Here, for your enlightenment, is an attempt at some fact finding regarding that tragedy by a former US attorney. Take a close look at the exhibits, and I think you will admit that something screwy has been going on here:
If the defense objective is to show some reasonable doubt regarding the accused placing a live bomb at the scene of the explosion, then why weren’t these exhibits shown here included in the defense? If nothing else, these key pieces of evidence should have been the centerpiece of the defense’s case of accused Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The lead defense attorney should have at least presented this evidence to try and prove reasonable doubt for acquittal. From this it becomes self-evident that no real attempt was ever made by the defense attorney to put on a case for the client at all.
If the defense objective is to show some reasonable doubt regarding the accused placing a live bomb at the scene of the explosion, then why weren’t these exhibits shown here included in the defense? If nothing else, these key pieces of evidence should have been the centerpiece of the defense’s case of accused Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The lead defense attorney should have at least presented this evidence to try and prove reasonable doubt for acquittal. From this it becomes self-evident that no real attempt was ever made by the defense attorney to put on a case for the client at all.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/in-defense-of-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-real-smoking-gun-in-boston/5444782
Are such events of necessity so self-contradictory, or does it merely seem that way because they are packed with lies from start to finish?
Are such events of necessity so self-contradictory, or does it merely seem that way because they are packed with lies from start to finish?
No comments:
Post a Comment