I thought about this and whether it might be possible this was a case like the Miami 7 where the FBI aided the terrorists only so they could bust them later but in this case the Tsarnaev brothers were able to make the bombs work on their own or out of dumb luck. The one thing in my opinion that argues against that is that it took the FBI days and asking for public help to identify who the bombers were and it wasn't until they were committing other crimes that police could start trying to apprehend them. It seems like if the FBI had knowledge ahead of time that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a likely suspect they would've moved against him much sooner and without bothering to ask the public to help out in the investigation.
I have a new theory, but I'm not sure it's a conspiracy. I think the older brother told the younger brother they were going to serve some hot-pot baked beans to the people completing the marathon. Little brother was like "o rly you pressure cook baked beans? LOL. Okay" only to learn the terrorist truth too late. So when he ran over his older brother later, he was like, "those were NOT. BAKED. BEANS!" At least, if I was his defense lawyer, that's how it would roll out to the jury. Not that he'll ever have a defense lawyer.
No, I'm not, my response may have been a misinterpretation of what I was responding to. I clearly said I don't care either way and as a matter of fact the amount anger Buzz Aldrin gets when people claim he didn't really go on the moon solidifies it to me. If he was really involved, he'd be more likely to laugh at the accusations, not address it or quickly change the subject. But like I said, that's one conspiracy subject I could care less about. Again, you guys misinterpreted me. I responded to him because I thought he was saying that I didn't believe in a fake moon landing, thus why I provided a hypothetical for why I did. I don't think everything is a conspiracy and even said so earlier. If you even paid attention in this thread, I clearly said that I'm not sold on a conspiracy in the Boston case, mainly because I haven't looked close into it enough even though my ideology usually takes me into the CT camp.
I am not a conspiracy guy, but it does really bother me that people can't ask questions without being ostracized.
Right... Like Alan Durshowitz and a number of other Constitutional lawyers. I was only a Prosecutor post 9-11, but I get all my knowledge from Law & Order.. You figured us out.
You're a prosecutor who is concerned about the government not reading a suspect his Miranda Rights like it's never happened before, and also misspell Dershowitz. Really.
One thing that struck me... ever since the first shootout when they killed the brother, I said to a few people I'm overwhelmed by how much effort and resource is going into finding this 19yr old unarmed scared ****less terrorist. That's not to say he's not dangerous, but when compared to other cases, it did seem a bit excessive to me based purely on observation. I also said to them it seems to me they want to make sure this guy does not say another word to anyone for the rest of his short life. Just a thought in passing. When I read they shot him in the neck and there were INJURIES to his tongue, I remembered this thread. While I'm as certain as most that he and his brother detonated bombs and killed those innocent civilians, I do not feel that there is more to this story than we will know for a long time. I don't think it means they didn't do it. But I think it means some part of it was covered up, perhaps a botched under cover operation of sorts? Who knows.
You have no proof of this. If anything, given the amount of bombs and stuff he kept tossing at the police and the bomb stuff they found at his house, it's the exact opposite. And unless he was shot by a sniper ( and if he was, he would be dead), there is no way that the police could realistically aim for a small part like the bomber's neck. Guns are not hitscan like they are in video games.
True, I thought I read somewhere that he's unarmed. None of us have any proof of anything other than what one side tells us. As for shooting someone in the neck, I'm sure it's possible. For all we know the guy surrendered and then he was shot. Who the hell is going to believe a terrorist if he says he was shot after surrendering? lol
No one has a problem with people who genuinely ask questions. This, however, is not a question, it's an attack hiding behind the guise of a curious mind. "Question. Who is X and why does it seem like he has ties to all these bad people? Isn't it possible that this whole thing is a fraud and this is really a government action and they are really just trying to destroy the Constitution? I'm not saying it IS that, I'm just asking questions."
He apparently had a firefight with the po-po while he was hiding in the boat. So yes, he wasn't unarmed. Here's my conspiracy theory: We're all in the Matrix, and these 2 unfortunate brothers were taken over by Agents who went on a virus/malware-fueled killing spree. Oh c'mon, that's as plausible as the other theories I've seen in this thread.
They arent ostracized for asking questions, they are ostracized for dismissing logical answers to those questions in favor of theories that dont hold up under the light of facts, and then when presented with those facts, they start screaming about how we don't "get the big picture" or that we need " to quit being sheep". If they would address the people that are questioning their beliefs instead of repeating the same tired slogans over and over, maybe they would get more respect for their opinions. It gets tiresome to those of us who *do* look deeper for their news from multiple sources, but prefer to stick to sources that arent obviously biased....like most of the sources used by conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, common sense isnt very common anymore.
This is not true at all. None of this happened in a secret location where we're only hearing reports from there cops. There were plenty of witnesses to all these things who can verify they were tossing bombs and shooting at the cops. You don't have to rely on "one side".
Ohh no at 12:30 at night, in the dark, on my cellphone I misspelled "Dershowitz".. You really showed me. Apparently you cannot read, I said I was a prosecutor. I held the job for 4 years. If you think that prosecutor's are not concerned about Miranda warnings and the erosion of rights, then you are ignorant. They want solid and consistent rules. Some would call you smug, but I think you are just ignorant. Have a good day.
It's more like I would fully expect a prosecutor, of all people, to actually know that 1. Police are not always required to Mirandize suspects, something which has been in place well before 9/11 and 2. the only problems that comes with unlawful interrogation and such are when the police attempt to use said evidence in court, which the cops don't need to do in this case given that they have enough evidence already. This is hardly anything ridiculously new from a legal perspective.
#1 I shouldn't assume you have read my other posts on this issue, I am well aware of the Miranda ruling and the line of case that have followed.... It was part of my law school studies and my job as a prosecutor. The issue for me is that I highly suspect that they will attempt to rely on information gathered prior to providing Miranda rights, based on the safety exception. A Supreme Court ruling that was very narrowly tailored and since 9-11 has been used a number of times. The government wants to make the exception and use of information in a court of law, as broad as possible. As an American that is troubling to me, and as a former prosecutor it is troubling because we wanted clearly defined rules. If they want to decline his Miranda rights and will use NONE of the information learned, while that is still troubling, it is not as troubling as relying on the evidence and information learned, or from the leads, in a court of law.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ional-allegedly-connected-to-boston-bombings/ Here's a link to the "shocking" developing story from Glen Beck.
The part that doesn't add up for me is this video. I remember seeing it on CNN about a guy being asked to strip and taken into custody. If this was in fact Suspect #1 it sure doesn't look like he was very injured in the video. Maybe I missed a part about someone being wrongly taken into custody? <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-nIEfEN1jVA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
