We are on the cusp of the Hernandez and Tsarnaev trials; we will have to wait a bit for the trial which Dershowitz has said he will bring about. I noted earlier Dershowitz has been accused of having sex with an underage girl which he denies. He said he will sue to clear his name suggesting the girl wrongly added him into the mix with Prince Albert, or is it Prince Andrew, who were the friends of a guy named Epstein a registered sex offender who served time for doing what the others are alleged to have done.
I guess it’s Andrew since Albert is a cigar. I do get mixed up trying keep the royalty straight. It is reported 54-year-old Andrew is flying home from skiing at the Swiss resort of Verbier (don’t these people work? ) to explain to his mother (another one on the dole) who is also the Queen of England, etc., that the woman, who has been identified as Virginia Roberts, is fibbing. Too bad Prince Andrew, aka the Duke of York, can’t deny meeting Virginia; a photograph of them together in London in 2001 where he has his arm around her waist is all over the Internet.
Since Dershowitz has denied meeting Virginia I don’t expect such a photograph of him to surface. That’s good for him. It’s also good for us since there are too many beauty and the beast photographs floating around. But the Dershowitz case is down the line.
The Tsarnaev trial starting today is like the Whitey Bulger trial a foregone conclusion. I’d guess it will be a lot less interesting than Whitey’s since it will lack the mob figures. The evidence against him seems overwhelming and if the issue was only who-did-it then the trial could end in a week. However, the Government wants to parade before the jury all the victims of the crime to overwhelm the jury with their suffering and grief just to ensure its victory.
We all know what happened. Our question as to why the FBI released the tapes to the public showing the Tsarnaev brothers rather than showing them to its agents some of whom knew the elder brother will not be answered. After the conviction the case will have a second part wherein the jury will decide if Tsarnaev gets executed. That will be more interesting listening to the reasons why the jury should believe Tsarnaev is merely a mixed up kid. (If I were his lawyer I’d have him shave his beard.)
The Aaron Hernandez case will have more excitement to it because Hernandez has a chance of beating the rap. The judge and the prosecutor don’t get along so she’ll have a proclivity to side with Hernandez’s attorneys in any evidentiary disputes. I’m not privy to all the evidence but unless the prosecution can put the gun in Hernandez’s hand or show there was a joint agreement to murder the victim the judge will not let the case go to the jury but will direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. She won’t do that because she favored the defense but because she is required to do it by the case law.
You all remember Brian Halloran who was gunned down on the waterfront allegedly by Whitey. You recall he had been charged with the first degree murder of George Pappas. Pappas was sitting in a Chinese restaurant at around 3:45am with Halloran and Jackie Salemme a Mafia connected hoodlum. All three were seen sitting together at a table by a waiter who went into the kitchen, gun shots were heard, when the waiter came back to the dining room Halloran and Salemme had left and Pappas was dead of gunshot wounds at the table. Salemme was convicted of Pappas’s murder. His conviction was overturned.
The Supreme Judicial Court wrote: “in this case there were two persons, Salemme and Halloran, with apparently equal opportunity to commit the murder. Given the Commonwealth’s abandonment of a joint venture theory, it had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Salemme fired the fatal shot. The Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence for the jury to so conclude. From the evidence presented, either Salemme or Halloran could have fired the shot, and a jury could not conclude, without reasonable doubt, that it was Salemme and not Halloran. “When the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof.””
I won’t attend either the Hernandez or Tsarnaev case since I’ve gone south for the winter. If I can get one or the other over the Internet or TV I may try to follow some of it but I’m trying to keep my mind on Whitey matters but as you can see it sometimes wanders.
I think you’re comparison of the Hernandez and Halloran killings is extremely interesting. Do you think that although the circumstances are similar it is more likely hernandez is convicted because of the cell phone and security system evidence?
I recall the judge recently deemed some evidence inadmissible but cant call specifically what it was
True, that. Enjoy Florida.
Wa-llahi! Why should the kid bow to the court? He’s facing execution, or, ADX. Better to play in the media, on the international jihadi stage. Young Dzokar is a far more appealing martyr than KSM, and, he has a much higher propaganda value than any of the other fossilized inmates at Git-mo. The scraggly whiskers are part of a natural transition from beardless youth to bearded warrior. There’s a whole script being played out in court. By trial’s end, Dzokar Tsarnaev, scion of a proudly hirsute fighting race, will be sporting the luxuriant full-on Sahaba chin-mop of a mature muhajid.
The G has to tread warily. Hostages could be executed over events occurring during the course of the trial. IS, and, AQ, will make the most of any media opportunity. What could/would/should the US government do, if the takfiri groups began selectively slaughtering their captives to gain the release of Dzokar Tsarnaev? Other questions about trial, also, intrigue me. How will the Feds keep information about the Waltham murders, and/or, the Todashev killing, from coming up at trial? Will we be regaled with colorful tales of emigre Chechen OC? Perhaps, this trial will be more interesting than you predict.
Khalid:o
Good points, especially on the beard. I guess I’ve viewed it too much from a lawyerly point of view trying to get the best deal for my client which I would think would be life in prison rather than death if he is convicted. I did not look at it from the defendant’s point of view which is disdain for the system and a quest for heroic status among his fellow terrorists.
Agreed he is appealing and probably will have an attraction to the jidhadists who will use him as a recruiting tool. True the IS or AQ may use him to publicize their cause but my being in the courtroom will have no effect on that; it will all occur in another venue. The Chechen tale will come in during the stage after conviction; and the issue of what happened in Waltham will be excluded from evidence as having no bearing on the trial. If there is any excitement it will be outside the courtroom – most of the trial will be the sad parade of victims. Perhaps the defendant may become disruptive which would be a good show but it would only happen once or twice; any further attempts he’ll be watching the trial from a cell.