Witness says Boston bomb suspect run over and executed by police!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by AmberLeaf


Il look for the archived scanner audio, but id imagine il be listening for hours and still hear no mention of a police car.

Please do. You WILL be listening for hours. And then you'll come on here and confrim that I am correct. A stolen police SUV is mentioned plenty of times.

Here's the problem. Your story is a "conspiracy" too because the police have since denied the "stolen police SUV" event heard on the scanner actually happened. The OFFICIAL STORY from the authorities was that it was not a police SUV driven to Watertown but a Mercedes SUV stolen from a civilian. Yes we heard on the scanner that they said a police SUV was stolen, but the police have since denied this. There is no room in the official story for suspect 2 to be driving a police SUV, they had their own small car + a mercedes SUV they stole from a guy at 7-11, then the police tracked them down in Watertown, this battle erupted, suspect 1 ran out of ammo and was tackled by police then suspect 2 ran him over in the stolen Mercedes SUV. That is their story, there is no "stolen police SUV" in it. This is straight from the police chief on CNN. There is no mention of suspect 2 ever stealing or being in a police SUV and no mention of cops ever shooting suspect 1 multiple times after whoever, cops or his brother, ran him over.

Thus, your argument makes no sense, you are essentially agreeing with the OP that their story does not match the witness' story without realizing it. You are brushing away the differences in her account by arguing for something that the police themselves have denied happened (that a police SUV was actually stolen) and calling people crazy conspiracy theorists while arguing for a conspiracy theory yourself because it conflicts with the official story too...

You are acting like an asshat telling people to "do their research first before commenting" when clearly you haven't done yours if you did not know that the official story from the police says that a police SUV was never stolen despite what the scanners said and only a civilian's Mercedes SUV was stolen. It's rather hilarious seeing you flaming people, telling them to do research and learn the facts before commenting, then when your own argument that a police suv was stolen gets proven wrong (according to the official story) you just change your argument with no shame for being so hypocritical and wrong and keep on flaming people. Just sad.

We don't know if the girl is right, but to brush it off just because the cops said something different is just plain stupid. Cops have never lied about anything to cover their asses right? Give me a break. Of course, it's possible she misidentified the Mercedes SUV as a police SUV, a good interviewer would have asked her to describe the SUV but unfortunately this radio jockey didn't ask anything of value, but it is certainly worth discussion because the stories simply don't match up. And as for how she misidentifies the police shooting a man who is lying in the street run over and out of ammo, well, that's certainly another mystery too now isn't it. I can understand misidentifying a car in the dark, but it's pretty difficult to be mistaken about a guy lying in the street being shot multiple times after being hit by a car...

It wouldn't be the first time cops have lied for each other to change the story and make themselves look better and cover up some possible shady # like shooting up a downed and run over suspect. Of course, even if her account is more accurate, it doesn't automatically make this whole event a grand conspiracy, it might just mean the cops maybe shot up a downed suspect and want to cut that part out of the story for obvious reasons. So whether she is mistaken or not, perhaps she is, it is worth discussing, because the only non police witness to this particular event so far has given an account which differs from the official one from police (who would have a reason to lie about if she was right). Flaming people and mocking them as crazy for discussing something interesting like this is just low.

Anyone notice he us missing his right arm from the elbow......

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Pic one was taken by CBS live at the scene when he walked from the boat, have a google, there are loads of news outlets running the same image with credit to CBS

Yeah, I am sure that The Police ordered him to exit the boat in order to protect themselves from a possible booby trapped explosive, which is smart on their part. They probably were not sure if they had killed him at that time, and I am equally sure that they threatened to tear gas him out. So then he put his pain and injuries on a time out, and made a very wise decision by jumping out of the boat.

Strange his hands are not up though. I know mine would have been. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Anyone notice he us missing his right arm from the elbow......

It might be that his hands are cuffed behind his back .

reply to post by 23432


LMAO!!!

Sorry, that was just funny. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Anyone notice he us missing his right arm from the elbow......

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by 23432

 

LMAO!!!

Sorry, that was just funny. ~$heopleNation

AS tragic as this is, I laughed too.

There ya go, no arm on the right side....

none of this is really happening. can we say cgi/actors?
(believe nothing of what you see with this, and even less of what you hear!)
we are being taught a valuable lesson in preperation for
the new and wondrous world we are on the cusp of entering.
watch the cable guy again.

we will all laugh so heartily at all this very soon now my friends.

So the question is...how did he lose his arm? Was he a victim of the explosion himself, or was this caused later on when on the run???

well it took me all of 3 seconds to find the Thread
but I do recall the police reporting a stolen police SUV, so I'm sure it's on the thread around page 7 -14 (starting at 11:48) the server crashed several times that night from the volume of pages created ( a mod said one new page every 10 seconds as I recall) so yes that was reported.


did they shoot him, and run him over, maybe, maybe not, however the naked man in the video was AFTER the shoot out (@12:36 am Pg 18) and before the boat incident, I was watching the news and was listening to the scanner at the same time. (the wife and I were each on our own PC's)

the ONLY reason the news was at the boat site was because it was a few blocks from where the media was reporting from that afternoon, otherwise we would have no video of him getting out of the boat at all.

this Thread is VERY important to show a) the confusion that was going on, and b) the timeline of the events as they unfolded.

it's a long read but very helpful to anyone that wants to make, see the timeline of events

One thing I def remember from that night was an officer casualy reporting that a pedestrian had been struck by a vehicle. It was around 245-300 if I remember correctly. As I was listening I assumed that one of the residents of the area just was wandering around/freaking out over the shooting and just wasnt paying attention. It seemed like not a big deal at the time.

Was there another pedestrian struck other then black hat?

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by 23432

 

LMAO!!!

Sorry, that was just funny. ~$heopleNation

I am talking about the picture where he is lying on his back not the one where is getting off the boat.

Now this is an interesting thread, and let me explain why:

During the night of the shootout (last Thursday), myself and many others were listening in on the police scanner.

During the chase (before the suspects and police had their major engagement on Dexter Street, where the elder of the two suspects was killed), there was a heck of a lot of confusion going on.

Police officers from around the city were joining their Colleagues as well as state troopers. They were all radioing in to command asking for descriptions, and verifying what vehicle the suspects were driving.

After a little while, there was a call in, stating that a police officer was down, and that the suspects were now driving a state police SUV. It was asked many times, as I guess the police officers were having a hard time believing that the suspects were driving a police vehicle, but it was stated many times by control and officers with eyes on, that they were indeed now driving a state police SUV.

This story however changed. During Friday, I would say between lunch time and two o'clock, a police spokesman said that the reports of the suspects driving a police SUV were entirely false, and the suspects were in a Mercedes SUV that they had 'jacked from a man earlier the previous night. This is false. Why?

Well according to police, the suspects had car jacked an Mercedes ML-350 SUV right? Can anyone tell me what this car is?














Now you have seen that car, can you tell me how it changed to this:







Interesting.

for what it's worth here is a video of the Mercedes SUV.
can't really see any and the report is kinda poor.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Lol so if they were in that car....how did one get run over by a Police SUV????
Hmmm the plot thickens

This is kind of ridiculous and straight forward.

The suspects allegedly stole a police vehicle early on. However, it is a complete MOOT point because it is known and mentioned by all sources that they SWITCHED vehicles to a Mercedes SUV which was ultimately used in the shootout with the police that the witness in the video is referring to.

If they didn't switch vehicles then the entire alegation about them claiming to be the Boston Bombers to some carjacking victim is thrown out the window and thus there is literally no other evidence linking them to the crime.

For those that say "eye witness testimony is general inaccurate", please note that said carjacker mentioned above and their testimony to police, a story which changed a minimum of 2 times, is accounted as the end all be all proof that the alleged suspects were the "Boston Bombers".



Now, with all that clarified, if the witness in the OP video did witness the shootout. There isn't really any mistaking a random SUV with a police vehicle. There are plenty of obvious differences. Even if she did get that part wrong, she still claims that the police approached afterwards and shot the guy multiple times.

In terms of "bombs" and "bomb vests", there is literally no evidence to support that either suspect had any of those besides the first hand accounts of the media. There were no witnesses, the witness in the video denies the use of explosives, and all the bombs were conveniently disposed of almost immediately as if a pipe bomb would be an immediate threat if left in tact for evidence. They use fuses fellows, but it is just so convenient that the evidence is disposed of before it can be used.

Sounds a lot like another event in our nations history where they started getting rid of everything before all the questions were answered, or even asked for that matter. But no foul play here - just keep on going on. It is only funny that when MAJOR events like this happen, all of a sudden the basic rules of investigation and evidence collection go completely out the window.

I was just thinking that myself...

If they car jacked the Mercedes, why/ how were they still in the original Honda as well?

A Mod linked to this twitter earlier in the thread:

twitter.com...

Guy was snapping photos as it went down. INCLUDING, a bomb squad robot searching the car.

Why the two cars? Why would the brothers, use two cars (Honda and car jacked Mercedes)?

The Mercedes jacking never made sense to me. Same thing with the 7/11 Robbery (which they then said, suspects were just their coincidentally, and no robbing but casually buying snacks and gas). Why would they let the Mercedes owner live, but tell the owner they were the Bombers who just killed the M.I.T. officer, then take his SUV....

So many facets to the story, it hurts my head.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


1992-1995 Honda civic four door looks like a lower trim model?

reply to post by squidboy


Also, if they were driving two cars, how were they able to throw explosives at police and fire guns, whilst staying in control of their vehicles during a police chase?

It was 100% radioed in, that the suspects were doing that from the vehicle they were in...