Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon #9 One Suspect Dead; One in Custody

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
deoneta said:
Keep your purse. You deserve it. A good purse you can use for years is a better investment than a series of less expensive purses that don't last. Believe me, nobody makes a dollar holler louder than me, but a good purse makes you feel fabulous.
Click to expand...
Thats funny!
 
Elainera said:
Since we are on the topic of DT's rights - how can DT possibly get a fair trial with this much media coverage?
Click to expand...

That didn't hurt OJ, Robert Blake or Casey Anthony. It's not going to be a fight for a not guilty verdict anyway. It will all be about keeping him off death row. All MOO
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
I understand what you are saying.
It sucks really. Because we all know his confession is not false.
He confessed AND is on video dropping a bomb filled backpack at the feet of innocent people. I think he's toast.
It's a shame so much money and time will have to be spent to prove what he has already told them.
He did it. No doubt.

Waste of tax payers' money.

Infuriating,
Click to expand...

I added the links below to that post--really interesting reading if you've got the time.

The fact is, we don't know (yet) really what that bombing site #2 video shows. And, the fact that we're told he 'confessed' while heavily sedated in the room with investigators right after becoming conscious (and before Miranda rights were read--which was only AFTER the judge declared him competent to understand the criminal complaint, health-wise) adds to some murkiness, unfortunately. It sounds like an open and shut case, but...isn't quite yet.

Here are a few good links for better understanding the phenomenon of false confession, if you're interested (even if you don't think it applies in this case, it's a very interesting read, especially the 1st link.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us...s.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/...se-confession/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php


*This defense lawyer only was offered about $82K for her part defending Susan Smith--and returned it all to indigent defendants' coffers. Still too soon to get indignant about taxpayer monies, IMO. I can imagine most defense attorneys would salivate just to get this case on their resume.
 
Elainera said:
Since we are on the topic of DT's rights - how can DT possibly get a fair trial with this much media coverage?
Click to expand...

Because he's already admitted his guilt, there won't actually be a trial with a jury ... just a sentencing/penalty phase (which, I would imagine, would be with a judge only).

JMO

ETA: Just reading the post above about false confession or the possibility of inadmissible confession ... in that case, yes, there could still be a trial. Best the defence could go for in that situation would be a change of venue.
 
it used to be that a confession alone was not enough to convict, there had to be more evidence than a confession. or the testimony of an accomplice

corpus delecti = body of the case (not "show me the body" because not all cases have a dead/assaulted/injured body)

the federal system and some states have set aside corpus delecti when there is a trustworthy confession. they have to show that the facts of the case match the confession but they don't have to produce additional evidence beyond the evidence matches the confession

it's the death penalty that puts a different spin on it
 
The Miranda public safety exception stems from the 1984 case of New York v. Quarles, where police asked a man accused of rape about a loaded gun thought to be on his person before he was read his Miranda rights. Authorities used the exception in two recent foiled terror plots -- the underwear bomber and Times Square bomber -- to question the suspects before reading the suspects their Miranda rights. Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, continued to talk after being read his rights, while Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, did not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda_n_3134745.html

There was enough evidence to convict DT of terrorism causing death before he was ever read his miranda rights. The rights were withheld under the public safety exception. Even if some things he said may not be used against him, what LE knew before hand can be.
 
CARIIS said:
Right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel (i.e. lawyers), and if he cannot afford his own lawyer, requiring that the government should appoint one for him/her, or pay his/her legal expenses.

Just the law

Right to counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I understand that and started my comment with that clarification. But my point is, why is an affluent "team" being assembled for someone on our tax dollar? I was a jury member for a felony case with a court-appointed defense attorney and he was good, but not the best.
 
PoirotryInMotion said:
I added links below to that post--really interesting reading if you've got the time.

The fact is, we don't know (yet) really what that bombing site #2 video shows. And, the fact that we're told he 'confessed' while heavily sedated in the room with investigators right after becoming conscious (and before Miranda rights were read--which was only AFTER the judge declared him competent to understand the criminal complaint, health-wise) adds to some murkiness, unfortunately. It sounds like an open and shut case, but...isn't quite yet.

Here are a few good links for better understanding the phenomenon of false confession, if you're interested (even if you don't think it applies in this case, it's a very interesting read, especially the 1st link.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us...s.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/...se-confession/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php


*This defense lawyer only was offered about $82K for her part defending Susan Smith--and returned it all to indigent defendants' coffers. Still too soon to get indignant about taxpayer monies, IMO. I can imagine most defense attorneys would salivate just to get this case on their resume.
Click to expand...

I'll look at your links. Thanks for sharing.

But...
Do you really think the FBI would lie about having him on video dropping the backpack? I don't. They'll have to show it eventually and they know that. They are not gonna show the public their evidence. The only reason we saw the photos at all was for identifying purposes when they were still "on the run".
And all that unfolded after the bombings? Again, on video in a shoot out in the street.

I do think its an open and shut case.
I believe that 100%.
 
sillybilly said:
Because he's already admitted his guilt, there won't actually be a trial with a jury ... just a sentencing/penalty phase (which, I would imagine, would be with a judge only).

JMO
Click to expand...

He hasn't pled guilty, and I'd be shocked if he does. I think there will be a trial where he will be portrayed by the defense as fearful of his brother, brainwashed, etc. and will be called a "boy" about a kazillion times ala Lesley Abrams. All MOO
 
Apparently the female DNA sample was found on one of the two exploded pressure cooker bombs.

Investigators have taken a DNA sample from the wife of slain suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev to compare with the female DNA discovered on the pressure cooker from one of the Boston bombs.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...t-avoid-death-penalty-talks-have-started?lite
Click to expand...

Seems like that would be a stretch to prove it got there by a perp rather than a victim. Even if ruling out all female victims involved, then they still have to prove KT's DNA is there (if it is) due to her actively making the bomb (as opposed to handling a pressure cooker).

No wonder her lawyer agreed to the DNA testing. It's far likelier to clear her client than incriminate her. (Proving by a negative, if no DNA match is found--at least in the public's mind.)
 
sillybilly said:
Because he's already admitted his guilt, there won't actually be a trial with a jury ... just a sentencing/penalty phase (which, I would imagine, would be with a judge only).

JMO

ETA: Just reading the post above about false confession or the possibility of inadmissible confession ... in that case, yes, there could still be a trial. Best the defence could go for in that situation would be a change of venue.
Click to expand...
Is it accurate to say however, that everything he told us is not allowed in court because it was before his Miranda - I think it was a strategy and if that is accurate a pretty good one no?
 
CARIIS said:
Is it accurate to say however, that everything he told us is not allowed in court because it was before his Miranda - I think it was a strategy and if that is accurate a pretty good one no?
Click to expand...


They can use what he said against him. They'll argue that it can't but in the end it'll all be there for the jury.

This is the Feds, not amateur hour in some off the beaten path municipal court.

I honestly don't think it ever goes to trial, they'll plea away the death penalty in exchange for his cooperation. He'll go to prison for the rest of his life and the world will move on
 
mysterious minds said:
I understand that and started my comment with that clarification. But my point is, why is an affluent "team" being assembled for someone on our tax dollar? I was a jury member for a felony case with a court-appointed defense attorney and he was good, but not the best.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the US just have a cap on the amount of legal aid dollars that can be authorized, depending on the case at hand? I.e. ... if it's a murder case and XX dollars are allocated in total for representation in murder cases, and Mr. Super Attorney agreed to take the case, would they not just receive the same amount as any old Mr. Dumb Bunny who could have agreed to take the case?
 
noodled1 said:
They can use what he said against him. They'll argue that it can't but in the end it'll all be there for the jury.

This is the Feds, not amateur hour in some off the beaten path municipal court.

I honestly don't think it ever goes to trial, they'll plea away the death penalty in exchange for his cooperation. He'll go to prison for the rest of his life and the world will move on
Click to expand...
Just think too big a story NOT to get death penality, IMO
 
if she gets the DP off the table a confession would suffice and a guilty plea could happen

Clarke, one of the nation's top lawyers and defender of the despised, broke her silence Friday in a speech at a legal conference, where she spoke about her work saving notorious criminal defendants from execution.

The names of her past clients — Susan Smith, Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and most recently, Tucson shooter Jared Loughner — run like a list of the most reviled in American criminal history. But she did not say whether she would add to that list the latest name in the news: The suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.

She saved Smith's life and later would do the same for Kaczynski, Loughner and the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph. All received life sentences instead of death.

... She added that they had another thing in common: When she first meets them, they do not want to plead guilty. Her job is to change their resolve, she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/reclusive-death-penalty-lawyer-opens-003542698.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 2,894 (members: 170, guests: 2,724)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
2,724
Total visitors
2,894
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,463
Messages
18,025,028
Members
229,659
Latest member
erinicole93
Back
Top