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

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes you were and still are guessing (see in situ)

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.")