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
Pogo, You have kicked butt all day. It’s Miller Time, my friend.
LBJ was a horrible racist. He called the Voting Rights Act his “nigger bill” that would keep blacks voting Dem for a century. He used “nigger” constantly. His prediction is about half way there. All Churchill did was save the world. Typical ignorance of history here, Pogo.
I’ll buy nuanced understanding. I reject “cutting some slack’.
And that nuanced understanding must include a fuller picture of the man. A magnificent writer, a great leader during WWII, and a racist responsible for some wretched policies during Imperial Britain.
Wadewilliams – you clearly voted Labour at the end of the war. 😉
@Wade
I understand your POV, and British colonial practices were both racist and ugly (we had a revolution for a reason, yes?). The matter in Kenya after Churchill’s term was absolutely hideous.
I caution that great men can have great faults (in fact, they often do) and we can have a nuanced understanding of them.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/08/boston-show-trial-attorney-pleads-patsy-guilty/
Anne Marie
He was a great leader during WWII. He also was a racist bigot and responsible for horrible policies during Imperial Britain.
I am capable of considering both in my assessment of the man. I will not ‘wink’ at his racism. It had ugly consequences.
DBQ – no kidding about the ammo. Heard about the recent efforts to try to limit ammo now?
Unless I missed something (and I am skimming), I did not read Po advocating genocide. I saw he commented that if we should kill enough jihadis to make the rest stop fighting. I assume “the rest” means the rest of the jihadis.
I see a lot of people on the blog with a bad taste in their mouths about Christianity because of things they disagree with about the faith. And yet, those same people seem incapable of understanding why some have a bad opinion of Islam because they tire of the violence done in its name. The Catholic Church took a hammering from the actions of some pedophile priests, and those who shielded them. And yet it seems inconceivable to say that Islam needs to clean up its act from within to prevent extremism from spreading. Posters cannot have it both ways. They cannot condemn Christianity for its abuses and yet cry foul when someone does the same for Islam.
From my perspective, I have known many moderate Muslims, so I am well aware that it is possible to practice Islam in peace. This is why I oppose damaging Mecca, well, anymore than the remodel crews there already have. That would punish all Muslims. Moderate Muslims can be viewed as reformers, in that they do not want Sharia Law or the abuses done in its name. In the same vein, we don’t see Christians acting out the Old Testament, stoning people and burning a bull in sacrifice. I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone who practices their faith, or no faith at all, in peace.
I also understand the frustration of those who want to slam a lid on the ever more common extremism boiling over in the ME, and spreading globally. It’s a problem. It is connected to Islam because it is specifically an observance of Islam. Moderates do not agree with extremism in the same vein as Mormons do not agree with Fundamentalist Mormons.
It is not anti-Christian to harshly criticize The Church for the pedophile priest scandal. It is not anti-Mormon to condemn the Yearning for Zion scandal. And it is not anti-Islam to call for reform. Extremism is a real and growing threat and we need to get serious about fighting back.
I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a comment she made during an interview. In effect, Islam can be a beautiful religion, but it needs reform. Moderate Muslims are essentially reformers, whether or not they realize it. The pendulum swung too extreme and Muslims need to confront the problem and correct it. But what are the chances of that when every single government in the ME, except for Israel, is Extremist Muslim? Shall we look to Saudi Arabia, where princesses are imprisoned for being too modern, to reform women’s rights under Sharia Law? Shall we look to Iran, that executes gay men, to improve gay rights under Sharia Law? Can Turkey improve science in the ME? I am at a loss as to how moderates can stem this tide, but I hope it happens.
@AnneMarieDickey
The comment on Churchill was quite nice.
@Wade
Buy yourself another gun.
Some of us lefties own guns too. My King’s 2nd Land Pattern “Brown Bess” will be getting a workout this weekend…:)
Coolest thing ever was fixing bayonets and charging through a corn field to catch a Brit unit in the flank two years ago at The Hook in Virginia. Frakking awesome!
Winston Churchill was a well known bigot.
I am generally reluctant to ascribe modern definitions of bigotry to historical figures. I don’t think it really helps in understanding dynamics that existed at that time. Churchill, for good and ill, was the proverbial complicated man. He was the right man at the right time when the Luftwaffe bombed London every night during the Blitz, and the “Blood, Sweat and Tears” speech ranks among the very best of all time.
He unfortunately also was a bully towards Ireland, and stabbed the French in the back by ordering the attack on Mers el Kebir which killed thousands of French sailers. Yet, he also reigned in the maniacal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris who was committed to wiping Germany (the people, the buildings, the culture, everything) off of the face of the Earth. (While the US 8th AAF was trying win the war by bombing strategic targets concerning oil and industry…like ball bearing plants at Schweinfurt and refineries at Ploiesti etc, Harris was only interested in mass bombings of civilian population centers and called precision daylight raids a “panecea”) Churchill put a stop to his increasingly useless and indefensible mass murder air raids that killed people but did nothing to actually fight the war.
On the whole, history regards Churchill with favor…as it should…and if he held views that would be objectionable today, I think we can find it in our hearts to cut him a little slack.
I have plenty, thank you Wade. I could use some addition ammo though 🙂
Islam isn’t a race.
DBQ
Buy yourself another gun.
He was right about the Nazis and he was a racist. No surprise that both components appeal to a genocidal troll.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
“This robs them of agency…”
@Ken Rogers,
Thank you for your considered response.
“1) Actual terrorists …should be dealt with like any other criminals in the world”
I disagree. They’re part of a global jihadi movement, and as such are at war with the West (and others).
Criminalization hasn’t reduced their activities in the EU a whit.
“2) Western governments should quit creating Islamic terrorists “
This robs them of a lack of agency, and treats them as sub-humans incapable of responding except in a barbaric fashion because they don’t know any better.
More ‘white man’s burden’ stuff.
More, some of the jihadis were born and raised In the EU and were nor more subject to colonialism, etc. than I was.
“Zionist oppression of the Palestinian people”
The Arabs don’t give two shakes about the Palestinians except as fodder for their anti-Israeli animus. They can’t even get into Jordan or Egypt.
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Actual terrorists, as opposed to those blamed for false-flag attacks, should be dealt with like any other criminals in the world, by the national and international criminal justice systems,
This statement here illustrates the fundamental difference in viewing the issue of Radical Islamic Terrorism and acts of terror….bombings etc. Two views which will never be persuaded to the other’s side.
One view is that these are merely criminals and if we treat them right, or use the proper judicial channels, they can be punished. Like a bank robber, or vandal. Criminal acts. Punish them and teach them not to be terrorists.
The other view is that these are acts of war from an organization that has verbally declared that they are at war with the West and detailed how they wan to destroy us all. War. not criminal actions but War. War not by a Nation State but by a certainly well armed, well financed, very determined, and obviously unscrupulous group . A group which soon may be able to get nuclear weapons. If this doesn’t frighten anyone, you are not paying attention at all.
I tend to take the second viewpoint as well. Since the various groups, which all have a common theme or thread, have stated that they are at war with us, I will take them at their word. We may not be interested in being at war. THEY ARE interested. Very interested.
Treating acts of was as if they are mere criminal actions when your enemy has flat out told you that there is a war, strikes me as being excessively naive about how the world works. Be naive with your own life and your own self. The rest of us prefer some self preservation.
Thanks, Wade.
I’ll side with Churchill over anyone you favor.
He was right about the Nazis and nobody listened to him them either.
Pogo – Genocidal Troll.
Perfect.