Picture
Photograph: CBSNews.com
Editors Note: This was inspired by an anonymous submission.

One word that “Danny”, the carjacking victim, managed to understand in the Tsarnaev brother’s conversation spoken mostly in Russian was, “Manhattan.” According to a report from CBSnews, “Danny” spoke little to no English but was encouraged by investigators to remember certain words that may have been recognizable to him during his encounter with the suspects.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated during a news conference that Dzhokar Tsarnaev told agents of the FBI that he and his brother were going to use additional explosives, including up to five pipe bombs and a pressure cooker bomb in Times Square. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stated that the surviving suspect revealed this information during his questioning, prior to being read his Miranda warning, while he was in the hospital. Investigators are stating that he was not read his warning given the public safety exemption, though this is still in question and will likely be a driving force for the defense.
According to the report, “Danny” drove his vehicle while Dzhokhar followed him and Tamerlan in another car. Later, Tamerlan took the driver seat and Dzhokhar joined them. “Danny” said he had no recognition that there had been explosives in his car. Authorities expressed that “Danny’s” escape during refueling may have caused the suspects plan to crumble.

At what point in the night would the explosives have been moved from one car into another? Is the word “Manhattan” enough to assume they were headed there to conduct violence?


Sources:

Blake
6/8/2013 11:23:52 pm

"According to a report from CBSnews, “Danny” spoke little to no English " Incorrect. Danny said that most of the J & T conversation was not in English? Danny himself speaks bery good English, did you not see/hear the interviews with him?

Reply
M
6/9/2013 01:39:20 am

It really does say so, take a look at their website (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581444/times-square-attack-planned-by-boston-bombing-suspects-authorities-say/):

'On Tuesday, Miller reported on "CBS This Morning" that, according to investigators, the carjacking victim speaks little to no English, but authorities pressed him to remember recognizable words from his exchange with the bombing suspects.'

Reply
Joker
6/9/2013 01:45:27 am

This is an interview with him. His face is obscured and his voice is altered but you can hear his accent. In no way would I describe him as speaking little to no English

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57582204/boston-suspects-carjacking-victim-describes-terrifying-night/

Joker
6/9/2013 01:27:11 am

At first we heard there was no plan to attack NYC then 2 days later Ray Kelly holds a PC to say that there was a plan to bomb Times Square.

It's very odd because at the time there was no certainty that they weren't a part of a larger plot. It would seem that info regarding plans to bomb NYC would reach the police commissioner correctly the first time.

I also thought it was a possibility that after seeing their photos on TV that they just wanted to get rid of the bombs albeit it would seem that they would want to do that as low-key as possible and carjacking doesn't exactly scream low-key.

Reply
Blake
6/9/2013 02:59:30 am

In the great scheme of things, not very important, but re "carjacking doesn't exactly scream low-key" if they had been thinking of going there that night? Go out with a bang? They had bombs in the cars. There was one unexploded bomb and the others that they threw at the police.

Either way whether or not they were going to bomb NY is of little importance in the legal case against them.

Reply
Shelley
6/9/2013 03:22:30 am

I disagree. If they were going to bomb NY, that would mean they are maniacal terrorists. If they were in fact thinking of going to NY to party as was originally stated, that would mean that they may be innocent.

Reply
Blake
6/9/2013 03:29:02 am

Possibly innocent, but their posession of bombs, at least one of identical fabrication to the ones used at the Marathon would suggest otherwise.

Joker
6/9/2013 04:38:21 am

With a trunk full of explosive devices would it really matter what their plan was?

Shelley
6/11/2013 02:58:17 am

Blake: I originally read that they had bombs, guns (including carbine), etc. etc. on them. I read later that the Police Commissioner of the Mass State Police stated that they were found only with one gun between them and no other weapons at all. I believe that the police continue to claim that the brothers threw pressure cooker bombs out the window of their vehicle in Watertown. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/24/only-one-gun-recovered-from-tsarnaev-brothers-shootout-in-watertown/
As you can see from this cbs article, they were still claiming at the time of the release of this information that Dzhokhar was shooting at them from the boat which was later found to be untrue.

M
6/9/2013 03:25:19 am

@Joker - Yes I saw that and I agree it doesn't seem like he speaks 'little to no English.' I was just saying that they didn't make it up, that's what Miller stated himself according to CBS news.

Reply
Shelley
6/9/2013 03:34:50 am

The story of 'Danny' makes no sense to me. First and foremost, why is the ever-intrusive, no-boundaries media claiming that they are not identifying him out of respect for his privacy? In all seriousness, the media has never done that. Why aren't they checking up on Danny and seeing if he really is who he says he is? Did Danny know the Tsarnaev's and once he realized that they were being named as people of interest, did he throw them under the bus and run a la Uncle Ruslan. If he had explosives in his car, were they his explosives, or did they really belong to the Tsarnaevs? Why did a 20-minute drive to Watertown take 90 minutes? They would have been half way to NY in the time they were driving in circles with 'Danny'. Why would the brothers make all kinds of bizarre confessions to 'Danny' like killing a police officer and the Boston bombings then let him go? From 'Danny's' description, Tamerlan let him go. He sat in the car with a gun and didn't shoot 'Danny' as 'Danny' sloppily exited the car and took off. Why did Dzhokhar let himself get caught on surveillance in the 7-11 and at the ATM? I saw both brothers pictured on surveillance photo entering the 7-11. This contradicts 'Danny's' account completely. Did Tamerlan enter the store with his brother? Why did they bother keeping their own car with them for such a while when they supposedly had 'Danny's' car too? Where has 'Danny' disappeared to in the last couple weeks? Once again, I don't believe the media is politely giving him space. Who is protecting 'Danny'? Why won't they give his real name or show his face? Why is the media treating 'Danny' with kid gloves while mowing down everyone else? 'Danny' remains the #1 absurdity in this story (the 'note in the boat' wins 2nd prize).

Reply
Blake
6/9/2013 03:50:00 am

Apart from Danny, nearly all the other witnesses and victims were filmed and their identities hence became public. Easy meat for the media.

Do you remember the DSK trial? The identity of the victim was protected. The media did not release the names of all the staff of the hotel like the boy who let Diallo into DSK's suite..Although several other members of staff were named

The media was swarming around the case and named Diallo's friend who was in prison and lots of other people who had something to say about either DSK or Diallo.
Danny"s identity has been protected and there might well be other key witbesses for and against who have the same protection.

This will allow for a fairer trial and will minimise jury pool pollution.

Reply
M
6/9/2013 04:14:55 am

Yes, it's not necessarily odd for 'Danny' to be anonymous.. However, what's odd would be the contradictions:

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/boston-bombing-even-the-msm-has-to-admit-the-official-story-doesnt-work-magic-bullet-theory-in-the-making/

'The shooting and the carjacking are essential in creating the first profile of the Tsarnaevs as murder-minded individuals, not just two guys on a video wearing backpacks.'

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/23/officer-collier-shooting-rosebud-moment-of-the-boston-bombing/

A
6/9/2013 09:30:58 am

Blake are you convinced then that Danny will appear in court as a key witness? I read somewhere he might not appear at all, such is his protection. If this is protection as you say towards a fair trial then I can wait until court date just as long as he does appear, he does repeat his accusations, he is cross-examined in court. He can always appear alongside a translator if Mandarin is his preferred language.

Shelley
6/11/2013 02:51:09 am

A: It would be illegal for 'Danny' to not appear in court but yet to provide testimony used in the case. According to the law, the accused has the right to face his accuser in court. Though the law has not been followed as it should in this case.

Joker
6/9/2013 04:47:50 am

Is Danny supposed to testify as to what they did after he ran off?

Trying to get into the mind of everybody doesn't really drive the conversation forward. It's pointless.

I do love that you suggest the explosives may have been Danny's. Thats rich.

Reply
M
6/9/2013 05:09:22 am

Fair to say that claiming the explosives were Danny's is a little much... Care to comment on how the federal affidavit fails too mention the green Honda, and contradicts “Danny” several times:

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/boston-bombing-even-the-msm-has-to-admit-the-official-story-doesnt-work-magic-bullet-theory-in-the-making/

A
6/11/2013 04:25:57 am

@ Shelley I was talking in reference to FBI's witness protection programs and some other form of immunity that I do not have sufficient clarity on at this point. I guess under the law, the scales are tipped when you have a state actor prosecuting a citizen. I'm sure he'll appear as you say. What about Katherine Russell do you think she might appear as a witness on either or both sides?

A
6/9/2013 05:28:57 am

I agree. Danny's fixed,single, one-time confession needs to be examined against the authorities ever changing stories. Unfortunately he's not coming forward. For example, if the brothers' had a Honda Civic filled with multiple explosives, rifles and handguns (as allegedly witnessed in Laurel St.) why would they shoot Sean Collier for a single handgun? If they didn't do that how would Tamerlan confess to Danny? We would actually benefit from grilling Danny so that the real MIT shooter is in fact caught and charged. Is anyone else questioning the MIT story after noting the amount of weapons and explosives on Laurel St?

And the important guy is one Tarek Ahmad a gas station clerk who called 911 on behalf of Danny. I wonder why he's received minimal attention apart from when he said he thought this person was drunk but then eventually called 911. Does Tarek also speak minimal to no English? It would be pretty useful for example to run that last bit of story by said gas station clerk - Danny's alleged escape from the car.

Reply
John Baxter
6/9/2013 12:26:23 pm

There was discussion on the gas station picture and it was believably put forward that Dzhokhar was actually leaving the store as he had products in his hand but was opening the door with his back as his hands were full, therefore Tamerlan was just standing outside and Danny would have run away at this stage. So it doesn't poke holes in Danny's story.

Reply
Joker
6/9/2013 03:29:15 pm

But didn't Danny claim that he escaped while Tamerlan was with him in the car?

Joker
6/9/2013 06:01:43 am

I hear a bunch of weapons stories in those first few days after the shootout including the use of a suicide vest by Tamerlan. None of it was true. The cops ended up recovering 1 pistol which Tamerlan threw at a cop after he ran out of ammo. I doubt Jahar ever fired a shot. The boat "shootout" was obviously nothing more than an excited, nervous cop shooting 1st and then it just escalated. A minor miracle the kid didnt get killed there.

As far as the criminal complaint, I would expect some minor omission of details. By definition it's a document that outlines the criminal reasons why the defendant has been arrested. Major contradictions and omissions may make it into the trial as part of the defense but there's definitely a lot bigger mountains to climb on their horizon. The Honda isn't really that significant. Any inconsistencies in Danny's story may provide an opening for the defense if the prosecution wants to use their alleged confession to him but those inconsistencies would have to be from Danny's statement itself.

Reply
M
6/9/2013 07:44:51 am

Omission of details is quite different than contradiction in details.

Affidavit: Both suspects rode in the SUV to Watertown

Danny: The gunman ordered him to drive to Watertown and was followed by the Honda

Omission of detail... or contradiction?

Reply
John Baxter
6/9/2013 12:22:34 pm

Danny is a victim of a serious crime.

He seems to have a very good memory of events.

Not sure that manhattan would have much weight in court unless to support other evidence that New York was their intention. Depends on who he claims said it, if it was Tamerlan then you couldn't put it onto Dzhokhar.

He does account for Dzhokhar following his car and then getting in.

Joker
6/9/2013 02:53:51 pm

I believe the blog you referenced above is comparing the criminal complaint to media reports that discuss An interview that Danny did. The reality of the contradiction is that for it to hold any water from a defense standpoint is that must be Danny contradicting himself.

I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that there appears to be 2 seperate trips to Watertown that night with the SUV. Danny was only present for the first one.

Blake
6/9/2013 12:16:02 pm

"Blake are you convinced then that Danny will appear in court as a key witness?" Yes, in one or all trials. Remember there are several alleged crimes, there will be several charges and more than one trial.. Danny is the alleged victim of an armed hijack, robbery and kidnap..

In fact if we accept that the carjack took place, we must also accept that it is very unlikely that the brothers would have been intending to party in Manhattan. Armed robbery, kdnap etc are very serious charges. and for the brothers not usual pre party occupations.

I find it highly unlikely that the carjack did not occur, the witness to Danny's state after escape, the videos of Jahar withdrawing money, the fact that the SUV was definitely driven by one of the brothers to the shoot out.

It takes an awful lot of imagination to think that this (we have been told)successful businessman was either a secret FBII agent or the real bomb owner.

Reply
John Baxter
6/9/2013 12:56:58 pm

There is always flaws in witness testimony bearing in mind it's a stressful event. I find the whole carjacking and shoot out strange, like who wastes time buying snacks?( Did he buy enough snacks to include Danny if there was 3 in the car? )

I find the bit about the girl that he wanted to talk to the most bizarre.

Reply
Blake
6/9/2013 01:42:24 pm

I agree. details about snacks etc are odd. But we must remember this is real life and not a movie script. Neither the witnesses nor the suspects are pros.

The fact that the brothers allegedly had one real gun and a BB gun adds credence to the lone wolf amateur side of the bombing.

As we have seen over the last few years killing people does not need huge amounts of intelligence or organisation.


M
6/9/2013 05:31:43 pm

If we agree on anything it is that these details are odd. You find the reason to be that this is 'real life and not a movie script.' However, often times investigators will use a technique called "statement analysis." They examine words apart from facts of the case to identify deception. If we can describe these details as 'extraneous information,' then this is what an FBI bulletin has to say about it:

"Extraneous information in a statement also can provide clues to deception. A truthful person with nothing to hide, when asked the question, "What happened," will recount the events chronologically and concisely. Any information given that does not answer this question is extraneous.

People involved in crimes may feel the need to justify their actions. In such cases, the information in the statements will not follow a logical time frame or will skirt what really happened. They also may include more information than is necessary to tell the story. In such instances, investigators should scrutinize this extraneous information and question why this person felt the need to include it."

Investigators also examine the use of grammar and nouns, except this cannot be used on Danny's statement since his English isn't exactly fluent. However, the addition of extraneous information does not have to do with fluency. I don't mean to say that Danny is an FBI agent or that he owns the bombs, I apologize if it come off that way. I just mean to point out the oddities of his statement. I do not claim experience in this sort of thing, so please excuse me if I'm wrong.

If you have a SIRS account you may be able to access this bulletin, just search 'statement analysis.'

A
6/9/2013 02:36:52 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gas-station-owner-worker-recounts-moment-man-carjacked-by-bombing-suspects/

Store clerk describes "victim" as Caucasian, says/confesses he was pushed out of the car.

Reply
Blake
6/9/2013 02:07:21 pm

With regard to odd behaviour.

Many years ago a man named John Stephenson broke into a sleepy country School 'army reserve' armoury in England.

He was caught even before the crime had been discovered. Why? Because he had covered up the van's licence plates + the van could only go at 20mph and was stopped as a matter of routine. This was reported in the press, but it was sometime befote the fact that they were unfireable dress rifles was revealed.

While in prison, he changed his name to Seán Mac Stíofáin and once out of prison moved to Ireland where he became one of the leaders of the much feared Provos. The only one with a Brit acent.

In real life there are often small stupid and bizarre details...

Reply
Joker
6/9/2013 02:30:16 pm

In real life there are often small stupid and bizarre details...
--------------------

Like one of the original WTC bombers that got caught after he tried to get the deposit back on the Ryder truck he rented to deliver the bomb.

Reply
John
6/9/2013 02:58:58 pm

Which should really be the point. People who would never contemplate the actions they are accused of probably will never understand their other actions. Add in the media incompetence and sensationalism and this is what we've got.

truth seeker
6/15/2013 02:49:34 pm

All I have to say is Danny has so many different stories. In one, he claims the brothers spoke in Russian the entire time, with the exception of the word "Manhattan". In another, he says the men talked about girls, the new iPhone, how nobody listened to CDs anymore, etc. In one, he claims they were all in the same car, yet both cars (one of which [the Mercedes] was apparently very similar to Tamerlan's car) ended up at the shootout. So you mean to tell us after their victim, who knows everything about their guilt, escapes, they went back to get Jahar's car for some reason? What, were they gonna separate to get away? Is this Scooby Doo?

Reply
John
6/16/2013 03:35:52 pm

Yeah and he got all this information while thinking of a girl he wanted to talk to. That part just made me lol when I read it.

Reply
jenh
6/17/2013 03:38:03 am

I completely agree. Danny's stories consistently changed. I remember one that said TT did all the talking or "barking orders" to younger brother and the only thing DT asked was "how much did Danny pay for his car?" I have oftened wondered if "Danny" is an undercover agent. Maybe that is why the media has not disclosed who he is.

Reply
Margaret
6/24/2013 11:55:31 pm

If they threw pressure cooker bombs at the police, why were the houses on the street not damaged? IF they did have them, they might have thrown them, but they do not appear to have detonated them.

Reply
Joker
6/25/2013 12:31:11 am

Of course this site won't you post links (hello?) but this is a great video that shows many Laurel st residents and what they saw and heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/04/22/us/100000002184622/recounting-the-shootout-in-watertown.html

Reply
Margaret
6/25/2013 12:42:13 am

Compared with the scene at the marathon, I don't see the same degree of damage in this video.

Joker
6/25/2013 03:04:32 am

Nor wold you given the blast radius of the bomb and the relative distance of property to the epicenter.

Reply
truth seeker
6/25/2013 03:07:18 am

The cars would have at least had damage.

Reply
Joker
6/25/2013 03:22:47 am

Maybe they did? Maybe there were no card parked close enough to receive damage?

Are you implying there were no bombs thrown?

Reply



Leave a Reply.



    Archives

    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013