In a taped video deposition presented by defense on Friday, Bashir, an Afghan police officer testified that he saw an American officer walk behind the curtain just before he heard gun shots, and that he never saw Dr. Siddiqui pick up a gun. Bashir was the last defense witness.

Earlier in the day Judge Richard Berman allowed prosecution to produce additional witnesses to rebut claims made by the defense witnesses and experts.

With lack of physical evidence and burden of proof – the Government has 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.

A point of possible contention was raised Friday when Bashir testified there were two shell casing found in the room. Government has produced only one .9mm shell casing as evidence during the trial.

The prosecution offered rebuttal witnesses, intended to respond to the evidence presented by the defense. First, the prosecution called a firing range owner, Gary Woodworth, who testified that he remembered Dr. Siddiqui coming to the shooting range 19 years ago.

However under cross examination, Mr. Woodworth also admitted that there were no records of Dr. Siddiqui ever having visited the shooting range, and that even if she had, it could have been as part of her physical education requirements at MIT.

Mr. Woodworth also acknowledged being a member of the National Rifle Association and having very close relationships with law enforcement officers. He also admitted that the course he alleged she came for is a very basic training pistol course.

When asked by a defense attorney if he remembered the student he taught before Aafia he said, “no”; if he remembered the student he taught after Aafia, he said “no”.

The prosecution then called FBI Special Agent Bruce Kammerman, who testified that while recuperating at Bagram Airbase hospital, Dr. Siddiqui had told him that she had picked up the gun because she wanted to scare people in order to ease her escape.

However, on cross-examination, Agent Kammerman admitted that his original handwritten notes about the conversation did not mention anything about “picking up” the gun, but only Dr. Siddiqui’s desire to escape, and that the reference to the gun was added only in the final typed report.

Kammerman testified that during the conversations she was “lucid”, but he was not aware of what medications she was on and did not inquire about them. He testified that he addressed all of her needs for food, water, and bathroom use during his 12 hour daily shifts monitoring her.

In Aafia Siddiqui’s direct testimony during her time at the hospital she said that Bruce’s presence was “torture” for her as he would cross examination, Kammerman conceded that when she needed to go to the bathroom he did insist that the door be open for “security”.

According to Siddiqui’s testimony, he would stay all night and because of this during his entire 12 hour shifts she could not go to the bathroom.

The Prosecution then brought the other FBI agent who monitored Dr. Siddiqui while in the hospital, Angela Sercer. Sercer is a female Special Agent who also kept 12 hour shifts every day that Siddiqui was at the hospital. She offered similar testimony to Kammerman, however, acknowledged that Siddiqui was on a wide variety of medications including, morphine, ativan, haldol, phentinol, and percocet; still she maintained that Siddiqui was “lucid”.

According to Siddiqui Angela seemed like a “nice person”

Both Sercer and Kammerman testified that their purpose in being with Siddiqui was for “security” and to “gather intelligence” about matters unrelated to the shooting incident. They both also testified that Siddiqui initiated the conversations.

If neither of these fact were accurate then Miranda Laws would apply and these alleged self-incriminating statements would not be admissible in court.

According to Miranda laws an arrested individual must be advised of their rights including the right to an attorney and/or consular staff, and right not to speak. Also, law enforcement officals must identify themselves. Although Siddiqui was not read her Miranda rights and FBI officals did not identify themselves, the judge has allowed their testimony.

Thursday had marked a turning point in the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who decided to take the witness stand in her own defense.

She declared under oath for the first time that she “was tortured in a secret prison” and that her missing children are all that has been on her mind every day. Dr. Siddiqui denied ever having shot at anyone, and appeared to remain unshaken even under intense cross-examination by the prosecution.

She explained that she was shot by US soldiers while attempting to peek around the curtain partition in the interrogation room, while looking for a way to escape.

Before her testimony was cut short by the Judge, Dr. Siddiqui mentioned that her fear of being sent back to a secret prison had made her anxious to escape.

The most shocking testimony that had spectators in tears and jury members visibly disturbed was her account of being “held in a secret prison” and “her children being tortured”.

Dr. Siddiqui described her recollection of being shot by not one but two different individuals explaining that the shots came from two different directions.

After hearing her allegation that she was in constant threat that her daughter would be raped or killed, the jury members requested a break.

Much of the morning’s proceedings concerned whether or not Dr. Siddiqui would be allowed to testify. Although she had constantly expressed her desire to testify, her defense team filed a motion to bar her from testifying based on her “mental condition”. The judge denied the motion citing that its best to err on the side of her “constitutional rights”.

There were also deliberations in the morning on the permissibility of self-incriminating statements she made to FBI officials while at a hospital in Bagram. During that hearing it was revealed that she was under 24 hour surveillance by two FBI agents while both arms and legs were tied to a bed for several weeks as she was being administered medical treatment.

During that time she had numerous conversations with a female FBI agent, Angela Sercer, who did not identify herself to Siddiqui as an FBI agent. Siddiqui said that “everyone who entered the room turned their badges around”, so she did not know who anyone was. Throughout this period she was on several types of medication, sleep deprived, and dependent on the agent for food, water, and to go to the bathroom.

The defense objected to the use of these statements as evidence based on “Miranda laws” which mandate that an arrested individual must be informed of their rights, must have access to an attorney, or as in the case of international law, consular staff, and law enforcement officials must identify themselves. Despite the fact that none of these rights were granted to Dr. Siddiqui, the judge denied the motion and allowed them to be used in questioning.

After the ruling Dr. Siddiqui took the stand. How literally she took her sworn oath was immediately evident when she responded to the question about the year she was born. The prosecutor asked her if she was born in 1972. She hesitated. “that’s what people tell me but I can’t testify to that..how can anyone remember when they were born”.

The prosecution spent a long time asking her questions about her education in an attempt to highlight her training in the sciences. She said she majored in biology because her mother wanted her to be a medical doctor, but that her real interest was always the social sciences. She said she took only the required science courses at MIT and took as many social sciences as she could.

Throughout her academic career she won numerous awards. One was for an national essay competition on the value of multiculturalism; the others for social service. She recalled her PhD work which studied the various conditions and methods by which children learn, a field known as cognitive neuroscience. Although her work and degree are considered a social science, the prosecution did their best to paint her training as that of a someone who would have expertise in various types of biological or chemical weapons.

When questioned about the incident on July 18, 2008 she objected to the idea that she was on trial for what happened on that day because she was the one who was shot. She said she did not want to endorse the trial for charges that she deemed “ridiculous”.

She did however proceed to answer, claiming that on the day in question her only concern was to “get away” because of her fear of being returned to the “secret prison” where the “bad guys” were.

Dr. Siddiqui said she peaked beyond the yellow curtain to see if there was a chance she could get away. She testified that a soldier from across the room looked at her and said “she’s loose” and shot her in the abdomen. She also testified that another shot hit from her side and went through her back. She felt warm blood on her back and fell back on the bed.

Siddiqui said that she was thrown from the bed to the floor by U.S. soldiers who referred to her as “the B word”. She could not say the word out loud. Then she said she passed out from which point she was in and out consciousness. She recalled being transported in both a vehicle and a helicopter during which she said she heard soldiers express concern that she may be about to die. According to Siddiqui’s testimony she heard someone say that if she were to die “a couple of us are going to lose our jobs”

Siddiqui gave very detailed and lengthy answers to most questions fielded by the defense and prosecution and she maintained her innocence throughout. “The first time I saw an M4 was in this court”, she said. On key issues during the cross examination she maintained that she neither picked up the M4 nor did she ever tell anyone that she picked up the M4. She referred to the Governments account as “ridiculous”.

She also responded to allegations that she had incriminating evidence in her purse. “I was not my purse” “They gave it to me” she repeatedly responded. She also claimed that the handwritten notes were copies from a magazine which she was told to copy under threat of torture of her children. She also referred to her arrest at Ghazni as her “re-arrest” claiming that prior to her arrest she was in a “secret prison” held by people who she constantly referred to as “bad guys” . She said they sounded like Americans but could not have been “real Americans” but “pretend Americans” because of the things they had done to her.

Testimony that was difficult for many people to hear were her references to her children as she explained her motivations. She was asked if she remembers being at the Ghazni police station with her son, Ahmed. She said that she couldn’t answer but that she remembered being there with “a boy” who “could have been” her son. She attempted to explain that she couldn’t know for sure if that was her son because he was kept apart from her for several years before she was cut off by the prosecutor. She mentioned being shown a “photograph” of her son…and then she was stopped.

Her son has given a statement to police in Lahore Pakistan stating that he has been in a juvenile prison in Afghanistan for several years. He also said that he, his siblings, and mother were picked up by Pakistani men while they were on their way to the airport. The children were separated from their mother who was immediately hooded. According the report all the children were crying and Suleman who was 8 months old at the time was thrown in the taxi and was bleeding. If his story is correct it would explain why his mother could not be sure that Ahmed was her son.

References to her alleged kidnapping and disappearance is considered “classified” and when a prosecutor accused her of being in hiding for five years the defense immediately moved for a mistrial. The defense seems as eager as the prosecution not to allow testimony about her alleged kidnapping and 5 year disappearance. Many of her supporters expressed concern about whether this is because the defense is being paid by the Pakistani government. The family claims that she was initially kidnapped by Pakistani inteligence officials. The prosecution has tried to portray her as a cunning and well trained terrorist; and the defense has tried portray her as a mentally unstable victim. Her supporters, however, were very pleased with her testimony. Despite all the efforts of her own attorneys to keep her from testifying she may have been her own best defense.

The prosecution has requested that they be allowed to bring 4-5 more witnesses to rebutt Siddiqui’s persuasive testimony. Although this would be in essence re-trying the case, the judge will rule tomorrow. If the judge allows it the proceedings will continue until next week.

The eyewitness is an Afghan national who was in the room during the alleged shooting. However, unlike the prosecution Afghan witnesses he was not given a visa to come to the United States nor travel and housing money. Therefore, his testimony was conducted by video conference and submitted as evidence by the defense.

Abdul Qadeer, was the Deputy Head of Counterterrorism in Afghanistan, and by all accounts was one of the Afghan officials in the room when the alleged incident occurred.

According to Mr. Qadeer, Dr. Siddiqui was under constant watch when she was being interrogated in the room. He said that she was being watched before the Americans came in the room and that there was no need to guard her during the meeting because everyone in the room could see her. He explained that the curtain was about 3 feet open and there were 12 -13 Americans in the room along with Afghan officials. He said that not just one but many soldiers placed their rifles on the floor.

While recalling the actual shooting, Qadeer said that he saw a soldier go behind the curtain and then he heard 3 shots. These are the only shots he heard and soon afterwards he saw blood on the floor. Although his account is very different from those of the prosecution eyewitness he withstood an aggressive cross examination insisting that his account is exactly what he gave to FBI officials and prosecution lawyers who questioned him after the incident. During the cross Qadeer stated in a calm manner “everything I say is true”

Despite the fact that the prosecution has brought 6 eyewitnesses to testify against Siddiqui, Qadeer is the only eyewitness who does not have a connection with the U.S. military. If Mr. Qadeer’s account is correct and Siddiqui was not shot in self-defense then U.S. soldiers could face criminal charges in both U.S and International Courts. Moreover unlike all the Government witnesses, Qadeer’s account has been consistent from the beginning when the investigation began just days after the shooting.

Another effective defense witness William Tobin who has worked for NASA who testified as a forensics expert said 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”. According to his testimony FBI officials are trained in gathering even the smallest fragments of evidence, but in the description of the incident given by the Government there should have been even large fragments. Despite the fact that FBI officials were present at the shooting, no evidence of M4 shots were collect,, neither large fragments nor small ones. Furthermore, no M4 casings, bullets, or residue were found anywhere in the room.

The prosecution attempted to discredit the expert although he has testified on the governments behalf nearly 220 out of a total of 240 times in various court cases during his career.

After the proceedings adjourned for the day, Tina Foster, a spokesperson for the family from the International Justice Center, said that the family was optimistic based on the evidence presented so far. Foster said that if the jury is not influenced by the prejudicial and inflammatory terrorist related insinuations then Dr. Siddiqui will be acquitted given the fact that there is absolutely no forensic evidence indicating she is guilty of the crimes she is on trial for.

Government had requested that Dr. Siddiqui should be prohibited from the courtroom claiming that her ‘outbursts’ have been “opportunistic and interjected testimony.”

Declining the request Judge Berman noted that Dr. Siddiqui has ‘dream team’ of skilful attorneys who are being paid $2 million by the Pakistani government.

“Dr. Siddiqui has the right to confront her accusers, confer with her counselors and testify under oath,” Judge Berman said. He was of the opinion that at times Dr. Siddiqui has abused those rights but “at times she has fully utilized them.”

Upon hearing the discussion Dr. Siddiqui who present in the court room with a tearful quivering voice said: “I respectfully say you are in everything you.”

At the end of the morning session there was a discussion on whether or not Dr. Siddiqui would testify. The defense has submitted a motion requesting that she not be allowed to testify due to her mental state.

Trial began Tuesday morning with continuation of Special Agent Negron’s testimony and cross examination by defense attorney Lina Merono.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui did not want to attend hearings to avoid strip search but Judge Berman has ordered her to come to the court whether she sits in the courtroom or in a small room with closed circuit TV.

Aafia Siddiqui is accused of snatching an M-4 Army rifle and firing two rounds at a team of Americans who tried to question her in Afghanistan on July 18, 2008.

Rosati’s testimony included descriptions of his observations and his knowledge of firearms, bullet trajectories, and crime scene analyses.

The Prosecution tried to establish Rosati as an expert based on his vast personal experience in his fields, particularly the behavior of bullets when fired in various circumstances and the need to preserve crime scenes for proper analysis and testing.

Rosati testified that the firearms he examined in this case — the 9-mm pistol that the Chief Warrant Officer used to shoot the defendant and the M-4 rifle that the defendant allegedly used to attempt to kill U.S. officers — were operable and functioning at the time of testing.

Rosati also testified that the M-4 rifle was capable of delivering fully automatic fire and therefore qualified as a “machine gun.”
He said that based on his examination, one 9-mm bullet and two 9-mm cartridge cases recovered at the crime scene were fired from the Chief Warrant Officer’s 9-mm pistol.

Rosati testified that he examined a curtain obtained from the crime scene for the presence of gunshot residue, but none was found.
He then testified regarding various scenarios that can occur when a bullet fired from an M-4 rifle strikes a solid surface. He said that bullets from an M-4 rifle travels at a very high rate of speed, and can explode or fragment upon impacting hard surfaces, or can penetrate other surfaces.

Based on the texture and content of the debris that he examined in this case, he testified that a bullet fired from an M-4 rifle into a wall comprised of this material might shatter or fragment.

However, upon cross examination he conceded key element of the bullet – a steel tip that penetrates the target never fragments and should have remained intact.

At the conclusion of todays hearing, a spokesperson for Aafia Siddiqui’s family, Tina Foster commented, “we were reminded again today that the evidence shows that only one shooting is definitive—that is the shooting of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Today’s testimony again confirmed that the only bullets and casings found at the scene of the crime were from the handgun used by the Chief Warrant Officer.”

During cross examination Defense Attorney Charles Swift asked the FBI expert if he was certain that the one 9-mm bullet and two 9-mm cartridge cases recovered at the crime scene were fired from the Chief Warrant Officer’s 9-mm pistol. FBI expert Rosati categorically said, “Yes”.

When asked if he is certain an M-4 was ever shot at the crime scene, the FBI expert responded in negative.

The FBI expert also agreed that there was no evidence that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui fired an M4 rifle. He agreed that if a bullet fired from M4 rifle penetrated the wall, as alleged by the government, it would have been found. He said he had examined the debris of the wall and did not find any evidence that would lead him to believe that a bullet penetrated the wall.

Rosati also agreed with the defense attorney that no gun shot residue was found on the curtain, which was allegedly within six inches of the M4 when it was fired.

Defense attorney Charles Swift who previously worked for the U.S. Navy in the area of criminal defense, retained his reputation as a premier trial attorney. He was quick in demonstrating holes in the narrative of the FBI expert.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was again escorted out of the courtroom after saying, “I can bring peace with Afghanistan in one day.”

Aafia Siddiqui spoke during the break when jurors were out of the room and said, “I want to testify, but they have taken my right to testify”. Addressing people who come to support her, she said “there is no use for revenge and forgiveness is necessary”.

She sat up leaning back on the chair with her head facing upwards staring at the eagle on the ceiling. When she entered the room Friday morning she greeted her brother who was seated four benches behind her.

The trial will resume Monday.

When cross examining FBI Forensic expert DJ Fife, Aafia Siddiqui’s defense attorney established that evidence arrived for analysis approximately fifteen days after she was shot in Afghanistan.

FBI’s fingerprinting expert had earlier testified that he did not find any finger prints on the M4 rifle, but that in his 6 year experience in the field there is only a 10% chance of obtaining fingerprints from a firearm due to its “non-porous” surface.

Ms. Sharp questioned the testimony of D.J. Fife based on his experience and generally accepted principles in his forensic field – that latent fingerprints are recovered from firearms only about ten percent of the time. She also suggested that Fife’s opinion is not scientifically reliable, and, in the alternative, that his opinion is more unfairly prejudicial than probative “in that it is offered in an attempt to sway the jurors in favor of the Government’s case.”

Fife also talked about the general difficulties inherent in obtaining fingerprints from non-porous surfaces, such as firearms, and specifically that fingerprints are recovered from firearms approximately less than ten percent of the time. He had testified that various factors affect the ability to obtain fingerprints from firearms and other non-porous surfaces, including atmospheric conditions, environmental conditions, perspiration and the nature of the surface itself.

When asked how many guns he has analyzed, FBI expert conceded that his experience was limited around 10 to 20 weapons that he has analyzed. When asked why did he not take pictures of areas where finger prints could have been visible, FBI expert said it was of ‘no value.’

Fife testified that he conducted a series of tests on the M-4 rifle, and that after each step he inspected the rifle for identifiable latent fingerprints. Based on that examination, Fife concluded that no latent prints of value – belonging to the defendant or anyone else — could be identified on the M-4 rifle.

Fife had testified that the physical features of individuals — in this case, the small size of the defendant’s hands and fingers —negatively affect the ability to obtain fingerprints of value from items with which those individuals have been in contact.

Upon cross examination Fife said he had not tested Aafia Siddiqui’s palm and he was not in the position to characterize her hand as ‘small.’

FBI Special Agent Hurly who was tasked to collect evidence told government’s attorney that he left behind parts of M4 rifle because there was a shortage of equipment. He also said that he went back to the crime scene with the Chief Warrant Officer who is suspected of shooting Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the belly.

When cross examined by Defense attorney Ms. Moreno, Agent Hurly said the delay in collecting evidence was due to logistical problems in the battle ground. “It is not New York City,” he retorted.

When asked why he left behind parts of M4 rifles that were prone to retaining finger prints, Agent Hurly said he made the decision so that an American army personal would be adequately equipped.

Tina Foster of International Justice Network who speaks on behalf of the family told us: “In both the testimony of FBI Agent Fife, and FBI Agent Hurly, we heard how very important and potentially exculpatory evidence was destroyed and/or excluded from their investigation. The government failed to properly secure the gun and all of its parts, the crime scene, and the partial fingerprints pulled from the weapon. Despite the clear import of this case (as evidenced by President Karazi’s involvement), FBI Agent Hurley told us that the investigation did not even begin until one week had passed. Moreover, the investigation itself was anything but unbiased. Those directly involved in the shooting of Dr. Siddiqui were responsible for guiding the investigation of the crime scene.”

Today even the jurors and journalists had to go through the metal detector. A person present at the hearing suggested that metal detectors are creating an impression as if “Aafia Siddiqui is very dangerous or the people who are coming to support her are potential threat.”

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui sat next to her lawyers and did not say a word. Her brother sat four benches behind her.

One of those ghosts whose story has been haunting the imagination of the Pakistani public for several years and recently even in Europe, is now beginning to capture the attention of Americans bold enough to enter the war’s most ghastly graveyard. 

It is the ghost of Dr. Aaffia Siddiqui, a Pakistani MIT graduate and mother of three, who disappeared from the streets of Karachi in March 2003 along with her  3 children, at the time age under 6 mos, 3, and 7.  

For years her family searched for her desperately, at times believing the worst; that she was dead.  Then suddenly, 5 years later the ghost appeared live in the flesh, 12,000 miles from where she had disappeared. 

In September 2008 the MIT Mom was brought to a Manhattan Court Room to be indicted on charges of trying to kill American soldiers and being a member of Al Qaeda.   She was frail, delusional, incoherent, and wounded with a bullet wound to her abdomen dressed so badly that the judge had to order immediate medical attention. Her mugshot picture portrayed unspeakable horrors. 

During the pre-trial hearing Dr. Siddiqui appeared in a complete veil, unusal for her according to family members.   Her court room outbursts and body language signified a completely broken human being.  Although there has been no independent assessment of her mental condition, she was clearly paranoid and incoherent. Moreover, her family has been unable to see her or communicate with her. 

Few American’s are familiar with the facts surrounding her case; even less are familiar with the shocking claims being made by her family and indeed, by a majority of Pakistanis.  Pakistan was so concerned with her plight that there have been resolutions passed in the parliament demanding her release.  Meanwhile the western media has portrayed her as the Mata-Hari of Al-Qaeda,  the female version of Chemical Ali,  the “mother” of all terrorist.  And much of this continues even as the prosecution made a stunning reversal when they announced to the court on January 11^th that they would “not be charging” her with any connection to “any terrorist group”;   This includes any connection to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden.   

However to the family, to the majority of Pakistanis, and to her growing number of supporters throughout the world, she is in fact prisoner 650,  known as the “Gray Lady of Bagram”, whose shreaks and cries were so disturbing  that the prisoners went on a hunger strike to demand that the torture against her stop.   Several released detainees have since identified Dr. Siddiqui as the same prisoner 650 and several human rights groups also maintain that she is indeed prisoner 650.  In fact, the weeks before her sudden and mysterious appearance at a police station in Afghanistan, human rights groups had been intensifying their demands to have prisoner 650 identified and produced.   

Even more disturbing than what may have happened to her is what has come of her two still missing children.  Though the older child who is now 13, was returned to the family in Pakistan shortly after her arrest, there is no information on the whereabouts of her two younger children who should now be age 6 and 9.   Whether or not the prosecution is able to prove its limited attempted murder case to an American jury, surely no one can deny the innocence of the two missing young children. 

The case of Aafia Siddiqui raises a number of mysterious questions are still to be explored.  Now that the prosecution has decided not to charge her with terrorism why was she placed on the FBI’s terrorist list to begin with? What happened to her during those 5 missing years.  What was the level of cooperation between Pakistani and American intelligence in her pursuit and possible abduction?  What does her case mean for the future of Pakistan, U.S. relations.   How does her case redefine the war on terror and the meaning of law, liberty, and human rights in  21^st century  America? And, the most troubling and pressing question of all; where are the children?

The trial of Aafia Siddiqui will begin on January 19th at the S.D.N.Y. courthouse at 500 Pearl St. Manhattan, New York.

We are expecting her case to wrap-up in two weeks. Cell-phones and laptops are not allowed. So we will cover as real-time as possible.

 Stay tuned!