[ArtK78]

Rain, on 2013-April-19, 14:22, said:

Who else lives in the area? Hrothgar, Barry, Winkle/me?

Barry pretty much summed up all I wanted to say about the possibility that they are innocents and "framed" like their aunt was claiming. If he's an innocent he would also have said something by now, call 911 himself and surrender, whatever. He must have more experienced masterminds guiding him - how can a 19 yo who grew up in a mostly normal USA neighbourhood know how to run and evade capture for so long?

If this was "24" CTU would be listening in on his phone conversations with his masterminds.

I also read this. http://patrick.net/forum/?p=511

I looked at the site that you noted as "I also read this:" I couldn't help but think "Tell us how you really feel" partway through the recitation of verses.

[barmar]

This incident is starting to have some bridge relevancy. Right now they're reporting shot fired on Nichols Ave in Watertown. That's where EMBA holds all its sectional tournaments.

[y66]

8:50 PM on Twitter:

The teenage suspect in the marathon bombings is in custody, a senior law enforcement officials told The New York Times.

[onoway]

If innocent until proven guilty is really in force there may be some problems down the pike as in the news conference they were saying things like, "the citizens of Boston can breathe a sigh of relief now." There wasn't a shred of suggestion that the kid is innocent or even that someone else might have been involved.

They're likely right but it sounded to me like such comments might make for some legal arguments about fair trials and so forth.

Aside from that, kudos to the law enforcement people. They did a great job. Between them and the terrific job the hospitals and first responders did, Boston has acquitted itself extremely well and should be proud.

[akwoo]

onoway, on 2013-April-19, 19:51, said:

If innocent until proven guilty is really in force there may be some problems down the pike as in the news conference they were saying things like, "the citizens of Boston can breathe a sigh of relief now." There wasn't a shred of suggestion that the kid is innocent or even that someone else might have been involved.

They're likely right but it sounded to me like such comments might make for some legal arguments about fair trials and so forth.

In this case I don't think it matters much because the trial will almost certainly be moved quite far away. I would be shocked if any trial is held within 500 miles of Boston. The jurors will also very likely be people who do not follow the news.

[mike777]

Here in the usa:


A criminal trial is neither a "whodunit" nor a "multiple choice test". It is not even a criminal "investigation" to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that this defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither "likely" nor "probable" satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result -- acquittal in such a case -- may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.


http://www.huffingto...t_b_893207.html

[barmar]

onoway, on 2013-April-19, 19:51, said:

If innocent until proven guilty is really in force there may be some problems down the pike as in the news conference they were saying things like, "the citizens of Boston can breathe a sigh of relief now." There wasn't a shred of suggestion that the kid is innocent or even that someone else might have been involved.

The President specifically said last night that law enforcement is going to keep investigating, in part to determine if there were any more people involved.

But the general rule is that you can't wait for a verdict before "breathing a sigh of relief". That could be months or years away, are we supposed to stay on high alert until then? A suspect in custody is not proof of guilt, but it implies a reasonable expectation that you have the perpetrator, and that's good enough for the public to go about their lives.