A recent article (hat tip Henry) in Who.What.Why. (WWW) brings up the old bugaboos about the FBI role in the Marathon Terrorist Attack (MTA). I have identified these before.The manner in which the FBI acted after the bombing made no sense in my experience doing investigations. On top of that in view of the FBIs traditional manner in which it handles investigations by keeping everything in-house and telling the public nothing it was an outlier.
The WWW article inexorably drags me back into that case. It is impossible to conclude that Tamerlan was not an informant. His unimpeded 6 month trip to Russia from which he returned in July 2012 after being listed in the federal data base as a potential terrorist in itself tells much. Yet even that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Here is what vexed from the early days. The bombing took place on April 15, 2013, near three in the afternoon. We know the slaughter that was caused: three dead, over one hundred with lost limbs, and thousands others injured and traumatized. It was quickly obvious two bombs had been detonated within 12 seconds and about the distance of two football fields from each other.
The FBI and others undertook to find out who were responsible for these attacks. FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered every office in the world to back up Boston. In existence at this time was the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) run by the FBI which had on it members from other police forces. The JTTF was supposed to be a cooperative venture but as with all FBI dealings with others that cooperation usually flowed like the Mississippi only one way: information went to the FBI, little trickled out. These groups are created to give the FBI complete protection from other major police agencies getting a jump on it in the terrorism area. The FBI members of that JTTF never told the others of the Russian communication in March 2011 identifying Tamerlan as a potential terrorist.
As with the shooting of Major Heinrich Strasser the immediate reaction of those leading the search for the bombers would mirror that of Captain Louis Renault who told his men: “round-up the usual suspects.” That would mean every person in the area who had any connection with terrorism would be identified and located. Tamerlan should have been at the top of the list.
In the meantime, hundreds of law enforcement agents began to examine the thousands of photographs and videos which thanks to cell telephones have become ubiquitous. The next day after the bombing on the 16th the public was briefed on the ongoing investigation. Hungry for news each briefing was watched by millions; hungry for publicity the briefing room was crowded with politicians and prosecutors anxious for exposure.
One person to whom all seemed to defer was the FBI special agent in charge (SAC) Richard DesLauriers. We were only told so much; the investigation continued in the background.
At 5:20 pm on April 18 SAC DesLauriers announced they had photographs and videos of the bombers. He said: “Today, we are enlisting the public’s help to identify the two suspects” and explained “the quality of the photos is quite good.” These were not the grainy video we saw the other day with the killing of Usaamah Rahim Anyone who knew the Tsarnaev brothers was able to identify them.
Prior to this identification, you may recall the odd event on April 17, 2013 when it was reported by the media that a suspect had been identified dropping a black bag, was arrested and was being brought to the waterfront courthouse. All rushed to that court as helicopters circled above. A Boston Globe reporter who gets much information from the FBI said she was told by two sources that had happened.
I have always asked that if Tamerlan was known to the FBI at the time of the bombing which he was then why was the public showing of his photograph necessary. Keep in mind the FBI initially denied it had any relationship with Tamerlan but only admitted it after his mother in Russia said it had contacted him. She said the FBI “were controlling him, they were controlling his every step.”
The WWW article points out that the FBI director lied when he answered if the FBI had information on Tamerlan prior to the time of the Russian tip-off on March 4, 2011, when he answered “I don’t believe so.” Being pressed he then said: “Wait, wait, wait. His name had come up in two other cases.” That’s something you would not forget.
And this. After the public release of the photographs but before the big chase that night teams of FBI agents were observed in Cambridge by Cambridge police. The FBI could not deny their presence. It released a statement: “The Joint Terrorism Task Force was at M.I.T., located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 18, 2013, on a matter unrelated to the Tsarnaev brothers.” We are supposed to believe that during in the biggest terrorist attack and most massive manhunt in the nation in recent years teams of FBI agents were involved in doing something else. One wonders whether they were execution squads attempting to keep Tamerlan from exposing his relationship with it.
All of this leads to one conclusion. The FBI is not on the level when it comes to this matter. The only reason that explains this is that it was using Tamerlan as an informant and he double-crossed it. Or was he doing as the conspiracy theorists allege what he was supposed to be doing which is keeping Americans frightened.
The burden is on the FBI to disprove this. We need the truth. If it lied about this, how can we trust it in anything else.
Looking for a Longer Jail Sentence? Cooperate with FBI!
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/06/18/looking-for-a-longer-jail-sentence-cooperate-with-fbi/
Henry:
Everyone should know by now of the perils of talking and cooperating. The taxi driver from Quincy who just got 2 1/2 years because he reported his knowledge about the Tsarnaev’s became a target of the FBI. One of his suspicious moves was not immediately calling the FBI with the information but going to the local police the next day after their identities appeared on TV. I’d put out a warning to all that they should not talk to an FBI agent even with a lawyer but that might be interpreted as hindering the receipt of information by a federal law officer with a 20 year penalty so I certainly won’t say anything like that. (I best put in a disclaimer: “I urge all to follow the federal law relating to the transmittal of information to the FBI.” )
You see how our free speech seems suddenly less free. By the way did you know the Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland.
couple of reads
How the IRA set up an arms deal with Boston gangster James …
http://www.independent.ie/…/how-the-ira-set-up-an-arms-deal-with-boston-gangs...
Feb 24, 2013 – It states that prior to becoming an FBI “informant”, Bulger had no dealings with the IRA. It says: “The truth was that on the night Whitey signed on as an informant … C4 explosives for the IRA, according to Steve Flemmi (Bulger’s …
Intelligence on Omagh bomb ‘withheld from police’ | UK news | The …
http://www.theguardian.com › World › UK News › Omagh bombing
Aug 7, 2013 – In the case of the events running up to the Omagh bomb, it is now clear … They were David Rupert, an American who was run by the FBI, and …
Missing: cover
MS:
The independence article is based on what Stevie Flemmi allegedly said. It is nonsense. Pat Nee was the connection with the IRA out of South Boston. Whitey had very little interest in the IRA according to Nee. The authors wrote: “”The truth was that on the night Whitey signed on as an informant there was very little he could have given (FBI agent John) Connolly on the IRA. Up to that point, he had merely donated relatively small amounts of money to Irish Northern Aid, or Noraid, the IRA’s main support group in the United States.” Whitey didn’t become an informant until 1975. Nor was Connolly looking for anything on the IRA.
The book went on:
“But now that he had the FBI in his pocket, his involvement quickly intensified. It became more than giving cash, it became a hands-on thingWhitey first sent a small consignment of weapons to the IRA, then prevailed upon a friendly FBI agent to acquire C4 explosives for the IRA,”
Nee said of Whitey that his commitment to the IRA “seemed shallow and insincere.”
The book indicates Whitey got involved in helping the IRA after meeting with Joe Cahill upstairs at the Triple O’s. Nee tells how in the early 1970s “an Irishman named Joe Cahill showed up at a bar now known as the Triple O’s. If the bar had not become the Triple O’s then it was the Transit Cafe which was owned by Donald Killeen until he was murdered in May 1972 and probably did not become Triple O’s (owned by the 3 O’Neill brothers) until 1974. Whitey had no access to upstairs at that time.
The book has Cahill meeting Whitey, Nee and Murray at the Triple Os. Murray did not come into the picture until the 1980s so much in the book is fiction. Weeks who was Whitey’s side kick mentions sending guns to the IRA but never mentions C4. Believe me if it had happened and if an FBI agent gave it to him Weeks would have mentioned it.
The whole story has no legs.
If you weave in the Waltham murders, and, the interstate pain-pill trade to Boston gyms, (Todashev on the Florida end), things get even murkier. Tamerlan’s relationship with the G, has the potential to be more embarrassing than anything that happened as a result of Fed interactions with JB. it’s a story that just won’t die. Keep on digging.
Asking the public’s help in identifying the culprit even if they were pretty sure who it was would assist in gathering more evidence and more intelligence, would it not?
How do the terrorists behave when they think they are not known to authorities? How do they behave when they know they are about to be identified? Who calls in when the pictures are shown? Who doesn’t call in when the pictures are shown? There are people who would contact authorities to assist in identification, but would who would not call in if they knew something but figure the authorities are going to convict anyway so why get involved.
Once an identification wouldn’t some of the intelligence flow stops or slow down. When an apprehension, is made wouldn’t it stop further still? Of course apprehension has to be the highest priority to protect public safety.
This is all purely conjecture on my part. That’s why all of the question marks. I’m just trying to point out that a lack of forthrightness or appearance thereof does not always mean sinister motivations on the part of authorities.
Kerry:
Good questions but the overriding concern it seems to me is to get the person or people and then go through the other steps. Here, there is no question some in the FBI office in Boston could identify Tamerlan.If those agents were not there then someone could have gone through their files of suspected terrorists in the area and came up with his identification. The failure to apprehend ASAP will cause the suspect to go into hiding or flee. To me, it would be criminally negligent to delay apprehending two people who set off a terrorist bomb and pretend that the identification was uncertain for the purpose of gathering more evidence or hiding prior involvement.
Then you have the problem of the FBI teams in Cambridge the night the identification was released. How do you explain during the biggest investigation in the nation’s history since 9/11 there are groups of FBI agents doing something unrelated to the bombing who happen to be in the same neighborhood where the bombers reside.
You make good point as to reasons for delay but in the particular case here I cannot agree.
1993 1st World Tradew Center bombing created by Ahmed Salem.
FBI handlers Anticev and Floyd
1995 Oklahoma City truck bomb detonated in front of Murragh building
to misdirect attention away from satchel charges detonted inside the
building as identified by bomb designer Brigadier General Benton K
Partin. Timothy McVeigh was identified as a FBI informant handled
by FBI supervisor Larry Potts by co defendent Terry Nichols and
deathrow inmate Paul Hammer. Larry Potts was involved in the Ruby
Ridge coverup. Other FBI informants invilved in the bombing are
the subject of a lawsuit against the FBI brought by attorney Jesse Trentadue.
Mumbai attack in India created by FBI informant David Headley
FBI handlers not identified.
Omargh bombing in Ireland used C4 explosives provided by Whitey Bulger
courtesy of Boston FBI office.
FBI informant David Ruppert was inside the ring of bombers.
read Cheri Seymour’s Committee of the States.
MS:
Sometimes you can go too far in linking things in. I do not comment on the Oklahoma City bombing because my knowledge of that is limited as it is with Mumbai. I have a little knowledge of Whitey and Ireland and there is not evidence that FBI supplied C-4 explosive to him to ship to Ireland.
Matt: More evidence needed here. An alternative narrative is that the FBI blew it by failing to properly investigate this guy and now wants to conceal that fact.
Dan:
That the FBI story that it blew its investigation. That is impossible to conceal but it justifies it for some reason or another for instance they say the information about the Russian trip was given to an agent by customs verbally and it wasn’t followed up on by the FBI insinuating also that the custom guy or gal is also to blame for doing it informally.
Here’s what you cannot explain. Why in this case unlike any other the FBI did not work with its agents to see if any knew who they identified as the bomber. That is an elementary step and we know some agents in the office knew him. Next, why didn’t they go to their files which I assume contained photographs of Tamerlan from the prior investigation and identify him from them if the agents who interviewed him and his mother were not around which is unlikely given the urgency of the matter. And finally, would the FBI have teams of agents in the small city where the suspects lived on the night they publicly identified them working on something else? If you can give an alternative explanation for it failing to ask the agents to ID them and for the teams being in Cambridge I’d like to hear it. (At a minimum I’d have liked someone to ask the FBI that.)
* Intelligent … though of course a ” lug ” or two or three are amidst us. Why not I say 🙂
It definitely lied about this. They had the photos of the two bombers no later than Tuesday. They had daily press conferences scheduled. Yet the Wednesday conference was cancelled. They had two days to invent the story that they needed the publics help to i.d. Tamerlan. No one in the Boston FBI office was asked to look at his photo. They had an active file on him as a terrorist. At least a dozen people in that office could have identified him. The Congress should summons all 400 employees of the 2013 Boston office and ask them under oath what happened. Were they shown the photo or not. If not then who withheld the display? Your instincts are right about this. If you have widespread corruption in the FBI and at the DOJ ( Wyshak) the system is broken. 2.One has to remember what happened in Benghazi. Just after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed a story was concocted by the Administration that a spontaneous demonstration had occurred in response to a You Tube video. They found it imperative to deny this was a terrorist attack. Their political strategy was to downplay terrorism during the re election campaign. They kept repeating this false account for weeks. The facts showed over 100 terrorists with AK 47s and mortars attacked the compound and an annex. It was anything but a peaceful demonstration degenerating into a riot. Fabricating stories so your department’s public perception remains positive is standard operating procedure for the Feds. A scheme of dishonest, bogus stories is repeated in Boston as it was in Libya.
NC:
1. That they had people who knew him, had to have had pictures of him in their files, and had teams of agents in the Cambridge area allegedly doing something else during this massive manhunt in my mind condemns the FBI. I would like to know why that happened. The only reason I can offer is the agents were protecting the FBI by hiding Tamerlan was an informant. Sadly, there is no one to set the matter right. We saw what Congress did the last time it investigated the FBI (the investigation that turned into a witch hunt against Billy Bulger). It came out with a scathing report which pretended that it was only the Boston office that had problems and the problem had been cured. There is no recourse against the FBI. Judge Wolf for all his blemishes did what no other judge had the courage to do and force open its files. Of course this would not have happened if Flemmi had not said he was an informant and if he did not have media support because the target was a person that they disliked. The real problem is we saw what happened in Boston but the other 55 offices have hidden what they do; you cannot limit your investigation to one of fifty-five offices and say it is bad and assume the others are not. I suggest if each of the others came under the same microscope you would find they were all similar to Boston.
2. Benghazi is beyond my ambit. I have not been following it that closely but what you suggest I believe is accepted by all is that it was a major terrorist attack and the people in the administration including Hill_Billy knew about it and lied about it. That’s clear. Then we see Hill_Billy hid her emails, is still resisting in producing them, the State Department is going along with it, Sidney Blumenthal has separate emails between him and Hill_Billy over it that have been hidden; Hill_Billy was being advised by Blumenthal about what to do and despite her years of deceit and deceptions she is going to become the U.S. president that way things now stand.
Janet, Don’t be a stranger to the assembled. I have always admired your principles, acumen as a Constitutional Scholar, and …. the feel. .. you had for things as a juror. Like myself MTC is occasionally irascible, but always fair. You have much to say I believe. You are among intellugent friends here. So relax, and flow with the thoughts as they work their magnetic currents to Truth’s surface !!!
Matt,
The FBI lost it’s credibility regarding truthfulness long ago. Their despicable involvement and cover-up to protect Joe Barboza in the Teddy Deegan murder by going along with the conviction and imprisonment of four innocent men, clearly revealed that they will do anything to accomplish their goal. And, according to testimony in a Congressional hearing — the knowledge of the FBI’s depravity in this matter went all the way to the top!
The Bulger Trial fiasco further revealed the depth of deceit within the FBI and DOJ as a whole. Bulger’s criminality is a given. But, what of the criminality of members of the FBI and DOJ? It seems the public was enticed to ‘forgive and forget’ when it came to the revelation of their involvement in the Barboza cover-up. But, perhaps if it’s further revealed that the FBI did ‘protect’ Tamerlan Tsarnaev because of his relationship to them, the American public will stir from their lethargic state. With the image of a young child and two young women being blown up, and so many mutilated, I should hope the citizens of this state and the nation will demand punishment for those who stood by and let it happen!
Yet, my experience is that humans become excited in the moment, but quickly lose interest (especially if action is required to make changes!) After all, didn’t John Martorano murder a teen-age boy and girl? (along with at least 18 others that he confessed to). Now, thanks to the sweet deal given him by the DOJ, he lives a normal life in a normal neighborhood — and none of his neighbors know he is a mass murderer! And, let’s not forget the sweet deal Stevie Flemmi got — millions in assets and savings returned to him. Why? Because in all probability he was released from prison after the Bulger Trial on a Rule 35 Motion. Who cares about the many he murdered, including the step-daughter he frequently molested? Certainly, the DOJ wasn’t too concerned. Accomplishing their goal was what mattered — and they would cut a deal and release anyone who helped them achieve this goal (in this case, the conviction and imprisonment of Connolly and Bulger).
To discover that the FBI and DOJ are still in the business of doing whatever it takes to obtain what they want is, tragically, no surprise. The surprise is that anyone still believes they are truthful. The thorough investigation (and punishment) of the DOJ is long past due. When will Americans care enough to insist that it happen?
Janet:
Did not recognize your name at first but thanks to response by John I now do. I thought of you when I saw that Bob Fitzpatrick had been indicted because I seem to recall you were impressed by his testimony. I wondered what your reaction would have been.
I’m not sure the Barboza matter was as bad as you suggest or the Congressional hearing was not eventually compromised by its fear of the FBI but I won’t go into that now. You may want to keep in mind that what you refer to as the “criminality of the FBI” involves it having established the top level informant program which still exists today. It was that program that you saw at work when you sat at Whitey’s trial and listened to the witnesses. It was not a secret within the FBI that Whitey and Stevie were informants in that program; it is only when Stevie revealed it that the public first knew of it.
Your hope people would be upset is probably misplaced; the attention of the public is on other things other than the operations of the government. Even more fundamental is there is no way the FBI will ever reveal the truth in this matter nor is there an outside force capable of inquiring into it.
I am struggling to figure out if the FBI today is what J.Edgar Hoover intended. Hoover had a way of doing business that those who followed tried to duplicate; but the people who were put in charge are not of Hoover’s caliber and form a protective society where they are only interested in protecting themselves.(I’m not talking about the directors because as one person noted Rudolph Guiliani said the only way he would take the job is if he could come in with his own team because the director is only a figure head) You only reach the top positions inside the FBI by becoming a fearful toady which is one of the reasons the Bureau had major problems. The real reason it will never change is that it has so many agents that buy into the system along with the former agents association that is set up to insure that it continues as it is.
You may see that if that is the case a guy like Fitzpatrick (who is not my cup of tea) but did not deserve to be indicted when he fell out with the FBI was in deep trouble because those who are vested in the status quo are happy he is being taken down. Of course the same thing happened with Connolly who is still in prison because it was easy to pretend he was a rogue agent than to accept that the system itself is a rogue system.
Thanks for writing.
Matt,
I was out of the state when Bob Fitzpatrick’s indictment came down. Many called to inform me. I was literally sickened by it. Since the trial, Bob has become a friend. Think what you might about him — I find him to be one of the kindest souls I have ever encountered. Putting everything aside that Wyshak is claiming Bob lied about — the bottom line is that Bob’s testimony was very important — and wasn’t in line with what Wyshak wanted the jury to hear. Bob determined, quickly, that Bulger was not an informant and needed to be removed from that status and made a target. Had his written and verbal assessment been considered, many crimes would not have been committed; and more importantly, many lives would not have been lost. (And, as you recall, Desi Sideropolous, who worked as secretary for the SAC for over 60 years, corroborated Bob Fitzpatrick’s story of submitting a written report of his assessment to the SAC.)
The fact that Bob Fitzpatrick is being crucified while John Morris is rewarded is beyond comprehension — and beyond the scope of human decency.
Janet:
We do see Bob differently and it is best to leave it like that. But as you know I too thought his indictment was outrageous and stated in this blog. Nothing Bob testified to that is alleged not to be the truth was material to the issues being consider. Bob did testify in response to a question in cross-examination by the inept Kelly that his book was a memoir which does not mean it is exactly correct, as I understand the term, but it is the way he remembered things. That was the basis of his testimony at trial which was how he remembered things. There is nothing to show he was not telling the truth; that his memory may have not been four square with other matters is irrelevant.
What is truly disgusting about the perjury indictment is that Wyshak’s witnesses were lying all the time. Even more so is that the outcome of the trial was a conviction on the matters that Fitzpatrick testified to. Usually if things work out all right and you get a guilty a prosecutor will forget the testimony of witnesses at variance with the facts.
There’s an old story about a judge named Daisy Donohue. He was in the middle of a jury trial. At lunch he walked to downtown Dedham a short distance from the courthouse for a sandwich. On his way back he was approached by a juror who exclaimed: “judge, there has been perjury in that trial.” He smiled and said, “that’s where you’d expect it to be” and continued on his way. If every person who testified was subject to perjury because his or her recollection differed from the facts believed by the prosecutor there would be few witnesses who did not end up in prison.
Matt, you are exactly right! Wyshak’s witnesses were lying all the time. Many in jury deliberations would not accept their testimony to decide a verdict — and often, that’s all that Wyshak gave us—.