Jury verdict in Aafia’s alleged attempted murder case anxiously awaited
NEW YORK: A jury verdict in the case of Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist charged with shooting at U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan, is awaited with intense interest as the 12-member panel went into deliberations Monday afternoon after prosecution and defence lawyers wrapped up their closing arguments. The verdict, which the jury of seven women and five men is tasked to prepare, could “come within hours or in days,” Defence lawyer Charles Swift told reporters after the close of the trial proceedings in the Manhattan federal court that began on January 19. Ms. Siddiqui, 37, is accused of grabbing a U.S. warrant officer’s rifle while she was detained for questioning in July 2008 at a police station in Ghazni and firing at FBI agents and military personnel as she was pushed down.
None of the U.S. soldiers or FBI agents were injured, but U.S.-educated Ms. Siddiqui was shot. She is charged with attempted murder and assault and other crimes and faces life in prison if convicted.
Before adjourning late Monday afternoon, the jury sought for its consideration testimonies of Ms. Siddiqui, Captain Robert Snyder of US Army, who accused her of picking an unsecured gun and firing two shots;and the Chief Warrants Officer (CWO), who actually shot her.
The CWO did not give his name. Swift said the jury must consider facts asagainst fear, which the prosecution sought to create by portraying Ms. Siddiqui, a diminutive women, as some sort of a commando threatening the United States. He said there was no physical evidence that the M-4 rifle had ever been fired, since no bullets, shell casings or bulletfragments were recovered and no high-velocity bullet holes detected.
The way the prosecution described Ms. Siddiqui, a woman weighing less than 100 pounds, fighting with hefty US personnel of more than 180 pounds in weight appeared as if she was a special forces soldier, Swift added. Aafia Siddiqui was not in court on Monday. Before jurors went into conference, Judge Richard Berman gave them instructions in a 47-page statement—basically telling them that their verdict must establish facts “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Some legal experts believe that by testifying before the court against the advice of her lawyers and family, Ms. Siddiqui may have complicated her case.
This was clear from the way the prosecution on Monday picked holes in her testimony, accusing her of lying planning to destroy New York City landmarks. “She tried to kill every person in that room,” said Christopher LaVigne, assistant United States attorney. “She had a chance to kill Americans and she took it.” Ms. Siddiqui’s defence lawyers, though, described a frail, studious woman with degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University set up by an overzealous government. The defendant was arrested by Afghan police on July 17, 2008, claiming she was carrying containers of chemicals and notes referring to mass-casualty attacks and New York landmarks. She was not charged in connection with those materials and the charges do not mention terrorism.
Instead, the case centered on an incident the next day in the Afghan police compound, where U.S. soldiers and FBI agents sought to question Siddiqui. Linda Moreno, another defence lawyer, said said the testimony of the government’s six eye-witnesses contradicted one another on Siddiqui’s location in the 300-square-foot room, the number of bullets fired and who was present. “The government has cast Aafia Siddiqui as some sort of Rambo type,” Moreno said. “Let’s leave behind the fear and talk about what the evidence tells us.” She said there was no physical evidence that the M-4 was ever fired.
No gunpowder residue was found on fabrics or clothing. There were no fingerprints on the rifle, and no visible damage that would be expected from shots fired from a high-powered military rifle. “Where are the bullet holes?” Moreno asked the jury. “Did the Afghanis take the bullet holes? .. .There is no physical evidence that an M-4 rifle was touched by Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, let alone fired.” Moreno went on to say there was no reason for Ms. Siddiqui to pick up a gun knowing that there were so many armed US soldiers present. Had she done so, she would have been shot dead. “Where are the bullet holes?” Moreno asked the jury. “Did the Afghanis take the bullet holes? .. .There is no physical evidence that an M-4 rifle was touched by Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, let alone fired.” LaVigne said Ms.
Siddiqui’s scientific background suggested she would be familiar with chemicals used to build a bomb and that she took classes at a shooting range while studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In her statement, Moreno also said the government never attempted to rebut Ms. Siddiqui’s claim, which she shouted out during the opening day of trial and restated when she took the witness stand, that she had been tortured while held in a secret prison. “We’re asking you to be courageous in this and look beyond the fear that the government wants you to live with,” Moreno said. Whatever they decide may depend on whether they find witness accounts or physical evidence more compelling. The “government’s story is incomprehensible and impossible and refuted by lack of evidence,” Ms. Moreno said. At this point she produced what could be described as a knock-out punch: A video, not shown during the rest of the trial, taken at the police station the day before Ms. Siddiqui is accused of firing the shots.
During the trial, prosecution witnesses had said that two holes in the wall of the station were possibly caused by bullets fired by Ms. Siddiqui. But the video Ms. Moreno screened showed two small round marks clearly visible on a wall. She suggested they were made well before Ms. Siddiqui’s visit to the station. “The government says you can’t press ‘pause’ in this case, but you can, because we have the video and we pressed ‘pause,’” Moreno said as jurors looked at a still frame from a televised news conference after Ms. Siddiqui’s July 2008 arrest.
Still, on Monday, Ms. Moreno suggested that her time in those prisons might explain her erratic behavior, a point that the government lawyers didn’t challenge.
SOURCE : App.com.pk
