Dzhokhar Tsarnaev never had a chance.
While there is significant evidence supporting the accused Boston bomber’s innocence, none of it made it into his trial, which just concluded with guilty verdicts on all 30 counts against him. It seems that law enforcement, the media, and especially Tsarnaev’s own lawyer, Judy Clarke, were focused on suppressing any evidence that could have undermined the official story of the bombing. The truth has been covered up just as effectively as it was the day Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.
Clarke insured Tsarnaev’s conviction when she opened the trial by admitting that he had carried out the bombing on April 15, 2013 with his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan, who was killed in the aftermath. Clarke painted Tamerlan as the instigator in an apparent effort to spare Dzhokhar from execution, but that may happen anyway as the trial now enters the sentencing phase.
Clarke is known for her ability to keep her clients off death row (including Unabomber Ted Kaczyinski; alleged 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; and Jared Loughner, who was convicted of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), but given the weakness of the evidence against Tsarnaev, Clarke’s strategy amounted to throwing in the towel before the trial even started.
But what about making the prosecution prove guilt? To say that Clarke could have created reasonable doubt if she had wanted to is an understatement. In this article, we’ll look at the evidence that should have been introduced at Tsarnaev’s trial but wasn’t (Keep in mind that Dzhokhar had claimed his innocence, which conflicted with the supposed confession he wrote on the inside of the boat where he was captured on April 19, four days after the bombing). …