Boston Bombing News: Too “Dangerous” to Be Spared Execution?

(The following is my account of my observations and perceptions having attended the eighth day, (Thursday, 7th. May), in the penalty phase of trial in the case of U.S. v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.)

Proceedings in the courtroom today were once again subject to a lengthy delay while both the defense and prosecution teams met with Judge O’Toole in his chambers. At the time of writing the matters under discussion during this meeting remain unconfirmed but there has been much speculation that dialogue may have been concerning:

a) The prosecution’s objections to the prospect of Sister Prejean, (a well known and long time opponent of the death penalty), taking the stand as a witness for the defense.

b) The government’s threats to introduce allegedly “defiant” notes which were, (allegedly), written by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev whilst he was hospitalized and recovering from multiple gunshot wounds following his capture in April, 2013. (The government apparently wish to introduce these notes in retaliation for the defense’s introduction of testimony showing Tsarnaev’s now infamous “hand gesture” to be far less meaningful than the government attempted to project.)

Of course, there may also have been other matters for discussion this morning…

When judge, jury, legal teams and the defendant returned to the courtroom testimony picked up where it left off the previous day. On Wednesday the defense called their forty third witness, Mark Bezy, who is now retired after a career exceeding twenty years with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Bezy was at one time warden at Terre Haute, (death row), in Indiana and also worked at the Supermax at Marrion, Illinois prior to this facility being replaced by ADX in Colorado.

Yesterday afternoon Tsarnaev’s defense extracted testimony from this witness which served to illustrate the very secure but shockingly inhumane conditions encountered by inmates at ADX. It seems obvious that the defense’s objective in obtaining such testimony is to avert the death penalty by convincing the death penalty “qualified” jury, (aka a jury whose members have indicated that they approve state sponsored murder), that LWOP would a harsher penalty than execution. (Or, as David Bruck phrased it in his opening statement, an “appropriate” penalty.)

By contrast, the prosecution, in their desperation to secure Tsaranaev’s execution, have sought, under cross examination, to portray ADX, (once held up to be an example of the ultimate in security), as inadequate and having many failings. The prosecution intimate that a facility such as ADX is in no way up to the job of protecting the American public from the evil of one such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. (This, despite the fact that “H” block at ADX houses multiple inmates convicted of crimes which constitute “terrorism.”)

This morning, Steve Mellin, for the prosecution, did his best to portray Bezy as having little knowledge of Special Administrative Measures, (SAMs), and made much of Bezy’s admission that none of the fourteen cases in which he has testified prior to this involved SAMs and that during Bezy’stime at Marrion SAMs were not even in existence. Despite previous acknowledgement that the U.S. Attorney, (Loretta Lynch), and the Massachusetts USDA, (Carmen Ortiz), would have considerable input as to the conditions of Tsarnaev’s incarceration, Mellin continued to reference the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (BOP), and the Bureau’s scope in controlling conditions of incarceration.

Bezy was questioned on his discussions on SAMs with FBI agents involved in the implementation of these restrictions and as to if he was aware of the number of times violations of the SAMs had been attempted. Although Bezy was unable to specify an exact figure he did remark dryly that thwarted attempts were no risk to security.

At this point Mellin reminded Bezy of Lynne Stewart, (a defense attorney convicted of violating SAMs), and stressed that any communications from a convicted “terrorist”, even those deemed “legal” could pose a security risk. Mellin expressed great concern that communications between an inmate under SAMs and that inmate’s appointed attorney, despite being x-rayed and visually inspected by BOP staff, are not usually read by BOP staff.

Another matter which is of concern to the government is the process by which inmates at ADX, (and most specifically the maximum security
“H” block), can seek to alleviate some conditions of their incarceration and even earn “privileges.” (“Privileges” in “H” block amount to an extra fifteen minute phone call in addition to the one usually permitted, an extra hour in the “rec cage” and perhaps even being allowed to walk to the shower unescorted.) Bezy admitted that it had been possible for some inmates to “phase out” of “H” block by means of a three step program and that some had even been transferred to other prisons but stressed that this was not a possibility for all inmates and that much depended on the crime of which an inmate was convicted. (It was mentioned that Terry Nichols is housed in “H” block at ADX and has no likelihood of ever leaving that sector.)

Mellin’s line of questioning then returned to the living conditions experienced by inmates at ADX. We learned that these inmates are actually provided with a foam mattress to place on top of their concrete bunk and sometimes even a blanket! Some inmates are afforded the luxury of a small television. (Via which they may view religious services or “educational” videos.)

Mellin’s questioning of this witness had, up until this point, been a little disjointed but became positively bizarre when Exhibit 3253, an aerial photograph of ADX, and previously shown by defense attorney David Bruck appeared on the screen. This photograph had been taken after snowfall and Mellin questioned Bezy about the frequency of snowfall in this area, (?), asked Bezy to point out several cities located in Colorado and questioned him about the route he hook to visit the ADX facility. Bezy was unable to answer most of these questions and protested that he did not live in Colorado and was not familiar with this state’s geography. His response to questions on his travel to ADX was that “when you fly on the government’s dime you only get to take certain routes.” Mark Bezy seemed irritated by this line of questioning and it’s relevance, (if there was any?), was completely lost to me.

Mellin’s questioning then quickly spanned inmate communications, (via the plumbing and “kites”), the fact that inmates have been known to
write books and that inmates can and do file lawsuits in an effort to improve their conditions of incarceration. (Bezy was obliged to admit
that he is named in such a law suit at this time.)

David Bruck took over to briefly question his witness on the protocol for renewing SAMs on an annual basis and was able to elicit confirmation
from Bezy that at no time have SAMs been removed because the government “forgot” to renew these measures. Bezy also confirmed for Bruck that the likelihood for most inmates of “H” block to achieve transfers elsewhere was negligible. Finally Bruck asked Bezy to confirm that SAMs have never been removed having been challenged in court.

The prosecution returned to cross examine and requested that Bezy state the exact number of those who have transferred out of ADX but he
was unable to confirm an exact number. Mark Bezy left the witness stand at 11.45 am.

Prior to calling for a “short” morning recess, Judge O’Toole advised the jury that they may not consider the cost of the penalties they are to deliberate on and that it would be “Inappropriate” for them to do so.

The “short” morning recess lasted for one and a quarter hours. Just after 1.00 pm the court reassembled and the judge apologized for the
delay citing “issues we are working on.” Instead of scheduling a lunch break, as most expected, O’Toole announced that proceedings
were done for the day and for the week and that proceedings would continue on Monday of next week. (When the defense are expected
to call at least one, and possibly two more witnesses. Is a “surprise” witness possible?)

During today’s brief session in the courtroom, Mark Bezy, the only witness to testify today, frequently became visibly irritated with Steve
Mellin’s aggressive questioning and frequently mocking tone. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, though appearing to be a little subdued upon first
entering the courtroom, soon seemed very much engaged in proceedings and was observed speaking with his defense attorney, Miriam Conrad, frequently. Tsarnaev’s defense raised frequent objections to the line of questioning adopted by the prosecution but were over-ruled in all but two instances which dealt with speculation regarding inmates being transferred out of ADX Florence and minutae concerning conditions within this facility.

Next week we may look forward to the continuance of these obscene proceedings in which the government seek to kill and the defense
has been forced to advocate for a penalty which the UN and others regard as torture at a facility described by a former warden as “a
clean version of hell.”

Finally I would ask, why are the government so intent on executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Do they believe he is too “dangerous” to be spared
because he is a danger to the public, or, (more likely in my opinion), because he knows something which could cause the United States
Government great embarrassment?

Previous post

Citizen videos of police misconduct are eroding the presumption that police do not commit misconduct

Next post

Federal Appeals Court Reverses Nun & Army Veterans' Sabotage Act Convictions




  1. karenjj2
    May 8, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    Thanks, Jane. Your work is much appreciated. This Ortiz railroad continues on it’s obscene track.

    I agree with your intuition that these “Pat Robertson U” prosecutors need Jahar’s death to close off any future scrutiny of this “terrorism bombing.”

    Re the “defiant notes,” I wonder if they are from the hours the law officials were grilling him in the hospital after he was shot and before the woman judge literally appeared in his room and enforced his right to counsel.

  2. Mark
    May 8, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    It is shocking that the ADX terms as described by the prosecution (allowing a foam mattress and a blanket, etc), the government feels those conditions are too good for Tsarnaev. I realize that the bombings did terrible and irreperable harm to people, but the prosecution’s unrelenting quest to assure Tsarnaev’s death instead of LWOP in what most people would consider hell on earth seems plain weird, So, I agree, why are they seeking death so fiercely? Why would they consider hell on earth at ADX a lose for their side? Why are they so worried that Tsarnaev may not die?
    Wonder if anyone else is wondering.

  3. onetree
    May 8, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Just telling the truth about what happened to him would almost give away the whole sordid story, so they don’t want him speaking to anyone. The “government” knows he’s innocent. So there’s fear involved for those participating in this fraud that they could end up in prison.

  4. swiftfox
    May 8, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Thanks Jane. Great to be back at FDL! I do believe the government’s pursuit of the death penalty has more to do with permanently silencing DT than with avenging the BMB. None of it appears to have anything to do with justice.

  5. No More FalseFlags
    May 8, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    I think the defense has led this young man on too, making him believe they could get him life over the DP, so he went along and stayed silent while his own attorney’s did not defend him. If you think about it, this case really shows us just how much control the government has. How could anyone really do something to stop this? Since nobody can stop them from doing this kind of thing, we need to start getting real worried about the society in which we live and those who have total control over the levers of power.

  6. annette chapel
    May 9, 2015 at 1:30 am

    he definitly know something that they do not want him to talk about and his family had raised enough money before this trial started and they weren;t allowed to hire them or they were told they would never hear or see dzhokhar again if they didn’t convince him to keep j clark who the govt paid 5 million to defend him now ask yourself why would the govt pay that kind of money to someone to go against what they were doing….anyone have the answer…i do this whole trial is set up and paid for and dzhokhar is getting screwed in the end because even the govt has told his aunt who used to live here but is now on the no fly list that they know he is innocent but they have to charge someone now and hes the lucky one but at appeals he will get a new trial and be found innocent…yeah wtf after he is mental and lost to the world great good going america…

  7. OldGold
    May 9, 2015 at 9:23 am

    Although I oppose the death penalty, the notion that it is being pursued to silence Dzhokhar Tsarnaev seems far fetched. The reason being that for the “silencers” to attain a death penalty sentence requires lengthy public trial and years of appellate activity. Excellent forums for disgorging information.

    To this point in the proceedings, while the world watches and listens, neither Dzhokhar Tsarnaev nor his attorneys have made any suggestion that he possesses important information.

    If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has important information to share, next Monday would be an excellent time to begin doing so.

  8. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 11:02 am

    The following comment is from MargoS who is unable to post via Discus at present:

    Thank you, jane24, for a fine summary of the kind of addictive
    punitiveness and bloodlust involved in this trial. What I hope is that the
    prosecution tactics will ultimately alienate the jury and make them assert
    their sense of sane proportions as well as humanity by voting for LWOP —
    or at least one juror so voting — despite the ironic fact you emphasize
    that such an “act of mercy” is regarded as cruel and inhumane treatment in
    many countries. One recalls the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua on 19
    July 1979, and the policy that not only was the death penalty abolished,
    but that sentences for even the worst offenders would be limited to 30

    One of the prosecution’s goals is not to permit the jury to
    something at which the defense has tried to hint, with various
    prosecutorial objections: to compare Jahar with some other prisoners now
    serving LWOP. That exercise would quickly reveal the kind of politics that
    the prosecution is playing.

    For example, consider Florence ADX prisoner Ramzi Yousef, serving LWOP for
    terrorist crimes including his role as a main perpetrator of the World
    Trade Center Bombing (26 February 1993) that killed six people and injured
    1,042. After that act of mass murder, he didn’t simply write a “boat note”
    like the seriously wounded Jahar was alleged to have done; he wrote a
    letter to the New York Times claiming credit for the attack.

    Yousef also pulled off the bombing of Philippines Air Line Flight 434 (11
    December 1994) that killed one passenger, injured ten others, and of
    course was intended to kill or injure as many as the over 290 passengers
    as possible.

    The prosecution alleges that Jahar wrote “defiant” notes when under
    treatment for serious injuries including a gunshot wound that damaged his
    face and skull, and under various medications — but doesn’t evidently
    allege acts or threats of violence while in custody. Further, it
    speculates that Jahar may not feel “remorse.” Compare this to Yousef’s
    statement in court:

    “Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S.
    government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists: you
    are the inventors of modern terrorism.” Speak of allocutions.

    Yousef was born in 1967, and was 25 at the time of the World Trade Center
    bombing; and 27 at the time he bombed Flight 434.

    It’s important to note that these crimes were made capital federal
    offenses only by the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, which of course
    couldn’t be applied retroactively (ex post facto) to earlier crimes such
    as the World Trade Center bombings. However, Ramzi Yousef is in prison, is
    not getting big press, and hardly seems the most pressing “national
    security” issue for the U.S.A.

    The prosecution doesn’t want the jury to learn more about some of the
    bombers and other prisoners who would be Jahar’s neighbors at Florence
    ADX, because they might quickly get the message that Jahar is hardly “the
    worst of the worst.”

    But, hopefully, the humanizing perspective provided by the defense,
    coupled with the prosecution’s overkill maybe too obvious for the jury not
    to understand and reject on some level, will lead at least one juror to
    vote for life.

    Sister Helen Prejean’s insights would be invaluable, if she is permitted
    to testify.

  9. Woody Box
    May 9, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Thanks for the report Jane and the efforts you took. Great work, as usual.

    I first have to get used to the new discussion format – I quite liked the old one…

  10. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Thanks, WB and lol, yes, this new format does take some getting used to! (Fond memories of that which went before…)

  11. Woody Box
    May 9, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Agreed, but the ADX would also be good enough to shut him up for his lifetime. So their fear can’t explain Mellins behavior, IMO.

    I’m asking myself the same questions as Mark. Does the prosecution have strategic advantages by the DP in coming appeals? Do they want to keep up the monster image of DT?

    Maybe Mellin was just angry because Bezy deliberately agreed to testify for the defense (did he? – I don’t know). The mentioning of Lynne Stewart struck me as a kind of threat.

  12. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 11:23 am

    Also find it shocking that the government now suggests that conditions at ADX are “too good” for Tsarnaev and deplore that the government should be so ingenuous as to insinuate that conditions in this facility may not be so bad when in fact they are well known to constitute the depths of inhumanity.

    The government’s main concern in the event that they fail to ensure Tsarnaev’s execution seems to be that he might one day be able to communicate with someone on the outside, other than his immediate family. I would hope that the government’s desperation to kill, and in doing so silence, prompts others, in addition to you and I, to wonder why this is so.

  13. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 11:32 am

    I would agree, WB, that incarceration in ADX would be effective in silencing anyone and find government claims to the contrary patently ridiculous.

    It was stated in court that Bezy was a paid witness, in this case, as in those in which he has testified previously. I think it is notable that the majority of witnesses for the defense in US v Tsarnaev have been either subpoenaed or paid. (“Expert” witnesses?) To me this suggests that Tsarnaev’s defense’s claims of witness intimidation are likely well founded. (And also raises the question as to why this may be?)

    Also see mention of Lynne Stewart in this context to constitute a threat.

    Thinking that perpetuating the “monster” image of DT would certainly be helpful to the government in there future false flags?

  14. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Thanks, karenjj2. It is my understanding that these notes, which the government have now chosen to describe as “defiant”, are those which were allegedly written by DT during his lengthy interrogation by the FBI, whilst hospitalized and recovering from multiple gunshot wounds and surgery and prior to DT being provided with legal counsel. At least some of the notes allegedly written were quoted in a past legal filing, and if same or similar, did not appear “defiant” in any way. Desperation on the part of the government? It would seem so.

  15. onetree
    May 9, 2015 at 11:59 am

    I’d guess the Lynne Stewart comment was meant as a threat.

    What happens in this case in the near term seems to me to depend on whether the jurors are real, ordinary people or whether they were covertly planted by the government. It’s probably not nearly so unusual as people might suspect. If the jurors are real, there should be at least one or two that will choose life.

    Truly, this case has made me wish I was an attorney so that I would have more insight into exactly how corrupt this prosecution and this trial have been. It’s been a witch hunt set up by the government with media complicity.

  16. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Thank you, Margo, for forwarding to me your informative comment. I would like to think that the “overkill” the government has chosen to adopt in their pursuit of the death penalty in this case may turn out to have an effect opposing their intended. Their current rhetoric is yet another example of this body elected to govern, but whose conduct is to manipulate, presuming the stupidity of those it is supposed to serve.

    I agree that Sister Prejean would be a powerful voice in the defense’s attempt to avert the death penalty in this case and believe that in any case where a life is at stake the defense should be permitted to call any witness they see as relevant and that any objections by the prosecution to such should be disregarded.

  17. onetree
    May 9, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Yes, the “government” certainly wants people to believe the “monster” image, but I wonder if they understand that for every effort they make in that direction there is at least as much push-back from supporters of Tsarnaev and/or truth and justice seeking individuals.

    Although they’d like to think that this prosecution will make it easier to perpetrate other false flag incidents, I think they’re in a losing battle and further incidents of this type can only cause them to sink deeper and deeper into the mire and muck that will eventually see them made accountable.

  18. Woody Box
    May 9, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    full agreement – and as the many testifying friends and teachers of DT have shown, there is kind of a grassroots movement growing in Boston.

  19. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Agreed, onetree! I do believe the tide is turning. Ultimately, there will be accountability.

  20. onetree
    May 9, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    I don’t know for sure, but I believe there may be ways to get around the appellate activity, etc., that used to be standard by making this a federal terrorism type case. Also Timothy McVeigh, I believe, was put to death about 4 years after his conviction, although I’m not sure that much truth was heard in that case either.

    Even if Tsarnaev had placed a “pressure cooker bomb” in the area where the second explosion occurred, which from what I’ve seen would have been impossible, how would that equate to the Oklahoma bombing case?

    I’m convinced they won’t allow him to speak or, if they do, it will be under threats of harm to him or his family members and/or friends. I just don’t see how they’d let him get on the stand and tell everyone he’s innocent, which I’m convinced that he is. I suppose they could make him lie and say that he’s sorry and that he regrets what he did, even though he didn’t.

    The government’s whole story is a lie. That’s what he knows and that’s what he might share if he felt it was safe to do so. That may sound far-fetched, but that’s the “government” we now have in this country.

  21. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    I am aware, OG, that you oppose the death penalty and was glad to see an admission from you on a recent thread that you also oppose long term solitary confinement.

    Respectfully suggesting that you have something of a blind spot when it comes to FBI and indeed government involvement in so called “terrorist plots” in recent times? Even from what we know, (and this will not be the half of it), there is more reason to entertain the possibility of government involvement than to dismiss.

    As regards DT’s/DTs attorney’s silence on such possibilities: (At least thus far.) How “safe” would it be to do otherwise?

  22. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Much to be concerned about in the way this trial has been conducted, solar toad, and as you say, this one case is just a part of a much bigger problem. Even those who believe DT to be wholly guilty should have concerns! For the government to control the “justice” system as it so obviously does, negates any possibility of real justice and serves to suppress the truth. On a positive note, I do believe more are becoming wise to this situation.

  23. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    Good to see you back at FDL, swiftfox! I hope we may see the return of others who could be counted as “regulars” before problems arose.

    On the intent to silence: So fervently agreed.

  24. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    In agreement, ac, that this trial has been a sham but must mention that is my understanding that Judy Clarke is to be paid at the regular rate afforded to public defenders in such cases and as is usual. (Not, as rumors have suggested, some exorbitant sum!)

  25. Libertarian
    May 9, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    I thought exactly the same thing about it being a subtle threat when he brought up Stewart. Also, he seemed to being trying to insinuate something to Bezy when he was questioned him on travel details (maybe they have something on him?).

  26. jane24
    May 9, 2015 at 10:32 pm
  27. Woody Box
    May 10, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Thanks for linking, Jane.

    It’s amazing that CNN decided to use this photo (montage) for the first time since two years just when I wrote my blog piece and made the case for it being forged.

    Certainly not a highlight in Deborah Feyerick’s career to promote forged photographs.

  28. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 10:35 am

    Thank you, WB, for continuing to point out these issues!

  29. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 10:40 am

    This comment is from MargoS who continues to experience difficulties in accessing Discus:
    (And I thank you, Margo, for linking to Doc: 295: Motion to Suppress Statements.)

    At some point, a government’s conduct can become so outrageous and its
    alleged “justice system” so warped that questioning almost everything may
    become the prudent policy. The prosecution’s bid to use Jahar’s “defiant
    notes” as a reason to kill him crosses this line, especially when the
    likely “defiance” involves the assertion of basic constitutional rights
    under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right not to incriminate
    oneself, and to have effective assistance of counsel in a case where life
    and death are at stake. The prosecution, by its defying and indeed seeking
    to kill the Bill of Rights along with Jahar, has made nonviolent defiance
    of its cruel and degrading tactics a civic and human virtue.

    Specifically, the defense motion of 7 May 2014, to which jane24 so
    helpfully referred, documents Jahar’s simple assertion of his
    constitutional and human rights while at times in critical condition from
    gunshot wounds, including one to his head which likely caused a
    “concussion” and “traumatic brain injury.” Having cooperated with the
    government’s “public safety exception” questions about possible further
    bombs or bombing threats, he asked at times to be let alone; to be told
    the truth about whether his older brother Tamerlan was alive or dead; and
    to be provided with an attorney.

    The government, in short, was using the “public safety exception” as an
    excuse for applying illegal interrogation — “the third degree” as it was
    known in my childhood — to a critically wounded 19-year-old boy. The fact
    that Jahar was additionally often under the influence of fentanyl and
    other potent drugs, given for the best humanitarian reasons but exploited
    to interrogate him when least able rationally to assess his response,
    makes the prosecution’s conduct yet more indefensible. Now the prosecution
    apparently wants to kill him for actually daring to ask for legal counsel.

    I hope that the jurors will be informed in vivid detail of Jahar’s
    injuries and their aftereffects, with this 7 May 2014 motion as one
    starting point — leading to a decision, unanimous or otherwise, for life.
    And I hope that the world at large will seek answers to the unasked
    questions about this case even while resolutely opposing the death penalty
    and holding the Obama Administration accountable by all diplomatic and
    nonviolent means.

  30. Woody Box
    May 10, 2015 at 10:58 am

    “Defense gets mainstream media to admit that Tsarnaev lacks appearance and motive to be a radical violent Islamist”

    This is how one could describe in court reporter speak, the tenor of several MSM articles:

    It looks like the defense has made a good job in this phase.

    And they’re obviously exhibiting their success in the courtroom, chatting, laughing, etc., DT included. Don’t tell me everyone they celebrate the supermaxx. No matter what Bruck has said.

  31. Woody Box
    May 10, 2015 at 11:20 am


  32. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Like your take on these articles, WB, and thanks for posting links. What we know is at odds with what we are told.

  33. OldGold
    May 10, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Yes, like most folks, I have blind spots, but any fair review of my vision concerning the instant case, would conclude that it has been extraordinarily sharp.

    My present counsel is that whatever evidence, exculpatory or mitigating, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have in his possession, he best bring forward now, because this phase of the proceeding represents the best chance he will ever have of avoiding the death penalty.

  34. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    As I have acknowledged on previous threads, there has been much upon which you have been proven to be correct. I am in agreement with your statement here. That being said, I am sure that you will agree that the majority of our questions in this case remain unanswered? Where the bombs were built and by whom would have been a good place to start. The lack of curiosity in regard to this, demonstrated by the msm, and seemingly, le, is astounding.

  35. OldGold
    May 10, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Your mistake is believing that criminal trials are global investigations designed to answer every question. They are not.

    Criminal trials are designed to answer the question of whether the defendant committed the crimes charged using an evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, this was easily accomplished. The evidence was so overwhelming, that after extensive expert review and with the Defendant’s express approval, his highly experienced and accomplished defense team conceded at the beginning of the trial that he was guilty.

  36. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    Point taken, OG, on the purpose of criminal trials. I was not expecting a “global investigation”, but certainly had hopes, though perhaps unrealistically, for more answers than we have obtained.

    The “overwhelming evidence” is something upon which we differ. I am aware that you perceive the government to have proved their case. I do not. As I have said before, during this trial we have seen much that proves that bombs were detonated at the Boston Marathon in 2013. Evidence to suggest who was responsible has, imo, been sparse and not wholly credible. There are discrepancies in some of the photographic evidence presented during this trial. I fail to see why this should be so unless something is very much amiss.

    The government’s pursuit of the death penalty in this case seems almost unprecedented. They have their conviction. You, I, and I would imagine most others know that incarceration in ADX under SAMs would be sufficient to prevent undesired communication in the case of any inmate held under these conditions. Why then this desperate pursuit of the death penalty, using, as Margo has mentioned in her comment above, the most spurious reasoning as to why the death penalty is, according to the government, appropriate?

  37. cv1975
    May 10, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    Thank you Jane24 for your valuable reporting. It is extremely helpful to have court room reporting in complete sentences to get a better understanding of what actually transpires. Tomorrow should be very telling! Who will get to testify? I am looking forward to Judy Clarke (I am assuming she will give the closing) pulling all this together. Also interested to see whether or not we will here anything from DT. If not now, possibly in the appellate court!

  38. jane24
    May 10, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    Thanks, cv1975. Very much hoping that Sister Prejean will get to testify and see no reason why the government object to testimony being heard from this witness or from the social worker. As many, I do not think we will hear anything from DT at this point but believe that this is in some ways unfortunate. How odd, when you consider, that the trial process has become so complicated that to hear directly from the defendant or the convicted is now rare?

  39. shadow12ea
    May 10, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    this trial looks like those big show trials you see in some dictatorship style countries. Guess the American government thinks its a good thing after all. The trial has nothing to do with justice or deterants. It just uses a lot of space in the MSM so people don’t look at the real problems in the U.S.A.
    What these 2 young men did was terrible, but in the greater scheme of things, they didn’t kill as many as get killed each yr by drunken drivers, lack of medical care, “accidental” shootings from guns in the home. so what is the real problem here and why does the American government want this young man dead? I know some of the general public would like him dead, because it makes them feel better and safer, but really your chance of being murdered by a terrorist are a whole lot less than being run over and killed by a drunk or distracted driver.

  40. jane24
    May 11, 2015 at 5:14 am

    A “show trial” for sure and agree that the case of the BMB has been used as a “distraction.” Perhaps no coincidence that as the Patriot Act is coming up for renewal we are warned that attacks by ISIS could very well occur on US soil and at the same time the government seek to execute one whom they deem to be yet another “Muslim terrorist”?

    All that being said, if you have read any of these threads previously, shadow12ea, you will know that at least some of us are not convinced that it is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who should be held accountable for the bombing of the Boston marathon. There is much that doesn’t add up.

    Do hear you on the ills you list and suggesting that perhaps more Americans have died at the hands of their own police in the last few months than at the hands of “terrorists”?

  41. pbszebra
    May 11, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Great post Jane, thanks for sticking it out with FDL! I always appreciate your first hand reports, as do many here. Much has happened since your last trial attendance and this initial post, but I wanted to stop by anyway and put in my two cents.

    Personally, I feel as you do that the gov’t is hell bent on executing DT “because he knows something which could cause the United States Government great embarrassment.” However my gut feeling is that at least one of these jurors will not be able to vote for the dp. And Sr. Prejean’s brief but powerful testimony today appears to have helped him avoid death as well, according to tweets and the media.

    The media headlines are brief and suggestive. “Catholic Nun Says Boston Bomber Told Her He’s Sorry For What He Did.” We all know a simple headline can make all the difference in determining what people “hear” and believe. And you KNOW these jurors are hearing some of this regardless of instruction to the contrary by O’Toole.

  42. jane24
    May 11, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    Thank you, pbsz. It is good to see you back on these threads and I know that it has been difficult for you and others to access FDL until very recently.

    As you, I would like to think that not all jurors will succumb to the government’s bloodlust.

    Wise words on Sister Prejean’s statements! Whichever way these statements are taken, this is a positive for DT.

  43. furtive
    May 12, 2015 at 1:58 am

    Mellin should be DISBARRED & in jail. He is a recidivist evidence planter, & has been exposed in the past. The defense could have removed him with a motion, but chose not to…

  44. furtive
    May 12, 2015 at 2:03 am

    No Boston attorneys are speaking up, & if they are, quite timidly. Noticeably absent is criminal defense attorney Norman Zalkind, Susan’s dad, & Harvey Silverglate’s former partner.

    Quite an aberration for them, who love to debate these notorious trials on cable.

  45. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 2:12 am


  46. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 2:15 am

    The deal was, he would not testify.

  47. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 2:22 am

    There was no direct evidence. It was all inference, pulling out all the sympathy psychological behavior modification & public pressure on the jurors.
    Dont think for a minute that a prosecutor did not intervene with the foreperson.

    How can Tamerlan be clean shaven in the finish line video, have a beard 2 days earlier at the gym; have the same beard in his autopsy photo; & have a beard dining with Matanov shortly after the “plume” explosion?

    Win at any cost?
    Where were the forensic experts? Not one was examined!

    You can tell them so, since I gather you report back to them.

  48. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 2:26 am

    Has it ever crossed your mind, oldgold is an informant?

  49. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 2:31 am

    Mc Veigh was executed immediately, choosing to forego any appeals. More revelations that he was an informant, playing a role, & may very well be alive in a witness protection program. Google it.

  50. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 3:02 am

    Clarke is being paid a “regular rate” on paper only.
    She has travel & food & lodging expenses paid.
    She goes home most weekends on Thursday, returning on Sunday.
    She likely stays in a harbor hotel suite. Perhaps a special rate $3000 per week x 130 weeks, a car rental by the month, or a driver.
    Either way her expenses aree at LEAST $1.5 million, & Bruck has the same lifestyle. That’s $3 million before her compensation. ($5-6 million for both of these government proxies)

    She cannot walk or talk without Bruck.
    With all her Pan American clients, she can’t even complete a Pro hac Vicie motion correctly:

    To wit:

    a. CONTAIN HER ADDRESS & phone number
    c. if she has ever been disbarred,
    d. for what reason she is requesting admission to the Case as defendant’s counsel.
    e. what applicable statute applies to her motion 28 USC €1746 to certify her affidavit under pains & penalties of perjury.

    Pro Hac Vice fees have NOT been paid by Clarke or Bruck; Bruck does not even have an ORDER allowing him to appear Pro Hac Vice. See the bizarre docket entry by the Magistrate’s Clerk regarding the ALLOWED Motion undersigned by Conrad with a request that Clarke be allowed to appear Pro Hac Vicie.

    Magistrate Judge Bowler who took assignment of this case from its initiation had no authority to appoint Judy Clarke, WHO WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE, per the US Courts Vol 7 Defender Services. Docket #15 never made it to the Court’s ALL RECENT ORDERS DOCKET and the Electronic Pro Hac Vice ORDER had no Dkt. #

  51. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 3:23 am

    They ordered him to stay silent or the prosecution would increase the SAMS. AFTER THE FEDS EXECUTED his brother & Tamerlan, he saw the writing on the wall.

  52. Patriarch
    May 12, 2015 at 3:34 am

    Attorney General Robert H. Jackson “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. . . .While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.” A prosecutor has almost unilateral, unchecked ability to destroy the lives of those he charges. It is beyond troubling that our top law enforcement officer chooses the company of those who repeatedly failed their duty.”

    Hopefully, Jahar will retain private appellate attorneys to expose the Justice Department corruption.

    Here is an example:

    While still denying there was any Brady ( exculpatory) evidence, the Federal prosecutors in the Dallas Merill Lynch case mailed to defense attorney, Sidney Powell, a disc of documents they did not realize revealed crucial notes of government agents’ interviews of the person that lead prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler herself had called the “key” to their case. Not only did these long-hidden notes reveal clear, declaratory statements that directly contradicted everything Ruemmler, Friedrich, Hemann and their hearsay-only witnesses had told the court and jury, but the prosecutors had actually yellow-highlighted the notes as Brady information favorable to the defense—and still hid it.

    Not only did Ms. Ruemmler hide the evidence she had identified as crucial to the defense, but she signed the false and misleading “disclosure letter” to defense counsel. Ms. Ruemmler then elicited hearsay testimony from witnesses that was directly contradicted by the first-hand evidence she and her Task Force hid. She capitalized on and compounded the injustice, repeatedly telling the court and jury “facts” that were directly refuted by the evidence she hid.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately reversed 12 out of 14 counts of conviction against the executives, acquitting one entirely. All the defendants were released, after having spent up to a year in prison on a sham indictment, while Ms. Ruemmler and her cronies continued both to hide the evidence that defeated the government’s case and to demand that the Merrill executives be prosecuted a second time on the same indictment.

    Kathryn Ruemmler, who signed the Brady letter in the Merrill Lynch prosecution, which omitted the crucial yellow-highlighted statements of the person she herself said was the “key” to the prosecution, was promoted to Assistant Attorney General, and then became Obama’s longest serving chief White House Counsel. She recently returned to the prestigious firm of Latham & Watkins.

    As a result, a bill was sent to the Senate for consideration:
    …The Department of Justice opposed the “Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act.”

    The bill died. And the Department of Justice continues to hide evidence. Holder’s view: Only prosecutors can decide what is “material to the defense,” and if they decide it’s not material, they don’t disclose it—even if it is obviously favorable to the defense. Mr. Holder’s Department is even seeking to change the ethical rules in each state to comport with the Department’s view and make it easier for prosecutors to hide evidence. Mr. Holder’s view of the Brady rule puts the prosecutor in total and sole control of the outcome of the case. It licenses them to lie.

  53. onetree
    May 12, 2015 at 10:49 am

    I’m watching a Corbett Report video now describing that whole thing. Thanks.

  54. jane24
    May 12, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    Aware that there is a script.

  55. jane24
    May 12, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    Lol! No.

  56. jane24
    May 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    You might have a point on those expenses…