Would Whodunnit Undermine Scientific Evidence?

From ________________ :

Should a grand jury decide upon the whodunnit for criminal prosecution, isn’t it possible that a failure to conclusively prove guilt by the perpetrator(s) could lead to the inability to then provide all of the conclusive scientific evidence of controlled demolitions, for example?

Answer from C2C Team Attorney Mick Harrison:#

It is not expected that any challenges in proving the “whodunnit”  aspect would preclude or limit a full examination of the demolition evidence.

The normal procedure for a grand jury (and a prosecutor) is first to determine if a crime was committed. If the answer to that initial threshold question is “no,” then there is no need to move on to the second question of who committed that crime. So the demolition evidence, which is central to a determination of the threshold question of whether a (bombing) crime was committed, should be analyzed fully first before even considering the follow-on question of whodunnit.

If challenges are encountered in resolving that later (whodunnit) question, it will only be after the evaluation of the demolition evidence has already been completed. In any case, one should not assume that a federal special grand jury would encounter insurmountable challenges in answering the whodunnit questions given the authorities and resources at their disposal, and the abundance of evidence already developed (by nonprofits, independent scientists, and citizen investigators).

Some of that evidence indicates the use of high tech incendiaries and explosives which narrows the universe of suspects, as does the fact that in order for such incendiaries and explosives to have been properly placed to achieve the result observed (and videotaped), ready access by some of the perpetrators to WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 over a period of time would have been required (and would have been difficult to conceal).