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

[tezi]

Addressing a few things that have been discussed recently:

KRT- I've seen nothing that indicates KRT was a victim of domestic violence. It's possible of course, but there are no eye witness accounts, no police reports. Her friends have said that TT called her a prostitute and used other demeaning language. I have no doubt TT was an abusive man, but neighbors report that it was KRT they heard doing all the angry yelling until all hours of the night. Maybe TT married a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad. She had the perfect opportunity to get out of the situation when TT left the country for 6 months, but she chose not to. Instead she chose to stay with TT and put her daughter at risk. Just like she chose not to notify authorities when the bombers' photos were circulated. Just like she's choosing not to cooperate with authorities in the investigation. Maybe she simply shared her husband's convictions and twisted values.

For those who say it made no difference that KRT and the non-student friends failed to report, I beg to differ. If police had known the cell phone numbers of the bombers, they could have pinpointed their location through pings, quite possibly preventing the death and injuries that occurred hours later that evening.

The pressure cooker bomb at the shootout was not remotely detonated. It was thrown. Luckily the lid came off, minimizing the impact when it exploded.
I don't understand why people doubt the accounts of the shootout given by police on the scene or the account of Andrew Kitzenberg who LIVE tweeted his account, complete with photographs. Alex Jones wasted no time to raise the false flag nonsense. This 9/11 "truther" also believes the moon landing was faked!

Timothy McVeigh did not act alone. He had at least three accomplices.

For those that believe the bombs were amateurish and "not powerful", tell that to the victims and the surviving family members of the deceased.

ALL MOO

RBBM1: I know, I don't get it either. I guess the photographs lied? (Heavy on the sarcasm)...Maybe photoshopped. Anything to make an excuse for the terrorists....

RBBM2: You said what I have been trying to say. Thank you!

JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all other disclaimers.

 

[Devon]

Yes, there is a reason for me to want to know what killed him. Because I'm curious, because it will give more clues as to what happened during the shootout, it will help me to understand if he was indeed a suicide bomber or if he made any attempt to live, it will tell me if the bombs they made in his kitchen and that they were throwing at police exploded early or too close to him (which we've heard rumors of) and contributed to his death, because that will help me to understand in part how skilled they were at making bombs, which will help me to understand in part how experienced, how practiced, how trained they were. It will give me some peace to know if/that he was close to being taken alive by police. And if police were being honest when they reported that his brother killed him. It will tell me if his crazy mother will be forced to acknowledge that one of her sons contributed to the death of the other son, which will give me some sense of personal satisfaction considering the offensive things she's said about the "fake" bombing and the accusations of my government and my police force "murdering" her son. That's just off the top of my head.

I can't even fathom why someone would assume that if anyone wanted to know the cause of death, it's because we somehow think he didn't deserve it? That makes no sense to me.

I also don't understand why people keep posting arguments insisting these two are terrorists as if someone is actually arguing against them? Who is debating this? Who has said they are not guilty, are not terrorists, or don't deserve punishment?

I agree with most of your comments but I will stick my head above the parapet and say yes, I for one, am absolutely currently debating whether they are guilty, and if so, what of? We haven't seen the evidence yet, let alone had a trial.

As the case develops I will draw my own conclusions based on whatever actual evidence is revealed (officially) that stands up to scrutiny, but I choose not to do that based on speculation, assumptions, gossip, innuendo, snapshots from a person's life, hearsay, association, pseudo-psychology, anonymous sources, media influence, chatter from the 'I knew him and he was a bad'un'!' crowd, or the absolute disgust I feel towards anyone who kills innocent people. I only rely on facts, and we have very few of those, as yet.

It is also not clear to me that this was definitely an act of terrorism. Unless actual religious or political motives are proven, what is the difference between e.g. killing multiple people in a cinema using various high powered weapons and setting off 2 home-made bombs in a crowd? Why is one immediately labelled an act of terrorism (even before any facts are gleaned) and the other is not? I just don't see the distinction.

I trust that others who have already formed their opinions will respect my right to wait and reserve judgement before I form mine.

 

[claudicici]

I try to understand each crime I follow.It is so hard to imagine the evil people are capable of.I don't believe in "bad" or "good" people,there are always reasons and contributing factors why people do what they do.In order to even attempt to prevent things in the future don't you have to understand why it happened in the first place?

 

[deoneta]

As I've read it, there have been a lot of "reasons" - not excuses. A reason is a contributing factor. An excuse is a way to say it wasn't his fault. Those are two different things.

I think it's unhelpful to immediately jump on people looking at reasons and pretend to think that they are saying it's not his fault. What possible good can that do? Reasons are legitimate ways of investigating contributing factors. There are even necessary for establishing patterns. Police do it, psychologists do it all the time.

For instance if we say a serial killer murdered someone and that he was a sociopath, we are saying that his sociopathy was probably a contributing factor in his ability to commit a heinous crime. There's no implication in that statement of excusing him for the crime.

When someone says that DT was young, stoned, idolized his brother, etc - those are likely contributing factors in his ability to commit a crime. There is no implication of "excusing" him for it.

I mean unless someone has been posting "it wasn't his fault" and I'm just missing it somewhere.

It's smart to try to dig deeper.

There's a fine line between explaining and minimizing. I think the difference in opinion comes in because for some, these reasons simply don't ring true.

DT is young- Yes he is, but of an age where many are serving in the military, working full time, going to school full time, raising children. He's an adult.

DT was under the influence of a controlling older brother whom he idolized. DT spent his days and nights listening to rap, smoking pot, partying with his pals, not attending classes. Sounds to me like he was free and easy and did exactly what he pleased.

DT was a sweet, gentle soul who wouldn't harm a fly. Apparently not true.

TT failed to achieve the American dream and became disaffected with his adopted country. There was a time when TT was social, had friends, loved nice cars and flashy clothes, got lots of attention from his boxing and had two women fighting over him. Sounds like he was enjoying himself plenty. He chose to give up boxing. Nobody made him. Despite receiving pell grants, he failed to finish school. Despite being a father and husband, he failed to work. My theory, he was lazy, arrogant and felt entitled, thanks in no small part to his dear mother.

The only valid explanation I can see for the actions of these bombers is that they were radicalized by whatever means and chose to act on their perverse ideology.

ALL MOO

 

[BigCat]

As I've read it, there have been a lot of "reasons" - not excuses. A reason is a contributing factor. An excuse is a way to say it wasn't his fault. Those are two different things.

I think it's unhelpful to immediately jump on people looking at reasons and pretend to think that they are saying it's not his fault. What possible good can that do? Reasons are legitimate ways of investigating contributing factors. There are even necessary for establishing patterns. Police do it, psychologists do it all the time.

For instance if we say a serial killer murdered someone and that he was a sociopath, we are saying that his sociopathy was probably a contributing factor in his ability to commit a heinous crime. There's no implication in that statement of excusing him for the crime.

When someone says that DT was young, stoned, idolized his brother, etc - those are likely contributing factors in his ability to commit a crime. There is no implication of "excusing" him for it.

I mean unless someone has been posting "it wasn't his fault" and I'm just missing it somewhere.

It's smart to try to dig deeper.

I agree. I think understanding the perps' motivation is a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit, even if it the answers are often unsatisfactory.

Maybe Kimberly's point, and I don't claim to speak for her, is that a lot people are concerned with DT's motivations compared to, not only his bother, but to other young killers, like Adam Lanza or James Holmes, etc.

JMO

 

[Just K]

Addressing a few things that have been discussed recently:

KRT- I've seen nothing that indicates KRT was a victim of domestic violence. It's possible of course, but there are no eye witness accounts, no police reports. Her friends have said that TT called her a prostitute and used other demeaning language. I have no doubt TT was an abusive man, but neighbors report that it was KRT they heard doing all the angry yelling until all hours of the night. Maybe TT married a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad. She had the perfect opportunity to get out of the situation when TT left the country for 6 months, but she chose not to. Instead she chose to stay with TT and put her daughter at risk. Just like she chose not to notify authorities when the bombers' photos were circulated. Just like she's choosing not to cooperate with authorities in the investigation. Maybe she simply shared her husband's convictions and twisted values.

For those who say it made no difference that KRT and the non-student friends failed to report, I beg to differ. If police had known the cell phone numbers of the bombers, they could have pinpointed their location through pings, quite possibly preventing the death and injuries that occurred hours later that evening.

The pressure cooker bomb at the shootout was not remotely detonated. It was thrown. Luckily the lid came off, minimizing the impact when it exploded.

I don't understand why people doubt the accounts of the shootout given by police on the scene or the account of Andrew Kitzenberg who LIVE tweeted his account, complete with photographs. Alex Jones wasted no time to raise the false flag nonsense. This 9/11 "truther" also believes the moon landing was faked!

Timothy McVeigh did not act alone. He had at least three accomplices.

For those that believe the bombs were amateurish and "not powerful", tell that to the victims and the surviving family members of the deceased.

ALL MOO

Not to mention the windows, several yards from the device, that were blown out and the volume of the explosion which caused 100s of people to cover their ears and bend in pain. Then remember the impact that knocked many off their feet. Specifically, there is video proof as the elderly runner, who was a few yards away from impact, was actually bowled over by the rumbling as the 1st bomb exploded.

For those of us who watched and listened throughout the night of thursday into Friday, we know the chain of events...we saw an almost immediate posting of the front row images of the shootout. We saw and heard the uncut video, shot from further away, where you can see the flashing blue lights, the dogs barking, the muffled yelling, and the shots fired as well as a louder blast.

People who want to dispute the images and comments that were being posted in real time simply want to stir up controversy.

Both the bombings at the marathon and the shootout on Laurel Street happened. Normal citizens were eyewitnesses to these evil acts.

There will always be people, anonymous or out there crazies, who seek attention by either stirring up doubt or in some cases even manufacturing it. Who does sh*# like that? Something possesses a small minority to try and cast aspersions on the general public.

IMO, they are just as bad as the actual perpetrators!

 

[tezi]

How about this? They did it because they WANTED to do it. No other reason needed.

I really don't need any other reasons WHY they did it or what motivated them.

Sometimes it doesn't get any easier than that.

JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all other disclaimers.

 

[BigCat]

How about this? They did it because they WANTED to do it. No other reason needed.

I really don't need any other reasons WHY they did it or what motivated them.

Sometimes it doesn't get any easier than that.

JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all other disclaimers.

Clearly more people want to commit such acts than actually do. So that's not really a sufficient answer.

 

[Devon]

There's a fine line between explaining and minimizing. I think the difference in opinion comes in because for some, these reasons simply don't ring true.

DT is young- Yes he is, but of an age where many are serving in the military, working full time, going to school full time, raising children. He's an adult.

DT was under the influence of a controlling older brother whom he idolized. DT spent his days and nights listening to rap, smoking pot, partying with his pals, not attending classes. Sounds to me like he was free and easy and did exactly what he pleased.

DT was a sweet, gentle soul who wouldn't harm a fly. Apparently not true.

TT failed to achieve the American dream and became disaffected with his adopted country. There was a time when TT was social, had friends, loved nice cars and flashy clothes, got lots of attention from his boxing and had two women fighting over him. Sounds like he was enjoying himself plenty. He chose to give up boxing. Nobody made him. Despite receiving pell grants, he failed to finish school. Despite being a father and husband, he failed to work. My theory, he was lazy, arrogant and felt entitled, thanks in no small part to his dear mother.

The only valid explanation I can see for the actions of these bombers is that they were radicalized by whatever means and chose to act on their perverse ideology.

ALL MOO

What evidence is there that TT became disaffected with the US? I have only seen some suggestion that at some point he decided to live more in accordance with his Muslim faith and that occasionally he disagreed allegedly with some opinions of some others of his faith. Nothing extraordinary there IMO.

There are also some suggestions that he found some aspects of western culture difficult and there's an apparent (undated) comment by him that he 'didn't have any American friends' but there's nothing unusual about immigrants feeling more comfortable with people of their own ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Was his 'radical' viewpoint (if there was one) really directed at America, or at oppressions and perceived injustices in his homeland? We don't know yet.

I also don't make anything of the fact that he was the main caregiver for his child. Someone had to work and it's likely that KR's chances of employment were much better than his because of his lack of full citizenship. Reversed roles are very common these days for various reasons and it eliminates having to pay for childcare. I just don't see being a 'stay at home dad' as evidence of laziness, any more than I would for a mother to do it.

 

[Just K]

Clearly more people want to commit such acts than actually do. So that's not really a sufficient answer.

Yes, just this week LE, in Suburban Maryland, arrested a teen with pipe bombs in a backpack. A girl's suspicious father took the opportunity to search the backpack while the teen left it unattended in the man's home..
http://www.wusa9.com/news/maryland/

 

[bourne]

The point is that at the moment 'Danny' appears to be a key witness because he has claimed to LE that TT told him he was responsible for the bombings. He also claimed to have been carjacked at gunpoint and robbed. He has also added later in his media interviews that TT also told him he'd killed SC.

If a key witness gives differing accounts of material facts then his credibility will be severely compromised and his evidence is likely to be robustly challenged at trial. This is why I am surprised he has been allowed to give all these interviews before DT has even been indicted.

First of all, I don't see Danny the carjacked victim making differing accounts. What I do see is the flawed reporting that's been going on with both the media and LE giving different versions of what happened due to the extremely dangerous, live, fluid situation of the bombings, murder of MIT officer, carjacking, fugitive hiding in the boat, etc. and the fact that they want to disclose as much info as possible to the public STAT, rather than wait for all the evidence and facts to come in for thorough analysis.

Second, Danny was a frightened carjacked victim who was held at gunpoint and nearly died at the hands of the two terrorist brothers. Remember these are the two same brothers who with extreme depravity, callously and with blatant disregard for human life, dropped two bombs off at the feet of innocent bystanders watching the Boston marathon including a bomb that killed a young, eight-year-old boy who was only there cheering on a family member at the race. So Danny's fear of being killed by the two terrorists was an extremely valid and reasonable one. Therefore, if Danny gave a slightly different version that what he originally gave, it would very well be from sheer SHOCK. And don't tell me in your entire lifetime, you've never given varied accounts of what went on when you recounted a TRAUMATIC, LIFE-OR-DEATH event.

Third, what is this "evidence" you find so critical that needs to be given by Danny? That Danny said the terrorists told him they were the Boston marathon bombers? Certainly you are aware that LE already has sufficient evidence (e.g., surveillance videotapes, DT's own legally obtained testimony) apart from Danny's testimony that these two T brothers in fact laid backpacks of bombs down next to innocent civilians at a sporting event and nonchalantly and in a cavalier manner, walked off and the bombs then exploded, correct?

Fourth, let's for the sake of argument agree with your *opinion* that Danny gave differing accounts of what happened, which I find so slight as to be immaterial and irrelevant. Don't you think if Danny's account of what personally happened to him in a harrowing, life-or-death crisis of a night was so unreliable and lacking in credibility that the defense would be able to get his testimony thrown out of court before a trial of DT even begins? Furthermore, if Danny's testimony is used in court, don't you think it'd be blown to bits by the defense upon cross-examination in court if as you say his testimony is full of holes?

Fifth, in the interest of equality, justice, and due process, there are 100s of other victims in this terrorist tragedy and thus, I'd gather if each person relates the events ten times, there'd at least be 10x100s or 1000s of different accounts of what happened on the day of the Boston bombing. Additionally, there have been minor, inconsequential discrepancies such as whether a "milk crate" or "ladder" was used for the boatowner victim David Henneberry to climb atop his boat in his backyard when he eyewitnessed DT "cowering" and/or "laying prostrate" down on his boat. Are you going to pursue how credible these 100s of victims' testimonies are or are you nitpicking only on Danny's?

So I ask again, what is your (and the other poster's) point other than to malign the victim Danny?

 

[BigCat]

What evidence is there that TT became disaffected with the US? I have only seen some suggestion that at some point he decided to live more in accordance with his Muslim faith and that occasionally he disagreed allegedly with some opinions of some others of his faith. Nothing extraordinary there IMO.

There are also some suggestions that he found some aspects of western culture difficult and there's an apparent (undated) comment by him that he 'didn't have any American friends' but there's nothing unusual about immigrants feeling more comfortable with people of their own ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Was his 'radical' viewpoint (if there was one) really directed at America, or at oppressions and perceived injustices in his homeland? We don't know yet.

I also don't make anything of the fact that he was the main caregiver for his child. Someone had to work and it's likely that KR's chances of employment were much better than his because of his lack of full citizenship. Reversed roles are very common these days for various reasons and it eliminates having to pay for childcare. I just don't see being a 'stay at home dad' as evidence of laziness, any more than I would for a mother to do it.

We do know that he hated America, according this his ex-girlfriend. (source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cencao-says-beat-dressing-like-Westerner.html). However, his anger seemed most directly at "slutty girls" who wore tight trousers than to US foreign policy.


JMO

 

[bourne]

Clearly more people want to commit such acts than actually do. So that's not really a sufficient answer.

Therein lies the rub. Fortunately most people in society have a moral and ethical CONSCIENCE.

 

[ctkid]

The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, under pressure to release the student records of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, *announced Friday that it has asked federal education officials to determine whether federal privacy law could be waived in the case.

Students who have “an outstanding bill in general would still be allowed to register if they can document extenuating circumstances,” said John Hoey, the university’s assistant chancellor for public affairs. “We monitor it throughout the year.”

An unpaid balance of $20,000 is unusual, Hoey acknowledged. “Most balances are relatively low.”

Delays in loan and financial aid distributions are the most typical reasons for an unpaid balance. Tsarnaev, a sophomore, may have told college officials he expected to receive the same financial aid package as he did his first year on campus.

For in-state students, UMass Dartmouth costs about $22,000 a year, including room and board.

http://tinyurl.com/cvpr7j6

 

[ctkid]

As the probe into the Boston Marathon bombing continues, leaflets voicing support for the attack's surviving suspect have appeared in the capital of Russia’s Republic of Chechnya, in Kyrgyzstan, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was born, and in Kazakhstan.

Several petitions calling for the release of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have collected more than 5,000 signatures on the White House’s website, adding more controversy to the case. A petition must collect 100,000 signatures in 30 days to be acknowledged by White House officials. Judging by the dynamics of voting since the advent of the petition on April 26, the bid looks to have a rather small chance of soliciting an official response from the US president.

http://rt.com/news/boston-bombings-tsarnaev-suspect-785/

 

[Devon]

We do know that he hated America, according this his ex-girlfriend. (source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cencao-says-beat-dressing-like-Westerner.html). However, his anger seemed most directly at "slutty girls" who wore tight trousers than to US foreign policy.


JMO

The DM is a tabloid and sells gossip and sensationalism. I take their 'news' with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Devon]

First of all, I don't see Danny the carjacked victim making differing accounts. What I do see is the flawed reporting that's been going on with both the media and LE giving different versions of what happened due to the extremely dangerous, live, fluid situation of the bombings, murder of MIT officer, carjacking, fugitive hiding in the boat, etc. and the fact that they want to disclose as much info as possible to the public STAT, rather than wait for all the evidence and facts to come in for thorough analysis.

Second, Danny was a frightened carjacked victim who was held at gunpoint and nearly died at the hands of the two terrorist brothers. Remember these are the two same brothers who with extreme depravity, callously and with blatant disregard for human life, dropped two bombs off at the feet of innocent bystanders watching the Boston marathon including a bomb that killed a young, eight-year-old boy who was only there cheering on a family member at the race. So Danny's fear of being killed by the two terrorists was an extremely valid and reasonable one. Therefore, if Danny gave a slightly different version that what he originally gave, it would very well be from sheer SHOCK. And don't tell me in your entire lifetime, you've never given varied accounts of what went on when you recounted a TRAUMATIC, LIFE-OR-DEATH event.

Third, what is this "evidence" you find so critical that needs to be given by Danny? That Danny said the terrorists told him they were the Boston marathon bombers? Certainly you are aware that LE already has sufficient evidence (e.g., surveillance videotapes, DT's own legally obtained testimony) apart from Danny's testimony that these two T brothers in fact laid backpacks of bombs down next to innocent civilians at a sporting event and nonchalantly and in a cavalier manner, walked off and the bombs then exploded, correct?

Fourth, let's for the sake of argument agree with your *opinion* that Danny gave differing accounts of what happened, which I find so slight as to be immaterial and irrelevant. Don't you think if Danny's account of what personally happened to him in a harrowing, life-or-death crisis of a night was so unreliable and lacking in credibility that the defense would be able to get his testimony thrown out of court before a trial of DT even begins? Furthermore, if Danny's testimony is used in court, don't you think it'd be blown to bits by the defense upon cross-examination in court if as you say his testimony is full of holes?

Fifth, in the interest of equality, justice, and due process, there are 100s of other victims in this terrorist tragedy and thus, I'd gather if each person relates the events ten times, there'd at least be 10x100s or 1000s of different accounts of what happened on the day of the Boston bombing. Additionally, there have been minor, inconsequential discrepancies such as whether a "milk crate" or "ladder" was used for the boatowner victim David Henneberry to climb atop his boat in his backyard when he eyewitnessed DT "cowering" and/or "laying prostrate" down on his boat. Are you going to pursue how credible these 100s of victims' testimonies are or are you nitpicking only on Danny's?

So I ask again, what is your (and the other poster's) point other than to malign the victim Danny?

My 'point' is that I don't yet accept that he has been entirely truthful and that the material inconsistencies in his various accounts could be in issue at trial.

Please stop accusing me of 'bashing' and 'maligning' this witness. I am entitled to weight the evidence as I see fit and I have made no accusations, only observations.

 

[CuriousGrace]

So I ask again, what is your (and the other poster's) point other than to malign the victim Danny?

RSBM. At this stage, the timelime of alleged events have been outlined in the criminal complaint and this is the only official document that has been provided to the court thus far, the rest is pure speculation. I am allowed to question what the point of going on national television and hiding your identity with a fake name to give an account of your story that doesn't align with what was told to authorities? I would anticipate that if he was, in fact, a key witness involved in a federal charges case and DT/TT made these incriminating admissions to him then he would be under strict instructions to not be discussing the case to CNN at this point in time. I am not attacking him personally because at the moment I have no clue who he even is. His real name isn't even Danny.

And there is no evidence that DT's alleged statements after his arrest during the Public Safety Exception to the Miranda rule were legally obtained - he repeatedly asked for a Lawyer during the interrogation period and the FBI interrogated him long after the Police Commissioner deemed Boston was safe and any immediate danger was over.

 

[Just K]

As far as I can tell, "Danny" has given only one face to face interview, on camera. He was in shadow. Early on he spoke through an interpreter or a representative as well.

The way I see it, his story has not changed so much as he has given more details. The problem with most people, especially when English is not their 1st language, tend not to tell stories in chronological order. Therefore, it sometimes sounds different. But if you had him write out, in finite detail, moment by moment, in chronological order, you would likely see that the story hasn't changed.

Also, a witness' telling of a story often has to do with how he is interviewed and specifically the order of the questions asked by someone who wasn't there.

For example, I ask you:
So, how did you come to use the screen name (fill in the blank)?
What makes you think that Danny's story has changed?
When did you first hear anything from Danny?
So, did you hear that Danny said, they let him go because he is Chinese?

Now, depending on your answers.

The next interviewer says:
So, you were on Websleuth's discussing Danny?
You think his story has changed yet you don't think he is lying?
How do you explain the discrepancy of the stories told by Danny via others communicating for him versus those coming directly from Danny.


Now, just because your answers to the second interviewer are more elaborate or differ from those asked by other reporters or retold via a representative, does not mean that any of your answers prove that your story has changed.

Finally, if I summarize all of your opinions re: Danny's story, then it will likely sound like a third version.

See what I mean?

 

[noodled1]

The point is that at the moment 'Danny' appears to be a key witness because he has claimed to LE that TT told him he was responsible for the bombings. He also claimed to have been carjacked at gunpoint and robbed. He has also added later in his media interviews that TT also told him he'd killed SC.

If a key witness gives differing accounts of material facts then his credibility will be severely compromised and his evidence is likely to be robustly challenged at trial. This is why I am surprised he has been allowed to give all these interviews before DT has even been indicted.

The car jacked man is not a key witness. He didn't see anything other than his SUV and ATM card getting taken away. what DT and TT told him in the car is really of no relevance. The Feds don't need his testimony to make the case.