Thanks. Your details confirm exactly my impressions from the bits and pieces I had read about him and from the photos, where he seems to display dramatism and a large emotional range. Plus, the "cause" for which his regime did what it did was terribly abstract and illogical.

Lytov's argument is that in actuality Pol Pot shared his authority with Khiey Samfan (sp.?), who was the theoretician who got off clean; he didn't know that his grandiose plans would lead to such destruction. Pol Pot, Lytov says, was the quiet implementer behind the scenes who didn't lay claim to the role of an ideologist or orator.

Is this supported by what you've read?