The Formal Charge Against Dzhokhar TsarnaevSubmitted by begintowin on Tue, 04/23/2013 - 07:12
Here is the 11 page criminal complaint against Tsarnaev: http://www.scribd.com/doc/137391129/Criminal-Complaint-Tsarnaev.
It details the observations of FBI agent Daniel R. Genck to determine probable cause for indictment.
The government’s case appears to be based on video imagery from surveillance cameras (pages 3 – 5) and as of yet unnamed eyewitness who vehicle was carjacked by two men (pages 6 – 7).
The complaint does not state the cameras recorded the actual blasts as they occurred from each of the two locations on Boylston Street. Perhaps when the jury (I’m assuming a jury trial) sees the video, it will show the detonations as they happen.
However what is interesting is Genck’s comment on page 6, “I can discern nothing in the location in the period before the explosion that might have caused the explosion other than Bomber Two’s knapsack.”
What does this tell us? In my opinion it says the video cameras did not capture the actual explosions occurring from the knapsacks. How can that be? If the cameras are running they should have captured everything in that period of time, including the actual blasts, shouldn’t they have?
Page 6 details the carjack. The victim (name to be revealed later) tells what he experienced but never gives a description of the two men who kidnapped him. How could the question, “What did these guys look like?” not be asked by whoever interviewed this victim? On page 8 the FBI agent gives his observations from reviewing the ATM and convenience cameras and said the two men were the Tsarnaev brothers but I find it odd the victim did not give a confirming description.
The complaint never states the assailants’ weapons were recovered from either the gunfight in Watertown or the covered boat, no mention of that at all. Page 9 mentions that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dormitory room at the U of M at Dartmouth was searched and a large pyrotechnic was recovered but doesn’t say what it is or if it had any connection to the bombings.
Do the Feds have probable cause? Certainly. Do they have a strong case? It would appear so. But here is what they do not have as of yet: motive and conclusive proof the two men did it.
If the defense can find pictures or videos of other individuals who placed backpacks, duffle bags, carry bags, etc. down on the ground in the vicinity of where the bombs went off then a case could be made the government singled out these two foreign born men and ignored surveillance of dozens of other potential suspects who were at the finish line.
This does not suggest the two men are not guilty of kidnapping, carjacking, attempted murder of law enforcement, etc. But it does throw a twist in the government's position of who did the bombings; I think anyways.