I've made my own experience and knowledge of tech matters very clear.

You've somehow managed to completely overlook and failed to address the options I've detailed previously. Twice. I wonder why (actually I don't, as the answer's unavoidable).
What leads you to insist that the original recording is analogue?
Where, do tell, have I ever done that? Where have I even suggested it as a possibility?

What I've suggested several times, which somehow doesn't seem to be getting through to you, is that the original recording could be re-recorded in analogue format, which would mean that the digital information would effectively be lost.

What I've also suggested several times is that the recording could be edited, openly, to remove the possibility of direction finding or anything giving away the source.

When I checked this I was told that although there may be those who'd have an 'Oh sh1t' moment when they realised they'd overlooked the possibility of analogue, who'd just say 'Oops, my mishtake, I was pished', there'd also be the utter mongs and complete cretins who'd insist on bluffing their way, pretending they'd considered analogue, but would play hopscotch around it because they wouldn't want to admit that they'd overlooked anything so basic and so obvious and that it made a complete nonsense of what they'd said.

How right they were.
 
Interesting and official statement from Turkish ruling party spokesman. I don't know though whether the comments mean 'we know what happened and will release the info' or (as they can be read) 'we are working to confirm what happened and will then release the info'.

From the BBC:

"Turkey will reveal whatever had happened," said Omer Celik of Turkey's ruling AKP party, according to Anadolu news agency.

"Nobody should ever doubt about it. We are not accusing anyone in advance but we don't accept anything to remain covered [up]."

Turkey 'to reveal all' on Khashoggi death
 
I would like to recall a case happened with a Russian with very high diplomatic status. It happened in 2004.
Би-би-си | Россия | В Лондоне обыскали российского сенатора
Margelov Frisked by London Police | News
Russian senator Mikhail Margelov, a head of Russian Upper house commitee for foreign relations arrived to the UK according to invitation of the House of the Lords. Of course he had a diplomatic passport, belonged to top 20 Russian diplomats in the UK and he had Council of Europe ID card that provides personal immunity. He was walking being accompanied by a representative of the FCO but was detained just near DS10 and frisked by policemen that ignored his (and the FCO representative) explanation that it is a violation of diplomatic immunity and a violation of Vienna convention about diplomatic relations.
Mr.Margelov later received apologies from the House of Commons, from the House of Lords, from PM mr.Blair but ... not from Ian Blair, the head of Met.Police at time.
Vienna convetion is for diplomats. But British police has own rules.
There are methods for complaint and restorative action in the UK.

StackPath

Take it up with them. Not sure about making complaints against police in your neck of the woods....
 
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely don't understand the difference between digital and analogue. To take your points in turn:
Of course it is - if the original's handed over or it's copied digitally.
Again, of course it is.
Yet again, of course it is (but not, unfortunately, any of the "technical intelligence" under discussion - bitrates, compression, etc).
I've made my own experience and knowledge of tech matters very clear.

You've somehow managed to completely overlook and failed to address the options I've detailed previously. Twice. I wonder why (actually I don't, as the answer's unavoidable).
Where, do tell, have I ever done that? Where have I even suggested it as a possibility?

What I've suggested several times, which somehow doesn't seem to be getting through to you, is that the original recording could be re-recorded in analogue format, which would mean that the digital information would effectively be lost.

What I've also suggested several times is that the recording could be edited, openly, to remove the possibility of direction finding or anything giving away the source.

When I checked this I was told that although there may be those who'd have an 'Oh sh1t' moment when they realised they'd overlooked the possibility of analogue, who'd just say 'Oops, my mishtake, I was pished', there'd also be the utter mongs and complete cretins who'd insist on bluffing their way, pretending they'd considered analogue, but would play hopscotch around it because they wouldn't want to admit that they'd overlooked anything so basic and so obvious and that it made a complete nonsense of what they'd said.

How right they were.
I believe we would all be fascinated to read the sources you can cite regarding the secure deletion of digital artifacts and ambient audio cues from recordings. I say that because I am not aware of any widely known technique for doing so, while I am aware of all sorts of techniques for extracting information from recordings through the use of digital processing techniques.
 
If he'd had an ounce of Glaswegian blood in him we'd be paying benefits for 18 dismembered bodies right now.
Translated from Weegie at no change.
 
We'll still say "nothing to see" here in the end. Between KSA and Iran the people of the ME are under the cosh, KSA just happens to be our cosh wielder. I mean the US/UK when I say "our."
 
The BBC would beg to differ with your version of events.


If you have a different version you would like to talk about then please cite your sources, otherwise I'll go with the BBC's version.

h ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45906396
You mean like this version in the Washington Post?

You don't appear to have read the BBC article you linked to very carefully, and nor for that matter does the BBC.

The BBC article starts off by saying that:
"Most of the men flew into Istanbul on two private jets hours before Mr Khashoggi arrived at the consulate to collect some routine paperwork, and flew back to Riyadh later in the day on the same jets" which is not only totally untrue but which the same article contradicts later, saying in one place that one plane (HZSK2) arrived at 03:13 on the 1st and in another that it arrived at 03:13 on the 2nd, which are both (!) before Khashoggi arrived at the Consulate, while it says that the other (HZSK1) arrived at 17:15 on the 2nd which is four hours after Khashoggi arrived at the consulate.

The first link in the BBC article is to a Washington Post article which says that " Early reports indicated the British trained scientist arrived in the hours after Khashoggi disappeared. But the Turkish newspaper Sabah later updated his arrival time to several hours before the journalist disappeared ". So the source for the BBC article isn't official but is a Washington Post article, whose source is a Turkish newspaper, which contradicts all previous reports.

The BBC article links to a New York Times article to show that "Turkish officials have also said that Dr Tubaigy was carrying a bone saw when he flew into Istanbul Ataturk Airport ". If you read the NYT article, though, it doesn't say anything so specific.
That also contradicts your previous suggestion that the bonesaw was only previously found on al-Tubaigy's way out, not his way in.

Obviously you're free to believe whatever you want to, but when it comes to believing what the Turkish newspapers say (or other media solely based on them) which changes depending on whether it's raining or not, I prefer to keep an open mind and to look for where they're contradicting previous reports (or, in the case of the BBC report you linked to, contradicting themselves in the same report).
 
There are methods for complaint and restorative action in the UK.

StackPath

Take it up with them. Not sure about making complaints against police in your neck of the woods....
Do you mean that police in the UK could violate the Vienna convention about diplomatic relations and foreign diplomats could complain?
 
I believe we would all be fascinated to read the sources you can cite regarding the secure deletion of digital artifacts and ambient audio cues from recordings. I say that because I am not aware of any widely known technique for doing so, while I am aware of all sorts of techniques for extracting information from recordings through the use of digital processing techniques.
Leave it mate, he's a mentalist.
 
I believe we would all be fascinated to read the sources you can cite regarding the secure deletion of digital artifacts and ambient audio cues from recordings. I say that because I am not aware of any widely known technique for doing so, while I am aware of all sorts of techniques for extracting information from recordings through the use of digital processing techniques.
I doubt very much if "we all" have much interest in this or in you (and anyone else if they're so inclined) continuing to make a complete prat of yourself by refusing to acknowledge that analogue and digital recordings have very different characteristics and that analogue recordings can easily be edited to remove 'digital artifacts' which won't even show up if you use the simple expedient of using poor quality tape and / or recorders.

As for what you're not aware of, your ignorance really isn't my concern.
 
Do you mean that police in the UK could violate the Vienna convention about diplomatic relations and foreign diplomats could complain?
Take that up with the foreign office.

You got any diplomats here left by the way? or did they all get kicked out for "activites incompatible"?

;)
 
@John G you just can’t help yourself can you? I recently thought we were seeing a new poster, as you have generally been engaging and reasonable, but once again for some reason you are reverting to ad hominems and diverting an excellent thread.
Does it really matter that much that you and another poster are at odds with the various media links out there?
Can’t you stick to the matter at hand and accept other opinions instead of forensically dissecting every post? :?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top