It looks as if our determinedly clueless and desperately corrupt FBI has done it again.
“A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know….I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements.”
Why wasn’t this done? Did it have anything to do with her father-in-law, the father of the mass murderer, being an FBI informant?
“Foreman: Jury ‘convinced’ Noor Salman knew Mateen was plotting attack, but couldn’t convict,” by Gal Tziperman Lotan, Orlando Sentinel, March 30, 2018:
The foreman of the Noor Salman jury contacted the Orlando Sentinel with a statement about what the three days of deliberations were like for the 12 people who acquitted the widow of the Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen. Jurors listened to eight days of testimony and found Salman, 31, not guilty of aiding and abetting Mateen’s providing of material support to a foreign terror organization and of obstruction of justice. The court has kept the names of jurors secret, and went as far as having them meet at a separate location away from the courthouse every day of the trial so U.S. marshals could drive them to the courthouse. The foreman asked to remain anonymous.
Below is his statement in its entirety:
“As foreperson of the jury in the Noor Salman trial I felt it important that I present a juror’s perspective of the verdicts. I am giving you my perspective, and not speaking for the entire jury. My initial inclination was not to communicate with the news media at all, however once I returned home a watched the news coverage of the reactions to the verdicts I felt compelled to at least clarify several misconceptions….
…I want to make several things very clear. A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack. The charges were aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. I felt the both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job presenting their case. I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements. The bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.”
Don McKellar says
She was a scared and in love half-wit. Would throwing her in jail do any good? It will be cheaper for the taxpayer to put her on welfare than jail. That’s the equation. At least her demon-spawn moslem son won’t have to grow up completely without a parent. Might help. Might not.
JawsV says
In the Islamic world Mateen is a hero, a martyr for Allah. He killed the “Infidels” as prescribed in the Quran. He slayed and was slain (Quran 9:111). Now he’s enjoying the 72 houris in paradise, as fabricated by Muhammed to lure a bunch of low IQ chumps to eagerly die in Jihads. The son might very well grow up thinking his Dad was a hero as that’s how Islam looks at it. He could be a future Jihadist, like dear old Dad. In fact, Jihad is the highest calling in Islam. To slay and be slain for Allah. it’s mind-boggling how many accept this sick and twisted murderous creed.
A Muslim family business: Jihadist and Son.
gravenimage says
Wait–you want to give a Jihadist welfare, so she can raise her spawn to launch a Jihad terror attack like her husband did? Why?
Westman says
I think you’re on to something as is Mr. Spencer. The three factors are the father of the terrorist is an FBI informant, nobody likes what happens to kids who lose their parents, and nobody wants to raise the kids of a terrorist.
Does anyone actually believe the FBI didn’t record their interrogations of Noor Salman? If you do, I have a wealthy relative who died recently in Nigeria….
So without the (vanished) recorded evidence, the play is upon the jury to empathize with this poor incompetent woman who is only able to conceive and raise children. And that trumps the state raising the kid. Ergo!, not guilty.
Strangerinastrangeland says
That’s a joke, right. Her son will be raised as a jihadists to avenge his father. She is likely to remarry another jihadists. She knew, the Foreman of the jury told you she knew what her husband was planning.
Lia says
And being an innocent widow she can always marry again and provide aid and support to the next jihadi …
J D S says
It is so hard for me to believe that any law enforcement agency, investigating such a heinous crime. would not record an interview with any one or all those thought to be associated with such a crime.
It’s just unreasonable to believe this actually happened. Is there MORE here that the public isn’t being told???
Niemoller says
The law is an ass, and if you’re not smart enough to adjust it to reality, then you stink of ass.
Georg says
So knowing someone is going to commit an atrocity and not saying boo is just fine. That will really contribute to the greater good. Nicely done, all involved. Foreigners really have our number these days. They’re really getting a kick out of us.
Ashley says
The evidence went “poof”, Georg.
How can you convict when the evidence goes “poof”?
Or was never recorded?
Or never existed?
Georg says
I don’t blame the jurors, it’s just every time you turn around with the ROP it’s something and it always stinks to high hell.
Norger says
The real issue here is that the evidence that the prosecution presented wasn’t sufficient to prove all of the elements of the crime with which this defendant was charged. It sounds like the jury did their job. The foreman is clearly signaling that he knows the defendant was morally culpable, but (unfortunately) she wasn’t criminally guilty of the crime with which she was charged under the applicable legal standard. The system “worked.”
One of the reasons I think that Islam is so dangerous is precisely because our system of criminal laws was never designed to protect us against the totalitarian religious warfare (jihad). We’ve reached the point where our lawmakers won’t even acknowledge the danger, much less admit that it’s an existential threat.
herbert says
well said
abad says
She really should be deported. The United States of America doesn’t owe her anything.
ElderlyZionist says
She was born here. She’s ours. Wouldn’t be surprised if she went somewhere the folks are more sympathetic.
Strangerinastrangeland says
Excellent. Maybe Hell?
Ashley says
The FBI botched this case.
Was it deliberate?
I was certain prosecutors had the recording of the “confession”. I was certain the prosecutors had evidence that Mateen and Salman communicated during the attack.
I feel for the jury. I really do.
Don McKellar says
It happened under the watch of Obama’s proven and verified corrupt FBI. Of course it was deliberate.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Ashley.
RonaldB says
I think Spencer is exactly right on this. This is another case of monumental bungling by an FBI all too anxious to implement their political agenda, but neglectful on their base mandate to protect the country. I would have done exactly the same thing had I been on the jury: follow the law and hold my nose.
Unfortunately, it’s not enough to follow your emotions. If the legal system is broken, it either has to be fixed, or do away with a Constitutional government altogether, as it is almost unworkable in a diversity-driven constituency.
Elisha says
“I would have done exactly the same thing had I been on the jury: follow the law and hold my nose.”
You are right. It is not the jurors’ fault. This is a Deep State stitch up. The FBI knew it would come down to this, hence the decision to not record the interview. The insidious people in the background are pulling the strings as they own everything and everyone of influence. They will be judged, as we will all be on that Day:
For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. – Ecclesiastes 12:14
God bless.
gravenimage says
“A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know….I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements.”
……………………..
It sounds as though the wrong charges were brought. Noor Salman man have been not guilty fo the specific charges she faced, but was *hardly* innocent of supporting Jihad terror. Yes–gross incompetence.
Undaunted says
The problem with the Fan Belt Inspectors is that Robert isn’t training them anymore.
Period.
gravenimage says
So true.
herbert says
Having tried complex cases for over 50 years, I am convinced beyond doubt that jurors take their responsibilities very seriously, follow the judge’s instructions, as best they can, very carefully and invariably make the right decision. It may be that they find some piece of evidence compelling which I had not focused on and disregarded what I thought was important — but in the end they got it right. The jury system is the greatest defense that exists in a democratic society. Hooray for America!
HugoHackenbush says
Having been a foreman on a jury, I totally agree with the statements made by both you and the foreman in the story.
John P says
Like the 20th hijacker, like the Tsarnaevs, like Major Hassan,like Parkland, the FBI blew it. We’d be better off with no FBI, Local cops could watch the mosques and ICE could deport the dangerous Islamists.. All today’s FBI is good for is helping Mueller overturn the results of a presidential election.the
Berengaria says
The “Half-Wit” Noor, was destined to walk away Freely from any Jury trial, her Father-in-Law was on the FBI Payroll, her husband had been a “Prospetive FBI Informent. The only question left unanswered, was: “NOOR on the FBI Payroll, too”?
Trappedinca says
Well, this should certainly inspire additional jihadists to attack Innocent Americans. Being able to murder 49 people & have your cohorts walk away without any punishment will encourage more attacks. We have the FBI, the Obama administration & the courts to thank for this complete break down of any shred of justice for the families of the victims.
AP says
What happened to Accessory, before and after the fact.
Troybeam says
She knew: aiding and abetting same as committing the crime: what more do you need to convict a person of murder? Her actions alone speak for them selves. Now every Muslim wife, sister aunt, mother will know that they can get away with murder and use this case as a defense to do so.
Stacy Girl says
Both Mrs Tsarnaevs set a precedent as well.
Ashley says
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733996/Widow-Boston-bomber-remarried-new-baby-relatives-reveal.html
herbert says
Unfortunately, aiding and abetting is not silence as Courts have uniformly held. If it were it would turn us all into a society of informers much as took place in Stalinist Russia. I
williampenn says
FBI, the same agency that’s actively running a coup d’etat against President Trump.
Stacy Girl says
Yes they’re running a good ground game in Florida. Father of the Hogg punk and father of the pulse shooter. Dads of the year
herbert says
LOL
Ashley says
Please take a look at this. Please take special note of Noor Salman’s handwritten statement:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-noor-salman-pulse-trial-day-11-story.html
Now please take a look at this:
http://www.wmfe.org/fbi-agent-ricardo-enriquez-tells-court-salman-was-too-nervous-to-write-a-statement/84593
Something isn’t sitting right…
herbert says
I don’t think this changes the result. Aiding and abetting has 3 elements. A wrong by another, knowledge of the wrong (at the time) and substantial assistance on the part of the accused. Having taken the time to write out a statement for her and filled it with words that he felt were incriminating, I fail to understand why the agent did not go over the statement with her to make sure she understood the implications of what he had written and also recorded that give and take. At that point the investigation was over. For whatever reason I think the FBI blew it and the standard of proof here is “beyond any reasonable doubt” or to “moral certainty .” We do not follow the Swedish standard which has an intermediate finding “not enough proof to convict”
Ashley says
Thank you for your reply, herbert.
This is what troubles me: there are conflicting accounts regarding that handwritten statement attributed to Salman. Enriquez testified Salman was “too nervous” to write a statement so she dictated and he transcribed her words.
“Ricardo Enriquez, an FBI special agent, testified on Monday that he interviewed Salman after the Pulse shooting and that he wrote down three separate statements she made to him. He testified that he wrote down what she dictated, and that she then initialed each paragraph to verify its truthfulness.”
I guess I’m questioning the authenticity of that handwritten statement attributed to Salman. She was only asked to write a statement in her own handwriting attesting that Enrique had treated her fairly during the interview/interrogation proceedings.
I find it hard to believe that instead of writing “Agent Enrique treated me fairly” she penned a statement implicating herself that she had lied to the FBI.
herbert says
My pleasure. Actually all you need do is watch the show “Law & order” to see how potentially threatening a focused interrogation is and she was none to bright to begin with. At bottom 12 attentive citizens voted and that is good enough for me
Ashley says
I also want to thank you for indulging my suspicions. Clearly the FBI botched this investigation.
Special Agent Ricardo Enrique’s conflicting testimony regarding this handwritten statement makes me particularly uneasy.
I certainly hope a handwriting analyst confirmed that Salman indeed penned that self-incriminating statement.
herbert says
What she wrote out and what she was induced to write out are 2 different things by the suggestions and pressure of an over zealous agent are two different things. While it is fair to call me quite conservative and fearful of almost aspects of Islam, our Constitutional rights are infinitely precious and developed over centuries of experience and respect for human dignity — they are our crown jewel and rightly so. A judgment of 12 independent ,attentive people is enough for me that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ashley says
Oh, I agree 100%. The jurors did an outstanding in the face of adversity and incompetence.
I’m just not too keen on Agent Enriquez…
herbert says
Here is the kicker. He was probably honest and well-meaning, but does not change the result. Most agents are, it is the U.S. attorney that often are liars and hide evidence
Viki says
As is obvious in previous cases, lawyers purposely withhold evidence.
Sam says
FBI father in law did not know anything about this right? Who would believe that? Only a America hating clueless about Islam liberal.
Eric jones says
Robert Spencer is right as usual. The FBI sabotaged this case. The FBI is an organization of many mind sets. The bad mind set is to support the status quo and attack anyone who challenges it. The status quo says that Islam is the religion of peace.
Therefore the FBI must undermine anything that proved Islam is not peaceful. Having Noor convicted for a role in a jihad attack would be beyond the pale. So the bad FBI mindset says sand bag this case.
The FBI must be cleaned out from top to bottom.
Eric
Pinchas Baram says
she definitely knew he was plotting. by not disclosing this significant FACT to the police, should that not be regarded as a passive form of aiding and abetting? she was a silent, passive accomplice, much like a person who sees a person about to be murdered, but closes his eyes and walks away.
herbert says
There is no such thing as passive aiding and abetting except in a civil case where there are statutorily imposed obligations as on a director. Courts have long struggled with your view and have almost uniformly said no.