BOSTON BOMBING

[Len Colby]

Witness account and photos of the shootout.

http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures

[Ed Merritt]

Just after the Bombing several news sources reported they had a person of interest in custody and that this individual was being guarded by local law enforcement at a local hospital. Almost immediately the news either recanted or stated this was not true. My understanding is that the individual that was in custody may have had his hands damaged in one of the blasts. I heard that immediately following the Bombing the Saudi Foreign Minister was summoned to the U.S. and that ultimately the guy with the damaged hands is wisked off somehow never to be seen again. It seems like like much of the evil going on these days involves radical Islam with strong Saudi ties. Does this story ring a bell with anyone?

[Steven Gaal]

BOSTON UPDATE: Third Tsarnaev Friend Convicted For Lying to Feds

Oct 29, 2014 by James Henry

Categories: Featured, Police State, Rights

Robel Phillipos, convicted on two counts of making false statements. (YouTube)

Few have been paying attention to the “supporting actor” trials now paving the way for the main act in the prosecution of America’s largest terrorist act since 9/11, the Boston Bombing.

They’re worth paying attention to, for what they demonstrate about how the government is ensuring that the official story will stick all the way through to conviction.

The latest development in this blockbuster drama came during the trial and conviction of Robel Phillipos, friend of accused Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A jury on Oct. 28 convicted him on two counts of lying to investigators, for which he now faces up to 16 years in prison.

Jurors found he’d made false statements during two interviews with the FBI within days of the April 15 bombing. Specifically, he was convicted for lying about his whereabouts on the night of April 18. Phillipos, 19, said he was “stoned out of his mind” on marijuana at the time, and that’s why he gave the conflicting statements, according to his defense attorney.

This trial fits squarely with the particular public image of the Tsarnaevs and their friends that has arisen from media coverage and the government pronouncements in it. Anyone remotely involved with the brothers is immediately judged to be part of a nest of conniving terrorist sympathizers. That’s certainly no presumption of innocence. Phillipos undoubtedly faced this added burden in his trial.

Taken together with a steady stream of leaks about the bombing investigation, it’s clear the government wants to ensure it will have a slam-dunk case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at his trial in January. Yet it doesn’t have to go the extra mile, thanks to a tried-and-true FBI method that was on display in Phillipos’ trial.

Testimony during Phillipos’ prosecution elicited obvious contradictions in the government’s case, and demonstrated how the FBI’s interviewing methods stack the deck in its favor, every time.

First, let’s take a look at the discrepancy in the government’s case, which surfaced during FBI Agent Timothy Quinn’s testimony. Quinn, who interviewed Phillipos, told prosecutors when he testified on Oct.15 that the defendant told him he wanted to help the FBI “nail the mother***ker,” referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Quinn then stated that he didn’t believe Phillipos.

That story only lasted until the cross-examination by Phillipos’ attorney, when Quinn said the defendant was highly cooperative. (In point of fact, Phillipos agreed to be interviewed multiple times without a lawyer.)

Off the Record But Don’t Argue It

There was another disparity in the facts that arose, which was central to Phillipos’ case and to understanding how powerful FBI interviews are as prosecutorial weapons.

The dispute hinged on when Phillipos arrived at Dzhokhar’s dormitory room, and who was with him. Prosecutors pointed to a written confession in which Phillipos said he showed up with two Tsarnaev friends. Yet Phillipos’ attorney pointed out that the trial had already established that one of those people was in the room long before the defendant arrived.

What does all that mean? That Phillipos’ confession had factual errors. Moreover, it suggests that the written statement was coerced or included false information colored by what Phillipos’ interrogator told him. At the very least, it does lend credence to the notion that he does not accurately remember the night’s events.

It also tells us something about the tricky issue of “making false statements.” As Phillipos’ defense attorney pointed out numerous times, none of the FBI interviews were recorded electronically, either with video or sound. There’s no way for a third party to verify what actually went on in those interviews.

Hard to believe that in this day and age, right?

***

Boston area defense attorney and civil liberties advocate Harvey Silverglate has written extensively on the FBI’s non-recording policy and its potential for abuse. He summarizes the inherent problem with the FBI’s policy this way:

FBI agents always interview in pairs. One agent asks the questions, while the other writes up what is called a “form 302 report” based on his notes. The 302 report, which the interviewee does not normally see, becomes the official record of the exchange; any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution for lying to a federal official, a felony.

So, as Silverglate points out, something as simple as arguing an FBI agent’s interpretation of what was said, or what they think they heard, opens up an individual to threats of prosecution similar to what Phillipos faced.

Not only that, juries must place their faith entirely in the honesty of the testifying agent. Yet lying under oath by law enforcement is so common it’s been given its own name: “testilying.”

Regardless of what transpired in those interviews, 16 years behind bars seems extreme for the charge of “making false statements.” Even The Boston Globe, not known for its evenhanded coverage of the Marathon bombing, recently ran an editorial questioning the wisdom of putting a young man behind bars for that long because of what appeared to be a stupid mistake.

What could possibly be worth the state expending so many resources to prosecute and then incarcerate this individual for as long as 16 years?

Silence, perhaps?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Boston Bombing Prosecutor: Witnesses ‘Afraid’ to Testify

Nov 18, 2014 by Joseph L. Flatley

Categories: Deep Politics, Our Investigations, Police State

The Boston Marathon bombing is much more important than has been acknowledged, principally because it is the defining domestic national security event since 9/11—and has played a major role in expanding the power of the security state. For that reason, WhoWhatWhy is continuing to investigate troubling aspects of this story and the establishment media treatment of it. We will be exploring new elements of the story regularly as the January trial of the accused co-conspirator Dzhokhar Tsarnaev approaches.

***

The defense witnesses in the Boston Bombing trial certainly have reason to be afraid to testify, given the long official intimidation campaign against them.

Yet, ironically, it is now the government that is claiming its witnesses are scared and even unwilling to testify. Unsurprisingly, the judge overseeing the trial against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has agreed with the prosecutors.

Since the Boston Marathon bombing last year, WhoWhatWhy has reported on a pattern of intimidation towards people associated with the accused bombers, Dzhokhar and his late elder brother, Tamerlan. Those connected to the case have been intimidated, deported, jailed, and even killed.

It got so bad that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense asked U.S. District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. for permission to conceal the names of individual witnesses until the day before they’re due to testify. That’s because, the defense argues, they fear the witnesses will be subject to further FBI harassment.

Unusual Request

Judy Clarke, a member of the defense team, admitted it was an unusual request. “We don’t want to do it,” Clarke told the court. “We’re already struggling to get people to talk to us. We are really worried about losing the slim list of real potential witnesses we have.”

The government countered that it was having trouble convincing bombing victims to cooperate. They are “afraid, if not unwilling, to testify against the man accused of dismembering or traumatizing them in a terrorist attack.” Further, the prosecution argued, keeping Tsarnaev’s witnesses under wraps would hand him an unfair advantage.

On Nov. 12, O’Toole sided with the prosecution, ordering the defense to disclose its preliminary witness list by Dec. 29. He also announced that jury selection will begin on Jan. 5, when an initial 1,200 prospective jurors will be called in to fill out questionnaires over the course of the next three days.

Leaving aside the question of Tsarnaev’s guilt, which has been officially presented as a foregone conclusion with little outside critical analysis of the investigation, his chances at trial are numerically slim.

The Justice Department’s latest statistics show a criminal conviction rate of 93 percent.

#####################

#####################

Boston Carjacking Unravels 1

Mar 11, 2014 by Russ Baker

“Danny”

An exclusive WhoWhatWhy investigation has found serious factual inconsistencies in accounts provided by the only witness to the alleged confession of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects.

Why does this matter? Because this witness is the sole source for the entire publicly accepted narrative of who was behind the bombing and its aftermath—and why these events occurred.

In case we’ve forgotten how convoluted and murky the story initially seemed, let’s recall how:

-Tamerlan Tsarnaev, on a US security watch list since 2011 after the Russians provide a warning to American intelligence, goes overseas and allegedly exhibits further problematic behavior.

-In April, 2013, a savage attack is unleashed at the Boston Marathon, disrupting an iconic American event. Innocent people lose limbs and lives, America is traumatized anew, and a large American city is “locked down” while normal processes and procedures are abandoned. We are told that Tsarnaev and his younger brother are responsible for all this–and for the cold-blooded execution of a campus police officer several days later.

Yet our sense of certainty that the Tsarnaevs did this—and did it alone without America’s security apparatus knowing a thing—is actually dependent largely on the say-so of one person, one witness. While we’ve been told that authorities have definitive proof, including a video showing the brothers leaving the backpack with the bomb, we’ve never actually seen it.

Thus, the problems we have uncovered with the witness’s testimony (as represented by law enforcement) now raise questions about almost everything concerning what has been described as the largest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

Truth and Its Pants

As the classic saying goes, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” That is perhaps even more true in these days of Twitter and Facebook and instant blogging. When a big news story breaks, the first reports are often rife with misinformation based on a combination of innocent mistakes, sloppiness, conjecture, and poor communication.

Yet it’s also true that during those first 24 hours, pieces of inconvenient truth may emerge that will soon be denied or even suppressed as the messy facts get neatly fashioned into an “official story.”

Such was the case with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy: sheriff’s deputies converging on the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas reported finding an entirely different type of gun than the one ultimately said to have been the murder weapon. And doctors at Parkland Hospital claimed initially that a shot had hit President Kennedy from the front, before they were told in no uncertain terms that they were mistaken, and a narrative formed around all the shots coming from behind—and only from the Depository.

Truth seekers know, from experience, to pay close attention to how a narrative changes in the first hours, days and weeks following an event of significance. That would be especially apt when the one whose story is changing is the principal witness.

Meet “Danny”

The identification of the alleged Boston bombers, now a virtually unchallenged “fact,” is based largely on a single event: the supposed carjacking of a young man whose identity is still masked from public scrutiny. The public’s understanding of what took place is based on this anonymous person’s oft-cited claims to have witnessed a dual confession from Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who purportedly boasted of having committed both the bombing and a later murder of an MIT police officer.

According to the widely accepted story of the horrific events of April 15-19, 2013, three days after the Marathon bombing, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer was shot and, within minutes, a young man in a Mercedes SUV was carjacked, across the river in the Brighton section of Boston. Police and media accounts have Tamerlan Tsarnaev abducting a young Chinese national (known publicly only by the pseudonymous first name “Danny”). In these accounts, Tsarnaev tells Danny that he was responsible for both the Boston bombing and the MIT shooting.

The alleged carjacking led to a law enforcement shutdown of the greater Boston area, a huge manhunt, and subsequent confrontations in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot and killed. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, was seriously wounded by multiple gunshots while hidden in a boat, before being apprehended by police.

In the current “official” narrative, the Tsarnaev brothers took Danny on a wild 90-minute ride that traversed the Boston area and involved stops to extract money from Danny’s bank account and then to buy gas for the brothers’ planned escape from the Boston metro area.

It was during a stop at a gas station, the story goes, that the younger brother went inside to pay for the gas. While the older brother was momentarily preoccupied with a GPS device, Danny made his escape and was soon sharing with law enforcement his claim that he had heard the crucial confession.

But a 10-month investigation by WhoWhatWhy has found major inconsistencies in Danny’s story — inconsistencies that call into question whether the authorities now prosecuting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for murder are leveling with the American people.

The Consensus Narrative

The consensus narrative of the Boston Marathon bombing and its aftermath, which began appearing in the media as early as the morning of April 19, goes something like this:

For several days after the violence of Monday, April 15—which killed three people and injured another 264—an uneasy public waited nervously for word of who was behind the savage attack. The authorities were under intense pressure to produce results. The hours and days ticked by.

Then, suddenly, action! At 5pm on Thursday afternoon, the FBI released pictures of two suspects. At approximately 10:20, violence exploded anew, in a different and wholly surprising direction. On the quiet nighttime streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts, an MIT campus police officer, Sean Collier, was apparently executed in cold blood by the panicked Tsarnaev brothers in a botched effort to get his gun. And then another newsflash: a young Boston man had been carjacked—and after a bizarre, circuitous drive around the area, escaped to tell an astonishing tale: his captors had confessed to him their responsibility for both the Marathon bombing and the killing of Officer Collier.

That turn of events ushered in a cavalcade of developments almost too rapid to follow. It justified the unprecedented military and law enforcement “lockdown” of Greater Boston and the intense manhunt that riveted the world and brought the Boston bombing story to a quick and dirty conclusion. In the early morning hours of April 19, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed when he was shot in a firefight and then run over by his younger brother, Dzhokhar. The brother escaped, but was discovered that evening hiding in a boat parked in a backyard, and was apprehended in critical condition after authorities fired a barrage of shots into the boat.

This frontier-justice resolution of a national tragedy eventually led to a huge rally featuring the vice president as the key speaker, praising the bravery and responsiveness of the security state. A specialty beer and a charity event were fashioned around the tragic young officer, bike rides and a host of tributes to the “first responder” followed. In the end, everyone could feel good about their country, about the “heroism” of the lowly, underpaid campus cop, about the vaunted efficiency of their law-enforcement agencies. Stressed-out Bostonians, and Americans everywhere, could be reassured that all was well in the land.

That is the generally established narrative. But after studying the various accounts provided by “Danny” to the media and law enforcement, WhoWhatWhy has found substantial inconsistencies on a range of points—that are too drastic to be explained as the usual variations that arise in retelling.

Taken together, those inconsistencies demonstrate at minimum essential unreliability, and perhaps something much more troubling…from a key witness offering damning life-or-death evidence in the worst terrorist attack since 9/11.

Is Danny some pathological xxxx seeking fame? Or is he someone more sympathetic and perhaps vulnerable—a foreign-national entrepreneur, with an uncertain immigration status, being squeezed by law enforcement to help quickly tidy up a messy disaster that caught our multi-billion-dollar-a-year national security apparatus off guard?

Where was Danny Carjacked?

Danny said: Brighton Avenue, Allston (across the river from Cambridge)

Conflicting version: 3^rd Street, Cambridge, the Middlesex County District Attorney initially said.

How Long Was Danny Held Hostage?

Danny said: 90 minutes (reported by The Boston Globe, NBC and CBS).

Conflicting version 1: 30 minutes, according to a joint statement by Middlesex acting district attorney Michael Pelgro, Cambridge police commissioner Robert Haas and MIT police chief John DiFava:

“Authorities launched an immediate investigation into the circumstances of the shooting. The investigation determined that two males were involved in this shooting.

“A short time later, police received reports of an armed carjacking by two males in the area of Third Street in Cambridge.

“The victim was carjacked at gunpoint by two males and was kept in the car with the suspects for approximately a half hour.”

Conflicting version 2: “a few minutes,” according to the Boston Globe and this report by the Associated Press, citing the Cambridge Police Department:

“Police said Friday at a Watertown news conference that one of the brothers stayed with the carjacking victim for a few minutes and then let him go.”

Pervaiz Shallwani of the Wall Street Journal, one of the very few who was able to see at least part of the Cambridge police report, supports this shorter time span when he writes:

“Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the brothers accused of the bombing, crossed the Charles River into Boston and stole a Mercedes SUV at gunpoint, briefly holding the driver hostage, according to an excerpt from the Cambridge Police Department report filed by the driver and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.”

How Did Danny Gain His Freedom?

Danny said: He escaped when Tamerlan, seated next to him, was momentarily distracted, according the Boston Globe, NBC and CBS.

Conflicting version 1: He simply got out of the car when both brothers were outside the car, having left him alone, according to WMUR.

Conflicting version 2: The Tsarnaev brothers never held Danny as a captive, according to the Associated Press and Cambridge Police Department. They simply detained him for a few minutes, then left him by the roadside, essentially confiscating his vehicle. In this scenario, he had almost no interaction with the brothers, raising questions as to whether they would have confessed to the two crimes before taking off with his car.

Tamerlan’s Location When Danny Escapes?

Conflicting version 1: Tamerlan was at the gas pump.

Note: the conversation below includes paraphrasing of Danny’s comments in an ABC (WMUR) interview with Nick Spinetto, April 22, 2013. We replaced the paraphrases with Danny’s actual comments whenever they were flashed on the screen—presumably from a transcript of Spinetto’s interview with Danny. While they are very similar to Spinetto’s paraphrasing, we used the on-screen comments from Danny for greater precision.

Spinetto: (On camera) Well, the carjacking victim is actually shaken to the core after being taken hostage by the Boston Marathon bombers. Today, he and I spoke at length. For safety reasons, he asked us not to reveal his name, but he did describe in vivid detail his capture by the wanted terrorists, those brutal minutes he thought he would die and, ultimately, his brave escape.

Spinetto: (Voice over scene) Shortly after MIT police officer Sean Collier was killed, authorities received reports of an armed carjacking only minutes away. Monday, that carjacking victim was ready to tell his story, but not ready to do an on-camera interview. The man says it was Thursday night around 11, he was in his car pulled over to the side of the road, when a man approached holding a gun to the passenger side window.

The victim said: “the man asked if I knew about the Boston bombing explosion. He said: ‘I did that.'”

Court documents released Monday afternoon state: “the man with a gun forced the victim to drive to a second location, where they picked up a second man. The two men put something in the trunk of the victim’s vehicle.” The contents are thought to be the ammunition and explosives used in a battle with police later that night. The carjacking victim says he was forced into the front passenger seat as one brother drove. Now a hostage, he says: “They asked me where I’m from. I told them I’m Chinese. I was very scared. I asked them if they going to hurt me. They say they won’t hurt me. I was thinking, I think they will kill me later.” But if that was their plan, they wouldn’t get the chance. The victim told us: “My car is running out of gas, so they want to have some gas.”

Spinetto: (On camera) The carjacking victim says that he drove, here, to this Shell station on Memorial drive. While one brother went inside to pay for the gas, the other pumped… and that’s when the victim took off.

Spinetto: (Voice over scene) Of his daring escape, he says: “I thought it was a very good chance for me to run. So, I made a judgment. I use my left hand to unbuckle my belt, my right hand to open door… I jump out of the car, run away— across the street. The guy… outside the car tried to catch me… use his hand. Tried to catch me but I ran very fast. Couldn’t capture me because I run very fast. I heard them— they said (expletive) when I get to run. I’m still… I can’t stop recording that moment when I was running out of the car… I was running… I was worried. It was very scary at that moment. For me, I’m so lucky.”

Conflicting version 2: Tamerlan was in the car.

Note: This version comes from an interview with Danny by CBS News’ John Miller.

Miller: So, when you get to the gas station, tell me what everybody does. Who does what, first, and then what happens?

Danny: Okay, so, when we get it to the gas station… hm… Jahar [Dzhokhar] get out of the car, he took my… credit card, trying to pump using my credit card. I was very lucky, the pump, it was only cash only. So, he look, looked at my window, say, asked me, [he] say: “It’s cash only!” So, Tamerlan asked him to pay some cash inside.

John Miller: So he has to go in the store.

Danny: Jahar has to go into a store.

John Miller: So now it’s you and Tamerlan in the car.

Danny: I was with Tamerlan, so, I think it’s a very good chance for me, you know, there’s only one person in the car right now… and uh, I was, uh, trying to watch what, uh, Tamerlan is doing… uh, I was trying to find the gun… I didn’t see the gun because the gun was put in the pocket of the, of the door.

John Miller: Now, is Tamerlan sitting next to you in the car? Is he standing outside the car?

Danny: He was sitting next to me. He was on the, uh, driver’s seat, I was on the passenger seat.

John Miller: So this, you think, this is your chance.

Danny: This is my chance. So, I was… struggling, you know, should I do this? Should I do this? Becau [sic]… another good thing for me is the door was unlocked. The only thing I have to do is, use my left hand to unfasten the seatbelt, use my right hand to open the door.

John Miller: So, the thing that you’ve been rehearsing in your mind, three steps, is now down to two.

Danny: Down to two, yeah. So, that’s [unintelligible] I found that Tamerlan used both his hands, like, play, like, doing some GPS thing, or something. So, I think it’s very good for me.

[CBS News report: first of 5 clips refers to Tamerlan “fiddling” with GPS.]

John Miller: So he’s got, he’s got the gun in the side pocket of the door, he’s got a GPS, his brother’s in the gas station, and you say… the time is now.

Danny: Yeah, yeah…the time is now, you know.

John Miller: So how do you do that in your head? Do you say, 123…?

Danny: I was, I was counting- I was counting, I went, 1234. And I… just do it! And ah, I did it.

John Miller: So what happens?

Danny: I jump out of the, jump, jump out of the, the vehicle, and I close the door, and I can feel, Tamerlan was trying to grab me, he didn’t touch me, but I could feel him trying to grab me.

John Miller: And now you’re runnin’.

Danny: I was run. I was runnin’, I was running.

Conflicting version 3: The New York Times version

As if it weren’t enough to discover these totally incompatible versions of whether he was carjacked at all, and if so, for how long, and whether he escaped or was released, there is yet another variation, courtesy of the “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, the preferred go-to place for official leaks.

The article appeared on April 20 under the bylines of two Washington-based, veteran national security reporters. In the piece, almost entirely based on a narrative delivered to the world’s most influential news organization by an unnamed source identified only as a “senior law enforcement official,” the official explains that

“It was only after the suspects decided not to kill the owner of a sport utility vehicle that had been carjacked and instead threw him out of his car around 1 a.m. — a decision that ultimately undid their plans to elude the authorities — that they re-emerged on the authorities’ radar.”

It is certainly interesting that in this interview, presumably viewed as crucial, and conducted within a day or so of the carjacking, a highly briefed official would get “wrong” such a central fact as Danny’s manner of parting with the brothers.

The Times account may have been the first “official” story of what happened. It would be many days before Danny’s revised account of a dramatic escape would emerge. (If the Times ever published an explanation of how it got this so “wrong” in comparison with the eventual official narrative, we could not find it.)

Also, in Danny’s revised account, there is no mention that the suspects “decide[d] not to kill” him. Indeed, he said they made clear from the outset that they would not harm him. Putting together elements of these two different accounts, one could conclude that, in fact, the hijackers always meant not to harm him but only to use his car to escape what they took to be their own certain deaths if they remained in town during a police manhunt spurred by a “cop killing” that they had reason to think they would be accused of.

***

Spinetto’s interview with Danny tracks with the New York Times’ version, and it is based not on a second-hand account from an unidentified law enforcement source but on a direct interview with Danny. So we thought it essential to ask Spinetto what he made of all this.

Yet when WhoWhatWhy contacted Spinetto, he told us he could not speak with us unless the station manager at the Hearst-owned WMUR, Alisha McDevitt, approved. In an email, McDevitt wrote: “We will not be able to approve this request.”

To sum up, we see three very different versions.

Version 1: Danny was essentially let go by his “captors”

Version 2: The brothers cared so little about him that he was left alone in the car, and then “escaped.”

Version 3: He “bravely” escaped when Tamerlan let his guard down and was momentarily distracted.

The one thing we notice about the evolution of the Danny narrative is that the original story did little to support the notion that the brothers were cold-blooded, ruthless killers. Simply put, the story that is now cast in stone makes much more sense if the goal was to create an impression of the brothers as ideologically driven terrorists and the murderers of an innocent police officer.

First Report of a Confession—and to One or Both Crimes?

The first “dual confession” report we could find, from the Associated Press, came early on the afternoon of April 19, from Edward Deveau, police chief of Watertown, the scene of a wild car chase during which Tamerlan Tsarnaev allegedly lobbed explosives at his pursuers before being gunned down.

Later that night, NBC also reported the dual confession, attributing it to “sources”:

The carjacking victim was released unharmed at a gas station in Cambridge, sources said. He told police the brothers said they were the marathon bombers and had just killed a campus officer.

By the next day, more news outlets (see this and this) were picking up the dual admission.

However, the Criminal Complaint, filed on the 21^st, which states that Tamerlan admitted to Danny their role in the bombing, notably says nothing about an admission to having killed Collier.

The man pointed a firearm at the victim and stated, “Did you hear about the Boston explosion?” and “I did that.”

On April 22, Nick Spinetto interviews Danny for WMUR and ABC. Interestingly, Spinetto has Tamerlan admitting to the Marathon bombing, but, as with the Criminal Complaint, there is no mention of killing Officer Collier. This omission seems highly newsworthy on its own.

On April 25, late in the evening, the Boston Globe published on boston.com an article based on an interview with Danny by its reporter Eric Moskowitz, the most detailed account to date—an account that has subsequently become the “official” carjacking narrative. It characterizes Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s actions as follows:

“Don’t be stupid,” he told Danny. He asked if he had followed the news about Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings. Danny had, down to the release of the grainy suspect photos less than six hours earlier.

“I did that,” said the man, who would later be identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev “And I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.”

In interviews a few days after the Globe article, Danny’s story had gelled. His account to CBS’s John Miller is substantially similar to a contemporaneous interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer.

The question is, what happened between Danny’s first interview and the subsequent ones that led to the changed narrative?

Research assistance: James Henry

###########################

###########################

Boston Carjacking Unravels 2

Mar 13, 2014 by Russ Baker

Police Perimeter near MIT in Cambridge, photo: Joe Spurr

In part I, we reported significant discrepancies in the story of the key witness in the Boston Marathon bombing-MIT police officer killing. These discrepancies cast doubt on his credibility—and therefore on the entire public narrative around those events.

We have been told that the witness was carjacked by the brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and that Tamerlan confessed to him their guilt in both crimes.

Here, in Part II, we take a closer look at that witness, who has publicly remained anonymous, known only by the pseudonym “Danny.”

Why “Danny” Matters

The carjacking victim is an important figure in this singular national drama—and presumably could be a key witness if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s case comes to trial.

With Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to seek the death penalty, it is a good bet that the government is looking for the younger Tsarnaev to settle for a guilty plea in return for avoiding execution. If that comes to pass, we may never hear his testimony on what took place and why. Even if he does end up testifying, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may find it prudent not to tell the whole truth, since he will surely be intent on engineering a sentencing deal. Under the more likely plea-bargain scenario, the mysterious carjacking victim, known to the public only as Danny, may never have to testify either. With one brother dead, the other presumably trying to avoid execution, and another potential person of interest, a friend of the Tsarnaevs named Ibragim Todashev, shot dead while in FBI custody, the prosecution may have no need to put Danny on the witness stand. In that event, the story he has already told—or, rather, the dominant narrative of several he has provided—will remain the final word on who committed the bombing and the MIT homicide.

Clearly, this witness’s unique role makes him worth scrutinizing.

Why Is Danny Still Anonymous?

On April 25, 2013, the Boston Globe published what became the most complete account of Danny’s involvement in the events of April 18. The article recounted how the Chinese national, a male, age 26, with an engineering Masters from Northeastern, returned to China after getting his degree, then came back in early 2013 and co-founded a tech startup. He lived in an apartment near MIT with a roommate, had a new Mercedes SUV, and liked to go for nighttime drives in and around Boston to unwind.

In an exclusive interview, Danny told the Boston Globe’s Eric Moskowitz that he had been working late on April 18, and then went for a drive, which was for him a customary way of blowing off steam. He was in his leased SUV, which he’d had for just two months since returning from China, and which had only 2500 miles on it. After driving for about 20 minutes, he saw police heading toward MIT. He said that his housemate, a female, texted him in Chinese that something was going on at MIT. But he ignored the text. He finally stopped to check the text, in the Brighton neighborhood of Boston at 60 Brighton Avenue, across the river from Cambridge.

At that moment, a car pulled in behind him, and a young man wielding a pistol approached. Danny was forced to let the assailant (and soon, a second young man) into his car. He drove them around the greater Boston area, provided cash from his bank account, and then, while one brother was paying for gas, managed to escape and tell his story to police.

In a situation like this, one might think that Danny would welcome a chance to tell his story. At a minimum, many people would admire him for his bravery in escaping from armed carjackers. It also seems like it would have been a priceless promotional opportunity for Danny’s new startup. It’s hard to think of someone with a budding business who wouldn’t embrace an opportunity to get his brand out everywhere. Furthermore, the downside seemed minimal. One of his carjackers was dead, and the other badly wounded and in custody.

So why not be identified?

In his first interview, with ABC affiliate reporter Nick Spinetto, Danny indicates that personal safety is the rationale for his wanting anonymity:

Today, he and I spoke at length. For safety reasons, he asked us not to reveal his name, but he did describe in vivid detail his capture by the wanted terrorists, those brutal minutes he thought he would die and, ultimately, his brave escape.

In a subsequent interview with the Boston Globe, on the other hand, Danny indicates that modesty was the rationale for his anonymity:

Danny, who offered his account only on the condition that the Globe not reveal his Chinese name, said he does not want attention. But he suspects his full name may come out if and when he testifies against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

“I don’t want to be a famous person talking on the TV,” Danny said, kneading his hands, uncomfortable with the praise he has received from the few friends he has shared the story with, some of whom encouraged him to go public. “I don’t feel like a hero…I was trying to save myself.”

However, when I later had a chance to interview Eric Moskowitz, the Globe reporter who produced the most detailed account to date of the carjacking, he provided me with yet another reason why Danny wanted to remain anonymous: that he didn’t want his mother to be worried about him. Danny’s father, he had explained to Moskowitz, knew about the carjacking, but his mother didn’t—and he hoped to keep her from finding out by masking his identity in news stories.

It’s not clear how his mother and others close to him back in China would not at least wonder given press reports that identified the carjacking victim as Chinese, aged 26, recently returned from China, with an engineering Masters from Northeastern, a new Mercedes SUV, and a tech startup. They are also the very details, after all, which made it possible for Moskowitz to locate Danny in the first place.

A few days later on the Today Show, Matt Lauer summarized Danny’s reasons for wanting to remain anonymous:

“Well, even now that he knows that…uh…you know, that they’re both, one is dead and one is in custody—as you can see, he didn’t want his identity revealed, he has said he will testify in the trial—gladly—and he knows he’ll be identified at that time, but for now he wants to stay under the radar.”

Danny’s desire for anonymity became even muddier when he offered an entirely different explanation in a CBS News interview. In that exchange, Danny’s face was obscured and his voice altered. CBS Senior Correspondent John Miller addressed the identity issue in a post-interview chat with a program host:

“I asked him about why he wanted to be disguised, and he said, you know, I don’t know if there is anyone else out there from this plot, if these guys have friends, if I’m going to be a witness at some trial, but at this point I’d rather keep my identity concealed.”

Miller, himself a former FBI spokesman who practically coached Danny through his interview, must have realized how silly this sounded and pointed out that he knew of no witness who had been targeted by terrorists.

“And that’s certainly understandable, although in the history of terrorism, I can’t think of a case where the terrorist organization has targeted a witness.”

This in itself was something of a red herring since, according to the official account, the Tsarnaev brothers were “lone wolves” without any confederates on the loose.

A Media Strategy for Danny

In my attempts at sorting out some of the ambiguities surrounding Danny, I turned to the Globe’s Moskowitz, who had probably interacted the most with the mysterious source. Although he initially indicated he was too busy to see me, my persistence eventually won me a meeting with the reporter on May 22 in the Globe’s cafeteria.

I was particularly interested in learning how it was that Danny’s story, rather than being shared with all journalists, ended up being essentially curated by a handful of reporters from large, establishment news organizations. I was also interested in sorting out numerous confusing and conflicting elements of Danny’s tale.

What follows is a detailed accounting of my efforts to understand the whys and wherefores of the key witness in “settling” the Boston Marathon bombing mystery.

First, I asked Moskowitz what he could tell me about the “story of the story.” Here is what he said:

Within 48 hours of the carjacking, producers for the major TV networks had obtained Danny’s license plate and then somehow traced it to him—although how is unclear since it was a leased vehicle owned by a dealership. Danny declined to talk to the TV people but, unsure how to handle the media inquiries, he reached out to his former master’s adviser at Northeastern University. The adviser consulted Ralph Martin, Northeastern’s general counsel, who happened to be a former District Attorney of Suffolk County, which includes Boston.

Martin advised that if Danny was seeking fame, he should give interviews to TV. But if he wanted thoroughness, he should talk to the Globe. Danny’s academic adviser then spoke to a friend of his, an urban planner for the city of Cambridge, who had a longstanding relationship with Moskowitz (Danny’s thesis adviser knew Moskowitz, too), and the planner contacted him on the Monday after the carjacking.

That is how the sole print journalism access to the key witness in this extraordinary event was handed to a junior Globe reporter with no real investigative or crime experience, rather than to one of the veteran gumshoes who populate the Globe newsroom.

It was nice of the Globe to let Moskowitz keep his scoop. From a pure morale standpoint, this reflects well on the paper’s management. But given the serious questions that should have been asked of Danny—and weren’t—it probably has not served the larger interest. Of course, Globe editors probably made a correct calculation that the situation was so delicate that, rather than lose it, they would cooperate with the scenario as it was unfolding, rather than demand a switch to a more senior, potentially more hard-nosed and skeptical reporter.

***

Danny’s thesis adviser told Moskowitz that Danny would call him. But he didn’t.

After an internal debate at the Globe about whether it was worth antagonizing a prized source, Moskowitz set out to identify and locate Danny himself. Moskowitz says he provided the sketchy biographical details about Danny to his brother, who knows Mandarin—and who found Danny’s comments about matters of interest to Chinese students on a Chinese language website. The comments included his name and email address. Another friend got him into Danny’s apartment building and he knocked on the door.

There was no answer at first, but then the door cracked open. The reporter identified himself and asked for “Danny” by his real Chinese name. The man at the door said, “He’s here,“ and Moskowitz says he responded, “I’m just glad you’re OK.”

Danny let him in and the two talked, as Moskowitz tells it, “about everything other than the event. I kept him talking.” They discussed Danny’s master’s thesis and how Moskowitz knew Danny’s professor from his reporting on urban issues.

Moskowitz told me he dared not broach the subject of an interview at the time, but did so later by email.

***

Moskowitz said he found Danny extremely skittish, in general. He chalked it up to his essential nature, maybe to cultural differences. “If he’s embarrassed or thinks he will disappoint, he disappears,” he said.

=

Danny, however, was in command enough to want a mentor on hand—even one he barely knew. That mentor was another Northeastern professor, a criminologist named James “Jamie” Fox, an often quoted and media-savvy fellow with his own blog on the Globe website. Purportedly also introduced to Danny via the thesis adviser, Fox quickly offered himself as an intermediary to the media. He would become a key figure in this story—present and active when Moskowitz interviewed Danny for the Globe.

One of Danny’s conditions for the interview with Moskowitz was that Professor Fox would be there.

According to Moskowitz, some of the lack of clarity in his account of what transpired on the night of April 18 may have resulted from frequent interruptions by Professor Fox and by what seemed to him to be interview-steering by the criminologist.

As for Danny, Moskowitz described him as “guileless.” “He told me his ATM password,” he said.

Fox Guarding the Henhouse

Moskowitz told me he didn’t feel comfortable introducing Danny to me, but that Fox might be able to arrange it.

If Danny was guileless, Fox was anything but.

In my brief dealings with the professor, and my attempts to get him to arrange an interview for me with Danny, I found him consistently determined to control access to Danny. He told me he would “try” to arrange it, but that it would be up to Danny, and then insisted that if an interview were to take place he would probably need to be present. And, after promising to make a concerted effort to arrange such an interview in the short window of time before I had to leave Boston, Fox appeared to lose interest. He ended up ticking off a series of laughable excuses.

Finally, he got back to me. He said that Danny was reluctant to meet with me. He said that Danny had read some of my early writing on the Boston case, and was displeased because I had noted how several of the young characters in the story appeared to drive expensive cars.

Mostly, though, Fox said that “Danny” was just nervous about meeting with me—and Fox seemed to me a bit nervous about “Danny” meeting with me, too. The long and short of it is that I have never heard from Danny, and never again from Fox.

The Case of the Incurious Criminologist

Troubled by Fox’s role in the story, which hardly squared with what one might expect from a criminologist—whose principal concern is studying crime, not squiring mysterious witnesses—I researched his statements on the bombing story.

In this CNN video, Professor Fox, like some kind of Boston Zelig, is standing beside the only other carjacking witness, an immigrant gas station attendant to whom “Danny” ran for help. This is during an interview of the attendant by CNN’s Piers Morgan—it is not clear why Fox is standing next to this man.

Fox turns out to be less the investigator than the fiery orator.

In one of his blogs, about the purported difficulty in finding a cemetery that would inter Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s body, he wrote:

“I truly understand and appreciate why many folks want nothing to do with the corpse of a man who apparently hated America and our way of life.”

He also wrote:

“f and when [Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev were scheduled to die, his name and image would be plastered all over the news, further increasing his undeserved celebrity in the minds of those on the political fringe who view our government as evil and corrupt.”

And:

“The bombing seems to have been an attack against American life, not specifically American lives. Those killed and injured were unfortunate surrogates of the intended target: America and the freedoms we enjoy.”

It’s a mouthful given how little we knew at that time about any of this—and even how little we know almost a year later.

John Miller, PR Man for the FBI, Among Other Things

Fox was hardly the only well-situated figure who moved to promote what looks like an agreed-upon “consensus narrative.” Consider CBS’s John Miller, one of the TV reporters who got access to Danny.

That’s the same John Miller who reported the strange and long-delayed (May 16) exclusive about how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, grievously wounded and bleeding badly, nevertheless managed to pull himself up and scrawl a confession-cum-manifesto on the wall of the boat in which he was hiding.

That’s the same John Miller who left journalism in 2002 and spent the next eight years in government national security posts, including helping Chief William Bratton establish counterterrorism and criminal intelligence bureaus at the Los Angeles Police Department, serving as the top spokesman for the FBI, and then going to work for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees both the FBI and CIA.

Thus, John Miller has close relationships with key people at the very agency whose actions call everything into question about this story.

Summing Up

As we see, a small group of journalists and one criminologist have effectively acted as gatekeepers to this mystery witness. Yet, as we reported in Part I, the story told by the central witness in the Boston Bombing case does not add up. Have the gatekeepers not noticed?

We spelled out some of the many discrepancies that appear to undermine the tidy notion that the facts of the Boston Marathon bombing were settled within days of the heinous event. Perhaps it would be helpful to sum up the inconsistencies:

— Danny was afraid for his life.
— Danny was not afraid for his life.

— Danny’s car was taken from him and he was ejected almost immediately.
— Danny was carjacked for 30 minutes.
— Danny was carjacked for 90 minutes.

— Danny’s captors told him they would not harm him.
— Danny’s captors told him they had planted the Marathon bombs and killed the MIT cop and would harm him if he did not play ball.

— Danny’s captors told him to get out of his car and took off without him.
— Both of Danny’s captors got out of the car and virtually ignored him.
— One of his captors remained in the car and Danny escaped when the man fiddled with a GPS, although the moment he opened the car door, the man made a futile grab at him.

— Danny wanted anonymity because he was mostly worried about his own safety.
— Danny wanted anonymity because he didn’t want his mother to worry.
— Danny wanted anonymity because he didn’t want to appear heroic.

One has to give Danny a tremendous benefit of the doubt to believe that he would get that confused about momentous events in which he was the central player, telling such different versions of a story whose details, one would imagine, had been seared into his memory.

Note to Danny: We’d be glad to hear your side. Please contact us.

Note to readers: for background on other aspects of the Boston Marathon bombing story, please see this, this, this, this and this. For lingering doubts about the murder of the MIT officer, see this. For more on the murder of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s friend, Ibragim Todashev, and FBI harassment of people who have sought to raise doubts about the official story, see this.

In the meantime, consider the following:

Without the murder of the MIT policeman, followed by the carjacking confession reported by Danny, we would have no solved crime, no evidence linking anyone to the horrific Boston Marathon bombing except some grainy video of two guys wearing backpacks in a sea of other backpack-wearers near the source of the explosion. The assumption many of us make that the Tsarnaevs planted those bombs is just that: an assumption that, in the absence of the reported confession, has no evidence behind it.

Thanks to the media’s consensus narrative, we think we saw or heard proof. But we didn’t. We heard people saying there is proof, and we saw ambiguous footage that we were told established proof.

While this too-tidy scenario certainly calmed the public, it may also have poisoned a cherished principle of American justice: the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.”

According to the consensus narrative, Tamerlan Tsarnaev commandeered a private car, and was soon joined by his younger brother. Tamerlan spontaneously informed their hostage that they were behind both the bombing and the shooting of the police officer. The hostage then escaped from the car, and relayed what he heard to police. But, in fact, beyond the testimony of a gas station owner that a man came running up and said he had been carjacked, we do not know what else of this is true.

Crucially, we do not know that Tamerlan Tsarnaev actually confessed to either the Boston bombing or the murder of Officer Collier. We only think we know this to be true because we have been told there was a witness. Yet we do not even know who that crucial witness is. We are left with the word of “the authorities” that this quasi-phantom, his identity protected by, and his remarks filtered through, handpicked intermediaries from the traditional media, is telling us the truth.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

TL:DR

Instead of spamming reams of text no one is going to read you should succinctly spell out what your point is and post just the excerpts you imaging your support your view

[Steven Gaal]

News – Was Tamerlan Tsarnaev an FBI Informant?

----------------------------------------------------------------

29 April 2013

by Diane and David Munson

Much fuss is being made in Washington, DC because one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers had been previously interviewed by the FBI. Tamerlan Tsarnaev returned to Russia unbeknownst to the FBI, even though he was on the watch list. One possible explanation is that the now-dead Tamerlan Tsarnaev was co-opted into being an FBI informant and then his name was removed from the watch list or it was intentionally misspelled on the list. After twenty-seven years as a Special Agent with what is now NCIS, U.S. Customs and DEA, I (David) have developed many informants. Diane as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney knows how Federal agencies try to conceal their informants even from Justice Department attorneys.

The media asserts that in 2011, Russian authorities warned the FBI (and later the CIA) that Tamelan Tsarnaev was in the U.S. and he was a “follower of radical Islam.” The CIA notified several government agencies and recommended Tsarnaev be placed on the “watchlisting system” of the National Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE). The FBI claims they did interview Tamerlan Tsarnaev and concluded that he was not radicalized. Then in 2012, Tsarnaev traveled to Russia, Chechnya and Dagestan where it is believed he spent six months and met with radical Chechens.

In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, the FBI as the lead agency, poured through tons of videos until they isolated pictures of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhohkar. For twenty-four hours thereafter, they circulated these photos within the law enforcement community hoping some agency might have had official contact with the brothers, and be able to identify them. It was only after twenty-four hours had passed, with no one in law enforcement apparently recognizing the brothers that their photos were finally flashed on TV. Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s wife phoned him and told him he was wanted. Thereafter, the brothers attempted their bomb-laden trip to New York City, but only after shooting a police officer to obtain a gun and car-jacking a car for the trip.

This scenario begs the question: Why, during these twenty-four hours, didn’t the FBI agents who interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev come forward and identify him? If Tamerlan was interviewed, he was also photographed. Why wasn’t his photograph matched up to the videos? Every FBI agent is required to have at least one informant. If he/she doesn’t, it is negatively noted at the time of their annual performance evaluation. There is a good possibility that the agent/agents that interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev considered him a good candidate to be an informant within the Chechan/Muslim immigrants living here in the U.S. If so, they would have written him up, photographed him, and since he had no pending criminal charges to hold over his head, they may have put him on the payroll as a Cooperating Individual, Cooperating Informant, CI, Asset, or snitch. The parlance differs among law enforcement agencies and with the amount of respect the controlling agent has for his/her source.

The controlling agents could then use Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s secret numeric number to report on radical Imams at local mosques, radical persons attending those mosques etc. If the controlling agents wanted Tamerlan Tsarnaev to return to Russia, Chechnya, or Dagestan, they could remove his name from the TIDE or change the spelling of his name to permit him easier travel. This would also keep other agencies from responding to his travels.

If Tsarnaev did travel back home to Chechnya with the blessing of the FBI or some other government agency and while there became radicalized, we may never know. If he returned to the U.S. and committed this horrific act, the FBI could be burying his records deeply within their agency, identified only by the super-secret file number that has replaced his name. As of this writing, we do not have specific evidence that Tameran Tsarnaev was an FBI informant; we simply point out what may have happened behind the scenes.

And the terror acts in Boston lead us to another unsolved mystery, one in which we have done a considerable amount of research. Those who have read our historical fiction thriller, The Camelot Conspiracy” know that Lee Harvey Oswald returned to the U.S. after having lived in the Soviet Union and having contact with the KGB. Upon Oswald’s return, FBI Agent James P. Hosty tells in his 1995 memoir, Assignment Oswald, how he made two visits to Oswald’s home and in his absence, and interviewed Oswald’s Russian wife Marina. She was the niece of a Soviet military intelligence officer. On 6/20/11, the New York Times reported in Hosty’s obituary that after Hosty’s visit to Marina, Oswald went to the FBI office and tried to meet with Hosty. Because Hosty was not in the office, Oswald left him a letter. To this day, we do not know if Oswald or Marina were being carried by the FBI as informants, but according to this same NY Times article, following Oswald’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Agent Hosty asked his supervisor J. Gordon Shanklin what he should do with Oswald’s letter. According to Hosty’s testimony before Congress, his supervisor ordered him to destroy the letter. Shanklin denied giving that order. Back then, there were no shredders, so following his boss’ alleged orders, Agent Hosty tore up and flushed the letter.

The Times also reported that the Warren Commission, which investigated the Kennedy Assassination, was never told about the letter from Oswald. Also, before giving the Warren Commission an inventory of the contents of Lee Harvey Oswald’s address book, the FBI removed the contact information for FBI agent James Hosty. The tampering was later discovered by Commission lawyers when they got their hands on the actual address book. The account of the Oswald’s letter to Hosty was finally told to Congress at the time of the investigation by the Select House Committee on Assassinations in 1975. That committee contradicted the Warren Commission and opined the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

Hosty later claimed Oswald’s destroyed letter contained Oswald’s protestations over Hosty trying to talk with Marina. Even if true, the efforts by Hosty and the Bureau to cover-up the contact leave too many questions. The NY Times reported that in his memoir Hosty later wrote, “I came to understand that one of our jobs was to protect the bureau’s image at all costs.”

There are troubling similarities between the FBI’s involvement with Oswald and Tsarnaev. More than fifty years have passed since Kennedy’s assassination. Unfortunately, we still do not know precisely what the FBI knew and what they didn’t. Will it be the same with the Boston Marathon? Will there be efforts to ‘protect the bureau’s image at all cost’? Let’s hope we receive the truth and soon.

Be Blessed, David and Diane Munson

=

About Diane and David Munson

ExFeds, Diane and David Munson, are a spousal duo who write high velocity suspense novels based on their exciting careers. Diane is an attorney and former federal prosecutor who served in the U.S. Justice Department. David Munson is a former Special Agent with the NCIS and with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As an undercover agent, he infiltrated dangerous international drug smuggling organizations.

[Steven Gaal]

Boston Bombing: Feds Admit No Evidence Tsarnaev Brothers Involved in the Slayings (click link)

For nearly any crime requiring a “Whodunnit” answer in Boston around the time of the April 15, 2013, Marathon bombing, the authorities answered: The Tsarnaev brothers.

One egregious crime pinned on them was a grisly Sept. 11, 2011, triple murder in Waltham, Mass.

Now, prosecutors in the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have delivered a shocking reversal. They admit to having no evidence that his dead brother, Tamerlan, was involved in the slayings.

That wasn’t the case right after the bombing: law enforcement fingered Tamerlan as the perpetrator, and suggested Dzokhar may have been involved. Much of the media has presented it as fact ever since.

This is a pattern we’ve seen since the bombing: The government feeds prejudicial information (usually anonymously) to the press, implying Tamerlan and Dzhokhar’s guilt, despite having flimsy or no evidence. In the most extreme example, prosecutors had to completely recant their accusation thatthe brothers robbed a 7-Eleven.

=

Webmaster's Commentary:

The FBI was trying to coerce Ibragim Todashev into saying that the Tsarnaev brothers were the killers in the triple murder, but apparently Ibragim resisted to the point where he was shot several times by one of the FBI agents, including a kill shot to the top of his head. The FBI agent has never been charged with the murder, carried out whlie trying to frame someone else for a murder.

Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3LxP0CsiP

Boston Bombing: Feds Admit No Evidence Tsarnaev Brothers Involved in the Slayings

Edited December 15, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

Mr. Gaal, your link to the Holocaust denying website isn't working it just goes to the main page.

[Steven Gaal]

Boston Bombing: Feds Admit No Evidence Tsarnaev Brothers Involved in the Slayings (click link) working link for me

[Steven Gaal]

A Review of the Boston Bomb Hoax (click link)

In many ways, the scam of the Boston Non-Bombing, aka The Boston Smoke Bomb, was even more obvious than the 9/11 false-flag. Fortunately, the “deaths” and the “injuries” in Boston were fake. With the rigged “trial” of the framed-up patsy coming up, now is a good time to review The Phony Photos of the Boston Non-Bombing.

Webmaster's Commentary:

For me, the entire government case falls apart on this one piece of evidence.

At top is the remains of the bomb, which was hidden in a BLACK backpack, with a square white label on it. Below that image, the two men to the left are the Tsarnaev brothers photographed at the scene prior to the obmbing. Their backpacks are grey, with no square label. The man on the right, part of a team all dressed identically, wears a black backpack with the square white label.

And more tellingly, this third man was photographed after the bombing WITHOUT his backpack.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

_{Exclusive: Boston bomb suspects’ parents retreat to village, cancel U.S. trip (CLICK LINK)}

_{“I don’t know whether I should talk or stay silent. I don’t want to harm my child. … We are used to all sorts of things here but we didn’t expect this from the United States.”}

_{He and other members of the family believe a man shown on television being led naked into a police car the night of the shootout was Tamerlan, and that the blurry footage, still widely available on YouTube, proves Tamerlan was captured alive. Boston police say Tamerlan was killed in a shootout, and the man seen being led into the car was a bystander who was briefly detained.}

_{Anzor Tsarnaev said he raised the issue with U.S. officials who visited him earlier in the week in his home in Dagestan.}

Edited January 8, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Accused Boston Marathon Bomber Severely Injured In Prison, May Never Walk Or Talk Again (Video)

Now in all of the govt’s questionable actions, this one take the cake.. Accused Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, was the victim of an “unfortunate accident” yesterday at Ft. Devens Detention Center in Massachusetts, just weeks after his high-profile trial began, according to warden Paul Jacobson. Now, get this, the institution is trying to say he slipped on a banana peel and ended up with brain damage! A report by Empire News claims it got information that contradicts the official story.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Remember that Video Which the FBI Said they had of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Dropping a Black Backpack down Right Before it Exploded? Turns Out it Doesn't Exist (LINK)

===============================

WEBMASTER ADDITION: This is why Judy Clarke had to talk Dzhokhar Tsarnaev into a guilty plea, so the question of the video tape is never brought up in court!

=

00000]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[00000

00000}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{00000

=

Defense admits Tsarnaev took part in Marathon bombings

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense attorney acknowledged Wednesday that her client had participated in the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, an attack that shook the nation as it raised once again the specter of terrorism on American soil.

Judy Clarke said the bombings were “misguided acts” carried out by Tsarnaev and his late older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. “There’s little that we dispute. It was him,” she said in US District Court in Boston.

Webmaster's Commentary:

It sounds like this Judy Clarke is the government's "fixer" to get patsies to plead guilty. This is the only way for the FBI to get out of proving they really did have a video showing the planting of the bomb.

Were Clarke really working for Tsarnaev, she could win the case simply by showing the jury the remains of the bomb and backpack, and the photos of both Tsarnaev brothers taken at the scene before the blast, which clearly show the brothers were not the source of the backpack with the bomb!

At top, the remains of the bomb backpack. Note the black color and white square patch. At bottom, the Tsarnaev brothers are on the left, the "Khaki" man with the backback identical to the bomb backpack is on the right.

When Martin Luther King was assassinated, Patsy James Earl Ray was told by his government-appointed attorney that if he did not challenge the official story and pled guilty, Ray would get a short prison sentence. Of course, the judge sentenced James Earl Ray to life without parole then refused to allow Ray to change his plea! I suspect the same thing is happening here. Clarke has likely told Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that if he pleads guilty and says his brother made him do it, he will get a light sentence. And Dzhokhar Tsarnaev won't know how badly he is being screwed until it is too late.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Mar1422:25

Planted Black Bomb Backpack Found near Victims 2nd Explosion Victims in FBI Photo

» https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pusc3v_XcfY video link

• Permalink

Edited March 15, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Surveillance Video: Tsarnaev In Holding Cell In July 2013

This surveillance video was introduced as evidence by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's defense team. It shows him in a holding cell in July 2013.

Webmaster's Commentary:

So where is this near-lethal throat wound we were told was the reason he could not be interviewed by the media?

[Steven Gaal]

Key witness in Boston Bombing case vanishes

Submitted by IWB, on April 30th, 2015

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

A Russian immigrant who knew the Boston Marathon bombers and was expected to testify in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death penalty trial has gone missing, a defense attorney has revealed.

The mystery involves Mogomed Dolakov, an immigrant from the Russian Caucasus region who got to know the Tsarnaev brothers while they all lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was interviewed several times by FBI agents after the April 15, 2013 attack, telling them he met Tamerlan Tsarnaev at a mosque and recognized right away that he was a “radical” Muslim.

Dolakov recalled chatting with the elder Tsarnaev about a suicide bomber who had killed a police officer, and told the agents that Tamerlan had said he considered the killing acceptable because the cop was an infidel, according to FBI reports read to the jury Tuesday.

Three days before the bombing, Dolakov told the agents, he went to a gym with the brothers, and noticed that several items in their car were covered by a white sheet, according to the reports. After they finished working out, they went to Tsarnaev’s house, where Dolakov said he and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev chatted. Dolakov told the agents that the younger brother said he “wanted to visit Russia and was tired of America.”

====

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/lawyers-boston-bombing-trial-reveal-witness-disappearance-n350426
.
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/key-witness-in-boston-bombing-case-vanishes/#lGadxpYilVBQQGrI.99

Edited April 30, 2015 by Steven Gaal