Boston bomber's pal was too high to lie, attorney says


completely discombobulated

he was around 19 years old at the time? sounds like an average day for me back then, complete with ample testimonials. this was true of most everyone I knew, assuming you didn’t have a class to go to or they were done for the day.

1 Like

Whatever you say Professor.


sadly, possible future politician

I was gonna conceal evidence of a crime … but then I got high.


The stoner defense. Who’da thunk it.

Nixon should have gone for it.


That’s beyond brilliant. Can you imagine? It’s so audacious, it would have worked. Really.

Now I’m hearing him doing his version of the “Checkers” speech, except saying “It’s my bong. And I’m going to keep it.”

What a piss-poor excuse. Clearly this is nothing more than slimy a legal maneuver.

Emotionally charged events leave deep impressions in the mind and are not easily forgotten.

Marijuana may inhibit memory to some extent, but not to the degree that you would forget an important event like aiding and abetting a violent terrorist.

Maybe this would be a reasonable claim if he had been on Rohypnol or Scopolamine.

I bet the pressure of being interrogated altered his capacity for memory recall more than a few bong rips would.

I hope he doesn’t get off on this flimsy technicality.

Too high to lie to the FBI.

Oh my!

1 Like

I gotta say, dude is lookin’ sharp in that picture.

I work with someone who uses weed to deal with his MS. He is not a reliable witness for *anything *. He literally couldn’t tell the cops what he did five minutes minutes ago to save his life. Whether this kid got that epically high, I dunno, but it is certainly possible.

Marijuana, keeping us safe from terrorism since. . . I don’t remember when.


I’ve got to ask, what sort of work do you do where being stoned out of your mind is not a major impediment? I’m looking for a new job right now…

1 Like

We had a break-in several years ago. Someone threw a rock through a back window and came in. The police nabbed a suspect, whom a neighbor had earlier seen wandering into our back yard. When the police asked why he was down at our end of the street (a dead end) and in our yard, he said he had come down there to get high. He was later acquitted. So this strategy is not without precedent…

1 Like

Independent living support for differently abled clients. It’s me that’s at work, not him. He smokes prodigious amounts of weed.
(I am NEVER stoned at work. No Sir. Nu-uh. Not me…)

How did you feel about that outcome?

It strikes me as bad precedent to set that person is not responsible for their actions when using a mind altering substance.

At the very least they should be responsible, since at some point they were sober and decided to get high. Which in turn caused them to “lose control” (<-- can you tell I think that this is BS) and commit a crime.

Well now I feel like I’m on a daytime talk show. :wink:

Well I was being a wiseguy when I posted that response, that’s not really why he was acquitted – though it really was the alibi that he gave the cops. He was acquitted because no one saw him breaking and entering.

Postscript: A few weeks after the arrest, a detective called me to ask if I had noticed anything else missing, and I had not. Months later, I did notice that an old cell phones was gone, so presumably they found it on the guy, and that’s what the detective was asking about (but could not be more specific).

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.