by Woody Box
When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev surprisingly confessed at his sentencing that he "did it", with the emphasis "if there are any lingering doubts", he seemed to hammer the last nail into his own coffin. Many of his so-called supporters (those who think it's possible/probable/certain that he's innocent) perceived especially the "lingering doubts" remark as a slap in the face for their efforts to point out these doubts. Perplexity spreaded, and the defense team was quickly suspected of trying to silence the supporters.
Two weeks later, the lingering doubts rear their head again. In a preliminary motion for a new trial, the defense contests every single conviction:
A new trial is required in the interests of justice and judgments notwithstanding the verdict are required as a matter of evidentiary insufficiency.
The last two words are a sardonic euphemism for "insufficient evidence", and the explosive potential of this "jaw-breaker" did not escape alert observers like James Henry. For those who nourished hope that they would never hear from Tsarnaev again this is of course a huge disappointment.
For a close observer of the trial, the new development is not that surprising. The defense team, including the defendant himself, exhibited a fairly relaxed demeanor, which was grotesquely contrasted by their lack of engagement especially in the guilt phase. The trial seemed to be only a matter of duty to them. They came forward very rarely with evidence acquired by their own.
At one occasion however the public gained a glimpse into the defense tactics. When defense witness and Chechnya expert Prof. Michael Reynolds was cross-examined, prosecutor William Weinreb asked him if he still believed - as he had written in a book - that the Tsarnaevs chose to carry out terrorism. Reynolds denied and told him that his opinion had changed after seeing the "defense's evidence". It was obviously not Reynold's intention to reveal his knowledge of this undisclosed material. He only admitted to it after being squeezed by Weinreb. A clear sign for the defense's "sandbagging" strategy.
There is only a little step from "they didn't want to carry out terroristic acts" to "they didn't carry out terroristic acts". The mainstream media preferred to omit Reynolds' awkward admission in their reports. But surpressing unconvenient facts doesn't make them go away. It is only a matter of time until the evidence cited by Reynolds will find its way into the courtroom - and the public.
Meanwhile, Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan announced to prosecute Tsarnaev on a state level for the death of officer Sean Collier, a move that is met with general incomprehension. The Boston Globe's Adrian Walker finds it "myopic":
But Tsarnaev will not be the next example of that. His defense lawyer
said repeatedly, in open court, that he committed the crimes he was
charged with. At
his sentencing, Tsarnaev offered something of an apology for his
actions — further evidence that the facts of his case are not, in any
way, in dispute. He is guilty, and is never going to be exonerated.
Walker has obviously missed the defense's provisional appeal. Is DA Ryan's announcement a reaction to that? In a new article James Henry imagines a different motive:
One more factor must be considered. A new trial before another judge has
the potential to focus attention on the many loose ends in the case
against the Tsarnaevs that have remained unresolved despite “official investigations” and their subsequent “findings.”
He then points out the strange role of the FBI in the investigation in Cambridge. Harvey Silverglate's thoughts go into the same direction. On his twitter page, he rejects Walker's rant:
Another Tsarnaev trial might unveil info the feds hid from us, so no, Middlesex Co. DA isn't "myopic".
Apparently the doubts are back, and they are lingering more than ever.
- by Woody Box
"Boston Bombing News" is the working title for a series of articles mainly observing the development in the judicial case Tsarnaev, until now hosted by the website firedoglake.com.
The embryonic stage of BBN started two years ago on E. F. Beall's firedoglake account. "EFB" was a retired philologist and physicist and skeptical to the official Marathon bombing story from the beginning. His skepticism got a huge boost when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty in all counts in July 2013, and the comment section attached to his blog soon developed into a community of people who more or less surmised that DT was innocent. I was one of them.
EF Beall was a perfect host and spent a lot of time for responding to guests and lurkers. At one point he suggested to split the authorship for the Marathon Bombing-related contributions, but to keep them under a common label which was basically the birth hour of "Boston Bombing News". Sadly, he himself didn't experience the begin of BBN because he died in January 2014 after being hospitalized for a couple of weeks.
The first BBN was then written end of January 2014 by Lauraw, author of the new booklet Confessions of a conspiracy nut, a very personal approach that intensely describes the roller-coaster journey between the engagement for Tsarnaev and the "lingering doubts" that he was maybe guilty of the terror acts, despite ample lack of evidence and a smorgasboard of oddities.
Finally the team consisted of four writers, Lauraw, Pbszebra, Jane24 and me. We managed to cover the pre-trial phase nearly continuously by rotating. The comment section was busy, the tone mostly civilized, and the various contributions helped to clarify the state of the art. The series was most popular on firedoglake's user platform myfiredoglake and regularly earned a lot of recommendations.
Maybe the most important input in the long run have been the reports of Jane24, who, as a Boston resident, was able to attend the pre-trial hearings. Many little things, short remarks etc. that were telling with regard to the defense strategy or other aspects would not have seen the light without her. My notorious optimism in the case is in big part based on these subtle details she observed.
Just with the beginning of the trial, firedoglake suddenly suffered technical problems which was the preliminary end also for BBN. The site was re-established after a few weeks, but on a different platform and under different technical conditions. Jane24 continued with the BBN by covering the actual trial, and the importance of her reports even increased with regards to the seemingly "crazy" defense strategy - because they fixated important details which otherwise soon were flushed down the irrecoverable twitter abyss. The mysterious photos presented by the defense are a paramount example. How many people know about this incident?
I myself wrote one BBN post via Jane24's account. But firedoglake has meanwhile changed its policy and deleted the article, after having it online for weeks. Here's an authorized statement: There is more than enough evidence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty of playing a role in the Boston Marathon bombing. Posts, which suggest otherwise and ignore the facts, are not acceptable at Firedoglake.
It is clear that under these circumstances BBN, which germinated with Dzhokhar's seven-fold "not guilty" at his arraignment, can't stay with firedoglake and has to look for another place, which is found here. I myself will continue to publish technical issues on my original blog, and political issues on BBN, as I always used to do. Jane24 has announced to contribute when occasion occurs.
The first article on this new platform - apart from this "opener" - named An appeal triggered by insuffient evidence was originally meant to be published on firedoglake, but it obviously doesn't fulfill the above conditions and triggered the ban as well as the deleting of the former article.
