lead witness, Osama Eldawoody, on grounds that he was paid a total of $100,000 for his work as an informer, $25,000 of which he received during the year he conversed with Siraj. It was the informant's salary, they argued, that kept him interested in the issue and encouraged him to bring Siraj into such a predicament.Eldawoody stated ge did not turn Siraj in for money, but rather, as a good Muslim who believed that his faith was not one to be degraded into one of terrorism. He is not likely to work for the NYPD again, simply because he may be recognized from the trial and/or his previous eavesdroppings. The validity of the tapes was raised, and it was asserted that they may have been subject to review and censorship by the New York City Police Department, which was working alongside Eldawoody during his information-gathering visits. It was asserted that perhaps that the tapes were reviewed for incriminating content and may have been selectively edited—either by deletion or by Eldawoody himself—to leave out statements of encouragement and "entrapment" by Eldawoody that could have been critical proof for the defense. Prosecution The prosecutors, Todd Harrison and Marshall L. Miller, used digital recording from the defendant's conversations with Eldawoody, which were secretly made by the informant and handed to the police department as evidence. In these recordings, Siraj expressed excitement and pride in a plot to kill American civilians in Herald Square, which was strongly incriminating, albeit in a crime the defense felt was framed. The prosecution called their main witness, Eldawoody, who was the part-time police informant and a nuclear engineer used by the New York City's Police Department to infiltrate and eavesdrop on Islamic congregations around the city. They attacked Siraj's credibility strongly because of many anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks he had made, some far before he had been encouraged into the bomb plot. These remarks, which would be regarded as reprehensible by the far majority of Americans, served to alienate the defendant as an ally to terrorist regimes and characterized him as a terrorist, despite the absence of weapons. They were very convincing in showing that Siraj would have committed the crime if given the adequate weaponry. His sympathy of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas gave him a strikingly dangerous set of role models that would have meant he could have become violent and committed a terrorist