Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Is Boston Bomb Prosecutor Aloke Chakravarty Capable?

The case against Boston Bomb suspects is prosecuted by the assistant US attorneys William Weinreb and Aloke Chakravarty from the Anti-Terrorism and National Security Unit of the US Attorney's Office for District of Massachusetts.

Last month David Voreacos portrayed Aloke Chakravarty as a guy who seeks dialogue. His colleagues, offcourse, had nothing but praise for Chakravarty. Kurt Schwartz, the Massachusetts undersecretary of homeland security and emergency management, claims, for example, 'Al(Aloke Chakravarty) is a talented guy, he’s a committed guy'.

However, if we want to judge wether Aloke Chakravarty is qualified and capable of 'seeking dialogue' as the title of David Voreacos article claims, we should study Chakravarty's involvement and role in the ongoing case against Beatrice Munyenyezi. A controversial case that could deeply damage the reputation of both prosecutors involved. 

From the start the risk of Rwanda's anti-democratic revolutionary regime (rigged elections in 2010, massive scale massacres across the great lakes region (mapping report), direct support of terrorism in the Democratic Republic of Congo today), 'bussing in' false witnesses was real. Capin and Chakravarty knew that this had happened in the case against Kobagaya

Both Aloke Chakravarty and John Capin knew that most of the witnesses from Rwanda in the first trial were unreliable liars. Munyenyezi's defense had demonstrated it. But instead of ending their case there and then, they decided to leave the first slate of false witnesses in Rwanda and get a new bus-load of false witnesses against Beatrice Munyenyezi for a retrial. Cynical and a direct attack on the rule of Law in the United States of America and the rights of every US citizen.

The editorial of the Concord Monitor, february 28th 2013 was crystal clear:
'We are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Manchester resident Beatrice Munyenyezi received justice.'
'the appeal is a long shot, but it’s one for justice’s sake we hope Munyenyezi wins. Unlike the jurors, we’re not convinced the prosecutors made their case.'
In the editorial the Concord Monitor asks several fundamental questions which Aloke Chakravarty and his colleague John Capin have been unable and unwilling to answer during the years long proceedings against Beatrice Munyenyezi: 
'Munyenyezi’s first trial ended in a hung jury because the charges against her were almost comically horrific – shooting a nun in the head as a cheering crowd watched – and the witnesses unbelievable. They included inmates freed in order to come to the United States who, her defense attorneys argued, could have their sentences reduced in exchange for favorable testimony.

That the prosecutors would go to court with such a slate of charges and cast of characters in itself raises questions. That they would return with drastically reduced allegations of Munyenyezi’s actions and an entirely new cast of Rwandan witnesses raises more questions still. Atop those is the big mystery. Munenyezi’s husband and mother-in-law, a Cabinet member, were prominent party officials convicted by an international tribunal of playing an active role in the genocide. If Munyenyezi played a role herself, why, during proceedings and investigations spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up? Why were no charges filed against her?

Last week, Rwanda’s ambassador to the United States immediately issued a farcical call for Munyenyezi’s summary extradition to Rwanda. Doing so would violate her rights under U.S. law and, since she has never been charged with a crime under Rwandan law, she can’t be extradited. It also suggests that politics played a role in the trial’s outcome.'
Aloke Chakravarty has not demonstrated that he is capable of dealing with the highly politicized Munyenyezi case in a satisfactory manner. He has ignored legitimate questions that I and many others have asked over and over in the case against Beatrice Munyenyezi. Aloke Chakravarty was unwilling or incapable of learning from the mistakes made in the case against Kobagaya. He has not delivered justice and failed the United States and it's citizens.

It's  very worrying to see such an individual, who is clearly unqualified, directly involved in the prosecution of the Boston bomb case.


Anonymous said...

Is this way the way you go about to slander a man that is prosecuting Tsarnaev. It's a matter of opinion whether you are qualified to discredit him because you don't like the way things have turned out, past or present. It's quite laughable that you must go to this extent when you are low on ideas of how to defend Tsarneav. Looking to cast doubt on this man and his work is underhanded and shows the mentality of a zealous idiots. Why don't you research Clarke and Bruck - see how many people they have gotten people off as innocent? That is right, not many because they all take plea deals or get life in prison. Maybe that is an indication of where this case is heading. Law is not exact science, but will have opinions and rulings that don't always make others happy. So far a judge has found the prosecution following the law - so maybe your time is best suited on helping his legal team find reasons to save Tsarnaev's life. Do something useful instead of blaming the others for Tsarnaev actions. Guilty.

Vincent Harris said...

Whatever, you clearly havent read my blogpost.

Anonymous said...

-_- ......shut up!
You are a fuckin' idiot.

Anonymous said...

It is clear from your blog post that you are not an impartial observer, and that you likely identify with and are otherwise beholden to the defendants. None of the sweeping statements you make, as in (paraphrasing) 'the prosecutor should know the first lot of witnesses were all liars, and should have dismissed their testimony out of hand' makes any sense. And the fact that you stretch these unwarranted statements to question Aloke Chakravarty's bona fides to prosecute Tsarnaev is despicable. Aloke is a fine public servant doing his duty.

Vincent Harris said...

Interesting what folks who know nothing about me or the Munyenyezi case come up with.

Anonymous said...

The comments on this page posted by an anonymous showing very knowledge about the Boston Bombing case. He believes what the government portrayed about him, this is the main reason that this prosecutor is running his case on the base of lying , as he did before. The Boston Bombing was the act of FBI and Boston Police and security were involved. Go tot he web and check it out the real people who shot all the pictures and very clearly showing who have the remote cont-troll on the hand and who they were. Go and check it out by yourself, this case is based on the lying that case was on the base of lying this is the main reason that this Hindu Indian prosecutor running the case. These are one of the liar people in this country, they don't have any conscience in them. Read about them that how much they are damaging our country.

Vincent Harris said...

Sofar the comment section illustrates that virtually nobody followed the Munyenyezi trials.

The conspiracy theorists crawling from under their rocks as well, if we go on this last comment.