Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Justice, Religion, Society

FBI Agent’s Testimony Shredded In Boston Bomber Trial

220px-BostonSuspect2146px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svgCriminal 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.

Tsarnaevā€™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: ā€œYou said the picture [that forms the background of the second account] was a picture of Mecca.ā€

Kimbell: ā€œYes, to the best of my knowledge.ā€

Conrad: ā€œDid you bother to look at a picture of Mecca?ā€

Kimbell: ā€œNo.ā€

Conrad: ā€œWould it surprise you to learn that it is a picture of Grozny?ā€

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 Quā€™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

312 thoughts on “FBI Agent’s Testimony Shredded In Boston Bomber Trial”

  1. JMRJ said …

    Youā€™re the one who needs to make logical and principled distinctions justifying persistent and repeated murderous behavior over a lifetime v. a one-off incident in oneā€™s youth getting punished the same.

    I wonder how those families who lost loved ones, or those who lost limbs, in the blasts feel about that? When you set out to kill people, there is no age related excuse. No “one offs”… it is what it is, period.

    1. Aridog – trying to get a feel for this thinking. The Green River Killer killed 48 women. According to this, the first one was a freebie? Do I have that right? Or is it a percentage?

      For instance, men who kill their wife are unlikely to kill that wife again. Although some have been known to kill other wives. But, statistically, they are unlikely to re-offend. CA could have saved a lot of money on the OJ trial.

      1. @Pogo Hears a Who

        “I advise you avoid reading about the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq wars, which were all fought using that selfsame idea.”

        Inasmuch as it would almost certainly antagonize your Western-jihadist’s desire to totally eradicate your enemies, I advise you to avoid reading the Sermon on the Mount, especially the part about loving your enemies.

        Those who aren’t jihadists, however, may want to visit or revisit that rather authoritative advice:
        http://bartleby.com/108/40/5.html

  2. “Self defense against an immediate threat is nothing at all similar to adjuticating state policy with respect to an accused individual.”

    Red herring.

    I was responding not to “adjuticating state policy”, but to his lament that ā€œhow are we any better than what we accuse the terrorist groups of being?ā€.
    Indeed, that thinking forbids both national and personal defense because both may involve sanctioned killing of others.

    Not that you care, of course, but just sayinā€™ā€¦

  3. One could make that argument as a pretext against self-defense as well.

    Red herring.

    Self defense against an immediate threat is nothing at all similar to adjuticating state policy with respect to an accused individual.

    Not that you care, of course, but just sayin’…

  4. ” a one-off incident”

    So, the first bomb or murder or mass murder is a gimme.

    But after that, well, you’d better watch your Ps and Qs, buddy.
    We’re onto you.

    1. LOL Pogo who said anything about a “gimme”? Life in prison is a gimme?

      You need to concede here. This will just keep getting funnier from here, at your expense.

    1. anonymous – the DoJ will drag this out for the next 25 years. Look a squirrel!!!

  7. @Oxa

    “What did he disassemble on the stand? A Lego construction? A toaster? A gun?”

    The metaphorical architecture of his testimony, i.e., his credibility.

  8. @Pogo: Obviously, I don’t think so the criteria are skewed. You’re the one who needs to make logical and principled distinctions justifying persistent and repeated murderous behavior over a lifetime v. a one-off incident in one’s youth getting punished the same. Or, I’ll save you some time and effort: you can’t do it.

    @Karen: Fundamentally, the answer to your question is yes. A person who commits one murderous act, with no history of any other significant criminal behavior, when they are young and impressionable should not be a candidate for the death penalty. If that’s not the rule then any murder could result in the death penalty and if that is the only alternative then I would have to be adamantly opposed to the death penalty. Which maybe I’m getting to that point anyway. But I digress.

    Also, every murder has a victim or victims, they are all awful crimes, and so to be blunt your concerns for the parents and child victims are irrelevant to this question. This sounds harsh, but it isn’t, unless you’re okay with emotion governing these things rather than reason. In addition, why should your concern for the victims of this bombing trump the defendant’s concern for the victims of US military drone raids? There are pictures of dead and maimed children he could show, too. Indeed, how is your “reasoning” on this point even the slightest bit different from his?

  9. Paul – sounds like the news is grim regarding the FBI crime lab. They need to clean up their act tout de suite.

  10. Why was a lockdown wrong while looking for terrorists attacking the city? Personally, I would not want to go outside if no one knew if there were any more bombs, or if there was going to be a shootout.

    We are infamous for, among other things, high speed car chases in CA. The idiots usually try to run after they’ve ditched their cars, and it’s my understanding everyone’s supposed to stay inside their homes to keep out of harm’s way.

    I don’t recall anything excessive about the lockdown, and I do remember how serious the threat was. But I might have missed something. If so, let me know.

  11. If the people who chop off heads for ISIS, or burn prisoners alive, were “young and impressionable”, should they not get the death sentence?

    I concede that I am somewhat conflicted about the death penalty for several reasons, not least of which is the patient spends decades on death row. But when two cowardly Islamic terrorists planted shrapnel bombs that killed and maimed men, women, and children, I have no problem, at all with the death penalty. An 8 year old boy was killed, and 9 children were severely injured in the attack, some losing limbs. In all, miraculously, only 3 were killed, but 264 were injured. There were arms and legs and bits of flesh all over the street and on top of roofs. I cannot imagine what the parents went through holding their maimed little children. Anyone who deliberately harms a child is dirt.

    If incompetent witnesses like this undermine the justice of the trial, it will be a travesty. I hope, in any case, that the FBI makes a serious overhaul of its expert witness protocol.

  12. Both forensic and expert testimony need a good, hard looking at. And anytime we say forensic science we should put science in quotes.

  13. “I guess in my mind if the death penalty is used at all, it should only be for serial killers or something comparable.”

    They set a bomb intent on killing multiple people. It injured many. It shut down the city.
    Not comparable to a serial killer?
    Your criteria are askew.

  15. “how are we any better than what we accuse the terrorist groups of being?”

    One could make that argument as a pretext against self-defense as well.
    I don’t buy it.

  17. I don’t think this is a strong case for the death penalty, even if he has been “radicalized” or whatever. A case, maybe. Not a strong case. Too young, too impressionable, no history of criminal conduct.

    If the evidence shows he was unduly influenced by a far older and stronger willed brother, I don’t think the death penalty should even be submitted to the jury, though I’m not sure that’s possible in federal criminal practice.

    Then again I might just be outside the mainstream on this. There’s a braying twitter mob insisting that Jodi Arias (high profile murder case out of Arizona) should get the death penalty, and again I don’t see it as even close:

    https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/jodi-arias-will-live/

    I guess in my mind if the death penalty is used at all, it should only be for serial killers or something comparable.

  18. Dang it: “without our votes” should have been “with our votes” Might be nice if I proof read before submitting, not after…Duh. šŸ™

  19. Bailers said …

    And I have no idea how to get back to that ideal.

    One word: VOTE (intelligently)

    Police of all types are under the executive branch of a town or a country. Vote for idiots, get bad policing. Vote for an honest and forthright individual, and demand the police, and every other “ordnance enforcement” department be honest as well. My town had an atrocious building inspection office for years, corrupt and arrogant as could be, UNTIL we voted in a Mayor who cleaned house.

    It all starts without our votes, both the back slide and the recovery. In a rare bit of forthrightness, President Obama did say (in his Selma speech) that essentially we get what we vote for or don’t vote for…e.g., especially those who don’t vote. Not sure he grasped how right he was and how badly his DOJ has behaved. Credit where due, however.

    1. Voting intelligently is an impossibility for at least 2 reasons:

      First of all the American public is composed of idiots,thanks to government schools, and the main stream media.

      Secondly there is very, very, seldom the choice of a decent candidate. We are only allowed to choose banker candidate 1 or banker candidate 2.

  20. Pogo said he would’ve been in favor of executing Dr. Sami Al-Arian too, whom Professor Turley defended, instead of deporting him. I guess that he’s all for a Judge Dredd form of a Justice system.

    1. Inga – as usual there is no nexus in your comment between what Pogo commented on a different topic and this topic. This is just a typical Inga ad hominem attack.

Comments are closed.