Explosion in Boston?

#2,351
#2,351
therealUT said:
If Tamerlan was the individual with the firearm and the individual who killed Collier, then Dzhokhar will not be tried for felony murder in Massachusetts, if the following representation of felony murder in Massachusetts is correct:



Seems to me that, according to the law in Massachusetts, one would have to argue that it was Dzhokhar, and not Tamerlan, who shot Collier.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Hypothetically, if the older brother was the one who killed the MIT cop and that he did not place either of the bombs (or his bomb did not kill anyone), it seems he would have an argument that he was not guilty of any murder under the Mass statute.
 
#2,352
#2,352
vols4sure said:
Interesting. Hypothetically, if the older brother was the one who killed the MIT cop and that he did not place either of the bombs (or his bomb did not kill anyone), it seems he would have an argument that he was not guilty of any murder under the Mass statute at least.
Click to expand...

Everything could hinge on the Lord & Taylor video.
 
#2,353
#2,353
therealUT said:
If Tamerlan was the individual with the firearm and the individual who killed Collier, then Dzhokhar will not be tried for felony murder in Massachusetts, if the following representation of felony murder in Massachusetts is correct:

Seems to me that, according to the law in Massachusetts, one would have to argue that it was Dzhokhar, and not Tamerlan, who shot Collier.
Click to expand...

"Section 2. Whoever aids in the commission of a felony, or is accessory thereto before the fact by counselling, hiring or otherwise procuring such felony to be committed, shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of the principal felon."
 
#2,354
#2,354
therealUT said:
Dzhokhar was unarmed when the police found him, and Dzhokhar has opted to stop talking now that he has been read his Miranda Rights. These first revelation is huge, especially if what he said to the interrogators is non-admissible in court.

If Tamerlan had the only firearm, then the murder of the MIT Officer might only be, from a legal standpoint, on Tamerlan. It appears that any serious conviction might now ride on the testimony of one individual (the individual whose car was stolen) and the Lord & Taylor video.

What is the possibility that a 19-year old terrorist ends up being convicted on lesser charges, receiving some 20-year sentence, and is paroled in 10 to 15? That's getting back out at 29-35 years old. Further, since he is a naturalized citizen, he will not be getting deported over this.

This is some crazy ****.
Click to expand...

If this turns out then perhaps he will die mysteriously in prison....or maybe just get beaten to death with a mop handle
 
#2,359
#2,359
Look for the charges to include multiple counts of accessory to first degree murder, punishable by life in prison or death. Prosecutors could add numerous other charges, including murder one, but I have no doubt that he will face accessory to murder in the first degree. There appears to be a lot of evidence for it, including a confession which I think will be admissible. The sentence will be life or death. He will die in prison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,360
#2,360
Vol Main said:
"Section 2. Whoever aids in the commission of a felony, or is accessory thereto before the fact by counselling, hiring or otherwise procuring such felony to be committed, shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of the principal felon."
Click to expand...

Care to provide a link?

Felony Murder in the First-Degree

Massachusetts requires proof that the defendant actually killed the victim during the commission of the felony, Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505, 515 (1965), rather than a general allegation that the victim was killed by someone during the commission of a crime in which the defendant was a participant. It is irrelevant, however, whether the person killed was the intended victim, a bystander, or an accomplice, so long as the conduct of the defendant caused the death in the commission of the felony. Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. at 515. Moreover, the felony murder rule applies to homicides that occur immediately after the felony in furtherance of attempts to escape. Commonwealth v.
Green, 302 Mass. 547, 555 (1939). If convicted of felony murder in the first degree, the defendant faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Second Degree Murder

In order to sustain a prosecution for murder in the second degree, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant committed an unlawful killing and that that killing was committed with malice. G.L. c. 265, § 1; Commonwealth v. Leate, 352 Mass. 452, 456–57 (1967). An unlawful killing, regardless of the degree of murder, is a killing committed without excuse

Felony Murder in the Second-Degree

Felony murder in the second degree is murder committed during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, with a maximum sentence of less than imprisonment for life. Commonwealth v. Donovan, 422 Mass. 349, 352–53 (1996). The prosecution must demonstrate facts to support the same elements necessary to support a charge of felony murder in the first degree; that is, that the defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony, that a killing occurred during the commission or attempted commission of that felony and at substantially the same time and place, and that the felony was inherently dangerous or the defendant acted with a conscious disregard for human life. The difference between first- and second-degree felony murder lies in the sentence. If the underlying felony is not punishable by life imprisonment, then felony murder in the second degree “is the appropriate result.” Commonwealth v. Donovan, 422 Mass. 349, 352–53 (1996) (citing Commonwealth v. Rego, 360 Mass. 385, 395 (1996)).

http://www.mcle.org/includes/pdf/2050204B00_S.pdf
Click to expand...

Found what you were citing, Main. And, I find it odd that you selectively cited, and left out a large portion of Section 2. So, I will provide Section 2 in its entirety, as well as a link so that others can read the entire statute (I'll refrain from making any hypotheses regarding your motivation to omit such a large part of Section 2):

The defendant counseled, hired or otherwise procured such felony to be committed. In other words, the defendant played some role that allowed the other person to commit the felony. To satisfy this element, it must be proven that in some affirmative way, the defendant encouraged, helped, stood by to help, or otherwise played a significant role. Mere presence where a crime was committed or knowledge that a crime will be committed is not enough to make a person an accessory. The defendant is a principal, not an accessory, if he was present when the felony was committed and assisted in committing it. He is a principal in the second degree, not an accessory, if he didn’t actually commit the crime but was present and aiding and abetting.

Boston Felony Defense Attorney :: Accessory Before-After the Fact :: Chelsea, MA Violent Crime Defense Lawyer
Click to expand...

Now, again, this all assumes that the Lord and Taylor video is not damning and that his confession is not admissible. Two large assumptions. If either the video is damning or the confession is admissible, then Dzhokhar never sees the light of day again.
 
Last edited:
#2,361
#2,361
General Laws of Massachusetts - Chapter 274 Felonies, Accessories and Attempts to Commit Crimes. - Section 1 Felonies and misdemeanors - Massachusetts Attorney Resources - Massachusetts Laws

General Laws: CHAPTER 274, Section 2

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...iminal/pdf/4100-accessory-before-the-fact.pdf

Accomplices in Criminal Law
____________________________________________

"Accessory Before/After the Fact"

"An individual who commits a crime is also called the principal. Generally, a person who intentionally helps the principal commit a crime is called an accomplice.

Note that an accomplice generally does not have to commit the crime itself, but can still face the same penalties as the principal if convicted. This is the case under both federal law and Massachusetts law.

An accomplice who aids and abets a principal before the crime is committed can be called an accessory before the fact.

Depending on the facts and the wording of the law, co-conspirators can also be charged as accomplices, making them punishable for the conspiracy charge in addition to their role in the commission of the actual crime."

Boston Bombers: Accomplices or Conspirators? - FindLaw Blotter
 
Last edited:
#2,364
#2,364
davethevol said:
What about the eyewitness testimony of the guy that identified them? I think they have much more evidence than the Lord & Taylor video.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony is problematic. If he is the only eyewitness, his testimony can easily be called into question by a variety of expert psychologists. Further, if anyone had mentioned the possibility of this explosive device being carried in a backpack, that could tremendously affect his memory.

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses.5 For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories. However, psychologists have long recognized that gap filling and reliance on assumptions are necessary to function in our society. For example, if we did not assume that mail will be delivered, or that the supermarkets will continue to stock bread, we would behave quite differently than we do. We are constantly filling in the gaps in our recollection and interpreting things we hear. For instance, while on the subway we might hear garbled words like "next," "transfer," and "train." Building on our assumptions and knowledge, we may put together the actual statement: "Next stop 53rd Street, transfer available to the E train." Indeed, we may even remember having heard the full statement.

So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable—due to the reconstruction of their memory—to reconsider their initial understanding. When a witness identifies a person in a line-up, he is likely to identify that same person in later line-ups, even when the person identified is not the perpetrator. Although juries and decision-makers place great reliance on eyewitness identification, they are often unaware of the danger of false memories.

The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony
Click to expand...

Either multiple eyewitnesses are needed or photographic/video evidence.
 
#2,365
#2,365
Vol Main said:
General Laws of Massachusetts - Chapter 274 Felonies, Accessories and Attempts to Commit Crimes. - Section 1 Felonies and misdemeanors - Massachusetts Attorney Resources - Massachusetts Laws

General Laws: CHAPTER 274, Section 2

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...iminal/pdf/4100-accessory-before-the-fact.pdf

Accomplices in Criminal Law
____________________________________________

"Accessory Before/After the Fact"

"An individual who commits a crime is also called the principal. Generally, a person who intentionally helps the principal commit a crime is called an accomplice.

Note that an accomplice generally does not have to commit the crime itself, but can still face the same penalties as the principal if convicted. This is the case under both federal law and Massachusetts law.

An accomplice who aids and abets a principal before the crime is committed can be called an accessory before the fact.

Depending on the facts and the wording of the law, co-conspirators can also be charged as accomplices, making them punishable for the conspiracy charge in addition to their role in the commission of the actual crime."

Boston Bombers: Accomplices or Conspirators? - FindLaw Blotter
Click to expand...

Just curious, but why do you think that Dzhokhar falls into the category of "accomplice" as defined in the MA statutes and not "principal in the second-degree"?

Do you not think that he was "present and aiding and abetting"?
 
#2,366
#2,366
therealUT said:
Either multiple eyewitnesses are needed or photographic/video evidence.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that they do have multiple eyewitnesses and lots of high quality video footage that has not been made available to the public.
 
#2,367
#2,367
therealUT said:
Care to provide a link?

Found what you were citing, Main. And, I find it odd that you selectively cited, and left out a large portion of Section 2. So, I will provide Section 2 in its entirety, as well as a link so that others can read the entire statute (I'll refrain from making any hypotheses regarding your motivation to omit such a large part of Section 2):

Now, again, this all assumes that the Lord and Taylor video is not damning and that his confession is not admissible. Two large assumptions. If either the video is damning or the confession is admissible, then Dzhokhar never sees the light of day again.
Click to expand...

We are talking about multiple crimes committed with the deliberate intent to kill and maim. There is nothing odd about thinking prosecutors will seek the maximum penalties allowable under the law. I am no lawyer and claim no legal expertise, just someone offering leads and lay person arguments. My own view is that prosecutors will throw the book at suspect 2, seeking maximum penalties. Where evidence exists for guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a principal, he will be so charged. Where lesser evidence exists, he will be charged as an accessory and/or conspirator. Massachusetts law pertaining to accomplices in felony cases is not clear to me. It seems that accomplice law has changed over the years, and my impression is that an accomplice is now treated as either a principal or an accessory before the fact. When I searched for accomplice law, it linked to the accessory statutes. In this case, I would expect to see a long list of charges, including both principal and accessory. The latter alone carries a sentence of life in prison or death, so suspect 2 is not a man who should be out on the streets in fifteen years.
 
Last edited:
#2,368
#2,368
davethevol said:
I have a feeling that they do have multiple eyewitnesses and lots of high quality video footage that has not been made available to the public.
Click to expand...

It is plausible that there are multiple eyewitnesses. However, they would have had to have gotten these eyewitnesses to ID Tamerlan and/or Dzhokhar prior to the press conference on 18th, where their pictures were publicly released as the suspects. That may or may not have happened.

And, there could be a lot of high-quality video footage of Dzhokhar setting his bag down and the bag blowing up. Again, such footage would be damning.

One must remember that most individuals who are selected for jury duty for this trial are going to try to get out of it. It will be a long trial; and, they will most likely be sequestered. Individuals with jobs and families are going to immediately speak up and reveal what it is they already know or think they know about the event, and they will be dismissed. What will remain will be twelve individuals that either truly have no preconceived notions or individuals that have nothing better to do. From this group of twelve, only one must be convinced that the evidence is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
#2,369
#2,369
davethevol said:
I have a feeling that they do have multiple eyewitnesses and lots of high quality video footage that has not been made available to the public.
Click to expand...

I did see a picture of suspect 2 standing near the location of the second explosion, at the barrier with his backpack on the pavement near his feet. The prosecution will surely seek testimony and photographic evidence that suspect 2 had no backpack with him when he was leaving the area.
 
Last edited:
#2,372
#2,372
So are we arguing now that there is not enough evidence to try them?

Because I saw pics that were leaked of the one brother throwing a ied at the police. Several photos of the gunfire.

They were headed out to place more of these bombs. Period.
 
#2,373
#2,373
Obsessed said:
So are we arguing now that there is not enough evidence to try them?

Because I saw pics that were leaked of the one brother throwing a ied at the police. Several photos of the gunfire.

They were headed out to place more of these bombs. Period.
Click to expand...

There is enough evidence for a trial. The question is whether there is enough evidence to convict of charges that will carry a life sentence or a life sentence without parole.
 
#2,374
#2,374
therealUT said:
There is enough evidence for a trial. The question is whether there is enough evidence to convict of charges that will carry a life sentence or a life sentence without parole.
Click to expand...

Only fools are questioning if there is enough evidence to keep this guy in jail for the rest of his life. Color me skeptical of him ever being granted parole without an absolute guaranteed public uprising. If you're convicted for knowingly taking part in a plot to blow up innocent civilians you've given up your right to ever being granted parole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,375
#2,375
therealUT said:
It is plausible that there are multiple eyewitnesses. However, they would have had to have gotten these eyewitnesses to ID Tamerlan and/or Dzhokhar prior to the press conference on 18th, where their pictures were publicly released as the suspects. That may or may not have happened.

One must remember that most individuals who are selected for jury duty for this trial are going to try to get out of it. It will be a long trial; and, they will most likely be sequestered. Individuals with jobs and families are going to immediately speak up and reveal what it is they already know or think they know about the event, and they will be dismissed. What will remain will be twelve individuals that either truly have no preconceived notions or individuals that have nothing better to do. From this group of twelve, only one must be convinced that the evidence is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

And thats why he should have been charged as an Enemy Combatant..to keep it out of the hands of idiots!

And remove the risk of people like you on said jury!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top