Still no word on where she got it.
Remember Annie Jacobsen? And Northwest Flight 327?
Patterico tells me he thinks he’s heard this before…and it’s true that the stuff about James Woods witnessing a dry run has been around a while. But what is new here is that Atta was on Woods’ plane, plus now there is confirmation from the government that it was actually Atta on the plane with him. Interestingly, in a New Yorker article by Sy Hersh, Woods says he recognizes two other members of the hijack team but doesn’t mention Atta at all:
On the evening of September 11th, Woods telephoned the Los Angeles office of the F.B.I. and told a special agent about the encounter. In an interview on Fox Television in February, Woods described being awakened at six-forty-five the next morning by a telephone call from the agent. “I said, ‘I’ll get ready and I’ll come down to the federal building,’ ” Woods recounted. “He said, ‘That’s O.K. We’re outside your house.’ ” By then, Woods told me, he was no longer certain of the date of his trip. “The first thing I said is ‘I’m not sure which flight it was on.’ ” But he had a vivid memory of the men’s faces. When he was shown photographs, Woods thought he recognized two of the hijackers—Hamza Alghamdi, who flew on United Airlines Flight 175, which struck the south tower of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Almihdhar, who was on American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon. One of the men stood out because of his “pointy hair,” Woods told me, and the other looked like one of the characters in the movie version of John le Carré’s “The Little Drummer Girl.”
Strange, since Atta’s loathsome likeness was immediately circulated after the attacks and his is pretty much the only instantly recognizable face of any of the hijackers. But maybe Atta was sitting elsewhere on the plane.
The FBI previously denied having proof that any of the hijackers were on the plane. From the same Hersh New Yorker article:
A senior F.B.I. official told me that the bureau had subsequently investigated Woods’s story but had not been able to find evidence of the hijackers on the flight Woods thought he had taken. “We don’t know for sure,” the official said.
UPDATE III, Early Sunday AM: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers! Regular blog boss Patterico’s got a lot of interesting stuff for you around here, if I do say so my damn self–my own guest-blogging run winds up today. Thanks to Patterico for letting me house-sit.
In an interesting story about a Supreme Court argument over the extent to which prosecutors must justify striking minority jurors, the Los Angeles Times misstates the rules regarding how many peremptory challenges each side may use in a trial:
In California, the prosecutor and defense lawyer may each exclude as many as 10 potential jurors without giving a reason in a routine crime case, and up to 20 potential jurors in a murder case that could lead to the death penalty.
Actually, each side may excuse up to 20 jurors in any case where the penalty is an indeterminate (life) sentence. That includes all murder cases, not just those involving the death penalty. It also includes any Three Strikes case, and many sexual assault offenses.