M. Collins: 911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency Hearing in NYC

promoted -- cho


Where's the Case?

(Left to right)  Lindaueer's attorney Brian Shaughnessy, Susan Lindauer,
and witness Parke Godfrey, Ph.D.(Michael Collins, copyleft)

911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency Hearing in New York City

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

(June 17, NYC). A surprise development occurred at today's hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.

The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer's competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an "unregistered agent" for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.

This was Lindauer's first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was "imminent" and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a "prophesy". Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of the September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.

The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.

Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today's hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in "Scoop," Lindauer said: "Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don't have a case, and they know it."

More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara

Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O'Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O'Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister's home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O'Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that "I heard about Susan all the time from Paul." She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O'Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O'Meara got a "strange call" form Hoven during which he said, "Susan's crazy." O'Meara said that she'd never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility.

Lindauer's relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O'Callaghan asked O'Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Visibly angry, O'Meara responded by saying, "I would be insulted."

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer's claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and "lay" testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, "I've been left out to dry" by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer's next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.


Previously "Scoop" coverage of the Susan Lindauer case:
American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story by Michael Collins 17 October 2007
Bush Political Prisoner Gets her Day in Court by Michael Collins June 11, 2008
An Exclusive Interview with Bush Political Prisoner Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins June 2008


Permission granted to reproduce this article in part or in whole with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and handling of images as indicated.

No votes yet


What kind of intelligence asset was Susan Lindauer? Is it my imagination, or is it implied she was some sort of psychic assistant (remote viewing, precognition, etc)?

For those who might think my question above sounds a bit outrageous, FOIA requests in 1995 revealed that the CIA had spent over $20 million dollars on remote viewing, etc in a project named Stargate. It wouldn't surprise me to learn such projects still continue today.

Richard Cole, Associated Press, November 29, 1995

many years ago....my mother was a believer.

Remote Viewing or Perception

The "high water mark" of the allegations was the alleged attempt by Lindauer to influence a U.S. official unnamed in the indictment - acting as an "unregistered agent" for Iraq. Shortly after the indictment we knew that the official was Andrew Card and the influence was the last letter to Card, the only letter of 10 total since 2001. Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/33z3mx

Take a look. It's all very good advice. This is her primary crime.

There's a charge of taking money, some small amounts, like $92 for lunches. Lindauer pointed out that she can demonstrate that she wasn't in New York, the site of the lunches, on the days listed. There's a larger amount, $10,000 according to the indictment (travel money received from Iraq) and a much lower amount claimed by Lindauer. There are logical reasons why an asset would want the target country to pay for travel but that's an issue that's incidental.

According to the U.S. attorney general, formerly her judge, it's all about the influence peddling as listed in the indictment - the letter to Card.

She gave a deposition for the Lockerbie trial and says she worked on that case, she admits to visiting with diplomats from the Middle East in New York over a number of years, and she said to the press that she'd found a key figure in Iraq who was willing to help with major anti terrorist information. I'm not aware of the psychic element or even what that means.

This has been over four years of the prosecutors delaying trial due to incompetence to stand trial. There's something really wrong with that, imho.

"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton

I was wondering about this part of the story:

Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a "prophesy". Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

When paired with the information that Lindauer was an "asset" it raises question about what kind of asset, hence my question.

Regards how it's been handled to date, quite honestly, there's no there there. It's a waste of tax payer money and the whole thing should just be dismissed. Really, don't federal prosecutors have better things to do with their time?

One would think that they di have better things to do. I was at the hearing. I should have asked the question. But what's the risk of being labeled as having grandiose behavior - presuming to question a government official;)

If the government argues that Lindauer is not competent to stand trial, then they'd be in a curious position to argue that she was competent to know that she was, by their definition, doing wrong. The alternative is that she was quite competent enough to know the wrong in performing the alleged activities, but suddenly incompetent when arrested?

After her initial New York evaluation, she returned to Maryland and was evaluated by a well qualified psychiatrist - no delusions/hallucinations. The two therapists who she had to see found no major mental illness. The prosecutors ignore this data even though the two clinical psychologists say Lindauer over an extended period of time, while the New York evaluators saw her for just hours. So what's this all about?

Maybe her witness list would include people who might embarrass the government. Maybe she'd win the case, found not guilty, and never let the government forget it. Maybe there's some factor well beyond general knowle3dge that that makes her trial a potential disaster for the government. Or it may just be bureaucratic momentum that keeps this afloat.

We'll see.

"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton