Please find attached a recent article by Paul Craig Roberts relating to recent
developments in the shocking (for justice!) Boston Bombing case.
You will see it refers to an Affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva, deposed to the Boston Federal District Court, together with an Argument of 'Amicus Curiae' by a highly respected criminal lawyer, John Remington Graham, relating to the trial and conviction of her nephew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The thrust of this is that NO evidence was produced at the trial proving his guilt; indeed quite the opposite. The evidence produced by the prosecution itself, shows clearly that the remains of the backpack that contained the device photographed after the explosions, does NOT match the one that Tsarnaev was carrying, yet this fundamental point (and many others that could have been made) was never even put to the jury by the publically appointed defence lawyer! In short the trial was a 'stitch-up'.
Let me repeat: despite there being evidence in the possession of the prosecution and defence that conclusively proved Tsarnaev did not, and could not, have placed the back-pack bomb that exploded, this fact was intentionally disregarded and not put before the jury. It is not clear whether the judge was aware of this fact. Either way, this really is the stuff of the Stalinist show trials and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Of course there are many other reasons to believe the Tsarnaev brothers were set up and that neither were guilty of the allegations laid against them. Nor can the strange parallels with the French 'Charlie Hebdo' attack be disregarded. Where innocent individuals are set up to take the blame, so-called 'Patsies', it is clearly important that somehow or other they are prevented from ruining the plan. If the individual is not killed - and of course Dzhokhar's older brother Tamerlan died in very suspicious circumstances when in police custody - some other method of silencing becomes essential. Not only did Dzhokhar sustain a serious police bullet wound to the throat that seriously interfered with his ability to speak but a fraudulent justice system has now incarcerated and maybe even may execute him. That is certainly a way of encouraging him to remain silent.
I am delighted that at least one good lawyer has emerged in the United States, prepared to assist the otherwise doomed defendant sentenced to death. Some may recall or like to refer to earlier posts on this site regarding the glaring injustice of the case and the indications of yet another 'false flag' operation by the United States Government against its own. The many other aspects that tend to support this startling conclusion may be discovered by typing 'Boston' into the search box at the head of this page.
What we seem to be witnessing, as much in Britain as in the USA, is evidence of a complete failure of the criminal and civil justice system in places and particularly as it relates to terrorism or other suspicious crime. The Hampstead case in Britain is just one recent case in point. In this, unmistakable and reliable evidence by children that they had been attacked and abused, supported by independent medical and other evidence, was just ignored and rubbished by a High Court judge. What is even more worrying in that case, is the fact that despite compelling grounds, the opportunity to appeal the decision has also been refused!
Many more cases could be cited. The facts appear to speak for themselves. The justice system is failing those it is supposed to protect. Instead, the system appears to be singing to a different tune and a different conductor: namely Government. Where the widely accepted view may be that the justice system is there to protect the individual from injustice, the very opposite often seems to be the case. If government is corrupt and intent on persecuting the individual on a fair trial and jury stand in the way as only recently demonstrated in the Ben Fellows case. In post-Savile Britain we surely do not need to be persuaded of the potential for government corruption, let alone the evidence fraudulent events on 7/7 that are now widely known . The courts and justice system are theoretically independent. However it would appear they are increasingly becoming merely the implementers of government dictat, or worse that of private corporations, as has been demonstrated by the excellent work of Guy Taylor and others.
Much emphasis has been placed on the role of juries as a protection for the individual, against the unjust ravages of the state. I wholly concur with that view, but the Boston case and many in our own British experience, prove that this alone is not enough to ensure the innocent are protected. Dzhokhar after all was convicted on innuendo and assertion alone, without a scrap of real hard evidence connecting him to the crime - BY A JURY! The jury is the last bastion of freedom but if the rest of the prosecution and trial is corrupt they can hardly be blamed for bringing in a wrong verdict.
In the eight-hundredth anniversary year of the Magna Carta, the salutary lesson from Boston is governments can be deeply corrupt, that prosecutions can be fraudulent, that verdicts, even by juries can be mistaken and that innocent men can be executed for crimes they did not commit. What can never be forgotten is that our security, both from inside and outside threats, requires constant vigilance. We need to realise that government may be following an agenda quite contrary to the interests of the individual citizen and that fundamental principles and protections on a number of fronts, may have been eroded whilst we slept. Boston should be a wake-up call for us all.
See: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/08/17/fbi-evidence-proves-innocence-accused-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/ for the legal submissions. There follows the letter forwarded to Paul Craig Roberts by John Remington Graham.