now, the appellants in this case have tried to present the case as though the issue were whether there were some corrupting potential in giving contribution to the nineteenth candidate after someone has already contributed to -- the maximum to the eighteenth. but that is not what this case is about. the appellants are not arguing that the aggregate limit is drawn in the wrong place. they are arguing that there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work. and so what that means is that you -- you're taking the lid off the aggregate contribution limit and, as justice kagan and her question earlier indicated, that means that an individual can contribute every two years up to $3.6 million to candidates for a party, party national committees and state committees -- >> that's because they can transfer the funds among themselves and to a particular candidate. is the possibility of prohibiting those transfers perhaps a way of protecting

against that corruption appearance while at the same time allowing an individual to contribute to however many house candidates he wants to contribute to? i mean, the concern is you have somebody who is very interested, say, in environmental regulation, and very interested in gun control. the current system, the way the anti-aggregation system works, is he's got to choose. is he going to express his belief in environmental regulation by donating to more than nine people there? or is he going to choose the gun control issue? >> so, mr. chief justice, i want to make two different points in response to that question. the first is that restricting transfers would have a bearing on the circumvention problem. >> it wouldn't eliminate all circumvention risk, but would have a bearing on that problem.

but there is a more fundamental problem here. it's a problem analogous to the one that was at issue with soft money in mcconnell, which is the very fact of delivering the $3.6 million check to the whoever it is, the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader, whoever it is who solicits that check, the very fact of delivering that check creates the inherent opportunity for quid pro quo corruption, exactly the kind of risk that the court identified in buckley, wholly apart from where that money goes after it's delivered. but the delivery of it -- >> what is the framework -- what is the framework for analyzing -- i agree with you on the aggregation, but it has this consequence with respect to limiting how many candidates an individual can support within the limits that congress has said don't present any danger of corruption? so what is the framework for analyzing that? give you your argument with respect to the transfers and the appearance there, but it does have that other consequence on something we've recognized as a significant right. so --

>> let me make a specific point about that and then work into the framework. the specific point is this -- the aggregate limit would have the effect of restricting the ability of a contributor to make the maximum contribution to more than a certain number of candidates. that's true. we can't help but acknowledge that. it's math. but that doesn't mean that that individual cannot spend as much as the individual wants on independent expenditures to try to advance the interest of those candidates or the interests or the causes that those candidates stand for. mr. mccutcheon, for example, can spend as much of his considerable fortune as he wants on independent expenditure advocating the election of these candidates. >> and that does not -- that does not evoke any gratitude on the part of the people? i mean, if gratitude is corruption, you know, don't those independent expenditures evoke gratitude?

and is -- is not the evil of big money -- 3.2 million, an individual can give that to an independent pac and spend it, right? >> the foundation -- >> it's not that we're stopping people from spending big money on politics. >> the foundation of this court's jurisprudence in this area is the careful line between independent expenditures, which this court has held repeatedly do not create a sufficient risk of quid pro quo corruption to justify their regulation, and contributions which do. >> wait. that -- that -- >> so we're not talk -- >> that line eliminates some of the arguments that have been made here, which are arguments against big money in politics. there -- big money can be in politics. the thing is you can't give it to the republican party or the democratic party, but you can start your own pac. that's perfectly good. i'm not sure that that's a benefit to our political system. >> well, i do think we have limits on contributions to political parties in addition to limits on contributions to

candidates. and i think that does help establish the point here, which is that candidates are not hermetically sealed off from each other, and parties are not hermetically sealed off from candidates. they -- you know, they're all on the same team. and we limit the amount that an individual can contribute to a political party as well as the amount that an individual can contribute to candidates. >> that actually does very much while i don't -- i'm looking for an answer here. it's not that i have one at all. it is rather basic, the point i think that's being made now. i mean, as i understand it, the whole reason -- it is no doubt that campaign limits take an ordinary person and they say -- you cannot give more than such- and-such an amount. there are apparently, from the internet, 200 people in the united states who would like to give $117,000 or more. we're telling them -- you can't; you can't support your beliefs. that is a first amendment negative. but that tends to be justified on the other side by the first

amendment positive, because if the average person thinks that what he says exercising his first amendment rights just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his representative, he says -- what is the point of the first amendment? and that's a first amendment point. all right. so that's basic, i think. now, once that's so, congress has leeway. and you are saying, and i have seen all over the place, that that's why we don't want those 200 people to spend more than 117,000 or 120,000 because the average person thinks the election is -- after the election all the actions are affected by the pocketbook and not by the merits of the first amendment arguments. okay. and now you say the person can do the same thing anyway; just call it independent. and what independent does, he can spend 40 million. he can spend 50 million. and all that does is sort of mix up the messages because the parties can't control it. now, that's, i think, the question that's being asked.

and i think that that is a very serious question, and i'd like to know what flows from it. is it true? so what? what are we supposed to do? what is your opinion about that question? >> and i have the same question. you have two -- two persons. one person gives an amount to a candidate that's limited. the other takes out ads, uncoordinated, just all on his own, costing $500,000. don't you think that second person has more access to the candidate who's -- when the candidate is successful, than the first? i think that was at the root of justice scalia's question and -- >> let me try to answer this with an analogy, if i could, justice kennedy. i think the right way to think about it is if somebody thinks the secretary of defense is doing a great job, they can take out an ad in the washington post, spend $500,000 on that ad saying -- the secretary of defense has done a great job.

and -- and they would have an undoubted first amendment right to do that. no one could think that there's a content -- it's hard to imagine a content-neutral justification for prohibiting that speech. but if instead the person wanted to express their symbolic -- >> what if boeing does it? i mean, you know -- >> i still think -- >> you think no problem? >> that would be an independent expression. but if, instead, somebody wanted to express symbolically their view that the secretary of defense has done a great job by giving the secretary of defense a maserati, nobody would think that there was a first amendment ground that could be -- that could be invoked. >> but we are talking here about we're talking here about campaign contributions. isn't it illegal for a candidate to take campaign contributions and use it to buy a maserati? >> we -- yes, it is, but the point -- >> well, i don't see how that really gets to the point. >> but -- it get -- i think it does, if i may, justice alito, because i think that the point is that the -- that the rule against gifts, the conflict of interest rules, they exist to

advance a content-neutral government interest of the highest importance. >> what troubles me about your -- what troubles me about your argument, general verrilli, and about the district court's opinion is that what i see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible or -- and lack, certainly lack any empirical support. now, you've -- you've chosen to use the same hypothetical the district court used about the $3.5 million contribution that would be -- that could be given by a coordinate -- which involves all of the house candidates and all of the senate candidates in a particular year getting together with all of the all of the parties' national party committees, plus all of the state party committees, and then -- and that's how you get up to the $3.5 million figure; isn't that right? >> yes. >> now, how -- how realistic is that? how realistic is it that all of

the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they're all going to transfer it to one candidate? for 49 of them, it's going to be a candidate who is not in their own state. and there are virtually no instances of state party committees contributing to candidates from another state. and the other part of it that seems dubious on its face is that all of the party -- all of the candidates for the house and the senate of a particular party are going to get together and they are going to transfer money to one candidate. there really -- you cited in your brief the example -- best examples, i take it, of -- of contributions from some candidates to other candidates. they are very small. isn't that true? >> yes. but i think there are two -- justice alito, i think that, with all due respect, i think the point your honor is making confuses two different ways in which these laws combat the risk of corruption. the first one is that the -- the

handing over of the large check, and whether it's a $3.6 million check for everyone or a $2.2 million, or a $1 million check for all the state committees, the very -- just as the court found in mcconnell with respect to massive soft money contributions and the inherent risks of -- of corruption there, there's an inherent risk of corruption. and that's why indeed, as i said, we have limits on how much we can contribute to a political party for that reason -- >> well, i don't understand that. unless the money can make it from a to b i don't see where the quit broke well argument is. >> the way these fund-raising committee's work is that you handover a check, give to the rest of my team. that is handing over the check to that candidate, a create significant risk of indebtedness on the are of the candidate.

party leaders are going to be the ones that solicit those contributions and they have a particular indebtedness to candidates because their power and authority depending on the party retaining or getting a majority in the legislature. they're going to feel indebtedness that this person is helping only them but everyone. the third point is that every candidate and party is going to be affected by this because every candidate is going to get a slice of the money, and every candidate is going to know that this person who wrote the check has helped not only the candidate but the whole team, and that creates indebtedness. every member of the party is likely to be leaned on by the party leadership. >> these aggregate limits might stand or fall together.

take this example and walk me through this step by step. have somebody who wants to corrupt member of the house. this person's strategy is to make contributions to multiple house candidates with the hope that the expectation of a plan those candidates are going to transfer the money to the member that this person wants to corrupt. how was that person going to accomplish that, given the earmarking regulations and the limits on how much one member can contribute to another? >> i think it is possible. if somebody had that goal, that circumvention goal, a better way of achieving it would be giving significant contributions to state parties and national parties were free to transfer money among themselves without restriction, and by making contributions to pacs.

>> if you're not going to defend the application of the aggregate limits in that situation, doesn't it follow that as applied to that situation these are -- >> i think it could happen in that situation. it is more than likely to happen. >> explain to be how it is going to be done. >> the person gives to person a in the hopes it will give to member b. that is earmarked. how is it going to be done? >> ear marking is not the outer limit of the governments ability to regulate here. a lot of this can be done through winks and nods. i do not think it is a case where earmarking would limit that. when talking about aggregate

limits, they are part of an overall system of regulation. i think that they work to keep the circumvention risk in check and work to make sure you don't have the kind of problem -- >> >> what would you think? listening to your dialogue, this is tough. we try to construct some hypotheticals, and the council says, no, i have this part wrong or the other part wrong. they may be right. we cannot do this, figuring out these factual things in an hour. i am not sure. there hasn't been a full hearing. it seems there are things to explore in respect to the circumvention. who is right? there are things to explore and respect to the question of whether being able to write a $3.6 million check to a lot of people does lead the average

person to think, my first amendment speech speech in terms of influencing my representative means nothing. there are things to explore in terms of the relationship between what is permissible, $40 million spent independently, and spendingt permissible, $117,000. none of these have been considered. they would seem relevant. what do you think about going into these matters in a district court where the evidentiary aspects of them can be explored at some length? >> i think that the statute can be upheld under the current state of the record. i understand and i take your honor's point. i do think you have a substantial record in buckley, in mcconnell, that substantial bears bears on the question of whether massive aggregate contributions pose the inherent danger of corruption and the corrosive appearance of corruption.

>> the government didn't suggest in response to the -- [inaudible] both sides seem to treat this as a matter that is being disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. is that right? there was this point made that if this does, it draws contributions towards the pacs, and away from the parties. limits, the money would flow to the candidates, to the party organizations, but it is going to pacs.

what is your response to that? >> we take the constitutional first amendment framework as a given. the court has determined that independent expenditures do not prevent a risk of quid pro quo irruption. that contributions, direct contributions to candidates and parties can pose that risk. >> the question says, given that it is the law, isn't the consequence of this particular provision to sap the vitality of political parties and encourage drive-by pacs for each election? >> the answer is we do not know if that is the consequence.

with all due respect, the parties still raise and spend very substantial amounts of money. i don't think that we know. beyond that, what the congress has determined is that there is a risk of corruption, as regulated with respect to that. congress is free to keep the into consideration. >> you say it is $3.5 million. if you assume someone who gives the maximum to every possible candidate and party he can contribute to, $3.5 million, just to put that in perspective, how much money is spent by political parties and pacs and all elections? in one election cycle. >> that is a good point. take the 2010 elections. each party spent $1.5 billion.

>> what about pacs? >> i do not have the specifics. >> what about newspapers that spend money endorsing candidates? you have to put in that money. that is money that is directed to political speech. when you add all that up, i don't think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> i do not think that is the right way to look at it. if you think a party has to get $1.5 billion together to run a congressional campaign, then you have a maximum of $3.6 million, that is 450 people you need to round up to fund the whole thing. that is part of the problem. you are creating a situation

where you take off the aggregate limits in which there is a real risk that both the government will be run by those 500 people, and that the public will perceive that the government is run by and for those people. that is why we have these limits. >> the consequence is just to get back to my prior question, you are telling someone who doesn't want to give $3.4 million, but wants to contribute to more than nine candidates, you are telling him that he can't make that contribution however modest within the limits congress has said does not present a corruption to attend candidate. i appreciate the argument you are making for the aggregate limits to address that. what you do with the flipside? you can't pretend it is pursued

with no first amendment cost. it seems to be a direct restriction on a much smaller contribution that do not present a problem of corruption. >> i take that point. you asked earlier about the right analytical framework. the right analytical framework of the first amendment is to think about this in terms of neutrality. the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. >> that is a normally get you very far on the first amendment. you could not have a rule that says the post or the new york times can only endorse nine candidates. it is completely content neutral. that limit would not be -- >> that would be a content-based justification. you're not trying to prevent the appearance of carbs in my doing that. -- the appearance of corruption by doing that.

there is no neutral justification for why you would impose such a rule. with the respect elected officials and the giving of money to elected officials, there is this content neutral justification. yes, it is not free of first amendment costs. but that cost is mitigated. this is not a prohibition. >> is there any way to prevent the concern you have about the 3.5 million dollar check without imposing the limit on the person he wants to support 10 candidates? >> you could calculate an aggregate contribution limit different from the one that is here now. the problem that is that the appellants are not making that argument. the argument they have made is that you can't have aggregate limits. >> they are making the argument that the regulations that already exist about transfers

from one entity to another areent a lot of what you worried about. if they are not sufficient, they could be bolstered. the aggregate limits are a very blunt way of trying to get at the problem that you are worried about. that is their argument. is that wrong? there is nothing more that could be done to prevent transfers from one member to another or from state parties to candidates? >> i apologize for repeating myself, but circumvention is not the only problem. of these for a large checks is a problem, a direct corruption problem and none of the alternatives address that problem. >> i don't understand that. you mean that the time when this person sends the money to this hypothetical leader, there is a corruption problem immediately?

what if they just took the money and burned it. >> they are not going to burn it. that is the point. >> when does the corruption occur? transferreden it is to the person who has power. >> i beg to differ. i think what it does is create a sense of indebtedness on the part of the recipient when it is delivered. that is the inherent risk of corruption in that situation. it is quite parallel to my,. it is why we have aggregate limits on what you can give to a party. they are all on the same team. they all have an interest in each other's success. party leaders are going to feel a sense of indebtedness. i will try to deal -- i will try to adjust the circumvention. they have come up with a whole series of things that you would -- it is not one thing you have to do to take care of this problem. you had to say no transfers are segregated accounts are no

giving money to pac's will have indicated they will give money to candidates once you have already given money. you have to do five or six things to deal with the risk of corruption. that is a less restrictive means but it seems that you restrict that's a significant way more restrict main and will have a first amendment cost of its own. we mean we've -- we mean you say that we can't give money to and we want to? >> it seems to me fanciful to say that the sensitive gratitude that a senator connors and will feel because of the substantial contribution to the republican national committee or democratic national committee is any greater than the sense of gratitude that that senator or congressman will feel to a pac which is spending an enormous amount of money in his city or in his state. it seems to me the latter is much more identifiable. lawthere is nothing in the

that excludes that. apparently that is not too much of a risk. >> i'm not here to debate the question whether the court's jurisprudence is correct with respect to the risk of corruption from independent expenditures. the line is that there is an unacceptable risk when contributions are too high. answer to the questions that have been put previously is that that is the law. your answer is, buckley has settled that issue. no more discussion necessary. >> we think the risk of corruption is real. and we think it is profound when you talk about the kind of admissions that is made when you take the cap of of aggregate contributions.

if it is deeply disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing the contribution limits. >> i suppose that if this course is having second thoughts about its rulings that expenditures are not corrupting, we can change that part of the law . [laughter] >> and far be it for me to recommend that you don't. >> the record, as far as i recall it from several years ago, talked about at length -- i don't like to use the word corruption, but integrity of the process. when it got to this part, to be -- the aggregate, it was about circumvention. there is a huge corruption aspect to this. we don't have a lot of in the

record about that. >> with respect to my,, this is a very close parallel. >> if you are really talking -- they don't think about it that way. so that is why i have been pushing this idea, you see of let's go into this, ok? you want us to go into it, let's go into it. >> these aggregate limits were statute tothe same which that record pertains. it goes back to the same problem. it bears upon it and is ample evidence that will justify upholding these aggregate limits and i would strongly urge the court to do so. thank you. >> thank you. ms. murphy, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. first, we haven't heard the

solicitor general talk about circumvention, i think is because the circumvention argument just doesn't work. it is already addressed by all of the prophylactic measures that baker contains. there are much narrower and tailored ways to get to the questions. what we have here is a corruption argument. as the questioning reveals, once you accepted the corruption theory that the government is putting forward, there really isn't a way to continue to draw the line between independent expenditures and the three point million dollar check to all of these different individuals. there will certainly be as much gratitude to the individual who spends $3.6 million directly supporting one candidate. so we have a system that is forcing money out of the most transparent way possible to make contributions which is directly to the candidates and the parties and the pac's. if there are no further questions, thank you.

>> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> today's the anniversary of the bombings of the boston marathon. two journalist talk about the book they were working on that examines the attack and what is happened in the past year. in one hour, today's boston ceremony marking the anniversary and it former treasury secretary henry paulson on china's economy. >> edison was a scientist as well as interested in the other sciences. the story is that he knew it in fort myers so a lot of the interest he had in this area were based on his love of plants. by the 1920's, the united states was relying on foreign rubber. we were headed into war.

thehat point they decided plant material and the process should be done in this country. edison, ford, and firestone were traveling collecting plants and had thousands of people around this country collecting plants and sending them back here to his laboratory to find a source of plant material that could produce rubber efficiently, effectively, commercially. the laboratory was put here because of that reason because they could grow the plant here on site and actually do the preliminary research on site. it was an exciting process. the labradors interested because at that point in american history there was no patent chemicalsr plants, and getting =--- patenting. it caused the u.s. government to come forward with what was which the u.s. patent law

then said if you invented something with plants and it was a process that was worthy of patenting it was issued a patent. >> book tv and american history tv take a look at the history and literary life of fort myers, florida, including a stop at thomas edison's laboratory. sunday. and casey sherman and dave wedge on the book "boston strong" about the bombings at last year's marathon. the book is based on the investigation of the attack. they spoke at fisher college for one hour. >> thank you. first, i would like to say thank you to our interns from fisher college.

we have a group of really dedicated students that have been working with dave and i over the past several months to transcribe interviews, talk about the timeline of the bombing, timeline about some of the secondary stories that came out of the aftermath to this. i want to thank them. i want to thank jan courtney for this incredible opportunity, especially the fact that dave and i are sitting down. i am very short so when i stand next to him i look like his son. i have written about the best of the human condition. i have also written about the worst of the human condition. with "boston strong" we found a little bit of both. once this happened, some publishers started to approach me and ask if i would write a book about the tragedy. at first, i didn't want to. i wanted to stay far away because a writer like myself, i

need that his store coal -- that his store coal -- that histori cal perspective because that is very viable. this event was happening in real time. it is so complex, large. i had a different angle on how i wanted to approach the story so i asked my editor, let me ask you a question. ofyears after the events 9/11, can you name two of the hijackers that flew those planes? he couldn't do that. you can name one which a lot of us can name but he couldn't name anyone else. that is exactly right. nobody cares about them. they committed an atrocity against humankind, but the stories that resonate from 9/11 are the stories of heroism and survival. when i decided to start working on this book, i reached out to my good friend dave wedge. he has been the boots on the ground lead writer for the

boston herald for much of the marathon aftermath and such. >> yeah. since been at the herald 1999. my job on the day of the marathon was to report city hall. we have a pretty small staff so whenever a major breaking news story happens it is all hands on deck. that day i was on my way over to city hall when the alms went off. - - bombs went off. i was thrust into action to start covering the story and i remained as one of the lead reporters for the next week. when the watertown situation unfolded, i was sent out in the middle of the night and i was sent to watertown and i got there shortly after the bullets stopped flying. i was there in the midst of that chaos. i stayed there right through they caught dzhokhar tsarnaev.

after that happened, a couple months went by and it was still a big part of my job to cover what happened and the fallout from the whole tragedy. talking to a lot of the victims and survivors and such. casey reached out to me and he was looking for his next book project. we have been friends for a long time. such a big it is story that really requires two people to telik properly. it was a perfect match. >> our deadline is late may so we wanted to take this story through the first anniversary. that is really the only way to tell it. we wish we had more time because it is so massive. we know some of the statistics from the marathon bombing. over 260 people wounded, three people on-site killed. m.i.t. police officer executed days later.

why those reasons numbers are so huge -- one of the reasons why the death toll was relatively low for something like this was because of these and other numbers. overg the boston marathon, 800 boston police officers were assigned to the route. over 400 volunteers working the street that day. 13 and villages were on standby. another 17 were rushed the boylston street after the bombings happened. workact that we live and in the greatest medical city in the world, all of the responding hospitals were trainingn trauma one certainly kept those numbers low. any of the survivors and victims that were brought to any of the

hospitals after the boston marathon, they all lived. that is an incredible testament to the incredible work that was done on boylston street by ordinary people. the incredible testament to the work that was done in the hospitals that day and several days afterwards. there were two bombing suspects into locations -- in two loca tions. this was the first location on boylston street. lks you would fo hear about little more as a woman named michelle. i will show you michelle in this picture. this is michelle right here. believe, is in this general area over here. that picture was taken a few minutes before the bombs exploded. see atbers -- you can

least 500 people are there. people are moving back and forth as if this is happening. in my opinion, everyone down there is a survivor. everyone in the picture is a survivor. you're about the numbers casey is talking about -- 260 people injured, four killed. what we have learned their injuries you cannot see. they maybe didn't lose a limb or have physical injuries, they are severely traumatized. a lot of ptsd and a lot of them have dramatic brain injuries which we will talk about another person and are broke that experience that. >> the second location was right in front of the restaurant. this photo you can see one of the suspects in the middle of the photograph. that is dzhokhar tsarnaev, dubbed white hat by the fbi because they didn't know his

identity but they had seen him during the course of the week on several videos and several surveillance photos. his actions were unlike any of the actions from anybody that was either running away from the scene or running towards the survivors and the wounded. he was very launcelot -- nonchalant. he got out of there pretty quickly. to the right of him, you can see the family of martin richard. you see jean richard, martin staring straight ahead in front of his father. we are going to talk more about them as we move on here. the suspect themselves, black hat and white cat. tamerlan tsarnaev and dzhokhar ans whov, two chechy moved to massachusetts in the early 2000's. their parents had left turmoil in chechnya. they lived in cambridge. their father was a mechanic.

their mother did odd jobs as well. a student however he was an incredible athlete and a -- and an amateur boxer with a -- with olympic aspirations. his younger brother was an athlete as well and both of these young men were deemed as the bright lights in their families. they had two older or middle-aged sisters i got into some trouble over the years as well. over the course of time, tamerlan tsarnaev and his father and his mother got disillusioned with their lives in america. they began to really become radicalized in local mosques and on the internet. he got hiser, brother involved as well. this is what they've talked

about. the explosion in front of marathon sports. >> this explosion was the first one. it went up about 30 feet roughly, the shrapnel and the damage to the building. if you're out on boylston street after that bomb went off, you can look up at the buildings above and the windows were blown out up three stories. at this site, michelle was there. this was where -- krystle campbell was there. >> she was one of the fatal victims in this attack. this is a shot of emts working on the body of krystle campbell. >> this picture here was taken by a woman who we interviewed for the book who was at the mandarin oriental. event a big, very swank

that day with a lot of politicians, celebrities, business men and women. the the bombs went off, windows of the mandarin oriental literally shook. the woman who took this picture, megan johnson, a writer for people magazine, she was the one who took this picture right after that. tragedy fora double the family of krystle campbell. her parents had been told that she survived. they rushed to mass general hospital where they were looking for. all -- her daughter. they went into the recovery room and they were shown this woman lying on the bed and it was not her daughter -- their daughter. it was crystal's friend. the mixup there and all of that phone anden had a

krystle campbell's drivers license. way staffersly write in a fine the victims at that point. you can imagine the elation of hearing that your daughter andive the massive attack then just the utter horror. this is michelle. >> michelle is 39. she is originally from maine. she was an equestrian student in college. should competitive horseback riding from the time she was a little girl. sports, was at marathon she was there watching her boyfriend who was running the marathon. just before the bombs went off, her boyfriend had come by, slow down where she was, told her that he loved her and he finished the marathon. he went to grab his bag off the bus, took a shower.

in that time, the bomb went off and you didn't hear from michelle after that. he didn't know what was going on. michelle suffered pretty serious injuries. a large chunk of the back every five was brought off -- blown off. her bicep was torn off and she lost 50% of her hearing. she never fell down. that is one of the things that casey and i -- why we focus on her because she is just a strong person that you get to know her. she is an amazing woman. she never fell down. she walked into marathon sports and she kind of stumbled her way into their. re. she said she didn't feel any pain. the folks in there realized how badly she was hurt. she was basically -- her life was saved by four just regular citizens.

three people that work at marathon sports and another civilian that was there. they tied tourniquets on her arm and leg. the doctors have told her that they not only saved her life but they probably saved her limbs. today, michelle is back running. on is doing a 5k race saturday and she has been back skiing. she is going to be horseback riding again for the first time in a few weeks. >> what we love a michelle is she is the daughter of a maine firefighter. one of the houses adopted her so to speak while she was recovering. every day while she was at the hospital, there was a firefighter assigned to visit her, to bring her things, etc. she has a family well beyond her little home town in maine. , everypoint in the book time i look at it and when we wrote it we laughed because michelle had such a great spirit. as she was being lifted into the

amulet and as the amulet was en route to the hospital -- ambulance was en route to the hospital, a cap hitting -- it kept hitting the potholes. she kept focusing on the bleeping potholes on the road. mary daniel is also incredibly inspirational survivor. you hate to call these people victims because they are survivors. mary daniel lost her leg in the bombing. mary daniel was a medical student. she was working on her medical board the day of the marathon. she was an immigrant from haiti. came over from the united states -- to the united states, went to umass, medical school. she never had really been to the marathon before. she had only been once in her life. she was studying. she was getting a little stir crazy because it was a tough winter for all of us.

it was a beautiful spring day. she wanted to enjoy it. mary also has a five-year-old daughter and she wanted to get outside. mary thought it was a great opportunity to go to the marathon. tiara is this five-year-old ball of rubber and she bounces off every wall in her apartment. she's a high-energy little girl. she might lose her daughter in a crowd that size so at the last moment, mary made a decision to leave her daughter home with her husband. merry gets the boylston street and within seconds the bomb goes off. mary is medically trained. mary can see the wounds of that she has experienced. the leg that was taken from her, she didn't think that would be the leg it would envy take. her up -- they would amputate. as a she is lying on boylston street, lying next to jeff, allher cvictim, and seeing

the carnage around her, two things are going through her mind -- am i going to die? god, i didn't bring my daughter. she is incredibly resilient woman. they talked about michelle training and running again. mary is going to be running in the marathon. she is going to be peddling. aling. she is not going to let this tragedy impact the way she lives her life. also at marathon sports that day, jeff bowman, who has become one of the symbols of the boston marathon tragedy. rlos are going to be commencement speakers here at fisher college in may which is a fantastic because you folks are going to really understand jeff's story. we spent a lot of time with

them. >> we will get to the france trip. this picture i actually took. it was taken at the state house right across the street a few months ago. was given an award named after one of the stewardesses on one of the flake -- one of the flights of 9/11. it was a state euro award they give every year and they give it to carlos that day. that is the thing you will see when you hear carlos and jeff speak. they have become inseparable. they become almost a father and son like bond that we were able to see firsthand. we since became friendly with them. it is really an incredible thing to see how they help each other and how much they mean to each other. it is very genuine. carlos, i don't know how much

you know about him, he lost his sons. one of his sons died in iraq. his other son committed suicide in 2011. this is carlos here. might've a lot of you sought on tv, carlos was wheeling jeff to safety and is credited for saving his life. they have been next to each other side. >> despite catastrophic injuries jeff suffered, he was still able to help the fbi identify the bombing suspects. tamerlan tsarnaev, he saw him before the bombs went off. he thought they looked suspicious and one of his friends motioned him for something else and he turned his head, when he turned it back tamerlan was gone. the very next day, jeff asked for a pen or pencil i should say

and he scribbled i saw them. carlos, his caregiver and hero, carlos was considered a suspect by the fbi in the hours after the bombing. as david mentioned, carlos lost both of his sons in the 2000's. when he was first notified of his son's death in iraq, carlos had a breakdown. he tried to commit suicide and it was captured on local television in florida. it was a highly publicized event. when the fbi saw pictures of carlos on boylston street that day, they became suspicious and they questioned him. he gave them all the information that they needed. he gave them photographs taken from his camera. he gave them his sneakers and the close he wore -- clothes he wore. the people that are coming to him wereccopmpanied

incredulous to the fact that carlos could ever do something to another human being because he does -- you bring such light to other people's lives. he says it was divine intervention that led him to boylston street that day. thisecond bombing site -- bomb literally ignited seconds after the first bombing ignited. when tamerlan tsarnaev visited 2012, ave country in year before the bombings, he got in touch with possibly three people, including one young jihadist who had just pulled off a very similar suicide bombing. two detonations that were triggered within seconds of each other. the first detonation, the first bomb is to kill the people in the vicinity. the second bomb is always detonated to kill first responders. that is a common practice by

terrorists across the world. we believe that is one of the lessons that tamerlan tsarnaev did learn while he was there. this bomb killed two people. gzi yu and eight-year-old martin richard. this is the richard family. the opportunity to spend a lot of time with a lot of the close friends to talk about how they have been impacted by what happened. how they have been moving forward over the past year. >> they actually happen to live not far from me. they live in dorchester. bill richard is a very well known guy. he is a democratic activist. he worked on governor patrick's campaign.

his wife denise worked at the marian manor which is a well-known senior citizens center in south boston. then worked on congressman stephen lynch his campaign -- lnyynch's campaign. they chose to live in that section of dorchester because they know the importance of community. they took this old house and it resources,ut all the all the money into it to make it a really nice house. their thinking is, if we stay here, we are one more nice family and maybe that will help make the city more vibrant. it is become a gathering place where on christmas bill would have open houses and the whole neighborhood would come in. it is a really nice family. are actually doing a lot

better than people might think they are. they are heartbroken and devastated by the loss of martin, but they are just as inspired the way jane who lost her leg, the little girl, has bounced back and the way she has shown incredible resilience and getting back to being a little kid. >> the richard family had a decision to make -- that they can either go to the marathon or go hiking. they chose the marathon. when they were in this position at forum when the first bomb went off, bill richard knew it was a bomb. a lot of spectators we talk to, a lot of first responders thought it could've been a transformer fire, a cannon that was used as part of the pageantry of -- a manhole fire. bill richard knew it was a bomb and he knew he had to get his family away from there as quickly as possible. bill richard jumped the

barricade and got on to boylston street because he thought his family would be much safer on the street than they would on the sidewalk. >> they were at the second bombing. they heard the first one and bill reached over the fence and grabbed henry, the oldest boy. >> he was directly in front of bill. as he was pulling henry to safety, he was reaching to his next child, martin, and that is when the bomb went off. we learned that dzhokhar tsarnaev, the bombing suspect, had chosen that family. he targeted that family. there is fbi surveillance film that shows him casing that family, going back and forth behind them before he drops that backpack. how do you rip the heart out of america? you choose an all-american family and that is what he did. alive after the bombing for a few seconds. the only words he ever uttered

were, "where is jane?" jane is his younger sister. jane was almost torn apart. she lost her leg. her life was saved by first responders. their mother suffered severe injuries to her eye and other parts of her body. one of the things that we found out in the course of writing this book was that the day of the bombing, as martin richard's body was -- remained on boylston street because it was part of the crime scene and the fbi would not remove it -- his body was lying under a sheet. the boston police were outraged. they wanted those victims off that street. they one of those victims reunited with their families wherever they were. one boston police officer said that -- i am not going to leave biscuit, not tonight.

i am going to stay with them. i want his parents to know that he was never left alone. that is heroism. those of the stories we have learned over the course of the past year and they still choke us up because it is incredible what so many people did in the wake of this on for sick aboard tragedy -- unforsakable tragedy. this is the fourth victim. this is the m.i.t. police officer. dave and i never met him while he was alive but we feel like we know him intimately now because we spent a lot of time with his family and we learned about what an incredible young man sean was. >> he really was. he was an officer with the m.i.t. police department. he was just about to get on the somerville police. classmates and

roommates with richard donahue who was the officer who ended up being shot at watertown. sean was just on patrol, a routine patrol. he knew the suspects were at large, like every other member of the law enforcement community, but he had no reason to believe they were in cambridge tonight. he had plans to meet a friend after he was done with his shift. one of the last texts he sent from his phone was to a girl who was a friend of his, and said, let's meet up later on. hime guys came up behind and executed him in cold blood from behind. he never saw them, never had a chance. another thing caught on surveillance video, and they tried to get his gun. they could not get his gun,

because m.i.t. had recently given their officers new holsters with a specialized way you have to push it down and turn it to get it out. it is a safety lock. decisive for this sort of situation. so that is what happened to sean. >> that was thursday, april 8, three days after the bombings. president obama came for and interfaith healing service in boston. later that afternoon, the fbi held a news briefing. that is where they shared their surveillance pictures of black hat and white hat. right before sean had gone on his shift that night, he shared their surveillance pictures on his facebook page. he know several hours later he would be seeing them in real life, and they would take his life.

sean has a large extended family. it is like the brady bunch. and a older sisters younger brother, and they are a blended family, and a very loving family. when dave and i sat down with them, we said, we want to learn about sean the brother, the son. we want to learn what music you like. if he was a pain in neck, tell us about it. no brother is perfect. tois our job as writers paint a full picture of this young man. it was interesting because the as we were up to us leaving and said, we want to thank you. we said, we want to thank you. this has been an incredibly inspiring and humbling experience for us. i said, why do you want to thank us? the family said, over the past several months, we have never had the time and spend the time

to sit around and talk about sean. we have had to honor him and various events. we never sit around the dining room table and share these stories about our brother. they thanked us for that. it was an incredible honor. tohave such a responsibility the family of all the survivors. we have a responsibility to the families and victims to tell their story right. a lot of life in those years. a young man who did a lot in the civic community. time he was 15 years old, he started raising money for the jimmy fund. he saw the telethons on tv and heard them on sports radio. he literally would collect money from his neighbors in his neighborhood. he did that right up until he passed away. that gives anct

image of what kind of a person he was is, he wasn't m.i.t. police officer. he wanted to join another department, a city department. he had an opportunity before he started with m.i.t. to go to another town. the town of lincoln. he had already told m.i.t. he was going to become a police officer. yes, i accept the job. at the time, lincoln had offered him a job. he would rather have worked in a town than at the college. but he made a commitment to m.i.t., and he went to the chief. he said, i have an opportunity to take this job at lincoln, but i want to work for you. the chief said, do what is best for you. he said, i gave you my word. i am going to work for you. he probably should have never been there. but commitment meant everything to him. >> that photo is pretty funny.

it shows sean collier cooking. his sister told us he never cooked. he ate takeout for much of his adult life. to showthat photo was them that he could cook if you needed to. what an incredible young man he was. to hourse getting later, the day after the lockdown in the city, which many locked ine probably your apartments or in your homes. dave, you were out there. >> after sean collier was brothers the two carjacked the guy. they drove to watertown. when they escaped stopped for gas or snacks or something. tracked by the police through gps to watertown.

he gets to watertown, and the watertown police are alerted, it is in your neighborhood. officer reynolds from watertown picks up the vehicles emcees, i have it. at the time, they did not know it was related to the marathon, or even the killing of sean collier. they just know they got a 911 call from a carjacking victim. the officers in watertown were prepared for what was about to unfold. kidsought it was some punk who carjacked somebody in cambridge and were going to run into the woods. what ended up happening is what you all know and saw on tv, and it ended up being an incredible should out will stop amazing examples of heroism. these officers, reynolds, mcclellan, and a couple other watertown officers got into a toe to toe firefight with tamerlan tsarnaev and his brother. and they were able to take down

tamerlan and the younger brother escaped in the suv, tried to run down the cops as he sped away, and actually ran over his own brother. hit a couple of cruisers, dumped the other car, and hit in the boat you see there. officersown police were not trained for armed combat. that is basically what this was. this was a battle in the middle of the street. save their own lives, but the lives of so many others as well. >> they made a lot of gut decisions that might that save not only their lives, but probably the lives of their brother officers and other folks as well. officerhat shoot out, donahue, mbta police officer -- once the bullets started flying, police from all over the region came in. boston, cambridge, somerville, arlington, lexington, mbta, state police.

donahue was shot by aaron from fire during that shooting. he severed his femoral artery and nearly died on the street. of quickother example actions. they tied candidates on his leg. he was brought to mount auburn hospital. they saved his life. >> his heart had actually stopped. the incredible staff at mount auburn literally got his pulse back. when his wife reached the hospital, that is when they told her that he should not be here. but he is for now. he is doing well today, which is amazing. >> i will explain the shootout. tsarnaevdzhokhar escapes from the scene, dumps the suv, ran off on foot, one of

the biggest manhunts that has ever happened in this nation's history unfolded. the boston police took control of the scene. it became clear it was the marathon suspects. they cordoned off a 20 block perimeter of the neighborhood. they started going grade by grade. i was out in the middle of that. as soon as sean collier was shot, i flew right to watertown. i got in there, and the car ended up getting close into the perimeter, and it was there until the duration. i was there through the whole thing and watched this unfold. there was armed swat teams from all over the region. there were tanks. it was a world scene. at the time, no one knew where he was. he could have gotten on a train. he could've carjacked somebody

again. he could have fallen in the charles river. there was speculation maybe he swum across the river. for roughly 20 hours, there was no trace of the guy. there were a couple of hits on his blog. wherethere at one house the dogs hit on his blood. he had ran through that backyard and they had lost the scent. there were so many people running back and forth and so many police officers that the dogs were thrown off. they could not follow the scent. a lot of people say, why didn't you find him? that is why. they could not track him. gottenere reports he had on a bus, gotten on a train, and made his way to connecticut. this was happening overnight. at some point overnight, the mayor or governor decided, we cannot let the train start running. we have to shut down the transportation system and find this guy.

obviously, it was a lockdown situation for several hours. i thought this was the biggest citizens arrest in american history, because it was not only law enforcement that track this guy. these were grandmothers. these were kids pushing their mugs out on social media. whatbody in this city -- makes boston strong is because we are incredibly resilient. we might have our disagreements, but when the foreign invader enters our area, we all band together. that is exactly what happened. the one funny aside during this entire thing -- when the lockdown was lifted and governor patrick was on his way home, he called his wife, and he was hungry. he had not eaten much that day. diane was hungry. she asks him to pick up some type food at a local place they love in quincy. when he is at the restaurant, he

is getting the thai food. he gets the call they have a suspect in the boat. he has a carton of type food. what is he going to do? he has to feed his family. he calls his wife. get you yourll dinner, but i have to go back and find the suspect. that is what he did. >> it is pretty unbelievable. ad the way he was found -- neighbor, the guy who lived at the house went out for a cigarette. in violation of the lockdown, i might add. the guy wanted a cigarette. a little bitat was uncovered and he said, that looks weird. he went over to pull it, and he noticed blood on it. he lifted up, and he saw the kid in there. called 911. that is how the whole thing came down. >> a month later, dave and i were the only journalists

invited on a healing cruise to the south of france, with over 100 survivors of the boston marathon bombing. it was an incredible nine days we were writing about. we also wrote about it for esquire magazine as well. if you search our names in esquire, you will get to read the very impactful, powerful article. we really looked into the eyes of the survivors, and sought incredible resilience. to tell theirr story in our book, "boston strong." thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to open it up now. i can try to run the might to you, but it might be easier if you could step up. >> i think the tv cameras are

scaring people today. we can talk a little bit more about that incredible cruise. this is a shot of carlos arredondo and some of the other survivors on the deck of the ship. this was an incredible donation by a local boston company, that spent half $1 million to take all of these survivors, all-inclusive trip 49 days to france. fat is some of them in lyon, rance. an interesting picture. this is carlos and the father of lingzi lu. know him ai got to little bit on the cruise. he and his wife had traveled there from beijing. they could not speak english. they had a translator who could barely speak english. they were in so much pain. you could see it in their faces. you could see it on the shoulders of this dad who lost

his daughter. and the person that got him out of his shell, so to speak, was carlos. carlos also suffered loss of his sons. here are two man who talked in a language all their own. sorrow, andguage of it was a language of strength as well. over the course of those days, we started to see a smile form on the lips of that dad. it was amazing. >> the way the trip came together is a pretty incredible story. hank lewis, the owner of the company, had done a trip for the families of fallen soldiers. carlos was one of them who was invited on a previous trip to the wounded warriors. owner of the cruise company new carlos from that trip. when hank saw the marathon tragedy unfold on tv, he saw carlos. he said, that is the guy.

we took him on a trip once. on, hank andwent his wife said, how can we help? .e want to do something he decided, let's donate a cruise to these people. carlos is the first person they reached out to. >> carlos has been so giving over the past year. the compassion and generosity of not only people in boston, but people all over the world that have extended donations to these survivors. the survivor is bill white. -- fighterfighting pilot in vietnam. survived several combat missions, only to have his legs taken from him on boylston street. 71 years old, and he has to learn how to walk again. he did. it was not an easy trip. he took excursions all over these winding streets on --

wending streets. he was part of just about everything. this was a great photo. they became friends, and now they are almost best friends because of this trip. the whenas in front of the bomb detonated. suffered brain injury, and it has been hard for her to even do her job. they became fast friends in france. cluny, france. all of a sudden, we see a very bird shirt. that photo personifies and exemplifies the friendship not only between sabrina and michelle, for the friendships that were made over the course of those 12 days, including many people dave and i met.

not only because we are writing about them. friends and we want to make sure we get the story right. >> i read right after it happened that watertown -- was it a destination, or were they passing through? >> they were just passing through, because he had stolen or carjacked a mercedes suv in brighton. windednd did -- they their way through watertown, where they had dzhokhar tsarnaev 's honda civic parked on a side street. they were literally taking out parts of their arsenal. remember, their ultimate plan was to get to times square in new york city for this incredibly bloody crescendo to the past week. fortunately, that did not happen. >> there may be some ties to the winter neighborhood.

in cambridge was not far from that area. there is some speculation as to whether they might have gone to someone's house in that neighborhood as well. -- iagree that early on heard early on there was a cell. we live very close, so that was a personal concern. i heard there was a cell and he had been there. they had identified him as being in the watertown area. i never heard anything else. >> the other people who were charged with three friends from umass dartmouth. -- dzhokharme tsarnaev had some roommates that were accused of lying to the fbi and withholding evidence. there was some dumb power and fireworks authority to leave -- authorities believed were used to build the bombs. they were found in his dorm room. his friends hid those from the fbi when they were initially questioned.

allegedly. those three kids are charged. other conspirators, that is a no. >> was recommended to the murder in waltham? happened on september 11, 2012. >> 2011. >> three men were -- three --ish men were >> were executed. >> they had marijuana strangled on their bodies. lamb -- tamerlan tsarnaev and his friend were suspects in that murder. i was the thing that happened in florida, were told to shove -- todashev was being questioned and was killed in a confrontation with the police down there. according to the most recent report by the fbi, todashev cop ped to the murders and was signing a confession. >> there are so many questions

to be answered that may not even be answered in our lifetimes. young man, do you have a question in the back? >> my name is daniel masten. the guy who went outside to smoke a cigarette was in violation. but he found the bombers. was he just let off the hook for that? >> i was joking about that. literally, you were not supposed to leave your house. but he was just in his yard having a cigarette. it was not a big deal. outside,had seen him they would have said, get back to my house. ands standing out there, the media, and we were moved from area to area. anybody who came out of their house were forcibly said, go back inside. it, hisuck would have need for a cigarette found the kid. >> everything happens for a reason. >> there was also a photo that went viral that showed a boston police officer with two cartons of milk he had gotten for a

family that could not violate the lockdown order, but this mother had children that needed morning cereal, and they had no milk. that was just one of those little vignettes that are so meaningful. yes, sir. >> thank you for a very enlightening presentation. there is this debate, or controversy, going on right now as to whether to charge tsarnaev with the death penalty. i am wondering if you have any insight to share as to how the survivors feel about that issue. >> the decision has been made to put the death penalty on the table. that will be a decision the jury will make once they convict, if they convict. that will be part of the sentencing phase. they can decide life or give the death penalty. in our conversations with the folks on the ship in france, as

with the general public, it ranges. some of them say, get rid of him. he has no right to breathe our air. others say, he should sit in jail and think about what he did, and that is a worse punishment, to think about martin richard and krystle campbell and lingzi lu for the rest of his life. the opinions really range among the survivors. some thatdefinitely are really angry, though, and yes, give him the death penalty. >> another question? >> i have a question. i have got some friends down on the west coast who were local to boston, over a decade now. some of the facebook chatter was, maybe the real terrorist is the law enforcement who put watertown and the local community in this lock down with

swat teams and machine guns, and that military-style response. did any of the folks you speak feeling as sort of that, they felt regarding as opposed to being here and knowing this one person was still at large, as compared to these folks who are so far removed, seeing what looked like a military invasion of 20 square blocks? >> there is definitely a controversy. the aclu expressed concerns about the lockdown. it was unconventional and unpopular. at the end of the day, having been a crime reporter 20 years, it was the right decision. these kids were throwing bombs of the police. not firecrackers, bombs. they had already killed a cop. they had already shot another police officer that was bleeding out. it is easy for somebody in l.a. to say, 1200 cops have to lock

down a city to catch one kid. they were doing a lot terror, and you had to do something to stop him. what if they did not lock down the city and the kid throws one of those bombs on the red line and blows it up? >> that is where the decision began earlier that morning. the second bombing suspect was looking to escape. how do you cut off his escape route? you shut down buses. you shut down the mbta. it grew from there. at the end of the day, we think it was the right decision to make. if you second guess -- if somebody else was killed and you second guess that, we have seen a lot of the crime scene photos. we have seen families who have lost their loved ones. to think and overreach or overextension of police power save somebody's life that day -- we will take that any day.

>> i have spoken to people through the course of my reporting, though, that live in that area that think it was excessive, and are not -- they do not want it to become a precedent-setting matter, where police can log down an entire city anytime they want. in my opinion, 20 years of covering crime, this was an extremely, extremely intense, rare scenario, that we will never hopefully see again in our lifetime. i do not think we are at any risk of police starting to lockdown neighborhoods just or look for guys. >> you just mentioned how you have been on the journalistic side for 20 years. do you think social media played a huge aspect? you said positively, the more negatively, when it came to the manhunt aspect. so many people were following it will stop do you think maybe they saw that everyone else knew what they were doing, and it fueled the fire? >> there were a couple of things

that happened with social media during the manhunt. there is a whole thing on reddit . that it had a hole for him -- re whole- reddit had a forum of photos taken before and after the bombings. people were analyzing the pictures and circle i think people they ought -- circling people they thought looked suspicious. --se would be detectives that was damaging. it ended up in "the new york post." it put kids on the front page of "the new york post," circled in red. it said "bagmen." there was a memo sent to police. it turned out those guys had nothing to do with it all stop it might be fun for people to try to solve a crime in their house. it was not productive to law enforcement.

the other thing is, the night of the shootout, there was a kid, alex, the neighbor -- clients berg or something. he was live tweeting the shootout. his pictures have become evidence. he was taking pictures out his window. those are evidence in the federal trial, which is important. oftreated those out, kind real-time, but that was productive. victors.e have those this is tamerlan tsarnaev, this is dzhokhar tsarnaev, this is the car, the license plate, the bombs. citizent was not only journalists making mistakes. "the boston globe" made mistakes in the need to get information out there quickly. there was a report later that week that a suspect was in custody and was being arraigned at the federal courthouse. there was no suspect in courthouse -- in custody and nobody was being arraigned, but

it brought the world media to the federal courthouse for several hours, while they were trying to figure out what was misinformation. age, one of the challenges dave and i had writing this book is, what is true? what is misinformation? what do you go with? that week, journalists did an incredible job, but also did themselves a disservice in many ways, just for trying to get that story out there as quickly as they could. >> i am pretty active on twitter. that day, i was live tweeting from the lockout, the lockdown. i was basically tweeting where i was, what was going on. the swat team searched the house. i got calls from law enforcement that asked me to stop tweeting my location, because it was jeopardizing everybody that was there. if they did have a cell they were working with, maybe they would monitor a journalist's

twitter, and they can call and say, they are in that house. get out. or they are on their way to that house. it was intense. >> one more question. >> i wanted to start off for doingou guys this. it's been very enlightening. i think a lot of us are learning pieces of the puzzle that we didn't previously know so i really appreciate you guys being here. >> thank you. my question is, it's sort of something i have been wondering for the last year. of stories a lot from survivors. we've heard from the families of victims. we've heard a lot from law enforcement, people who were on the scene but it seems like one of the people we haven't really from, or heard any widow ofhas been the tamerlan tsarnaev. he's sort of been hidden from view. it's been very sort of vague as

to what she knew, what she know. the i think a lot of people are left with -- >> that's where the status is right now. of unansweredt questions and misteries surrounding this case. involvement or lack of involvement is one of the biggest mysteries that still be solved and unlocked. thus far, she has not been charged with anything in relation to the bombings but still working that angle to the story and even though if learn later her role or lack thereof, we'll can.e the book when we >> you should look, i believe it news" it a story on sunday about her and the mystery surrounding her. she's a free citizen. she's living with her family, i of statesomewhere out and the one thing that is important to know about her is houseearched the obviously and they found all

sorts of bomb making materials allegedly at the house and none of her d.n.a. or fingerprints up on any of these materials so that's the presumption of innocence there with her. for beingou guys here. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] after ther to the day boston marathon terror blast, those killed attended a brief, quiet ceremony this morning, the event started day of ceremonies. -- "boston globe" reports that the busy commercial

andet was blocked off reporters kept at a distance. of congress sent tweets about the anniversary -- president obama observed today's anniversary with a private moment of silence at the white house at 2:49 p.m. eastern, at explodedt two bombs near the finish line of the boston marathon a year ago and a inlic ceremony was held boston where survivors and vice president biden, former mayor menino, and others, spoke for an hour.

[applause] much.nk you very governorident biden, patrick, mayor walsh. change.ngs good afternoon. to see so many people, so many of you here today, great blessing to be here even though we know that this be hard, never be easy to gather so close to be easyish line, never to be so close to that place our broke apart. it will always be hard, the part of us that wish we were

someplace else. be anywhere but here in this moment, 365 days and an after hate and violence disrupted a beautiful april day. even though the memories still bring tears to our eyes, our heartaches for those who are lost, it's still a comfort to be here with family and friends who us through that tragic day. tos an honor to be able thank and praise the first responders who carried some of to safety, ease the pain, a little more to shake the hands of the doctors and nurses who bleeding, closed the wounds or mend your legs, save you are here with us. in this moment, making this city world a better place. i know that many of you don't you have you are and struggled to get through the

know,ays and the bad, i as so many of you have told me year of firsts. first birthday without your beloved son. your holiday without daughter. thefirst july 4 where fireworks scared you, the first firstn a new leg, the sleep without a nightmare, the first day when you believed you a waylive your life in that corresponded with your dreams. us haverds so many of used to describe a year of grief resilience,, courage and strength. those words have even greater meaning now because of what you have endured, what you have survived brings truth to words, "the world breaks for everyone and at therds make us strong broken places."

for the family and friends who will always miss your loved ones, you are strong at this broken place. the victims and their long journey towards healing has just this, you are strong at broken place. to those that ran toward the and struggled with the sights and sounds of that day, you, too, are strong at this place. that strength thrives even in the heartaches of today because because of the compassion that took hold of the generosity resides in our people, it's the boston, it's a mighty force. hour, a new p.o. everyom 50 countries and state 195,000 people gave. no one had to ask. call. had to make a phone no one had to explain the life-long care you would need. to give.re ready helped us stand.

there were bake sales and pizza parties. people gave to a tip jar from a in pittsburgh. they prayed for you. they wrote notes like terry alaska,from juneau, said it best. she wrote, "boston's people are and thebeautiful, kind best. you, we, can make it through hard times." now i know that some of you can't hear me very well. not just because of the fancy way i talk. huh.guys, [laughter] some ofause you lost your hearing that day. maybe it's a little bit of both. have to because i want you to hear the solemn promise. when lights dim and cameras go away, know that i support and love for you will never waver.

whatever you have to do to on, know thatrry the people of boston, are right by your side. one year ago, you came to the city and stood along a 26.2 mile route to cheer for your loved ones, to applaud your friends, as strangers ran pushing wheelchairs, stride by side, the blind. celebrate theo strength of spirit, you admired the resilience as they crossed line.llow and blue you will do all of that and more. you, rememberwith with you, will never forget what this day means to you. i will never forget and long races areown great finished, the people who followed us will look to you as

much as they admire the runners pounding down our beloved streets, they'll remember what courage and how your it one ofsity make the strongest and most hallowed grounds here on earth. this day will always be hard. this place will always be strong because we gather here today with memories, our grief, our glorious resolve to stand for the people in a city we love our hearts. thank you very much. [applause]

>> a year ago today we chose to run towards smoke and danger. we chose to utilize our belts createse straps to tourniquets. we chose to hold the injured in our arms. we chose to offer our hearts to oure in despair and treasures to those in need. hashose to love and that made all the difference. in the days that followed, we continued to express profound

sowing the threads of community. safe again,city gave blood, performed and underwent countless surgeries began the long journey of psychological and physical rehabilitation. our hospitals showed why they are the best in the world, not through their clinical expertise but by their enormous compassion. us heree many of struggled to heal within those hospital walls, a movement coalesced throughout our city, state and country, boston with a a simple phrase not-so-simple meaning, became our uniting call. it symbolizing our communal determination to spread compassion, generosity, unity and pride. is the firefighter running

toward danger and the police officer ensuring our safety. moments,also the quiet individual snapshots of grace. the countless hours our our bedsides, by sometimes in silence as they offered their love by their alone.e it's the fellow survivor offering her hospital room to a married couple to reunite. it is a private visit from a wounded warrior telling us and showing us that we'll get better. is the movers volunteering their time to help the newly new home.ransfer to a it's the department store clothingsearching for to accommodate medical devices. sees ae passer-by who prosthetic leg and nods in strength. and it's the ribbons proudly

our cruisers, ladder trucks, buses and cars when a bandtainly of bearded brothers brings home a championship to a beloved fans.rk and its [applause] within oure heroes families. a devoted brother who drove for the day of the marathon with a caring friend to be by his brother's side and serve as his chief of staff. a loving sister who moved across care for hero family. parents stricken with fear and sadness who found a way to spend day after day in hospitals with hopes of willing their children back to health. extended family giving all they to support those they love, and couples, both wed and unwed, who stay by each other's

sides through the emotional someone youching love suffer and the beauty of knowing that you'll get through this together, in sickness and in health. soer has that vow felt tangible. we would never wish the havetation and pain we experienced on any of you. ofever, we do wish that all you at some point in your lives feltas loved as we have over this last year. it has been the most humbling of our lives. we hope you feel all the emotion say thank you. to our fellow survivor would we dohat without each other? thisould have never met way but we are so grateful for each other. despair,hared our sense of loss and challenges as gratitude andpe, triumphs.

we have been there for each other and we will continue to be there to pick each other up and celebrate milestones for years to come. most of all, we will cherish the friendships our families have of mutualh bonds admiration. those who continue to struggle through despair, theing medical care and prospect of heartwrenching forgetl decisions, don't for a second that we will be moment's you at a notice. we will always remember our angels, lingzi, sean, krystle and martin. whether we raise them as our knew them for years, met them once or only know them carry them inwill our hearts. families, know that you will never be alone and that the

beside you. we remember those who died as us, the intellectual charm of lingzi. justice.mmitment to krystle's infectious smile. of the childhood charm martin. the we will choose to think of them not in association with but forever connected to our commitment to peace. peace, that will be their lasting message to us. historians when these -- devastation that was brought upon our four guardianow angels came to be but i also hope they will tell of the compassion and unity that followed. thinklonger have to philosophically about the capacity of the human spirit. it is right here in the city of boston. whether our families have been here for generations or recently

called boston home, we know that we have written another chapter in a rich history of revolutionary people and we take pride in knowing that we are part of something much larger than ourselves. in this spirit we choose this monday to show the world what boston represents through our deeds and dedications. us who will ride and run, we will do so for those with us.o longer for a family member with cancer, great city and for countless other causes. for those of us who will crowd the route, we will embrace roles as motivators and emotional catalysts. and for our guardian angels, let them hear us roar. let's show them they live on in our bonds of family, friendship and community and in the infectious spirit that we will inl on the third monday april for years to come.

bostonianoud to be a because i am so proud to be of you.d to all [applause]

>> vice president biden, governor patrick, mayor walsh, survivors, first responders and distinguished guests. marks one year from when our lives were changed forever, that none of us wanted, nor a change we would wish on anyone else. each of our paths to recovery have been unique and we at our ownaveled pace, we continue to move forward. they, i will not focus on past but be mindful of our successes and thank those who have helped us take our first steps, reclimb our first mountains and reclaim our lives. forhe first responders, running into harm's way and giving us the aid that we needed. to the doctors, surgeons and who completely gave of themselves to ensure that our

most severely injured were given chance to live again. to all law enforcement agencies who worked tirelessly and quickly to make our city secure again. the physical therapists and continue toho support us physically and emotionally. boston athletic association, the one fund contributors and the countless others who combined gave us the to recognize each day as a new beginning and the hope tomorrow.hter thank you for your love, compassion and generosity. you have touched our hearts in a way that many times our could only be expressed through our tears of joy. [applause] governor patrick and mayor

menino, thank you for your leadership during one of the city's darkest moments. you are both symbols of strength compassion. during the early days, you gave tothe opportunity to mourn, grieve and to reflect, in street and boylston through the creation of the one fund, you immediately provided critical and much needed financial and emotional support. thorpe, lori van damme staff, entire one fund thank you to your tireless commitment to the survivors and their families. proactive in anticipating our needs and are -- devoted to ach and every one of us on personal level. to the survivors, although your journey has not been easy and long, your still inner strength, determination displayed during

these past 12 months have made you an inspiration to many. each step forward is a step away from the past and a step towards new tomorrow. thank you all for exempifying in mankind qualities and bless those that lost their this tragicesult of event. be proud of what you've accomplished. be proud that you've decided to control of your life and be proud that you've chosen to live of you areat each making a difference in the lives of others. president,s of our barack obama, one year ago, heart that even when our aches, we summon the strength that maybe we didn't even know and we we carry on finish the race, we finish the race and we do that because of who we are and we did to do that know that someone around the bend, a stranger has cup of water, around the bend,

someone's there to boost our toughestnd on that mile, just when we think we've hit a wall, there will be there to cheer us on and pick us up if we fall and this the thirdear on monday, the world will return to tos beautiful american city run harder than ever, to cheer before for the 118th marathon and bet on it. president obama was right. here we are, one year later, we and seeboston strong you on monday. [applause]

good afternoon. one year ago, my husband, major adam davis, had just returned from afghanistan where he was on terrorhe war uninjured. we took a long walk into sunny boston and in a matter of seconds, our world was changed forever. difficult to believe it has only been one year. weeksls like only a few and we have a long road yet to walk. today as a proud bostonian, although adam and i boston three short years ago. the city has stood by us, supported us and helped us heal. together we held each other in face of terror. we grieved in the face of and we grew in, the face of adversity. survivor community is not

something any of us have chosen just a part of yet we are that, a community. there were many moments we could through had itt not been for one another. we find peace in providing a cry on, a warm embrace, and a hand to hold in a crowd. know just by eye contact what the other is feeling. for ournkful friendships. and as i look back on this past year, i think of the lessons that we have learned and have no to relearn, that milestone is too small to alebrate, even walking into nonhandicapped bathroom stall the first time doing a happy dance. little things. i also learned that moods are ouragious, our community, city, our first responders, our physical and mental therapists would not and

theirot let us fail and unwavering devotion to strength we stand here boston strong today. i have also learned that it is ok to not be ok, that we still to let ourselves grieve. we can stay in bed, even, for a few days. yet it is that boston strong back outthat gets us and when we cannot find the strength to do it ourselves, we that lift around us us back up. my wish, if i were allowed to one, is that we use this day not as just a day of remembrance, but a day of action. i wish that everyone who is facing adversity today would that we haveort had. if anyone is wondering what they do, i would you can answer, look around. people in your community need your support. they need your patience and they need your time in dealing with similar situations such as ours.

a day when wee all work together to make this world a better place. of all the lesson lessons that i have learned over this past year is that something your life, in anyone's life, can go horrifically, terribly of seconds,atter yet it is up to us to make every single second count after, because, believe me, they do. thank you. [applause]

i've heard it said that people ame into our lives for reason, bringing something we and we are led to us most to grow return, wellhem in that's know if i believe true, but i know i'm who i am today because i knew you like it, and hold from orbit as

it passes the sun. like a stream that needs a boulder halfway through the wood. who can say if i'd been changed for the better. but because i knew you, i have been changed for good. it will may be that we may never meet again. in this lifetime so let me say before we part so much of me is because i have learned it from you and you will be with me like