Scott Horton Interviews Petra Bartosiewicz

Scott Horton, February 16, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Freelance journalist Petra Bartosiewicz discusses the trial and conviction of US-educated Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui for the attempted murder of US soldiers in Afghanistan, seemingly crucial setbacks in the prosecution’s case that were disregarded by the jury, allegations that during the previous five years Siddiqui was a “ghost prisoner” subject to torture at Bagram prison and the immunity of federal prosecutors to charges of gross misconduct.

MP3 here. (24:48)

Petra Bartosiewicz is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY.  Her forthcoming book, “The Best Terrorists We Could Find,” an investigation of terrorism trials in the U.S. since 9/11, will be published by Nation Books in 2010. She has written for numerous publications, including The Nation, Mother Jones, The New York Times, Salon.com and Hustler, and has worked in radio for the weekly program, This American Life, where her 2005 piece, “The Arms Trader,” was a finalist for the Livingston Awards and Scripps Howard Awards, and another piece, “The Prosecutor,” won the 2009 Newswomen’s Club of New York Award. She got her start in journalism at The New York Observer and later attended the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

5 Responses to “Petra Bartosiewicz”

  1. Scott Horton and by extension Ms. Bartosiewicz,

    Petra is hurting Ms. Siddiqui everytime she speaks. She is wishy-washy, uncertain, and really does not believe that Ms. Siddiqui is innocent, which she clearly is. All that matters in this case is the following: A. Where is this rifle or weapon she supposedly took possession of and fired? B. Where are her fingerprints on this weapon? C. Where are the bullets and shell casings from this weapon? An injustice occured, and Petra Bartosiewicz is clueless and hurting Ms. Siddiqui by talking.

  2. I totally agree with Reed Richards _ most particularly : "Where are her fingerprints on this weapon? C. Where are the bullets and shell casings from this weapon?"

  3. If the facts in the case are as reported, this verdict should be overturned on appeal.

  4. Reed Richards, don't forget the blood on the rifle. If she really was holding it when she was shot you should see a void in the splatter pattern. This is such an obvious frameup it's like a parody of a movie about an innocent person being jailed.

  5. DonT, MIchael Price, Monica,

    I would hope the verdict is overturned on appeal. Ms. Bartosiewicz was simply to wishy-washy in the way she described the events. It makes me believe that she herself does not believe that Ms. Siddiqui is innocent. She also focused on things that were totally irrelevant. But most importantly, I wonder who the Boob she had for a defense attorney was? Even Matt Murdock could have seen that this was a frame up.

Leave a Reply