Jahar: Short Film Review

An Alternative View of the Alleged Marathon Bomber. Loyalty or Treachery? Did he do it?


On Saturday, April 23, 2016 I attended the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City to see the 13 minute student film entitled, "Jahar" at the Bow Tie Cinema in the neighborhood of Chelsea. 
TribecaFilm.com/filmguide/jahar-2016 

"In the days after the Boston Marathon bombing, a young man must come to terms with the fact that one of his friends is involved," reads the blurb on the Film Fest schedule. The director, Henry Hayes, was born and raised in Cambridge, MA. He moved to New York in 2011 to attend NYU's Tisch School of the Arts. He now lives in Brooklyn and works as a commercial editor.

The screenwriters were Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Henry Hayes. The cast was only four actors: Devante Lawrence, Andre Ozim, Andrew Raia, and Alberto Rosende.

The film starts out with the young men watching the TV news, which is announcing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan as the Boston Marathon bombers. Then it cuts to "Two Years Earlier." Jahar is portrayed as a short, dorky white guy, even though in reality he is over 6 feet tall. He is shown in high school being ridiculed. "What kind of name is Dzhokhar?"

His friend defends him, saying, "His name is Jahar." His friends, two black and one white, treat Jahar in an inclusive, yet condescending way. "That's my nigga right there," says "Mo" as they hang out in the basketball court smoking blunts. "That's my boy, my brother." They also call him "Jizz," which Jahar was clearly not comfortable about. Their conversation is vacuous.

In Jahar's mother's version of events, Tamerlan told her he was on his way to pick up Jahar from school, when the police started chasing them. In this film version of events, Jahar gets a call on his cell phone after his friends asked him for a ride somewhere. "Sorry, I got to go help my brother," he says. "Help him with what?" they ask. "I don't know," Jahar answers and leaves.

Without any transition, the film cuts to the three friends minus Jahar standing back on the basketball court in communal shock, contemplating what had just happened.
Only Jahar's friend, "Mo" was loyal. "Who was the one who drove us all home that night after the party? Eight drunk guys and one in the trunk and he was able to get us past the police. We know him," Mo insisted. The "Mo" character is supposed to be the screenwriter, Zolan.

But the other friend says, "I don't know man. Do we really know him?"

"That's our boy, that's our nigga," Mo continues to insist.

The film ends with the FBI asking Mo, "What was he like?"

After the film, native New Yorker Karina asked the director and artists if deep down inside they may think he's innocent? Any time in their mind did they ever think he was framed?

"They both said no they do not think he's framed, they believe he's guilty, and both looked at me like I had 10 heads. Rude, and clearly ignorant, making a film without any real research into the case," Kitty told NT. "I'm pissed at the producers who are so arrogant... They loving the success of this while their "friend" is on death row for something he didn't do."

Whether he was innocent or guilty, one would expect more personal concern from true friends. It was a very disappointing reaction, since the movie was actually quite moving regarding the one friend's defense of Jahar. It made me think a lot about loyalty.

Clearly, these young men were capitalizing off the fact that they knew the Boston Bomber in high school, without engaging in any character development or political challenge. The film seems quickly thrown together rather than deeply thought out. It only made the festival due to the high profile content. The line-up for the Question and Answer session had more participation from the makers of Jahar than from any other producers of short films, which added to my impression that the film was receiving special treatment. Zolan has now been given a job writing for the Boston Globe, at a time when many writers have been laid off.
"Seems strange that he would be right in with the propaganda media. Maybe that's the deal they offered him if he went along with the official narrative. The look on the actors face playing him at end made you think he got scared at that point," Karina told NT.

It was, on one hand, somewhat daring to stir up sympathy for the accused. However, the filmmakers' demeanor afterwards just made me think of traitors. Because if your friend truly did something like that, you would want to ask him why. Or if you believed he was innocent you would stand by that. The film gave the impression of some students that knew him superficially and decided to make themselves popular by using him.

"What was their point of making the film? For a different perspective? Why do they care about portraying a different perspective if they believe he's guilty? More questions than answers for me," said Nicole, who had driven from Vermont to see the film.

Marathon Bombing Case: They Forgave the killer of 9 in Charleston, but not Dzhokhar.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015, Dzhokhar "Jahar" Tsarnaev finally spoke.

"I would like to begin in the name of Allah, the exalted and glorious, the most gracious, the most merciful, "Allah" among the most beautiful names. Any act that does not begin in the name of God is separate from goodness."

The victims, the jury, nobody was expecting this religious sermon.

"He did crack up and pause a few times, it sounded like he was trying to compose himself," stated a courtroom observer.

Before thanking his attorneys, he invoked the name of Muhammed. He thanked those who testified on his behalf, he thanked the jury for their service, and even the Court.

"The Prophet Muhammed, peace and blessings be upon him, said that if you do not show mercy to Allah's creation, then Allah will not have mercy on you, so I'd like to apologize now to the victims, to the survivors. Now, I am sorry for the lives that I've taken, for the suffering that I've caused you, for the damage that I've done. Irreparable damage."

What he said satisfied neither the victims nor those who continue to believe that he was framed.

"Immediately after the bombing, which I am guilty of - if there's any lingering doubt about that, let there be no more. I did do it, along with my brother."

Those who were hoping he would 'do a Tarek Mehanna' political speech got instead a speech on forgiveness that sounded at once sincere yet highly scripted, but answered nobody's questions like why? or how?

"Now, I am a Muslim. My religion is Islam. The God I worship, besides whom there is no other God, is Allah. And I prayed to Allah to bestow his mercy upon the deceased, those affected in the bombing, and their families. Allah says in the Quran that with every hardship is relief. I pray for your relief, for your healing, for your well-being, for your strength. I ask Allah to have mercy upon me and my brother and my family. I ask Allah to bestow his mercy upon those present here today. And Allah knows best those deserving of His mercy."

This convoluted sort of apology left everyone scratching their heads.

Why would he wait until AFTER he was found guilty and sentenced to death to apologize? And why, how, what the heck - and how is it that he is suddenly speaking with a thick Arabian accent? Not a Russian accent. He sounded Middle Eastern, two different observers told New Trend. It really was him, they said, but strangely out of character. He used to talk like "Yo what's up."

The most bizarre part of it is that not only Carmen Ortiz the lead prosecutor, but Judge O'Toole made public statements condemning Jahar's interpretation of his own religion.

"You did it on purpose... It is tragic, for your victims and now for you, surely someone who believes God smiles on and rewards the killing of innocents believes in a cruel god. This is not and cannot be the god of Islam," said the judge right before condemning Jahar to death. So is he being executed for murder or for a politically incorrect interpretation of Islam?

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, whose office prosecuted Tsarnaev, said she was "struck more by what he didn't say.

"He didn't renounce terrorism, he didn't renounce violent extremism, and he couched his comments in line with Allah and Allah's view, which gave it a religious tone, and there was nothing...about this crime that was Islam-associated."

Tsarnaev adhered to a radicalized version of Islam was not in line with the faith's "peaceful and loving" roots, Ortiz explained.

"The youth will not stay quiet while America is killing the innocent Muslims. As my sons there will be many many many inshallah! And I will die with my love towards them," texted Jahar's mother to a supporter.

"Your country kills the brothers and sisters and those good hearted and beautiful souls like my sons who love their ummah cannot see the conspiracies of your government towards our ummah and things like that happen! For example if someone kills my brother or my sister I will not blink and destroy whoever killed them - why?? Because I love them...Everything is by Allah's will... Allah knows the intention and the purity of it and what was the intention for!" concluded Jahar's mother.

I am worried that they are going to execute Jahar before we learn the true story. His statement created as many questions as it answered. This is quite a decade, quite a century, already. However, Jahar has been moved to a prison in Florence, Colorado. It is nearby but not the same place where Imam Jamil al-Amin is being held in Supermax.

Boston Marathon Bombing Court Appeals Begin: Public Donating For Tsarnaev Funds.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's attorneys brought up a number of arguments at Moakley Federal Courthouse in Boston. I watched the hearing on the screen in the overflow room. The first order of business was an attempt to reduce the number of charges against the young man. He was convicted of 30 counts, several of which are more than sufficient to result in the death penalty. His attorneys argued that the sheer number of counts against him overwhelmed the jury and caused them to be influenced in favor of the death penalty.

They would like to have a retrial in a different city because the locals of Boston are likely to be driven by revenge since they were personally affected by the tragedy. In their motion, they mentioned that the people on the jury were actively exposed to coverage and opinions about the bombing on Facebook during the trial, and that many of their Facebook friends were Bostonians. Some of the jurists actually made or were exposed to prejudiced comments even before evidence of the crime was presented.

Defense attorneys spent a lot of time bringing up technicalities that in my opinion were not very forceful arguments. Attorney William Fick said many of the charges were unconstitutional because they mentioned "violent physical force." They said the government "conflates the ability to cause injury with violent force." They claimed that setting the bomb down was not technically the use of violent force any more than arson, which is not considered a violent crime even if people are hurt in the process. Regarding the charge of "malicious bombing of property," they argued that the word "malicious" refers to a mental state resulting in "intentional and reckless" behavior but does not imply violent force was used. The carjacking took place because of intimidation - no violence was involved.

Naturally, the government disagreed that the counts needed to be vacated and stated that the decision should be left to the Supreme Court.

In the second part of the hearing, the fiery Attorney Miriam Conrad argued forcefully against the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) against Tsarnaev. She said there was "no valid argument to justify" having a federal agent monitor attorney visits with Tsarnaev's sisters in prison. In an earlier court hearing "in the shadow of litigation," the court had ruled that the agent would be from a different state and not part of the government prosecution team. He was not to relay information to the prosecutors about their conversations due to "attorney client privilege."

However, in a recent email to the defense lawyers, the government lawyers said that they no longer plan to abide by that agreement and that they want access to the defense's information file. They want to know who visits Tsarnaev and what they talked about. Defense lawyers said the government cannot just unilaterally decide to revoke an agreement, that litigation is far from over and that attorney client privilege still holds. It is not at all normal for prosecutors to get access to defense attorney's private files whether before, during, or after litigation. The government should not decide whether meetings should take place, nor see documents, Conrad argued. The agreement does not say that the information is only private until after the verdict. She said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not being treated like any other defendant. There are far more restrictions on his lawyers' ability to defend him, even though he is not just serving a sentence, he is awaiting the death penalty.

The government argued that the presence of Tsarnaev's sisters invalidates attorney-client privilege and that the agreement is not enforceable because the government needs to know if there were visitors who were not expert witnesses, so they can investigate these persons because the government "needs to know if they've ever had problems before." They mentioned Sister Helena, the nun that testified that Tsarnaev was sorry for his actions. They didn't think she should be visiting Tsarnaev because she is not an expert witness.

Conrad replied that listening to the government talk is like Alice looking through the looking glass. The government should have modified the agreement not just send an email saying we aren't following it anymore. Sister Helena was cleared under the heavy restrictions of the SAMs and there is no reason that the government needs to know what she said to him.

As usual, Judge O'Toole mumbled that he would not rule at this time.

The next issue that was discussed was how much money would be taken out of Tsarnaev's commissary to go towards "Mass Fund" which gifted 57 victims with restitution money. The court ruled that Tsarnaev would have to pay $25 per quarter ($100/year), an amount that would be adjusted based on availability. This seems to be aimed at discouraging supporters to donate money in fear that the government will take it. In the past, Tsarnaev received so many donations that the government threatened not to provide him with a free lawyer as he had too much money. Now, nobody is even allowed to send him books. His attorneys were not even allowed to give him a family photo.

Finally, the court discussed the unsealing of documents. As of now, Tsarnaev's trial is unprecedented in terms of how much of the proceedings has gone on under the veil of secrecy. "We are anxious on behalf of a lot of people to unseal the documents," said O'Toole. He ruled that for starters, both defense and prosecution would decide which of their own documents they wished to unseal. After that would come a future discussion on which of the other party's documents the parties would agree to unseal, before arguing about the remaining documents. Clearly the judge is in no hurry for the proceedings to become transparent to the public.

The Tsarnaev case, as with most cases where the defendant is a Muslim, continues to elements and types of issues that normally do not arise in other cases, even when the defendant, who is not Muslim, has committed a mass murder. For example, the fellow who shot up the church got a speedy trial and was not sentenced to death, whereas the Boston Bombing trial went on for years and there is no end in sight.

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1631.htm

Was the Boston Bombing case a Show Trial?:

Eyewitness Account: Questions that were not asked.

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1597.htm


On the morning of the verdict, April 8, 2015 in front of the courthouse, there were old ladies passing out anti-death penalty literature based on Roman Catholicism; Veterans for Peace were there with their white flag holding signs about "blowback," and later on an Islamophobe with his face covered with an American flag held a sign saying,""Dzokhar Tsarnaev was not a follower. He is just another Islamic terrorist declaring war against (kafirs mean infidels) Non-Muslims people. He is just trying to please his god (Satan)" and something about "Islamofascism."

There were many many intimidating looking police and Homeland Security vehicles preventing any traffic in front of the courthouse, guards, police dogs and many cameramen.

As expected, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty. He did not react with any emotion. He seemed to be "not there," leading many to speculate that he had been heavily drugged. Throughout the trial, his eyes looked kind of strange.

It was still astonishing that he was found guilty of all 30 charges, including the bomb that his brother is said to have placed down, and the death of the police officer that was already determined to be shot by "friendly fire" during the chaos at Watertown. He was also found guilty of killing the MIT police officer even though investigators only claim to have found his brother's fingerprints on the gun. The entire trial was carefully controlled, with defense lawyers looking to the judge for permission to speak, witnesses looking to the CIA and FBI officers for cues.

The big elephant in the room was all the questions that were not allowed to be asked. The defense was not allowed to ask whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was even armed when officers pumped more than 100 bullets into the boat where he was hiding.There is definitely some huge cover-up going on, something that the government does not want coming out! It was a show trial.

"The prosecution and the defense have been doing a startling job. They are amazing. I've covered a lot of trials and it's absolutely the best tried trial I've ever seen in my life. The choice of witnesses ... the timing of the prosecution's case, was unbelievably good," commented Russian author Masha Gesser. "But structurally it's not the role of the American justice system to find the truth. The American justice system administers punishment. It does not conduct inquests and it does not find facts."

The FBI's failure to protect the public "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," writes Russ Baker.

Those who have been paying attention are still scratching their heads at all the things that made no sense, like why Tsarnaev would calmly spend several minutes in the store deciding which snacks to buy, while his brother held a man at gunpoint in a hijacked vehicle. Or why they thought it would be better to hijack a car when they already had a car. Or why they would kill a cop in order to get his gun, when they already had a gun.

A skeptic I talked to at the courthouse speculated that the Mossad, whose Israeli agents had immediately swooped into Boston to capitalize on the post-bombing situation, had created the diversion by killing the officer in order to steal classified information from MIT.

"What also doesn't make sense is for the prosecution to omit a chunk of time from that video, which can clearly be observed in the video linked above (as evidence by the timestamp and the cars passing on the upper left corner of the video). There is really no need to edit out any part of the video if everything happened exactly as the prosecution has described it," writes Klaus Marre of whowhatwhy.org.

The prosecutors had justified this video editing as saving the jury's time, but they had not cared about wasting hours and hours of the jury's time listening to irrelevant testimony. Most Americans are not asking these questions. They are debating what the best punishment for the little terrorist should be, based on what would hurt him more. There is a vicious lynch mob mentality that is seething with hate and anti-Muslim prejudice.

If it were really true that Jahar bombed the marathon in retaliation for US war victims, which we know nothing about except from a note that mysteriously appeared three weeks later in the boat where he was captured, then the American people are the ones who should feel the most remorse! Because the American people would thus be morally responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing. Their eyes should be wet with tears of shame for the suffering that they have caused to innocent people, and thanksgiving to God that only four people were killed this time.

Instead, the event has served to create a fascist public mentality, to create support for ongoing killing of Muslims around the world and strip away civil freedoms at home.

Mysterious Boston Trial Begins: Defense Not Defending the Accused

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1592.htm

The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev began Wednesday, March 4. If anyone still held out any hope that we were going to get some answers, that the government would now be asked to prove their convoluted story related to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, or that Jahar’s lawyers were going to put up a fight, they were brutally disappointed like a slap in the face. I attended opening statements as well as court proceedings the following day and I am as baffled as anyone, for this is the most bizarre criminal trial anyone in history has ever seen.

The prosecution’s opening statement was as expected. It echoed what has already been leaked to the mainstream media, with a few embellishments that sound preposterous. Suddenly now they are saying Jahar’s UMass ID was found on the floor of his Honda Civic, covered in the blood of Officer Collier, the MIT cop who was killed while sitting in his car, as well as his blood covered gloves. Why would any murderer take off the victim’s gloves and then put them in his car? There was so much about the government testimony that begged to be ripped to shreds. Attorney William Weinreb drew upon public prejudice against Islam, calling the defendant  a “holy warrior” whose actions were motivated by a desire to die as a martyr and reach “paradise.”

Defense attorney Judy Clarke then shocked everybody by beginning her opening statement by conceding responsibility for “a series of senseless, horribly misguided acts carried out by two brothers: 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, 19-year-old Jahar.”

Isn’t a defense attorney’s job to cast doubt on the government’s accusations? We all expected her top priority to be defending her client’s life but saying, “He did it” in the opening statements went above and beyond most people’s expectations. Seems to be a strategy to make the trial go by as fast as possible so they can focus on the sentencing phase, with the presumption that he is assured of a conviction no matter what arguments are presented. The defense did not cross-examine a single government witness.

I searched Jahar’s face for some sign of guilt or innocence but could find no information except that he is resigned to his situation and trying to stay positive. I watched his long, bony white fingers play with a pencil, standing it up on end, holding it upright awhile with one finger at its tip. His eyes remained downcast most of the time, though he occasionally glanced at a speaker. There was one particular cop that he glared at. Chatting with his legal team, he seemed almost too content with their decision, given that neither death nor life in prison seem like particularly good options. The second day, he looked pale and subdued. There is nothing about his demeanor that seems tense, angry, or fearful. One observer described him “like a lost puppy.” Similarly, a schoolteacher and potential juror that didn’t end up getting selected, blogged:

“There was no cloud of evil that floated around him, nothing that marked him as being different from one of my doofy sophomores.” [http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2015/03/06/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-trial-erin-dionne]

I turn to his family for some kind of insight. Jahar’s Aunt Maret posted on weebly:

“That team of defense was forced on Dzhokhar. Dzhokhar, I know that from my brother Anzor, apparently was REFUSING those lawyers back in May-June of 2013, he told them to go away, that he did not want them (obviously, he did that since he detected that they were not there for his benefit). When the parents raised the issue before Judy Clarke and William Fick for the first time in June 2013, in Makhachkala, during their first visit, that they (the parents) would want to get a private lawyer to defend Dzhokhar, because they knew that public lawyers are government paid lawyers. Fick's (mostly, it was him pressuring this issue through) and Judy's response to that intention of the parents was "there is no way" you can do that and you will be allowed to do that. Fick said if one of the attorneys go, then the whole team goes. So, Judy Clarke and William Fick also were pushed down Dzhokhar's throat by the government. And, this team got Zubeidat somehow under their influence and that is how they worked out their defense strategy, according to which, they are painting Tamerlan as "self-radicalised" mastermind of the crimes and Dzhokhar is a follower. And there, you should see why Dzhokhar would be seeming indifferent during the court proceeding to those, who report from the courthouse. It was mentioned the other day that Dzhokhar felt nauseous on Thursday, would that be side effect, he was having as a result of drugs he was pumped in before that day's court hearing? Because I cannot image Dzhokhar feeling ok and sitting quietly, while Judy Clarke was given that murderous speech, knowing that that kid is totally innocent.”

It appears to me that both defense and prosecution agreed to steer clear of any mention of FBI involvement in the brother’s lives, in exchange for sparing Jahar’s life. Nevertheless, the judge is acting outrageously, constantly interrupting the defense and even at one point inserting his opinion that “there isn’t much evidence” that the accusations against Jahar are not true! How can that be legal? Whose job is it to censure a Federal judge?

Someone in touch with Jahar’s family shared with me several audiotapes of Jahar’s loving mother, which make clear that he comes from an intensely affectionate and deeply religious family. Whatever he did or did not do, he is not the victim of poor upbringing. “I wish you would have known how full of love we all were… how happy we all were…” Tamerlan used to kiss all of his mother’s toes, saying, “This is my paradise!” Jahar would become possessive and demand to massage her other foot insisting that he should be allowed to share in paradise!

According to his mother’s descriptions of her weekly phone calls with her son, Jahar seems to be in a highly elevated state of iman:

“Allah is with us, Allah watches us always… Everything is by Allah’s will. This is another test for us and we are thanking Allah, we never complain and we know that everything Allah does is for our benefit if not in this dunya then in the Hereafter... inshallah we all will rejoin in Paradise… Tell her (his sister Ailina who cannot visit him due to false accusations) to be patient and not to cry... whatever Allah’s decision is, that is what we are happy with.”

Interpret it how you will, this the mental state of the surviving brother. His sister Ailina gets up late at night to pray for all the Believers.

“We need to love each other like one body,” Jahar’s mother Zubeida implores us. 

“Alllah azza wa jal. He knows how his brother loved him and his brother will be waiting for us inshallah by Allah’s will in Hereafter and we will be all together inshallah.”

Tsarnaev Friend Changes Plea to “Guilty”

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1587.htm

Khairullozhon Matanov, 25 year old Kyrgyzstani immigrant and friend of the deceased Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is accused of the Boston Marathon bombings, told me during a recent prison visit that he decided to plead guilty to concealing evidence and lying to the FBI, even though he is absolutely innocent. The government is now only going to be asking for him to serve 2 1/2 years due to changing his plea to guilty, though the judge could possibly give him an even shorter sentence. 

However, the Patriot Ledger reported that under the new charge, he would face “no more than five to eight years in prison, depending on whether the offense is considered to involve terrorism.” So it sounds like the situation is very much hanging in the balance.

Matanov’s attorney requested a hearing earlier this month after Matanov agreed to be interrogated by the government; however, he doesn’t have any incriminating information to give.

Matanov was looking at 15 years for deleting files off his computer (all of which were public information) and for downplaying his relationship with the Tsarnaev brothers, even though he actually went to the police station first thing in the morning to identify them after the FBI put their photo on the TV, thinking he was doing his duty by telling them, “I don’t think they did it but I know who they are.” 

Prosecutors said Matanov called Tamerlan Tsarnaev about 40 minutes after the bombings and invited him to dinner. He is accused of lying to the FBI about whether he met them at the restaurant or whether he drove them there. He is guilty of knowing the brothers, liking them, and even worshiping at the same mosque. He is not accused of knowing anything about the bombs.

Matanov was originally facing 40 years of imprisonment due to “suspicious” wire transfers of money, some of which were made using aliases, which the FBI insinuated could have been terror related. He had wired money to people in many different countries. However, the feds backed off that charge pretty quickly after it was shown that Matanov could account for all of these money transfers, most of which were sent to needy relatives.

The God-loving kid worked 80 hours a week driving a cab in order to pay for his father’s heart surgery as well as his family’s other living expenses. It would be hard to find a more decent human being than this brother. 

Matanov was a subject of dirty journalist Michelle McPhee, who wrote about him and Tamerlan in a seriously ridiculous smear piece called “Inside the Mind of a Killer.” McPhee has been criticized repeatedly for writing apparently bogus news articles calculated to sway the trial against the accused. For example, she was the source of the “note in the boat” based on “anonymous law enforcement” statements. (The government is NOT going to use the boat confession as part of their case, as it is not legally considered as admissible evidence). 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys attempted repeatedly to convince Judge O’Toole to find out which FBI agents have been talking to the press, circumventing legal procedure. O’Toole continues to say he’s “concerned” about media links but does nothing about it. 

The judge in Matanov’s case, Judge William Young, however, has a reputation for being tough on media leaks. Matanov filed a motion last month regarding media leaks and Young responded by demanding a list from both the defense and prosecution of anyone who had ever seen the FBI transcript that mysteriously appeared online, or any other documents related to the case. This may be the reason that the government is suddenly willing to negotiate.

Unfortunately, the government put Matanov’s lawyer under a lot of pressure, so in order to get this plea deal he now has to file a motion to withdraw the motion regarding leaks to the media. This is very disappointing. That information about the government agent who is making up stories for the media, is pretty darn important and Young is the only judge who might find out. But I guess Khair has to do what he has to do. 

He said of the government prosecutors:  "They are very powerful people." 

The issue of whether he will be deported after time served is undecided.

Matanov has many loving supporters who write to him. In a letter to a supporter, which was circulated on Facebook, he stated: "I know you guys support me, and I always claim I am innocent. I still say I am innocent, but in this tough environment I can't imagine getting a fair trial so that is why I am accepting a plea deal. I hope you guys support me and I thank you for everything you guys have done, for your support. I mean it is unimaginable good to get tonnes of support from people I have never met."

The young man has received many letters begging him not to testify negatively against Jahar and advising him not to drop the media leaks issue. It is not clear if all these pending issues played a role or not, but on January 24, 2015 it was announced that Judge Young moved the hearing regarding the potential plea deal to February 25, 2015. 

Matanov’s lawyer, Paul Glickman, would not comment when asked if the expected guilty plea means Matanov has an agreement with prosecutors and plans to testify against the only surviving brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, at his trial. Matanov assured supporters that he would not. 

Lessons from the Boston Massacre

A trial says as much about the people holding it as it does about the person who is on trial. What will this trial say about Boston? Will Boston’s noble heritage be disgraced or upheld? As jury selection begins this week in Dzhokhar’ Tsarnaev's trial, let us ask ourselves: what would John Adams do? Put simply, he would defend the accused Boston Marathon bomber.

John Adams, an attorney and revolutionary, insisted upon representing the British soldiers that gunned down rioters in the spring of 1770, so that they would not be lynched by a mob but rather, receive a fair trial. It is the historical tradition of Boston, to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights no matter how severe the crime. Indeed, Adams gave such an impassioned speech at the trial that the jury, rather than execute the unpopular defendants, was moved to acquit 6 of the 8 soldiers and reduce the charges of the remaining two to manslaughter. The strong defense of even one’s political enemies not only demonstrated the future US President’s moral character but forms the basis of Constitutional law.

The most basic concept of the fair trial is that the defendant shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have been in attendance at nearly every pre-trial hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and I can assure the public that no meaningful evidence has been revealed. Most everything remains in sealed documents that have not yet been discussed. Therefore, any opinion that any person claims to have about the case, if not obtained from court documents, has been obtained illegitimately via made-for-TV movies that never claimed to be more than fiction. The amount of arrogant, willful ignorance amongst the jury pool is sickening.

Many tweets are circulating that demonstrate extreme prejudice: 


“I’m just gonna say this… I hope #Tsarnaev gets shanked tonight so we don’t have to go through this trial.. #sorrynotsorry”

“Jury duty coming up. Really hoping for the Tsarnaev case so someone can deliver him a fair chance at the electric chair.”

“So Pamela has to report for federal jury duty on Monday. 1st day of the Boston bomber trial voir dire. Can’t believe it. Yeah, we’re prejudiced!”

Harvey Silvergate argues in the Boston Globe that due to the prevalence of such extreme sentiments among the locals who were personally affected by the bombings, Judge O’Toole ought to have moved Tsarnaev’s trial out of Boston, “out of an abundance of caution, erring on the side of a fair trial that is supposed to be the norm especially when the death penalty hangs in the balance.” He further states: “O’Toole instead is erring on the side of expedition. Efficiency can be overrated when justice, and our own adherence to civilized and constitutional norms, hang in the balance.”

I can think of no greater stupidity than to allow “blind faith” in a man’s guilt sway a trial of this importance to our nation. This is a huge test of what the Founding Fathers stood for. We must insist on clear evidence, not hearsay, not doctored photos, not unsubstantiated news reports, no secret evidence - Bostonians deserve to watch not only a fair trial but proceedings that seek to “unravel the mystery” of the bombings. All we know for sure right now is that we don’t know anything. No bomb making materials were found in either brother’s apartment. The FBI claims they “don’t know” where the bombs were made. Does the prosecution even have a case? This is a valuable question, based in our Bill of Rights.

Even if the Tsarnaev brothers are guilty of some or all of the charges, it's still important to ask deeper questions, like who put them up to it. The truth could be rather complex. MLFA attorney Charles Swift opined: “Just because the government is lying doesn’t mean the defendant is innocent.” I fear that this rush to declare the kid guilty and then execute him is covering up a much bigger story. Even if the bigger story is just that law enforcement failed miserably and then tried to cover its mistakes by exaggerating the “Islamic threat,” embellishing and inflating the story into mythical proportions in order to explain their inability to protect the public from harm.

The Massachusetts Constitution, Article XIII states that “In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.”

Unfortunately, the government has worked overtime to remove the evidence from the scene. The mailbox, the tree that were hit with shards of shrapnel have been removed so that we cannot determine the direction of the blast. Officer Collier's car has been refurbished and put back into use, the boat where Tsarnaev was captured has been removed from the property and replaced with a new boat, witnesses have been deported and jailed, intimidated or killed/died mysteriously; including law enforcement witnesses! Will the truth ever come out? If so, how?

Boston should stand strong and insist that the government follow the laws of our land and actually demonstrate the veracity of its accusations with hard evidence. If we allow murderous hysteria to take over Boston, then we are acting in the tradition of Salem.

Boston Gears Up for Bombing Trial

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1583.htm

The past couple weeks have been strange, with the defense for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev filing a motion to keep protesters who were supporting their client away from the courthouse! (?) Tsarnaev’s attorneys oddly argued that the presence of demonstrators, whose arguments vary, would rob Tsarnaev of his right to a fair trial. The defense again frantically requested for a third time a change of venue the late afternoon of New Year’s Eve,arguing that “every member of the jury pool is, in effect, an actual victim of the charged offenses.”

Judge O’Toole routinely denied the defense request at the advice of the prosecution, who insisted that the trial should be conducted in the community most affected by the bombing. "Moving the trial out of the Eastern Division would create an enormous hardship for those victims and their families, depriving many, if not most of them, of any ability to see the trial."

Harvey Silvergate writes in the Boston Globe, “The Oklahoma City bombing prosecution furnishes an instructive precedent that strongly suggests that Tsarnaev should not be tried in Massachusetts. It is a precedent that O’Toole has recklessly misread and misrepresented in denying a venue change… O’Toole ignores yet another precedent, this one right in his own back yard.”

Boston Judge Wolf decided to postpone the sentencing trial of Gary Lee Sampson, who was convicted in 2003 of the carjack killings of three men, Silvergate continues, “out of an abundance of caution, erring on the side of a fair trial that is supposed to be the norm especially when the death penalty hangs in the balance. O’Toole instead is erring on the side of expedition. Efficiency can be overrated when justice, and our own adherence to civilized and constitutional norms, hang in the balance.”

After being found guilty, Sampson was sent to New Hampshire for execution, since Massachusetts does not allow the death penalty. If a Bostonian can be found guilty in Massachusetts and executed in New Hampshire, why can’t a Bostonian get his trial moved to New Hampshire, where the libertarian population is more likely to question the FBI’s story?

Bostonians are largely debating the death penalty vs. life in prison rather than innocence vs. guilt. A 2013 Boston Globe poll found that 57% of Bostonians favored life without parole for Tsarnaev, while 33% favored death.

Jury selection is expected to begin on Monday, January 5, 2014.

Attorney Judy Clarke has made overtures to prosecutors about a plea bargain, according to a lawyer close to the case. But so far she has been rebuffed, reports the NY Times. Imprisoned friend Stephen Silva is expected to confess to selling or giving a gun with an obliterated serial number to the Tsarnaevs in February 2013, due to FBI evidence against him obtained by the wiretapping of an informant, two months before the April events. Media insinuates, but court documents do not clearly link the gun to the killing of MIT officer Sean Collier.

The official prosecution narrative centers on the story that Tsarnaev, angry about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, scrawled incriminating messages (“Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop”) on the inside of the boat where he was captured. This message appeared about three weeks after his arrest, just in time for the grand jury hearing, and is therefore rather suspect as evidence. I think it is baloney that Jahar just happened to have a Sharpie and suddenly began to compose a manifesto after having been shot multiple times.

What is important to acknowledge though, is that Bostonians, and the American people in general, are desperate to execute Tsarnaev as a terrorist rather than to pity him as a wayward teen - BECAUSE of the erroneous belief that he was retaliating against America for propagating massacres overseas. BECAUSE of the deep dark guilt inside the American conscience. The hysteria that this kind of propaganda arouses points to a dark side of American ignorance and exceptionalism. The idea that a Muslim kid might say that retaliation is justified makes this a high profile case. He might even end up publicly hanged on TV like Saddam Hussein (God forbid)! But what about the random jerk off his meds who guns down a classroom? Not news. The United States is treating Tsarnaev like a scapegoat that they can just load up with all their baggage and send him out to the desert to “take away the sins of the world.”

Indeed if Tsarnaev had committed bombings in the name of Islam, in retaliation for Muslim deaths overseas, he would be protected by international law. The United Nations could recognize him as a political prisoner and he would enjoy certain rights enforceable by the international community. If Tsarnaev is truly an Islamic jihad terrorist, where is his legal support? Where is his army? There is none because he never was a jihadi despite some general interest in Islamic causes such as sympathy for Gaza and Syria. He also has no background of crime or any issue that would consider him to be a disturbed youth. He was a lifeguard, who volunteered to help handicapped kids. He was a well adjusted and very popular kid. 

Is that what this trial is going to boil down to? The right of a well-adjusted American kid to openly care about Muslim suffering?

Art Exhibit Questions Boston Marathon Bombing Scenario

 TMO 

 

The author standing next to a  on display at Black Indian Inn in Dorchester, MA. Photo by David Barkley.

The Boston Chapter of The Jericho Movement recently held an event at the Black Indian Inn art gallery, entitled ‘Artistic Hospitality in the Hood.’ The event featured a film about Abu Mumia Jamal, an African American convicted and sentenced to life without parole for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

 

This event coincided with an exhibit questioning the official story in the Boston Marathon bombing that took place in April 2013. To me, the most immediately noticeable panel of the display shows a picture of the accused Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s face coming out of the darkness with the words, “I’m not asking for mercy, I’m asking for justice,” positioned next to it. The display awakens the part of the mind that questions official details about a crime scene and allows a “shadow of a doubt” to penetrate the consciousness.

 

The panels on display in this exhibit were the same panels were held by protesters in front of Boston’s federal courthouse on October 20, 2014. Among those present that day was Elena Teyer, mother in law of Ibrahim Todashev, who was murdered by a Boston FBI agent in his Florida home in May 2013, while writing a forced confession implicating himself and Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a triple homicide. His confession does not match the actual crime scene. One of the most important panels shows photographs from Todashev’s autopsy.

 

The most terrifying aspect of this young man’s situation while awaiting trial is that despite an endless stream of media content vilifying him and his Islamic religion, we the public have never been allowed to hear him say more than “Not Guilty,” which he said seven times at his arraignment. Not even his sisters are allowed to talk to him without an FBI officer present in the room. The defense is gagged – prevented from saying publicly that their client is innocent! Meanwhile, the media has not been stopped from airing highly inflammatory stories about him.

 

“Meet Jahar…” reads a statement on the most prominent poster of the exhibit. It shows the boy’s downcast face as he was captured in the boat after being shot multiple times by police despite being unarmed. One thing is clear in the face of this 19-year-old in this most terrifying of circumstances: he looks alarmingly handsome, calm, and resolved. It is rumored that he is ready to accept death penalty before he will plead guilty for a crime he did not commit. He is placing his fate in the hands of Allah.

Nearby, we see the innocent boy on a happier day with a carnation in his lapel. The public has never before been exposed to the image of him with a flower! We learn that this “terrorist” sounds like the kid we wish we could say was our son.

 

Panel on display depicting the scene of the Boston Marathon Bombing. Photo by David Barkley.

Crowning the display is a collection of photos of young men who are currently being held in solitary confinement, basically because they knew the Tsarnaevs.

Many of the panels discuss the logistics of what happened when the first and second bombs went off. One poster claims to show photographic evidence that “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not even standing at the site of the 2nd bomb. He was next door at Atlantic Fish Restaurant.”

 

One section of the display concentrates on the “bomb squad practice” that was going on at the same time as the actual bombs, and official media assurances that these explosions were only a “training exercise.” We see bomb sniffing dogs at the finish line, snipers on the roof wearing protective gear, and a tweet from the Boston Globe that reads, “Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.”

 

Three panels focus on the issue of “the backpack.” Photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not have any kind of pressure cooker or anything heavy in his light colored backpack. The exploded backpack shown in the media bears close resemblance to that worn by men who are believed to be Craft International employees, who were photographed standing around with heavy black backpacks near the time of the blasts.

 

An additional panel exhibits conflicting accounts of what happened that night when the brothers were on the run. Early media reports said they had robbed a 7-11. Surveillance photos show they just bought snacks. Similar discrepancies exist regarding the story about the shooting of MIT police officer Sean Collier. Early police reports stated they were looking for a dark skinned male. Tsarnaev was first accused of this cop killing a few weeks later at his grand jury hearing. Another poster shows multiple images of the unconstitutional behavior of police raiding homes in Watertown, Massachusetts.

 

The display raises more questions than it answers, but it is not the citizens’ job to prove anyone’s innocence. It is the government’s job to establish guilt of the accused, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Meanwhile, we watch and wait.

If Jahar didn't bomb the marathon, who did?

Boston - Accused Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar (Jahar) Tsarnaev’s last pre-trial hearing took place on December 18th. He still resolutely refuses to plead guilty for a crime he claims he did not commit. I watched the proceedings in the overflow room and also participated in a protest outside the courthouse, where I was interviewed by reporters from every news channel.

I explained to them that I want a fair trial for Jahar. The public deserves to know what really happened. We need to make sure we got the right guy. Erroneous media reports based on leaks from anonymous law enforcement officials have been presented to the public in lieu of evidence, and have greatly biased the jury pool against the defendant before he has even gone to trial. As to whether or not I personally think he’s innocent, I would say, based on past prosecutions by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s team in front of the same Judge O’Toole, that it is highly probable that the young man is simply a victim of anti-Islamic prejudice.

For example, Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to over 17 years for joking comments he made on the internet, which the government misconstrued as planning to commit terrorist acts. His trial was based on highly inflammatory statements against the Islamic religion, irrelevant evidence such as beheading videos, expert testimony from career neocons, and plea bargains from acquaintances who were facing decades in prison unless they testified against Mehanna. Based on the media reports, during the time of the trial, many people in the Muslim community refused to stand up for their brother and spent energy distancing themselves from him. It was only after sentencing that he was allowed to speak out about his unjust conviction.

In Jahar’s case, he is not just accused of thought crimes but actual explosions that killed and maimed people. If he is innocent, then the real bomber is still at large. In the worst case scenario, Jahar was chosen as a fall guy to cover up for a plot that is much more sinister. So far, there have been no bomb making materials found in either his home nor that of his brother. The government has never once claimed that the fireworks that his friends took out of his dorm room were linked to the bombing. The government prosecuted the friends for lying about throwing away the backpacks, in order to pressure them to testify against their friend.

If there is evidence that Jahar and his brother Tamerlan had something to do with the Boston Marathon bombings, then the public still deserves to know the bigger picture. I have no problem with executing a criminal who committed murder but I have a huge problem with someone being executed in order to silence him. The government has silenced almost every potential defense witness. Jahar’s friends, relatives, friends of friends and even relatives of friends of friends have been deported, imprisoned and even killed by the FBI. The defense complains that they are having trouble getting anyone to talk due to government intimidation.

Furthermore, defense lawyers have complained that the prosecution is being evasive instead of presenting clear arguments as to why they believe he is the bomber. They don’t seem to want to “unravel the mystery.”

I don’t know if the truth will ever come out in this courtroom. It is not being played as a straightforward prosecution. The government is playing chess, not proving their point.

Hearing after hearing, the defense has been begging the prosecution to present their argument. Instead, the government has dumped on them millions of pages of unsearchable computer records without any explanation as to their significance. US Attorney Weinreb has consistently argued, with a smirk on his face, that if the government were to present their case to the defense, the defense would be able to come up with a counter-argument, which would be unfair to prosecutors; therefore they need to keep the element of surprise. Yet at the same time, the government has been illegally feeding news stories to the media. The defense complained that they are learning more about the government’s narrative of this case from the television than they are getting from the other attorneys. The government is not playing fair, which leads to the question of whether it is covering up the truth.

In 95% of cases since 9/11, where Muslims are accused of terrorism related acts, the FBI has been involved. We need to know more about the extent of FBI involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing suspects’ lives. His mother stated to reporters last year that the FBI had been interviewing Tamerlan on a regular basis for two years before the bombing. He had been asked to become an informant. They knew him well. So, the most likely scenario is either that he bombed the marathon as an employee of the FBI, or else that he was framed for a crime he did not commit in retaliation for refusing to become an informant for the FBI.

I don’t want to live in a country where the FBI can just come into your house and murder you because you knew somebody, where they can just accuse you of a bombing and then, instead of presenting evidence in a court of law, make up TV docu-dramas about you without even consulting you for your side of the story. Perhaps it’s not as important to ordinary Americans that their government obey the rule of law, but as someone whose parents came to this country and swore their allegiance to the US Constitution, I see no other course of action possible other than standing up and fighting for what my country stands for.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen with rights. He came to this country as a refugee. He loved living here. He had many friends, no criminal record, and absolutely no motive to hurt anyone. If people don’t stand up for his rights, next week it could be your son in shackles.

Finally, we see him!!!

Dzhokhar (Jahar) Tsarnaev’s last pre-trial hearing took place Thursday, December 18 at 10am. Drone footage shows him being brought into the courthouse around 6am wearing shackles and an orange jumpsuit. He looked thin and seemed physically weak. The courthouse entranceway was a zoo, with a huge crowd of reporters, Homeland Security, FBI, police and protesters even before 8am. The massive audience filled the courtroom, plus two overflow courtrooms and the jury assembly hall, where the proceedings were shown on livestream video. About a dozen people identifying as victims of the Boston Marathon bombings also attended. Those watching on video were able to hear the judge clearly and see the defendant’s face while those experiencing the hearing live saw only his back.

Jahar sported wild, unkempt curly hair that was almost an afro, standing many inches above his head. He has grown a short beard. His eyes were downcast most of the time. He touched his face and nose a lot. His feet remained in shackles, while he sat in a relaxed slouch with his knees open throughout the 25 minute hearing. His facial expression seemed a bit weird and befuddled - quite intense yet not quite there - perhaps a side effect of being kept in isolation for over a year. He seemed almost disoriented, but maybe he was just exhausted from being hauled out of bed in the middle of the night. A supporter later asked his mother if he was taking medication and was told no, he won’t even take aspirin for a headache. He was wearing a black sweater over a white button-down shirt and slacks for court.

Judge O’Toole asked Jahar whether he had voluntarily chosen not to be present for any of the previous hearings; whether he had been kept up to date on the proceedings; and if he was happy with his representation. Jahar answered, “Yes, sir” to the first two questions and “pretty much,” or “very much” to the last question. This is the first time the public had heard his voice since he pled “Not Guilty” in 2013. The rest of the hearing was nothing special, just going over the motions. Judy Clarke patted him on the back a few times. Until…

As Jahar was handcuffed and taken out of the courtroom after the hearing, a woman in the courtroom started yelling loudly in Russian: “There are many people here supporting you. We are praying for you. We love you. We know you are innocent! Stay strong, my son!”

Onlookers report that he heard these words and smiled, although he did not turn around.

“I'm pretty sure his lawyers were not happy! Lol! I saw Miriam Conrad's face was like a wtf moment ... But I can tell Jahar was relieved. Jahar appreciates It,” stated an onlooker.

As the US Marshalls escorted her out, Elena shouted in English, “Stop killing innocent people! Stop killing innocent boys!”

Elena Teyer, US veteran and the mother of Ibrahim Todashev’s widow, then suddenly gave an impromptu press conference to hoards of reporters for the next one and half hours outside. Thank God! It worked out very beautifully that way because of the gag order that prevents Jahar’s lawyers from even stating that their client is innocent in public. Even the prosecutors made no statement to the press. Elena passionately defended Jahar’s innocence and all his friends. She decried all of the lives that have been destroyed because of FBI lies and games.

The ongoing arguments between the defense and prosecution are that the defense wants a “continuance” - in other words, more time to prepare. The government is demanding (and I would say bullying) the defense to provide detailed information about witnesses, even though it has been made clear that the witnesses are feeing too intimidated.

About 8 protesters held up placards after the hearing. About half were from out of state while the rest were local. One sign read: “Got proof? Innocent until proven guilty.”

There was a moment where a Bostonian named Marc who had lost half of one leg in the Boston Marathon bombing, waved his empty pant leg at the demonstrators. “We all wished we could have talked to him longer. He said something about what was found in the dorm room and I said have you never played with fireworks? We have to make sure we got the right guy!! It’s important. He reportedly told me to get a job LOL,” said a local supporter.

see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClmT70PfZRI

What was most astonishing about this hearing is that the government continues to waste the public’s time by insisting that a certain Ms. Vogelbruck be denied as a witness, because as a social worker she has interviewed a lot of people who ever knew the Tsarnaev family. Weinreb argued with his familiar smirk that he needs to know what she might say, in order that he could come up with an appropriate comeback.The government isn’t playing fair.

This is a government prosecution that was able to feed HBO and the History Channel all the statements they wanted to make, extra legal. I’d look into the government cable TV link.

The ongoing “live dispute” pertains to the list of witnesses who might testify as character witnesses in the event of a Guilty decision.

Jahar seems resigned as a noble Chechen would be, to the fate of Allah.

He absolutely refuses to plead guilty for a crime he did not commit.

Government Aggressively Seeks Defendant’s Associates; Defense Fears Intimidation

TMO 

Editor’s note:  Karin Friedemann is a TMO Columnist.  Her opinions are her own.

Demonstrators held signs in front of Boston’s federal courthouse on October 20, 2014 during the last hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was accused of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Arina Montag of Haverhill, Massachusetts told reporters she believes Tsarnaev and his late brother are being unfairly prosecuted.

“I believe the boys have been set up,” she said. “I haven’t seen any actual evidence against them. I mean I’ve seen circumstantial evidence. Nothing that actually links them to what they are allegedly being accused of doing.”

Elena Teyer, the mother-in-law of Ibragim Todashev, was one of the seven people speaking out against the justice system. Her daughter’s husband was shot seven times and killed in his Florida home by federal agents from Boston in May 2013. Teyer held a collage of his autopsy photographs.

“I am dead because I knew Tsarnaevs. I knew the truth,” her sign read.

Teyer told reporters about the email between FBI agents after they killed Todashev. It says, “Good work. A job well done.” The email congratulated the FBI team for their success! It did not say, “Well that turned uglier than we had planned.” This can only imply that they were sent from Boston to Orlando to murder a potential witness.

“They came from Boston to kill my son-in-law. I know that for sure.”

“We are all here for justice,” said Teyer, detailing to reporters the holes and inconsistencies in law enforcement’s account of Todashev’s death.

The news story of the alleged Todashev confession – that he and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were involved a drug-related 2011 triple homicide in Waltham, Massachusetts – was originally leaked to the media by reporter Michelle McPhee. There is a bloodstained note partially written, never signed. Todashev apparently had refused to continue with this forced confession, and paid with his brains splattered next to his front door.

Government prosecutors mentioned this unsigned confession letter in a previous court filing as if it were indeed undisputed fact. Defense attorneys have since tried repeatedly without success to compel the government to give some more details about these murders, which seem to be unrelated to the Boston Marathon bombing.

On October 24, 2014, four days after the hearing, US prosecutors filed with the court their opposition to Tsarnaev’s Fourth Motion to Compel [Discovery]. In order to avoid having to hand over any evidence to the defense, US prosecutors now suddenly admit:

“The government has no evidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev actually participated in the Walham murders.”

J.M. Lawrence, who writes for Bloomberg and the Boston Globe, tweets: “If US ‘has no evidence’ Tamerlan murdered 3 in Waltham, was the Todashev ‘confession’ in FL false? Lots of unanswered questions.”

McPhee’s most recent article in Newsweek entitled “Twisted Sisters” took heat inside the courtroom. The Islamophobic article painted a negative picture of the Tsarnaev family and contained a number of factual errors. McPhee’s article states that she was tipped off by a high ranking law enforcement official. McPhee is also the source of other erroneous stories related to the Boston Marathon bombing like the “note in the boat.”

Media leaks are very serious, because the TV version of events is extremely absent from the actual court proceedings – but heavily weighs the jury’s mindset against the defendant. Tsarnaev’s motion to address leaks “requests that the Court hold a hearing, and direct government counsel to produce the supervising law enforcement officers with access to information about this case including both federal and state supervising agents or officers – to testify about their instructions and efforts to investigate and stop unauthorized communications with news media.” 

The other big issue is the government intimidation of witnesses. The government wants the defense to reveal the names of Jahar’s old friends and relatives long before the trial. This is something that is not normally done, and the defense is not going along with it, because they fear for the safety of these people and they also fear that these people once the FBI starts harassing them, will cease to become defense witnesses.

“Defense counsel have described the unusual and severe obstacles they have encountered in their efforts to interview and secure testimony from potential witnesses who knew the defendant, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and other members of his family prior to April 15, 2013… A substantial part of these difficulties stems from the aggressive, persistent and pervasive law enforcement presence in the lives of many potential defense witnesses, and the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that has necessarily followed…”

“Given the virtual certainty that the FBI will descend on each of the non-expert witnesses to interview them (and in most cases, to re-interview them), the defendant has a well-founded concern that in the very unusual context of this case, defense witnesses whose identities are disclosed to the government prior to trial will quickly cease to be defense witnesses. For this reason, the defense does not agree to a witness disclosure requirement that is not mandated by statute or rule.”

1,000 potential jurors will be screened for Tsarnaev’s trial, District Judge George O’Toole said at Monday’s hearing. The process of picking the 12 jurors and six alternates who will hear the case against Tsarnaev is expected to begin on November 3, 2014.