The Boston Bombing Trial Starts, But Answers Arent on the Docket
By Russ Baker
WhoWhatWhy
January 7, 2015
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/at-the-boston-bombing-trial/ We do not know what will come out of the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, but one thing we are pretty sure of: we will not get the real, complete story of what actually happened.
Keep this in mind: the prosecutions job is not principally to fully explain the background of a crime that was committed. It is to convince a jury to convict. Also, in cases such as this, where a lot of questions about security state operations have been raised, the prosecution, as an arm of the federal government, will be under strict orders to win its case without unduly exposing sources and methods. Thats a polite way of saying, lets keep the skeletons in the family closet.
Lead defense counsel Judy Clarkes job, and her historic role in past cases, has been to do wh**ever is necessary to ensure her client avoids the death penalty. Meanwhile, the defendants job, right now, is to do what his lawyer tells him. Its not his job to object or say, Hey, theres more to this story.
Clarkes interest in exposing the t***h is strictly limited to: A) using the threat of embarrassing the government or B) casting doubt on its narrative solely as a bargaining chip to keep her client off death row. She has no particular mandate to find out what really happened. Even by her own pronouncements, Clarke either believes her client is guilty or, perceives that the only practical way forward is to accept that her client will be found guilty.
So dont hold your breath for explanations to some of the questions weve raised. They include:
-What actual evidence exists that these brothers made such a sophisticated bombwhich some experts say they could not have? If not, then they had help and did not act alone, as the government insists. Arent the identities and roles of other possible players germane?
-What actual evidence exists that these brothers had bombs with themand detonated them? Pictures of the backpacks that exploded to some people dont look like the ones the brothers were wearing.
-What actual evidence exists that these brothers shot and k**led an MIT police officer? Were told that video cameras captured the act, but were also told that the video doesnt make a positive ID.
-Did they actually carjack a man, and if so, for how long and under what circumstances? As we have reported, the purported victim, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, substantially changed his story of what happened.