Boston investigation-changing facts

[Emeagwali, Gloria (History)]

RSN
The Changing Facts in the Boston Investigation

By Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon

27 April 13

Important details like the suspects' weapons, NYC plans and the shootout keep changing. It's fueling conspiracies.

[http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-I.jpg]n the aftermath of massive, complicated crimes it's not uncommon for a bit of crucial information to be immediately put forward by police, only to be contradicted later on. While it's understandable that initial leads and assertions might end up being wrong in a dynamic situation like the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, wholesale contradictions can encourage skepticism of the motives of those releasing inaccuracies - as with initial, false reports that Osama bin Laden hid behind his wife<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/administration_backs_off_tale_of_osama_bin_laden_using_wife_as_human_shield.php> when U.S. forces shot him. Another effect of changing details can be to encourage conspiracy theorists who latch onto inconsistencies, and to undermine trust in authorities.

Now, almost a week after the Tsarnaev brothers fought a rolling street battle with dozens of heavily armed police officers, we learned Wednesday night that they had only a single handgun, according to sources who spoke with ABC News<http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/single-gun-recovered-accused-boston-bombers/story?id=19028841#.UXlD9itATag> and the AP<http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/officials_bombing_suspects_had_one_gun_during_shootout_with_police_ap/>, something that directly contradicts what officials had previously said.

Here are some of the biggest changes to facts released in this investigation:

* Suspects' arms - After the manhunt, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the brothers were "heavily armed<http://www.necn.com/04/21/13/Ed-Davis-Tsarnaev-brothers-heavily-armed/landing.html?blockID=838511&feedID=11106>" and numerous reports detailed a fairly extensive arsenal. According to a New York Times report<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-hoped-to-attack-again.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all> from April 21 citing a law enforcement official, "The authorities found an M-4 carbine rifle ... two handguns and a BB gun." Now unnamed sources say there was only a single 9mm pistol between the two brothers. Indeed, photos<http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures> of the shootout suggest only one brother had a weapon.

* Boat gunfight? - Police initially reported that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fired on police when they found him hiding in a boat Friday night. "It was back and forth<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/watch-watertown-police-chiefs-epic-minute-by-minute-account-of-deadly-manhunt.php> ... yes - he was firing," Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau told CNN Saturday (though the FBI cautioned at the time that only federal authorities had official information). In its definitive "tick tock<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-investigation-of-the-boston-marathon-bombing/2013/04/20/19d8c322-a8ff-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_print.html>" of the events, the Washington Post reported that the suspect inside the boat "was shooting back." But later, the Washington Post and the AP reported<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-boston-suspect-had-no-firearm-when-barrage-of-bullets-hit-hiding-place/2013/04/24/376fc8a0-ad18-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html> yesterday that Tsarnaev was unarmed when police found him after what what was described as a gunfight. As it turns out, police may have been spooked by an errant shot, and fired into the boat, but apparently zero shots came out.

* 7 -Eleven and the MIT officer - Initial reports suggested the brothers tried to hold up a 7-Eleven, and then killed an MIT officer who either responded to the robbery or just happened to be in the area. But days later, authorities revealed that the holdup was committed by different suspects and the confusion was caused by the close proximity of the two events. It's still unknown exactly why the brothers killed the police officer.

* Carjacking - Some reports indicate that the person whom the brothers carjacked escaped<http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bombing-suspects-guns-20130421,0,7433177.story> while they inexplicably went into a store to buy snacks, while others say the brothers let the victim go<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-officials-hospitalized-bombing-suspect-says-he-and-brother-acted-alone-motivated-by-religion?lite> because he wasn't American. It's also still unclear which brother stole the black SUV, and which drove the Honda that followed.

* Trip to NYC - What the suspects did after the bombing remains a mystery, but one detail that emerged was that they were planning to head to New York City - to party<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/boston_bombers_planned_kelly_party_U1expKkxMJWlfm01uqiuyO>. That's what New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said yesterday. But today, NBC News reports the brothers discussed trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square, but that the plan was not well developed and "aspirational at most<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17914667-officials-boston-suspects-discussed-second-attack-in-times-square?lite>."

* Perimeter - As the New York Times reported<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/officers-killing-spurred-pursuit-in-boston-attack.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0&hp&pagewanted=all> Wednesday, "Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter."

We'll update this post as more examples emerge.

Professor Gloria Emeagwali
Prof. of History & African Studies
History Department
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain
CT 06050
africahistory.net
vimeo.com/user5946750/videos
Documentaries on Africa and the African Diaspora

[Mobolaji Aluko]

My People:

My own questions:

1.  Is there any doubt that the Tsarnaev brothers did the bombing - one as prime planner, and/or the other as co-conspirator?

2.  Is there any doubt that one of the Tsarnaev brothers, the older one is dead, following a gun-fight?

3. Is there any doubt that the other Tsarnaev brother, the younger one,  is living, having been found bleeding inside a boat?

Some of the other details - or lack of it - of this case are interesting, but distractive.

And there you have it.

Bolaji Aluko

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
   For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
   For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
   To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
   unsub...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[dayoal...@yahoo.co.uk]

Dear all. With the changing facts and incoherent statements from the US police and other security networks on Boston bombing, I have my doubts that the Tsarnaev brothers were the brains behind the bombing. It is difficult to relate the reported fierce exchange of gunfire and the killing of innocent policeman to the boys who were said to be in possession of a pistol. It will be recalled that doubts were earlier raised by the parents of the boys and other concerned commentators. There is need for a more detailed investigation and a centralized system in the dissemination of security information. Prof. Dayo Alao.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: Mobolaji Aluko <alu...@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:02:51 +0100 (BST)

To: USAAfrica Dialogue<usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Boston investigation-changing facts

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (alu...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

[MsJo...@aol.com]

Really? What doubts about the fact that the two goons committed terrorist acts? Even if they were not brains behind the bombing, does it change the fact that they must be held liable for their heinous crimes? What does one expect the parents to say? There is no changing of the narrative. They killed the police before hijacking the car - these happened before the exchange of gun fire.

 

MsJoe

 

In a message dated 4/28/2013 9:28:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dayoal...@yahoo.co.uk writes:

Dear all. With the changing facts and incoherent statements from the US police and other security networks on Boston bombing, I have my doubts that the Tsarnaev brothers were the brains behind the bombing. It is difficult to relate the reported fierce exchange of gunfire and the killing of innocent policeman to the boys who were said to be in possession of a pistol. It will be recalled that doubts were earlier raised by the parents of the boys and other concerned commentators. There is need for a more detailed investigation and a centralized system in the dissemination of security information. Prof. Dayo Alao.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: Mobolaji Aluko <alu...@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:02:51 +0100 (BST)

To: USAAfrica Dialogue<usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Boston investigation-changing facts

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (alu...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

[deha...@uic.edu]

Bolaji

And I would add that these details are also irrelevant.

Kwaku Mensah
Chicago

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: Mobolaji Aluko <alu...@gmail.com>

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:07:55 +0100

To: USAAfrica Dialogue<usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Boston investigation-changing facts

[dayoal...@yahoo.co.uk]

Msjoe. I just read your comment. I will advise that you follow the contradictory security reports on Boston bombing story. Mobolaji Aluko's comment could be a useful guide. Dayo.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: "MsJo...@aol.com" <MsJo...@aol.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:27:20 +0100 (BST)

To: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Boston investigation-changing facts

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (MsJo...@aol.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

[kenneth harrow]

there are two more things:
their motivations have only been clarified over time, with no contradictions emerging: they subscribe to a radical islamist position that calls for attacking the u.s., and their own origins in dagestan, of chechian stock, are commensurate with that position for many people of that unhappy region.
i.e. we know what they thought and where they were from
the conspiracy theories are not an indication of some truth concerning them but of the paranoia that marks public discourse at the edges. they are ciphers onto which people can project whatever they need to believe, thus sustaining them in their delusions.
in fact, we all live with comparable delusions: they are called "ideology" by althusser, and we are all "in ideology." that is the condition of living in society with its ISAs, and in recognizing ourselves through the discourses that we replicate/hear. when we hear the discourses of others, we might find them mildly interested, but not compelling.

just consider the back and forth over biafra (still!!) on the listserv to appreciate how it isn't simply a difference of opinion, but of some larger world we inhabit and reproduce. how powerfully our identities depend upon acceptance of those ideological interpellations, and their reproduction, can be seen in the passionate nature of the language used in dismissing the views of the other, those inhabiting another ideological space.
we can imagine how a Boko Haram adherent would respond to most of what is presented in our space. i am glad they would be using words and not bombs.
unfortunately, from words to bombs, we wind up on the streets of boston, with tragedy.

ken

-- 
kenneth w. harrow 
faculty excellence advocate
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
619 red cedar road
room C-614 wells hall
east lansing, mi 48824
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu

[Biko Agozino]

Bro Ken,

Your take on ideology is rather narrow, partial and superficial. Ideology is not only 'delusional' even in the mind of the crazy Althusser who died in a mental asylum. You appear to be doubling down on your trashy discourse of virtual reality that brother Jude Akunobi cautioned you against and about which sister Gloria Emeagwali has raisef a red flag (I just started reading your 'Trash') by suggesting that ideas belong to 'Western decadence' (p.42) as if the rest of us are coconut heads.

You have a point, as in the critique of the nationalism of the 'German Ideology' by our internationalist brother, Marx, but.... Ideology is also capable of being inspirational and liberative especially according to the Marx, say, when education is consigned to the loony bin of ideology by the left and the right alike: thew ideological nature of education means that it is contested by the forces of domination and the forces of liberation, it is far from your simplistic code of delusional trash.

Glad that you saw the link to genocide denialism in this discourse but you were mistaken to suggest that ideologists are entitled to their own facts. In Europe, holocaust denialism is not just an ideology but a serious crime that is punishable in many jurisdictions. The ideology of law allows the contestation of interpretations but the fact that millions of innocent Africans were genocidized in Biafra is an established fact. The ideological contestation is about what will be done about that fact in the present and not whether it happened. Reactionaries say that the Biafrans asked for it, progressives say that there is never a justification for genocide and so reparations for the survivors are the least that could be done in pursuit of justice under the ideology of Ubuntu or Mbari. Rather than focus on the vengeful ideology of punitiveness, we could refocus on the healing ideology of reparations.

Having been at the receiving end of racialized, gendered and class-specific terrorism for centuries, people of African descent should be always alert to the hidden ideologies of terrorists but militarism seduces many into focusing only on how to crush oppositions with the right of might. In Nigeria, for instance, anyone who tells you that Boko Haram are only animated by their adherence to the religion of the book neglects a crucial ideology of ethnic or tribal hostility that dates back to the colonial days with a clear focus on the scapegoating of their fellow working class and artisan Igbo with whom they could have united to uplift the Talakawa and the rest of the Nigerian masses as Azikiwe, Aminu Kano, S.G. Ikoku, Bala Usman, Chinua Achebe, Balarabe Musa, Gani Fawehinmi, Fela Kuti, Eskor Toyo and Wole Soyinka attempted.

Hopefully, Boko Haram intellectuals will join the debate on this forum by recognizing that the crisis in Nigeria is an educational crisis at its root. As soon as the people are educated for liberation and not just for domestication and domination, the genocidal rage against fellow citizens will be transformed into informed political mobilization for social justice for all irrespective of racial, gender and class contradictions.

That is the educational deficit in the ideology of the Boston Bombers who mistook people of African descent as their mortal enemies in their delusional pursuit of white supremacy disguised as a religion of the book. In Black Reconstruction in America, Du Bois also wondered why the working class whites allowed themselves to be mobilized against African Americans when the poor of all backgrounds could have united, irrespective of the ideology of race and gender, to ensure more progressive policies for all such; as the policy of publicly-funded education that was the result of black initiatives in the south in the face of stiff opposition from poor whites who did not know that it was also in their interest.

Biko

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 10:50

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Boston investigation-changing facts

[kenneth harrow]

dear biko
i seem to have touched on a raw nerve.
it seems wrong to me to defend my book against your attack. it is so misplaced and silly, i wonder if there is benefit to others to hear it.

my take on ideology, is a separate issue. when i say we are in ideology, i am using althusser, not marx. but when i say it is "delusional" you are taking this as if it were a criticism of you, whereas i am saying we are all in ideology. the posting the other day by chidi said it quite well, and your anger reinforces his notion that we are locked inside a world of ideology
the question for me is, what happens when we develop an awareness of that notion. that question is posed by both marx and althusser, both of whom had inadequate notions of scientific knowledge that freed them from ideology. i don't agree that science or consciousness or higher consciousness, or any equivalent term, makes such sense and removes us, at some metalevel, from thinking within an ideological frame, from seeing ourselves and realizing ourselves in acknowledgment and recognition of the interpellation of the ideological call.
there is nothing western about this, or the valuation of ideas over materiality, though i plead guilty to attributing this notion to the platonic tradition. but then, i was discussing ranciere and it happened to fit with his argument. that you imagine i am calling this a traait of the west is entirely your imagination; there is no "western decadence" phrase on page 42. and even if it were, no one is saying ideas belong to the west alone! what an incredible assumption!

in this case, embracing an idea, seeing the world through an ideological lens, may be inevitable, but it hardly means all ideological views are equally acceptable, are equally valuable to everyone. i hate certain ideologies, like fascist and racist ones. no one is arguing anywhere for some kind of namby-pamby liberal relativism: you have created a red flag where none exists. but to say we are all in ideology is simply to say that the world, reality as such, only makes sense to us through the lens of understanding that ideology colors. i never said anyone is entitled to their own facts. my friend, you are misreading, and worse attributing notions to me that are not there.
you are annoyed since i find the notion that the boston bombers were attacking because they were racists. well, go on. that seems a pointless argument to pursue to me, but whose to stop you? i will ask gloria and jude to vote on it tomorrow.
ken

[Biko Agozino]

Ken self, where you see anger for my response? Me I no get time for anger o. I have nothing but love for all, not just for some, even when I disagree with certain trains of thought or conduct. One Love!

Sorry, your 'western decadence' lies (as in 'liar, liar, pants on fire') on page 40 where you suggest that 'free play' is derived from the west by African cinema and assert that postmodernism is a western idea when Derrida insists that it is indeed an African system of thought that he was privileged to inherit following his birth and repression as a little dark and very Jewish African raised in Algeria under the Vichy regime that stripped him of his citizenship at the age of 10.

Annoyance? You are attributing to me the stereotype of the angry black man whereas I follow Madiba Mandela who told the astonished Clinton that if he lets anyone to deprive him of the ability to love all of God's children, then he is letting them deprive him of his basic humanity. Seriously, where did you see anger and annoyance in what I intended as reparative Ubuntu or Mbari logic? You no well o.

Biko

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 20:34

[kenneth harrow]

hi biko
i see the passage, and let me put out here what i wrote. feel free to disagree--after all, we all are playing here. glad to hear you have no time for anger o. i like the o. the o is kind of free, right?
 i wrote, "free play was long associated with western decadence, or its derivatives, eventually vilified a postmodernism. Djibril Diop Mambety's free spirit, from the marginalized figures in Badou Boy to Anta and Mory in Touki Bouki enegendered confusion and rejection in African audiences until the powerful return of Mambety with his decidedly less 'experimental' Hyenes."

so, i stand by what i wrote. I say free play was "associated " with western decadence, i.e., thought of in those terms, and i say it was vilified as postmodernism. if you want to claim that postmodernism and free play, essentially the term jameson made popular, was openly accepted in african critical circles not to mention audiences, i disagree.
if you want to locate postmodernism in africa because derrida was born in algeria, go ahead. that is pointless play, not free play. i am not claiming anything for the west, not "ideas over the material" or anything; i am talking about intellectual movements that were more popular in some places than other.
the notion that "western theorizing," i.e. poststructuralism, deconstruction, postmodernism, was misapplied when used to interpret african literature and cinema, has been there for decades, and has been the subject of enormous fights.
biko, i was there when these fights occurred. believe  me or not. i believe that the claim i made above is not only correct, but obvious. have things changed now? yes, but mostly because "theory" done finish, and in its place are people writing about new materiality, new views not from "above," but from "below"--my word for trash, which i embrace.
i promise not to get angry, but when you attribute to me the notion that africans are coconut heads who have no ideas, that is, well, really a low blow. but i would simply say, a misreading. my words and thoughts never would embrace such notions. as my quote above shows, i was alluding to the popularity of postmodernism and notions of free play in the west and its relative unpopularity in africa, at that time. no one could deny what i said about mambety, which is my example.
ken

[Biko Agozino]

Bro Ken,

Make you no vex. If you yab me and I yab you, God no go vex. You hear? No vex o! The o is for emphasis. It is a common exclamation in broken and in vernacular.

Thanks for the clarification below. Your readers will be happy to know that the discussion of ideas and western decadence, that started on page 40 with the brief quotation you reproduced below, continued until page 42, according to your index. I will wait until I have finished reading Trash before I trash it. Make you wait, I dey come. But I no go vex for you. If you want vex, make you vex. That one no concern me.

The recognition of the African origin of deconstruction is not based exclusively on the testimony of Derrida but also on texts like African Fractals by Ron Eglash, the book on Obama's first presidential campaign by brother Horace Campbell and the work on fractals by our brother Bangura. Just because the westernized intellectuals react negatively to the non-lineal geometry of African fractals does not mean that the system of thought is alien to Africa. Those same African intellectuals are proud of the materiality of their Japanese and German cars, showing that whatever they love is not necessarily African. They will be the ones leading the burning of African shrines in preference for alien religions as baba Soyinka reminds us, showing that whatever they reject is not necessarily un-African.

Just like the invention of writing, deconstruction was invented in Africa, according to Derrida. If you disagree, take that up with his specters. If you want to see where I elaborated on this 'annoying' or 'angry' connection that you may have failed to see and which is therefore non-existent to you because you fail to see it (some logic there), then check out this review: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-8_1/v8-1-agozino.html

The idea that Africans have no original thought of their own is hardly new and to call it out in any guise is far from a low blow. I am glad that you say that you do not share such a prejudiced view and that is precisely why I was surprised to see any resemblance of colonial mentality in your text. Of course, the author is not fully responsible for the interpretations that readers may bring to bear on the text. But to claim that the author understands the text best is to offer an authoritarian theory of interpretation.

Just a reminder, I was challenging you to be more critical of Althusser on ISA the way Stuart Hall suggested in his essay on Althusser and Ideology. To say that the family, education, the media and religion are all ideological state apparatuses is to deny the agency of the relatively autonomous civil society that continues to struggle for hegemony over these social institutions. To say that debates over the crime of genocide are ideological is not to deny that genocide is an established fact of history. To say that terrorism is motivated by radicalized religiosity is not to deny that it has no links whatsoever with racism.

Biko

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 9:58

[kenneth harrow]

dear biko
i missed your response till now, hence the belated reply.
first, i owe you a debt of gratitude for taking my work seriously. that's really all i can ask for.
i agree the author doesn't control the reader's interpretation of the text, so all i can voice is my surprise at the notion that i was making any claims about "ideas" belonging to the west, or to any culture. by "ideas" i mean the realm of ideation, and ultimately the privileging of the idea(l) over the material.
the origins of deconstruction don't really concern me, not in the text, or as a point of debate. i do love the work of derrida and have, in past years, found inspiration in deconstruction. but that day is long since over, and it is not relevant to my central issues of trash.
lastly, althusser is not the l ast word on ideology, to be sure, and i was not saying that because we are "in ideology," that there is no material reality out there. it is just that our access to it, that is, to our understanding of it, is mediated through our ideological identities.we see and construct the world within our ideological frames.
as for race and the marathon bombers...., i am off that topic for good, o
ken