Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Mysterious Throat Wound

External Quote:
Dr. David Schoenfeld said 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev was unconscious and had so many penetrating wounds when he arrived at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center early Friday that it isn't clear which ones killed him, and a medical examiner will have to determine the cause of death

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/tamerlan-tsarnaev-injuires_n_3124612.html

I know you keep saying youre ok with the death certificate which states an autopsy was performed. But you seem to keep insisting that Dr. Wolf had some say as to what was on the death certificate. The medical examiners office performed the autopsy.
 
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.
I've explained my position already above.

Soulfly said: ↑
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...?
I didn't mean to puzzle you, I was merely agreeing with your ascertation that the polices' first priority would've been to subdue the suspect, and I added using bullets as in shooting him. After reading the timeline Mick posted, I can see that they weren't concerned about a suicide vest.
 
OK, so cap off on the throat wound, it was the result of him being shot in the face, according to the Daily Mail.

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.'
The injury on the left side of his neck is unexplained. It 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", and which was "possibly from shrapnel".

Here is the video Josh posted in #5 for convenience.


I posited, and still believe, that the barrage of gunfire at the boat was excessive. I further submit that this level of force put the neighbours in harm, in that they might have been hit with stray bullets of the type that entered Mr. Katzinberg's apartment. My investigation of whether the Police had used a megafone or something to say "Come out with your hands up" yielded the answer that yes, they had. It also then unearthed some info regarding whether the first brother, Tamerlan, was in fact run over by his brother or not. We may want to move the "Tamerlan run over by Dzhokar" investigation to a new thread.

I believe that Tamerlan was not run over by his brother, based on the evidence of the head of the Emergency Department and the report of the Medical Examiner and several eye witness reports which lent themselves to the Police having done him in on their own. Others believe he was indeed run over by Dzhokar based on the testimony of the police officers in attendance.

All of us, skeptics or not, share the opinion of "Why lie?" with respect to Tamerlan, who at this point had shown himself to be a terrorrist in the sense of throwing bombs at the police. So the fact that he is only an accused terrorist with respect to the Marathon itself is secondary to the fact that he was an obvious threat to police on the night in question.

We will hopefully see some evidence submitted at the trial which can give us closure on whether he was run over and dragged or not. But I would consider the "throat" issue closed with the proviso that the barrage of bullets was overkill, and that something like a tear gas bomb deposited by the remote arm on the tank might have done the trick. Or a water cannon. Or any number of other non lethal options.

On Tamerlan we can see what comes out at trial if anything.
 
I believe that Tamerlan was not run over by his brother, based on the evidence of the head of the Emergency Department and the report of the Medical Examiner and several eye witness reports which lent themselves to the Police having done him in on their own.
Who ran him over then?

Why make up that he was ran over if no one ran him over, if they are going to also say they shot him. If they wanted to shift blame why not hide the fact that he was shot, and just say he was ran over by his brother?
 
We will hopefully see some evidence submitted at the trial...I would consider the "throat" issue closed with the proviso that the barrage of bullets was overkill, and that something like a tear gas bomb deposited by the remote arm on the tank might have done the trick. Or a water cannon. Or any number of other non lethal options.

The fact that Dzhokar is getting a trial suggests that law enforcement indeed did find a "non lethal option" to get him off the streets of Boston
(never mind giving him medical aid--and quite possibly saving him from a terrorized neighborhood that might have chosen a different path to justice than the one lil' Dzhokar was fortunate to receive)

I'm wondering if your continued insistence that the shots fired were "overkill" is in any way a holdover of your initial insistence that it was a full 60 seconds,
instead of the mere 12 or 13 you were later compelled to admit it actually was. Realizing your initial outrage was based on overestimating by about 5 fold, probably revises your view, yes?
 
We will hopefully see some evidence submitted at the trial which can give us closure on whether he was run over and dragged or n
WHY would we see this at trial? except maybe as a passing comment the defense wont bother touching. you think in the list of crimes he is being tried for they are gonna add: oh yea and hit and run?

ps. I have closure. I don't care.
 
@NoParty, do you have nothing better to add for the third time that I made the same original mistake? It doesn't bother me that I made a mistake. I saw it, acknowledged it, and moved on. I guess you didn't. OK. But are you really adding anything here?

Here you are in Post #47:
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)

Here I am acknowledging the error in Post #50:
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 :p

Here I am acknowledging that same error again in Post #88, again in response to you:
@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:

I stand by the orgy of gunfire though. It was ridiculous considering he can't possibly have fired first. He was unarmed.

And here I am for a third time addressing the same "60 seconds", for the third time in response to you.

Was there something you didn't manage to pull from Post #50 or Post #88 in my first two responses to you?

I get the feeling you just like bringing it up. I liken it to someone who can fart or belch on queue and likes to show off the talent. At first it's funny. But then it gets tired. And eventually you hope that fellow will stop coming to your parties.
 
@NoParty, do you have nothing better to add for the third time that I made the same original mistake? It doesn't bother me that I made a mistake. I saw it, acknowledged it, and moved on. I guess you didn't. OK. But are you really adding anything here?

Here you are in Post #47:


Here I am acknowledging the error in Post #50:


Here I am acknowledging that same error again in Post #88, again in response to you:


And here I am for a third time addressing the same "60 seconds", for the third time in response to you.

Was there something you didn't manage to pull from Post #50 or Post #88 in my first two responses to you?

I get the feeling you just like bringing it up. I liken it to someone who can fart or belch on queue and likes to show off the talent. At first it's funny. But then it gets tired. And eventually you hope that fellow will stop coming to your parties.
Your post shows precisely why I'm bringing it up:
The first time you glossed over it, as if, hey, no big deal.
The second time was because you tried to claim that somehow my including your error was some sort of "mischaracterization" when it clearly was not.
This time I asked a specific question: whether you would still--after realizing your original assertion was so far from accurate--make the same "overkill" assertion, though your understanding of the facts had changed.

I would have liked you to address the question, but again, instead of answering, you're trying to red herring re. how many times your error has come up.
If your last post addressed what I asked, instead of oddly assembling past posts without addressing the question...you wouldn't be reading about it again. Returning to the specific claims isn't "mischaracterization." It's not personal.
 
Last edited:
I posited, and still believe, that the barrage of gunfire at the boat was excessive. I further submit that this level of force put the neighbours in harm, in that they might have been hit with stray bullets of the type that entered Mr. Katzinberg's apartment.

I agree with you that it was excessive, and I disagree that neihbours were put in danger. The only one in danger was Dzhokar, and I really think they should in no way kill him. We needed him alive.

Actually, when you think about it, they wanted Tamerlan alive too. Otherwise there would be no tackling at a suspect who may or may not possess hidden bombs ready to explode.

I believe that Tamerlan was not run over by his brother, based on the evidence of the head of the Emergency Department and the report of the Medical Examiner and several eye witness reports which lent themselves to the Police having done him in on their own. Others believe he was indeed run over by Dzhokar based on the testimony of the police officers in attendance.

He was hit or run over by a black SUV. It's a common agreement, correct?

There is only one witness who said that the SUV was the police one, and not the stolen one. This same witness was wrong in two others claims she made. There is no "several eye witness". The photos from the guy at the third floor show nothing regarding this aspect.

The medic that said that he saw no traces of run over, and yet Tamerlan was - based on several witnesses. Again: Tamerlan could have been hit and dragged or hit and thrown or any of the other things that happens when someone is hit.

All of us, skeptics or not, share the opinion of "Why lie?" with respect to Tamerlan, who at this point had shown himself to be a terrorrist in the sense of throwing bombs at the police. So the fact that he is only an accused terrorist with respect to the Marathon itself is secondary to the fact that he was an obvious threat to police on the night in question.

You are weighting the testimony of one single eye witness who was wrong at two other claims against the testimony of 10+ police officers, suggesting that all police officers lied and asking "Why lie?".

The quote from the medical examiner has no weight here. He examined it and thought Tamerlan was not run over. He was hit by a SUV and thrown or dragged for 7ft, so if the term "run over" is or is not 100% correct is irrelevant and evidence to nothing.
 
The quote from the medical examiner has no weight here. He examined it and thought Tamerlan was not run over. He was hit by a SUV and thrown or dragged for 7ft, so if the term "run over" is or is not 100% correct is irrelevant and evidence to nothing.
The vest he was reportedly wearing may have taken the scraping damage that would normally be taken by the surface of his body, accounting for the ME's impression, but he still had the full body trauma as would be expected by being subjected to a large force.

Hard to see why or how curtis can see your reply as anything other than reasonable rational thinking, as presumably his impolite response indicates.
Maybe he can enighten us as to why in a day or so.
 
Hard to see why or how curtis can see your reply as anything other than reasonable rational thinking, as presumably his impolite response indicates.
Maybe he can enighten us as to why in a day or so.

I didn't have a chance to respond to @BPD. My impoliteness was in a response to @NoParty in which I questioned his intelligence. I'll try responding to him again more politely :p I found your deduction that I would reply impolitely to reasonable rational thinking interesting. I think it offers a glimpse into your bias.

curtispenner said: ↑
I posited, and still believe, that the barrage of gunfire at the boat was excessive. I further submit that this level of force put the neighbours in harm, in that they might have been hit with stray bullets of the type that entered Mr. Katzinberg's apartment.
I agree with you that it was excessive, and I disagree that neihbours were put in danger. The only one in danger was Dzhokar, and I really think they should in no way kill him. We needed him alive.

Actually, when you think about it, they wanted Tamerlan alive too. Otherwise there would be no tackling at a suspect who may or may not possess hidden bombs ready to explode.

I believe that Tamerlan was not run over by his brother, based on the evidence of the head of the Emergency Department and the report of the Medical Examiner and several eye witness reports which lent themselves to the Police having done him in on their own. Others believe he was indeed run over by Dzhokar based on the testimony of the police officers in attendance.
He was hit or run over by a black SUV. It's a common agreement, correct?

There is only one witness who said that the SUV was the police one, and not the stolen one. This same witness was wrong in two others claims she made. There is no "several eye witness". The photos from the guy at the third floor show nothing regarding this aspect.

The medic that said that he saw no traces of run over, and yet Tamerlan was - based on several witnesses. Again: Tamerlan could have been hit and dragged or hit and thrown or any of the other things that happens when someone is hit.

All of us, skeptics or not, share the opinion of "Why lie?" with respect to Tamerlan, who at this point had shown himself to be a terrorrist in the sense of throwing bombs at the police. So the fact that he is only an accused terrorist with respect to the Marathon itself is secondary to the fact that he was an obvious threat to police on the night in question.
You are weighting the testimony of one single eye witness who was wrong at two other claims against the testimony of 10+ police officers, suggesting that all police officers lied and asking "Why lie?".

The quote from the medical examiner has no weight here. He examined it and thought Tamerlan was not run over. He was hit by a SUV and thrown or dragged for 7ft, so if the term "run over" is or is not 100% correct is irrelevant and evidence to nothing.

On the whole I agree with you. I disagree regarding the spray of bullets at the Boat in the residential neighborhood not putting surrounding residents at risk. I also disagree regarding the examining Doctor's evidence that the body showed no signs of being run over or dragged as being irrelevant. He noted evidence of him being hit hard with something. So it seems we are all agreed on the blunt trauma at least.

Both in Katzinberg's blog and subsequently in his interview he says nothing about Tamerlan being run over by Dzhokar. In his interview he says that Dzokhar "got into his vehicle, turned around, and floored it right into the Watertown police vehicles." I think running someone over and dragging them is a very significant thing to continuously not mention. He obviously had a very good vantage point on the whole thing. Something is fishy about it.

Unfortunately sometimes Police lie. When they do they tend to do so as a group. So there being 10+ officers doesn't bear a whole bunch on whether they lied or not. It is not sound reasoning to just categorically say "The Police didn't lie". I repeat my assertion that I don't know why they would in this case. It's just that the whole thing doesn't add up.

*** Note to Mick *** Metabunk.org remains nearly totally unusable on two separate machines for me. It took me five tries and fifteen minutes of loading time to post this message.
 
Curtis, after reviewing your contributions I have decided that your participation is not appropriate for metabunk. You focus excessively on minutia, and on your own personal interpretations of that minutia. This is simply cluttering things up. Metabunk required more focused and useful discussion.

I suggest you find a more appropriate forum in which to share your ideas. I hope you recognize I am not censoring you, as there are much more well traveled sites where you can post, and have your post visible to a larger number of people, such as Godlike Productions, or Above Top Secret, the JREF forums. So nobody is preventing you from saying what you want to say. It is just not Metabunk material.
 
Not quite- you said AJ and IWars are "may not be right all the time but they sure are right often enough" ...but in this instance...they deliberately lied...they took one photo from the photo set the officer released and ran an article that was pure, unadulterated fabrication. They completely ignored the photo of them addressing the wound on his neck....it was taken by the same person and released at the same time...and yet they completely ignored in favor of lying for fear and hype.

How can InfoWars ever be taken seriously when they are so blatantly so full of bullshit?
Which media do you "trust"?
 
Back
Top