This Must Be Answered For: Underlying crimes in the attempted judicial murder of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Truth has a way of staying neither hidden nor quiet. Five years after the fact, we who have discovered the evidence-based truth of what really happened at the 2013 Boston Marathon that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of an innocent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, are not going away. 

I may not blog as often, but when I do, my passion for justice, which must result in his exoneration and freedom, is as strong as ever.

While some still choose to live their lives in denial, supported by continued, and may I say, foolish loyalty to the lies spewed at them by mainstream media, truth, when it does finally make an impact in their lives, will be experienced like a tsunami. I write as the first wave of that coming tsunami. It is high time many more got their feet wet regarding what really happened in Boston:

In a blatant act of client betrayal Judy Clarke declared Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty of the Boston Marathon bombing with her opening statement – after her client had already pled “not guilty” with his own voice to all charges against him.

This was not incompetence. This was collusion. This was treachery.

This must be answered for.

While saying “It was him” of Tsarnaev will forever be attached to Judy Clarke,  something no attorney with an eye for having future clients would want, as time has gone on, there is yet another sentence in Clarke’s opening statement that I have come to find just as remarkable for its duplicity.

“There is little that occurred the week of April the 15th – the bombings, the murder of Officer Collier, the carjacking, the shootout in Watertown – that we dispute.”

Oh really?

I don’t know about you, but this is definitely not what I’d want to hear my attorney say at any point in the proceedings, especially not after I had entered a “not guilty” plea.

This is not an acceptable defense strategy. This is pathetic, given all that is known about this crime and this case. This is throwing in the towel. This is sleeping with the enemy. This is tantamount to telling her client “I will not be defending you.”  This is like telling the prosecution “We are on the same side.” And indeed they were.

Ignoring the issue of the color of Dzhokhar’s light-colored backpack, knowing it did not match the color of the backpack in the indictment, watching as the government entered a photo into evidence of an exploded black backpack knowing her client, the accused, had carried a light-colored pack, not a black one – and doing and saying nothing…

This was not her first rodeo. This was criminal. Clarke proved again and again she never intended to defend Dzhokhar. And yet she still got paid.

She –  not he  –  is the worst of the worst.

This must be answered for.

In blatant disregard for the defendant’s right to a fair trial, judges, who have sworn an oath of fairness and impartiality, displayed the utmost unfairness and partiality by repeated refusals to move his trial, though irrefutable proof was offered them in support of the need to do so.

This was not a murky judicial matter before them. This was a clear cut right-vs-wrong, fair-vs-unfair type of question to be decided. Their continued refusal constitutes a pre-meditated intent to foster a certain outcome in this trial – that of a guilty verdict and a death sentence for the accused.

This must be answered for.

In a blatant display of just how broken our judicial system really is, twelve puppets were substituted for the twelve impartial jurors who should have decided the outcome of this case.

The majority of these potential jurors had already expressed, in writing, on their juror questionnaires no less, their belief in Tsarnaev’s guilt, hatred for his existence, even desire for his execution with as much suffering as possible. Under normal circumstances, responses like theirs, indicating extreme bias, would get a potential juror shown the door.

But these were not normal circumstances. Judge O’Toole knew what he was looking for and so did the assembled attorneys – on both sides. O’Toole presided over voir dire from start to finish and chose the jury with little meaningful input from the defense.

These minions, once chosen, did as they were expected to do. After being shown actual evidence proving his innocence by the very prosecution seeking conviction, these twelve puppet-jurors convicted the accused anyway and sentenced him to death by lethal injection. For their services, they received not only praise from the judge, but the protection of anonymity, shielding them from journalists and the general public.

This was not fair and impartial. This was judicial overreach. This was a show trial.

This must be answered for.

In blatant suppression of the truth, the prosecution, to this day, refuses to hand over all documents from the first trial to Tsarnaev’s appeals team.

This is not a matter of national security. This is obstruction of justice.

This must be answered for.

In a blatant attempt to control not only the defendant but the narrative of the bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was placed under SAMs, not immediately, but four months after his incarceration. With Christian prison ministries active in nearly every prison in the United States, this one prisoner was denied access to over 1000 unsolicited letters from well-meaning believers.

This was not done to control a dangerous terrorist. This was not in the interest of protecting the public. This had nothing to do with fighting the war on terror or preventing the spread of a radical message. This was a simple decision to foster negative public opinion as to the religious beliefs, character and guilt of the accused -pre-trial. And it worked.

The real danger of allowing Dzhokhar to read those letters was to the government’s narrative. The defendant must go to trial and be presented as a radical Muslim, they reasoned. The transformative power of the gospel could not be allowed to reach this inmate as that could ruin everything. The letters were returned to sender and the prisoner remains under the psychological torture of SAMs to this day.

This must be answered for.

In a blatant attempt to eliminate all possibility of a defense, those who knew the defendant best were often targeted and jailed on thin, dubious charges and/or deported on questionable grounds. One was murdered by an FBI agent who has a record of excessive-force incidents attached to his name.

This was not good police work. This was not due diligence. This was not investigators leaving no stone unturned. This was harrassment. This was false imprisonment. This was police brutality. This was murder. This was illegal.

This must be answered for.

In a blatant display of disregard for the constitutional rights of all Americans, in a total disregard for property rights, in a complete lack of concern for individual physical and emotional needs, in a shocking display of disdain for the elderly and the infirm, after a shelter-in-place was declared for certain communities in the Boston area, many were ordered from their homes half-dressed and without opportunity to secure pets, turn off TVs, obtain eye glasses or retrieve critical medications. This action was carried out at gunpoint.

This was not shelter-in-place. This was not law enforcement doing the best they could in an extreme situation. This was not warranted. This was thuggery. This was rise of the police state. This was 1940s Nazi Germany. This was the fall of Holland. This was the round up of Jews. But this time it happened to Americans on American soil.

Those who were so subjected received neither explanation or compensation. They returned home many hours later to broken promises: doors left open, property unsecured, lights and TVs on, pets gone or traumatized…

If I were writing a play, this is where I would place a moment of silence for the fall of our country.

This must be answered for.

I believe I read somewhere that Judy Clarke spoke for approximately 20 minutes when she delivered her opening statement. For such an important terrorism case with the death penalty on the table, I expected more. Likely, so did the accused. However long it lasted, her opening sounded to me like something she wrote during an episode of “The Good Wife,” or should I say, during the commercials.

No matter her level of education, Judy Clarke is no attorney. She never lived up to the hype – and that’s an understatement.

It is considered rude and showing poor form to object during opening statements. For that reason, objecting during opening statements is rarely done. Did you know that?

It makes sense. Opening statements are not evidence. So why bother to object? I can think of one reason: you never get a second chance to make a good first impression.

Think about it…

An attorney stands to address the jury. Having memorized their opening statement, they begin. You don’t have to suffer from A.D.H.D. to imagine what happens, the loss of focus, if you start to encounter unexpected interruptions. The weight of your message to the jury is also diminished as they too lose momentary focus.

Prosecuting attorney Bill Weinreb objected not once, not twice, but a total of four times! Given the fact that Judy Clarke’s opener sounded like it was written to support the story told by the prosecution, his objections are even more nonsensical. After one such objection, the judge actually says “I’ll allow it.”

What? “I’ll allow it?” Has the judge also forgotten that opening statements are not evidence? I don’t believe so. In my opinion, he was merely reminding Ms. Clarke who called the shots in that courtroom.

Her response tells me she did not need reminding: she thanked him. Yes, she actually thanked him! The truth never stood a chance of seeing the light of day in that courtroom.

I am not an attorney but I am aware there are rules of good behavior, a list of do’s and dont’s, to be followed in a courtroom, if one hopes to avoid a contempt charge. However, in a contest of right and wrong, I tend to take the bull by the horns. I don’t tolerate nonsense well. If the Boston Marathon bombing case had been a baseball game and I Dzhokhar’s coach, I would certainly have been tossed before the ninth inning.

The first objection from Weinreb would have taken me by surprise and I may have let it slide, given the favorable ruling from the judge. With the second, it would have been “game on.” I can easily see myself, standing in front of the jury speaking from rote when in mid-sentence, for the second time, Weinreb objects, interrupting me. The judge rules. I wait in silence. And then I wait a little longer, after which time I turn slowly toward opposing counsel and in a voice calm and steady say “Bill (pausing again for effect) – shut up.”

Like I said, I am not an attorney. And that’s probabaly a good thing. I’m sure if I’d been defending Dzhokhar, I would be blogging from jail right now.

There is one portion of Judy Clarke’s opening I wholeheartedly agree with, three short sentences I would have led with. I like them because at first, when I said them, it would appear that I was cooperating with the warning not to resist conviction. And then it would all fall apart. Their hopes would be dashed. I would suddenly be giving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the real defense his innocence demanded, much to their shock and horror.

It would have been glorious.

The circumstances that bring us here today still are difficult to grasp. They’re incomprehensible. They’re inexcusable.”

Then, without missing a beat, I would have launched into a full dissertation about what those incomprehensible, inexcusable circumstances are: trying to convict and sentence to death someone whose backpack, proven by the government’s own evidence, does not even match the backpack in the indictment or the government’s own evidence photos, the heinous use of prior-amputee crisis actors to falsely accuse an innocent young man of manufactured crimes that were staged by art and artifice.

Gasps would have been audible. Objections would have been flying. O’Toole would have blown a gasket, worn out his gavel. Twitter would have crashed.

Somewhere in the chaos, I would have managed to state the fact that my office had been under tremendous pressure not to resist conviction. Somewhere safe, I would already have amassed a paper trail of conversations and visits from those persons attempting to exert such pressure.

If I’d had anything to do with it, that trial may have ended before it was started. I can’t imagine a single victim willing to take the witness stand for the prosecution given the videos they knew I stood ready to show them, questioning their behavior frame by frame, videos the prosecution had entered into evidence!

This would have become a “show trial” where the show actually exposed the truth.

Attorney John Remington Graham, in an article by Paul Craig Roberts, defined judicial murder as “the practice of designing a trial to get a guilty verdict, regardless of the facts, and a death sentence carried out. Judicial murder is followed by corruption and destruction of society.”

He asserts, quite correctly, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has indeed been the victim of attempted judicial murder. I say attempted for he is still alive. They have only been halfway successful.

And anyone who reads my blog regularly knows what I think of the government’s chances of total victory over Dzhokhar.

In 1945, at the start of The Nuremberg Trials, chief U.S. prosecutor Samuel H. Jackson delivered the opening statement. He spoke for a total of four hours. Four hours to explain the need to prosecute 24 high-ranking members of Nazi Germany’s Third Reich holding them accountable for four charges:

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating that civilization can not tolerate their being ignored because it can not survive their being repeated.

As stirring as those remarks are, it is what he said later that put me in mind of the Boston Marathon bombing and who really needs to be prosecuted for it:

The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concentrated use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.

Until we, as a society, recognize, identify and prosecute those who continue to plan and execute false-flag terror attacks, no matter their rank or position of power, his warning will still be relevant. Persons of high office and great power and resources planned and carried out a terrible hoax at the 2013 Boston Marathon and until they are identified and prosecuted there will be more innocents like Tsarnaev paying the price for society’s willingness to look the other way.

John Remington Graham reminded us that “The judicial murder of Jesus of Nazareth was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple.”

To which I add: it was also followed by the resurrection.

This is not over. We who support Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not stop until he leaves prison, free and fully exonerated.




























5 thoughts on “This Must Be Answered For: Underlying crimes in the attempted judicial murder of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev”

  1. Spot on! I have been saying the same for years. This has never passed the smell test. I would bet money FBI, JTTF , some local LE are up to their eyeballs in this. And Jahar is paying the price. Am hoping and praying the appeals team will reveal the truth. Hard to do with one hand tied courtesy of O’Toole.

  2. Lynn, it is so great to see a new post from you, and I have to say this post is stunning and so beautifully passionate and truthful! I agree with every word. All of those who conspired together in this case to commit judicial murder should be the ones suffering at ADX right now, not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Too bad Dzhokhar didn’t have a lawyer who could speak and defend like you. He would have been found innocent. Beautiful post!!

    1. Hi Julie! It is so good to hear from you! I miss our talks. I am finally clawing my way out of the dark and back to doing what I feel called to do – defending Dzhokhar and exposing any way possible the corruption we have all worked together to uncover.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s