Terror case not proven, defence says
Jury told there was no agreement, no conspiracy, nothing happened
The trial of alleged terrorist conspirator Misbahuddin Ahmed entered its final stages Monday with defence lawyer Mark Ertel telling the jury that prosecutors have failed to prove their case.
Ertel portrayed Ahmed as an intellectually curious man whose demeanour was consistent during his 10 days on the witness stand and who answered questions truthfully even when the answers were personally detrimental.
“This is the hallmark of a credible witness,” he said. “The crossexamination ( by the prosecution) didn’t expose Mr. Ahmed as a liar even though he was called one.”
Ahmed, a 30-year-old former diagnostic imaging technician at The Ottawa Hospital, has pleaded not guilty to three terrorism-related offences: conspiring to facilitate a terrorist activity, participating in the activities of a terrorist group, and possession of an explosive device.
The first two offences carry potential sentences of 14 years, and 10 years respectively. A conviction for possessing an explosive device carries a sentence of life imprisonment.
Ahmed, alleged co-conspirator Khurram Sher and another alleged co-conspirator whose identity is protected by a publication ban, were arrested in August 2010.
“There is no agreement, there is no group, there is no conspiracy,” said Ertel. “And nothing hap- pened.”
The lawyer pointed to a latenight July 20, 2010, meeting when the three men met for dinner at Ahmed’s apartment and RCMP anti-terrorism officers secretly recorded their conversation.
Sher, who is awaiting a judge’s verdict on one conspiracy charge, was passing through Ottawa on his way to London, Ont., from Montreal.
Ahmed and Sher were clearly not taking seriously the third man’s repeated suggestions that they form a group, said Ertel, and they became giddy with fatigue — electing a leader with the aid of a vacuum cleaner and laughing during what was allegedly a solemn pledge.
“The Crown will tell you that they were planning to invite Sher to join a group,” Ertel told the jury. “But a group hadn’t been formed. He (Ahmed) never had the intention to do what he is accused of.”
While it was true that Ahmed possessed videos and other materials related to methods of terrorism, that isn’t a crime, added Ertel.
“We live in a country that values freedom,” he said. “Canadians respect the right of others to hold contrary opinions. You don’t punish people for thoughts. Mr. Ahmed’s beliefs were not extreme, they were considered beliefs. They didn’t put him in the state of mind to contemplate terrorism.”
It was also true that Ahmed and his alleged co-conspirators opposed Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, said Ertel, adding that you can’t label a Canadian citizen a terrorist simply because he opposes the use of taxpayers’ money to fight a war with which he disagrees.
During covert searches of the alleged co-conspirator’s tiny westend apartment, RCMP anti-terrorist officers found circuit boards and other bomb-making components in a shopping bag.
Officers found the same bag and its contents at Ahmed’s home after he was arrested in August 2010. How and why the bag was transferred from one man to the other has been one of the more crucial aspects of the trial and potentially the most serious for Ahmed.
Ahmed testified that he had insisted that his alleged accomplice give him the components and other “bad stuff” for destruction but because of family, work and other commitments he hadn’t got around to doing so.
There is no evidence that Ahmed touched the contents of the bag, said Ertel, and no evidence that he intended to use them for a dangerous purpose.
(Ahmed’s fingerprints were not found on the bag or its contents).
Prosecution claims that Ahmed had hidden the bag in his basement were not supported by the evidence, added Ertel.
“There is no evidence any work was done on the circuit boards,” said the lawyer. “The bag was in his (car) trunk for 10 days and then he put it on a shelf next to paint cans. This is hardly a sophisticated plan to hide something.”
Another key issue in the trial is whether Ahmed knew that money he collected and donated went to fund terrorism.
He admits to donating the money but testified that it was a charitable donation intended to aid the poor and needy in Kurdistan.
Crown prosecutors have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ahmed knew the money was going to terrorists, said Ertel, cautioning the jurors to remember that they had been given only “a sliver” of the evidence gathered by the security forces during the seven months they had Ahmed and his alleged co-conspirator under surveillance.
The trial continues Tuesday.