18 votes

Eyewitnesses: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Did Not Shoot Boston Cop

Eyewitnesses to the shootout involving the alleged Boston bombers have thrown up another contradiction to the official narrative, asserting that MBTA Transit Police Officer Richard H. Donohue Jr. was not shot by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev but by other cops in a friendly fire incident.

Previous media reports had blamed the Tsarnaev brothers for the shootings of both MIT campus police officer Sean Collier and Donohue, feeding the narrative that the suspects were engaged in a desperate attempt to flee police by returning fire and throwing improvised bombs.

http://www.infowars.com/eyewitnesses-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-did-n...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This is old news

The police said the MBTA officer may have been hit by friendly fire over a week ago.
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/25/authorities-inves...

Some people on here were trying to say the MIT officer that was killed was the one hit with friendly fire, but this was a cop who was shot during the Watertown shootout. They still say Tamerlan shot the MIT cop and Dzokhar told them they did to try and get him a gun, but the officer's holster had a locking mechanism they couldn't figure out to get the gun. Besides every witness that saw what happened say they were throwing explosives and shooting at the police, so it's not like they weren't trying to shoot or hurt the police.

http://youtu.be/wNE5GERcMk0

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/51726102#51726102

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/watertown-man-captures...

And yes, it may be old news to us on Dp, but AJ gets over a

million hits a day and that means this old news is being spread to a wider audience. AJ is going mainstream like Drudge. Look how many Infowars articles Drudge has been linking to lately. People who never heard of AJ are going to his site daily now.

I didn't mean for you to take

I didn't mean for you to take offense at me saying it was old news. Others were making comments that were thinking this was something the police were hiding or denying, and that they were going to pay off people to keep quiet about it. I was just trying to point out to those people that the police already acknowledged that the MBTA officer may have been shot by friendly fire over a week ago and that it wasn't something they were trying to cover up.

And until we see video from the two surveillance cameras at

M.I.T., we should not assume they shot the MIT cop and go by what the police reported: a 5'5, 120 lb Black male wearing dark clothing and a black North Face jacket. http://www.dailypaul.com/284875/video-boston-police-radio-mi...

So we "go by what the police

So we "go by what the police reported" right after it happened, but not now after they had a chance to look at the surveillance camera they said to look at on the recording you provided? Where did that original description come from, who gave that description? Why should we only take the first word of the police before they investigated it, but not now after they have?
I remain open to any information or evidence that contradicts that the brothers shot the MIT cop, but it is currently my belief they did it. I think the evidence there is now, points to them. I believe they wouldn't say they had "Surveillance camera video shows the two suspects creeping up on Collier's squad car from behind", if they didn't have it. I say that not because I believe everything "officially" stated, I say it because I think other MIT cops who were friends and co-workers with Collier had to see the video(s) and I don't see why MIT cops would lie about the death of their friend. I think Collier's family and the other MIT cops would speak up if they believed they did not have who was responsible of killing him.

But like I said, I'm open to changing my mind if evidence arises (like the surveillance video) that contradicts my current belief.

You don't get it. They won't show us the surveillance video.

Just like they won't show us the surveillance video from the brand new system they set up in front of Sandy Hook showing Adam Lanza walking up to the building.

The cops ran him over.

Remember on the night of the shootout woman called in and said a police SUV with flashing lights ran him over? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XoXo6...

Then the head cop guy more or less corroborates her story when he tells CNN they fooled the suspect by rolling out an empty SUV. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/cop-fooled-bombing-sus...

That woman is the only

That woman is the only eyewitness I know of that says that, every other eyewitness I've seen say it was the brother (as you can see in the links I left in my "This is old news" reply). And I don't see how the head cop story corroborates that one woman's story, he said it was at the beginning of the shootout and never says anything about it running over Tamerlan.

you have to becareful with witnesses

If someone adamantly suggests what had happened in the presence of witnesses that same witness later will claim to have seen the exact same thing and even believe it to be true. It's easy to contaminate witnesses especially if witnesses watched the news and believe that the news generally tells the truth. Such a contamination will often change details or fill in the blanks for a witness making them unreliable. Haven't you seen those experiments where a pretend robber comes into a seminar or college class and when he runs out people are asked what they saw? Have also seen those experiments where a false witness will mingle among the crowd and plant false testimony on what he'd seen only to then cause other people to unknowingly incorporate his false information into their eyewitness account?

It's pretty interesting stuff

Yes I know. Andrew Kitzenberg

Yes I know.

Andrew Kitzenberg was live tweeting the about the shootout and took pictures, so his account is "uncontaminated". Also the picture he took that he says is of the SUV right before it speeds off and runs over Tamerlan does not show an SUV with flashing lights, it shows what looks to be an all black SUV to me. So I am going off of every witness's account but one and pictures as to who ran over Tamerlan.

Yes, I know

it was the Watertown shootout cop. That's what the article said.

This is what happens-

when the media and the government control the story... And if you weren't there, who knows what the hell happened? Just accept and know they're full of it, and not subject to change.

The same thing happened here

The same thing happened here in UT a while back. Cops ran a no-knock paramilitary style raid on a veterins house and he defended himself not knowing it was police.

There was evidence the cops got hit with friendly fire but the courts suppressed it and wont let the defense legal team investigate the house for the trial.

http://www.today.com/video/today/45883063

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Nothing will make the cops angrier

than to hear "officer down"! After that the brothers really didn't have a chance.

When police are pursuing suspects and one of them goes down, it really doesn't matter why. The intensity level goes waaaayy up. Even if the suspects didn't do it, the reason for the blue on blue is the suspects fault.

What matters now is that the truth comes out. A professional thorough investigation should reveal the truth and the departments can withstand this tragedy without laying blame falsely. (I pray)

My fear was that it was a J.D. Tipton event.

If the truth sets us free, then lies keep us enslaved!

Recovered bullets will identify weapon used.

-

Free includes debt-free!

They probably have already done ballistics

They don't have to release the evidence unless the guy goes to trial. Media are saying defense team aren't going to do a defense case or have a trial. It will cost the State too much money. They are only concerned with keeping him out of the electric chair and will present it to a judge.

Ballistics are done

and if it was from the suspects gun, (if they had guns) you could be sure that would have been reported. The silence is deafening....

RP R3VOLution

What will shot officer's families do?

A large bonus to keep quiet?

Free includes debt-free!

What difference at this point does it make?

My feeling, that's exactly what the family is being told.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

You guys do know that the

You guys do know that the police said over a week ago that the officer might have been shot by friendly fire, right? They are not hiding it and giving bonuses for families to keep quiet like you guys are talking about.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/05/06/bu...