By Paul Craig Roberts
Movies are used to set official stories in stone, and a movie is going to be made about the heroic capture of a badly wounded 19 year old kid, not old enough to buy a beer, who, despite being shot up and severely wounded, is alleged to have written a confession in the dark on the side of a boat under which he was hiding to escape execution. Apparently, the 10,000 troops who violated the US Constitution and searched the houses of a shutdown Boston without warrants are going to be credited for "saving America from terrorism."
I find it difficult to believe that a shot-up kid, who had to be put into intensive care when he was discovered, who was hiding from execution under an upturned boat, spent what little energy and life force he had left writing a confession in the dark on the inside of a boat. What convenient instrument to write with did he happen to have on hand?
Why would we believe assurances of such an unlikely confession from the same lying government that assured the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction justifying a multi-trillion dollar invasion that destroyed a county? We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein most certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction as President Bush later admitted, and even if he had, such possession is no justification for illegal US aggression that destroyed a country. Why would we believe a government that assured the world that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, which we know for a fact was Washington's made up excuse for invasion?
One wonders how much the Boston Marathon Bombing movie makers have been paid for setting the official story in stone. As one correspondent asked: "I'm wondering how they are going to portray Boston cops as heroes as they kill the older brother and then surround an unarmed teenager who is hiding under a boat. They start firing...they put a bullet through his face but the damned kid won't die! Heroic Senator John McCain then explains how Miranda rights don't apply in his case. Suddenly it's discovered that while hiding in the boat he's written a confession on the inside of the boat with a Sharpie..."
John Remington Graham has 48 years of legal experience as a defense attorney and as a prosecutor. An aunt of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is herself an attorney in the Russian Federation, requested John Remington Graham to assist her in making an amicus curiae intervention in the federal district court in Boston. Mr. Graham has since written to the US Attorney General about conflicts between the government's evidence and the guilty conviction. After 3 months, he has received no answer, an indication that the US Department of Justice has no interest whatsoever in what appears to be a wrongful conviction carrying a death sentence.
Mr. Graham brings us up-to-date on what has the appearance of judicial murder of another innocent in order to serve the secret agenda of the military/security complex. "America is under attack," so we need a police state to protect us and more money for wars abroad that take the lives of massive numbers of innocents, while economic conditions at home drive the American people deeper into the ground.
Here is John Remington Graham's statement of the miscarriage of justice:
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is Not Guilty
John Remington Graham
The government of the United States has prosecuted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the knowledge that its evidence proves he is not guilty.
On August 17, 2015, Paul Craig Roberts published an account of the amicus curiae intervention by Maret Tsarnaeva, paternal aunt of the accused and a lawyer resident in the Russian Federation, before the federal district court in Massachusetts in the infamous prosecution of her nephew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on an indictment charging him with detonating a pressure-cooker bomb on Boyston Street in Boston on April 15, 2013, causing death or injury to many persons. Mr. Tsarnaev was sentenced to death on June 17, 2015. Dr. Roberts' account was published widely in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia. The report quotes verbatim from pertinent documents made part of public record by court order. The link to the said report is here.
While a number of other serious anomalies in this prosecution have been noted by highly qualified observers, the most decisive and indisputable facts of public record are these: From evidence at the scene of the explosions, the FBI crime lab definitively established on April 16, 2013, that the culprits, whoever they were, carried large, heavy-laden black backpacks concealing pressure-cooker bombs.
This information was not a mere temporary investigative hypothesis, but was incorporated into the indictment returned on June 17, 2013, and was part of the government's case going into trial.
On April 18, 2013, the FBI identified the culprits from a private street video, showing the brothers Tsarnaev on Boylston Street prior to the explosions. Two still-frames from this street video were used in FBI posters advising the public of the identity of the suspects. These two still-frames do not clearly portray what these young men were carrying on their backs. But a third still-frame from the same street video shows Dzhokhar from the rear, carrying over his right shoulder a small, light-weight, white backpack, with no bulging or sagging as would have appeared if he had carried a heavy pressure cooker bomb as claimed by the FBI and alleged in the indictment. Because the white backpack Dzhokhar carried is not the black backpack carried by the accused bomber as stated in the indictment, Dzhokhar stands excluded as a suspect and is necessarily not guilty as charged.
Alleged confessions or statements of self-incrimination introduced against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are disproved by the findings of the FBI crime lab and the street video used by the FBI to identify the culprits. In other words, the street video shows that the backpack carried by Mr. Tsarnaev does not match and has the opposite characteristics of the backpack which the FBI crime lab determined was carried by the guilty party. Therefore, no alleged admission of guilt by Dzhokhar can be true.
In a criminal case, if the prosecution attempts to prove that the accused or a co-conspirator admitted wrongdoing, but objective evidence in the possession of public authority indicates that the accused did not commit the crime, the admission is worthless. The objective evidence stands, and the finding must be not guilty.
Widely published photographs reveal that, near the crime scene, at or about the time of the explosions, there were men in military-style jackets, pants, boots, and hats with identical logos carrying large black backpacksthat matched perfectly the findings of the FBI crime lab. But these men were not investigated, questioned, or charged. The presence of these individuals was never mentioned during the trial of Mr. Tsarnaev.
Instead, Dzhokhar's court-appointed lawyer forcibly told the jury he was guilty, although, as she well knew, FBI-generated evidence proved that Dzhokhar, at the time and place of the explosions, was carrying a backpack totally different from the backpack that the FBI proved was carried by the guilty party.
On January 7, 2016, as directed by Maret Tarnaeva, I sent a petition to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States who is now the legal custodian of Mr. Tsarnaev. This petition describes and includes key exhibits of public record, and requests her to intervene in the case in order to prevent wrongful conviction and execution. The attorney general is obligated to intervene under rules of legal ethics promulgated by the American Bar Association that are universally accepted throughout the United States.
The governing principle is that a public prosecutor must refuse to charge, or must seek dismissal of an accusation, when evidence in the possession of public authority shows that there is no probable cause, or that probable cause, once established, no longer exists or ceases to be credible. This principle has been faithfully observed in our time by Cyrus Vance Jr., state district attorney in New York City, in the prosecution of Dominique Strauss-Kahn when it was discovered that the main witness against the accused was a con artist trying to shake him down, and also by Jim Mattox, attorney general of Texas, once it was learned that guilty pleas of Henry Lee Lucas were false in light of undeniable, objective evidence.
Federal prosecutors, court-appointed counsel for the accused, and the major news media are aware of the basic facts here outlined; yet, acting together, they have misled the general public, and managed to convict an individual obviously not guilty. The attorney general of the United States has been duly advised of the situation but has failed to do anything about it or even to acknowledge or reply to my letter. -- John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar.
Paul Craig Roberts