Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon #10 One Suspect Dead; One in Custody

[georger]

The big cuts are from medical procedures where they tried to start his heart.

Im glad you clarified that! wow!! :seeya:

 

[danzn16]

The big cuts are from medical procedures where they tried to start his heart.

I really don't think so. Your heart is no where near that laceration. That is over the lungs/ribs/spleen. When undergoing open heart surgery the breast bone is cut open to reach the heart. And that's usually scheduled or if he had a gunshot wound to the heart, etc. that laceration is also jagged, does not look like it was performed by a scalpel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I really don't think so. Your heart is no where near that laceration. That is over the lungs/ribs/spleen. When undergoing open heart surgery the breast bone is cut open to reach the heart. And that's usually scheduled or if he had a gunshot wound to the heart, etc. that laceration is also jagged, does not look like it was performed by a scalpel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We've already discussed this. There were images posted of the procedure that looked exactly like the cuts he had.

 

[jjenny]

Surely that can't be right. Can a person really be tried for the felony murder of any accomplice who was killed by police?

Absolutely.

 

[1&2&3]

I expect they mean the gunpowder mixture from the fireworks. I believe DT is talking again because of his newest attorney whose specialty is getting death penalty cases pled down to LWOP, There was no info coming out for a few days after DT was Mirandized, but now we're getting tidbits every day. I could be wrong, only my opinion, but I think a deal is already in the works or made. All MOO[/QUOTE


BBM The deal centers around KR my intuition tells me! We are being leaked tidbits and it is like a slip of the tongue type thing to let us know about KR. The fact that she has stopped talking is a key factor to me. DT is telling more than she thought he would or was supposed to tell. If there are details on her computer, she is not dumb and would know she was going to get dragged into it, even if innocent. Wonder if her lawyer has asked for immunity for her if she testifies against DT and tells what she knows on TT?

I thought she was truly an abused domestic wife who had been so severely mentally and verbally abused that she was a shell of a person. She knew what was expected of her and what to do to appease TT. Forgetting the fact that she was a person with her own mind, thoughts, ideas, - those had fallen to the wayside as she honored her husband by following his orders. If she is found to be involved in this, I bet her lawyer will use this as her defense! It has a legal name, just do not recall it.

 

[CuriousGrace]

Yea, well, allegedly they were making bombs in the very same apartment where TT was supposed to babysit his daughter, DT's niece. If the two of them didn't know what they were doing, that niece could have presumably been blown up into many little pieces. Soft spot, indeed.

No evidence has been presented for where the bombs were manufactured and at this stage it's speculation. "Residue" at the apartment from an official source to CNN doesn't count for evidence. Fireworks were found in the backpack of DT's backpack. You would find fireworks in the dorm room of a multide of college kids across America, I highly doubt the bombs involved with the Boston marathon bombings were made from those consumer grade fireworks, it's a very dangerous way of making a bomb and putting your own self in harms way while making it.

 

[danzn16]

We've already discussed this. There were images posted of the procedure that looked exactly like the cuts he had.

Sorry can't keep up with the thread and real life as well so I know I have missed some discussion. Can anyone link me to those posts??

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

 

[jjenny]

No evidence has been presented for where the bombs were manufactured and at this stage it's speculation. "Residue" at the apartment from an official source to CNN doesn't count for evidence. Fireworks were found in the backpack of DT's backpack. You would find fireworks in the dorm room of a multide of college kids across America, I highly doubt the bombs involved with the Boston marathon bombings were made from those consumer grade fireworks, it's a very dangerous way of making a bomb and putting your own self in harms way while making it.

Yes, obviously TT really cared about his daughter, and DT about his niece. Oh wait. He is now dead, and she doesn't have a father. And DT is in prison awaiting trial.
Do you think the two of them gave a thought of what is going to happen to the child?

 

[CARIIS]

hummmmm

I find this intersting in terms of the other Canadian gentlemen in the saga. Kinda scary cause as we go we do seem to be developing a larger cast, in more regions etc, Now, noone has made direct links to BOston but was interested anyhow!

Pfeiffer said she noticed a dramatic change in Alizadeh's wife's behaviour after the couple visited Toronto about two years ago.

Pfeiffer said the woman began wearing a niqab, a traditional headscarf that covers not only the hair, but also most of the face, leaving only the eyes exposed. Prior to that, she wore the less-conservative hijab,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/27/f-bomb-plot-profile-hiva-alizadeh.html

The group is accused of preparing to build improvised explosive devices for attacks in Canada and of raising money to fund IED attacks on Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/P...+terror+plot/3447349/story.html#ixzz2SIMG0mCD

 

[Isabelle]

Wow- Kitchen table, kitchen sink & bathtub!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/03/justice/boston-bombs-latest-developments/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I would just about bet my life that the bag of firework stuff found in the donation bin near Gerry's belonged to TT and someone took care of that for him! Didn't LE/FBI take the entire container in for forensics?

 

[danzn16]

Sorry can't keep up with the thread and real life as well so I know I have missed some discussion. Can anyone link me to those posts??

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

Or at least what keys words to search. I can't find these posts

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

 

[CARIIS]

So I thought lets find out a bit about other chap. Plotnikov:

One day after Plotnikov was killed by Russian security forces, Tamerlan fled to Moscow...

Both men were competitive boxers as teenagers. Both seemed to have suddenly turned to radical Islam in 2009 and quickly became interested in violent jihad being waged in Dagestan - where Islamic militias are targeting the moderate Sufi Muslims and fighting Russian security forces who control the region.




23-year-old boxer from Canada who Tamerlan Tsarnaev met online -her contact Tamerlan had in Dagestan - Makhmud Mansur Nidal, 19 - was also killed by Russian forces during his six-month visit to to the war-torn region

,,,,Tamerlan had in Dagestan - Makhmud Mansur Nidal, 19 - was also killed by Russian forces during his six-month visit to to the war-torn region



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amerlan-Tsarnaev-jihad-U-S.html#ixzz2SIOd6SPW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook- and may have visited during his trip to Russia last year.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amerlan-Tsarnaev-jihad-U-S.html#ixzz2SIPTwjMx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[CARIIS]

In February 2012, Tamerlan traveled to Dagestan. Novaya Gazeta reports that he was seen 'more than once' by Russian intelligence units with Makhmud Mansur Nidal, 19, a half-Palestinian Dagestani who is believed responsible for a twin bomb attack in the capital Makhachkala that killed 13 people.


While Tamerlan was in Russian, Nidal was killed.....


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amerlan-Tsarnaev-jihad-U-S.html#ixzz2SIQaCxlM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[CARIIS]

According to two other law enforcement officials, Ms. Russell’s fingerprints and DNA do not match those found on the fragments. All of the law enforcement officials were granted anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us...k.html?hp&_r=0
All of the law enforcement officials were granted anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us...k.html?hp&_r=0

 

[CuriousGrace]

But what do they mean by 'explosive residue'? Since many of the ingredients that can be used to make bombs also have common household uses then this tells us nothing. E.g. Hydrogen Peroxide can be used in bomb making - it is also a household sanitiser and disinfectant, amongst other uses.

I don't understand this constant drip-feed from 'sources close to the investigation' and officials who want to remain anonymous. Is it a tactical thing, to put pressure on the defence?

Quoting to reiterate what Devon said.

Also, returning to the hijacked victim Danny momentarily. The criminal complaint states the two alleged men (TT & DT) got out of the car at the gas station and then Danny made his escape. It also states that TT picked up DT as soon as the car was hijacked. However, if you read the statements provided by Danny to CNN this is NOT what occurred. TT was in the car when Danny made his escape and DT was following in another vehicle for some time before entering the Mercedes SUV.

If you read the criminal complaint and the recollection from Danny on CNN there are MAJOR discrepancies in the story.

Criminal Complaint: (from page 7 onwards "Bombers Emerge")
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/criminal complaint 130421 1847.pdf

Danny's story as told to CNN:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/26/boston-carjacking-victim-was-just-trying-to-live/

 

[bourne]

Quoting to reiterate what Devon said.

Also, returning to the hijacked victim Danny momentarily. The criminal complaint states the two alleged men (TT & DT) got out of the car at the gas station and then Danny made his escape. It also states that TT picked up DT as soon as the car was hijacked. However, if you read the statements provided by Danny to CNN this is NOT what occurred. TT was in the car when Danny made his escape and DT was following in another vehicle for some time before entering the Mercedes SUV.

If you read the criminal complaint and the recollection from Danny on CNN there are MAJOR discrepancies in the story.

Criminal Complaint: (from page 7 onwards "Bombers Emerge")
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/criminal complaint 130421 1847.pdf

Danny's story as told to CNN:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/26/boston-carjacking-victim-was-just-trying-to-live/

So what is your point?

 

[bourne]

Hi All,

I'll give this my best shot---I don't practice in this area of law and I don't practice in MA or federal court, but some of it is general law "stuff" anyway. I'm no expert and this is a free answer--which may be worth only what you paid. Also to a large degree it will depend if this is ultimately a federal or state case. I suspect federal the way it is going, but you never know...

1. In general, a spouse can testify against the other spouse, but they cannot be forced to testify against the other spouse. It is the testifying spouse's choice, in other words. In MA, that is true, and under general federal law that is true. There are exceptions to the rule, as always in law, but in general, that is the rule. So, can they force her to testify? No. Can she decide voluntarily to testify? Yes.

Also, note that we are talking here only about testimony at trial. These are the rules of criminal procedure--meaning we aren't talking about in an interrogation room or even civil proceedings. It is simply a rule at a criminal trial that one spouse can, but doesn't have to, testify against another. Since he is dead and there will be no criminal trial for him, there is no privilege for her to exert.

2. Always loopholes. If they try in a military court, I have no idea what the rules of evidence are there. Also doesn't apply in proceedings of a domestic nature, nonsupport--ie if it is a family matter, she can be compelled. As far as loopholes in a federal case---the PATRIOT Act is extremely broad in its scope but I don't believe it can alter the rules of procedure in a criminal trial.

3. The authorities can charge anyone with anything, really, it's more a matter of can they convict somebody of something. I haven't been reading this thread so I'm not sure the context, but since, literally, the entire world knew LE was looking for TT, including undoubtedly TT, I can't imagine LE would bring this charge as it would never stick.

4. Again, privilege has to do with testifying at trial only. Any actions she took to help or hinder TT would not come into play and she couldn't "hide" behind the privilege. Her behavior isn't shielded in any way by privilege.

5/6/7. I wouldn't say the PATRIOT Act conflicted with Miranda. I'd say that the Miranda rule exists and the PATRIOT Act exists. The former is to protect individual rights. The latter is to protect the general public. Sometimes those things conflict.

Basically, Miranda is a US Supreme Court decision from the 60's that says police must let people know of their legal rights before LE starts to question them--to an attorney yada yada yada. The convenient way LE has learned to do so is by the Miranda warnings we all know from tv.

Why do they have to let people know? Because if they don't then there is a cloud hanging over the interrogation and investigation and evidence that maybe it was coerced/forced or otherwise obtained in a way that we freedom-lovin' Americans don't tend to like.

So, basically, like spousal privilege, it is really only a rule of evidence that comes into play in criminal trials. If someone is not Mirandized, their defense attorney can claim they didn't know their rights and thus the playing ground wasn't fair and the things the suspect said and did get thrown out of court and cannot be used in the trial. Of course, LE and prosecutors don't want this stuff thrown out at trial, so prosecutors tell LE that they have to follow this rule from the very beginning--ie the arrest--to make sure the evidence can come in at the later trial. That is how it is prophylactic--LE does it to make sure the evidence obtained can be used later at trial. LE doesn't have to Mirandize to make a legal arrest---they have to Mirandize to assure a legal conviction later in court. They do "this" now to get "that" effect later=prophylactic.

In the 80's, the US Supreme Court decided the Quarles case. In that, the police asked the guy, while handcuffing him, where the gun was that they saw. Then they Mirandized him. His defense attorney argued that the gun had to be thrown out because it was asked before he was Mirandized. The court basically said that if there is a question of public safety (ie a loose gun in a room just as you are trying to arrest someone) then the evidence can still come in. In other words, they created an exception to the Miranda rule, so it became more like "you must tell them their rights except if there is a dangerous situation at hand that doesn't give you time to Mirandize and you need info to diffuse the danger". That is the Quarles exception to the Miranda rule.

The FBI, per the memo linked on Dorf's page, took that exception and, with regard to domestic terrorism, said they (the FBI) think the Quarles rule can be used to justify not giving someone Miranda warnings for some amount of time. The memo specifically says it doesn't apply if FBI knows suspect has attorney but otherwise it says "hey, we think it doesn't have to be in just that exact one minute of danger; that with terrorism, public safety can be in danger for a longer period of time since we need to know if there are others out there who are planning things etc."

In the end, the law is: if you want to be able to use at trial, you have to give Miranda warnings. BUT, if there is an immediate concern for public safety, you can handle that first then give Miranda. The FBI has interpreted those laws to say "immediate" can mean more than a minute or an hour.

Also, as the Dorf column points out, it is important to again remember that Miranda is just a rule of evidence for criminal trials. If the FBI or LE don't care if the evidence ever gets in at trial (ie they just want to know if others are out there or whatever and they have enough other evidence they think) then they don't have to worry about Miranda. It is only an advance worry for a trial situation.

And this is all a very simplified (ha!) version of everything. Democracy and law are messy things.

Clear as mud?

Thanks Chinacat67 for answering my legal Q's!

I had been uber-busy and missed your reply yesterday! Thanks also for pointing out your post to me via PM. I would NEVER have found it.

I have follow-up Q's but I'll ask you via PM. I think there's too much going on this thread for me to play search and post again. :scared: <--- don't know why this smily is called "scared" when it looks more like "confused and frustrated" to me. Anyhow, I interpret smily to be the latter. lol

 

[bourne]

He was not trying to intimidate the child. He was just playing around with her. I've seen my ex partner behave the same way with his niece of the same age and it was just a bit of a fun. There is no alarm in the child's voice and DT is putting on various tones of voice and the child doesnt flinch, you can not see the faces he is making, he asks for a kiss but he doesn't pull her or touch her. She wants to stay in the room. I don't know why people look so much into a 46 second video where you can't even see what his facial expressions are and from all accounts on his twitter he spoke very adoringly of his niece. No matter what type of person a man is, I have never come across one that doesnt have a soft spot for their niece, especially at that toddler age. IMO

DT in the video looks like a big mean-spirited bully to me.

 

[Sillybilly]

It was said that KRT began wearing Islamic clothing shortly after she started at Suffolk University. According to a neighbour, she apparently dropped out of Suffolk in 2010, but does anyone know when she started there? Here's why i'm asking:

2008 According to ZT, TT got involved in religious politics

2008/2009 TT met Misha (Mikhail Allakhverdor), an Armenian native and convert to Islam. It is believed TT and MA attended a Boston-area mosque together. MA has an address with his parents in Warwick, RI but his business connections seem to be with a company in Boston (Chestnut Hills area).

2009 Toronto area Canadian-turned-jihadist, William Plotnikov converted to Muslim sometime this year. Although his surname is not rare, it also isn't that common. There is one person with that surname who lives in Warwick, RI with a business in Cranston, both not that far from Providence (maybe 6 miles). Wondering if it might be a relative.

20090728 TT had a DV charge against &#8220;girlfriend&#8221; Nadine Ascencao, 25. Report said he slapped her because she was yelling at him about another girl (whom we now believe to be KRT). When did KT and TT meet?

20100000 KT dropped out of Suffolk Univ. According to a neighbour, KRT had begun wearing Islamic clothing shortly after she started at Suffolk University

Guess you could say I'm wondering which came first .. chicken or egg.

And yes, maybe this train does have a caboose

 

[deoneta]

It was said that KRT began wearing Islamic clothing shortly after she started at Suffolk University. According to a neighbour, she apparently dropped out of Suffolk in 2010, but does anyone know when she started there? Here's why i'm asking:

2008 According to ZT, TT got involved in religious politics

2008/2009 TT met Misha (Mikhail Allakhverdor), an Armenian native and convert to Islam. It is believed TT and MA attended a Boston-area mosque together. MA has an address with his parents in Warwick, RI but his business connections seem to be with a company in Boston (Cambridge Hills area).

2009 Toronto area Canadian-turned-jihadist, William Plotnikov converted to Muslim sometime this year. Although his surname is not rare, it also isn't that common. There is one person with that surname who lives in Warwick, RI with a business in Cranston, both not that far from Providence (maybe 6 miles). Wondering if it might be a relative.

20090728 TT had a DV charge against &#8220;girlfriend&#8221; Nadine Ascencao, 25. Report said he slapped her because she was yelling at him about another girl (whom we now believe to be KRT). When did KT and TT meet?

20100000 KT dropped out of Suffolk Univ. According to a neighbour, KRT had begun wearing Islamic clothing shortly after she started at Suffolk University

Guess you could say I'm wondering which came first .. chicken or egg.

And yes, maybe this train does have a caboose

Interesting. KRT is now 24. If she started college at the usual age of 18, that would have been 2007, maybe 2008.

ETA: She graduated from high school in 2007 per People article