Thank you for the answer.
If I may ask, how was Obama and the Federal courts able to insert itself into this if it is not being considered a Terror Attack?
Why wouldn’t Massachusetts fight tooth-and-nail for jurisdiction over the murder of its citizens?
There are federal statutes that deal with terrorist acts (including killing with bombs), even if not connected with any larger terrorist group. Obviously there are also a whole bunch of state laws at issue (murder, carjacking, many many others) - where both the state and the Feds have jurisdiction, you're right that they will often fight tooth-and-nail over who gets to try the guy. But, sometimes they won't - if it's an easier case to prove in one jurisdiction, for example, sometimes the other jurisdiction will defer. Or, if (as here) the state lacks a death penalty statute, the state may defer to the feds.
The Oklahoma City bombing is a good example. McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed in the Federal system, and Oklahoma never charged him (they didn't need to - the feds were going to execute him anyway). Terry Nichols, on the other hand, was tried both by the feds and then by Oklahoma, in part because Oklahoma wanted to make doubly sure he was never going to get out.