IMO, you've done a great job jacq in trying to express what Miz was saying in her #429. I had hoped Miz would be back to answer, but in her absence, I would like to express my views on the meaning of her comment:
If your life is on the line, it doesn't matter if you are one, or one of three thousand, a terrorist is a lawbreaker, that strikes terror into his/her victim. It can just as easily be LE.
I happen to believe that LE is convinced DW is guilty (and he may be) and feel that, for them, the end, in this case, justifies the means.
There have IMO, been some less than honest actions taken on the side of the prosecution, and that includes omision, which IMO, is just as bad as an outright lie or fabrication.
If by some chance DW were innocent, I cannot think of a worse form of terror, than to be accused of what DW is being tried for. If I knew I was innocent, I would rather have died in the WT Towers, than go through what he is now going through. Hence, IMO, what Miz stated in her #429 fits the application to a tee.
If DW is guilty and there is ample evidence to prove it, let him be found guilty and pay for his crime. But, this must be done within the framework of our constitution. Let LE prove it without ommiting key evidence, clues and possible key testimony, just to nail the person they "BELIEVE" is the guilty party.
In a capital murder case, "the end can never justify the means". JMHO.