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.

Exciting Developments in Tsarnaev Case

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

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1574.htm


On October 20, 2014, Tsarnaev's most recent status conference hearing took place. Seven demonstrators spoke to the flock of reporters reminding them about their legal obligation to promote the presumption of innocence.

"I haven't seen any actual evidence against [the Tsarnaev brothers]. I mean I've seen circumstantial evidence. Nothing that actually links them to [the bombings]," stated demonstrator Arina Montag.

Elena Teyer is the mother in law of Ibrahim Todashev, who was shot 7 times in his Florida home by Boston FBI in May of 2013. Elena drove for three days, sleeping in her car in order to be present at this demonstration. Her brave diligence was noted.

Associated Press' Denise Lavoie reported, "Elena Teyer held a placard with photos of son-in-law Ibragim Todashev. 'I am dead because I knew Tsarnaevs. I knew the truth,' the sign read in part."

"'We are all here for justice,' said Teyer, pointing to Ibrahim's autopsy photos, explaining what she believes to be holes and inconsistencies in law enforcement's account of Todashev's death," reported Morgan Rousseau in the Boston Metro.

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

Elena mentioned to reporters the email between FBI agents after they killed her daughter's husband. It says, "Good work. A job well done." It did not say, "Well that turned uglier than we had planned." The email congratulated the FBI team for their success! This can only mean that they were sent from Boston to Orlando to murder the potential witness.

Meanwhile, inside the courthouse, defending attorneys complained of media leaks. In particular, a recent Newsweek article by Michelle McPhee, entitled "Twisted Sisters," painted a negatively biased picture of the Tsarnaev family. It was Islamophobic 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 weird stories related to the Boston Marathon bombing like "the note in the boat."

This is 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. Four days after the courthouse protest, on October 24, attorneys filed three very interesting documents: Tsarnaev's defense team filed their Third Motion for a Hearing to Address Leaks by Law Enforcement, and a Memorandum Regarding Scheduling, which addresses government intimidation of witnesses. The government filed its opposition to Tsarnaev's Fourth Motion to Compel [Discovery].

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 next illuminating document discusses government intimidation of witnesses. The defense argues that they are not legally obligated to disclose the names of Jahar's friends, as the government demands.

"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. This problem, and the consequent slowing of the pace of the defense mitigation investigation, was one of the reasons why defense counsel sought a continuance of the trial date to September 2015..."

"These same concerns make it impossible for the defense to voluntarily agree to disclose to the government the names of non-expert witnesses long before they are to be called. 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."

In the government's response to defense requests for more information about Todashev's alleged confession regarding the triple homicide in 2011, 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."

The Todashev confession news leak also came from, surprise! McPhee. Government prosecutors mentioned Ibrahim's confession in an earlier court filing as fact. This is a common practice in shady politics: leak news report, then refer to news report in legal case. But if Todashev is now suddenly considered innocent, why did he write a blood-stained confession note?

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.

FBI Stalling Todashev Murder Investigations

December 19, 2013 by TMO 

Ibragim Todashev and his wife Reniya Manukyan.

Florida State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton met with US Department of Justice officials last week to discuss their investigations into the killing of Ibragim Todashev in his home at 6022 Peregrine Ave in Orlando, Florida in the wee hours of May 22, 2013.

The Associated Press reported last week that DoJ had finished a preliminary report into Todashev’s killing, but it has not been released to the public.

Ashton reportedly received “additional investigative material” from Justice officials and requested more information. The Department of Justice oversees the FBI, which typically clears the agents involved in extra-judicial murders. According to the New York Times, FBI agents shot and killed about 70 subjects and wounded 80 others between 1993 and 2011. In each case, an investigation concluded that the shooting was justified.

“The FBI wouldn’t go on record with an official version of events, and was unusually tight-lipped about the case, even as the dead man’s grieving father speculated that his son was murdered,” reports Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic.

“The State Attorney and his staff will diligently continue their investigation into the death of Ibragim Todashev with the expectation of concluding the investigation and making the findings public in early 2014,” said Ashton’s spokesman, Richard Walsh.

This is disappointing since what the public really wants to know now is the names of the officers involved so that they can be prosecuted, not that the matter be quietly concluded. Ashton’s office is supposed to investigate the shooting, not coordinate stories with the DoJ.

Government officials are engaged in a counter-blame game claiming that the dead man was about to confess to a triple murder, right before the FBI shot him 7 times in vital organs with a final shot to the back of the head that took place just inside the front door of his home. Clearly, he was trying to escape from the FBI interrogation. He couldn’t possibly have committed the triple homicide since he was in Atlanta at the time, according to his wife.

Family and close friends say Todashev was never previously interviewed about the murders. He and other family members had however been repeatedly questioned by the FBI about their connections to the Tsarnaevs.

Khusen Taramov was with Ibrahim Todashev when the FBI arrived. Concerned, he waited outside in the parking lot for hours. According to Todashev’s widow, Taramov told her that three men describing themselves as FBI agents from Boston entered the home. He was unaware of any state troopers. A local Orlando FBI agent named Chris entered the home as well, but he was asked to leave shortly before the murder took place.

Todashev’s widow, Reniya told TMO: “They started interview at 7:30pm. Khusen was told to leave at 11:30pm, and by the autopsy he was shot at 12:15am. The doctor told the funeral home, because the time was put on the death certificate.”

The deputy chief medical examiner was Gary Lee Utz under the supervision of chief investigator Carol Crosby in Orlando, Florida. “Gary is the doctor who did the autopsy report,” said Reniya. “He’s the one who open his body.”

The FBI has provided no information about the Todashev shooting, except that the unnamed agent, two unnamed Massachusetts State Police troopers and unspecified others were questioning Todashev as part of the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings when he was killed. However, the FBI has refused to explain the confrontation that led to the fatal shooting. Conflicting details of events were provided by anonymous police sources to the media.

Todashev had been cooperating with investigators and spoke voluntarily with the FBI at least three times at their office before they came to his apartment to kill him. His father, Abdulbaki Todashev accused the FBI of “premeditated, intentional murder.”

Hassan Shibly, director of CAIR Florida, said that federal immigration officials arrested two potential witnesses to the FBI’s conduct the week leading up to the shooting. Todashev’s housemate, Tatiana Gruzdeva, who was actually Taramov’s girlfriend, was arrested for having an expired visa days before Todashev was killed and was deported to Russia on October 11 after she gave a media interview. Todashev’s friend, Ashurmamad Miraliev, was ordered to leave the country in November.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked MA Attorney General Martha Coakley to launch an independent investigation, given the involvement of Massachusetts law enforcement, but she turned down the request. Governor Deval Patrick remains silent.

“When something goes wrong during an operation involving Massachusetts law enforcement officers, Massachusetts residents deserve a thorough and transparent investigation by Massachusetts officials,” wrote Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, in her letter to Coakley.

“Todashev’s family and friends have said he did nothing wrong and have sharply questioned the FBI’s account of the shooting,” reports Maria Sacchetti at the Boston Globe.

Todashev is often said to be a friend of Tamerlan, one of two brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon killing three people and injuring more than 260 others.

However, his widow told TMO that the two men only knew each other from the gym. They had never visited in each others’ homes. Their families did not know each other. This seems to be a case of racial profiling resulting in the death of an innocent man.

About a week before the marathon bombing, Tamerlan Tsarnaev called Ibrahim Todashev wishing him well after his recent knee surgery. At the time of his murder, Todashev was still limping around on crutches. The FBI most likely targeted Todashev as a result of warrantless spying followed by a superficial interpretation of his telephone call log.

“To us as family members we have no clue who killed him, who was there, how many… no details… nothing,” Reniya Todashev told TMO.

Court Hears Tsarnaev Arguments

November 21, 2013 by TMO 

[NOTE: The drawing below is inaccurate. According to people who were there as well as cell phone photos taken secretly, Tsarnaev's had was immobilized in a tight splint or cast. He could not move his wrist as is depicted below. Makes you wonder about those courtroom sketch artists!]

On November 12, 2013 lawyers for and against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appeared before Judge George O’Toole for a motion hearing and status conference. Federal attorneys Bill Weinreb, Nadine Pellegrini and Aloka Chakravarty expressed eagerness to push forward with the trial while defense attorneys Tim Watkins, Miriam Conrad, William Fick and Judy Clarke argued for more time, as the government flooded them with over 100,000 pages of documents including a massive volume of tweets and inconclusive grainy photographs, which they must sift through.
Defense attorney Watkins told the judge, “We almost know what we don’t know. The case is moving along. None of us is sitting on our hands looking for things to do.”

After going through the discovery documents, the defense team plans to file motions to suppress or dismiss evidence and ask for more information.

The government is so far withholding evidence that has been specifically requested by defense attorneys, such as the Tsarnaev family’s immigration records, autopsy reports of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev, and any actual evidence for new government accusations against the two dead men along with the defendant. The government won’t release evidence for their claims regarding Tsarnaev’s alleged link to the Waltham murders stating it’s an “ongoing investigation.”

US Attorney Weinreb said he wants the trial to begin in fall of 2014 and wants all discovery motions to be filed within 90 days. He estimated the trial would last 90 days and sentencing would take 6 weeks. Weinreb denied that discovery is incomplete. He believes the government is entitled to withhold information from the defense in order to bring it up later during trial. He said the government will not release autopsy photos but that defense lawyers are welcome to look at them.

Attorney Conrad argued against the government’s proposed “rocket schedule” for one of the “most complex crime scenes in history,” and explained that there is a warehouse full of unlabeled documents related to this case to go through. She demanded the government immediately provide “all exculpatory and mitigating evidence,” so that the defense would be “better able to understand where the government is going.”

Attorney Fick reminded the judge that establishing guilt or innocence of the accused should be the goal of the court.

Judge O’Toole set the date of February 28, 2014 for motions not related to discovery, including  a possible change of venue or requests for dismissal of charges, but agreed to defer the trial date. The next status status conference is scheduled for February 12, after the government is to have made its decision regarding the death penalty.

The attorneys then discussed the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs).

Judge O’Toole said, “I agree enough with the defendant” regarding problems with preparing an adequate defense, but he claimed he did not have the jurisdiction to deal with Constitutional issues such as group prayer. He said these concerns should be brought up in a civil suit by a third party in front of a different judge. He said his job is to determine “not whether SAMs are annoying but if they are limiting.”

Earlier this month the ACLU filed a memorandum with the court calling Tsarnaev’s prison conditions “torture,” but O’Toole ordered the ACLU memo expunged from the federal court record and barred the ACLU from making a statement at the hearing.

Attorney Fick argued that SAMs are “unwarranted” as Tsarnaev is not a political leader. He said the SAMs restrict the defendant’s right to defend himself, because they limit who can see Tsarnaev outside the company of an attorney.

SAMs also tacitly threaten defense attorneys with possible incarceration if they defend their client’s innocence too vigorously. Without mentioning the name of Attorney Lynn Stewart, who is now dying in prison, Attorney Clarke mentioned in court that “attorneys have been prosecuted for differing from prosecutors in their interpretation of SAMs.”

SAMs prevent Tsarnaev from speaking confidentially with his lawyers, and prohibits them from discussing their conversations with Tsarnaev, or relaying messages from him, even a greeting. Tsarnaev’s lawyers are not allowed to talk to any potential defense witnesses without an agent of the federal government there. Tsarnaev’s lawyers argued that SAMs are preventing them from building a fair case in his defense.

The prosecution claims Tsarnaev’s communication needs to be restricted to prevent him from inspiring further acts of violence. The government worries defense lawyers might pass some sort of message from Tsarnaev to a person on the outside. Tsarnaev’s team complained of government prosecutors’ collusion with the Bureau of Prisons.

“The government has no business knowing the details of attorney meetings in prison,” argued Clark. “The prosecution has no business knowing which member of the defense team sees Tsarnaev, when, and what is shown to him.”

“This is not a level playing field,” Conrad told the court. “It appears the government is trying to retain every possible advantage in this case for itself.”

The prosecution said the Attorney General has the authority to institute SAMs and it is the burden of the defense to determine that what is being disseminated to third parties is strictly legal.

Judge O’Toole asked that attorneys agree on a list of people with legal access to the prisoner but would not make any ruling about SAMs, so the restrictions remain.

Next, Conrad reiterated the defense request that the government turn over all the information they have. When the indictment includes a capital charge, it’s a capital case, she said. There should be no need to wait for disclosure. The government has a global network of investigators, police, and witness statements, while the defense must rely on the government to inform them.

Weinreb said they don’t have to provide more evidence until after the decision about the death penalty. “We have turned over everything that we deem to be exculpatory or relevant to mitigation.”

Conrad argued that basic fairness is the core issue. She accused the government of “splitting hairs” over types of evidence. The government is not providing the defense access to their investigation. The defense would have to go through a long process to obtain documents when the government could get it with just a phone call. “You do your investigation and we’ll do ours, is what the government seems to be saying.” Conrad told the court that the government’s resources are global while we are just a handful of people with limited time who have other clients also.

So far the government has not said what information they have from foreign or intercepted sources. Defense attorneys want to interview the CIA. Conrad argued that the government should not be able to decide what information to provide and withhold, or provide summaries instead of transcripts of interviews or secret grand jury statements. The government won’t even provide non-secret information that explains the circumstances or context of available witness statements. The defense has asked for information about Tsarnaev’s repeated requests for a lawyer during his initial hospital bed interrogation. The government is withholding documentary evidence including signed statements, while at the same time pushing for a quick trial date.

Prosecutors claim it is “premature” to disclose information about the Russian communication to the US but Conrad insisted that “the judge has the authority to compel evidence” that is required to make the defense job efficient.

The prosecution said they will show the Russian communication and other key information secretly to the judge, but not share it with the defense.

Prosecution denied the government is withholding any favorable evidence but said the government is withholding unfavorable evidence in order to use later in the trial. Weinreb said the defense is not allowed to second guess the government about whether all evidence has been disclosed and denied that the government is inhibiting investigation.

The defense has asked for files that the government could easily provide. The government won’t give a reason why, but just keeps saying it doesn’t need to provide the information right now.

“This is just plain wrong. We are entitled to information in an orderly and efficient manner,” argued Attorney Conrad.

Judge O’Toole said he would take the matter into advisement.