RetroActive said:
I have no idea what happened with this bombing but I do know that this trial and conviction in the media doesn't convince me of anything.
OK, let me help you out. There are three major lines of evidence implicating the Tsarnaev brothers in the bombing:
1) pictures of them setting down packs at the bomb site moments before the bombs went off, packs that fit the description provided by forensics
2) eye-witness testimony, by one of the bombing victims, of Dzhokhar setting down one of the packs
3) testimony by the man whose car was stolen that the two brothers identified themselves as the bombers
In addition to this evidence, there will likely be other evidence linking Dzhokhar and/or Tamerlan to the bombing, from forensics, cell phone calls, perhaps records of buying bomb materials, etc.
Moreover, even if neither brother had had anything to do with the bombing, there is enough evidence to put Dzhokhar away for a long time, viz.:
1) murder of a cop
2) shooting at officers, and seriously wounding one of them
3) car-jacking
4) illegal possession of weapons, bombs, etc.
But, hey, it could be much worse. The lockdown cost Boston an estimated $330 million. He's not being asked to repay that. The tens of thousands of dollars of medical care he's getting now is free. He could be subject to civil suits from the victims and their relatives, but on a prisoner's pay, he won't be paying much of that back.
Wallace said:
like a lot of people I am troubled that the police didn't read Dzhokhar his Miranda Rights--the idea that these rights are suddenly optional is dismaying, especially since it's in extreme situations like this that their centrality is tested--a test whose failure should make everyone a little nervous.
Yes, but keep a couple of things in mind:
1) He still has those rights; he just wasn’t informed of them. Anyone who knowingly and willingly breaks the law ought to know that he has the right to remain silent until he gets legal counsel. It’s an oft-repeated truism that ignorance of the law is not a defense, that it’s every individual’s responsibility to be informed about the law. So you could argue that ignorance of your rights does not always and necessarily imply that you should be informed of those rights.
2) The reason the government doesn’t want to inform him of his rights is not with the idea of building a stronger case against him. On the contrary, it’s possible that anything he says under these conditions could be challenged in a trial. The reason the government doesn’t want to inform him of his rights is because once a lawyer intervenes between him and the government, the chances of finding out about any other people that might have been involved in the bombing decreases considerably. The government is arguably gambling here, risking their case against Dzhokhar for the sake of getting more information on others.
It seems to me that Dzhokhar is clearly toast at this point. He will spend the rest of his life in prison, the only question being how much longer that life will be, i.e., will he be executed. But if other people were involved in the bombing, his testimony could be critical in finding them and preventing future actions. There have been unconfirmed reports of a cell involving a dozen people, and two people who were among three who were originally detained and then released have been re-arrested. I understand the symbolism in reading him his rights, and am also uncomfortable about not doing this, but if as a practical matter not reading them only affects the ability to gather evidence against others, a case can be made for suspending these rights. I can at least understand the thought process involved.
Beyond that, many puzzling questions remain, at least for me:
a) Why did he do this? It appears that Tamerlan was less assimilated into American culture. The bombing was more likely his idea, or if there were others involved, he was in more direct communication with them. But why would Dzhokhar—who seemed fully integrated into America, and never mentioned his brother to friends—go along with it? I hear the term "brainwashed" thrown around, but it's really not that easy to persuade most people to do something that goes against normal human sensibilities, particularly someone who is firmly entrenched in healthy social networks. If he were isolated in some terrorist camp for several months, listening to their views of the world, 24/7, yes, I could understand. But not through occasional chats with the brother.
b) What did they plan to do after the bombing? Did they think they could remain in Boston, unrecognized? Someone who worked on Dzhokhar’s car said when he came for it the next day and was told it wasn’t ready, he was very nervous. But he was also reported to be at a party the night after that, and very relaxed. Had they decided by then that they weren’t going to get caught? Or was the plan all along to remain in Boston and carry out more bombings and killings, since they did have a large supply of weapons and bombs?
c) Did they panic when they were identified though their photos? Why would they kill a policeman who AFAIK hadn’t identified them and wasn’t pursuing them? It was reported that they started the confrontation with the other cops. Why? If they had all these guns and ammo and bombs, why wouldn’t they plan another bombing? Did they decide that now that their cover had been blown it would be easier just to try to kill a few cops than pull off another bombing? The bombing seemed well planned, yet they come across as incredibly disorganized and unplanned after that.
d) Where did they get the money for the weapons and the bomb and for Dzhokhar’s car, which I believe was a Mercedes?