FourthBase » Thu May 21, 2015 6:35 pm wrote:
Meanwhile, can one of you specify a time (to within, say, five seconds) -- on that series of carefully edited stills and film sequences -- when we can clearly see that Dzokhar T. and / or Tamerlan T. definitely has no rucksack? Cos I'm sick of looking in vain. This isn't the first time I've asked, and it really shouldn't be a hard task to fulfil, since this concoction is so "smoking gun", or so you claim. ("Smoking gun" enough to fry a boy for.)
What I expect you to counter with is that the bag could have been tucked away on his right side in just such a way that the camera could miss it. It's possible. Improbable, but possible. What's way more probable is that there's no bag. The bag was bulky. (Yes, bulky enough to contain a pressure cooker.) As he jogs right to left, we get a view of his profile that partially rotates. The chance that some part of the bag wouldn't have been visible in those five seconds is low. Ah, but maybe it blended in with the darkness of his clothes? But now, isn't the lightness of his bag compared to the darkness of the exploded bag with the square white tag supposed to be evidence implicating the National Guard team? You can see a woman holding a purse jogging in that same time span, so I expect to see at least a tiny glimpse of his bulky light-colored backpack. There's none. What it looks like is a dude with his arms in a typical jogging/running position, bent at the elbows, unencumbered by any object like a backpack.
FourthBase, I was going to respond to this point-by-point, but really, what would be the point? Your post already dismantles itself. It crumbles on touch. Out of the entire nine minutes of those surveillance-video extracts -- and after four requests from me -- you cite one (in figures:1) five-second sequence -- and then you admit that it doesn't show what you and others (most notably the prosecutors and the vile media) have claimed it shows!
NB: This is their best evidence.
This is the very best they can come up with. This is the strongest evidence they can produce out of all the surveillance film from several different cameras. And it is very carefully selected and edited. (Why so many stills
of Tamerlan, for instance? They're from a video camera, right? So why do they extract only stills for our perusal?) FFS.
Smoking gun? It is a wet fart. It is a joke, but a joke in very poor taste. It is a joke that will be used to fry a boy, while Boston cheers and gloats.
In any case: Even it did show one or both of the brothers dropping a bag (it doesn't) or leaving the scene without a bag (it doesn't), it would still only prove... what, exactly? Nothing. Except that one or both of them had lost a bag at a bomb scene. (They weren't the only ones. I see at least one other backpack lying around there.)
I would not fry an egg or hang a coat on "evidence" that weak. (That non-existent, to be precise.) You would fry a boy on it.
FourthBase wrote:What I expect you to counter with is that the bag could have been tucked away on his right side in just such a way that the camera could miss it.
Damn right. And what's more: "To have an objection anticipated is no reason not to raise it." (Alasdair Gray, 1981) Because anticipation and rebuttal are two very different things.