If I were the prosecution in the Tahawwur Hussain Rana trial, I would pause for a moment and take a long and hard look at whether my star witness is delivering the goods. And if he is doing so, is he delivering them to the right address? The Memorial Day weekend would be a good time to closely examine whether Headley is leading me down the garden path.
It is true that in his carefully guided testimony with the help of a deeply methodical Assistant US Attorney Daniel Collins during the first two and half days from May 28, David Coleman Headley offered some dark hints of Rana’s possible knowledge and involvement in the planning of the Mumbai terror case. Those hints were sought to be strengthened by a supporting email here or a phone conversation there.
But then, it is equally true that during his cross examination by the flamboyant defense attorney, Charles Swift and his wry colleague Patrick Blegen Headley said things that cast doubts about his own integrity. His admissions, disclosures and revelations so far sound more damning of himself than of his once closest friend Rana. We all know that it is superfluous for him to damn himself because he has already pleaded guilty to everything that he has been accused of.
Short of wearing a T-shirt that says “ Don’t trust me. I say anything to get my way”, Headley has said everything that says, “Don’t trust me. I say anything to get my way.” He obviously tailored information depending upon whom he was sharing it with.
On balance—and I have nothing more than an inexplicable hunch about it—Headley now seems to be looking for ways to help is childhood friend get out of the sordid mess largely unscathed. Although he comes across as the sort who would turn on just about anyone, he does show a measure of gratitude and loyalty towards Rana.
Some of my non-journalist friends ask me if I have detected any remorse in Headley. My response is remorse is a futile emotion because it never really comforts those who suffer as a result of one’s action. I consider remorse as nothing more than a glib afterthought. That said, it does not appear as if he has a genuine sense of wrongdoing and hence any remorse he might express, would only be expedient.
None of this is meant to say that I have made up my mind one way or the other. I am not predisposed towards Rana’s guilt or innocence. This is a perspective based on what one has heard in the courtroom so far. The overriding fact of the case is that more than 160 were systematically killed. And there is no ambiguity about that.
