It is rather obvious that whatever evidence is in possession of Turkey will not be handed out. Particularly video evidence would make it blindingly obvious where the cameras surveilling the inside of the consulate have been hidden. This is harder to judge from audio recordings but still at least the rooms and some details could be pinpointed.

So Turkey can make very accurate accusations but they will not be able to present evidence.

As a result of that, I don't see what chance they stand against grandiose denial and fabrication of a story about nominal scapegoats and unfortunate accidents, given the financial interests in this not having happened at all.

Is there any way where, given the lack of presentable evidence, it will not be easy to fabricate opportune denials of anything that may have transpired?

closed as unclear what you're asking by user4012, JJJ, Alexei, bytebuster, Machavity Oct 18 '18 at 15:04

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


The evidence is clear:

  • Prince Salman's bodyguard was one of assassins, there are photos
  • Murder took place in Saudi embassy. On Saudi property and under fully-sovereign Saudi control.
  • presumed, that assassins traveled by Saudis royal family private passenger jets.

And about question - "international reaction" is a very "unpredictable" thing and may be affected by double-standards. So, there are notable chances, that this assassination will be just forgotten and media will turn to something else.

  • 2
    Some "presumed" introduced here and there would make this answer look like way less partial. Also, the Saudi embassy is not Saudi territory; it is just that Turkish security forces cannot enter it without authorization from the embassador. – SJuan76 Oct 17 '18 at 12:55
  • 4
    Saudi embassy !IS! Saudi territory. Every embassy IS territory of its state. This is international law. – user2501323 Oct 17 '18 at 12:55
  • 2
  • 1
    I didn't downvote. I considered upvoting after reading the bullet points, because they would make sense if you could find a reliable source for your claims. But the last paragraph is just a rant about perceived double-standards when it comes to Russia vs. Saudi-Arabia. Remember that the purpose of this website is to explain politics, not criticize it. This quite ruined an answer which started pretty well. – Philipp Oct 17 '18 at 15:08
  • 2
    As SJuan76 notes, the notion that a "foreign embassy IS foreign territory" is an oversimplification of the relevant treaties. – ohwilleke Oct 17 '18 at 20:49

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.