Protection Witness - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

Protection witness

On the eve of the trial of Johar Tsarnaev, suspected of the terrorist attacks on the Boston Marathon 15 on April 2013, his student friend Robel Phillipos was found guilty of giving false testimony during the investigation of the case. He faces a long prison sentence.

They studied together at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The 21-year-old student summoned for interrogation denied that three days after the terrorist attacks he, along with Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbaev, came to the student dormitory where Tsarnaev lived. On that day, 18 on April 2013, Kadyrbaev, recognizing a friend in the televised footage of the two suspected explosive devices at the finish of the Boston Marathon, sent him an e-mail. In addition to the advice to refrain from any connection with him, the immediate response received an urgent request: “Come into my room and take everything you want." Friends understood everything. On the same day, from the premises occupied by Tsarnaev, they carried away material evidence that could indicate his involvement in the tragic events of April 15. Two days later, FBI officials found them in New Bedford’s garbage dump.

Phillipos at first denied that he had come with them, although he himself did not participate in the analysis and removal of evidence. Nor did he say what two other friends were doing in the room of the suspected terrorist. Later, on April 26, he nevertheless confessed that he came into their student abode with Tsarnaev and saw what they were doing. The jury nevertheless noted nine cases when he took the investigation by the nose, giving two false testimonies on April 20 and seven on the second 26 April interrogation.
Lawyers insisted that their client could not remember anything, and could only be confused in his testimony, because he was under the influence of a large dose of smoked marijuana. This, of course, is a find of protection, although not very original. Justification or mitigating base in such cases, even the magicians of the art of law, is not easy to find. She meanwhile found herself. The main trump card protection was an unexpected witness, whose name could stun anyone.
The rival of George W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988, the former governor of Massachusetts, three times elected to this post, Michael Dukakis himself volunteered to help the defendant. “I testify in defense of Robel Phillipos,” he began his 15 minute speech at the Federal Court of Boston with these words. He did not provide any important evidence on the merits of the case under consideration: he did not have them. His goal was different - to tell about the character, habits and nature of the young man, whom he had watched for many years.

His wife Kitty and mother of Phillipos, Janet Bekele - an emigrant from Ethiopia, being social workers of the same institution, together helped the refugees arriving in Boston. Teamwork rallied them, they began to be friends families. Phillipos grew up in front of new friends. Michael Dukakis knows him since childhood, spent a lot of time with him, and even took with him to the National Congress of the Democratic Party in 2004, held in Boston, where John Kerry was nominated for the presidency of the United States.
According to the former governor, now a professor at Northeastern University, on April 20 his wife received a call from Ms. Bekele, who was greatly alarmed that for two days she could not find her son. He agreed to contact Phillipos himself and found out that the young man had been interrogated for five hours at the FBI office.
The lawyer interrupted the witness by asking him: “Didn’t you think that, speaking of this, the defendant was confused?” “Yes,” confirmed Dukakis, “he said that he was so embarrassed that he didn’t even know what he said during his long interrogation. "
Coming out of the courthouse, Dukakis made a statement in which he expressed the hope that “Robel’s future will not be crushed by this experience ... I think that there is a great future ahead of him. He is a thinking, intelligent and law-abiding guy. I do not remember that before he got into any trouble ... "
Michael Dukakis is a very decent man, and his idealism, preserved until his old age, cannot but evoke sympathy. A liberal democrat, devoid of any personal gain, he always acts on the basis of his understanding of what needs to be done and what should not be done. So, his beloved father-in-law Harry Dickson (by the way, he is the son of immigrants who fled to America from pogroms in Ukraine at the beginning of the last century) all his professional life, or rather forty-nine years, served as a violinist in the Boston Symphony Orchestra, from the time of Sergey Kusevitsky . A few months before the significant date - his fifty-year stay in a renowned musical group - he was fired. The anniversary so rare for the musical world was disrupted due to an unforeseen conflict with the leader of the orchestra, Seiji Ozawa. For the hero of the day it was not just an extremely unpleasant moment, but a real and sensitive blow. Almost any person on the spot of Dukakis would use his position to easily negotiate with Ozawa and prevent the personal drama of a loved one. But Michael Dukakis is not like everyone else. He does only what he thinks is right, and this is quite natural for him. This distinguishes it from many officials, especially in our time, when the lines of natural and truly human behavior dangerously diverge.
Without changing over the years and always remaining himself, he went to the Federal Court of Boston with the same appealing naturalness in order to testify in favor of the defendant, whom he personally knew from the best side.
Judicial power in America is independent. At the same time, the impact on judicial decisions (both legal and hidden), at least in Massachusetts, has its long, not very attractive history. You can recall the tragic episode associated with Senator Edward Kennedy. His direct involvement in the death of a young woman in 1969 — the failure to help her and her escape from the scene — inevitably led the future president, as many thought, to legal proceedings. For all the nightly exploits, he was scolded in court and sentenced to ... a suspended sentence of two months - an amazing, if not to say incomprehensible, condescension for an extremely tough and severe branch of power. The judge who made such an “impartial” decision and, obviously, he was broken by him, the next day after the announcement of the verdict, filed a request for resignation. This is perhaps the most striking manifestation of "black holes" in the judicial system, but not the only one.

The most recent example of this kind is the decision of the Boston court in the fall of 2014 of the year regarding the head of the Probation Department, John O'Brien. Under his many years of leadership, the state agency, according to Judge William Young, has become a criminal enterprise. This large organization (it employs over two thousand people) and the Massachusetts Legislative Assembly provided mutual and far from disinterested services to each other: the first arranged for profitable work of relatives, friends or the right people of lawmakers, and the second generously satisfied the growing budget requests of this institution. Not only the hundreds of positions of responsibility in Massachusetts that were occupied by unskilled workers were subject to bidding; the manipulation has embraced the election process itself, including, in particular, the questionable elections of the current speaker Robert De Leo. Three of his predecessors were removed from office, but he happily and, we add, inexplicably avoided this very likely fate for him.
John O'Bryn, who was unanimously convicted of corruption by a jury of jury, was threatened with a prison sentence from 6 to 20 years. The judge, however, showed enviable gentleness, sentencing him to 18-month imprisonment. It is possible that he will be released early. The massive support for the defense of O'Brien, which was addressed by both acting officials and the former mayor of Boston, was not in vain.
Michael Dukakis also had chances for the success of his mission, but as it turned out - the jurors themselves said this after the verdict was passed - no one from the jury recognized him. The popular politician of past years is forgotten in his home state. It hardly bothers him at all.
Speaking in a federal court, he presented a portrait of an open, clean, and handsome guy. As soon as such a "Gaidar" boy found himself in the company of those who covered a person suspected of committing the most brutal terrorist attack in the entire history of Boston?

Boris Lipetsker

Leisure
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News


 
1078 requests in 1,081 seconds.