On the Cover of the Rolling Stone: Jahar's World

(Song here)

I'm sure there will be people outraged by the presence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone. I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to reading the featured article about him.

[RS Editor Janet]Reitman spent the last two months interviewing dozens of sources – childhood and high school friends, teachers, neighbors and law enforcement agents, many of whom spoke for the first time about the case – to deliver a riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster.

I just wish they hadn't called him a "monster." Hopefully the article will provide some unbiased insights into Jahar from people that really knew him. It comes out August 3. [More...]

Jahar may be getting an additional outstanding death penalty lawyer. Judy Clarke has asked the court to appoint David Bruck due to the vast amount of material involved. Perfect combination. When Judy was appointed, the court reserved ruling on adding Bruck. Under federal law, in a capital case, a defendant is entitled to at least two lawyers, at least one of whom must be “learned in the law applicable to capital punishment." More can be appointed in complex cases.

The Government has advised the court that it expects to call 80 to 100 witnesses at trial and trial is expected to last 3 to 4 months.

< Juror B-37: Part 2 of Anderson Cooper's Interview | DOJ Trolling for Anti-Zimmerman Tips >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    I am really confused by the perspective of this website.  I hate this man  I am no death penalty advocate, but I think it is perfectly acceptable to call someone who kills and injures in cold blood the way this kid did a monster.  

    I understood and enjoyed the Zimmerman trial coverage (despite strongly disagreeing with almost everyone Jeralyn said), but if TL now moves to doing the same thing with this guy, I am out.  

    That's not cool at all.

    Calling him a monster... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    is a natural reaction, it's the easy thing to do when people do unspeakable things.  "He's a monster, lock 'em up, don't wanna think about it".  The harder, and more productive, thing to do is to try and understand how it happens.  Try to understand the unexplainable.  Accept he is still a complex human being capable of love and redemption.  How else can we ever hope to keep people, and especially kids, from going off the rails? Or hope to ever rehabilitate and heal broken human beings?

    I hear ya ABG...it creeps me the f8ck out too, and almost impossible to wrap my head around. But I will read the piece when my issue arrives and try to learn something about the dark side of the human condition, as uncomfortable as it is to wade into.  And follow Talkleft's coverage.


    The perspective of this website is simple (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Cpl Cespod on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:40:58 AM EST
    It's that of a defense attorney.

    What confuses you about criminal defense? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    Because that's the general focus of this blog.  It comes with a rock-solid belief in the constitutional protections and rights that are to be afforded all of us, and it comes with an absolute opposition to the death penalty.

    The attorneys representing Tsarnaev aren't doing it because they approve of what he's been accused of.  They're not doing it because they believe he should go free.

    They're doing it because they believe that the system works best when it works fairly, and the only way it works fairly is if the accused has representation committed to upholding his constitutional rights.  They're doing it because they know that trials by media hurt all of us, that holding the authorities to strict standards protects all of us.  They're doing it because they are adamantly opposed to the death penalty and believe this defendant will need vigorous advocacy if he is to be allowed to live.

    We should be grateful there are people who want to represent the worst of the worst, because when no one's checking the power of the state, it gets stronger and it gets easier to ride roughshod over the rest of us.

    When we become afraid to acknowledge the humanity of those it is tempting to deny it to, what does that do to us?  It makes it easier to support drone killings, easier to support war, easier to support austerity and poverty, because we've decided those kinds of people aren't worth it.

    I don't want us to foster that any more than it's already being fostered, so I will happily support those who defend the rights of those who are considered indefensible.


    thank you Anne (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    You are directly on topic.

    The idea that he isn't entitled to be viewed as a human being because he may have committed an atrocious crime is incomprehensible to me.


    Which has nothing to do with (3.50 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:16:42 AM EST
    Why he gets to grace the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

    They could have written the story and not featured him on the cover.

    But I understand why they did it - it will generate controversy, be talked about in the blogosphere, and people will buy it and read it.

    Sent this post to the BF (who has a subscription to Rolling Stone) and he replied:

    Bad cover, could be interesting story.
    But the cover is kinda unacceptable

    Yep - I agree.


    But my comment had everything to do (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    with the comment to which I was responding; ABG wasn't commenting on Rolling Stone's choice for the cover of its magazine, but on Jeralyn's choices with respect to TL.

    Had what I said been a stand-alone comment, you might have a point, but that's not the case.

    That being said, what's on the covers of magazines doesn't bother me particularly; they can prompt me to see if I want to read what's inside, but I don't regard them as much more than a sales tool.

    I read some of the comments to the RS preview Jeralyn linked to, and don't think I saw one that defended the cover/article choice, so apparently there are plenty of people who feel putting him on the cover is tantamount to deeming him a hero, and their frequent and varied use of all iterations of the f-bomb would seem to indicate they don't much like it.

    Those comments, by the way, are emblematic of the mob justice that criminal defense attorneys have to fight against.


    But the title of the post (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    On the Cover of the Rolling Stone: Jahar's World

    And the majority of her post is about the cover.


    So, you can read, but you have some (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    issues with comprehension: you don't seem to be understanding that while I'm aware of the title and content of Jeralyn's post, I was responding to ABG, something I've already stated once, quite clearly.

    If you want to split hairs over what the allowable subjects for discussion are, have this argument with ABG.


    I comprehend just fine, thank you (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    But apparently YOU have trouble with comprehension because ABG stated that he did not believe in the death penalty, so I don't think it required a whole explanation of why defense attorneys take on DP cases, what it means to the system, yada, yada, yada.

    The post is about the Rolling Stone cover and the story inside about Tsaranev.  Jeralyn likes it - that's why she's writing about it.  

    But it's the COVER and the STORY that are the main focus here.


    "I am really confused by (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    the perspective of this website."

    That was ABG's first sentence.

    Hence my opening response: "What confuses you about criminal defense?"

    Which I followed with: "Because that's the general focus of this blog."

    Do you get it yet?  

    And Jeralyn may very well like the cover photo, but that's not what she said. What she said was,

    I'm sure there will be people outraged by the presence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone. I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to reading the featured article about him.

    Why?  Because she's looking for the article to provide unbiased insights.

    Two relatively short items - Jeralyn's post and ABG's comment - and yet you managed to get wrong almost everything you said about them.  

    If you're going to challenge what people are saying, you really should make a better effort to get it right.


    Funny how you left off (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    the other two paragraphs (for a total of 3 out 5) that were about the magazine cover.

    Yes, you addressed ABG's one question - before you gave him a long lecture on the history of the DP and this site - something which he knows and AGREED WITH in his statement. Why you want to argue with him in paragraph after paragraph, when one sentence would do ("Because this is a criminal defense site.") is beyond me.

    Guess you should have read ABG's statement more closely and

    If you're going to challenge what people are saying, you really should make a better effort to get it right.

    Where in these other paragraphs (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    was there discussion about the cover?

    In reality, Jeralyn's post wasn't about the cover, except briefly, in passing, but about the content of the coming article, which she was looking forward to reading, along with more information about the possible addition of a death penalty lawyer.

    ABG didn't address the cover, either.

    But way to miss the forest for the trees...again.

    Hey, I know - maybe you can amuse yourself with the song from which this post's title was taken...


    Jeebus (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    You got it wrong this time and high-jacked a comment thread. If you wanted to make that point -- and obviously you did... and did... and did... -- you could have created an original comment instead of high-jacking one.

    Believe me, I know how hard it is to say "oops". I'm not very good at it myself. But dropping it instead of digging a deeper hole that every one else can see into -- and that you cannot seem to see out of -- would have been fine also.


    Unbiased Insights? (none / 0) (#179)
    by gadfly on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    Not very likely in The Rolling Stone. What Hunter S. Thompson hath wrought can never be put asunder.

    General Stanley A. McChrystal is still recovering from the magazine's hatchet job entitled "The Runaway General."

    Remember the infamous words of the great gonzo journalist beginning: "Football season is over" and ending: "Relax. This won't hurt."

    Rolling Stone - Wanna see my picture on the cover, . . . Wanna buy five copies for my mother . . . .


    Rolling Stone covers are different than say... (3.50 / 2) (#7)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:29:12 AM EST
    Time or Newsweek because for the last 40 years, RS covers have featured the coolest rock stars and celebrities, and there's an old song most everyone knows of aspiring to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

    Plus they used a photo that makes him look like a young hipster instead of a surveillance photo or a mug shot or something.

    Distasteful cover that glamorizes him, no matter what the inside article says.


    But (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    He is a child, no? Why shouldn't we have sympathy for him?

    19. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:58:35 AM EST
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    A minor. His frontal lobes are not fully developed.

    The late phase of myelin formation, occurring in teenagers, provides a neural basis for assuming that teens are less blameworthy for criminal acts that adults are, Gur says. There's no way to say whether, for example, an individual 17-year-old possesses a fully mature brain. But the biological age of maturity generally falls around age 21 or 22, in Gur's view.

    Although 18 years old represents an arbitrary cutoff age for receiving a capital sentence, it's preferable to 17, according to Gur.

    I recognize the tragedy because of his (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    youth and inexperience and another life wasted, but 19 is old enough to know that blowing up bombs in crowds of people is wrong.

    I look forward to the article inside to try to understand better the whole story.


    Two WOrds (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    Death Penalty.

    More (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    "Brain science offers no simple take-home message about adolescents," says B.J. Casey of Cornell University's Weill Medical College in New York City. "It's amazing how little we know about the developing brain."

    Brain-scanning techniques, including the popular fMRI, remain a "crude level of analysis," Casey notes. At best, blood-flow measurements indirectly tap into brain-cell activity as people perform a task, such as identifying emotions in posed faces, that may superficially simulate a real-world endeavor. What's more, many critical brain-cell responses are too fast for MRI to track.

    Brain data, particularly those on delayed frontal-lobe growth in adolescents, also need to be put in a cultural and historical perspective, Harvard's Kagan asserts. Frontal-lobe development presumably proceeds at roughly the same pace in teenagers everywhere. Yet current rates of teen violence and murder vary from remarkably low to alarmingly high from country to country, he notes.

    "Something about cultural context must be critical here," Kagan says. "Under the right conditions, 15-year-olds can control their impulses without having fully developed frontal lobes."

    If incomplete brains automatically reduce adolescents' capacity to restrain their darker urges, "we should be having Columbine incidents every week," he adds.

    Several research teams have now undertaken the difficult task of searching for links between specific traits of teens' brains and their real-life decisions and behaviors, says psychiatrist Ronald Dahl of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "Brain data are eventually going to support reduced legal culpability for adolescents," Dahl predicts "but we're not quite there yet."

    So, they don't really know enough yet to make definitive conclusions, and it certainly depends on a case-by-case basis that is affected by things like culture, for one.  Probably genes and enviornment also play a role.


    Environment, much, many factors. The brain is a (none / 0) (#199)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    malleable organism. The quaint practice of moral education, for instance, appears to lead to premature maturity, but double blind studies are scarce, to say the least.

    Artistically... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    I think that's the beauty of the cover...a picture of a seemingly all-american kid.  I think it's thought provoking, not glamorizing.

    Part of the "glamorizing" perception... (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    ... may be because he's a pretty good looking kid. He could be a rock star.

    I read elsewhere this was a FB selfie and his t-shirt is Armani. Rolling Stone could have used a different picture IMO.


    He is handsome... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    That's on his parents, not Rolling Stone.  I guess they coulda photoshopped it to make him more swarmy-looking to make everybody more comfortable, but then the cover would cease to be as thought provoking.  

    Seems to me the Rolling Stone (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    cover paints a pretty conclusive description of Tsarnaev--".. The Bomber, how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."   (read inside for more about this monster).   The cover's photo, while prettier than the cover's words, no more graces the cover than those photos that line a post office wall.

    My hope is that there will be respect by the media's coverage for the right of Tsarnaev to an effective defense, including a fair trial, and, if convicted, avoidance of the death penalty.   Now that is a tall order, I know, but maybe the birth of the royal princeling (or princess-ling) will draw the worst elements of coverage away, at least for a while.


    I believe (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:32:11 AM EST
    either Time or Newsweek had Timothy McVeigh on the cover with the headline American Terrorist. This seems to be pretty standard stuff to me.

    Right. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    It would have been much more tasteful to use a mug shot.

    Next time.... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:26:21 AM EST
    Courier is the newly adopted int'l sarcasm font.

    Well.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    ...they are a business, not some public service.

    Not that I agree, but shocking covers/headlines is certainly not a Rolling Stone exclusive.

    Charles Manson even made the cover at one time.

    Nor is it like Rolling Stone is the only media outlet to put his face front and center, but they are the only ones taking heat for it.

    America needs its faux outrage and it's scape goats.  What I find totally humorous, the ones reporting this are the very ones who have had this kid's face on their rags/TV shows again and again and again.  

    It's not the first time anyone has seen this kids face, but you wouldn't know that by the reactions.


    I did not know that about Charles Manson.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:54:49 AM EST

    Still, I stand by the point that RS Magazine cover has a distinct reputation separate from all the other magazines.  And your point about all the news programs jacking up ratings by showing his picture 24/7 doesn't change my opinion, it just makes me immediately share in your cable news inspired nausea.


    In 1971 (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:41:01 PM EST
    I acted in an off-off Broadway play about Manson.  (It was in the Bowery but later, after I left for law school, moved uptown.) it was called 22 Years. The premise was that Manson had spent 22 of his 40 years in prison, once getting some large number of years for stealing a $10 postal check. (It's been 40 years so my memory of the exact details are fuzzy.) In other words, the point of view of the play was that he was a product of the system that institutionalized him. (I got to play one of the "girls", and the secretary to one of the Beach Boys and when it came time for the stabbing, Sharon Tate.  About 3 speaking lines total.)

    While nothing can excuse Manson, his crimes or his views, and probably nothing can explain them,  it is possible to examine how he could have ended up so marginalized, alienated and crazed.  If his mental state declined gradually, could intervention with something other than prison for minor crimes, or earlier intervention through treatment in prison  have prevented his descent into madness or evil, whichever it was? I don't know the answer, as I haven't studied him since then, but I think there's more to him -- and every other mass killer -- that people could benefit from learning about.  There may be clues that could prevent a repeat by a different offender. Whether its Adam Lanza, Manson, the Boston Marathon bomber or (who may or may not be Tsarnaev), McVeigh, Jared Laughner, Columbine and all the others, there's far more to the story than the crime, the victims and the penalty given


    They Are All... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    I would be nice if the faux outrage crowd would provide some sort of list of who can/can't exploit death and tragedy to make $$$.

    Because I am confused.

    Still not sure how any of this glamorizes, probably, the most hated man in America especially with the caption, 'The Bomber'.

    Chances are most of America would not have seen this cover had other media outlets decided to not exploit the exploitation.


    Not all that unusual (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    Timothy McVeigh was on the cover of TIME on May 1, 1995, June 16, 1997 and May 21, 2001. IMO none of those photographs portrayed him as anything other than a rather attractive young man while the articles went into his crimes (the attack killed 168 people and injured over 600) and other elements of the case.

    Except for that whole (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    prison orange garb he's wearing in every picture, as opposed to a self-taken photograph that makes the subject look relaxed with his hair gently-tousled and bedroom eyes look.

    So yeah, they're pretty much the same thing.


    I guess the little bit of orange (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    of his shirt showing in the first cover and the orange pants with white sweat shirt in the second cover did not call up an image of a prison jumpsuit to me. Can't speak how obvious that was to others who looked at the covers but it completely escaped me that he was wearing a prison uniform. Evidently you viewed those photos as portraying some hardened criminal - I did not view them them as such.

    Quite frankly relaxed is not the first thought that comes to my mine when viewing the "subject" on cover of RS. IMO he looks more wholesome and angelic in some of the other photos that I have seen on a regular basis in the press and on TV.



    I am going to guess (none / 0) (#134)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    that people will vote with their pocket book. I think this issue will probably be a best seller. While it doesn't offend me to the extent of writing an email or anything, I don't blame other people for being offended.

    Same photo was on NYT front page in May (none / 0) (#169)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    I'm not sure why the reaction is so different.  

    you don't even want to (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:09:35 PM EST
    let him have a trial? Why not just call out the firing squad?

    The focus and views of this site haven't changed in 11 years.

    Can't you see that only by protecting the rights of those society hates the most can we all be assured those rights will be there for us and our loved ones should they need to exercise them? Guess not. That's a shame.


    Perhaps you could add a sub-title... (none / 0) (#176)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:43:26 PM EST
    ...to the title of this site--

    "...and then they came for me."


    ABG (none / 0) (#126)
    by me only on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    This isn't like the Zimmerman case.  In the Zimmerman case, the defense stipulated to Mr. Zimmerman firing the fatal shot.

    In this case, the defense has not stipulated that the defendant has committed a crime.  He is entitled to his day in court.

    If he is found guilty, I hope that quickly joins Timmy the domestic terrorist in some loathsome place for all eternity.


    I really, really need a break from (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    stmpathetic consideration of criminal defendants.

    Two things: (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    One, a magazine article that purports to provide a road map to monsterhood may not engender much sympathy for this defendant.

    Two, perhaps if your focus was on the underlying rights and privileges that all accused of crimes are entitled to, and the importance of defending those rights, you might see this as less about generating sympathy and more about doing the hard work to make sure the system is as fair as it can be.  The government is working with a significant advantage in this case, in that public opinion is heavily on the side of putting this person to death; in my opinion, it is at times like these when those responsible for defending the accused can and will do what they need to to bring the scales of justice into better balance in order to better protect all of us from the erosion of our rights.


    Of course you are correct. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    Article makes persuasive case for guilt (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    But does make him a sympathetic figure.  But I have been sympathetic toward him from the beginning.  I would hate to see him spend the rest of his probably long life in jail.

    But... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    ...one can still understand and believe in the system, yet still get sick of 10,000 pro defendant posts.

    To me this case screams that old quote, that I can't remember, about the worse of the worse needing a good defense the most.  Because right now, that kid would be hung in public if the public was to decide his fate.

    That doesn't mean I want to wallow in his defense for the next year and read 10,000 posts that fail to acknowledge the devastation the defendant is accused of and the overwhelming evidence against them.

    I agree with everything you said.

    That being said, I don't get the feeling this case will be one of those at TL.  Jeralyn has the remarkable ability to latch onto cases in which the defendant is eventually acquitted and I just don't see that happening with this case.


    She was on McVeigh's defense team... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    ... so actually her experience should make her coverage in this case (and the Aurora shooting case) on the battle to spare a "monster" from the death penalty pretty darn interesting.

    one version of the quote is (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    ultimately as a society, we will be judged by how we treat the lowest among us, not the highest.

    I wanna Say John Adams... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    ...or his son.

    It was about even the most reprehensible defendants deserving a vigorous defense because they are ones mostly likely to be stripped of their rights.


    John Adams said that one of the "best ... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:22:32 PM EST
    pieces of service" he ever did for his country (which in his case is really saying something) was taking on the criminal defense of the commanding officer of the British soldiers charged with murder for firing on a Patriot crowd/mob in the "Boston Massacre" in 1770.

    Really? (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    Well there must be a site/blog for you to refresh yourself, where prosecutors hang out and trash defendants, while humanizing victims of crime, no?

    Thanks for your understanding. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    wow (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cate999 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    kinda surprised to see what I assume to be a bunch of defense lawyers who think it is okay for media to call him the bomber and a monster pre-trial. So even the defense lawyers in US no longer believe in presumption of innocence?

    I have one real question - how will they ever find a suitable jury for this case?

    Of course you're right about the POI (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    ... but realistically, I don't think there's much question about his guilt in this case (but I'll keep an open mind if a duress or insanity thing pops up).

    The death penalty issues are what I expect most people to be debating in this case.


    cate 999 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    this site is written by a criminal defense lawyer but most of the commenters here are not. Very few are even lawyers. Please don't connect the comments (as opposed to my posts) with defense lawyers.

    As to a fair jury, I would expect the trial will be moved out of Mass., just as the OKC bombing trial was moved from Oklahoma to Colorado. They will try to keep it in the First Circuit (I would suggest Puerto Rico, but more likely it will  someplace closer to MA for witness convenience.)

    Both sides have probably already begun venue studies. I just wish so many filings weren't under seal because without reading them or even knowing what was filed, it prevents us from providing an accurate explanation of the proceedings.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#152)
    by cate999 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    Thanks Jeralyn - that is good to know. I just despair sometimes reading the media on this case about the possibility of the defendant having a fair trial.

    As an attorney what are your views on the admissibility of the 2 alleged admissions - the FBI reported confession obtained pre-Miranda warning and the note on the boat? I just finished studying evidence and proof at law school and I thought that the pre-Miranda confession especially would be likely inadmissible especially considering he had major surgery in the hours preceding and CNN reported the confession was obtained during a 'sedation holiday'.

    Note on the boat - I am guessing some chain of custody issues, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of that to be honest especially the timing of it being released to the public.

    What can be done to stem these leaks from anonymous officials in cases like this which significantly impact on the ability of the accused to get a fair trial? And also cause problems for the agency involved - I am thinking the Todashev affair and the reports of the agent being attached by knife/metal pole/sword/broomstick.


    change of venue (none / 0) (#160)
    by itscookin on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    They could probably move the trial west of Springfeld, MA and find a jury who didn't watch the whole thing, bombing and manhunt, in real time as easily as moving it out of state. While thousands of people line the race route and even more watch the race on TV, except for announcing the winner, TV coverage is mostly local. Until the bombs went off, national networks weren't interested in the race. The runners themselves are an international field. But the bombs went off after the elite runners had long since passed through. The target was the amateur runners, most of whom run for charity. They are also mostly local to the Boston area. I agree it would hard to seat a Boston jury, but I don't think you'd have to go near as far as Puerto Rico.

    Every time I see something about (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:22:59 PM EST
    "Boston Strong" and community movements over the bombing, I think that's one more ground for a change of venue. It was one of the reasons the OKC bombing trial was moved from Oklahoma. When citizens band together in opposition and response to an event, it makes it less likely any member of the community will be willing to swim against the tide by returning a not guilty verdict.

    I am not familiar with the geography of Mass. outside of Boston and Cape Cod, so you may well be right.

    Again, I doubt it would go to Puerto Rico, but that's what I would consider asking for if I were involved in the case.

    When McVeigh's "confession" was published by Playboy weeks before the trial started,  I think we asked for a one year abatement or a move to Alaska. Both were denied.


    If the federal government (none / 0) (#166)
    by itscookin on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:38:16 PM EST
    insists on making this a death penalty case, I think they'd find it harder to find 12 jurors in MA who would be willing to vote for death than to find 12 jurors who would be willing to bring back a not guilty verdict if the government is unable to make its case. The aversion to the death penalty here would be a plus for the defense.

    very true (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    about MA but Puerto Rico doesn't have a death penalty either unless the case is federal. Here's a case the jury rejected death in April that discusses it.

    internet changes it (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by cate999 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:19:15 AM EST
    Not sure if Puerto Rico will be far enough - I live in Australia and listened to the manhunt/boat arrest live on police scanner on my phone. Internet changes things a lot. That was why I really got interested in the case - due to the discrepancies between what was being reported by media and what I'd heard on scanners.

    Venue (none / 0) (#173)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:01:08 PM EST
    Wouldn't a non-death penalty state be a preferable choice?  Rhode Island would qualify, but not New Hampshire.

    We want our "monsters" (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    to look like monsters.  We all like to think that we could pick out a socially deviant person, that we would never associate with such a person and that such a person could not be anyone we know.  I think that is what is making people outraged--it's because it makes them uncomfortable to view this person as a person--worse yet, an attractive person.

    The outrage would be less if this was a mugshot.  Mugshot = criminal to most.  When we see a mugshot, we aren't forced to think about who or what the person was before s/he became a "monster" and that's just fine with most (including me a lot of the time).  

    I think the point of the picture is twofold - 1--to create controversy so people will buy the mag and RS can regain some of the "edgy" cred it once had; and 2. to provoke thought about whether the events in Boston (or at least his alleged participation in them) could have been avoided back when he was a "regular", self-affected teenager.

    Interesting that there are calls for (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    mug shots for Tsarnaev, when, in the case that just concluded, there was general anger/outrage when the only pictures of Zimmerman that were in the public eye were mug shots from his encounters with the judicial system.

    What you hear from people is, "we know Tsarnaev did it, so it doesn't matter." But that wasn't what people were saying about Zimmerman's mug shots, was it?  We knew that he did it, too - but the difference was, people thought it was justified, and with Tsarnaev, clearly that's not what people think.

    Double standard?  It would seem so.

    In reality, we should object to mug shots as the only images of the accused because they undercut the presumption of innocence that all accused are afforded.  It's about bias, not glamor.

    It does matter, even if not for the reasons people want it to matter.


    Mug shot would show police brutality (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cate999 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    I think that Carmen Ortiz and co would be trying to not have any mugshots released as there may be questions then about would the damage inflicted on the suspect by police/SWAT - 15 or 16 bullets apparently requiring his jaw to be reconstructed. He is deaf in one ear and lost all use of his hand.  

    Yes, I can gree with you in part... (none / 0) (#185)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Such a sweet, innocent looking boy, so if he is guilty, (unlike some I still go by the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra), why? He could be anyone's teenage son's best mate, or their daughter's first sweetheart coming to take her to her first prom. Which mum or dad wouldn't invite him in with a wink and a smile, and give him a lemonade and a piece of cake while he waits!

    Only yesterday they released a study here in the UK about the "new style" terrorism. Ambitious plots to blow up masses, out, lone actors and self-organised groups against civilians, in; "cleanskins" against "soft targets", how to prevent or warn, let alone try to resolve, if we don't look at the problem face on. The reasons are the same just the actors are changing; no longer swarthy, swathed, arab speakers, now it's the boy next door and with a cockney accent if over here in the UK. Innocence somehow turned deadly threat, imo the cover does a good job at portraying that.

    Link to a thought provoking article by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian about defining terrorism written last May after the knife killing of an off duty solider in plain daylight on a London street; May also be of interest to some here.


    I don't think of him as a monster and I don't (none / 0) (#200)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 11:29:11 PM EST
    much care one way or the other what RS chooses to put on its cover, but the false choice between mugshot and glamour shot is just that, a false choice. There are many others, including the same picture handled differently, as apparently the NYT did. What many non-artists fail to appreciate are the subtle differences in editing that can elicit quite different responses from the same picture. RS chose the picture and designed their layout for qualities associated with RS. A rose may be a thing of tender beauty, but a slight shift of light and the thorns glisten.

    Here is a (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    link to the RS Charles Manson cover that some commenters mentioned above.  It's also a fairly flattering picture.  This is what RS does--in between covers of Katy Perry and whichever other pop star is hot at the moment.

    I imagine (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    that had the twitterverse and facebook and blogs existed when that article was published that the posturing would have been similar to what we are seeing now.

    It's rather strange when you think about it. How large the proverbial water cooler now is.


    I remember that cover (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    I grew up in LA, and that case mesmerized and terrorized us. My older siblings started buying Rolling Stone in 1969. That Manson cover was from when the magazine was actually a newspaper.

    I actually (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    think this picture is effective and i'm probably in the minority on this. I think it works because too many people (especially conservatives) think that terrorists can only look like Osama Bin Laden. This picture makes people think IMO and that's a good thing.  

    WOW (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    I am sure that is what Rolling Stone had in mind... sheesh

    Who knows (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    what they were trying to do. What do you think the point was?

    To sell magazines (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    that's a big part of it. Look how much "free ink" they've gotten so far.

    Controversy sells (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    I don't remember a controversy (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    when the NY Times used this same picture months ago

    Context Is Everything (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:43:35 PM EST
    Humanize (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Someone facing the death penalty..  Show another side of the story? Make people question their prejudices?

    But I am certain the rolling stone is not working with the DOJ in their campaign to See Something, Say Something, IOW promote fear and pander to bedwetters because anyone could be about to blow you up.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    questioning their prejudices is kind of the point I was making since too many people have in their mind what a terrorist looks like.

    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    Questioning prejudices not encouraging more frequent bedwetting.

    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    maybe the "bedwetters" will start examining how people act and not how they look though I'm not too hopeful on that account.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:06:12 PM EST
    Realize that the climate of fear is a self-serving tactic manufactured by the government to increase its power at the expense of the people's constitutional rights and civil liberties.

    IOW, A fearmongering is powergrabbing sham.


    The bombing is personal to me (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by itscookin on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    My son and his wife ran the marathon. They were close enough to have been hurt, but not badly injured- physically. It was several hours before we knew they were safe. A most harrowing week. I don't want this young man to have anything short of a fair trial. He's entitled to his groupies. While I won't buy it or read it, Rolling Stone can make him a cover story and, as long as they only print the truth, and I'm ok with that, too. I don't believe in the death penalty, and this event hasn't changed my mind. My only request is that if he gets all of this and is still found guilty, everyone accepts the verdict.

    I'm very happy to hear (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    that your son and daughter-in-law are alright. It must have been so frightening.

    ExcitableBoy's comment (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    was deleted for calling McVeigh a monster. Name calling and personal attacks aren't allowed here, (especially on a former client of mine, and I do not believe he was a monster, or even evil.) You can object to the crime, which no  one is defending--  but only by dispassionately examining the person who allegedly or in fact committed it, can you understand the motivation, and conclude whether it was evil, insane, or something else.

    If people don't independently report on Tsarnaev and his case, you are left to accept the Government's and law enforcement's conclusions. They will be the only ones talking publicly between now and the resolution of this case. Judy Clarke never publicly discusses her cases while they are ongoing (and rarely afterwards.)

    I think we should be encouraging journalists to report, so we don't end up with only one view.

    he was convicted (none / 0) (#85)
    by ExcitableBoy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    of slaughtering how many, 168 people? I would call him the m-word, but that's fine, I wouldn't want to malign his character.

    ExcitableBoy... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    ...got some marbles on him, his follow post cracks me up and I am sure will be gone.

    Excitable indeed.


    So if (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    one of the runners had fought back or a group of runners had fought back against the Boston Bomber, he would have been justified in killing them even though he had a bomb and all they had was their hands?

    I'm confused why Jeralyn likes the cover (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Jack203 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    Calling him a monster is rather damning.  So what do you like about it?

    It is definitely worthy of exploring how someone that had a typical American life with so many blessings could do what he is accused of doing.

    Is opposition to death penalty enough? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    Maybe Jeralyn can talk about this.  I hope so.  

    It seems that many enlightened people are opposed to the death penalty these days.  This opposition is probably de rigueur in elite social circles, liberal conclaves, and among ACLU types and criminal defense attorneys.

    Over the past few months, I have observed that attorneys and others commenting on this case are focused solely on saving Dzhokhar's life, as though achieving that would be a major victory.  Maybe it would be, but maybe Eric Holder does not intend to seek the death penalty.  

    I get the impression that, once Tsarnaev's life was saved, thereafter, everyone could just relax and feel smugly satisfied that "miracle workers" like Judy Clarke were able to "save" another client.  But, I wonder if where Judy's and other attorneys' clients end up is just another type of death sentence.  If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is convicted and receives a punishment of life in prison, it is likely that he will be sent to the ADX prison in Florence, Colorado.  How anyone can consider that "life" is beyond me.  

    That's why this case is utterly depressing to me.  When I think about the victims I cry, and when I think about the possible fate of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I cry.  The only outcome that would provide some hope for the future is if Tsarnaev was given a definite term in prison, instead of life, and had the chance to become a better person by redeeming and rehabilitating himself, instead of becoming a vegetable.

    Death penalty is toxic to justice (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by cate999 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    This is so true your comment and helped me realise why there is this heightened level of emotion around the case in the public. People feel like they have a right to see him die and don't hold back in explaining how they would like to see it happen. Instead of the discussion being about guilt/innocence - it is about death/life.

    Where I live in Australia, the death penalty was abolished in 1967 and most jurisdictions have not executed anyone since 1940 or earlier. http://bit.ly/12yPAqf

    We had one massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania (1996) of a lone gunman with 35 killed, 23 wounded. Martin Bryant pled guilty, no trial and received 35 life sentences and 1035 years without parole. Has tried to commit suicide multiple times since.

    The government responded by heavily regulating gun ownership and implementing buy back schemes and there has not been an event like that in Australia since.


    If he is found guilty (none / 0) (#178)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    his fate will depend on sentencing standards. He killed three people and injured 264.  

    He's still an alleged killer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by TycheSD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:45:50 AM EST
    last I checked.  

    Call me delusional, but there has been no guilty verdict or guilty plea.  The vast majority of the public, especially the people in Boston, unquestioningly believe the FBI's and law enforcement's version of events, but maybe their case isn't as strong as we think.  And their actions in this case, and in the side issue case of the shooting of Ibragim Todashev, do not provide me with a sense of confidence in the accuracy of their official stories.  

    This kid has been tried in the media.  As a result, I'm concerned that the defense team may be more interested in avoiding the death penalty than in refuting the government's case.


    Which is why (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    Possible sentences are not to be considered during the trial phase and are only really discussed after someone is found guilty or pleads guilty.

    Okay that confuses me (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    Are you stating procedure? Then what is the deal about a death-qualified jury (which frankly sounds sickening to me on a personal level)?

    But this case may never get to trial (none / 0) (#189)
    by TycheSD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    Judy Clarke has a preference to negotiate plea deals.  She tries to talk her clients in to pleading guilty.  She said someone once advised her that choosing a jury is the first step in losing a capital case.  

    I am sure Clarke's motives are doing what's best for her clients.  But, in this case, doing a backroom deal with the prosecution would be a less desirable option than having a trial, in my opinion.


    What does she have (none / 0) (#196)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    to bargain with?

    Saving money for government? (none / 0) (#197)
    by TycheSD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    I don't know.  I really don't know how the negotiating works.  

    Does this mean that you think there will be a trial?


    I don't know (none / 0) (#198)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:40:49 PM EST
    If there is a trial I can't foresee anything but a death penalty verdict.

    The confession found in the boat( it's hard to imagine it as a forgery - it certainly wasn't coerced)is pretty damning

    Maybe the defense has some facts to introduce but I doubt an appeal to emotion based on the defendants age will overcome the damage to the victims

    Like many ideological terrorists - left /right / religious he appears to be an otherwise honorable man with a screw loose.

    Too bad, but the function of the state is to act as the avenging angel of justice and avoid the clannish cycle of retribution and vigilantism
    He will probably be executed


    Restatement:: (none / 0) (#187)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    If he is found guilty his fate will depend on sentencing guidelines. He allegedly killed 3 people and injured 264 people.

    IOW, the point I was making was about whether or not he would get the death penalty, life in prison, or something else -- if found guilty.


    No RS for me. (4.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    What troubles me - what haunts me - are  the images I have in my mind and those I have seen of people whose limbs were blown off by the explosions. They were innocent, and still are - but their lives have been turned upside down. No RS cover for them.

    I am on the wrong side of this, I know.
    But I just find I have zero sympathy for this guy.

    I don't think... (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    the cover is "for" the alleged bomber, like some kinda sick tribute.  It is for Rolling Stone's readers and the general public, who are free to look at it and read the article, throw it in the garbage, protest it, or wipe their arse with it.  Whatever ya want except demand they not print it.  Let freedom ring.

    I wouldn't say you're on the wrong side...you too are entitiled to your opinion and feelings.  I certainly got no love for murderers either...but as always I'm more concerned about societies actions, and societies soul, in how we respond to unspeakable acts and unspeakable crimes by individuals.  That we not lose our humanity while addressing inhumanity.


    its not about having sympathy (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    for him. It's about trying to understand what may have motivated him and how he got to that point, assuming he did willingly participate. This seems not to be a "who done it", but we don't know that for sure.

    I think the strategic choices his lawyers make during pre-trial proceedings will be most interesting to follow: How do lawyers go about trying to save a life in a case like this?

    As I do in every case that interests me, I write about the legal proceedings and what they mean. Viewing the case from a defense perspective doesn't mean I am defending the commission of the act. The bombing cannot be justified or considered acceptable under any theory, and I doubt any lawyer would defend the acts (as opposed to explain why his or her client may have thought they were justified.)


    I think what you're seeing or are (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    about to see are a lot of people who have done a complete 180, once vehemently defending George Zimmerman and now doing just the opposite with Tsarnaev.

    They can't see past the act to the underlying principles at stake.

    In both these cases, there's no mystery as to who committed the acts, and yet, with one, there was a stalwart defense of his rights, and with the other, there isn't.  

    [and for those stalking me through these threads so they can pounce on perceived inconsistencies, I never suggested that Zimmerman wasn't entitled to the presumption of innocence or the rights we're all supposed to be afforded.  Did I have questions?  Yes, a lot of them, and often just asking the question was taken as proof that I was any number of terrible things.  That and challenging the assumptions and scenarios others were coming up with.]

    I think it could be instructive for those whose positions and feelings about Tsarnaev are the flip side of their feelings about Zimmerman to ask some questions of their own about why it shouldn't be as important to defend the rights of the worst of the worst as it is to defend the rights of those whose actions they can find justification for.


    To whom are you referring (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    people posting here or in general?

    Because I don't see anyone here who has said he doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence, nor that he doesn't deserve a fair trial. In fact, many people here have affirmatively proclaimed that they are against the death penalty.

    So, to whom is your point targeted?


    It is targeted at (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    those whose positions and feelings about Tsarnaev are the flip side of their feelings about Zimmerman

    It is targeted at those who were upset that the only photos of Zimmerman were mug shots, but are now upset/angry that the RS is putting the "glamour" photo of Tsarnaev on the cover.

    It is targeted at anyone who finds themselves taking the opposite position on a right or matter of law in this case from the position they took on Zimmerman, whatever that position might be.

    As for what you see or don't see, I do not find you a reliable monitor of what people are or are not saying, so in the end, I have probably been more responsive to your question than I should have been; if you aren't satisfied with my response, you'll have to find a way to get over it.


    Personally, (none / 0) (#147)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    I feel the same about both Zimmerman and Tsarnaev when it comes to championing their rights to a fair trial. I feel the same way about both of them regarding the extent to which the media wish to pick at their flesh and make as much money off of them as possible.

    Where I feel differently is that Zimmerman acted relatively spontaneously. He was driven by events as they unfolded - no matter whether it was he or Martin that precipitated them.

    Tsarnaev, on the other hand, planned this assault well in advance. (Or so it is alleged).
    In addition, his motivation was, from all accounts that I have seen, political. He had an agenda - and followed it through with no regard for the human consequences.

    That he might have been a nice, talented kid at one time is evidently of interest to many. But I find myself disinterested.
    I can't get the images of the people he maimed out of my mind - as - for others - they couldn't get the image of a young Trayvon Martin out of theirs - whether or not he was the aggressor in the physical confrontation that resulted in his death.


    Well, you called it (none / 0) (#156)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:28:40 PM EST
    They can't see past the act to the underlying principles at stake.
    Here is one example
    One was a man defending his life and being accused of being a racist, a ridiculous story just to rile up hate against him.  In the other case, deadly terrorism against innocent bystanders for no good reason.
    While this:
    ...ask some questions of their own about why it shouldn't be as important to defend the rights of the worst of the worst as it is to defend the rights of those whose actions they can find justification for.
    is ignored utterly.

    Especially... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    ...when you consider that the defendant is so young and really had a lot going for him.  Both brothers, really.  

    They are not what I think of as people who commit these kinds of acts and it will be very interesting to see what types of influences made them go from students to terrorists.

    I would also add that the information will surely prove very valuable and just might aid in helping us understand and prevent similar crimes in the future.


    Tangent: What happened in the case.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    where the FBI shot the older brother's friend during an interview? Is there a criminal investigation ongoing?

    The FBI has ordered (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    The FBI has ordered a Florida medical examiner's office not to release the autopsy report of a Chechen man who was killed during an FBI interview in May over his ties to one of the suspected Boston Marathon bombers.

    The autopsy report for Ibragim Todashev, 27, killed by an FBI agent during an interrogation which took place in his apartment on May 22 was ready for release on July 8. However, the FBI barred its publication, saying an internal probe into his death is ongoing.  

    Ordered? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    Really?  On what authority?

    Great question. (none / 0) (#180)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:35:42 PM EST
    I am (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    in complete sympathy with seeing things from a defense prospective. Absolutely.

    In terms of trying to understand what motivated him... then we get into a different arena. To me, the only benefit to be derived from so doing is to learn what we can do to prevent other people from being similarly turned.

    But that doesn't seem to happen.

    As far as he is concerned, it would appear that our foreign policy had a negative impact on him or at least motivated people to influence him and his actions. If that be the case, are we about to do anything differently?


    We should... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    most definitely look at our foreign policy and how it fuels terror and/or violence, and our domestic policies, and modern life in general...but we won't.  Those are the most difficult questions.  And if it ain't easy, we want no part of it.

    Part of the problem is so many people mistake an attempt to understandthe unspeakable with being an apologist for the unspeakable.  It's a meaningful reflection and debate killer.


    You wrote: (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    ...so many people mistake an attempt to understand the unspeakable with being an apologist for the unspeakable.

    I am not one of them.

    What gets to me is that we have had the means to understand these things for decades - and we do nothing about it.

    When the towers were hit, a few asked, "Why do they hate us?".
    When some of us linked that hatred to actions taken by our government, we were labeled as people who hated America.


    Did not mean to imply... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    you were lentinel...not at all.  You're a deep thinking attempting to understand-er if there ever was one!

    Exactly right...we do nothing about it because we don't know what to do about it or don't know how to even start to do anything about it.  Our system of government is thoroughly busted and corrupted, and the people are divided by distracting wedge issues and distracted by life and endless entertainment.  And all the while the right people make mad money off the status quo.  


    Thanks (none / 0) (#139)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:58:13 PM EST

    I have not very much (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    on the other hand, in this country we've given medals to people who've blown off children's limbs. And the man who blew up the King David Hotel got the Nobel Peace Prize..

    The moral elasticity involved in the historical use of the label "terrorist"..

    I hope RS delves into that aspect in their article..


    Yeah, the most unbiased people (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by me only on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    in the world are the ones that know you.

    Hopefully the article will provide some unbiased insights into Jahar from people that really knew him.

    Did kdog get your login and post this?

    Jeez, why are you here? (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    How many times does Jeralyn have to state the purpose of her own blog?

    Monster (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:19:30 AM EST

    Monster seems a a bit over the top description in this instance.  After all, he did not stick around to consume the victim's blood or body parts.


    Did they have to choose that picture? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    He could be an indie film maker or actor for all someone might guess.

    I'd prefer a more clinical photo. I'm reserving judgement for now but I'm nursing some suspicions as to the choice of that pic.

    Oy (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    God forbid he look human. Clearly they should have picked a more sub-human looking picture that clearly shows his status as an presumed criminal.

    Give me a break.


    Oy right back at you (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:11:21 PM EST

    "Clinical" is now to be taken to mean sub-human?
    Where did I imply he should be made to look sub-human?

    Put the photo inside the article is one thing, "the cover of Rolling Stone" is another.

    I will give you a break as you're defending someone who needs defending. But don't take it out on someone who is questioning how Rolling Stone chooses to sell magazines.


    fair enough (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    But that is hardly the first time I have seen that picture. And I see no reason not to use it again.

    It's part of who he is (none / 0) (#110)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    As I said, I was reserving judgement for why the choice of "The Cover of Rolling Stone" wasn't different.

    Maybe I'm too paranoid but I don't want too see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev being sold as a romantic commodity.

    I use "romantic" in the sense of how it relates to revolution being seen as romantic.


    McVeigh's 6/16/97 on cover of TIME (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    IMO looks very much like a pose of some all American athlete.

    IMO the RS photo is much better than the dual picture that they normally run of when he was much younger and then one at his current age.  


    These two pictures (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    shown together are what I've seen most often.

    Dzhokhar as a child

    More current picture


    Myabe they Should Have Used... (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    ...the picture used the one three to the right of your second link.  HERE

    I assume it's his communion or similiar church function.


    Dude looks like Jim Morrison (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    didn't he have a RS cover?

    No offense, SUO (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    but you must not remember what Jim Morrison looked like...

    Found it: (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    Morrison Rolling Stone. OK, not exactly like Morrison, but the same "look."

    Ha! (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    You mean dude's got long, curly hair and big brown eyes? :)

    since I've seen that JM cover.

    He looks more like Bruce... (none / 0) (#56)
    by magster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    Yep, I see it. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    IMO.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    ...the Manson cover looks way more like Morrison.

    FYI, this is the Morrison cover the press is comparing this cover to.  Not even close IMO.


    I agree: not even close (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    Funny thing is, Morrison looks more menacing in those photos than Tsarnayev.

    That's Obviously What They Were Going For... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    ...make Morrison look like a menace and Tsarnayev look like an all American kid.  Both true to some degree, but the problem is people are a bit deeper that a picture.

    The whole issue here seems to be that RS is forbidden to use the same photos other media uses.  The simpletons will somehow confuse an accused terrorist with Fall Out Boy and aspire to be him...

    If Time had run the same picture, not a peep.  It's the whole Rock and Roll glamorizing bad things schtick that no one else is has to answer to.  Of all the stories and pics released, the only one anyone cares about it the one in Rolling Stone.

    What is really funny, is their outrage only ensures more of it.  You can't buy this kind of publicity.  

    Me personally, it has, since day one, been very hard for me to equate this kid, or any kid, to such horrible acts.  Especially one that seemed to have a lot going for him.  And no picture is going to change that in my head.


    2nd Photo (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    Didn't realize there were two covers, (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    and didn't realize the press was also comparing the bomber's cover to JM's.

    You might be thinking of Annie Leibovitz's take (none / 0) (#99)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    She helped give him that "American Poet" look.

    Probably so. (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    CVS (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    How lame... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    lame and utterly predictable.

    Down the stretch they come in the Faux Outrage Stakes, CVS pulls ahead by a nose...


    let the (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    censorship begin. People will applaud them.  This is how it starts. Take a right away from those society hates, and no one minds. Slowly it expands until it's your rights that are on the chopping block.

    I don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    as censorship - CVS is a company based in RI.  They are making a business decision and what they said on their Facebook page was this:

    CVS/pharmacy has decided not to sell the current issue of Rolling Stone featuring a cover photo of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect. As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones.

    How is this censorship, since CVS is not a government agency? They are not telling anyone else not to sell it, they are not advocating that Tsarnaev get the death penalty, nor are they taking the position that he shouldn't get a fair trial.   How are they advocating taking away someone's rights?


    one person's censorship (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    can be another person's freedom of expression.

    CVS didn't say (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    Rolling Stone shouldn't publish it.

    So again, where's the censorship?


    choosing not sell something (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    is another form of speech. Or can be.

    choosing not to sell this issue (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    is their freedom of speech. How would forcing them to sell the magazine be anything but authoritarian?  If they were forcing the magazine off of everyone's shelves that would be different.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    exactly.  Since other outlets will sell the magazine, everyone gets to speak as they see fit.

    not to (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    it's how it begins, with blocking (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    access to it. Taking it off the shelves. Refusing to allow customers to make their own decision as to what they want to read.

    of course they can do it. But what if everyone follows their lead?


    People... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:14:23 PM EST
    who appreciate free expression and the right to choose need to boycott CVS...that's what it will take for corporations to stop acting like our mothers censoring our reading material.

    It's not government legally-binding censorship, but it is another lesser form of censorship.



    You really think it's censorship (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    and not freedom of expression, dog?

    Shouting down and demonizing folks with the word-label "censorship" can censoring in itself if it shuts down thought and discussion..

    If CVS thinks what RS does is stupid and unproductive they HAVE to sell it anyway? Like every store in the old SU having to sell Pravda?


    If RS is good enough... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    to sell every other issue, yeah I think it's at least in the ballpark of what we call censorship.  Like I said, a lesser form.  

    I don't think CVS should be forced to sell it or anything, they are well within their rights.  I just think it's uncool, and I would say that even if it was one of those gun pron mags instead of my beloved Rolling Stone.  If they value their customers I don't understand the logic behind their decision at all...we're all big boys and girls and need not a CVS to shield us from material they deem objectionable.  Personally I find cowardly corporate decisions like that insulting.


    I lost a lot of faith in them (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    when they put some cheesecake on the cover the next month after Keth Moon died. Not that I'm one to hold a grudge..

    Taibbi's great though..  


    Everyone WON'T follow their lead (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    Some companies will see money to be made from those who want to get the cover now that CVS won't sell it.  

    But since every other media outlet is now reporting on it, my guess is that many people, especially those who may not have cared or didn't care about Rolling Stone, will now at least go to the site (when the story is up) and read the article and judge for themselves.

    Asking "what if everyone follows their lead?" assumes that the story will be hidden away and lost forever, and in this digital age, that just isn't possible.


    it's not censorship (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ExcitableBoy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    They're a private company and can do what they want, just as you block comments you don't like.

    Hilarious... (none / 0) (#191)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    ...Jeralyn speaking evilly of censorship.

    CVS is doing exactly what you do with your blog.

    I disagree with both.


    Seems a bit unnecessary. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    I am always fascinated when a store like CVS responds to this kind of controversy by pulling the magazine.  If you've ever seen the magazine rack at a CVS, some of the covers are...interesting to say the least.  Are we to assume then, that the fact CVS is carrying those magazines for sale equals CVS' endorsement of the related covers?  Of course not--neither would anyone assume CVS or any retailer carrying the RS magazine is endorsing its cover or content.

    LOL... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:28:09 PM EST
    CVS supports soft-core gay pron aka bodybuilder magazines.  CVS supports the objectification of women aka women's magazines;)

    Duh, I forgot the obvious... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    CVS supports ripping off old ladies on medicine.  Sh*t, it's the whole business model! At least they won't be subjected to the cover on the way out of the store with their medicine and a can of cat food for dinner....that would be horrible.

    Walgreen's and Rite-Aid (none / 0) (#114)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    Speaking of finding things funny... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    all the drug dealers in the prescription drug racket find a conscience over this non-issue?  What's up with that?

    Nobody Has Read the Article? (none / 0) (#141)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    I haven't seen a post yet discussing it.  It is online now and free for non subscribers.

    Nobody Understands Jahar (3.00 / 1) (#155)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    The article had speculation but little that was convincing on why Jahar did it.  I wouldn't know how to spot a Jahar or Tamerlan among people I know before it was too late. The kinds of financial problems they were having were those of some people I knew who committed suicide. In the Tsarnaevs' case they decided to take others along with them.  

    The last page explained that the FBI interviewed several of Jahar's teenaged friends without letting them know ahead of time that they could have a lawyer present.  They are so frightened now that they asked the writer that they be referred to by a pseudonym.


    Kids locked up (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cate999 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    This is the other disturbing thing about this case - ACLU have complained about this dragnet approach of hauling kids out of class for FBI interviews without lawyers. http://bit.ly/15zZKLe

    Those closest to Tsarnaev have been locked up or under house arrest - very intimidating for those around him. These are all migrant families.

    Most of his family and friends have also been dealing with death threats. The level of vitriol and blood thirst in comments section of some websites is really appalling.


    Now that's no fun (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    I wanted to wait until my copy arrives in the mail...

    I guess that explains where "monster" (none / 0) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    came from:
    "I knew this kid, and he was a good kid," [Jahar's HS wrestling coach Peter] Payack says, sadly. "And, apparently, he's also a monster."

    Very well done (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    And worth reading for anyone that can set aside the time. It obviously isn't full of answers, but in total it's a nice sociological case study of him as a teen by those that know him. It's not unlike the articles about him the week after his arrest. He comes off as a fairly normal kid leading up to the 3rd Monday in April.

    His brother would be the more interesting case study, but one that is unlikely to ever be forthcoming.


    By the bye, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    I think I've mentioned this before, but I really do like how you think in musical lyrics. Even though it has created some odd earworms over the years. :)

    "On the Cover of the Rolling Stone" is kind of a fun ear worm. But I'm sort of disturbed at how well I know the lyrics to a song from 1973. :)

    I'm sitting here now (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:55:54 AM EST
    watching Bon Jovi on TV singing "We Weren't Born to Follow" -- "Walking besides the guilty and the innocent, how will you raise your hand when they call your name?" The video features everyone from Bobby Kennedy to MLK to Princess Diana, poor kids in Africa and the guy standing in front of a tank in  Tiananmen Square.

    My brain is apparently wired to song lyrics. Almost every situation brings one to mind.  Some people relate to art, I relate to song lyrics.

    Sometimes it's only the title or a refrain that relates to what I'm writing about, but if I can't get it out of my head as I'm writing, it ends up it my post.


    The actual article is out (none / 0) (#168)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:41:21 PM EST
    Here it is.  http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

    Sorry, I still haven't figured out how to not post links here.  Can someone help me?

    Yes (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    Copy the link

    Type out the words Rolling Stone (or whatever you want the link text to be)

    Highlight link

    Press 4th symbol (button) on top of comment box (chain link)

    Paste link.

    Hit OK..  and you are set.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#174)
    by TycheSD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    Will do next time.