Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Note: Boston Bombing Suspect Allegedly Wrote Confession In Boat, CBS Reports

[Generic Other]

The younger Boston bombing suspect allegedly penned a note on the inside of the boat where he was found hiding from authorities, sources told CBS News senior correspondent John Miller.

The scrawling explained his rationale for his part in the deadly explosion, sources said.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly wrote that his actions were retaliations for the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims," the note said, according to CBS' sources who were granted anonymity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-note-confession-in-boat-boston-bombing_n_3285203.html?ncid=webmail1

[boston bean]

1. I suppose this will be admissable in court.

They never needed his damned confession they got with the public safety exception, and they new it from the start.

So, in other words, they did use it determine if there were future/imminent threats.

[Generic Other]

2. I suppose he thought he'd be dead when they read that

Do you think a death bed confession is null and void if you don't die?

[boston bean]

3. I don't think so.

[treestar]

17. The person does not have to die, just have thought they were when they said it

An exception to the hearsay rule because the circumstances make it reliable.


(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.


Come to think of it, would not apply here because it is not really about the cause of his apparently impending death. It is about the motives for his previous acts.

[Brother Buzz]

5. Maybe the note was written in blood inside the hull and the police.....

just helped him by punctuating it.

[Mnemosyne]

6. Ya never know, at least we never will!

[morningfog]

11. It says "on the inside of the boat."

I read that to mean it was written on the boat floor or wall, not on paper in the boat.

[Mnemosyne]

12. Missed that, thanks. nt

[treestar]

18. Why is that impossible?

I have paper and pen on me most times.

[NCTraveler]

19. As do I.

Seems to be somewhat of a lost art.

[Mnemosyne]

25. I never said it was impossible. Just didn't strike me as a big writer. nt

[HiPointDem]

21. +1

[msanthrope]

36. Marker on inside of boat. Not pen and paper.nt

[Marrah_G]

42. He wrote on the inside of the boat.................

[GoneFishin]

7. It took investigators a month to find a note inside a small boat?

Bullshit.

[zappaman]

8. Who says it took them a month to find it?

How do you know they just haven't released this info until today?
Do you think he is being unjustly framed?

[HappyMe]

13. They obviously saw it before now,

and are just releasing it today.

It was written on the inside of the boat according to the article.

[Myrina]

9. Sure, because he just happened to have a notepad & pen on him when he was fleeing for his life ...

"Magic Bullet" anyone?

[Yo_Mama]

14. He wrote it on the boat itself

I guess he did not know if he would have a chance to speak later, and he wanted the world to know his reasoning.

In just about every state, if he had written his will this way it would be a legal will.

[treestar]

20. Makes the boat even more valuable/historic

Recalling all the concern that the boat owner should have his boat replaced!

[Yo_Mama]

29. I'd destroy it, if it were mine

Who would want such a thing around?

[Mr Dixon]

40. Indeed

[WilliamPitt]

10. Derp Derp Derp He had paper and pen??? Derp Derp Derp

Marker on the inside wall of the boat.

But don't let the facts get in the way.

I see the discussion on what happened in Boston is still as fucking stupid here now as it was a month ago.

Ugh.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Cute white boys can't be terrorists!

There's still a group of teeny-boppers out there that think he was framed. And his mother, of course.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5763-petition-claiming-boston-bomb-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-is-innocent-has-12-000-signatures

You can be a terrorist if you are white and older or fat or ugly or have acne. You can be a terrorist if you are black or Arab. But if you are cute and young and white, you can only be framed by a terroristic government.

This has given me a whole new perspective on the DP. Can it really be applied objectively? There seems to be a lot of fundamental profiling going on in the population at large.

[zappaman]

16. Could not have said it better.

[Generic Other]

27. A six derp alert from Will Pitt!

That's a record!

[librechik]

22. sharpie!

writes on anything, even smeared blood.

[snooper2]

23. The dumb in this thread is actually starting to make me feel sad

[temmer]

24. What if the trial reveals DT did not plant the bomb?

I guess this "confession" is worthless then.

[uppityperson]

26. Are you questioning if he was one of the bombers? Who do you think did the bombings and why?

I am curious.

[temmer]

28. innocent until proven guilty

is this principle not valid anymore? That's all what I'm saying. I don't know who did the bombings.

I think the case of D. Tsarnaev is in good hands - Marianne Bowler:

A federal magistrate judge has set off a firestorm of criticism for ending the interrogation of the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect before, lawmakers contend, law enforcement officials had concluded their initial interview.

On Monday morning, Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler visited Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s hospital bedside to preside over his first court appearance, reading him his Miranda rights and informing him of his right to remain silent. That ended the suspect’s cooperation in questioning that the Department of Justice’s High-Value Interrogation Group had begun under a public safety exception to Miranda, when it can legally question a suspect without a lawyer present.

[link:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/lawmakers-upset-judge-ended-tsarnaev-interrogation/|http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/lawmakers-upset-judge-ended-tsarnaev-interrogation/
]
District Court Judge Marianne Bowler arrived at the hospital where he is being treated to preside over his initial hearing Monday, when she read him his Miranda rights.

But Fox News’ sources say there was confusion about Bowler’s timing, with some voicing concerns that investigators were not given enough time to question Dzhokhar under the “public safety exception” invoked by the Justice Department.

Two officials with knowledge of the FBI briefing on Capitol Hill said the FBI was against stopping the investigators’ questioning and was stunned that the judge, Justice Department prosecutors and public defenders showed up, feeling valuable intelligence may have been sacrificed as a result.

[link:http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/boston-bomber-magistrates-middle-eastern-connections/|http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/boston-bomber-magistrates-middle-eastern-connections/
]

By the way, the freepers were fuming about this story, making Mrs. Bowler an object of hate.

[uppityperson]

30. "innocent until proven guilty" is only in a court of law. Lots of people are guilty of lots of

things even if a court of law has not said so.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law if you were arrested and charged with a crime. However, you can be plenty guilty outside a court of law.

So, who do you think did the bombings and why?

[temmer]

31. It's up to you to respond

- you seem to be 100% sure DT is guilty. How do you know?

I already said I don't know who did the bombings. Please stop asking questions repeatedly which I already said I'm not able to answer.

[uppityperson]

32. People have a tendency to confuse presumption of innocence in a court of law with being guilty in

the real world. I am trying to say that a person can very easily be guilty of all sorts of things without being judged in a court of law.

Regarding his guilt or innocence, since he confessed and was caught on video leaving the backpack that exploded, I think he left the bomb. I am not privy to info about who else may have been involved, but the facts are he was seen leaving the bomb before it exploded. Still, he is guaranteed a trial if he so wishes, in order to be judged guilty in a court of law.

[temmer]

33. Have you seen the video?

I didn't. Presumably noone has seen it, besides of FBI and Boston police.

Let's assume for a moment that the video indeed shows - as you are surmising - that his bag exploded.

The video was taken from a camera across the street. Certainly the first thing investigators did was to check the footage of this camera at the moment of the blast +-5 minutes. I guess they looked at it on the very first day, April 15th.

Yet the FBI needed 3 full days - after some back and forth - to present the suspects, but not by showing the incriminating video with DT dropping his bag. You can hardly recognize DT's face on the pictures presented by the FBI.

I think this delay raises the legitimate question if the video in fact unambigously shows that DT was the perpetrator.

Either way: the video will certainly be discussed on the trial. Until then we should follow the guideline "innocent until proven guilty".

[uppityperson]

34. So your complaint is that information was not released to the public fast enough? And again

"innocent until proven guilty" is in a court of law. Have you ever done something wrong, are you guilty of anything? I am guilty of lying to my parents when I was a teenager, but never went to court, a trial. That is MY point. There is a difference between being guilty of something and being guilty in a court of law.

Regarding the speed at which the photos were released, I'd rather they be careful and release ones that were clear and correct than ones that were not the right guy(s) or blurry. Accuracy when getting the public involved is very important.

[Marrah_G]

43. I am

[temmer]

35. UPDATE: Tsarnaev apparently aims to repeal his "confessions"

This actually deserves an own thread, but with 6 posts I'm not ripe for that.

Judge rejects Tsarnaev photo request

From: AAP

A FEDERAL judge has rejected a request from lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to take photos of him in prison.

Tsarnaev's legal team wanted to take the pictures to show changes in his condition, both mental and physical, but US Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler ruled that authorities at the prison will instead take the photos, then provide them to defence lawyers and prosecutors.

*snip*

The photos could be used to challenge whether Tsarnaev was emotionally and physically fit enough to talk to interrogators after his capture - and whether he did so voluntarily.

The pictures could also be used in "mitigation arguments" against the death penalty, should prosecutors choose to pursue that punishment, the records show.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/judge-rejects-tsarnaev-photo-request/story-e6freoo6-1226645781075

It looks like Tsarnaev's "confessions", regardless if he made them in the hospital or under the boat, are worthless.

This trial is going to be a thriller.

[msanthrope]

37. No...his confessions will not be 'worthless.' The boat writing will

be admissible. The interviews at the hospital will be, also, but the prosecutors won't need them at trial.

[temmer]

38. I respectfully disagree

The boat writing will ony be admissible if it can be shown that he was the one who did it.

The confessions at the hospital will not be admissible if his mental state was not adequate.

Your prejudgments seem to imply that you have insider information that he's definitely guilty. Tell me your source - I'm curious!

[msanthrope]

39. Um, no. Neither of your claims about the evidence go to the issue of admissibility in

federal court.

At trial, his attorneys may claim that he did not write the confession on the boat.

At trial, his attorneys may claim that his confessions at the hospital should be disregarded by the jury for (insert reason here.)

But preclusion of these items as evidence is another matter.

[temmer]

41. I stay corrected

The "confession" claims of the prosecutors are admissible, of course.

But DT seems determined to repeal them. Given the extraordinary cirumstances during the "confessions", he certainly will be successful in that.

By the way, despite the "confessions", the prosecutors just missed a deadline:

http://www.jamesrgrangerjr.com/2013/05/18/prosecutors-need-more-time-to-indict-in-boston-bombing/

[msanthrope]

44. Repeal? What does that even mean? And the prosecutors didn't miss any deadline.....

Speedy Trial is tolled by the defendant's own motions in this case, AND his medical status-- 18 USC 3161 (h) et seq.


Your source on this is a guy with an economics degree. Try a lawyer.

[temmer]

45. Source

This guy quotes from a news portal. Here's the original link:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/18/304088/prosecutors-need-time-to-indict-tsarnaev/

From a dictionary:

re·peal
[ri-peel]
verb (used with object)
1.
to revoke or withdraw formally or officially: to repeal a grant.
2.
to revoke or annul (a law, tax, duty, etc.) by express legislative enactment; abrogate.
noun
3.
the act of repealing; revocation; abrogation.

[msanthrope]

46. You are using Iranian State TV and a guy with an economics degree? That explains a lot.

Please cite the statute under which you think this 'repeal' of (what?) is going to happen?

[temmer]

47. you're funny

This was a press release.

Globe&Mail, Fox and MSN have the same story.

[msanthrope]

48. A press release? By whom? Why not cite the original? You see I doubt the original claims

that prosecutors 'missed' a deadline. I bet it notes that this case qualifies for exception under the statute I gave you.

So why use a bullshit source like Iranian State TV?

[temmer]

49. Enough palaver - you can find the story everywhere. Just look for yourself

And no, I'm not Ahmadinejad's grandson.

[msanthrope]

50. The only story I found was that prosecutors claimed exception to the 30 day rule

and were granted such last Friday.

The pleading was not made public, but there are some exceptions that seem most probable--one, that the defendant's own motions have tolled the 30 days, and two, that the circumstances of his medical treatment preclude an immediate indictment. It's entirely possible that the defense consented to this, too.

Not everything is evidence of grand conspiracy.