Tsarnaev Cell Video : Where's the Anger?

Here's the 36 second video of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that was played to the jury. I don't see any anger, just boredom. Who wouldn't be bored sitting alone in a holding cell all day?

What a big to-do about nothing. The reporter who said his face showed huge anger should cover something other than criminal trials.

< DEA Chief Leonhart Resigns | Barry Bonds' Conviction Overturned >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Some of these Tsarnaev trial reporters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TycheSD on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    have maybe lived sheltered lives.  Many of them are young.  Have they themselves ever been angry?  Haven't they ever seen a person who really is angry?  

    To me, it was obvious that his face was still severely swollen, his lip distorted, his left eye puffy.  Why does the judge forbid defense from asking questions about Tsarnaev's injuries?  He did it today.

    The prosecution chose a moment in the video where
    Tsarnaev is giving the finger and has what could be interpreted as a defiant look on his face.  They are trying to portray him as some evil jihadist who would like nothing better than to kill more Americans.  I simply don't believe it.  The fact that they have to come up with these deceptions makes me suspicious about whether they are telling the whole story of the bombing - and I have always wondered that.

    This kid is pathetic.  I just looked at him in that video, sitting in that jail cell, and I can't help but think "you poor pathetic idiot."  I have always felt this way about him.  I feel very similar to the one prospective juror who felt sympathy for him, and said she couldn't be on the jury because he reminded her of her kids, she could never give him the death penalty, and was upset he wouldn't be eligible for parole.  She asked, "what if he just made a really big mistake?"  I feel the same way.  I've repeated this story about the prospective juror before.  If I've said it here before, I apologize for the repetition.

    let him testify (none / 0) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    There may be a misguided presumption that anyone who bombs a load of people as a political act and flees, killing a cop in the process, is a bit angry.  Perhaps the "pathetic" kid should testify and give the jurors an idea about his real character.

    He does not have to testify (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:37:05 AM EST
    testify or prove anything. The government has the burden of proof. Nor will the jury be allowed to consider his decision not to testify.

    Why is it OK (none / 0) (#3)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:23:24 PM EST
     for you to publish your thought that you  see no anger and wrong for someone else to publish his thought that he sees anger?

      Seems inconsistent.

    Of course, as you know, the lawyers or witnesses are not permitted to characterize to a jury what emotion is or is not shown in the video.the jury watched the video and each member will decide what if anything it means and weigh it in his or her decisions without regard to what opinion  you or the reporter may have.

      I say go ahead and express your thoughts and don't attack others for doing the same thing .

    But injuries have distorted face (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TycheSD on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    And the judge refuses to allow testimony about Tsarnaev's injuries.  If your entire face is distorted from getting shot in it, how can you really see what his facial expression is?  I don't see anger.  I see Casper the Ghost.

    Because journalists are expected (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:42:06 AM EST
    to report facts, not their opinion. Characterizing him as expressing extreme anger at a time when the picture hadn't been released outside of court so none of us could see for ourselves, when he's on trial for his life, is hugely prejudicial. Without that description, it probably wouldn't have gone viral. If that was just their interpretation, not something demonstrably obvious, they should have said so. My opinion is expressed as opinion, not fact.

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#7)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:58:10 PM EST
      First, any prejudice in public opinion at this point will have no affect on the trial  as there are no potential jurors at this point and he has no right against unfavorable publicity.

      Second, I'm thinking the fact he (through his lawyer) admitted to deliberately plating a bomb with the  intention to kill and maim innocent people probably is a bit more prejudicial than it being known he flipped off a camera.

      Third, if you don't think that video would have gone viral absent one reporter's description of his perception of Tsarnaev's mood, you live on a different planet than the one I inhabit.



    Media assisting government to get death penalty (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TycheSD on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    The prosecution took the screen shot of Tsarnaev giving the finger to the camera to further their narrative that he is a defiant, unrepentant killer.  If they had not chosen to use that second in time photograph to advance their agenda, that video would have never been seen by the public.  The government deliberately put that photo out there for propaganda purposes to justify killing this very young man.  They knew the media would just lap it up.  It was prejudicial for the government to put that photo out there and the media assisted in the dissemination of the propaganda by describing the defendant as "angry."