RESOURCES: THE BOMBS

I intend to provide a master key with pdfs and links to all the publicly available articles and documents cited in the book, The Waltham Murders: One Woman’s Pursuit To Expose The Truth Behind A Murder And A National Tragedy. However, it has come to my attention that resources pertaining to the construction of the bombs would be helpful now.

Below is a brief passage from Chapter 25: THE BOMBS with links. I’ll provide additional context below.

Federal prosecutors in the bombing trial would later suggest there is a lingering mystery about who made the bombs and where. This sensational suggestion was introduced in pretrial hearings, in a retort to the defense, which was trying to bar the government from introducing the statements Dzhokhar made from his hospital bed, before he was read his Miranda rights. The government justified the interview citing national safety concerns. “These relatively sophisticated devices would have been difficult for the Tsarnaevs to fabricate successfully without training or assistance from others,” said the Massachusetts US Attorney’s Office in the court filing. The office also countered earlier reports that the bombs had been made at the Tsarnaev home. To make the bomb, the Tsarnaevs would have had to crush fireworks filled with fine black gunpowder. According to this government statement, investigators did not find traces of black powder in the Tsarnaev apartment—“strongly suggesting that others had built, or at least helped the Tsarnaevs build, the bombs, and thus might have built more.” The federal prosecutors’ argument naturally led many, myself included, to question whether the Tsarnaevs were assisted in the attack and to wonder whether a third party might still be at large, adding fuel to the fire of a growing bevy of conspiracy theories.

But when the case went to trial it became apparent that the government had in all likelihood introduced this theory to win an argument—not because they believed it was true. FBI Agent Christopher Derks testified on the stand that the Tsarnaev apartment “almost looked like a construction site.” He added, “There were tools everywhere.” Agents had in fact seized a soup can lid with black powder on it, as well as a drawer of nails, a pressure cooker lid, a pressure cooker gasket, tape, a hobby fuse, an igniter, wire cutters, wire strippers, Teflon tape, Gorilla Glue, and a soldering gun.

Another agent testified that the first Fagor Elite pressure cooker used in the bombing was purchased on January 31, 2013. On February 8, Tamerlan ordered a series of parts for remote-controlled toy cars, including a transmitter-receiver and a channel receiver. Then Dzhokhar borrowed a Ruger P95 pistol from a friend in Cambridge. He said he was going to use it to rob drug dealers in Rhode Island. He never returned the weapon. In March the Tsarnaevs bought another pressure cooker, paid for in cash, and drove to New Hampshire to buy gun ammunition. Around this time Dzhokhar returned again to the Cambridge apartment for spring break. Dzhokhar’s prospects were no better than his brother’s. He was flunking out of school and amassing a great deal of debt. When he met with his old high school friends by the banks of the Charles River, he said nothing of his worries when he opened up his backpack and put on an impromptu fireworks display. Everyone was laughing, like old times.

Citations:
Government’s Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Suppress Statements, Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 319, Filed May 21, 2014
Zalkind, Susan. "Is The Boston Bomb Maker On The Loose?” The Daily Beast, March 3, 2015 https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-the-boston-bomb-maker-on-the-loose
Jury Trial - Day Thirty-Nine March 25, 2015, Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1567 Filed October 16, 2015

Additional Notes: It may be helpful to keep in mind that government prosecutors are attorneys, not arbiters of truth. Just like the defense, they are trying to win an argument. There are rules but lawyers bend them. Sometimes judges hold attorneys to account, sometimes they don’t. Regardless the end result of a trial is a verdict as it pertains to a charge, not necessarily the truth and certainly not the whole truth. The truth is what journalists are supposed to pursue with skepticism.

In legal proceedings, context is crucial. Questioning a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights is a big deal. If a suspect is not Mirandized, their account is usually thrown out. The government had to argue that there was a public safety exception to use Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s hospital bed interview and investigative leads gained from that account in court, including the damning footage of the young bomber lackadaisically buying milk at Whole Foods after the attack. Again, this context is crucial when questioning the government’s initial statements about the construction of the bombs and I would direct those questions to the Massachusetts United States Attorney’s Office.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before and delve into at length in the book, in the wake of the bombing officials were confronted with theories, not facts. In this way they were able to deflect criticism at large and discredit those speaking up. There is a lesson here for those seeking to hold those in power to account. For example a close read of the 2014 inspector general’s report makes clear the FBI is hiding something. But that was not the narrative reporters latched on to when the report first came out and has yet to spark any real outrage or concern, from what I have read.

The book also cites Real Enemies by historian Kathryn S. Olmsted. Olmsted asserts that a conspiracy theory is nothing more than a theory about collusion “that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven.” As Olmsted points out, conspiracies do happen, and fears about wrongdoings and cover-ups are not without precedent. The government propagates their own “conspiracy theories” too. Olmsted points to Watergate and the pretexts for the Iraq War, for example. The problem isn’t the theories, writes Olmsted; it’s the people who come to “believe in their theories the way zealots believe in their religion: nothing can change their mind.”

I also address the work of philosopher Brian L. Keely and his paper “Of Conspiracy Theories” in which he argues that people latch on to theories out of a deep-seated desire to make sense of a seemingly chaotic world. “Conspiracy theorists are, I submit, some of the last believers in an ordered universe,” he writes.

Finally, the book notes that the Russian propaganda outlet RT News was the first to put forth an ordered conspiratorial narrative in wake of the attack.

As I told Lawyers Weekly, as best as I can tell, the narrative that best fits the facts, “is one of systemic rot, not of an order at the top pulling all the strings… it’s one of a series of coverups and convenience, and people in power doing what best suits their political careers rather than the safety and reassurance of the public.”