The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have.
As readers know, I have been suspicious of the Boston Marathon Bombing from the beginning. It seems obvious that both Tsamaev brothers were intended to be killed in the alleged firefight with police, like the alleged perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo affair in Paris. Convenient deaths in firefights are accepted as indications of guilt and solve the problem of trying innocent patsies.
In Dzhokhar’s case, his guilt was established not by evidence but by accusations, by the betrayal of his government-appointed public defender Judy Clarke who declared Dzhokhar’s guilt in her opening statement of her “defense,” by an alleged confession, evidence of which was never provided, written by Dzhokhar on a boat under which the badly wounded youth lay dying until discovered by the boat owner and hospitalized in critical condition. Following his conviction by his defense attorney, Dzhokhar allegedly confessed again in jihadist terms. As legal scholars have known for centuries, confessions are worthless as indicators of guilt.
Dzhokhar was not convicted on the basis of evidence.
In my questioning of John Remington Graham, I concluded that despite 48 years of active experience with criminal justice, both as a prosecuting attorney and defense attorney, he was shocked to his core by the legal malfeasance of the Tsarnaev case. As Graham is nearing the end of his career, he is willing to speak out, but he could not find a single attorney in the state of Massachusetts who would sponsor his appearance before the Federal District Court in Boston.
This tells me that fear of retribution has now extended its reach into the justice (sic) system and that the America that we knew where law was a shield of the people no longer exists.
Here is the Affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva:
AFFIDAVIT OF MARET TSARNAEVA CONCERNING THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
Mindful that this affidavit may be filed
or displayed as an offer of proof with her authorization in public
proceedings contemplated by the laws of the United States of America,
and in reliance upon Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1746,
Maret Tsarnaeva deposes and says:
I am the paternal aunt of Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev who has been prosecuted before the United States District Court
for Massachusetts upon indictment of a federal grand jury returned on
June 27, 2013, for causing one of two explosions on Boylston Street in
Boston on April 15, 2013. In the count for conspiracy, certain other
overt acts of wrongdoing are mentioned. As I understand the indictment,
if Dzhokhar did not carry and detonate an improvised explosive device or
pressure-cooker bomb as alleged, all thirty counts fail, although
perhaps some lingering questions, about which I offer no comment here,
might remain for resolution, subject to guarantees of due process of
law, within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I am currently living in Grozny, the
capital of Chechnya which is a republic within the Russian Federation.
My academic training included full-time studies in a five-year program
of the Law Faculty at the Kyrgyz State University, and I also hold the
degree of master of laws (LL. M.), with focus on securities laws,
granted by the University of Manitoba while I lived in Canada. I am
qualified to practice law in Kyrgyzstan. I am fluent in Russian,
Chechen, and English, and am familiar with other languages. I am
prepared to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United
States, if my expenses are paid, and if my personal safety and right of
return to my home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance.
Aside from other anomalies and other
aspects of the case on which I make no comment here, I am aware of
several photo exhibits, upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) relied, or of evidence which their crime laboratory has produced,
and certain other reports or material. Together, these plainly show that
Dzhokhar was not carrying a large, nylon, black backpack, including a
white-rectangle marking at the top, and containing a heavy pressure-
cooker bomb, shortly before explosions in Boston on April 15, 2013, as
claimed by the FBI and as alleged in the indictment for both explosions.
On the contrary, these photo exhibits show unmistakably that Dzhokhar
was carrying over his right shoulder a primarily white backpack which
was light in weight, and was not bulging or sagging as would have been
evident if it contained a heavy pressure-cooker bomb. The only
reasonable conclusion is that Dzhokhar was not responsible for either of
the explosions in question.
On or about June 20-21, 2013, during
their first trip to Russia, which lasted about ten days more or less,
Judy Clarke and William Fick, lawyers from the federal public defender’s
office in Boston, visited my brother Anzor Tsarnaev, and his wife
Zubeidat, respectively the father and mother of Dzhokhar. The meeting
was at the home of Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachka which is in the
republic of Dagestan adjacent to the republic of Chechnya, and about
three hours’ drive from Grozny. My mother, my sister Malkan, and I were
present at this meeting. Zubeidat speaks acceptable English. Mr. Fick is
fluent in Russian.
Laying aside other details of the conversation on June 20-21, 2013, I wish to note the following:
– The lawyers from Boston strongly
advised that Anzor and Zubeidat refrain from saying in public that
Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan were not guilty. They warned that, if
their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston
would be more difficult;
– Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick also requested
of Anzor and Zubeidat that they assist in influencing Dzhokhar to accept
the legal representation of the federal public defender’s office in
Boston. Mr. Fick revealed that Dzhokhar was refusing the services of the
federal public defender’s office in Boston, and sending lawyers and
staff away when they visited him in custody. In reaction to the
suggestion of Mr. Fick, lively discussion followed;
– As Dzhokhar’s family, we expressed our
concern that the federal public defender’s office in Boston was
untrustworthy, and might not defend Dzhokhar properly, since they were
paid by the government of the United States which was prosecuting him,
as many believe for political reasons. Dzhokhar’s parents expressed
willingness to engage independent counsel, since Dzhokhar did not trust
his government-appointed lawyers. Mr. Fick reacted by saying that the
government agents and lawyers would obstruct independent counsel;
– I proposed that Dzhokhar’s family hire
independent counsel to work with the federal public defender’s office in
order to assure proper and effective representation of Dzhokhar. Mr.
Fick replied that, if independent counsel were hired by the family, the
federal public defender’s office in Boston would withdraw;
– Mr. Fick then assured Anzor and
Zubeidat that the United States Department of Justice had allotted $5
million to Dzhokhar’s defense, and that the federal public defender’s
office in Boston intended to defend Dzhokhar properly. Zubeidat then and
there said little concerning assurances of Mr. Fick. But for my part, I
never believed that the federal public defender’s office in Boston ever
intended to defend Dzhokhar as promised. And my impressions from what
happened during the trial lead me to believe that the federal public
defender’s office in Boston did not defend Dzhokhar competently and
ethically.
In any event, I am aware that, following
the meeting on June 20-21, 2013, Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick continued to
spend time with Anzor and Zubeidat, and eventually persuaded Zubeidat to
sign a typed letter in Russian to Dzhokhar, urging him to cooperate
wholeheartedly with the federal public defender’s office in Boston. I am
informed by my sister Malkan, that Zubeidat gave the letter to the
public defenders, shortly before their departure from Russia on or about
June 29, 2013, for delivery to Dzhokhar.
During subsequent trips Mme Clarke and
Mr. Fick to see Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala, the strategy for
defending Dzhokhar was explained, as I learned from my sister Malkan.
The public defender’s office in Boston intended to contend at trial, as
actually has happened since, that Tamerlan, now deceased, was the
mastermind of the crime, and that Dzhokhar was merely following his big
brother. I was firmly opposed to this strategy as morally and legally
wrong, because Dzhokhar is not guilty, as FBI-generated evidence shows.
Some ill- feeling has since developed between myself and Dzhokhar’s
parents over their acquiescence.
On or about June 19, 2014, during their
visit to Grozny over nearly two weeks, three staff members from the
public defender’s office in Boston visited my mother and sisters in
Grozny. I am told that they also visited Dzhokhar’s parents in
Makhachkala.
The personnel visiting my mother and
sisters in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, included one Charlene, who
introduced herself as an independent investigator, working in and with
the federal public defender’s office in Boston; another by the name of
Jane, a social worker who claimed to have spoken with Dzhokhar; and a
third, by the name of Olga, who was a Russian- English interpreter from
New Jersey. They did not leave business cards, but stayed at the main
hotel in Grozny, hence I presume that their surnames can be ascertained.
I was not present at the meeting in
Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, but my sister Malkan, who was present,
called me by telephone immediately after the meeting concluded. She
revealed to me then the details of the conversation at the meeting.
Malkan and I have since spoken about the visit on several occasions.
Malkan speaks Russian and Chechen and is
willing to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States
through an interpreter in Russian, if her expenses are paid, and if her
personal safety and right of return to her home in Chechnya are
adequately assured in advance. She relates, and has authorized me to
state for her that, during the conversation on June 19, 2014, in Grozny,
Charlene the independent investigator stated flatly that the federal
public defender’s office in Boston knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as
charged, and that their office was under enormous pressure from law
enforcement agencies and high levels of the government of the United
States not to resist conviction. [Remember what happened to Lynne
Stewart, the federally appointed public defender who actually served her
client. She was sentenced to prison.]
This affidavit is executed outside of the
United States, but the foregoing account is true to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief, and subject to the pains and
penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.
Given on this 17th day of April 2015.
Given on this 17th day of April 2015.
/s/ Maret Tsarnaeva
Here is the Argument of Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE No. 13-CR-10200-GAO
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. Federal jurisdiction:
The constitutional authority of the United States cannot be extended to
the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in light of the opinion of the
court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and views of
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, Ns. 17, 22, and 34 [Clinton
Rossiter (ed.), Mentor edition by New American Library, New York, 1961,
pp. 118, 143-144, and 209]. Congress has broad power to regulate
commerce, including trade and the incidents of trade, but domestic
crimes and use of weapons are generally reserved to the States. If there
is sufficient evidence to prosecute Dzhokhar for murder and mayhem, he
should and can be prosecuted exclusively by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Accordingly, amicus urges that the indictment now pending
should be dismissed, and the conviction of her nephew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
of charges under several acts of Congress should be vacated.
2. The actual innocence of the accused:
Laying aside misgivings of amicus and many others about of the
“official” scenario concerning this case, as broadcast to the world by
the government and mainstream news media of the United States, evidence
generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), confirmed on the
judicial record of this cause, and clarified by the indictment, or
suitable for judicial notice under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, conclusively proves that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot be guilty of
the crimes charged in this prosecution.
The formal indictment against Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long,
and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev (hereinafter called Dzhokhar) of heinous
crimes, including many counts punishable by death. The central event for
which Dzhokhar is alleged to have been responsible, according to the
indictment, took place, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum
Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15,
2013. The most important paragraphs of the indictment are numbered 6, 7,
and 24 (including several other paragraphs repeating expressly or by
implication the substance thereof). Paragraphs 6-7, read in themselves
and in context, state that, acting in concert withhis (now deceased)
brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk and detonated one of two
“black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these
“constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel,
adhesive, and other materials.” Paragraph 24 clarifies that the black
backpack carried, and containing the pressure-cooker bomb allegedly
detonated by Dzhokhar, was placed in front of the Forum Restaurant and
was associated with the second explosion. The indictment says in
paragraph 6 that both bombs exploded at about 2:49 in the afternoon
(Eastern time), and that the bombs Dzhokhar and his brother placed and
detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.
On the morning after the explosions, i.
e., on April 16, 2013, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of
the FBI in Boston, made a public statement at a press conference, which
is published in printed form on the FBI website and in the news media
concerning the facts later set forth in the indictment. Mr. DesLauriers
said, as paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment substantially confirm,
. . . this morning, it was determined that both of the explosives were placed in a dark-colored nylon bag or backpack. The bag would have been heavy, because of the components believed to be in it.. . . we are asking that the public remain alert, and to alert us to the following activity . . . someone who appeared to be carrying an unusually heavy bag yesterday around the time of the blasts and in the vicinity of the blasts.
The FBI also published on April 16, 2013,
a crime lab photo of a bomb fragment found after the explosions This
photo is reproduced asTsarnaeva exhibit 1 in the appendix hereof, and is
believed proper for judicial notice.
From this bomb fragment, the FBI crime
lab was able to reconstruct the size, shape, and type of pressure
cookers, as was reported on information published by the FBI to the
nation on ABC News Nightline on April 16, 2013. A still-frame, taken
from (about 01:39-01:54) of this ABC television report, is reproduced as
Tsarnaeva exhibit 2 in the appendix hereof, and is offered for judicial
notice. A larger segment of this ABC Nightline News report (at about
01:31-02:14) elaborates facts set forth in paragraphs 6-7 of the
indictment, including reference to three of the four exhibits reproduced
in the appendix hereof. Each of the pressure cookers in question was a
Fagor, 6-quart model, marketed in or near Boston and elsewhere in the
United States by Macey’s. Its external dimensions are probably about
81⁄2 inches in height, including cover, and about 9 inches in diameter.
Stripped of hard plastic handles and filled with nails, bee bees, and
other such metal, then prepared as a bomb, it would cause a bag carrying
it to be, as observed by the FBI chief in Boston during his press
conference on April 16, 2013, “unusually heavy.”
Again on April 16, 2013, the FBI
published a crime lab photo, here reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 in
the appendix hereof, and showing a blown- out backpack which is said to
have contained one of the bombs, — a black nylon bag with a
characteristic white rectangle marking about 3 by 11⁄2 inches more or
less as it appeared following the explosions the day before. This photo
pictures the “dark colored nylon bag or backpack” which Mr. DesLauriers
described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when
he described what was carried by the guilty parties. It was one of the
“black backpacks” referenced in paragraph 7 of the indictment. It is
pictured in prosecution exhibit 26 which was introduced on the second
day of the trial in this cause (day 28 on the transcript, March 5,
2015), showing that the bag or backpack in question was found on the
street near the post box in front of the Forum Restaurant on Boylston
Street, and, as previously noted, was associated with the second
explosion on April 15, 2013, which, in paragraph 24 of the indictment,
Dzhokhar is alleged to have detonated. This general impression is
confirmed by defense exhibit 3090, showing a backpack with black
exterior or covering, and introduced on the sixteenth day of the trial
(day 42 on the transcript, March 31, 2015). Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 is also
suitable for judicial notice.
On April 18, 2013, the FBI published a
29-second street video claimed to have been taken from Whiskey’s Steak
House on Boylston Street at about 02:37- 38 o’clock in the afternoon
(Eastern time), only minutes before the explosions on April 15, 2013. It
definitively settles the principal question raised by the indictment
and the plea of not guilty interposed against it. Part of this video is
tucked into prosecution exhibit 22 introduced on the third day of the
trial in this cause (day 29 on the transcript, March 9, 2015). From this
street video, three still-frame photos have been extracted. Two of
these still-frame photos were published by the FBI on April 18, 2013, on
posters which were used to identify suspects. All three photos were
published by CNN and the Associated Press on April 19, 2013. The third
still-frame photo from this video is most telling, and is reproduced as
Tsarnaeva exhibit 4 in the appendix hereof. As already noted, the FBI
and the indictment have together affirmed that the culprits who
detonated these explosions were carrying large, unusually heavy, black
backpacks concealing pressure-cooker bombs; but, the third still-frame
photo from the Whiskey’s Steak House video reproduced as Tsarnaeva
exhibit 4, and drawn from a street video already used by the FBI to
identify the suspects and acknowledged by the government in this
prosecution, shows unmistakably that, shortly before the explosions,
Dzhokhar was carrying a small-size, white* backpack over his right
shoulder the same light in weight, not heavy laden, and displaying no
sagging or bulging as would normally be evident if the bag identified
contained a pressure-cooker bomb of the size and weight which the FBI
has described.
(*For all practical purposes and to the
naked eye, the color is white, although technical computer analysis
suggests a very whitish shade of gray.)
Dzhokhar is not guilty of carrying and
detonating a pressure-cooker bomb, as charged in the indictment, as is
literally as obvious as the difference between black and white. There
were and remain other suspects whose identities have been credibly
suggested. See, e. g., Toni Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, April 19,
2013 (illustrated commentary entitled “‘Contractors’ Stood Near Bomb,
Left Before Detonation.”). But here it is enough to reflect on the
comment of Lord Acton that “historic responsibility has to make up for
the want of legal responsibility.” — J. Rufus Fears, Selected Writings
of Lord Acton, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1985, Vol. 2, p. 383 (Letter
to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887). Whatever is done in judicial
proceedings, history will judge this case, as surely as history has
judged other significant cases.
3. The grievance of amicus: It is
impossible that federal prosecutors and counsel for the accused did not
know of the exculpatory evidence which has just been identified and
illustrated. Yet federal prosecutors went head without probable cause,
as if decisive evidence of actual innocence, impossible to ignore in a
diligent study of this case, did not exist, as is wholly unacceptable in
light of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 at 86-87 (1963).
Moreover, in her opening statement at
trial on March 4, 2015, as reflected in the fourth paragraph of the
transcript of her comments, court-appointed counsel for the accused
forcefully insisted that Dzhokhar was guilty of capital felonies, as is
positively disproved by evidence generated by the FBI, reinforced by the
indictment itself. She said,
“The government and the defense will agree about many things that happened during the week of April 15th, 2013. On Marathon Monday, Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back, carrying a pressure cooker bomb, and put it down in front of Marathon Sports near the finish line of the Marathon. Jahar [i. e., Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back carrying a pressure cooker bomb and placed it next to a tree in front of the Forum Restaurant. The explosions extinguished three lives.”
And in her summation to the jury on April
6, 2015, as the transcript shows, court-appointed counsel for the
accused said nothing of the exculpatory evidence in this case. She did
not even ask for a verdict of not guilty. She could hardly have done
more to promote a conviction and the severest sentence possible, even
though the third still-frame photo from the video at Whiskey’s Steak
House, reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, showed Dzhokhar carrying a
white backpack, as alone was enough to defeat the indictment insofar as
paragraph 7 thereof averred that the accused and his brother committed
the principal acts of wrongdoing by carrying and setting down black
backpacks. Such misconduct is altogether unacceptable in light of
Strickland v. Washington, 446 U. S. 668 at 687- 688 (1984).
The misconduct of which amicus complains
served to conceal decisive exculpatory evidence by legerdemain. Amicus
urges not only that the death penalty may not be imposed in this case,
for all three opinions in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993),
allow that the death penalty may not be constitutionally imposed where
the accused is demonstrably innocent, but that sua sponte this court
order a new trial with directions that new counsel for the accused be
appointed, motivated to provide an authentic defense for Dzhokhar.
4. The corpus delicti: Paragraph 10 of
the indictment recites a statement in the nature of a confession by
Dzhokhar written on the inner walls of a boat in Watertown. But with
respect to any and all evidence offered or treated as suggesting an
extrajudicial admission of guilt in this case, amicus cites the
penetrating observation by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on
the Laws of England, Edward Christian, London, 1765, Book IV, p. 357:
“[E]ven in cases of felony at common law, [confessions] are the weakest
and most suspicious of all testimony, ever liable to be obtained by
artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered
accurately, or reported with due precision, and incapable in their
nature of being disproved by other negative evidence.” Amicus and
countless others suspect that the alleged confession in the boat was
staged as artifice to suit the government’s case, and not authentic. But
she stands on ancient wisdom which casts doubt on all extrajudicial
confessions without adequate safeguards, including the rule that an
extrajudicial confession is insufficient to convict, unless the corpus
delicti be sufficiently proved up. The rule is defined with various
degrees of rigor from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In federal courts,
in any event, the corroboration required to sustain a confession or
statement in the nature of a confession need only be independent,
substantial, and reveal the words in question to be reasonably
trustworthy, as appears, e. g., in Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84
(1954).
If such be the law here applicable, the
required corroboration in this case must include evidence showing that
Dzhokhar actually carried a large, heavy, black backpack on Boylston
Street before the explosions on the afternoon on April 15, 2013, as
claimed by the FBI and alleged in the indictment. Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, a
product of investigation by the FBI, shows plainly that Dzhokhar did no
such thing, hence no required corroboration has been established
5. Closing remarks: The views here
expressed are not unique, but shared by good Americans, and others the
world over. The undersigned and her sister Malkan are prepared to
testify as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the motion for
leave to file a submission as amicus curiae. This argument is
Respectfully submitted,
May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva
Zhigulevskaya Str. 7, Apt. 4
364000 Grozny, Chechen Republic, RF Telephone: 011-7-938-899-1671
364000 Grozny, Chechen Republic, RF Telephone: 011-7-938-899-1671
E-mail: marettsar@gmail.com 10
Of counsel:
John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X) 180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
Telephone: 418-888-5049
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
Telephone: 418-888-5049
E-mail: jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that this
submission is consistent with the rules of this Court, that it is
prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and that the bare text
thereof consists of 2,331 words.
May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva
APPENDIX TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 1
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 2
This is the communication I received from attorney John Remington Graham:
TO DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, GREETINGS :
Dear Sir, — By way of introduction. I
have practiced criminal law for nearly forty-eight years, both
prosecuting and defending, and served as a founding professor in an
accredited law school in my native Minnesota. I have appeared as counsel
before courts of record in sixteen jurisdictions, and have a background
in forensic science and medicine. I can provide a résumé on request.
On March 25, 2015, while the trial was
underway, I wrote and distributed a short opinion on the prosecution of
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of capital felonies in Boston on April 15,
2013 in United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, No.
13-CR-10200-GAO on the docket of the United States District Court for
Massachusetts, commonly known as the “Boston marathon case”, or “the
Boston bomber case”. I used eight photo exhibits to explain my
conclusions that, as a matter of law, there was no probable cause to
support the indictment, and that Mr. Tsanaev was plainly not guilty as
charged. These views were shared by others reporting on the internet,
but my opinion was meant to provide professional assurance to fellow
citizens that, legally speaking, something was radically wrong with the
prosecution. In fact there were then and still are a great many
anomalies with the case.
The substance of the Boston marathon
case, as I then saw it, and as I still see it, is that, on the day after
the explosions on Boylston Street in Boston, the FBI crime lab
determined from fragments at the crime scene, the FBI chief in Boston
announced, and the indictment itself later confirmed that, shortly
before the explosions, the culprits were carrying large, heavy-laden,
black backpacks containing pressure cooker bombs. Two days later, the
FBI chief in Boston stated publicly that the suspects were identified by
a certain street surveillance video, which for some days was later
displayed for public viewing on the FBI website. The video had been
taken from Whiskey’s Steak House, and was used to create still-frame
photos of Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the big brother, now deceased), and
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the little brother, later accused) as they walked up
Boylson Street toward the finish line of the Boston marathon, shortly
before the bombs went off. These two still frames were featured on
posters distributed by the FBI in soliciting cooperation from the
general public. But there is a third still-frame photo, taken from the
same video, which shows unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying a small,
light-weight, white backpack. The backpack carried by Dzhokhar was
flat, and did not sag or bulge as would have been apparent if it
contained a pressure cooker bomb filled with shrapnel as described in
the indictment. This third still-frame photo was
published by the major news media of the United States. I retrieved my
first copy of this third still-frame photo from an internet report of
CNN on April 19, 2015.
The bottom line is that the FBI’s own
evidence eliminates Dzhokhar as a suspect, and conclusively proves he is
not guilty as charged. This reality is literally as clear as the
difference between black and white. The establishment press knew about
it, and I cannot imagine how the federal prosecutors and counsel for the
accused could not have known about it. So obvious was the actual
innocence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that there was no need for a trial at
all, because a good criminal defense lawyer could have taken the FBI
information published the day after the explosions, the text of the
indictment, and the third still-frame photo from the street surveillance
video used by the FBI to identify suspects, and employed those items to
support a pre-trial motion for dismissal of the indictment. I have on
many occasions made such motions or seen such motions made by colleagues
in federal courts, based on facts revealed by disclosures which
prosecutors must and routinely do make available to counsel for the
accused under a famous decision of the United States Supreme Court. And I
have seen such motions granted on not a few occasions. Such practice is
not uncommon, as I know from my own experience.
What was going on in Dzhokhar’s case? Why
was there no motion to dismiss the indictment based on indisputable
facts? Why was there a trial at all? Why did Judy Clarke, a big-time
death-penalty lawyer appointed to defend Dzhokhar, admit to the jury in
her opening statement that her client was guilty? She had decisive
evidence that her client was not guilty. Why did she not use it, bring
the case to an end, and thereby save her client’s life? In her final
summation to the jury, Mme Clarke did not even ask for a verdict of not
guilty. She made no mention of the exculpatory evidence generated by the
FBI and mentioned in the indictment. Available were widely published
photographs of possible paramilitary agents near the crime scene in
Boston about the time of the explosions, carrying large, heavy-laden,
black backpacks with characteristic markings which the FBI crime lab
material revealed. But these persons with black backpacks were never
investigated by the FBI. Why not?
I contacted Maret Tsarnaeva, the paternal
aunt of Dzhokhar living in Chechnya which is part of the Russian
Federation, a lawyer trained in the old Russian school of law in the
Kyrgyz Republic which was once part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet
Union, but has been independent since the conclusion of the former Cold
War. A very bright and interesting woman Maret turned out to be, and,
from the beginning, she maintained that her nephew was not guilty. My
conversations with her over Skype led me to conclude that Judy Clarke
and her colleagues in the federal public defender’s office in Boston
could not stand up to the political pressure and thus threw the case
instead of defending Dzhokhar.
Mme Tsarnaeva executed an affidavit on
April 17, 2015, which explains events when representatives of the
federal public defender’s office in Boston met with Dzhokhar’s family in
Russia. For those interested in details, I attach a copy of her
affidavit exactly as sent to me by Maret from Russia and later filed
with the federal district court in Boston, except that the affidavit
filed in the federal district court includes Maret’s original signature
in Russian script which I can verify with my business records.
Maret hoped to call exculpatory evidence
to the attention of the presiding judge, because Dzhokhar’s lawyers were
not defending the accused and federal prosecutors were acting without
probable cause. After diligent research on options was made, Maret
decided to attempt an appearance before the federal district court in
Boston as a friend of the court. She had to apply to the presiding judge
for permission to appear in this capacity, and to make a motion asking
the court to appointment me as her personal counsel for this purpose on
special occasion. Normally, to be admitted to practice before the court
on special occasion, I would need a motion from a member of the local
bar. My paralegal assistant and I contacted many lawyers in
Massachusetts. Some were sympathetic, but none dared to participate,
lest their reputations be harmed. I had practiced before the federal
district court in Boston some years previously, and then had no
difficulty in securing the routine courtesy of a member of the local bar
in sponsoring my appearance on special occasion. But not even the
American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts dared to assist Maret or
myself. I had to assist Maret in making an intervention pro se,
representing herself, while she listed me as “of counsel” so as to
signal that she was guided by a lawyer, and asked the presiding judge to
admit me on special occasion without sponsoring motion of a member of
the local bar, due to unusual circumstances. On instructions of court
personnel, we could not proceed on the electronic record, and Maret’s
pro se motion with supporting documents was served upon the federal
district attorney and the federal public defender in paper and by
registered mail, and the papers had to be filed with the office of the
clerk of the federal district court, again in paper and regular postal
service. But our task was accomplished by May 29, 2015.
For your convenience, I attach herewith
the formal argument made by Maret Tsarnaeva acting pro se with my
guidance, exactly as filed in the federal district court in Boston,
except that the copy served and filed included the signature of Maret
Tsarnaeva in Russian script, as I can demonstrate from my business
records. We showed by text and exhibits, and by reference to the trial
record and FBI-generated evidence that Dzhokhar cannot be guilty,
because the FBI determined and the indictment alleged that the culprits
carried black backpacks, but the FBI’s evidence showed that Dzhokhar was
carrying a white backpack.
Maret expressed her grievances against
the unethical misconduct of the federal prosecutors in proceeding when
they knew they had no probable cause, and the unethical misconduct of
court-appointed counsel in not defending in earnest. We enclosed the
four most critical photo exhibits, including the results of the FBI
crime lab investigation and the exculpatory third still-frame photo from
the video used by the FBI to identify the culprits.
I am aware that many incredulous citizens
cannot accept that the government of the United States would stage a
show trial in Boston to convict an innocent young man and sentence him
to death. But such events are not unusual in history. Judicial murder
spoils the history of many nations. These incredulous citizens point to
Dzhokhar’s alleged confession statements inside the boat in Watertown
and at the time of sentencing. But contrary to the beliefs of the
uninitiated, it has been clear from ancient times that confession
statements are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, as is
stated by legal scholars going back many centuries. Maret’s pro se
argument cited Sir William Blackstone, from whom the founding fathers of
the United States learned the law, for this truth. False confessions
are very common, and result from fabrication, artifice, duress,
unfounded hopes, attempts to curry favor, even brainwashing. Hence,
going back centuries the law has struggled to develop safeguards against
false confessions.
The intervention by Maret Tsarnaeva in
behalf of her nephew in the Boston marathon case is significant because,
although denying her motion to appear as a friend of the court, the
presiding judge entered an order, which appears on the electronic
record, is numbered 1469, and directs that her filings be maintained by
the office of the clerk of the federal district court in Boston. These
documents should be accessible to those wishing to see and read them.
Therefore, it is a matter of public record, not merely a matter of
internet protest or gossip, that the federal prosecutors, the
court-appointed lawyers for the accused, and the presiding judge are all
aware of the FBI’s own evidence which excludes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a
suspect, and proves his actual innocence. It is also clear that the
major news media of the United States, which orchestrated a false
appearance that Dzhokhar was guilty of heinous crimes, and called for
his execution, were aware that he was not guilty. They knew, as the
report of CNN four days after marathon Monday makes plain, that Dzhokhar
was in fact carrying a small, light-weight, white backpack, and that
the government’s own evidence shows that the culprits, whoever they
were, carried large, heavy-laden, black backpacks.
John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
John Remington Graham is an attorney with
decades of experience in the fields of constitutional, environmental,
and criminal litigation. He served as a federal public defender; special
counsel to Brainerd, Minnesota; and Crow Wing County attorney. He has a
great many publishing credits in constitutional law and history, and
also forensic medicine and science. He has lectured on constitutional
law and legal history in the United States and Canada. Graham was also
cofounding professor of law at Hamline University in Minnesota. As a
young lawyer, he quickly realized an investigation into constitutional
history was necessary to properly defend his clients against the
judicial machine. Since then, Graham has been a diligent student of
American, Canadian, and English constitutional history and law. He
recognized that the American Constitution could not be understood
without a thorough knowledge of its foundation in English Constitutional
law and history. He has participated in major cases raising difficult
questions of constitutional law, appearing before courts in sixteen
jurisdictions within the United States. Additionally, in 1998 he was the
advisor on British constitutional law and history for the amicus curiae
for Quebec in the Canadian Supreme Court, a position that afforded him
the opportunity of shaping Quebec’s argument in its case for peaceable
secession. Graham received both a bachelor of arts in philosophy and a
law degree from the University of Minnesota. Graham, his wife, and
children have lived in Minnesota and Quebec.
The original source of this article is PaulCraigRoberts.org
Copyright © Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, PaulCraigRoberts.org, 2015
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment