tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post6230446190029009868..comments2016-04-09T10:41:18.891-07:00Comments on Boston Bombing News: Intent to KillWoody Boxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13993092457193330662noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-30998199875968797362016-02-10T14:12:04.771-08:002016-02-10T14:12:04.771-08:00Thank you, Margo, for illustrating once again, and...Thank you, Margo, for illustrating once again, and so vividly, the obscene fervour with which the government sought the death penalty in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as it has and will likely continue to do in others. That Rule 32 should be interpreted in any way other than it has been by The Federal District of Hawaii leaves me incredulous.<br /><br />Whilst considering the numerous ways in which the "justice" system in the US is substantially weighted in favor of conviction and also the death penalty, and most specifically throughout the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the following caught my attention:<br /><br />In Doc: 1592 on pages 10-11 we learn that the government sought to deny a witness who had been subpoenaed and prepared by the defense and to provide substitutes in this person's stead. That such a practice could be considered surely serves to dispel any illusion of fairness within this so-called "justice" system?<br /><br />Also contained in Doc. 1592, pages 15-16, is the knowledge that had another witness for the defense, Janet Vogelsang, been called to testify instead of or in addition to Sister Helen Prejean, that testimony which in any way related to the Waltham murders and elder brother Tamerlan's involvement, (if any?), would have been excluded despite being potentially very relevant.<br /><br />When the government/prosecution can determine both the witnesses for the defense and the content of those witness's testimony the scales of justice appear to be far from level.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02349148107521766548noreply@blogger.com