Observations on the National Geographic Boston Marathon Bombing Documentary

I have been saying for months that I find suspicious the timing of the release of the National Geographic documentary about the Boston Marathon bombing. I believe the making and release of this film before trial was a deliberate attempt to fill in the holes of the official narrative in order to influence (taint, sway) the jury.

In preparation for this post, I decided to do a little research about documentaries in general. Wikipedia defines a documentary as “a non-fictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record.”

During my years in the corporate world, I built a solid reputation based on one word – accuracy. I was known for it then and I strive for it now, first and foremost.

Knowing that a documentary exists as a true and factual account of a real person or event, I would have had a problem making such a film when all the facts were not yet in and calling it a documentary. If someone had come to me and suggested such a project before the trial, (hint, hint, wink, wink), I would have refused, hands down. My integrity would not have allowed me to respond otherwise, no matter how much money was offered or who was doing the asking.

The film is called “Inside the Hunt for the Boston Bombers.” I decided tonight that it was time to watch it.

When I sat down to do so, I expected to take lots of notes. During the film’s one hour and twenty-six minute run time, I only wrote one – the words that appear onscreen at the very start of the film:

“This film contains dramatization based on witness accounts.”

I already knew the film contained dramatization. Debate has swirled around that fact for months. I knew no scene would be more important to scrutinize than the one where Dzhokhar is shown setting his backpack-containing-a-bomb down behind children. That reenacted scene was so convincing that many people believed they had seen real footage of the damning moment. For one thing, after the documentary aired, no one bothered to tell them otherwise.

But that’s not what I want to focus on right now because, like I said, I already knew the film contained dramatization. Look again at the disclaimer that begins the film, focusing on the second half of the sentence:

“This film contains dramatization based on witness accounts.”

Oh really??? Like who?

Along with everyone else, I followed that trial, tweet for tweet, each and every day and have now read the available transcripts. Here’s the problem:

No witness ever took the stand saying they saw the man sitting before them, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, walk up to a group of children and set down a backpack.

No actual footage was presented of that reenacted scene.

No one took the stand and explained how the white backpack with dark trim that Dzhokhar had slung over one shoulder as he walked through the crowd became the black backpack shown ripped to shreds and said to have contained the second bomb.

If you have it, you produce it at trial, simple as that.

Without the National Geographic video with that reenacted scene and the disclaimer saying that the video contains dramatization based on witness accounts, the defense may have realized the government had nothing. And knowing the prosecution had nothing, maybe they would have actually tried to defend their client, threats and bias and Boston Strong be damned.

Hearing Dzhokhar say “not guilty” didn’t convince me.
Not hearing or seeing any evidence to the contrary did.

Published by: iwasleah10years

Winston Churchill said no crime is so great as daring to excel. I am ready to take that dare. An unexpected and somewhat unexplainable compassion for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has drawn me out of my comfort zone.


6 thoughts on “Observations on the National Geographic Boston Marathon Bombing Documentary”

  1. Beautifully truthful and accurate, something we never saw at the trial. It was obvious to me from the day the docudrama was announced and shown, that this bias prejudicial incriminating film was made for one purpose only, to convince those who were not already convinced, including the jurors, that Dzhokhar was guilty. The FBI agents, law enforcement and prosecutor involved in this film should have been fired from their jobs and the case should have been dropped based on this false media spectacle. It was nothing more than an elaborate plot to leak false information about the case. This is how the “justice” system wins cases, by any means possible, no matter how much money is spent, or how much gov. employees lie. It was an absolute disgrace! Thank you for so clearly pointing this out. I will be reposting this. Great post Lynn!

  2. Bravo Lynn! Wonderfully written! I myself have seen that documentary. ‘Dzhokhar’ played by Alexander Karavay also looks like a very convincing Jahar. However looks can be deceiving. Your words are magnificently true. I agree with you all the way. I always wondered was that documentary in the jurors minds as they handed out Jahar the death sentence. The part in the documentary did look very convincing. If they can gather up some actors and re-enact all those scenes…makes me wonder what else did they re-enact in the courtroom for the already biased jurors! Great writing Lynn! Another masterpiece!

    1. The trial was the time to show the real footage of that scene and they never did. I think we all know why – it doesn’t exist!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s