Boston Marathon bombing Suspect #1’s wife refusing to talk to the feds

I’m sincerely interested in what you guys think of this.  It seems that the Boston Marathon bombing Suspect #1, Tamerlan Tsarnaev – aka, the older brother in the black baseball hat, who died after getting into a shoot out with the police early Friday morning – is married.  And the FBI, understandably, would like to speak to his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev.  So far, she’s reportedly said no, through her lawyer.

According to press reports, federal officials came to her parents’ home Sunday night, asking for her – and her lawyer spoke to them instead.t

“I spoke to them, and that’s all I can say right now,” her lawyer said. “We’re deciding what we want to do and how we want to approach this.”

Tamerlan Tsarnvaev, Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect #1, who was killed after a gunfight last Friday morning.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect #1, who was killed after a gunfight last Friday morning.


You know, I read this story and it initially ticked me off.  Against the wife.

I tried to imagine how I’d react if my spouse were accused of plotting and executing a terrorist and act, and then subsequently acted like he was guilty (the whole shooting a cop in the head thing, in addition to rolling bombs at the police, assuming those reports are true).  Still, it’s your spouse, and if you’re innocent, it has to be a pretty big shock finding all of this out.  So I could see how it would be difficult to talk about it.

But Tamerlan Tsarnaev died early Friday.  This was Sunday night.  At some point, mourning ends and suspicion begins.

Having said that, I could see why any Muslim might be concerned about speaking to the FBI, let alone one whose husband may be a huge terrorist.  But her lawyer says she’s 100% innocent.  So why won’t she talk to the FBI, especially when there’s understandable concern as to whether Tamerlan and his brother, Dzhokhar, were planning any other attacks, and it might be nice to know if those attacks are still moving ahead (did they have any accomplices, and where they working on behalf of someone else?)  The lawyer says the wife doesn’t know, she had nothing to do with it, didn’t suspect a thing.  Okay.  Then why isn’t she talking?

I’d have to think really hard about this, but if my spouse did this, I’d be pretty sad, and pretty ticked, and I’d probably want to do whatever I could to help, even if I didn’t think I have any relevant information.  But then my lawyer hat goes on, and I wonder if I wouldn’t want a lawyer to negotiate my immunity, just in case someone tries to launch a witchhunt against me as the “Muslim” spouse of America’s #1 new terrorist.

I’m sincerely divided when reading this story.  Curious about your thoughts.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

404 Responses to “Boston Marathon bombing Suspect #1’s wife refusing to talk to the feds”

  1. rohntimm says:

    Most all defense attorneys lie with the claim–“My client is innocent–unless you have plenty of evidence to show likewise, then my client and I will change our stories so many times we’ll forget what is true or false.” My suggestion is to book her on suspicion and hold her attorney as an accessory for obstructing justice. She should be taken off of welfare, as well, and deported. This Country is too soft on terrorists and she should be arrested under the Patriot Act. The ACLU doesn’t care if people are really guilty if a lie will get them off and the truth is covered up.

  2. I saw that woman in Starbucks on Boylston on Saturday afternoon, two days before the Boston Marathon Terrorist Atrocity. She was with a very dark skinned man (not her husband); his face was partially covered by a hoodie. Why a hoodie on a relatively mild day (about 50degrees) in Boston; why cover your face, in part? I notified the FBI about what I saw and how he and she (Katherine Russell Tsar..) were acting suspicious. Why isn’t she in jail?? Get the Staruck’s videos for that Saturday and double check and you’ll see I’m right. (99% certain I’m right!)

  3. Deven W says:

    They cannot compel her to incriminate herself. She can plead the 5th.

    Also, there is the case of spousal privilege, not exactly sure if it applies in this case, since he is dead, but it might.

  4. Deven W says:

    Sure it does, its called levirate marriage, but in Islam, I think the wife has to agree.

  5. BeccaM says:

    Yes, you’re correct. But again, right-wing types think the Dubya people did no wrong.

  6. lynchie says:

    But I believe the 4 I mentioned were born women as well especially Cheney

  7. pappyvet says:

    you bet !

  8. Papa Bear says:

    You must be so proud…

  9. BeccaM says:

    Good points all, John. I’ll try to keep it in mind.

  10. BeccaM says:

    That makes no sense whatsoever.

  11. PeteWa says:

    I just up voted you in a non-stalker way.

  12. karmanot says:

    Kimo’s Mommie would be sure he had a lawyer.

  13. melbach007 says:

    I imagine she’s worried about having her dead husbands brother claiming her as his wife since he’s facing so many crimes.

  14. gk says:

    I find you judgement of the wife’s rightful period of mourning offensive…that was her husband, and her shock and mourning is not limited to a 3 or 4 day period. Come on, be a human.

  15. BeccaM says:

    It’s also pretty clear that our friend Nicho has a down-vote troll stalker. I believe I may have acquired one as well.

  16. BeccaM says:

    Thanks Mod4. It’s much appreciated.

  17. BeccaM says:

    I went there once on a group trip. I can easily imagine why you found it such a profound experience.

  18. BeccaM says:

    I wanted to pick only people our Guest Star Troll would find objectionable. His list would probably include Gloria Steinem and FDR.

  19. my favorite niece says:

    Thank you….could not agree with you more wholeheartedly!!!!

  20. PeteWa says:

    same here, it’s seems to cut down responses and encourage a specific type of passive-aggressive trolling over anything substantive.

  21. karmanot says:

    Oh John, I think you are perfectly wonderful. And if you want to pick on me I feel honored. With hate trolls like Kimo and Tina haunting us, we get a bit over heated. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, :-)

  22. karmanot says:

    India changed my life for ever…..especially Benares.

  23. karmanot says:

    I hate blow-up creches.

  24. karmanot says:

    We will be kind and given them allowances for Cheetos and beer.

  25. karmanot says:

    I can so visualize that.

  26. karmanot says:

    But I keep tripping over his clown shoes!

  27. lynchie says:

    well you sound pretty dangerous, All feminists should worry about running into you when you are off your meds.

  28. lynchie says:

    we are starting to sound more like Russia under Stalin and the cold war. Everyone accussing their neighbor or associates with crimes, no proof only suspicion or hearsay and then a firing squad. All good until you are one of the accused. We have a legal system put the full weight of punishment after the people involved are found guilty but until then let the legal system go about its business.

  29. ezpz says:

    In a word or less…

  30. Ninong says:

    The two lawyers representing Katherine Russell Tsarnaeva issued a statement a little while ago saying that “she is doing everything she can to assist authorities.” That’s lawyer-speak, so I guess we shouldn’t read too much into it. Could mean just about anything.

    My best guess is that she has indicated to the government — through her lawyers — that she wants to cooperate with them in their investigation and will do so according to the guidance of her attorneys, who are probably still negotiating with the government over the conditions of that interrogation.

  31. arleeda says:

    She didn’t have a good life with him. The reason he didn’t get citizen ship was because he had an assault conviction for beating his wife.

  32. Naja pallida says:

    No drug deal gone bad leaves behind all the drugs, as well as a pile of cash. Those murders were personal.

  33. Naja pallida says:

    Well, that’s one of the prices we pay for freedumb! A nebulous dimension where laws don’t exist, that is parallel with our own, and you can never be sure which one you’re standing in.

  34. Bcre8ve says:

    Even the police never talk to the police without a lawyer, if under suspicion.

    That should be enough to convince any reasonable person that they shouldn’t be in that room alone, if at all.

    And why is it that people never seem to object, or even notice, that when the wealthy or politically connected, are called for questioning or to testify, they set the conditions themselves. Time, allowed subjects, etc are negotiated in advance, and only then, possibly, will they deign to be subjected to questioning. I know we have two justice systems, but this assumption that we should avail ourselves to the “better” judgment of law enforcement, if we are a “good” person, is only for the lowly masses.

    Besides, a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband, and she may not even know anything – he obviously didn’t feel that women were his equals. Any information relating to “public safety”, such as the possibility of imminent harm, are better answered by her brother-in-law, and from the sounds of it, already have.

    I wouldn’t get near that room with anyone else’s freedom, much less my own.

  35. lynchie says:

    You forgot to include Cheney, Bush I and Bush II and the big O

  36. lynchie says:

    did mommy lock you in the closet recently?

  37. lynchie says:

    shine a light on this

  38. lynchie says:


  39. lynchie says:

    I don’t think they professed anything other than we have rights under the law. she is entitled to a lawyer. You have already found her guilty of something. If situation was reversed would you not want protection by use of a lawyer. What has that got to do with the real victims asswipe

  40. lynchie says:

    That line of thinking is what the right yell about the invasion of privacy, phone tapping, illegal searches, illegal arrests, Patriot Act horseshit. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. Tell that to the people incarcarated because of illegal questioning etc. Our legal system guarantees you the right to an attorney and all discussions go through that attorney.

  41. I have ambivalent feelings about this. And I learned long ago that if I have ambivalent feelings about something, it means other people probably do too. And I’ve always believed that when there’s confusion about something, ambivalence about something – something that’s important – it’s far more important to discuss that ambivalence publicly, in order for all of us to learn and hopefully get beyond the ambivalence, than to just pretend we all agree because it’s “not nice” to suggest otherwise :) So that’s why I wrote the post. A lot of good people don’t agree with you about everything, or with me. And if we can’t discuss things that we don’t necessarily agree on, then we’ll never end up agreeing. I lean towards discussion as a means of learning and coming to agreement. :)

  42. Tell the parents of Martin Richard, the 8 year old boy who was blown to bits after Tamerlan (allegedly) placed a bomb quite literally at the boy’s feet (there’s a photo out there showing the alleged terrorists right near the boy, bomb already on the ground), that the wife of the guy who allegedly blew up their son in cold blood needs time to grieve. Then get back to me. There are exceptions to everything, and hubby being a mass murderer who may, or may not, be part of a larger cell to murder even more people, is an exception to giving the widow to time to grieve.

  43. nicho says:

    Police are now investigating the brothers’ connection to an unsolved triple murder in 2011. The murdered guys were friends of the two brothers. The victims’ throats were slashed and marijuana spread over their bodies. Maybe a drug deal gone bad? Possibly the wife knows more about that than she cares to reveal.

  44. I don’t know how Kimo comments generally, but this comment is fine. I happen to agree with the issue of mourning – tell the parents of the dead 8 year old boy that we need to respect the right of the (alleged) terrorist’s wife to mourn. I’m not saying I agree about sticking her in a cell, but there’s nothing with the comment. I do think that people on all sides are quick to go ad hominem – such as the person who (of course) accused me of being sexist, below. Sometimes online conversations do, far too quickly, get personal when they shouldn’t.

  45. That wasn’t my point, that mourning ends after 3 days. My point was that if you’re husband is looking like a terrorist, you don’t get the usual waiting period to grieve before the cops get to talk to you. Taht excuse doesn’t fly in my book. Needing a lawyer before talking to the cops, I’m being swayed on that argument, yes. But that she needs time to grieve? Tell that to the parents of that dead 8 year old.

  46. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, used in Federal Courts nationwide evidentiary privileges and their availability and the legal effect of them are governed by the law of the state in which the federal court sits. Thus because in California because California law says the spousal privileges are applied to Registered Domestic Partners a Federal court sitting in California would honor those privileges and construe them the same way the Cal Supreme court would (in theory anyhow).

  47. Well, I am a misogynist, trans hater, racist, bi hater, Jew hater, Arab hater, and I’m forgetting the other things I hate at the moment, so forgive me – but in any case, being the horrible person I am, it’s no wonder that I would be a horrible sexist too.

    I live your K, but response like that are what chill useful conversation. Yeah – if you read through the initial FB comments, the guys were attacking her, and on guy on twiter even called her a “bitch,” while the women were defending her. So yeah, I made that observation about where I thought the discussion was heading based on the the ACTUAL RESPONSES I WAS GETTING.

    I don’t mean to pick on you, but folks need to stop with the hate-labels every single time someone makes an observation or expresses an opinion.

  48. Sure. Why not? That’s kind of the point. You’re permitted to exercise your rights, and I’m permitted to judge you by that. I judge the Nazis when they march in Skokie, even if their march was constitutionally sanctioned. That’s kind of the point we always make to the Republicans – they’re permitted to do what they want, exercise their freedom of speech, but we’re permitted to respond.

  49. Jimmy says:

    Well, if you were this woman’s lawyer would you advise her differently? He’s doing his job. It’s easy in this country to pile on defense attorneys; that is, until you actually need one. Knowing nothing about this woman and what she might or might not know, I see no issue with her seeking and using a lawyer. It is, after all, her right.

  50. Moderator4 says:

    He is banned, Eve Wartenberg Condon. He does not seem to be able to disagree with others without resorting to insults, bigotry, and ad hominem attacks.

  51. FLL says:

    Ironically, our commenter, Kimo, would be the very first to use a lawyer when dealing with the FBI or police. That’s one hell of a lot of keystrokes to waste in the pursuit of hypocritical blah blah blah.

  52. MyrddinWilt says:

    The judge read him his rights after a delay under the non-existent ‘public safety exception’. So none of the information he gave before he was read his rights is going to be admissible and there is a certainty that it is going to complicate the prosecution case.

    I suspect the real reason they delayed reading him his rights was that he was drugged up to the eyeballs and barely able to speak.

    They rejected Graham’s even stupider demands which is fortunate. I think it is long past time that the US Air Force tell him that they no longer have any need of his services in the JAG corps.

  53. HeartlandLiberal says:

    She is a material witness. She cannot refuse to be interviewed. They can in fact arrest her and compel her to be interviewed. This is simple, established law. Independent of any stupidity in the thread about Muslims or terrorism or whatever-not. The court can issue an order and compel her to speak, and if she refuses, can arrest her and jail her. This is not rocket science or anything new or anything to do with the emerging police state. Frankly, the longer she refuses to speak with the FBI, the more suspicious her refusal looks, that is also unavoidable fact.

  54. Females and males are segregated in religious services in Orthodox Judaism. This branch also has dress codes for women AND men. That isn’t exclusive to Islam. I’ve taught Muslim girls and not all of them wore the hijab, though most did and were, as far as I could tell, perfectly comfortable with it. The Muslims in your community do not represent all Muslims. It would be like me judging all Christians to be Evangelicals because I lived in the Bible Belt.

  55. OMG John PLEASE block this guy.

  56. I think he’s out of material.

  57. Papa Bear says:

    They weren’t innocent — if they’d been innocent they wouldn’t have been living in the same country with all those terrorists…

  58. Papa Bear says:

    as far as we know, anyway…

  59. goulo says:

    I am really sad that the comments section of americablog is gettting more and more of the kind of muslim-bashing and “we should ignore the constitution, due process, and legal/privacy rights because – hey – TERROR!” type comments which I see at extreme right-wing sites.

  60. Badgerite says:

    I don’t know where you are getting your information but several news organizations have already reported that the younger Tsarnveav was informed of his rights before questioning and will be tried in the civil court system. The administration has not ‘caved’ on anything. What Lindsay Graham wants to do would be the stupidest thing not only in terms of effectiveness in getting information and maintaining the rule of law but also in terms of worldwide PR. Seriously, what would he propose doing? Put the kid in a stress position? Blast his hospital room with loud, jarring music or perhaps water board him? A 19 year old kid who can’t, at the present time, even talk?

  61. mirror says:

    Funny, I don’t see that the core question here has ANYTHING to do with feminism of any kind. That guy is a pretty sick puppy to see this as an opportunity to pound that subject.

  62. mirror says:

    He’s dead. The privilege will no longer be relevant to any crime they are investigating. I’m surprised this isn’t being said over and over again here.

  63. mirror says:

    John is too old now to use the “young-and-stupid” defense.

  64. Rufus says:

    ADDED: A previous comment noted that the FBI doesn’t record interviews. Could there be a reason for this? This gives them the advantage of their “notes” determining what you actually said. And, it may be to your grievous disadvantage. Just ask Martha Stewart. Only a fool would talk to the FBI. That’s what your lawyer is for.

  65. Rufus says:

    John, aren’t you a lawyer? NEVER, NEVER, talk to the FBI — refer them to your lawyer.

  66. BeccaM says:

    Like weeds, sweetie.

  67. BeccaM says:

    I saw one such ox-drawn cart, once, in Bangalore one early morning, not long after dawn. The two guys guiding the cart went into a rather fetid alley, picked up the body of someone who barely looked human, swung him or her twice by their stick-thin arms and legs and flung whoever it was up onto a pile of six or seven others.

    Then they thwacked the ox on its rump and continued the street to the next alley, laughing as they shared some joke, probably in Kannada, which I don’t speak. No bodies there, so they went on down the road and out of sight.

    I’d been heading to get some coffee at a shop not far away, but after that I lost any desire for it.

  68. thanks–I’ll check it out.

  69. karmanot says:

    You might enjoy the work of Guy Debord—“The Society of the Spectacle.” It’s on line.

  70. karmanot says:

    I remember waking up in Calcutta and finding carts picking up the dead homeless every morning.

  71. karmanot says:

    Poet…. the Irish my dear, we grow poets!

  72. awesome. Let us join forces and subjugate the Straight White Males.

  73. karmanot says:

    ROTFL don’t forget The Council of Pink Triangle Gays Desiring to Take Over the World!

  74. Kimo says:

    James Byrd Jr.. was a racist? Are you deranged?

  75. Kimo says:

    Can we agree to investigate how and why this happened? Even if it inconveniences a wealthy white woman? Don’t we owe this to the victims?

  76. actually, he defended Muslims further down in the thread. So there may be hope. Once he gets some therapy and figures out his issues with women…

  77. karmanot says:

    And a racist too…..very attractive goober.

  78. we disagree because you’re posting ad hominem attacks, warped hyperbole, and mountains of baseless accusations. If you argued like a grown-up, you’d be welcome. People debate here a lot, and they do it with civility. It’s one reason I value this blog.

  79. sweet. Words rock. One of the nice things about the advent of social media is the constant opportunity to write. Keeps the tongue and pen sharp.

  80. karmanot says:

    My heart and mind are with them.

  81. Kimo says:

    of course they are all on anti-depressants and they hate all men, so I really didn’t have to do anything special.

  82. I dunno about hate. Kind of amused and annoyed, but not worth hating. Are you done trolling now? This is our community and you aren’t accomplishing anything here.

  83. Kimo says:

    That wasn’t so hard was it? Don’t we owe them justice? Shouldn’t we investigate every lead to understand how and why this happened? If the evidence shows that a woman was involved, shouldn’t she be punished? You will admit that women commit murder too…

  84. BeccaM says:

    You’re most kind. Profession? Writer, author, and poet.

    Words — written words especially — are my life.

  85. karmanot says:

    “they hate me for it.” That I believe.

  86. karmanot says:

    Who? Is that a drag name?

  87. karmanot says:

    For all the victims.

  88. there are American Muslims, you know. Quite a few, and they are no less American than any other citizen.

  89. the problem is assuming that there’s one culture to Islam when nationality, ethnicity, and particular interpretation play roles in it.

  90. can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree. Not all Muslim husbands behave the same way–look at the breadth and scope of the religion to see how ridiculous such a notion is.

  91. BeccaM says:

    Um, yeah… real poverty is seeing one rag-clothed leper wheeling another rag-clothed leper missing his feet down the road in a rickety wooden cart, and hearing them thank you like you’re most amazing person they’ve seen all week when you give them a 100 rupee note. And even more sadly, even though I felt incredibly guilty for not giving them ten times that much, I probably was.

    I wouldn’t trade those experiences for anything, not even the painful ones.

  92. touche. Elegantly put. If I may ask, what is your profession? You write quite well.

  93. BeccaM says:

    I’m actually perfectly fine with most Christians. The only ones I have a problem with are the ones who reject my right to my own religion — which also includes a healthy dollop of agnosticism.

    If there is any kind of afterlife, I’m perfectly fine with the notion of looking around and saying, “My goodness, well this is a surprise. It’s nothing at all like I thought.”

    Unfortunately, so many human religions have been deeply infected with obvious and rather blatant anthropocentrism. Or to put it another way, we have a habit of creating God in our own image, and then operating Him like a giant puppet marionette to produce whatever ideology the prevailing culture wishes to enforce.

  94. Kimo says:

    Oh bullshit. You have no evidence of that. Why are you fighting justice for the victims? Don’t they deserve an investigation?

  95. Kimo says:

    Oh miss beccaM… you got me so good! I bet dollars to donuts your physical appearance matches your ugly hateful words. Take your meds and go to bed!

  96. LosGatosCA says:

    The reason the police want to talk to her now is because an confession, even from a non-guilty person, is cheaper and faster than comprehensive police work to build a case against a guilty person. If they really want to learn more about his contacts in Russia (that may be their real goal) then immunity given quickly can help them before those folks melt into the woodwork.

    Giving immunity may be used to excuse a guilty person, but it can also be given to an innocent person who distrusts authority.

  97. now now, let’s not be too mean. It’s bad enough that he’s at the mercy of us angry militant feminists.

  98. BeccaM says:

    I’m sure he has an awesome crusty white tube-sock collection.

  99. perfect, right? We just gotta try and rise above it. I got in a SCREAMING match online with a bunch of libertarians yesterday because they were bashing Boston. I shut down their arguments, which was satisfying, but it’s not like they listened.

  100. mirror says:

    Seriously John, you respect our institutions too much. Yes, they are worth saving and fighting for because we do, or at least did, have some semblance of democracy. However, law enforcement taking good intentioned people for a ride is older than the Magna Carta. Your lovable naivete is showing.

  101. I try not to take a monolithic view of any religion unless hatred is part of the mission statement. I’ve volunteered with Christian activists and seen a lot of good done by the people who actually paid attention to what Jesus said. I get having a beef with it if you’re Wiccan though–not a great track record in relations with your tribe.

  102. Kimo says:

    I fight to keep weapons out of the hands of radical feminists. They are the single most divisive and damaging group on the planet today.

  103. BeccaM says:

    I hate Christmas partly because Christians stole our mid-winter Yule holiday, but mostly because I despise commercialism, Potlach-esque overconsumption, and insipid carol music.

    Hmm… I guess that means I must hate America as well.

  104. he’s talking trash about a domestic violence activist. I wouldn’t want to date him. At best he’s harmless, bitter and impotent, at worst a bully trying desperately to hide his own weakness.

  105. if she’s the one breeding this hatred into him, it’s Mommy issues.

  106. Kimo says:

    Read your comments dummy. “I am not judging, I just accept that…” You know nothing about “Muslim culture”

  107. three years in India–that’s amazing. It must be a treat to hear all these fat entitled Americans whine about how bad they have it here.

  108. LosGatosCA says:

    He’s pretty damaged. Just hope when he finally flips out there are no guns or other people involved.

  109. Kimo says:

    yep, but they have a mountain of man hours being dumped on this. If there is adverse evidence out there, it will come fast and furious. Her testimony is not all that important. Bank records, purchase receipts, etc could be her downfall.

  110. Do you hate America and Christmas? That’s half the battle right there.

  111. htfd says:

    You are ignorant. To be a racist I would have to judge, I do not judge, I accept the differences as being there way and nothing more. I do not in any way state that there customs are bad or inferior or that following them makes them either. They have difference standards and customs and they are entitled to them. In fact diversity is and accepting it is what separated the different between the stupid and the intelligent not acknowledging; to acknowledge differences and accept is the pathway to peace. You are the racist because you judge me on observations I have observed and mention without passing judgement of any sort, only that western customs and culture differ from middle eastern (Muslim) custom and culture, but insisting that both be identical. That’s what a racist does and you sure do fit the profile of one. I also believe in the law and if this woman does not want to give a statement she should not have to as she is not in anyway indicated as being part of this.

  112. BeccaM says:

    I’m a Zen/Wiccan who recently spent three years in India studying Hindu-influenced spirituality at an ashram. Can I still join the JWO Club? Pretty please? 8-D

  113. Kimo says:

    Oh, you mean it wasn’t a rich white lady?

  114. Kimo says:

    No, my mom worked. She was not a privileged rich white lady who attended Emily’s list lunches. She hates RAdical feminists more than I do.

  115. Kimo says:

    Read the link… If you request the crosstabs from CDC, you will see that when you look at wealthy white middle aged women, the number skyrockets to over 50% Do you know what the CDC is?

  116. Kimo says:

    Can you express any sympathy for the dead and injured?

  117. Kimo says:

    BElive me, they see me, I take no crap from privileged rich white feminists and they hate me for it.

  118. Kimo says:

    Yes, a proud man. One who seeks to protect the rights of all, regardless of their sex. I am out to shine a light on radical feminists like you and Alyce LaViolette.

  119. I think you’re on to something. The sad thing is that the correlative/causal fallacy you just jokingly used is working on a lot of people. Anyhoo, I LOVE the idea of a Militant Radical Feminist Strike Force. I’ll propose it at the next Jew World Order rendezvous.

  120. LosGatosCA says:

    It’s a cruel hoax that women don’t see his finer, sensitive qualities.

  121. Kimo says:

    Can you express any empathy for the male victims of the bombing?

  122. Kimo says:

    Oh, go take an anti-depressant miss radical feminist.

  123. I think it’s a Disqus feature.

  124. LosGatosCA says:

    Her lawyer has to be telling her that there is no downside to waiting and no upside to walking into an emotionally charged situation.

    If she feels any guilt for not having tried to help her husband or BIL keep out of trouble or if she blames herself for not acting to help prevent it, she could be very vulnerable to intimidation – although we know cops would never try to bully anyone into a false confession.

    Second guessing yourself out loud, on the record, in front of aggressive cops won’t end well even if you are innocent.

    OTOH, if she’s a potential accomplice, then waiting is also beneficial for her to prepare her story for her best defense. If she is guilty of anything, she’s going to be found out anyway. The not-yet-dead brother will be blaming it all on his older nut case dead brother and if the wife can be implicated that’s even better for him. From any perspective, she’s better off slowing things down because nobody give’s a rat’s ass about her.

  125. BeccaM says:

    There certainly seem to be plenty of them happy to wave the bloody shirt.

  126. Kimo says:

    Yes, thank you. But not only men, all of society is damaged by this terrible and divisive ideology.

  127. karmanot says:

    Please do us the favor.

  128. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, well apparently our Guest Star Troll for the evening on this thread thinks that a woman who reportedly worked 70-80 hours a week as a home health care aide (a difficult job under the best of circumstances, which it usually isn’t) while raising a young child, living in a shitty apartment and according to her former friends is beaten by her abusive newly hyper-religious and often absent husband is nevertheless (1) wealthy and spoiled and (2) may have had enough time left over after all that to help mastermind a terrorist bombing.

    After all, there were no terrorists until after we women got the right to vote, no? Not long after that, there was Hitler — who was born of a WOMAN. Same with Stalin and Pol Pot and Pinochet. Common thread: Each and every one of them emerged from some woman’s womb and spent their first several years being indoctrinated by a mother. Clearly all evil is our fault. And if we don’t want to toss some woman into prison because she won’t talk to the cops, as is her legal right, obviously we’re perfectly fine with kids dying horribly. In fact, apparently we endorse and approve of it.

    Guess we’d best activate the Militant Radical Feminist Strike Force! There are men who remain unoppressed by our awesomeness and evil.

    Number 1 on our agenda this week: Outlaw male masturbation. Make it a felony. Install cameras everywhere to ensure compliance and enforcement. No such crime for women, since all men know that the female orgasm is a myth, right?

  129. karmanot says:

    Texas: James Byrd Jr.

  130. I think he ran away, thank Goddess ;)

  131. karmanot says:

    “Where did I put my pitchfork!” I could tell you if you really want to know.

  132. karmanot says:

    What happened? Did mommy throw you away?

  133. karmanot says:

    “more than 25% of middle aged white women are on anti-depressants.” I doubt that, but it stands to reason that creatures like you might explain the phenomenon.

  134. karmanot says:

    Gravedigger! pathetic…..

  135. karmanot says:

    His point is that he’s frightened of women.

  136. karmanot says:

    If the demented trolls on this site are any indication she has every right to be frightened for her life and that of her child.

  137. LosGatosCA says:

    “we’ve learned NOTHING in the past twelve years”

    Willful ignorance on this topic is a preference for a majority of Americans, I’m sorry to say. And don’t try to change their minds – they have their fingers in their ears and they can’t hear you!

  138. karmanot says:

    Only of creatures like you.

  139. karmanot says:

    “Your words disgust me” look in the mirror.

  140. karmanot says:

    Oh, there will be thorough investigation, but it will be by the letter of the law.

  141. karmanot says:

    “laughing at the pain and suffering of victims….”

    An incredibly stupid and outrageous slander!

  142. don’t feed the trolls (although I totally empathize with wanting to) :)

  143. karmanot says:

    Yep, just put salt on his tail and he’ll melt away.

  144. karmanot says:

    “You obviously belong (to) the radical feminism way of perceiving our culture” I don’t know about Becca, but I do. What are you going to do about it? The true victims are insensitive, ignorant clods such as you.

  145. haven’t we been doing that this whole time, though? This media-dominated world has produced such finely tuned propaganda machines that reality has become subjective and people can be made to believe anything. No matter how much evidence you have and how well-structured your argument is, 9 times out of 10 the opposition puts its fingers in its ears. The Iraq War is a great case in point. We will never learn from history if we keep rewriting it to suit our worldview.

  146. karmanot says:

    I thought you were never going to comment again D-bag. Go away.

  147. Ninong says:

    I don’t think she can be compelled to testify against Tamerlan for any crimes he committed while they were married. However, she can’t claim that for her relationship with her brother-in-law.

  148. karmanot says:

    Crazy/ Not you! The society we once knew is corrupt and crumbling and we must speak out.

  149. Kimo says:

    Well, start your own blog miss becca. or just keep fervently wishing, whatever.

  150. I got in a fight with a Holocaust denier last week and told him that he’d gotten me and I’d confess that the Holocaust was a Zionist hoax and that I was in a bunker with the Rothchilds working Obama’s mouth by remote. He believed me. Some people are too silly to parody, but it never hurts to try…

  151. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, I truly and fervently wish John would just dump it and find a way to go back to Likes.

  152. Kimo says:

    And you would know Pete, because you are dumb! Man, you walked right into that one. Incredible!

  153. Kimo says:

    You sir, or madam… are an ignorant racist.

  154. Kimo says:

    The victims are not cheap. Your words disgust me.

  155. BeccaM says:

    Oh thank you so much for that LOL. I needed it.

  156. all of this is demoralizing. It’s like we’ve learned NOTHING in the past twelve years. I’m hearing people screaming anew about how we had to go to war in Iraq (somehow that’s been tied into this). I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

  157. BeccaM says:

    I think we have another Civics and American Government class reject here, Eve. As well as someone who didn’t pay attention to what happened after 9/11.

  158. PeteWa says:

    they only count to the total votes a person gets, negative, positive, it’s all “popularity”.
    that’s the funniest thing about this idiotic voting system.

  159. PeteWa says:

    it’s incredible the things that dumb people think.
    doing home health care that many hours a week is grueling work, even if it’s well paid, you’re not getting rich doing it, but you are getting worn out.

  160. BeccaM says:

    I hope so, too, for your friend’s sake.

  161. “Why would you need a lawyer to negotiate your immunity if you haven’t done anything?” Ever read “The Crucible”? Judge Hawthorn makes that argument when someone requests lawyers for the defense.

  162. ezpz says:

    I have nothing to prove to you.
    You’re obnoxious and shameful in your constant attempt to use the victims as a cheap manipulative ploy.
    I will follow Becca’s example and be done with you.


  163. Tatts says:

    Why would you need a lawyer to negotiate your immunity if you haven’t done anything?
    Why would any Muslim be concerned about speaking to the FBI if they haven’t done anything?
    If she has done anything to be worried about, screw her.

    I don’t want to hear fantasies about what might, could, possibly, someday maybe happen. Keep the conspiracy theories to yourselves. I need to be convinced that there is actually something for a girl from New Jersey to be worried about if she is truly innocent and talks to the FBI . I don’t think there is.

  164. BeccaM says:

    Given his sudden and abrupt switch from “think of the victims” to “damn all you radical militant feminists!” — you’re probably right. Especially after you went and pointed out how Katherine has a young — and now fatherless — child.

  165. ezpz says:

    Just because you refuse to see them doesn’t mean they haven’t happened.

    Just like the tree in the forest DID fall, even if you didn’t hear it.

  166. htfd says:

    No, I do watch and listen to documentaries. I also have friends that have married Muslims and have spoken of the cultural and religious differences. Just look at all the political discussions regarding sharia law vs US laws. Then to the forced dress code for females. I live in AZ and when it gets to 115 plus and Muslim women here are still required to ware traditional dress and to sit in the back seats of cars…things that are not in the US culture. One documentary I watch showed the women and the female children eating in the kitchen while the males of all ages ate in a separate area and were waited on be the females. This also isn’t a usual US custom. Females also do not attend religious services with males. Also years ago I had some Cultural Anthropology and Women of the World courses, neither of which would in anyway qualify me as being expert, but did give me a knowledge that different cultures have other than western ways. Unlike most people in the US, I do recognize that there are different cultures that have different ways and I don’t stand in judgement of them. This is something I don’t think you do. I get the feeling that to you if it’s not a western custom than it either doesn’t exist or it’s inferior.

  167. if nothing else, it’s a good preview of the kind of hogwash the right-leaning media will be churning out. So upsetting. A former student of mine is at Northeastern right now. He’s Muslim, Saudi, and not afraid of a hot debate. I hope he doesn’t get beaten up.

  168. Kimo says:

    Yes, two sane people calling for an investigation. Where did I put my pitchfork!

  169. Kimo says:

    Becca will never be ashamed of ignoring victims crime, unless that crime is causing emotional distress to a rich, privileged white woman. more than 25% of middle aged white women are on anti-depressants… enough said.

  170. BeccaM says:

    Oh, I am, now. Given he’s progressed well into the personal attack phase of trollish evolution, I have little doubt he’ll be shown the door fairly soon. Thanks for the words of support though.

  171. ezpz says:

    Any evidence of this “mob?”

    For starters, I would say you and Tina would make some fine Exhibits A and B

  172. let it go, BeccaM. It’s like talking to a wall.

  173. Kimo says:

    OK Post something now to prove me wrong? Find one cheap vigilante comment I have made. All I ask , and by the way, I am getting my way, is for a thorough investigation. The people whose lives were shattered in an instant deserve a voice. Your shrill hateful words that minimize their suffering are sickening.

  174. BeccaM says:

    We are done, you and I. Goodbye.

  175. ezpz says:

    You might want to ask yourself that question before putting fingers to the board.

  176. BeccaM says:

    I will never be ashamed of standing up for the ideals of Constitutional justice, due process and the rule of law.

  177. ezpz says:

    This is a thread about Suspect #1’s wife.
    There have been other threads where many of us have expressed our pain and sorrow for the victims. You’ve conveniently ignored them.
    It seems you project, and it is YOU who does not care about the victims except to use them when you want to make cheap, vigilante, inane comments.

  178. Kimo says:

    No, you are lying. You claimed that the US had mob justice and thinking of the victims (when some are not yet even in the ground) is shameful. Pretty sick reasoning. You obviously belong the radical feminism way of perceiving our culture. All women are victims and all men are perpetrators… Is this inaccurate? Do you want to recant your words and express some empathy for the real victims? Or do you want to sing sad songs about some stupid girl who chose a crappy spouse (lots of people are guilty of this offense). Why are you advocating giving her immunity from all prosecution?

  179. oh. What do you think his deal is? Mommy issues?

  180. BeccaM says:

    That Kimo is a misogynist and now he’d like us all to share in that bit of information. I suspect his stay here among us will not be for much longer.

  181. Kimo says:

    Your words indict you ezpz. Not once have you mentioned the pain and suffering of the people whose legs were ripped off by explosions. However, you rush to criticize those who want the terrorist’s wife to be investigated. I think your behavior is shameful and I hope none of the victims of their families see your insensitive, hateful words.

  182. BeccaM says:

    Me neither, really.

  183. ezpz says:

    Aw, thank you. It really doesn’t bother me, though.

  184. eh, let him wind himself down. At the rate he’s going, he’ll eventually get kicked off. We should just ignore him so we can have an actual discussion.

  185. BeccaM says:

    Now you’re openly lying about what I posted. Thanks for taking off the mask, by the way.

  186. ezpz says:

    You don’t know what’s in my heart, so DON’T tell me that I’m “…laughing at the pain and suffering of victims….”

  187. exactly. Bow before me you oppressing male swine. Mwah ha ha.

  188. Kimo says:

    How many lynchings in the US in the last 40 years?

  189. Kimo says:

    Oh, women who have children should be exempt from criminal punishment. Typical Radical feminism.

  190. PeteWa says:

    yeah, it’s been a long time, and a long time healing.
    some things you carry with you through your life.

  191. now we’re bringing radical feminism into the mix, too. Listen, I get it, you’re upset, but you’re dealing completely in pathos and hyperbole here. If you want to just keep yelling on the thread because it makes you feel better, okay, but you’re making yourself look rather foolish.

  192. Kimo says:

    But eve, Emily’s list supported Martha’s candidacy! She is a woman!

  193. Kimo says:

    Oh yes, women are always the victims.

  194. Kimo says:

    ezpz, you wouldn’t know a sane, sensible comment if you saw it. But laugh away! You and Becca blindly profess the innocence of the terrorist’s wife while laughing at the pain and suffering of victims. Have either of you radical feminists expressed any sympathy for the real victims?

  195. Kimo says:

    Any evidence of this “mob?” No, just more irrational militant feminism that blames men for everything and refuses to hold women accountable.

  196. BeccaM says:

    It’s okay, dear. I went through entire thread and upvoted all of your posts. And since the down-votes aren’t tracked or counted at all, you’re easily +30 just from mine alone.

    I even up-voted some folks whose comments I might not entirely agree with, but which were posted in good faith anyway.

  197. Kimo says:

    I do not want to throw innocent people in jail. I would tell her not to talk to LE. But I do want her thoroughly investigated and if this lady did anything illegal, I want her to get a fair trial and if she is found guilty, I want her punished. Remembering the innocents who lost their lives in the attack is important, and I am proud to speak up for them. Perhaps it is you who should be ashamed.

  198. ezpz says:

    Sad. Scary, too.

  199. yup. Plus they get to lob all their Islamophobic vitriol at her, saying she allowed herself to become property, was a moron for converting, etc.

  200. ezpz says:

    How come your link didn’t generate a picture and mine did?

    Is yours a link that you yourself uploaded?

    I could do without that big thumb nail picture.

  201. BeccaM says:

    Her husband Tamerlan is dead and her brother-in-law is hospitalized under heavy guard and thus out of the public view.

    The mob demands a replacement target for their anger and she’s convenient for that purpose.

  202. ezpz says:

    And I don’t understand the outrage at her. Not at all. It’s really perplexing to me.
    Unwarranted, for sure.

  203. ezpz says:

    The down votes on sane, sensible, sensitive comments are cracking me up.
    Seeing some of the mob mentality on this fast moving thread, I wear those down votes as badges of honor.

  204. BeccaM says:

    *shrugs* Clearly there are a lot of people who’d prefer a bunch of swift public executions than all that silly presumption-of-innocence, presented evidence, jury of peers and court of law stuff. Tamerlan Tsarnaev is already dead, so I guess they’re casting about for a replacement and figure his wife will make do.

    The woman reportedly works up to 70-80 hours a week as a home health care aid, and one doof even had the nerve to say she’s “rich.” I have a good friend who does that kind of work, and trust me, ain’t nobody who’s wealthy would ever do that job by choice.

  205. ezpz says:

    I know. It’s really stunning – like some alternate reality.

    So sorry for your loss. While I get the sense that you have well healed, my own experience with loss has taught me that there is often some lingering/recurring emotion of pain associated with that loss. Thankfully, those twinges come less and less frequently, and are of shorter and shorter duration as time passes on.

    Thanks for the Irma Thomas link. Soooo beautiful, it envelops the heart!

    Yes, “Music Is The Doctor.” ~Doobie Brothers

    A little more rock’n’rolly than your link:

  206. that was her in Attleboro? Didn’t know that.

  207. too true. We’re missing the point entirely if we’re willing to throw the Constitution out the window over this. I’m angry too, absolutely, but I’m not at all worried that they won’t find him guilty and punish him accordingly; it’s not like there’s a dearth of evidence. Not to mention the fact that suspending his 5th amendment rights gives fundamentalist terrorists even more grist for the mill. We need to take a collective deep breath.

  208. Jonas Grumby says:

    Amen to all of these responses. I say again … NEVER EVER EVER EVER talk to the police. Don’t believe what they tell you and repeat after me … I want my lawyer. I want my lawyer. I will not talk. I want my lawyer.

  209. BeccaM says:

    I understand the outrage, too. But outrage makes for shitty justice, and usually leads only to public mob lynchings.

  210. BeccaM says:

    You just explained why this woman has no reason whatsoever to talk to the police and why any competent attorney will advise her not to do so, absent an immunity offer.

    And that is an abominable thing for you to do, using that photo as emotional blackmail. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  211. ezpz says:

    What I find unsettling is that Law Enforcement can “find” anything, if they want to.

  212. BeccaM says:

    It was posted below and I checked it out. Quite enlightening.

  213. BeccaM says:

    And hopefully she has competent legal counsel. She’s going to need it, even if she’s completely innocent and knows nothing — which is supposed to be what’s presumed under our system of law.

  214. MikeyG says:

    Watch this video, and then tell me what you would do:
    I would not say a single word. Ever.

  215. BeccaM says:

    Hell, even posts simply in support of due process and rule-of-law are drawing down-votes. All I can figure is we must have a far higher proportion of bloody-minded, frothy-mouthed vengeance-seeking trolls on this blog tonight than is usual.

    Open comment: Hey, down-voting trolls, guess what? If you mouse over a person’s avatar and see how many votes they’ve accumulated, your down votes don’t count at all. They’re not even tracked. In fact, they’re meaningless, other than as an expression of your snot-gob attitudes towards fundamental civil and legal rights under the Constitution.

  216. she has a child to think of, as well. I think proceeding with caution makes sense, although I understand the outrage.

  217. ezpz says:

    How low can you go?

    You post a picture of an innocent boy moments before he was killed, and you imply that this woman was ‘the ringleader’??? She wasn’t even there!

    Shame on you for your sick attempt to manipulate and use people’s genuine sorrow to incite against this woman, who also happens to have a young and INNOCENT child!

  218. Kimo says:

    You are a genius… give her immunity even though you are sure she is innocent of any wrongdoing. How do you know she isn’t involved? Because she is pretty, rich and white? What is wrong with investigating murder? I think this little boy deserves justice

  219. From the interviews with her friends and family, it sounds like she was in an extremely abusive and isolated relationship. She might need to get her bearings.

  220. BeccaM says:

    I know. It’s beyond sad, really, to see how many Americans just don’t believe in the rule of law — or the ideals of liberty and freedom in this country — anymore. Or even the Constitution, other than the 2nd Amendment to it, and maybe for some of the states-rights types, the 10th, although not an interpretation the Supreme Court has ever allowed.

    It seems all we have left are impulses towards scapegoating, vengeance and retribution. I mean, it’s always been a problem how invoking one’s 5th Amendment rights is presumed to be an indicator of proven guilt, but now we’re at the point where it’s being openly suggested that no such legal right not to self-incriminate even exists.

    I have a lot of respect for John A, even though I don’t always agree with him. But I found this post to be rather dismaying. He’s been in government and I thought he knew why it was important to respect people’s civil rights — and people’s right to exercise them at will, all of them, even when those rights are inconvenient.

    If the FBI and the police want Katherine to make a statement and explain what she knew or suspected, all they need to do is formally offer a blanket grant of immunity. There is nothing wrong — NOTHING — with an attorney advising his or her client not to talk.

  221. ezpz says:

    “John, this is why I do not post here…”

    And yet here you are…

  222. pappyvet says:

    Well,I can look at this in a couple of ways. She could be buying time working on a defense because she knew something, or she is very frightened because she knows the reactionary attitude of many of our citizens. You could prove letter and line that she had absolutely nothing to do with it but to some it would not matter at all.

  223. Kimo says:

    Oh please. Maybe you think little Johar would get a fair trial back in Chechnya. What a ridiculous thing to say.

  224. RDnDC says:

    Another reason to overturn DOMA!

  225. Kimo says:

    Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot? ha ha

  226. karmanot says:

    It’s stunning that such contempt for due diligence, legal process and justice now exists as popular reaction and on this site particularly.

  227. BeccaM says:

    And judging from down-votes, both here and throughout the thread, apparently constitutionally protected legal rights, presumption of innocence, and due process aren’t popular among the fascist-enabler crowd…

  228. PeteWa says:

    I am pretty mindblown as well, I can only guess that the votes are from those who see the world in stark black and white terms, the same way a terrorist does.

  229. karmanot says:

    4 down votes from those who have never experienced the death of a loved one or, god forbid, a child. I don’t get it. F’ing ghouls.

  230. Kimo says:

    You just make crap up George. For all you know she could be the ringleader. You see the little boy in this picture? This is moments before an explosion drove nails through his little body killing him.

  231. Kimo says:

    Me too Tina. I imagine she already asked for blanket immunity and was told to go to hell. I predict that the local authorities would like to speak to her about the murder of her husbands best friend (a man and a woman were seen leaving the scene of the murder). Did she buy him guns and bomb making suplies? Did she house any interesting out of town guests? The people who are blindly defending her may be doing so out of deference to her race, sex and social class.

  232. PeteWa says:

    I’m just reading through this thread, and I find great humor in Tina’s comment here to you in direct relation to her comment from about the same time above where she was going on about how civilized she is… a true lollercoaster moment.

  233. Kimo says:

    So George Melby pastor/chaplain… by reading one comment of mine you determined me to be both heartless and brainless and unworthy of life. I assume you are a bible thumping christian based on the above signature. So tell me, exactly how are you any different from the terrorists who believe that they hold the only truth, and they can take the lives of those who do not believe as they do? And you have the gall to call John arrogant? I consider your posting below to be an example of hate speech and a good reason why Americans are abandoning your churches in droves.

  234. PeteWa says:

    as someone who has gone through a rather prolonged mourning period myself, I find it strange to read John’s sentiment in the first place, and find it even odder how many down ratings (perhaps from the same people?) the push-back to that sentiment has gotten…

  235. ErnieC says:

    Don’t count on that any more. You can’t dream unless it’s approved by the Supreme Court.

  236. Kimo says:

    What evidence do you have to support that statement?

  237. BeccaM says:

    Fascinating video. Thanks for the link.

  238. ErnieC says:

    Even if they DON’T uncover evidence that she is involve, that is exactly what the FBI will do.

  239. ErnieC says:

    The old saying “anything you say can and will be used against you” is absolutely, literally true. I advise my clients never to talk to the police, whether they are innocent or not, at least not without a lawyer. The police are now trained to take anything said to them and construe it to mean the the person making the statement is guilty, even if a normal rational human being would construe it to show innocence. The police are now incentivised to find guilt even where there is none. Gotta fill those corporate prisons.

  240. Moderator4 says:

    Fine. You are banned. Good-bye.

  241. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Bite me moderator…I just realized what thread I am on…remove me…please.

  242. BeccaM says:

    I know. The whole bloody Patriot Act should’ve been thrown out as manifestly unconstitutional and legally indefensible years ago.

    That’s why I included the qualifier “should” above. I wish it didn’t belong there.

  243. Moderator4 says:

    Your discussion has been far from “civilized” so far, Tina Papadopoulos. You are warned.

  244. Naja pallida says:

    Well, technically, the Patriot Act negates that. All they have to do is put “terrorism” on the paperwork, and they can do pretty much whatever they want, to anyone, for any or no reason. It’s only by a small miracle it hasn’t been more abused, outside of Gitmo, that is.

  245. Freedonian says:

    “[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” — Justice Robert Jackson, Watts v. Indiana 338 U.S. 49 (1949)

  246. Ninong says:

    Tina, the Patriot Act may cover a lot of things but it doesn’t override the Constitution. No one can be compelled to tell law enforcement anything if the person being questioned reasonably believes that he/she may be under suspicion of anything criminal. The very fact that she was married to Tamerlan is reason enough for her to keep quiet.

    Anything she was aware of might be used against her. Her attorney can demand complete immunity for her in exchange for her responding to their questions.

    If I were her, I would listen to the advice of my attorney. So far he has said that they are considering what approach they will take to the government’s request to question her.

  247. ezpz says:

    I don’t think Tina speaks for many women – OR men, for that matter.
    I hope not, anyway.

  248. Ninong says:

    “…see Chechnya from your house.” LMAO!!!

  249. Ninong says:

    Of course they would like to talk to her but she is under no obligation to talk to them. If she does decide to talk to them, she should only do it with her attorney present.

  250. BeccaM says:

    Not true. It still applies because she was married when the crimes were committed as well as when they were planned.

    And as Eamon notes below, we ALL have the right to refuse to talk to the FBI, unless compelled by a court of law.

  251. karmanot says:

    “Classic abuser behavior, and classic symptoms of an abused spouse.” Yes.

  252. BeccaM says:


    Her roommate at Suffolk University, who asked not to be identified, told CBS News that Tsarnaev had also been violent with Russell and may have been arrested for assaulting her in 2009 as well. Three women who knew him have told National Public Radio (NPR) that Tsarnaev’s personality changed in 2008 and 2009, when he suddenly became a more devout Muslim.

    “He stopped drinking and wouldn’t come around as much and kind of judged us for wanting to go out and he would forbid her for wanting to go out with us,” the roommate told CBS News. “He became very violent with her and was brainwashing her into converting into Muslim.” She said that Russell soon started wearing a hijab, and she and her friends fell out of touch with the couple soon after.

    Classic abuser behavior, and classic symptoms of an abused spouse.

  253. Ninong says:

    If she knew something, she is under no obligation to tell law enforcement. Why should she incriminate herself? That would be stupid!

    She was probably a very submissive wife in traditional conservative Islamic tradition. She may have suspected her husband and brother-in-law of being up to no good but, if that’s the case, she needs to just STFU about it or risk going to prison herself. No one is under any legal obligation to give the authorities information that will help them convict you of a crime. That’s their job.

  254. Naja pallida says:

    I’m not divided on it at all. There is no legal or sensible reason to submit to what the FBI wants. If they have enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a material witness warrant, then they can work within the bounds of the law, and her right not to incriminate herself as well as her right not to give testimony against her husband. This is how our legal system works. It’s not pretty, and I know how much people just love to throw away the law whenever it is inconvenient, but that is very much the worst possible thing we could do if we want actual justice, and not just vengeance.

  255. BeccaM says:

    Katherine Russel Tsarnaev is 24 years old. That makes her an adult woman.

  256. ezpz says:

    “…Not as bad as after 9/11, but still.”

    It’s only been a week. I think it will fester as time goes on. Hope not, but….

  257. Kimo says:

    No, Douglas is correct. If they uncover evidence that she is involved, that is exactly what the FBI will do. America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world…

  258. Phil says:

    Don’t know what the law is in MA or other jurisdictions, but isn’t what’s said between a husband and wife considered privileged communication, just as attorney client privilege? She was married to this guy at the time the crime was committed, so it is her right. Given the situation, I’d be taking advantage of it.

  259. ezpz says:

    LOL! Literally.

  260. Kimo says:

    Exactly where are “grieving period rights” recorded as law? How do you know she wasn’t deeply involved in the bombings? Do you just assume because she is pretty and white that she wasn’t involved? For some reason I do not think you would be rushing to defend this woman’s honor if she were Black, Hispanic or Arabic.

  261. BeccaM says:

    My opinion on it has nothing to do with her gender (or mine) and all to do with the fact I don’t trust our government to play fair with due process, as well as a bedrock belief that everyone has 5th amendment rights.

  262. karmanot says:

    Now, now, don’t throw water on Ms. Tina’s hate parade, she might melt after all and all her flying monkeys can’t help her.

  263. Kimo says:

    John, this is why I do not post here. Anyone who disagrees with the groupthink is personally attacked. Nobody here knows about her involvement in the terrorist act. I suspect that if the tables were turned and wife was the bomber, the rush to judgement would be to blame the husband for putting her up to it. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. The fact that this woman appears to be white, pretty and rich does not earn her a pass in the justice system. I absolutely love her exercising her rights. But I am not willing to treat her like a delicate flower who needs a mourning period before she tells us what she deems appropriate.

  264. LuigiDaMan says:

    Right on! My brother was a famous defense attorney, which means that if you were guilty, you wanted him to defend you. He would advise her not to speak to the police. I guarantee you if she does, she will get indicted by some prosecutor trying to get some revenge and publicity.

  265. Ninong says:

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has already told the FBI that he and Tamerlan acted alone. They got all of their information on how to build pressure-cooker bombs from the Internet. They did it based on a sense of religious fervor.

    Therefore, it’s possible that Tamerlan’s wife may have been aware that her husband was saying something (anything at all) that could now be taken as an indication he was planning to blow up people. What if she was even in the car with him and/or Dzhokhar when they went shopping for pressure cookers? What if she saw several pressure cookers in her husband’s possession? What if she knew he had purchased a lot of nails and bb’s or ball bearings, or whatever they stuffed into the pressure cookers? What if she knew he had purchased black powder?

    Any knowledge of any of that could be used against her to charge her with conspiracy or, at the very least, having knowledge that her husband was planning to blow up people and failing to report it.

  266. Russ says:

    Welcome to America, kamerade! We do things a little differently here than what you’re accustomed to. Have a seat, let’s talk . . .

  267. karmanot says:

    I wouldn’t bet on it sister.

  268. cole3244 says:

    i totally understand her position, not only does it make legal sense but common sense to boot, let things cool way down and the bigots calm down to a slow boil then hope for the best, check for the closet passport office while she’s at it. myself i am suspicious of the police i can only imagine her concern.

  269. Kimo says:

    So you are saying you are an expert on Muslim marriages and the interactions between spouses?

  270. karmanot says:

    And you would appear to be riding a similar device with a broom on the end.

  271. BeccaM says:

    The Constitution, due process and the rule of law should apply with respect to ALL crimes.

  272. pricknick says:

    Show me the warrant.

  273. Russ says:

    Good one, George.

  274. douglas01 says:

    Haul her ass in as a material witness and keep her in jail until #2’s trail, which will be a long long time. I suspect she might change her mind.

  275. ezpz says:

    I’ve seen/heard “civilized discussion” — have even engaged in some.
    I see nothing civil in your comments. Not in the way you address other posters and certainly not in your vigilante comments.

  276. MyrddinWilt says:

    Of course the wife refusing to talk might be due in part to the fact that administration caved in on GOP demands not to read Tamerlan’s bother his Miranda rights and are currently campaigning to have him rendered to Gitmo for torture and indefinite detention without trial even in the unlikely event that the kangaroo court doesn’t convict and execute him.

    Tearing up the constitution has real consequences, it means that the innocent are less likely to offer co-operation knowing what the likes of Lindsay Graham are demanding to further their political careers.

    Martha Coakley, the state AG is not only a terrible Senate candidate, she is a nasty piece of work who got noticed with a series of prosecutions that grabbed headlines but are almost certainly unsound. She was also behind the paddleborough persecution of BDSM folk. There are good reasons that many progressives in the state would not support her senate run.

  277. Merrrr says:

    Agree – the number one thing is that even if she is innocent, anything she says can and WILL be used against her in a court of law. Especially in a situation like this, it may not be the popular move, but any attorney worth their salt would never let her talk to the FBI – innocent or not. We simply cannot tell based on this behavior if she has something to hide or not.

  278. karmanot says:

    Idiot, you are on an open thread and your mob mentality is hardly civilized.

  279. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Karmont, you were not invited into my civilized discussion. ^^ Look above, how civilized humans talk to each other. ^^ maybe you can learn something. You can go back to Eamon and talk about Che’ and that other cool college stuff you kids like.

  280. BeccaM says:

    I’m in disagreement with John, too, but for a different reason: I don’t think this has anything to do with a period of mourning and everything to do with avoiding any chance of making self-incriminating statements. If investigators contacted Katherine and/or her attorney and asked for her to make a statement, but did not accompany that request with an offer of immunity, the only responsible thing to do — from an attorney’s legal standpoint — is to advise the client to say no.

  281. George Melby says:

    In cases like this, law enforcement wants blood and a conviction… all else comes in fourth!

  282. Russ says:

    Reports have mentioned her working 80 hours a week, but so far I’ve not heard he had any kind of employment. What, was he kicking back at home being “the man,” and living off of her? Culture does play a big part in family dynamics, it’s not in any way racist to inquire about these things.

  283. karmanot says:

    Your vigilantism is repellant and indicative of the disrespect and contempt for due diligence and the rule of law so characteristic of dilettante conservatives these days.

  284. George Melby says:

    My feelings exactly, as a Christian hospital/hospice Chaplain!
    PS: See my comment above to John!

  285. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    I wonder if there is a provision under the Patriot Act that would force her to speak? Also, I don’t recall any Muslim backlash…I am from Boston…we are a melting pot.

  286. karmanot says:

    You are so right. Those who have not directly experienced such grief occasioned by the suffering or death of a loved one don’t know that when that line is crossed reality changes for ever and it can take years, if not a lifetime to mourn. The death of a child as happened in Boston is particularly poignant.

  287. While reading another story I was reminded she is now a Muslim. IMO she’d be very foolish not to take every possible precaution. Besides, it’s quite possible her husband asked her to pick up a sack of nails to use on some project he’d claimed he was going to build. Or some such. In the present climate, that alone could send her to jail for many years.

    Also, consider that ordinary police or FBI aren’t doing the questioning of the surviving suspect. No, that’s a special group of “Guantanamo Bay interrogators”.

  288. George Melby says:

    And just WHAT do you disagree with? Hmph!

  289. Russ says:

    Seems to me that the President and his Administration do. The case is being prosecuted in civilian courts, ergo, the Constitution applies as it does in every other case, right? A crime is a crime, whether you call it terrorism or not. Besides, she’s an American citizen, and she has not been charged with any crime, AFAIK.

  290. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    You own a Che’ shirt, but you don’t know how to shoot a gun…I should have known. You get the last word…gentleman.

  291. George Melby says:

    Very seldom do people born with no heart or brain, live. I feel sorry for you. You have neither!

  292. BeccaM says:

    I can’t see any competent attorney advising Tsarnaev’s wife to do anything but keep her silence unless and until investigators or a grand jury offer a blanket immunity deal for anything she might say. Simple as that.

    None of the evidence we’ve seen so far implicates anyone other than the two brothers. Even agreeing that she thought maybe her husband was up to no good could, in the current environment, possibly draw charges of failing to report.

    And let’s not forget the chilling reports of high U.S. elected officials saying that Katherine’s brother-in-law shouldn’t be given a criminal trial, but declared an enemy combatant — which would make him eligible for imprisonment without trial, forever. Think she’d want to risk that, too?

    I’m not even saying this because I have any particular sympathy for Katherine Tsarnaev or because I feel sorry for her — which I kind of do, but it doesn’t have any particular effect on my opinion here. It’d be terrible lawyering to advise giving statements without an offer of immunity. If the investigators really want her info, expect it to happen.

  293. George Melby says:

    John, I don’t think I have ever disagreed with you since I’ve started reading your columns or blog, but…

    “…. But Tamerlan Tsarnvaev died early Friday. This was Sunday night. At some point, mourning ends and suspicion begins.”

    I beg your pardon, but this is the most arrogant, ignorant comment I’ve ever heard from you. I have spent 10 years as a hospital/hospice Chaplain, and you need some very basic instruction on human feelings!

    First of all, NO ONE has the right to say WHEN a person’s time of mourning starts… or ends! That is just one basic tenet of a hospital/hospice Chaplain. Everybody’s time of mourning is different and may last a week, a month, year, two years, or indefinitely! That is no one’s call to make.

    Second, it depends a great deal on whether one or both spouses’ citizenship has been determined. If they are US citizens, the Right to not witness for or against the other spouse is entirely up to the remaining spouse. Even if neither person had a religion does not take away their rights.

    Love them or despise them… that is your right. To deny them any rights, no matter what the grievance… is wrong!

    GMMelby, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain (Ret.)

  294. karmanot says:

    Yep. These types seem to have absolute contempt for democracy and just law.

  295. karmanot says:

    Old tired line. Try again.

  296. Ninong says:

    You may like her to speak but she is under no obligation to speak. Just by being married to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, bearing his child and converting to Islam for him, she will be viewed with contempt by a large number of people in this country. Don’t forget that following 9/11 there were a lot of attacks against anyone who looked like what some people believed were “potential Islamic terrorists.” Many of those victims of vigilante violence were actually Sikhs.

  297. karmanot says:

    I do own a Che’ shirt and also come from a long line of military stretching back to the Civil War. I bet you wear a Sarah Palin T’shirt and can see Chechnya from your house.

  298. ezpz says:

    I know, right?

  299. karmanot says:

    Exactly, just read vigilante Tina P on this thread.

  300. ezpz says:

    Then you should admit that it’s only your conclusion and NOT fact as you seemed to indicate, or at the very least, strongly imply.

  301. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Ah…now I get what you are…explains everything…and yes, I come from a long line of military…and I love water boarding. Bet you own a Che’ shirt…

  302. karmanot says:

    Oh god, you’ve been watching too much Judge Judy.

  303. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    I have read so many articles from this past week, that I can not begin to remember where I read what. From what I can piece together, this is the conclusion that I have come to. No, I am not a lawyer, but yes, I think it would be worth looking into this girl’s relationship with her husband and brother-in law. I am not assuming anything as fact, simply, that it warrants questioning her. After all, the bottom line is to see if there is any other threat. Did they have friends? Did people visit their apartment, and many more…

  304. NMRon says:

    I agree, she should speak through a lawyer, and a good one. Innocence or no, self-preservation and common sense dictate what she should do here. That “want to do whatever I could to help” stuff doesn’t wash when you might end up in solitary for the rest of your life or dead.

  305. ezpz says:

    I would take that a step further…
    Under these circumstances, I would expect vigilante *justice* especially with her picture now plastered everywhere.
    She has a young child. An INNOCENT young child that needs to be protected from the mob mentality and, god forbid, brutality!

  306. htfd says:

    Sorry you think that it wasn’t meant to be, but maybe you should do some investigation into the home lives of Muslims. Muslim customs differ from what US customs are. That’s not saying Muslims are wrong or that they are right, just that they differ from what US customs are and if the US could accept that it would make a difference in the US’s treatment of Muslims.

  307. MyrddinWilt says:

    This is blowback from the trumped up Martha Stewart charge. One of the drawbacks to putting people on trial for lying to the FBI is that nobody with a brain is going to want to talk to the FBI in the future.

    In the Martha Stewart case there was no recording made of the interview due to FBI policy of not allowing recordings. So the trial came down to he said/she said in a case where the FBI intentionally prevented the evidence being collected that would have settled the matter without ambiguity.

  308. karmanot says:

    exactly ezpz. It can last for years.

  309. karmanot says:

    same here. It must be terrifying.

  310. karmanot says:

    Thank you Madam deFarge

  311. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    What have you contributed? I have looked and all I can see is your insults on Eamon’s trail…not much else. I like a healthy debate, but when little men have to insult instead of discuss, it is usually an indicator of something else…sorry ;)

  312. karmanot says:

    And you I assume would torture her or the child to get her to talk. Bet you are a Gitmo groupie.

  313. ezpz says:

    “His parents had left for Russia and left both boys here alone, with no other relatives.The only relatives the younger boy had here was his older brother, and sister-inlaw….”

    Is that what you deduced from the article you linked? Either I missed it, or you’re drawing your own convenient conclusions.

  314. MyrddinWilt says:

    I work with law enforcement quite frequently. I have worked with the Secret Service, FBI, Postal and their foreign equivalents.

    There is no way I would allow the FBI to interview me either with or without a lawyer. My policy is that I will only give an interview if there is a video tape recording made and both sides keep a copy. FBI policy is to never permit recording of interviews. Since the only possible reason for not permitting such evidence to be collected is to hide the fact of intimidation, coercion or blatant misrepresentation of the statements made, there is no way I would allow an interview under such conditions.

  315. EdA says:

    Actually, the older terrorist had been arrested for domestic violence several years ago, so blogmob’s theory is not entirely crackpot. Whether his wife was trying to defend him, or simply not wanting to risk making statements that could potentially come back to bite her, is a different matter. Cambridge Police report

  316. karmanot says:

    If I were a Muslim in this American climate I would never, ever assume I would find justice guilty or innocent.

  317. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Well, why don’t I just let all you law specialists, sit around and blow smoke up eachother’s ass.

  318. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    You assume correct, alas, just a meager citizen. However, I would like to know what this girl knows. There must be a way, if this is categorized as a terrorist act, that the girl can be brought in.

  319. karmanot says:

    Isn’t that special, get over it and know the law.

  320. karmanot says:

    Beware the paranoid crone!

  321. karmanot says:

    I can just see you with slightly parted curtains, furiously working the Internet for conspiracy theories and spying on your neighbors.

  322. karmanot says:

    In your case, completely warranted.

  323. karmanot says:

    Mob mentality? Guilt by association? I assume you have absolutely no legal training.

  324. karmanot says:

    Sometimes you just stun me John, what a sexist attitude. Is that truly your experience? Ms Tina impresses me as a mob groupie.

  325. Kalil says:

    In a federal try? Remember: this is the FBI wanting the interview…

  326. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Do you think that this applies in a case of terrorism?

  327. EdA says:

    I haven’t yet read the other comments, but my first reaction was to think of poor Marina Oswald, who was in a foreign [to her] country and whose husband had murdered the President of the United States.

  328. Kimo says:

    That is an offensive and racist statement about Muslims and their marriages.

  329. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    There you go again…

  330. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Eamon, I have no crystal ball, but you obviously have a stick up your ass.

  331. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    There you go again…

  332. Kimo says:

    She has the right to say no and we the people have the right to investigate a criminal conspiracy. If she is a material witness in a criminal investigation, she will be compelled. I could not give a crap about her mourning period. If evidence comes to light that she is involved in the conspiracy, then stick her in the cell next to her brother in law. The fact that she is a woman with a small child and a dead husband is not making me feel sorry for her.

  333. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    AND…I have seen your bitchy remarks to everyone on the thread…so must be your problem, and…I think you are late for class…LoL

  334. htfd says:

    Do they want to question the child also? What about her parents? As I recall her statement through her attorney is that she knows nothing. Considering the number of hours she supposedly worked outside the home that is highly possible. Also, what makes you think Muslim husbands take their wives into there confidence on all matters?

  335. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Eamon, you are no fun to debate with, and very arrogant. Just like you say, she has the right not to speak, so do I , to you, a vile, little man.

  336. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    His parents had left for Russia and left both boys here alone, with no other relatives.The only relatives the younger boy had here was his older brother, and sister-inlaw…From the article, the school mate said “Glasby said that Tsarnaev offered to give him a lift home to Waltham,
    Mass.”…Home on weekends…and school breaks, I’m sure.–abc-news-topstories.html

  337. Ninong says:

    I doubt that she participated in any way in her husband’s plot. However, it’s possible that she was aware of his views, especially after he returned from his six-month visit with his father in Russia. The very fact that she was married to him and that she converted to Islam for him and started dressing in accordance with traditional Islamic custom will be held against her by a large percentage of the public. I don’t think she wants to be a public figure.

    You’re right, if she has any information that might be useful to the government, she needs her attorney to demand immunity from prosecution in exchange for her telling everything she knows. That might be what happens, provided they don’t have something concrete against her.

  338. okojo says:

    Right now, she has to worry law enforcement and if or when grand jury convenes, she is not the focus of the law enforcement or a grand jury’s interest. She has to be very careful.

  339. John, honestly I think there is no valid reason for her to speak from a legal perspective (IANAL, and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night – I’d NEVER! – but have a decent working knowledge of the law). Two things immediately come to mind: 5th Amendment and spousal privilege. I strongly suspect that she lawyered up almost immediately after her husband was identified and any lawyer who didn’t immediately advise her to clam up would likely lose a malpractice case. The 5th amendment argument is really only applicable if she knew of actionable information and failed to act, maybe out of hope it was “only talk”, but beyond that, she is accorded by law with certain rights due to her being his husband. Whether she thinks he might have done it or not is irrelevant under the law – it’s her right to keep private conversations with her husband private until ordered otherwise by a judge (anyone remember that case during the Clinton years – McDougal, was it…?). This will eventually be decided in a court of law, exactly as it should be, and we should not prejudge her for what any first year law student would likely advise her to do.

  340. ezpz says:

    Agree, especially about the period of mourning. No one has the right to declare how long (or short) the period of mourning *should* be for someone else. No one.

  341. okojo says:

    She maybe innocent in all this, but the Federal Criminal Justice system can be very Torquemada on big cases like this, and it is important that she has an attorney to help her throught this. If Law Enforcement finds that she knew about the bomb making and intent beforehand, she will be indicted with some pretty serious charges that could put her in Federal Prison for years.

  342. You are completely missing the point she has a right not to speak just like you do. I only wish you would do less of that.

  343. And exactly how do you know what Mrs.Suspect No 1 is going to say? You have working crystal ball?

  344. okojo says:

    She can be charged with failing to report the attack if she saw or knew what her husband was planning. If she helped buy the bomb making material, she could face criminal counts in Federal Court, which is nothing to be taken lightly. She could self incriminate herself in any interviews, that could be used as evidence in a trial, even though she doesn’t take the witness stand.

  345. Russ says:

    Like everybody else, all I know is what I read on the ‘net, and I’m not for or against the young woman. But John as a lawyer you know that one of the priviliges of real marriage as opposed to the skim-milk kind is that you can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse – whether the fact that he’s dead factors in here is something I don’t know. Also, no American citizen can be compelled to incriminate herself. I’m no lawyer, but I think hers is wise to advise her to keep her lip buttoned until it’s clear how the whole investigation and prosecution is going to play out, just on general principles – whether she knows anything about the brothers’ intentions or not. This is a high-profile, hardball case, not a playground dispute.

    And John – the idea that “mourning comes to an end” between a Friday and a Sunday is just a really, really young-and-stupid thing to say. When you’ve lost a spouse, come back and tell us how long it took you to get back to normal. If ever.

  346. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Left FOR her parent’s house on Friday from the apartment in Cambridge. This is why she went back for her cat and some clothes…

  347. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    That’s funny, because I read the same article in the Huff, and then I read in a local Boston paper that she was living with him until this happened. She then went with the child to stay with her parents…(will try to find and post)…this is why she was photographed going back to the apartment yesterday to get the cat and some more clothes…she has said that she worked up to 70 hours a week as a home health aid, and that he watched the child while she worked…she has said that for this reason, she was unaware of what was going on.

  348. okojo says:

    Michael Fortier was talking to the press, I think babbling on wiretapped phone lines after the Oklahoma City Bombings, besides helping out Timothy McVeigh in selling stolen guns to finance the bombing. He got 12-15 years, and was put in the Witness Protection Program when he got out. If the Feds are focus on you as an accomplice, or want to seriously questioned on a Federal Capital Case, it is better to be silent right now,and see what evidence they produced, or if they are looking to arrest and indict others as accomplices to the Tsarnaevs.

    The time to talk to the Feds, if they offer immunity from prosecution, or close the investigation. Kathryn Russell has to be very careful right now.

  349. ezpz says:

    All three in one apartment? Link?

  350. ezpz says:

    “…left her parent’s house on Friday…” to go where?

  351. ezpz says:

    No, she should not talk to LE.
    She did not live with him and is entitled to her privacy.
    I find it troubling that her picture has already been plastered all over the place.

  352. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    No, she left for her parent’s house on Friday…which is why she went back for the cat.

  353. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    I am suspicious of anyone involved, until I have no reason to be. They lived in an apartment, all three of them…chances are, she knows something. The only way to find out, is to question her.

  354. paaat says:

    The way I understand it, she lived with her parents in Rhode Island. He lived in an apartment in Cambridge with his brother, who also has a dorm room on campus. It’s still a puzzle.

  355. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    Which is exactly why I would like her to speak, so that I, and everyone else can be educated as to the facts…

  356. okojo says:

    There is a huge taskforce looking at every stone in Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnvaev’s lives. The wife could be charged with not reporting a crime, if she saw them buying bomb making material or putting together the bombs. They are not going to ask a bunch of questions and leave her alone.

    They are out to get indictments in Federal District Criminal Court, with 90% plus conviction rate. She is probably on a very thin tight rope at this moment.

    There is nothing wrong in talking to the police, if they are looking for information, but when the information is connected to you, it is important to talk to a criminal defense attorney. Much like it is important in talking a lawyer before signing some sort of contractual agreement, to have a look over. She should have a criminal defense attorney being a proxy to deal with local and Federal Law Enforcement.

  357. Jonas Grumby says:

    I was a criminal defense atty and Prosecutor for twenty years. There is NO way I would let my client talk to the police in this. America has become so paranoid about all things terrorist and muslim that I would never, eer trust the Gov’t to do the “right thing” by my client. I would also advise my client to get out of the Country as she will be the target of some nut with an assault weapon.

    Before 9/11, I told clients to not talk to the police as it wasn’t so much they could use what you said against you, they WOULD use it against you.

    This is an easy call. Never, ever talk to the police.

  358. J.P. Melle says:

    Whether she’s actually involved or not, she’s potentially facing charges herself here. Unless she’s given immunity anything she says can be used against her. From a legal standpoint she has to protect herself, even if she’s innocent.

  359. From my perspective of having practiced criminal law for forty years I certainly can understand why she didn’t want to talk to the FBI. Every citizen has a right to refuse to speak to any police officer at any time.. It could do her no good to talk to the FBI. Her lawyer was certainly correct in advising her to remain silent. And in fact IF she does talk to the FBI she might open herself quite innocently to a criminal prosecution if her statements are not believed. Again her lawyer was doing his job in protecting her from a Hobson’s Choice. I am not at all offended that she didn’t want to talk.

  360. Actually in California registered domestic partners are covered by the two spousal privileges.

  361. All you know is that she didn’t want to talk to the FBI. Adding anything beyond that is just a manifestation of your own ignorance of the facts.

  362. The spousal privileges have nothing to do with this. She has every right to refuse to talk to the FBI whatever her reasons.,

  363. You have no evidence on which to base your crackpot theory that she was ‘a classic case of an abused spouse.’ Don’t contribute to rumors.

  364. Interesting, I figured the guys would be more suspicious of her, and the women more understanding.

  365. Interesting, I’m watching this now.

  366. I started this discussion on my Facebook page again. It began with a bit of a gender gap (women understanding, guys wanting to lynch), but now has pretty much come out in her favor.

  367. Kes says:

    Actually, I’d expect her to be more likely to talk to the police if she DID know something. She’d already have her explanations thought out ahead of time, and would not have so great of a shock that this happened. At the very latest, she’d have known by last Monday to begin preparing even if she just suspected something was going on. If she is innocent, I wouldn’t expect her to even be mentally capable of speaking to police for at least a month or so. There’s a lot of grief there to get through.

  368. Kevin Perez says:

    Never talk to any police officer under any circumstances, EVER!

  369. Tina Papadopoulos says:

    She lived with him AND his brother…and she knew nothing? Probably why she does not want to talk.

  370. One of the most powerful privileges is one that LGBT people have no right to. That is the right to NOT be compelled to testify against your spouse. As angry as it might make one, it is surely her right not to testify or even be compelled to give any kind of testimony. This privilege is ancient as the commonlaw and it is there for a reason.

  371. Riccardo Cabeza says:

    Katherine Russell Tsarnaev executing her rights as a US citizen annoys me.

  372. Rebecca Theriot says:

    I have no idea what it is like to be a Muslim in this country these days, or even a minority of any kind. But even if she is completely innocent, if she sincerely believes she has no information of value to offer authorities, then I can completely understand not wanting to subject herself to dealing with law enforcement agencies right now.

    And, John, two days is not really that long to get over this kind of shock. Especially if she’s innocent, imo. If she loved her husband, had a good life with him and had no clue about any of this, to experience all of these events one after the other must have her brain completely scrambled. Put that together with the way many Muslims must be feeling ever since 9/11, and I would certainly want the protection of a lawyer with me in these circumstances. At the very least. If I could afford it, even if completely innocent, I would feel more comfortable with a whole team of lawyers.

  373. blogmob says:

    what you are missing here is that this appears to be a classic case of an abused spouse – i base this only on some media accounts i’ve read about her, quoting unnamed friends and unconfirmed police reports, but still it makes more sense when seen in this context. the misplaced loyalty to the abuser, still unable to more objectively see the situation. this can be even as intractable as the parent who never admits their child could do such a thing…

  374. Ninong says:

    If I were her lawyer, I would advise her to keep her mouth shut, too. Maybe she could agree to answer specific questions in writing after those questions have been cleared by her attorney.

  375. tomtallis says:

    From a legal standpoint, her husband is dead and she’s no longer married, so the spousal immunity no longer appiles, as I understand it. I’d like to know on what grounds she’s refusing to speak to law enforcement, self-incrimination?

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS