THEY DIDN'T DO IT! Maret Tsarnaev blows apart the Boston Show Trial ~ jamesfetzer

by Jim Fetzer (with Maret Tsarnaeva)

As a retired university professor, former Marine Corps officer and journalist for veteranstoday.com, I have published several articles about the Boston bombing. Given my understanding that defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to provide clients with a vigorous defense, I have been stunned that Judy Clarke, the attorney of record for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has said that Dzhokhar did it, when there is a superabundance of evidence that this was a drill and that neither he nor his brother were involved.

Here is an update of the evidence in the case, including police on bullhorns announcing, "This is a drill! This is a drill!", tweets from The Boston Globe explaining that a demonstration bomb will be set of as part of bomb squad activities and a second announcing one will be set off in one minute in front of the library (where it goes of as predicted), an absence of blood which only shows up on a delayed basis (and is not real blood but Hollywood blood) and much more. But I have learned from Maret Tsarnaeva, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan's aunt, that even the footage from the scene of the crime, the Boston marathon footage, was faked: Tamerlan had a beard before and after, but is shown clean shaven in those videos.

The proof she adduced is compelling: We have photos of Tamerlan lying in bed with his cat, where his beard is apparent. We have footage of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar working out at the Wai Kru gym on April 12th, three days before the event, where he has a well-trimmed beard. We have what purport to be photos of him at the Marathon on April 15th, where he is clean shaven. We have photos of him on April 18th, where he again has a beard. Even the photos of his arrest and of his body after he has been killed show that he was still sporting the well-trimmed beard. The corruption of local, state and federal officials in this case is overwhelming: everyone knows they are innocent except the American public!

The Arrest of Tamerlan

Maret has sent me a video she saved on my computer, which shows Tamerlan being arrested alive at 1:04ish a.m. on April 19, 2013 on Mt Auburn Street (at the intersection with Adams Street). Tamerlan is on the ground handcuffed, surrounded by Boston police agents. No gun, or explosives are seen taken from him, while the police searched him. After his pockets have been emptied, a policeman takes his wallet from his pocket, reviews it using a flashlight, then announces, "It's him". From the reaction of police agents on the scene, it looks as if they had been searching for Tamerlan in Watertown, but they had no description, where the fact that the police had to review his document to identify him confirms her suspicion, that the police were looking exactly for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, under orders from the FBI, but they (the police) had no independent description of Tamerlan to use in their search of the city:

Maret comments on that video: "This guy lives here, but he doesn't know who he is." These words are said by the policeman, who checked the other guy, who is laying on the ground, next to Tamerlan on his right, also handcuffed, but awfully quiet all the time. And nobody is searching him or the pockets of that other guy. After the policeman is heard saying, "This guy lives here, but he doesn't know who he (referring to Tamerlan) is", and from the distance is heard a shout (whom Merat believes is Dzhokhar) "We didn't do it!", and Tamerlan shouts back, "Podstava!", in Russian, which means, "It is a set up!"

Maret's analysis (in her own words)

Anzor [who is their father] and I believed from the first moment we saw and heard that video (that showed up on youtube in May of 2013), that Tamerlan was shouting "podstava" in Russian (it's a set up" out of frustration and anger, when realised, that he and Dzhokhar were lured out from their home to Watertown at that night under some kind of disguise by that person (must be Russian speaking person), who is laying on the ground handcuffed next to Tamerlan's right. Tamerlan realised that that man, who brought them there, to Mt Auburn Street (intersection with Adams Street) by him, to set Tsarnaev brothers in a plot, organised by the LE and the FBI.

That is exactly why, we, the family, believe, that Tamerlan shouted out "podstava" (Russian speakers use of "podstava" in case, when someone uses you in some criminal deed, without your knowledge, to put blame and suspicion on you, as if you committed a wrongful deed or a crime), that is why Tamerlan is out of rage, anger and frustration (as we read it in his voice) shouted "it is a set up" in Russian, to let that guy, who had Tamerlan's trust for some reason, brought the brothers to Watertown, know that Tamerlan just realised that "that man, next to him" betrayed him and set him and Dzhokhar up. Otherwise, why would Tamerlan shout "podstava" in Russian, if there are only English speaking police man around him.

Then, after that, Tamerlan is heard shouting in English directing his requests to police officers: "Officer, can I call my wife?" None, other than Tamerlan would have known that there is only his wife, that Tamerlan can call to seek for assistance in the situation he is in (as seen and heard on that video). Tamerlan knows that there are no parents around; he knows that Dzhokhar was with him, when they both got arrested right there on Mt Auburn and Adams Streets. Tamerlan is shouting then "Officer, read me my rights", "you have to read me my rights officer". "Nope" is heard from one policeman. "Yes", Tamerlan is shouting back to him. Then, Tamerlan shouts, lifting his heavy upper body, while handcuffed to one side, addressing a bunch of officers surrounding him, demanding for his legal rights to be observed: "officers, why aren't you calling me my rights".

Tamerlan wants to know, what he is suspected of, what he is accused of. While Tamerlan is shouting, demanding for his rights to be read to him, it is seen on that video, how one of the police man, standing behind the tree, on the left from Tamerlan, by putting his boot on the left upper body, pushing Tamerlan's body to the ground, to stop him from shouting. Then, at the very end of that short video, when, Tamerlan realised, that his legal rights are not going to be read or observed by any of those police agents around him, feeling very concerned for his younger brother, he shouts with all his might in his body, while his body pushed face down to the ground, Tamerlan shouts out for his little brother's name "Dzhokhaaaar".

There is a shout heard back on that same video "Tamerlan" (we, the family, believe this is Dzhokhar calling his older brother's name, while he is also in custody at the police hands, not far from where Tamerlan is held on the ground on Mt Auburn). Then, again, Tamerlan's voice is heard even harder "Dzhokhaaar". We know that it is Tamerlan's voice, we recognise his voice, we have no doubts it is his voice. We know, how Tamerlan sounds, when he speaks in Russian. We know, how Tamerlan sounds, when he speaks in English. We know, how Tamerlan's voice sounds, when he is angry, frustrated, and here worried for the safety of his younger brother, Dzhokhar.

Three proofs "They didn't do it!"

Let me close by pointing out three blatant demonstrations that the brothers were innocent and that Maret, who is herself a lawyer, is right when she asserts, "They didn't do it!" The they included that the footage of the boys at the marathon was faked, that Tamerlan was killed in police custody, and that the backpacks they were wearing (in the faked footage) were not the backpacks that exploded in Boston:

Proof 1: The footage at the marathon was faked

If you return to the second of the videos I present above, you will see that, while Tamerlan is shown as clean shaven in the marathon footage, he had been sporting a beard, which can be seen in the photos of him lying with his cat, working out at the gym, and even in the arrest video and (most stunning of all) in the photograph of his corpse! Here is a comparison of Tamerlan with his cat and in the fake footage:

Proof 2: Tamerlan was killed while in police custody

Notice that Tamerlan's death occurs after he has been taken into police custody. There is a witness who reported observing the police drive over him repeatedly in an SUV, which was probably his own car. He was not killed by Dzhokhar but was murdered after he had been arrested. Bear in mind: his brother Dzhokhar cannot have killed him while he was in police custody! Yet Tamerlan was killed!

Proof 3: The brothers were wearing the wrong backpacks

Not only is Maret Tsaraev herself is a lawyer, but I had previously solicited the opinion of another attorney at law, John Remington Graham, who made the astute observation that the backpacks are not the backpacks that exploded. In the FBI report and the formal indictment, the backpacks are described as made of black nylon. But neither Tamerlan nor Dzhokar is shown wearing black nylon backpacks:

As Jack Graham observes, because the backpacks do not match, there was not even sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for an arrest and indictment, much less a conviction. Yet the defense team for Dzhokhar has ignored all the proof of his innocence and the jury is now deliberating whether or not to sentence him for a crime that he did not commit. This is American justice on display in Boston today.

APPENDIX: Formal Legal Opinion of John Remington Graham, Minnesota Bar (#3664)

I write to express my views while the trial in Boston is underway. Federal jurisdiction cannot be extended to the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and views of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, 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. But lay this point of law aside. Available evidence against Dzhokhar is insufficient in reason or law to prove that he committed the offenses charged. Such evidence actually proves that Dzhokhar is not guilty.

The formal indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (No. 13-CR-10200-GAO on the docket of the United States District Court for Massachusetts) was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long, and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev of heinous crimes, including many counts carrying the death penalty, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013. The most important portions of the indictment are paragraphs 6 and 7 which, read in themselves and in context, positively and unequivocally state that, acting in concert with his (now deceased) brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk one of two “black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these “constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel, adhesive, and other materials.” The indictment goes on to say that, after distancing himself, Dzhokhar detonated one of two bombs at about 2:49 in the afternoon, and that the bombs he and his brother placed and detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.

Facts impossible for any informed and diligent observer to overlook show that this accusation, as framed with required specificity, cannot be true. I refer to what public surveillance videos recorded on the day of these crimes, what crime lab photos on the FBI website revealed shortly after these crimes were committed, what was disseminated by a key television report on the day after the event, and what was announced by the FBI chief in Boston shortly after the event. I am not here discussing material which has been hidden from anybody or is subject to genuine dispute. I point to facts which the government and the mainstream news media of the United States have passed over in stony silence. The mainstream media have aided this prosecution by misleading omission of material facts and slanted reporting.

Public surveillance videos show Dzhokhar and his brother walking eastward on Boylston Street in the early afternoon on April 15, 2013. They are shown carrying backsacks typical of what American high school or college students use for carrying books and clothing. There are no unusual bulging, heaviness, or protrusions apparent. Dzhokhar’s brother is shown with straps over both shoulders. Dzhokhar is shown with a strap only over his right shoulder. Dzhokhar’s backsack is fairly flat, not heavy laden, and light colored. Neither backsack carried by the Tsarnaev brothers is pictured as carrying a “black backpack” mentioned in the indictment. These public surveillance videos and still frames taken from them have been used by the FBI in order to identify the suspects in these crimes.

The FBI also published two crime lab photos of critical importance:

One shows a bomb fragment after the explosions at around 2:49 in the afternoon on April 15, 2013.

The other shows a blown out backpack which was said to have contained one of the bombs, -- a black nylon bag with a characteristic white rectangle marking which is not even remotely similar to the backsacks carried by the Tsarnaev brothers as identified by the FBI in film from the public surveillance videos or still frames taken from them. This is the “dark colored bag or backpack” which the FBI chief in Boston described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when he described what was carried by the guilty parties.

From public surveillance videos used by the FBI to identify suspects, it is obvious that the backsacks carried by Dzhokhar and his brother shortly before the explosions could not have contained pressure-cooker bombs of this size. And, if such a device would have been squeezed into either backsack, it would have caused bulging or protrusions not observed in public surveillance videos which were used by the FBI to identify the suspects.

This much, without more, shows as conclusively as circumstantial evidence can prove anything in criminal litigation that the accused could not have placed and detonated a pressure-cooker bomb as alleged in the indictment.

There are also available and known public surveillance videos and still frames made from such videos, these widely published, showing that paramilitary agents in uniforms of Craft International, near the crime scene and at the time of the explosions, were carrying large black backpacks including characteristic white rectangle marking, and plainly large enough to carry pressure-cooker bombs which the FBI identified as having exploded and caused injury and death at the Boston marathon. Pubic authority has not investigated these obvious suspects. From the foregoing we may infer:

That there is no probable cause to support the indictment. From my knowledge of the evidence of this case, and from my general learning and experience, I am unable to understand how federal prosecutors could not be aware of this want of probable cause.

And that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not guilty as charged in the indictment. From my knowledge of the evidence of this case, and from my general learning and experience, I am unable to understand how counsel for the accused could not be aware of the innocence of Mr. Tsarnaev. -- John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X), March 25, 2015.

john remington graham

counselor at law

B. A. in philosophy 1963, LL. B. 1966, University of Minnesota; admitted to the Bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court, 1967; admitted to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, 1971; Public Defender, United States District Court for Minnesota, 1969-1973; Founding professor, teaching common law pleading, judicial writs and remedies, American constitutional law, admiralty, copyrights, legal writing, conflict of laws, legal history, and modern civil procedure, and serving as chairman of the admissions committee, Hamline University School of Law, 1972-1980; Advisor on questions concerning constitutional law and equitable remedies to the Minnesota State Board of Bar Examiners, 1974-1978; Special Counsel for the City of Brainerd, 1974-1980; Crow Wing County Public Defender, 1981-1984; Crow Wing County Attorney, 1991-1995; Occasional lecturer in comparative British, American, and Canadian constitutional law at Laval University, 1989-1991, 1997, and 2000, and in public international law, 2003; and Advisor on British constitutional law and history to the court-appointed Amicus Curiae for Quebec before the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference on certain Questions concerning the Secession of Quebec from Canada, [1998] 2 S. C. R. 217.

jamesfetzer

Tuesday, 5 May 2015