Shameless Accusations: What We Know and the Fallout

Walid Saadaoui's "Shameless Liar" Defense: A High-Risk Calculation?

The Albatross and the Alleged Terror Plot

Walid Saadaoui, formerly a restaurant owner (The Albatross in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk), now stands accused of plotting a terror attack. The prosecution alleges he planned to target a Jewish gathering in Manchester, only to have his scheme exposed by an undercover operative. Saadaoui's defense? He claims he was merely "playing along," intending to sabotage the plot later. This defense hinges on the supposed threats from a Syrian man, identified as Hamdi Almasalkhi.

The core issue, as presented by prosecutor Harpreet Sandhu KC, is Almasalkhi's alleged death in February 2021—almost two years before Saadaoui relocated to Wigan. Saadaoui insists Almasalkhi is alive, dismissing the death certificate as an "Isis classic" tactic. Now, let's consider the risk/reward here. If Saadaoui is lying about Almasalkhi, his entire defense crumbles. The prosecution's "shameless liar" label sticks, and a conviction becomes far more likely. However, if he can introduce reasonable doubt about Almasalkhi's death, he introduces doubt into the entire case.

This is a high-stakes gamble. Juries tend to dislike being lied to—even small lies can poison the well. But if Saadaoui believes he can prove Almasalkhi is alive, the risk might be worth it. The question is, what evidence does he have beyond his own testimony? He concedes the only evidence of the "seven-year ordeal" of threats is his own account. That's a problem. As reported by the BBC, Saadaoui denies being a "shameless liar," a label the prosecution has repeatedly used. Manchester Terror plot accused denies being 'shameless liar'

The Credibility Gap

The problem, as I see it, isn’t just the death certificate. It’s the lack of corroborating evidence for Saadaoui’s claims. Threatening messages, voice notes, phone calls—none of it has been independently verified. It all rests on his word. This is where the "shameless liar" accusation gains traction.

Let's break this down further. The prosecution argues that Saadaoui moved to the North West because his "terrorism was going to go up a level." Saadaoui denies this. But consider the context: he was arrested in a hotel car park in Bolton, approaching a car containing assault rifles, a semi-automatic pistol, and nearly 200 rounds of ammunition. That's not exactly the behavior of someone trying to "sabotage" a terror plot.

The defense needs to explain this discrepancy—or, to be more exact, this massive inconsistency. If Saadaoui was truly planning to alert the police, why the weapons? Why the secrecy? Why not go directly to law enforcement with his concerns about Almasalkhi and the undercover operative? The prosecution will undoubtedly paint a picture of a man caught red-handed, desperately trying to concoct a story to avoid prison.

And this is the part that I find genuinely puzzling: why choose such a convoluted defense? Why not simply claim entrapment? Argue that the undercover operative pressured him into participating in the plot? It would be a far less risky strategy than claiming a dead man is still alive and that you were secretly planning to foil a terror attack you were openly participating in.

The "playing along" defense is a difficult sell, especially when the evidence suggests active involvement. Maybe he thought it was his only option. Maybe he underestimated the prosecution's case. Whatever the reason, it's a high-risk calculation that could backfire spectacularly.

A Bridge Too Far?