14 votes

The Formal Charge Against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Should consider this the "arrest warrant"

You should consider this the "arrest warrant", since after all that, they didn't bother to get one - and they needed it. So after 7 days of being a suspect without lawful ability to be detained for the bombings, they file something. It is exactly the separation of powers between the police - who can only arrest for crimes they actually see - and the judges - who issue arrest warrants - and for people's houses, search warrants - that prevents us from having a police state. Throw in the unlawful use of military and federal jurisdiction being used *in* a state, and this is how a military dictatorship looks like in any third world country. The police and military runs things and you have no rights.

This is a model for how any city in America will be shut down by the government, brought to you on America's birthday, with everyone knowing about it beforehand, happening right when Obama and Feinstein were trying to pass gun control.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I was looking at this, it details the bomber 2

(ie. defined as Dzhokhar) as taking off his backpack. It doesn't detail bomber 1 (defined as Tamerlan) taking off his backpack. Last part I see on bomber 2 is "Approximately 15 seconds later, he can be seen passing in front of the Forum restaurant...His knapsack is still on his back." (@bottom of page 4)

As I have read your comments

It just seems to me like you are desperately looking for anyway to possible to be able to say these guys are innocent. So it doesn't specifically say in the formal charges that they have video of the detonations, it doesn't say they don't either. We don't know yet. From this article it seems they have multiple videos and photographs.

I have two kids, I have an 8 year old daughter and a 5 year old son. When these videos come I'm not sure I really want to see them. Just thinking about seeing some sick fuck sitting a bomb down by a little boy and walking away, I don't want to see that detonation. It's described as chilling, and I can imagine why.

These pieces of shit have never claimed innocence. There's already other evidence of their guilt, like eyewitness of a victim who lost his legs, running from the police, throwing explosives at police. I have seen no reason whatsoever to defend these pieces of shit. I don't doubt at all the possibility of them being aided and provoked by some informant or something, but that doesn't make them any less guilty pieces of shit to me.

You sir, are a danger to

You sir, are a danger to yourself and others...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.


Informative rebuttal to anything I have stated, great contribution to the discussion.

MrBengal, Despite Your Hyperbole I am Not Defending Anyone

I have merely written facts, not conjecture. I have clearly shown what the complaint contained, what was observed and what was not seen. I never suggested the accused did not commit these crimes, only the fact the complaint as written did not provide convincing proof they did the bombings. I stated there is probable cause for indictment and the government has a strong case against the defendant.

You sir, overacted. In the United States of America, people charged with criminal acts are innocent until proven guilty with testimony and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the standard. At this point from what we know there is reasonable doubt and no motive has been revealed to the public so far.

As a follow up, ABC news is reporting the investigators have what appears to be a confession from the defendant but we have not seen anything to confirm it (see: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/simple-boston-bomb-plot-hatche... ).


I was a little harsh in my assessment, but it was an honest assessment from the feeling I got from reading your post.

"I never suggested the accused did not commit these crimes, only the fact the complaint as written did not provide convincing proof they did the bombings."

Is that not conjecture there? Where are you deriving that statement from? You are guessing from the statements in the complaint that they don't have evidence that they very well may have, we don't know yet. That is exactly what conjecture is. I think it has been well proven here on the DP that what constitutes as convincing proof is an opinion.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions but I just don't see any reason whatsoever to doubt their guilt, especially when they apparently aren't even claiming innocence.

No, My Statement Was Not Conjecture

Conjecture implies inconclusive or incomplete evidence, in other words, guesswork. I was not guessing or theorizing anything. I stated the obvious fact the complaint did not provide proof that connected the two men with the devices that detonated because there has been no documented evidence that we know of so far that shows the knapsacks the two men had in their possession actually exploded. As I wrote earlier the FBI agent deduced the two men did it from what he saw in the surveillance video. But it's not conclusive.

Also, keep this fact in mind. We haven't been shown the chronology of the events that shows a continuity of time, meaning we have not seen date/time stamps associated with the videotape. If I was the defense attorney I would exploit this fact unless further review showed the chronology associated with the video recordings. Gaps in the image capture evidence offer a defense by introducing reasonable doubt (i.e., "Agent Genck, is it possible there were dozens of other people wandering around the finish line wearing the same color and style of backpack as the two defendants? Is it also possible that someone else could have placed the bombs around the same time as witnessed in the videos? Isn't it a possibility the government is prejudicing the defendants because they are Muslims?)

See where I'm going with this? Establish reasonable doubt is all the defense has to accomplish in the minds of the jury. This tactic would force the prosecution to explain with further circumstantial evidence why they focused on these defendants and not other people who could just as well been the bombers, too. This will not be an easy case for the government despite all the media attention given to this tragedy.

Lady Justice must always remain blind and deaf to emotional rage and only hear and "see" the facts of the case. I'm sure you as an American and a father can understand it regardless of the temptation to judge guilt solely based on events indirectly related to the bombings (kidnapping, carjacking, etc.) but not necessarily relevant to the federal charges in the complaint.

For your homework (just kidding) read the novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee or watch the movie. You'll see how Atticus Finch almost won his case.

Yes you were and still are guessing

"As I wrote earlier the FBI agent deduced the two men did it from what he saw in the surveillance video. But it's not conclusive."

Where does anything say this? That the FBI agent deduced they did it, and it's not conclusive? I just read it twice and can tell you for certain it does not state this. Look at paragraph 14 in his affidavit, sure sounds to me like they have everything for Bomber 2 on that tape. No that is more of your guessing or conjecture.
What it does say in paragraph 4 of the Affidavit of the Special Agent, is that the complaint does not include each and every fact known to him about the investigation, only what is sufficient to establish probable cause.
Declaring reasonable doubt and preparing defense strategies for the defense attorney when you know for a fact that you don't even know what all evidence they have, is guesswork.

I Will Make This As Simple As Possible For You To Understand

The complaint did not demonstrate convincing proof the defendants committed the bombings because there was no evidence presented that shows the backpacks exploding, that's all I said. I did not say it was necessary in order to establish probable cause, only that it was not conclusive for guilt.

Let me offer a similar scenario. You see man number 1 with a handgun and he is approaching man number 2. You hear gunfire and man number 2 lies on the ground, shot. You see man number 1 walking away without the gun. You did not see man number 1 shoot man number 2 only the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Your reasonable conclusion is that man number 1 shot man number 2 but you did not actually witness the shooting. Probable cause: yes, conclusive for guilt: no.

Item 14 described the defendant (bomber 2) as observed by FBI Agent Genck, leaving the knapsack and 10 seconds later, the bomb goes off.

Then in item number 15, Genck writes, "I have observed video and photographic footage of the location where the second explosion occurred from a number of different viewpoints and angles, including from directly across the street. I can discern nothing in that location in the period before the explosion that might have caused the explosion, other than Bomber Two's knapsack."

Here he is clearly saying that in his opinion he saw nothing that could have been the detonating device other than the knapsack. He did not say he saw the knapsacks BLOW UP from the video surveillance, only that he suspects the knapsacks contained the bombs that detonated. Although it is sufficient evidence for probable cause for indictment, it is not conclusive because he has not said, "I saw the backpacks blow up." Perhaps when he testifies in court he will say that but it was not stated in the complaint.

You are correct that item number 4 clarifies there may be other facts of evidence not disclosed in the affidavit. This was not necessary for the agent to say; it was used to suggest to the defense the prosecution has other evidence, possibly more damning that will come out during discovery. Basic litigation strategy is not to tip your hand until necessary.

Finally in paragraph 4, second sentence of my original post, I did write that when the jury sees all the video it may show the detonations ("Perhaps when the jury (I’m assuming a jury trial) sees the video, it will show the detonations as they happen.")

Well well

one of them is dead and one of them can't speak so that might be the reason you haven't heard any of their claims yet.

Sorry pal

Quoting an NBC news story does not legitimize anything. This boy is a suspect and he is innocent until proven guilty. This is America and we are supposed to follow due process for justice. Do you not believe in our way of life??

I was just pointing out that

I was just pointing out that the boy has been interviewed and isn't denying guilt. You can believe whatever in the hell you want.

We know the major news

We know the major news agencies are just a wing of TPTB.
I personally will not believe a word of this until there is a statement from him directly, his aunt, or his attorney confirmed by his aunt or him. With that there better be some damn good evidence as well.

This government has made a mockery of our great country and its laws forged from centuries of oppression. 9000 cops ad how much money and a local had to call them to come back to house to get the guy after being ordered locked in his own home with the entire rest of the city he live in.

Sad sad sad... Incompetent or criminal I don't care which the TSA and its mandates must go. We're richer, freer, and safer with the terrorists.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.


It is my understanding that Tsarnaev has been formally charged with "exploding a weapon of mass destruction". I always thought the WMD designation was reserved for things like nukes and chemical weapons. When we were searching for WMDs in Iraq, were we also looking for pressure cookers? I guess that in modern America, its citizens cowering in fear, just about anything can be designated a WMD.

It's a color of law

It's a color of law definition.

The federal government also has no jurisdiction in this case, so that is the least problem.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.