A shocking revelation emerged from court documents in the obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism trial of Noor Salman, the widow of Pulse nightclub gunman Omar Mateen. According to a motion filed in the case, the gunman’s father Seddique Mateen was an FBI informant in the years leading up to the shooting and his relationship with agents reportedly influenced their decision not to act after investigating threats made by his son prior to his June 12, 2016 attack on the Orlando, Fla. LGBT nightclub that left 49 dead and 58 wounded.
Seddique Mateen is also currently under investigation for money transfers to Pakistan and Turkey that were revealed after officers searched his residence while investigating Omar Mateen’s attack. The transfers took place between March 16, 2016 and June 5, 2016.
The motion notes that prosecutors sent an email on Saturday revealing that Seddique Mateen had been an informant for the FBI from 2005 through June 2016.
“Additionally, while the Government has disclosed that [Omar] Mateen was under FBI
investigation [in 2013] based on statements he made while at work, the Government has repeatedly failed to disclose that his father played a significant role in that investigation. The initial disclosure of an intelligence report indicated only that an unidentified undercover informant ‘was informed that the FBI was investigating allegations against Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, during which the [informant] became very upset,'” claimed the motion.
It continued, “In light of the Government’s Saturday disclosure, twelve days into trial, we can now infer—although the Government has, to this day, not disclosed that the [confidential informant] referenced in this report is Seddique Mateen—that Mateen’s father played a significant role in the FBI’s decision not to seek an indictment from the Justice Department for false statements to the FBI or obstruction of justice against Omar Mateen.”
According to Click Orlando, an email from prosecutors to Salman’s legal team said that “an anonymous tip indicated that Seddique Mateen was seeking to raise $50,000-$100,000 via a [2012] donation drive to contribute toward an attack against the government of Pakistan.”
Salman’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case as a mistrial, claiming that the late revelation of this information violated their client’s due process rights as they would have taken a different strategy with the defense had they known about Seddique Mateen’s status with the FBI. The 1963 Supreme Court ruling Brady v Maryland requires that prosecutors provide defense attorneys any evidence they are aware of that might benefit their client’s defense.
Salman’s legal team told CNN that this information would have allowed them to argue with “strong support” that “Omar Mateen and his father, rather than Ms. Salman, conspired to support ISIS; or the FBI’s focus on Ms. Salman was based on its own motive to avoid responsibility for its failures with its own informant, Seddique Mateen, as well as his son.”
In the email disclosing this information to the defense, the prosecution stated, “If you should call S. Mateen to the stand, the government will not seek to elicit any of this information from him.”
WTVF-9 notes that Judge Paul Byron denied the motion on Monday, saying that the revelations do not “change the dynamic about this case involving Noor Salman.”
