The man who first said Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev admitted to the Boston Marathon Bombing may not be the star government witness he was cracked up to be.
An affair cost Gen. David Petraeus the CIA’s top job, and now, may cost him his freedom. Was his downfall of his own making, or helped along by his enemies?
Law enforcement leaks say accused Boston Marathon Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev confessed to his role in the attack on two occasions. An open-and-shut case, right? Here’s why neither purported confession is likely to be part of the evidence against him in his ongoing trial.
The trial of accused Boston Marathon Bombing co-conspirator Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is starting, but answers about what really happened aren’t likely to be on the docket.
As the defining domestic national security event since 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing has played a major role in expanding the power of the security state. Although the media quickly accepted the government’s assertions that it had captured the culprits, that the culprits were “lone wolves” and that there was nothing more to the story, an ongoing exclusive Read More
Recently, we published evidence of disturbing contradictions in the public accounts of the man who put the guilty stamp on the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston bombing case. In this second part of a series, we take an in-depth look at that man, the mystery witness. We examine his crucial but little understood role in rapidly ending the investigation of the bombing. Meet “Danny,” the “magic bullet” of the Boston bombing story.
The only witness to the Boston Marathon bombing confession has provided dramatically inconsistent accounts, an exclusive WhoWhatWhy investigation reveals. The clashing stories, coming from a man whose identity remains shrouded, form the basis for the publicly accepted narrative of the bombing and its aftermath.
The discrepancies involve the nature and length of the carjacking episode, and raise serious questions as to whether the anonymous witness was ever a captive of the alleged bombers. This in turn touches on the credibility of his claim to have received a confession from Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
In fact, the problems with this witness’s story cast doubts on almost everything we have been told about what has been described as the largest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
The debate over who was responsible for the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, rages on. But the partisan noise appears to be obscuring a much more interesting possibility. Not to mention more troubling.
Finally, the cracks in the official 9/11 story are beginning to widen. Two congressmen— alarmed by what they have read about financial and logistical support of top Saudi officials for the purported 9/11 hijackers—are demanding that President Obama declassify a report that would tell us much more about what the US government knows.
The federal government’s grip on information about the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation and prosecution gets ever more vise-like. A federal judge has rejected the ACLU’s attempt to file a friend of the court brief raising serious constitutional questions about the government’s proceedings against the accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And his defense attorneys have charged that the government continues to withhold investigatory details that Tsarnaev needs to get a fair trial. A civil liberties attorney tells WhoWhatWhy that the judge is acting like “a tool of the U.S. Department of Justice.”