Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Trial January 5, 2015

Today, Boston decided that the Tsarnaev trial will begin on Monday as scheduled and the venue will not be moved.



Who is Who in the Tsarnaev Trial

Nearly two years after a pair of bombs killed three people and injured nearly 300 near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old surviving suspect in the attacks, is finally set to get his day in court. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Jan. 5 in the highly anticipated trial, which might finally reveal some of the lingering mystery about how Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan, who was killed while on the run from police, allegedly came to commit such a terrible crime.

ABC News - Judge Won't Delay Jury Selection

Judge George O'Toole Jr. said in his decision Friday that jury selection will start as scheduled on Monday, because it would be too inconvenient to delay it.

Tsarnaev's lawyers had asked for a postponement while a federal appeals court decides whether to postpone the trial and move it out of Massachusetts.

More than 1,200 people have been called for jury selection. O'Toole said in Friday's decision that delaying the start "would cause some unknown degree of disruption to those people" and to the court.

The trial will go on as scheduled and with no change of venue. First with jury selection. Then the trial will start right after. It is unknown how long jury selection will take and it's unknown how long the trial will take.

Tsarnaev was indicted for using weapons of mass destruction as well as multiple murders, including a police officer. Info on charges here . He faces the death penalty.

a reply to: Jainine

Jury selection? Who on this planet hasn't been spoon fed what the MSM has been force-feeding us since the marathon? Who knows what really happened, or if they even did it...We only heard what we were meant to hear....He will not be able to get an un-biased jury, not saying he is guilty or not, but it won't be fair...And if he is guilty, then it shouldn't matter...But what if? WHAT IF? What if, by some chance this wasn't him or his brother's doing and they were forced to fall on the blade for someone else? Perhaps we will never really know....

a reply to: Jainine

Sounds like a done deal. What the hell took two years to get here?

Can you believe that there are folks out there actually defending him? Picketting outside of the courthouse like this guy had no part in the crime claiming 'we havent seen all the evidence'. But what about the video of them on surveillance carrying the book bags then placing them where the explosions went off. I'm sorry but this would be way to elaborate and would have to be planned so perfect. And his brother was seen in a shoot-out against the police and the other was found hiding under a tarp on a parked boat nearby, i'm pretty sure these are the two who committed the crime. Video evidence of them with the explosives are all that's needed in this case. Good luck to the defense, can't wait to see what excuses they make up. And for the prosecution it's basically an open and shut case.

No saying he is innocent. But I dont believe a word our Government says EVER! To many unanswered questions about this event for me to believe either side. To bad he wont get a fair trial. Could you imagine if he was found innocent god that would be crazy. This trial was over before it began thats why they wont televise it like other trials. He was supposed to die a year or more ago when they first caught him.

a reply to: Jainine

Took long enough. Holy crap. Good thing they have such a huge pool to cull through for jurors. They just MAY be able to find enough people who are capable of not reaching a decision already to sit a jury.

That being said, the inability of some people to accept that there are people out there who wish America ill, and want to kill Americans however they can, and that sometimes those people carry out their ideas, and that sometimes bad people do bad things boggles my mind. Not every freaking event in the world is a false flag.

This whole thing stank from the beginning. No video of the second explosion, I literally saw the older brother being arrested, naked, put into a police car, the reporter seemed very, very nervous, and then the fbi van pulled up and took him from the police car and put him in the van. I saw this happen live at like 3:45am. Then he supposedly got into a shootout with the police and ended up dead.

Not to mention the most bloated manhunt I have ever seen. A good test to see how the people would react to marshal law IMO Hell.. the cops didn't even find him, some dude going outside to smoke a cig did.

Then they kill some guy in Florida who was in FBI custody.

Those are just a few things wrong with this story. I'm at work so I can go into all the rest, but off the top of my head,
-Unnamed security force during the race with members on rooftops
-The tweet from the Boston Globe about a controlled detonation across from the library (finish line)
-Unmoved plastic cups and chairs and in-tact windows at the blast zone
-The guy who lost his legs, but no blood trail when wheeled out.
-All the false findings of IED's during the manhunt.
-Speech debilitating throat injury suffered at the hands of police

I wonder if this trial will be public or we will just find out they sentenced him to death behind closed doors.

a reply to: Shamrock6
I have no doubt that jury selection will be a challenge. But it would be a challenge anywhere in the country. Probably most have made up their minds - in favor of Tsarnaev or against. That would be my guess.

a reply to: myartisstrong

You left out how Seth Macfarlane knew about the bombings beforehand, too.

You do realize that out of everything you posted, 4 of them are very easily debunked and have been repeatedly, right? The naked dude was identified as somebody else and facial comparison turns up a handful of differences. The "security" guys were identified as a national guard EOD unit. The tweet was after the first two explosions....

I could go on, but I'd rather not completely derail the thread

a reply to: Jainine

Completely agree. It's gonna be a tough slog, but hopefully they can find enough people to look at things dispassionately. I don't know where they think they can move the trial and get away from any potential bias.

Delaying tactics and setting up appeals down the road by the defense team.

you all are reaching for something that isn't there.... WE HAVE them both on camera dropping the explosives.. what more would you need?... And lets say they were innocent.. why were they running? hiding? Shooting innocent people?(security guard) and didn't they steal a vehicle at one point in the middle of all this? Jeez some people... i understand optimism but you have the puzzle already completed in front of you.

Why does that image show the dude's friends? What do they have to do with any of this?

originally posted by: Bovah2
Why does that image show the dude's friends? What do they have to do with any of this?

3 of them were arrested and convicted on assortment of charges varying of perjury, interference with a federal investigation, hiding evidence for tsarnaev, possession of heroin, and gun charges.

His lawyer Judy Clarke is a ringer; who is guaranteed not to ask any real questions challenging the guilt of her celebrity clients. So far, she has managed to get life sentences for all of them. Some 'defense' lawyer.

Here is an interview with this snake:

www.washingtonpost.com... d8-aed2-11e2-b59e-adb43da03a8a_story.html
"The names of her past clients — Susan Smith, Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph and most recently, Tucson shooter Jared Loughner — run like a list of the most reviled in American criminal history."

There are many who are facing the death penalty. Yet she seems to get mostly the 'celebrity' cases. No ordinary murder cases for her!


"... When she first meets them, they do not want to plead guilty. Her job is to change their resolve, she said."

So the job of a defense attorney is to get her clients to plead guilty? With a 'defense' lawyer like this, who needs a prosecutor?


“They’re looking into the lens of life in prison in a box,” she said. “Our job is to provide them with a reason to live.”

No, her job is to defend her client's interests in a diligent manner, not pretend to be their priest.


"....In most cases, she said she finds underlying mental illness."

So how come she never attempts the insanity defense?


I think her real job is to not challenge the official narrative with a messy trial, and to make the defendant go away with as little fuss as possible. The actual guilt or innocence of her clients is of no interest to her.

a reply to: starviego

Wrong. A defense attorney's job is to obtain the best possible outcome for their client. When outcome one is the death penalty and outcome two is life without parole, it is absolutely the attorney's job to make their client understand that. Weighing the odds of an acquittal is part of being a defense attorney. When those odds are "zero" then the focus shifts to getting the best possible sentence for a client, filing challenges to searches (which she's done), filing challenges to actions the prosecution has taken (which she's done), and so on.

She actually DID prepare an insanity defense for Ted Kaczynski. He refused to go along with it. His defense team can't force him to agree to it.

You may see all of her clients winding up on LWOP sentences as "losses," but given that she's against capital punishment I'm willing to bet she'd disagree.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: starviego

Wrong. A defense attorney's job is to obtain the best possible outcome for their client. When outcome one is the death penalty and outcome two is life without parole, it is absolutely the attorney's job to make their client understand that. Weighing the odds of an acquittal is part of being a defense attorney. When those odds are "zero" then the focus shifts to getting the best possible sentence for a client, filing challenges to searches (which she's done), filing challenges to actions the prosecution has taken (which she's done), and so on.

She actually DID prepare an insanity defense for Ted Kaczynski. He refused to go along with it. His defense team can't force him to agree to it.

You may see all of her clients winding up on LWOP sentences as "losses," but given that she's against capital punishment I'm willing to bet she'd disagree.

ya beat me to it.. sometimes pleading guilty is better than trying your chances when you know you're going to be found guilty in the first place. might as well try a plea deal.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
A defense attorney's job is to obtain the best possible outcome for their client. When outcome one is the death penalty and outcome two is life without parole.

All your outcomes presuppose guilt, which seems to be the position of his 'defense' attorney. I don't see very much in this case that points to Tsarnaev's' guilt, other than his proximity to the scene. Perhaps you can add something.

And you can bet the death penalty was off the table from the gitgo, so Tsarnaev gains nothing by any plea deal. The death penalty implies a real trial, and that they are desperate to avoid. Also Tsarnaev's execution would make him a martyr, and would turbocharge the controversy over this case. That too they want to avoid. The trial will go on as scheduled, but just before it's over, the defendant will take the deal. You watch.