The US Gov Boston Bombing Conspiracy Continues: Tsarnayev Takes the Fall, the Guilty Walk

By James Fetzer PhD

From: James Fetzer

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:25 AM


Subject: Re: BOSTON SHOW TRIAL: A fake trial to cover up a fake bombing (video)

"The Real Deal special Sandy Hook update!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRMkMtjukCQ

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:36 PM, James Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> wrote:

Boston Globe tweets

by Jim Fetzer

In one of the monstrous miscarriages of justice in American history, the accused “Boston bomber” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorney, Judy Clarke, has said that he is guilty in spite of a mountain of proof that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that it was a drill and no one died. We have video of the police calling out on bullhorns, “This is a drill! This is a drill!”, we have tweets from the Boston Globe stating that “a controlled explosion” will be set off during the marathon, we have footage showing that, at the time the presumptive victims lost their limbs, there was no blood, which only showed up late on a delayed basis and was fake, Hollywood blood–so what’s going on?

Where'd your backpack go?

The Opening Statement

We even have photos of Craft International personnel carrying one of the backpacks–a black backpack with a white square–to the location where one of the bombs went off, where the backpack that explodes is a black backpack with a white square, and we have them rushing away no longer with the black backpack with the white square. This should have been a “slam dunk” to acquit Clarke’s client, since there is no evidence that could convict him and abundant evidence that exonerates him. By saying that he did it, she avoided the state having to prove its case, which it could not have done.  Her opening statement takes no account of the facts of the matter:

Judy's opening statement

She claims that “you will see in the video [Tsarnaev] leaving a bomb”, even though there is no such video, which means that, even in her opening statement, Judy Clarke is deliberately presenting false information to the jury; in other words, Dzhokhar’s attorney is lying, not to acquit him but to convict him! Given the abundance of exonerating evidence, therefore, she is completely failing to provide him with even what might pass as a minimal defense, which even a first year law student could have provided, under the circumstances. There is no doubt in this case that we are witnessing a show trial, where Dzhokhar’s attorney is further perpetrating this grotesque fraud on the American public:

Judy's opening statement 2


Where is all the blood?

Initially there is no blood

Initially, there is no blood at the scene, which would have been a physiological impossibility if these injuries had been real. As Lorraine Day, M.D., an orthopedic trauma surgeon has observed, “In the pictures taken immediately after the blast, there is NO BLOOD on the ground. That could never be. The bomb blast would have instantaneously spread blood from the victims everywhere.” It only shows up later, fake Hollywood blood that came from tubes that were still there after the fakery had ended and only refuse and debris remained.

When it shows up, its fake blood

Report to the MASSBAR

I found this behavior so outrageous that, after consulting with the Rules of the Bar for Massachusetts, I wrote a formal complaint:


Here is what I have submitted as of this date, where I expect to make additional contacts with the Massachusetts’ Bar (MASSBAR):


As a retired university professor, former Marine Corps officer, and journalist for veteranstoday.com, I have published several articles about the Boston bombing. Given my understanding that defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to provide clients with a vigorous defense, I have been stunned that Judy Clarke, the attorney of record for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has pled guilty as charged, when there is a superabundance of evidence that it was a drill and that neither he nor his brother were involved.

This is a preliminary inquiry, where I would be glad to provide additional proof, but where I have recently done a video update of the evidence in the case, including police on bullhorns announcing, “This is a drill! This is a drill!”, tweets from the Boston Globe explaining that a demonstration bomb will be set of as part of bomb squad activities and a second announcing one will be set off in one minute in front of the library (where it goes of as predicted), an absence of blood which only shows up on a delayed basis (and is not real blood but Hollywood blood) and much more.

A few months ago I was on a radio program with a rather large audience and the host suggested calling Clarke to explain the mountain of proof that Dzhokhar was not guilty. I even called her office myself and volunteered that I and the Hollywood producer/director Nathan Folks would be willing to serve as expert witnesses on behalf of her client. Nathan has identified one of the key players as an actor he had cast in one of his films and the type of filming that was taking place as “hyper-realistic”, as I explain here:

“The Real Deal special MUST SEE Boston bombing update”

By pleading him guilty, she absolved the state of proving its case, which would have been impossible, given the evidence I and others have accumulated. She thus appears to violating her client’s right to a vigorous defense and transgressing the ethical requirements of the profession. I want to pursue this. Please advise on the best way to do that. I am already planning on publishing a new article about it, but I would like to assist a man facing the death penalty when he did not commit the crime. Does the MASSBAR care about such a case?

With appreciation,


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth


Who is Judy Clarke?

While Wikipedia cannot be relied upon in politically significant cases (where it gutted my entry after I participated in the “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust” conference, but where I had a copy of the latest version, which I then published together with the new one in “James H. Fetzer — Wikipedia the free encyclopedia BUSTED!”), the entry on Judy Clarke looks just fine, suggesting to me that she is being used by the government to keep her clients silent and cover up governmental malfeasance:

Judy Clare Clarke (born 1952) is an American criminal defense attorney who has represented several high-profile defendants. She has negotiated plea agreements that spare her clients the death penalty, as was the case for Eric RudolphTed Kaczynski, and Jared Lee Loughner. In the case of Susan Smith, Clarke argued to the jury that ultimately voted against imposing the death penalty.

Raised in Asheville, North Carolina, Clarke is a graduate ofFurman University and University of South Carolina School of Law. Clarke served as executive director of the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. (FDSDI) and the Federal Defenders of the Eastern District of Washington and Idaho. From 1996 to 1997, she served as President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Judy Clarke is not the only law enforcement officer who is betraying the trust of the public. Chris Wallace, the son of Mike, interviewed the Boston Police Commissioner,  Ed Davis, who made his own contribution to reinforcing the myth that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible, when his own police were announcing, “This is a drill! This is a drill!”, where he has to know better, one more example of government officials betraying the public trust. Here is part of his interview with Chris reinforcing the claim they had used explosives:

Lies, lies and more lies


As a commentator on this absurd situation has observes in relation to the claim that the prosecution has video of him planting a bomb:

What do former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an appeals court justice, several potential members of the Boston Marathon bombing jury and thousands of regular Americans have in common? They all believe that they’ve seen a video of accused bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dropping a deadly backpack behind victims at the marathon on April 15, 2013—a video his defense said “does NOT actually exist.”

In a pre-trial hearing yesterday, Tsarnaev defense attorney David Bruck argued that the April 18, 2013, press conference in which former Boston FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers identified the brothers should be excluded from evidence. That, he argued, is because the FBI agent described the video footage that doesn’t really exist, which subsequently was used to convict Tsarnaev in the media.

The truth of the matter is Judge Napolitano, Commissioner Davis and Attorney Clarke have it backwards: the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming. Nathan Folks, a Hollywood producer and director, has observed that one of the key players was an actor he had cast in one of his films and that what was taking place is known as “hyper-realistic filming” to create a scene as realistic as possible in order to expose inexperienced soldiers, for example, to a simulation of what they might encounter in combat. But that is precisely what he saw in the Boston bombing as it played out: a simulation of an event that looked like it entailed casualties but only featured actors instead.

Let’s do something about it

I am sick of the lies from our government at the local, state and federal level. During a recent “Veterans Today Radio” interview with Stew Webb, we give out the office phone number for Judy Clarke, where I am confident that dozens of listeners called to observe that the evidence that this was a drill and no one died was overwhelming. I called and offered myself and Nathan Folks as expert witnesses on behalf of her client. We received no response, for the (now apparent) reason that she was not going to provide Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with a vigorous defense, but abdicate her responsibility as a defense attorney to serve as a lackey of the state. If you agree with me, then contact

Call to complain about an attorney

It’s usually easier to call than it is to write. But call and explain that you are contacting them to complain about the misconduct of the defense attorney for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, that you have studied the case and that the proof this was a drill includes the police using bullhorns to announce, “This is a drill! This is a drill!”, tweets from the Boston Globe about a controlled demolition about to be set off and other evidence cited in this article. Tell them you are sick and tied of the lies, deceit and deception at the local, state and federal level. This case is so clear cut that it must be straightened out to save an innocent man. Do this for the sake of our once-great nation.


Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).