This a copy of the letter sent on behalf of Ali

      (1)

      Eight years ago on a hot sunny day in July, I was caused to enter a flat whose occupants had been repeatedly stabbed to death. That was the most horrific scene I had ever come across, with two dead bodies, a lot of blood and that nauseating stench of blood in the flat. On witnessing the scene I began to shiver and sweat, my heartbeat became fast and heavy, my voice almost disappeared and my scalp started itching intensely, causing me to vigorously scratch my scalp and pull my hair (my hair is long and worn in a ponytail). Consequently, I must have shed some hair at the murder scene. Three hairs were found.

      Prosecution told the jury that my hairs were there because the victim pulled my hair during the struggle. When I explained as to how my hair must have got there prosecution counsel literally ridiculed me as if such reactions were simply non-existent.

      It was a long time after my conviction that I became aware that what happens to me (it does happen occasionally) is actually a medical/psychological condition known as anxiety/panic attack and many people suffer from this. Had I known that before I would have definitely requested a psychologist to explain this condition to the jury.

      I must point out that my reaction to anxiety/ panic attack is not always as severe as I have described above.

      I would like to know:

        1) Would you describe my reaction in that flat as a medical/ psychological condition called anxiety/ panic attack? If yes, would you describe it as low, moderate or severe form?
        2) How common is it amongst the general public?
        3) What triggers anxiety/ panic attack?

      (2)

      My retrial was held during the last two weeks of the month of fasting (Ramadan). Two weeks of fasting, before the retrial began, had already weakened me. During Ramadan I would not eat or drink anything from around 5am to 4.30pm everyday.

      Normal routine for the first 20 days of fasting: I would wake up before 5am, have a bowl of cereal & milk, perform some prayers, and (when retrial began in the 3rd week of Ramadan) start getting ready until the officers arrived after 6am to take me to court. The journey from prison to court would take about 1 hour, sitting in a small cage of a prison van.

      The routine for the last ten days of fasting ( i.e. the time of the retrial) was different and harder in that I did not sleep at all during the last ten nights. There is considerable religious significance in this practice.

      So, when I stood retrial and gave evidence and was cross-examined I was not only fasting all days but also was not sleeping all nights. Throughout the retrial I felt hungry, weak, frustrated, agitated and sometimes angry. I could not think straight, could not concentrate on anything, could not make decisions, could not remember, could not speak properly very often and on many occasions could not understand councils’ questions and gave irrelevant answers. I spent most of my time sleeping in the dock while the retrial continued.

      I would like to know the following:

        1) In your judgement, what affects will fasting (hunger & thirst) during the days and total lack of sleep during the nights have on the mental state, physical state, behaviour and attitude of a person who is on retrial? Will that be similar to mine as described above?
        2) Will such a person be able to follow the court proceedings, for example, evidence of expert witnesses?
        3) How would the jury (not knowing about fasting and total lack of sleep) view a person in terms of his character (e.g. credibility, truthfulness, civility, etc) who is being prosecuted in a very serious matter but, despite, he is behaving in a manner as described above.
        4) Can it be argued that putting me on retrial during Ramadan was unfair?

      (3)

      My retrial was held within three months of 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. The prosecution told the jury that I was a 'devout practising Muslim' which inferred heavily fundamentalist or extremist.

      I was asked several questions about Islam & Quran. In short, the jury was reminded of my religion on several occasions throughout the retrial. Without actually using the word “fundamentalist” prosecution counsel made me appear like one, for calling someone a devout practising Muslim is like calling him a fundamentalist because after 9/11 it appeared to me that only moderate Muslims were being perceived by the general public as “non-extremists”. I am certainly not an extremist or a fundamentalist.

      It is my personal knowledge & experience that after 9/11 many non-Muslims perception of Muslims had significantly deteriorated. Muslims in general and devout practising Muslims in particular were seen with suspicion and, thanks to the media, Islamophobia and bias against Muslims was on the rise.

      I would like to know:

        1) Has there been any research in this important area since 9/11 and does the research support my claim as described above?
        2) How likely was it, in your opinion, that the jury may have been prejudiced and they may not have tried me fairly and with complete impartiality given the fact that I stood retrial within three months of 9/11 when the media was full of 9/11, Islamic terrorists, Muslim extremists, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistan, and the fact that all twelve jurors were non-Muslims and they were trying a 'devout practising Muslim' for the murders of non-Muslims?

      (4)

      An answerphone tape recording of the victims was found at the murder scene. Prosecution claimed that the two victims were having a conversation when one of them “accidentally” pressed the recording button on the answerphone machine which resulted in recording part of their conversation. Victims, in some parts of the conversation, talked about an ongoing dispute with some people, and they made some references.

      The clearest of the references were about my co-defendant (Z), however, no names were mentioned, although the victim knew Z very well. There were four references: a”fashion shop” (belonging to Z’s family), “Mazda” (Z worked for mazda), “they” & “the older guy”.

      Prosecution claimed that I was “the older guy” ( I was 22, older than Z but 23 younger than the victim). That certainly was not true because there definitely was not any dispute between myself and the victims. Besides, Z had many associates who were much older than him.

      During this conversation the victims were quite drunk and, most probably, under the influence of drugs as they dealt in drugs.

      I would like to request your opinion about the reliability and credibility of conversations between two drunken individuals. I would like to know:

        1) Would a conversation between two sober individuals not be a lot more reliable & credible in comparison to a conversation between two drunken individuals?
        2) Do we not, generally speaking, mistrust what drunken people say?
        3) If not the whole conversations, are there any aspects of their conversations which, in your opinion, lack reliability & credibility? For example, do they use wrong words, exaggerate, wrongly mix-up unrelated persons/ events/ conversations/ incidents, present their thoughts and imagination as facts or forget the facts (more often than sober individuals) or mix up their thoughts and imagination with facts, etc?
        4) Can it be argued that relying on such unreliable information is unjust unfair?

      If you have any questions you'd like quick answers to, my email address is paul@paul-r.com

      - 15 June 2009