HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Tsarnev stopped talking a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:11 AM

Tsarnev stopped talking after Miranda

"BOSTON (AP) The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks but did so before he was advised of his constitutional right to keep quiet and seek a lawyer, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking, according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.

It is unclear whether any of this will matter in court since the FBI says Tsarnaev confessed to a witness and U.S. officials said Wednesday that physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene."

Looks like the entire confession to police will be inadmissible. I'm a bit puzzled by this whole Miranda thing. Doesn't everyone know those rights? Why would hearing them influence his talking? Did he think they might not apply to terror suspects?

3 replies, 2222 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tsarnev stopped talking after Miranda (Original post)
BainsBane Apr 2013 OP
exboyfil Apr 2013 #1
graham4anything Apr 2013 #2
Historic NY Apr 2013 #3

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:18 AM

1. He knew his rights very well

By talking before Miranda his lawyer can craft a case to try throwing evidence out as well (not saying it will work but it is like a get out of jail free card). I don't understand why they didn't just read him his rights. He stopped because he knew that anything said after the warning would not be protected.

It probably does not matter, but I don't think he got himself into any more trouble by talking, and may have helped himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:27 AM

2. Here is an honest answer-

 

Because it is more important to secure info from haterperp as to whether there was #3haterperp
than vengence and justice from those words for this haterperp

Everyone saw what happened.
Everyone knows there is an earlier eyewitness(the victim of the carjacking), and there are many parts of this case

To not have one doesn't get rid of the others.

Besides, it's not like this haterperp is going to be able (should say Ollie North like, the ACLU would get him out of jail free) to walk down a street anywhere in the world again.

Once the genie was released, it can't be bottled up.
And the two were just bumbling Bonnie and Clydes, Columbine, John Lennon killer fame seekers.
but
Hitler never stood trial. Is there anyone in the world who thinks if Hitler did not kill himself,
he would have been able to walk the streets after the war ended if he somehow eluded justice?

Just use Quadafi as an example. He wasn't found guilty in any court of law was he?

To answer, why he would talk-maybe the smartass thought he had a pass to blab knowing miranda would rule inadmissalbe.

Therefore, IMHO, every last word he said was 100% honest.
He had nothing to lose by telling the truth.
Therefore, he is guilty. Matters little anything after that, which is just show.

In fact, the safest place the rest of his life for him would be in a maximum security prison.

And he thought he was so smug going into a 7-11 just to get his close-up picture
and perhaps a 48 ounce big gulp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:13 AM

3. Politicians shouldn't be talking about a criminal case.......period!

"according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread