Skip to main content

View Diary: Tsarnaev Presumed Guilty: Government Leaks Ill-Gotten Incriminating Statements (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What I haven't seen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, Adam B, erush1345

    is how much access did the interrogators actually have in those 16 hours where he was responsive and able to communicate?  Did the 16 hours start when he was pulled out of the boat and put in the ambulance, or after he was stabilized at the hospital, after surgery etc.?   How long was each session, was each session limited to his written answers during the time he couldn't actually talk as reported in the press?   Sixteen hours of time but a limited number of sessions of limited duration while he was conscious and responsive and able to write that may have amounted to minutes not hours would make a difference to how I viewed the legality of the time period.    Does anyone have those kinds of answers?

    •  The question I have is how reliable is the (3+ / 0-)

      information allegedly given?  How many drugs was he on during said interrogations?

      Imagine getting out of surgery and being asked questions like:

      Did you do it?

      Answer: "Yeah, sure."

      Did you do it because of your religion?

      Answer;  "Of course."

      Is the moon made of sharp cheddar cheese?

      Answer: "Most certainly."

      Those "minutes" you reference may be accurate but was he of "sound mind" at that time?

      How do they justify not having an attorney present for him to ensure legitimacy here? #1 that he was speaking freely and not coerced and #2 He actually understood what was going on.

      What were the Doctors standing orders for treatment?  Were they followed? What drugs were given to him?

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 07:01:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do they justify not having an attorney present (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, gerrilea, PhilJD, aliasalias

        in a hospital room, after midnight? Anyone else remember the only really good thing I will admit Ashcroft tried to do?

        •  I remember what Ashcroft tried to do (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nuclear winter solstice

          and that was good.  It still doesn't justify hanging our with neo-confederates, members of groups on the hate group lists and generally being a lousy person.

          The time of day is irrelevant,   if the person is entitled to a lawyer, they should get one at noon or midnight.   And if after midnight was when he was stabilized and awake, then the police would have been talking to him at the earliest opportunity.   Police have operated over 24 hour days for a long time now. they also question suspects under medical care all the time, too.  Again,  none of this is new, happening for the first time or outside of what a judge will ultimately decide in hearing motions on the evidence before and at trial, and is appealable if the defense ( or prosecution) thinks the judge made the wrong decisions.  This case isn't 'different', that was what was so important about the announcement that it would proceed as a criminal case.

      •  I don't have a transcript of the interrogation (5+ / 0-)

        so I can't comment on the quality of the questions or answers, that was essentially my question.

        I don't do interrogations, but  I assume they were less interested in a confession of guilt as "was it just you and your brother" (note the assumption of guilt, I wouldn't have had doubt and I don't think the officers did, that he was there and helped plant the bombs, that he shot at people, etc.  Further it is not their jobs to judge the doubts, but to find evidence, it helps to keep an open mind, but an open mind still isn't a large sieve.)?  " Anyone else help you make the bombs, that still have materials or bombs, guns, etc.?" "Are they planning to use them, where, when?"  "Where did you and your brother leave bombs or guns/ bomb making materials?"

        Your questions presume the officers doing the questioning are guilty with less cause than they had to presume the young man they were questioning was guilty.  You also presume they were wasting time asking questions they already knew the answers to that had nothing to do with the fact that there really truly could have been more bombs, friends who were helping them that could plant those bombs, etc., out there.

        And of course, and following directly from the questions I posed, there had to be times after his arrest and before he appeared before the judge where he was unconscious, in surgery, under heavy sedation, pain killers, etc., that would have made anything he said totally unreliable.Those questions will be sorted out if any evidence related to his statements from early on are brought up.  That is what the process of trials does, it  llows these issues to be explored.

        There are bad actors in the justice system, but as we see here in the legal decisions posted from time to time, there are good actors as well.   The rule of law requires the patience to let the system work.  I don't mind people doing some speculating while we wait, I like to indulge in it, too, but I think we all need to keep in mind that we have limited information as the public, and lots of things may have been playing out that we might not know for a long time.

      •  They weren't looking for evidence (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        otto, jfromga

        Only information.  I think that's the distinction.  So if he was asked about on going threats, they could act.  I read somewhere that the exception could last up to 48 hours (I'm presuming that's the limited precedent). I also read that the questioning was very limited, minutes at a time as he drifted in and out of consciousness.  I have no problem how this was handled.  

        •  If the government doesn't plan on (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, gerrilea, Nada Lemming, aliasalias

          using the statements as evidence, there's no need to justify the interrogation as an exception to Miranda.

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Fri May 03, 2013 at 07:29:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But upon being mirandized (0+ / 0-)

            He stopped talking.  Had that happened initially, they would still be doing searches in Boston looking for bombs and co-conspirators.

            •  I hate to point this out but he could have lied. (0+ / 0-)

              Correct?

              Do we really know that there aren't more unexploded devices elsewhere?

              It does seem that 3 of his friends were arrested for removing things from his room and lying or inhibiting the investigation.

              So, the evidence is still being collected it would seem.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:05:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site