Tsarnaev Carjacking Victim’s Escape Video a Microcosm of Why a Closer Look Is Warranted

[jakeXT]

In the video, we see the SUV pull up to one of the gas pumps and stop. Strangely, we see Dzhokhar emerge from behind the gas pump, obscuring the front passenger door before he makes his way into the store.

Strange because we were told he was sitting in the backseat. Yet we don’t see Dzhokhar get out of the rear door. Neither do we see him walk from the other side of the SUV.

Did they edit that out? Why?

Or did he climb over the carjacking victim’s lap to exit the front passenger door?

It’s of course possible that editing was done for the sake of time constraints, but if that’s the case, then why so much video of Dzhokhar wandering around the convenient store scratching his chin. Why not edit some of that out?

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/03/25/tsarnaev-carjacking-victims-escape-video-a-microcosm-of-why-a-closer-look-is-warranted/

[CentralMass]

1. Who gives a damn.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Interesting hobby ya got there

[MynameisBlarney]

3. Are you implying that this was a set up?

A false flag?

Is that what you're suggesting?

[jakeXT]

5. I found this whole Danny thing fascinating, I remember Russ Baker talking about the changing

story lines. He also mentioned that one journalist (Miller) was an FBI agent.

The carjacking victim said was forced into the front passenger seat as one brother drove.

"They asked me where I'm from. I told them I'm Chinese," the man said. "I was very scared. I asked them if they were going to hurt me. They said they won't hurt me. I was thinking, 'I think they will kill me later.'"

http://www.4029tv.com/Suspected-bombers-carjacking-victim-says-he-s-lucky-to-be-alive/19861306

On April 25, late in the evening, the Boston Globe published on boston.com an article based on an interview with Danny by its reporter Eric Moskowitz, the most detailed account to date—an account that has subsequently become the “official” carjacking narrative. It characterizes Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s actions as follows:

“Don’t be stupid,” he told Danny. He asked if he had followed the news about Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings. Danny had, down to the release of the grainy suspect photos less than six hours earlier.

“I did that,” said the man, who would later be identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev “And I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.”

In interviews a few days after the Globe article, Danny’s story had gelled. His account to CBS’s John Miller is substantially similar to a contemporaneous interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer.

The question is, what happened between Danny’s first interview and the subsequent ones that led to the changed narrative?

http://whowhatwhy.org/2014/03/11/9006/

[MynameisBlarney]

8. OMG

Truthers.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Caijoe]

9. umm..

No, our govt doesn't do FF's. ACK, go back to sleep, btw, perfect name

[MynameisBlarney]

10. I want to hear why and how

people think this might be a false flag op.

And what makes you think that I believe our govt. doesn't do false flag ops? Because I don't believe this is, you automatically assume that?

You tell me to go back to sleep? Why don't YOU wake up?
Not every bad thing that happens is a damned govt. conspiracy, lol.

There is so much overwhelming evidence against that kid, all these claims of false flag op are beyond ridiculous.

The defense and the defendant are not even trying to fight for his innocence. They're simply negotiating the terms of the sentencing.

[zeemike]

4. Closer looks are not permitted.

You were told the story now just believe it like a good American.

[MynameisBlarney]

12. Of course closer looks are permitted

so is ridicule of bullshit.

[zeemike]

13. Well glad you approve..

Because that was exactly my intentions.

[MynameisBlarney]

14. My approval is not required

for anyone wishing to look further into this, or anything else for that matter.

Your intentions regarding what, exactly?

That your intentions were ridiculing me because you think my post is bullshit?

If that's the case.
Try harder.

[zeemike]

16. The use of intimidation and ridicule to prevent speculation.

And it is not about you but the tactics of intimidation and ridicule to shut people up with things that disturb the narrative we hear on the TV...I ridicule that when I can but it is nothing personal.

[MynameisBlarney]

17. I hear you.

But in THIS case, it's so very unlikely that this was a false flag op, that I find it extremely ridiculous that anyone is claiming that.
The kid has admitted to it, he's on film, planting the bomb.
His lawyers aren't fighting the prosecution on anything but the details of the sentencing.
Again, I say that the govt. is not behind every shitty thing that happens.

I liken the Boston Truthers to the Sandy Hook Truthers.

A bunch of disrespectful tin-foil hat wearing assholes that are doing nothing but continuing the suffering of the survivors and the families of those killed.

They need to stop.

[zeemike]

18. Well I happen to be a curious person

And I have seen their evidence on both the ones you have mentioned...and those things are not permitted to be said here...we have a dungeon for those people. and I would guess this post if it even suggests a CT will be thrown into the dungeon so that offended eyes may not see it.

And as a free thinker I both understand it and hate it at the same time...if the door is open to speculation on DU it will be flooded with people who would turn this place into a carnival...you know, like the ones who will compete to come up with the most far out things they can think up...and this place would be a mess.
And at the same time I know it also provides cover for actual misconduct because it will be thrown in the same bag with the rest, and I want truth.
But as Orwell said, in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act...and I tend to side with the revolutionary acts.

So it is quite a conundrum we have...we want truth but if we ask questions lies will be told to cover it up and so I believe nothing...not them or nor any official story...I will keep an open mind and I will not ridicule even the crazy ones...it does not serve the truth to do it.

[MynameisBlarney]

20. I consider myself a free thinker as well

But this just doesn't seem like anything other than what's being reported.

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. The site you linked to gives out free tinfoil to new subscribers

The comments section especially is a sad, sorry, smelly pile of misguided souls.

Real people in Boston were killed, maimed, and scarred for life by the defendant - who ADMITS to the crimes!

Have a chat with some of them if you are among those who think this was all a Government hoax.

[MynameisBlarney]

15. I can understand a healthy distrust in our govt.

But these Boston Truthers are wrong.
This was no false flag op.

[MADem]

7. You do realize that this little shit isn't denying that he did everything the state is asserting he

did? The only purpose of the trial is to try to avoid the death penalty.

Complete tape: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2015/03/12/surveillance-video-shows-dun-meng-escape-from-tsarnaevs/1YifVlViewHNCbr1tuVwlJ/story.html

Includes 911 call. The dispatcher is pretty good making out the accent of Mr. Meng.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Epic bullshit.

[Peace Patriot]

19. It is ALWAYS good to question EVERYTHING that a prosecutor asserts...

...confession or no confession. And sometimes the questions need to be asked on a web site known for "conspiracies" because they will be asked nowhere else.

The referenced article asks reasonable questions--for instance, why was the time stamp removed from the prosecution-edited video? and, why isn't the defense asking these questions?

It's an interesting, reasonable article, asking questions. To suggest that these questions should NOT be asked because there were victims--i.e., that the victims' sufferings should be used to silence questions in a trial, to NOT seek the truth in a trial--is wrong. Indeed, it is typical prosecutor/and other "authorities" LYING MODE. And this "lying mode" of focusing on victims as a blind against facts and questions has resulted in many miscarriages of justice as well as profound falsehoods in our screwed-up national conversation about public policy.

I would extend this argument to the assertions of ALL government and corporate officials, most especially all government and corporate officials in our own country, with its many secret agencies, its rampant "military-industrial complex," its endless war, and its many, MANY conspiracies against the public for the profit and power of the few. We should be especially wary of official narratives that use "the victims" to silence dissent.

Thank you, jakeXT, for posting this. It led me to "Boston Marathon Bombing: A Primer"
http://whowhatwhy.org/2014/12/21/boston-bombing-primer/

I recommend reviewing the facts and questions raised before sneering at others who are reviewing the facts and raising questions. This "Primer" looks very interesting to me. I've had questions, myself, about the Boston Marathon case and the official narrative. I'm going to read its referenced articles and make up my own mind about them. No sneerers and scoffers and criers of "tinfoil" can stop me. In fact, the criers of "tinfoil" spur me on. They seem to want us all to be stupid, mindless "Eloi" ("The Time Machine," by H.G. Wells) who are conditioned to respond to a siren to walk off to their deaths. The "siren" here? "Conspiracy"--turn your mind off!

[Peace Patriot]

21. Excellent article on Boston Marathon bombing and the media by Russ Baker...

...at whowhatwhy.org.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/04/19/the-marathon-bombing-what-the-media-didnt-warn-you-about/

Highly recommended! Please read it before you scoff at this web site and its Boston Marathon bombing coverage. There is great wisdom here and much that we need to think about.

This particular piece was written four days after the bombing, and is mostly about the media coverage. It has been followed by detailed reporting on the investigation--among other things, raising questions about the FBI's relationship with the two Tsarnaev brothers prior to the bombing, the FBI's harassment and deportation of witnesses (and apparently the killing of a witness) and other important events and issues.

So far, I'm impressed--with the reasonableness of the questions raised, with the fact-finding and the writing itself, and with the seriousness of the public policy issues that are being addressed.

[jakeXT]

23. Some may know him from his book Family of Secrets: The Bush dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Secrets


I haven't read it.

[dougolat]

22. A hearty second to that opinion, thank you.

Lawyer Clark is not really defending her client, again, it seems, if she allows an "Innocent" plea, then says "he did it!"