(visit the link for the full news article)
Authorities in Massachusetts believe there is “mounting evidence” linking the two suspects in the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing to an unsolved triple-murder case in Waltham, Massachusetts
A triple homicide was committed in Waltham, Massachusetts, on the evening of September 11, 2011.
Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman, and Raphael Teken were murdered in Mess's apartment. All had their throats slit from ear to ear, with such great force that they were nearly decapitated. Thousands of dollars of marijuana and money were left covering their mutilated bodies, and $5,000 was left at the scene. The local district attorney said that it appeared that the killer and the victims knew each other, and that the murders were not random. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased suspect in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, had previously described murder victim Brendan Mess as his best friend, though before Mess was murdered there had been animosity between Tsarnaev and Mess over Mess's "lifestyle". After the bombings and subsequent revelations of Tsarnaev's personal life, the Waltham murders case was reexamined in April 2013 with Tsarnaev as a new suspect.
Originally posted by Danbones
Did any one see the thread on the front page today where the witness is saying that the cop the accused bombers were supposed to have killed was actually shot by police:
now there is an oxymoron for ya
www.abovetopsecret.com...edit on 10-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jakes51
The plot thickens. I am willing to buy that the Boston Bombers are suspects in these brutal murders. For one, did not Tamerlan fundamentalize himself around this time, and I think he took his trip to Russia as well. Furthermore, if the time frame adds up?
His travels to Russia would imply that he was going to lay low, and avoid the heat from local law enforcement about the murders. In addition, it says that Tamerlan and one of the victims were close friends, and even roommates. That to me sounds like one heck of a viable suspect? Maybe I watch to many cop shows, or something? However, if I were a dective my antennas would be going up about the elder Tsarnaev brother.edit on 10-5-2013 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Brocade
The murders were in September 2011; Tamerlan went to Russia in January 2012. If he was running away from the murders he certainly took his sweet time about it.
In the wake of news reports that he had been Mirandized and would be charged in a federal court, I credited the Obama DOJ for handling the case reasonably well thus far.
As it turns out, though, Tsarnaev wasn't Mirandized because the DOJ decided he should be. Instead, that happened only because a federal magistrate, on her own, scheduled a hospital-room hearing, interrupted the FBI's interrogation which had been proceeding at that point for a full 16 hours, and advised him of his right to remain silent and appointed him a lawyer. Since then, Tsarnaev ceased answering the FBI's questions.
But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings - namely, that prior to the magistrate's visit to his hospital room, Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer, but the FBI simply ignored those requests, instead allowing the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group to continue to interrogate him alone:
"Tsarnaev has not answered any questions since he was given a lawyer and told he has the right to remain silent by Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler on Monday, officials said.
"Until that point, Tsarnaev had been responding to the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, including admitting his role in the bombing, authorities said. A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.
" Delaying Miranda warnings under the "public safety exception" - including under the Obama DOJ's radically expanded version of it - is one thing. But denying him the right to a lawyer after he repeatedly requests one is another thing entirely: as fundamental a violation of crucial guaranteed rights as can be imagined.
As the lawyer bmaz comprehensively details in this excellent post, it is virtually unheard of for the "public safety" exception to be used to deny someone their right to a lawyer as opposed to delaying a Miranda warning (the only cases where this has been accepted were when "the intrusion into the constitutional right to counsel ... was so fleeting – in both it was no more than a question or two about a weapon on the premises of a search while the search warrant was actively being executed").
To ignore the repeated requests of someone in police custody for a lawyer, for hours and hours, is just inexcusable and legally baseless.
As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety.
As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement." Indeed, as I documented when this issue first arose, the Obama DOJ already unilaterally expanded this exception far beyond what the Supreme Court previously recognized by simply decreeing (in secret) that terrorism cases justify much greater delays in Mirandizing a suspect for reasons well beyond asking about public safety.
But that debate was merely about whether Tsarnaev would be advised of his rights. This is much more serious: if the LA Times report is true, then it means that the DOJ did not merely fail to advise him of his right to a lawyer but actively blocked him from exercising that right.
This is a US citizen arrested for an alleged crime on US soil: there is no justification whatsoever for denying him his repeatedly exercised right to counsel. And there are ample and obvious dangers in letting the government do this. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...