Najibullah Zazi to Return for Day 4 of Questioning

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:12:01 PM EST
Tags: Najibullah Zazi (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update to our last post on unanimous media reports that Najibullah Zazi has admitted being involved in terror-related activities (which his lawyer, who is now issuing statements through a public relations firm, is still denying): The Denver Post reports Zazi left the Federal Building at 5:30 p.m. and is due back tomorrow for a fourth day of questioning. [Update: He was allowed to go home.]

Sounds like the interview that began in an attempt for Zazi to convince the feds he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time has turned into a proffer session where he's trying to get the best deal in exchange for his cooperation. His PR spokesperson says no deal is on the table, but won't rule one out, which tells me he still has a way to go to earn it.

Repeat after me: The jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the cops would see it their way. The 5th Amendment and Miranda rights are there for good reason. Use them or lose them.

Update: His lawyer seems to be stopping his media comments about his client. He tells ABC News no plea deal has been offered and he can't discuss anything else.

Update: Late Friday night, Zazi's attorney again spoke to the media:

But Zazi's attorney, Art Folsom, told 9New late Friday that "no, he did not admit to having ties to al-Qaeda" and "no, he did not admit to going to a terrorist training camp" or admit to playing a key role in a plot.... Folsom said there have been no plea negotiations.

Prior Posts:

< Report: Najibullah Zazi in Plea Negotiations, FBI to Question Zazi's Father | Friday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Najibullah Zazi to Return for Day 4 of Questioning | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Great post, Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by rdandrea on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:36:20 PM EST

Especially the last paragraph.

something (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 12:56:21 AM EST

The 5th Amendment and Miranda rights are there for good reason. Use them or lose them.

i've been drilling into my children since they were born. hopefully, they'll never have to use it.

The jails are filled with people (none / 0) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:10:04 AM EST

The jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the cops would see it their way.

iow, the jails are filled with guilty people.

I've a had cars, credit card #'s, bank acount #'s, etc., stolen from me.

I certainly hope those people tried to talk their way out of police custody and ended up in jail.

IMO (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lentinel on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:23:55 AM EST

I think that Jeralyn is saying that people who are really innocent think that if they just tell the police what happened, the police will be on their side. I believe that she is saying that in her experience, the police have been able to distort information that is freely given without the advice of council. These are the people that she is saying that the jails are full of. But for the grace of God....

The guilty ones probably know all about their rights and would never say anything without an attorney present. Ironic.


very well said (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 11:28:33 AM EST

thank you.


So you ARE saying the jails are full of innocents: (2.00 / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 06:00:59 PM EST

I think that Jeralyn is saying that people who are really innocent think that if they just tell the police what happened, the police will be on their side. I believe that she is saying that in her experience, the police have been able to distort information that is freely given without the advice of council. These are the [innocent] people that she is saying that the jails are full of.

My []'s.

That there may be some innocents in jail, I can very much believe.

That the jails are full of innocents, I don't at all.

(Note that I certainly am not arguing with J's main message - that absolutely no one should give up their right to having an attorney present when being interviewed by LE.)


Look... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by lentinel on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 08:22:37 AM EST

I wouldn't want to be one of the ones put in the pokey because I believed so strongly in my innocence that I talked to the police without advice of council.

Before reading Jeralyn's post, I might have done so because of a misplaced belief in the goodness of human nature or the integrity of law enforcement - or just out of a desire to talk during a stressful time.

So whether the jails are "full of" - or whether there are just "lots of" innocent people in jail who shouldn't be - I am grateful for her post.


Look... (2.00 / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 12:01:43 PM EST

The point is that I don't believe for a second the the jails are "full" of innocent people. Nor that there are "lots" of innocent people in jail. Not even remotely factually true.

That there are some, I have no doubt. A very, very small percent, for sure. Not that that makes it OK that there are any innocents in jail at all.

Let's not bend the truth just to try to make a point.


btw. My response (comment #6) (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 12:04:57 PM EST

was meant to be for Jeralyn. She is the one claiming "the jails are full of innocents."


please don't misrepresent my comments (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 12:30:18 PM EST

I did not say "the jails are filled with innocents." I said, the jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the cops would see it their way.


: Oy. No. (none / 0) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 04:39:12 PM EST

Misrepresent implies intent or malfeasance on my part, imo. There certainly was none on my part.
Thank you for your explanation:
I did not say "the jails are filled with innocents."
Because it sure did sound like you were saying that, especially after you fully supported lentinal's comment which absolutely did say that - that the jails are full innocent people who spoke freely to the police and had their comments distorted by the police such that they landed in jail.
Like I said in my first comment, I rather hope those who stole stuff from me over the years, etc., did speak freely with the police and that justice was done...