The prosecution’s case in the Lodi terror imam trial is under assault, in large part because of the Zawahiri claim mentioned (skeptically) here.
A defense lawyer on Tuesday aimed to undercut the credibility of an FBI informant and critical witness in the trial of two Lodi men charged with terrorist connections.
[...]
The informant acknowledged to Griffin on Tuesday that the FBI originally contacted him in Oregon about a multimillion-dollar money-laundering scheme, but he denied he was a suspect in that investigation.
On the same occasion, Khan testified, he offered his services to the FBI and told the agents he had seen Osama bin Laden’s top adviser at the mosque in Lodi on numerous occasions when he was living there.
Ayman al-Zawahri is known to the FBI as bin Laden’s personal physician and al-Qaida’s second-in-command.» Bee:
Defense attacks FBI informant’s credibility
I’m not even addressing whether or not the Zawahiri stuff is true—you have to see this from the standpoint of a juror. All of Khan’s other claims might have stood up to the smell test, if he hadn’t also claimed to have seen Zawahiri at that mosque. That would have an impact on a juror’s openness to attempts to impeach Khan’s credibility. I can’t imagine the Zawahiri claim being material to the case, so why did the prosecutors allow it into evidence?
It may not lead to outright acquittal, but if so much of the case depends on this Khan guy it’s not out of the question.
