Image: Court room illustration of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
We’ve been told that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar, are guilty of detonating two bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line on April 15, 2013. After such a long trial, followed by lengthy sentencing and penalty phases, are we any closer to knowing what really happened that day?
The penalty phase of the trial begins today. The stakes could not be higher. Already, numerous Boston bombing victims and bystanders are speaking out in public opposing any death penalty sentence for alleged bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
As we will demonstrate, there is a strong forensic case to be made for Dzhokhar ‘s innocence.
As 21WIREoutlined previously, there are a number key points and unique anomalies that have been overlooked in this case. None however, are as compelling as this smoking gun:
Positioned near the finish line, we can reveal what could very well be the real suspect in this bombing – a person dressed as a black haired woman, or ‘purse lady’. Her image can be clearly seen in multiple photographs taken on the day of the incident, and based on the evidence we’ll present, it’s very likely that this person was responsible for the second Boston Bombing explosion.
In the exhibit below, depicting the second bomb scene at Boylston Street in Boston, we will show how this person clearly dropped a purse in front of the fence, calmly walks away, just before a device was detonated at that very spot.
It seems that neither branch of the mass media, either the mainstream or the alternate media have yet to touch this aspect of the Boston Bombing Trial. Speaking as a former US attorney (Kurt Haskell), this would represent much of the defense case, and should instill some reasonable doubt.
Setting the Stage
Below, we will take readers through a series of photographic exhibits, along with commentary and analysis of the visual forensic aspects, as well as some contextual and speculative analysis.
Exhibit #1: The Bombs
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the prosecutors in this case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is responsible for detonating a homemade kitchen ‘Pressure Cooker’ bomb which was classified by the DOJ as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’.
Despite the ‘open and shut’ manner in which the prosecution and the media has characterized this case, it’s still not completely clear just how many ‘explosions’ took place at the Boston Marathon that day, but the authorities maintain there were two explosions. In retrospect, the larger of the two explosion does not add up in relation to the rather minimal amount of damage seen after the fact. Also, one could speculate that if you were a terrorist who wanted to create maximum damage at a high profile event such as this, then one might expect that the terrorist would construct the bomb to blow outward not upward, as we saw with the incident’s now iconic, Hollywood-like plume explosion. Watch:
If the bomb was made to inflict massive damage, and considering the very high concentration of bystanders packed into such a small space, then one would expect that dozens, if not hundreds would have died at that instance.
Exhibit #2: Dzhokhar’s Backpacks Don’t Match
Photo Item 1.
Note that every picture of Dzokhar shown at this trial with a backpack at the Boston Marathon has him carrying a white backpack (above).
Photo Item 2.
This same image is also used as the prosecution’s ‘trial exhibit #29′ showing that the backpack Dzokhar allegedly dropped off (note that there are no clear pictures showing him dropping off the bag or any pictures of the bag present after Dzokhar left. There also isn’t any real video of him dropping the bag off as the media previously indicated). The backpack appears to be black, and therefore doesn’t match the one he had previously. In actuality, we cannot tell if this black bag had anything to do with Dzokhar at all.
Note the proximity of the bag (alleged bomb) to the tree in the middle of the photograph. Note that the tree was unharmed but police cut it down afterward “as evidence”.
Photo Item 3.
IMAGE ABOVE: Same image as the above Photo Item 2 (zoomed out).
Exhibit #3: The Drop
Question: Was the bomb in backpack at all? According to the prosecution, ‘a black bag was detonated’.
Is this even true? Let’s take a closer look at the scene of the incident…
Photo Item 4.
Approximately one hour prior to detonation. A tall woman with black hair, sunglasses, black coat and white shirt appears to be alone (She is 2nd person to left of do not enter sign).
Photo Item 5.
The woman has now moved to front row (30-45 minutes before detonation) and is dangling her purse in front of the fence.
Lu Lingzi (one of the deceased) is immediately over the woman’s left shoulder. Ignore the arrow in Photo Item 5 (above).
Photo Item 6.
NOTE: If any 21WIRE reader can provide the video of this angle at the time of the explosion, please post below in the comment section.
In the top left image of these four connected pictures, the two women to the right of the dark-haired ‘purse lady’ appear to have placed a light-colored garbage bag near to them, still behind the fence. In the top right picture, someone, possibly one of these two woman, has placed the garbage bag outside the fence. In the bottom left picture, they have moved it to the front of the fence, after which time, the purse lady has set her purse in, or on top of, this trash bag on the front side of the fence.
Note that these women did not arrive together. Do they even know each other? What woman would set her purse over the fence, and on top of someone else’s garbage bag? Is this not unusual?
Exhibit #3: The Richards’Injuries
The facts of the Richards family and their injuries appear to be inconsistent with the forensic details of the explosion, and are absolutely not at all consistent with the ‘official blast zone’ explanation.
Photo Item 7.
In this picture above (Photo Item 7) we clearly see the young Martin Richard (head circled in blue) who is said to have been basically ‘blown apart’ in the blast. To his right and dressed in green, is his sister, Jane, whose sole injury was that her left leg was blown-off. Note how she is sticking her left leg all the way through the fence grade and in front of it. Their father stands between the two of them, slightly to the back. Incredibly, he was uninjured in the blast.
Note also, the proximity of Dzokhar Tsarnaev to the father, and also the tree – both of which were unharmed.
The most likely scenario for the Richards’ injuries is that a blast came from the front, and to the right of them, not from the back right as per the ‘official theory’.
Note also, and below, how the bomb blast appears to blow the fence backwards, and therefore, the injuries to the Richards family are consistent with a blast from their front, and not right behind – where Tsarnaev is said to have allegedly dropped his backpack which contained a bomb in it. Furthermore, the mysterious brown purse was dropped right next to a mailbox that had close contact powder burns only to its front corner, once again, consistent with a nearby blast from the front side of the fence – where this purse was in fact dropped.
Exhibit #4: The Blast Zone – Fact and Fiction
We can see clearly from the photographic evidence here, that the government’s official blast location has no burn marks, but there are substantial burn marks adjacent to mailbox. Again, this fact is consistent with the detonation happening in front of the fence, and not behind it where the accused Dzhokhar was standing before the moment of the explosion.
Look very closely at this picture (below), which shows the scene immediately after the blast. First of all, the fence to the left was blown backward. The small piece of fence remaining near the mailbox was ripped apart exactly where the garbage bag/ purse was located. The bigger piece of fence is missing but is in the road and was likely blown straight up/ and or possible ricocheted off of the tree and into the road. Only the front left corner of the mailbox has close contact explosive burns and not the back left corner which is what you would expect if the blast came from the tree area( look very closely).
Photo Item 8.
Also in the above picture (Photo Item 8), note that everything is blown backwards, and to the left. Nothing to the right is damaged which is what you would expect if the blast occurred next to the tree. This is because the blast occurred adjacent to the mailbox, and clearly, the mailbox shielded much of the material from exploding to the right.
Photo Item 9.
Again, nobody is blown into the road (Photo Item 9), which is what you’d expect if the explosion was behind you, and you were at the fence.
Photo Item 10.
This picture of ‘official’ blast spot doesn’t make sense in comparison to the blast evidence, specifically with regards to damage and direction.
‘UPDATE AND CORRECTION: 4-24-15
Above is a picture of the first bombing spot at the other location at the Marathon’s finish line, note how authorities have indicated damage and direction diagram with spray paint on the pavement.’
Photo Item 11.
Notice from this image how there appears to be no evidence of detonation from the “official” blast zone in this picture (Photo Item 11). Note also how the tree is already cut down, so quickly after the incident. However, notice the extreme black/burn marks where the purse/garbage bag would have been that the man kneeling down in the white CSI jumpsuit is working on cleaning(look close).
Photo Item 12.
Above (Photo Item 12) is another image, showing the blast evidence near the mailbox, but no blast evidence near the tree.
There is no evidence these women were injured even though they should probably have been killed, as was the case with Lingzi Lu who was killed while standing immediately behind the ‘purse lady’ (see earlier image in Photo Item 5).
We have demonstrated quite clearly, that this particular bomb could have easily been inside of the trash bag or purse.
If the defense objective is to show some reasonable doubt regarding the accused placing a live bomb at the scene of the explosion, then why weren’t these exhibits shown here included in the defense? If nothing else, these key pieces of evidence should have been the centerpiece of the defense’s case of accused Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The lead defense attorney should have at least presented this evidence to try and prove reasonable doubt for acquittal. From this it becomes self-evident that no real attempt was ever made by the defense attorney to put on a case for the client at all.
Also, some discussion is also warranted on how it makes no sense for a woman to drop purse in front of fence, especially on top of a garbage bag, and even more so because she didn’t appear to arrive or be together with the woman to her right.
In addition to this, according to ABC News, investigators discovered female DNA on the remains of one of the bombs. The FBI claims that this DNA does not match that of Katherine Russell, the ‘common law’ wife of deceased bomb suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Russell did not testify at Dzhokhar’s trial. Regardless of the results in this line of inquiry, it’s just one more example which should point toward reasonable doubt in this case.
Certainly, there is some real doubt in the minds of some victims. CBS News reports how, in a statement to The Boston Globe, victim family members Jessica Kensky and Patrick Downes have pleaded, “If there is anyone who deserves the ultimate punishment, it is the defendant. However, we must overcome the impulse for vengeance.”
They believe that their position is, “intensely emotional and profoundly practical.”
Like the Richards, they are calling for life in prison without parole or appeals – so as to ensure that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev “disappears from our collective consciousness as soon as possible.”
As long as the evidence is ignored, public doubt can never ‘disappear.’
There are still have too many unanswered questions surrounding this case. Until they are answered, there will be no real closure of this dramatic and tragic event.
Listen to Kurt Haskell and Patrick Henningsen break down the Boston Bombing today in a special edition broadcast of www.thepowerhour.com radio show, at their archives:
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.