The following piece draws on entries from the forthcoming Boston Marathon Bombing Timeline.

At 4:18PM on April 15 while CNN ominously reports that two are dead and more than 110 injured as a result of the Boston Marathon bombing, anchorwoman Erin Burnett conducts a telephone interview with a young woman claiming to be an eyewitness to the explosions occurring 90 minutes earlier. (Quinn Brettler also appeared on MSNBC and CBS, but no footage of these interviews can be identified online.) “Joining me on the phone right now is Cassidy Quinn Brettler,” Burnett begins. “She was 30 feet away when the explosions happened. [She] was watching her coworker cross the finish line.”

Quinn Brettler then provides a detailed description of the event as it unfolded. “So I—like you said was about 30 feet from the finish line,” Quinn Brettler explains.

I—mainly I heard it and I felt it. I heard—you guys are showing video of it—I heard a noise that I’ve never heard anything as loud as that in my entire life and I felt the ground shake like nothing ever before [sic]. I mean my legs were shaking for two hours after because I was just so sh[a]ken up literally. [Note that Quinn Brettler’s interview is taking place approximately 90 minutes after the incident. Along these lines, how did CNN and other networks locate the interviewee so quickly? Cellphone service is severely congested or reportedly down in the bombing aftermath.-JT] And then about 25 seconds later I realize I should turn and see what was actually happening and look at what happened besides just run away. So I looked up and just saw smoke everywhere, and everybody screaming and running in different directions and just utter chaos [sic].

Burnett then prompts Quinn Brettler to discuss the carnage she says she has witnessed. “You were 30 feet away … you must have seen people who were injured or worse at that moment.” “I didn’t know where to go,” responds Quinn Brettler,

and people were just screaming and running in different directions so I went into a little ATM booth that was close by ‘cause everyone seemed to be going inside for safety. Ah—so I went inside there and from the window I—from there I saw people being carried past me that were in—I mean I was fine but these people were in much worse shape than I am, obviously. Uhm, and just blood everywhere. Body parts that should never look in the state they were looking. Just total—I mean disturbing [sic].

The following morning at 9:38AM Quinn Brettler is interviewed on camera in Boston by CNN reporter Chris Cuomo.

In this interview she describes herself as a “video blogger,” and in stark contrast to the exchange with Burnett, Quinn Brettler makes no reference to being at the Marathon to see an acquaintance cross the finish line. Instead she goes on at some length describing how she videotaped the aftermath. “You had a camera on ya?” Cuomo asks. “I did,” Quinn Brettler responds.

I had a—I had a DSLR and [I] also had a—just my phone camera—that’s my HD camera and I’m a video blogger so I figured if I—I’m alive—there are other people that are a lot less fortunate [who] are not alive, or are injured, or are heading to the hospital right now. So if I’m here I might as well at least try to show people in other places what’s—what’s going on and post the video as quickly as I can because you can’t understand it unless you’re actually there.

Cuomo then asks, “What was the look for your lens? What kinds of things did you actually see?”

Ah, as I was walking and taking video I walked past a res—restaurant on Newbury Street that I saw was giving out pitchers of water to people so I looked down and there was actually a person who was bleeding on—on the street right off of the sidewalk. Just laying down, and luckily this restaurant was helping them. And it was great to see people teaming up together to help the people that were in need. But I mean everyone around me, no one knew what to do and it was just—that’s basically what I captured on video. It was just utter chaos.

Quinn Brettler’s responses are especially intriguing in light of the immediate locale and police procedures applied at the scene. Newbury Street is over two city blocks (673 feet according to Google Maps) away from the finish line area where the dead and wounded lay. As described below, Quinn Brettler also films herself further down Boylston Street at the scene of the second bombing. She is thus allowed to freely roam around a broad area in the immediate wake of the largest terrorist attack since 9/11. This greatly contrasts with how other pedestrians are treated. As one college student in roughly the same location recalls, “We were being told to sit against the wall and just sit there and wait for further instructions.”

So there are clear inconsistencies with the two accounts offered to Burnett and Cuomo. But more importantly CNN fails to explain that Cassidy Quinn Brettler isn’t just a run of the mill bystander or amateur videographer, but rather a professionally-trained freelance reporter and actor.

Quinn Brettler is a 2011 graduate of Emerson College in Boston with a double major in Broadcast Journalism and Theater Studies with a Performance emphasis. According to her website’s moniker, Quinn Brettler is “all over the internet, in front of the camera.” She presently holds the position of Director of Digital Creative & Social Media at Boloco, a moderately-sized New England restaurant franchise. Quinn Brettler otherwise attends to “tweeting, instagramming, facebooking, and traveling the globe shooting/hosting/producing/editing YouTube videos” for her employer, as well as videos for her own YouTube channel.

Here Quinn Brettler may be found discussing the wonders of green screen special effects. “You can be invisible,” she effuses.

Quinn Brettler’s Twitter account has in excess of 3,500 followers, and she also has extensive extracurricular theatrical experience, proffering sundry talents that include “fast memorization, 3 years of French … New York Accent, British Accent … [and] improvisation.”

Also on Quinn Brettler’s site is a special page devoted to her coverage in the press, with dozens of mentions from major news media highlighting her activity in broadcasting, theater, dance, and related pursuits. Perhaps sensing the ethical and more serious concerns suggested here, there is no mention of the back-to-back cameos on CNN, a cable network with profound influence and reach. Nor is there any reference to the appearances on her blog.

Yet on a corollary YouTube channel Quinn Brettler posts “before and after (the blast)” videos of the event which are stand alone artifacts that demand further independent analysis not possible within the scope of this post.

In the second video, inconspicuously titled, “BOSTON MARATHON EXPLOSIONS!” Quinn Brettler is meandering around the location of the second blast, which is 500 feet or more from her 30-to-50 feet proximity to the first explosion. And, in contrast to her interview with CNN’s Burnett, Quinn Brettler claims to have heard the second explosion–that detonated a mere ten seconds after the first–while sheltering in an ATM alcove.

Then curiously Quinn Brettler states, “I guess I should walk back to work.” This conflicts with her remark in the before-explosions video that Bostonians have Patriots’ Day off, and how she anticipates seeing the CFO of Boloco, who apparently is the Marathon participant CNN’s Burnett mentions in the April 15 interview. (On a related note, as one observer has pointed out, throughout the latter video purportedly shot 10 minutes after the attack, few sirens or similar emergency activity activity can be heard in the background, which is markedly unusual following an event of such magnitude.

The bottom line is that the various contradictions in Quinn Brettler’s accounts of the Boston bombings–and CNN’s use of her as an impartial witness–are suspect. This individual is a public figure of some stature who was almost certainly known to CNN’s producers before the interviews took place. (A Google search on her name yields 147,000 results.) Using a person with such capacities with the intent to mislead would be well within the parameters of the cable news industry’s achievements in chicanery and deception.

This is particularly the case with CNN. From its promotion and coverage of wars abroad to acts of domestic terrorism, the outlet has a well-documented history of hoodwinking the public on matters of major import. Overall, utilizing a professional broadcaster and actor as an eyewitness to an ostensibly tragic and horrific event further calls into question the veracity of the mainstream reportage on the bombing and its equally portentous fallout.

Leave a Reply

29 thought on “CNN Tapped Fledgling Media Personality as Boston Bombing “Eyewitness””
  1. Quinn is annoying and has trouble staying on message. She’d like to be a better known something – reporter or actress like the two in this video below.

    Abby Martin disses Rachel Maddow for her lack of empathy for victims of 9/11 truth families BUT Abby lets a grand opportunity go by where she could have caught Rachel characterizing Boston as a bombing, and neither Abby nor Rachel ever talk about the lack of evidence it was anything but a planned propaganda drill and excuse for a scary martial law exercise. This is unforgivable. Real investigative journalists cover complete stories and do not just feature pet issues. Boston has yet to be officially investigated.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fie5CpZmMsg

    1. Yes, but I am at a loss to name any journalists (with the exception of Veterans Today and few modest websites such as this one) that have seriously interrogated the Boston event. This is the enforcement of a consensus reality that has been employed as a technique for some time (at least since Oklahoma City) and intensifies commensurately with the deepening corruption of the overall system.

      1. Yes, James, your site really is better – other so called investigative sites barely scratch the surface about Boston. I tried to post the above with criticism of Abby and 9/11 blogger took it down, censoring the truth while I suppose trying to stay on her good side to bring forth more on their issue.

      2. Prof. Tracy – actually, infowars.com has been all over it as well and broke a lot of the news involving Craft International. (Remember Dan Bidondi of Infowars.com who asked the first question at the press conference — “is this another false flag being used by the government to take away our liberties?” )

        At the same time, it was citizen journalists who pulled together the incriminating photographs that showed the brothers still had their backpacks after the blast.

        1. I agree that they’ve played an important role as well, especially in documenting and publicizing the events and figures in the lead up to the specific event. You’ll see that a post on Bidondi’s presence at the April 15 press conference is included here in the archives.

  2. Hoax events require hoax witnesses and she stepped right up to the plate as soon as CNN came calling, (presumably prior to the event even taking place). Maybe they should choose their multimedia journalists (sorry – witnesses) a little more carefully in future, even though in deception on this level she was probably the logical choice.

      1. Thank you for clarifying.
        Strange that they would take it down unless, of course it looked suspicious. The still image at the top left of the link of what would have been the video looks highly suspect and very green screen. Was she supposed to be in two places at once immediately after the ‘explosions’ one doing her own coverage interview for the vlog and another for the media interview?.

  3. I was unfortunate enough to catch a 7 minute CNN article the last time when Kim Jung Un of North Korea was apparently brandishing his nuclear stick again. The whole piece was like countdown to Armageddon, supposedly to incite fear. Pure theatre. So glad people are switching off an the viewing figures dropped.
    Sort of ties in with Orwell’s vision of war and terror being continuously propagated to perpetuate fear, so we look to the state for protection then subsequently the laws become tighter and freedom is reduced.
    Maybe there is hope that people are beginning to see through the lies and deception and we haven’t quite reached the stage of pure totalitarianism. Yet.
    The situation at the moment is that the process toward an omnipresent, oppressive government could still be a slow process (if it’s not reached that stage already), but another highly fabricated engineered event will undoubtedly hasten that vision somewhat as we have seen since 9/11.
    In many ways the Boston Marathon Bombing was even more blatant the massive psy-ops of 9/11 and almost certainly more so than Sandy Hook. 9/11 was big in production and in the beginning didn’t leave much scope for doubt (initially) in the eye of the beholder, depending on your viewpoint on such matters. Sandy Hook was mainly a concealed operation behind closed doors, along with Aurora. Boston is different.
    As with 9/11, both occurred in broad daylight, but Boston was on ground level, in public, in the middle of a race were hundreds of people gathered in crowds were watching and the world’s media had their camera lenses transfixed on proceedings. Avery sick,slick, evil, manipulative almost stylish operation that has in a way succeeded but paradoxically so ultimately failed. It was a step too far in covert manipulation, much too intricate and most importantly albeit impossible to pill off. But they still tried.

  4. Cassidy Quinn Brettler? Poor child can’t deside whether she wants to be an actress or a journalist. Strange track pursuing both simultaneously. Then, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense given today’s manufactured reality. Keep that in mind as you view our MSM in an age of wall-to-wall communication. But what are we actually communicating?

    Can we pinpoint the moment when journalism (always an iffy proposition) morphed into shadowyand shallow entertainment? I like to think it started with Ted Turner and CNN’s rising with, a 24/7 format to fill dead airspace. All other media followed suit; we said goodbye to responsible reportage as news departments were swallowed whole by commercial interests. Most news comes from a central dispatch; the illusion of on-the-ground correspondents became SOP.

  5. As to George Orwell’s observations on totalitarian regimes. It seems most people want stability. The elite want to maintain their level of creature comfort and will throw underlings under the bus, if necessary. It always intrigued me the way religion is so maleable to political reality. Leverage is the key word; if you have money (i.e. power), you can use it to manipulate other institutions–which control the many–into compliance. Serfdom is serfdom under any political scheme–communist or capitalist.

    Given the option, power will always consolidate into a pyramid construct. In the meantime, those on top create division along the fault lines of all human differences–race, class, age, ethnicity, education, intellect, et al. Works every time until they overstep the limits of endurance.

      1. I’m all for the right of good citizens to bear arms. However, there is a concerted effort to withdraw that right and the last time I looked, we practice capitalism (actually, it’s dissolved into corporatism, another name for fascism) or some sort of mutant hybred. I like the term corporate technocracy. So we keep breaking down the faux incidents called attacks on society into their minute parts, finding the narrative won’t fit the pictures.

  6. I want to start off by saying that this blog absolutely disgusts me. This is my sister you are talking about. I won’t even waste my time here arguing and pointing out how absolutely crazy you must be to think that something like this was staged in any form. My sister is extremely passionate about what she does, and as an avid vlogger, it is instinctual for her to capture her reactions to a major event such as this.
    You weren’t there. This was a real event. My sister, along with the entire city of Boston is scared forever from this traumatic event. It is absolutely ridiculous for you to question someones validity around a matter such as this. An apology should be sent to my sister, and judging by your extensive, almost overly creepy research you did on her, I think that you know where to reach her at.

    1. Yes. Few, if any of us “were there.” That is the reason why so much is in doubt. Suspicions have arisen as a result of the overwhelming number of inconsistencies and clearly fraudulent aspects of the event. If it were 20 years ago, the organic response to this event would be very different.

      And, what about “a matter such as this” dictates that it’s ridiculous to question it? We must be “crazy” to think that “something like this was staged in any form?” Are you saying that there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed by thinking certain things and communicating those thoughts?

      The problem you are faced with in coming to this blog and trying to sum up the general mind-set is that, unless you read everything since its inception you’ll likely be off-base. Of course none of us want to falsely accuse someone of being a criminal or hoax conspirator. But, the formality of excusing ourselves on the off-chance we are doing just that was dealt with long ago. Why we don’t bother with that in each article ongoing is likely because we’ve assessed the general audience. The audience and contributors here are not evil people and seek to reduce crime, reduce harm, increase harmony, spread truth.

      I assure you, the author of this piece would be compelled to apologize for any false characterization or accusation if it was determined to be so. Are you willing to stay and participate in the conversation so that these determinations can be made?

      1. I would love to entertain any questions that you feel are worthy. I don’t however wish to participate in a conversation with those who believe that CNN, The US Government, my sister for God’s sake, or some larger US corporation, were responsible for, or helped partake in the planning of an event such as the Boston bombing. If that is where you all stand, then that to me is a lost cause, and I feel that it would be a waste of time discussing this matter further. I am all for freedom of speech, and am certainly one who loves to discuss, but when it comes “spreading the truth,” I believe that we as a country know the truths about where, and who committed this hideous event. Going into details about an innocent girl (my sister mind you) who went down to the Marathon to film her boss crossing the finish line, who’s job is to take videos and capture moments exactly as such, and putting her name in the mix of those who are being accused of being a part of this terrorist act, is crossing far over the line. That is where my issue is.

        1. Your response is reasonable and I can relate to most of it. I appreciate that you responded and didn’t just ignore my comments in disgust.

          Personally, I’m VERY confused about how a coordinated hoax like many suspect the Boston bombing of being might be possible. It boggles my mind. I’ve never been able to account for everything as either factual or hoax. So, in that respect I’m sort of in agreement with you. If you don’t wish to discuss the topic along this vein, I can respect that.

          My attitude is probably hardened and the range of possibility I’m willing to consider greatly expanded from my research of some events in history that was triggered by 9/11. I can’t say the precise moment when my thinking shifted, but looking back it was largely circumstantial that I even viewed the information I found indicative of conspiracy. And, for the record I view these things as crimes. No magic or deeper meaning.

          Maybe you’re more interested in sharing your thoughts on some parts of the Boston story you don’t have even a remotely personal stake in. You said…”we as a country know the truths about where, and who committed this hideous event.” I assume you were referring to the Tsarnaev brothers. But, what if the media was reporting the suspect was Nicholas Cage? Even worse, what if the country was willing to accept that?

          I’m not trying to be funny, but rather to get you thinking about how you might react to an assertion you just can’t accept on face.

          Here’s what I’m dealing with. I watched a nighttime video showing what I think was almost certainly the elder brother, naked and handcuffed being put in the back of a squad car. I read the statements of his mother and aunt, both identifying that it was him. Then, the FBI announced he had been run over by an SUV driven by the younger brother and died as a result. A photo was also released of the deceased older brother with multiple, severe wounds.

          My concern is that the police took the elder Tsarnaev into custody and were somehow responsible for his death. If true, then the deceptiveness of law enforcement in this matter would lead me to question the whole Boston affair.

          Are you familiar with the video of the older brother being taken into custody? If so, what is your impression of this and does it factor into your overall view of what might have taken place?

          I took the time to pop over to your blog and read your thoughts on that Ashton Kutcher video. It was a bit uplifting to see a celebrity speaking out against consumerism, etc. Mostly, I was pleased your blog wasn’t all scripted propaganda! I’m almost convinced you mean what you’ve written.

        2. Brettler, I completely understand your position;I have two beautiful and talented sisters and am fiercely devoted to them. I had never been the slightest bit suspicious of my government’s motives as being anything other than guided by what is in our(American citizens) best interests. I served in Vietnam in the US Air Force in 1970 and believed that it was my duty to do so. That all changed in April of 1993 when I became a horrified witness to the needless, evil slaughter of American citizens and their children under the guise of PROTECTING those same children! Please go online and reacquaint yourself with the Waco,Tx Slaughter and then come back here so we may have a reasonable discussion about just what our Federal government may or may not be capable of. BTW,pay strict attention to the evidence of the use of military grade accelerants which were used in that massive torching, that we were told was the result of Koresh dumping gasoline to burn up himself and all his followers. It was that very day that many Americans began losing that blind trust in our government…I know I did. Now I question EVERYTHING!

    2. “I won’t even waste my time here arguing and pointing out how absolutely crazy you must be to think that something like this was staged in any form.”

      That is a very foolish thing to say. Governments have staged false flag events to sway public opinion throughout time. Our government did so to start a war against Spain (“Remember the Maine”), to get us into WWI (the Lusitania), to get us into WWII (Roosevelt goaded Japan into attacking Hawaii, and knew about the attack in advance), to go into full fledged war against Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident), and to transform America into a police state and launch wars in Asia (911). Anyone who is not suspicious whenever the media give us a pre-packaged, hole-filled explanation for a traumatizing event is a fool.

      “This was a real event.” Oh, I guess I should take your word for it, then. Not.

      “It is absolutely ridiculous for you to question someones validity around a matter such as this.” No, it would be ridiculous not to. Every fake injury and every lie every “first responder” told about what they did that morning screams out for the light of truth to be revealed. You say the city was permanently “scared,” and although you probably meant “scarred,” I think you got it more right in your typo. These fake traumas are designed to scare us into accepting governmental changes we wouldn’t otherwise accept, and the more permanent our fear the better to get the job done.

      Bummer that your sister cheerfully signed up to help them in this latest go-round. I think shame is in order, not high dudgeon.

  7. Well, it certainly is the government”s dearest hope to have a population so naive and unaware that no thought of government involvement in destructive acts can be summoned up. When a person begins to think and question the first thing one must ask is…who has the MOST to gain from the event? Follow the money and then the subsequent laws and intrusions that are sure to follow that swallow up OUR freedoms. Clearly 9/11 was designed to bring about the surveillance state and control over what once was our privacy. Does anyone enjoy checking in at an airport since 9-11? Not ONE person has been stopped by the TSA in all these years, just harassment of regular travelers!!

    Perhaps a place to start wondering about the role of our government in creating false flags might begin with Operation Northwoods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *