Friday, May 8, 2015

Justice denied: Tsarnaev’s own lawyer ignores evidence he is innocent of Boston bombing

[An excellent article I found on Twitter, the best I've read on the subject of the "Boston Marathon Bombing". I'm just going to reprint the beginning, but every American should read the whole thing through. -- Jody]

Justice denied: Tsarnaev’s own lawyer ignores evidence he is innocent of Boston bombing
By Craig McKee

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev never had a chance.

While there is significant evidence supporting the accused Boston bomber’s innocence, none of it made it into his trial, which just concluded with guilty verdicts on all 30 counts against him. It seems that law enforcement, the media, and especially Tsarnaev’s own lawyer, Judy Clarke, were focused on suppressing any evidence that could have undermined the official story of the bombing. The truth has been covered up just as effectively as it was the day Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.

Clarke insured Tsarnaev’s conviction when she opened the trial by admitting that he had carried out the bombing on April 15, 2013 with his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan, who was killed in the aftermath. Clarke painted Tamerlan as the instigator in an apparent effort to spare Dzhokhar from execution, but that may happen anyway as the trial now enters the sentencing phase.

Clarke is known for her ability to keep her clients off death row (including Unabomber Ted Kaczyinski; alleged 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; and Jared Loughner, who was convicted of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), but given the weakness of the evidence against Tsarnaev, Clarke’s strategy amounted to throwing in the towel before the trial even started.

But what about making the prosecution prove guilt? To say that Clarke could have created reasonable doubt if she had wanted to is an understatement. In this article, we’ll look at the evidence that should have been introduced at Tsarnaev’s trial but wasn’t (Keep in mind that Dzhokhar had claimed his innocence, which conflicted with the supposed confession he wrote on the inside of the boat where he was captured on April 19, four days after the bombing).

Most have taken for granted from the beginning that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar did what they are accused of doing. But how many would be surprised to learn that the evidence against them depends on the statements of just two people – and these just happen to be the two most suspicious characters in this incredible story. While there is little direct evidence of guilt, there is plenty that points to the brothers being set up as patsies.

Investigative reporter Russ Baker, who has written extensively about the case, explains in one of his articles just how thin the evidence is against the brothers is (Note that the “Danny” referred to below is the alleged carjacking victim, whose identity remained hidden until the trial. He has since been identified as Chinese immigrant Dun Meng.):

“Without the murder of the MIT policeman, followed by the carjacking confession reported by Danny, we would have no solved crime, no evidence linking anyone to the horrific Boston Marathon bombing except some grainy video of two guys wearing backpacks in a sea of other backpack-wearers near the source of the explosion. The assumption many of us make that the Tsarnaevs planted those bombs is just that: an assumption that, in the absence of the reported confession, has no evidence behind it.”

No evidence behind it.

(read the rest of the article here:

1 comment:

james@wpc said...

Thanks for posting this, Jody. Courtrooms are theatres in every sense. All the lawyers concerned, including the judge, belong to the same theatre company - The Law Society (and the Bar Association). Defendants are just grist for the mill.

'Defence' attorneys routinely neglect to do two things. They do not research the legislation under which their client has been charged to see if the law even applies in their case.

And, two, they do not hold the prosecution's case to account. They do not insist that the prosecution make their case to the jury but instead offer weak arguments to their hapless clients innocence.

Juries, uneducated in the ways of the legal system, then try and judge which story is more likely true when, in fact, their job is to determine if the prosecution has made their case beyond reasonable doubt - and that's all.

The poor defendant, equally unaware of the reality of the courtroom theatre, loses his case and accepts his lawyer's excuse that he did everything possible. Everything possible, that is, except do his or her job as advertised.