The Boston Bombing Trial Starts, But Answers Aren’t on the Docket

Reading Time: 4 minutes
Photo collage of the Boston Marathon Bombing. By DonkeyHotey.

Photo collage of the Boston Marathon Bombing. By DonkeyHotey.

We do not know what will come out of the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, but one thing we are pretty sure of: we will not get the real, complete story of what actually happened.

Keep this in mind: the prosecution’s job is not principally to fully explain the background of a crime that was committed. It is to convince a jury to convict. Also, in cases such as this, where a lot of questions about security state operations have been raised, the prosecution, as an arm of the federal government, will be under strict orders to win its case without unduly exposing “sources and methods.” That’s a  polite way of saying, “let’s keep the skeletons in the family closet.”

Lead defense counsel Judy Clarke’s job, and her historic role in past cases, has been to do whatever is necessary to ensure her client avoids the death penalty. Meanwhile, the defendant’s job, right now, is to do what his lawyer tells him. It’s not his job to object or say, “Hey, there’s more to this story.”

Clarke’s interest in exposing the truth is strictly limited to: A) using the threat of embarrassing the government or B) casting doubt on its narrative solely as a bargaining chip to keep her client off death row. She has no particular mandate to find out what really happened. Even by her own pronouncements, Clarke either believes her client is guilty or, perceives that the only practical way forward is to accept that her client will be found guilty.

So don’t hold your breath for explanations to some of the questions we’ve raised. They include:

-What actual evidence exists that these brothers made such a sophisticated bomb—which some experts say they could not have? If not, then they had help and did not act alone, as the government insists. Aren’t the identities and roles of other possible players germane?

-What actual evidence exists that these brothers had bombs with them—and detonated them? Pictures of the backpacks that exploded to some people don’t look like the ones the brothers were wearing.

-What actual evidence exists that these brothers shot and killed an MIT police officer? We’re told that video cameras captured the act, but we’re also told that the video doesn’t make a positive ID.

-Did they actually carjack a man, and if so, for how long and under what circumstances? As we have reported, the purported victim, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, substantially changed his story of what happened.

-Why did the brothers’ uncle, who was the son-in-law of an important CIA official, quickly announce (within hours of their death/apprehension) his suspicion that his nephews were indeed the Boston bombers, despite the fact they had never done anything like that nor indicated that they may do such a thing?

-And what about the other CIA associate, a college professor and former case officer who corresponded with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev about Chechnya? Soon after the bombing, the professor, Brian Glyn Williams, was quoted as saying “I hope I didn’t contribute,” an apparent reference to Dzhokhar’s alleged radicalization.

-Why did the FBI seemingly ignore warnings from the Russians that the elder brother was involved in radical activity?

-Why did the FBI harass rather than seek to obtain information from crucial witnesses?

-After being warned by the Russians, why did the FBI fail to monitor Tamerlan when he left the country to travel to restive regions of Russia where Islamists were active? And then how was it that an alert for him was lowered just before he re-entered the U.S.?

-Why has no one been allowed to talk to Dzhokhar to find out his version of events?

-Will the authorities ever explain why so many things that were leaked by the government to prejudice the public (and the jury pool) turned out to be untrue? The claim that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was guilty in a triple homicide in Waltham, Mass., is just one example. The police never questioned Tamerlan about the slayings, even though they knew he was close friends with one of the victims.

-Will the conflicting and dubious explanations about the FBI’s shooting of an unarmed Ibragim Todashev, friend of Tamerlan, in his Florida apartment while being interrogated, be resolved?

-What about claims that there were drills going on during or around the time of the Marathon—and why were there bomb-sniffing dogs at the finish line? Even the cautious Boston Globe noted that officials had planned a training drill eerily similar to what actually happened.

These are some of the things any fair-minded, thoughtful person would like to know.

But the whole thing appears to be sealed, a done deal. We’re hoping for revelations at the trial. But we aren’t expecting too many. The authorities don’t think we need to know much about our country and its doings in that shadowy arena called “national security.” So the chances of them wanting to enlighten us are depressingly slim.

Image Credit:
Boston Bombing. Photo collage by DonkeyHotey for WhoWhatWhy adapted from photos in the public domain or Creative Commons: 
Street Scene – WikimediaDzhokhar Tsarnaev – WikimediaWhite House meeting – WikimediaPolice – Flickr/A Name Like Shields…Vigil – Flickr/Mark Zastrow and Tamerlan Tsarnaev & Ibragim Todashev – DonkeyHotey paintings.

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

20 responses to “The Boston Bombing Trial Starts, But Answers Aren’t on the Docket”

  1. MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

    David Cameron visited FBI HQ and Boston after the Boston Bombing as if there had been a mistake that could have avoided it. Did the Brits have the Tamerlan Tsarnaev warning from Russia in their files?

    After Berezovsky died, did the Brits warn the FBI HQ in DC that Tamerlan Tsarnaev might do something in Boston? Could that have been to target MIT, Harvard or econ profs linked to IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s that funded Berezovsky and the Chechen genocide?

    This may be why the judge won’t give the defense the Tamerlan Tsarnaev FBI file. It may contain a warning from the Brits about Tamerlan between the death of Berezovsky in March 2013 and the bombing on April 15, 2013.

    After the Boston Bombing, Putin said in a press conference that Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents, meaning Harvard prof Andre Shleifer who was part of the MIT Harvard econ profs funding Berezovsky, Russia and the Chechen genocide by Russia.

    The Brits may have warned the FBI HQ in DC that Tamerlan might attack MIT, Harvard econ depts or go to the homes of Shleifer or Summers. Summers lived near the Alston incidents that night.

    I provided info to the Brits in March 2013 after the death of Berezovsky about the Harvard, MIT econ profs and that Berezovsky may have blackmailed them over academic misconduct. The Brits may have combined my info with the Russia warning on Tamerlan and given a warning to the FBI HQ in DC. They then didn’t pass it on, because it would embarrass Larry Summres and Clinton.

  2. Chandler says:

    Oh, and one more thing…I have looked at all the pictures and will look at all I so desire like ALL concerned Americans should. When Georgie W. told us you are with us or with the terrorist, frankly, I chuckled. Americans!!!!! Think for yourselves and look at all those pictures you can. Note the agents actions, and what they did not do, run towards the action to help everyone. They will show you several suspects.

  3. Chandler says:

    Anyone ever notice the black-jacketed-khaki-pants’ Blackwater or Craft International group sitting across from where the directional bomb went off? Well if you look closely one agent has his backpack, then later after running from where the bomb went off to the other side of the street he no longer has his backpack. A mainstream media picture of him of the exploded black backpack (Dzokhar was carrying a white backpack,) shows the logo of Blackwater/Craft a logo with a skull with elongated teeth and no mandible (lower jawbone.) Every day I sit and think about this young man now unable to talk, sitting in a jail cell knowing the truth, knowing he lost his brother, knowing he is being accused (like Oswald, Ray, Sirhan and others,) of something he did not do. Now the prosecution admits there is no evidence he had anything to do with it? What is my country becoming? Is this the new world order? Does it do any good anymore to go to church and pray when the power elite act like this? What moral fiber is left? This is no longer a country to be proud of.

  4. Sniper Kitty says:

    One other interesting fact – Two weeks after the bombings, the FBI had still not investigated the site of the carjacking or questioned potential witnesses, including the owner of the building. The carjacking allegedly occured in front of The Crystal apartments. There are few lights around, no security cameras and the location is a distance away from the nearest nightlife. Convenient.

  5. oh_look says:

    I don’t get the Judy Clarke thing. Is she really working for the government? She seems to show up in these kinds of cases. Is she there as a form of gate keeper?

  6. musings2 says:

    If you live in Boston, you have seen a virtual chorus line of middle aged women amputees, the kind of people who would not be caught dead hanging around the latter part of Boston Marathon. All those single leg injuries (along with the strange double amputee who sits up in a wheelchair while losing more than half his blood). Actually, I am disgusted with the Boston intelligentsia for accepting this story – all those medical schools, etc. I have to say, it opened my eyes to ambition and cowardice like nothing else ever did. What a sucker punch.

  7. FalconMoose says:

    “…Don’t look at any other pictures…only these…”

    • daniel wilson says:

      haha. That’s one of my favourite. It reminds us certainly of the incident a few months prior in which 26 people were for sure not killed at Sandy Hook elementary school.

  8. jane24 says:

    Whilst I sincerely hope that during this trial we will at least learn some of the truth I have to agree, as this article suggests, that we are unlikely to learn any more than a fraction of what there is to know and what we should know. Your government has long used “national security” as a cover for dirty deeds and criminal activities. Until the majority of the American people demand to know what their government does in their name this will continue, and I would suggest, is likely to continue, since most Americans seem satisfied being spoon fed government propaganda by the msm. Is there no desire for truth in this country?

  9. GaryL says:

    You have to remember that the “players in the judicial system involved are all members of the private BAR Association who act in place of a de jure governmental court. As such, they already have a conflict of interest and are merely operating under color of authority toward an acceptable result for said system.

  10. goingnowherefast says:

    My local paper published the picture of Dzhokhar standing in the boat surrendering to police at the top of its article about the start of the trial. There is no bleeding wound on his neck. Some time after that, he suffered a life threatening wound to the neck. Who put it there and for what purpose?

    These are the kind of glaring inconsistencies we are expected to ignore. And the chuckle heads in the establishment press will tie themselves in knots avoiding any critical inquiries. The psychos are definitely in charge.

  11. TJTruth2 says:

    Here’s a link to an interesting 2013 podcast with lead defense attorney
    Miriam Conrad talking about the FBI’s longstanding practice of using
    sting operations. According to the introduction, Conrad argues “that the
    bureau is creating conspiracies where there would otherwise be only
    anger and ideation, and creating would-be terrorists out of ne’er do
    wells and incompetents.” Since there is a compelling argument to be made
    that Tamerlan was a double agent recruited by the FBI, one wonders
    where the defense is headed on this: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/01/lawfare-podcast-24-federal-public-defender-miriam-conrad-on-the-rezwan-ferdaus-case/

  12. onetree says:

    Thanks so much Russ for attending the trial so that we can have some truthful information about what’s going on!

  13. EyesWideOpen says:

    Does the Defense have investigators reading this page?

    Exculpatory evidence:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PaWCumjviWg

  14. OCCUPY FEARRINGTON says:

    Oklahoma City bomb, Atlanta Olympics bomb, death of witnesses, show trial, but nothing that the public needs to know. Constant terror by the government is similar to tactics of the Nazis as they took control with their private, secret armies and brown shirts during the 1930s. And who made their money from the Nazi war effort? The Bush family. Bert Walker and Prescott Bush.

  15. edwardrynearson says:

    My first thought when I saw the reports of the Boston Marathon Bombing was that it was a badly staged terror media event. None of it makes much sense. We all have to be very careful about what we are told we see.

    • Bill Goat says:

      I’m amazed you were allowed to make your comment. This article is heavily censored

    • musings2 says:

      And what you learn is that people who should join together to insist on truth or even mere credibility, have better things to attend to – they think.