Home Boston Was There Any Actual Defense for “the Marathon Bomber”?

Was There Any Actual Defense for “the Marathon Bomber”?

38

judy clarkJudy “It was him” Clarke, defense lawyer

By Cheryl Dean

This article asks why there was such a dearth of cross-examination of witnesses at the trial of Dzhokhar (Jahar) Tsarnaev, or really any challenge to the prosecution – in the way one would normally expect.

One would normally expect that Dun Meng, the student whom the Tsarnaev brothers supposedly carjacked, would have been asked to explain why his car keys were seen dangling from his own back pocket, in the video surveillance from the convenience store he ran into.

He appeared to be in a faked panic after he had just escaped from his carjacked car when it was parked at a gas station. Allegedly, Tamerlan (the older brother) had just told him that he had done the Marathon bombing. Supposedly Tamerlan also boasted that he killed Officer Collier. Can you imagine that actually happening?

So let’s ask: Why is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, an innocent young man, now on death row?

The famous “death penalty lawyer” Judy Clarke had never actually gone to trial before with a client facing the death penalty. This is because she had successfully talked every client into pleading guilty in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table to be replaced with life in prison without parole.

Some of her clients (maybe even all of her clients) did not want to plead guilty. Who knows, maybe some would rather have died than face living the entire rest of their lives in a prison cell, and who could blame them? Maybe some of them were innocent. That’s very possible.  

Anyway, Judy has been hailed as an angel who saves people from the death penalty. However, this time around, her client claimed to be innocent, and wouldn’t change his plea.

Members of the defense team were in Russia as late as the second week of April 2015, near the end of the trial, still harassing the family and trying very hard to get any one of the extended family to talk Dzhokhar into pleading guilty.

Why? Why such desperation to get family to tell him to plead guilty this late in the trial?

The defense made 14 trips to Russia over 2 years. This involved a lot of time and money.  They didn’t want to hear a single word about his innocence.

The “defense” team could have been much more productive had they examined the so-called prosecution “evidence” and came up with a strategy to refute it. God knows, that wouldn’t have been hard to do!

Judy already knew that the prosecution would not accept a plea deal, so why did she want him to plead guilty? Supposedly she thought that by Jahar’s pleading guilty, and crying and begging for mercy, the jury would have pity on him and chose Life without parole instead of the death penalty.

Maybe she wanted to uphold her reputation as the famous lawyer who has never had a client get the death penalty. I guess she thought that for a 21-year- old, it wouldn’t be so bad to spend 60 or so years completely alone in silence in a cement hell hole.

It seems she never thought once about actually doing the job of a real defense lawyer, and DEFENDING Dzhokhar. Maybe since Dzhokhar had proclaimed his innocence all that time, maybe he really is innocent. I say he is.

At any rate, she began her opening statement and within seconds she announced to the entire court that “IT WAS HIM”, to everyone’s shock. Two years of paycheques for 5 lawyers — and this is the culmination of their work!!! 

She threw her young client under the bus. She knew the jury was biased and sure enough they believed her and it was pretty much game over for Jahar.

I truly believe that just based on the prosecution’s own ridiculous “evidence,” Dzhokhar could have been found innocent. A good lawyer could have created such enormous doubt, even proof, that no juror with a thinking brain could have found him guilty.

His defense team:

— did not even mention the fact that Dzhokhar had a silver back pack, as seen in the FBI video,  not a black backpack

— did not point out that there was no video showing Dzhokhar drop any backpack let alone a black one; the defense never mentioned this!

— did not point out that there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence that Dzhokhar was involved in anything, yet they said “it was him.”

— They never asked a single victim, where they were standing

— There were 2400 law enforcement officers in Watertown, but they were never asked where was their dash cam video. I guess it wasn’t working that night.

I could go on and on.  All I can conclude is that Judy Clarke, David Bruck, Miriam Conrad, William Fick, and Timothy Watkins, the wrongly named “dream team” should be disbarred for what they did and didn’t do in this case.

If their hands were really tied by the judge and the prosecution, and they were not allowed to defend Dzhokhar, they should have resigned from the case and told the public why. A little integrity and truth could have gone a very long way in this case.

— Cheryl Dean is passionate about justice and has been following the Tsarnaev case in great detail. Recall at GumshoeNews Ms Dean’s article on “Prosecutorial Misconduct.”

 

 

38 COMMENTS

    • This guy must have come from the same mold as Cheryl Dean. He is chiding the Canadian govermnment for holding “Security certificate trials” in which he could not defend his own client as he was not allowed to see the evidence, cross-examination the witnesses, etc.

      Srarting at 4 minutes, he recommends that Western Canada become a separate country and do the job right. Well, well.

      • Doug Christie, the guy was a ‘heavy’. His cross-examination in the Zundel trials was poetry to read. Of course, he had a heap of ‘revisionists’ to help him prepare for the cross-examinations and he used that information to rip the liars a new excrement orifice.

        One of the true Heroes of Canada that will eventually be recognised in the history of Canada.

        And ‘secret trials’, Hell, I’ve already referred to it in Australia with the ‘confidential police file’ that gets tendered and discussed without the defendant or his counsel being present. – Everybody in Oz has one, what does yours say?

          • LOL, I applied for a FOI request to see my ‘Special Branch File’. It normally took a couple of weeks, but I had to keep on them for four months. Finally, they released 4 redacted pages from 1996.

            That was BS as I was in an armed robbery trial in 1989 where one of the coppers was a member of Special Branch and said he read my file. He said something to the effect that “Wow, you’re really involved with the gun control issue”.

            Anyway, the four pages didn’t say much with the redacted sentences – except for one page. They had got the pages mixed up and instead of sending me a photocopy of the redacted page, they sent my the actual page with the black felt pen over-write. I could hold it up to the light and read the entry for August of 1996.

            It read: “ASIO indicated at a recent meeting that Shulze was a target re: militia activities”

            Fork me, I didn’t even know that there were ‘militias’ in Oz. Of course, nowadays that would probably be referred to as ‘terrorist activities’.

            All I was doing was going around giving speeches about the actual statistics that were being supressed by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the media.

            I’ve got heaps of stories of about spooks. If they were to release my full file I would probably be able to sort out a lot of their people and informers, so it remains locked away.

  2. Dzhokhar is absolutely innocent. Judy Clarke is apparently not a “real” lawyer since her specialty is “defending” government patsies and having them sent to maximum security prisons or worse. In fact, I think most of them, if not all, are in the same prison as Dzhokhar. It was as if the prosecution and defense attorneys as well as the judge and jury were acting out a script and not an actual case.

    Bizarre and incredibly heinous are the only words I can find to describe such behavior at this moment.

    • Masterstroke, Speculator247!
      Your comment made me picture the “Unabomber” and the “Marathon bomber” winking at each other in the tearoom.

      Then I thought, What of the” Underwear bomber?” So I looked him up in Wikipedia (CIA) and found:

      “On February 16, 2012, Judge Nancy Edmunds of Federal District Court in Detroit sentenced Abdulmutallab to four consecutive life sentences plus 50 years.

      “In a statement after the sentencing, Abdulmutallab’s family said, ‘We are grateful to God that the unfortunate incident of that date did not result in any injury or death.'”

      Anyone working on false terrorism, please see the hundred references to newspapers listed at the end of the Wikipedia article. A perfect collection of false headlines.

      Please Speculator 247, keep at it.

      • Another similarity in these “terrorist” cases are the ridiculous overkill in sentencing. The underwear bomber, who didn’t kill anyone is given 4 life sentences plus 50 years. The sentences in all these cases is another “sign” of gov. involvement.

    • I have agree with you that the prosecution, defense and judge were reading from a script that the gov wrote. It’s all so disturbing and cruel.

    • It appears obvious from just the facts available to the public that he is innocent (in particular the backpack). However, we never got to see the brief of evidence (witness statements, pictures, etc.) that the ‘defence’ counsel received. I can tell you now, that I’ve found HEAPS of stuff in those briefs to cross-examine on.

      You stare at a picture for a while and something will pop out of it that isn’t quite right. Compare witness statements and see the exact same wording. Look at timelines and the alleged conversation/event couldn’t have taken place, on and on.

      “It was him” – even that crooked lawyer John Avery never stooped that low.

      • Young lawyers, please know that we are having a Royal Commission in Oz (but hearings won’t resume til Feb 5) and you can see several lawyers asking key questions, and not letting the witness sneak out of answering. But yet not browbeating the person either. To my (unpracticed) eye it is all amazing. I hope they will keep it up and not “stoop, as Terry says, when the going gets rough
        — as it might when the matter of “pedophile rings” comes up.

  3. The trail was theater, same as the bombing. Miles Mathis does a great job dissecting the whole fake affair. I don’t have the link , just search Miles Mathis Boston bombing for a great article.

  4. Something I saw on CNN on the same day Judy Clarke made her opening statement sticks in my mind to this day. Talking heads, legal experts all, sitting in a row being interviewed on CNN. The question being put to them was why did Judy open with a statement like “It was him?”

    Now, obviously I have no proof for what I am about to say but before I tell you how the group responded to the interviewer’s question, I want to tell you what I sensed and SAW in the body language and looks on the faces of those legal experts… I saw that they were as shocked and astonished at what Clarke said about her client and when she said it as the rest of us were (and still are.)

    And yet EVERY SINGLE LEGAL EXPERT SAT THERE AND “CAREFULLY” “EXPLAINED” WHY THIS WAS A PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE THING FOR JUDY TO HAVE SAID IN OPENING REMARKS!!!

    I could see from the looks on their faces and their body language that they didn’t believe one word of what they were saying and yet they were all too afraid to tell the truth – that they were as shocked and maybe even appalled as we were and continue to be.

    I honestly had the sense that they knew this had to be just another indication of a huge cover-up and they had decided if Dzhokhar’s own lawyer was throwing him under the bus, they better follow suit.

    This is why we the people had better keep speaking out for him on blogs like this one, on blogs like Helter Skelter in a summer swelter by Heather Frizzell and on my blog writingthewrongforjahar.com

    Someday, someone IS going to hear us and Dzhokhar will be given a new trial where real evidence will be evaluated with a jury finding him not guilty.

    • Dear Leah
      “EVERY SINGLE LEGAL EXPERT SAT THERE AND “CAREFULLY” “EXPLAINED” WHY THIS WAS A PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE THING FOR JUDY TO HAVE SAID IN OPENING REMARKS!”
      Are you in Australia? Maybe you could send it to every faculty member of a law school and ask what they think of it.

      Thank you so much for sending it to us.

    • Everything was planned well in advance. The marathon “event” was a proven hoax. No one expected THAT many photos behind the scenes, showing neither real blood nor injuries. Check them out – the photos and videos are numerous and convincing. So, of course that means the trial and “patsies” were planned, as well. Considering their young ages, it’s possible that both brothers were released alive and well in Russia. I hope so. False flags end up with real casualties, but this one was a sloppy hoax with a lot of mistakes. So I do hope they’re alive and well somewhere.

  7. Would someone please send this article to LLS.EDU in California, that is, Loyola Law School, so they can behold the photo of Judy Clarke juxtaposed with their seal?
    Astonishing, isn’t it, given what Cheryl Dean has called to our attention about the utter failure to defend the accused?

  8. I think we’ve long since established not only the innocence of these two brothers, but the utter criminality of our corporate-owned “just us” system. So the point of this article is what, exactly? Why pretend this farce was the result of incompetence, and not blatant conspiracy? How many more examples of false flag patsies do we need until we no longer believe anything these jackals say?

    • I hear you, but it seems many, many people don’t know, and don’t know the details of this case, or other cases, and continue to believe these jackals. Constantly reaching more people with this kind of information may eventually make people think for themselves. We all have to speak up and try do something in order for change to happen.

      • Maybe “this is neither the time nor the place” but I want to speak up for Judy Clarke. Surely she is mind-controlled and can’t do as she pleases. I wonder could that even be the case with George O’Toole?
        How could the pair of them, and Ortiz, do as they did? How could they keep a straight face?

        But much more worrying: how can a million people in Boston be so scared that they choose to go along with the criminality?

        • If they are all mind controlled, why didn’t other DOJ officials, judges, attorneys step in or step up and do something about it. There is no excuse for what was allowed to happen. The world was watching, yet no one did anything.

          • Mary, perhaps you need to do another article on psychopaths. I really doubt that POS of a lawyer is ‘mind controlled’, rather she is just another specimen of those creatures without a conscious.

            She and the prosecutor for Martin Bryant, Damien Bugg, would recognize each other in a crowd as like minded friends.

          • The reason I think Judy is “under the weather” is that she was assigned to the Unabomber case. It is no longer classified info that he was in the MK-Ultra program as a Harvard student age 17.

            “Fair Harvard, thy sons to thy jubilee throng, and with blessings surrender thee o’er” — etc.

            Is the entire university of H psychopathic?

            Ya, I know you may be right, Terry, and I have been trying to take that stuff on board since reading ME Thomas’s “Confessions of a Sociopath.”
            There would be no point trying to make a moral appeal to Ms Thomas, as she is missing the empathy button in her brain (and she explains that to us very clearly).

            I like what Eliz caught me on, above. She says “If they are all mind controlled, why didn’t other DOJ officials, judges, attorneys step in or step up and do something about it.”

            But lemme tell you, that is what is being asked every day at the Royal Commission. I am doing my best to plow thru that. Please see my 6-part series, with Holy Mother Church in the dock tomorrow.

            A million thaks for teaching me, Terry.

            By the way, if Damian Bugg, or any prosecutor, is a psychopath, it is up to us to do something about it. It won’t get resolved just by the passage of time.

  9. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said recently.”“People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty,” “I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.” If she had her way, “there would be no death penalty.”
    Her words couldn’t be more true in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case,
    proving that Judy Clarke and the other defense lawyers did not fulfill their oath to defend their client. Instead, they were responsible for him receiving the death penalty, by saying “IT WAS HIM”, and not defending him in any way.

  14. I thought the same thing, as Judy Clark is the lawyer comis ex officio she does not really defend it, especially since I read some time ago that a certain Rachel would have come to Russia and would have admitted that ‘they knew they were “innocent” I think the defense forced Dzhokhar to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.