Can Government Refute “Scientific Certainty” with “Mathematical Certitude”

Judge Richard Berman will allow prosecution to produce four additional witnesses in trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the Southern District Court of New York on Friday to rebut claims made by the defense expert with “scientific certainty” that M4 rifle was not fired in the incident under trial.

Government today will have to demonstrate with mathematical certitude that Dr. Siddiqui grabbed the Chief Warrant Officer’s M4 Assault Rifle and fired at United States officers and employees in Ghazni, Afghanistan on July 18, 2008.

At the closing of the day on Thursday defense attorney Linda Moreno told Judge Berman that she will advise Friday morning if defense will produce more witnesses or rest.

Prosecution, however, wanted to introduce several witnesses to challenge defense assertion of the lack of physical evidence and challenge Dr. Siddiqui that her statements to FBI in July and August 2008 were given under duress.

Another point of contention today will be a statement made by Afghan intelligence official, Mr. Qadeer who had suggested there were two shell casing found in the room. Government has produced only one .9mm shell casing as evidence during the trial.

Defense Attorney Charles Swift yesterday complained that prosecution is trying to “re-try the case.”

Two FBI experts who testified on behalf of the government had conceded that there were no finger prints on the M4 rifle, and it is not certain that the rifle was even fired.

Defense expert William Tobin, a high profile forensic metallurgical scientist who has worked at the FBI for 24 years and at NASA for several had testified that in his opinion a photograph showing two holes in the wall were, with “scientific certainty”, not consistent with either a high velocity or low velocity bullet hole. He said they were simply “not bullet holes”.

“SS09 bullets would have caused substantially more damage not only to the wall but also to the ceiling,” Mr. Tobin testified.

The expert also said that the firing of an M4 would be such a “devastating event from a material standpoint that there should be a lot of evidence at the scene”.

If Dr. Siddiqui did not pick up the M4 assault rifle and did not point and shoot it at the Americans in the room at the headquarters of the Afghan National Police (ANP) on July 18, 2008, then she is actually innocent of the charges or, at the very least, there is reasonable doubt that Dr. Siddiqui committed any of the crimes with which she is charged.

We learned last week that Dr. Siddiqui’s fingerprints were not on the M4 rifle that she is alleged to have grabbed and fired at the warrant officer and others.

To counter the absence of fingerprint, which is mostly used as “the powerful forensic, exculpatory fact” the Government presented FBI expert D.J. Fife to explain that it is not uncommon to find no finger prints.

Second key FBI expert Carlo Rosati, who testified on the fourth day of the high trial of Dr. Aafia Siddqui had conceded that he cannot say with certainty that any shots were fired from the M4 rifle.

Defense expert had also challenged that absence of Gun Shot Residue (GSR) and testified that it is implausible to find no GSR.

Prosecution will bring back several witnesses and challenge that William Tobin is not qualified to render expert opinion on GSR.

Another point of contention today will be defense witness Mr. Qadeer’s testimony that he saw two case bullet casings at the scence. Government will argue that those could very much be SS09 bullets fired from M4.

Government will also question Dr. Siddiqui’s testimony that she gave her previous statements under duress and that she was medicated, sleep deprived, intimidated and confused and didn’t know she was speaking to FBI agents.

Bar is much higher for the government After Dr. Siddiqui’s testimony that described events preceding the incident under trial.