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

[Jersey*Girl]

A nickname is still a "real" name. That's what Danny the carjacked victim uses to identify himself. That's what his friends called him. That's what LE called him. Perhaps Danny's short for Daniel -- who knows and how's that relevant to whether Danny's testimony is truthful or not?

Just because someone doesn't want to give their full BIRTH name to the media doesn't mean they haven't done so to LE and that LE doesn't know Danny's BIRTHNAME.

Again, DT by his own statements have corroborated Danny's accounts of being carjacked. So I see no reason to doubt Danny's version of the harrowing events he faced at the hands of the bombing T brothers.

I believe Danny. I only have questions about where the other suspect was picked up, and if media or le added info to Danny's statement considering he spoke broken English. However, his full name would be given in his formal and official statement that le would have to write up, including his American nickname.

 

[epiphany]

A nickname is still a "real" name. That's what Danny the carjacked victim uses to identify himself. That's what his friends called him. That's what LE called him. Perhaps Danny's short for Daniel -- who knows and how's that relevant to whether Danny's testimony is truthful or not?

Just because someone doesn't want to give their full BIRTH name to the media doesn't mean they haven't done so to LE and that LE doesn't know Danny's BIRTHNAME.

Again, DT by his own statements have corroborated Danny's accounts of being carjacked. So I see no reason to doubt Danny's version of the harrowing events he faced at the hands of the bombing T brothers.

BBM

No disagreement here...that's why linked to article and bolded.

 

[Devon]

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.

Respectfully snipped.

I didn't watch or hear any live coverage as it happened, but I do know that there were all sorts of reports being generated, such as that one or both of the suspects had suicide vests on and that they had multiple firearms, both of which were false. As I understand it, the media was kept well at a distance and so could only report what they were hearing rather than seeing, and the various LE outlets (scanner, twitter, interviews etc) were giving conflicting and inconsistent accounts of what was happening.

if any one knows where I can find any live audio or video covering the shootout I would be interested in reviewing it.

If Andrew Kitzenberg was tweeting and taking pictures while he was watching what was going on he couldn't have also been watching every action that was occurring in his line of sight at the same time, so his account can't just be taken as totally accurate IMO. The other witness who called into a radio station also saw some of what was happening. I don't think there's any way we can say one is definitely right and the other definitely wrong at this moment. They are just two eyewitness accounts from different locations at the scene and one or neither could be accurate.

As for the alleged pressure cooker bomb at the scene, where did you get the information you've quoted on that. Did Andrew actually see it being ignited, thrown, the lid coming off? Do you have a link to this info.?

 

[sorrell skye]

"Danny" is the American nickname of the Boston terrorists' armed carjacking, kidnapped and robbery victim:

snipped

In an exclusive interview with the Globe on Thursday, Danny -- the victim of the Tsarnaev brothers’ much-discussed but previously little-understood carjacking -- filled in some of the last missing pieces in the timeline between the murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier, just before 10:30 p.m. on April 18, and the Watertown shootout that ended just before 1 a.m. Danny asked that he be identified only by his American nickname.

snipped

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

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...owing-night/BhQWGzarWee8MZ6KtMHJNN/story.html

I'm thankful that "Danny" survived his terrifying ordeal. Can you imagine being kidnapped at gunpoint by the 2 people who are responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings? No doubt he experienced fear that many of us will never (thankfully) feel.

IIRC, Danny's cell phone (left in the car after he escaped) helped LE to locate the 2 terrorists.

I'm disgusted that there are those who seek to disparage him & who seek to try to paint him as a liar.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Wondering if everyone has gone through all of Dzhokhar's tweets. I've gone through them and viewed the others he conversed with, looks to me like he actually did practice "making stuff" with firecrackers/fireworks...

I've also found several other type of online accts for him & his friends where some of the fireworks stuff appears f/x, like Harry Potter shizznit - looks cool. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't appear to me this kid was afraid of powder from the sticks backfiring on him and exploding off body parts. Looks to me like he's not "afraid" or "intimidated" by these things.

Its interesting to look through everything they've done online and compare the dates.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Medical student: The gaping, irregular wound seen on Older Bomber's chest is most certainly not surgical. The smaller hole with "innards" sticking out also does not appear to be surgical to me.

Procedures: Breathing tube inserted.

Reports say chest tube(s) inserted. At the very least the left lung would have been collapsed. And likely the right as well. Any time the pleural viscera is interrupted for any reason, the lung collapses. Due to lack of internal pressure needed to keep lungs inflated. (Look it up. Learn what a chest tube actually does. Also look up "sucking chest wound".)

Cardiac arrest = no heart beat Flat line on ekg.

Fluid around heart = cardiac tamponade
Usually a large bore needle is inserted in order to withdraw accumulated fluids. Perhaps in this case, in which patient was in extremis, a more direct approach was used. That would involve direct access to the heart. I see no evidence of the type of incision this would require.
Correction: I reexamined the photo. There does appear to be a small (2 1/2-3 inch) incision at the midline on the chest, right where one would access the heart.

From the timeline quote within the various articles, it appears they worked on him for about 15 minutes before declaring his death. Sometimes ER personnel "attempt resuscitation" on patients who are clearly already gone. Think Michael Jackson. (This was done on my own father in the ER after he had a massive MI. I supposed they wanted us to feel they did all they could. Or else they wanted to be able to bill Medicare for resuscitation efforts. On a dead patient. But not dead until a doctor pronounces.)

Medical student, good luck to you in your studies. Good case to pique your curiosity, which leads to learning.

Oh, and also look up where chest tubes are placed. Not down by the abdomen, that's for sure. Also, a chest tube incision is small.

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

Devon: "I didn't watch or hear any live coverage as it happened"

Then you are certainly at a disadvantage in your truth seeking. I'm curious that you keep referring to a woman who called in to a radio station the next morning. The one who said the police ran over TT.

Did you hear the OTHER witness who called in to a radio station the next day - a man who watched the entire incident? NOT the guy who was videoing and tweeting, this was another guy. This guy saw the car coming at TT down on the street with police officers bending over him. Car at high rate of speed and officers got out of the way just in time. TT dragged about 30 ft. and his "mangled looking body" ended up on street right beside this guy's truck which was parked alongside the sidewalk right in front of his house. He also said the street in front of his house is bloody with drag marks from TT's body.

You can find the videos and the call in by this guy to a Boston morning radio show on youtube. I think the eyewitness lady who thought the police ran over TT was mistaking the vehicles. Both DT and the police had dark SUVs. I think going to youtube will help to clear things up for you.

 

[ctkid]

I know this has bee discussed:

How is the distinction made concerning terrorism?

What is the difference between e.g. killing multiple people in a cinema with weapons and setting off 2 bombs in a crowd.

Why is one immediately labeled terrorism (before facts were gleaned) and the other not?

The Inspire magazine in Issue #2 said that 'plowing down people' with a vehicle could be a terrorist act. How would that be viewed with out facts?

I know agenda has a lot to play in this, Holmes didn't have an agenda and TT did? Could this be a new formula for terrorist agendas? I don't know just thinking out loud.


(I know I just opened a big can of worms.)

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I'm thankful that "Danny" survived his terrifying ordeal. Can you imagine being kidnapped at gunpoint by the 2 people who are responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings? No doubt he experienced fear that many of us will never (thankfully) feel.

IIRC, Danny's cell phone (left in the car after he escaped) helped LE to locate the 2 terrorists.

I'm disgusted that there are those who seek to disparage him & who seek to try to paint him as a liar.

I think Danny is a hero. At least imo he is. He thought quick while being under pressure to point out he's not an American, etc plus he got the guys talking about girls I thought? Either way, amazing he could think like that under pressure. Most people I know wouldn't be able to do that, they'd be basket cases snotting all over theirselves.

 

[time]

I've never really understood the reason for attaching the label "terrorism" or "hate crime" to certain violent acts. A crime is a crime, and killing an eight year old is heinous act no matter the label attached to it. IMO

Indeed, attaching labels to a crime might have the ironic effect of adding higher status to the criminal. A man searching for an identity, like TT, may find the label Terrorista #1 more appealing than Mr. Mom.

JMO

I don't know, if I were gay and there were hate crimes against gays going on in my vicinity, I guess I'd like to know and the public needs to know that there are people whose hate leads to extreme violence and murder. Same with abortion clinics, so I could be aware of what was going on. If a skinhead group is killing politicians, I'd like to know that. I don't see calling them domestic terrorists as helping their cause as much as hurting it - call it what it is.

 

[Just K]

Well, I finally found a picture of KRT carrying bags away from the apartment and a guy behind her with more: (The heading-IN HIDING: Katherine Russell, the widow of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is seen walking outside over the weekend. dated 4/24/2013. Possibly this refers to the weekend after the blast.)
http://bostonherald.com/sites/defau...epw003.jpg?c=fef7af717e68bb8f4737924fc83a4bec

It does not show any LE supervising her taking away bags of items.

A clearer copy that you can zoom in on:
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=...age=23&tbnh=177&tbnw=223&ndsp=15&tx=184&ty=71

 

[sorrell skye]

When KT's attorneys are speaking to the media, KT is talking and fully cooperating with LE and FBI. KT's attorneys are doing exactly what they're being paid to do.

BBM

If KR had foreknowledge that her husband was constructing pressure cooker bombs, then she must be terrified that any statements she makes to the FBI may be used against her to charge her as an accessory.

On the other hand, if KR had NO foreknowledge that her husband was constructing pressure cooker bombs, then she must still be terrified that any statements she makes to the FBI may be used against her to charge her as an accessory.

It's quite the legal conundrum, given the circumstances.

Either way, she has a 3 year old daughter to think about. I hope, for her daughter's sake, that KR had no foreknowledge. It's bad enough that, in the future, her daughter will no doubt learn about her terrorist father's heinous actions. I feel very badly for this little girl.

 

[Devon]

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?

'Danny's' first interview was a 2 1/2 hour sit-down exclusive for the Boston Globe at his own home. There was no mention of an interpreter.

I understand that it's normal to remember extra details as time passes but 'Danny' would have been interviewed at length by investigators, and probably over more than one day, before they included his witness evidence in the charging document.

I find it hard to understand how he could apparently remember that TT had told him (in relation to the bombings "I did that.........", but totally forget the other half of TT's alleged comment which was apparently ..........."and I just killed a policeman in Cambridge". No doubt LE would have asked him more than once " what did they say to you?". Did he really forget the 'I killed a cop' part?

Similarly, having 'captor B' follow along behind you in a car and going somewhere to pick 'captor B' up are two completely different things, as is being able to make your escape because 'captor A' with the gun beside you has put it down to fiddle with the navigation, and getting away because both A and B have got out of the car. Which was it?

Also are we really to believe that the captor wielding the gun takes the time during his getaway to download a Chinese translation app on the victim's phone (with one hand I presume) just to answer a text to his victim's friend? Seriously??

Or that the captors, during a 90 minute runaround when they are allegedly desperately looking for an open service station to fuel up for their getaway, still find the time to double back to where they left 'captor B's car, not once but twice, to collect some music for the journey and then some other stuff. Really??

'Danny's' evidence may very well not be so important if the prosecutors can find good evidence that TT and DT placed the bombs at the marathon and/or killed SC, but if their evidence is weak then 'Danny' could be very important. The defence are bound to highlight his changing versions and test his credibility as a witness.

 

[Cherry]

I believe the spouse is complicit and want her to serve, a lot of time.

 

[tezi]

I know this has bee discussed:

How is the distinction made concerning terrorism?

What is the difference between e.g. killing multiple people in a cinema with weapons and setting off 2 bombs in a crowd.

Why is one immediately labeled terrorism (before facts were gleaned) and the other not?

The Inspire magazine in Issue #2 said that 'plowing down people' with a vehicle could be a terrorist act. How would that be viewed with out facts?

I know agenda has a lot to play in this, Holmes didn't have an agenda and TT did? Could this be a new formula for terrorist agendas? I don't know just thinking out loud.


(I know I just opened a big can of worms.)

FWIW, I consider Holmes a terrorist, of sorts. Holmes' agenda is a bit more difficult to figure out since he's clearly off of his tether. He had an agenda, I am just not sure it's as well defined as TT's was. I also don't think TT was mentally ill like Holmes. Holmes is a whole different sort of beast. Holmes didn't need to leave the country and get radical to do what he did, and he wasn't questioned by the FBI for alleged terroristic activities. Clearly his "crazy eyes" should have been a clue...

I guess in this case, the simple answer is the right one for me. TT and DT did it because they wanted to. Just like McVeigh and Nichols. McVeigh wasn't mentally ill, he may have been "off," somewhat, but he knew what he was doing and apparently why he was doing it (Before anyone says anything, I don't fathom to know WHY he did what he did, he clearly knew his reasons). Nichols was too stupid to say no, as was Michael Fortier (sp). I know Nichols is at ADX still filing suits because he's not getting his fiber. Michael Fortier went to prison, although six years was not long enough, IMO.

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

 

[Elainera]

I think the evidence combined is more than fine.

Yes an attorney could argue that he left his backpack someplace else.

how does he explain away their actions post bombing? including the killing of LE

how does he explain away they tried to use a bomb just like the two at the marathon during the shootout

how does he explain away the shootout?

How does he explain away the purchasing of multiple pressure cookers?

how does he explain away the residue in the apartment?

fact is there's more than enough evidence of crimes post bombing to put away DT for life. they actually don't need to convict him of the bombing itself

that's why i feel in the end this will never go to trial, he'll plea out

I hope you are right that the evidence is more than fine, I really do.

His legal team could blame all those actions you mention on his brother, the killing of LE officer, actions during the shootout, the kidnapping, buying of PC's and fireworks. Residue at the apartment: DT didn't live there. They could instill the dreaded "reasonable doubt" in a jury.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[tezi]

I believe the spouse is complicit and want her to serve, a lot of time.

If she was living there, she had to know something out of the realm of "normal" was going on. Did she not notice the gunpowder from the fireworks all over the place? I will say, I am not the most observant spouse, but if my husband were building bombs in my home, I think I would have a clue. Heck, if he were building them in his shop, I'd at least have a clue...

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

 

[Just K]

At the time that TT approached "Danny's" car and knocked on his window, there was no active police search. There was no rush once they got the Mercedes and parked the Honda. They drove from one place to another. Presumably to ATMs to get cash since "Danny" had less than $50 on him and then back to the Honda to load up the Mercedes with explosives. At his point in time no one knew of the carjacking. The brothers, speaking in Russian, had probably decided that their best course of action was to get enough money to get to NYC and to go in the Mercedes...leaving the Honda behind. Then, when they realized that they couldn't go anywhere without gas, they stopped at the gas station. DT goes in to get snacks and maybe more cash. TT puts down the gun, fiddles with the GPS and "Danny" takes off running. TT jumps out tries unsuccessfully to grab him and runs to the shop and yells at DT. "We have to go". At this point, they know there will be an APB put out on the Mercedes and they decide to go back and get the Honda. Probably, it is at this point they are spotted by the Transit Police officer and the crazy chase ensues.

This fits with everything Danny has said. Even the part about both T brothers going into the store. While Danny is darting passed the gas pump, T tries to grab him and misses and goes directly to retrieve DT. No reason not to believe that "Danny" was well aware of where his potential attacker was as he darted across the roadway to the Mobile.

 

[i.b.nora]

"Danny spoke softly but steadily in a 2 1/2 hour interview at his Cambridge apartment with a Globe reporter and a Northeastern criminology professor, James Alan Fox , who had counseled Danny after the former graduate student approached his engineering adviser at Northeastern."

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...owing-night/BhQWGzarWee8MZ6KtMHJNN/story.html

 

[claudicici]

Wondering if everyone has gone through all of Dzhokhar's tweets. I've gone through them and viewed the others he conversed with, looks to me like he actually did practice "making stuff" with firecrackers/fireworks...

I've also found several other type of online accts for him & his friends where some of the fireworks stuff appears f/x, like Harry Potter shizznit - looks cool. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't appear to me this kid was afraid of powder from the sticks backfiring on him and exploding off body parts. Looks to me like he's not "afraid" or "intimidated" by these things.

Its interesting to look through everything they've done online and compare the dates.

Do you have a link for the "Harry Potter shizznit" account.I can't find it and I'm curious..

 

[jjenny]

I hope you are right that the evidence is more than fine, I really do.

His legal team could blame all those actions you mention on his brother, the killing of LE officer, actions during the shootout, the kidnapping, buying of PC's and fireworks. Residue at the apartment: DT didn't live there. They could instill the dreaded "reasonable doubt" in a jury.

Hope I'm wrong.

There are photos of the two brothers together at the marathon. Each had a backpack. There is a photo of DT leaving, backpack on the ground.
I am not worrying about prosecution not having enough evidence.