Criminal defense attorneys have long objected to “experts” produced at trials by the Justice Department who often seem to closely follow trial theories rather than scientific or forensic data. I have handled cases where experts used by the Justice Department gave almost laughable testimony filled with errors in national security cases but courts continue to admit their testimony. This week, one such expert, FBI Special Agent Steven Kimball, fell apart on the stand when confronted with clearly conclusions over basic and easily ascertainable facts.
Tsarnaev’s defence attorney Miriam Conrad for example noted that the FBI identified a picture sent on the twitter account of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a picture of Mecca. This led to this exchange:
Conrad: “You said the picture [that forms the background of the second account] was a picture of Mecca.”
Kimbell: “Yes, to the best of my knowledge.”
Conrad: “Did you bother to look at a picture of Mecca?”
Kimbell: “No.”
Conrad: “Would it surprise you to learn that it is a picture of Grozny?”
Unfortunately, he might not be surprised at all given the loose standards imposed on such expert testimony.
Kimball was also forced to admit that highly incriminating tweets isolated by the Justice Department were actually quotes from pop songs, including a tweet referring to “I shall die young.” Kimball said that he was unaware that these were quotes from songs. Kimball admitted that he did not even click on some links in tweets cited by the government as incriminating. One of the links would have taken the reader to a song with the line “I shall die young.”
Kimball was also confronted by the fact that the FBI had isolated lines that were actually jokes form Comedy Central and various comedians. One could of course forgive an FBI agent for having a limited knowledge of humor sites. However, Kimball also misidentified a quote as having been made by the al Qaida-affiliated cleric Anwar al-Awlaki when it was really a quote from the Qu’ran.
Among the other examples was the highly incriminating use of the term “mad cooked” in tweets that was raised by Kimball. Kimball admitted on cross examination that he was entirely ignorant of the fact that this slang means “high” after he tried to guess that it might mean “Crazy.”
In the end, it was the testimony that seemed cooked. It was a great cross examination by Conrad, but it is unfortunately not unique.
The exaggeration of such evidence reflects the real issue at trial — death. The defense has already admitted that Tsarnaev carried out the attack. The issue is only the penalty and whether a single juror can be convinced that Tsarnaev was under the influence of his older, more radical brother. The misrepresentation of this evidence was intended to portray Tsarnaev as a dedicated terrorist and extremist like his brother. Instead, it seriously undermined the credibility of the prosecution before the jury in what was an extremely strong case for the death penalty.
Source: Guardian
Ja ja, Ich verde mich benehmen….oder nicht.
DBQ, I don’t speak as a nurse every single time I comment. Do you post comments in a ‘estate planning’ mode every time you make an utterance? If I think Paul or you or anyone is acting oddly I might comment on it, just like YOU do. Take the plank out of your eye and mind your own business.
Comrade Inga – when you question someone’s health status specifically, you are speaking as a nurse. I think in this state I could have you charged. Don’t know about WI, they may have looser standards.
@ Ken
Inga routinely accuses people of having TIA incidents while they are posting. transient ischemic attack (TIA) is often labeled “mini-stroke,” She evidently thinks this is funny. She professes to be a nurse and should know better.
Another diagnosis that she likes to make is that people are on drugs or smoking marijuana. Implying the illegal use of controlled substances.
So when she gets all prissy about other people speculating on the lifestyles of other posters (which is really inappropriate for everyone to do and doesn’t contribute to the discussions) don’t be surprised when she gets some blow back. Pot calling the kettle black so to speak. You don’t get to make medical diagnoses and other remarks and then get the vapors when others do it.
Frankly I don’t know anything about you people other than what you have disclosed or say about yourselves, and frankly I really don’t care. On the internet “no one knows that you are a dog”. (That’s an old internet joke….I’m not calling anyone a dog)
I take people at their word. If someone says they are a nurse, a lawyer, a PI, a retired military office, an anything……who am I to dispute. I don’t see any reason why people would be lying about their bonafides. Whatever. We can judge you by your words and by your actions.
Back to the program.
@Dust Bunny Queen
“I take people at their word. If someone says they are a nurse, a lawyer, a PI, a retired military office, an anything……who am I to dispute. I don’t see any reason why people would be lying about their bonafides. Whatever. We can judge you by your words and by your actions.”
Well, that’s all well and good, but I want to share my suspicions that a couple of Supreme Court Justices, neurosurgeons, and Nobel Laureates who regularly post here have considerably embellished their CVs in an obvious effort to boost their credibility.
Be that as it were, what do you think of Lord Prescott’s belated admission of error regarding the invasion of Iraq and the radicalization of many Muslims?
Trooper York:
“Mespo you need to raise your game a little. You are a sad little man. Get a life buddy.”
**********************
While I detest self-proclaimed victories, I’ll take that statement along with your lack of any substantive reply as a concession that all my criticisms of your rather dubious opinions are valid. Nick has quit trying to refute any of my points relying on his feeble witticisms or feigned concern for my welfare to fend off embarrassment. It’s a good — if obvious — strategy. Let’s do it again sometime.
Inga, you silly little Fräulein, you have no legs to stand on, no arms to wave, no eyes to see, nor ears to hear. Stay thy tongue, then, and let those who have never practiced medicine without a license, pontificate. Okay?
Danke.
Comrade Ken – Inga went to Marquette and has an RN. She knows better than to diagnosis without a licence.
Come on, raff and Inga, it’s like being on Nixon’s Enemies List. I just updated my CV with it. 😀
on 1, March 15, 2015 at 8:31 pmNick Spinelli
trooper, He really didn’t used to be like this. Something has happened in his life that turned him angry. When you align yourself w/ personality disorder people, it’s a huge red flag. She has convinced him to attack both of us. Pitiful to be manipulated by someone of that ilk. Just freakin’ pitiful.
********************
Jesus. Speaking of personality disordered people. I’d be embarrased to say something like this on a public forum. This is a law and politics blog, it’s amazing that some folks are using it for gossip and innuendo. Childish, silly and toxic.
Inga – just the other day you were diagnosing without a licence. You have no legs to stand on. It appears you can dish it out, but you cannot take it.
Nick and trooper york,
Your personal attacks of Mespo are despicable, even for your standards. They should be stricken.
@Apologists for War on Terra
Well, it took him 11 or 12 years, but better late than never:
“Lord John Prescott admitted that he and Tony Blair ‘were wrong’ to invade Iraq.
former U.K. deputy prime minister has accused Tony Blair of radicalizing young British Muslims with his ‘bloody crusades.’
“Speaking at fundraiser, Lord Prescott, who served as Blair’s deputy, admitted that the pair ‘were wrong’ to invade Iraq. ‘I was with Tony Blair on Iraq. We were wrong. They told us it wasn’t regime change. It was. And that’s exactly what the Americans have had. Now Tony, unfortunately is still into that. I mean the way he’s going now, he now wants to invade everywhere,’ Prescott said in remarks made last month but which came to light over the weekend.
“ ‘He should put a white coat on with a red cross and let’s start the bloody crusades again,’ ” he added.
“The veteran Labour politician went on to directly link Blair’s invasions with young Muslims’ joining violent Islamic groups.
“Lord Prescott added, ‘When I hear people talking about how people are radicalized, young Muslims. I’ll tell you how they are radicalized. Every time they watch the television where their families are worried, their kids are being killed and murdered and rockets firing on all these people, that’s what radicalizes them.’
“A number of young British Muslims have joined militant group Islamic State. Three young British men were stopped from entering Syria from Turkey [on] Sunday, and three teenage girls remain missing.
“Blair could face war crimes charges once a heavily-delayed investigation into the Iraq War is published, the upper house of the U.K. Parliament was told earlier this year.
“Members of the House of Lords, led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Hugh Dykes, posed questions about the Chilcot Inquiry, the British public inquiry into the nation’s role in the war in Iraq, and asked why its release has been prolonged by more than four years.
“Blair has been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights abuses for his decision to bring Britain into the Iraq War after it was revealed that there was no proof that the Middle Eastern country had weapons of mass destruction, nor that its then-president Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.”
“Campaign groups like ‘Arrest Blair’ have long called for the former prime minister to be tried by the International Criminal Court, and have offered financial rewards to anyone who attempts a citizen’s arrest on him.”
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/29136-we-were-wrong-to-invade-iraq-says-deputy-pm-under-tony-blair
trooper, He really didn’t used to be like this. Something has happened in his life that turned him angry. When you align yourself w/ personality disorder people, it’s a huge red flag. She has convinced him to attack both of us. Pitiful to be manipulated by someone of that ilk. Just freakin’ pitiful.
Mespo you need to raise your game a little. You are a sad little man. Get a life buddy.
Just enjoying from the sidelines, Paul. I stand corrected. I should have said a lot of people who don’t suffer from the same affliction. Btw Churchill was undersecretary for the colonies in 1906.
mespo – now for parts two and three of the question, what was he doing as undersecretary for the colonies and then what other job did he hold?
“What do you call yourselfs, the Arizona Ad Hominems?”
*************
That’s the official team name but around here the fans just call them the blog’s Sad Lexicon. You know like Nick to Trooper to Paul. Some however do refer to them as the Blog’s Boner, too. Merkle and I like that one.
“Kenny baby, I have been the target of so many ad hominem attacks on this site alone that I can sense them in my sleep. 🙂 If I say it was an ad hominem attack, it was an ad hominem attack. A little heads up, if you are allied with Inga, you are clearly playing for the wrong team. Don’t believe everything you are told.”
*************
If one person says you’re daft, there’s room for doubt. If a lot say it, maybe it’s time to go back on the Thorazine.
Herr Schulte
“Herr Rogers – where was Churchill in 1906?”
Herr Schulte, I can’t help *how* important and commanding an eminence you are, I’m not answering any more interrogatories until you get caught up on at least a few of mine. Verstehen?
Say, did you by any chance once aspire to be a Drill Instructor?
Ken Rogers – where was Churchill in 1906?
@ Herr Schulte
“Ken Rogers – what was Churchill doing in 1906 that he was part of this secret cabal?”
You really *do* have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you? Here, try your read-it-aloud method and see if that helps:
“Among the British and Churchillian errors were:
• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The greatest mistake in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939, ensuring the Second World War”
Now do you see (or hear) that it doesn’t *say* that Churchill was part of that particular “tiny cabal”?
“Kenny baby, I have been the target of so many ad hominem attacks on this site alone that I can sense them in my sleep. :)”
I hope it isn’t the Ambien. I knew a guy who got very paranoid on Ambien.
“If I say it was an ad hominem attack, it was an ad hominem attack.”
Ah, the venerable old argument to authority. If only it were an argument to authoritarian authority, then you might have something. Oh, wait…
You say you get ad hominem-ed a lot, huh? Not only here, but on other sites, huh? I wonder if, no, surely not, yet, could it be, as one barely plausible explanation, that your understanding of what constitutes an ad hominem attack might be a little loosey-goosey. That would be better explanation than the paranoia one, though, wouldn’t it?
“A little heads up, if you are allied with Inga, you are clearly playing for the wrong team. Don’t believe everything you are told.”
Inga and I are not yet wed, nor have I even asked her, although, if her dowry is ball-parky cool, well, I may have to reconsider my options.
I’m not aware of being on or playing for any “team,” Coach. I take it that you’re on one, though, or you wouldn’t have brought up the subject. What do you call yourselves, the Arizona Ad Hominems?
I can’t help noticing that you’re a whole lot more comfortable with and adept at asking questions than you are with answering any. You’ve got several of mine in your inbox, and unless it’s another part of your strategy to undermine your credibility, I suggest that you attend to them.
For only one example, I answered your question regarding the quotation, but you still haven’t answered mine, “Why do you ask?’ Listen, if it’s that you’re too important to answer questions I’d like to know that, so I can be more properly deferential.
mespo – using your argument and reasoning, the President should have slit his wrists long ago. Nice to see you jump in, was actually surprised not to see you before
http://youtu.be/Jr3RS7pCCSo
Inga – is that your theme song?
Herr Schulte. Es ist zum lachen.
Frau Inga – Da lachen ja die Hühner.
@Herr Schulte
“Ken Rogers – now you are just being obtuse. If you read the sentence out loud you will see I am correct. The I is not one, but I (me).”
Pettifog much, mein Herr? I’ve already conceded that I misread your pronoun “I” as the Roman Numeral “I”, so what do you want, blood money? Writing it on the blackboard 100 times? Read it out loud to see that you’re right. Now *that* was laugh-out-loud funny. 🙂
“Again, if you go back to my original comment, you will see that I hedged my summary of your summary. And I have told you my reasons for disagreeing with it.”
OK, if you insist. You wrote, “If, and I say if, you summarized Buchanan’s book accurately I do not agree with the thesis. There are too many players to blame in both WWI and WWII to lay the blame on Churchill.”
You could write that after reading *this*?
“In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of *British statesmen [plural]–Winston Churchill first among them*–the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins.” (My emphasis)
And:
“Among the *British* *and* *Churchillian* errors were:
• The secret decision of *a tiny cabal* in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France” (My emphases)
“As for your failure to understand what an ad hominem attack is, I suggest that you look up the term, see some examples and then go back and re-read your comments directed to me.”
And I suggest that you try to get serious. Even if I hadn’t been forewarned by Inga that this is one of your favorite ruses, I wouldn’t have let you get away with that cute little evasion.
No, inasmuch as you claim to have detected an “ad hominem attack” against your august person, it’s incumbent upon you to point it out and explain what makes it one. You don’t get to use the words “ad hominem” like a magic amulet to deflect any and all criticism of your behaviors.
If you can’t point it out and justify the characterization, it’s clear to me that you’re just blowing smoke again, and your credibility takes yet another hit.
Ken Rogers – what was Churchill doing in 1906 that he was part of this secret cabal?
Kenny baby, I have been the target of so many ad hominem attacks on this site alone that I can sense them in my sleep. 🙂 If I say it was an ad hominem attack, it was an ad hominem attack. A little heads up, if you are allied with Inga, you are clearly playing for the wrong team. Don’t believe everything you are told.
@ Herr Schulte
To my everlasting shame, I’m not familiar with every utterance of every philosopher in human history, but it sounds like something Max Stirner or Frederich Nietzsche might write.
As Rudolf Steiner writes in his book, *Friedrich Nietzsche: Fighter for Freedom*, “One cannot speak of Nietzsche’s development without being reminded of that freest thinker who was brought forth by mankind of the new age, namely, Max Stirner. It is a sad truth that this thinker, who fulfills in the most complete sense what Nietzsche requires of the superman, is known and respected by only a few. Already in the forties of the nineteenth century, he expressed Nietzsche’s world conception. Of course he did not do this in such comfortable heart tones as did Nietzsche, but even more in crystal clear thoughts, beside which Nietzsche’s aphorisms often appear like mere stammerings. (p.122)
See Stirner’s *Der Einzige und sein Eigentum*.
Why do you ask?
Ken Rogers – thanks for the cite to Max Stirner. Reading about him tells me a lot about you. Thanks again.
@Herr Schulte
“Ken Rogers – thanks for the cite to Max Stirner. Reading about him tells me a lot about you. Thanks again.”
You’re very welcome. I just hope you read about him on one of your safe, pre-approved sites. I’d hate for you to get misled like you almost were about Churchill.
Herr Rogers – where was Churchill in 1906?
@P HaW on March 11, 2015 at 6:13 pm
“I find it telling -and passing strange- that you tar a conservative with the examples of authoritarian horror chosen all stem from leftism: the French Revolution, fascism, Nazis. Similar calls to destroy all who oppose the State came from Stalin and Mao.”
You no doubt find it “passing strange” that your advocacy of mass murder (of a large group of people whom you consider a mortal threat to Western Civilization) should be compared with historical figures whom you categorize as “leftists,” who also advocated mass murder of their enemies, because you don’t recognize what *all* mass murder advocates have in common, whether “left-wing” communists or “right-wing” fascists: authoritarianism.
As social psychologist Bob Altemeyer puts it in his book *The Authoritarians*,
“What is Authoritarianism? Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want–which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies,
and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I’m going to present the case in this book that the
greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant
authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.”
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
In a later post, because they’re so important, I’ll share some of the specific findings of Altemeyer’s research, as well as excerpts from former White House Counsel John Dean’s best-selling book, *Conservatives without Conscience*, which also gets into the specifics of the authoritarianism of many self-described conservatives.
Ken Rogers – does Altemeyer get into the narcissism of the liberals? “The Magic 8 Ball of the Left” by Jean Alteremeyer.