HOME PAGE

Recent Posts

Cool Graphics

Comments

Books

Who Rules America?

Revolution

Is vs. Ought

Current World Events

The So-called "War on Terror"

9/11

Palestine & Israel

Culture & Values

Education

Work

Health Care

Science (Global Climate Change, Peak Oil?, HIV/AIDS)

----------

Contact or Donate to Us

New Democracy's Core Beliefs

Speakers

 

printer-friendly version (with postscripts only up to #15)

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

 

Anomalies in the FBI's Account of the Boston Marathon Bombings

[For a summary of the key facts, go here]

by John Spritzler

April 20, 2013

Note: this is being continuously updated here with important "postscripts"

None of the following proves that what actually happened at the Boston Marathon was different from what the FBI says happened. But the fact that terrorist events make the public more obedient to the rulers (as indicated by the understandable willingness of everybody in Boston and surrounding towns to remain indoors when instructed to do so by the authorities, in the name of public safety) constitutes a cui bono (to whose benefit?) reason for at least being skeptical of the FBI's account of things. Specific reasons for sketicism are recounted here, and I will add postcripts if and when more become apparent. [Note, there are now very important postscripts.]

The FBI's video evidence for the guilt of the Marathon bombing suspects is presented in a Fox News video here (and the FBI site's video here) that includes surveillance photo images of the suspects and a news conference given by the FBI. Two things are notable about this press conference:

1. The FBI spokesman says emphatically that no other images than the ones displayed by him in this press conference should be used by anybody, because it would only confuse things.

2. The video shows the two suspects at the scene (presumably) of the explosions wearing black backpacks [the authorities had previously reported that evidence from bomb residue indicated the bomb had been inside a black bag of some kind] that supposedly contain bombs, but--and this is extremely strange--there are no images of the suspects subsequently NOT wearing these same backpacks. (In one section of the FBI video it may look as if the suspect wearing a white hat has no backpack on but as he disappears from view on the left one can see the backpack slung on his right side.) In other words there is no evidence that these suspects placed their backpacks on the ground and then walked away. For all one can tell from these images, the two suspects merely were at the location of the bombing wearing backpacks, much the same as many other people. We are given no reason for singling out these two particular individuals from the others in the area wearing black backpacks. Why not?

It is not as if no other people in the area were wearing black backpacks. What about THIS GUY shown in this video? This video (I wonder how long it will remain online) shows a man (black top and tan pants) at the scene initially with a black backpack and subequently without it, and his backpack has markings found in the remnants of the bomb explosion. It shows the man suspiciously looking in a different direction from everybody else in the crowd around him. How come the FBI doesn't want people to look at this video, with actual evidence that its subject may have been a bomber, and wants us to look only at images that do not constitute evidence the subject may have been the bomber?

Did the FBI single out the two Chechen men as the suspects for a very different reason than the one they told the public? They told the public they singled out these men based only on the video images. The public was led to believe that the FBI had no knowledge at this time of who the men were, not even what their names were. We were led to believe that there was no prior connection between the FBI and these completely unknown (to the FBI) individuals.

But it turns out (based on this CBS News story days after the FBI press conference) that the FBI knew these individuals very well. The FBI had actually interviewed** the elder brother suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, two years ago.

Here's another anomaly. According to Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis the authorities had no advance warning of any terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon this year. Yet there was far more security--including bomb-sniffing dogs, sharp shooters on roofs and announcements that "this is just a training exercise"-- at this year's marathon than at previous ones, as reported by this local television newscast (in this video) shortly after the Marathon explosions. How come?

Why did the two Chechen brother suspects behave* as if they were guilty? One explanation, of course, is that they were indeed guilty of setting off the Marathon explosions. But this is not the only explanation. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: After the FBI interviewed the elder brother two years ago it decided these two young men were the kind of people who could be induced by an undercover FBI agent posing as a radical Muslim to do something stupid, like planting a terrorist bomb. (We know that the FBI does this kind of thing, as reported here and here for example.) Suppose, however, that by April of 2013 the FBI was a bit embarrassed by all of the reporting of its "saving" Americans from evil terrorist bombings "just in the nick of time" when it was the FBI itself supplying some stupid dupe with the "bomb" in the first place. Suppose the FBI felt it was time for a real bomb to go off, to reinvigorate that "old time obedience" to America's rulers that 9/11 had so wonderously produced but was now wearing thin. Suppose the FBI managed to persuade the Chechen brothers to be present at the Marathon with backpacks, but that it couldn't persuade them to set off bombs. Suppose the FBI arranged for somebody else (such as the man with the backpack wearing a black top and tan pants) to set off the bombs. And suppose that the Chechen brothers, upon seeing on T.V. that they were doomed as the accused terrorists no matter what they did, decided that if they were doomed they may as well at least be martyrs for the cause, strap something with shrapnel (that the FBI undercover agent had provided to them) around their bodies, and go down fighting as martyrs. [See postscript #7 for discussion of how something like this may have happened and postscript #8 for discussion of a past event that makes it seem plausible that an innocent person would act like a guilty one in similar circumstances.]

Postscript #1 April 20: More video images of the suspicious "black top and tan pants" man that the FBI ignored.

*Postscript #2 April 20: It turns out that the Chechen brothers were not the ones who robbed the 7-11 store. Since the MIT police officer who was killed at this time was reportedly killed by the people who had robbed the 7-11 store it is not clear that the Chechen brothers were the ones who killed the MIT police officer. What motive would the Chechen brothers have for killing the police officer?

**Postscript #3 April 20: A Globe and Mail article reports on the strange nature of the FBI's interview of the elder Chechen brother:

'The state news agency RIA Novosti quoted the father, Anzor Tsarnaev, about the FBI agents close questioning, “two or three times,” of Tamerlan. Anzor, who lives in a five-storey, yellow brick building in a working-class neighborhood of the city, recalled that the agents told his son, “We know what you read, what you drink, what you eat, where you go.” He said that they told Tamerlan that the questioning “is prophylactic, so that no one set off bombs on the streets of Boston, so that our children could peacefully go to school.”

'Those comments, he said, disturbed him. “This conversation took place a year and a half ago. But there is a question, why would they talk about it then?”

Another report of FBI monitoring of the elder Chechen brother is here, and here, in which the men's mother says,

They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me…they were telling me that he [the older, 26-y/o Tamerlan] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step…and now they say that this is a terrorist act!Never ever is this true, my sons are innocent!”

Did the FBI run Tamerlan and his younger brother as patsies? Were the two Chechens at the marathon because they thought they were helping the authorities carry out the drill that we now know was going on at the marathon?

Postscript #4 April 20: The Daily News reports that the younger Chechen, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, went to UMass-Dartmouth where he was a sophomore and 'attended a party two days after Monday’s bombing. He hit the gym. And he went to his dorm room at UMass-Dartmouth for a night’s rest, according to reports. “He was just relaxed,” a student who claimed to be at the same party Wednesday night as Tsarnaev told The Boston Globe.' Does this seem like the behavior of a person who had just committed a heinous crime and who--since it was not a suicide bombing--would presumably be making his escape?

Postscript #5 April 21: The man whose car was allegedly carjacked by the Chechen brothers allegedly "told police the brothers said they were the marathon bombers and had just killed a campus officer." How strange is that?

Postscript #6 April 21: In the video of the FBI press conference the FBI spokesperson declares that they "are working methodically and with a sense of urgency to identify those responsible for the bombings...Today we are enlisting the public's help to identify these suspects....We are releasing photos of these two suspects." But as we know now (and as the FBI knew then!) the FBI already knew perfectly well who the man in the black hat was--they had a long term relationship with him (based on here and reports in Postcript 3 above.) This proves that the FBI was lying to the public, to cover up the fact that this latest bombing fits into the pattern: whenever a terrorist event happens (or almost happens) in the United States, it involves individuals with a prior relationship with the FBI. How strange is that?

Even the Boston Globe notes something fishy here. In its article today, headlined "Russia alerted US about Tamerlan Tsarnaev," it writes of the FBI: "The bureau declined to answer questions Saturday about whether it revisited its 2011 investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev after the Marathon attack, or why the bureau was unable to identify the suspects in race day security footage two years after interviewing him and his family."

Postscript #7 April 21: It is strange that there has been no identification of, or reported interview with, a key eyewitness--the man whose car was allegedly carjacked by the Chechen brothers--and we are only told that he said the Chechen brothers told him they were the marathon bombers and had killed the MIT police officer. Could it be that this "victim of a carjacking" was not what the authorities are claiming he is? Could it be that he was actually an FBI agent--the handler of the Chechen brothers--who told the Chechens that they had better fight like hell to avoid capture or else they would die by a bullet or be executed, and could it be that this FBI agent provided the Chechens with the weapons and explosives they used in their attempt to flee? Is this why the "carjacking victim" has dropped out of sight from the news reporting, remains unidentified, and leaves behind only the strange claim that the Chechens told him of their guilt? Afterall, the press is identifying other eyewitnesses to these events, such as "resident Jennings Aske, at 66 Laurel Ave." who saw the shootout near his home in Watertown and who was quoted in a Boston Globe article; why not identify the "carjacking victim"? (Another article identifying Aske is here.)

Postscript #8 April 21: It is not hard to see why an innocent person might act like a guilty one if they thought there was no way to prove their innocence. Gore Vidal discusses in great detail in his article in Vanity Fair about Timothy McVeigh why he thinks McVeigh was innocent but nonetheless claimed to have committed the Oklahoma bombing:

'Many an “expert” and many an expert believe that McVeigh neither built nor detonated the bomb that blew up a large part of the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. [This video gives evidence of this.--J.S.] To start backward—rather the way the F.B.I. conducted this case—if McVeigh was not guilty, why did he confess to the murderous deed? I am convinced from his correspondence and what one has learned about him in an ever lengthening row of books that, once found guilty due to what he felt was the slovenly defense of his principal lawyer, Stephen Jones, so unlike the brilliant defense of his “co-conspirator” Terry Nichols’s lawyer Michael Tigar, McVeigh believed that the only alternative to death by injection was a half-century or more of life in a box. There is another aspect of our prison system (considered one of the most barbaric in the First World) which was alluded to by the British writer John Sutherland in The Guardian. He quoted California’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer, on the subject of the C.E.O. of an electric utility, currently battening on California’s failing energy supply. “‘I would love to personally escort this CEO to an 8 by 10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says—“Hi, my name is Spike, Honey.”’ … The senior law official in the state was confirming (what we all suspected) that rape is penal policy. Go to prison and serving as a Hell’s Angel sex slave is judged part of your sentence.” A couple of decades fending off Spike is not a Henley hero’s idea of a good time. Better dead than Spiked. Hence, “I bombed the Murrah building.”'

Postscript #9 April 22: "Did Watertown's Top Cop Tell a Big, Big Lie?"

Postscript #10 April 22: This Reality Check TV news show video discusses the pattern of FBI prior involvement in previous domestic terror plots, and wonders if the FBI had prior involvement in the Boston Marathon bombings as well.

Postscript #11 April 22: Another skeptic explains why he believes, "something definitely stinks about this whole Boston Marathon bombing story." And here's another one.

Postscript #12 April 22: "FBI Releases Fake Boston Bombing Surveillance Video" as demonstrated here.

Postscript #13 April 22: "Video of Tamerlan Tsarnaev NAKED, Handcuffed, Walking Alive! How did his Body End up Dead and Beaten?" Taken together with Postscript #9, this suggests that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot after being taken into custody naked and handcuffed. Also see more photos here of Tamerlan when arrested. The mass media now report that the police claim the naked man was not Tamerlan. Then what is his name? They don't say.

Postscript #14 April 22: The official FBI "Criminal Complaint" against Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev online here (pdf) does not accuse him of killing the MIT police officer and, in contrast to all previous news accounts (such as this one), does not say that the carjacking victim heard either Chechen brother say he had killed a police officer. Furthermore, this official document asserts that there is photographic evidence that, at 2:45:15 pm Bomber Two (as he is called) "can be seen apparently slipping his knapsack onto the ground. A photograph taken from the opposite side of the street shows the knapsack on the ground at Bomber Two's feet." (The document also asserts that Bomber Two is Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev.)

I have searched online for the photographic images cited in this document and have not found them. It will be very interesting to see them if and when they are made public. One can only wonder why the FBI has not made them public as yet.

Postscript #15 April 23: There is a screenshot of a Facebook posting by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger Chechen brother suspect, in which he writes: "This will be the last message before the police get me. I never done it. They set me up. Father please forgive me. I am sorry it has come to this." This screenshot is posted here. Are these legitimate or fake? Hard to say. But one's opinion should be based on evidence, not merely assertions by government authorities, no?

Postscript #16 April 23: Here is a NYT report on the questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger Chechen brother suspect, as he lies in his hospital bed with a throat injury briefly described in this Christian Science Monitor article. On the one hand we read in the NYT article:

Uttering the word “no” once, but mostly nodding his responses, the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was charged in a brief but dramatic bedside scene in the intensive care ward of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where he is recovering from multiple gunshot wounds sustained during his capture last week....

“You can rouse him,” the judge told the doctor.

“How are you feeling?” asked the doctor, identified in the transcript as Dr. Odom. “Are you able to answer some questions?” He nodded.

Judge Bowler then read Mr. Tsarnaev his rights. Also present were two United States attorneys and three federal public defenders, who will be representing him. Judge Bowler asked if he understood his right to remain silent, to which he nodded affirmatively, according to the transcript.

The only word Mr. Tsarnaev uttered, apparently, was “No,” after he was asked if he could afford a lawyer.

Judge Bowler said, “Let the record reflect that I believe the defendant has said, ‘No.’ ”

And yet we are also told in the same NYT article that:

In the course of questioning him about whether he knew of any other active plots or threats to public safety, he admitted that he had been involved in laying the bombs that killed three people at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

He said that he knew of no other plots and that he and his brother had acted alone, and he said he knew of no more bombs that had not been detonated.

Does this seem like accurate and believable reporting to you? Here is a transcript of the official proceedings held with Mr. Tsarnaev at his hospital bed. There is no mention of him saying anything other than "no" to the question if he can afford his own lawyer and "nodding affirmatively" to questions about whether he understands what is being said to him.

Postscript 17 April 23: There has not been a single post 9/11 terrorist event in the United States prior to April 15, 2013, in which the culprits (would-be culprits, to be more precise) did not have a prior relationship with the FBI who provided them with the "bomb" or otherwise instigated a crime that the FBI "discovered just in the nick of time" to prevent. In 1993 the FBI allowed the World Trade Center bombing to occur.

Postscript 18 April 23: The Washington Post reports that "The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews." Note that the article doesn't name the "officials familiar with the interviews" and it doesn't provide any direct quote of what Mr. Tsarnaev actually said. Why be so vague about something so important? Here is the Boston Globe report of the supposed confession. It adds no more detail about the confession, but does add the curious report that the "carjack victim" (still unidentified) says the Chechen brothers not only told him they had bombed the Marathon and killed the MIT police officer, but also that they were headed to New York City. Why would they tell somebody where they were headed?

Also curious is the fact that the mass media reports what the "carjack victim" said he heard the Chechen brothers say as exact quotations, in full quotation marks, but the quotation varies from article to article. The Boston Globe gives it as, "We just killed a cop. We blew up the marathon. And now we’re going to New York. Don’t [expletive] with us.” CBS here gives it as, "Did you hear about the Boston explosion?," one of the suspects allegedly told the victim. "I did that."

Postscript 19 April 23: Articles like this one are telling the public that the Boston Marathon Bombers (who, they say, taking the FBI's word for it, are the Chechen brothers) were motivated by anger at the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. What these articles do not say is that it is the very purpose of these wars to produce this anger, in other words to produce an anti-American enemy that will give credibility to the Orwellian war of social control that is the War on Terror. The drones, for example, are well known to produce far more enemies than they kill, which is their actual purpose, as discussed here. This video about how the FBI snared a US teenager in a "terror" sting illustrates once again that the FBI feels it necessary to lure people into doing something that will provide the FBI with "terrorists" with which to frighten Americans into obedience. Obedience means not just taking our shoes off at the airport and doing whatever else we are ordered to do in the name of "national security," but also forking over (as our tax dollars) billions of dollars to enrich weapons manufacturers claiming their weapons are protecting us from terrorism. Here's a video of generals spending public money on such weapons and enriching the arms dealers.

Postscript 20 April 23: As John Kerry and Joe Biden demonstrate, "Calling it terrorism means never having to say they're innocent until proven guilty."

Postscript 21 April 23: "The Official Tsarnaev Story Makes No Sense," by Craig Murray, Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (August 2002 to October 2004), Human Rights Activist. His article ends with these words:

That is the official story and I have no doubt it did not happen. I know Russia and I know the Russian security services. Whatever else they may be, they are extremely well-equipped, experienced and efficient and embedded into a social fabric accustomed to cooperation with their mastery. This scenario is simply impossible in the real world.

We have, by the official account, the involvement of the two Tsarnaev brothers, the FBI and the Russian security services. The FBI have a massive recent record of running agent provocateur operations to entrap gullible Muslims into terrorism. The Russian security services have form on false flag Chechen bombings. Where the truth lies may be difficult to dig out. But the above official version is not true.

Postscript 22 April 24: The Associated Press reports the following anomalie:

The officials told the AP that no gun was found in the boat where Dzhokhar was hiding. Boston police Commissioner Ed Davis said earlier that shots were fired from inside the boat.

Asked whether the suspect had a gun in the boat, Davis said, "I'm not going to talk about that."

But Kurt Schwartz, director of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, said a police officer was shot within half a mile of where Tsarnaev was captured, "and I know who shot him."

Authorities had previously said Dzhokhar exchanged gunfire with them for more than an hour Friday night before they captured him inside a tarp-covered boat in a suburban Boston neighborhood backyard. But two U.S. officials said Wednesday that he was unarmed when captured, raising questions about the gunfire and how he was injured.

Postscript #23 April 24: A photograph of the Chechen brothers' Cambridge apartment, taken after the Marathon bombings, shows what appears to be the younger brother's backpack. Compare the FBI's image of this backpack on the "white hat suspect" here at the 0:15 time point with the images of what looks like the same backpack in the New York Daily News photographs here (the 4th and 5th photo from the top) taken, of course, after the Marathon explosions. If it is the same backpack, then it constitutes proof of innocence! Here are four images of backpacks: the top one is a destroyed backpack that contained a Marathon bomb, the bottom left and center are the backpacks of the two Chechen brothers shown on their backs, and the bottom right one is a backpack worn by another person at the scene of the Marathon explosions. Which one at the bottom best matches the one at the top?

Postscript #25 April 25: As NBC News reports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge admitted "that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election." This illustrates how rulers of the United States deliberately try to keep Americans frightened of terrorism to make them more controllable.

Terrorism, whether it be an inside job or not, is well known by our rulers to help them (the rulers) control Americans. Here are two examples from my own personal experience. In the year prior to September 11, 2001 (9/11) I was involved along with eleven presidents of Massachusetts Teachers Association union locals in building a movement to stop the child-abusing standardized testing of public school children with the newly instituted MCAS test. We had two state-wide conferences with more than a hundred teachers in attendance, and we were building towards an official union job action--refusal by teachers to administer the MCAS test. Then 9/11 happened and it killed this movement, which never recovered. The 9/11 attack convinced everybody in this anti-MCAS effort that it wasn't appropriate to be challenging government authorities at such a time of crisis. Fast forward to April 15, 2013 when the Boston Marathon bombing occurred. Just before this terrorist attack a bunch of us in the Boston area had printed 10,000 copies of a two sided leaflet with this on one side and this on the other and were about to start distributing it to the public. When the Marathon bombing happened we decided that we should postpone distribution until the Marathon bombing no longer occupied the headlines of the Boston Globe, because otherwise people would think our leaflet was, if not "unpatriotic" then at least "off topic" and weird under the circumstances. This is how terrorism helps our leaders to control us.

Postscript #25 April 25: In this interview, Sibel Edmonds (the 9/11 whistle blower) discusses why she believes that the CIA, in order to bribe Russia to stop preventing the United States from intervening more aggressively in Syria against Russian ally Assad, may have created the Marathon bombing event for the purpose of branding anti-Russian Chechnyans as followers of al Qaeda (instead of their former portrayal as freedom fighters for independence) thereby making it easier for Russia to crack down on them. Edmonds notes that if the U.S. steps up its aggression in Syria in the next week or too it will be confirmatory evidence for this hypothesis. Edmonds also says that the huge police response in Boston and surrounding towns and the "shelter in place" order constituted a "test run" for martial law, the idea being that if our rulers could pull it off in sophisticated Boston then they would know they can pull it off anywhere else in the United States whenever they want to.

Postscript #26 April 26: The Boston Globe has a detailed report of the carjack victim's account, including his "English" name of Danny but not his Chinese name. If this report is true then it would rule out my speculation in postscript #7 above, and this report certainly dove-tails with the official story of the Marathon bombings being done by the Chechen brothers. The abundant details in the report suggests it is true. If the Chechen brothers did indeed carry out the Marathon bombings, the question remains whether the FBI or CIA played a part in getting them to do it, as we know the FBI has done many times in the past when, at the last minute, it "saved the day."

Postscript #27 April 26: It is important to keep in mind that even if the FBI's version of the Marathon bombings is 100% correct--i.e., that the Chechen brothers, with no involvement of the FBI or CIA etc., decided on their own, because of their anger at the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to kill random and perfectly innocent Americans--it would still be the case that the United States government, by its unjust killing, indeed mass murder, of innocent Muslims remains the fundamental cause of innocent Americans being targetted by terrorist violence, whether the violent terrorists are angry Muslims acting entirely on their own or stupid individuals entraped by the FBI or indeed are high level Americans creating false flag terrorism, as overwhelming evidence suggests was the case with the 9/11 attack. It remains the case that the American ruling plutocracy benefits from terrorist violence, against innocent Americans because it makes Americans more controllable by the plutocracy.

While the plutocracy increases economic inequality to obscene levels, enriches itself with trillion dollar transfers of tax money to its "banks too big to fail" and multi-billion dollar profits to military industrial complex owners, it diverts the public's attention away from this by keeping the threat of terrorism at "high alert" and telling Americans that their safety requires obeying their government leaders and certainly not organizing against the ruling plutocracy.

The fact that U.S. wars (especially the drones now) produce far more enemies of the United States than they kill, and the fact that our rulers understand this to be true yet continue producing more enemies of the United States than they kill, can mean only one thing: our rulers want to produce enemies of the United States, because they need these enemies to give credibility to their Orwellian wars of social control--wars whose purpose is not to "win the war" but rather to be at war so as to control the American public and prevent them from seriously challenging the power of the plutocracy that is driving them into increasing impoverisation approaching for many Americans third-world levels of poverty, hunger and insecurity. The only way a plutocracy can get away with such an attack on its own people for long is by having a bogeymen enemy with which to control them. The bogeyman used to be Communists, and now it is terrorists. Until we overthrow our ruling plutocracy and create a genuine democracy, and do this globally, we will have war after war after war, and atrocity after atrocity after atrocity. It is time to start Thinking about Revolution.

Postscript #28 April 26: The aunt of Tamerlan Tsarnaev insists that the man taken into custody by the police, naked and apparently uninjured, is Tamerlan. For the significance of this, see postscript #13.

Postscript #29 April 27: Please read "Craft International Services hired guns at the Boston Marathon: Why Such Secrecy about Private Military Contractor’s Men Working the Event?" by Dave Lindorff. Lindorff did everything possible, called and emailed every public and private organization that could conceivably answer the question, "Who hired Craft International Services private soldiers who were plainly visible at the Marathon finish line when the explosions happened?" Nobody would answer this simple question, a question the answer to which the public has a right to know, if only for the sake of transparency and public accountability. If our mainstream media journalists were real journalists instead of stenographers for the ruling elite then they would be on top of this story, especially since one of the Craft soldiers wore a backpack before the explosion that had the same white square mark as the one on the exploded backpack in the photo released of it by the FBI, and because this individual is seen in a photo after the explosion without his backpack.

Postscript #30 April 28: It turns out that the uncle of the Chechen brother suspects was married to the daughter of a former CIA station chief in Kabul, Graham Fuller, whose "think piece" for the CIA "was identified as instrumental in leading to the Iran-contra affair.[3][4]" How long should we hold our breath waiting for the FBI to investigate this connection and report their findings to the public in their effort to find out by what evil persons the bombers were influenced and "radicalized"?

Postscript #31 April 29: Here is a radio interview with an eyewitness to the capture of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. She says she saw Tamerlan struck by a police SUV and then shot multiple times by the police; she also says she believes Tamerlan was dead when he was placed inside the ambulance. She says she did not see Tamerlan shoot at police although she thinks he may have "retaliated" based on sounds she heard. If this is accurate, it means that the naked man in police custody who is discussed in postscript #13 is not Tamerlan, but a man who looks remarkably similar to Tamerlan.

Postscript #32 April 30: "Izvestia: Tamerlane Tsarnaev participated in CIA 2012 seminar"

Postscript #33 May 1: Sibel Edmunds in a video posted on her web page here May 1, 2013, titled "Sibel Edmonds Talks to Lew Rockwell about what’s 'Really' Happening in Central Asia & the Caucasus," gives an interview with Lew Rockwell in which she connects many dots, including two connections between the CIA and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and the way the official story of the Marathon bombings enables the Russian government to more easily suppress anti-Russian Chechnyans who are now portrayed as al Qaeda-linked terrorists (instead of a minority people fighting for their independence, as formerly). The CIA may have provided this "favor" to the Russian government in exchange for Russia standing aside and allowing the U.S. to remove from power Russia's Syrian ally Assad as the U.S. removed Quaddafi from power in Lybia. In this hypothesized scenario Russia will be allowed to save face by having Assad's supposed used of chemical weapons as an excuse for not coming to his aid.

Postscript #34 May 1: My email inbox (from P. S. with a photo from R. A.--hat tip to both) had this photo (top one) apparently showing both of the Chechen brothers (the elder with a white hat still inside) leaving the gas station, in contradiction to the reported statement of "Danny," the carjacking victim, saying that he escaped when only one brother went to pay for gas and the other remained in the car. The bottom photo seems to show a leg (pointed at by a white arrow) with no body attached to it.

Postscript #35, May 10: There is evidence that the theory explained in Postscript #25 is true, since events it predicts are now happening: The LA Times article tells the story. May 7, 2013: "U.S. and Russia to seek Syria peace talks" [ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/world/la-fg-syria-20130508 ] reports:

'MOSCOW — The United States and Russia agreed Tuesday to try to bring together the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and the opposition for peace talks, signaling a potential breakthrough in long-stalled diplomatic efforts to end a bloody conflict that threatens to destabilize the entire region.

The proposed peace conference, announced by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after a day of talks, appeared to reflect a softening of Russia’s staunch support of Assad. "I would like to emphasize that we … are not interested in the fate of certain persons," Lavrov told reporters. "We are interested in the fate of the total Syrian people."'


My oh my, what a difference the Marathon bombing made. The article points out that:

'The developments in Moscow seemed to signal a revival of the so-called Geneva communique, agreed to in June at a special meeting of the "Action Group for Syria" convened by Kofi Annan, the former United Nations-Arab League special envoy.

The communique's road map for a peaceful political transition in Syria was sidelined amid differences between Moscow and Washington on a fundamental issue: the future of Bashar Assad. Before the Geneva session, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had pushed for an explicit guarantee that Assad would have to relinquish power, but Russia balked.'

Postscript #36, May 12:

Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 23:46:18 +0000
From: RichAucoin@comcast.net
To: RichAucoin@comcast.net
Subject: Watertown: Why didn't they just use bloodhounds?

A retired police officer made an interesting comment to me after the unlawful home searches in Watertown: "I keep thinking," he said, "why didn't they just use dogs?"
Wow. Sometimes the most obvious question is completely overlooked. I mean, here we had a bleeding suspect who was assumed to be somewhere in the vicinity of where he was last seen.

A google search for "bloodhounds dzhokhar" found only one mention of bloodhounds having been used, attributed to Watertown police chief Edward Deveau.

ABC News provides the most detailed account of Deveau's mention of dogs, which boiled down to this: a wounded Dzhokhar had somehow slipped away from the Laurel St gunfight in the black SUV, running over his brother as he sped away. Police soon located the SUV abandoned with the suspect's blood inside. Upon searching this new crime scene, police also found blood behind a house where the suspect apparently hid briefly before venturing on foot farther west to his more permanent hiding place on the boat at Franklin St. According to Deveau, "Bloodhounds were brought in to track the fugitive, but so many people had been in the area that the dogs were unable to pick up Tsarnaev's scent.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-bombers-rampage-ended-meekly-lifted-shirt/story?id=19012333

Is this statement by Chief Deveau credible? Let's examine closely.


First, notice the key phrases in the quote: "the area" and "so many people."
What exactly is the area that Deveau is referring to? If the bloodied Dzhokhar drove away from the original scene of the gun battle, aren't we now talking about a new area that did not have so many people?

Next, consider what happens when someone goes to great lengths to trick a bloodhound:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/trick-bloodhounds-sense-of-smell.htm

So even if we cocede for the sake of argument the implausible idea that the Watertown bloodhounds had somehow been thrown off Dzhokhar's scent by having earlier been at the scene of the gunfight, then why not simply start the trail at the scene of the abandoned SUV or at the bloody spot behind the house where Dzhokhar had crouched alone?


It appears that Barney Fife could have tracked down this suspect using good old fashioned police methods in no time flat. But for some reason the feds instead preferred to roll out a paramilitary invasion and full-on lockdown of east Watertown for an entire day, complete with unlawful door-to-door warrantless searches.

The question is why?

Postscript #37, May 17 The FBI now claims that they found a note written by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the inside surface of the covered up boat in which he was hiding. Here is a CBS video of former State FBI director, John Miller, making this claim and giving lots of details about what the note said (as paraphrased by Miller.) According to Miller the note was written on the interior of the boat with a pen. Miller gives a summary of what the note supposedly said, and his summary alone, in brief wording such as one would use in bulleted points in a power point presentation, when displayed in this video, takes fifty-one words! Imagine how long the actual note on the boat's interior must have been. Is this story credible?

How plausible is it that Dzhokhar, "bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds" as Miller claims (it's a disputable assertion, but Miller makes it so it is part of the story whose credibility we are considering), inside a little boat (with no cabin or lighting) in the dark (because it was nighttime and the boat cover was in place and Dzhokhar was under it) used a pen to write a very long message confessing to being an anti-American radical Islamic terrorist? Just the physical act of writing such a note with a pen on the inside of a boat, even under the best of conditions, would be very difficult. The insides of boats are not good writing surfaces, and a pen would not likely work well on such a surface. Add to this that Dzhokhar was bleeding from multiple wounds and was in total darkness.

Why, one must wonder, did it take the FBI so long to discover this virtually perfect confession? Could it be that the FBI only recently realized that the virtually perfect confession it claims to have obtained from Dzhokhar when he was in the hospital and before he was read his Miranda rights would be inadmissable in court? Did some FBI genius come up with the bright idea of solving this problem by fabricating a confession in the boat, and "discovering" it?

While we're on the subject of questioning the plausibility of what officialdom is telling us about the marathon bombings, let's take a look at the story of "Danny" the carjacking victim. According to the Boston Globe here, Danny made his escape when Tamerlan was inside the car:

"When the younger brother, Dzhokhar, was forced to go inside the Shell Food Mart to pay, older brother Tamerlan put his gun in the door pocket to fiddle with a navigation device — letting his guard down briefly after a night on the run. Danny then did what he had been rehearsing in his head. In a flash, he unbuckled his seat belt, opened the door, stepped through, slammed it behind, and sprinted off at an angle that would be a hard shot for any marksman."

Not only does the photograph in Postscript #34 contradict this story (by showing both brothers, not just Dzhokhar, leaving the gas station presumably after paying for the gas) but this story is also contradicted by the account given by another reporter from New Hampshire who also claimed to have interviewed "Danny." According to the N.H. "interviewer," the story goes like this, with Danny escaping when Tamerlan was outside of the car pumping gas:

They drove to a Shell station on Memorial Drive. When one brother went inside to pay for the gas while the other pumped, the victim took off.

"I thought it was a very good chance for me to run," he said. "So, I made a judgment. I used my left hand to unbuckle my belt, my right hand to open the door. I jumped out of the car and ran away across the street."

He said he ran as fast as he could.

"The guy outside the car tried to catch me using his hand," the victim said. "He tried to catch me, but I ran very fast."

It is well known that one remembers extremely well events that happen when one's adrenalin is running high, as it most certainly would have been for Danny at the moment of his decision to bolt from the car. Does it, therefore, seem plausible that a real Danny with a real experience like this would recall Tamerlan being inside the car for one interviewer and outside the car pumping gas for another interviewer? Or is this a case of different "interviewers" making up the details somewhat differently for a skeleton story given to them?

The Boston Globe "interviewer" also provides the following most curious detail, reporting:

Dzhokhar was back now. “We both have guns,” Tamerlan said, though Danny had not seen a second weapon. He overheard them speak in a foreign language — “Manhattan” the only intelligible word to him — and then ask in English if Danny’s car could be driven out of state. “What do you mean?” Danny said, confused. “Like New York,” one brother said.

Think about it. Tamerlan, a man who had lived in the United States for about a decade, who drove fancy cars and whose father for some time made a living in Cambridge, Massachusetts (where the family lived) repairing cars, asked Danny, according to this "interviewer," "if Danny's car could be driven out of state." How likely is that?

Postscript #38 May 23: Here is another interesting article by Dave Lindorff examining how a backpack containing the weight of the pressure cooker bomb compares to photos of the backpacks worn by the Tsarnaev brothers.

Postscript #39 May 31: Here is a Haaretz (the "New York Times" of Israel) report that the FBI now has retracted their claim that the Chechen friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whom they shot while FBI agenents "interviewed" him, had attacked an agent with a knife, as they first reported. The article leads with:

Police backtrack on motive for killing Jewish triple murder suspect with Boston bomber ties

FBI retracts statement that Ibragim Todashev, shot to death during interview at his Florida home over role in 2011 murder with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attacked agent with knife.

Could it be that the FBI wants to eliminate individuals who would be able to expose the lies of the FBI?

The Washington Post article here reports the same. The NYT here, however, emphasizes that Todashev, while not armed, nonetheless attacked an FBI agent with a "table" and a "pole" that "may have been a broom." In this article we also read:

“I have questions for the Americans,” said Zaurbek Sadakhanov, a lawyer who has worked with the Todashev family as well as the family of Mr. Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhokhar, the other suspect in the Boston bombings. “Why was he questioned for the third time without a lawyer? Why wasn’t Ibragim’s questioning recorded on audio or videotape, seeing as he was being questioned without a lawyer? What was the need to shoot Ibragim seven times, when five fully equipped police officers with stun guns were against him?”

Postscript #40, June 12: The Boston Globe reports that months before the Marathon Bombings the Boston Police had planned a drill "frighteningly similar" to what actually happened, a drill that the Globe described this way: "The scenario had been carefully planned: A terrorist group prepared to hurt vast numbers of people around Boston would leave backpacks filled with explosives at Faneuil Hall, the Seaport District, and in other towns, spreading waves of panic and fear. Detectives would have to catch the culprits."

Isn't it a wee bit suspicious that the 9/11 attack and the July 7, 2005 London bus bombings and, now, the Boston Marathon bombings were all cases of pre-planned drill scenarios that just happened to become real on the very day of the drill?

Postscript #41, June 14: Here is a document forwarded to me by an associate of the author. The document's author seems to have some knowledge of the Russian FSB and based on that draws some conclusions regarding the Boston Marathon bombings. I am posting this so readers can draw their own conclusions regarding it. The document is somewhat informative but a bit unfocused, in my opinion.

Postscript #42, June 14: The theory about the motive for the CIA to have orchestrated the Boston Marathon bombings that is discussed above in Postscripts #25 and #35, received yet more evidence in support of it today, in the form of two separate pieces of news reported in the New York Times here ("Russia not to ship offensive weapons to Syria: lawmaker") and here ("U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels"). Precisely as the theory predicted, the U.S. is accusing Syria's Assad of using chemical weapons, as an excuse for escalating support to the rebels aiming to overthrow him; and as the theory also predicted Russia is backing off in its support of Assad by not sending him "offensive" weapons and by approving of the "peace conference" arranged by U.S. Sec. of State John Kerry that, as Russia accepts (see Postscript #35), may remove Assad from power. The one remaining prediction of the theory that hasn't happened yet is that Russia will cite Assad's supposed use of chemical weapons as a face-saving excuse for not ensuring he, a former staunch ally of Russia, remains in power. We shall see...

Postscript #43, June 14: Here is a video containing recordings of CNN interviewing an eyewitness at the scene of the Marathon bombing on April 15, and interviewing an eyewitness at the scene of the Watertown shooting encounter with the Tsarnaev brothers on April 19. As the video highlights, the two eyewitnesses are the same woman! Isn't is strange that the same woman would be an eyewitness at both events? The video makes the reasonable inference that the woman was an actor, a "crisis actor." How much else of what we're seeing is fake?

Postscript #44, October 21, 2013. Here is an article providing evidence suggesting that the photograph, made public by the FBI that purports to show Tsarnaev without a backpack fleeing with others right after the bomb explosions, was photoshopped to hide his backpack and make it appear that there was no backpack. Until now, the FBI has claimed to have hard evidence of Dzhokhar's guilt, but has not shown the evidence to the public.

Postscrit #45, February 11, 2014: Video displaying photographic evidence of Dzhokhar's innocence and testimony of a man that the FBI seized his camera and deleted all his photographs of the bomb scene.

Postscript #46, March 8, 2014: This document (hat tip to E.D.) shows how much preparation there was by the ruling elite in the Boston area for an event like the marathon bombings. It includes the interesting fact that simulation exercises involve a person who is truely an amputee. As this makes evident, there are a lot of people whose jobs depend on us being afraid of terrorism, and some occasional real terrorist violence gives them job security. It makes one wonder if the fact that it was Boston where the unprecedented lockdown ("shelter in place") occurred, and the fact that Boston was one of the "best prepared" cities for something like the marathon bombing, is a coincidence.

Postscript #47, March 11, 2014: This article details how there is only one single witness (anonymous, but known as "Danny"--the man who says the Tsarnaev brothers carjacked his car and confessed to him that they committed the Marathon bombings and killed the campus policeman) supporting the entire FBI story of the Tsarnaev brothers' guilt, and that this witness gives conflicting accounts of what he experienced, and the reports of his accounts are additionally conflicting. I also noted some of these suspicious conflicts in Danny's stories, and wrote about them in Postscript #37.

Postscript #48, March 20, 2014: This article confirms that the police now acknowledge that neither of the Tsarnaev brothers was the person who robbed the 7-Eleven store shortly before the nearby MIT police officer was shot to death. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, however, is charged with killing that police officer.

 

 

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

 

This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.

 

 

 

Articles by Dave Stratman

Articles by John Spritzler

Turn the World Upside Down (John Spritzler's blog #1)

End Class Inequality (John Spritzler's blog #2)

 

Books

We Can Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life by Dave Stratman

The People as Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II by John Spritzler