Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Globe's Close Shave

"For weeks, the razor maker has been frustratingly mum about what will go down at the event Thursday....



Related: For Openers....

Think I'll finish up those:

Jurors ask judge about gun charges in Aaron Hernandez case

Tsarnaev guilty on all counts in Marathon bombings

The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for just over 11 hours before reaching its verdict.

I covered the start and defense (such as it was), and do you realize there are no blacks on the jury? Nor do the videos make sense.

So justice has been served, and I'm going to merciful and spare you what is coming next. Apparently, the real drama is just beginning and they didn't really need a trial anyway. Better than him (Abraham's arrogance considering the exponential mass murder -- based on lies like this -- carried out by the government that prosecuted him)!

Think I'll grow a bit of a beard:

"Why We Fight With the Pen

April 7, 2015 by

If you are new to our site, you may well be curious about our fascination with the Boston Marathon Bombing case. After all, the government said that the defendant did it, and his own defense team said he did it. So what more is there to add?

A lot, actually.

For one thing, just because the government or any institution tells us something doesn’t make it true. Or fully true. There may be much more to the story… and it certainly looks that way here.

For another, just because the people representing a defendant decide to admit guilt does not in itself necessarily mean that the defendant is guilty. Even if a defendant personally declares his or her guilt—which has not yet happened in this case—it does not necessarily prove culpability.

Why? Because defendants confess to all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Historically, we’ve seen loads of cases involving coerced confessions, false confessions based on pressure to protect a family or others, or on a calculated defense team strategy. One kind of confusion or another has revealed thousands of open-and-shut cases to be nothing of the sort. And many “confessed” criminals have later been cleared.

So good journalism and good justice demand some distance from the group-think that guides the majority in any of these emotionally-charged situations.

But that’s not all. Regardless of the guilt of the defendant, there may be much more to be learned. What if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was involved in something that neither he nor his brother actually instigated? What if they had gotten caught up in something even more insidious? Wouldn’t we want to know, need to know?

Strangely, this is where “respect for the victims” is usually cited as the reason why we shouldn’t question law enforcement’s claims, or why we shouldn’t be trying to dig deeper into things. But don’t the victims deserve something beyond a binary guilt-versus-innocence answer—to find out exactly how things led to their loved ones dying or having their limbs blown off? And, not incidentally, to possibly prevent another tragedy down the line?

The emotional appeal to “respect the victims” not only shuts down deeper inquiry; it gives the government a free pass to write the script any way it sees fit—no matter how self-serving.


It is doubly dangerous for a society when the state suppresses a deeper inquiry and the media happily complies.

The Boston Globe editorial board recently informed us that the trial of Tsarnaev has been a “success” that “helped restore some global respect for American justice.” The trial filled us in with “important new details of the bombing,” such as “where they got the gun used to kill MIT police officer Sean Collier.”

Putting aside the fact that there were, in fact, very few truly new revelations in the trial, including “where they got the gun” (that had already been leaked by law enforcement and widely disseminated by the media), should we really be calling a one-sided trial with almost no cross-examination of the prosecution’s case, a success? Successful prosecution, maybe, but woefully inadequate for getting at the whole truth. In one of many such examples, the judge disallowed a question as to whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was even armed when officers pumped more than 100 bullets into the boat where he was hiding.

In this particular case, we’ve found dozens, scores, maybe even hundreds of things that don’t line up, don’t add up. Taken together, they suggest that the full or correct story is not coming out. Especially given the fact that the defendant has yet to speak publicly, even indirectly, to tell his own story of what happened and how he came to be involved in such a monstrous plot. Also telling is that he has essentially been muzzled. Though the government was quick to label this case yet another matter of “lone wolf” terrorism with no connections to global terror, it contradicted itself by applying a Special Administrative Measure that kept Tsarnaev in solitary confinement and prevented any kind of media contact with him. Those are not the things you do when someone is a lone wolf. They are the kinds of things you do when you do not want him to speak—or to be heard—on subjects that might be embarrassing to the government.

In the end, he was given court-appointed counsel that at least one relative claims he didn’t want. His defense team admitted guilt for him; in the so-called “guilt phase” of the trial (as opposed to the sentencing phase) they put up almost no defense of any kind. Indeed, they failed to raise questions about the glaring holes in the case we’ve noted over the past couple years—though they are well aware of them. They never even tried to explain why he did what he is alleged to have done. They never dug, they never exposed and they almost never cross-examined, despite ample opportunities to do so. All this passivity was attributed to their laser focus on getting him off the death penalty. And instead of questioning this “strategy” the media horde covering the trial served as little more than stenographers and sensation-mongers.


Almost nothing we have been told about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev makes sense. Not his failing to act like a Jihadist before or after exploding the bombings, making no public statement for his cause, or seeking to be a martyr. Not his supposedly going to buy milk directly from the site of the bombings. Nor his returning moments later to the store, again ensuring he would be caught on the store’s camera, to return the milk. Nor his going back to his college dorm, working out with his friends, attending class and partying with classmates. Then just staying on in town until he and his brother were marked men. None of this is typical terrorist behavior.

Before the bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn’t particularly political, he rarely spoke of religion, and rarely attended mosque. He spent most of his time online frequenting Facebook, and visiting movie and porn sites. He was almost universally known as a popular, polite, and laid-back kid—not a hotheaded reactionary who would kill innocent people in the name of some confused political agenda.

In a similar vein, it doesn’t make sense that the FBI ignored all of the signs of his elder brother Tamerlan’s growing radicalism, and then after receiving warnings from Russian intelligence and visiting with Tamerlan apparently failed to keep an eye on him when he traveled back to Russia, and when he returned. This is especially peculiar since some of Tamerlan’s behavior seemed actually designed to attract attention, as if he were playing a role. Please see our earlier story exploring this credible possibility.

This is either grounds for indicting the Bureau for incompetence, or it is an indication that these brothers were, like thousands of others, caught up in some web of provocation, either as plot infiltrators or informants. Whatever it is, thanks to the defense team’s strategy, we may never know. Complicit in this missed opportunity is the disgraceful performance of the media. And that means virtually all of the media, from “right” to “left,” from “traditional” to the edgiest new brands.

The marathon bombing case has given the super-profitable homeland security complex another blank check, justified the government’s ever-increasing surveillance and control of the populace, and in myriad ways further eroded our diminishing freedom. There will be more eavesdropping, more cameras, more putting people in solitary confinement without cause; more justification for almost any action the state wishes to take. We may have just gotten a whiff of where things are headed when during the Boston manhunt the government took the extraordinary step of shutting down a major American city, ordering everyone to stay in their homes—without a peep of protest.

Good journalism is a necessary bulwark of good justice. A free citizenry will demand both—because, as the Constitution reminds us, there is no better defense against tyranny.


More good journalism:

"Nagging questions

As the trial of the century comes to a close, we are left with few answers to nagging questions about the FBI and the Tsarnaevs"  Also:
  1. the brothers went from complete lack of concern - acted just like innocent men would act - to utter panic, with no preparations whatsoever for their escape (as if it never occurred to them they would have to escape);
  2. the Official Story of the shooting of MIT Police Officer Sean A. Collier makes no sense ("In Tsarnaev Trial, Prosecutors Turn Hostile Toward Own Witness");
  3. authorities, using chemical analysis, can't connect the making of the bombs to any place known to be associated with the brothers;
  4. witnesses who know the brothers and might have provided assistance to the defense have all been killed, deported or arrested; 
  5. "FBI’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Video of Boston Marathon Bombing Doesn’t Exist" "What’s Not Being Revealed in the Tsarnaev Courtroom"  The prosecution was consistently dishonest in what was supposed to be a slam-dunk case ("Prosecutorial trickery in US v. Tsarnaev muddies the waters of what should be a straightforward prosecution");
  6. there are multiple versions of the kidnapping and escape of Dun Meng ("Boston Carjacking Unravels 1"  "Boston Carjacking Unravels 2"  "Tsarnaev Carjacking Victim’s Escape Video a Microcosm of Why a Closer Look Is Warranted"), a very useful witness as he claims Tamerlan Tsarnaev confessed to both the bombing and the killing of the policeman;
  7. the connections of Tamerlan to the US government and the odd but extensive efforts the US government made to cover this up, including failing to assist in the identification, and thus apprehension, of the suspects ("MIT police officer's statement suggests FBI was watching Tsarnaevs the night Sean Collier was killed"):
    "Author and journalist Masha Gessen ponders the question of a cover-up in her book about the case, The Brothers: The Road to an American Tragedy, released on April 7. According to skeptical book reviewer Kevin Canfield, writing for the Kansas City Star:

    “Gessen’s thinking goes like this: Because the FBI questioned Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 and monitored him and his family, agents would have been likely to recognize him in surveillance camera images captured at the site of the bombing, which killed three and injured hundreds. Nonetheless, she writes, agents with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force didn’t initially identify the Tsarnaev brothers.

    “A… logical explanation,” Gessen argues, “is that the person or persons who were in a position to recognize the brothers were consciously concealing this fact in order to protect their own or the agency’s reputation—either because it would look like the FBI had fumbled a solid investigative lead, causing tragedy, or worse, because the FBI had considered Tamerlan an informant.”

    Even more incendiary is her suggestion that the FBI deliberately kept police at arm’s length as they were pursuing the brothers “because it needed to ensure that no other law enforcement got to Tamerlan Tsarnaev before the FBI had captured—or killed—him. In other words, the explanation that best fits the facts is a cover-up.””
There is also the wider political/constitutional issue that the bombing was used as an excuse for the unnecessary lock-down of an entire city: "Post-marathon after action report sends troubling messages about so-called "shelter in place" orders".

By the way, a lot of these links can't easily be found with a Google search (DuckDuckGo produces quite different search results!).

Added:  "Five Key Questions That Were Not Asked During the Trial of “Boston Bomber” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev"


Apparently lots of people are having trouble with Google, as am I.

".... The State (Federal and other elements including city and state), its system of governance and justice, its intelligence communities and agencies, its law enforcement community, its watchdog media (with certain exceptions), and in many cases its businesses, all collaborated to commit an act of defecation on its populace when it committed an act of terror, ran interference during and after the act, set up patsies in advance to take the fall, and then railroaded them to death. --

They got that right, and a whole lot more, too.

Avoid Becoming a Patsy like Dzhokar Tsarnaev 

Has Dzhokar been drugged this whole time? 

It is nice to be shown some thanks sometimes, too.


It's the talk of the Globe, that's for sure:

"Whether Dzhokhar (Jahar) Tsarnaev will be sentenced to death will ultimately be decided by 12 jurors in federal court, but the topic is now high on the minds of many in the Boston area. Most have never before been exposed to such a high-profile death penalty case, this one involving an avowed terrorist whose crimes affected a broad swath of the community.

The case has turned residents into spectators of one of the most profound uses of government power. It has triggered soul-searching about what is the appropriate punishment for someone who showed such callousness toward human life — and has yet to exhibit remorse or emotion in the courtroom.

That's because he has been drugged and disabled from torture, and I would like to know when the propaganda pre$$ and New England's flag$hit is going to exhibit remorse for the promotion of a staged and scripted fiction (that those involved in 'security' apparently also piggybackpacked upon in a real Crafty way)?


Usha Tummala-Narra, an associate professor of counseling psychology at Boston College, said she has been part of many debates at work and home and said her professional life calls on her to be compassionate toward young people suffering emotional setbacks, but she also thinks that the death penalty is a fair punishment for monstrous crimes that affect her family’s — and the public’s — safety. That Tsarnaev’s crimes were committed in the name of jihad-inspired violence against America makes a difference to her.

“It’s about making a statement that we are not tolerant of terrorism or terrorist acts,” Tummala-Narra said, adding she sees it as an opportunity to teach them about law and punishment....

That is so sickeningly insane considering the mass-murdering war presidents given such reverence. 

Yeah, putting to death an innocent kid who has been beaten and framed into submission and provided with a collaborative "defense" counsel is a "teachable moment." 

You can almost see the bloodlust through the print.


RelatedTop lawmakers oppose Tsarnaev’s execution

Some are for it, yet I oppose it even in the circumstances of the war criminals and bank looters I despise. 

Now, if the mob wants to do it I will not stand in their way and call for them to be saints; however, as an entirely pro-life, anti-war blog I oppose the death penalty on sheer principle and the fact that it is.... (pause foe effect).... IRREVERSIBLE! You can't "correct" a mistake, and far too many inmates on death row have been railroaded.

Oh, about this years race.... Boston Marathon security to remain tight this year

That's fine because I won't be running.

"Crucial points may tilt verdict in Hernandez trial; Both sides score in arguments" by Maria Cramer, Globe Staff  April 09, 2015

One crucial detail of the murder case against Aaron Hernandez is not in dispute: Hernandez, a 25-year-old former tight end for the New England Patriots, was at the industrial yard in North Attleborough on June 17, 2013, when 27-year-old Odin L. Lloyd was fatally shot five times.

But his presence is not enough to secure a murder conviction under Massachusetts law, which makes the job of the jury more complicated than it might seem.

To prove that Hernandez is guilty of murder, prosecutors have to convince jurors that Hernandez intended for Lloyd to be killed and either pulled the trigger himself or helped someone else commit the crime. With no eyewitnesses in the case to make those claims, the jury is, in a way, being asked to get inside Hernandez’s head, according to legal specialists.

That's a recipe for acquittal.

And that makes the outcome of the case very hard to predict.

Well then let's not try.


The prosecution wants the jury to believe. Jurors must make a decision strictly on the evidence, said Michael Doolin, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. But if a defendant seems to have an unsympathetic personality, jurors might feel less reluctant to convict. “Human nature being what it is, if someone comes across as a nice guy, they’ll give him the benefit of the doubt,” Doolin said. “If someone comes off as cheap or gruff or egotistical or manipulative, they would certainly take that into consideration, I believe.”


Looking like this is not about justice for Lloyd or the truth; it's about another prosecutor sensing a big score that will advance the career.


Defense attorneys aggressively questioned forensic analysts and police witnesses in the case, undercutting investigative efforts and raising questions about why authorities did not test Wallace’s DNA.

Bad defense attorneys, all aggressive and undermining!

I wonder if things would be different had he had the compassionate expert Clark arguing for him. We agree Hernanadez killed, but.... 

“I think that the jury would be concerned about failures to investigate” other avenues, said Kevin Reddington, a criminal defense attorney who often tries cases in Bristol County. “I wouldn’t say [police] were reckless, negligent or sloppy,” but the defense was effective at finding vulnerabilities in the investigation and exploiting them, he said.

Jurors “don’t like circumstantial cases,” Reddington said. “If you’re going to put someone in jail for the rest of their life, you want to make. . . sure of your decision.”

If I were on the jury I would have to acquit. 

He may well have done it; state didn't prove its case.


Because the case is largely circumstantial, prosecutors and defense attorneys have sparred over surveillance footage, DNA evidence, and the testimony of more than 130 witnesses. 

In a way that is the best testimony: circumstances don't lie; people do.

Here are the strongest points made by the prosecution and the defense during the trial:

That is when I decided to cut off the coverage.


Also seeAdmission consultant found guilty of scamming Hong Kong couple

Thought you might like chowing down that one.


Hernandez jury to continue deliberations next week

Tsarnaev death penalty trial to resume April 21

We must revisit how Marathon bombers became extremists

Must we?