Terrorist attack at Boston Marathon

[Beowulf]

Reminds me of the Leopold-Loeb case, where they said apart they wouldn't have done it but together they made a composite personality.

[kensei]

worst case scenario, he can always write his answers.

Latest news I heard is that that is exactly what he is doing, but what those answers are has not been released.

[Phil H]

...what those answers are has not been released

Kensei - your words suggest that you anticipate that what he says can and should be made public at once.

I find that surprising. But perhaps i have misunderstood you.

Surely

a) security - not alerting any accomplices to what the authorities know; and

b) avoidance of prejudice to any trial;

would suggest that what he says could be some time before it emerges into the public domain.

While the immediate answers may be of extreme importance to the security authorities; I would assume that they will be of little judicial importance unless he has been read his rights/charged; and/or has legal representation.

Or are things different in the US?

Phil

[kensei]

No Phil, I was just giving a quick summary of what the news reports stated. It is as I would have expected at this point in the investigation.

[Errata]

...what those answers are has not been released

Kensei - your words suggest that you anticipate that what he says can and should be made public at once.

I find that surprising. But perhaps i have misunderstood you.

Surely

a) security - not alerting any accomplices to what the authorities know; and

b) avoidance of prejudice to any trial;

would suggest that what he says could be some time before it emerges into the public domain.

While the immediate answers may be of extreme importance to the security authorities; I would assume that they will be of little judicial importance unless he has been read his rights/charged; and/or has legal representation.

Or are things different in the US?

Phil

Things are a little different here, though not necessarily on any official level. We typically get motive for these things within three to five days. Now usually it's because the suspect is a crazy Elvis impersonator who has paranoid delusions, such as in the Ricin case. But in other cases, I'm pretty sure it's either a tactic, or someone in the know is so proud of the fact that he is in the know that he talks to a reporter. If there are others involved, 3 days is about what it takes to figure out where they are, and make an attempt to get them into custody. If they can't find them, releasing the news that the suspect in custody has told on his buddies is typically an excellent way to flush these guys out, since they will need to move to avoid capture. So the news often gets used as a police tool, as long as no one overtly lies.

With these kind of cases, the jury pool is tainted, and will be no matter where he goes. His lawyer may even ask for the judge to rule instead of impaneling a jury. I mean, nobody didn't have an opinion on Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You make do. Impartial juries are not always there to be had.

[Phil H]

A sad statement on society and modern democracy, I suppose.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

Typically, a person is read their rights immediately upon being arrested, the first of which is the right to remain silent. A person has the right against self-incrimination, and that is why people who have been arrested have the right to remain silent, and are cautioned that anything they say may be used as evidence.

When someone is arrested in a situation where there may be lives in danger, in this case, more bombs planted, and still able to go off in public places, suspects are told they are about to be arrested, but then are asked about very specific things they would incriminate them, had they already been read their rights, but public safety is considered more important than gathering evidence, at that point. Then, the suspect is read his rights. If he confesses after that, that confession is admissible in court.

You can see how, if he were question under that protocol, and admitted that there were explosives, say, in the Boston subway stop nearest to the marathon finish, and he said that before he was read his rights, it would be very important to keep that out of the papers, because if it because public, he couldn't possibly get a fair trial.

However, because we have a free press, it isn't possible to forbid newspapers from publishing the information, if they have it. All that can be done is for investigators to make every effort not to let reporters get the information.

RE: speech and vocal cord damage. He could have nerve damage, or muscle damage that could permanently impair his speech, even if his vocal folds were undamaged.

[Archaic]

Mirand Rights

I'm uncomfortable with the decision to not Miranize the suspect immediately. (Read him his Miranda rights.)

He's an American citizen. Besides, he's a smart, well-educated young man; they should assume he knows his Miranda rights already, if just from watching tv! So they should read him his rights in order to avoid procedural error. And best to do so immediately.

I'm afraid not Mirandizing him could jeopardize any future trial. Although maybe there won't be a trial; maybe he'll plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.

Some politicians want to charge him as an 'Enemy Combatant'. I don't think those charges would stick, though one could argue that they might have with his brother.

So sad that a young man would go from being a lifeguard because he felt good about "saving lives", to being a medical student so he could help people, to being a mass murderer and mass maimer.

I hope that in the future, free from the influence of his older brother, this kid will come to a full realization of what he has done, the grief he has caused fellow human beings, and will genuinely regret it.

-Which isn't to say I don't think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including terrorism charges and the death penalty, because I do.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Beowulf]

I'm uncomfortable with the decision to not Miranize the suspect immediately. (Read him his Miranda rights.)...

Best regards,
Archaic

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/white-house-boston-bombing-suspect-wont-be-charged-as-enemy-combatant/

[Mayerling]

Today's front page of the New York Times had an item (continued insidide the paper) that suggests a previous comment of mine may be right after all. The authorities are wondering if the two brothers were planning to carry their Jihad campaign elsewhere, and New York City was mentioned as a target of those pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs.

Jeff

[Beowulf]

Today's front page of the New York Times had an item (continued insidide the paper) that suggests a previous comment of mine may be right after all. The authorities are wondering if the two brothers were planning to carry their Jihad campaign elsewhere, and New York City was mentioned as a target of those pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs.

Jeff

That is frightening. I was surprised to read after the bombing they went to a party and said to someone something like this sort of thing happens all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and look at this:

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-suspect-eyed-connection-2011-triple-murder-164354976--abc-news-topstories.html

[RivkahChaya]

A person who is going to be arrested, but is questioned first about immediate dangers is not read his rights, because his isn't yet technically under arrest, and has a form of immunity, sort of like what people are given sometimes in order to testify under oath about crimes they have committed, without incriminating themselves. He's cautioned that what he says won't incriminate him for the time being, and that revealing danger to prevent further damage can help him in the future, but also that once he is arrested and read his rights, repeating what he has said goes on the record and can be used against him.

In most cases like this, there's already enough evidence to put someone away for life, but cooperation can be a mitigating factor in life vs. death, or life in maximum security, vs. medium security.

Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, but if this guy is tried on federal charges, he can be given the death penalty. If he does, he'll no doubt be executed here in Terre Haute. Even if he is given life, if it is for a federal crime, he'll probably serve it here (that is, Indiana, where I am), in Terre Haute. If he has any interest in staying in Massachusetts for any reason, like having friends or family visit him, he might plea bargain to state charges to stay out of federal court.

[RivkahChaya]

That is frightening. I was surprised to read after the bombing they went to a party and said to someone something like this sort of thing happens all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and look at this:

Wow. That changes everything. The federal government has stated that he will not be prosecuted as an enemy combatant, because he is a US citizen. However, if he committed a felony while he was in the US, during his period of residency before becoming a citizen, and, I'm assuming, lied about it on his application for citizenship, then his citizenship can be revoked, because it was obtained fraudulently.

[kensei]

Can I get away with mentioning a couple of things that have been brought up in various sources that the mainstream considers "conspiracy theory"? They are just things that make me raise my eyebrows a bit.

The first thing is that the older brother Tamerlan was interviewed by the FBI five years ago and suspected then of having terrorist ties. He would have been tracked since then, and been on watch lists. His associates would have been known, and especially his family members. Point being, the FBI knew who the brothers were well before the bombing. And yet, post-bombing, when their photos were first released to the public it was as "Persons of interest- can you help us identify these people?" What gives?

The second thing is that I heard in both an alternative source and very briefly in the mainstream news that some witnesses claim that it was the police who ran over Tamerlan, not his brother. This does not necessarily mean those witnesses are correct, but the claim is out there.

[Phil H]

The US authorities may have unlimited resources, but in the UK I believe that both MI5 (internal) and MI6 (external) have to prioritise suspects and focus available resources on those deemed a higher risk.

Is it not possible that the elder brother was looked into, nothing too suspicious/anything found and that he was relegated to the archive?

If his visit to Russia was in the last year, he could have been clean up to then, so have escaped surveillance.

Secondly, all the security agencies I am aware of, state clearly that sometimes things will get through, they are not infalliable. A judgement might be wrong, an analysis slightly off; information may not be available on a suspect or in the right timescale. You cannot watch everyone - and if you tried in the UK (at least) the libertarians would be on you like a shot arguing harrassment, racial stereotyping whatever.

I don't, by and large, believe in conspiracy theories unless I see solid grounds for such suspicion. As an ex civil servant, I know that people make mistakes, records get lost or - finding links can be like looking for a needle in a haystack such is the sheer volume of records and intelligence to be kept track of. Human error, and sod's law all all that is needed.

Phil

Phil