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
“His statements here would have had him banned from many sites already”
For what?
Disagreeing with left-liberalism?
Who’s name-calling?
You and JMRJ.
What have you found me guilty of, besides not agreeing with your attempts at mockery?
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.
Karen
It wasn’t JUST a suggested lock down, a sensible suggestion that I would follow ….to stay put for the time being. The police were, without any legal basis, conducting violent and militarized house to house searches and violating the constitution. The 4th Amendment. Roughing up innocent people and commandeering houses.
On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
While we might agree that the seriousness of the crime/event committed and the possibility of more bombings might make this seem like an emergency that could possibly warrant these violations and excessive force by the police, it is a slippery slope when we surrender our rights.
What new “emergency” will be a justification for more shredding of the Constitution. We already live in fear of an overly militarized police. An out of control, adrenaline pumped up bunch of police Rambos in Kevlar is more to be feared. IMO.
“I can’t tell if you are trolling or if you actually are as obtuse…”
Ad hominem.
“If you cannot distinguish between the actions of an individual in immediate peril and the actions of state apparatus”
I see your problem.
I’m talking about war, where summary execution is the entire plan.
You seem to think Islamic jihad warrants the usual US Constitutional protections and police and judges and juries.
I disagree, mainly because Islamic jihadists think we’re stupid enough to follow your plan.
Why should I believe you, rather than their oft-stated plans to destroy the West?
“Now you have gone into advocating for outright religious genocide”
Islam.
Civilization.
Choose one.
(See: The Crusades for details
“(and by inferrence, the destruction of our own constitutional guarentee of religious freedom). ”
Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion.
If the Lutherans or Quakers start bombing Boston races, I’d vote for eradicating them as well.
let’s look at the ;last few days:
“It sounded better in the original German.
May I suggest that Stormfront …
…an aspirant member of the neo-Sturmabteilung
…If you had the capacity for shame…”
Ad hominem or Alinsky?
Both?
Who uses logical fallacies here? Me?
Pogo is a gem. He just tells it like it is. He is a valued contributor of several blogs, and while sometimes bare knuckled, always civil. Attack what he says, not him. Or, do you like to “kill the messenger” of bad news?
Pogo’s a little unhinged, no?
Don’t feed the troll. I will not engage with his sadistic fantasies any further. His statements here would have had him banned from many sites already, and I suspect that Prof Turley tolerates him for the sake of consistency.
“What we might learn in US v. Tsarnaev—and what we probably won’t” (ACLU, Massachusetts)
https://privacysos.org/node/1687
“Did the FBI try to cultivate Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an informant back in 2011, before the Waltham murders? If not, why not, as Senator Chuck Grassley asked FBI Director James Comey in October 2013? Why didn’t the FBI recognize Tamleran in images it found of the brothers in the aftermath of the bombings? After all, the FBI office in Boston investigated Tamerlan on suspicion of terrorism for at least three months in early 2011.
Was Tamerlan Tsarnaev involved in the September 2011 triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts? In May 2013, just weeks after the Boston bombings, officials leaked information to the press alleging that they had forensic evidence and cell phone location records tying Tsarnaev to the Waltham crime scene, casting him as a central suspect. Just weeks after this news, two Massachusetts State Troopers and a Boston based FBI agent, Aaron McFarlane, traveled to Florida to interview Tsarnaev associate Ibragim Todashev about his involvement in those murders, alongside Tamerlan.
After McFarlane killed Todashev by shooting him seven times—including three times in the back and once in the top of the head—the FBI told the public that the deceased was in the process of penning a confession implicating himself and the elder Tsarnaev in the grisly 2011 killings when he flipped out and attacked the agent. Why, then, did the DOJ in May 2014 tell a federal court that it had “no evidence” of Tamerlan’s involvement in the Waltham murders, beyond the Todashev ‘confession’?
The FBI and state troopers supposedly went down to Florida to interrogate Todashev about his role in the murders, which officials apparently suspected he committed alongside Tsarnaev, but when pressed to provide information about the Waltham investigation to the public defenders representing Dzhokhar, the feds suddenly threw up their hands and claimed they had none. What’s the deal with this flip-flop? What was the true purpose of the interrogation in Florida if the feds had no evidence to show Tamerlan Tsarnaev—and thereby Ibragim Todashev—was involved in the triple murder? Why did the feds proceed to deport most of the people close to Todashev after his killing? Is this an example of extreme government incompetence, or a cover-up?
Why did the FBI hire Aaron McFarlane, a man who faced two brutality suits and four internal affairs investigations during his four year stint as an Oakland police officer? Though he has worked for the FBI for years, McFarlane reportedly continues to receive disability payments of over $50,000 per year from the taxpayers of Oakland. The Boston based agent has thus far been paid over half a million dollars in this tax free income, despite the fact that his supposed disability hasn’t prevented him from working for the FBI. Was the FBI aware of the brutality suits and internal affairs complaints against McFarlane when it hired him? Was it aware that he was receiving annual disability payments from the City of Oakland, even though he was apparently fit to work as an FBI agent?
Finally, the DOJ and FBI have stated in open court that they do not know who built the bombs that exploded at the Boston Marathon, or where they were built. Will this issue come up in the trial? Is there an active investigation to discover who is responsible for creating these deadly weapons?
It’s not clear that answers to these questions will emerge in the guilt phase of the trial in US v. Tsarnaev. Thus far it appears as if the defense strategy has little to do with challenging the government’s narrative of events, and squarely focuses on humanizing their client, who they have admitted was involved in the attacks. But the public might, at the very least, get a window into the issues related to Tamerlan Tsarnaev when the defense presents mitigating evidence in the sentencing portion of the trial, where they have much broader latitude to discuss the older brother’s role in shaping Dzhokhar’s outlook and actions.
The question of whether Tamerlan was involved in the Waltham slayings is particularly prescient for the American public. If he was, it’s yet more evidence that routine criminal investigation—figuring out how dead bodies got cold—is the best approach to protecting public safety, not dragnet surveillance. As Edward Snowden has said, the NSA and FBI were busy monitoring you and me in 2011, 2012, and 2013, but they completely missed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, someone the feds themselves had investigated for terrorist ties, and possibly even tried to cultivate as an informant.
Regardless of what new information emerges during the trial, one thing is clear: Mass surveillance doesn’t stop horrific terrorist attacks. And despite the FBI’s claims, it isn’t even key to figuring out who is responsible for them afterwards. Nothing we learn in the Tsarnaev trial will change that basic fact.”
-ACLU Massachusetts
Some good questions that need to be explored and/or answered.
To which I responded No it isn’t. That view would make any defense a “direct contradiction of the very beliefs that” ….etc. etc.
Point out the fallacy.
I can’t tell if you are trolling or if you actually are as obtuse as the plain sense of your written statements.
If you cannot distinguish between the actions of an individual in immediate peril and the actions of state apparatus, then (to borrow from the Rob Roy) I fear your judgement is damaged beyong repair. In any event, there is no contradiction between allowing latitude to a person in reasonable fear of his or her life while maintaining that summary street executions (which you suggested were appropriate) are not a proper function of reasoned and dispassionate state justice. I can draw off of several thousand years of human history to back this up…and several thousand lynchings right here in the United States which (almost always) managed to kill entirely innocent people.
Not if they are all dead and Mecca no longer exists.
Now you have gone into advocating for outright religious genocide (and by inferrence, the destruction of our own constitutional guarentee of religious freedom). It sounded better in the original German.
May I suggest that Stormfront would be a better venue for you? Since I do not care to waste time debating an aspirant member of the neo-Sturmabteilung, I will leave you to your devices.
If you had the capacity for shame, this would be your cue to experience it.
“Pogo’s a little unhinged, no?
I see.
Is that “a sophist’s retort”, or merely an ad hominem, or an Alinsky effort?
I suspect that’s your style.
Since I am often accused of being unhinged, I am the last person to ask for advice in that area. However, compared to me, Pogo is VERY hinged.
“…a sophist’s retort”
Explain. Use examples and references.
Tsarnaev Brothers are Innocent. Heres the Proof!
http://fightingforliberty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tsarnaev-brothers-are-innocent-heres-the-proof
@Paul: Yes I know, but it’s beside the point. I mean, one of the strong arguments against having the death penalty at all is that it’s arbitrarily imposed, so “you don’t get the DP if you have the right kind of brother” fits right in with that.
I haven’t commented over here much. Pogo’s a little unhinged, no?
That is, we disagree.
If ten-dollar words assuage you, have at it.
Meanwhile, left unanswered is how you can counsel self-defense or national defense at any juncture.
My answer: if a Democrat says war, you’ll find a reason to support.
If not, BUSH!!!
Just a guess.
“Life in prison is a gimme?”
It is, compared to death.
A bullet to the head is pretty cheap.
He’s going to cost taxpayers millions of dollars over his lifetime, noit including his inevitable appeals and jailhouse lawsuits about the religion he tried to kill us with.
“You need to concede here.”
I concede you have not defended your argument very well.
So…
“But he didn’t get it, did he?”
It was a stupid error, wasn’t it?
Pogo, that’s a sophist’s retort, at best. You have an amateurish approach to argumentation.
“However, your opponent was arguing that the extra legal summary street execution you enthused for was in direct contradiction of the very beliefs that the terrorists were attacking.”
To which I responded No it isn’t. That view would make any defense a “direct contradiction of the very beliefs that” ….etc. etc.
Point out the fallacy.
I’ll wait.
“…carrying out your example would be a net victory for the terrorists who succeeded in making us violate a core principle.”
Not if they are all dead and Mecca no longer exists.
But do go on.
“You decided that the argument was about weakness as opposed to your(presumably) steely eyed street realism”
That’s how war works.
It’s awful and horrible and mean and unfair, but far better than defeat.
…”laws and courts be damned.”
Oh, you mean US courts? the ones that turned taxes into penalties and allow the confiscation of your house and money if the DA deems it, and where no-knock raids and execution of the residents is permissible (even if it[‘s the wrong house)?
That laws and courts?
You make my head hurt.
“As a matter of course, your arguments have more in common with a banana republic strongman…
That is, Obama.
The Unabomber would be a much better candidate for the death penalty. But he didn’t get it, did he?
JMRJ – the Unabomber brother turned him in with the guarantee he would not get the death penalty. They tried to renege on the deal
There seems to be a strong consensus here that the accused is guilty as charged, yet the testimony of one of the prosecution’s star witnesses is patently a bad joke.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The defense admits he participated, so guilt of a sort is not in question. The prosecution became lazy and sloppy since they viewed the trial as a formality on the way to the execution chamber…which may be out of reach for them if this keeps up.
There seems to be a strong consensus here that the accused is guilty as charged, yet the testimony of one of the prosecution’s star witnesses is patently a bad joke.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Ken Rogers – the defense has conceded the defendant did it. They are just arguing about the death penalty.
I wasn’t aware that the defense attorney for Tsarnaev had said, “It was him.”
However, in view of the government’s seeking the death penalty, she arguably is trying to effect the equivalent of a plea bargain with the jury, i.e., plead her client guilty to avoid the death penalty.
That does not ipso facto make Tsarnaev guilty, and I want to see the government’s evidence against him before I buy its case, irrespective of his defense strategy.
As everyone knows, there were so many wrongly convicted inmates on death row in Illinois, that the governor suspended implementation of the death penalty in that state.
It’s also important, I suggest, to bear clearly in mind that there are varying degrees of guilt in complex cases, and that the respective culpability of the Tsarnaev brothers may be an issue, as may that of others, including even agents of the government:
“The FBI’s handling of a 2009 ‘terrorist’ case—in which the agency supplied fake weapons to a group of four impoverished, mentally unstable men—was harshly criticized by New York District Judge Colleen McMahan, who called it a ‘fantasy terror operation.’ Said the judge of the FBI’s actions to thwart an alleged bombing plot: ‘Only the government could have made a “terrorist” out of [defendant] Mr. [James] Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope.’ ”
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/as-real-threat-from-al-qaeda-fades-is-fbi-stepping-up-set-ups-130314?news=849428
If someone can point me to a summary of the government’s case, I’ll be obliged.
I was responding not to “adjuticating state policy”, but to his lament that “how are we any better than what we accuse the terrorist groups of being?”.
Your proclivity for logical fallacy and tendentiousness has been noted before, and you follow form here yet again:
You observation is a classic strawman where you misrepresent the argument of an opponent and change it to a caricature that you can then show rhetorical mastery over.
However, your opponent was arguing that the extra legal summary street execution you enthused for was in direct contradiction of the very beliefs that the terrorists were attacking. Therefore, carrying out your example would be a net victory for the terrorists who succeeded in making us violate a core principle.
You decided that the argument was about weakness as opposed to your(presumably) steely eyed street realism where (presumably) men like you can make snap judgments on a life and death matter without error or influence of passion…laws and courts be damned.
As a matter of course, your arguments have more in common with a banana republic strongman than anything derived from our common law tradition, but please proceed.
I fault judges for not imposing contempt sanctions on expert witnesses who are recklessly incompetent and on lawyers who use them. Why are judges so tender towards unscrupulous lawyers? Is it sympathy with their own black pasts?