Replies

Unfortunately, the evidence is in. Maher did in fact admit to setting the fire in a wastebasket which he claims was not an attempt to murder his employer. He to this day denies that he is an arsonist based upon his self-serving argument that it was the fault of the police and fire department that the fire spread and destroyed the entire upper floors of the building.

The problem he has with the argument was the lie he told the officials at the time of the fire. His wounds ended up being superficial. The exploratory surgery was more consequential. It was initially believed that "assasins" were still in the building stopping any fire suppression due to the risk to the lives of the firemen and police. This was Maher's doing and he should be held accountable.

Maher would have the Court agree that since there was no intent to kill Safra, rather just to impress his boss, he should not be held responsible for his death. He argues that the death was the result of the failure to extinguish the flames he set.

By any definition he is guilty of the arson and thus responsible for the resultant deaths.

As to the other "mysteries" ie. Safra was shot in the head, the fire having started in the basement, etc, etc, ad nauseum- these were all red herrings designed to save his own butt and were not supported by the evidence. The truth is out, Maher is obviously guilty. All that really remains is to decide how he will be punished.

Well, yes to you and all others, this is BS.

And, I question your credentials and motive.

I have had several conversations with his wife, and the drivel you are all spouting is the same spin put out by the MG court. Where do you get your definition of arson? MG law, US criminal law?

If I light a candle to set off a sprinkler and alarm system, is that arson? No. His admission that he lit a candle in wastebasket is not an admission of arson. It is intellectually dishonest for any American to deny that whenever they are threatened and need help from authorities, the very first thing to do is yell fire. Ted did the same, only he could not use the phone lines b/c they had been cut. So he set off the sprinklers.

You shrug off that a basement fire is of little importance. Well, if your going to convict Ted, you damn sure better prove that his act of lighting a candle destroyed the condo. Ted's fire experts, and that of the MG investigative fire expert, conclude that the fire that actually caused the condo to be consumed started in the basement. Something called proximate cause. Maybe you should pull a first year law book.

Is his wife Heidi lying too? What about his brother? What about Safra's bodyguards, ex-Mossad agents? What about Kissinger, who stated that Safra's death was planned? All of these people skillfully crafted lies?

Do your homework before you determine someone is guilty, you all make me want to puke!!!!