Inside the Majdi N. Trial #6: Testimony of Psychological Expert Psychologist
TRIAL OF MAJDI N.
Court of Assize – Paris, France
Trial Monitoring Summary #6
Hearing Date: May 6, 2025
CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.
Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.
Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.
[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
[Note: Rather than publishing the trial reports of the Majdi N. case in chronological order, SJAC has organized them thematically and coherently based on the content of the hearings, making the material more accessible by highlighting key issues and connections across the proceedings.]
SJAC’s 6th trial monitoring report details day 4 (morning) of the trial of Majdi N. in Paris, France. On this trial day, expert psychologist E1 reported that Majdi N. had faced no hardship in his family life and noted his satisfactory intellectual abilities. E1 observed no signs of war-related psychological trauma on the Accused and explained it could either mean he had not fought, or had a strong ability to endure violence. Regarding Jaysh Al-Islam, the expert noted Majdi N. tended to minimize his role and expressed doubt about incriminating allegations against the group. E1 noted that Majdi N. had evasive answers and deliberately omitted certain things. To E1, such behavior pointed to manipulation and concealment. Questioned by the Defense, E1 refused to describe Majdi N.’s solitary confinement in detention as "white torture." He reported the Accused had considered a hunger strike six months before the expert interview and suffered health issues.
Day 4 – May 6, 2025
Morning Session
At the opening of the proceeding, the Court began by addressing issues related to the anonymity of witnesses and debated a timeline the Civil Parties’ Counsels suggested to provide the Jurors with. [Note: for the summaries of these debates, please see Trial Report #1 and Trial Report #2].
Expert [redacted name] E1 was sworn in.
[The expert repeatedly mentioned similar observations in different sections of his statement. The trial monitor sometimes reordered them.]
E1 reported that Majdi N. was 32 years old [at the time in 2020 when E1 met him to conduct the psychological assessment], was born in Saudi Arabia, and was residing in Marseille [before the arrest]. E1 described him as calm, composed, attentive, and patient. He noted Majdi N. used gestures to emphasize certain points, and spoke at length in sophisticated, well-structured, and polished language. Majdi N. introduced himself as the former official spokesperson for Jaysh Al-Islam, an organization that he contended was not considered terrorist. He appeared socially adept, was able to obscure parts of his past, and was inclined to digress or criticize. E1 did not note significant psychological troubles.
Health and Detention
According to E1, while in detention, Majdi N. suffered [redacted information], for which he received initial treatment but was awaiting a medical examination. Majdi N. had reportedly expressed deep distress, insisted on his innocence, and mentioned having considered a hunger strike six months earlier. He communicated in English with fellow inmates at the Santé prison. The prison’s administration had not reported any issues with Majdi N. during detention.
Family Background and childhood
E1 specified that Majdi N.’s father was a self-employed contractor in the construction industry, and his mother a teacher. Both were elderly and had returned from Saudi Arabia to live in Damascus in 1991. Majdi N. had six siblings, and his family was informed of his detention through his lawyer.
According to E1, Majdi N. claimed his childhood was simultaneously happy, and marked by sad moments, without providing details. He mentioned that his parents were opponents of the Syrian regime. E1 noted he was very reserved about childhood memories, with few details on parental figures. According to E1, his development seemed adjusted, although internalization of respect and values appeared partial. Most of Majdi N.’s statements remained factual. He stated that he had never been abused. E1 observed that no particular hardships emerged from his account of his family life.
Academic and Professional Path
E1 reported that Majdi N. spoke more freely about his academic and professional life but "it was all very elusive, if not downright nebulous.” Majdi N. said he studied in Istanbul from 2015 to 2019 and founded a research center there [i.e. the Toran Center, see TR#5]. He had earlier enrolled at Damascus University in 2006 but admitted to a lack of attendance and repeated a year.
E1 further recalled that Majdi N. recounted being arrested and tortured in 2008, and claimed to have been detained by the Syrian regime alongside Zahran Alloush. He then completed military service as a sergeant from 2010 to 2013, serving in communications in Douma. During the Syrian revolution, he covertly collaborated with rebels and eventually deserted. Majdi N. described having a relationship of trust with Zahran Alloush.
Majdi N. also said to have conducted research associated with the French National Center for Scientific Research in Marseille, although E1 could not find any publications under his name. Majdi N. claimed to have been accepted into a master’s program in London in 2020. Majdi N. presented himself as a researcher, keen to pursue intelligence studies. He appeared intelligent and perceptive but had no clear professional plan in France.
Social and Romantic Life
E1 reported that Majdi N. described himself as sociable, although his leisure activities were limited while he was a member of Jaysh Al-Islam. He enjoys traveling, conversation, and reading. He was single and explained that his revolutionary lifestyle prevented marriage. He said he had proposed marriage in 2016, but faced visa issues—again providing sparse, vague explanations, E1 noted.
Religion
E1 reported that Majdi N. identified as Sunni Muslim and had made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 2015. He had continued praying while being detained in France and consulted the Imam. E1 recounted that the Quran available in detention did not suit Majdi N.
Majdi N.’s Views on the Charges
When questioned about his ability to take another’s life, Majdi N. stated that Islam prohibits such actions and declared: “We are fighters, not murderers. We are oppressed, not jihadists.” E1 pointed out that he selected his words carefully, occasionally requesting the interpreter [to clarify terms]. E1 noted his verbal expression remained difficult; he paused and needed time to reflect to use more precise language.
Majdi N. denied all allegations against him, admitting only a minimal role. Majdi N. mentioned meeting foreign diplomats and claimed that his activities had been limited to propaganda. He affirmed he resigned [from Jaysh Al-Islam] due to ideological disagreements. He recounted being mistreated during his arrest in Marseille, saying he had been struck in the face, and described the arrest as violent. E1 observed that he digressed from the topic when the conversation reached a dead end, redirecting it toward more self-focused subjects.
Majdi N. had claimed he had held the rank of captain [in Jaysh Al-Islam]. He reportedly held negotiating authority and carried out propaganda-related activities. Majdi N. said [it was unclear if he meant Zahran Alloush or himself] encouraged the Syrian population to fight against Bashar Al-Assad. Majdi N. remarked that he was shocked by the witnesses' statements against him.
Majdi N. had said that his parents were being threatened by Al-Qaeda. At one point, E1 reported he claimed to have served as a diplomat and, among others, mentioned a meeting at a Turkish headquarters. But he later contradicted himself by saying that he had not held an important role.
Regarding the enforced disappearances of four Syrian activists [known as the ‘Douma four’], Majdi N. had claimed he was not responsible and attributed the act to ISIS. When questioned by E1 about any involvement in violent actions, Majdi N. denied any involvement in hand-to-hand combat. Although he stated that he liked to fight, he denied ever using a weapon against civilians.
Regarding the use of Sharia within Salafist ideology, Majdi N. referred to "misunderstandings." E1 noted that he remained evasive when asked about Zahran Alloush’s background. When questioned about torture, Majdi N. referred to a particular context [that could explain the use of certain treatments], and when questioned about his use of weapons, Majdi N. explained that he had to assume his role of captain. He also expressed doubt about the allegations concerning the actions of Jaysh Al-Islam toward civilian detainees. According to Majdi N., they were rebels—not mercenaries, and certainly not jihadists. He further stated that the regime executed prisoners, but Jaysh Al-Islam did not. According to E1, Majdi N. did not acknowledge any involvement of Jaysh Al-Islam in war crimes.
E1 explained that Majdi N. tended to conceal certain aspects of his past. Despite being asked precise questions, his responses were marked by defensive elaborations. He reportedly provided dates that could not be verified. E1 noted that it was often necessary to interrupt him in order to obtain direct answers.
According to E1, the names Majdi N. mentioned were shared in a random and unstructured manner—often unverifiable. E1 observed that he seemed capable of presenting himself strategically while omitting his role as a sergeant.
E1 highlighted several contradictions in Majdi N.’s account: He claimed to have held an important role, yet professed to be uninformed; he said he could represent Jaysh Al-Islam in diplomatic contexts, yet denied being a decision-maker; he acknowledged that abuses had occurred, but claimed not to have been aware of them. According to E1, Majdi N. had a tendency to minimize and trivialize his own role.
Finally, E1 reported that toward the end of the interview, Majdi N. expressed strong criticism of the French judicial process against him, with a tone that E1 described as highly self-centered.
Psychological and Psychopathological Dimensions
E1 reported that Majdi N. did not present any signs of psychological distress. Majdi N. spoke of having been “kidnapped” in France but appeared well-adapted to detention, with no observable depressive episodes. Majdi N. indicated that he had been a victim of torture in Syria but showed no signs of anxiety disorders and appeared to have strong psychological resilience. E1 described his character as strong, with no suicidal ideation. He was not on any medication while detained at La Santé prison.
Majdi N. recalled no violent behavior, nor any involvement in physical confrontations since 2003. The weapons he had used, Majdi N. said, were only for staging videos. E1 noted that no self-harming behavior was reported. Majdi N.’s [redacted information] requires some degree of medical monitoring. He reportedly consumed neither alcohol nor drugs.
According to E1, there was no indication of intellectual disability. However, Majdi N. left little room for emotional expression. His speech was controlled and deliberate. He mentioned his interest in politics and knew how to engage in debate, though E1 observed that when questions became too specific, Majdi N. tended to deflect or digress. E1 noted a clear capacity for adaptation and assimilation, describing him as pragmatic and organized. E1 reported that Majdi N. showed no difficulties in intellectual functioning or in his capacity to assimilate information.
When discussing his military service, Majdi N. said that he had deserted and then awaited the opportunity to take action [on the revolutionary side]. E1 remarked that his discourse remained formulaic, without emotional depth. A certain narcissistic trait was noted, along with a corresponding level of self-esteem and a conduct described as superficial—what E1 referred to as a "veneer." E1 observed a tendency in Majdi N. to seek the spotlight.
Majdi N. claimed not to have been a combatant and said he had no knowledge of what occurred inside Jaysh Al-Islam detention centers. According to E1, he consistently deflected responsibility, placing blame on the Syrian regime for acts of torture [but never mentioning Jaysh Al-Islam's practices in its own prisons]. E1 described Majdi N.’s reasoning as selectively constructed and noted an avoidant posture, with no apparent expression of empathy for the victims.
Responses to the Magistrate’s Requests
Regarding the charges, E1 noted that Majdi N. did not accept any of the legal qualifications of the alleged facts and systematically challenged the statements made by witnesses. There appeared to be a degree of ambivalence concerning his former role as spokesperson; Majdi N. tended to minimize both the nature and significance of his function. E1 further observed that Majdi N. did not appear to have any identified support persons or resources.
In terms of the level of danger he posed, Majdi N. presented himself as unconnected to any group or movement that might be linked to violent or terrorist acts. E1 acknowledged that he possessed contextual and geopolitical knowledge, language proficiency, and a certain degree of interpersonal adaptability. His religious convictions were described as strong.
Presiding Judge Lavergne remarked that Majdi N. seemed to have satisfactory intellectual abilities, a capacity for analysis, and the ability to articulate his thoughts, all of which indicated a good grasp of reality. However, Majdi N. shared little regarding more intimate aspects of his life, which, as Presiding Judge Lavergne suggested, could be attributed either to cultural norms or to personal modesty. In response, E1 confirmed that it might be a matter of culture or discretion.
Presiding Judge Lavergne noted that Majdi N. had not reported any personal trauma. Nonetheless, he had described the circumstances of his arrest in France as traumatic, particularly due to the use of force. Majdi N. had mentioned the possibility of initiating a hunger strike. Although he did not complain of circulatory issues at the time, he later began to experience such problems. In 2022, he was transferred from La Santé prison to Fleury-Mérogis [both prisons are located on the outskirts of Paris], where he was placed in a specific unit and reportedly faced harsh detention conditions.
Presiding Judge Lavergne noted that Majdi N. had no outside contacts and had not received any visits throughout his entire period of detention. He was able to maintain some contact with his family, although certain incidents were reported in this regard—specifically, phone calls redirected by his parents, which enabled communication with individuals not authorized on the contact list.
Presiding Judge Lavergne mentioned two hunger strikes of Majdi N. and stated that the most recent one dated back to November 2024. This incident led to a medical evaluation to determine whether he was fit to be heard and tried. When asked by Presiding Judge Lavergne whether Majdi N. had explicitly said he had sacrificed himself for a cause he believed to be just, E1 clarified that while Majdi N. had spoken of commitment and of a cause, he had not used the word “sacrifice.”
Presiding Judge Lavergne observed that Majdi N. seemed to express disappointment [in relation to the severance of his ties with Jaysh Al-Islam], having made considerable efforts to defend what he perceived as a just cause. The rupture with Jaysh Al-Islam appeared to have left emotional scars. When asked whether Majdi N. seemed disillusioned or in despair, E1 replied that, on the contrary, he had rebounded—upon arriving in Turkey, he had resumed his studies.
Civil Parties’ Counsels Questioning of E1
Counsel Zarka referred to a recorded altercation between [redacted name] F42, and Majdi N. around the distribution of bread [likely taking place in Ghouta at the time of the siege]. During this exchange, F42 is reported to have said, “Take your hand off,” followed by the sound of blows. Majdi N. later claimed these were strikes on the table. In the recording, in response to F42, Majdi N. was heard saying, “You don’t understand anything.” The recording, which was found on Majdi N.’s computer, was undated. Counsel Zarka questioned whether this exchange might shed light on Majdi N.’s relationship with others. In response, E1 suggested that Majdi N.’s strong character may have expressed itself differently in that possibly more confrontational context—when he was also younger—compared to the more subdued environment of La Santé prison.
Counsel Bailly asked how E1 conducted interviews. E1 replied that he took notes during the meetings. Sometimes, Majdi N. spoke in English, but otherwise, there was a gap between the interpreter's translation and the notetaking. Counsel Bailly asked whether the questions were short and the answers long. E1 confirmed, explaining that Majdi N. tended to evade or obscure certain points.
Counsel Bailly pointed out that, during the psychological assessment, Majdi N. initially claimed to have been in Idlib until 2016, then later stated that he was mistaken and had not been there at that time. E1 confirmed that Majdi N. had said that.
Counsel Bailly asked whether Majdi N. had denied having visited Jaysh Al-Islam detention centers. E1 explained that it was how he had summarized Majdi N.’s words.
Counsel Bailly inquired whether E1 had any knowledge about Jaysh Al-Islam. E1 explained that he had access to the full case file up to July 2020 and had conducted research afterwards. This allowed him to establish a timeline and better understand the cultural context. He added that he had been working in counterterrorism for ten years and was accustomed to working quickly.
Counsel Bailly remarked that Majdi N. seemed eager to show a certain level of importance, while at the same time downplaying his role in some specific matters, and asked whether this could be seen as a form of duplicity. E1 replied that it was indeed ambivalent.
Counsel Bailly asked what Majdi N. had said about his role within Jaysh Al-Islam, and whether the term “propaganda” frequently came up in his statements. E1 confirmed that it did. Counsel Bailly asked whether Majdi N. had said he merely “incited” [people to join] and whether that was the exact term he used. E1 confirmed it was. Counsel Bailly then asked whether Majdi N. had mentioned being a trainer within Jaysh Al-Islam, which E1 denied.
Counsel Bailly pointed out that a CV found on Majdi N.’s iPad stated he had served as spokesperson from 2012 to 2016 and asked about the end date. E1 indicated that this role ended in 2015, when Zahran Alloush was assassinated.
Counsel Bailly referred to the position of Vice President of the Moral Guidance Office مكتب التوجيه المعنوي and other roles listed in the CVs. E1 responded that he did not have that information. When asked whether Majdi N. was evasive [about his functions in Jaysh Al-Islam], E1 agreed and said that this could be described as a deliberate omission, naming it “a posture of pretense.” Counsel Bailly asked whether Majdi N. appeared to be of sound mind; E1 confirmed, stating his mind was adaptive.
Prosecution's Questioning of E1
Prosecutor Havard asked E1 whether it was usual for interviewees to set conditions before agreeing to answer questions. Prosecutor Havard considered that Majdi N. had done so when he claimed that Jaysh Al-Islam should be seen as part of the Syrian rebellion, and that he would only respond when E1 asked questions. E1 replied that such behavior was atypical, but he had encountered it before. According to him, it reflected an interviewee’s desire to maintain control over the conversation. When the exchange did not go in Majdi N.’s favor, E1 observed he would either digress or pause, reflect, and write on paper before continuing.
Prosecutor Havard then mentioned that E1 had described Majdi N.'s discourse as polished and smoothed over. This, she noted, could be interpreted in two ways: either as a sign of sincerity—that Majdi N. was simply stating his true beliefs—or, as E1 had suggested, as a lack of transparency and spontaneity. E1 responded that the polished nature of the speech likely stemmed from the fact that Majdi N. had already gone through several interviews and had thus prepared himself.
Prosecutor Havard asked whether the use of vague or unclear language in Majdi N.’s response indicated a willingness to answer [as much as he could] or, on the contrary, a tactic to digress or avoid direct answers. E1 explained that at times Majdi N. would speak hastily, but overall, his speech remained skillful and controlled. Prosecutor Havard then inquired whether this ability was a skill he may have retained from his previous role as a spokesperson. E1 confirmed that Majdi N. was indeed a skilled communicator and possessed associated competencies.
Shifting to the psychological evaluation by E1, Prosecutor Havard asked whether, based on the information available about Majdi N.’s life, any signs of war-related psychological trauma had been observed. E1 responded that he had not detected such signs or residual effects. None of the five typical indicators for diagnosing trauma syndrome were present.
Prosecutor Havard asked how the absence of trauma indicators could be explained. E1 suggested that it might indicate a high level of resilience or an ability to endure violence. He also raised the possibility that Majdi N. may have been subjected to torture, but noted that his physical and psychological distance from events—especially his time in Turkey—might have helped him shield himself from some of the trauma.
Defense Counsel’s Questioning of E1
Defense Counsel Kempf referred to Majdi N.’s statement that Jaysh Al-Islam was not a terrorist organization, and E1 responded he was not competent to assess that. Counsel Kempf asked if Majdi N. was charged with terrorist counts, to which E1 answered by reading the charges. Concluding that Majdi N. was not charged with terrorist offenses, Counsel Kempf wondered why E1 had mentioned that he had been working in antiterrorism since 2015. E1 indicated he also questioned Majdi N. about possible terrorist crimes.
Regarding Majdi N.’s physique, E1 answered he was tall and imposing, and remembered mention of [redacted information] for which he would apologize each time.
Shifting to the Quran, Counsel Kempf said he was told by Majdi N. that the version available in detention was in French, suggesting that this might explain why he didn’t want it. E1 replied that the Imam’s Quran was in Arabic and added that he didn’t know if the Imam had offered Majdi N. this Arabic version.
Counsel Kempf asked how E1 would describe the psychological consequences of more than five years' detention in another country. E1 replied that the conditions were difficult, even overwhelming. Counsel Kempf requested that E1 describe to the jury the solitary confinement where Majdi N. had been placed. E1 recounted that it involved restricted and monitored walks, with no access to the library or to any activities for rehabilitation. Counsel Kempf claimed that NGOs depicted solitary confinement as a severe violation of inmates' health, describing it as "white torture" [also commonly referred to as white room torture]. Asked for his opinion on this view, E1 responded that he did not take part in this debate. He then said he didn’t know how to respond to the question, but he acknowledged that the conditions of detention were difficult. He clarified that it wasn’t the detention conditions themselves, but rather what they generated that mattered, adding he didn’t know how Majdi N. had reacted [to them]. Regarding the term "white torture," E1 replied that he understood this perspective, but he would maintain an "objective" approach, focusing on whether any clinical reactions were observed.
A discussion on Majdi N.’s admission to King’s College London followed. Counsel Kempf stressed that it was not a visa problem but rather his detention in France that prevented Majdi N. to join the program. E1 responded that when he questioned Majdi N. about the visa and the master’s program, Majdi N. was evasive.
E1 mentioned that he had not asked if Majdi N.'s arrest was violent. Counsel Kempf then asked if police violence existed in France. E1 argued that he lacked knowledge to answer, but he took into account the statement about the arrest being "difficult and painful." Counsel Kempf further asked if E1 had noticed in the case file that Majdi N. had bruised eyes several days after the arrest. E1 replied that he trusted the Judge's statement but had no recollection of it.
Counsel Kempf noted that E1 used the term "interviews" to refer to the interrogations of Majdi N. in police custody and indicated it seemed to be an understatement, considering that the Accused had been interrogated by investigators after he was beaten up by the police. He then asked E1 for his perspective as a psychologist. E1 replied that he remembered Majdi N. mentioning feeling exhausted, likely due to the suffering he had endured.
Counsel Kempf wondered whether fully engaging in passionate studies, having research projects, and publishing papers could be a means to overcome trauma and be resilient. E1 replied that it could indeed be a way to fight back.
Counsel Ruiz inquired how E1 had incorporated cultural differences in Majdi N.'s interrogation compared to interviews with French individuals. E1 responded that integrating this factor was complicated and required an interpreter. He mentioned having met with over a hundred jihadists and noted that he encountered the cultural dimension daily in his work. E1 stated that he didn’t consider himself to have great expertise, but rather an understanding of it. He explained that he considered the political and religious situation, sometimes noting “Mediterranean” aspects of a person’s behavior, such as a particular way of communicating. For instance, Majdi N. had been very respectful, E1 noted.
Counsel Ruiz asked how E1 integrated into his analysis the fact that Majdi N. experienced war. E1 replied that he had questioned Majdi N. about his perspective on violence and fighting, and Majdi N. stated that no one liked to fight. The Accused explained it wasn’t violence itself that mattered, but rather what one does with it. Counsel Kempf then asked if the absence of signs of trauma could be interpreted as evidence that Majdi N. had not fought. E1 replied that it could either mean he had not fought or that he had a measured approach to violence.
When questioned by Counsel Ruiz about his knowledge of the inculpatory evidence brought against Majdi N., E1 confirmed he had read the documents [i.e. Introductory Submission of the Prosecution] before the interview and acknowledged that, indirectly, doing so could have influenced his perspective on the Accused. However, he added that he knew how to not let the case files influence him. Counsel Ruiz then asked if being told [by the Prosecution] that Majdi N. had not disclosed in his résumé all the functions he had actually held could have modified E1’s perception and encouraged him to speak of a duplicity. E1 responded that he did not focus only on what the investigation said but also noticed what Majdi N. did not say. E1 mentioned that, for example, when asking if he was a fighter, Majdi N. denied. Counsel Ruiz then asked how E1 had framed the question about Majdi N.’s background, to which E1 replied that the question had been open-ended and not detailed.
Counsel Ruiz wondered if Majdi N. had mentioned any conditions in the interview, such as not answering questions without certain guarantees. E1 replied that there was no such blackmail. Counsel Ruiz then asked if E1 interpreted Majdi N.'s questions about his work as conditions or as legitimate curiosity. E1 replied that it was legitimate.
Counsel Ruiz inquired if E1 believed that a 2.5-hour interview could guarantee that his theory was certain. E1 replied that it was not enough, and that Majdi N. would have needed to be heard several times.
Counsel Ruiz then emphasized that many soldiers had deserted from the Syrian military and asked if E1 considered Majdi N. to be a double agent, which E1 did not. E1 added that Majdi N. was in a difficult context and had taken a rebellious position. However, duplicity, the tendency to withdraw, and the tendency to manipulate were present. Counsel Ruiz asked at what point Majdi N. had manipulated E1, asking for a concrete example. E1 replied that Majdi N. made mistakes with dates, had evasive answers about weapons, and was unclear about or avoided certain topics, particularly his connections with certain people. E1 believed that when someone deliberately omits certain things, it points to manipulation and concealment. Counsel Ruiz asked what made E1 think it was intentional. E1 responded that it was evident when Majdi N. claimed that weapons were only for propaganda, or when he mentioned his captain rank but said he did not have an important role. E1 observed that these were strongly ambivalent elements. Counsel Ruiz asked if defense and control mechanisms were normal when one knew the elements were going to be shared with an investigative judge, which E1 agreed with. As for a manipulative nature, E1 remarked that Majdi N. had indirectly admitted to it.
Counsel Ruiz asked if the egocentric dimension was normal in an interview focusing on someone specific. E1 replied that he meant egocentric in the sense of being narcissistic. He explained that Majdi N. was trying to display the most respectful image.
The proceedings were suspended at 12:37 AM.
___________________________
For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work