I said he was the 'convicted killer'. Everything you point out is merely supposition, based on a scenario woven together in a way you choose to believe. It confirms my view of how you look at evidence.

He may not have acted alone...but that doesn't mean that he was not a party to the bombing. Just because he is the only one who was caught, doesn't mitigate what his sentence should be.

The U.S. my have blamed Iran...that could have been a rush to judgement in the initial horror of the bombing based on previous Iranian threats. But not all threats are followed through.

Sometimes witness i.d.s are good, sometime not so good. You choose to believe it isn't good in this case. Doesn't make it so though.