Gutsy Call on That Miranda Warning: Method of Detonation May Suggest 3rd Bomber At Bombsite

They seem to believe that the bombs were detonated line of site, by radio remote control.

I'm not sure why they conclude this next part: Ergo, the Tsarnaev's themselves could not have detonated them, and so there is a third party who manned the RCs.

I do not get that last leap, though, as I thought that last picture of the murderous brothers leaving the bomb site had them pretty close to the bombs. Not so close to be hit, but close enough to be moving with the fleeing crowd (and not even out in front of the fleeing crowd).

But it's worth keeping an eye on. I await the explanation for that Step 2 in the logic that seems to be missing at the moment.

Either way-- the evidence suggests that this bomb design did not come off he internet, but was a design they were taught by an experienced bomb-builder. So that would be a 3rd party about which we have no information (Gozar claimed no one else was involved, and I'm tired of writing his real name).

Meanwhile, Powerline asks if there's a cover-up in the administration messaging on all this. It's a question that immediately struck me -- remember when Gozar was still in the hospital and barely conscious and the administration put out the word he was "cooperative"?

Two things: How cooperative can you be when you're sedated, and further, how do you know if someone is being cooperative (honest) or lying? Given that you have not yet had a chance to check any of his claims out?

For example, one of Gozar's first claims, I believe, was "We acted alone." Word goes out to the media: He's "cooperating."

Um, how do you know he's cooperating before you've conducted a thorough investigation? How do you know that's not just a cover story to protect the rest of the cell?

Is this not the most obvious question ever posed? Don't people in terrorist cells typically lie about other members, yet uncaptured, who may or may not be in the cell?

Let's just say that the Obama Administration has shown a strong preference for tidy narratives that avoid any Al Qaeda complications. They like neat little "Move on, nothing to see here" narratives, narratives which do not include any additional requirements of the Administration and thus nothing more to fail at.

They like easy solutions.

Maybe Gozar and Tamarlan got radicalized by that YouTube video. That sure would be helpful for the Administration! We already took care of that problem!

Conclusion: He must be "cooperating" if he says that. We know it's true. It's helpful, ergo it must be true.

Now, the reason I didn't post this speculation earlier is that it's possible the sources said Ghozar was responsive, or said "cooperative" but meant only "responsive."

Responsive isn't as good as cooperative, but it is better than Absolute Silence. At least you can confront someone with their lies if they're giving you responsive (but false) answers.

But this administration really deserves no trust at all on its statements about terrorism. They've lied too many times, and always with the same motive: To spare themselves criticism or the demands of a public for action.

posted by Ace at 06:27 PM

| Access Comments