01-05-2013, 06:29 AM
Boston Bombing: (video) Man Explains FBI Deleted His Photos of Bombing Scene While They Still "Searched" For Suspects
Posted on April 29, 2013 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
A commenter left this link yesterday. It shows a teacher of some sort talking to a classroom about his trip to the Boston Marathon. He draws out a little map on the whiteboard explaining where he was when the bombs went off. At around 4:00 mark of the video he mentions the fact that the FBI claims they have some photos "they don't share" when answering a student's question and then adds that he had some photos of the crimes scene on his digital camera and the FBI showed up a day and a half after the bombing at his home and demanded to see his camera. He complied and they erased them.
"A day and a half later an FBI guy comes over and says "Give me your camera". I says I got 2000 family photos on here. "Give me your camera" and I said OK. And he went through it, he went to the pictures I had just took (sic) of the crime scene which was right outside the hotel where the bomb, bomb one and bomb two (refers to the map he drew) went off, and he went and deleted everyone of them. He said "You can have all the rest". I got pictures of 25 ambulances lined up all ready to go. Guardsman, policemen, police cruisers all over the place."
Notice he doesn't say the agent carefully reviewed them for any evidentiary potential they might have possessed in the fledgling investigation not 48 hours old. He says the FBI agent went through and simply deleted them.
That is not an investigation, that's a cover-up.
Now keep in mind, this was a day and a half after the bombing according to this substitute teacher. The FBI had yet to make their big announcement regarding their suspects. Presumably this is Wednesday, the same day they supposedly got the heavily drugged Jeff to tell them what they wanted to hear about the suspect they had known for years. And the FBI was making the rounds deleting photos?
I take every statement like this one with a grain of salt but I have no reason to not believe this man or this video's authenticity as of yet. He doesn't make the statement with malice and he clearly believes the brothers did it but as you can tell from the video he did seem a bit perturbed and frustrated about why the FBI would delete his photos of the scene.
If accurate, this video goes a long way to explaining a couple of things namely why so few photos exist of the scene and the truer nature of the FBI "investigation" into the bombing prior to releasing the images of the two unknown suspects they had known for years.
This man is simply yet another witness to this terrorist act. To me he has more credibility than the "secret" witness/victims "Danny" who's story has changed at least twice thus far. There is no possible justification for the FBI to have been spending time and resources during their initial investigation sending out agents to delete the property of various witnesses on scene rather than collecting those images and studying them for the purpose of catching the perpetrators. It shows that early on, before they made their announcement and possibly even before they supposedly spoke with Jeff in his drugged out stupor, there was no investigation taking place and only an effort to cover tracks.
.
.
UPDATE: I have decided to add a comment I wrote concerning …
The Future of Photography in the Defense of the Homeland
Think about this:
In response to the child porn industry and the problems caused by the internet conspiracy theorists, the government, working in conjunction with industry, has decided to include uplink software and components to everyone's digital cameras (your new Iphones already have them) which, for national security reasons and in the interests of the children, will send live feeds to various public/private monitoring firms (Israeli of course) who will monitor your images as they are taken. Images of crimes or child porn will be reported and the GPS chip in the cameras will alert local authorities. In cases of terrorist acts, in order to preserve the integrity of the crime scene, cameras in the area will be universally shut down except for those belonging to authorized public/private agencies. Once the private citizen leaves the area, the camera will be turned on at a minimal fee automatically deducted from your linked mandatory bank account.
In announcing this national security policy, the government, with due assistance from the digital camera industry leaders, will be offering a buy-back plan, funded by the taxpayers of course, which will take in older digital and film cameras in exchange for new, linked ones, providing the people a substantial discount. This of course in the national security interests and proves the government's commitment to ending child porn once and for all. After a set date, possession of pre-linked cameras will be illegal punishable by hefty fines paid directly to industry leaders and prison sentences to be served in privatized prisons where they make the linked digital cameras paying prisoners 3 pennies an hour.
So if you aren't committing a crime with your camera, what do you have to worry about? Why not give up some of your freedoms for security, right? And after all, it's a computer that will be looking through your personal pictures (or prisoners in New Jersey jacking off to your family pictures and selling them to other prisoners across the country… after all, business is business). What harm is there in that? are you a terrorist? Are you anti-business (which translates to "terrorist" by the way) Do you support the conspiracy theorists like Rachel Maddow says? You had better listen to Rachel Maddow. She's gay you know. Then why not?
Now that's a "conspiracy theory" these guys can get behind,huh?
Posted on April 29, 2013 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
A commenter left this link yesterday. It shows a teacher of some sort talking to a classroom about his trip to the Boston Marathon. He draws out a little map on the whiteboard explaining where he was when the bombs went off. At around 4:00 mark of the video he mentions the fact that the FBI claims they have some photos "they don't share" when answering a student's question and then adds that he had some photos of the crimes scene on his digital camera and the FBI showed up a day and a half after the bombing at his home and demanded to see his camera. He complied and they erased them.
"A day and a half later an FBI guy comes over and says "Give me your camera". I says I got 2000 family photos on here. "Give me your camera" and I said OK. And he went through it, he went to the pictures I had just took (sic) of the crime scene which was right outside the hotel where the bomb, bomb one and bomb two (refers to the map he drew) went off, and he went and deleted everyone of them. He said "You can have all the rest". I got pictures of 25 ambulances lined up all ready to go. Guardsman, policemen, police cruisers all over the place."
Notice he doesn't say the agent carefully reviewed them for any evidentiary potential they might have possessed in the fledgling investigation not 48 hours old. He says the FBI agent went through and simply deleted them.
That is not an investigation, that's a cover-up.
Now keep in mind, this was a day and a half after the bombing according to this substitute teacher. The FBI had yet to make their big announcement regarding their suspects. Presumably this is Wednesday, the same day they supposedly got the heavily drugged Jeff to tell them what they wanted to hear about the suspect they had known for years. And the FBI was making the rounds deleting photos?
I take every statement like this one with a grain of salt but I have no reason to not believe this man or this video's authenticity as of yet. He doesn't make the statement with malice and he clearly believes the brothers did it but as you can tell from the video he did seem a bit perturbed and frustrated about why the FBI would delete his photos of the scene.
If accurate, this video goes a long way to explaining a couple of things namely why so few photos exist of the scene and the truer nature of the FBI "investigation" into the bombing prior to releasing the images of the two unknown suspects they had known for years.
This man is simply yet another witness to this terrorist act. To me he has more credibility than the "secret" witness/victims "Danny" who's story has changed at least twice thus far. There is no possible justification for the FBI to have been spending time and resources during their initial investigation sending out agents to delete the property of various witnesses on scene rather than collecting those images and studying them for the purpose of catching the perpetrators. It shows that early on, before they made their announcement and possibly even before they supposedly spoke with Jeff in his drugged out stupor, there was no investigation taking place and only an effort to cover tracks.
.
.
UPDATE: I have decided to add a comment I wrote concerning …
The Future of Photography in the Defense of the Homeland
Think about this:
In response to the child porn industry and the problems caused by the internet conspiracy theorists, the government, working in conjunction with industry, has decided to include uplink software and components to everyone's digital cameras (your new Iphones already have them) which, for national security reasons and in the interests of the children, will send live feeds to various public/private monitoring firms (Israeli of course) who will monitor your images as they are taken. Images of crimes or child porn will be reported and the GPS chip in the cameras will alert local authorities. In cases of terrorist acts, in order to preserve the integrity of the crime scene, cameras in the area will be universally shut down except for those belonging to authorized public/private agencies. Once the private citizen leaves the area, the camera will be turned on at a minimal fee automatically deducted from your linked mandatory bank account.
In announcing this national security policy, the government, with due assistance from the digital camera industry leaders, will be offering a buy-back plan, funded by the taxpayers of course, which will take in older digital and film cameras in exchange for new, linked ones, providing the people a substantial discount. This of course in the national security interests and proves the government's commitment to ending child porn once and for all. After a set date, possession of pre-linked cameras will be illegal punishable by hefty fines paid directly to industry leaders and prison sentences to be served in privatized prisons where they make the linked digital cameras paying prisoners 3 pennies an hour.
So if you aren't committing a crime with your camera, what do you have to worry about? Why not give up some of your freedoms for security, right? And after all, it's a computer that will be looking through your personal pictures (or prisoners in New Jersey jacking off to your family pictures and selling them to other prisoners across the country… after all, business is business). What harm is there in that? are you a terrorist? Are you anti-business (which translates to "terrorist" by the way) Do you support the conspiracy theorists like Rachel Maddow says? You had better listen to Rachel Maddow. She's gay you know. Then why not?
Now that's a "conspiracy theory" these guys can get behind,huh?
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass