Reply #2: and thats why he won the right for retrial on appeal hearsay about hearsay

[Monkie]

it may work in american courts but a conviction based on:
well judge,we have a statement from a terrorist who swears this guys responsible for 9-11
judge:what terrorist?where is he?under what conditions did he make these statements
lawyer:i'm not at liberty to say..

"The acquittal on all counts came after the court rejected a last-minute motion from a lawyer representing relatives of American victims of the attacks. The lawyer, Andreas Schulz, said his clients had access to "new information" from the U.S. Department of Justice but that he was "not authorized" to tell the court what it was"

http://www.unknownnews.net/040206secretjustice.html

and now 2 years later,same lawyer,this time FBI tries to help

"Schudt also pressed Walsh for more information on the al-Qaida plot after Walsh said he was only authorized to tell the court details contained in a 2002 report on the attacks on New York and Washington.
...
When pressed by Schudt on whether more evidence existed, Walsh conceded that it did"

judge:you have evidence now?
fbi:yes we do we do
judge:can we see it?
fbi:err...
lawyer:see see they have evidence you wouldnt believe me but now its the FBI!!!
judge: *sigh*

this is going to work!