Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Mysterious Throat Wound

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.
 
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.
 
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.
External Quote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zhokhar-Tsarnaev-shot-FACE-police-arrest.html
'He has multiple gunshot wounds, the most severe of which appears to have entered through the left side inside of his mouth and exited the left face, lower face,' Dr Stephen Ray Odom of Beth Israel Medical Center testified on April 22, according to court papers unsealed late Monday.

'This was a high-powered injury that has resulted in skull-base fracture, with injuries to the middle ear, the skull base, the lateral portion of his C1 vertebrae, with a significant soft-tissue injury, as well as injury to the pharynx, the mouth, and a small vascular injury that’s been treated.'
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
To reiterate what seems to be the cause of the throat wound:
External Quote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zhokhar-Tsarnaev-shot-FACE-police-arrest.html
'He has multiple gunshot wounds, the most severe of which appears to have entered through the left side inside of his mouth and exited the left face, lower face,' Dr Stephen Ray Odom of Beth Israel Medical Center testified on April 22, according to court papers unsealed late Monday.

'This was a high-powered injury that has resulted in skull-base fracture, with injuries to the middle ear, the skull base, the lateral portion of his C1 vertebrae, with a significant soft-tissue injury, as well as injury to the pharynx, the mouth, and a small vascular injury that’s been treated.'
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.
 
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?
 
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:
External Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/boston-area-violence/
Authorities, using a bullhorn, had called on the suspect to surrender: "Come out with your hands up."

Tsarnaev, according to authorities, refused to surrender.

"We used a robot to pull the tarp off the boat," David Procopio of the Massachusetts State Police said. "We were also watching him with a thermal imaging camera in our helicopter. He was weakened by blood loss -- injured last night most likely,"
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:
External Quote:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/04/21/serious-condition-of-suspect-raises-questions-about-police-rules-of-engagement/
Despite claims in the media which originated from law enforcement, Dr. Richard Wolfe, head of the hospital’s Emergency Department, could not see any evidence of this claim. The Boston Herald reported:

“When asked about reports that Tsarnaev was run over by a vehicle driven by his fleeing brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Wolfe said he did not see any obvious injuries that would back up that theory.

“I certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car,” he said.
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:

fa548050bbae015ca874f9be7e6d7913.jpg


3bcd85990439e82759b18f6739e3f168.jpg


4b00c2062d810f2cd02ca460c5dfcb85.jpg


35f176adede96a4ed9380e294c3dd7cf.jpg


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:
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:
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:
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.
 
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
External Quote:
In the early hours of April 19, 2013, in Watertown, a suburb of Boston, Tamerlan was apprehended by police after being shot multiple times. The exact sequence of events remains clouded in confusion, as do key details. According to police, Tamerlan's younger brother Dzhokhar ran him over with an SUV and dragged him with the vehicle for 20 feet (6.1 m).[132] He was taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where, despite efforts to revive him by emergency medical personnel, he was pronounced dead from several critical injuries, massive blood loss, and cardiac and respiratory arrest.[133][134] Emergency room doctors said that he did not appear to have been run over.[135] An eyewitness claims that he was struck by a police SUV before he was shot multiple times.[136]
 
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?
 
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:
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:
External Quote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tamerlan-tsarnaev-died-2013-6

"When Dzhokhar drove the Mercedes at the three police officers, he barely missed Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese, who was attempting to drag Tamerlan Tsarnaev to safety," the indictment said. "Then Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, seriously injuring him and contributing to his death."
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.
 
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.
 
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:
External Quote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tamerlan-tsarnaev-died-2013-6

"When Dzhokhar drove the Mercedes at the three police officers, he barely missed Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese, who was attempting to drag Tamerlan Tsarnaev to safety," the indictment said. "Then Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, seriously injuring him and contributing to his death."
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.
 
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:
External Quote:
This is a zoom-in from the last image and the red circle highlights where one of the brothers was taken down and still laying in the street. The black SUV proceeded to accelerate towards the officers and drove in between the two cars at the top of the picture. The SUV side swiped both cars taking out doors and windows and ultimately broke through the vehicle barricade and continued driving west on Laurel St. This was the last I saw of the black SUV.
369ce9203cbce3d4f5a44be3dc9c68b2.jpg


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:

3f568234f719274e1a05da5c858f17ab.jpg


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:

719bf5b27ddf335657a94dddb94518f3.jpg


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:
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?
 
External Quote:
After more than 200 rounds were traded over several minutes, some officers were out of ammunition and charged the brothers’ position with their police car. The vehicle was disabled by gunfire from the Mercedes. Kitzenberg said he saw one of the shooters toss a metallic object — possibly a pressure-cooker bomb similar to the ones used in the marathon attack — in the direction of the police line. It rolled a few yards before detonating harmlessly.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now out of his car, attempted to lob a makeshift bomb at police, but the device exploded in his hand. While Tamerlan Tsarnaev was firing a pistol with the other hand, police tackled and tried to subdue the 200-pound amateur boxer.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, apparently intending to help his brother, tried to ram the officers with the Mercedes. Instead, the officers lunged out of the vehicle’s path and he ran over his brother and dragged him along the street before speeding off with police in pursuit. ….

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Hospital officials said he had been shot multiple times and suffered other wounds, apparently from an explosion.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/20/irony-watertown-call-probably-saved-tsarnaevs-life/
There was an attempt to ram the brothers with a car. Then the brother (backed?) over his brother.
External Quote:
Watertown police chief: older brother was alive-being cuffed on the ground. Younger brother then backed over him, killing him.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) April 20, 2013
So maybe everyone's right. Saying the police are flat out lying is an unsupported and irresponsible assertion.
 
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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:
@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.
 
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:
External Quote:
369ce9203cbce3d4f5a44be3dc9c68b2.jpg

This is a zoom-in from the last image and the red circle highlights where one of the brothers was taken down and still laying in the street. The black SUV proceeded to accelerate towards the officers and drove in between the two cars at the top of the picture. The SUV side swiped both cars taking out doors and windows and ultimately broke through the vehicle barricade and continued driving west on Laurel St. This was the last I saw of the black SUV.
http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures
 
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.
External Quote:

When I looked outside my window, I could clearly see two people (the Tsarnaev brothers) taking cover behind an SUV and engaging in gunfire. After witnessing shots being fired I promptly ran up the stairs to my 3rd floor bedroom to distance myself a little further away from the gunfire. As I ran into my room, overwhelmed by shock, adrenaline, and curiosity, I jumped onto my bed to stay below the windows but also have a clear view at the shooters and photograph the event. As soon as I was laying safely on my bed I started taking pictures with my iPhone 5 and captured the following images that documented the terrifying shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers, which then led to an overnight citywide manhunt.

877a4808bd24c253d2549339c1cf87be.jpg

Here are the two brothers taking cover behind the black Mercedes SUV and shooting towards Watertown Police officers. (Taken at 12:46:11AM)

and which survives refutation by substantive proof


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