Bombshell: Tsarnaev Prosecution Exhibit Shows Backpack Different Color as One Tsarnaev Carried

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So what's the problem?

Who said there was a problem?

 

[PRB]

Who said there was a problem?

he did.

Side note, Tsarnaev's lawyer was a POS for not pushing this.

and here

What I want to know is why the same defense attorney is always appointed to represent the defendants in these types of cases.

Go look at Judy Clarke's resume'. Stinks to high heaven.

 

[PRB]

It is the same backpack. The top part of the pack looks whiter than the bottom because it is exposed to the sun. You can see the direction of the sun by looking at the faces of the people around. The sun light is streaming in from the left/upper left. Because the "front" of the backpack is not facing the sun it appears darker. If you don't believe the lack of sun can change the color that much, simply look at the runners leg in the bottom of exhibit 29. The rear portion of his leg is exposed to sun while the front portion of his leg is not. The color difference between the two sides is dramatic. Yes, it is the same bag.

We got a disinfo agent here. Black is white. He literally said it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

he did.


and here

But they did not say what you said. Only you said that.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We got a disinfo agent here.

Quite comical from a Democrat who is paid to post nonsense on this site.


PRB: Phony Repetitive Bore.

 

[PRB]

But they did not say what you said. Only you said that.

What are they saying if they're not saying there's a problem with him using the supposedly incompetent or complicit lawyer as defense?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What are they saying if they're not saying there's a problem with him using the supposedly incompetent or complicit lawyer as defense?

They never said anything about the defendant being forced to use an attorney. Only you made that an issue. You made a counter argument to an argument that didn't exist.

 

[PRB]

They never said anything about the defendant being forced to use an attorney. Only you made that an issue. You made a counter argument to an argument that didn't exist.

I didn't say they said he was forced, I just asked what's the problem. What was the point of them complaining about his defense if they know he wasn't ever forced to use her, and could've hired anybody else. After all, he's innocent or set up, it's his life on the line.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I didn't say they said he was forced, I just asked what's the problem. What was the point of them complaining about his defense if they know he wasn't ever forced to use her, and could've hired anybody else. After all, he's innocent or set up, it's his life on the line.

I think they probably know he is not "forced" to use anyone. They are talking about different issues. Defendants, for example, get new trials all the time because of faulty counsel.

You just created a boogeyman argument. Sorry pal, I was never in pre-law school like you, but I observe this is what legal types do.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

dupe

 

[PRB]

I think they probably know he is not "forced" to use anyone.

So then ,what's their complaint?

They are talking about different issues.

Such as what?

Defendants, for example, get new trials all the time because of faulty counsel.

Was that his plan? Do you think he'll try to?

How many of HER clients/defendants have gotten mistrials due to her work?

You just created a boogeyman argument. Sorry pal, I was never in pre-law school like you, but I observe this is what legal types do.

No, I didn't create a boogeyman or strawman, I asked specifically what was said, if they don't like his counsel, or he doesn't like his counsel, why use her?

Unless either
1) he can't get better one (too bad)
2) he's a fake
3) he's got a plan to ask for a mistrial

What am I missing?

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

I didn't say they said he was forced, I just asked what's the problem. What was the point of them complaining about his defense if they know he wasn't ever forced to use her, and could've hired anybody else. After all, he's innocent or set up, it's his life on the line.

This also seemed to be a test case for totally revoking attorney-client privilege. Under the Special Administrative Measures law under which he was held, not only was he held in solitary, he was never once allowed to confer with his attorneys without the FBI sitting right there listening. Makes it kind of hard to let them know if you are being drugged or psychologically tortured. During the trial he sat there like a zombie.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-legal-battle-20131107-story.html

The measures order that Tsarnaev be held in solitary confinement, and that his visits and calls are subject to monitoring. The measures also restrict Tsarnaev’s attorneys from disclosing information about the trial to others, unless those people are specifically preparing his defense.

So now that they have tested this out it becomes the new normal anytime the government needs a guaranteed conviction.

 

[Stratovarious]

Saving them from the death penalty was basically her job.

By 'her job' , do you mean waive the DEATH PENALTY in front of them in order to effect a guilty plea in exchange
for LIFE IN PRISON ?

, ,

 

[Zippyjuan]

If they had pled guilty there would not have been trials. Did they face trials?

 

[devil21]

If they had pled guilty there would not have been trials. Did they face trials?

That is a very good question unto itself, though it seems relatively strange to plead not guilty then the first thing out of your attorney's mouth is "he did it".

 

[CPUd]

That is a very good question unto itself, though it seems relatively strange to plead not guilty then the first thing out of your attorney's mouth is "he did it".

Not if you are arguing diminished capacity. The strategy here was to argue something similar, where he was heavily influenced by his brother. The end result would be the same, but in the sentencing phase, the jury has access to the defense arguments as opposed to just a guilty plea.

 

[PRB]

This also seemed to be a test case for totally revoking attorney-client privilege. Under the Special Administrative Measures law under which he was held, not only was he held in solitary, he was never once allowed to confer with his attorneys without the FBI sitting right there listening. Makes it kind of hard to let them know if you are being drugged or psychologically tortured. During the trial he sat there like a zombie.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-legal-battle-20131107-story.html


So now that they have tested this out it becomes the new normal anytime the government needs a guaranteed conviction.

When you're a terrorist, you lost your right to an attorney?

 

[PRB]

By 'her job' , do you mean waive the DEATH PENALTY in front of them in order to effect a guilty plea in exchange
for LIFE IN PRISON ?

, ,

What else do you do if you can't beat the accusation/conviction?

 

[devil21]

Not if you are arguing diminished capacity. The strategy here was to argue something similar, where he was heavily influenced by his brother. The end result would be the same, but in the sentencing phase, the jury has access to the defense arguments as opposed to just a guilty plea.

No competent defense attorney ignores all evidence that suggests possible doubt of guilt in a case where a death sentence is a possibility. NONE!

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that a life in prison sentence is announced. Another "terrorist" that ends up being nothing more than an entry on the BoP website, never to be spoken of again, except as an excuse for more loss of rights when politically expedient.

 

[PRB]

No competent defense attorney ignores all evidence that suggests possible doubt of guilt in a case where a death sentence is a possibility. NONE!

Which is another way of saying, have DP on the table and you'll always get a conviction....NOT!

Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson.

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that a life in prison sentence is announced. Another "terrorist" that ends up being nothing more than an entry on the BoP website, never to be spoken of again, except as an excuse for more loss of rights when politically expedient.

If there's anything in recent criminal convictions that's taught us anything, is that nobody dies if you make it into court. People get killed by police or by drug dealers, but if you're lucky enough to see your day in court, you'll get to live.