Rigging a Trial: the Case of the Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Anyone who read conspiracy literature in the past couple of years knows the abundant problems with the Boston marathon bombing story. I posted on this a decent amount, but didn't dwell on it particularly either.
A major point of contention about the bombing was whether the bombs were actually real and people died, or whether there were "crisis actors" who had staged injuries. I eventually had to conclude that at least some of the injuries were fake. There are of course, endless videos on Youtube about this, of varying quality.
Nonetheless, it seemed clear that the official story was crap, and that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a patsy (along with his brother, who was killed before capture). There were so many fishy pieces to this story, it was unreal, and unbelievable that anyone could take it seriously. What a freaking joke "Boston Strong" was.
In any case, the Feds have finally brought Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to trial for the bombing. And they've rigged it up real nice.
From this DN piece, there are three things that stick out about this trial, that make it a sham:
1) Tsarnaev made his "confession" to the bombing after capture, but before he was read his rights (and we can only imagine how this confession was actually obtained and wonder what really was said).
2) the trial is being held in Boston, where the jury pool is heavily biased against Tsarnaev, due to massive media propaganda (and how ridiculous that this huge city is so "traumatized" by this one relatively small scale incident-- if they are traumatized, it is because of the authorities and the media).
3) the prosecutors are going for the death penalty, which means the jurors have approved of the death penalty in principle. This means the jury is more conservative and more vengeance-minded and less likely to question the official story, than a non-death penalty jury. Also, Massachusetts is a non-death penalty state, which makes the death penalty even more outrageous and vengeful.
So, all together clearly a sham, but instructive for how the authorities can rig up the justice system system to promote the official narrative.
A major point of contention about the bombing was whether the bombs were actually real and people died, or whether there were "crisis actors" who had staged injuries. I eventually had to conclude that at least some of the injuries were fake. There are of course, endless videos on Youtube about this, of varying quality.
Nonetheless, it seemed clear that the official story was crap, and that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a patsy (along with his brother, who was killed before capture). There were so many fishy pieces to this story, it was unreal, and unbelievable that anyone could take it seriously. What a freaking joke "Boston Strong" was.
In any case, the Feds have finally brought Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to trial for the bombing. And they've rigged it up real nice.
From this DN piece, there are three things that stick out about this trial, that make it a sham:
1) Tsarnaev made his "confession" to the bombing after capture, but before he was read his rights (and we can only imagine how this confession was actually obtained and wonder what really was said).
2) the trial is being held in Boston, where the jury pool is heavily biased against Tsarnaev, due to massive media propaganda (and how ridiculous that this huge city is so "traumatized" by this one relatively small scale incident-- if they are traumatized, it is because of the authorities and the media).
3) the prosecutors are going for the death penalty, which means the jurors have approved of the death penalty in principle. This means the jury is more conservative and more vengeance-minded and less likely to question the official story, than a non-death penalty jury. Also, Massachusetts is a non-death penalty state, which makes the death penalty even more outrageous and vengeful.
So, all together clearly a sham, but instructive for how the authorities can rig up the justice system system to promote the official narrative.
posted by spooked at 8:33 AM
5 Comments:
The "death-qualified jury" system is a travesty. In the most important and emotional cases required the strictest rationality and independence in jurors, you have a system that excludes jurors who question authority. This is particularly troublesome in case like this with broad public import.
Carol Rose of the ACLU assumed guilt throughout the interview, even when Amy Goodman raised questions at the end. He may well be guilty, but I don't think the problem should just be an abstract concern for due process. She reminds of Senator Tim Kaine and his lawyerly concerns about war powers without seriously interrogating underlying facts.
Lawyers of all people, when purportedly acting for the public, should be concerned above all with the facts.
Thanks-- I agree 100% with those comments!
Rigged.
Post a Comment
<< Home