JB: Why is "Danny" still anonymous? Why can't we ask him these questions directly and clear this up once and for all?
RB: Well, of course, that is exactly what we at WhoWhatWhy wanted to know. We asked to speak to him, offered even to protect his identity if we could just try to help get the narrative clear. Via various people who did have access to him, our request was denied. It's, as any detective would say, "very strange, at a minimum."
Btw, another of many national security events where there was a super rush to shut down everything and create instant consensus on what had happened was the "bagging of Osama bin Laden" -- see our concerns about that story and how it was handled, at:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/08/17/raidbinladen/
JB: There are definitely more questions out there than good answers. In your recent two-part series on the marathon bombing, you offer various excuses "Danny" has given for his continued anonymity. Can you talk about that as well as the appearance of what seems to be a media handler?
RB: Sure. Because Danny is so central to the public perception of what happened, it seemed to me that the authorities would push to identify him and have him tell his story openly. Instead there seemed to be a concerted effort to get his story out with zero accountability. So we studied the reasons for this. He seems to have indicated various reasons, not necessarily mutually exclusive but worth reviewing: he was worried that the Tsarnaevs had friends on the loose who would exact retribution against him, he didn't want his mother to find out that he was the carjacking victim so she would not worry about him, he is a modest person who doesn't want publicity. Off the top of my head I think there were other purported reasons. as we lay out in the articles, there are serious reasons to doubt these bases, including, for example, the fact that he has his own startup and almost anyone in that position would welcome a chance to be instantly famous. But the other reasons are worth looking at too.
JB: I hate to be a cynic but could it be that he's holding out for a book deal or something of the sort?
RB: As an author, I'd say that would be foolish. The only moment to capitalize on that would have been when every eye was on him.
JB: So, how do you explain his continued anonymity? And the lawyer who accompanied him?
RB: I get the distinct sense that, as in other cases where the FBI is involved, they urgently want to control the narrative. For a lot of reasons we lay out but I don't have time to recap here, there's a good basis to believe that FBI etc are engaged in yet another in a long series of coverups. Why that is--what it is that they are so afraid will come out, is not yet clear. But we would do well in focusing on the established fact that the FBI had directly interacted with the Tsarnaevs long before the bombings. As for the man who accompanies him, he is NOT a lawyer, but a professor of criminology. One thing I found strange about him was that he seemed little interested in actual criminology, including figuring out what really happened on April 15. He was very much part of the consensus building effort. In our second of the two articles, we briefly profile him, and his strange behavior. Of course, when you take a close look at academia, you do find often strong relationships with the government.
JB: So, how will we ever get to the bottom of this, Russ? And while it's good to keep our minds open and keep asking questions, what good does it do if the public is stymied at every turn?
RB: This is very simple. If a majority of people are led around by their noses, repressive forces can continue to turn up the heat. This is".dangerous. We all have to take an interest, and we have to try and educate our fellow citizens so they do not decide things based on lies. I always tell people to read about or communicate with those who experienced a society turning into something authoritarian or totalitarian. There are steps on that path. If people are not vigilant and do not seek to attain and share the truth, we are all complicit in our doom. Caring and paying attention is not just civic duty. It is sanity.
JB: I'm currently reading The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe [David Kertzer, Random House, 2014] right now. I'm at the part where the Fascists built and consolidated their power through intimidation and violence and ultimately silenced the opposition. While we're not at that point yet, there are definitely some disturbing echoes around that deadly and dangerous stifling of dissent. Thank you for continuing to doggedly pursue the truth. Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
RB: Just that I appreciate OpEdNews and you for taking the interest in subjects others tend not to touch. We need that kind of commitment to truth over all. Also that WhoWhatWhy intends to continue to do work on this and other urgently important stories about where our country is headed, and welcomes ideas, tips and leads, and, of course, as a nonprofit depending solely on the public, on donations so we can field more reporters. Thanks very much, Joan!
JB: We will avidly follow your updates on the bombing and other critical stories. Thank you so much for talking with me again, Russ. It's always a pleasure to see the press doing what it's supposed to be doing, for a change!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
