Marathon Bomber Appeals Conviction: Do His Lawyers Know Something We Don’t?

Whether Tsarnaev’s trial was truly “fair and just” is up for debate. Photo credit: Jane Flavell Collins
Reading Time: 5 minutes

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers opened the Boston Marathon Bombing trial with a surprising “it was him” soliloquy and ended with what looked like a categorical admission to all of the charges against him. But, in a motion filed on Monday, his lawyers are now requesting a new trial.

While the appeal itself is unsurprising—a lengthy and convoluted appeals process is standard in capital cases like this one—the defense’s claim of “evidentiary insufficiency” calls attention to what has been a seemingly strange defense strategy.

“Evidentiary insufficiency” is, in fact, an apt description of the evidence presented at the weeks-long trial. Remember all the hype about “eureka moments” and “damning” videos that turned out to be… not so much.

(1)  It may be true that Dzhokhar dropped his backpack at the finish line as advertised. But you can’t actually see that in the surveillance footage.

(2) The “daring escape” video of the brothers’ carjacking victim, known as “Danny,” appears to     contradict key details about the carjacking story as presented to the media and in court. These   include: Who was sitting where in the SUV? “Danny” claimed that he was in the front passenger seat while Dzhokhar was sitting in the back. But, in this remarkable video showing the car pull into the gas station, the back door, which is visible the whole time, never opens.

Dzhokhar just suddenly appears from behind the gas pump. He could not have exited from the other door in the back, or he would have had to walk around either the front or the back of the car, in plain view of the video camera. It seems that the only way he could have come into view as he did was by exiting the front passenger door. But with “Danny” sitting there, how could that have happened? This raises questions about the reliability of all of the carjacking victim’s statements.

(3)  The video of MIT cop Sean Collier’s murder is so dark, so far away and blurry it’s virtually impossible to discern what’s going on, let alone who was doing what. The sole witness to Collier’s murder was a young student speeding past the crime scene on a bicycle—at night.

Take a moment to scrutinize the above videos then consider this: Before anyone actually got to see them, the prosecution spent over a year working to convince the media-consuming public, which of course included potential jurors, that these videos were “damning.” No wonder caution was the operative word of the defense. The hyper-cautious Judy Clarke, Dzhokhar’s lead counsel, apparently assumed that the trial was a lost cause from the beginning, and that her client had far better chances later at appeal.

This likely explains that almost nothing the prosecution presented was cross-examined, despite obvious weaknesses in evidence like the videos. With a vigorous adversarial back-and-forth—something almost completely missing from the first trial—the appeal process just might fill in some of the missing details.,

These details are hardly trivial. They include such questions as: “Who made the bombs?” or: “Were there others involved in the planning and execution of the attack?” For reasons unclear, neither the media nor law enforcement appear interested in answering such questions about the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

***

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers filed a motion that District Court judge George O’Toole grant their client a new trial. Experts say it’s unlikely O’Toole will do so. Photo credit: US District Court

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers filed a motion that District Court judge George O’Toole grant their client a new trial. Experts say it’s unlikely O’Toole will do so. Photo credit: US District Court

As you may remember, the trial began with a startling strategy: the defense’s instant admission of Tsarnaev’s guilt. This “tactical withdrawal” was widely regarded as the only viable line of defense available to their reviled client. Don’t challenge the government’s case and risk alienating the jury, the thinking went. Instead, try to curry sympathy in hopes of avoiding the death penalty.

After all, the defense had the unenviable task of facing a hostile jury of epic proportions; a jury steeped in decidedly inflammatory news coverage for the better part of two years. And numerous attempts at moving the trial out of the Boston area were rebuffed by the judge, who thereby gave the prosecution a lopsided home-field advantage (another ground for appeal, it turns out).

As for Tsarnaev’s no-holds-barred admission at the close of trial, here too we may have witnessed a calculated attempt to soften the image of a “cold-blooded killer” in the eyes of the public. Regardless of whether his apologies were genuine or contrived, it’s unlikely Dzhokhar acted against the wishes of his defense team; pliability appears to be one of his main attributes.

***

But time heals (somewhat), and it could be months or years before Tsarnaev is granted an appeal. According to Boston area defense attorney David Duncan, this most recent appeal is only a small step in a longer process. While it’s unlikely that the US District Court Judge George O’Toole will grant the defense’s recent motion for a new trial, the likely denial of that motion will itself be an additional ground for appeal.

Is it possible that the defense has all along been planning to use the appeal process to save their client’s life?

That jaw-breaker phrase “evidentiary insufficiency” may be the key. It’s important to repeat: In the first trial Tsarnaev’s lawyers almost never cross-examined the government’s witnesses or challenged their evidence. In a round two trial, after the defense has had ample time to dig into the many anomalous aspects of the case (some of which we outlined above) the defense team will have more freedom to blow holes in the prosecution’s arguably weak evidence. Will the government be forced to bring out the good stuff? Do they have any? Or is too much of this case tangled up with the sordid world of international intrigue to be exposed in a court of law?

At the very least, the threat of dragging some of the government’s dirty laundry out at trial may force a retrenchment by the prosecution—which may be enough to make jurors more sympathetic to the plight of a then-19-year-old with a domineering “Jihadist” older brother.

As has been noted by WhoWhatWhy, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys and at least one sitting senator, the cumulative evidence suggests that the FBI or some other government agency may have attempted to “recruit” older brother Tamerlan for some national-security purpose (for more on Tamerlan’s possible informant status, see here and here).

We know all too well that the Bureau has a history of inciting vulnerable individuals to violence—with the intention of stepping in to interrupt such plots before carnage ensues. Does the Boston Marathon bombing represent an example of what happens when this kind of playing with human dynamite backfires?

Either way, if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev survives long enough to be granted an appeal, we may finally get more details to the back story behind the tragedy in Boston that the government has been all too eager to suppress.

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

0 responses to “Marathon Bomber Appeals Conviction: Do His Lawyers Know Something We Don’t?”

  1. Title

    […]please pay a visit to the web sites we follow, such as this 1, because it represents our picks through the web[…]

  2. From Our Facebook Page says:

    (Comment by reader Jim Wacker) WWW’s restraint is remarkable. Assumed is that Dzhokhar’s public defender had his best interests at heart. This is unlikely. What everyone involved with this seems to have at heart is preservation of the official story.

  3. From Our Facebook Page says:

    (Comment by reader Martin Bassani) None of us know what happened but analyzing the available evidence I cannot help thinking this was a staged event.

    The shooting of the police officer seems eerily parallel to shooting of the Dallas police officer during JFK assassination. This is an integral part of scenario in which police is looking for patsies who shot a fellow police officer. That reduces their chances of survival considerably.

    The fact that he survived the intense shooting aimed at the boat was a miracle. They were not supposed to see any trial.

  4. SusanB says:

    A primer on the case and the many questions. Useful to educate folks who don’t know about all of this. It’s a quick read.

    http://www.amazon.com/Confessons-Conspiracy-Nut-Diary-Tsarnaev/dp/1514287668/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436271646&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=confessions+of+a+conspiracy+nut+laura

  5. NanaS says:

    Does anyone really think Appeals will be any closer to truth finding than the first, sorry, I am skeptical. We need a real American trial, with a lawyer willing put balls to the wall and state very clearly, this is a scam, period!

  6. NanaS says:

    Of course they do…Know that they are dealing with the “Covert” government of America and know that they can not save Jahar without playing by the rules of LE, big guns. CIA, FBI,etc… big deals, with big promises have been made: Notice who is not talking, there in should be proof! MOMMA Z, with all of her passion for her children,Lost her voice…No way…Z would paddle a row boat, riddled with leaks, across the ocean, if it would save Jahar. Sisters, , aunts, uncles,Attorney’s and the list goes on! Only those of us, not in the loop, question, as we have always thought our government was real…Bah, hah, hah!!!!
    Really sad thing, all of this crazy crap is said to be protection…hmmmmm!

  7. snoopy squeaks says:

    I find it interesting that Northeastern Criminologist, James Fox, who “advised” Dun Meng and was sitting directly in front him (according to journalists) during Meng’s court testimony, is now moving along the mainstream corridors blathering about his discontent over the death sentence.

    Here is a man who was instrumental in assisting his protege in aiding the prosecution in attaining a death sentence. Now he laments the death decision. Major ooopps?? Meng’s testimony was instrumental in sealing the nonsensical proposition that the brother’s murdered Officer Collier. He was there to tie up the loose ends, it would seem. Here is Fox, now suddenly an Anti-Death Penalty advocate (the link is slow but it does come up):
    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/06/01/nightside-tsarnaev-sentencing-date-announced/#.VaGpmDrSUjc.twitter

  8. jakBop says:

    AFter some discussion, I’m leaning toward a conviction that this is certainly a show trial, whatever this new posturing of the defence team indicates, or the explanation in this article..
    Consider this: young Dzhochar in custody for a crime of terrorism chooses, after careful consideration, one brilliant legal team out of his many legal contacts. He says he’s guilty of a despicable crime, cannot supply a coherent motive, but wants to avoid the death penalty, because although a muslim with connections to CIA Gladio 2 through his uncle, and trained in their cause, doesn’t believe in heaven and martyrdom, and has no desire to stand in court and remonstrate at Uncle Sam for it’s crimes abroad. He fancies a long life in the prison industrial complex.
    No way: his defence team were offered to him; a mixture of pliable and incompetent lawyers. There’s no brilliance in their tactic, that eludes rational explanation, which should be sufficient to show the reason for their tactic. The defence are irrational, because they are no defence at all.
    A defence team is at the ready to go against a false flag operation in support of a patsy, for a crime of this nature? Oh sure, they’re on every street corner, wicked authorities are always taking a big chance when offering legal defence aid, because they pick them out of a hat.

  9. Happyfeeling says:

    What is missing in this whole trial is the government never had to tell the story of how he proposedly pulled off the bombing. How can you go forward with a trial without explaining to the jury his part. How and where he built the bomb. If he admitted guilt did he not tell them the whole story of how he and his brother pulled it off without being detected. The public should know every step he and his brother took from the planning stage to the ending in Watertown. His words. What part did the ex wife play in his words. Maybe he is protecting someone by admitting guilt. How did he happen upon the officer and kill him in his words. In a signed statement in his words without drugs. If he pleaded not guilty than they would not have the story but by pleading guilty he must have told the whole story for the world to know.

  10. polfilmblog says:

    Nothing substantial was revealed regarding the CIA connections to this case:

    Is This the Man Who “Radicalized” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
    https://joegiambrone.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/is-this-the-man-who-radicalized-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/

  11. oh_look says:

    The appeals process is about the application of law and whether there were errors made in trial, so many of the inconsistencies in the “evidence” won’t matter at this point. The young man will get Judy Clarke again, who has shown herself as a complete incompetent as a defense-LESS lawyer. His “team” did not defend him. They did not provide a proper defense. But they DID get their client to say he did it. Absolutely amazing.

    On top of that, The DA in Massachusetts is now working on getting a new trial going against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the murder of MIT Sean Collier. http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/29524312/da-started-process-to-bring-tsarnaev-back-to-mass-to-face-murder-charges-in-colliers-death
    It looks like this added charge is being done to offset some chance Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wins some part of his Appeals. It will be all about the FBI “evidence”. And you can bet we will be subjected to evidence that has miraculously “come to light” since his trial.

    The authorities are using the kid as a scapegoat and patsy because they are able to get away with it. Now, Massachusetts is following suit to pin the murder of a cop on an easy target.

    When Dzhokhar stood up at his sentencing and admitted his guilt, it was totally scripted. He literally thanked the Jury for sentencing him to death. Who would say this, except someone who easily follows and who may have some kind of brain trauma. Of course, he really believes his Defense team has been up front with him, but that is very doubtful. The defense has been instrumental in getting their client a death sentence. Now, Judy Clarke, et al are planning this man’s appeals. I don’t know about anyone else but that sends shivers down my spine.

    • Nichole Noel says:

      Look at the reports of his injuries that the attending physicians gave. They got their case without Miranda? rights read. Then threw him in solitary with no mental health or doctors because the public didn’t like him in hospital with victims. He had traumatic brain injury etc.that’s admitted fact. They don’t care he’s been a patsy his whole life and mentally ill with depression like his father and was just pawned around. People get their kicks murdering a kid who never had a life no matter how hard he tried. And got treated with abuse Not medical attention. You know in Boston they beat an injured kid. We torture and enjoy it. All is hidden . He couldn’t see attorneys in private. It’s the biggest sham in my lifetime and l am 71 years old.
      l am enrolled in DISQUIS but see no post to click on.

    • oh_look says:

      And most likely many of his injuries were inflicted AFTER his arrest. I wouldn’t think people should be surprised since the United States routinely tortures (they call it “enhanced interrogations”), so why would anyone ignore possibilities he has been tortured.

    • oh_look says:

      I haven’t heard that. It would be good if someone would get this poor guy a decent lawyer, though. His uncle apparently has money, you’d think he would help, with his connections to the CIA and all.

  12. Snow Monkey says:

    The one item that has never been explained is the CNN footage of the older brother, stripped naked and hand-cuffed standing next to a black SUV, clearly in custody – surrounded by armed officers. Two hours later it is announced that he was run over by his brother while in flight from police capture. They cannot have it both ways – either they murdered him in custody or he was killed in an escape attempt, but the story that was released cannot be true. He was clearly in custody and the tape is still out there on YouTube.

  13. Mike Lashewitz says:

    The lack of trust of the Current government is increasingly overwhelming. For good reason. They have not given us any reason lately to place any trust in them. The “One minute to detonation” warnings identifying the locations of the explosions certainly would seem to indicate this entire event was PLANNED and that the Tsarnaev boys were nothing more than scape goats… How else does one explain those texts?

  14. VoxFox says:

    All successful conspiracies need a believable patsy, so the public (including future jurors) can stop thinking about the assassination/event: – they ‘know’. In today’s visual obsessed world, video (or better yet, “live” TV) coverage will convince 99% that what they see is what actually happened – that’s how human brains function (“seeing is believing”).

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      the reason people don’t trust govt’s take on this is all the secrecy, just be transparent, same with things like JFK’s murder and 9/11, if nothing shady happened why the coverups?

  15. MyWikiDisQus says:

    Hmm, an appeal costs money. Who is paying for it?

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      well he does have right to a lwyer and if can’t afford one, one will be appointed to him . . . that’s how it should be, it comes out of our taxpayers dollars, I’d rather have that than if someone is poor they don’t get a defense.

  16. Happyfeeling says:

    Yea, its about time some good news from this case. Good luck to Dzhokhar. I am in agreement he was not treated fairly in our system of justice. The key sentence “I hope he survies”. Hpefully they do not kill him. If he does die in jail the appeal should go on to prove his innocence and put the liars behind bars.

    • RJ O'Guillory says:

      …without knowing anything about the brothers degree of participation or “guilt” relative to the “exercise” the corrupt government had going on the day of the race…I know this. The one big photo of the guy being evacuated with his legs blown off…he is sitting up in a wheel chair… looking into the camera…no blood trail…no obvious trauma…? Now who evacuates a bombing victim, with no legs…siting up alertly in a wheel chair.. enough to glam for the cam? Turns out he was a crisis actor…lost his legs in Iraq….what BS…
      RJ O’Guillory

    • jakBop says:

      I’ve seen that. It’s worth mentioning.

  17. bert says:

    why did they kill the older brother and not take him to trial if he was guilty? why did they shoot the younger’s voice box apart? this whole deal from the beginning stinks of something that doesn’t add up. it’s just that plain and simple.

    • Happyfeeling says:

      Yes it all stinks. If the government would just answer the questions. No, they are tyrants.

  18. Joe American says:

    Well written article… I really enjoyed it. I’ll share it. Any chance I could share it on my website with credits and a link back?

  19. Donna Marie says:

    This is just going to be one of many appeals . Which I do there was injustice present . Holding the trial in Boston . Even Tim McVeigh’s trial was moved because the jury would be to close to the act .
    2nd there was witness that couldn’t be found . Then the jury selection out of haters and that made comments like string him don’t wait for a trial he is guilty was common . Even if a juror did make on the jury there is some that didn’t nor could be impartial . This trial was to close to the terror attack in Paris .
    The defence did show it was the older brother that was the one that pressured his brother and pounded into his mind comspiracy theieries and links to Jihads material . The information he had on his computer was from links sent by his brother . Only one finger print on the bombs was his and the brothers were all over them . Or was it the fireworks . He didn’t have a gun and it was his brother that did .His brothers finger prints were all over the gun
    Then the culture he came from …Like someone said it is to be better to be a dog then to be the youngest son in the family of his culture .
    Did he do it ? Yes he did but was he brainwash and pressured by his brother that he looked up to and all but idolized him a long with a mother that was radicalized . The material that they use is mostly of preacher but also video footage of innocent Muslims getting killed caught in a war . Children and fathers by mistake ( Thanks to Manning ) Are Americans out to get Muslims or hate Muslims NO . Propaganda at its very best for creating and making killers of their youth . That not brainwash the youth but take away their futures that contribute to the poor and much need help of the Muslims caught in this terrorist war .
    Yes he was sincere in his apology and set a clear message to the rest of the youth out there what he did was wrong . In his culture to look someone in the eyes shows disrespect . Why did he cry when one his relatives got on the stand . I guess shame and knowledge they thought more of him then he thought . His brother was the golden child in the family and he was just the throw away child they couldn’t even bother to show up for anything of his important events .
    I am going to put it out there I don’t believe in the death penalty but I really don’t think putting this kid to death is going to send a message that we as Americans don’t want to send .
    Taking responsibility that our government should have pulled his brother in way before his dysfunctional thoughts were spread was something we should have to done . This kid never had a chance with his brother brainwashing him . Religion is a powerful tool and the position in his family was just as powerful .
    I think he was sorry the moment after he did it . Him flipping off the camera was childish and was greeted with the officer asking ” Are we going to have trouble with you ?’ He replied no sir .The note sound of regret and anger over seeing his brother killed . Hundred of bullets shot into the boat only to come out after a teacher he respected asked him to . This is a act of a kid a teenager ….and this teacher was a substitute figure that was proud and showed up at his graduations . Believed in him something he didn’t get at home …..A pothead is easy to manipulate .

    • Bruce Lewis says:

      Frankly I’m not even certain that he was a knowing and willing accessory to the crime. One more question at his trial, beside “who made the bomb?” that should have been asked was, “Were you there when the bomb was made? Did you see what went in it?” THAT question might have led to “When did your brother tell you that you were going to be blowing people up?–or DID he ever tell you, before the actual explosions?” The boy is innocent of first degree murder, and it’s been obvious from the beginning. He’s being made a scapegoat for the incompetency of the national security apparatus–or worse.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      if it was all the brother that is one thing but if Djokar did help, being brainwashed is no excuse. Nazis following Hitler’s orders was no excuse. My question is where is the proof of any of this? Closed trials? No pictures just artist renditions? That tells me none of this is happening and Djokar is likely to have been dead for a long time.

    • jakBop says:

      Now that’s hilarious to think!

    • jane24 says:

      I’m leaning toward the “or worse.”

    • Happyfeeling says:

      From the very first moment this kid walked on to the stage. (TV) I thought he was innocence and I said it out loud so everyone could hear. That cost me a lot of grief. He does not have th outside image of a killer. When the defense plead guilty I did not believe it. When Jahar said he was sorry, I still said he is innocent. I will discribe this boy to you. This is a boy who yes lived with his family but you hardly new he was in the house. He parents did not go to his school functions because I think he did not want them to come. When he finally got to go to college he went because he knew he should, but he was flunking. He was true only to himself except when people he loved called on him for help. He would go help. The big brother worried about him because he in was always in his dorm room playing video games and maybe smoking weed. So the big brother forced him to go along with him to the gym and other places. Essentially dragged him. but the boy was happiest in his dorm room with his friends.
      I do not think either brother new what was in store for them that day. They are confused as we are why the finger was pointed at them. No evidence exist in this case. I have not seen any and until I do I will speak up for this kid until the day I can’t. I do hope those lawyers can pull a rabbit out of the hat so I can say to to all the nay sayers. Told you so.

  20. mina catheb says:

    As usual, pathetic. Pose the question but uncover nothing but more question of your choosing. Then forget everything that actually happened at trial.

    Once again WWW has proved the internet will publish anything, however ill written and researched. Trying to pretend his attorneys did not put on record he was guilty, over and over is just the start of your problems. Nor do you every get an interview with people, say his lawyers or anyone else for that matter that support any of your assumptions and accusations. Good luck in working on any legit news orgs when they see you wrote crap on this site, they pretty much understand a few things about your work ethic and abilities.

    “That jaw-breaker phrase “evidentiary insufficiency” may be the key. It’s important to repeat: In the first trial Tsarnaev’s lawyers almost never cross-examined the government’s witnesses or challenged their evidence. In a round two trial, after the defense has had ample time to dig into the many anomalous aspects of the case (some of which we outlined above) the defense team will have more freedom to blow holes in the prosecution’s arguably weak evidence. Will the government be forced to bring out the good stuff? Do they have any? Or is too much of this case tangled up with the sordid world of international intrigue to be exposed in a court of law?”

    What the judge and appeals court will ask the defense is why they didn’t cross these people? You don’t get to raise issues that you seemed to have no actual problem with during the trial. You don’t get to go back and say I wish I would have asked this witness a few questions. That ship has sailed. And then to say they had a weak case – you apparently don’t care what you write on this site, even when it makes very little legal sense. I guess the gov called over 80 witness for the heck of it. You say they had weak case but then you don’t bring up any facts to support it, none. Nor do you mention how he affirmed his guilt.

    You should be ashamed of yourself writing this nonsense. Pandering to a few conspiratoids is not professional, it says I have no integrity. Something you don’t be to labeled as if you eve aspire to do better in your professional life – or even in life itself.

    “That jaw-breaker phrase “evidentiary insufficiency” is not jaw breaking, it’s standard legal language used many times over in legal papers. Thought someone writing for WWW would know this.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      “Trying to pretend his attorneys did not put on record he was guilty, over and over is just the start of your problems” I saw you lie in second sentence, stopped reading there. This article clearly says the attorney did do that . . . over and over . . . question is why? Bar exam 101 says defense attorneys shouldn’t say their client is guilty, way to lose on purpose.

    • mina catheb says:

      You fail to understand my meaning, what a surprise. It’s not lie when one chooses to make nothing of the fact that his attorneys say he was guilty. Instead, choosing to twist that admission of his guilt around to say “um, I wonder why they did that. I bet that is not the truth.” That is just one of the problems with this article. You don’t have to keep reading, put your head in the sand. And do explain why the other side of this argument is not further explored, you know the one argument where this admission of guilt is completely and utterly a fact, the truth. How many times does this case have to scream it before some of you will get it? Ignoring facts are just like saying they don’t exist in your world. You don’t want to read on it because you don’t want to burst your bubble. His legal team started this off from the very beginning, first and foremost by not replying or challenging the gov when they wrote about his note found in the boat. Not one word to say hey, this does not exist or I have never seen this, note, etc. Nope. Ignore until they could not ignore any longer and said he thought he wouldn’t live and that it was no call out to have others do as he did. Yes, Clarke explained it. That itself should have said something to you so called smart legal minds. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. In fact, the legal brains continued to say it’s not admission of guilt. Where did he find a pencil? No way. Legal brains on this site and others should have read very closely what those papers included and left out. Clarke goes on to talk about Tamerlane and Jahar’s radicalization and – stating it was before Jahar’s and T was the dominant older brother that couldn’t’ t be denied, each and ever clue was coming to fruition – they were screaming J was guilty, but big bro was to blame. They were telling you what their strategy was going to be in those papers, it was not pulled out of the hat at the last minute. This was months in the making, each legal paper was showing their strategy.
      But was that ever discussed on WWW. Nope. FDL is almost as bad too.
      And please do tell me where in Bar 101 does it ever conclude a defense attorney should never readily admit a client’s guilt. Clarke is not the first person in a defense case to say a defendant is guilty. Then go on to make excuses for why a defendant did it. J is no exception. She investigated this case – and she had J telling her all the sordid and heinous details of his actions so do you think with such evidence against him that it made sense to say: hey it was not my client or his brother that killed and mimed innocent people. It that would have been her strategy, a jury would ask her what drugs she was on to present this with a straight face – with any logical or common sense. And if she would have done this, she would have been faced with much more evidence by the gov than they currently submitted to prove his guilt.
      And by doing so, she would have a disjointed mitigation case at sentencing. What jury would even believe his brother made him do it if in fact He or His brother didn’t even commit the crimes.
      You really should think through these details and scenarios before assuming Bar 101 does not permit an attorney to say their client is guilty. They clearly could have crossed more witnesses but then again, all they could really do is try and prove that T was the mastermind in all phases of this plan – clearly the jury didn’t think this was the case. But if you notice they did separate out J’s crimes from T at sentencing, six of 17 counts were all about his actions. This is not a case that proves the gov or the defense is hiding anything, let alone who was responsible.

    • The OGS says:

      “tell me where in Bar 101 does it ever conclude a defense attorney should never readily admit a client’s guilt.”

      LoL, heheh…
      Should have been a mistrial right there!
      That useless “lawyer” Judy Clarke guided his conviction, refusing to defend him vigorously.
      Was she paid off?

      It seems to me to be a lot like the phony, laughable Official 9/11 Report.
      Washington describes exactly the conclusions which must be reached…
      And then everything works its way backwards from there.

      The exploding backpacks were black, with a distinctive marking in white on them.
      Video showed this was not the backpack Tsarnaev was carrying.
      Also, a heavy pressure-cooker filled with explosives and shrapnel was not observed in the video; Tsarnaev’s backpack was clearly lightly loaded…
      Video showed G-men types in dark suits and sunglasses carrying and placing the heavily-loaded, bulging black backpacks in question.

      Do you not understand how these things work, Catheb?
      The patsies are supposed to be killed upon apprehension! Then no worries.
      But they screwed up when they dragged this unfortunate fellow back alive.
      That’s off-script…

      So enraged by the inept defense were many independent alternative-media types, they complained formally to the Bar Association about Clarke!
      None of the evidence contradicting the case against him was ever even introduced.
      The script was followed. Judy Clarke is still breathing…

    • jakBop says:

      That’s more like it.

    • Happyfeeling says:

      Boston citizens and the media declared him guilty. Not the court room. I knew if those jurors came back with any type of plea not excepted by Boston Citizens they would not be able to hold their head up in their communities again. They would be disgraced if not to vote with the majority. You could see it written all over this case. The group think majority won. The defense lawyers would have inflamed the public to say he was not guilty and this would have hung him for sure.. They thought they had a chance to protect him from the nasty media coverage and go into it as guilty and maybe save his ass. It did not work. The government did not conclude and present to the public where the bomb was made and if he actually carried it to the site. They did not have to present it because nobody cared because of the brainwash.The people that were injured are not witnesses. Yes they were blown up but they do not know who did it to them. They were not witnesses and should have not been presented as such. Jarhar’s fingerprints were not anywhere. It was like he did not exist. Lets wait and see what come out of an appeal.

    • oh_look says:

      One example, was when the Defense asked an FBI agent if they had found a gun and ammo in the boat with Dzhokhar. The Prosecution objected and Judge O’Toole sustained that objection even though the Defense tried about 3 times to get that information.

      It doesn’t matter in a technical sense whether Dzhokhar and the Defense say he is guilty. What matters is the Evidence. This trial is Political and it reaches international levels. It was important for the U.S. spooks to get the kid convicted to save face and to cover up criminality of certain elements w/in government.

      Do you believe the FBI operates in a trustworthy and good sense? Do you think the FBI ever sets people up? Did you know there are 15000 informants (that they admit to) that they use, many who have threats of deportation over them and who have links to communities that are tied to hotbeds overseas? Do you believe and know to be truth that the United States works for the American people’s interests? Has the U.S. Government ever murdered it’s own citizens?

    • jakBop says:

      Well, that’s an interesting fact you’ve furnished, about the defence asking question, at last! BUt still, why say he’s guilty?

    • oh_look says:

      And that’s what nobody knows. Why. And that is why we have to go into all those dark place and explore the unthinkable. Sometimes we cannot “live by bread alone”, meaning “rational intelligence” does not always explain everything.

    • jakBop says:

      His defence Team know. Wether it’s a tactic, their honest conclusion, or because they are working for certain state actors, I guess that’s their rational intelligence.
      Agreed, rational intelligence doesn’t ‘explain’ anything, I would say; there only facts, beings, conscious experience, real powers, love, cheating and bewilderment (I could have missed something). Anyway, rational intelligence should help to understand actions (facts) of people who purportedly are engaging in a rational process of investigation of facts that point to ‘whodunnit?

    • oh_look says:

      Why don’t you tell us all why they said he is guilty.

    • jakBop says:

      That’s a challenge; It’s puzzling in respect of strategy, but I’ve concluded its not a decent strategy. It’s the outcome of their banging heads together plus the way they were approached before and after being approved by the accused – I mean legal sub-plot involving star contractors.
      It’s amazing that the theatric was approved by the head of the firm; perhaps it wasn’t. Circumstances i imagine took over their law firm at a fast pace. Ideas and incentives being passed about fast and furious , may not have been priorly vetted, and license obtained by ‘rising stars’ from such meetings – I mean especially with ideas coming from sate apparatus which contracted them.
      I suppose people can do stupid things like that if their taken by theatrics like hollywood court room drama. and seek approval in career for initiative and flare. But its been said above that Judy Clarke is hyper cautious. It may be that she appears so, but is instead calculating, weighing things up, watching for opportunities to seize a chance, make an impact. I suspect she’s ‘normal insane’.

      Quite possible accused may have talked into being compliant with a guilty plea – not necessarily to save life; I can see from his point of view all this has taken over him fast, its stupendous, and you become stupid,,, trying to please people who you think are there to help you, or prefer to hope they are, clinging to belief in good human nature, because you cannot accept and realise in total, what is happening. YOu have to have a strong mind to direct a legal team, and not simply follow their advice. That may have been part of their brief, extra-client.

    • oh_look says:

      But where’s your answer to “Why” and what are you debating ( since you stated “I am debating”). Your “rational intelligence” needs to be backed up with facts here….that’s from your own statements about discourse.

    • jakBop says:

      Well fair enough, though I’ve hinted at it – not planned by the team (if said at all) But I don’t know if what’s reported here is true. Surely, the judge asked what the plea was right at the start? Maybe she didn’t say that at all. Before I answer I need conformation of that.

    • oh_look says:

      You will need to do more research, then. You do not sound prepared to “debate”. You can start by visiting the Boston doj office online. They have documents, videos, and other exhibits for public. Of course, several hundred files have been sealed (about 900 files). You can also read all the past articles on WWW, and also on another website that has compiled court documents: The Boston Marathon Bombings on Weebly.

    • oh_look says:

      Tsarnaev never said he was guilty until his apology. He pleaded not guilty before that.

    • jakBop says:

      Seems to be so… I have found no report that he did. So as to Why?

That is answered by looking at the question: Do the defence team believe his guilty plea or not?

      We don’t know what discoveries defence had made based upon what Tsarnev told them about his movements in support of his plea of innocence. One small contradiction of prosecution evidence would have convinced them of innocence. Let’s suppose they found nothing helpful in support of Tsarnev’s statement to them. Be that as may, defence must have seen before trail that the evidence was insufficient for prosecution, whilst all along he maintained innocence. So, I wonder if they advised their client of that. They shouldn’t honestly believe he is guilty, if the evidence is insufficient, and he ‘appears’ innocent.

      Tsarnev’s solitary confinement was opportunity for government parties to work on him changing his plea. Defence, in finding indicative change, should be aware of that.
      We consider as a possibility a plea of innocence was changed merely to save life. I don’t find it convincing with Tsarnev’s knowledge of what has taken place. It’s shameful too; Islam also covers truth and honour. We consider that defence worked on him for the purpose, because it’s what they hold dear. That’s immature or disrespectful, but be that as may.
      A change of plea as truth or lie for clemency is one thing, for Defence to state ‘he did it’ is another; that’s stating their belief.

      Defence, in asking for an appeal of conviction based on insufficiency of evidence, coupled with indication of guilty plea are so contradictory, as to to be idiotic. This contradiction, as usual, is a revelation. Origin of the contradiction through taking instructions from parties in addition to their client is a real possibility. It appears defence do not believe he is guilty.

      That being so, then whilst defence didn’t mind risking a man being given life imprisonment by offering no defence in terms of insufficient evidence (and more through effort of discovery and thoughtfulness) they find abetting someone’s death too much to bear, in keeping with western materialist viewpoint.

      Tsarnev’s confession is here:
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-bombings-death-sentence-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-scripted-confession-who-wrote-it/5458278

      I find it contrived: that would take expertise to unravel, as to why it may be so. Briefly, it’s references to Islam and prayers for mercy are studious, academic-minded, not a believer’s.

    • jakBop says:

      Did you not see, above you’ll see what I am debating – foremost, he inconsistency of asking for appeal on insufficiency of evidence when there is a plea of guilty of sorts. PLay straight man, struck to the point.
      I stated, ( since you stated “I am debating”) in reply to your reply above ‘He is bringing this up briefly to get the debate going ‘, in defence of this article.
      We debate the article, you put a quotation on ‘rational intelligence’ as if to mock; We debate and you don’t seem to like it and partake, except to assume we’re all fools, because you have ‘woken up’ to something. You say ‘thanks for the lecture, when I say don’t lecture people generally about the existence of falls flags and patsies, and then you say thanks for the lecture.

      No more.

    • oh_look says:

      what????

    • jakBop says:

      ONe example of what? of evidence? If that;s what you mean, the point here is he has pleaded guilty. now, in some way.

    • jakBop says:

      Things are done differently in different countries; but in all adversarial systems, it is for the accused to enter a plea of guilty or not, not for the lawyer to point finger and say: ‘it’s him!’ like an accuser. That’s insane; the judge will ask at the very beginning what the plea is – “does the accused plead guilty or not?’

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      Why lie? Like i said i stopped reading there. If you have a point make it without lying.

    • Happyfeeling says:

      What witnesses. The government had no witnesses.

    • oh_look says:

      What is YOUR idea of a “legit” news org? Like “Boston Globe”? Or how about CNN-NBC-CBS-ABC, et al? Maybe while you wrote this you were thinking about John Miller of CBS News who “broke the story” about the Boat Confession? He also has been deeply involved in working for U.S. intelligence, FBI, etc. The Boat confession included Dzhokhar opining about his brother’s death……Even though he could not have known his brother was dead. In the Court documents relating to his initial hospital stay, we find out that he was very concerned about his brother being ok, and kept asking how his brother was. He was not told immediately about his brother’s death.

    • oh_look says:

      Why should it matter to you if he is just writing to a few “conspiratoids” as you put it? Seems you are worried about something. You’re the type of person that actually believes the Mainstream media is telling you the truth, and that they NEVER propagandize to anyone. You think it’s just business as usual when someone like John Miller is paraded around on Mainstream media pandering his “intelligence” about a “boat confession” that somehow got missed after over a month in FBI custody.

      You blow your cover the minute you bring up conspiracy, though. That is a key tactic of Corporate-State Media (Mainstream media).

      About 800-900 files have been sealed in this case. That should tell you something right there. Also, the FBI head, Robert Mueller, was summoned to Congress shortly after Boston and testified about the Russians alerting the U.S. to Tamerlan. This was in 2011, and he was then cornered into finally admitting the FBI was in contact with Tamerlan at least 2 years prior to this!! Thinking people know what this means. Do you? The ENTIRE case can be solved easily when we understand that the FBI and Other Government entities and agencies would NEVER allow someone like Tamerlan to easily fly back and forth from U.S. to Caucasus. He would have been AT THE LEAST on a no fly list, but more likely he would have been under surveillance. This, together with the fact that he became a “jihadist” over night, suddenly, tells you exactly what Tamerlan was to the FBI/Gov.

      Have no idea who you are, but you are obviously someone who gets shaken up when someone QUESTIONS the Government narrative and the inconsistencies, nonsense, and lies that this trial was.

      But none of this is going away, as much as you people want it to. And at the end of the day we all know that Judy Clarke, et al and the Prosecution work for the same guy: the Government.

    • jakBop says:

      Nothing he said makes him appear ‘he is the type of person…” he’s calling for rational intelligence.

    • oh_look says:

      The author is making some points about the case. He’s not writing a dissertation. He makes some great points about the backpack, the car jacking, and the MIT officer. Each of those subjects could cover several pages, if not dozens. He is bringing this up briefly to get the debate going and to at least keep it going. More than ANY Mainstream media has done, which some of them are now putting up articles with titles to the effect that Tsarnaev is going to be tried for his murder of Mit Cop. At least wait for the Kangaroo trial, but no, they already have him convicted of that too.

    • jakBop says:

      I’ve heard those points and more elsewhere. I am debating. No need to lecture about mainstream, as if I’ve just come over form Fox news . Let’s concentrate on the debate less on the ‘lecture the newbie about general corruption only wise men know about’

    • oh_look says:

      Well, thank you for the lecture…I’ll keep that in mind.

    • jakBop says:

      I just noticed this comment truth_keys. I note your style. You don’t mean thank you, you’re not speaking straight.
      There is no lecture, apart from yours, from your lofty perch, as if no one else has a clue about anything other than what they get told on Fox news.

  21. doryinaz says:

    He was a patsy….his lawyer knew, and was not going to risk her own life and family…..The pictures I’ve seen show a well-staged event…not two crazy “terrorists”….I expect him to die mysteriously, so the truth never sees the light of day….America is not our beloved country anymore…

  22. jane24 says:

    Great article. Very much as I see it. Whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will survive long enough to be granted an appeal is a very good question. Guess this depends much on exactly what he knows?

    • Donna Marie says:

      He is not going to be touched in prison . He is going to be watched like a hawk . Its to high of a profile case . All though he should have been moved to Indiana . Instead they put him a prison that is the worst of the worst . Every other terrorist is waiting on death row in Indiana with more of more leant prison . As with phone calls and TV and contact with family ,
      What I don’t get people that were involved in 9/11 were given life w out parole and Tim McVeigh’s partner was given the same because he wasn’t the master mind behind the plan . Yet a 19 year old gets death …..

    • Bruce Lewis says:

      The “master mind” of the Kansas City bombing has probably gone scot-free, which was always Timothy McVeigh’s plan, as the “good soldier” that he was.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      timothy McVeigh also “admitted his guilt” don’t ask for proof of that though . . . they did do a nice CGI animated interview with him on Rachel maddow show though . . . we can trust that.

    • jane24 says:

      Do hope you’re right on this. Btw, in case there is any confusion, Tsarnaev is not at ADX, but ADX’s close neighbor, USP Florence:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Florence_High

  23. jakBop says:

    Look, it doesn’t make sense, an admission of guilt coupled with a strategy to appeal; that wouldn’t be necessary for that strategy, so why ask a client to admit guilt, if he tells you he is innocent. This analysis can’t be right .

    • VoxFox says:

      Read the story again – it’s much more subtle than you are assuming.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      not really. this story is pretty bad. Why would a defense attorney start a defense by admitting guilt? payed off by govt to take a dive? blackmailed?
      why then have an appeal? more money. To lose on purpose again. If they just had him executed right now with no appeal which is supposed to be a right, it’d look bad. Trust none of this until we actually see video of DJokar admitting this.

    • jakBop says:

      Yes, money often leads in motivation with lawyers. Losing is fine. Even the court makes money.
      I don’t know about a right for appeal, in UK appeal is based on reasonable question of procedure or evidence.
      The questioning of rumoured Dokar;s admission is important; admitting guilt makes up for any insufficiency of evidence, without questions of forced confession/mental instability.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      well they do have reasonable question of procedure (his lawyer paid off to lose on purpose) and evidence (no evidence shown connecting djokar to bombings, all classified).

    • jakBop says:

      Yes but he has no evidence of a brief for his defence team taken from the prosecution/government. I don’t think his lawyers have shown him it anyway! (-:

      hard to believe he wrote the confession in the boat. Hard to find the garage pump attendant convincing as a witness. Classified evidence? amazing. DId the jury get to see it?

      ps. the opinion in US is that plea at trial stage has to be consistent with plea at stage of plea for leniency . it’s true enough, it makes a big difference.
      But if you’re innocent, plead innocent, I say, unless you’ve pressing things to do, like be with your children to look after them, in a lesser crime. BUt not in a case like this, with no children, and a death penalty, life sentence.
      – I still don’t understand why the defence didn’t simply say he’s changed his plea, before the court at commencement of session. Maybe they did.

      It’s likely defence team worked long and hard on him to get him to change it. Maybe in confinement he was made more pliable – fed drugged food and played voices saying it was his brother speaking and advising him to change his plea, and so forth as well. I believe he had no contact with any friend or family in over two years.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      who knows. main idea is we can trust nothing of this entire topic.

    • jakBop says:

      That’s it. Because… the evidence and it’s presentation doesn’t add up?

      Therefore… – No need to speculate. Just spit.

    • Steve Sperdacion says:

      obviously a coverup going so let’s speculate as to why that might be. Against people speculating on the internet? Ok demand that they release the evidence that shows what happened then, so no need for speculation or theories.

    • jakBop says:

      Not against it no. Speculating why isn’t necessary; to ordinary people this would be impossible to contemplate – yet for power of control of populations through government, atrocities are committed, and why is well known. .I’ll try put it across:
      To create a fearful enemy, so as to foster in the governed, trust in a clever protector government, the sole lawful agency of ‘hard power’ – military and police, with simulraneous acceptance of reduced civil liberties. This is done in order to increase power through government surveillance, secrecy and license for increased militarising whilst diverting attention away from matters which challenge government constitution and affairs… such as governing on behalf of a a cabal of Global Corporations with their soft power of NGOs, Experts, and Foundations. This cabal don’t lawfully operate a military and police, and so in this way their plans in lust for ever-increasing global domination, are carried forward.

    • jakBop says:

      Perhaps you could point out this hidden meaning? I read it carefully once.
      Although I appreciate subtleties in conscious experience, I’ve found legal subtleties in language to be no more than deviations to cover up lies or avoid the question of truth. Legal matters, concerning evidence can represented straightforwardly and are better done so. Theatrics in the court are also deviations.

      What I said above is straightforward. Here are more detailed reasons for saying so:
      The accused may be pliable, he apparently proceeds to admits guilt in some way by apologising; but why should the defence stated theatrically ‘it’s him’? They could simply say ‘our client pleads guilty -standard procedure for a reason, because it changes the nature of the trial; contest or no contest.

      As for a tactic of defending accusation of guilt later at appeal, having had time to examine evidence; all evidence is supposed to be disclosed to the other side before the trial, with enough time to examine it and get any evidence they may need (hopefully); more time may be applied for , with reason; if refused, an appeal can be gained on that, with reason.

      It’s insane to say the accused admits guilt or, to say we didn’t defend it now but we’ve changed ours mind because we’d decided we prefer appeal courts.
      A court is a court. An appeal is against a decision. So , in effect you’re saying they wanted to find him guilty, therefore offered no defence, believing him innocent, planning to later appeal. THat’s mocking the trial. It doesn’t explain why they say he is guilty.

      Surely accused told defence he was innocent, if he is?
      If the defence felt he’d been brainwashed or forced by the police into a confession, they could have examined that in the hearing. However, they accused him, themselves. They’re not going to say now, that it was a forced confession.

      Accused may well have faced the media’s public vilification, but the hearing was is a question of testing the evidence; it was his opportunity to do so, free of newspaper vilification. An honest juror is there to see the evidence be tested. All that you’ve mentioned about insufficiency of evidence could have been contested at the trial. Then, if need be, a real reason for appeal could have been found.

      There’s the suggestion ‘that a vigorous adversarial back-and-forth—something almost completely missing from the first trial—the appeal process just might fill in some of the missing details.’ That adversarial process can take place in any court. Is an appeal court better? It’s not supposed to be. Any court in any town is essentially a public meeting place to examine evidence, especially adversarial.

      You say defence didn’t want to ‘risk alienating the jury’ and, you also said they thought it was a lost cause anyway. But what was there to lose… or are you saying that they hoped the jury might find the evidence insufficient? How come, they they state the defendant is guilty?

    • VoxFox says:

      As the article states: an appeal allows a more extensive study of the evidence, some of which is being held back by the FBI, who love “solving” cases, even if it needs a patsy (remember the Underwear Bomber?).
      This has smelled like a setup from Day.1; just what’s needed to keep the ‘War on Terror’ going & well-funded.

    • jakBop says:

      I see no answers to any of the questions about the tactics concerning testing evidence and the nature of the plea which I raised. Have I wasted my time?
      I appreciate the false flags and terror tactics of a powerful conspirators. But what we’re concentrating on is tactics and evidence in trial, not the twisted ugliness of conspiracy, and it’s possibility That doesn’t make the trial procedure to be followed any different.

      An appeal doesn’t allow more extensive study of evidence, unless a question has been avoided, evidence has been corrupted, or there is new evidence; a criminal court is essentially about presentation of evidence, and its hearing under cross examination.
      No effort to raise questions, or few too little, has been made. I f they were seeking to secure evidence in defence, they could have asked the court. BUt they weren’t defending. If they believed he had little chance, still no need to plead guilty, UNless their evidence showed he was guilty, and he confessed guilt without duress, and if they had suspicions of false evidence, the defence had no need to admit guilt. That is insane.

      What this article purports to be is intelligent, so lets have some, or we will continue in excited fascination of confusion.

    • oh_look says:

      I would definitely add the Defense as one of the major problems in this entire case. I hate to sound “conspiratorial” but in this case there is no way in getting around it. This kid has only had contact with FBI and his Defense team. For Two years.

      We haven’t even gone to the possibility that this kid has been tortured. And why would that seem impossible in our day and age, especially with all that has come out with regards to Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and local prisons and military installations. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was water boarded 163 times at a CIA black site. He has since confessed to 9/11.

      One of Tsarnaev’s aunts, Rose, wrote an editorial for a Chechnya newspaper explaining how the FBI, as well as the Defense team (Judy Clarke and Ficks were named), had both traveled to the Caucasus region to interview family, friends, etc. She stated the FBI had tracked down one family member and told him he needed to “talk” Jahar in to taking the blame. No reason given.

      Judy Clarke, has a rather strange past, with all the high profile cases she has been involved in. She seems to appear at the oddest times. Like suddenly she is over in the Caucasus, along with the FBI, talking the family into going along with her strategy. The family was trying to retain a private attorney, and the Uncle has the money apparently. But they were adamant that Eric Holder would not allow private attorney, which seems illegal right there.

      Like you said, if he willingly admitted his guilt, then fine, but they still don’t have to be so absolute in court about it. But most egregious, is the way they absolutely just SAT THERE almost doing nothing throughout the trial. And when the Jury finally did hand down the Death Sentence, if you recall, the court (according to many of the journalist present) became really quiet.

      James Fox, one of the few professors at Northeastern who were openly assisting the prosecution, has now backtracked and seems upset that they gave him a death sentence. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/06/01/nightside-tsarnaev-sentencing-date-announced/

      Most likely James Fox is involved with CIA or FBI or whatever alphabet agency. A lot of these colleges have these types of people floating around in them. And he was at the trial when Dun Meng took the stand as his “advisor”. Was Dun Meng being initiated into CIA service? Or maybe he was being threatened with deportation, although that seems unlikely.

      Dzhokhar has the hallmark classic actions of someone who is being manipulated and “handled”. He also has obvious head trauma, and several Journalists noted his curled hand, limp, etc.

      I think Dzhokhar was involved in Boston, I just don’t think he killed anyone. He knows something, or DID, although his brain has probably been messed with pretty good.

      And what about the rest of the family? Tamerlan’s wife must have known something, yet they are leaving her alone. And the Uncle Ruslan had to have known something too. Most likely the kid is protecting the rest of the family.

    • jakBop says:

      Oh yes, you can appeal on questions of evidence, like the fact given above about objections to questions on evidence. But my question is about strategy of pleading guilty AND questioning evidence at the time or later; it appears insane, if you’re going to try to change your plea later, and a plea of insufficient evidence hardly couples with a plea of guilty!
      I agree about the smell of a set up, from what I’ve heard elsewhere too many questions are raised buy the evidence offered against him, and the ocnduct of the law enforcement/investigation authorities.

      OK, I see the motive of wishing to avoid a death penalty being served in the court… but it’s too risky… if found guilty how on earth can they expect something other than death penalty where it exists, for such a crime (alleged)., that’s a bit far fetched. In that case, they were rather stupid. SHot themselves in the foot, by pleading guilty. How can they appeal? It seems dishonest too me, unfortunately something lawyers think is part of the game.

      Who would want to live at any cost if innocent and being a witness to what may have been going on. and what happened to his brother and friend.

    • The OGS says:

      The unfortunate strategy was designed to stave off the death penalty.
      Because it did not work (and they threw in their cards for nothing) they have little choice but to appeal – and maybe even present a vigorous defense this time!

    • oh_look says:

      They cannot defend this again. It is a done deal. Appeals process is about the application of law and if there were any errors. There is no going back to say “he was innocent”. They blew it. The Appeals will go nowhere. The entire country, for the most part, believe he did it. ALL OF THEM ALWAYS CITE the defense team’s “admission of guilt”. People NEVER state any factual evidence. The entire case has been won for the prosecution when the Defense team said he did it.

    • jakBop says:

      Exactly. Silly idea to plea guilty , believing you’re innocent.

    • jakBop says:

      OK. That’s what I thought. Here above, it’s been said he said ‘sorry for what I did’, implying he had formally changed his plea, but he hadn’t so far as I can tell, searching around. Maybe he changed during the trial? I don’t know yet. … but it’s all a mess: THe lawyer admission of guilt contradicts her client, makes the trial test of evidence a mockery of justice. It achieves nothing for saving death penalty, because his plea should be consistent for both phases of the trial, in order to ask for leniency in the second phase.

      NO one tests false flags in court… not possible it seems, and it is carefully avoided in the construction of the trial..

      Tsarnev had little contact with his lawyers pre-trial was restricted – he was in special solitary for terrorists. The judge denied more contact, saying ‘he is a potential danger’ you can tell form the hand written note found in the boat’ … taking tat as solely as evidence enough.

      Looking around, all the mainstream media and ‘reasonable lawyers’ said it was Tsanev, that the evidence was conclusive, before and during the trial, parroting what we are supposed to think.

    • jakBop says:

      Oh, U was waiting to hear that spelled out clearly; I believe that’s messing about, although I understand it might go on in America. If you’r innocent, plead innocent to a crime like that.Death is not the worst thing, worse than losing honour just to languish in an ugly prison house all your life, and take that extra punishment that goes with it.

  24. Woody Box says:

    The defense has surely tons of exonerating evidence in the pocket. I’m saying this all along.

    • mina catheb says:

      Exonerating? If that were a correct statement in the least, it would have been brought up in a court of law when it was most needed. Not after the fact of him receiving the DP. Nor would his attorneys need to affirm his guilt over and over – then to suggest they were just kidding to the jury because they plan to blow the lid off this case and prove his innocence after he is convicted! Your words make very, very little legal sense nor common sense. Nor have you reviewed Clarke and Co and their previous cases and appeals to determine they would go through an entire trial to then tell the court we have tons of evidence in our pocket that will prove this man innocent! I suppose you have answer for why he told the world, rather boldly and with pride that let there be no doubt, it was him and his brother that committed the evil heinous crimes.

    • Woody Box says:

      He didn’t say that he committed an evil heinous crime, let alone boldly and with pride. To place a harmless smoke bomb within a crowd is a naughty undertaking and surely punishable, but completely different from placing a deadly pressure cooker bomb.

      Did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s bag belong to a bomb-sniffing drill?

      http://911woodybox.blogspot.de/2014/08/did-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-bag-belong-to.html

    • Bruce Lewis says:

      I strongly suspect that Dzokhar didn’t even know the details of his brother’s coercing by the FBI–and that he only became aware of the ramifications of his brother’s “going rogue” away from the planned “fire drill,” as it was happening.

    • Woody Box says:

      Yes, possible. I also think that he knew very little about the background of this “job”, only did it to do his brother a favor and maybe earn some money.

    • Inshort says:

      He’s being brainwashed… We’ve become unparalleled masters at the arts of mind control. It’s one of our big black box projects, draining untold numbers of unknown taxpayer dollars into research on how our totalitarian-leaning government can better control not just what we do, but everything we think…

    • annette chapel says:

      no mina woody box is right on the money i know the family and the whole time his lawyers everytime they went to russia to talk with his relatives and parents they were told appeals is where dzhokhar will be set free and that they (his attorneys) and many others i won’t mention in that court room knew he was innocent of this…

    • Woody Box says:

      interesting info, thank you

    • oh_look says:

      The Defense team lied to them. Go research what Appeals process is all about. You cannot present new evidence at Appeals. At best, he will get LWOP by some error that is found in the trial. At best. He will never be set free, unless some powerful person someplace allowed for the Truth to come out. That will never happen because it would implicate the State in the Bombing.

    • oh_look says:

      Jahar read a “script” at his sentencing. Nobody in their right mind would thank a jury for sentencing them to death. He makes references to Islam something like 25 times (I counted them once, but can’t recall off hand). He defends his defense team by thanking them and going on about them. This was clearly an attempt to show, belatedly, his remorse that everyone was watching for, when he emphasizes his guilt.

      While the appeals process is mainly concerned with the application of law and the possibility of errors within the trial, Jahar’s “apology” was meant mostly for those involved in the appeals process.

    • jane24 says:

      Agreed, WB. There is no way they do not have this.

    • The OGS says:

      Yeah. This much is well known!
      But the defense was feeble (understatement) and none of it was even presented in court…

    • oh_look says:

      They probably do, but the Appeals process is not about “evidence”. It’s not another trial. It’s a “process” whereby the court looks at the application of law in the case and whether there were “errors”. They won’t be looking at Jahar’s white/light gray backpack, which was obviously not filled with a bulky pressure cooker.

    • jane24 says:

      The appeals process is not about evidence, but, should a new trial be granted via the appeals process, evidence would then come into play.

  25. Steve Sperdacion says:

    “As for Tsarnaev’s no-holds-barred admission at the close of trial, here too we may have witnessed a calculated attempt to soften the image of a “cold-blooded killer” in the eyes of the public. Regardless of whether his apologies were genuine or contrived, it’s unlikely Dzhokhar acted against the wishes of his defense team; pliability appears to be one of his main attributes.”
    you’re wrong to not question this. who, what why? right? why would silence = admission of guilt. Demand proof he admitted it.