Of whom were you worried and fearful when you lied, and did not remember Me nor give Me a thought? Was I not silent even for a long time so you do not fear Me?
When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you…
But the wicked are like the tossing sea for it cannot be quiet and its waters toss up refuse and mud. “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.” Isaiah 57: 11, 13, 20-21
Perjury is defined as a crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth i.e. lying under oath.
To suborn is defined as: 1. to induce, as by bribe, to commit a crime 2.a. to induce a witness to give false testimony 2.b. to obtain false testimony from a witness
Subornation Of Perjury (from justice.gov)
To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
I have studied the most recent post by Heather Frizzell on us-v-tsarnaev.org. I strongly encourage others to do the same and in order to aid that effort I have re-blogged it on this site.
In this most-significant writing, Heather invites the reader to draw their own conclusions. Here, then, are mine:
One can either believe Tamerlan, a private citizen, conceived, planned and carried out the Boston Marathon bombing with a real bomb that killed 3 people and horribly injured many others…
One can believe that the Boston Marathon bombing was conceived, planned and carried out by the U.S. government. In that scenario, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was groomed and recruited well in advance and then hired in some secret capacity, exploiting his financial situation, religious beliefs, emotional volatility and ego. Over time, enough history was created in Tamerlan’s life for there to be believable culpability once the government orchestrated the bombing at the marathon and the crimes that followed.
In the government-did-it-and-pinned-it-on-the-Tsarnaevs scenario, the bombs that exploded at the marathon were smoke bombs that killed and injured no one. Those present were prior-amputee crisis actors hired and presented as victims and able-bodied crisis actors hired to play the roles of ALL responders who remained at or came to the scene once the sight and sound of the explosions scared away all persons not part of the charade. This is the scenario that I have come to believe.
There is no scenario that implicates Dzhokhar. His innocence is beyond question. I believe the government did not bother to create fake radical history for his life script like they did for Tamerlan because his death, in their minds, was a foregone conclusion. In addition, one person (Tamerlan) would have been easier to control than two and Dzhokhar’s character, temperament, personality and lack of religious zeal would not have made him an attractive candidate for recruitment.
I agree with Heather that Tamerlan’s story was suppressed by the judge and prosecution because telling it would have helped exonerate Dzhokhar. But I would take it one step further and say examination of Tamerlan’s story would ultimately clear Tamerlan as well and that would have left the government holding the bag, or should I say, the pressure cooker – therefore, they could not allow it.
Heather and her father have done a masterful job breaking down and explaining why Silva’s testimony was pivotal to obtaining a conviction against Dzhokhar, not only for Sean Collier’s murder, but for the bombing as well. The mismatch between Silva’s testimony and what is contained in the 5K1 motion written by Carmen Ortiz is an important find. Now that Heather has explained subornation of perjury, I believe it highly likely the prosecution committed it in multiple instances during Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial in order to obtain his conviction.
In the remainder of this post, I will attempt to deconstruct the testimony of one of the survivors, William Richard, as I believe it also demonstrates possible instances when the prosecution committed this crime.
From: “The 10 Tell-Tale Signs of Deception” By: Paul M. Clikeman, Ph.D., CFE
Answering questions with questions:
Even liars prefer not to lie. Outright lies carry the risk of detection. Before answering a question with a lie, a deceptive person will usually try to avoid answering the question at all. One common method of dodging questions is to respond with a question of one’s own.
The subject avoids questions by filling his or her statements with expressions of uncertainty, weak modifiers and vague expressions. Watch for words such as: think, guess, sort of, maybe, might, perhaps, approximately, about, could. Vague statements and expressions of uncertainty allow a deceptive person leeway to modify his or her assertions at a later date without directly contradicting the original statement.
Noncommittal verbs are: think, believe, guess, suppose, figure, assume. Equivocating adjectives and adverbs are: sort of, almost, mainly, perhaps, maybe, about. Vague qualifiers are: you might say, more or less.
A narrative consists of three parts: prologue, critical event and aftermath. The prologue contains background information and describes events that took place before the critical event. The critical event is the most important occurrence in the narrative. The aftermath describes what happened after the critical event. In a complete and truthful narrative, the balance will be approximately 20-25% prologue, 40-60% critical event, and 25-35% aftermath. If one part of the narrative is significantly shorter than expected, important information may have been omitted. If one part of the narrative is significantly longer than expected, it may be padded with false information.
Direct Examination in Criminal Cases By: Ray Moses
Legal Requirements for a Direct Examination:
- Competency of your witness – The first legal requirement is that your witness must be competent to testify. To qualify as competent, a witness must have: 1) Understanding of the nature and obligation of the oath or affirmation to tell the truth 2) Perception (knowledge) of the relevant event 3) Recollection (memory) of the relevant event, and 4) Ability to communicate with the fact-finders (the jury or judge in a bench trial) in the common language of the court, i.e. English.
Because of requirement #3, certain parts of Bill Richard’s testimony should have been revisited and called into question by the defense. The witness states his memory is unclear yet Pellegrini continues to question him on events he has just indicated he can not clearly remember. The defense should have revisited this and pointed it out for the jury, reinforcing his lack of ability to be a reliable witness.
And now, a word or two about crisis actors: Many articles have been written about their use for legitimate first-responder and military personnel training exercises. Within these articles I have frequently seen reference to two websites: http://www.Visionbox.org and http://www.CrisisActors.org. With so many becoming aware of the reality of government-sponsored staged crisis events such as the Boston Marathon bombing, it is no wonder that this is what you will now see when you try to access the CrisisActors.org website
NOTICE: This domain name expired on 8/17/2016 and is pending renewal or deletion.
A smart betting man would put his money on deletion. Why? Because more and more people are waking up and paying attention and that is understandably becoming problematic for those who deal in staging these events and/or starring in them.
The following information, from an article I found on memoryholeblog.com, was taken directly from the website that is now pending renewal or deletion.
The producers then work with the trainers to create a “prompt book” for the actors so that key scenario developments can be triggered throughout the mall shooting simulation, and caught on tape.
The actors can play the part of the shooters, mall employees, shoppers in the mall, shoppers who continue to arrive at the mall, media reporters and others rushing to the mall, and persons in motor vehicles around the mall.
Visionbox Crisis Actors can also play the role of citizens calling 911 or mall management or posting comments on social media websites.
During the exercise, the producers use two-way radio to co-direct the Crisis Actors team from the mall dispatch center and at actors’ locations.
Within this framework, the exercise can test the mall’s monitoring and communications systems, the mall’s safety plan including lockdown and evacuation procedures, the ability of first responders and the mall to coordinate an effective response, and their joint ability to respond to the media and information posted on the Internet.
Security camera footage is edited for after-action reports and future training.
I’ll stop there… Now read the section above again substituting the word “marathon” each time you see the word “mall.” That’s what happened in Boston. I’m sure of it.
The testimony of Mr. Richard begins on page 155 of the transcript. Ms. Pellegrini tells Mr. Richard:
If you can’t hear me at any time, please let me know… Keep this in mind as we go through the testimony. I’ll bring this up again when I write Part 2 of this post.
Day 28 Direct Examination: William Richard
Q: How long have you been married?
A: You told me you weren’t going to ask me any trick questions.
Q: Tough question.
A: A long time.
Q: A long time. Do you and Denise have children?
The jury trial US v Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a serious matter of the highest order due to the nature of the alleged crimes, and the fact that the accused was facing the possibility of the death penalty and/or life in prison without the possibility of parole at the tender age of 21. It was not a place where one expected to hear humor on the witness stand. If one did find humor in this setting, certainly it would not be expected to come from the victim who had perhaps suffered more than any other. I refer, of course, to William Richard, who supposedly lost his youngest child Martin in the blast, saw his only daughter Jane lose a leg, his wife Denise the sight in one eye, and had his own hearing supposedly permanently compromised.
This response from Mr. Richard got my attention. If it is merely an inappropriate attempt at humor, it is more than surprising for the reasons already stated. When the prosecutor repeats the question, Mr. Richard still does not provide what should have been a simple and definitive answer. There is no obvious reason for him to withhold on this point – or to be humorous for that matter.
However, if Mr. Richard is a crisis actor under an assumed name who continues to play an assigned role on the witness stand, this question, if not specifically covered in the script provided him, would have come as an unwelcome surprise. A crisis actor only knows the information he has rehearsed from the script he has been given.
Number of years married is verifiable information, as everyone, including Mr. Richard, knows. Getting that wrong could have opened the door to other unwanted revelations. Therefore, answering “a long time” – after he’d bought himself sufficient room to recover – was a safe answer as well as one the prosecution chose to accept and the defense not to revisit.
Q: With respect to the Marathon, prior to 2013, had you and your family ever attended the Marathon or any of the events surrounding it?
A: We attended the Marathon and the events surrounding the Marathon several times.
When asked to provide details he makes the following statements, which taken together, paint a picture that is rather different than does his first answer.
I – Denise and I had attended the Marathon before we had kids, even through college.
When we had kids, we kind of made it a ritual to go in and we always knew someone who was running…
Even if we didn’t know someone who was running, it was just something we did as part of living in the city.
We loved living in the city and we loved participating in anything that involved jumping on the T and hustling through town.
They sound like regulars at the Boston Marathon. These statements do not sound like they describe a family from Dorchester who has “attended the Marathon and the events surrounding the Marathon several times.”
Q: Were you yourself a runner?
Q: Did you ever run the Marathon?
Nice, brief, one-word answers. But the “no” is rather interesting: a runner, who lives in the city and loves all things Marathon but has never run in it… And then:
Q: Were your children involved in running activities?
A: We were a very active family.
Not a simple “yes” this time.
Q: And, in fact, in April 2013, did your children participate in one of the BAA-sponsored events?
A: The children have been participating in what’s called the Youth Relay, which occurs the Saturday before Marathon Monday, for the past several years perhaps – well, at this point, we missed – we may have missed one, but for at least four or five years.
Now remember, at the time Mr. Richard is saying his children (not his boys, not Henry and Martin, his children) have been participating for at least four or five years, the ages of the children are: Henry 11, Martin 8 and Jane 6. If all three children have been participating in the Youth Relay for the last 4 to 5 years, Henry would have started running in the relay when he was 6 or 7, Martin when he was 3 or 4 and Jane when she was only 1 or 2! How extraordinary is that?!
Pellegrini seems to catch his mistake before he does and helps correct/minimize it by her subsequent questions:
Q: In 2013, who participated in the Youth Relay?
A: Henry, Martin and Jane.
Q: Is there an age limit for the children in the Youth Relay?
A: Not that I recall, no.
This man knows the name of the race for children, when it occurs each year, and they have been participating for, in his words, at least 4 or 5 years, yet when asked if there is an age limit for the children his answer is suddenly an indecisive “not that I recall” which then becomes a “no.”
Q: Was this Jane’s first time?
A: Yes, I believe it was her first time participating in the relay.
Again, there is the indecisive “I believe” that we have not been hearing until this question of Jane and age and her participation in the Youth Relay comes up.
So I ask you, would a parent, a family as “into” running and all things Marathon as he has already illustrated them to be, a man who remembers the flavors of ice cream his children ordered that day, suddenly not remember the very first year his only daughter runs in the Youth Relay?
This was another missed opportunity for the defense to question his credibility.
Q: And did you eventually come to a location where you stopped on Boylston Street to watch?
A: Yes, we eventually found a place where there was an opening and stopped there.
Q: Where was that?
A: In front of the Forum restaurant.
By the way, the answers in italics above were not provided in court by Mr. Richard; they were written by me. I want you to compare them to the responses he actually gave:
Q: And did you eventually come to a location where you stopped on Boylston Street to watch?
A: Yes. We – it was very random. We had no reason to stop where we did other than it was – there was just – there was just an opening, and so we took it.
Q: Where was that?
A: It was in – I didn’t even know it at the time, but it was in front of the Forum restaurant.
Notice the difference in the answers I wrote and the answers he gave. These phrases are unnecessary and stand out to me:
“It was very random”
“We had no reason to stop where we did”
“I didn’t even know it at the time, but …”
The prosecution has not said anything to make him feel he has to justify his choice of viewing spot in front of the Forum yet he answers as if he is being chastised for his decision. He answers like one who had prior knowledge of what was to take place in that spot and he answers like one who feels guilty for being there when it did.
Mr. Richard tries to give a straightforward answer but then can’t help himself: “It was in – I didn’t even know it at the time, but it was in front of the Forum restaurant.”
He answers like a crisis actor who is trying to forget that he was there, on his assigned mark, according to his script. If choosing to watch a little longer in front of the Forum was a truly random decision made by just another spectator at the marathon that day, I believe the answers to Pellegrini’s questions would have been more in line with mine.
Being in front of the Forum on that day and at that time had significance. Mr. Richard’s answers tell me he knew that – and he knew it before the bombs went off. His actions will prove it. But I will discuss that later.
Let’s move on.
Ms. Pellegrini: May I have Exhibit 29, which I believe is already in evidence?
Q: Mr. Richard, I’m going to ask you to look at this image before you. Do you recognize your family here?
A: I do.
Q: Can you tell us where everybody is as far as you know?
A: Sure. That’s me. That’s Jane with two legs. And that’s Martin.
Q: Is Henry in this picture as well?
Pay close attention to his answer:
A: Yeah. He’s a little more difficult to – he’s grown so much in the last two years, but that’s him right there.
Did you catch what he said and what it implies? If you did, I’m sure you would agree this is rather a fantastic thing for a parent to say.
Ten years from now, you could hand me an old picture of my daughter in a crowd and I could immediately tell you which one is her no matter how different she may look today. She’s my daughter. I lived with her. I raised her. I have her face, her voice, her posture, even her clothes memorized like any custodial parent does.
When Mr. Richard begins, then stops himself before saying he has a harder time finding Henry because he looks so different now, I find that statement incredible, until I remember my belief that Mr. Richard is a crisis actor and these other people are most likely not even related to him. His familiarity with Henry is therefore not based on years of living in the same house together, but of time spent with him practicing for the marathon drill and seeing him again two years later as the trial was approaching.
Mr. Richard also then has to be prompted to point out Denise, his wife…
Q: And behind him, with the hat?
A: Oh yeah. Denise is just at the top of the circle that I drew. You can see her brown hat. So Denise is standing right behind Henry.
William Richard seems to be reminding himself at this point…
He answers like a man who has to pick out in a photograph people with whom he has spent little time, like a crisis actor who has to remind himself what his fellow actor family looked like two years ago…
Q: Now, at this location, directing your attention to the tree area.
Q: Had you moved from your location?
A: Well, when the first bomb exploded some people kind of reconfigured a little bit. I do remember people just kind of merging together a little bit. And I can’t remember exactly where I moved from, to. But I do remember trying to move closer to where – because there were two people separating my family. So I recall trying to get closer to say to Denise that we’re going to go. And I believe I did say the words, “We’re going to go.”
A: Well, my intention – thinking so many steps ahead, I thought what I was going to do was get myself over the barricade and then lift the kids over and assuming that – and then Denise could get herself over, and we’d simply just walk calmly up Boylston Street.
“We’d simply just walk calmly up Boylston Street…” Who says or thinks something like that when it appears a bomb has just gone off and your family is with you?
Q: Were you able to do that?
A: No. I recall trying – the last thing I remember is the beginning of hoisting myself over the fence.
Let’s stop there. According to the footage you are about to see, he does no such thing. The actions of William Richard do not match at all with what he has just claimed on the witness stand. In fact, if you look closely, you will actually see him grab Martin and Jane and duck down, using his own body to shield the two children right before the second blast.
How clever of the prosecution to use this video, saying it showed proof of Dzhokhar’s guilt. This video, once it was discovered what was really there, had to be alarming. By circling Dzhokhar’s head, the eyes of the viewer are naturally distracted away from what Bill Richard is doing with his two children. The eye naturally wants to follow Dzhokhar as he walks away along with a lot of other people.
Bill Richard never looks to his right after the first explosion. He never looks toward Denise and Henry. His attention is focused down the street to his left and behind him. When he moves, it is to make room for a man who had been standing further down, talking with the Norden brothers. When he moves again, it is to duck down with his children in his arms before the second blast.
The prosecution viewed these videos and allowed Bill Richard to testify to actions that these images prove did not occur. More from justice.gov:
Physical coercion need not be proven in prosecutions for subornation of perjury (United States v. Heater). Conspiracy to suborn perjury may be prosecuted irrespective of whether perjury has been committed. Solicitation of perjured testimony also may be prosecuted as obstruction of justice… (United States v. Silverman).
Obstruction of justice: how many innocent young lives have been forever changed by that false accusation and wrongful conviction in connection with this case? I’ve lost count.
Because the crime of subornation of perjury is distinct from that of perjury, the suborner and perjurer are not accomplices; however, a person who causes a false document to be introduced through an innocent witness can be held liable as a principal (United States v. Walser).
Silva testified the following, under oath, as to the Ruger’s chain of custody: from Howie to Stephen Silva to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. End of story.
For his “invaluable assistance” his sentence was reduced to “time served.” He walked free after seventeen months for seven counts of heroin possession with intent to distribute and one count of possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number while Dias, another friend of Dzhokhar’s, was sentenced to seven years for essentially throwing a back pack in a dumpster (an action that neither impeded nor hindered anything).
From Heather’s blog post:
In my last post in this series, I explained the charges against Dzhokhar that involved Sean Collier hinged on two very specific conditions: one, that he could be linked to the crime scene, and two, that he possessed the Ruger P95 handgun. At the time, merely possessing the gun was good enough to convict; the Supreme Court had not yet made their Johnson II ruling striking the residual clause in the relevant statutes. They did not have to prove that he used the firearm in a display of force as they would have to today. They simply had to show that he was present at Sean Collier’s car. My father and I have cast reasonable doubt on the assertion that Dzhokhar was even at the crime scene: there was no conclusive video surveillance, and the one eyewitness, Nate Harman, could not have reliably made an identification based on the circumstances.
However, before Johnson II, even without Harman’s ID, there was still a decent shot that the prosecution could have gotten their conviction as long as they could place the Ruger in Dzhokhar’s hands. I cannot overstate how utterly essential it was to their case that he at one point possessed this gun. While they were excused from contending that he personally killed Collier, as long as he provided the weapon, this now defunct clause would allow him to be convicted anyway.
When I realized this, I began to look at the argument in a different light. If the connection to the crime scene was so tenuous – the testimony of only one unreliable witness – what about the connection to the gun? The similarities are there: once again, we have only the word of one witness, Stephen Silva, and no physical evidence was presented to back it up. If it was possible that Dzhokhar was never at Collier’s car to begin with, could it also be possible that he never possessed the Ruger?
If so, a huge chunk of the prosecution’s case crumbles. Gone is yet another piece of evidence that indicates he knew about the bombing plot beforehand. The prosecution made the outlandish claim that his radicalization stretched back two years, but if one rules out “evidence” like a school paper about drone strikes and tweets quoting the Quran, the first and only criminal action in support of the bombing conspiracy is obtaining the Ruger. This supposedly happened in February of 2013, and if that is taken away, we are left with the accusation that he bought a cell phone the day before the bombing – hardly a crime on its own. All of a sudden, the conspiracy doesn’t look much like a conspiracy anymore…
That is why it was important enough to get Stephen Silva to testify to having given the Ruger to Dzhokhar that I believe the prosecution was willing to suborn perjury. The fact that a name has been redacted on Silva’s 5K1 motion is more than enough proof for me that the government knew Silva’s testimony did not, in fact, match what the FBI knew to be true. But in their minds, the end, Dzhokhar’s conviction, justified the means.
If Dzhokhar were my son, I would certainly be petitioning his new attorneys to open an inquiry. This could be the quickest and surest way to not only overturn his convictions, but to ensure that the real guilty parties in the crimes for which he sits on death row are brought to justice.
If they refused, I would find someone who would. John Remington Graham for instance. He offered his help pro bono once before and it was declined. Perhaps he would still be willing to help if asked. If it were my son’s life hanging in the balance, I know what I would do. I would make that call no matter the cost to my pride.
There is an old saying “Actions speak louder than words.” In the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, inaction has spoken the loudest so far.
I say it’s time to change that.