Testimony turns to the murder of Officer Sean Collier

MassLive.com recounts the testimony in the Tsarnaev trial yesterday.

Kevin Cullen focuses on the testimony of an MIT grad student who bicycled by the Tsarnaevs at Colliers cruiser as they were trying to get Collier's gun.

The Herald posts surveillance video showing the two brothers appraching Collier's cruiser.

Alex Beam objects to the government forcing a "show trial" by rejecting a plea deal.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

This is about Carmen Ortiz

By on

This trial isn't about Tsarnaev. It's about Carmen Ortiz's need for self-aggrandizement. By ruling out a plea deal, she forced a man to recount the horrific murder of his son. She forced a friend to testify about the gruesome death of a student. She forced a mentor to tell a jury about how he found a promising young man shot to death. All so Carmen Oritz can be "tough on crime."

After Aaron Swartz and the Motel Caswell, she wants to look good. She wants to look good at any price, even if it means torturing witnesses and victims. Does anyone think for an instant that Tsarnaev will get sentenced to death? Tsarnaev will get life without parole. In this state, you won't find a unanimous jury to dumb enough to make a martyr out of that idiot wannabe jihadi.

When Carmen "loses" this case, how will she plead?

Are there really no other reasons?

I don't know Carmen Ortiz - maybe she is doing this in part to look good. But it seems like there are many potential reasons for the prosecution to reject a plea deal. I think it's a very real possibility that the victims of the attack and the citizens of Boston, MA, and the USA generally might indeed be angry and think the government wasn't being tough enough if they gave him a plea deal, especially if it seemed like a generous one.

I don't believe capital punishment is right, or even that it's more of a punishment than life in prison without parole (especially in the US, where prison, while certainly not the worst in the world, is still a horror show). So I'm not representing the people who would reject a plea deal because they want to execute the guy. I think he did some very bad shit, and probably can't be trusted to take part in society again for the rest of his life. But it seems like a stretch to claim that the government is pursuing this trial solely because the DA wants to look good.

Not likely

This is a woman who attempted to seize a family-owned motel for "being in the drug business" because a couple of junkies overdosed there. Meanwhile, she didn't go after the WalMart down the street, where similar activities were noted and logged.

That doesn't even go into her merciless hounding of a minor hacker for opening a coat closet and downloading journals, because it made her corporate puppetmasters excited about cyberterrorism that wasn't anything close.

The sooner she is fired, the better off everyone in the area will be.

Actually, it was a wiring closet.

By on

and he "accessed an unauthorized area of a campus of which we was not a community member, and added his computer to the network in a way no "outside" computer should ever be connected to a network like MIT's: directly to the switch system that controls and routes information over the network."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178600/-What-Aaron-Swartz-did-...

That, my friend, is why he was initially charged, whether or not you agree with Ms. Ortiz's handling of the same or not.

Broke a window pane

By on

Ortiz's office overcharged Aaron to extract a plea. Her goal here wasn't to serve justice. The Feds were pissed that they couldn't get any charges over Aaron's PACER stunt. When this happened, she was dead set on crucifying him at any cost.. Throughout her career she's been dumb on crime. When his attorney told Steve Heyman that Aaron was suicidal, Heyman replied that they could keep him safe from himself by imprisoning him.

Her office isn't filled with reasonable people interested in serving the law. In most instances, Ortiz and her lackeys are just as bad as the people they're prosecuting. We don't need sociopaths with political aspirations calling the shots in our justice system.

who cares

By on

MIT didn't until Ortiz put up a fuss. Still ain't terrorism or worth the crime this waste of air wanted to slap him with.

What is your brownnoser spin on the motel?

Confirmation Bias

By on

"a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors"

This explains how someone could interpret offering a 6-month plea deal at Club Fed as "merciless hounding" and refer to Barack Obama as a "corporate puppetmaster."

I'm sorry but there is no way

By on

I'm sorry but there is no way anyone can defend Motel Caswell. That place has been a drug den for decades, and that's only as long as I am aware of.
It has been a blight on the community and I don't blame anyone for wishing it would close.

You do realize ...

That Ortiz lost her little greedy pogrom in court over her extreme overreach, don't you?

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/us_attorney_bullying_this_time_...

Part of that loss was that the motel in question had fewer incidents than the WalMart down the road, according to official police records. In other words, the area had problems, not the motel, and yet it was the motel that was targeted for seizure.

Like Coakley, she ignores the needs of justice and instead preys on those who can't fight back.

Well said, Swirly. She lost

By on

Well said, Swirly. She lost that case, and many others. Sadly, she's not the first, or only, US attorney to abuse her office and overcharge and prosecute people into bankruptcy (which is where many of the defendants end up, even if Ortiz loses the case).

For a good read, check out Harvey Silverglate's "3 Felonies a Day". Yes, Silverglate is a civil libertarian and big ACLU member (I generally don't put myself in either camp), but he makes many good points and the power of the US Attorney's office, here and across the company, should give anyone pause.

Diction, Swirl, diction

By on

Do you have any idea what the word "pogrom" means?

Stop using inflammatory terms just because you like the pretty flames. You usually have a good point, so this kind of stupid shit is beneath you.

Do you know what a metaphor is?

met·a·phor
ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
"“I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors"

a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

Given that Ortiz directed her people to identify high equity properties owned by private interests to target for seizure, I don't think "greedy little pogrom" is at all inappropriate.

And, what I am saying is

By on

And, what I am saying is Motel Caswell has been a problem long before Walmart was even in the area.

It's like if there was a house in a neighborhood that was causing all kinds of problems. Legally you can't get rid of them but if you could find one thing to nail them on, you'd jump at the chance.

Same with the Caswell.
Too bad she lost on that one.

And?

I get that you don't like Ortiz, but Heyman's claim that we're having a trial and asking people to recount their harrowing stories solely because "she wants to look good at any price" is still ridiculous.

You act as though if we had a different DA who hadn't had these prior snafus, no one would be in favor of putting this guy on trial. He's the most high profile domestic terrorist we've dealt with in over a decade. If they had given him a plea deal, lots of people would be up in arms. No matter how bad you say Ortiz is (and I'm not even defending her!), my point is and was that it's dumb to imagine that every decision she makes is automatically motivated solely by evil self-interest. Even if it was in this case, that interest obviously aligns with a large number of people who were affected by the bombing.

If you truly hate this woman, don't water down your arguments by seeing evil in everything she does. It makes you sound like an irrational zealot.

Re: Hotel. I don't know all

Re: Hotel. I don't know all the details about the case but if they willingly allowing that behaviour to go on on their premises then I can see why they'd take action. This happens with prostitution rings at hotels as well.

Forced?

By on

Did it ever occur to you that someone who's friend or loved one was murdered in such a scary, horrific way would be happy to testify their awful story, no matter how upsetting, to aid in deciding the punishment for the murderer? To share their story on record so that yes, everyone knows how awful and unfair and upsetting it was, and so he can be punished accordingly?

If I or someone I know was a victim in such an event, I would happily testify, even if it was so upsetting it ruined months of my life. That's not the DA's fault- it's Tsarnev's fault.

Um, no.

By on

There is exactly one person (living) responsible for this trial. As with his previous decisions, he is the one putting everyone through this pain. It is the prosecutor's job to carry out justice to it's fullest extent, and she has an air-tight case here, and therefore no reason to offer a plea bargain.

I am oppsed with the death penalty in general, and in this specific case feel it's really uncalled for because it is no doubt what he wants. But that is a decision for the voters through their legislators, not the prosecutors to make. Even if that weren't a possible out-come I imagine we'd still be having a trail at this point. What would have been the lowest punishment you'd find acceptable? I'm sure the defense would be looking for something less than even that...

I seriously doubt the victim

By on

I seriously doubt the victim's families were forced to testify by anyone.

The most horrible part of this legal process is how slow it is. This case doesn't sound like there was a serious amount of investigation needed after the manhunt ended on April 19, 2013. The trial should have started within months of that.

Really

By on

I seriously doubt the victim's families were forced to testify by anyone.

Really. With the suspect's guilt not at issue, exactly how would you force them to testify? The defense case rests entirely on motive; nothing the victims or their families said would influence that.

I seldom like Beam's columns

By on

But in this case he's spot on. This trial is a huge waste of taxpayer money, emotional angst for those testifying, time and energy that could go into investigating cases where we don't already know the answer. They should have let the bastard plea deal for life in prison, no parole.

Beam may be the best writer on staff over there

By on

Like him or dislike him, he's one of the few adults on staff over there at Morrissey Blvd. He can actually write--just did a great book on Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Special bonus today was a word (rebarbative) that I was forced to look up.

Yes

The trial is just another chance for Little Bro' to keep his name and story in the news which indirectly furthers his cause. It's stupid, it's a waste, and it isn't justice. If he would accept a plea give it to him. Get this little shithead's name and face out of the news forever so he can get on with the rotting in a cell.

Mixed feelings

By on

I have forced myself to pay attention to the horrific recountings of the victims and witnesses. I think it is important to get this on the record at a trial, however painful. But, I have long held mixed feelings about media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings. Maybe because one outcome of the tragedy is the over-glorification of an already over-hyped Boston Marathon, a road race, really, for boring/bored office drones that ties up an entire region on a weekday, and obscures the Patriot's Day holiday. Heartsick but ready to move on.

Alex Beam is a contrarian, by the way.

Like x100

By on

I wish I could like this more.

My main complaint about this trial, hasn't been the trial itself. It's important to have that, either for learning about the guy and why he did what he did (for profiling reasons for future terrorist detection), and/or due process (he does have a right to have a trial)

However, my biggest complaint has been the non stop media coverage about it. I'm sorry I don't need to know Officer Collier had two bullet holes in his head nor any of the other gory details. I am not trying to discredit the importance of the information, but keep that stuff in the court room and out of the media. (or publish it so people who want to know more can read it..)

And I agree.. "Heartsick but ready to move on" and I wonder how we can move on from such an horrible event while we're going to spend the next few months hearing about every detail about what happened. Makes it hard to move on, ya know?

For pete's sake

By on

Do you blame a dog for barking? No? Then why are you (and others like you) always carrying on about the media doing what the media are supposed to do, according to their jobs as currently defined? Get over it and move on.

No I don't

By on

Why don't YOU get over the fact that there are some of us who don't want to hear every little gory detail for the next few months? So why don't you get "over it and move on" too.

Why, yes, I have

By on

And to the Old North Church. Perhaps more of us would visit if Boston wasn't in Marathon gridlock on Monday.

No fan of Carmen Ortiz but trial definitely needed

By on

Congress has voted and the President has signed into law the death penalty for the most heinous criminal acts. In this case, 17 of the 30 crimes alleged carry the death penalty. Why should the US Attorney bargain for any lesser punishment? As for capital punishment, the last time Massachusetts voters had a chance to vote on it in 1982, the death penalty was approved 54-32. Of course the far-left Mass. SJC struck it down. Nevertheless, don't be so sure he doesn't receive that sentence. While I understand some think life imprisonment, with solitary confinement in the SuperMax would be more harsh, he may get both. Under our current ridiculous system, he may get equal to his current life, 21 years, while appeals are heard. So in essence, he could get life and then the death penalty.

I doubt anyone was forced to testify. In fact, several psychologists and victims have been quoted this week saying that testifying is therapeutic. Plus, Tsarnaev and his family of fellow criminals have already been given enough breaks. US Citizenship under likely false pretenses (Boston Globe), Section 8 housing, WIC, SNAP, EBT, Obamaphone and as even the far-left Globe points out, the inexplicable move by UMass Dartmouth to keep drug-dealing Dzokhar enrolled despite a dismal academic record that would have gotten others expelled. There are many areas where Ortiz is worthy of criticism. This isn't one of them. Bravo, ma'am.

So. You like martyrs?

My most cynical self says that this trial and likely execution is all about creating more martyrs, which will inspire more mayhem, and perpetuate the cycle of funding for perpetual wars against Eastasia Nebulous Enemy Du Jour.

Obamaphone. You still go there.