Details from the US Attorneys's office, which puts the injury toll at more than 200, in addition to the three people killed by the bombs last Monday. If convicted, he could face the death penalty or life in prison. He was formally charged in his hospital room at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
The FBI affidavit, below, has additional details on the government's allegations for both the bombings and the events after MIT Officer Sean Collier was murdered.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Tsarnaev complaint and affidavit | 0 bytes |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Good. Rot in hell you piece
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:16pm
Good. Rot in hell you piece of shit.
mass destruction?
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:24pm
Stretching a bit, aren't we?
Infernal device, sure.
Terrorism, sure.
Bombing, sure.
Shooting, sure.
Murder, sure.
All manner of traffic violations, sure.
Carjacking, sure.
But...WMD? It was two small bombs, not a nuclear/biological/chemical weapon.
Wait.
By Confused In Boston
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:36pm
... Seriously? Not to get into semantics here, but I'm fairly certain this falls into the category of "mass destruction".
define mass destruction
By bosguy22
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:42pm
wouldn't almost all bombings be "mass" destruction? Nobody ever said the term could only be used when discussing nuclear or chemical weapons.
from 18 USC Chapter 113B - Terrorism
By tape
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:49pm
and filtered through Wikipedia which helpfully consolidates references to other sections of the USC:
so explosives are covered, not just the nuclear/chemical/biological weapons we all think of as WMD.
The thing is...
By anon
Tue, 04/23/2013 - 7:30am
During the more recent Iraq war and the search for WMDs, we never found any. Iraq had an army so they certainly had weapons of mass destruction under this definition but the way that the US government and NATO were defining it with regard to Iraq was very different. The current confusion is understandable.
18 USC § 2332a defines a
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:46pm
18 USC § 2332a defines a "weapon of mass destruction as "any destructive device as defined in section 921." 18 USC § 921 includes any explosive bomb as a "destructive device". Just because you don't typically think of conventional explosives as weapons of mass destruction (usually a term reserved for CBRN devices) does not mean that it doesn't fit the definition as set forth in US law.
Doesn't the mass destruction
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:02pm
Doesn't the mass destruction of human life and limb not more than constitute "mass destruction"? Why would you even begin to question the charges against him?
don't forget
By SatansFist
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:42pm
wearing a baseball cap backwards...
Strange to think
By Sally
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:53pm
That if he'd worn that stupid cap the right way around, it might have been much harder to ID him. From the photos we've seen, he's the most distinctive-looking one--the older brother was much harder to ID.
Has anyone else
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:38pm
heard anything about the Saudi National Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi being deported. He was the one who's apartment got raided on Monday after the bombing.
Alharbi got caught on
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:44pm
Alharbi got caught on something illegal unrelated to the bombing and because he is part of some VIP family the State Department decided it would be easier to deport him rather than deal with it messily in court.
And what was the
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:46pm
Unrelated criminal activity? Couldn't have been shoplifting or j-walking for the US to deport the kid!
Prob
By anon²
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 4:56pm
Just recreational drug possession.
No, but when I googled it,
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:55pm
No, but when I googled it, Infowars was the first result and all the other sources were similar nutjob havens so...
Well, at first the news was
By Anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:03pm
Well, at first the news was saying that those arrests were related to Tsarnaev, then later that those in the apartment were arrested on immigration matters. I'm wondering if "immigration matters" is just a polite way of saying, "You were somehow associated with this *sshole, and we don't want you here anymore."
Uh yeah...
By Sally
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:50pm
Because if he was part of some kind of international terrorist ring that had conspired to bomb the marathon. I'm sure they would have just popped him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia.
Keep your day job, OK?
could also be that "we jumped
By anon
Tue, 04/23/2013 - 8:54am
could also be that "we jumped the gun and now everyone thinks you're a terrorist, so it would be safer if you just left the country?"
Just the bomb charges?
By Kaz
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:17pm
Murder, carjacking, theft...hell, probably even gun possession/use violations.
But just the 2 bomb charges? Is this so that if they fumble the case somehow they can still go back and get him for the other crimes later instead of possibly botching it all in one go?
Plenty of time for other charges
By tblade
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:27pm
You only need one charge to keep him in custody. There is plenty of time to charge him with the hundreds of other offenses and build air-tight cases for each of them.
I personally can't wait until he is charged with killing his own brother.
just for the irony
By SatansFist
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:41pm
they should have just charged him with his brother's death, and then added the other charges later
Murder, carjacking, & theft
By avjudge
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 4:16pm
Murder, carjacking, & theft sound like state issues to me - I'm not sure about exactly what's what, but do know that most criminal issues that don't cross state lines are only the concern of the state, not the federal government.
Carjacking
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 7:34pm
Carjacking is a federal offense.
http://www.williamtoddlaw.com/newsletters/criminal...
They also kidnapped the driver.
BIDMC in Brookline?
By anon
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 3:52pm
The judge's lineout is odd. Or does that refer to some location other than where the formal charges happened?
BI is on Brookline Avenue
By adamg
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 4:00pm
So maybe he just left out part of the address?
Perhaps where the judge lives?
By Ron Newman
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 4:02pm
Since the judge signed this on Sunday evening, perhaps she did so at her home (in Brookline?) rather than at the Moakley Courthouse in Boston.
Add comment