"The information requested by this committee belongs to the American people. It does not belong solely to the FBI."
(Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security)
Defense lawyers, Senators and the media: All are refused access to vital information in the Boston Bombing case due to the 'ongoing investigation'. Why? by B Blake. (with minor assistance from S.G)
This week saw the release of a new court filing submitted by accused marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's defense team, concerning continued refusals by prosecutors to hand over information requested in preparation for an expected death penalty hearing. It listed numerous requests for exculpatory information that have either been denied or provided incompletely during discovery.
Prosecutors continue to withhold reports and testimony concerning Tsarnaev's family, including immigration files said to contain information important to defend Tsarnaev, and to argue mitigating factors during any sentencing hearing, should Tsarnaev be convicted. Tsarnaev's lawyers state that even after obtaining signed releases from certain Tsarnaev family members, immigration authorities have refused to release their files, citing the ongoing investigation.
Tsarnaev's lawyers also said that they believe numerous law enforcement interviews of teachers, neighbors, classmates and friends of Tsarnaev have also been withheld, noting the 'spotty and inconsistent' nature of the prosecution's attitude towards the discovery process. They also indicated that the government had provided them with incomplete and inaccurate information concerning Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer, and their repeated denial of that inalienable right.
The 'ongoing investigation' was also the reason given for continued refusal to provide documents pertaining to the investigation of the Waltham triple murders, in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev are allegedly implicated: documents originally requested months ago by the defense.
Prosecutors continue to withhold reports and testimony concerning Tsarnaev's family, including immigration files said to contain information important to defend Tsarnaev, and to argue mitigating factors during any sentencing hearing, should Tsarnaev be convicted. Tsarnaev's lawyers state that even after obtaining signed releases from certain Tsarnaev family members, immigration authorities have refused to release their files, citing the ongoing investigation.
Tsarnaev's lawyers also said that they believe numerous law enforcement interviews of teachers, neighbors, classmates and friends of Tsarnaev have also been withheld, noting the 'spotty and inconsistent' nature of the prosecution's attitude towards the discovery process. They also indicated that the government had provided them with incomplete and inaccurate information concerning Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer, and their repeated denial of that inalienable right.
The 'ongoing investigation' was also the reason given for continued refusal to provide documents pertaining to the investigation of the Waltham triple murders, in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev are allegedly implicated: documents originally requested months ago by the defense.
Is 'ongoing investigation' the new phrase for 'we have something to hide and refuse to reveal to you what we know'?
It would appear so, as it is the very same expression forwarded in denying the many other requests for information about the case - it is not just Tsarnaev's defense team who are experiencing these problems. Politicians' requests for information are also being disregarded but admittedly, not ignored. Far from it.
Requests from Congress denied
Three months ago, U.S. Rep. William Keating, a Massachusetts Democrat wrote to the Bureau seeking answers to a number or tough questions surrounding the FBI's previous contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and also expressed his grave concerns over lack of transparency in the case as a whole. Keating wrote:
“As a former District Attorney, I understand the sensitivities surrounding an ongoing investigation, however, none of the questions I have would compromise the integrity of the investigation into the bombings. I’m not looking to place blame. Without forthright information from the FBI, we are prevented from taking the critical steps needed to protect the American public. It is my hope that Director Comey makes this a priority because I intend to keep demanding answers until I receive them”
Evidently, Keating's questions were not of the sort to which the FBI saw fit to respond, as in late May this year Keating ended up travelling to Russia himself to seek answers noting:
“Despite numerous requests to obtain a copy of and discuss this information, I have not heard anything back from the FBI”
The reason cited for not fulfilling Keating's request? It was an 'ongoing investigation'.
Like Keating, the FBI is a public service. With that in mind, even a short examination of Keating's statement is disturbing.
Like Keating, the FBI is a public service. With that in mind, even a short examination of Keating's statement is disturbing.
'There is a need and a duty to protect the American public. This duty is shared between many agencies, of which the FBI is just one. The sharing of information by the FBI is an essential element in the fulfilment of this duty. By refusing, the FBI is obstructing, rather than facilitating or contributing to this very important and complex task. Such conduct endangers, rather than protects the American public'
In other words, the FBI is part of the very problem it exists to solve
In other words, the FBI is part of the very problem it exists to solve
The FBI has not ignored Keating's requests - which were made in his official capacity as a public servant - but has chosen to react to the existence of his questions by placing an article in a newspaper. Keating's questions were never addressed. The newspaper is not a public service, had never solicited the article, and Keating, it seems, was just not worthy of a response - and if he isn't then by extension, neither are the people he represents. So much for protecting the American public.
Keating isn't the only politician who has been stonewalled. Recently, Senator Charles Grassley sent a a letter to bureau Director James Comey, criticizing the lack of transparency in the case, and re-stating a series of questions he first posed back in June - and to which he still awaits an answer. Once again the FBI chose to respond to the questioning via a printed statement submitted to various national newspapers. Once again it failed to address many of the questions Grassley actually asked.
He may be waiting a while longer for those answers too, as back in July the FBI refused even to attend a congressional investigation meeting into possible intelligence failures related to the case. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security was angered enough to make the following damning statement:
Keating isn't the only politician who has been stonewalled. Recently, Senator Charles Grassley sent a a letter to bureau Director James Comey, criticizing the lack of transparency in the case, and re-stating a series of questions he first posed back in June - and to which he still awaits an answer. Once again the FBI chose to respond to the questioning via a printed statement submitted to various national newspapers. Once again it failed to address many of the questions Grassley actually asked.
He may be waiting a while longer for those answers too, as back in July the FBI refused even to attend a congressional investigation meeting into possible intelligence failures related to the case. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security was angered enough to make the following damning statement:
“The FBI has refused to appear and continues to refuse this committee’s appropriate requests for information and documents crucial to our investigation into what happened in Boston. The information requested by this committee belongs to the American people. It does not belong solely to the FBI"
Have the media fared any better?
Unfortunately, no. In Boston, prosecutors had requested that Judge O' Toole withhold filings from the media - a request that was granted. Undeterred, many journalists have sought out alternative means of obtaining information.
One of the most favoured and reliable methods has always been to request a copy of relevant police incident reports, as they are considered public information. This week, investigative journalist Russ Baker attempted to obtain a copy of the police report into the alleged kidnapping and carjacking of Chinese national 'Danny' by the accused marathon bombers. Despite parts of the report already being leaked into the public arena by official sources, even this was refused and the reason stated as 'it relates to an ongoing investigation'. Requests for information regarding the murder of Sean Collier and a confusing series of events at a robbery of a nearby 7/11 store on the same night have also been met with similar replies.
And it is not just events in Boston that appear to of fallen under the same veil of bureaucratic secrecy.
The FBI has refused to explain or even comment on the circumstances of Ibragim Todashev's death. The original purpose of their agents' visit to Todashev has not been disclosed, nor has the identity of the agents involved, let alone the identity of the agent who actually shot and killed him. Moreover, the Bureau was solely responsible for ordering the sealing of a county coroner’s completed autopsy report into his cause of death. The reason given? 'Ongoing investigation'......
Unfortunately, no. In Boston, prosecutors had requested that Judge O' Toole withhold filings from the media - a request that was granted. Undeterred, many journalists have sought out alternative means of obtaining information.
One of the most favoured and reliable methods has always been to request a copy of relevant police incident reports, as they are considered public information. This week, investigative journalist Russ Baker attempted to obtain a copy of the police report into the alleged kidnapping and carjacking of Chinese national 'Danny' by the accused marathon bombers. Despite parts of the report already being leaked into the public arena by official sources, even this was refused and the reason stated as 'it relates to an ongoing investigation'. Requests for information regarding the murder of Sean Collier and a confusing series of events at a robbery of a nearby 7/11 store on the same night have also been met with similar replies.
And it is not just events in Boston that appear to of fallen under the same veil of bureaucratic secrecy.
The FBI has refused to explain or even comment on the circumstances of Ibragim Todashev's death. The original purpose of their agents' visit to Todashev has not been disclosed, nor has the identity of the agents involved, let alone the identity of the agent who actually shot and killed him. Moreover, the Bureau was solely responsible for ordering the sealing of a county coroner’s completed autopsy report into his cause of death. The reason given? 'Ongoing investigation'......
What is left to investigate?
Authorities and individuals closest to the investigation continue to insist that the government possesses a mountain of evidence to support a conviction against Tsarnaev.
"There's not just overwhelming evidence against him, there's a tsunami of evidence against him. The defense team very quickly made a really wise choice in recognizing the only thing possible to do for their client is to save his life, assuming he wants his life to be saved"
Ronald Kuby 0/02/2013
Ronald Kuby 0/02/2013
Kuby's bold assertion here regarding the nature and extent of any defence (he does not himself act for the defendant) appears to be grounded in the idea that Tsarnaev is, and will be found, guilty. As there appears, for Kuby, nothing left to investigate, then he is obviously undeterred by any notion that there is, or may be, any 'ongoing investigation' at all.
If the government is genuinely in possession of such evidence (as referred to by Kuby), believes it has covered all bases, and that no one other than the accused is culpable, why are so many facets and tangents of the case still under investigation? If the evidence is strong enough to condemn a man to death by lethal injection, what exactly is left to investigate? Whilst this excuse could be considered viable (barely) in relation to the Todashev and Waltham murders, it is rather alarming when applied to other aspects of the case such as the alleged kidnapping and carjacking of 'Danny', a crime for which Tsarnaev is already facing charges. In short, why does this crime still appear to be under active police investigation when the public have been told it is an open and shut case? Only two suspects were ever involved, one of whom is now dead and the other has been custody for the past six months.
If the government is genuinely in possession of such evidence (as referred to by Kuby), believes it has covered all bases, and that no one other than the accused is culpable, why are so many facets and tangents of the case still under investigation? If the evidence is strong enough to condemn a man to death by lethal injection, what exactly is left to investigate? Whilst this excuse could be considered viable (barely) in relation to the Todashev and Waltham murders, it is rather alarming when applied to other aspects of the case such as the alleged kidnapping and carjacking of 'Danny', a crime for which Tsarnaev is already facing charges. In short, why does this crime still appear to be under active police investigation when the public have been told it is an open and shut case? Only two suspects were ever involved, one of whom is now dead and the other has been custody for the past six months.
What aren't we being told about 'Danny?'
And it's not as if the government has been shy about providing information in the past: information that it believes will serve its own case, that is. Within weeks of the bombings government sources were clamouring to the media in an effort to reveal certain elements of the case, in a concerted effort to steer public opinion towards their own confusing narrative, a situation that continues to this day.
So whilst the government has full access to all the alleged details of the entire case, and is free to talk publicly about them whenever and however it so wishes, the same does not apply to Tsarnaev's defense team, members of congress who are suspicious of the government's statements and motives surrounding the investigation, or the media who face prosecution if they reveal aspects of the case which were obtained through 'unofficial' sources.
What are they hiding?
The continued need for such secrecy, and the admission that many aspects of the sprawling case are still under active investigation six months after the only two men ever to be accused of the bombings were apprehended is extremely worrying. Particularly so as this is a potentially capital case. Denying requests from congress and the media citing there is an 'ongoing investigation' is simply not good enough. Moreover, if the evidence is conclusive, was obtained through legitimate means, and belies no wrongdoing on the part of investigating authorities, there should be no valid reason to withhold such evidence from the defense.
So whilst the government has full access to all the alleged details of the entire case, and is free to talk publicly about them whenever and however it so wishes, the same does not apply to Tsarnaev's defense team, members of congress who are suspicious of the government's statements and motives surrounding the investigation, or the media who face prosecution if they reveal aspects of the case which were obtained through 'unofficial' sources.
What are they hiding?
The continued need for such secrecy, and the admission that many aspects of the sprawling case are still under active investigation six months after the only two men ever to be accused of the bombings were apprehended is extremely worrying. Particularly so as this is a potentially capital case. Denying requests from congress and the media citing there is an 'ongoing investigation' is simply not good enough. Moreover, if the evidence is conclusive, was obtained through legitimate means, and belies no wrongdoing on the part of investigating authorities, there should be no valid reason to withhold such evidence from the defense.
"Tsarnaev is one of the litmus test cases that demonstrates that defendants such as the Boston bombing defendant can get a fair trial in a civilian court pursuant to all of the procedures that are applicable to anyone who is charged.
It surprises me that the government is not just essentially giving an open file at the earliest possible time. The U.S attorney must believe that they have a trustworthy case. Why cause doubt by reducing the discovery that’s made available to the defense team?”
Martin G. Weinberg , Boston defense attorney
It surprises me that the government is not just essentially giving an open file at the earliest possible time. The U.S attorney must believe that they have a trustworthy case. Why cause doubt by reducing the discovery that’s made available to the defense team?”
Martin G. Weinberg , Boston defense attorney
References:
Kuby R (05/02/2013) 'Defending Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Renowned attorney Judy Clarke will fight for bombing suspect's life': CBS NewsBender B and Bierman N (07/10/2013) 'Lawmakers say FBI thwarts inquiry': The Boston Globe
Keating B (07/31/2013) 'We need answers on the Boston bombings' http://www.keating.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=245:keating-to-fbi-we-need-answers-on-boston-bombings&catid=1:press-releases&Itemid=13
Weinberg M (10/23/2013) 'Martin Weinberg on discovery feud in ‘Tsarnaev’': The Docket: Mass Lawyers Weekly
Henry J (11/04/2013) 'Monday Morning Skeptic: In Boston Bombing, FBI Fights For Public’s Right To Know… Nothing': WhoWhatWhy,com
Related Posts:
What inside knowledge is driving the official push for answers in the Boston bombing investigation?
NIP: Have the FBI and top Boston officials been caught lying...AGAIN?
The FBI Photographs: Not such an airtight case after all
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: THE FBI, INTERROGATIONS AND A CRASH COURSE IN COERCED CONFESSIONS
What inside knowledge is driving the official push for answers in the Boston bombing investigation?
NIP: Have the FBI and top Boston officials been caught lying...AGAIN?
The FBI Photographs: Not such an airtight case after all
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: THE FBI, INTERROGATIONS AND A CRASH COURSE IN COERCED CONFESSIONS
Recommend this:
VISIT OUR MAIN ARTICLES AND FEATURED STORIES INDEX HERE
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
