J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Blog

New 7/7 Video by Tom Secker, 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

2011-10-03T11:13:00.001Z

A recently released film about the subject of 7/7, based on the researches and investigations of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, which includes details of the British State's history of collusion and complicity in previous terrorist attacks, coverage of related news and stories, as well as information about the proceedings that took place at the 7/7 Inquests:

A brand new investigative and analytical documentary from the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. It explores the 7/7 cold case via new evidence from the recent inquests and discusses the war on terror in the context of numerous miscarriages of justice and acts of violence committed by the state.

The first section of the film examines the history of the British state's use of double agents, from the Victorian Anarchists through WW2 to the war in Northern Ireland. It concludes by examining contemporary cases of injustice and violence carried out as part of the war of terror against Muslims.

The second section of the film is a multi-dimensional study of the new evidence made available at the recent inquests. It looks at the evidence of a wider conspiracy and the fundamental flaws in the official narrative and the police investigation. It also discusses why the dialogue about 'intelligence failures' itself fails to address the very real possibility of state involvement in the attacks.

The final section of the film returns to the Anarchists and the case of Martial Bourdin, Britain's first suicide bomber, in 1894. The mythology surrounding Bourdin is used as a foundation for examining the numerous films, tv shows training exercises and real life events that either predicted 7/7 or were influenced by the attacks. The question of conspiracy theories is addressed through an original analysis unique to this film.

7/7 Crime and Prejudice combines a presentation of the cutting edge of July 7th research with a deeply contextual analysis that casts light on largely unexamined aspects of the war on terror.

For further information about 7/7 please visit the website of the July 7th Truth Campaign and their dedicated 7/7 Inquests blog:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

6th Anniversary of 7/7

2011-07-07T23:37:00.004Z

On the 6^th anniversary of 7/7, J7 are once again forced to reiterate our demand for a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005.

At the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests, Lady Justice Hallett named the 4 accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay as the perpetrators of the events of 7/7, despite the clear legal constraints that apply to Coroners and their ability to apportion guilt. Hallett concluded the inquest proceedings by refusing to resume the Inquests into the deaths of the 4. As part of our efforts to get to the truth of 7/7, J7 submitted a clear, detailed and reasoned submission to the inquests outlining why the resumption of these Inquests was imperative. J7's submission for resumption can be read here

As we stated in our submission:

The lack of representation of the families of the 4 men allowed any and all of the evidence presented to go unchallenged, meaning no witnesses called to the inquests were cross examined on behalf of the families of the accused.
The Inquests sat without a jury.
The Metropolitan Police investigation, Operation Theseus, was deemed to be outside the scope of the Inquests and thus the entire investigation behind Ian Blair's "largest criminal inquiry in English history" remains unexamined and unquestioned.
The Inquests for the 4 accused, in which a verdict of suicide would require a criminal standard of proof, were not resumed.

There are many glaring holes in the evidence that was presented to the Inquests, as detailed on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog which we set-up specially to report on the inquests, yet these potential showstoppers for the official narrative of events went unreported in the mainstream media. The absolute pressing necessity for a fully independent Public Inquiry is now greater than ever in order to enable anyone to have any confidence in the evidence by which the guilt or innocence of the four accused might be established. To date there has been no proper legal scrutiny of this evidence. Furthermore, in cases of alleged suicide, the intent to commit suicide must be proven and this burden of proof has not yet been met.

Without a full Public Inquiry, it remains the case that:

The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the 'Life Extinct' body counts carried out on 7th July by Dr Morgan Costello.
The police viewing of the Luton Station CCTV footage was conducted as early as 10th July, despite the official account clearly stating that the men were identified on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink on 11th July, and that it was this discovery that led the investigation to Luton as a possible site of interest.
There exist no sightings of three of the men, Khan Tanweer and Lindsay, after the footage from King's Cross Thameslink, some way from the Underground tube network. Apparently the temporary CCTV system that was installed at King's Cross underground malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30 and 8.50. Additionally, there are no recordings of the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence that shows three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
No CCTV from the pre-explosion tube carriages has been released, despite this CCTV apparently existing, and despite it being crucial evidence which could confirm or deny that three of the men boarded the carrriages they are alleged to have boarded. This CCTV should also have been made available to Colonel Mahoney when the expensive modelling of likely injuries sustained by the deceased was conducted to make up for the lack of any internal post mortems on the victims.
No CCTV exists from McDonald's showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb, as it was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV (oh the irony) turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the buses he is alleged to have boarded. There is no footage of Hussain aboard the number 91 bus, nor the number 30 bus he is alleged to have destroyed, nor is there any street or traffic camera footage showing him boarding either bus.
There is a huge discrepancy between the explosives allegedly used, as given in sworn evidence to the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest, and the evidence that Clifford Todd gave to the 7/7 Inquests.
There is strong evidence in the public domain to suggest that at the heart of the story behind 7/7 lay at least three operatives for both the British and American Intelligence services, one of which served an insanely short period in a US prison, for greater crimes than those his testimony put behind bars for far longer terms, before being quietly released.

These questions and many more can be found on the 7/7 Inquests blog.

Six years on from an event with the largest single loss of life in London since the blitz can the Metropolitan Police, with it's long track record of complicity in facilitating Miscarriages of Justice -- and given the recent revelations that it is implicated in the Murdoch News of the World phone hacking scandal -- be allowed to offer a 'narrative' which is so deeply flawed and suspect? How about a 'narrative' which has remained unexamined and unchallenged except by J7? A 'narrative' that has ascribed guilt to four men without their families having the opportunity and legal representation to question, particularly when the four accused have been denied their own Inquest proceedings? Or a 'narrative' deemed outside the scope of inquiry by the 7/7 Inquests, and a 'narrative' which has led to the demonisation of the Muslim population? This is the same flawed and unproven narrative that has been the basis for the questioning of multi-culturalism and a 'narrative' which has done much to fuel the race-hate and bigotry of the far-right neo-fascist organisation, the EDL.

Current Prime Minister, David Cameron, has announced not one but two inquiries into the ongoing criminal exploits and activities of the press and police, just as news was breaking that the families of 7/7 victims were also victims of phone hacking at the hands of Murdoch media. This means that, as if we woke to find outselves in the midst of a Kafka novel, it is apparently right and proper to investigate whether or not the families of 7/7 victims had their mobile phones hacked, but it is not right and proper to have a full, in-depth, independent public investigation into how those same families of the 7/7 victims lost their loved ones.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign continue to say NO! This will not stand! Only a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005 has the vaguest chance of getting to the truth behind the 'narrative' of 7/7.

J7 will be writing again in the near future to ask for your continued support in our joint campaign for the truth about 7/7, and we will provide a few suggestions for ways you can help us pressure the government into commissioning an independent public inquiry.

For truth and justice,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

7/7 Researcher Tom Secker - On The Edge

2011-06-05T10:45:00.009Z

7/7 Seeds of Deconstruction documentary maker, Tom Secker, discussing many of the anomalies from the 7/7 Inquests on The Edge.

A cat amongst the [stool] pigeons - Mohammed Junaid Babar [Re-post]

2011-02-14T17:09:00.001Z

An article in today's Guardian asks some of the questions that J7 posed to the 7/7 Inquests when we sent our submission on Preventability to the coroner and counsel in July 2010.

In light of the Guardian series of articles regarding this issue, we reproduce below our submission listing the serious issues that arise from the role that Mohammed Junaid Babar has played in the events of not only 7th July 2005 but also the so-called 'fertilizer bomb plot', apparently scuppered by Operation Crevice, and also the incarceration of Fahad Hashmi:

CREVICE TRIAL

Without the testimony of 'Supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar at the Crevice trial, would there have been enough evidence against these men to merit the 40 year life sentences they received? Especially given the statement read on behalf of these men at the end of the Crevice trial explicitly denied that there was any plot to attack the UK:

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims."⁹

WIDER CONNECTIONS

The section in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues entitled “Preventability” comprises by far the bulk of the index. Further, the bulk of areas outlined in points 13-23 relate directly to just two of the accused, Khan and Tanweer, and their interactions with others connected to Operation Crevice, notably, and mostly, Omar Khyam. There are wider connections over and above those between Khan (now deceased) and Khyam (serving a life sentence, received in no small part due to the testimony of the prosecution's 'star witness'¹⁴Junaid Babar), featuring individuals that appear to create and facilitate links between disparate individuals and groups across continents, and we outline these for informational purposes below. Many of these individuals appear to have protected status in that they have either never been arrested or have miraculously evaded prosecution over a period of time when many lesser figures were rendered to the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.

Much is made of the failings of West Yorkshire police and the security services to properly investigate and/or assess Khan and Tanweer, particularly in the two years prior to 7th July 2005. However, there is an important question to be asked here:

How would Khan and Tanweer have known that they were not under investigation given the following facts:

29 March 2004: Momin Khawaja was arrested in Canada in the culmination of what was reported as a “a month long sting operation”

30 March 2004: Eight arrests were made of men who were known to Khan and Tanweer as part of Operation Crevice.

June 2004: news broke that the FBI had been holding Mohammed Junaid Babar in custody in New York since April 2004. It was reported that he was negotiating a plea bargain with the authorities.

Junaid Babar, a US citizen had being widely reported since November 2001, declaring support for the 9/11 attacks and announcing he was recruiting fighters to fight against US forces in Afghanistan:

As the TV camera rolled Mohammed Junaid Babar’s eyes shone indignantly behind nerdish glasses: “There is no negotiation with the Americans. I will kill every American that I see in Afghanistan, and every American I see in Pakistan.”¹⁵

Jon Gilbert, who conducted interviews with Junaid Babar, later mused:

“The conundrum still remains, though. Why did Babar talk to me so willingly in the first place? It’s a question that I’ve been asking myself for more than six years. Some suggest that he may have already been an FBI agent.“¹⁶

Despite making inflammatory and widely publicised pronouncements about being an Islamic warrior, despite seemingly declaring war on Americans, and despite his being a key facilitator in the alleged “terror training camps” in Pakistan (akin to the U.K equivalent of 'Q', Mohammed Quayyum Khan, also a part-time taxi driver), Junaid Babar appears to have been allowed to travel freely between Pakistan and the UK, as shown by the Operation Crevice timeline compiled by the Metropolitan Police¹⁷.

2001-2004
· Pakistani-born Mohammed Junaid Babar leaves his home in the USA, just days after 9/11 and travels to Pakistan to live

Spring 2003
· Mohammed Junaid Babar meets Omar Khyam and Waheed Mahmood in England.

January 2004
· Mohammed Junaid Babar travels to England and subsequently meets Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar and Anthony Garcia

The results of a joint BBC Radio 4 File on 4 and Newsnight investigation also revealed that, “We understand that Siddique Khan was also seen with this man [Junaid Babar] in Leeds in 2003.”¹⁸

Hassan Butt, who first facilitated Junaid Babar's stay in Pakistan¹⁹, describes a meeting between Babar and Khan in Leeds, held after attending a barbecue to raise money for 'training camps' which is attended by a number of prolific propagandists and provocateurs for 'extremist' 'Islam'.

Butt reveals that after the jihadist barbecue he drove to Khan’s home near Leeds with another guest, Mohammed Junaid Babar, who would shortly become a supergrass. Babar’s testimony helped to secure the conviction last week of five members of the Crevice gang, who had planned to blow up — among other targets — the Bluewater shopping mall in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

Although Babar describes the barbecue in his testimony, he does not refer to the drive north, nor to some of the guests named by Butt.
...
The host was a long-standing activist of Al-Muhajiroun, the group set up by Sheikh Omar Bakri in 1996
...
The guest list included men who were later to become notorious. Among them, claims Butt, was Mohammed Quayyum Khan, a part-time taxi driver from Luton who is alleged to have sent Mohammad Sidique Khan to the Malakand training camp on behalf of Al-Qaeda.
…
Butt, who had borrowed his brother’s navy blue Audi TT to get to the party from his home in Manchester, decided it was time to head back north. Babar asked to be dropped off near Leeds. ..

As the sun rose, Babar directed Butt to a terrace house in Batley, West Yorkshire, 15 minutes from the M1. A man in pyjamas came out to greet them. It was Mohammad Sidique Khan.

Butt had met Khan before. Babar had introduced them in 2002 at a gathering at Butt’s flat in Islamabad. Khan now recognised Butt and asked him if he wanted to come in.²⁰

How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile? Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent? How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?

FOI requests to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office submitted by J7 have been refused in respect of attempts by independent researchers to assess this information.

On Babar's second visit to Britain, he stayed with Fahad Hashmi in London and left behind some waterproof socks and a pair of night vision goggles. Junaid Babar went on to become the State's star-witness for the prosecution in the Crevice and Khawaja trials, and his testimony also resulted in a 15 year sentence for Syed Fahad Hashmi, who had previously been extradited to the US from the UK on the basis of the “glorified camping equipment”²¹ that Babar had left at Hashmi's residence. This was then reported as:

Hashmi, who moved to Britain from Queens in 2003, allegedly allowed his London flat to be used to store supplies and money that Babar was shipping to Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, then head of al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.²²

Hashmi spent over 3 years under SAMS, extreme measures which included total isolation whilst facing a life sentence for this 'crime'.

Babar was also the source for the aluminium powder which featured in the Crevice trial.

The government would further prove that the defendant purchased and attempted to purchase the aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate that he knew would be used in explosive devices in the bombing plot in the United Kingdom, and that he did this throughout from December 2002 through March of 2004²³.

On 6th April 2004, Babar returned to the US but was not arrested or detained until 10th April 2004 when he was picked up by the FBI whilst on his way to a 'taxi school' in Queens, NY.

This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done? How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?

Footnotes

9 J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign - The People's Independent Public Inquiry into 7/7 - http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/crevice/crevice-imran-khan-statement-for-defendants.html

13 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v MOHAMMAD MOMIN KHAWAJA [2007 FC 490] Ottawa, Ontario, May 7, 2007 [PDF]- http://www.icj.org/IMG/Khawaja-Evidence.pdf

14 Canada's anti-terror legislation vs. Ottawa's Momin Khawaja - http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=1bc4587f-748c-45be-8668-116fdb57619b

15 The supergrass I helped to create - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1737411.ece

16 Ibid.

17 OPERATION CREVICE, Timeline and facts and figures - Metropolitan Police Service - http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/MPS_OpCreviceTimeline.pdf

18 BBC - Press Office - Newsnight/File on 4 investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/25/khan.shtml

19 Was CBS Duped by Radical Islamist? - http://www.aim.org/guest-column/was-cbs-duped-by-radical-islamist/

20 The jihadi house parties of hate - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1752338.ece

21 U.S. student pleads not guilty in terrorism case - World news - Terrorism - msnbc.com - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923836/38180585

22 Focus: Is the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun waiting to strike again? | World news | The Observer - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/06/terrorism.jamiedoward

23 http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/853.pdf

To reiterate some of the questions that J7 posed to the Coroner that now require urgent answers if we are to understand what truly happened on 7 July 2005, how it happened, why it happened, and who made it happen:

How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile?
Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent?
How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?
[Babar entered the US] This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done?
How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?

Ms Gallagher has raised some of the issues presented in the Guardian articles during this morning's Inquests hearings. She spoke on behalf of Mr Foulkes, father of David Foulkes, who was interviewed by the Guardian and quoted as saying "the terms of reference of the inquest are too narrow to deal with such questions and thinks that it should be suspended while they are re-evaluated":

.. He's asked me to make clear that his concern is not that scope is too narrow and, indeed, the scope ruling fully encompasses the issue of preventability and it's going to be explored next week, but what he does want to ensure is that the inquest has all relevant information and is in a position to fully explore this issue, including the potentially new information referred to in the article and the material that he's seen. Mr Foulkes is, of course, aware that there are PII materials which we haven't seen. It may be that this wasn't a new issue to the Inquest team and to you, my Lady. It may be that this is covered in bundle A and bundle B, which the legal teams and the families haven't seen. But Mr Foulkes' concern is this: he wishes to ensure that the Security Services give a clear statement to the inquest: (a) that they're not aware of any basis for the suggestion that Babar had been an informant for the authorities for any country prior to his detention in New York City in April 2004; and (b) that they've provided to the Inquest team and the coroner all information which they have in respect of Babar and US/UK communications in respect of him, and Mr Foulkes' comment to the press --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As relevant to these proceedings.
MS GALLAGHER: Precisely. Mr Foulkes' comment to the press was intended to suggest that, if the Inquest team didn't have those assurances, then suspension might be required, and it's an understandable and defensible comment which he made at the time in those circumstances.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 14 February 2011 morning page 50 lines 22 on

The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

2011-02-07T20:39:00.004Z

Originally posted on the J7 Inquests Blog: The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

This previous post raises an interesting question regarding quite how the four accused men had avoided detection to such an extent that the security services had no idea of their alleged plans. What with travel tickets, handwritten documents laying their plans bare and receipts recovered both from the homes of the accused and the Alexandra Grove 'bomb factory', their behaviour suggests that these men were not in the least bit concerned about their alleged plans being discovered yet the narrative tells us 'Khan was worried about being under surveillance during this time.

'This time' plainly refers to the supposed planning of the events of 7/7, since just above this statement, it is also written,
Other things suggest discipline and meticulous planning with good security awareness including careful use of mobile phones and use of hire cars for sensitive activities associated with the planning of the attacks.

Source: Report of the Official Account of the Bombings
in London on 7^th July 2005
The 'careful use of the mobile phones' was explored on the 4^th day of the inquests during the testimony of DS Mark Stuart of Counter-terrorism command. DS Stuart confirmed that 'a certain number' of phones were recovered. What we also discover from DS Stuart, is that the police referred to the phones the accused men were using that day as 'operational phones' (as opposed to their personal phones) - which Mr. Hugo Keith QC later interchanges with the intriguing term 'conspiracy phones'.

These phones are claimed by DS Stuart to have been a way to 'avoid detection' by being changed on several occasions:
A. [DS Stuart] There were a series of operational phones. The earliest operational phones began in May, the middle of May, 2005, sir.
Q. [Hugo Keith QC] How many times were the phones switched or how many times were a new set of operational phones introduced into their usage?
A. For three of the subjects, four times, you're looking at data for the last, fourth, operational phone. For Lindsay, there were three, sir.
Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 7, line 7 on
DS Stuart confirms later in the proceedings that the total number of 'conspiracy' phones used by the men was 15. One could argue that if a phone is changed four times, as three of the men are alleged to have done, this equates to five phones in total each - meaning that with Lindsay's four phones, the total amount of changes stated equates to 19 phones. This may seem a trivial point, but it is indicative of the confusing nature of DS Stuart's testimony. Another example of this is his account of the recovery of Khan's 'conspiracy' phone:
Q. In particular, investigators found in the wreckage a phone subsequently determined to belong to Khan?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. When that phone was examined, did it have any readable data on it?
A. No, sir, it was damaged beyond --
Q. Officer, could I ask you to keep your voice up a bit?
A. Sorry. No, it was too damaged to recover data from.
Q. So when that phone was examined, it wasn't possible to extract any relevant information from it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there also recovered from the Russell Square tunnel a phone subsequently determined to belong to Lindsay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When that phone was recovered, was it found to have information on it?
A. It was, sir, yes.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 2, line 2 on
So very early on, we find that no data could be extracted from Khan's phone, which was recovered from the Edgware Road site, due to the damage it sustained. The implication thereafter is that the only way any data relating to Khan can be examined is through looking at incoming calls or texts on the other phones recovered from the day, in particular, the phone attributed to Lindsay, from which information had been extracted. However, a little later in his testimony, DS Stuart seems to contradict his earlier statement:
Q. Could I just run very briefly through why you are so sure that these phones relate to these people? In relation to Khan and his operational phone ending 254, were there a number of pieces of evidence which demonstrated that that phone was indeed his?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you very briefly, please, summarise why that conclusion was reached?
A. The handset for that phone was discovered at the Edgware Road scene where Mohammed Sidique Khan's body was recovered. DNA from Mohammed Sidique Khan was recovered from the handset as well. The phone was routinely cell-sited in and around his home address. It was cell-sited in Luton on the 7th where we know from CCTV Mohammed Sidique Khan was. It only ever rang the other three. It was never rung by another number attributed to Mohammed Sidique Khan. That was the principal evidence, sir.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 10, lines 23 on
How could this data regarding Khan's phone be known if it wasn't extracted from the phone which DS Stuart had earlier stated 'was too damaged to extract data from'? DS Stuart does not enlighten us to any alternative method used to gain access to the phone's data.

Curiously, DS Stuart never states whether or not Shehzad Tanweer's phone was also recovered in the same way as the other three, at the scene of the explosion at Aldgate. We should note claims by both the narrative and Hugo Keith QC in his opening speech to the Inquests, that Tanweer had lost his mobile phone on the evening of 6^th July, during a game of cricket.

However, DS Stuart confirms that a call was made at 00.03.59 on July 7^th 2005, from Khan to Tanweer. If Khan's phone is too damaged, then we must assume that this particular data came from Tanweer's phone. But Tanweer lost his phone on the evening of July 6^th ; we cannot know if it was his personal or 'conspiracy' phone, we cannot know if he or someone else - found it, and cannot know if a phone attributed to him was found at Aldgate. We further cannot know from which phone this information was extracted as we are not privy to the contact schedule cited by DS Stuart.

When explaining how the 'operational' number for Tanweer was attributed to him, DS Stuart tells Mr. Keith:
This was a number which was provided by Shehzad Tanweer on the rental agreement for the Nissan Micra subsequently left at Luton train station. Again, it was only rung by the other three and not by Tanweer himself. Generally cell-sited in the area of his home address.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 12, lines 20-24
So in contrast to the identification of the other three phones, which occurred due to their being recovered from the respective blast sites, Tanweer's 'conspiracy' phone number is identified because he provided it to the car hire company which supplied the Nissan Micra. Why should this be?

The car hire company provides another example of contradicting the idea that attempts were made by the men to avoid detection; Tanweer provided the First 24-Hour Car Rentals Limited with his family home address, confirmed in the statement of an employee of the company who called round to the Tanweer home when the car had not been returned as agreed.
By today, Tuesday, 12th, I was very concerned at the whereabouts. I decided to visit his home address and I went to the vicinity of the address and I saw a police cordon. Having explained why I was there I then provided the rental agreement.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010,
Morning Session, page 48, lines 11-15
In another statement, it is revealed to the Inquests that another First 24-Hour Car Rentals employee had attempted to contact Tanweer on 7^th July, despite the fact that his rental agreement was until 8^th July. Why would the car hire company attempt to contact Tanweer the day before he was due to return the car? Again, this is not revealed. The statement from the car hire company contradicts Hugo Keith's claim that they rang Tanweer's phone on 7 July, although the unreleased schedule showed this call:
[First 24-Hour Car Rentals] "Following 8 July, when the vehicle had not been returned as agreed, I rang the mobile number given by him on at least two occasions. However, the phone was off. I can only say, if I saw the man again, I would definitely recognise him."
[Hugo Keith] My Lady, we know that the last entry on the schedule prepared by Mr Stuart at your direction is that there was a call on 7 July, in fact, two minutes to 3 from First 24-hour Car Rentals to Tanweer's number.

Source: ibid page 46 lines 16-24
Neither was the cell siting for Tanweer's mobile phone disclosed, which would have identified whether this phone was at Aldgate or, if lost, at least identified the location.

DS Stuart had also disclosed that the contact schedule only relates to calls made from 27 June 2005 onwards:
Q. Notwithstanding the fact that there were many thousands of calls made to and from any number of potentially relevant phone numbers, you prepared a schedule showing all the calls between the four men from 27 June onwards?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. In essence, the most relevant days leading up to the events of 7 July?
A. Yes, sir.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 6, lines 12 - 19
It isn't stated at which point the accused are supposed to have switched to their final set of 'conspiracy phones'; only that this occurred in the last few days before 7/7. Later in the proceedings, Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing bereaved families, pushes for analysis of all the 'conspiracy' phones. DS Stuart may yet be called back to give further testimony on these, and we may yet receive clarification regarding how (or even if) Tanweer's phone was recovered.

Germaine Lindsay was said to have purchased and originally registered the phones, then transferred them to each of the others at a later time. DS Stuart makes it clear in his answers that although there was 'some slight mixing' in the use of the 'operational' phones, in that personal phones may have been used to ring an 'operational' phone number, by the time the accused were using their final set of phones, they were used solely for 'operational' purposes or calls to service providers.

Again, the implication is that this, along with clarification by DS Stuart that the use of the phones showed that the men were taking care over communications by buying prepaid unregistered phones and changing them regularly. Yet strangely, the behaviour of Hasib Hussain regarding his phone contradicts this assertion. Having earlier described how the top-up card for his 'operational phone' was found at his home address and the SIM card holder in a bag upon which Hussain's fingerprints were found, under questioning by Max Hill QC, DS Stuart details how the police knew about Hussain's personal phone:
Q. Secondly, in relation to Hasib Hussain, you analysed data relating to mobile number ********805, and two points again in relation to that. Firstly, that number was not used by Hussain on 7 July?
A. No, sir.
Q. But, secondly, through analysis of items recovered, including a SIM card, a mobile phone SIM card, found at Tavistock Square where Hussain's body was found, a download -- in other words, interrogation of the information held within that SIM card -- showed the 805 number saved within the SIM card under the title "My number"?
A. Yes, I believe that's the case.
Q. That goes towards attribution of that as a personal phone for Hussain, but one that you can say was not used on 7 July?
A. Correct, sir, yes.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Morning Session, page 32, line 9 on
If Hasib Hussain was only using this phone in the 'last few days' leading up to 7^th July, then why take the trouble to program in his own personal number? Why would someone trying to 'avoid detection' do this anyway? Moreover, Hussain's personal phone was found by his brother, Imran, to contain not only Lindsay's number, but that of the keyholder for 18 Alexandra Grove, Dr Shakir Al Ani. Why program these numbers into his personal phone, if he was also in possession, at various times, of four (or more) 'conspiracy' phones. When asked by Lady Justice Hallet how the police were able to distinguish between the personal phones belonging to each men and the 'conspiracy' phones, in terms of usage, DS Stuart responds:
There was a distinct difference between the usage of the two types of phone. The personal phones all appeared to be unrelated, a lot of different people rung by them, but the enquiry showed that they were people that were known, historical friends and family. So that's why I can't remember there being anything which jumps out as being operational from a non-operational phone, my Lady.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010, Morning Session, page 23, lines 3-10
If this is the case, why did Hussain have the 'operational' numbers found on his 'non-operational' phone by his brother, which in turn, according to the Daily Mirror, led him straight to the Alexandra Grove 'bomb factory' If Hussain was seriously trying to cover his tracks, he had made a pretty poor fist of it.

In summary, we've learned the following from DS Stuart's testimony regarding what Hugo Keith prefers to call the 'conspiracy' phones:
Khan's 'conspiracy' phone was too damaged to extract data from, yet counter-terrorism investigators appeared to have managed to do just that.
We do not know whether Tanweer had a 'conspiracy' phone with him on July 7^th, because although DS Stuart mentioned calls being made from other phones to the phone attributed to Tanweer, he never mentions calls being made from that phone, nor does he mention that his phone was found at the Aldgate scene in the same way that the phones attributed to the three other men were found at the other blast sites.
We know that Tanweer lost his phone on 6 July but we do not know whether this was his personal phone or 'conspiracy' phone, or whether he found it before the next day. The cell siting of the car hire company call on either the 7 July according to the schedule or the 8 July according to the car hire company, would reveal the location of this phone but was not disclosed to the Inquest.
The four accused were trying to avoid detection to such an extent that they routinely left incriminating evidence, either in their own homes or the Alexandra Grove flat, provided a genuine address even when using a 'conspiracy' phone to arrange car hire and Hussain in particular, found a way of leading detectives straight to his personal number from his 'conspiracy' phone.
There may have been 15 or 19 'conspiracy' phones in total, but we have only been provided with testimony with the final 4 phones used. We were not allowed to see the contact schedule; this was "not for publication".
DS Stuart defines the "trade craft" use of the "conspiracy phones" thus: "Taking care over your communications, buying prepaid unregistered phones, changing them regularly to avoid detection ultimately" yet later states that Tanweer's phone, at least, was purchased, and registered, by Lindsay using a false name. Why would Lindsay go to the trouble of registering the phone at all, when an unregistered phone could so easily be purchased with a pre-paid SIM?

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

7/7 Inquests: Open Justice or No Justice?

2011-01-29T16:17:00.004Z

Originally posted on the 7/7 Inquests: Open Justice or No Justice?:

"I thought this was about open justice but now it seems to be more about getting any sort of justice."
- Clifford Tibber, legal representative for six bereaved families

On Thursday 18 November, the 7/7 Inquests will be delayed while the Appeal Court hears Home Secretary Theresa May's challenge, on behalf of the Intelligence Services, to Lady Justice Hallett's decision to hear evidence in open court. Hallett's decision to sit without a jury has already pre-empted any opportunity for 'ordinary members of the public' to see the evidence.

Her apparent 'concession' to view the evidence with the families of the bereaved and their legal representatives, without the public or press present at the hearings, appears to be the issue. The state, it would appear -- which itself could require the signing of the Official Secrets Act (or non-disclosure agreements similar to that undertaken by survivors when viewing the site reports, or those with access to the Lextranet evidence base [p17: 6] ) - by any witnesses to the evidence -- has no desire for anyone to see any of the evidence, not even those who suffered the pain of bereavement on 7 July 2005 and have had to also bear the injustice of waiting five years for the inquests while the state pursued one tenuous prosecution after another:
Most, if not all, of the relevant material can and will be put before me in such a way that national security is not threatened.

"I am all too aware, given the events of the weekend, of the unenviable task facing the Security Services. I repeat, sources may be withheld, redactions made.

"I do not intend to endanger the lives of anyone. I do not intend to allow questions which might do so. I do not intend to allow questions which I know to be based on a false premise or which I know to be misleading. There may be times when the parties will simply have to accept my ruling without demur. I may have to forbid certain questions. I may have to rephrase them.

"Finally, I wish to emphasise I do not intend to make findings adverse to the Security Services which I know to be false."

BBC News - Government to fight 7 July inquests ruling

Justice Hallett appears to have already decided the parameters of the questions that will be allowed and what the outcome should be. Despite this, the Home Secretary obviously knows that there is evidence which cannot be allowed into even a very limited 'public domain'.

This raises the issue, and the spectre of Tony Blair's promise to "bring together all the evidence that we have and we will publish it so that people, the victims and others, can see exactly what happened". Wasn't all the evidence already presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Wasn't all the evidence contained within its final report, completed in July 2008 and eventually published in May 2009? Hallett is content to have names redacted - redactions which already exist within the ISC report - so what could the Intelligence Services possibly have known prior to the events of 7 July 2005 which cannot be presented to the public even in redacted form?
The Review addresses the many unanswered questions which arose following the conviction of the 2004 fertiliser bomb (CREVICE) plotters. In making our judgements about whether anything was missed or overlooked, we have focused on the information available at the time.

The Review contains some highly sensitive intelligence and an unprecedented level of operational detail. As a result, there are some instances where we have agreed that information must be redacted from the published version of the Review in order that individuals are not put in danger, that current operations are not compromised and that our enemies do not learn of the capabilities of the UKâ??s intelligence and security Agencies. There are also some instances where the courts have ruled that information cannot be published. These redactions have been agreed with the Agencies, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and government departments. We wish to note that the Security Service, the Metropolitan Police Service and West Yorkshire Police not only co-operated fully with our inquiries, but were helpful in seeking to ensure that we could publish as much material as possible and thereby provide the public with as full an account of these matters as possible.

Source: Intelligence and Security Committee
Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?
Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005
It became clear that West Yorkshire Police hadn't 'co-operated fully' with the ISC when it was revealed at a pre-Inquest hearing in April 2010 that they had two set of Khan's fingerprints on file:
POLICE have only just discovered that they held the fingerprints of the ringleader of the July 7 bombings on file before the attacks, it was revealed today.

West Yorkshire Police said it "recently" found two sets of Mohammad Sidique Khan's prints in its archives - one of which dates from when he was arrested aged just 11.

The force has launched an inquiry into the records as it prepares for the upcoming inquests for those killed in the 2005 London atrocities.

West Yorkshire Police took Khan's prints for the first time when he was arrested in April 1986, aged 11, for being involved in receiving stolen goods.

The second set of prints was taken by the force in February 1993, when Khan was arrested for assault.

The records came to light after Scotland Yard contacted West Yorkshire Police last month to check whether they had the July 7 bomber's fingerprints on file.

Details of the discovery emerged at a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to decide what form the inquests should take.
----------
West Yorkshire Police said in a statement: "In preparation for the inquests into the events of July 7 2005, West Yorkshire Police recently found two sets of fingerprints in its archives belonging to Mohammad Sidique Khan, of which it was previously unaware.

Max Hill QC, counsel for the Metropolitan Police, stressed that this was not the first time that Scotland Yard asked West Yorkshire Police for detailed information about Khan.
Source: Daily Mail
"What Have They Got To Hide"
Clifford Tibber, one of the lawyers representing families, said the decision was "outrageous".

"The coroner has already said that there are no circumstances in which she will allow the personal safety of any member of the Security Service or the interests of national security to be put at risk," said Mr Tibber.

"The prime minister and the deputy prime minister are both on record as supporting a public inquiry. The Government have twice failed to introduce legislation to hold inquests in secret and now they are trying to introduce it through the back door. What have they got to hide?"

Source: BBC, 9 November 2010
The families of the bereaved have been refused legal aid to be represented at this hearing despite being awarded exceptional funding by the Legal Services Commission to be represented at the 7/7 Inquests.

Exceptional funding was denied to the families of the four accused men, and they now have to sit in silence while accusations of the accused's involvement go unchallenged and unquestioned. Despite Inquest law forbidding the apportioning of guilt or blame, the four accused men should rightly have remained the 'alleged' or 'apparent' bombers rather than being described as the de facto bombers. Only when or, more realistically, if the Inquests reopen into the death of the four accused - Khan, Hussain, Tanweer and Lindsay - is there likely to be an opportunity for their families to question witnesses or examine the evidence. And, even if the inquests were to be opened into the four accused, based on its decisions regarding the inquests to date, it is unlikely that the Legal Services Commission will make the same 'exceptional funding' available for them to have legal representation.

Do there exist any lawyers, many of whom have made a pretty penny on the back of so many trials of supposed 'terrorists', who would be prepared to represent the families of the accused men on a pro-bono basis or better still, for free?

Meanwhile, the families of the bereaved, all of whom have waited over five years for these Inquests to commence, rightly feel outraged at the machinations of the State in its endless attempts, cloaked beneath the all pervasive banner of 'national security', to prevent them from knowing the truth.
"The Security Service have this 'get out of jail' card to trump all others when they say it's a matter of national security. They have tried this so many times it's like crying wolf."
- Graham Foulkes, father of David Foulkes

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'?

2011-01-24T13:40:00.008Z

Originally posted on the 7/7 Inquests Blog: July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'?

On the afternoon of November 3rd, at the 7/7 Inquests, a Dr. Morgan Costello gave evidence via a videolink from Ireland. In his testimony, Dr Morgan Costello confirmed that, as a result of his work for the Metropolitan Police Service 'providing medical services and medical assistance'...' in relation to deaths in custody', in July 2005, he was asked to attend two scenes, Edgware Road and Aldgate, for the 'purposes of certifying the extinction of life'.

Dr. Costello confirmed (page 3, lines 9-11) that 'It was very clearly described to me by the officers on the scene that they didn't want anything other than for me to pronounce life extinct on the victims'.

Dr. Costello confimed that, in July 2005, he was a consultant psychiatrist, who specialised in a specialty of psychiatry, who then went on to work full-time for the police undertaking extra qualifications in forensic and legal medicine.

Why a consultant psychiatrist was asked to pronounce on the extinction of life is not clear. Dr Costello's previous work as a consultant for the MPS, in relation to 'deaths in custody' would seem to have little bearing on the identification of numerous victims in the aftermath of an explosion, particularly in such extreme circumstances. Dr. Costello appears to have missed the 'part of a body...In fact a human spine' noticed by one of the first on the scene at Aldgate on 7th July, off-duty/plainclothes Police Sergeant Neil Kemp (transcripts Page 46, lines 7-15, 27th October pm) . The 'piece of spine' found at Aldgate was not insignificant according to the statement of Mr Nathaniel Carey read on 3 November 2010 (afternoon session, Page 16, lines 9-25).

Dr Costello confirmed that he visited the Edgware Road scene at 00.59 on Friday 8th July, and then the Aldgate scene at 08.40 on 8th July. Dr Costello also confirmed that 'there were difficult considerations to be taken into account at the time and I was very much led by the crime scene manager, and there was difficulty accessing some of the bodies or even seeing them clearly'. The crime scene manager was DC Andrew Meneely, who in his testimony given on the morning of 3rd November (Page 66) stated that he was 'attached to the Counter-terrorism Command and New Scotland Yard' as a 'forensic scene examiner' but who now works in the [Australian] Bomb Data Centre.

Dr Costello then goes on to confirm, being prompted and led by Hugo Keith through the list, that he identified (by code numbers of the bodies involved) six bodies at Edgware Road and seven bodies at Aldgate scenes as 'life extinct'.

The numbers identified by Dr. Costello should have been seven bodies at Edgware Road and eight bodies at Aldgate, if the alleged 'bombers' bodies were included. It seems incredible that Dr. Morgan Costello should miss a 30cm x 14cm x 10cm piece of spine weighing 1.852kg, particularly if this is the 'piece of spine' to which Neil Kemp makes reference to seeing on the morning of 7th July. Further, Hugo Keith is directing Dr. Costello to his two statements dated 27 September 2005, rather than to any contemporaneous records that Dr Costello may have kept on two days in July.

Despite the numbers of lives extinct pronounced at Edgware Road and Aldgate missing the alleged perpetrators in their totals, the Metropolitan Police appeared to be one step ahead of the medical professionals, or a couple of steps behind. In a period of thirteen minutes at around 6pm on the day of 7 July 2005, the Metropolitan Police issued two bulletins citing the number of deceased at each of the incident locations. The timings here, as with the entire story of 7/7, are important to note. An 18.03 bulletin claimed "there five [sic] fatalities" at Edgware Road. Yet, an update issued at 18.13 (just ten minutes later) but claiming to be based on "Latest from New Scotland Yard at 18:00" (three minutes prior the previous Metropolitan Police update) was claiming the number of victims as "7 at Edgware Road".

Also worth noting is that there is no evidence/testimony provided by Hugo Keith as he links the 'life extinct' bodies with the Edgware Road/Aldgate victims names/identities. There is no mention of the 'Identification Commission' nor any mention of any death registration particulars/rulingsby the presiding coroner, Dr Andrew Reid, in July 2005.

In fact the issue of the victims identifications are going to be 'outside the scope of the proceedings':
("3/11/10 am transcripts, Page 67")
15 Q. The issue of the bodies and their recovery and their
16 treatment is outside the scope of these proceedings by
17 order of my Lady earlier in these proceedings
This means that there will never be scrutiny of the identification issues, relating to any and all of the victims, including the alleged bombers.

Given that one of the tenets of the purposes and functions of an inquest is to establish 'who has died', we must ask:

What sort of an inquest is this?

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

7/7 Inquests: The Alleged Identification of Shehzad Tanweer

2011-01-12T23:59:00.004Z

Originally posted on the 7/7 Inquests Blog: The Alleged Identification of Shehzad Tanweer

In a previous post we examined the alleged 'disintegration' of Shehzad Tanweer in the explosion on Circle Line train 204 at Aldgate/Liverpool Street, and the way in which the number of deceased at the location was consistently numbered as 7, a figure that didn't include the alleged perpetrator as one of the deceased.

It is also worth noting the following information in relation to the identification and naming of Tanweer as the alleged perpetrator of this explosion.

Enlarge

Source: p15-16 Intelligence and Security Committee
Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?
Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005

As we can see from the timeline above, the Pathologist report into the 'spine' was carried out on 11 July 2005. This was mentioned by pathologist Nathaniel Cary in his testimony, although during this testimony to the inquest no date was given for this examination. [Transcripts p16 lines 8]

Forensic scientist Andrew McDonald did give a date for his examination of the alleged remains of Tanweer when he noted that he had received:

"Between 13 July 2005 and 28 July 2005, 80 recovered body part samples associated with the bombings of a London Underground Tube train at Aldgate on 7 July 2005 together with 20 reference control samples from individuals known to have been present at the time of the explosion were received at the laboratory. All items were received in sealed packages.

"I was asked to carry out STR profiling tests to determine whether any of the recovered body part samples received in this case could have originated from Shehzad Tanweer. STR profiling is a sensitive DNA analysis technique. An STR profile obtained from a human body fluid, such as blood or saliva, or human body tissue can be compared with an STR profile of a given person. If the profiles are different, then the body fluid or body tissues cannot have originated from the person in question.

Source: Transcripts 3 November 2010
Afternoon session, page 12 line 1 on

This ties in with the timeline given in the ISC report above -- although we now know that the viewing of the accused on CCTV at Luton station occurred some time before 12 July 2005 -- which states that the DNA analysis confirmed all four accused on 13th, 15th & 16th July.

So, let's presume that the person identified by DNA on 13 July 2005 was Shehzad Tanweer, although we cannot be certain of this, and ask ourselves how the following statement given at a press conference by Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan Police, could have been made a day earlier:

Tuesday July 12, 2005

17.47

'As regards the man who was reported missing, some of his property was found on the Route 30 bus in Tavistock Square.

'Property in the name of a second man was found at the scene of the Aldgate bomb. And in relation to a third man property in his name was found at the scene of both the Aldgate and the Edgware Road bombs.

'We also have very strong forensic and other evidence, that it is very likely one of the men from West Yorkshire died in the explosion at Aldgate. This, of course, is subject to formal confirmation by the Coroner.

Sources: Timed press release shown above
'One week anniversary' bombings appeal - Metropolitan Police Service

What forensic evidence did the Metropolitan Police Service obtain to confirm the presence of Shehzad Tanweer by 15.47 on 12 July if, as demonstrated above, the forensics were only just beginning to be carried out a day later on 13 July 2005?

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

7/7 Inquests Blog: Danny Biddle, the Rucksack on the Lap - and the Explosion on the Floor

2010-12-22T19:17:00.007Z

Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog: Danny Biddle, the Rucksack on the Lap - and the Explosion on the Floor

Yesterday, 8 November, saw Danny Biddle as the opening witness at the 7/7 Inquest with regard to the Edgware Road incident (Factual Issue 3: Circumstances at each of the four scenes immediately following the explosions).

As the only witness to ever publicly claim to have actually seen Mohammed Sidique Khan on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road the media paid close attention to his testimony. Today's headlines scream out:
"Daniel Biddle: I was just 6ft from 7/7 bomb as it maimed me"
"7/7 survivor describes moment he saw terrorist leader detonate bomb on London tube"
"London bombings survivor saw bomb detonated"
However, there is more to the headlines than meets the eye, and more than might be gleaned from the media reports of Mr Biddle's testimony.

J7 have previously highlighted the many inconsistencies in Mr Biddle's accounts in our Edgware Road analysis on the July 7th Truth Campaign website. We also included this information in our submissions to the Inquests in the J7 response to factual issue 2. The many and varied accounts of Danny Biddle, as reported in the media, were referenced by Hugo Keith as Danny Biddle gave his testimony:
A.[DANIEL PAUL BIDDLE] No, I mean, there was nothing about him that made me think he was dangerous in any way or anything like that. If there would have been, I would have got off the train and got help. I mean, he was just a -- he looked like a normal guy going to work within London, whatever he did, and there was nothing that he did that made him stand out different to anybody else at that particular moment in time.
Q. [MR KEITH] Do you recollect him carrying anything?
A. He had a rucksack, like a small, black camping rucksack.
Q. Was he holding it or carrying it in a particular way that you can recall?
A. I remember it being on his lap.
Q. Mr Biddle, not unsurprisingly, the story of how you survived the bomb at Edgware Road has been widely reported in the press and around the world and a number of reports have purported to give accounts of your experience and memories of that day, and in those accounts there are repeated references to the possibility that the man might have been wearing a rucksack on his back, and that is what you recollect.
A. I've said all the way along from the very first statement I gave to the police he had it on his lap.
Q. Did he have one rucksack or two, or one or two bags? Was there anything else that he was carrying?
A. No, I just saw one rucksack.
Q. Can you tell us a little bit more, if you can, about the size of it?
A. I would say it would be about so big. It wasn't -- it was one of those sort of small camping rucksacks that you often see people that are going hiking would carry, so it wasn't like a full-sized camping rucksack, it was just a small to medium-sized camping rucksack. As I say, so big. [p31, 18 on]
Mr Biddle then continues with his testimony which, as noted above, has been widely and unquestioningly reported as an apparent confirmed witness account of Mohammed Sidique Khan allegedly detonating a suicide bomb at Edgware Road:
[MR BIDDLE] The train entered the Tube tunnel, I looked round, as I looked round, he looked up, I just saw a quick movement, then there was just a big, white flash, the kind of noise that you get when you tune a radio in, that kind of white sound, and it just felt like the carriage I was standing in filled -- just expanded at such a vast rate and contracted quickly and, with that, it blew me off my feet and through the carriage doors into the tunnel.
Q.[MR KEITH] When you say you saw a quick movement, what do you think was the movement that you saw? Was it some part of his body, or was it a movement in the bag?
A. It was his arm, he did that with his hand in the rucksack and the next thing --
Q. Because these proceedings can't record what you've shown us, did you just demonstrate that you saw an arm move somewhere near the rucksack?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you see what precisely moved or whether there was any movement in the rucksack itself?
A. Literally, as soon as his arm moved, I was outside the carriage.
Q. Do we take it from what you've said that the rucksack was still on his lap, or was it on the ground?
A. When he made the arm movement, the rucksack was still on his lap.
Q. Were you able to discern any sort of expression or any sort of look on him at that moment?
A. I mean, before he set device off, he looked up and along the carriage and then he just looked down. He didn't say anything, he didn't shout anything that I can
remember hearing. He just put his head down, moved his arm and, the next thing, I'm outside the train.
Q. What was your first conscious thought after that?
A. I'd fallen out the train. [p33, 8 on]

Later in the proceedings Mr Biddle is questioned by Mr Saunders, representing some of the bereaved:
MR SAUNDERS: Mr Biddle, I will be equally short. You have described to Mr Keith seeing Khan's arm moving quickly. In your statement in December I think you gave a little more detail where you thought you'd seen him with a white cord at the rucksack?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's what you thought was being pulled?
A. That's what it looked like. As he pulled his arm, that's what it looked like he was holding, but I couldn't ascertain if that was from inside the bag or part of the bag. [p44, 21]

Source: Hearing Transcripts 8 November 2010, Morning session
As J7 noted some time ago in our analysis of the various statements of Danny Biddle reported in the media, the Metropolitan Police have always maintained that the explosions occurred on the floors of the train carriages. This means that, according to the Metropolitan Police, the explosion at Edgware Road also occurred on the floor of the carriage:
At this stage, we do believe, however, that each device that was put onto the tube trains was likely to be on the floor of the carriage. [DC Andy Hayman, 8 July 2005]

Source: J7 'The suicide-bomber theory gestates'
That the explosions occurred on the floors of the trains was further confirmed during the trial of Waheed Ali, Mohammed Shakil and Sadeer Saleem when the testimony of Fort Halstead Forensics expert, Clifford Todd, was reported:
The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard.

The details emerged for the first time as a forensics expert's evidence was read at the trial of three men accused of helping to plan the atrocity.

Jurors were told the "unique" bomb mixture was made up of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide, which was put into ordinary plastic bags alongside ice-packs to cool the volatile material.

The bombers were not wearing the rucksacks at the time of the explosions, but had instead put them down on the floor of the bus and Tube trains, it was claimed.

Neil Flewitt, QC, prosecuting, said that expert Clifford Todd had examined the wreckage of the bomb sites.

He said: "It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.

"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."

Source: The Telegraph
The problem that the Inquest now has is that of squaring the testimony of Mr Biddle -- an eye-witness sighting of a detonation by pulling "a white cord" on "a small, black camping rucksack", of which Mr Biddle remembers "it being on his lap" -- with the official version of the story that states the explosion occurred on the floor of the carriage.

On the floor of the carriage some distance from where this diagram and Biddle have placed Khan in a seat:

Enlarge Probable position of passengers

This graphic shows that Khan was allegedly in the seat marked 28 and the blast site at a position to the right of seat 27:

Enlarge
Position of Deceased

No doubt Mr Biddle's testimony will be forgotten by the media once the Inquests move on to discussing matters pertaining to the forensics at the scenes, the types of explosives used, and the method of detonation.

Until then, caution should be exercised with regard to any evidence that attempts to prove that the damage to the Edgware Road train, seen in the image below, was caused by mixing Hydrogen Peroxide with black pepper/masala spice.

A comment on this image can be read here.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

7/7 Inquests: The Disintegration of Shehzad Tanweer

2010-12-04T19:08:00.001Z

Originally posted on the 7/7 Inquests Blog: The Disintegration of Shehzad Tanweer:

As the Inquest approached the end of the third and final week of testimony and evidence into the Aldgate scene, as outlined in 'Factual Issue 3: Circumstances at the scene immediately following the explosions', the first evidence for the presence of Shehzad Tanweer at the site of this explosion emerged.

The evidence didn't come in the form of CCTV footage, as we now know it was claimed that the last sighting of Tanweer was made at around 08.26.32 at the King's Cross Thameslink end of the entrance tunnel to the London Underground.

Nor did the evidence come in the form of witness testimony. Not one witness on carriage two claimed to have seen Tanweer on the carriage. Bruce Lait, for example, who had given interviews to the press in the days after July 7th 2005, and who had claimed he hadn't seen anyone where the hole in the floor of the carriage was, was not asked whether he had seen Tanweer on the carriage before the explosion.

Michael Henning, who entered the train on carriage 3, was asked this question by Hugo Keith QC:

Q. Did you, in fact, tell the police that you did recollect -- and you had an image in your mind to this effect -- a male standing inside the rear set of doors in that second carriage?
A. I do indeed, and it puts a shiver through me to remember that. However, I couldn't say with great detail his features, etcetera. It's more those soft focus of the people that you normally see on the Tube and haven't paid attention to.
Q. Could we have, please, on the screen INQ00008352, page 2? Did you prepare, in fact, a sketch map for the police showing the rear of the second carriage towards the top of the page, towards the front of the train,towards the front, and the platform side which you boarded, and then the third carriage, and you went on,and do the two crosses indicate respectively the person whom you thought you might have seen as being significant in the second carriage and then your place in the third carriage?
A. Indeed. The cross circled is obviously where I perceived Tanweer to be.
Q. You obviously didn't know him to be Tanweer then. Did you tell the police that you saw a man you described as an Asian man wearing some sort of white or cream light-coloured clothing in any event?
A. That's what I recall, yes.
Q. Can you recall any more about the person that you saw in outline as you boarded the train?
A. I would be hesitant to say more because of all the subsequent information I've seen.
Q. Of course. Do you recall whether he was carrying anything, the person that you recall seeing?
A. I remember him holding something, but how he was carrying it, again, it would be wrong of me to try and put detail on that.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 18th October 2010
Morning Sesion, p 47 Lines 9 on

Whether Tanweer was wearing what could be described as "some sort of white or cream light-coloured clothing" is questionable as CCTV shows his clothing to be predominantly dark:

Of course the 'suicide-bomber' meme has always tacitly implied that explosives are carried on the body. Although, uniquely it appears, as the story of the London bombings evolved, rucksacks on the body became solely the mode of transportation of the explosives, not the method of delivery. At the time of the attacks the Metropolitan Police were clearly stating that the explosions happened on the floors of the carriages, with early reports claiming the explosions came from under the trains, yet this did not dispel the 'suicide-bomber' meme once the four accused were identified. This is important to bear in mind when examining any witness statements or evidence which originate from the period immediately after the events of 7 July 2005.

On the penultimate day of the Aldgate scene evidence, a witness statement was read to the Inquest by Hugo Keith, detailing evidence that apparently linked Shehzad Tanweer to the site of the explosion:

My Lady, the final statement is that of Richard Hall, dated 6 June 2006, again with the usual declaration of truth. Statement of DC RICHARD HALL read:
"I am a detective constable attached to the Anti-terrorist Branch at New Scotland Yard where I performed the role of Terrorist Forensic Scene Examiner and Exhibit Officer.
"On Thursday, 7 July 2005, I was on duty when a series of incidents took place in London. I was aware that initially there had been explosions on London Underground trains at Russell Square,Edgware Road and Aldgate Underground station. A further explosion had occurred on a London Transport bus at Tavistock Square.
"I was tasked by DS Michael Jolly to act as the Deputy Scene Examiner to DC Andrew Meneely, who had been tasked earlier in the day to attend the scene at Aldgate London Underground station.
"I went to the scene where I was met by DC Meneely,who was carrying out tasks in relation to the initial survey of the scene. DC Meneely had devised a zone plan which had been used to structure the search. This was later drawn by DC Neil Fretwell of the
Anti-terrorist Branch Bomb Data Centre and exhibited at NF/7."
"During the course of DC Meneely's initial examination of the scene, he seized exhibit AM/11, selected debris from zone 5, the open area to the left of carriages 1, 2 and 3 of the train.
"The exhibit contained part of a wallet which appeared to have been close to an explosion. I examined the contents of this wallet and found that it contained fragments of plastic cards, fragments of Bank of England notes, business cards, and other correspondence.
"I recorded the following details in the 'Remarks' column of the exhibit book and passed them to the control vehicle for transmission to the ATBIU.
"On Monday, 11 July 2005, I conducted a closer examination of exhibit AM/11. A decision had been taken to submit the wallet to the Forensic Explosives Laboratory for explosive trace work to be done. I therefore opened the exhibit and removed all of the fragmented parts from it. I then resealed the exhibit.
As a result of this examination, I created the following eleven exhibits:

"RABH/1. Fragmented HSBC credit card in the name of Mr Sidique Khan ...
"RABH/2. Fragments of a £10 and £5 note split from AM/11 ...
"RABH/3. One Excelsior Snooker Club membership card in the name of S Tanweer
"RABH/4. 1. Two receipts ... One PC World receipt for plantronic audio 15 microph 12.99. "2. B&Q receipt. Print has faded but can be read in part. (H)Eeston Ring Road, Leeds ...
"RABH/5. One Northern Snooker Centre membership card in the name of S Tanweer ...
"RABH/5A. One Nasim Property Investor business card...
"RABH/7. One Halifax Current Account Switch Card in the name of Mr S Khan ...
"RABH/8. One Optimum Fitness card in the name of Yasser HALEED ...
"RABH/9. One business card ... "Dr GREENTHUMBS Hydroponics Store ... Wakefield ...
"RABH/10. One business card in the name of James Squires ...
"I also produced exhibit RABH/11 - one nylon bag - for control purposes for the Forensic Explosives Laboratory."

Source: Transcripts 3 November 2010
Afternoon Session, page 17 Lines 25 on

RABH/1. Fragmented HSBC credit card in the name of Mr Sidique Khan

As stated in Mr Hall's testimony this wallet was seized from 'selected debris from zone 5, the open area to the left of carriages 1, 2 and 3 of the train.'

This exhibit shows Zone 5 - the area in and around carriages 1 2 & 3:

Enlarge

Zone sketch plan Aldgate station, junctions and tunnel

Zone 5, where it is claimed the wallet was found, does not include the actual area where the initial explosion is said to have occurred and where the Inquest were told persons were thrown from the train by the blast. This area was described as being where carriage 4 eventually came to a halt, as shown in this Inquest exhibit, which would place it in Zone 6:

Enlarge

Aldgate station plan of incident site

The graphic above had been described by Hugo Keith in his opening statement to the Inquest [p35 13-23] as follows:

Richard Gray was tragically blown out of the right-hand side of the second carriage, that's to say the right-hand side of the carriage if you were standing in that carriage looking forward in the direction of travel on the side away from the bomb and on to the track, so from this diagram away from the location of the bomb down towards the bottom of the page and through double door D8. Because the train carried on moving for a short while, as I've said, his body was found adjacent to carriages 3 and 4 when the train finally stopped.

Enlarge

Graphic showing the position of Richard Gray

Rather strange then that Zone 5 didn't include at least part of carriage 4.

Only 7 bodies recovered

The total number of deceased from Circle Line train 204, according to all witness testimony and evidence was seven - a figure which does not allow for the presence of Shehzad Tanweer. We also know that no victims of the Liverpool Street/Aldgate incident had died in hospital.

As the Aldgate scene evidence neared its conclusion, it became apparent that Shehzad Tanweer's body was not identified as being amongst the dead. The official "narrative" of the explosion on Circle Line train 204 at Aldgate holds that eight people died, with Richard Gray's body recovered from the track:

Enlarge

Positions of deceased in 2nd carriage post explosion

BTP Inspector Robert Munn was the last person to leave the site before investigators took over. In this exchange with Hugo Keith, Munn confirms the total number of dead as seven:

Q. [Hugo Keith] At 10.18, you made your final call, for these purposes -- you updated BX, in fact, for the rest of the morning, but for our purposes, you made your final call at 18.47, [BTP170-55]: "BQ10 ... for your information, Aldgate, I'm the last police officer to leave and I've got the last Fire Brigade with me ... the station's now evacuated to the front gate. I can confirm 7 ... dead bodies left on the train, over. "Sorry, say again? "Have you got any persons trapped, over? "None that's still alive, over." That was at 10.18. Before you left, had a doctor appeared trackside?
A.[Inspector Robert Munn] Yes, I think it was the -- I think it was the HEMS doctor that I referred to earlier, I think.
Q. Dr Lockey?
A. I didn't -- I can't recall his name, sir.
Q. You didn't catch his name. Did he formally confirm to you that there were seven dead?
A. Before we left, sir, I waited by the doctor and the lead fire officer, while the doctor checked all the remaining bodies that had been left behind, and confirmed the number of dead.

Source: Transcripts, 27 October 2010
Morning Session, page 88 lines 12 on

LAS paramedic Steven Jones:

"When all known live patients were removed,the HEMS doctor pronounced life extinct the seven patients left..."

Source: Transcripts, 2 November 2010 am, page 131 lines 14-16

The HEMS doctor described by Steven Jones. Dr David Lockey, gave his evidence on 2 November and featured this interesting if somewhat leading, exchange with counsel representing the family of victim Lee Baisden, which could have possibly been describing Tanweer:

Q. [MS SHEFF] Can I just repeat that? I just want to clarify that, when you describe seeing a body under the doors near X, that's the one that you've marked on as C on your plan.
A. [DR LOCKEY] Yes, I think so.
Q. In your witness statement, you described that body as a black or dark-skinned male of Somali appearance.
A. That is not the statement that I wrote. That was a statement that a police officer wrote for me, although I obviously agreed it afterwards, and I wouldn't describe anyone as coming from a particular country. However, in the discussion, he asked me about the colour of the man's skin and whether I thought he was Asian or whatever, and that's how we got to someone of slightly more North African appearance than perhaps Asian appearance. But it was not something that I would have stated myself, if I'd written the statement.
Q. Okay, so thinking about that now, can I ask you this: have you previously seen victims of explosions with blast injuries?
A. Yes.
Q. You are aware, are you, that those close to the site of the explosion can very often suffer very severe burns and even charring of the skin --
A. Yes.
Q. -- which can turn the skin black.
A. I work in a Burns Unit as well.
Q. Yes, indeed. So you might not have been aware, then,that this particular male who
A. Was white?
Q. -- was white, he was, in fact, Lee Baisden, whose family I represent, and at his post-mortem he was found to have flash and deep burn injuries over his body. Would that have been consistent, therefore, with the
appearance of somebody with black skin?
A. I believe not.
Q. So are you suggesting that this could have been somebody who was of black skinned appearance, originally black --
A. Yes, I felt that that was the case, and I recall seeing a head underneath the window of a door, the door had been blown on to it, and I may have been mistaken, but I didn't feel that that patient was white and I am used to seeing patients with blast injuries.
Q. So that was the impression that you had?
A. Yes.
Q. I suggest that you were mistaken about that. The X actually does mark the site of the explosion and the fact that the body was so close to that explosion does indicate, we believe, that the body received those juries from the charring of the skin as a result and that Lee Baisden was that man who was close to the original site of the injury. You don't take that view, I suspect?
A. I can't be certain either way. I have thought about it since and I came back to my original conclusion.
Q. It was, however, a scene of total carnage and body parts were all over the place, and it must have been quite traumatic just taking in the scene when you first saw it. So is there a possibility that you are mistaken about that?
A. There is a possibility.

Source: Transcripts 2 November 2010
Afternoon session, page 186 Lines 12 on

Dr Lockey then continues in his testimony to state that he certified five dead on the train and that there were two deceased on the tracks.

Forensic medical examiner, Dr Morgan Costello, giving his witness testimony via video link from Eire on the afternoon of 3rd November, stated that he had been asked by the MPS to pronounce life extinct at two sites, Edgware Road and Aldgate, and attended Aldgate on 8 July 2005 at 08.40:

A. You could tell how many bodies were there, but it was quite difficult to tell exact, you know, body parts from each other due to clothes being on the area, blast matter, and the positioning of the bodies. It was quite easy to assign how many individuals were there, but just picking out exact details was difficult.

Source: Transcripts 3 November 2010
Afternoon session, page 8 lines 18 -23

Dr Costello is then taken through the names of the seven victims, minus Shehzad Tanweer.

DC Andrew Meneely, bomb scene examiner at Aldgate, gave his testimony on the morning of the 3rd November describing his role as "to do the forensic recovery of any evidence at the scene and to deal with any body recovery of bodies that may be there" (p67, 12-14). [NB. At this point Hugo Keith reminds the Inquest that "the issue of the bodies and their recovery and their treatment is outside the scope of these proceedings by order of my Lady earlier in these proceedings" (ibid. 15-17)].

Presumably the DC in charge of body recovery would identify the body of Shehzad Tanweer? Questioned by Mr Saunders, after a warning by Lady Hallett on whether it would touch on matters she had deemed were not issues, only seven bodies were identified for removal from the scene:

Q.[MR SAUNDERS] I think there was also a problem with the obtaining of a correct vehicle that had sufficient refrigeration to ensure the proper removal of the bodies?
A. [DC MENEELY] Refrigeration units were called for.
Q. I think there was a difficulty -- it may be somebody else deals with that, but there were difficulties as to when they could be provided on the scene.
A. I understand that the vehicles arrived some time on the Saturday.
Q. I think the formal removal of Fiona Stevenson was --
A. Some time on the Friday, actually.
Q. -- on the Friday, I think.
A. Yes.
Q. So I think there were those two that were outside, Carrie and Richard Gray were removed initially, and then Fiona Stevenson on the Saturday.
A. Yes, that's correct. Ms Stevenson -- there was four bodies removed on the Friday, two on the trackside and two males in the rear carriage part and then the three other women on the Saturday.

Source: Transcripts 3 November 2010
Morning session, page 81 Lines 2 - 21

It doesn't appear to be the case, even by 8th July 2005, that any discernible body parts from Shehzad Tanweer had been identified. A wallet, some damaged plastic, paper receipts, and membership cards all remained, but nothing identifiable as the head, torso, or limbs of Shehzad Tanweer, appear to have been present, resulting in several confirmations of the total number of dead as 7. Note: 'Suicide bombers' do not generally vapourise themselves (Warning: Graphic image of the remains of a 'suicide-bomber' with explosives strapped to the body, not in a rucksack on the floor).

Tanweer's Spine

So how did Shehzad Tanweer come to be identified given this total lack of discernible body parts? Over to DC Meneely for an answer to this one:

Q.[HUGO KEITH] The process continued, as you've told us, for, in your case, some ten days, but it wasn't until, I think, Saturday, 9 July that a significant piece of bone, a piece of a backbone, was discovered in the front of a rear bench seat in carriage 2?
A.[DC MENEELY] That's correct. Officers were searching that part of carriage 2 and, about 9.30 at night, I was told that a piece of backbone had been recovered.
Q. Why was that significant?
A. Because all of the bodies I'd seen so far had no real upper body trauma to that degree. Obviously there was a lot of injuries, but everybody was relatively intact
in relation to the upper body.
Q. No doubt, the discovery of that piece of bone was relevant to the investigation of the crime and information about it was passed to your colleagues?
A. Yes, it was.

Presumably an upper body trauma would be significant if the explosion had occurred on the body, as is understood to be the case with 'suicide-bombers', but not if the explosion had occurred on the floor of the carriage, as no other victim had this type of injury. As we can see from this graphic, Lee Baisden whose severely burned body was described above by Ms Sheff, was very close to the centre of the explosion, as were both William Walsh (second degree burns and lacerations from climbing out of the window) and Greg Shannon (a total unknown - no press reports), neither of whom were called as witnesses or had their testimony read. (At this stage we cannot discount the possibility that Hugo Keith will summon them when 'factual issue 9: The presence at the scenes of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay, and their proximity to the explosions' are covered in early 2011. J7 will of course further examine the detail of these issues in due course).

Enlarge

Probable position of passengers in carriage 2, Aldgate train 204 at time of explosion

It would appear from evidence to the Inquest that the DNA extracted from Shehzad Tanweer by West Yorkshire Police on his arrest for a Public Order offence in April 2004 was used to identify this spine along with some other tissue samples taken from undisclosed body parts. [Transcripts 3/11/10 pm, page 11 lines 3 on]

It is also a mystery how this 'spine' had only been found on the 9th July, given that it was first mentioned in the witness testimony of DI Kemp, one of the first responders to the scene, on 27 October:

Q.[HUGO KEITH] I think also in that area you noticed what seemed to you to be a part of a body. In fact a human spine?
A.[DI KEMP] That's what it looked like, yes.
Q. From all that, because there was devastation, destruction, debris, a hole, a piece of spine, as well as a body that you realised was dead, and another severely injured person, you knew you were in the immediate vicinity of the bomb?
A. I believed that, yes.

Source: Transcripts 27 October 2010
Afternoon Session, page 46 line 7-15

DI Kemp had previously described the scene as dark and that he had only the use of a bicycle lamp which he had acquired from a passing passenger [ibid. page 37, lines 18-129].

The forensics report into Shehzad Tanweer was read to the Inquest by Hugo Keith, no evidence was published and neither are the actual body parts that tissue for DNA sampling were taken from, named. (Again, these issues may be examined when the forensics evidence is adduced in early 2011).

Statements of MR ANDREW McDONALD read
"I hold degrees of Bachelor of Science in Zoology and Master of Science in Forensic Science ... I have been a forensic scientist since 1992. During the course of my career, I have examined many cases using DNA analysis techniques.

"Between 13 July 2005 and 28 July 2005, 80 recovered body part samples associated with the bombings of a London Underground Tube train at Aldgate on 7 July 2005 together with 20 reference control samples from individuals known to have been present at the time of the explosion were received at the laboratory. All items were received in sealed packages.

"I was asked to carry out STR profiling tests to determine whether any of the recovered body part samples received in this case could have originated from Shehzad Tanweer. STR profiling is a sensitive DNA analysis technique. An STR profile obtained from a human body fluid, such as blood or saliva, or human body tissue can be compared with an STR profile of a given person. If the profiles are different, then the body fluid or body tissues cannot have originated from the person in question.

"If, on the other hand, the STR profiles are the same, then that individual, and anyone else who shares the same STR profile, can be considered as a possible source of the body fluid or body part. The significance of finding such a match can then be assessed."Reference control sample. The tissue sample taken from Shehzad Tanweer was used to determine his STR profile.

"Recovered body part samples:
"Tissue analysed from the following recovered body part samples generated full STR profiles which matched at of Shehzad Tanweer."

And, my Lady, Mr McDonald then goes on to list 48 tissues which were analysed from recovered body part samples:

"This means that the body parts could have originated from him. I estimate that the probability of obtaining this profile, if the tissue tested from the body parts did not originate from Shehzad Tanweer, but came from another unrelated person who, by coincidence,had the same profile, is less than 1:1 billion. In addition to these body part samples, the following recovered body part samples generated incomplete STR
profiles which matched that of Shehzad Tanweer."

My Lady, four are listed.
"This means that these body part samples could also have originated from him. I estimate that the probability of obtaining these profiles, if the tissue tested from the body parts did not originate from Shehzad Tanweer but came from another unrelated person who, by coincidence, has the same profile, is less than 1:1 billion ..."

My Lady, he lists three of the body part samples.
"... and approximately 1:9 million", in respect of the final body part sample:
"These body part tissue samples could not have originated from any of the other individuals for whom reference control samples were analysed. None of the other recovered body part samples that were analysed could have originated from Shehzad Tanweer. In my opinion, the STR profile results provide extremely strong scientific support for the assertion that all of the recovered body part samples listed above originated from Shehzad Tanweer."

Source: Transcripts 3 November 2010
Afternoon session, page 12 line 1 on

This piece of spine alleged to be the remains of Tanweer was examined by pathologist, Mr Nathaniel Cary, and in a statement dated 29 April 2007, again read by Hugo Keith, he claimed:

Statement of MR NATHANIEL CARY read "Recovered body fragment: Operation Theseus URN60021972 (Shehzad TANWEER).
"Date of death: 7 July 2005 ...
"This body part was recovered from the Aldgate scene. This is a fragment consisting of the lower part of the thoracic spine and the upper lumbar spine weighing 1.852 kilograms. There are some signs of decomposition and charring. The specimen is contaminated with glass. It is associated with a piece of cloth.

"Measurements: 30 centimetres longitudinally. "Up to 14 centimetres wide. "Up to 10 centimetres deep.

"There are attached pieces of posterior rib associated with posterior spinal muscles. It consists of part of the sixth thoracic vertebrae, the seventh thoracic to the second lumbar vertebrae in continuity and part of the third thoracic vertebrae ...

"Clinicopathological correlation:
"I have subsequently seen a copy of a form entitled 'Matched body parts'. This relates to scene 1 Aldgate.

Through DNA analysis, this body part, URN 60021972, has been matched to multiple other body parts identified as having come from Shehzad Tanweer.

"The nature of this body part and the extreme level of disruption implied by the nature of the other matched body parts is typical of a deceased person having been either in direct contact or very close to an explosive device.

"The level of exposive disruption associated with this deceased, when compared with other bodies, both from this scene and other scenes of explosions also occurring on July 7, is entirely in keeping with this deceased having been in possession of the explosive device at the time it exploded.

"Cause of death: "A cause of death for this deceased person may be recoded as 1A injuries due to an explosion."

Source: Transcripts 3 November pm, page 16 lines 8 on

How Tanweer could possibly have been 'in possession" of an explosive device that exploded on the floor of the carriage, and how he managed to virtually disintegrate to the point where no discernible body was identified, only adds to the many questions which existed before the 7 July Inquest resumed.

Questions which this Inquest is failing to answer.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: The Strange Account of Ross Mallinson

2010-11-20T14:02:00.006Z

Originally posted on the J7 7/7 Inquests blog: The Strange Account of Ross Mallinson:

In J7's submission to the 7/7 Inquests, amongst the many questions we posed in relation to the events at Aldgate, we asked:

What train was Mr Mallinson on? Was an announcement made at Aldgate that there had been a bomb on a train?

Source: J7: Inquest Submission 03, Immediate Circumstances Aldgate

In the morning session of 25 October Mr Keith questioned a Miss Melanie Jane O'Dell:

"MISS MELANIE JANE O'DELL (sworn)
Questions by MR KEITH
MR KEITH: Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. Could you give the court your full name, please?
A. Melanie Jane O'Dell.
Q. May I ask, is it Miss O'Dell or Mrs O'Dell?
A. Miss."

....

"Q. Did you take Mr Henning with you, in fact, towards the rear of the train as well?
A. Yes, he wanted me to hold his hand and he wanted me to stay -- he asked me to stay with him.
Q. And so obviously, because he was injured, you did so?
A. Mm, I was concerned there was another passenger called -- whose name was Ross, and I was worried about him, because he wasn't particularly coherent and he was quite quiet, and he was -- he had quite a bad -- what looked to me like a bad head cut.
Q. Presumably, he left the carriage along with the rest of you, did he, or did he stay --
A. Somebody else helped him.
Q. Could you see him being brought out?
A. I didn't see him because he was behind us, but then I saw him -- when I got to Aldgate eventually, I went over to Aldgate bus station and got on a double decker bus, I saw him being helped onto -- into an ambulance.
Q. So you knew he had been removed from the train?
A. Yes."

According to O'Dell's account, Ross Malinson was aboard train 204 along with Michael Henning.

However, Mr Mallinson was one of the people on the list of survivors designated as Properly Interested Persons (PIPs) in the initial hearings to the Inquests, and also one that had received legal aid to be represented. Justice Hallett was later to make her ruling that PIP status for survivors was to be withdrawn and they were not to be represented at the Inquests proper, although they could be called as witnesses during proceedings.

Mr Mallinson is described in the footnotes to those initial hearing transcripts as follows:

80 The following applicants were not in the same carriage as the explosions: Michael Henning, Elizabeth Kenworthy, John Blundell, Joanne Cole, Jacqueline Putnam, Ellaine Young, Angela Ioannou, Susan Maxwell, Lesley Ratcliff, George Roskilly. Further Tim Coulson and Ross Mallinson were not travelling on the same train as the explosion, although Mr. Coulson entered the affected carriage and provided first aid.

Source: Submissions of Counsel to the Inquests, 26/04/10, p61

O'Dell places Mallinson on Ciricle Line train 204, yet the Inquests' own documentation states quite clearly that Mr Mallinson wasn't on that train at all.

J7 would suggest that the reference to 'her' in the following Inquests transcript is an error as Mr O'Connor was not representing a female client travelling in another train. The only PIP who suffered the injuries described was Ross Mallinson and Mr O'Connor was his legal counsel:

[Mr O'Connor] carriage, and thus drawing a boundary about whether you're in the same carriage or not would be arbitrary and irrational, and indeed, even not in the same train, one of our clients, madam, you will have seen suffered a very serious fractured skull requiring two operations and was actually in a train passing opposite the explosion. Such is the random impact, that it went through windows and injured her desperately seriously.

Source: Hearing transcripts, Afternoon, 27 April 2010, p103 line 21 on

As can be seen in the Trackernet image in a previous article about the events at Aldgate, there appears to be no train 'passing opposite the explosion' on Circle Line train 204.

In an interview with The Age published in July 2005, it was claimed that Mr Mallinson was travelling on a train in front of Circle Line train 204, travelling between Aldgate station and Tower Hill:

Mr Mallinson was on his way to work as a computer programmer for an insurance company at Tower Hill when Shehzad Tanweer, 22, detonated the bomb on a train between Liverpool and Aldgate stations on the Circle Line. Minutes later, Mr Mallinson's train, also on the Circle Line, began moving again, slowly passing Aldgate station, where an announcer warned passengers that there had been a bomb on a train, probably the one directly behind Mr Mallinson's. His train continued to Tower Hill station, where two police officers carried him to the surface. He gave his mobile phone to a woman next to him and asked her to call his wife, Judy.

This would have huge implications if indeed this account is true. Firstly, the announcement at Aldgate of a 'bomb' whilst all the accounts heard at the Inquests this week have referred only to an 'electrical explosion' or 'power surge' in the first moments after this event and secondly, that the power was indeed on or had been reset after the explosion on train 204. The tracks would have to have been live after the explosion.

Not a word has been heard at the 7/7 Inquests of any other train 'moving' at Aldgate or in the vicinity of Circle Line train 204, apart from a Metropolitan Line train 447 which was going in the opposite direction and had only just begun to leave the station from platform 2 before it stopped suddenly. There has certainly been no mention of the explosion impacting 'through the window of a passing train' onto Mr Mallinson as referenced by his legal counsel, Mr O'Connor.

The driver of Metropolitan Line train 447 was not called to court to give evidence, instead the first of two statements that he made was read by Hugo Keith QC:

[Statement of MR MARK WILLIAMS] read "I then got on to train 447, which again is a Metropolitan Line train which was running on time. As I pulled away, I heard an extremely loud bang. At this point, I was about half a car length out of the station. I immediately stopped and, at the same time, the Underground electrical traction current turned off and the lights in the tunnel turned on. I did not open my doors as I was unsure of exactly what had happened. I then heard shouting from the station staff on the platform and the doors were being opened by two other train operators, Eldridge and Paul Haskins who were manually opening the doors. I could see this train was facing me in the tunnel, as it had just turned the corner. This was a C stock style train. I then went back through one car and got out of the train and joined the two other train operators, Eldridge and Paul Haskins.

Source: Hearing Transcripts, 26 October 2010, morning, p 26, lines 18 on

Metropolitan Line train 447 appears to have been evacuated within 3 to 4 minutes and well before the evacuation of Circle Line train 204.

At yesterday's hearing, Mr Mallinson was mentioned, not by a witness present to give evidence and answer questions but in a statement read to the court by Hugo Keith QC, from 'rookie' BTP officer, Robert Whyte:

[Statement of Mr Robert Whyte, dated 8/07/05, read] "Myself and PC Hatcher, along with the cycle officer, attempted to break open the door of the next carriage along from the badly damaged carriage. We were not successful in doing this. We then attempted to locate some sort of metal object that could help us in our effort to open the train doors. We could not find anything that could help us. "I then helped a male, who had a very severe head injury, who was holding a piece of bloodstained cloth tightly on the side of his head. The male, who I now know to be Ross Charles Mallison. He was shaking and kept telling me he was very faint. I took the male's small suitcase in one hand and told the male to put his arm around my shoulder for support. I told the male it would be a short walk to the platform where we could get him some medical attention. I kept trying to reassure the male along the entire walk of the track. I walked the male to the exit of the station where I was joined by a firefighter. This firefighter took the male by the other arm for more support. I was informed by this firefighter that they were using double decker buses across the road as the places to sit down injured people. Myself and the firefighter walked the male over to the buses. We sat him down on the first bus. The firefighter then asked if I was okay. I said I was. The fireman then left. I asked the male to sit back down and try to relax and try to take deep breaths. A male sitting behind me then handed me a piece of clean cloth. I replaced the man's cloth he had on his head with this piece of fresh cloth. A paramedic then came over and spoke to the male. He asked how he was feeling. I then asked the male if he was okay and he said 'yes' so I left the male in the hands of the paramedic on the bus.
"At this point, I decided to head back down into the station and try to help anybody else that needed help. Once again, I went into the station, headed downstairs to the left and on to the track. I came across a male and female that needed some help. I believe that they were boyfriend and girlfriend.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 27 October 2010 afternoon, p21 lines 21 on

How curious that Mr Whyte was able to include the full name of Ross Mallinson apparently on 08/07/05 whereas he doesn't name the 'male and female' to whom he also gave assistance.

Neither is there any mention of the place from which Mr Mallinson was rescued and aided. Nor any mention of him being rescued from a different train to Circle Line train 204. In fact, O'Dell's account places him on the very train that the Inquests' documentation claims he wasn't. It may be worth noting at this stage that Miss O'Dell gave a statement in July 2005 and was asked by Lady Justice Hallett to prepare another statement, over five years later, in August 2010.

The fact remains that the evidence adduced to the Inquest from Mr Whyte & Ms O'Dell differs greatly from the original account of Mr Mallinson's that he gave to The Age in July 2005 and that Mr O'Connor QC submitted to the Inquest.

Mr O'Connor QC had no option to question or challenge these statements on Mr Mallinson's behalf, since survivors such as Mr Mallinson are no longer legally represented at the Inquests.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime

2010-11-13T13:27:00.006Z

Originally posted on the J7 7/7 Inquests blog: The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime:

Two weeks into the 7/7 Inquests and we've heard about the strange lack of CCTV footage of any of the four accused from the day, the even stranger account of the police investigation which led to the car park in Luton before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station, the lack of interest in pursuing and interviewing a 'fifth man' and now we have the strange case of a Jaguar at Luton that seems to appear there at the same time as the accused on both 28 June 2005 and 7 July 2005.

Before the Inquests started no CCTV footage had been released showing how three of the accused, Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, made their journey to Luton Station on 28 June 2005, a journey touted as a dummy run or rehearsal for 7/7.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by J7 asking for precisely these details was refused by the Home Office.

The Official Home Office report into the events of 7/7 (the "narrative") states:

Other aspects of the planning

65. There appears to have been at least one recce visit to London on 28 June by Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, but not Hussain. They made a similar journey from Luton to King’s Cross early in the morning and travelled on the underground. They are picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time. Lindsay was later found to have a chart of times taken to travel between stations which he might have written during this recce. Tickets found at 18 Alexandra Grove also suggest visits to London in mid-March.

66. Other things suggest discipline and meticulous planning with good security awareness including careful use of mobile phones and use of hire cars for sensitive activities associated with the planning of the attacks. There are some indications that Khan was worried about being under surveillance during this time.

Source: Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005

At some point in early 2011, the Inquests will hear the evidence regarding how the events of 7 July 2005 were investigated, so it might be worth bearing in mind events that occurred in Luton car park on these two days.

Perhaps the Inquests will also help explain why men so 'worried about being under surveillance' would hang on to their tickets from a journey to London in mid March, and also how these tickets came to be found in 18 Alexandra Grove, the alleged 'bomb factory', a location that apparently wasn't used until June 2005, some three months later.

In his Opening Statement to the Inquests, Mr Hugo Keith QC, felt the need to mention Conspiracy Theories that have arisen around the lack of released CCTV footage and the quality of the footage that had. He continued:

[MR KEITH] Turning to the CCTV which appears to be the object of the substantial bulk of the claims, there is nothing to suggest that, where there is CCTV missing, this reflects anything other than the fact that many CCTV systems do not continuously record.

Source: Transcripts 11 October 2010
Afternoon session, page 7, line 25 on

Where there is CCTV missing, Mr Keith? Such as King's Cross underground station, the McDonalds visited by Hasib Hussain, the number 91 and 30 buses that Hussain is alleged to have boarded, as well as at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005.

Whilst we have no evidence to suggest that there is anything sinister about the coincidental movements of a dark-coloured Jaguar at Luton station on the mornings of both 28 June 2005 - the 'rehearsal' - and 7 July 2005, there is plainly evidence of more than a lack of 'recording continuously'.

What is evident is the editing of the CCTV footage at significant moments, which begs the questions:

What precisely is being cut from this footage, and Why?

Jaguar at Luton station car park from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Update: The graphic below shows:

The last frame of CCTV footage before the cut,
The first frame of CCTV footage after the cut,
An animated panel that cycles through images 1 & 2.

Click to Enlarge

Graphic showing the CCTV frames before and after the cut

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: Behind the Scenes of the Aldgate Explosion, at 11 minutes to 9

2010-11-10T09:56:00.013Z

Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: Behind the Scenes of the Aldgate Explosion, at 11 minutes to 9

So we can say with confidence that the explosion at Aldgate occurred at that moment, 08.49.00

Source: Hugo Keith, Opening Statement
11 October 2010, page 16 Lines 3 -5

J7's submission to the Coroner, detailing questions and anomalies that have arisen regarding this event, can be downloaded here. and our analysis of the events at Aldgate can be viewed on the J7 website here.

Week Two of the 7/7 Inquests has concentrated on the issue outlined in the Provisional List of Factual Issues as:

The explosions and the immediate aftermath
3. Circumstances at each of the four scenes immediately following the explosions

The first scene under scrutiny is Aldgate.

Compared to the first week of the inquests, this second week has been particularly harrowing, hearing the reports about those who died and the stories of others who were severely injured. Tales of humanity and heroism have also emerged, along with inspirational accounts of overcoming horrendous injuries.

Mr Hugo Keith QC, Counsel to the Inquests, opened the proceedings by reading a statement which has not yet been released onto the Inquest website. Reading statements to the Inquests presupposes that none of the information it covers is contentious and the author will not be open to questioning. This following statement was prepared by Mr John Porter, a London Underground power control room manager, written on 26 July 2005, and followed by a supplementary statement dated 29 September 2010:

"When the device on the train between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations exploded, it damaged three power assets, an 11-kilovolt feeder cable number 642", which is the feeder cable to which I made reference in my opening "running along the tunnel wall and its associated pilot cable, pilot number 62, and a signal main cable between Moorgate and Tower Hill which provided the power for the signal supplies between Moorgate and Aldgate. "The danger to the number 642 feeder cable caused the 11-kilovolt electrical feeder to trip at Moorgate substation at 08.48.40. This in turn caused the 22-kilovolt coupling transformers, which supply the Mansell Street distribution network, to trip at 8.49.02. This caused widespread power disruption to a significant area of the London Underground network."

Source: Transcripts, 18 October
Morning session, page 4, lines 6 on

To illustrate the widespread disruption caused by the loss of power at Mansell Street. this image was shown and released as evidence:

Click to Enlarge

We'll let Mr Keith off with the 20 seconds between the "11-kilovolt electrical feeder tripping at Moorgate substation at 08.48.40" to allow him to remain confident of his opening statement, after all, what's 20 seconds in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps he has a pressing need for this first event on 7 July 2005 to have the significance of occurring at 11 minutes to 9?

Keith reiterates the 08.49 timing:

"... and would explain that the times referred to are approximate times recorded by the power control operation in the handwritten logs. The times I have referred to are the actual times extracted from the power system computerised event logs. "In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King's Cross/Russell Square."

Source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning Session, page 9, Lines 6-19

London Underground runs a train monitoring system called Trackernet. TrackerNet is one of London Underground's key operational systems that monitors the whereabouts of every single underground train on the network. The system received a lot of coverage earlier this year when TfL lifted all restrictions on the commercial use of its data and provided access to real-time train information.

Tim O'Toole, the Managing Director of London Underground at the time of the events of 7 July 2005, released a series of Trackernet images at a press conference on July 9th, saying:

"You can see what has happened is the track circuits on all of those other lines, you can see the orange lines indicate that an event has occurred to trip out the power system. And that was almost certainly the blast. And this software allows us to confirm the timings."

Copies of these Trackernet images can be viewed on the J7 website and were included in our Submission to the Coroner. Curiously, the Trackernet images from Aldgate on 7 July 2005 don't appear to have made it into the Inquest bundle of evidence, or at least not yet, although the Trackernet images of Edgware Road have. Over to Hugo:

My Lady, we don't have, in fact, a trackernet image for the eastbound Circle Line train, but in respect of train 216, its last movement was timed at approximately 8.49.46 and we have a trackernet image for that train.

source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning, page 11. Lines 9-12

Quite what the Trackernet image for train 216 at Edgware Road has to do with the Provisional List of Factual Issues, 3 and the "Circumstances at Aldgate immediately following the explosions" only Keith knows.

After five years of dedicated and dogged research J7 might hazard a guess that the reason for this could perhaps be that the explosion didn't actually occur at Aldgate at 08.49, despite all Mr Keith's efforts to make it so.

This Trackernet image of the time of the explosion has been annotated by J7 using the Working Time Table for the London Underground, which we obtained through a Freedom of Information Request. The information it contains may well be the reason Mr Keith hasn't shown any Aldgate Trackernet images at the 7/7 Inquest.

Click to Enlarge

Circle Line train 204 has left Liverpool Street and is in the tunnel on its way to Aldgate station. All other trains in this image are also in their correct places, according to the Working Timetable, if the time of this explosion is 08.46.30, the time that train 204 was in transit to Aldgate, not 08.49. Unless all these trains were running late on the London Underground, Circle Line train 204 would have been in transit between Aldgate and Tower Hill at 08.49. Train 204 appears to have been running on time; a FOI Request to TfL, asking for the time that it was at King's Cross received the response of 08.35 - corresponding to the timetable.

The time of 08.46.30 is also confirmed by the only CCTV footage that has been released to date from any of the stations that were affected that morning, showing Liverpool Street station as Circle Line train 204 arrives and leaves, and the moments when smoke billows from the tunnel whilst commuters run back along the platform in reaction to the noise:

7th July 2005 CCTV of explosion at Liverpool Street station from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

As Circle Line 204 was due into Liverpool Street at 08.44 and the CCTV footage is showing a timestamp of 07.44.20, it is likely that this footage is one hour out due to the adjustment for British Summer Time rather than the time being out by the odd figure of 1 hour and 3 minutes claimed by DI Kindness in an exchange with Mr Keith:

A. [DI KINDNESS] This footage will show the frontal view of the 204 train number, Circle Line train pulling into Liverpool Street station, and it's coming towards the camera at the moment.
Q.MR KEITH] Officer, this is Liverpool Street. It stands to reason that the bomb, if it entered the train at King's Cross, is already on that train.
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. As is the bomber.
A. That's correct. This image shows the last -- the first carriage of the train.
Q. The timing in the top left-hand corner, although the CCTV itself shows 07.44, did your researches show that, in fact, the CCTV system itself was one hour and three minutes slow?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. So we mustn't be misled by that timing. The timing of this is, in fact, 08.47 or thereabouts?

Source: Transcripts 14 October 2010
Afternoon session, page 9, Lines 5-24

Incorporating the adjustment for British Summer Time, Circle Line train 204 leaves Liverpool Street at 08.45.40, and the explosion happens (according to the smoke & passengers running) at 08.46.35. (Note: There are 39 seconds of footage missing). This is exactly the time estimated by J7 for this explosion according to the Trackernet image, evidence which Mr Keith has chosen not to exhibit.

To ensure that even the British Transport Police officer, DI Baker, present at Aldgate on 7 July 2005, has got his timings wrong, and to ensure Mr Keith can maintain his confidence in his and the narrative's timing of 08.49, there is also this exchange during the Inquests:

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Sorry, can we just go back? The time of this second call?
MR KEITH: According to the transcript, my Lady, it's 08.52.40. There has been a certain degree of confusion, I think, in the past as to whether or not that time indicates the beginning or the end of the call. These transcripts have been revised now a number of times to reflect the accurate time of each call. My learned friend Mr Gibbs might be able to assist in relation to whether or not that time indicates the beginning or the end of the call now.
MR GIBBS: It indicates beginning of the call.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Right, so it indicates that a call is made by Mr Baker at 08.52.40 and a second or two into
MR GIBBS: That's right. Whether that timing is accurate is a matter still of some conjecture, but that is the timing that we have.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Well, Mr Baker, on the question of timing, given we know what time the explosion occurred, does 08.52.40 seem to be about right for when you made the second call?
A. [DI BAKER] It does. We were there pretty much instantly and trying to ascertain what was going on, so it was merely a few minutes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you.
MR KEITH: My Lady, if it assists, may I just refer you to the Aldgate time line, which is at INQ10426 [INQ10426-1]? The first entry you may recall from the opening is at 08.47.38, which is a BTP call from London Underground, but we know from the absolute time at which the explosion occurred, which was 08.49.00, that that call, which is taken from the same exhibit, BTP167 must therefore be about one minute and 40 seconds out, and that is our best estimate as to the accuracy of those transcripts.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: So if that was right then this call is about 08.54?
MR KEITH: Absolutely.

Source: Transcripts 20 October 2010
Afternoon session, Page 60, Lines 11 on

Editing transcripts? Adjusting CCTV timings? Withholding Trackernet images? All to make the 08.49 timing fit? Fixing the evidence to fit predetermined facts? Whatever next?

This is insulting to the bereaved and survivors who deserve the truth, and is not the role of the Inquests which, if it is to fulfill the proper function of an Inquest, should be examining the evidence to uncover the facts, particularly when one fact, based on the available evidence is:

The explosion at Aldgate on Circle Line Train 204 DID NOT occur at 08.49. It occurred between 08.46.30 and 08.47.

After just two weeks into a five month hearing, can anyone have any faith in this Inquest process?

Accounts of power surges and electrocution and whether Shehzad Tanweer was actually sighted on train 204 to follow.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: Don't Mention The Fifth (or Sixth?) Man

2010-11-07T18:53:00.004Z

Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

The Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, published on 11th May 2006 (hereafter known as The Narrative), made it abundantly clear that the public should consider media reports regarding the so-called “fifth man” groundless. It stated:

“There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.”

Source: Home Office 'Narrative' – page 10

In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, we have heard from the witnesses mentioned above who claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man - and the Home Office Narrative's claim that the man was a “regular commuter” seem odd at best – and misleading at worst.

The witnesses in question include Sylvia Waugh, who believes she saw the men outside the flat in Alexandra Grove, Leeds where it is claimed the bombs allegedly used on July 7th 2005 were manufactured. There is also Susan Clarke, who believes she saw the men in the car park at Luton Station. Joseph Martoccia was the witness whose statement to the police in July 2005 regarding his believed sighting of the men at King's Cross station was mutated by the media into a CCTV image, so successfully, that even a former newspaper editor appeared to believe he had actually seen such an image. Yet, as detailed in this previous post, no such image ever existed. This however hasn't stopped it being described as "iconic" and even the Press Complaints Commission agreed that an image that doesn't exist and hasn't been seen by anyone is still perfectly entitled to be described as an "iconic image".

Sylvia Waugh, who says she saw the men in the early morning of 7 July 2005 in Leeds, gave four witness statements to the police. Under oath at the Inquest, Mrs Waugh claimed that she regularly saw at least 6 people entering and leaving 18 Alexandra Grove. Significantly, Mrs. Waugh states that she finds it difficult to discern differences between 'coloured people'. Indeed, after stating on four occasions during her testimony that Jermaine Lindsay, who was, according to mobile phone evidence and the official 'narrative', some 160 miles away at the time, this difficulty does seem to be the case. However, despite this, it seems reasonable to assume that Mrs. Waugh is able to count:

Q. You remember a white car. Might that have been car B that you put on the map for the police?
A. It could have been.
Q. What about the other car, what colour was the other car?
A. Like a bluey colour.
Q. There were a group of men. Can you help us as to how
many you think you saw?
A. At least six.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 69, lines 1-8

A few moments later, Mrs. Waugh is reminded that she told police she had seen four men getting into what seems to be the Nissan Micra in which Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain travelled to Luton from Leeds. She recalls seeing six men in total, and two cars. The other car, according to Hugo Keith, counsel to the inquest, has never been traced. Mrs. Waugh's testimony is very confused; on more than one occasion she denies what she had said in her police statements and at one point she denies something she was recorded as saying several minutes previously whilst under oath. However, her claim to have seen four men getting in the Micra, and six men in total, is interesting when compared to the statement Susan Clarke gave to the police in July 2005, which was read out in part whilst she was questioned under oath during the inquests:

Q. [Mr Patterson] "One car had one or two males in it. The other, a lilac-coloured Nissan, had four males leaving it, all carrying rucksacks. When asked, she described all the males as not white."
A. [Susan Clarke] He then goes on to say that you handed him the piece of paper that you've told us about.
Q. So pausing there, is that an accurate note of what you told the officer on that Tuesday?
A. As far as I remember, yes.
Q. So although today you've told us that you thought that it was four, possibly five, men associated with those two cars, within days of the incident, the very first time you spoke to the police you were saying that it was two men from one of the cars, four men from the other car, all carrying rucksacks?
A. Yes.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 18, lines 24 on

Joseph Martoccia, a commuter who believes he saw the accused at King's Cross mainline station on the morning of 7th July 2005, also said he saw six men:

Q. Have you marked X as the spot where you came across a group of men?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Yes. At the time, I said between four and six.
I wasn't entirely certain of the number.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon Session Lines 39-40

Mr. Martoccia goes on, however, to say that the men caught his attention because they were in a huddle. It was this behaviour that led him to initially deduce they were probably a sports team.

Interestingly, although Mr. Martoccia contacted the police the following day, he was not asked to identify the men from photographs until almost a year later, a somewhat odd approach in what was termed by Sir Ian Blair as "the largest criminal inquiry in English history". When shown a picture of Jermaine Linsday during his testimony to the Inquests, Martoccia stated that he did not remember seeing him. Moreover, Martoccia said that the man he saw heading towards the Piccadilly line – who, one would presume on the basis of the official 'narrative', would be most likely to be Lindsay, who stands accused of causing the explosion on the Piccadilly line train – was instead Hasib Hussain; the man accused of being responsible for the number 30 bus incident.

Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command gave an intriguing response when specifically questioned by Mr. Gareth Patterson, representing four bereaved families, over the number of men witnessed:

Q. You're probably aware, Inspector, of why I'm asking you these questions. Presumably you were told that there's a witness, Susan Clarke, who told the police quite early on that there may have been more than four people in and around those two cars. Were you aware of that? Did you look for the number of people around those cars?
A. Yes, at the time, when we were viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there and that we'd managed to track them to the position where we got decent CCTV images that we could say, yes, there are that number of people.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 50 on

Shortly after this, Mr. Patterson is interrupted by Hugo Keith QC, who expresses concern over his questions “because they do appear to me to be designed to leave the impression that either there was another person at large or that in some way the investigation has been inadequate or has not properly pursued leads available at the time.” After further admonishment by both Mr. Keith and Lady Justice Hallet, Mr. Patterson is able to continue:

MR PATTERSON: If we pause it now, perhaps. Can we see four figures walking off, Inspector?
A. Yes, we can, yes.
Q. Is there a figure who hovers and lingers between the two cars for a period of time?
A. Yes, there is a person there, yes. I think that's the person that exited that vehicle that just arrived.
Q. Was that something that was investigated and looked into to see where that additional fifth person --
A. The individuals around the car were -- their movements were assessed, yes.
Q. Is that something that you dealt with or that somebody else dealt with?
A. I didn't personally follow this individual away, no.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 55 on

Later that same session, Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families, continues a similar line of questioning:

Q. You said in your evidence earlier: "At the time of viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there." That's for your reference, my Lady, page 180 of the
transcript today, lines 10 to 14. That was referring to that footage of Luton rail station that we've referred to earlier. Can you just go to page 2 of this document, Inspector?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you see the entry at 7.19 about halfway down the page? This is an entry by DC Stephen Bain who was viewing it on 10 or 11 July. Can you see at the end of that entry at 7.19, after he describes four persons at the rear of the vehicle, he says: "Fifth person remains at vehicle, movement between both, fifth person towards Luton station, distant view." Then a little further down the page, 7.23: "Fifth male through ground level barriers from car park", and there's continued references to the fifth male there, so two more entries at 7.23. So did you discuss with DC Stephen Bain the fact that, on viewing the footage, he had originally thought there were five males at the car?
A. I think the footage that you are referring to is what we have just played on the screen. What he has sighted is the fifth man and what he has done, quite rightly, ishe's tracked the movements from small image to Luton where you can get the big image and you can identify the person and the relationship with the other four. So for me, yes, we did discuss it at the time, definitely, because we needed to identify -- when I say that we were happy with four, by the time they got to the station, there was a group of four that we felt were -- we were comfortable that those were the four that were going to be engaged -- that were engaged in the activity. So it's right that he's identified it, because we've
seen when we've viewed it that there is a fifth person that arrives. The officer has noted it in his log and he's tracked him to the station.
Q. But you were satisfied at that time, and you discussed with DC Stephen Bain that, in fact, the fifth person was unconnected to those four males, or is that a view
you've come to subsequently?
A.I can't recall if we discussed it in those terms, but we were certainly looking at the movements around the vehicle and identifying fully how many people of relevance to us were there and, certainly, others who were sighted we were looking to eliminate in terms of movements with the four bombers.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 66 on

In his opening statement to the inquest, Hugo Keith QC confirmed that a rucksack containing “four further improvised explosive devices” was found in the Nissan Micra, plus eight other devices. Why were devices put into a rucksack if not to be carried by somebody? This question, and the question as to why all three witnesses who claim to have seen the men at various stages en-route to London numbering between four and six men each time, it appears, are not of concern to the counsel to the inquest. Indeed, both Hugo Keith QC and Lady Justice Hallet's attitude to Mr. Patterson's questioning regarding the matter, gave the sense that suggesting that any more than the four men were involved is a subject completely untouchable by the inquest.

The Narrative claimed in 2006 that “there is no evidence of a fifth bomber”. In fact, as shown by the evidence given under oath to the Inquests, there is "evidence of a fifth bomber". But, much like “the war” in Basil Fawlty's hotel, nobody is allowed to mention it.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: The Final Curtain - "CCTV rich" to "CCTV FAIL!"

2010-11-05T10:34:00.008Z

Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

"In the next image, this is the last sighting of Lindsay, Khan and Tanweer. This was the first CCTV sighting that we had on the unit on this enquiry as they pass through towards the underground station."

DI Kindness, to the 7/7 Inquests 13 October 2010

Q. [Hugo Keith QC] Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. [Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness] It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 6, lines 12-25

On Day 4 of the Inquests it became clear that the image above was the last piece of CCTV, according to the Metropolitan Police, that exists of the four accused together anywhere near King's Cross underground station and also the last of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay.

CCTV footage of Hasib Hussain outside King's Cross was shown to the Inquests and released to the press. However, no other footage exists, we are told, that shows the movements of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after the King's Cross Thameslink was captured. Why not? Especially when on 11 July 2005, Deputy Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, Andy Trotter, boldly announced, "The Underground network is a CCTV-rich environment".

The exchange below, between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, provides further details. Details which only become apparent to keen listeners in attendance at the Inquests or eagle-eyed readers of the transcripts because, as usual, major show-stoppers in the official "narrative" of 7/7 are regularly and completely ignored by the press.

MR PATTERSON: Officer, we then watched the footage -- and I don't think we need to play this, thank you -- of the men entering the railway station. In fact, we don't actually see them buying tickets, do we, in the footage? Were you able to find any footage or CCTV evidence that helps to explain how they got their tickets?
A.[DI EWAN KINDNESS] I can't recall the tickets being purchased.
Q. Then in terms of the journey south, I think you told us that there were no cameras on board the train, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. When they got to King's Cross, in terms of the available footage, although there were quite a few cameras at King's Cross station, is it right that the only cameras that were recording for the relevant time was a camera in the tunnel?
A. There were 76 -- it was a temporary system. King's Cross underground had a temporary system in place. 76 cameras moving in sequence from one second at a time. Fortunately for us, at the appropriate period, between 8.30 and 8.50, it sat for 20 minutes on that one camera and that allowed us, at that period, they came through and we got the first sighting.
Q. Is there any footage of the mainline station as opposed to the Thameslink station?
A. When you say "mainline", do you mean mainline King's Cross?
Q. Yes.
A. At some distance away?
Q. Yes, is there any footage, CCTV footage -- you referred earlier today to many, many hours of footage that would be relevant to the emergency response.
A. I mean, King's Cross mainline footage was that which Hasib Hussain has been identified on, so that's some of it. Of course, it's quite a large estate, but there is definitely King's Cross mainline footage.
Q. So if anyone wants to look at footage of the platform or of the escalator, there is footage that has survived of all of those different areas of the mainline station?
A. I would -- I mean, we'd have to check the schedule, sir, but from my understanding, that would have been seized and certainly was viewed, so it would be accessible, yes.
Q. Was it possible to find CCTV footage showing the area of the station where the witness, Joseph Martoccia,
A. Could you just provide me a little bit of information about what he sighted, sir, just to refresh my memory?
Q. He was a witness who described seeing the group. He described four to six Asian males with rucksacks, and hugging and euphoric I think --
A. Certainly euphoric, but, no, there was nothing, we looked for that, sir, and there was nothing at all.
Q. That wasn't covered by cameras?
A. No.
Q. In terms of the platforms and the Circle Line heading west and the movements of Mohammed Sidique Khan, presumably you looked but that wasn't covered?
A. That's correct.
Q. And heading east and the movements of Shehzad Tanweer, presumably you looked --
A. Yes, we did.
Q. -- but there was no coverage of him boarding the train?
A. At King's Cross?
Q. At King's Cross.
A. No.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Afternoon session, p57, Line 19 on

From this we learn that "a temporary system" of 76 cameras was installed at King's Cross, but that it malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. Fortunately for the investigating officers, the one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station. This one CCTV camera captured the image shown above.

The distance between the Thameslink tunnel where this image was captured and the King's Cross underground lines is shown on this map:

Click to Enlarge

Note: The account of this image being the key that led the investigation back to Luton station has been thoroughly discredited under questioning by Ms Gallagher QC, counsel for the bereaved. This is examined in detail here.

This means that:

There is no CCTV footage from the underground showing Hasib Hussain allegedly on the Northern Line,
There is no CCTV footage showing the "iconic" but never seen image of the four men hugging euphorically,
There is no CCTV from the ticket gates, subways or platforms showing any of the four accused at King's Cross.

It isn't clear yet whether any CCTV exists from the trains as Patterson didn't question DI Kindness on this issue but, given the following account from Rachel "North", it would be surprising if footage from the trains didn't exist. At a meeting in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid, Rachel "North" noted:

Over to the questions. The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images 'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality.

Source: Rachel "North"

If DI Kindness' statement is correct, and the image shown above is the last sighting of Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, any footage that might exist from the trains will not show any of the three accused.

So, what about any other crucial CCTV from the events of 7 July 2005 that might go some way to proving that the four accused were actually on the trains and the number 30 bus?

There are reams of footage showing Hasib Hussain in and around King's Cross and the Euston Road, but what about the footage from Hussain's infamous trip to MacDonalds, where it is claimed he inserted a 9 volt battery, purchased minutes before from W.H. Smith, into his 'malfunctioning explosives'?

Q. Finally this, Inspector: the movements of Hasib Hussain, you've shown us the various bits of footage of his movements and of the buses. Was there any footage from inside McDonalds restaurant where he seemed to be present for some 8 minutes?
A. There was no footage. We recovered the CCTV from McDonalds, but unfortunately the system was -- the recording was stopped prior to him going into that location.
Q. So there were cameras, but for some reason they weren't recording?
A. There were cameras and, in fact, you see the office manager in the office going to the video machine and switching the "stop" button and it stops.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Afternoon session, p60, lines 24 on

How about footage from the Number 91 bus that Hasib is alleged to have boarded before allegedly switching to the Number 30 at Euston Station?

Q. Then finally the buses. The number 91 bus that he was believed to have taken along the Euston Road, no cameras inside that bus?
A. No, sir, no.
Q. Is that because there were cameras and they had malfunctioned or --
A. I can't recall the reasons why, but it was a main priority for us to find him on the bus, as you can see by our actions on the night of the 7th, to get the route 30 bus footage to identify him. So when we had the witness statement stating that -- the 91 bus, that was a priority for us to identify it and, for whatever reason, we didn't identify that footage. So I can't say at the moment whether that was malfunctioned or it wasn't there, it was recorded over, but for one of those reasons why we didn't have access to it.
Q. The same with the number 30 bus, there were cameras, but it wasn't --
A. The route 30 bus had malfunctioned earlier in the year, so we identified it that night, we viewed it that night at the laboratory, and it showed footage from earlier in the year, nothing of the date in question.

Source: Transcripts, 14 October 2010
Afternoon session, p61, lines 13 on

So, no footage of Hasib Hussain from the Euston Road boarding the Number 91 bus, nor is there any footage from Euston station of him boarding the Number 30.

For over five years J7 have been calling on the government to 'RELEASE THE EVIDENCE" but, as a result of the revelations during the first week of the Inquests, perhaps we need to change our demand to, "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?"

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: A CCTV Fuss About Nothing?

2010-11-02T21:09:00.009Z

Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

All witnesses to the Inquest take an oath. The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but...

The Official Report into the London Bombings (the "narrative") states:

12 July In the early morning, the police search premises in the West Yorkshire area, including the homes of Khan, Tanweer and Hussain and 18 Alexandra Grove.

Report received that 4 people by two vehicles were seen putting on rucksacks at Luton Station car park. One of the vehicles was now missing but one remained in the car park.

By lunchtime, police working on the theory that there is a King’s Cross link to the 3 train bombs, all being broadly equidistant from there at the time of the explosions, identify a CCTV image of 4 men with rucksacks at King’s Cross. They recognise Tanweer first from a DVLA photograph.

The police identify CCTV images of the same 4 at Luton Station. The Micra is found at Luton and examined. 9 controlled explosions were carried out on material found in it. The Brava, which had been towed away because it did not have a parking ticket is later traced to Lindsay. There had been a report on the Police National Computer that the Brava may have been used in an aggravated burglary (see paragraph 69) and Lindsay was named as the registered keeper for the car.

During the morning session of Wednesday 13 October 2010, the Inquest heard from Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command. After being sworn, DI Kindness was questioned by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith, and stated for the record that the identification of the four accused at King's Cross Thameslink, and thus the link made to the Luton and Bedford areas, occurred on 11 July 2005:

Q. Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 6, lines 12-25

Under further questioning by Mr Keith, DI Kindness explains the manner in which Luton was discovered as the point at which the four accused met and travelled to London:

Q. Did you then concentrate your examination upon CCTV relating to the railway network to the north of London?
A. Indeed, sir, yes, and we were looking at the route of the -- the Thameslink route up through Bedford and Luton and looking for fast-time CCTV recovery of those stations to see where the bombers had access to rail network.
Q. Were you able to access CCTV relating to, not just the stations, but the car parks at those stations, the entry points and the foyers?
A. Yes, we were, sir.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We were able to identify that the individuals had arrived at Luton underground station earlier that morning and boarded a train to London.
Q. Can you recall when it was that you discovered that they had boarded the railway network at Luton?
A. I think it was on the 12th, sir.
Q. So the Tuesday?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of that process, how many of the men were you able to identify initially as having used the Luton railway station?
A. We were able to identify all of the men had accessed -- the four men had accessed via Luton railway station.
Q. Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 10, line 19 on

Note that DI Kindness is neither asked for, nor offers, any explanation for why Luton was chosen from at least eight possible stations that the 07.00 Bedford - Brighton Thameslink train would have stopped at on the morning of 7 July. Any investigation looking for potential al Qaeda "suicide bombers" would perhaps concentrate their efforts instead on Luton Parkway station, with its links to Luton Airport, and one stop closer to London than is Luton station. Eight stations would have furnished a lot of CCTV footage to examine within a maximum of 24 hours between the identification of the four men on the 11 July 2005 and the Luton link on the 12 July 2005.

One theory, indeed the one favoured by the Home Office narrative, is that Luton was chosen due to the witness sighting of four men putting on rucksacks at Luton station, as received on the 12 July 2005. This witness, Susan Clarke, gave her evidence to the Inquest during the afternoon session of 13 October 2010. She describes handing a note of the cars she had seen at Luton station on the morning of the 7 July to a British Transport Police officer at St. Pancras station. This note was handed over on Tuesday 12 July 2005. [Transcript, 13 October 2010, afternoon session - page 14, line 14 on]. Officers attended her place of work at 11.45am on 12 July 2005 and Ms Clarke was interviewed for two and a half hours at Holborn police station.

So this would appear to be how the Luton station CCTV came to be favoured and examined over and above seven other possible stations of focus. Or, at least it would be if either the narrative or DI Kindness were actually relating the facts of the matter. Fortunately for the bereaved and the wider public, the carefully plotted course of Mr Keith's questioning was exposed by further questions interjected by Mr Patterson and Ms Gallagher, the counsels for the bereaved. However, nobody would be aware of this through reading any of the press reports covering the inquest proceedings.

A CCTV viewing log was discovered in evidence that had shortly before been posted on the Lextranet system that the Inquests are utilising to share evidence between the counsel and interested persons. Mr Hill, representing the Metropolitan Police Service, attempted an objection to this line of questioning and Judge Hallett compounded the issue by reiterating the evidence so far:

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Strict rules of evidence, you're obviously right, Mr Hill. Do I take it, to try to cut this short, Mr Kindness, that essentially you were responding to somebody -- somebody else has got information and they've said, "All right, Detective Inspector Kindness, off you go, we want you to look at Luton and Bedford", is that really -- or did the information come to you personally?
A [DI Ewan Kindness]. The information -- Luton and Bedford was seized, my Lady, as a result of the sighting at -- as a result of the sighting at King's Cross Thameslink which had been generated by the CCTV viewing by the CCTV team. So it was natural that we would follow the route up the line. It's as simple as that.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I think this is a fuss about nothing, Mr Hill, with respect.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 44, line 9 on

Here's the kicker:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 65, line 15 on

This leaves the one crucial and compelling question: Why were the police reviewing CCTV footage from Luton station and car park on 10 July 2005, when the accused apparently weren't identified on King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until a day later, 11 July 2005?

More importantly, why has it been deemed necessary to concoct the story about the discovery of CCTV at Luton on 12 July 2005?

The Inquests now need to scrutinise the actual manner in which the four accused were identified, and re-examine how, when and why the link to Luton station was made and how, when and why the CCTV was recovered, as the evidential log shows, by 10 July 2005.

On the fourth day of the inquests we learn that this one image of the four accused entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink is the only CCTV image captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. More to follow...

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

J7: Update - Into Week 4 of the Inquests‏

2010-11-01T12:25:00.004Z

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

INTO WEEK 4 OF THE INQUESTS

====================================================================

A brief update from J7 as we enter the fourth week of the inquests proper, and a reminder to keep up to date with the latest analysis of inquest proceedings on the J7 7/7 Inquests blog.

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

BEWARE FALSE PROPHETS

====================================================================

The 7 July Inquests process is a crucially important process. It is also potentially the only occasion that the events of 7/7 will receive relatively open and public scrutiny, and the only public process during which some of the evidence is released into the public domain.

Already evidence has been adduced at the hearings which directly contradicts the official Home Office 'narrative' of events, yet Counsel to the Inquests has not allowed the evidence to interrupt the use of the Inquests as mere confirmation of what we have already been told.

J7 have been researching the events of 7/7 since the day itself and we can confidently state, based on the evidence that has been released, that we have no idea a) what happened, b) how it happened, and c) who made it happen.

After over five years of continuous research, J7 has very few answers. Instead we have considerably more questions than we started out with that have hitherto not been satisfactorily answered.

So, if you encounter articles, blogs or books -- in the mainstream media, or otherwise -- which profess to offer "THE TRUTH" about what happened, or which are trying to sell you something that contains an alternative narrative in which all the blanks are helpfully filled in, J7's advice is: Best stay clear.

7/7 INQUESTS TRANSCRIPTS AS SEARCHABLE, PRINTABLE PDF FILES

====================================================================

The 7 July Inquests hearings transcripts are published each day the inquests sit, but only as web pages, making them unsuitable for printing, and cumbersome to search multiple transcripts. So, as a public service to all researchers, interested parties and investigative journalists everywhere, J7 are publishing print-friendly, easily searchable, PDF versions of the hearing transcripts. We have also helpfully summarised the nature of the contents of the evidence adduced in court and released via the 7 July Inquests web site.

Read and download the Inquests Transcripts as PDFs, complete with evidence summaries:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/

Read and download the J7 Submissions to the Inquests

http://julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/

UPDATES TO THE INQUESTS BLOG

====================================================================

Since our last email update, three new articles have gone live on the dedicated J7 Inquests blog, including an article featuring J7's very own first home-grown video production!

J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A picture tells a thousand words, moving pictures a few more than that. Taking a closer look at the CCTV footage from Luton station on 28 June 2005 and 7 July 2005. The article also includes a J7-produced video to highlight the curious coincidence of the Jag that parked in the daytime.

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/curious-case-of-jag-that-parked-in.html

Jaguar at Luton station car park from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Behind the Scenes of the Aldgate Explosion, at 11 minutes to 9

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence adduced in court all points to major issues on the underground happening *before* the time at which the Counsel for the Inquests is adamant that suicide bombers instigated explosions.

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/behind-scenes-of-aldgate-explosion-it.html

The Strange Account of Ross Mallinson

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Inquests have given rise to many more unresolved issues. One such issue is that of Ross Mallinson, and quite where he was and what happened to him. If the inquests are unable to satisfactorily define the story of a survivor, even one that hasn't been called to give evidence, with what precision will the inquest perform its proper task?

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/strange-account-of-ross-mallinson.html

We will be in touch again soon. In the meantime, please keep checking back at the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog. You can also subscribe to the J7:7/7 Inquests blog using RSS feed links on the blog, or by email using the 'Subscribe to J7:Inquests Blog' form in the blog sidebar.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

7 July Inquests: It's A Conspiracy, Stupid!

2010-10-16T19:36:00.004Z

"Although the plotters plainly designed their plot in a way that would add the fuel of worldwide publicity to their aims, these inquests have at their heart, however, the single fact that there was a conspiracy to murder. Each of these 52 inquests is concerned with an act of murder. We have found no evidence to the contrary. It is also clear from the evidence that is available that the four men who detonated the bombs were Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. To reflect the reality of the position and to avoid legal sophistry, I intend to call them "the bombers". [page 13, lines 9-20]
...
"But again, I must emphasise it is not a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt, or a proper function of mine to express opinions on impermissible areas. [page 15, lines 2-7]
...
"Some of the questions may never fully be answered and some may of course also fall outside the scope of these inquests, but what we can say is that a great deal of time, energy and resources has been devoted to finding out what happened to each deceased. Thus it is to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists." [page 22, lines 8-16]
-- Hugo Keith, Counsel to the 7 July Inquests
11 October 2010

It's the end of the first week of the 7 July Inquests process. It's been a long and busy week for the J7 research collective as we endeavour to look beyond the largely throwaway headlines the mainstream media are happy to churn out to fill the spaces between adverts -- as cunningly crafted for them by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith^* -- and examine the minutiae of the proceedings.

Each day the Inquest sits results in approximately 200 pages of transcripts and a varying amount of evidential submissions that need to be diligently worked through and examined in light of the research work that J7 has been conducting during the five years that have passed since the events of 7 July 2005. And, quite frankly, if J7 doesn't perform this function, it's probably not going to happen in any other public forum.

Followers of J7's work -- which, if this week's activities at the inquests are anything to go by, undoubtedly include the counsel to the inquests -- will know that we recently published our submissions to the inquests. Our apparently "voluminous" submissions, as Hugo Keith described them on Day 1 of the inquests proper, outline many of the outstanding discrepancies, anomalies and inconsistencies of the still unproven 7/7 "narrative". The evidence on which this narrative of 7/7 is said to be based has, prior to the inquests, received absolutely no judicial scrutiny in over five years, although it has repeatedly been taken at face value, including in courts of law, and the contents of the "narrative" being taken at face value has been extended by the counsel to the inquests to the actual inquests themselves.

It is perhaps opportune to note at this stage quite what the definition of a "narrative" is:

Narrative; -noun
1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.
3. the art, technique, or process of narrating: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

So, a "narrative" of any sort may, or may not, by its very definition, be true, and is equally as likely to be fictitious. In this particular regard, if no other, the official Home Office report covering the events 7 July 2005 is very clear indeed and openly refers to itself as a "narrative", rather than what many presume or perceive it to be, a factual account of events. As such, the burden of proof lies with the narrative's hitherto anonymous story-tellers to make the case, not with anyone else to prove it to be false, as is commonly argued by the "conspiracy theorists" who champion the conspiracy theory touted by the Home Office.

Judicial Scrutiny?

While the inquests may count, technically, as judicial scrutiny, it is judicial scrutiny that is occurring without the benefit of a jury. This apparent judicial scrutiny is in turn being orchestrated and funded by the State, overtly to appease the concerns of bereaved families who feel they have not yet had the truth regarding the deaths of their loved ones. From the outset, it must be understood that the State cannot in any way find itself to be culpable for anything that would reflect badly upon it, and history is littered with countless examples of the State absolving itself of responsibility, illegality, or immorality in all degrees.

Further, if these concerns aren't by themselves sufficient to sound alarm bells, the Counsel to the Inquests has quite a history of forcefully defending the interests of Queen and State in many instances where these entities have been deemed to be under attack. High profile examples of Keith's work include defending The Queen, no less, at the inquest into the death of Diana; the DPP in the case of a judicial review brought by a member of the family of the mercilessly savaged Jean Charles de Menezes and, more recently, the "merciless savagery" of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the inquest into the murder of the barrister Mark Saunders.

Evidently, Mr Keith has no qualms defending "merciless savagery" when it suits the interests of the highest levels of the State, so one might be prompted to wonder quite why a counsel so wedded to the staunch legal defence of the realm against all-comers might be required for what, superficially at least, is an open inquest into the deaths that occurred on 7 July 2005.

Keith also specialises in extradition and his notable extradition cases include "Abu Hamza, the Natwest 3, David Mills and Silvio Berlusconi in Italian mutual legal assistance proceedings and the Secretary of State in the cases of Ian Norris [PDF] and Gary McKinnon."

The Inquest Process

An intrinsic and vital part of any inquest process is to not prejudge any aspects of the factors leading up to and involved in the cause(s) of death. It would appear, given the contents and areas for further examination listed in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, that the causes of death have already been pre-judged to be linked in some way to explosions occurring on three underground trains and a bus and, further, that these explosions have been prejudged to have been made to occur by the four accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain, and Lindsay. Indeed, over 60 percent of the contents of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues relates to the area of 'Preventability'; that seemingly being the potentiality for the preventability of an attack by four young, British, Muslim men, these specifically being Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay. Therefore, the bulk of the Inquest's Provisional Index of Factual Issues is based around a substantial deviation from the core purpose of the inquest process, seemingly in favour of using the brutal and horrific deaths of 56 people, and the inquest to which they are entitled, as a cynical stick with which to beat the police and security services. While there may well have been significant involvement and failings on the parts of the various organisations, and while some of these areas may well be touched upon as evidence is presented and connections are made during the inquest process, having such activities comprising the bulk of provisional inquest investigation before the inquest has even started seems somewhat counter-intuitive to the notion of not having prejudged any aspects relating to the manner in which the deceased came about their deaths.

With these concerns about the narrative and the structural arrangements of the inquest process recognised and stated, in addition to the overwhelming lack of evidence that has been released and the great many concerns outlined by J7 in the five years since 7/7, it appears that the judicious aspect of judicial scrutiny that passes even the media by, falls to the general public.

Thanks to the Internet the 'ordinary' people of the general public no longer need to rely entirely on sneaking the odd letter past lowly editors into low-circulation newspapers, or the efforts of what were once known, and are now sadly lamented, as investigative journalists. Ordinary people have at their fingertips their own means of production and dissemination of information, along with the ability to produce analysis and content at least on a par with, if not far in excess of, that which the media and all its corporate interests foist upon us. This is what J7 have been doing for over five years now, and we have been doing so with sufficient vigour, transparency and credibility that the Counsel to the Inquests feels the need to make repeated, if indirect, references to the research we have conducted and the information we have published.

And so the next phase of this process, the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog, has been born, following on from the J7 web site, blog, petition, Facebook campaign, and research forum, established specifically to provide coverage and examination of the inquest proceedings, along with analysis of the evidence that is being released as part of the inquest process.

Contributions to the blog will be made by various members of the core J7 research team and the blog will be updated as regularly as possible during the duration of the inquests. As always, we welcome contributions from non-J7 affiliated parties who are taking the time and making the effort to follow the inquest proceedings.

Inquest Resources

^* "Merciless savagery" is one of Keith's descriptions of the events of 7/7 that springs immediately to the fore, and one which received a great deal of coverage after the first day's proceedings. Without doubt all acts of premeditated murder are acts of "merciless savagery" and this applies equally to the victims of 7/7 as it does to any other murdered human beings. However, when the words are uttered by someone who has repeatedly and steadfastly defended for personal profit the actions and the interests of a Monarchy and State that is itself responsible, in just the last decade alone, for in excess of a million acts of "merciless savagery", orders of magnitude greater in number than those that occurred on 7/7, it could reasonably be argued that Keith's words are bereft of meaning.

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests

2010-10-06T21:32:00.009Z

J7 PRESS RELEASE

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

7/7 INQUESTS BEGIN

===========================================================

Over five years on from the events of 7th July 2005 and, finally, the inquests into 52 of the deaths that occurred that day are about to commence in earnest. In a preliminary Inquest hearing on 23 June 2010 the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, stated that she would accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquest to consider.

J7 decided to seize the opportunity presented by Lady Justice Hallett's generous offer to accept submissions suggesting lines of inquiry to the 7 July Inquest process. The J7 submissions were sent to Martin Smith, the Solicitor to the Inquests on 23 July 2010, and subsequently to the Counsels for the bereaved and survivors.

Our submissions detail suggested lines of inquiry and questions which we believe should be proposed and considered by the Coroner in the process of the Inquests relating to 7 July 2005.

Today J7 have published our submissions so that the general public can be aware of at least some of the many unanswered questions that still exist about the events of 7/7. Our submissions were prepared in response to the publication by the 7 July Inquests of a Provisional Index of Factual Issues.

Copies of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, along with J7's Submissions to the 7 July Inquests can be downloaded using the links below:

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests

http://julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/index.html

or alternatively:

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2658993

NOTES FOR EDITORS

===========================================================

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was established shortly after the events of 7th July 2005, when it transpired that the unfolding story was giving rise to more questions than answers.
J7's ongoing research efforts have twice forced the government to amend the official Home Office narrative which, on one occasion, required the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, to stand before parliament and announce a major factual inaccuracy to the house.
J7 do not accept that the Inquests into 52 of the 56 deaths should stand in place of Inquests into the four men accused of perpetrating the events of 7/7.
J7 are dismayed that the families of the accused have been refused the legal aid that would have allowed them to be represented at the current round of Inquests.
J7 fully expect that the Inquests into the four accused should be opened and conducted publicly once the Inquests into the 52 have been completed.
J7 are concerned that some witnesses called at the Inquests may have already been presented with the Metropolitan Police site reports from each of the four locations. We have requested that any witnesses called to give testimony at the Inquests are asked to state for the public record whether they have viewed and/or read the Metropolitan Police reports as it is highly unusual that witnesses called to give evidence in any case would be privy to such reports. J7 are deeply concerned about the impact and effects that having access to these reports prior to giving their testimonies will have on their recollections of events and the witness testimonies that will be given to the Inquests.
In November 2005, after repeated refusals by the government to hold an independent public inquiry into 7/7, and given the paucity of evidence presented to support the official narrative of events, J7 established its People's Investigation Forum to coordinate our ongoing research efforts and track the progress of the many Freedom of Information requests we have issued in order to try and uncover the truth.
Over 3,200 people have signed our petition calling on the government and police to release the evidence they claim to have. J7 supports all calls for an independent public inquiry, and are the only organisation calling for a public inquiry who specifically stipulate that any inquiry should be held outside of the remit of the Inquiries Act 2005 that subjects all public inquiries to full government control.
The fruits of J7's research, along with articles by respected writers, academics and researchers are published on our main web site at www.julyseventh.co.uk.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

They lie to you: Jack Straw and secret inquests

2010-01-05T09:26:00.004Z

After the conclusion of the second "7/7 helpers" trial in April 2009 (which, like the first, failed to convict anyone of conspiring to produce the explosions in London on July 7th 2005), there was no reason for the inquests into the deaths in those incidents to be delayed any longer. But further delayed they were.

At the time, the Coroners and Justice Bill was passing through parliament. It made provision to hold inquests in secret, without a jury, just as the previous year's Counter Terrorism Bill had. At the committee stage in the Commons, the secret inquest clause was retained by a single vote thanks to the abstention of the leader of the Scottish Nationalists, Angus Robertson. Coincidentally, the government had just agreed to an amendment to permit inquests of Scottish military personnel to be held in Scotland.

The lack of cross party support did, though, eventually result in the government dropping the secret inquest clause, as it had done from the previous Counter Terrorism Bill. At least, that is the impression that Jack Straw gave to everyone.

But as well as removing the clause, the government went on to add others that re-introduced secret inquests. In fact, Andrew Dismore MP (Labour) said that the new proposals were worse, and David Howarth MP (Liberal Democrat) that they were in many respects worse, when the government finally forced them through.

During the final debate in the Commons, Jack Straw was insistent in his replies to his own backbenchers (Graham Allen and Robert Marshall-Andrews) that the new secret inquest provision would only apply to a single outstanding inquest, namely that of Azelle Rodney. Mr Marshall-Andrews replied that if this was the case "The disproportionate remedy in the circumstances is obvious to everybody."

Although it was obvious to everybody that Jack Straw was misleading parliament (indeed the whole debacle was described as a procedural farce), it was confirmed beyond doubt a few days later when arrangements for the inquests into those who died on July 7th 2005 were announced, and the Guardian informed us that:

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has said the government wants the option of a secret inquest when evidence of what the security services knew about the bombers is heard.

The fact that all progress on these 56 inquests was blocked while secret inquests were not lawful, and yet as soon as secret inquests became law plans were put in motion to hold them, strongly suggests that they (rather than the Azelle Rodney case) were the true targets of the secret inquest provision, and that Jack Straw was not being truthful when he claimed again and again that the Rodney case was the only one that would be affected.

Aside from the secret aspect, the arrangements being made leave much to be desired.

A judge has been appointed who has never conducted an inquest before, and who has not read the Coroners and Justice Act.

The inquests of the alleged perpetrators are being combined with the others, causing offence to some of the relatives of the victims. This may have the effect (intentional or otherwise) of intimidating or embarrassing the relatives of the alleged perpetrators into not pursuing matters too vigourously. A suicide verdict requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the individual intended to take his own life, and one parent has expressed publicly his view that he has not seen such evidence.

The bereaved families are likely to be denied public funding for legal representation at the inquests, but the Metropolitan Police, a public body, will have legal representation even though there is no obvious reason why it needs it in these cases.

Even now, the inquests are scheduled for autumn 2010, with no explanation for the further delay.

To echo Ludicrous Diversion, if 7/7 happened the way they said it did, what is the reason for all these machinations?

They lie to you: the bogus home affairs committee inquiry

2009-12-17T12:37:00.004Z

The fourth anniversary of the explosions in London on July 7th 2005 was marked by the announcement in the media of an inquiry into those events by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.

The Evening Standard had the headline "MI6 chiefs to face tough inquiry over 7/7 attacks" and explained:

The most far-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the 7 July bombings and other terrorist incidents in Britain was launched by MPs today.

MI5 and MI6 chiefs, as well as terrorism experts, will be asked to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

The inquiry will re-examine what security services knew before 7/7, what should have been done and the Government's response — including the emergency Cobra committee.

MPs will assess any “common threads” between 7 July, the failed bombings on 21 July and other terrorist incidents. These include the Crevice case, which saw five men jailed for life for an al Qaeda-linked bomb plot whose targets included a nightclub and shopping centre. Some of the Crevice plotters met two of the 7 July suicide bombers. The inquiry will re-open questions over the report by the intelligence and security committee, which cleared MI5 and the police of blame for 7/7, despite new evidence revealing their knowledge of some of the bombers.

The Telegraph carried direct quotations from senior members of the committee:

Patrick Mercer, a Tory member of the committee, said: "This will be the biggest inquiry in July 7 and terrorist incidents in Britain.

"What we are going to try is to look at the links between failed attacks before 7/7 and right the way through to the latest successful and unsuccessful attacks that have been plaguing our security services."

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, added: "The Committee will be inviting MI5, MI6 and terrorism experts to give evidence with the aim of gaining a detailed picture of what the security services knew before 7/7, what, if anything, could have been done to prevent the attacks and the Government's response to the attacks."

Rachel "North", who coincidentally is "always ending up on things with the nice Patrick Mercer", applied her cross media marketing expertise to the announcement, declaring that "The campaigning is working. Another major breakthrough.". Despite closing that blog post with the words "More soon", nothing has been heard from her since on the subject.

So what became of the biggest inquiry into 7/7 that would assess common threads between 7 July, 21 July and other terrorist incidents including the Crevice case?

According to the clerk to the committee:

"Unfortunately, these press reports were misleading. The Committee had decided to hold an inquiry into counter-terrorism but had not then decided on its terms of reference. It has subsequently published its terms of reference, which focus on the Home Office's response to terrorist attacks. It does not intend to launch any other inquiries in this area before the end of this Parliament."

In other words, Keith Vaz and Patrick Mercer cynically exploited the unveiling of the memorial to victims of July 7th by pretending to launch a far-ranging inquiry into those events, giving the misleading impression that parliament would be investigating them.

Patrick Mercer ("a compassionate, thoughtful, principled man" according to Rachel "North") is no stranger to manipulating the media when it comes to "Islamic terror" stories. Bloggerheads has documented Mercer's close links to Glen Jenvey and Vigil, following Jenvey's exposure as a false flag "Islamic extremist" in January 2009.

(J7, by the way, picked up on Jenvey and his entrapment affiliates back in November 2006).

21/7: devices not capable of exploding

2009-12-07T11:03:00.004Z

On Tuesday 1st December 2009, ITV1 presented "Bombers on the Run" in its Real Crime series, describing the case of the incidents on the London transport system on 21st July 2005.

The last section of this programme covered the related court case in 2007, but omitted some important details.

The prosecution case on the explosives was presented, including the assertion that 70% hydrogen peroxide devices detonated explosively every time in tests. The video footage that was shown in court of one of these test explosions was shown in the programme.

The defence testimony of Professor Hans Michels, who stated that the devices used on 21st July 2005 were not capable of exploding, was not mentioned by the ITV programme. This testimony had a significant effect upon the trial because it resulted in the prosecution dropping the charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

The programme also failed to mention the significant assistance given to the prosecution by the cut throat defence of mysterious defendant "Asiedu" (who claimed he had abandoned the device found in a park in Wormwood Scrubs). His true identity has never been formally established; in a Ghanaian news article two people claiming to be his biological parents state that he is Ishmael "Sumaila" Abubakar and that they had contact with UK security operatives. If so, it is very strange that he was tried under the alias "Asiedu" when the UK authorities knew his true identity. Curiously, at one point "Asiedu" tried to join the British Army.

According to a BBC Report:

At times during the 21 July trial earlier this year the barrister for Manfo Kwaku Asiedu was landing heavier blows to his co-defendants than the prosecution.

It was Asiedu's counsel, Stephen Kamlish QC, who actually made the link between the 21 July plot and the 7 July attacks.

That was a line of attack which even the prosecutor, Nigel Sweeney QC, had chosen not to go down.

In fact, during legal argument out of the jury's earshot, at least one of the other defence barristers suggested Asiedu and Mr Kamlish be excluded from the trial.

Without this "defence", the prosecution may not have been able to secure the convictions for conspiracy to murder against the four principal co-defendants.

The jury could not reach a verdict on "Asiedu", but before the re-trial "Asiedu" conveniently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause explosions (the charge that had been dropped in the first trial, presumably because the prosecution were no longer confident that the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt after the testimony of Professor Hans Michels). Coincidentally, the charge against "Asiedu" for conspiracy to murder was dropped. Since plea bargaining is technically illegal, this can only have been a coincidence!

The ITV programme omitted the similar assistance given to the prosecution by the alleged confession of defendant Hussain Osman. This occurred after submission of evidence in the trial had concluded, but the judge stopped the closing speeches and allowed the case to be re-opened so that the "confession" could be admitted as evidence. The "confession" was not provided in court by Osman himself, but by two prison officers who claimed to have heard it. The judge did not permit defendant Muktar Ibrahim's lawyer to cross examine this evidence, ruling that it was "irrelevant" to the case against Ibrahim, even though the substance of the confession was that "Ibrahim was the brains behind making the bombs and trying to destroy parts of London" and that "Ibrahim had bullied [Osman] into making the bombs and the distribution of such items"!

The ITV programme also showed footage of a liquid boiling in a saucepan, whilst the narrator informed us that the "bombers" boiled the dilute hydrogen peroxide in order to increase its concentration. We can be fairly sure that the boiling liquid shown was not, in fact, hydrogen peroxide since the vapour produced would be liable to detonate spontaneously, just as it would have done in the "bomb factory" if the "bombers" had been boiling it.

Whilst the trial was in progress, there was an interesting thread on AnswerBank:

Tube bombers, Hydrogen Peroxide Reaction?

Any one else a bit curious about the composition of the explosive that the tube bombers have been reported to use? I have worked using concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide ,100 vol, to decompose organic materials for analysis.

I can not understand how a mix of concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide and flour did not begin reacting as soon as it was mixed. I would have expected such an unstable mix to spontaneously ignite, there would be no chance to transport it any where. Also , how did they concentrate the Peroxide? the reported answer that they boiled down huge quantitys of dilute peroxide on a kitchen stove also seems unbeliveable!

In my expierience Hydrogen Peroxide decomposes and loses Oxygen on heating, you end up with water!

It is many, many years since I worked with 100 vol Hydrogen Peroxide so prehaps my memory is not as good as it was but every time I read about this story it gives me an uneasy feeling that we are not being told the full truth. Any one like to comment ? , Prof, we could do with your insight and knowledge on this!!

The response of "Prof" is illuminating, especially as he appears to be convinced of the guilt of the defendants, calling them "criminals" and "idiots":

I'll start by saying that like you, I was extremely sceptical about the lack of any reaction between the concentrated hydrogen peroxide and the chapatti flour when I read the press reports. Like you, I thought that spontaneous ignition should have occurred if the conditions were reported correctly in my copy of The Daily Telegraph. Here’s another report that’s more enlightening:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21071971-2703,00.html

Hydrogen peroxide does indeed lose water on heating and decomposes into water and oxygen. Because of this, concentrating the stuff is not easy and requires considerable expertise as well as equipment. The usual method employed in concentrating the stuff commercially is via specialised vacuum distillation, but these people don’t seem to have had the skill or equipment to carry out this method and although I won’t go into details, believe me, it’s not an operation that can be carried out over the kitchen sink. Even laboratory vacuum distillation is hazardous..

Concentrating “concentrated” hydrogen peroxide solutions in a kitchen environment is not viable because if the correct temperature and pressure is reached, the vapour will either detonate or ignite with catastrophic consequences.

Other methods of concentration do occur, but again you need the equipment and expertise. No mention of such equipment has been made and only one of the criminals seems to have had anything like a rudimentary general science college education.

Either way, it could be said that if these idiots poured the neat hydrogen peroxide as purchased into a saucepan and did nothing else, “concentrated” hydrogen peroxide could be said to be in the saucepan, simply because it’s stronger than the OTC product. The strength of the processed hydrogen peroxide has not been disclosed.

With regard to Law Student's point, I can think of a number of explosives with shortened names, some of which are colloquially referred to by the name or acronym of one of the components. However, I very much doubt that the press were referring to the finished mixture in this way when they discussed the peroxide. Why refer to it as such? When you mix sugar and salt, I doubt whether the press would refer to the combination as salt (or sugar). The press do try their best to be reasonably accurate when describing substances to avoid criticism.

It’s also incorrect to consider that because peroxide stability increases with molecular weight, the mixture is more stable. It's not always the case. Furthermore, the nature of the fuel also needs to be taken into account. Only then can the stability of the resultant “peroxide” be assessed.

Like Mortartube, I'm inclined to think that acetone peroxide or its homologues were involved here.

We have yet to be given a credible explanation of how concentrated hydrogen peroxide could be produced in a domestic kitchen, and this is as true for the July 7th and airline plots as it is for the July 21st incidents.

New J7TC content published

2009-11-03T13:53:00.013Z

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign (J7TC) have recently published three new articles on our campaign website.

Debunking 7/7 Debunking Parts I and II, written by a J7 forum member and campaign supporter, dissects and debunks some of the spurious reasoning and disingenuous attacks against those not convinced by the official story of 7/7.

Read Debunking 7/7 Debunking Part I here and Part II here.

Also, Larry O'Hara and Paul Stott, two of the most virulent anti-truth campaign voices, in their publication 'Notes from The Borderland', were sent a response by J7 to 7/7-related articles printed in NFB issues 7 and 8. We have yet to source a copy of NFB9 to assess how this was received but, if the front cover is anything to go by, we anticipate more of the usual ad hominem smears and baseless accusations from the self-professed 'premier parapolitical publication'.

Our original article 'J7 vs NFB' can be read here.

Rashid Rauf: downright unbelievable

2009-10-08T21:39:00.005Z

Over the summer Ian Cobain of the Guardian gave us a series of articles raising serious questions about the collusion of the British government in torture.

One of the cases highlighted was that of Rashid Rauf who was arrested in Pakistan in August 2006. The official narrative of Rashid Rauf was that he subsequently escaped from the authorities, a narrative greeted with scepticism by Rauf's lawyer who predicted that a few months after the "escape" there would be a report that Rauf had, conveniently, died. Sure enough, a few months later the authorities claimed that Rauf had been killed in a drone strike. The Guardian accurately described this story as "downright unbelievable". It suggested that it was far more likely that Rauf had died in custody as a result of the torture, and that the unbelievable story had been concocted to cover this up.

The Telegraph and Express have come to the government's rescue by assuring us that not only is Rashid Rauf alive and well (and not tortured to death) but, having allegedly masterminded July 7th 2005 and just about every terror plot to have affected Britain in recent years, he is now, according to MI6 no less, as dangerous as Osama bin Laden!

Those who have been following the myth of al-Qaeda carefully will recognise the re-cycling of an old story line, that of al-Zarqawi, who was reported killed on several different occasions, and reported alive again on almost as many.

Craig Murray has given some insight into how MI6 spends large sums of money to obtain the intelligence that sustains this farcical drivel. (If you prefer a more mainstream source, a recent Sunday Times article describes another MI6 man flying around Afghanistan in a helicopter dispensing thousands of dollars in bundles).

Strangely, this waste of money was not targeted in plans for the biggest cuts in public spending for 30 years. The same prospective government is giving a high priority to abolishing our human rights, so perhaps it is not so strange after all.

Martyrdom videos: inconclusive evidence

2009-09-08T18:06:00.012Z

A recently concluded trial, commonly referred to as the "Airline bomb plot", featured as evidence so called martyrdom videos. Excerpts from these are available on the BBC News web site:

Taken at face value, they do suggest that the speakers intended to take their own lives in acts of violence against others. Savant says "I have sacrificed my life", Khan speaks of "shahada" (martyrdom) and Zaman of "jannah" (paradise, the reward for martyrdom).

These videos did not, though, persuade the jury to convict any of these men for conspiracy to murder. More remarkably, this was the second jury which did not believe that the videos constituted sufficient evidence to convict these men. The Daily Telegraph observes that "it indicates that at least three members of each jury chose to believe the men’s defences", namely that they were "simply making a protest 'documentary'".

This has direct relevance to the explosions in London on July 7th 2005. Often it has been asserted that the "martyrdom videos" of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer are conclusive evidence that they were responsible for those explosions. The Official Narrative (published before Tanweer's video) cites Khan's video as evidence of his culpability. Yet in neither video do Khan or Tanweer mention sacrificing their lives or martyrdom. In that respect they are less explicit than the videos referred to above which failed to secure convictions.

The two juries in the "Airline bomb plot" trials have demonstrated that "martyrdom videos" are not decisive evidence of guilt. They are pieces of evidence to be weighed just as all other pieces of evidence must be in order to reach an overall conclusion. They do not automatically trump conflicting evidence. If the weight of conflicting evidence is greater, then a more innocent interpretation must be put upon the videos.

If these "Airline bomb plot" videos with their explicit references to martyrdom are inconclusive, those of Khan and Tanweer cannot be conclusive without corroborating evidence.

War Is A Racket

2009-08-29T11:22:00.004Z

As part of J7's ongoing research into the events of 7 July 2005 and our work on the campaign for a truly independent public inquiry, held outside of the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have discovered many interesting pieces of related information.

One such piece of information is the notable, obscene and undeclared conflict of interests of the chairman of the Review of the Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lord Butler. With the recent announcement of a further Inquiry into the war in Iraq, it is worth reflecting upon this confirmation of the analysis of another Butler that War Is A Racket.

The Kroll company has benefited considerably from the war in Iraq, not least from the British government:

25% of UK Iraq aid budget goes to security firms

· £165m bill includes guards for staff and police training
· Leading beneficiary is company headed by MP

David Pallister
Monday April 2, 2007
The Guardian

The UK has spent £165m on hiring private security companies in Iraq in the past four years - the equivalent to around a quarter of the entire Iraq aid budget, it has emerged. A further £43m has been spent on private guards in Afghanistan since 2004.

The security costs, mainly for guards for British staff and facilities, were revealed in a parliamentary answer from the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells. They reflect the huge quantities of money that Britain and the US have had to divert from humanitarian and reconstruction resources to deal with the deteriorating security environment in both countries.

In Iraq, a total of £145m has been spent on security guards to protect British assets, with a further £20m going on police training and security advisers to the Iraqi government.

Britain's Iraqi aid budget over the same period was £644m.

The big beneficiaries have been the New York-based risk consulting company Kroll and the UK companies ArmorGroup and Control Risks. ArmorGroup, which is headed by the Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, earned 50% of its £129m revenues from Iraq last year.

Source: The Guardian

As part of Kroll, Kroll Security International (KSI) has developed a new security architecture that places your risk management in the context of increasing global insecurity. With an evolving, international capability across a broad spectrum or risks and services, KSI offers a coordinated approach that matches your needs, however they may develop. By working with clients at the outset of the planning phase KSI can provide a holistic strategy, critical in hostile business environments. From a thorough understanding of your risk management needs to creating a dynamic and focused security solution, KSI can take the risk out of your management.

Within Kroll’s portfolio of services, KSI has been actively providing protection and security in Iraq for government agencies and companies involved in the reconstruction. Since April 2003 KSI’s knowledge and understanding of the risks involved in operating in Iraq has resulted in invaluable protection to our clients. The security risk throughout Iraq ranges from very high to high across the country. The deterioration in the security situation throughout Iraq over the past six months has been marked. Various factions are seeking to make Iraq ungovernable by the Iraqi government, with a view to disrupting the pending Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005. Consequently this is impacting on US Presidential elections and precipitating the eventual withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

The risk is multi-faceted, being both terrorist and criminal in nature. The terrorist aim is to discourage Iraqis from cooperating with the IIG and MNF, through a series of tactics. These include indiscriminate suicide bombings of Iraqi security forces, the assassination of officials and locals deemed to be assisting the interim government and the taking of western hostages with a view to discouraging foreign governments, humanitarian and commercial organisations from participating in stabilisation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Security is the key to success by generating stability and encouraging inward investment.

KSI, with its wealth of experience of operating in hostile environments, offers a variety of services to create a secure environment in which clients can operate in relative safety. These services range from advisory and security audits, intelligence audits and summaries, risk and project management, hostage and kidnap resolution, emergency medical and evacuation/repatriation, the provision of highly experienced security details and training amongst others. Kroll’s services are tailored to suit client requirements.

Source: Iraq Suppliers

Kroll was acquired in 2004 by MMC (Marsh McLennan Companies):

MMC News

MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE KROLL INC.

$1.9 Billion Transaction Enhances MMC's Position as World's Leading Provider of Risk Services

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, May 18, 2004 - Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Kroll Inc. announced today that MMC will acquire Kroll, the world's leading risk mitigation services firm. The transaction will broaden significantly the range of MMC's risk and insurance services businesses and enhance its leadership position in risk management services.

Source: MMC Press Release

MMC News

MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES COMPLETES ACQUISITION OF KROLL INC.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, July 8, 2004 - Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) announced today that it has completed its previously announced acquisition of Kroll Inc., the world's leading risk mitigation services firm.

Source: MMC Press Release

The International Advisory Board of MMC (Marsh McLennan Companies) included:

The Hon. Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO (United Kingdom)
Master, University College, Oxford
Former Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

Presumably the members of the Advisory Board, including Lord Butler, were consulted about the acquisition of Kroll.

Lord Butler held this position at MMC since at least 2003:

Rt. Hon. Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO
Senior Independent Director

Appointed a Non-Executive Director in 1998. He is the Board’s Senior Independent Director.

Lord Butler is currently Master of University College, Oxford, a Non-Executive Director of HSBC Holdings plc and is a member of the Advisory Panel to the UK Management Group of Marsh & McLennan. He has recently been appointed to chair the Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is also a trustee of the Globe Trust, a trustee of the Rhodes Trust and Chairman of the Churchill Museum Appeal Committee. Aged 66.

Source: ICI Annual Account 2003

The Sunday Times of February 8th 2004 confirms that Lord Butler was paid for his advice to MMC from December 2003:

THE MAN appointed last week to lead the government's inquiry into intelligence on Iraqi weapons is a paid adviser to an insurance company with multi-million pound contracts throughout the Middle East.

Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary who will have access to some of the most up-to-date intelligence as part of his inquiry, accepts there could be a potential conflict of interest. He does not intend to resign, but said yesterday he and the present cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, would review his business contacts after the inquiry is completed.

Butler is a director of ICI and the banking group HSBC, but it is his recent appointment as an adviser to Marsh & McLennan in Britain that could cause most embarrassment. The US-based group is the world's biggest insurance broker and also earns millions of pounds advising companies on international risk and crisis management. Although it has refused to insure businesses in Iraq, it does advise companies hoping to do business there.

Butler accepted the adviser's role in December and notified the House of Lords interests register. Last night he referred inquiries about his business interests to the Cabinet Office. A spokesman said: "Lord Butler is not aware of any conflict of interest at this stage. If a conflict of interest did emerge (he) would discuss with the company how this may be resolved."

Although this article states that the House of Lords interest register was notified, an examination of that register using archive.org shows that his regular remunerated employment from MMC did not appear in that register until 3rd January 2006, and that the date given for the appointment was 13th December 2005. It appears that the information supplied to the register was neither timely nor truthful.

Glen Rangwala also commented upon Lord Butler's paid employment by MMC in an article that appeared in Labour Left Briefing in early 2004 (but is no longer available online):

As even his most devout supporters covered their faces in embarrassment at Blair's confession, a new inquiry was set up. And who better to put in charge than Lord Butler? This was, after all, the man who told the Scott arms-to-Iraq inquiry in 1996 that "half the picture can be true". Blair must be hoping that a tiny corner of the picture can be true as well. In the time since his days of loyally serving Blair as cabinet secretary in 1997, he has been acting as a paid advisor to Marsh & McLennan, the insurance brokers. Their other famous employee is Paul Bremer, chief executive of a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan from October 2001 until he took up his appointment in Baghdad in April 2003. So the man supposedly investigating why Britain went to war on Iraq works for the outfit that provided the person who rules by consequence of that war.

So in 2004 Lord Butler was receiving regular renumerated employment from a company (MMC) with a beneficial financial interest (via Kroll) in the Iraq war.

At the same time, he was chairing a Review of the Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On February 3, 2004, the British Government announced an inquiry into the intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which played a key part in the Government's decision to invade Iraq (as part of the U.S.-led coalition) in 2003.

The committee met in secret and only its conclusions were published on 14 July, 2004.

Source: Wikipedia

When MMC acquired Kroll between 18th May and 8th July 2004, there was a direct conflict between Lord Butler's private interests as a beneficiary of the Iraq war and his role as a public servant reviewing the intelligence relating to that war. Lord Butler never declared this conflict of interest, nor did the government replace him on the review committee because of it, nor did anyone in the media bring this to the attention of the public.

J7 acknowledges the lead given to it by the Kelly Investigation Group for this story.

For more information about Kroll, please see Truth and Justice for Richard Chang.

BBC Conspiracy Files: 7/7 - The view from a non-sceptic of the Official Conspiracy Theory

2009-07-03T10:56:00.012Z

“I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do. There will be some five different Select Committee inquiries into the matter. We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that people—the victims and others—can see exactly what happened.”

-- Tony Blair, 14th December 2005

While it might be expected that those who are pejoratively labelled 7/7 'conspiracy theorists', -- owing to little more than their desire to see what Tony Blair promised as "all the evidence that we have" so that they "can see exactly what happened" -- might take issue with the nature, content and intent of the BBC's Conspiracy Files episode regarding 7/7, there appears to be a general perception that it is only 'conspiracy theorists' who would find the 7/7 episode of the Conspiracy Files objectionable.

This, however, is far from the case, as exemplified by one of the most cogent and coherent comments left on the blog entry of Conspiracy Files producer Mike Rudin where he announced the programme's broadcast.

J7 are in the process of producing our own review of, and response to, the Conspiracy Files episode that we declined to participate in -- a programme that was two years in production and which was still being edited almost up until the time of broadcast. In the meantime, we thoroughly recommend the lucid, concise and highly informative comment made by brynberian on the BBC web site, as reproduced below:

184. At 2:23pm on 02 Jul 2009, brynberian wrote:

I watched The Conspiracy Files programme about the 7/7 bombings on BBC2 on Monday night, and was left disappointed in the standard of journalism therein, and worried by the implications of this lapse in BBC standards.

The series purports to debunk various popular conspiracy theories, in this case the allegations that the 7/7 bombings were carried out not by Islamist suicide bombers as official reports suggest, but by the British Government or Mossad, or both, and that official accounts amount to a cover-up.

I should first point out that I do not personally hold this belief. I dont have access to first hand evidence, but my instinct is that 7/7 was indeed the work of suicide bombers. However I strongly objected to the sloppy manner in which the programme attempted to disprove the conspiracy theory, more akin to political propaganda than investigative journalism.

For a start, when someone levels an accusation against a government, official reports commissioned by that very government cannot constitute evidence for the defence. The evidence needs to come from an independent source. The programme was instead heavily reliant on governmental reports to rebut the claims made by the conspiracy theorists- which weakened its case considerably and made no ground whatsoever in contradicting the allegations. If a source is not trusted, how is more information from that source going to make any difference? It makes no more sense than citing the New Testament as definitive proof to Muslims that Christianity is right. Without independent verification, both parties will simply persist in their mutual mistrust.

Let us suppose (and heaven forbid that this is the case) that the allegations against the government WERE true, that they had orchestrated murder of their own citizens for political gain. In this scenario of course the government would do everything it could to cover its tracks, evidence would be synthesised, false witnesses made to testify, whitewash reports would be produced. We have seen this happening recently in the phony democracies of Iran and Zimbabwe- if our government was as corrupt as these and many similarly unsavoury regimes around the world, such practise would be standard. Therefore, where a governments word is doubted, it is fairly reasonable to assume that cover ups may have taken place. Wed like to think we live in a freer and fairer society than these, yet we can point to many recent instances where our government has been seen to be lying to its people. (We are fortunate indeed to have our relatively free press and media to keep tabs on such things). Regardless of whether these specific allegations are true or false, it is reasonable and objective to question the word of the government. An allegation cannot be refuted simply on the grounds that it dares to do so.

Tony Blairs statement on 7/7 was examined, in particular his seemingly premature claim that those people acted in the name of Islam before any investigation into the atrocity had taken place. What did the programme makers do to reassure us of Blairs innocence? Simply quote the second half of the same sentence; the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.

If a statement is accused of being untrustworthy, how can words taken from later in the same sentence constitute any kind of defence?

It is well known that Blair in office was an expert in the art of rhetoric and spin, and could sell any government action, however unpalatable in reality, with cosy politically correct terms. This was commonly used in support of George Bushs War on Terror- championing freedom, democracy, enlightened Western liberal values, womens rights, keeping the world safe from ideas later proved to be fictitious such as Saddams weapons of mass destruction or his alleged ties with Al-Qaeda through expert media manipulation the minds of the public were kept focussed on these things, not on the civilian slaughter that was being carried out.

That Blair on 7/7 made a speech full of reassuring PC terms is hardly remarkable and does nothing to deflect the valid point that he pinned the blame (whether rightly or wrongly) on Islamists before any evidence had been gathered.

Much was made of a certain internet film 7/7 Ripple Effect, revealing its author (using the pseudonym MuadDib) to believe himself to be Jesus Christ. Another conspiracy theorist, who had pointed out a mistake in the governments version of events (forcing the Home Secretary to revise the time of the train the suicide bomber was supposed to have taken), was revealed in the programme to be a holocaust denier. Examples of anonymous threatening letters that had been sent to various people accused in the film were shown, as well as the revelation that it had been distributed to 7/7 survivors, mosques as well as court houses trying alleged 7/7 accomplices.

The viewer was clearly meant to link scepticism of the governments account of 7/7 with Nazism on the one hand, and quasi-religious insanity on the other, as well as the aggressive psychological intimidation characterised by the threatening letters. The implication being that, to question the governments statements on 7/7 is to ally oneself with such people, to become a dangerous social pariah.

What wasnt mentioned was that 7/7 Ripple Effect is in fact rejected by J7, the July 7 Truth Campaign, the main organisation that affiliates those who question the governments account of the bombings. Their website contains a section entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect- a rebuttal and rejection in which MuadDib is strongly criticised for holding offensive anti-Muslim views as well as his wild claims to be the messiah. The page summarises; J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors.

Why then did The Conspiracy Files, a programme with the veneer of investigative journalism, emphasise the work of a rogue lunatic as the main representation of the 7/7 conspiracy theorists position?

The holocaust denier and the threatening letters were the other main points of identification with the 7/7 sceptics. Again, rogue extremists used to represent a position that for the main part encompasses law-abiding, peaceful and rational people who simply question the governments account of the bombings. It is not objective to characterise a movement by its lunatic fringe- otherwise we would regard all animal lovers as letter bombers, all Labour party members as Stalinists, all Tories as fascists, all Catholic priests as paedophiles.

A cursory glance at the J7 website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html will reveal the attitude of more typical people holding the 7/7 sceptics view. That such people were not represented at all in the Conspiracy Files says much about its objectivity.

The programme reached its climax with the mad old man who uses the name MuadDib being hunted down and confronted, Roger Cook style, by the unseen Conspiracy Files reporter. Why are you bringing the British government into disrepute? he huffily demanded, to a silent response.

A peculiar question, especially now in the wake of the expenses scandal, and almost daily revelations about how the government lied to us on rendition and torture during the Bush/Blair years, not to mention the false WMD claims, and the growing awareness that the evidence on which the case to go to war against Iraq was based was fixed. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself.

As Ive said, I dont personally hold the belief that the 7/7 attacks were government endorsed. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy. But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin.

Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe?

The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully. This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that.

Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate. All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could.

If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed. One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument.

The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism.

BBC2 Conspiracy Files and the Official Conspiracy Theory

2009-06-26T12:16:00.036Z

"Is the Kennedy assassination conspiracy just a lot of hoopla kicked up by "conspiracy buffs"? Most of the independent investigators I have met seem to be serious politically literate people. Their struggle to arrive at the truth is not impelled by a love of conspiracies but by a concern for the political and historic importance of the case. They seek the truth no matter how dirty it might be. That process of confronting the machinations of the national security state is not a conspiracy hobby. It is an essential part of the struggle for democracy."

-- Dr Michael Parenti
from The JFK Assassination, Defending the Gangster State

At 9pm on Tuesday 30th June, we will have the opportunity to watch the BBC's 7/7 Conspiracy Files episode which was delayed due to the retrial of the 3 accused of helping to plan the events in London on 7th July 2005. Despite two trials, which showed for the first time unreleased CCTV and other evidence of these events, the jury found the three accused, Ali, Shakil and Saleem, not guilty of the charges.

Some argued that if the four accused of bombing London were in fact innocent, then their three close friends, Ali Shakil & Saleem, would have challenged the evidence shown and protested that the Official Conspiracy Theory (which, to date, and without any conclusive proof, is all the State's version remains), was false. This is a flawed argument, because if the three knew nothing about the plot, they could hardly argue in their defence that it didn't happen the way we have been told. Yet, while anything other than the official 'narrative' of events is derided as a 'conspiracy theory', it was nothing less than a 'conspiracy theory' which formed the basis of the prosecution's case.

J7 have always maintained that the most dangerous Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorists are those propagated by the State itself, contained within its laws and its actions against those that it chooses to prosecute and imprison, as evidenced in these excerpts from the trial of Ali, Shakil and Saleem:

"In his closing speech to the jury, Henry Blaxland QC, defending Ali, likened the prosecution allegations to the fairy story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

'In the parable, the people are afraid to undermine the status quo by questioning the Emperor,' he said.

'The status of these allegations - the killing of 52 people - put before you with the full weight of the Crown Prosecution Service behind it is such that some of you might have some reticence in saying the simple and obvious thing - that it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is ludicrous.

'The prosecution case is entirely devoid of anything that could be described as reliable evidence and is an exercise in speculation - the prosecution could not decide which way to jump.

'It is straight out of 'Alice through the Looking Glass' when the Queen says to Alice 'you have sentence first, trial later.'

He went on to describe the 'fundamental implausibility' of the theory that Ali, Saleem and Shakil travelled to London seven months before the devastating attacks to scout out possible targets.

He said: 'The prosecution say that the picture that emerges from the phone data is so compelling, but it is strangely quite the contrary.

'The records are positively inconsistent with this.

'Only a hardened conspiracy theorist with an inflexible mindset could squeeze a sinister interpretation out of the phone records.

'They present you with tantalising puzzle and it would be easy for your imagination to get the better of you.'

Andrew Hall QC, representing Sadeer Saleem, told Kingston Crown Court that the case against the three men was

'utterly implausible' and described it as 'a conspiracy theory that the prosecution have been prepared to pursue to the bitter end.'

The Judge in his closing remarks to the jury said:

.. the men claim in their defence they are victims of a 'conspiracy theory without foundation.'

J7 is somewhat dubious as to the ability of the BBC to do justice to the considerable body of evidence which questions the Official Conspiracy Theory (as outlined with little actual evidence in the twice amended official report of the London bombings produced by the Home Office in May 2006) preferring instead to set-up straw men which are easily knocked down. With the participation of Nick Kollerstrom they will also be able to add 'holocaust denial' to the list of reasons why 'conspiracy theorists are dangerous and must be avoided at all costs'. J7's honest, principled and reasoned refusal to participate in this sham of a 'documentary' -- if previous outings of the Conspiracy Files are anything to go -- can be read here.

Will the BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files address, or attempt to answer, any of the following questions:

Will the BBC's Mike Rudin and Tristan Quinn examine the nature of the explosives?

Or how Germaine Lindsay, on the 'packed to capacity' Piccadilly Line train, was able to scatter both his ID around the carriage and place a large backpack on the floor of the train before detonating the explosives?

The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard.

Source: The Telegraph

Or, how these two women were able to exit the Piccadilly Line train 'within 3 to 4 minutes' whereas the most famous and vociferous survivor of 7/7 Ms Rachel 'North' (who will no doubt make an appearance to castigate those who dare to question these events) claims in her BBC diary: “After about 20 to 30 minutes we started to leave the train.”

Or, why the Metropolitan Police claimed that 3 trains were involved in the Edgware Road incident and that a 'hole was blown through a tunnel wall'?

Or, how the boot of a Nissan Micra:

was able to contain:

Or, how 'Supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar, after undoubtedly coming to the attention of the world's Security Services, was still able to freely travel between the UK and Pakistan to apparently meet with Khan, Khawaja and Khyam.

Or, examine the role played by ex-SBS anti-terrorist operative, Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid in running the Iqra bookshop in Beeston Leeds.

Or, re-interview Richard Jones, an individual given considerable air-time by the BBC, who has given many and varied versions of what he claims to have seen aboard the number 30 bus which means that, at best, he is an extremely unreliable witness. Furthermore, none of his accounts bear any relation to Hasib Hussain.

Or, why no CCTV has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

One of the released CCTV images of the 4 together leaving KX Thameslink Station (noticeably not the 'iconic' hugging that the Official Conspiracy Theory claims occurred).

Or, why Hasib Hussain would have known his detonator was malfunctioning if he hadn't already boarded a train and attempted to detonate his explosive, thus necessitating a return to King's Cross to purchase a battery.

Or, how young David Foulkes tragically died on a train that had left Edgware Road station, when he should have left the train at Edgware Road station after having arranged to meet a colleague there and, according to his father, travelling the three stops from Euston station.

Or, why Scotland Yard denied the fact of a second controlled explosion on the Number 30 bus.

Or, why none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day have been interviewed, named or honoured. On the contrary, the driver of the Piccadilly Line train, Tom Nairn, was refused compensation on the grounds that the 'police had no record of him'.

Or, any of the endless list of unanswered questions, anomalies and inconsistencies detailed in the following articles:

Mike Rudin justifies the forthcoming episode of the Conspiracy Files on this basis:

... I also think it is important to investigate the conspiracy theories that continue to develop around 7 July attacks, because they play on the fears of the Muslim community and spread a highly divisive and damaging message.

We would argue that it is the constant demonisation of the Muslim community, the endless arrests and prosecutions, some for no more than possession of a CD, and the abundance of hideous anti-Muslim propaganda that hinges on the official conspiracy theory about how 7th July 2005 came to be, that really spread 'a highly divisive and damaging message'.

Whatever negative picture the BBC set out to paint of those who question the government about the events of 7/7 -- something we do in precisely the same way that campaigners and activists who challenge the government over the reasoning and justifications for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, ID cards, MP expenses, or indeed any other issue that impacts upon the entire population -- J7 will remain exactly what we say we are, a Truth Campaign.

We have campaigned for the truth about the events of 7th July 2005 for nearly four years, and we will continue to do so until such time as the truth is known. Unless there is evidence in the public domain that proves conclusively the Official Conspiracy Theory, then it remains a conspiracy theory, as outlandish as any other, and we will continue to (in keeping with Henry Blaxland's defence) "question the emperor" even if it does "undermine the status quo".

We leave the last words to Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin, as spoken by lawyer Imran Khan outside the Old Bailey at the end of the Operation Crevice trial.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

The nature of the explosives: from C4 to powdered masala spice

2009-05-17T20:27:00.014Z

On 28 April 2009 Wahid Ali, Mohammed Shakil and Sadeer Saleem were found not guilty of conspiracy to cause explosions at their second trial at Kingston Crown Court. They had been accused of carrying out a hostile reconnaissance of London tourist sites on 16/17 December 2004. BBC2's Newsnight carried a report of the acquittal. Richard Watson claimed that the main charge of the 7/7 bombs was a mixture of concentrated hydrogen peroxide and powdered masala spice. At both the first and the second trial Clifford Todd of the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halsted in Kent had testified that the bombs were made with ground black pepper. However, according to his testimony on 2 May 2008, no pepper residue was detected at any of the four bomb sites.

For about a week after 7 July 2005, media reports, now hard to find, mentioned the military explosives RDX and its plasticised version, C4. With the discovery of an alleged bomb factory at 18, Alexandra Grove in Burley, Leeds and IEDs at Luton Station carpark, the talk turned to TATP, triacetone triperoxide, or HMTD, hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. Official sources were guarded. The Home Office narrative spoke only of home-made explosives while the ISC went only so far as to specify organic peroxides. For more detail, see The Changing Type of Explosives Used.

At the 21/7 trial chapatti flour and pepper were introduced.

The bombs that failed to explode in London on 21 July 2005 were almost identical to the ones that killed 52 people on the transport network two weeks earlier. But why didn't they go off?

Investigators spent many hours examining the devices used on 21 July and comparing them with the 7 July bombs.

There was only one minor difference - the 7/7 bombers mixed ground pepper into the mixture while the gang two weeks later used chapatti flour.

But Dr Stuart Black, an explosives expert who gave evidence at the trial, said that was not the reason the devices failed to explode.
....
Two theories were offered at the trial at Woolwich Crown Court.

The plot's prime mover, Muktar Ibrahim, himself suggested the device would not explode because he had deliberately diluted it with tap water.
....
But the prosecution offered another view.
....
Hydrogen peroxide is well known among experts as a potential bomb ingredient- but only if used in the correct concentration.

Source: BBC

The 21/7 bomb makers failed to achieve the required concentration whereas the 7/7 chemists apparently did.

Given that pepper was mentioned at three trials, it is surprising that Richard Watson neglected to mention that fact when he claimed that the main charge was masala. Web searches have failed to turn up any reference to masala in connection with 7/7. However, the doyenne of J7 researchers found that during the first '7/7 helpers' trial two '7/7 shopping lists', found at 18 Alexandra Grove, had been presented in evidence and released by the Metropolitan Police Service.

There are three occurrences of masala here: masala/citric, masala + citric and masala (15kg).
Citric acid is used as a catalyst in the preparation of HMTD.

There is one mention here: Dews MASALA (Dews = Dewsbury).

Pepper does not appear in these lists and yet was found in the Burley flat.

'Bomb materials' in 7/7 plot flat
Kingston Crown Court heard explosive materials were found scattered in "disarray" across various rooms at 18 Alexandra Grove, Beeston, which the jury heard was the "principle" site for the construction of the bombs detonated on the London transport network.

The jury, who were shown pictures from inside the flat, heard containers of a mixture of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide, used as the main charge for the bombs, were found sitting in the bath and traces of high explosive HMTD were on the cooker in the kitchen.

They also heard that the floor of the lounge in the flat was covered with bags of clothing and other items including heavy-duty gloves, masking tape, a rucksack and containers full of a "brown sludge", which was the pepper and chemical mix.

Empty bags of ground black pepper were found along with ice-cube bags and ice packs in the kitchen, which the court was told were used to keep the devices cool.

And plastic trays containing bicarbonate of soda and citric acid were also discovered.

Source: BBC

This seems to match up with the explosives found in the Nissan Micra at Luton station car park.

Details of July 7 'bomb factory' disclosed
Four intact nail bombs were discovered in a Nissan Micra left at Luton airport [sic], Kingston Crown Court heard, along with four containers of bomb-mixture and four detonators.

Source: The Telegraph

However, the images released by ABC News, accompanying this story on 27 July 2005 show only white explosives. There were no brown sludge bombs at Luton. There were no white mixtures at Alexandra Grove.

The Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police Service has searched several other suspected bomb factories. Traces of explosive were reportedly found at Mohammad Sidique Khan's Dewsbury house and at 111 Chapeltown Road, Leeds.

The sum of £100 million spent on Operation Theseus has failed to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005.

Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

2009-04-28T13:23:00.046Z

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."
-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.

J7 Exclusive: Interview with political prisoner Hussain Al-Samamra

2009-03-04T00:56:00.010Z

For almost a decade the British government has been engaging in the practice of arbitrarily detaining people, predominantly Muslims, whilst preventing them, and their legal representatives, from knowing exactly what they are accused of doing. The government awarded itself new anti-terror laws and the right to carry out detentions without charge or trial after the September 11th 2001 attacks in the U.S.A. Tony Blair frankly admitted in 2007:

"In the aftermath of such an outrage it was relatively easy to do.

We gave ourselves the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to detain foreign nationals who we believed were plotting terrorism but against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute."

In cases where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, it logically follows that there is insufficient evidence for for a successful prosecution to occur. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, then it is entirely reasonable to deduce that the allegations are baseless and invalid.

Hussain Al-Samamra is a Jordanian of Palestinian extraction and is one of many individuals who have suffered the torture of this legislation, having arrived in Britain in 2001 and finding himself under arrest twice, in 2004 and 2006. On both occasions being told no more than he was a "threat to national security" yet no charges were brought and no evidence to support the accusations was produced. Hussain spent two years in prison following his second arrest and now lives within the confines of Immigration Bail.

In this exclusive interview, Hussain describes life under the oppressive shadow of being labelled a "terror suspect" without being allowed to know on what evidence, if any, this suspicion is based, thereby making it impossible for him defend himself against any allegations.

Read the full interview with political prisoner Hussain Al-Samamra here.

[Picture above shows a meticulous Andalucian mosque made of matchsticks which took Hussain al-Samamra months to build, as exhibited at CAPTIVATED: The Art of the Interned]

J7 Response to Paul Stott's paper: Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History

2009-01-13T18:24:00.061Z

On 1st September 2008 Paul Stott, via his 9/11 CultWatch blog announced that he, along with Dr. Larry O'Hara, would be presenting papers to the Anarchist Studies Network Conference at Loughborough University. Stott's effort was entitled “Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History”. The following was written in response to Stott's paper, in particular, the following paragraph directly aimed at the July 7th Truth Campaign:

The main body pushing for 7/7 ‘truth’ is the July 7 Truth Campaign which runs the website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/. Given its lineage, it is no surprise that 7/7 truth has been dogged by many of the problems that have effected (sic) the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. The presence in London on the day of 7/7 of both Israeli politician Benjamin Netanayu and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani, plus the perceived involvement of an “Israeli company” in running security on the London Underground, was a heady brew, leading to all manner of crank theories, although depth is another matter.

Stott fails to enlighten us as to what he understands the 'lineage' of the July 7th Truth Campaign to be. Despite this, it is clear from his paper that what he describes as 'being dogged by many of the problems that have effected (sic) the 9/11 'truth' movement', translates as, 'any mention of Israel or Mossad will be viewed as anti-Semitism'. He also fails to back up his accusation regarding 'all manner of crank theories'. For the record, The July 7 th Truth Campaign choose not to speculate on alternative theories, preferring to focus on the few verifiable facts that exist, while maintaining pressure on the State to present evidence which conclusively proves the 'official conspiracy theory' as outlined in the Home Office narrative. Stott's paper, rather than offer any sort of insightful analysis, has instead exposed his own methodology, a methodology which involves smears, insinuations and unfounded accusations rather than an honest examination and analysis of the facts.

There is only one reason that Israel and Mossad are examined by J7 in connection to the facts of the events in London on 7th July 2005 and that is: we cannot avoid examining these areas if we are to conduct a comprehensive, factual and forensic analysis of these events.

Verint

Stott adds this footnote to the 'Israeli company' running security on the London Underground:

The company concerned, Verint Systems Inc, was appointed in 2004 by Metronet to provide CCTV on parts of the Underground. They are an American company, with headquarters in New York. Truthers suggest it is a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology, and therefore infer Israeli involvement in the attacks.

Verint are in fact a subsidiary of scandal-riven, Comverse Technology, a company started in Israel and with close ties to the Israeli government. This fact can be easily and readily accessed via an impeccable source, the Verint web site, where it states: “Verint is a subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CMVT).”

Why does Stott choose to claim Verint have no links to Israel?

Furthermore, the business practices of Verint's parent company Comverse, have been some cause for consternation for many, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. As have their operating procedures - Comverse came under scrutiny in a Fox News investigation into the wire-tapping systems provided by the company to the US Government:

'Congress insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.

Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.'

The investigative approach of Stott would seem to dictate that everyone ignore Verint's role in the operation of security systems on the London Underground, purely on the basis that to examine this aspect would be in some way 'anti-Semitic'. Quite clearly, and by their own admission, Verint are indeed linked to the Israeli firm with questionable business practices, Comverse, and Verint were indeed awarded a 'security' contract for the London Underground. Despite the as plain as day evidence existing to sound alarm bells about both the business and financial practices of Comverse, the company of which Verint is a wholly owned subsidiary, this can -- by the same logic Stott presented to the Anarchist Studies Network conference -- be entirely ignored.

A recent Counterpunch investigation into Verint, “How Israeli Backdoor Technology Penetrated the U.S. Government's Telecom System and Compromised National Security” and entitled “An Israeli Trojan Horse” also reveals how any examination of this issue by the CIA or FBI leads to Stott-like accusations of anti-Semitism:

Another anonymous source – a former CIA operative – tells me that U.S. intelligence agents who have aired their concerns about Verint and Amdocs have found themselves attacked from all sides. “Once it’s learned that an individual is doing footwork on this [the Verint/Amdocs question], he or she is typically identified somehow as a troublemaker, an instigator, and is hammered mercilessly,” says the former CIA operative. “Typically, what happens is the individual finds him or herself in a scenario where their retirement is jeopardized – and worse. The fact that if you simply take a look at this question, all of a sudden you’re an Arabist or anti-Semitic – it’s pure baloney, because I will tell you first-hand that people whose heritage lies back in that country have heavily worked this matter. You can’t buy that kind of dedication.”

Verint is by no means the only private company involved in the operation of the London transport system and other such companies are duly highlighted by J7 and afforded similar examination. We also highlight the fact that Transport for London was in the charge of no lesser mortal than the ex-Deputy Assistant to the Director of the CIA, Robert Kiley. Further detail about the private organisations involved in the running of essential public transport services are included in the Private Companies involved in London Transport section of the J7 web site.

It is deeply ironic that, as well as challenging the State in its various guises, challenging the dominance and stranglehold of private organisations on public life was once a core political activity among left-wing and anarchist groupuscules. As was examining the actions and nature of the racist and apartheid State of Israel once possible without the unfounded smear of anti-Semitism.

Binyamin Netanyahu

Another 'fact' that cannot be ignored by J7, or anyone else researching the events of 7th July 2005, is what Stott refers to as the 'presence in London on the day of 7/7 of .. Benjamin Netanyu' (sic). Far from Netanyahu's mere presence in London being of concern, the reason Netanyahu features in our analysis at all is as a direct consequence of it being claimed that he received a warning prior to the attacks.

The facts are that Netanyahu was due to attend the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange / Deutsche Bank Conference in the Great Eastern Hotel in Liverpool Street station (the site of the first explosion) but a prior warning (later denied by Scotland Yard) meant he remained in his hotel in Russell Square, close to the sites of two further explosions.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.”

Furthermore, the same article also notes:

"The Israeli Embassy were quick to deny that this conference could have been the target for such an attack. Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks."

Some questions worth asking, irrespective of whether an Independent Public Inquiry, outside of the pernicious Inquiries Act 2005, is ever held to investigate the events of 7/7:

Was the Israeli Embassy issued a warning prior to the attacks?
If so, who issued the warning?
How did the Israeli Embassy know that this conference was not the target for such an attack?
If the Israeli Embassy did not receive prior warning, how did the story about notification come to be, where did the idea that Israel was the target originate, and which “Israeli official” denied this to be the case?

If anyone were to take Stott's article seriously, possible foreknowledge and forewarnings about 7/7 which had the potential to save the lives of innocent commuters should be ignored and nobody should be asking or demanding answers to questions such as those listed above.

Ex-Mossad Chief, Efraim Halevi

Another Israeli/Mossad connection which cannot be ignored is the article by ex-Mossad Chief Efraim Halevi published on the day and ominously titled, "Rules of Conflict for a World War", in which he presciently announced:

The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.

There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.

It is impossible to know how Halevi was able to claim 'near-perfect execution' on the day, particularly when the timings of the blasts were being reported as anything but simultaneous, but instead taking place over the course of an hour. The last MPS press release issued at 19.15 on the day of 7/7 claimed:

"There follows an outline of this morning's events:

At 08.51 on 7 July at Liverpool Street Station there was an explosion in a train carriage 100 yards into the (Liverpool Street-bound station) tunnel.

At 08.56 there was another incident at King's Cross / Russell Square. Both stations were used to bring out casualties.

At 09.17 there was an explosion on a train coming into Edgware Road underground station approximately 100 yards into the tunnel. This explosion blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform.

Three trains are believed to have been involved.

At 09.47 there was an explosion on a bus at Upper Woburn Square junction with Tavistock Place.

It wasn't until a press conference held two days later, on 9th July 2005, that Tim O'Toole claimed the underground explosions happened "almost simultaneously", within 50 seconds of each other at approx. 8.50am. Oddly, recently released CCTV from Liverpool Street purporting to show the explosion is time-stamped 07.46.58, over an hour before the alleged and revised timings of the explosions.

In March 2005 Halevi, a senior adviser to the US Middle East Project Inc., had been appointed to the Advisory Board of Quest, a UK based Risk Management and Investigation company. The Chairman of Quest is Sir John Stevens, ex-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Stevens was also the first person to declare in his column for the News of The World on 10th July 2005 that the 7/7 attacks were carried out by British citizens, some two days before the first raids were carried out by police in West Yorkshire. In his News of the World article, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who retired as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in January 2005 and whose tenure would have overseen the Operation Crevice investigation and its alleged connections to the alleged 7/7 bombers, described the likely suspects as:

"apparently-ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics," "They are also willing to kill without mercy - and to take a long time in their planning. They are painstaking, cautious, clever and very sophisticated."

-- Sir John Stevens, 10th July 2005, News Of the World

Furthermore, to ignore the history of what are now well-documented false-flag operations, and to ignore Mossad's previous roles in 'false-flag' operations in the UK would be little short of foolish.

In 1988, 28 year old Ismael Sowan, a research assistant at Humberside College of Higher Education, was discovered by British police to be in possession of a large quantity of arms and explosives. Sowan was working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. Mossad's plan was that Sowan would let off bombs in Britain that would leave sufficient forensic clues to suggest that they were the work of Moslem countries and thus damage Anglo-Arab relations. Sowan had been run by a five man Mossad team operating in Britain under the cover of a private company with the tacit approval of the Foreign Office and MI5. After the discoveries by the police the Foreign Office felt it had to ask the Mossad team to leave the country.

It would appear to be of no concern to Stott that Halevi and Stevens seem to have been several steps ahead of both the police investigation and the unfolding official narrative. J7, however, feel that such items warrant far greater investigation than Stott's instant dismissal.

Rudy Giuliani

Along with dismissing the presence in London of Netanyahu as unworthy of further investigation, Stott would rather ignore the presence of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, in charge at the time of the 11th September 2001 attacks, who happened to be at Liverpool Street that day. Not only was Giuliani in Liverpool Street but he also claims he was told immediately that the explosions were caused by bombs. The first news about explosions on the underground broke at 09:17 for lesser mortals than Rudy, including those travelling on London's public transport system, and even then the explosions were only claimed to be the product of 'power surges':

"I was right near Liverpool [Street] Station when the first bomb went off and was notified of it and it was just to me very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place."

Giuliani happened to be fresh from a speech he had given, in return for the princely sum of £50,000, about the 'battle against terrorism' and his admiration for Blair and Bush to the LGA conference in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, just the day before, in which he claimed:

"... terrorists were too often released in the past by governments because they were afraid of them, comparing it to the mistakes made in the 1930s over Hitler.

"I think their determined response to it, against public opinion very often, has helped keep us safe and I think if they had been more typical of some of our politicians, they would have shifted because of public opinion which would have been disastrous." He added: "I have great respect for their setting a very determined policy as regard to terrorism, sticking with it when it became unpopular and I credit the fact we have been able to reduce terrorism to what they have done."

Outlining his views on the common enemy in 2006 and warning of another attack on America, Giuliani stated:

"You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people — they have demonstrated to us that they despise us. They hate us. They want to kill us. And they want to kill us because we're a modern society. They want to kill us because we give women rights. They want to kill us because we have freedom of religion. They want to kill us because we have elected officials. They want to kill us because we're modern and we can't give that up.”

Wayne Barrett, one of America's great investigative journalists, depicts Giuliani as a cruel, unstable, destructive hypocrite, a man judged by the press to be barely human and inwardly empty. Barrett also investigated Giuliani's business links to Qatar, and in particular, to Qatari Interior Minister, Sheikh Abdullah (Abdallah) bin Khalid Al Thani and thus, Al-Jazeera. Barrett writes:

Abdallah al-Thani remains a named defendant in the 9/11 lawsuits that are still proceeding in Manhattan federal court, but his Washington lawyers declined to address the charges that he shielded KSM, insisting only that he never "supported" any "terrorist acts." Asked if Abdallah al-Thani ever supported any terrorists rather than their acts, his lawyer David Nachman declined to comment further. The Congressional Research Service report summarized the evidence against him: "According to the 9/11 Commission Report and former U.S. government officials, royal family member and current Qatari Interior Minister, Sheikh Abdullah (Abdallah) bin Khalid Al Thani, provided safe harbor and assistance to Al Qaeda leaders during the 1990s," including KSM.

In the same article Barrett also mentions Ali Soufan:

Peter Boyer, whose New Yorker profile of Giuliani appeared this August, quoted D'Amuro and Giuliani about the expertise and work of Ali Soufan, an Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American who also left the FBI to become the international director of Giuliani Security. Both D'Amuro and Giuliani said that Soufan, the lead investigator in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, had been spending "most of his time" in a Persian Gulf country that is a Giuliani client. Boyer didn't identify the country, but another source familiar with Soufan's assignment has confirmed that Soufan has, until recently, been based in Qatar. "The firm has helped the country with training, and with a revamping of its security infrastructure," Boyer wrote. "The locale is an ideal listening post for someone whose expertise is unraveling the tangle of international terror."

Ali Soufan was an FBI agent, accused of entrapment in this sting operation:

Sabir's defense lawyer has cried entrapment. The accused himself later testified he had no idea that the Sheik Osama he was heard pledging his loyalty to was the Qaeda terror chief named bin Laden. But the musician, an accomplished jazz bassist named Tarik Shah who once played with the Duke Ellington Orchestra, has already pleaded guilty to a terror-related charge. So have two other men in the case, a Washington, D.C., cabdriver and a Brooklyn bookstore owner. The FBI counts the case as one more victory in what it considers to be its top-priority mission: finding would-be terrorists before they can carry out their plans.

....

Soufan called the deception a “proactive counter-terrorism operation,” designed, he told the court, “to reach out to individuals who wanted to be Al Qaeda members, make them believe that they actually get their goals in reaching Al Qaeda, and then we stop them before they hurt people.”

This trial has been heard twice and on both occasions the jury have failed to convict. The U.S. administration is now attempting a third re-trial and will presumably continue retrying until such time as it receives the politically expedient verdict it desires. If at first you don't succeed, trial, trial again.

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani continues to face legitimate opposition from the working class in the form of the International Association of Fire Fighters which is taking him to task for “the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11.”

Conclusion

While the likes of Stott and O'Hara, along with their Notes from the Borderland and 9/11 CultWatch efforts, will happily devote their time to hunting down alleged 'cultists', real players wielding real powers using real deceptions and with real contacts to the real powers that be, are able to manoeuvre, often-times in full public view, safe in the knowledge that they will continue to be ignored by those who profess to offer radical views and radical politics. After all, States don't use terrorism, assassination, mass murder and war against innocent civilians often in the name of National Security and protecting their National interests do they? To believe they do might earn you the label 'Conspiracy Theorist'. Additionally, why would anyone chance being accused of anti-Semitism by pointing out that amongst the main beneficiaries of the events in London on 7th July 2005 have been the burgeoning police state in the UK, the profitable and ever expanding 'security businesses' and the illegal, racist and apartheid state of Israel. The Ummah pejoratively referred to by Stott in his presentation, however, has not benefited in any way from these attacks.

Whether or not the left, radical or otherwise, and anarchists alike choose at some stage to recognise that they have been reduced to parroting variants of the official State-sanctioned doctrine of the US/UK alliance 'War of Terror' remains to be seen. If Stott's paper, Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History, is in any way indicative of the positions held by Notes from the Borderland, Class War, the left, anarchists, or any other group, then the outlook is very bleak indeed.

Whilst J7 have no links to any 9/11 truth movement, we do believe that these seminal events require open-minded research and analysis. We are also aware that some spokespeople and proponents for 7/7 and 9/11 truth hold some esoteric, offensive and frankly bizarre views on the way the world works. We would argue that this is the very reason why events such as 9/11 and 7/7 must be understood in their correct historic and political context, something that the so-called left have so far failed to incorporate into their political analyses beyond the official narrative of events.

Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who is really in favour of 'half-truths'? Who watches the CultWatchers?

From this brief critique of Stott's paper the evidence would seem to favour the notion that it is certain self-styled 'cult-watchers' and the authors of Britain's self-styled “premier parapolitical investigative magazine” who, with particular reference to the events of 7/7 and the means and methods of the July 7th Truth Campaign, are the principle proponents of half-truths.

Release the Evidence Petition: an update

2008-12-09T22:13:00.012Z

J7 launched a petition to the British government to "Release the Evidence" to conclusively prove its Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, because the Official Report had been proven to be inaccurate and because the evidence in the public domain was so very limited, particularly in respect of CCTV images.

J7 has since submitted many requests to public bodies in order to obtain more evidence, most of which have been turned down. A common response has been that the evidence cannot be released because that would prejudice any trials in connection with the events in London on 7th July 2005.

Earlier this year, three men were tried on charges of assisting those alleged, but not yet proven, to have carried out the 'London bombings'. During that trial more evidence was indeed released into the public domain, but it was very limited and if anything raised more questions than it answered.

At the trial, it was claimed that the ID of the 'bombers' was not found at the expected locations, indicating that the ID had been deliberately scattered by means other than the explosions. The only images released were of rail cards and tickets (some expired) in the name of Tyrone Smith, with the photograph detached from the card. These were claimed to be of Lindsay, but all accounts of the Piccadilly train agree that it was so crowded that it would have been physically impossible for Lindsay to have scattered his ID around the carriage.

It was also claimed that the 'bombers' were not wearing the rucksacks, but had placed them upon the floor before detonating them. Again, this would hardly seem possible on the crowded Piccadilly train.

The CCTV images released were far from complete.

The image of Tanweer looking directly at the camera at Woodall Services was not released, nor were any of him arguing with the cashier over change, both of which are mentioned in the Official Narrative.

No images of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay have been released later than 0826 at Kings Cross Thameslink. None show them at Kings Cross Mainline or in any part of the Underground. The images of the four suspects parting after hugging each other euphorically, mentioned in the Official Narrative, have not been released.

The only images of Hussain at Kings Cross Mainline show him in shops or on the concourse. There is no image of him purchasing a battery, as claimed by the Official Narrative. None show him in the Underground, and none show him boarding or travelling on any bus.

The images which show the explosions do so only indirectly, limited mostly to showing the expansion of dust, smoke and the flying debris that resulted from the explosions and the reactions of people who were a fair distance from the explosions and who themselves only had a slim chance of directly seeing the explosions. Furthermore the timestamps on those images do not correspond to the times of the explosions given in the Official Narrative (even after allowing for British Summer Time), for example 0746 when the Official Narrative states between 0850 and 0855:

The Official Narrative cites witnesses who saw two of the men fiddling with their rucksacks (presumably Richard Jones and Danny Biddle), but these witnesses were not called upon to give evidence upon oath at the trial of those accused of helping the suspects.

J7 has published an update to its petition to acknowledge that there is now more evidence in the public domain (as a result of this trial). Because the evidence released is still far from sufficient to prove the Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, we are renewing our call upon the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE.

The Miracle of Carriage 346

2008-07-05T17:30:00.008Z

On Monday, the third anniversary of the July 7th attacks in London, Channel 4 will be broadcasting a documentary titled "The Miracle of Carriage 346".

There are indeed some miraculous stories contained within the film, and there can be no denigration of the trauma suffered by those involved and the fortitude that so many have displayed – particularly Gill Hicks, whose courage and inspirational strength of character can only engender admiration.

However, one of biggest 'miracles' of this documentary, which will no doubt not feature in the programme, is that the programme researchers have managed to create a film about a carriage which was not only not bombed on July 7th 2005 but was not part of any affected train at all.

The number 346 seems to have originated with a 2005 article by Mark Townsend for the Guardian, the headline of which was, "Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A"

A response to an FOI request by J7 to Transport For London, however, stated that "There is not a carriage 346A."

Clive Feather wrote,

"The Piccadilly Line train consisted of the following vehicles:

166-566-366-417-617-217

Car 166 was the one holding the bomb.”

Carriage 346A is, in fact, an impossible carriage:

"A note on Piccadilly Line 1973 Tube Stock car numbering.

Each car has four axles labelled A, B, C, D. Each car has an A end and a D end. The couplings at the A end are different from the couplings at the D end. Cars can only couple A to D. Three cars couple to form a half train.

For example, 146-546-346. 146 is the A car of the half train. 346 is the D car.

A full train would be: 146-546-346-4xx-6xx-2xx where xx is odd.

346 would be the third or fourth carriage from the front, depending on which way the train was going.

The consist of train 331 was 166-566-366-417-617-217.

417 is an A car and 217 is a D car. It is the other way round for odd numbers.

The Tubeprune informs me that:

"Unit 166-566-366 was severly damaged, 366 is probably the only possible survivor but it has no other cars to work with at this time."

Car 346 is still tootling up and down the Piccadilly line."

346 without the attached ‘A’ conceivably exists and indeed is probably still now employed on a train on the Piccadilly Line.

To frame an entire documentary around a carriage number which is not the correct one is sloppy journalism at best. Channel 4 have clearly realised their error, for they have since placed a disclaimer on the documentary page:

"It was reported that it was Carriage 346 at the time. However, there has been some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage when the bombing took place."

Source: Channel 4

To amend their originally published article to add that there is "some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage" is a somewhat disingenuous and misleading angle. Any dispute of the carriage number originates not in "some circles" on a whim but with the facts of the matter such as they have been confirmed to be with Transport for London, the body responsible for the running of the tube.

When making a factual film about an actual event into which there has never been a cohesive, coherent independent inquiry, an event which caused loss of life in London on a scale not seen since the Luftwaffe Raids and from which the survivors and bereaved are still having to fight for compensation three years later, establishing the rudimentary facts first is the barest minimum that the victims, the injured and bereaved, and the programme's audience deserve.

Where did the non-existent carriage number 346a originate?
Who gave Mark Townsend this information that no journalist thereafter apparently bothered to double-check?
Why is the myth of Piccadilly Line carriage 346a still perpetuated despite confirmation from Transport for London that "There is not a carriage 346A."?