By Craig McKee
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev never had a chance.
While there is significant evidence supporting the accused Boston bomber’s innocence, none of it made it into his trial, which just concluded with guilty verdicts on all 30 counts against him. It seems that law enforcement, the media, and especially Tsarnaev’s own lawyer, Judy Clarke, were focused on suppressing any evidence that could have undermined the official story of the bombing. The truth has been covered up just as effectively as it was the day Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.
Clarke insured Tsarnaev’s conviction when she opened the trial by admitting that he had carried out the bombing on April 15, 2013 with his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan, who was killed in the aftermath. Clarke painted Tamerlan as the instigator in an apparent effort to spare Dzhokhar from execution, but that may happen anyway as the trial now enters the sentencing phase.
Clarke is known for her ability to keep her clients off death row (including Unabomber Ted Kaczyinski; alleged 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; and Jared Loughner, who was convicted of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), but given the weakness of the evidence against Tsarnaev, Clarke’s strategy amounted to throwing in the towel before the trial even started.
But what about making the prosecution prove guilt? To say that Clarke could have created reasonable doubt if she had wanted to is an understatement. In this article, we’ll look at the evidence that should have been introduced at Tsarnaev’s trial but wasn’t (Keep in mind that Dzhokhar had claimed his innocence, which conflicted with the supposed confession he wrote on the inside of the boat where he was captured on April 19, four days after the bombing).
Most have taken for granted from the beginning that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar did what they are accused of doing. But how many would be surprised to learn that the evidence against them depends on the statements of just two people – and these just happen to be the two most suspicious characters in this incredible story. While there is little direct evidence of guilt, there is plenty that points to the brothers being set up as patsies.
Investigative reporter Russ Baker, who has written extensively about the case, explains in one of his articles just how thin the evidence is against the brothers is (Note that the “Danny” referred to below is the alleged carjacking victim, whose identity remained hidden until the trial. He has since been identified as Chinese immigrant Dun Meng.):
“Without the murder of the MIT policeman, followed by the carjacking confession reported by Danny, we would have no solved crime, no evidence linking anyone to the horrific Boston Marathon bombing except some grainy video of two guys wearing backpacks in a sea of other backpack-wearers near the source of the explosion. The assumption many of us make that the Tsarnaevs planted those bombs is just that: an assumption that, in the absence of the reported confession, has no evidence behind it.”
No evidence behind it.
THE OFFICIAL BOMBING STORY
The official story of the Boston Marathon bombing is a very strange one indeed, particularly for what happened in the days that followed the main event. This version includes a murder, a carjacking, a shootout, an escape, a police manhunt, martial law, and even a hideout confession amid a hail of gunfire.
As the story goes, two radicalized Muslim brothers of Chechen descent decided they wanted to strike out at a visible American target in retribution for the killing of Muslims around the world by the U.S. government. The brothers allegedly placed and detonated two pressure cooker bombs filled with shrapnel in separate locations – the blasts coming just a few seconds apart – near the finish line of the Marathon just before 3 p.m. on April 15, 2013.
The brothers had seemingly gotten away with the crime until they took a series of inexplicable actions (this is on top of the fact that they chose to remain in the Boston area after the alleged bombing rather than simply getting out of town). These events started three days after the bombing when police released photos of the brothers and asked the public for help in identifying them. They were labelled as “suspects.” This, we’re left to conclude, spooked Tamerlan and Dzhokhar into making some very reckless decisions that brought about their downfall.
On the night of the 18th, they are alleged to have killed MIT police officer Sean Collier in order to get his gun, although they didn’t take the gun. Then the brothers are alleged to have committed a carjacking and to have told the victim that they were responsible for both the Boston bombing and the Collier murder. We’re told that they took the victim for a drive that involved stops at a bank and a gas station. They took the carjack victim’s Mercedes SUV and then supposedly allowed him to escape so that he could tell authorities that his captors had admitted to being responsible for the bombings and the murder. Not very smart…
The two followed this, we’re told, by leaving the scene of the carjacking with both the Honda Civic they arrived in and the stolen SUV, although they abandoned the Honda at some point.
The allegedly stolen Mercedes was later spotted by police, we’re told, leading to a shootout in Watertown, Mass. It was there where Tamerlan was allegedly shot. Dzhokhar is supposed to have jumped into the SUV and driven over his brother’s body in escaping (possibly causing his death). Soon after, he allegedly abandoned the vehicle and ran off on foot, hiding in a boat parked behind a home.
The owner noticed blood on the outside of the boat and that the cover had been disturbed, and he looked in to see Dzhokhar lying inside. Police were called, and this led to what we were told was an exchange of gunfire between Dzhokhar and police, although it came out later that the suspect was unarmed and that police had done all the shooting.
These are what we’re told are the facts, although there are multiple versions of each element of the story. In fact, none of the versions makes any sense, but the inconsistency is definitely telling. Let’s take a look at the major elements of the story and how the official story is not borne out by the evidence in each one.
An early clue that Boston was a false flag operation was the bomb “exercise” that was going on at the exact same location and time as the actual bombing. This has become a tell-tale sign of false flags, particularly since 9/11 when numerous exercises were taking place that simulated the very thing that actually happened at the very time it was happening.
Loudspeakers announced to the crowd near the finish line of the Marathon that they needn’t worry about the bomb squad and their bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling the area during the race because it was just an exercise.
Incredibly, two hours before the blasts the Boston Globe tweeted (at 12:53 p.m.) that there would be a “controlled explosion opposite from the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.” Boston Public Library is right across the street from where the first blast went off just before 3 p.m. Quite a coincidence.
Another tweet came later specifying the JFK Library (which is some distance away). It said: “Third incident: Explosion earlier today at the JFK Library.” Later still, the story changed again: “Fire earlier today likely unrelated to Marathon bombings.”
No more talk of bomb squad activities.
The most absurd example of an exercise being synchronized with an actual false flag event is the 7/7 London bombings of July 2005 when a simulation of the bombing of three underground stations was going on as those same stations were actually being bombed (not to mention a real bus bomb that was also reflected in the exercise). The pattern was repeated with the mass shooting in Norway in 2011, the Aurora movie theater shooting in July 2012, and the Sandy Hook school “shooting” in December 2012.
Then there were the “contractors” wearing black jackets and caps, beige pants, and black backpacks with white squares on them. It has been alleged that they were from the private CIA-linked security firm Craft International, which uses the identical outfits and skull logo seen on the caps these men were photographed wearing that day. The presence of these operatives in Boston has been denied, but the photographic evidence confirms that they were there.
And photographic evidence shows that these unidentified “contractors” clearly had some official function because we can see at least one of them getting into an FBI bomb squad truck, which had arrived after the bombing. Photographic evidence also shows two of the black-and-beige men standing where the bomb would soon be detonated. But before it happened, the two left that spot and walked to the other side of the street.
Truly shocking is that plans had been made for a “terror” exercise, funded by the Department of Homeland Security, to take place in Boston in June, about a month-and-a-half after the Marathon bombing occurred. The Boston Globe reported that the exercise, called Operation Urban Shield, would focus on a terrorist group using a skull logo whose members would drop off bombs in backpacks at various locations in Boston to cause panic and fear.
Nothing about the identification and pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers passes the smell test. We learned early on that these two had been identified as prime suspects, in part because legless victim Jeff Bauman identified one of the brothers as having set a backpack on the ground just before the blast (more about Bauman and the scene of the bombing later).
Bloomberg.com reports that Bauman’s brother Chris said in an interview that a heavily sedated Bauman had awakened in hospital and told Chris that he had seen the man who placed a bag on the sidewalk right near him two-and-a-half minutes before the first blast.
Chris said: “He woke up under so much drugs, asked for a paper and pen and wrote, ‘bag, saw the guy, looked right at me.’”
As this story goes, Bauman’s description of the first suspect (later claimed to be Tamerlan) was what allowed the FBI to narrow their search.
In an interview in May of 2013 with the Concord Monitor, Bauman had a much more colorful story to tell about his alleged encounter with the suspect. “I thought (to) myself, ‘This guy’s kind of weird,’ ” he said. “He kind of stared at me, and I stared at him, and then I was just like, he sketched me out, I was like, ‘He just doesn’t look like he’s in place.”
I’m not sure how one looks “out of place” in a large crowd, but despite all these impressive gut feelings about how weird the suspect looked as he dropped a backpack on the ground and then walked away, Bauman did nothing else. He didn’t report the abandoned bag.
Despite that, this account still helped crack the case when the FBI was able to isolate Tamerlan and his brother from among thousands of faces on the scene that day. Three days after the bombing, the FBI released surveillance video of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar with a plea for help in identifying them – all allegedly based on the description from Bauman. (I wonder how they identified Dzhokhar as a suspect given that he was shown in the surveillance video walking several feet behind his brother.)
Later we found that Tamerlan was well known to the FBI. So they appeared to be lying about not knowing who he was. It is also interesting that authorities told the public not to consider any images that didn’t come from police.
“These images should be the only ones, and I emphasize the only ones, that the public should view to assist us,” said FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers.
Fortunately, independent researchers have looked at other images, and this is how we know that so much of what was reported is simply false.
One image that doesn’t fit in with the official story is the one that shows the allegedly exploded backpack at the scene of the second bomb. It was clearly a dark color, while the backpack Dzhokhar was photographed carrying was much lighter. And, the exploded pack had the same white square on the back that was visible on the backpacks carried by the men who appeared to be from Craft International.
The release of the surveillance photos of “the suspects” supposedly panicked the brothers because they then are alleged to have kicked off a crime spree that would ultimately bring them down. And the supposed violence that followed is what has left a strong impression with the public concerning the alleged guilt of the brothers. (“If they are innocent, why did they shoot it out with the cops?” is how it goes.) But how much of that story stands up – or makes sense?
It started with the brothers’ alleged murder of MIT cop Sean Collier on the 18th, three days after the bombing. Collier was parked between two buildings on the MIT campus, and we’re told that the brothers had one gun but wanted a second one. So they allegedly fired multiple times into the car. They then took off without taking the gun.
Does this make any sense?
If the brothers’ escape plan included going to the campus of MIT and shooting a cop, then they must really have wanted to get caught. So far, we haven’t been given any hard evidence at all to support the accusation that the officer was killed by one of the brothers. Video presented at Dzhokhar’s trial does not contain anything that identifies either brother.
This part of the story is reminiscent of the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. That was pinned on Lee Harvey Oswald even though eyewitnesses said two men, neither resembling Oswald, went up to Tippit, and at least one fired before the two ran away in opposite directions (p. 24, Mark Lane’s recent book, The Last Word). In the public mind, the extra murder solidifies the belief in the guilt of the suspect or suspects.
Then we come to the most significant aspect of the case against the brothers – the alleged carjacking that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar are supposed to have committed in the Brighton section of Boston shortly after shooting Collier. This was critical to the official story for two reasons: the carjack victim allegedly heard one brother confess to the bombing, and the “escape” of the alleged victim is what led authorities to impose martial law as they launched a manhunt for the two suspects. As Baker points out in a pair of articles detailing the inconsistencies in the carjacking story, the public’s understanding of what took place is based entirely on this claim concerning an alleged confession.
Baker writes: “The alleged carjacking led to a law enforcement shutdown of the greater Boston area, a huge manhunt, and subsequent confrontations in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot and killed. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, was seriously wounded by multiple gunshots while hidden in a boat, before being apprehended by police.”
The alleged carjacking victim’s identity was not publicly known initially. He was described in reports as “Danny” and has had his face and voice disguised in interviews. He claimed that he feared recriminations from “terrorists.”
Prior to the trial, Danny claimed he told police that the brothers only let him live because he wasn’t American. And while he didn’t understand what they were saying, he heard them say “Manhattan” several times (oooh, that’s ominous). Danny is supposed to have told police that the brothers confessed to both the bombing and the murder. But many elements of his story have been inconsistent from one media interview to another.
As Baker points out, it was reported by the Boston Globe, NBC and CBS that Danny was held captive for 90 minutes. Then officials, including the Cambridge, Mass. police chief, announced that it had been 30 minutes. Meanwhile, an Associated Press report had him being let go after just a few minutes.
Did the brothers confess to him about the bombing and the Collier murder or just the bombing? Numerous media reports mentioned both, but the criminal complaint only mentioned the bombing. And an ABC interview with Danny only mentioned a confession about the bombing and not about Collier.
And how did Danny escape? Again, this depends on whose report or which interview you read. Was he simply let go after a few minutes? Did they leave him alone in the car when the brothers went to pay for gas? Or is the story about Tamerlan being distracted by his GPS while Dzhokhar paid for gas the real reason? That one’s more exciting because it involves an actual escape. But it, like the rest of this story, makes no sense.
Why would the brothers kill an MIT cop to get his gun and then not take it? Why would they carjack someone when they already had a vehicle? Why would each drive a vehicle for a while before abandoning the one they had originally? Why continue to drive Danny’s SUV when its theft would have been reported to police? Why let Danny go, or let him escape, so that he can run to police and pass on the confession? Why confess to something in the first place?
And why remain in the Boston area three days after the bombing if they were actually guilty? None of this makes the slightest bit of sense, and yet we’re supposed to believe it on the word of a “victim” whose identity wasn’t even known for two years. (It’s important to remember that the carjacking directly led to authorities to lock down the city, imposing martial law in a supposed effort to apprehend the suspects.)
At some point, allegedly anyway, police tracked the supposedly stolen SUV and cornered the suspects, leading to the big shootout between them and police in Watertown. Boston police commissioner Ed Davis says police “pinged” the carjacking victim’s cell phone after he was let go by the brothers (or escaped). This allegedly let the police know that the suspects were in Watertown.
“A local officer spotted the brothers driving in two cars, a Honda sedan and the stolen SUV, said
Watertown police chief Ed Deveau. (This conflicts with the report that the Honda had already been abandoned.) Deveau says the brothers stopped, jumped out, and started firing on the officer, while more police rushed to the scene.
“Quickly we had six Watertown police officers and two bad guys in a gunfight,” Deveau he said, adding that at least 200 shots were fired; maybe as many as 300.
“We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene — the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded, and the firepower that they had — that they were going to attack other individuals,” Davis told CBS News’s Face the Nation.
Incredibly, Deveau claims that one of the brothers threw a pressure cooker bomb at police during the gunfight with officers. “We believe it was an exact duplicate of the Boston Marathon bombs,” he said (they claim to have found a lid to a pressure cooker).
For some bizarre reason, the brothers stood in the light of the headlights of their car as they exchanged fire with police. We were told they had a veritable arsenal of weapons, but then later that turned into one gun between the two of them. Tamerlan was allegedly shot, and as he lay on the ground, we’re told that Dzhokhar got behind the wheel and drove over his body while escaping.
Alleging that Dzhokhar drove over his brother makes him seem less human, but is it at all believable? We later heard from an eyewitness that it was police who drove over Tamerlan’s body. And, according to Infowars.com, the brothers may have been trying to surrender to police.
So, the brothers are cornered by several police officers during a shootout that supposedly featured between 200 and 300 shots fired, and one, Dzhokhar, is allowed to escape in a car? A short distance away, he ditches the vehicle and then runs away? You can really see how that whole martial law thing came in handy. Regular cop tactics just weren’t going to get the job done this time.
So, did Tamerlan really die either in the shootout or after being run over? A video surfaced later from that night that showed a man looking awfully like Tamerlan, handcuffed and naked, being placed in a police car. Police say this wasn’t Tamerlan, but Dan Dicks of Press for Truth reports that he spoke to the brothers’ aunt, Maret Tsarnaeva, who said that the man in the video was absolutely 100% her nephew.
If true, this means that Tamerlan was murdered while in police custody.
Some things the brothers were accused of were later proven to be untrue. We were told they had shot Transit Police Officer Richard Donohue during their shootout with police, but it was later admitted that Donohue had been killed by police “friendly fire.” We were also told the brothers had robbed a convenience store. Then we were told they didn’t do that either.
The story of the shootout involving police and Dzhokhar when he was hiding in the boat turns out to have been a lie also. We were told by Davis that there was an exchange of gunfire between Dzhokhar and police that led to his capture. Later, authorities admitted Dzhokhar had been unarmed and that police riddled the boat with bullets unilaterally. At the end of the shootout, the story goes, Dzhokhar may have shot himself in the throat on purpose (huh?). Later, a police spokesman said the throat wound looked more like a knife wound than a bullet wound.
Oh yes, and the owner of the boat, David Henneberry, is quoted as saying he saw that the cover on the boat appearing to be disturbed, so he looked into the boat and saw a pool of blood. We also hear that he looked in and saw Dzhokhar lying in the boat. But photographs taken the next day show only a small amount of blood where Dzhokhar would have climbed out (and it’s highly unlikely that the police would have cleaned up the blood inside the boat by the next day – especially when we can plainly see a small amount blood on the outside of the boat).
One essential element that had to be established to make this false flag believable was the image of angry Muslim extremists intent on attacking America. What seals this part of the script is the oh-so-convenient written “confession” by Dzhokhar that supposedly explains his motives for the bombing. Apparently, Dzhokhar wrote a kind of claim of responsibility on the inside of the boat where he was hiding, using a marker he “found” (no paper was handy, so he wrote it on the cabin wall as he bled from multiple gunshot wounds).
The note, which was released by prosecutors in May 2014 (both a photo of the original and a transcript of the contents), has all the usual Muslims-are-to-blame talking points, including:
- When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims
- We’re getting you back for killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The innocent victims in Boston are collateral damage just as Muslims are in U.S. wars
- I don’t mourn my brother because he is a martyr in paradise, where I expect to be soon. (How did he know for sure his brother was dead?)
We first learned of the note in a CBS News report on May 16, 2013 during which Charlie Rose and his grinning sidekick Norah O’Donnell spoke with “senior correspondent” John Miller, a former FBI assistant director. This CBS “scoop” came a full month after the bombing because, Miller suggests, the note was “…the thing that investigators never found anywhere else.” (This is the same Miller who was one of the very few who got access to Danny for an interview.)
They didn’t examine the boat where Dzhokhar spent his last several hours of freedom for possible evidence at the time? Really? And when they did, they magically came up with the familiar “death to America” justification that so often accompanies these false flag events?
Also intriguing is that the note contained a reference to Dzhokhar’s brother being dead, which doesn’t fit with an account that the first thing he asked after his capture was whether or not his brother was still alive.
It turns out that the brothers were well known to U.S. intelligence, including the FBI, which interviewed Tamerlan and placed the brothers on a terror watch list in March 2011 after receiving a warning about them from the Russian Federal Security Bureau.
The boys’ mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (who maintained after Dzhokhar’s guilty verdict that he is innocent), says the FBI had been watching their family for years and had even been in their home, telling her that her eldest son, Tamerlan, was a dangerous extremist. She was quoted in minds.com as saying:
“He was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years,” she said. “They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions and what sites on the Internet he was going [to], they used to come…and talk to me…they were telling me that he was really a serious leader and they were afraid of him.”
Peter Dale Scott goes further, suggesting that Tamerlan may have been an FBI informant.
“If Tsarnaev was a double agent, he would be just one of thousands of young people coerced by the FBI as the price for settling a minor legal problem, into a dangerous career as an informant,” Dale Scott writes.
“While much remains murky about these and other issues, one thing is clear: the Boston bombing, like virtually every other major terrorist incident, real or invented, since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, was carried out by someone who was known to and under surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies.”
And perhaps most significant are the connections between the brothers, their uncle Ruslan Tsarni (who called them “losers” on TV even though he claimed hadn’t seen either of them in several years), and the CIA. Tsarni, it turns out, was married to the daughter of senior CIA official Graham Fuller. He even lived at Fuller’s home for a time, as reported by researcher William Engdahl.
“This uncle was married to the daughter of Graham Fuller, one of the most important CIA architects of using Islamic Jihadists/terrorists against the USSR during the Cold War and after, throughout Central Asia, including Chechnya and Kazakhstan,” writes Engdahl.
In fact, Fuller was the CIA station chief in Kabul at one time and author of The Future of Political Islam. Tsarni and Fuller also worked together to set up a support group for Chechen nationalist guerrillas, as Nick Barrickman reports in Global Research.
But there are more links than that between Tamerlan and the CIA. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen wrote in a May 2013 article that according to documents obtained from the Georgian Interior Ministry, Tamerlan attended training sessions in Tblisi, Georgia sponsored by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation, which was founded in the 1980s by former CIA director William Casey to serve an anti-Soviet agenda.
“Jamestown has two major missions on behalf of the CIA: 1) to ensure the flow of energy, including oil and natural gas, from the Caspian through pipelines in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey,” Madsen writes, “and 2) [to] prop up or topple governments in the region to ensure U.S. predominance. The latter is accomplished through organizing the political opposition, setting up conferences, and gaining influence in universities through non-governmental organizations established to veil the CIA’s financing of the operations.”
And on the connection to the Boston bombing, he concludes: “The interests who are linked to the Boston Marathon and terrorism in Russia run the gamut from NGOs, to CIA front companies and non-official cover (NOC) agents, foreign intelligence services, and Western energy companies.”
Engdahl asks: “Is it mere “coincidence” that the uncle of the two young men accused of the Boston bombings was related in marriage to the CIA figure who advocated using the networks which were later named “Al Qaeda” across Central Asia, including Chechnya where the Tsarnaev brothers had roots?”
A key element of the Boston bombing official story is the establishing of a motive for the brothers. To that end, Tamerlan made a trip to Dagestan in 2012 that has received a lot of attention. The trip was apparently made for the purpose of renewing his Russian passport.
Peter Dale Scott says Tamerlan’s “conspicuous, provocative, almost theatrical” behavior was very uncharacteristic of Muslim extremism. (Does this remind anyone of alleged 9/11 hijackers, also supposed to be devout Muslims, who were seen gambling, drinking alcohol, using cocaine, and soliciting prostitutes?)
“While walking around in flashy western clothes in the Russian Republic of Dagestan, he visited his cousin, Magomed Kartashov, a prominent Islamist leader, already on the Russians’ radar,” Dale Scott writes. “The two reportedly spent hours discussing Tsarnaev’s wish to join a terrorist cell there in the Caucasus.” After returning to the U.S., Tamerlan posted pro-jihadist videos on You Tube.
With this six-month trip to Russia, Tamerlan established a possible motive for the bombings while doing all he could to draw attention to himself. So it seems that the planning for the bombing goes back at least this far – even if Tamerlan had no idea of what he was being set up to take the fall for.
The plot thickened the month after the bombing when an acquaintance of Tamerlan’s was killed in Orlando, Florida while being questioned by the FBI and the Massachusetts state police about his connection to Tamerlan. Ibrahim Todashev was shot to death in his apartment after police alleged that he had lunged at them with a knife. This turned out to be false, and it was later acknowledged that Todashev had been unarmed. The FBI has declined to discipline the agent who fired the shots.
Todashev’s father wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama calling for justice in his son’s murder, accusing the FBI of “torturing” him and shooting him 13 times. He wrote: “They did it deliberately so that he can never speak and never take part in court hearings. They put pressure on my son’s friends to prevent them from coming to the court and speaking the truth.”
One of the friends who appears to have been pressured was Todashev’s girlfriend, Tatiana Gruzdeva, who was arrested and deported after giving an interview to Boston Magazine about the days leading up to Todashev’s murder.
Beyond looking at whether the Tsarnaev brothers were patsies, set up to take the fall for a false flag event, it is also worth briefly considering clear evidence that the bombing itself was not what we were told it was.
For example, based on the video and photographic record, the claim of 264 injured is, to put it very mildly, a wild exaggeration. We’ve been told that about a dozen had lower limbs blown off even though we only see one in the photographs and video. And, as researcher Dave McGowan points out in his 16-part series, we don’t see any arms, hands, or even fingers blown off – only lower legs. Apparently, the shrapnel stayed low and localized (based on the complete absence of injuries to race participants).
In fact, we don’t see the kind of wounds we’d expect to see if shrapnel-filled bombs had actually gone off. None of the banners that lined the race route where the first of the two explosions took place showed any perforations at all from the high-speed projectiles that would have resulted from the bomb. In numerous cases we see torn or neatly sliced clothing but no apparent wounds where the clothing has been penetrated.
Incidentally, it is extremely curious that there are very few photographs of the immediate aftermath of the second blast – especially in relation to the first one, which is heavily documented. Where were all the cameras at that spot? One detail that is ignored by the media is that there is photographic and video evidence showing a woman setting down her purse on top of a white plastic bag right beside the mailbox where the second “bomb” is supposed to have gone off. The woman leaves the scene without the purse, and a blast follows. Why is this woman not a suspect? Why haven’t we heard anything about this?
Police told us there is surveillance video showing Dzhokhar leaving a backpack at the scene of the second blast, but that had not been released to the public until it was presented at the trial. But while there is video that appears to show both brothers without the backpacks they had at one point, the video do not appear to show conclusively that the packs were planted at the scene of either blast.
Then there is the star of our show, then 27-year-old Jeff Bauman, who allegedly had both of his legs blown off below the knee by the blast. Bauman, we are told, was waiting near the finish line for his girlfriend, who was running in the race. And tied to what is supposed to have happened to him is a story of “heroism” and “courage” as cowboy-hat-wearing Carlos Arredondo threw Bauman into a wheelchair and pushed him past photographers on the way to getting medical help. The iconic image put a human face on the horror and offered us a hero who would overcome all odds to save his new friend.
Too bad these tales of heroism are all fiction.
First of all, it’s simply unbelievable that a man who had his legs blown off would be left lying on the ground for several minutes while others with seemingly minor injuries were tucked into gurneys and whisked off to hospital in ambulances. But we find out soon enough why things were done this way.
Arredondo claims to have bounded across the street from the bleachers in a rush to render aid to anyone who needed it. But the video evidence shows that he was more preoccupied with standing still and watching events unfold, or stomping on the security fence, than with helping anyone.
So much of Arredondo’s story is proven false by the photos and video. He says Bauman’s shirt was on fire, but there’s no evidence of this. He also says all the flags were blown over by the blast: but they weren’t. And the bloody American flag he unfurled for cameras? Yes, we get the symbolism. America Strong, Boston Edition.
And then there is the blood. At no time do we see any blood coming from Bauman’s legs even when they were draped over the shoulders of a woman who was wearing a white top. This woman was later transported in an ambulance while Bauman was left behind. When she was wheeled away, there was plenty of blood on her. But where did it come from? It hadn’t been there before. And the blood on the sidewalk (as shown in some of the photos, anyway) is a bright red color that looks a lot more like paint than blood.
We have the mysterious hooded man (who has been identified as Christian Williams) who appeared to be working on Bauman’s lower body in some way in the seconds after the blast. Was he coming to his medical aid or was he affixing some kind of prosthetic? This same man was later attended to by medical personnel as he lay on the ground. Shortly before that, he’d been propped up on his elbow, looking quite casual and not very badly hurt.
According to the New York Times, however, Williams has had four operations on his legs since the event. He and his friend, Caroline Reinsch, have a fundraising web page and have received more than $112,000 in donations. Jeff Baumans’ page has raised more than $809,000.
There is also the comical photo of victim James “Bim” Costello, who has no visible wounds but multiple slices in his clothing, mainly his pants. Keep in mind that this is supposed to have been a pressure cooker bomb filled with nails and other shrapnel. Supposedly he was “pebbled with shrapnel,” but all we see is sliced clothing. In fact, there are a number of supposed victims whose clothing, and particularly their pants, were sliced up as if with scissors but revealing no significant injuries to their legs.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sheila Casey’s detailed analysis on Truth and Shadows of the photographic and video evidence from the Boston event shows how the story we’ve been told does not match up with what we can see for ourselves in the images.
MARTIAL LAW ANYONE?
There are a number of clues that make clear that this was a story contrived to play on our emotions. The Boston Strong bit of branding is reminiscent of the film Wag the Dog and the “Good Old Shoe” song that was written, recorded, and placed in the Library of Congress as if it had been there for decades. The Boston slogan and the song were clearly intended to create some of that artificial warmth.
One of the most incredible things about the way the media “covered” the Boston bombings is that no red flags went up when some things that were reported turned out to be completely false. The basic premise of the official story was never called into question even as it changed from one hour, one day, to the next. The pattern from the Sandy Hook “shooting” was repeated: media reporting an array of misinformation that seem too blatant to be honest mistakes.
Media reports about the killing of Sean Collier turned out to be wrong, but that didn’t shake the story. The idea that Dzhokhar drove over his brother’s body and then escaped a gun battle with police made no sense. But the media bought it. The fact that he was supposed to have been shooting back at police as they riddled the boat with gunfire – and then it turned out he was unarmed – did not register. The story of the alleged carjacking changed numerous times, but again, the overall story of the bombing brothers was never doubted.
Meanwhile, the news media poured flames on the emotional fire while keeping us distracted from clear facts that showed us to be cheering for a script rather than for a triumph over real adversity. The result is that people came together to celebrate their strength and resilience based upon a lie. The tragedy creates a kind of “feel-good” bonding situation that people don’t want interfered with.
Anyone who questions the facts is seen as an intruder in the “overcoming-tragedy” presentation. We are told that we are disrespecting the victims, that we should leave the “conspiracy crap” for a later time (or cut it out altogether). What an effective way to marginalize anyone who dares to question the story or use their brain in any way.
In the Aurora cinema shooting, ABC anchor Rob Nelson, talking over live pictures from the Century 16 theater, said: “This does fulfill a fear that we’ve all had as Americans, that we’ve reported on extensively at ABC News, and that is the proliferation of the lone wolf terrorist, and this could be an example of that.”
The report gets worse as Nelson then goes on to talk about the movie-goers as “soft targets”:
“If you think about airports, we know what the security is like there; we take off our shoes, we take off our belt and walk through those scanners, but we don’t do that on buses, we don’t do that on trains, in shopping malls, movie theaters, and you have to wonder, once the dust settles, once we get past the initial shock of this, do we now begin a talk about security?” His co-anchor chirps in: “We’re so vulnerable.”
So, violent events like Aurora and Boston lead us to think about how vulnerable we are. What’s the solution? Well, in Boston we got a real taste of what authorities have in store for us, to keep us “safe.” We saw martial law imposed where people were forced to stay in their homes, businesses were forced to close, and an army of police (who now look just like soldiers) went door to door searching houses and forcing inhabitants out at gunpoint with their hands up. Only a well-planned psy-op could turn this into a patriotic event instead of the ominous precedent that it was.
And now that we’ve been introduced to the reality of martial law – and we seemed to like it – we’re likely to be seeing much more of it in the future.
McGowan, in his series, writes: “You can go back to sleep now. I’m sure everything is going to work out just fine. Don’t be surprised though if you wake up one day soon to find the streets lined with armored personnel carriers and the skies filled with military helicopters. Because if you accept the implementation of martial law in Boston as a legitimate response to a patently fake ‘terrorist’ attack, then you have given your seal of approval for far more wide-reaching and far more permanent states of martial law in the not-so-distant future. And it will happen. The only question is when.”
When you add up the bomb “exercise,” the tweet from the Boston Globe, the presence of what appeared to be Craft International contractors (whose presence there was denied), the abundant evidence of faked injuries, the inconsistent and improbable carjacking story, as well as the murder of the MIT cop, you get a picture of a deception, a staged bombing, a false flag operation. This does not mean that no one was injured or killed, but we do know that many injuries were reported by the media that simply did not happen, according to the visual evidence.
But we heard none of this at the trial as the deck was stacked against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev from the start, with part of the credit going to his own lawyer. And while he sits in prison, waiting to find out if he will live or die, the real perpetrators of this false flag event are free to plan the next one.