Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Mysterious Throat Wound

[Josh Heuer]

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....

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's a fact that Tamerlan left the scene alive. He died in the hospital.
Source: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...04/er_doctor_bombing_suspect_died_at_hospital

Emergency room doctors desperately tried the save the life of Tamerlan Tsarnaev this morning, and said the man was suffering from gun, shrapnel and blast wounds but the 26-year-old bombing suspect did not appear to have been run over.

At Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Brookline, doctors ready to go home at the end of their shifts were told to stay after reports of a gun battle and explosions peaked fears of another mass casualty event around 1:10 this morning, said Dr. Richard Wolfe, head of the hospital's Emergency Department.

The ER doctors didn't seem to think he was run over either. How confusing.

 

[Mick West]

Not appearing to be run over is not the same thing as not having been run over. All it means it that he was run over, but did not have immediately obvious signs of being run over.

Not everyone has a crushed skull or tire marks on their chest. You can be run over in a wide variety of ways, including not going under the tires at all, or the tires going over something like a foot that is not an immediate medical issue if the patient is not awake to report it.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Not appearing to be run over is not the same thing as not having been run over. All it means it that he was run over, but did not have immediately obvious signs of being run over.

Not everyone has a crushed skull or tire marks on their chest. You can be run over in a wide variety of ways, including not going under the tires at all, or the tires going over something like a foot that is not an immediate medical issue if the patient is not awake to report it.

So if it wasn't an immediate medical issue, why is it listed as being a cause of death? The blunt force trauma they listed as being caused by being run over and dragged by a vehicle in the death certificate. Maybe it only caused interal injuries not immediately identifiable in the ER?

 

[Hama Neggs]

3) This photo was taken moments before Dzhokar drove away with the stolen SUV. Not moments before Tamerlan was hit.

You're making the assumption that he doesn't get run over by that approaching car, and declaring it to be definitive.

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.

I think no one is disputing what you say there. Apparently you think that his more gruesome injuries were caused by being "hit by a police SUV". I hardly think so, since it has been said that the police SUV was moving only at idle. If those gruesome injuries were caused BEFORE he got shot, how could he even get up and run toward them to BE shot?

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.

The Medical examiner said he was run over. How is that consistent with your apparent claim that he was NOT run over by his brother?


Here is what the witness said in the blog:

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.

You are embellishing from YOUR vision of what happened. "Bending body panels" are YOUR words, leading us to believe you know details of the collisions you do NOT know. "Taking out doors and windows" is what was said- whatever that means. A car could "T-bone" another at 90 degrees and would certainly "take out doors and windows". In YOUR apparent vision of events the speeding car 'grazed' the first parked car- sides touching sides in parallel and then somehow moved over to encounter the second parked vehicle in similar alignment. I submit that there is simply not enough room between those two parked cars for that to have happened.

The witness' description that the moving car "ultimately broke through the vehicle barricade" is NOT supportive of your vision of a quick, grazing contact in parallel with both parked vehicles. I suggest that if the speeding car did pass to the right of the brother's body it would have NOT been able to "swerve" enough between the two parked cars and would have directly impacted the second car, necessitating BACKING UP in order to get to the right of the second car and away. I believe there is a report stating that he DID run over his brother while backing up.

 

[Mick West]

So if it wasn't an immediate medical issue, why is it listed as being a cause of death? The blunt force trauma they listed as being caused by being run over and dragged by a vehicle in the death certificate. Maybe it only caused interal injuries not immediately identifiable in the ER?

It would be listed in the full autopsy report - but yes, additional internal injuries are not immediately apparent, especially when the person is non-responsive, and then dies, while bleeding from several bullet holes which themselves (the bullets) created major internal injuries. Crushed lung, rib puncturing lung, or bullet through the lung probably have similar overall effects.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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.

Nope. You have now begun quoting YOURSELF and YOUR vision of events instead of the witness.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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.

How does one get the gruesome wounds shown in that image by merely being "hit" by a vehicle, possibly at low speed?

 

[Hama Neggs]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's a fact that Tamerlan left the scene alive. He died in the hospital.
Source: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...04/er_doctor_bombing_suspect_died_at_hospital

I was responding to this, which was quoted in my post: "I believe it's all three officers and the dead brother. That is what the indictment says."

Also, it seems unclear as to whether they "tackled" him when he ran toward them or shot him as he ran toward them.

 

[Balance]

I just got back from RL, have we solved the mystery throat wound yet? Sorry for being lazy and not catching up on all that's posted since I went out.

Ok, I was being trivial/jovial there but I have to confess, I know little (or did) about this case other than the main event news headlines so decided to try and "catch up" on the facts a bit only to quickly realise, the evidence hasn't been released yet! Granted some snippets, but even so....

 

[Jason]

I was responding to this, which was quoted in my post: "I believe it's all three officers and the dead brother. That is what the indictment says."
Also, it seems unclear as to whether they "tackled" him when he ran toward them or shot him as he ran toward them.

If I remember correctly, didn't the cops suspect him of wearing a bomb vest at the time. Imagine being the police officers in a neighborhood thats never dealt with this type of situation. A gun fight ensues, then several bombs are released, and now the perp who was shooting at you and throwing bombs at you is running towards you. I don't think its hard to imagine that the cops shot at him until he went down. Just like its not hard to imagine that the cops didn't know DVORKAVIK was unarmed while hiding in that boat. Police assume the worse, its for their protection and the protection of the civilians around them. And regarding Tamerlan, does it really matter how he died, the guy set off a bomb at the marathon killing innocent people, hijacked a car, had a gun fight in a friendly neighborhood with police (bullets were flying into near by cars and homes), set off a few pipe bombs in the middle of the street, and your actually concerned with how the police put him down.

 

[Hama Neggs]

If I remember correctly, didn't the cops suspect him of wearing a bomb vest at the time. Imagine being the police officers in a neighborhood thats never dealt with this type of situation. A gun fight ensues, then several bombs are released, and now the perp who was shooting at you and throwing bombs at you is running towards you. I don't think its hard to imagine that the cops shot at him until he went down. Just like its not hard to imagine that the cops didn't know DVORKAVIK was unarmed while hiding in that boat. Police assume the worse, its for their protection and the protection of the civilians around them. And regarding Tamerlan, does it really matter how he died, the guy set off a bomb at the marathon killing innocent people, hijacked a car, had a gun fight in a friendly neighborhood with police (bullets were flying into near by cars and homes), set off a few pipe bombs in the middle of the street, and your actually concerned with how the police put him down.

I'm "concerned" with getting the facts straight. That's kinda what we do here.

 

[Jason]

I'm "concerned" with getting the facts straight. That's kinda what we do here.

Understandably, but what facts are we trying to uncover. Why Dzhokar has a throat wound, or if his brother was hit by a car? It seems to me that Dzhokar had a throat wound, and we know the brother was hit by a vehicle. Why would the cops have to lie in the report is unbeknownst to me, especially when they were dealing with terrorist that have already set off more than a handful of bombs between the marathon and this gun fight. Whats the motivation for them to give a false story of events? Its not like they were worried about killing an innocent man?

 

[curtispenner]

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

Road rash looks like this: (Note that I have selected road rash from bicycle accidents so these people would have dragged on concrete for 3-7 ft. Tamerlan is alleged to have been dragged 20 ft)

The medical examiner stated that they found no evidence of dragging. Nor did they find evidence that Tamerlan had been run over.

 

[Soulfly]

The medical examiner stated that they found no evidence of dragging. Nor did they find evidence that Tamerlan had been run over.

Stop saying ME when you mean the emergency room doctor. They are not the same person or do the same job!!!!!!!

 

[Soulfly]

I've crashed on my bike, skateboard and skates many times without getting road rash.

 

[Soulfly]

Road rash is dependent on a few things, speed of the person, the surface being scrapped on and clothing the person is wearing. Even wearing a sweat shirt and blue jeans can save you from getting road rash at lower speeds. I have friends who ride motorcycles that will not ride unless, at the very least, they are wearing a pair of Levi jeans. If you tumble when you fall you creates less drag and less scrapping so less road rash as opposed to sliding on one part of the body for longer distances.

The SUV could have had enough clearance to allow him to be rolled along between the ground and the undercarriage of the vehicle, this would create less friction on less area of his body.

What was he wearing at the time? This is key.

 

[Mick West]

R
The medical examiner stated that they found no evidence of dragging. Nor did they find evidence that Tamerlan had been run over.

When you paraphrase what people are saying, please include the EXACT quote with source.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Road rash looks like this: (Note that I have selected road rash from bicycle accidents so these people would have dragged on concrete for 3-7 ft. Tamerlan is alleged to have been dragged 20 ft)

The medical examiner stated that they found no evidence of dragging. Nor did they find evidence that Tamerlan had been run over.

Your claim is that being "run over" would have HAD to create the sort of injury pictured there? Why? "No evidence of dragging" or being "run over" certainly doesn't mean it didn't occur. I think this has already been suggested to you several times. So when the police SUV "hit" him, what injuries did it create, according to you?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Understandably, but what facts are we trying to uncover. Why Dzhokar has a throat wound, or if his brother was hit by a car? It seems to me that Dzhokar had a throat wound, and we know the brother was hit by a vehicle. Why would the cops have to lie in the report is unbeknownst to me, especially when they were dealing with terrorist that have already set off more than a handful of bombs between the marathon and this gun fight. Whats the motivation for them to give a false story of events? Its not like they were worried about killing an innocent man?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that police reporting has EVER been a perfect system.

 

[solrey]

Road rash is dependent on a few things, speed of the person, the surface being scrapped on and clothing the person is wearing. Even wearing a sweat shirt and blue jeans can save you from getting road rash at lower speeds. I have friends who ride motorcycles that will not ride unless, at the very least, they are wearing a pair of Levi jeans. If you tumble when you fall you creates less drag and less scrapping so less road rash as opposed to sliding on one part of the body for longer distances.

The SUV could have had enough clearance to allow him to be rolled along between the ground and the undercarriage of the vehicle, this would create less friction on less area of his body.

What was he wearing at the time? This is key.

They were both dressed in layers for chilly weather with sweatshirts/light jackets on the day of the bombing and it was chilly and damp around 52F at the time of the shootout a little after midnight on 4/19. It's logical to conclude that they were dressed for a chilly April night in Boston rather than a sunny day on Miami Beach.

 

[Soulfly]

They were both dressed in layers for chilly weather with sweatshirts/light jackets on the day of the bombing and it was chilly and damp around 52F at the time of the shootout a little after midnight on 4/19. It's logical to conclude that they were dressed for a chilly April night in Boston rather than a sunny day on Miami Beach.

I also suspect it would be hard to think he had a suicide vest on if he didn't have something that looked like a vest or jacket on.

 

[Jason]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that police reporting has EVER been a perfect system.

Not saying its a perfect system by any measure. Police are human beings, and they make mistakes just the same. At the end of the day, what's the difference if he died by gun shots, or if his brother ran him over, or if both of them contributed to his death. Dead is dead, and either of the above contributed to his death. Its not like we are talking about an innocent man who happened to cross a busy intersection. We're discussing the death of a terrorist, who exploded multiple bombs, hijacked a car, and shot at police. Plus there's the "fog of war" in situations like this, where its not unlikely for multiple witnesses standing in different proximities to have different interpretations of how the events unfolded.

 

[Jason]

I also suspect it would be hard to think he had a suicide vest on if he didn't have something that looked like a vest or jacket on.

Honestly, this is the only bit that confuses me in this gun fight. If the police suspected him of wearing a suicide vest, wouldn't it be protocol to not approach the suspect. To take him down, and then let the bomb squad move in to make a determination that its safe to approach him. Even after being shot, a suicide vest could still go off if it was on a timer, or dead man switch. Thats why I'm troubled by their actions, when they say 3 cops tried to subdue him when he ran out of bullets. If I were a police officer (which I'm most certainly not), I never would've approached him when he ran out of bullets, but there's a better probability of me approaching him if he was shot dead and lying in the street... I also wouldn't try to run him over with my police vehicle if I thought he was wearing a suicide vest...

 

[Hama Neggs]

Not saying its a perfect system by any measure. Police are human beings, and they make mistakes just the same. At the end of the day, what's the difference if he died by gun shots, or if his brother ran him over, or if both of them contributed to his death. Dead is dead, and either of the above contributed to his death. Its not like we are talking about an innocent man who happened to cross a busy intersection. We're discussing the death of a terrorist, who exploded multiple bombs, hijacked a car, and shot at police. Plus there's the "fog of war" in situations like this, where its not unlikely for multiple witnesses standing in different proximities to have different interpretations of how the events unfolded.

What's the difference to me, personally? Not much. What's the difference in a factual or legal sense? Lots.

 

[Pete Tar]

I read that his bomb-vest went off prematurely injuring him. (sorry, I'll try to find it)

Nup, can't find it. Just another unconfirmable detail to be argued over anyway.

 

[Mick West]

Not sure if this was posted already , but it's a very detailed timeline:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/28/bombreconstruct/VbSZhzHm35yR88EVmVdbDM/story.html

 

[curtispenner]

Stop saying ME when you mean the emergency room doctor. They are not the same person or do the same job!!!!!!!

Quit losing your continence @Soulfly. It was me who pointed out that there was two different Dr.'s in the first place, in post 166:

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.

I concluded it is a red herring issue and dropped it.
Since it seems so critically important to you, how about you go ahead and find answers to the questions I had on this topic. I believe that Dr. Wolfe's assessment that "he did not see any obvious injuries that would back up [the] theory [that] Tsarnaev was run over by a vehicle driven by his fleeing brother" and that he "certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car" ended up being perfectly reflected in the Death Certificate, which listed only blunt trauma and bullet wounds as causes of death. So the bottom line for me was that two Doctors, both heads of their respective departments, seemed to agree. My final analysis that was the Chief Medical Examiner likely signed off on the death certificate based on a referal from the examining doctor at the death....but that it was ultimately a side issue that wouldn't add to our useful knowledge on the debate.

Please though, enlighten us! And you needn't even use seven exclamation marks when you do

 

[MikeC]

How about YOU find the answers to your questions instead of being lazy.

 

[Pete Tar]

The SUV ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaev with a sickening thump. Blood pooled around him. Red streaks stained the pavement where Dzhokhar had dragged his older brother under the SUV.

"He was on his belly; he was moving," said Jean MacDonald, who was watching from her second-floor bathroom window on Laurel Street. "I saw him trying to lift up his head."

Police said Tsarnaev dragged his brother's body about 30 feet.

"I could see the SUV headlights go up and then down when he drove over his brother," said Rob Mullen of Laurel Street, who watched the gunfight unfold in disbelief.

(from Mick's link)

 

[curtispenner]

How about YOU find the answers to your questions instead of being lazy.

I just told you why I didn't. Here it is again.

I believe that Dr. Wolfe's assessment that "he did not see any obvious injuries that would back up [the] theory [that] Tsarnaev was run over by a vehicle driven by his fleeing brother" and that he "certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car" ended up being perfectly reflected in the Death Certificate, which listed only blunt trauma and bullet wounds as causes of death. So the bottom line for me was that two Doctors, both heads of their respective departments, seemed to agree. My final analysis was the Chief Medical Examiner likely signed off on the death certificate based on a referal from the examining doctor at the death....but that it was ultimately a side issue that wouldn't add to our useful knowledge on the debate.

 

[PandyFackler]

I believe that Dr. Wolfe's assessment that "he did not see any obvious injuries that would back up [the] theory [that] Tsarnaev was run over by a vehicle driven by his fleeing brother" and that he "certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car" ended up being perfectly reflected in the Death Certificate, which listed only blunt trauma and bullet wounds as causes of death.

I think blunt trauma would certainly cover being hit and run over by a car. It means there were injuries resulting from a collision with a blunt object. Blunt trauma can also be caused by compression against an unyielding object.

 

[Mick West]

I just told you why I didn't. Here it is again.

I believe that Dr. Wolfe's assessment that "he did not see any obvious injuries that would back up [the] theory [that] Tsarnaev was run over by a vehicle driven by his fleeing brother" and that he "certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car" ended up being perfectly reflected in the Death Certificate, which listed only blunt trauma and bullet wounds as causes of death. So the bottom line for me was that two Doctors, both heads of their respective departments, seemed to agree. My final analysis was the Chief Medical Examiner likely signed off on the death certificate based on a referal from the examining doctor at the death....but that it was ultimately a side issue that wouldn't add to our useful knowledge on the debate.

Sorry Curtis, but it's starting to look like you are just being argumentative now. Blunt trauma is consistent with being run over and the death certificate clearly says:

He was run over. Some eyewitnesses disagree, but eyewitnesses always disagree. That's all there is to it. Please stop trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I didn't see in that report where either brother was hit by a police SUV.

 

[MikeC]

I just told you why I didn't. Here it is again.

And yet you keep asking questions - so clearly your concept of "having answered" is not a good one. If you feel the need to ask questions then there are still answers you want - you are good at trying to get everyone else to provide you with answers, and I'm saying I can't be bothered stroking your ego any more.

Your inability to accept simple and obvious answers, your constant picky questions - they are both signs to me that you are not actually interested in anything other than your own version of events.

That's fine - you're entitled to that.

And I'm entitled to think you are a troll and add you to my ignore list.

Bye.

 

[Soulfly]

Honestly, this is the only bit that confuses me in this gun fight. If the police suspected him of wearing a suicide vest, wouldn't it be protocol to not approach the suspect. To take him down, and then let the bomb squad move in to make a determination that its safe to approach him. Even after being shot, a suicide vest could still go off if it was on a timer, or dead man switch. Thats why I'm troubled by their actions, when they say 3 cops tried to subdue him when he ran out of bullets. If I were a police officer (which I'm most certainly not), I never would've approached him when he ran out of bullets, but there's a better probability of me approaching him if he was shot dead and lying in the street... I also wouldn't try to run him over with my police vehicle if I thought he was wearing a suicide vest...

Not if the suspect is actively shooting and throwing bombs. Pretty sure first priority would be to subdue the suspect as quickly as possible.

 

[Soulfly]

And you needn't even use seven exclamation marks when you do

At least we know you can count, so far the only thing you have gotten correct.

 

[Jason]

Not sure if this was posted already , but it's a very detailed timeline:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/28/bombreconstruct/VbSZhzHm35yR88EVmVdbDM/story.html

Wow, thats a great timeline of events Mick, thanks. It sure does put things into perspective, and based on this timeline I can't see how Dzhokar can claim he was under his brother's influence. From his tweets to shooting the MIT police officer 5 times, twice in the head. I hope he gets the death penalty

 

[Jason]

Not if the suspect is actively shooting and throwing bombs. Pretty sure first priority would be to subdue the suspect as quickly as possible.

I agree, but with bullets, right...?

 

[Soulfly]

I agree, but with bullets, right...?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why don't you state what you think happened and what you think didn't happen. No offense but, your responses puzzle me.

 

[Soulfly]

If someone is shooting at cops, are they not allowed to use their vehicle to stop them if it is prudent? Do they only have to use their guns? If a cop drove up behind them, sees them shooting, could he not be justified in using his car to ram them? I think there needs to be some protocol established as to what can an can't be done before we go any further on deciding if it even matters if a cop or his brother ran him over.