BM Bombing Evidence Makes No Sense

If you have the time, I suggest that you read this summary of the BM bombing evidence:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/03/30/whats-not-being-revealed-in-the-tsarnaev-courtroom/

The evidence being presented is contradictory and makes absolutely no sense.

I think the key issue here is the following:

With the prosecution trying to paint the brothers as “lone wolves” who acted without any outside help, the defense has focused on saving Dzhokhar from the death penalty by blaming the defendant’s actions on older brother Tamerlan. As a result, both sides appear content to ignore the possibility that others were involved in the planning or facilitation of the bombing—even though the government once contended that this might be the case.

This trial will not determine who made and placed the bombs. Those feats were assigned to the brothers by the MSM long before the trial started.

This all seems to beg the question "what is really going on here?"

For some insight on that, I suggest you watch this 9 minute video about the lawyer representing the surviving brother. She seems to be the person who is summoned when there's a government psyop underway and there might be a chance that the truth will somehow pop out accidentally:

https://youtu.be/AhT6Im3dpgY

Perhaps there's nothing sinister going on here, but it does seem a strange coincidence that once again the so-called "trial" will be a lengthy public spectacle focusing mostly on how severe the punishment should be.

By the way, what kind of human experimentation is going on at ADX Florence, CO?

Update: Clearly, it's more important that someone like Mark Wahlberg tell us what happened at the BM bombing than it is to have a real trial at which real evidence is presented to a real jury who then actually are allowed to decide what happened that day and who did what:

http://www.austin360.com/feed/entertainment/movies/mark-wahlberg-to-produce-boston-marathon-bombing/f6ZF5/

I mean, don't you think it's better to have Hollywood and actors put this to bed for us? We sure don't need any "conspiracy theorists" pointing out how the official proceedings are a bunch of crap, do we?

There's this thing called "epistemology" which keeps getting in the way:

... the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Obviously Americans would rather have the "facts" presented to them on TV than to have them investigated and debated in a courtroom or laboratory. Seeing it on the screen makes it "real" and "believable", and doesn't require any legal or scientific mumbo-jumbo, which most of us don't understand anyway.