How Do You Spell C - O - V - E - R - U - P ?
With a photo gallery of courageous whistle-blowers
09/11/2014 by M Baker
|
The luxury of hindsight renders in stark relief the outlines of an apparently concerted effort by various parties to disassemble, obfuscate, and render irrelevant uncomfortable facts and revelations in the Marathon bombing events.
Several embarrassing disclosures have surfaced in this case, some only admitted when it became laughable for the gov't agency to continue pretending ignorance of the facts. We have examples ranging from the reluctantly acknowledged 2010 FBI interviews with the "unknown" Tsarnaevs, to the defense allegation the FBI attempted to recruit the elder brother as an informant, to embellishments of a fierce police gun battle with the unarmed Dzhokhar, to the seemingly inexplicable ease with which Tamerlan evaded 'no-fly list' travel restrictions at least twice for a trip to Russia in 2012. The following list, an even dozen, highlights what has been a very favorable climate for the prosecution in the case U.S. v. Tsarnaev. In spite of diligent efforts by Tsarnaev's defense team lead by M. Conrad, J. Clarke, and D. Bruck, much of what has transpired since Dzhokhar's capture on April 19th has not bolstered what should be a spirited and first-class advocacy effort, although each of these attorneys has a stellar reputation in earlier Capital cases. |
|
|
01. Defendant and his team have been effectively gagged by the indefinite imposition of SAMS (Special Administrative Measures.) These restrictions were not invoked until 4 months after Dzhokhar's capture. What prompted this delayed action to keep the Defendant under wraps?
02: Over 500 legal documents have been filed with the court to date. A large number of motions, replies, exhibits, etc. have been sealed. What can be so important to the Court and the parties but must be kept hidden from the media and the public? The most recent spate of secret filings presumably cover discovery issues, but when, if ever, will these hidden aspects of the case be unsealed? 03: In contrast, there have been a significant number of leaks detrimental to the defense from unnamed government officials to a very select group of journalists. Nationally televised 'insights' into the particulars of legal proceedings against Dzhokhar and others have been negative in nature and keep the case in the public eye, with the added benefit of contaminating the potential jury pool. |
04: Judge George O'Toole has a history of handling terrorism cases. He has presided over trials rendering harsh judgements against defendants, including recent proceedings in the case of U.S. v. Tarek Mehanna. This is the same Judge who has admonished the prosecution about their failure to control leaks from law enforcement and others. But that's all he has done in the way of stemming the tide of information leaks and results speak for themselves.
05: The unprecedented release in the national media of Marathon crime scene re-enactments confused individual viewers into believing they were seeing the actual Marathon events. The 'info-tainment' programs featured both active and retired law enforcement individuals who brought another level of verisimilitude to these programs by recapping personal experiences. The airing of these re-enactments and their effect on the jury pool? It was deemed unfortunate by the trial judge. 06: In the period post-Marathon, we've witnessed the exodus of the key gov't players via retirements, release, and "moving on to seek fresh challenges." A roll call of those most highly visible during the crises reveals none of them remain in position with the exception of local detectives and beat cops. The last man standing is the Chief of Police for Watertown Ed Deveau. Are all these exit strategies (coming within several months of one another) purely coincidence? |
|
|
07: The Watertown events were crucial in establishing the guilty actions of the Tsarnaev brothers. Widely reported as the most complex crime scene in the history of the state, 'relevant' Watertown events would none-the-less be confined by C. Ortiz to the gun battle on Laurel on the 18th and the capture of Dzhokhar the subsequent evening.
The prosecution has informed Defense the well-documented gun battles on Oliver Road and again at Spruce & Lincoln, police officer injuries, a shrouded body removed from the Laurel St. scene, plus too many suspects taken into custody are all "unrelated" to its case. With the dismissal of the Motion seeking discovery on at least one of these incidents. it seems we will have to close the book on that night's other desperate actions occurring within a few blocks of Laurel St. 08: The Defense, pursuing information for both the guilt phase and the penalty phase in the form of mitigation, should it be needed, has been further hampered by the round-up of the Tsarnaev's friends, family, and acquaintances for indictment, deportation, and multiple interviews and questioning. The deployment of over 1,000 FBI agents on the case, nationally and internationally, has lead to enormous amounts of data collection. The practical results of this data collection could easily be said to have ruined lives and lead to the killing of at least one individual by the FBI. And yet, when the mitigation team requests some of this data from government files collected on Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibraghim Todashev in re the Waltham murders, they are denied access to this evidence. If the State trial for Collier, held in abeyance at present, were to proceed, perhaps these files might be deemed relevant, but at this stage, they remain locked away. 09: With a trial date set for November 3rd, the Defense faces the daunting task of preparing a strong case for the innocence of Dzhokhar and the more critical task of rebutting the evidence presented by the prosecution in the course of the trial. It is, after all, the government's role to lay out the available evidence for the jury to deliberate on when reaching a verdict. It is not the prosecution's role to "try the case." Consequently, the failure of Ortiz's team to produce evidence in a timely manner has prompted numerous requests from Tsarnaev's team of attorneys for missing materials. Has this hampered Conrad's teams' chances of mounting an effective defense? |
10: Prosecution's decision to begin complying with discovery requirements suggests someone in charge determined their best strategy was to 'bury the defense' in a mountain of paperwork. According to the recent filings, little of the data has been indexed or cataloged in a readily searchable format, little of it clearly earmarked such as to guide the defendant toward a more complete understanding of the most relevant evidence to be presented, and much of it is several months old, some collected more than a year ago only to be recently released. One has a vision of defense counsel standing over millions of sheets of paperwork, scratching their heads and wondering what to do next. Hardly an image one wants to think about when an accused individual is facing the death penalty.
11: And with the insistence of Judge O'Toole on what voiced legal opinion considers a harshly, unrealistically early November 2014 trial date, taming this mountain of discovery to adequately prepare appears even more daunting. The push by the Judge for a Capital trial 18 months after the Marathon makes this one of the speediest Capital trials on record: on terrorism charges resulting in the death of three and injuries to more than 200 people. J. Clarke, in a recent filing, has noted maintaining this trial date, by defense's estimation would likely put any jury deliberations on the penalty phase of the trial squarely in line with the 2nd anniversary of the bombings, and all the resultant media attention. 12: Finally, the Boston area, primed and ready for what promises to be the Trial of the Decade, a guaranteed spectacle, must still yield an impartial jury and the requisite number of alternates. The expert witness brought on board at what might technically be deemed the eleventh hour in terms of the run up to the November trial, has produced a document indicating what everyone already surmised. The jury pool has been heavily contaminated and empanelling an impartial jury may not be possible. This appears to bolster the Change of Venue filings. But the credentials and history of Tsarnaev's expert witness has been called into question by Ortiz's team in a 20+ page document that smears this individual. And a rebuttal filing by yet another respected expert witness has been struck from the record by Judge O'Toole. What might the prosecution fear should this trial be moved out of state? |
|
In order of Appearance: Daniel Ellsberg, Erin Brockovich, John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Sharon Shoesmith, Jeffrey Sterling, Justin Hopson, Angela Levin, Samy Kamar, Jessalyn Radack, Sam Adams Award to Edward Snowden--each one a whistleblower on authorities who overstepped their mandates and took advantage of the public's ignorance and trust.
Recommend this: