Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Mysterious Throat Wound

[Pete Tar]

First of all this blog you cited is full of baloney.

How so? He makes no claims, just presents his evidence. I don't think anyone is disputing that these are photos of the scene.

Why didn't he get the explosion that was allegedly in front of his house?

You mean why didn't he take a photo at the exact moment it went off, instead of ducking for cover?
Because. It's not really a detail that throws his whole credibility into existence.



Exif data readers should work for time stamps.

http://www.viewexifdata.com/index.php

 

[Pete Tar]

It is all in the indictment. Page 11 is the part about him running over his brother.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/us/tsarnaev-indictment/index.html

37. On April 19, 2013, at approximately 12:50 after
attempting to shoot, bomb, and kill or disable the law
enforcement officers who were trying to apprehend them, Tamerlan
Tsarnaev was tackled by three Watertown police officers --
Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese, Sergeant John MacLellan, and Officer
John Reynolds and struggled with them as they tried to
handcuff him. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV reentered the Mercedes and
drove it directly at the three police officers.

38. When DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV drove the Mercedes at the
three police officers, he barely missed Sergeant Jeffrey
Pugliese, who was attempting to drag Tamerlan Tsarnaev to safety.
Then DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, seriously

injuring him and contributing to his death.

-11-

39. In the course of making his escape in the Mercedes,
DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV also caused Richard Donohue, a Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority officer, to sustain serious bodily
injury.

There might be further details in there.

 

[curtispenner]

First of all this blog you cited is full of baloney. Why aren't there any time stamps with these photos since he's using a Iphone5. Wouldn't you have included the time to make your case? Why didn't he get the explosion that was allegedly in front of his house?

Are you saying that Katzinberg didn't witness this and take the photos he said he did? I admit to taking his claim that these photos are his photos at face value. He said that one of his photos came off right before an explosion in the blog.

*** Oops just noticed that Pete already asked this. Sorry for the duplication. ***

 

[Hama Neggs]

But backed over is wrong if that photo of the scene is pre-car-hit, as he is driving forward.
But yeah, the chief's comment is just verbal shorthand, not a detailed report.

Unless he tried to get through the roadblock and failed at the first attempt, then backed up(over his brother) and rammed forward again to bash through.

 

[Hama Neggs]

It is all in the indictment. Page 11 is the part about him running over his brother.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/us/tsarnaev-indictment/index.html

Ahh... I wondered why that object in the street didn't look like a single body lying down. Was that one or more officers AND the brother, all together?

 

[curtispenner]

Tsarnaev received his injuries after he was "shot by police and then run over and dragged by [a] motor vehicle," the death certificate showed.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140654552/Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Death-Certificate

The death certificate is signed by Henry Nields, Chief Medical Examiner of the Office of the Medical Examiner, rather than by Dr. Richard Wolfe, head of the hospital's Emergency Department. What is the significance of this I wonder? Does the Chief Medical Examiner sign all of them on referral from the hospital where the body is initially pronounced dead? I'm not familiar with the protocol. If not, I wonder if Dr. Nields did an examination of the body, and if his examination conflicted with Dr. Wolfe's.

 

[MikeC]

Cause of death was established by autopsy - which is normally done by a medical examiner.

Why would you expect the head of an emergency dept to sign it??

Here's the autopsy FAQ page for Beth Israel.

You might find this educational:

What is an autopsy? An autopsy is an examination of the body after death. The examination is performed by a pathologist - a medical doctor who is specially trained to perform the procedure and to recognize the effects of illness or injury on the body. Doctors who are training to become pathologists may perform the examination under the supervision of a pathologist. http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepa...nsAboutAutopsy.aspx#sthash.aTsmRRJ7.dpuf[/ex]

http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepa...nsAboutAutopsy.aspx#sthash.aTsmRRJ7.dpuf[/ex]

 

[Soulfly]

Ahh... I wondered why that object in the street didn't look like a single body lying down. Was that one or more officers AND the brother, all together?

I believe it's all three officers and the dead brother. That is what the indictment says.

 

[Soulfly]

Cause of death was established by autopsy - which is normally done by a medical examiner.

Why would you expect the head of an emergency dept to sign it??

Not surprising that his whole argument is based on the misunderstanding of who should be establishing COD.

 

[curtispenner]

Cause of death was established by autopsy - which is normally done by a medical examiner.
Why would you expect the head of an emergency dept to sign it??

I was wondering how his medical examination would conclude that there was no signs of him being run over or dragged, but then how a Dr. would sign a certificate indicating that this was a cause of death. But on closer inspection of the certificate, being dragged is not listed as a cause of death at all. The listed causes are gunshot wounds and blunt trauma. So the medical examiner did not participate in a fabrication. But whoever wrote "SHOT BY POLICE AND THEN RUN OVER AND DRAGGED BY MOTOR VEHICLE" did. Would filling in the 35D field where this was written be the job of the funeral director? I'd wager ten bucks that the police provided the info. In any event this death certificate is a red herring. The causes of death are bullets and blunt trauma. IE the trauma you would suffer if you were hit with a large black vehicle as the witness stated.

 

[Soulfly]

I was wondering how his medical examination would conclude that there was no signs of him being run over or dragged, but then how a Dr. would sign a certificate indicating that this was a cause of death. But on closer inspection of the certificate, being dragged is not listed as a cause of death at all. The listed causes are gunshot wounds and blunt trauma. So the medical examiner did not participate in a fabrication. But whoever wrote "SHOT BY POLICE AND THEN RUN OVER AND DRAGGED BY MOTOR VEHICLE" did. Would filling in the 35D field where this was written be the job of the funeral director? If so, I wonder if he was given this information by the Police. In any event this death certificate is a red herring. I wonder who provided the information in 35d. I'd wager ten bucks that the police did.

The cause of death is gunshot wound and blunt force trauma. The blunt force trauma is from being run over and dragged.

 

[MikeC]

I wonder who provided the information in 35d. I'd wager ten bucks that the police did.

Why's that?

you think that pathologist performing an autopsy is not capable of determining what injuries have been suffered, and which of them were fatal and which were not?

 

[Soulfly]

Being run over and dragged by a car is not a cause of death. It is the cause of injuries that resulted in death. The ME determines the injuries that caused death and lists them as COD.

 

[Balance]

I'd wager ten bucks that the police provided the info.

I'd wager you would like to prove fault (any) with the police, if only you can find some proof of this. Considering the thread title, you're way off topic.

 

[Pete Tar]

IE the trauma you would suffer if you were hit with a large black vehicle as the witness stated.

Which happens to fit the description of the car being driven by the brother.
Are we certain she knows which vehicle was which?

 

[deirdre]

The death certificate is signed by Henry Nields, Chief Medical Examiner of the Office of the Medical Examiner, rather than by Dr. Richard Wolfe, head of the hospital's Emergency Department. What is the significance of this I wonder? Does the Chief Medical Examiner sign all of them on referral from the hospital where the body is initially pronounced dead? I'm not familiar with the protocol. If not, I wonder if Dr. Nields did an examination of the body, and if his examination conflicted with Dr. Wolfe's.

oh come on! ii'm supposed to follow this and this whole time youre NOT talking about the guy who did the autopsy? youre killing me CP ; )

 

[Jason]

Are you saying that Katzinberg didn't witness this and take the photos he said he did? I admit to taking his claim that these photos are his photos at face value. He said that one of his photos came off right before an explosion in the blog.

*** Oops just noticed that Pete already asked this. Sorry for the duplication. ***

Not at all, obviously these photos are of the incident. My only concerns are why didn't he provide the time stamps with the photos (instead of adding times in his blog writings) so that it could help corroborate eye witness stories. He also states that the brother threw the pipe bomb, and the cloud of smoke stood thick for a short time. During this cloud of smoke, his brother got into the other car and turned it around to go towards the police barricade. This is when his brother darted for the police while wearing his suspect bomb vest. I just thought since he stood at the window during the 200 rounds of gun fire, he probably could've gotten a photo of the bomb's aftermath. Almost every story I read of this in mainstream media reports that the brother was shot dead by the police, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324493704578432030609754740.

 

[Soulfly]

Which happens to fit the description of the car being driven by the brother.
Are we certain she knows which vehicle was which?

The police SUV that was used to "ram" them was put into drive with no one behind the wheel. It rolled forward on idle, I can't recall if it was to gain ground or as a diversion to get the injured officer out of there. The police chief talks about it in one of the press conferences, sorry I don't want to look for it.

 

[curtispenner]

Why's that?
you think that pathologist performing an autopsy is not capable of determining what injuries have been suffered, and which of them were fatal and which were not?

The medical examiner states the cause of death. In this case blunt trauma and bullet wounds. He can not deduce how the injury occurred from that cause of death. For instance, he would have no idea whether the blunt trauma was caused by the subject getting hit by a train, hit by a car, falling from a distance and striking an object, etc. The "how" behind the injury is externally provided to the doctor. It stands to reason that the "how" behind such an injury would normally be provided by the police. In this case, however, it appears the police want to modify history a little bit. I still have no idea why. They had enough justification to just tell the damn truth.

Here is the form for how to fill in the Death Certificate in Massachusetts:

http ://www.fcaemass.org/CFYOD/FactbookR301deathregistration2006.pdf

Here is the specific info pertaining to 35D:

35d. DESCRIBE HOW INJURY OCCURRED

Briefly and clearly describe how the injury occurred, explaining the circumstances or cause of the accident or injury, such as "fell off ladder while painting house," "ran off roadway," or "car-truck collision"' For motor vehicle accidents, this item should indicate whether the decedent was a driver, passenger or pedestrian.

 

[Bruno D.]

Let me try to summarize a little bit:

1) Witness calls local radio to say that she heard no explosions, that she heard shots only from one gun, that she saw a black SUV from the police hitting tamerlan and that the cops shot him afterwards.
- at the same topic there is evidence about bombs exploding at Laurel st, as well as witnesses to a shootout between the police and tamerlan, meaning that he also shot them. So two of the four claims she made are wrong. I'm sure she is not lying, but maybe her point of view was not that good? A black SUV did hit tamerlan, but was it the police one or the stolen one? As a witness she would be quickly dismissed by a jury. :-/

2) The first medical examiner says that he did not see any tire marks or the usual stuff you see when someone is run over by a car.
- at the same topic we see the gruesome photo of tamerlan's wounds as if he was indeed hit by something big, the death certificate stating the same thing and at least two witnesses, including the lady at the radio show, saying they saw tamerlan being hit by a SUV.

3) A photo taken by someone that lives in Laurel st showing the moment seconds before tamerlan was hit by the SUV. Here you say that the path dzhokar took is unreal while others say it's possible.
- as this photo is the only presented evidence about the path, there's no way of proving anything in any direction.

4) Dzhokar was unarmed and surrounded, inside a boat, and police shoot him unnecessarily.
- I agree with you. Although they were pissed of, maybe a little afraid of guns and bombs and probably tired with the whole neighborhood combing (how could they miss that boat?) , they probably should have done it differently. If they indeed killed him with those shots, the overall "there's something fishy here" would be much much worse. As was said by someone here, it's very easy to say that when you are only spectating, but as a tax payer, that's what I would like them to do - be a little less jumpy.

5) You didn't comment on that, but another point is if the police should have fired 200-300 rounds during the persecution, risking injuring people inside their houses, while trying to capture the suspects. I strongly think they shouldn't, and I think people should be discussing that, as it is a real issue. Again, instead of debating a possible need of better training or excesses from the officer, there's a lot of energy being used to discuss hoaxes, false-flags, crisis actors and so on ...

So, addressing one of your questions, I do think police is a little more violent than expected, and that it could improve a lot.

 

[Mick West]

The medical examiner states the cause of death. In this case blunt trauma and bullet wounds. He can not deduce how the injury occurred from that cause of death. For instance, he would have no idea whether the blunt trauma was caused by the subject getting hit by a train, hit by a car, falling from a distance and striking an object, etc. The "how" behind the injury is externally provided to the doctor. It stands to reason that the "how" behind such an injury would normally be provided by the police. In this case, however, it appears the police want to modify history a little bit. I still have no idea why. They had enough justification to just tell the damn truth.

Here is the form for how to fill in the Death Certificate in Massachusetts:

http ://www.fcaemass.org/CFYOD/FactbookR301deathregistration2006.pdf

Here is the specific info pertaining to 35D:

35d. DESCRIBE HOW INJURY OCCURRED

Briefly and clearly describe how the injury occurred, explaining the circumstances or cause of the accident or injury, such as "fell off ladder while painting house," "ran off roadway," or "car-truck collision"' For motor vehicle accidents, this item should indicate whether the decedent was a driver, passenger or pedestrian.

So what's wrong with:

?

 

[Pete Tar]

In this case, however, it appears the police want to modify history a little bit. I still have no idea why. They had enough justification to just tell the damn truth.

You keep saying this as if you've proved the facts different - you have not.
Please make a post detailing step by step how you think you have.

 

[curtispenner]

Let me try to summarize a little bit:
1) Witness calls local radio to say that she heard no explosions, that she heard shots only from one gun, that she saw a black SUV from the police hitting tamerlan and that the cops shot him afterwards.
- at the same topic there is evidence about bombs exploding at Laurel st, as well as witnesses to a shootout between the police and tamerlan, meaning that he also shot them. So two of the four claims she made are wrong. I'm sure she is not lying, but maybe her point of view was not that good? A black SUV did hit tamerlan, but was it the police one or the stolen one? As a witness she would be quickly dismissed by a jury. :-/
2) The first medical examiner says that he did not see any tire marks or the usual stuff you see when someone is run over by a car.
- at the same topic we see the gruesome photo of tamerlan's wounds as if he was indeed hit by something big, the death certificate stating the same thing and at least two witnesses, including the lady at the radio show, saying they saw tamerlan being hit by a SUV.
3) A photo taken by someone that lives in Laurel st showing the moment seconds before tamerlan was hit by the SUV. Here you say that the path dzhokar took is unreal while others say it's possible.
- as this photo is the only presented evidence about the path, there's no way of proving anything in any direction.
4) Dzhokar was unarmed and surrounded, inside a boat, and police shoot him unnecessarily.
- I agree with you. Although they were pissed of, maybe a little afraid of guns and bombs and probably tired with the whole neighborhood combing (how could they miss that boat?) , they probably should have done it differently. If they indeed killed him with those shots, the overall "there's something fishy here" would be much much worse. As was said by someone here, it's very easy to say that when you are only spectating, but as a tax payer, that's what I would like them to do - be a little less jumpy.
5) You didn't comment on that, but another point is if the police should have fired 200-300 rounds during the persecution, risking injuring people inside their houses, while trying to capture the suspects. I strongly think they shouldn't, and I think people should be discussing that, as it is a real issue. Again, instead of debating a possible need of better training or excesses from the officer, there's a lot of energy being used to discuss hoaxes, false-flags, crisis actors and so on ...
So, addressing one of your questions, I do think police is a little more violent than expected, and that it could improve a lot.

Nice summary BPD I'd only change a few things:

1) Looks good.
2) I think there was only one medical examiner. The fact that it's signed by the head of the Board probably doesn't mean he actually did a separate autopsy. He probably just signed off on it after it was referred to him for sign-off. The medical examiner who did the exam found blunt trauma as if Tamerlan had been hit with something big. The death certificate stated the causes of death correctly as blunt trauma and bullet wounds. The only issue with the death certificate is the notation that he was "run over and dragged by motor vehicle". But this is not listed as a cause of death but rather as a reason for the trauma. I think this reason was cut and pasted from police reports that were provided to the medical examiner by police. I take issue only with that notation on the death certificate. The rest of the death certificate looks consistent with the eye witness accounts and the wounds to Tamerlan's body.

3) This photo was taken moments before Dzhokar drove away with the stolen SUV. Not moments before Tamerlan was hit. At this point Tamerlan had already been hit by a police SUV, and had already been shot. It is important to remember that the eye witnesses' recollection was not that Tamerlan was shot and then hit by an SUV but rather hit by an SUV and then shot. So where we were at 3), the radio witness had said that she thought Tamerlan was already dead at this point.

Regarding the path: The eye witness in the apartment said nothing about Dzhokar hitting Tamerlan. What he did see was that Dzhokar sideswiped two vehicles on the way out, bending body panels and breaking glass as he went. The first vehicle that he allegedly sideswiped was the one on the right in the picture. My belief is that Dzhokar drove past Tamerlan who would have been on his left, while sideswiping the passenger side of this first vehicle on his right. He then swerved further right, sideswiping a second vehicle, this time on Dzhokar's left and damaging the driver side of the second vehicle. He then sped away.

Dzhokar driving past Tamerlan and not over him/dragging him is consistent with the eye witness accounts and it is also consistent with the medical examiner's report. This is the only driving path consistent with the eye witness accounts and the medical examiner's findings.

4) Looks good.

5) Great point.

With respect to the potential for the radio eye witness to confuse the SUV's, she specifically said that the Police hit Tamerlan in a "large black vehicle". She was asked to clarify that it was the police that hit him and she did.

The ML350 is not that large looking in stature. Here is a picture of one.

I think the type of "Large black vehicle" being referred to by the radio witness is this type..like the one on the bottom right which was photographed at the scene and belonged to the police. It's LARGE.

 

[deirdre]

@curtispenner re:#2. you've just spent a lot of time 'proving' he was hit by a vehicle. and proving the medical examiners always use police report or witness report on the 35d section.
the death certificate doesn't say DVORKAVIK ran over the body and dragged it. it just says a motor vehicle. so what exactly is your issue again?

 

[Balance]

How he got a mysterious throat wound... I think.

 

[NoParty]

How he got a mysterious throat wound... I think.

Almost as if there's a possible downside to killing an 8 year old

 

[curtispenner]

So...here's an updated summary using my edits to BPD's original:

1) Witness calls local radio to say that she heard no explosions, that she heard shots only from one gun, that she saw a black SUV from the police hitting tamerlan and that the cops shot him afterwards.
- at the same topic there is evidence about bombs exploding at Laurel st, as well as witnesses to a shootout between the police and tamerlan, meaning that he also shot them. So two of the four claims she made are wrong. I'm sure she is not lying, but maybe her point of view was not that good? A black SUV did hit tamerlan, but was it the police one or the stolen one? As a witness she would be quickly dismissed by a jury. :-/
2) The medical examiner says that he did not see any tire marks or the usual stuff you see when someone is run over by a car.
- at the same topic we see the gruesome photo of tamerlan's wounds as if he was indeed hit by something big, the death certificate stating the same thing and at least two witnesses, including the lady at the radio show, saying they saw tamerlan being hit by a SUV.
3) A photo taken by someone that lives in Laurel st showing the moment seconds before Dzhokar drove away in the stolen SUV. Here I say that the path Dzhokar took is consistent with the eye witness reports and the medical examiners report while others say that Dzhokar did something inconsistent with eye witness reports and the medical examiners' report, but consistent with what Police originally reported about the incident. There is no way of proving anything in any direction, unless we can get access to pictures of the sideswiped vehicles and ML350. My hypothesis on the path is this:
-The eye witness in the apartment said nothing about Dzhokar hitting Tamerlan. What he did see was that Dzhokar sideswiped two vehicles on the way out, bending body panels and breaking glass as he went. The first vehicle that he sideswiped was the one on the right in the picture. My belief is that Dzhokar drove past Tamerlan who would have been on his left, while sideswiping the passenger side of this first vehicle on his right. He then swerved further right, sideswiping a second vehicle, this time on Dzhokar's left and damaging the driver side of the second vehicle. He then sped away.
4) Dzhokar was unarmed and surrounded, inside a boat, and police shoot him unnecessarily.
- Although they were pissed off, maybe a little afraid of guns and bombs and probably tired with the whole neighborhood combing (how could they miss that boat?) , they probably should have done it differently. If they indeed killed him with those shots, the overall "there's something fishy here" would be much much worse. As was said by someone here, it's very easy to say that when you are only spectating, but as a tax payer, that's what I would like them to do - be a little less jumpy.
5) Another point is whether the police should have fired 200-300 rounds during the chase, risking injuring people inside their houses, while trying to capture the suspects. I strongly think they shouldn't, and I think people should be discussing that, as it is a real issue. Again, instead of debating a possible need of better training or excesses from the officer, there's a lot of energy being used to discuss hoaxes, false-flags, crisis actors and so on ...
So to sum up, I do think police is a little more violent than was necessary, and that it could improve a lot.

 

[deirdre]

2) The medical examiner says that he did not see any tire marks or the usual stuff you see when someone is run over by a car.
- at the same topic we see the gruesome photo of tamerlan's wounds as if he was indeed hit by something big, the death certificate stating the same thing and at least two witnesses, including the lady at the radio show, saying they saw tamerlan being hit by a SUV.

I thought Wolfe? was the doctor in the Emergency room?

 

[deirdre]

4) Dzhokar was unarmed and surrounded, inside a boat, and police shoot him unnecessarily.

edit: It was later determined that Dzhokar was unarmed and surrounded, inside a boat.

 

[MikeC]

The medical examiner states the cause of death. In this case blunt trauma and bullet wounds. He can not deduce how the injury occurred from that cause of death. For instance, he would have no idea whether the blunt trauma was caused by the subject getting hit by a train, hit by a car, falling from a distance and striking an object, etc.

Sounds like nonsense to me -if a medical examiner cannot tell the difference between being struck by a car and struck by a 4x2 they probably aren't competent!

The "how" behind the injury is externally provided to the doctor. It stands to reason that the "how" behind such an injury would normally be provided by the police.

And yet the ME still has to say - "yep - that would do it"

In this case, however, it appears the police want to modify history a little bit. I still have no idea why. They had enough justification to just tell the damn truth.

So you say - based on nothing at all except your own refusal to accept the word of the people who were actually there - it's not "the police" who say what happened - it is specific officers of whom we know at least 3 names - they are people, not monolithic edifice

 

[curtispenner]

@curtispenner re:#2. you've just spent a lot of time 'proving' he was hit by a vehicle. and proving the medical examiners always use police report or witness report on the 35d section.
the death certificate doesn't say DVORKAVIK ran over the body and dragged it. it just says a motor vehicle. so what exactly is your issue again?

My issue is that no-one ran over Tamerlan and dragged him, so it doesn't belong in a Police report or on the death certificate or in the news. He was hit by an SUV causing blunt trauma and then shot to death.

 

[curtispenner]

I thought Wolfe? was the doctor in the Emergency room?

Yes. But I think the Head of the office signing it is likely statutory. Not significant. Even if he independently did a separate exam, his findings are the same as Wolfe. So we may as we'll treat them as "The medical examiner" to keep it simple.

 

[curtispenner]

Almost as if there's a possible downside to killing an 8 year old

Why stand on a child's grave? Of course this sucked. We currently are discussing what happened to Tamarlan while being detained, which was a sideline from what happened to Dzhokhar while being detained. What does standing on the child's grave accomplish? Are you saying we should lynch Dzhokhar now and have it over? If not, what? And why make the point on a child's grave of all places?

 

[deirdre]

Yes. But I think the Head of the office signing it is likely statutory. Not significant. Even if he independently did a separate exam, his findings are the same as Wolfe. So we may as we'll treat them as "The medical examiner" to keep it simple.

an autopsy is very very different then a medical exam. calling a hospital dr a medical examiner is not keeping it simple.

 

[deirdre]

Why stand on a child's grave? Of course this sucked. We currently are discussing what happened to Tamarlan while being detained, which was a sideline from what happened to Dzhokhar while being detained. What does standing on the child's grave accomplish? Are you saying we should lynch Dzhokhar now and have it over? If not, what? And why make the point on a child's grave of all places?

since were already so far off topic and rambling...I think the point is: you should maybe ponder just how LUCKY dvorkah was that the police caught him (regardless of any injuries he may have caused himself in the process) because if a ticked off citizen caught him things probably wouldn't have turned out so well for him.

 

[MikeC]

So...here's an updated summary using my edits to BPD's original:

2) The medical examiner says that he did not see any tire marks or the usual stuff you see when someone is run over by a car.
- at the same topic we see the gruesome photo of tamerlan's wounds as if he was indeed hit by something big, the death certificate stating the same thing and at least two witnesses, including the lady at the radio show, saying they saw tamerlan being hit by a SUV.

"Hit by" and "run over" are not synonymous.

You're just inventing stuff now.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

"Sir, we tracked the suspect, he's in that boat over there".
"Ok, I want you to go over, lift the tarpaulin and politely ask him if he wouldn't mind coming out."
"But sir, he's resisting arrest, he was throwing bombs at us and tried to run us down. What if he has a gun? What if he has more explosives in the boat?"
"You're right. We should take precautions.........Who's your next of kin?"

 

[Pete Tar]

My issue is that no-one ran over Tamerlan and dragged him, so it doesn't belong in a Police report or on the death certificate or in the news.

You *cannot* assert this. It's just your interpretation of the various conflicting reports.
It is unproven either way, but it's not that unreasonable to assume he was if the cops say that happened. Yes, their word does actually carry more weight than a random eye-witness as they were actually participants at the scene.
It is strange the person taking the photo's of the scene does not mention it. It *may* have happened before that run at the police, he may have been ducking down in between taking photos, there's lot's of ways it could have happened to account for the various reports but it's a little pointless to run through them all.

What is true is that the incident is in the indictment, and is on the death certificate. Why isn't that good enough?

And THEY DID NOT KNOW that the second brother was unarmed in the boat. An over-zealous reaction, yes. But not strange.
I would like to know how the firing started, and what it's purpose was, ie, was it to intimidate into surrender, or just panic firing?
But it's not as you seem to be suggesting, firing on an unarmed presumably harmless and innocent man just because.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I believe it's all three officers and the dead brother. That is what the indictment says.

Well, somewhere in all of this it said that the officers "tackled" the brother to subdue him. That doesn't lead one to believe he was dead. On the other hand, I think somewhere else it said that they shot him, so....

 

[Hama Neggs]

And even if his undercarriage had indeed hooked itself onto Tamerlan and dragged him twenty feet as is being suggested here, this would leave road rash that the medical examiner did not find any proof of.

What is "road rash", as opposed to the injuries he sustained, and where did the examiner say there was none?