Stay updated with breaking news from Exxon valdez case. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Lawyer refused to discuss the case. can you tell us why she is accused of making these kind of threats, especially this family? i can t comment on an open case, thank you. reporter: the tsarnaev family first emigrated to the boston area back in 2002. the parents fleeing a troubled region of russia, were treated as legal residents and granted asylum, a status that opened the door for taxpayer-funded welfare. the state of massachusetts has confirmed the tsarnaevs received food stamps, public housing and other aid, on and off between 2002 and 2012. it was during this time that her brother, tamerlan, began his conversion to radical islam. then according to investigators, began filling his younger brother s head with a hatred towards the west. not much is known about the two tsarnaev daughter, ailina and bella, though they both lived together or near each other in new jersey. though muslim in appearance, ....
They have been disgusts. they ve done all the things you expect as a prosecutor, home run, right? but now let me ask you this if these jurors hate dzhokhar tsarnaev so much, would they not prefer to see him rot for 60 years in a cell than maybe get an early four-year out like when timothy mcveigh said, no thanks, i don t want to sit around in the stinking cell? it s possible. you never really know what the jury is thinking when they re looking at this kind of case. one can say, yeah, let s have him sit in jail forever, that s better punishment than what mcveigh chose. but it s difficult to tell. even if he gets the death penalty, there will be appeals. so he will be sitting around for a long time. 12k3w not necessarily, timothy mcveigh signed his ticket to the chair in four years and to a lot of people, that wasn t much punishment for what he did. thank you both so much. you know how dangerous the ....
Real liability for bp. the big liability will come from economic damages to property holders, shrimpers, fishermen to banks, to hotels and to small businesses onshore. in the exxon valdez case, exxon removed 8% of the oil. they spilled 11 million gallons and only removed 1 million. part of the reason is the company doesn t want to remove them. it wants to appear like it s trying to remove them. every barrel it removes cuts money, $100,000, from its bottom line. goodness. and it doesn t reduce commensurately the liability of the company by $100,000 onshore. probably not even $1. so bp s best bet at this point is to hide the oil, which it s been doing, using these dispersants, which are dangerous on their own, but are much more dangerous when you combine them with the oil. they force the oil to sink so the public doesn t see them. ....
Liability which is going to be the real liability for bp. the big liability will come from economic damages to property holders and banks and hotels and the small businesses onshore. in the exxon valdez case, exxon removed 8% of the oil. 11 million gallons and removed one. part of the reason is the company doesn t want to remove them. they want to appear like they are trying to remove them, but every barrel they remove cuts $100,000 from the bottom line. it doesn t reduce commensurately the liability of the company by $100,000 onshore. probably not even $1. bp s best bet at this point is to height the oil which it has been doing using these disburse ants which are dangerous on their own, but much more combined with the oil. ....
Nothing to reduce the onshore liability, which will be the real liability for bp. the big liability will come from economic damages to property holders, shrimpers, fishermen and small businesses onshore. in the exxon valdez case, exxon removed 8% of the oil. they spilled 11 million gallons and only removed one. part of the reason is the company doesn t want to remove them. it wants to appear like it s trying to remove them. every barrel it removes cuts money, $100,000, from its bottom line. and it doesn t reduce commensurately the liability of the company by $100,000 onshore. probably not even $1. so via bp s best bet at this point is to hide the oil, which it s been doing, using these dispersants, which are dangerous on their own, but are much more dangerous when you combine them with the oil. they force the oil to sink so ....