> The fact that he admitted involvement
The fact is that he did not so admit. Go ahead and try to find his alleged admission. Didn’t happen.
Whether he himself admitted the act is immaterial. What DO matter are the truckloads of evidence and witness statements against him. This, from the story covering the jury trial:
“Prosecutors called 92 witnesses over 15 days, including double amputees and the 8-year-old boy’s father. They presented a trove of more than 4,000 hours of surveillance footage that left little doubt about the Tsarnaevs’ culpability, not only in the marathon bombings but also in the murder of MIT officer Sean Collier.”
So.. all those 92 witnesses and that video footage is all bunk, eh?
The fact is that he did not so admit. Go ahead and try to find his alleged admission. Didn’t happen.
Then again, he was convicted.
What’s your overall point here. Is it that you perceive law enforcement framed him? Is it that you perceive his attorneys gave him bad legal advice? Do you perceive that proper legal procedures were not followed, so this man is a victim? What is your overall point?