Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Mysterious Throat Wound

deirdre

Senior Member.
What I do know is that basically every aspect of this thing that I've looked at has involved excessive use of force and nearly delirious behaviour on the part of the police force. Everything they did was totally over the top. All of the video I've seen of actual "gunfights" confirms this.
I cant comprehend your take on this. so I wont comment.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
What I do know is that basically every aspect of this thing that I've looked at has involved excessive use of force and nearly delirious behaviour on the part of the police force. Everything they did was totally over the top. All of the video I've seen of actual "gunfights" confirms this.
How would have you handled the situation?

Also, Mick, we may need to separate this into a thread on the level of police activity used in the manhunt. Seems to have gone off topic.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
OK, so back on the topic of the throat wound, it appears that some mouth injury was the result of him being shot in the face, according to the Daily Mail. This explains why he was unable to speak.
This doesn't explain the left side of his neck, which was described in a video which first appeared in Post #5 courtesy of Josh as "a cut of some kind" which "looked like a knife wound", which was "possibly from shrapnel".

I'll repost the video from post #5 for convenience:

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is that what happened Mick or just your thoughts on what might have happened? I did ask for everyone's thoughts...so no harm/no foul if this is just your thoughts. :)
It seems to be the simplest explanation. Obviously he was wounded, as he was bleeding.

And I really don't think there's much to question in the appropriateness of the police response. They were chasing someone who had thrown bombs at them from a moving car, who had run over his own brother trying to escape, and who was most likely responsible for killing and maiming several people.

And of course they asked him to come out first. Do you think they captured him alive by accident?
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
Have we already forgotten the made up stuff? (like your outrage over the mythical "...literal orgy…" of an astounding 60 [-47] seconds of gunfire?)

No one is saying you're "a fool" but your looseness with the facts doesn't speak well. Suggesting that Dzhokar shouldn't have been treated as
dangerous, or saying you have zero idea (given his own post-rampage statements) if he's guilty suggests that you aren't objectively weighing the facts that are out there
@NoParty, I'm always quick to acknowledge if I'm incorrect and adjust my my frame of reference towards a situation, as I did after you originally pointed out that the flashing lights I thought were gunfire were not. But dragging pre-correction quotes forward as if I haven't already acknowledged the facts is a mischaracterization. I'm sure it's not intentional, but given I had replied directly to you on this, I figured you'd have seen it. So we are both agreed on the number of seconds of gunfire. Please don't mischaracterize me again. We're all allowed to make mistakes. What's important is that we learn from them or at least acknowledge them when we make them, which I had already done:

NoParty said: ↑
If your argument is that something was inappropriate because the gunfire "goes on for 60 seconds"
why would you post a video that features gunfire only from :26 to :38 ? (~13 seconds, for the math-phobic)

Ah...I thought those flashing lights were muzzle flashes and that the window was closed or something so we couldn't hear the gunfire. On seeing it again it is the flashing lights of a vehicle. Well that's a bit better. Still obscene...but at least it's only a quarter as obscene
I stand by the orgy of gunfire though. It was ridiculous considering he can't possibly have fired first. He was unarmed.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
As I said, here's an interview with a woman who watched the whole thing and says that brother #2 didn't shoot back or run over brother #1.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=6f11c07b40e2

If someone thought I did something bad, I would hope they wouldn't do really bad things to me before I'd had my day in court. Just sayin'...
Where does she say Dzohkar didn't fire back? At 1:39 she says she "didn't see him fire" but judging by the context, she is talking about Tamerlan. How do I know this? Because she follows up with "I just remember him get shot multiple times" which is her just repeating what she said earlier about Tamerlan.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
And I really don't think there's much to question in the appropriateness of the police response. They were chasing someone who had thrown bombs at them from a moving car, who had run over his own brother trying to escape, and who was most likely responsible for killing and maiming several people.
And of course they asked him to come out first. Do you think they captured him alive by accident?
There is open dispute as to whether he ran over his own brother. An eye witness said on radio that it wasn't Tsarnaev but rather the police that ran over the older brother with an SUV and then shot him.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=6f11c07b40e2

Given crazy eye witness testimony like this and then seeing the barrage of gunfire that was unloaded into the boat while he was unarmed, it seems like the police force indeed would have preferred that the second brother was dead. It's hard to fathom how he lived, actually, looking at all of the holes in the boat.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
To reiterate what seems to be the cause of the throat wound:
Despite eye witness testimony to police brutality and possibly execution of the other brother, I do not believe that this brother was shot in the mouth after he got out of the boat, but rather that a bullet went into the boat and then through him, causing it.

There has been no good excuse or even half excuse given for the orgy of gunfire that did this. It was completely unnecessary. Especially considering the armoured tank looking vehicle that confirmed his presence in the boat.

So the cause of the throat injury is overzealous policing. The neck injury that "looked like a knife wound" which was "possibly from shrapnel" isn't clarified by any court proceedings or medical records I've found yet, apart from that picture of his neck showing an obvious scar. So it obviously happened. We just don't know what did it.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I was wondering what happened to "Come out with your hands up".
How long was Dzhokar surrounded before the police opened fire on the boat?

How do you know the police didn't tell him to "come out with hands up"?

What prompted the police to open fire on the boat?

Which of Dzhokar's injuries were sustained in the boat which came from the night before?

Did the police know Dzhokar was unarmed at the time of the boat shooting?
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
How long was Dzhokar surrounded before the police opened fire on the boat?

How do you know the police didn't tell him to "come out with hands up"?

What prompted the police to open fire on the boat?

Which of Dzhokar's injuries were sustained in the boat which came from the night before?

Did the police know Dzhokar was unarmed at the time of the boat shooting?
Well I found an answer to whether he was prompted with "come out with hands up" and it seems he was:

From CNN:
The answer to this question opened up some very serious questions:
Which of Dzhokar's injuries were sustained in the boat which came from the night before?

At first glance that seemed to be answered above by Mr. Procopio who says that his blood loss was likely from previous injuries. But the images of Dzhokar getting out of the boat show no blood caking or staining. To further investigate this I googled this quote from the CNN page: "we used a robot to pull the tarp off the boat" and found some interesting analysis on the whole thing which interestingly also answered my above question on whether Dzhokar had run over Tamerlan with the SUV. The medical examiner says Dzhokar did not:
I am concerned not only about the level of police brutality that we have all seen here but also by the fact that they appear to have made a practice of lying. If they were lying about Tamerlan, what else did they lie about?

Here are some more images from the above link surrounding the night in question:









Edit: I just corrected the link to the medical examiner to the correct one at 12:39 PM MST. I had accidentally linked to an extremely graphic death photo of Tamerlan which is linked from the above URL for anyone interested. It's kinda gross though...I'd perhaps avoid looking at it.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Or perhaps simply in a chaotic situation the third hand reporting of an evolving story is not always immediately accurate.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Well I found an answer to whether he was prompted with "come out with hands up" and it seems he was...
The use of force is permitted using "objective reasonableness" as the standard. Determining the level of "objective reasonableness" is done from the perspective of the police at the time and place of the shooting. Not from the comfort of your couch using 20/20 hindsight.

At the time, the police were dealing with a suspected murderer. A fugitive that was known to be armed and dangerous and one who did not respond when asked to surrender.


Did Dzhohar tell the police he was unarmed?
 
Last edited:

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
Or perhaps simply in a chaotic situation the third hand reporting of an evolving story is not always immediately accurate.
Early reporting was alleged to come from sources in law enforcement. It is certainly news to me that Tamerlan was indeed NOT run over by Dzhokar and was indeed shot to death by police. The CNN link above and the medical examiner have now verified two out of three what I thought were outrageous sounding claims made by that women being interviewed on radio:

1) Tamerlan was not run over by Dzhokar - (verified correct by medical examiner)
2) The police hit Tamerlan with a large black vehicle
3) The police then shot Tamerlan to death - (verified correct by CNN)

I didn't expect to find this when I walked into this thread. If the police lied about how Tamerlan died, did they also lie about improvised explosives? I'm hoping we can verify this independently of the police through video or pictures. Does anyone have some?
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The use of force is permitted using "objective reasonableness" as the standard. Determining the level of "objective reasonableness" is done from the perspective of the police at the time and place of the shooting. Not from the comfort of your couch using 20/20 hindsight. At the time the police were dealing with a suspected mass murderer. A fugitive that was known to be armed and dangerous and one who did not respond when asked to surrender.


Did Dzhohar tell the police he was unarmed?
I remember being surprised when he came out of that boat alive. That suggests some significant restraint on the part of the police.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Early reporting was alleged to come from sources in law enforcement. It is certainly news to me that Tamerlan was indeed NOT run over by Dzhokar and was indeed shot to death by police. The CNN link above and the medical examiner have now verified two out of three what I thought were outrageous sounding claims made by that women being interviewed on radio:

1) Tamerlan was not run over by Dzhokar - (verified correct by medical examiner)
2) The police hit Tamerlan with a large black vehicle
3) The police then shot Tamerlan to death - (verified correct by CNN)

I didn't expect to find this when I walked into this thread. If the police lied about how Tamerlan died, did they also lie about improvised explosives? I'm hoping we can verify this independently of the police through video or pictures. Does anyone have some?
Should have checked with Wikipedia first :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev#Death
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
Early reporting was alleged to come from sources in law enforcement.
Still doesn't make it accurate, especially if it's day-of reporting. Remember when John King said, on the day before the FBI released the images of the suspects, that his law enforcement source said a suspect was captured and was being booked?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I remember being surprised when he came out of that boat alive. That suggests some significant restraint on the part of the police.
Agreed. Then they administered first aid to keep him alive. The kid was lucky to have survived the volley of gunfire. If you want to see unrestrained police violence just watch some liveleaks videos of Brazilian police.

We'll need to wait for the trial to get the details. Does anyone know how long the police had the boat surrounded before they opened fire?

Turns out they had the boat surrounded for an hour. They don't seem to want to comment on what prompted them to open fire.
 
Last edited:

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
Here is a link that discusses the now dubunked allegations by the police that Dzhokar ran over Tamerlan. It seems they made it into his indictment:
In this same link there are allegations also made by the police that the Tsarnaev brothers used four IED's. Has this been corroborated by evidence or are the police the only source? They have proven themselves to be liars it seems. Unbelievable.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Agreed. Then they administered first aid to keep him alive. The kid was lucky to have survived the volley of gunfire. If you want to see unrestrained police violence just watch some liveleaks videos of Brazilian police.

We'll need to wait for the trial to get the details. Does anyone know how long the police had the boat surrounded before they opened fire?
Maybe they knew where he was in the boat via thermal imaging and fired around him rather than at him? Otherwise, I really don't get how he survived.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is a link that discusses the now dubunked allegations by the police that Dzhokar ran over Tamerlan. It seems they made it into his indictment:
In this same link there are allegations also made by the police that the Tsarnaev brothers used four IED's. Has this been corroborated by evidence or are the police the only source? They have proven themselves to be liars it seems. Unbelievable.
Seems rather an extreme characterization. There are some conflicting elements of the stories from different witnesses, as is normal. We don't know exactly what happened. You continuing to present this differences as "lies" is entirely unproven.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
There are some conflicting elements of the stories from different witnesses, as is normal. We don't know exactly what happened. You continuing to present this differences as "lies" is entirely unproven.
It is already proven in admissions and medical evidence which corroborate eye witness testimony. But here is some more proof for the final nail in the coffin on the police re: Tamerlan.

This is a blog entry by a Mr. Andrew Kitzenberg who captured elements of the first stand-off on camera. His blog entry is definitely worth a look. It describes the stand-off and the aftermath. Evidently a stray bullet went through their apartment. Thank goodness his room-mate wasn't sitting in their desk chair. There is a bullet hole clean through their office wall and then through the middle of the chair!

http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures

Katzinberg corroborates Dzhokar not hitting Tamerlan. This is what he had to say on the escape:


If Dzhokar sideswiped the vehicle on the right, and then sideswiped the vehicle on the left, it doesn't seem possible for him to also have run over Tamerlan. It also seems like a relevant detail to exclude from the blog. Especially considering that Katzinberg knows he was looking at Tamerlan and circled him for posterity.

The police lied about Tamerlan. We may as not mince words about it.

It seems the police were being truthful regarding the use of IED's in the manhunt. There isn't good pictures of IED's being used but there is a pretty clear picture of the aftermath of one:



There also appears to be some supporting evidence for the only unverified claim of the radio caller, namely [2) The police hit Tamerlan with a large black vehicle].

Here is a large black police vehicle that Mr. Katzinberg photographed and described as having arrived at the beginning of the confrontation:



Evidently this large black vehicle had its windows shot out, so there certainly appears to have been a rather heated confrontation. But the police should have come clean up front. This taints all of their testimony.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The police lied about Tamerlan. We may as not mince words about it.
"Lie" is a very strong word. Why would they lie about something that could so easily be disproved? It seems the more plausible alternative were that either they were mistaken, or the eyewitnesses were mistaken. Or possibly just that the story changed in the telling. The police chief was not actually there, was he?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
There was an attempt to ram the brothers with a car. Then the brother (backed?) over his brother.
So maybe everyone's right. Saying the police are flat out lying is an unsupported and irresponsible assertion.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
There was an attempt to ram the brothers with a car. Then the brother (backed?) over his brother.
Prove it.

There are two eye witness accounts which directly discount this story. Namely the women being interviewed on radio and the Katzinberg Blog. Wikipedia also states that he did not appear to have been run over, which is corroborated by the medical examiner, Dr. Richard Wolfe.

Are you blindly accepting what appears very strongly to be bunkam simply out of habit? You certainly hold others to a higher standard elsewhere on this site.
 
Last edited:

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
If @curtispenner figured out the police are lying just by using the internet then think how easy it should be for the defense team to prove it.;)
Do you think it is OK or proper for public servants to make things up? What is your analysis of all of this Soulfly? Since you make fun of me for unearthing what appears to be strong evidence of bunkam being disseminated by the police, I'd like your alternate theory. Or did you only have meaningless namecalling to contribute?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Do you think it is OK or proper for public servants to make things up? What is your analysis of all of this Soulfly? Since you make fun of me for unearthing what appears to be strong evidence of bunkam being disseminated by the police, I'd like your alternate theory. Or did you only have meaningless namecalling to contribute?
You obviously have failed to understand what this forum is for. It is not about giving opinions or "alternative theories" It is about addressing evidence and deciding if it is bunk or not bunk. You have yet to provide any evidence that is anything other than something that confirms your bias.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Prove it.

There are two eye witness accounts which directly discount this story. Namely the women being interviewed on radio and the Katzinberg Blog. Wikipedia also states that he did not appear to have been run over, which is corroborated by the medical examiner, Dr. Richard Wolfe.

Are you blindly accepting what appears very strongly to be bunkam simply out of habit? You certainly hold others to a higher standard elsewhere on this site.
Why are you so keen to discount the reports of people actually involved in the scene, in favour of eyewitnesses who were viewing the scene from far away, at one angle?
How does that become truth to disprove the report of those on the ground?
How does it appear to be bunkam?
And I can't prove it, I can only go by what is reported to have happened. I wasn't there, I didn't gather evidence. They were and did.

What exactly do you dispute about that report? Your radio interview proves nothing, it's a mystery why you seem to think it does.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
@curtispenner I think you need to step back and take a deep breath.

The emergency room doctor (Dr. Richard Wolfe) said he did not see obvious signs of Tamerlan being run over. That is not the same as saying Tamerlan was not run over. There are many reference to Tamerlan having injuries from "head to toe".

According to the NY Times, Tamerlan's death certificate states the cause of death as gunshot wounds and blunt force trauma. The certificate also says he was dragged by a motor vehicle. This has all been known since at least May of 2013. I'm really not sure what you think you've discovered here.
 

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
Why are you so keen to discount the reports of people actually involved in the scene, in favour of eyewitnessess who were viewing the sscene from far away, at one angle?
HJow does that become truth to disprove the report of those on the ground?
How does it appear to be bunkam?
And I can't prove it, I can only go by what is reproted to have happened. I wasn't there, I didn't gather evidence. They were and did.
What exactly do you dispute about that report? Your radio interview proves nothing, it's a mystery why you seem to think it does.
In the radio interview this woman says "we saw the first suspect get hit by a police SUV and after he was hit, shot multiple times." She went on to state that she hadn't heard any explosions but that she had heard the police had found IED's which they were going to safely detonate. She said also that she only heard shots from one gun, which is what this video of the shootout seems to corroborate.

There is no account from either of the radio interviewee or the blogger who watched the confrontation first hand from his second story while photographing it, that Tamerlan was either run over or dragged. Since neither "running over" or "dragging" was verified in the medical exam, was it added to the death certificate on the assertions of the police force alone?. These assertions are not verified by any actual evidence apart from their testimony itself. If the police testimony is sufficient proof in and of itself, why have courts? Why run this site? You can just refer to the police report and call anything that contradicts it "bias" as @Soulfly does above.

If on this site, police testimony is a virtuous circle of completeness lacking outside verification by substantive proof, and which survives refutation by substantive proof, then there's a pretty big hole in your claims to want to get to the truth of anything.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
In the radio interview this woman says "we saw the first suspect get hit by a police SUV and after he was hit, shot multiple times." She went on to state that she hadn't heard any explosions but that she had heard the police had found IED's which they were going to safely detonate. She said also that she only heard shots from one gun, which is what this video of the shootout seems to corroborate.

and which survives refutation by substantive proof

What substantive proof? A woman's opinion? [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

curtispenner

Banned
Banned
What substantive proof? A woman's opinion? Who gives a f***?
Anyone that cares about whether the police lied in their reports aught to care. In the photo you just re-posted of the car speeding away, it shows two sets of oncoming headlights and confirms that Dzhokar sideswiped both cars. It highlights the location of Tamerlan and says nothing of him being dragged. Looking at where Dzhokar's car must have been in order to sideswipe the first car, it is comfortably to the right of Tamerlan. And then to sideswipe the next car, he has to be even further right.

Plus the medical examiner said that Tamerlan was neither dragged nor run over.

It's pretty conclusive. But I think because a police report contradicts the evidence you guys won't allow yourselves to accept the contradictions. You'll just dismiss me as "biased", ignore the evidence, and hop along on your merry way. :p
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
AluminumTheory Debunked: 2 FBI Agent's 'involved' in Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Arrest Killed in Training Boston Marathon Bombings 10
ColtCabana United States v. Tsarnaev Evidence Boston Marathon Bombings 3
CapnPegleg Tsarnaev's Lawyer: "It was him." Boston Marathon Bombings 27
AluminumTheory Tamerlan Tsarnaev Dabbled in Conspiracy Culture Boston Marathon Bombings 35
Soulfly 30 count indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev returned by grand jury. Boston Marathon Bombings 0
Mick West Boston: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev criminal complaint full text Boston Marathon Bombings 14
Mick West Debunked: Video Of Tamerlan Tsarnaev NAKED, Handcuffed,Walking Alive! Boston Marathon Bombings 43
Mick West Boston: Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conspiracy theories Boston Marathon Bombings 134
Mick West Mysterious Helicopter at Skinwalker Ranch (Power Line Survey) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Mysterious drone swarms over Colorado and Nebraska - Chasing Venus? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 40
D Mysterious illuminated objects filmed from ferry off US coast[Military flares] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
deirdre Explained: Mysterious burning crater in Mexico spurs UFO crash speculation (Garbage pit) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Magic77 What is this Dark Mysterious Line in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Steve Funk Claim, C130 aircraft are spraying mysterious filaments. Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Eden Debunked: Mysterious/Alien Pyramid inside Area 51/NTS/NNSS Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Debunked: Chemwebs / Mysterious Fibers fall from sky (ballooning spiders) Contrails and Chemtrails 75
Related Articles



















Related Articles

Top