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