Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boston Bomber Trial. Interesting the Defense admits he did it

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Boston Bomber Trial. Interesting the Defense admits he did it

    In opening statements the defendants lawyer leads off with the fact that yes he was involved and set off the bomb(s).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us...T.nav=top-news

    In a dramatic opening statement, Judy Clarke, the lead defense lawyer for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, quickly, almost suddenly, acknowledged a measure of culpability. She said that her client in fact had set off the bombs that ripped through the 2013 Boston Marathon and killed three people.
    The government will still present all the evidence that he did it but the defense will not try to refute it. Instead will focus on there belief that he was pushed into to it and was under his brothers 'influence'. Not sure if that is a defense but it must be.

    “There is little that occurred,” Ms. Clarke said, referring to the government’s description of the bombings and the subsequent murder of an M.I.T. police officer, a carjacking and a shootout in nearby Watertown, Mass., “that we dispute.

    “It was him,” she said bluntly of her client, who arrived in court wearing a dark sport coat and a light shirt. She added later that Mr. Tsarnaev had to take responsibility for acts that were “inexcusable.”
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Smart move.

    Zeroes out all the forensic evidence and investigative work, and fights purely on the culpable mental state.

    Dunno if it will work, but it gives him a chance.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Smart move.

      Zeroes out all the forensic evidence and investigative work, and fights purely on the culpable mental state.

      Dunno if it will work, but it gives him a chance.
      Another theory is that the lawyers are really defending against the death penalty, not Life with no parole etc.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Another theory is that the lawyers are really defending against the death penalty, not Life with no parole etc.
        Good point.

        Given the news coverage, a fair trial is going to be an elusive beast.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          The defense is going for life to avoid the death penalty.

          It's going to be about trying to present him as the victim to his deceased brother's manipulations.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            Another theory is that the lawyers are really defending against the death penalty, not Life with no parole etc.
            Exactly, they are trying to save his life!
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
              Exactly, they are trying to save his life!
              I wonder: is there any danger of Mass executing anyone?
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                There is only one set of victims here, and this piece of garbage is not one them.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  I wonder: is there any danger of Mass executing anyone?
                  This is a federal trial.

                  Massachusetts does not have death penalty, if somehow he were to be tried by the state.

                  I believe, that a few months ago there were serious talks about a life with no parole deal. It broke off. I was confused at the time, as I thought that there would be a deal. I would have been OK with a deal (not that it is for me to say I know) Not that I am against him receiving the death penalty - but to get some closure. Edit - And the other potential way to complicate the case is to question the confessions etc. as he was interrogated by the high-value US team - which was the smart thing to do, to prevent further attacks, etc. - but it is certainly a valid potential claim that certain evidence should be suppressed. I would want to avoid that complication.

                  The lawyer, Clarke, was brought in from California - her specialty is avoiding the death penalty.

                  Maybe the gov't didn't offer a deal, maybe they wanted co-operation - I am curious myself.

                  link to earlier post - the embedded link no longer current
                  http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...er#post2534057
                  from 2013
                  excerpt
                  The defense team representing the Boston Marathon bombing suspect got a major boost Monday with the addition of Judy Clarke, a San Diego lawyer who has won life sentences instead of the death penalty for several high-profile clients, including the Unabomber and the gunman in the rampage that injured former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
                  Clarke's appointment was approved Monday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler.
                  The judge denied, at least for now, a request from Miriam Conrad, the public defender of 19-year-old suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to appoint a second death penalty lawyer, David Bruck, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
                  Last edited by lakechampainer; 04 Mar 15, 16:49.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wikipedia article on High-Value Interrogation Group

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Va...rogation_Group

                    excerpt
                    The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) is a U.S. intelligence-gathering group created by President Barack Obama in August 2009.[1] Its charter was written in April 2010.[2] It was established to question terrorism suspects soon after their arrests to extract information to head off unfolding plots and track down accomplices.[2]
                    The group mainly interrogates people overseas. The Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in January 2010 that the group would begin interrogating people in the U.S. as well.[3]
                    The group is made up of intelligence professionals from many branches of the U.S. government including the United States Department of State (runs Special Activities Division), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and United States Department of Defense, is housed within the FBI, and run under the auspices of the National Security Council.[2] It is headed by an FBI employee with two deputies (one from the CIA, and one from the U.S. Defense Department), and has three regional teams. It is staffed by linguists, terrorism analysts, and professional interrogators, and supplemented by other government specialists.[2]
                    The group's creation shifted power from the CIA and the FBI to the White House.[1][4]
                    HIG questioned Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square car bomber,[2] Boston Marathon bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,[5] and Benghazi terror suspect Ahmed Abu Khatallah.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
                      This is a federal trial.


                      Of course it is.

                      Well, I feel like an idiot...
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        The defense is going for life to avoid the death penalty.

                        It's going to be about trying to present him as the victim to his deceased brother's manipulations.
                        Be difficult to do that without his brother available to testify. Of course, by the time they weed out anyone with an IQ above room temperature for the jury, anything is possible.

                        Justice is not only blind, but severely retarded as well.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Be difficult to do that without his brother available to testify. Of course, by the time they weed out anyone with an IQ above room temperature for the jury, anything is possible.

                          Justice is not only blind, but severely retarded as well.
                          Which makes it strange that we trust our fellow citizens to judge us, if we don't trust the intelligence of our fellow citizens.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Be difficult to do that without his brother available to testify. Of course, by the time they weed out anyone with an IQ above room temperature for the jury, anything is possible.

                            Justice is not only blind, but severely retarded as well.
                            Every jury is a roll of the dice.

                            For every Casey Anthony trial there's fifty juries who vote based on personal views and appearances.

                            I doubt this guy will walk no matter what, given the publicity the case has, but never say never. A great lawyer can sell the jury on a lot of things.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm sure the defense attorney feels proud to paint him as such a poor confused person and really a humanitarian at heart. She's already saved numerous monsters and mass murderers. What a victory for humanity.

                              TTFN

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X