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
dickaye,
This morning was way too early for popcorn…
… But the show was superb.
Yes, JT is consistent. There are two or three words one can NOT use and a maximum of two links…
… Other than that, most seem to be welcome to post the most offensive things they can think of, including the slaughter of an entire religion based on raw animus.
Some 15 year old kid who manages to get ahold of a weapon of mass destruction, uses it and kills “millions” should still not be given the death penalty.
That is YOUR opinion. The decision by a jury is what will count.
ahold is not a word
DBQ –
It is now. 😉
@Dust Bunny: I think it’s too bad a jury will decide whether Tsarnaev gets the DP, obviously. Judge should take it off the table, but I haven’t looked into it that may not be possible.
If the government’s performance with this witness is any indication, though, it would appear the DP is very unlikely anyway.
E.g., Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
See Paul Fussell’s article in the New Republic: “Thank God For Atom The Bomb”
“I will have nothing to say to you after this, so any response will be for whatever gratification you will derive from writing.”
Translated: I will insult you and impugn your motives, but decline to stay around for discussion.
See: Feminism 101.
“This isn’t name calling. ”
Of course it is.
It’s unreasonable and fallacious (ad hominem).
“Godwinning doesn’t apply when…”
When you use it.
We disagree on one thing:
I think we are at war, you think these are crimes.
Hence the differences in prosecution.
All wars everywhere have been fought with the logic I discuss. I didn’t invent it.
You do not have to eradicate all Muslims, merely sufficient jihadis to make them stop fighting.
Destroying Mecca fits with that.
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.
@Karen: assuming, without conceding, the plausibility of your example, the answer is yes. Some 15 year old kid who manages to get ahold of a weapon of mass destruction, uses it and kills “millions” should still not be given the death penalty. Maybe the way to put it is that “incorrigibility” is a necessary prerequisite to imposing the death penalty.
And I don’t mean to preach but the implication of your point that then he doesn’t “earn” the death penalty unless he “does it again” is fatuous. I haven’t suggested that such an act shouldn’t be punished at all, or that the perpetrator should ever be free again.
Not to mention that on the ideas you are advocating, Nelson Mandela would have been executed.
DBQ:
“The attitude that we are the Government so we don’t have to follow the ordinary rules. That we are the Government and you don’t have the right to question us, ask us for documentation or any rights to respond to us. Know your place peasant!!”
So true! This brings me to another tangent – Hillary Clinton. How many times has she proven that the rules just don’t apply to the Clintons? This latest email scandal comes to mind.
1. She is on record in 2007 scolding the previous Administration for secret emails
2. She sent out SOS cables telling all staff never to use private emails for government business
3. She claimed she used private email because she only wanted to use one device. However, as everyone knows, you can set up multiple emails on the same device, and she is on record stating she used an iPhone and a Blackberry.
4. If she used private emails, then all of that belonged to the government. If you use your private email at work, expect your boss to be reading it over your shoulder. And the sticky part is that you have to turn over all of the emails, even the embarrassing private ones, to the government to sift through. Instead, she used her husband’s server, except it was physically in her house and under her control.
5. It is against the law, dating from the 1950s, for her to conceal her communications from the government. However, her using her own server, and deciding for herself which emails to hand over and which to delete, does exactly that. It’s not about which email address she used. Ultimately, it’s about concealing communications from the government.
6. The emails were concealed from a FOIA and subpoena regarding Benghazi, and we have only her word that the emails she’s now released are inclusive.
7. She claimed that she would not turn over the server for investigation because she had private emails between her and her husband, spousal privilege. However, her husband stated that he never uses email. (Really, Slick Willy owes her big time. You’d think he would at least check her cover story.)
8. We have absolutely no way of ever knowing if she deleted any damning emails. It would take a prosecutor to find out, and the chances of that are nonexistent, because Democrats will not police themselves.
9. She very carefully worded the talking points that she released to the press. She wrote that she did not delete any work emails while making printed copies. What a lawyer! How about did she delete any work emails at all?!
I’m just curious if a Republican could get away with saying he used his private email to conduct government business, admitted to deleting tens of thousands of them, but we had to take his word that he didn’t delete anything of importance.
Yeah, right.
Because of her behavior, we literally can never know if she deleted spam or emails about Benghazi. There is no way to make a judgement if she did anything wrong or not. Maybe she did, and maybe she didn’t, and all we have to go on is her word, and her long history of being a proven liar.
And how are people going to react at the polls? Are they going to give her yet another pass? Are we so jaded that we just don’t expect politicians to follow the rules or the law?
DBQ – thanks for the info. That does sound like a slippery slope. In this day and age, I think we will need to have a plan in place for how to conduct a terrorist manhunt without violating the Constitution. If a bomber was loose in the city, would a judge just order a blanket search warrant? I don’t want to give powers that could be abused, but I also want to avoid the other extreme where we’re sitting on our hands, thinking, well, there are two men with bombs somewhere in the city, and we have to wait to find out where they are to get a search warrant. We need to be effective but not abusive.
I would like to know what law enforcement thinks would be optimal.
JMRJ – so am I correct that your position is that only repeat offenders should be sentenced to death? It does not matter how egregious the offense – for instance, if someone used a dirty bomb to kill millions of people, he would not earn the death penalty unless he did it again.
Everyone does have their own standards for the death penalty. For some, it is warranted in some circumstances, while other would never agree with it. It’s a personal belief.
Hear hear dickaye. This continuing theme of execution and genocide by Pogo in regard to Muslims is truly reached the reviling and disgusting level, coming from an MD especially.
Ken:
“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?”
That is because of this part of the original story:
“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.”
His guilt is not in question. I believe this is the sentencing phase.
Again, who routinely resorts to name-calling, me or you?
A final note to you…
Godwinning doesn’t apply when the analogy is accurate. You are, in fact, advocating for positions routinely held by neo-Nazis at Stormfront.
To wit: eradicating Muslims and destroying their cities (Mecca specifically for you)
This isn’t name calling. You are, by your own words, keeping company with these people.
I will have nothing to say to you after this, so any response will be for whatever gratification you will derive from writing.
I’ll leave one final examination of Pogo’s musing here before I have to leave for the afternoon:
Not if they are all dead and Mecca no longer exists. (“they” referring to Muslims)
Followed by:
Islam.
Civilization.
Choose one.
The plain sense of the argument is that Islam and civilization are incompatible and that Islam must be “eradicated.” Presumably this is done by killing the adherents, since Pogo goes on to assure us that we should look to Medieval crusades for inspiration and that 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. He does not suggest that they be converted through missionary means or through exposure to Western liberal democracy. He specifically suggests that vilence and eradication (ergo genocide) is the appropriate final solution.
We are given no reason for this extraordinary claim that Islam is not actually a religion, nor are we presented with any reason why over a billion people should be exterminated based on the actions of a relatively small minority.
Pogo makes no attempt to examine competing beliefs in Islam, nor does he seem to be interested in why some Muslims engage in radical and intrinsically evil behavior while most Musims do not.
His only answer is eradication. Genocide. Mass murder through crusade and war.
This is not my interpretation. These are his own words.
In his advocacy for street executions of accused persons (the accused bomber specifically) he is essentially advocating lynching, which is an extra-legal form of mock justice associated with mobs and anarchy. Lynch law may derive from a Virigina Whig judge named “Lynch” during the Revolution who carried out speedy faux trials on accused Tories before having them hanged.
He conveniately ignores the horrifying history of lynchings in American history of people from all ethnicities. He also conveniately sets himself up as being a better arbiter of justice than the systems he derides as weak or incapable. This is a hallmark of fascist ideology which sought to supplant “weak” institutons with “strong” individuals who relied on malignant populist support.
The views that Pogo espouses are anathema to American jurisprudence and to the values we have fought to preserve.
He brings hatred, death and misrule in place of western democracy and tolerance.
Others here may value his words. I do not, and I denounce them for what they are: profoundly un-American, un-Christian and antithetical to every value our Founders held dear.
http://www.reckonings.net/reckonings/images/malarkey_and_mole_2.jpg
However, back to the gist of this post. The appalling lack of professionalism, lack of competence, lack of even trying to do a proper investigation, in the FBI and many other Governmental agencies is also an extreme concern for people who value their liberty.
The attitude that we are the Government so we don’t have to follow the ordinary rules. That we are the Government and you don’t have the right to question us, ask us for documentation or any rights to respond to us. Know your place peasant!!
Frightening. Not just the bone headed incompetence that will likely damage the prosecution’s ability to bring their case, but the attitude that prevails in our increasingly top down overweening government.
“….based on videos that have emerged since the manhunt — one showing law enforcement banging on a home’s door, bringing the owner outside and having him keep his hands up as the agents enter the house — some on Twitter are wondering if everyone’s experience was as polite
This was nothing more than another covert false flag operation, Like the 1993
WTC “bombing”, 1995 OKC bombing, Ruby Ridge, 9/11, Sandy Hook etc.
Disbelievers and those that “just can’t believe” the U.S., Israel, and other countries, conduct false flag operations for various reasons. e.g. Reichstag fire – used to justify invading the Poland Water Company.
Bill McWilliams – what was ‘false flag’ about Ruby Ridge?
“If someone doesn’t want to be lumped in with the with neo-Nazis”
Again, who routinely resorts to name-calling, me or you?
Answer: You.
“Advocating genocide and lynchings”
Misrepresenting my arguments do not amount to making valued contributions, nor is it “telling it like it is”.
You suggested the lynchings and genocide, not me.
I suggested only that we are at war and need to prosecute it as such.
I suggested further that it should not be tried in the courts.
Reasonable and defensible.
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.
Unfortunately true. It looked to me like martial law in all but name, given the military weapons, military vehicles and police cum soldiers patrolling the streets, pointing weapons at civilians looking out windows and molesting people in ther own homes without cause or writ.
I was horrified by the pictures I saw.
By the way, bombing investigations in the 60s and 70s managed to be concluded without pointing automatic weapons at homeowners and depriving an entire city of constitutional liberty.
Attack what he says, not him. Or, do you like to “kill the messenger” of bad news?
Advocating genocide and lynchings do not amount to making valued contributions, nor is it “telling it ike it is”.
The postitions are reprehensible enough to defame the character of the person making these claims, and I would no more encourage reasoned debate with them then I would with a person who thought pedophillia was a good idea.
If someone doesn’t want to be lumped in with the with neo-Nazis, they should not advocate for positions they espouse…like the mass murder of Muslims and razing the city of Mecca.