On 6th October, the ‘July 7th Truth Campaign’ submitted a weighty, twelve-part contribution to the forthcoming Inquest. On its first day – October 11th, at the Royal Courts of Justice – this was acknowledged. Before Lady Justice Hallett, the barrister Mr Keith said:
One particular campaigning group has submitted voluminous submissions to the Inquest team, and the submissions reflect long-held views expressed on the website, that website, to the effect that there are a large number of anomalies that merit detailed attention. We consider it important that such claims are identified and addressed.
Five years after the event, a no-jury pre-fixed Inquest finally begins. An Inquest is supposed to answer basic questions about the deaths: who, how, when and where? But, in this case no legal representatives from the families of the four accused will be allowed. But, they died too did they not? Their absence from this trial, means that it will only be concerned to ascertain the causes of death of the 52 who died on that morning in a pre-ordained manner.
When the conclusions to be reached are fixed in advance, it used to be called scholastic reasoning. In Mediaeval times, scholars had to indulge in this kind of reasoning, where the theological conclusions they had to reach were pre-ordained. That’s what’s going on at this Inquest. Or as ‘Sinclair’ expressed the matter:
When your conclusion is actually an implicit or explicit premise in your argument then your argument is circular. It also engages a certain degree of doublethink – evidence they weren’t guilty isn’t evidence they weren’t guilty, because we know they were guilty, and hence there’s no evidence they weren’t guilty. This is a bloody pantomime. It not only presumes a desired conclusion, but seeks to refute ‘conspiracy theories’ by merely repeating the very thing the ‘conspiracy theories’ are questioning. It’s like they’ve let the BBC’s Conspiracy Files crew loose to carry out the inquests.
The proceedings of this five-month Inquest are going to be online – so you can check up each day. Visitors (like me) do not get into the courtroom, just a marquee round the back where the televised event is relayed.
John Humphreys Sums it Up
On BBC Radio 4 that morning, 11th October, John Humphreys interviewed Reverend Julie Nicholson, who resigned from her church after her daughter was murdered on the morning of 7/7/05.
He asked her, “What do you want from this inquest? We know what the verdict will be, that goes without saying, but what do you want.”
Sombrely commented Kevin Boyle, ‘Yes it does go without saying. The narrative is fixed.’
A seccurity service agent spent a while whining about how their information could only be given privately to the Inquest ‘for national security reasons.’ Their concern was to protect the public, and so their info could not be publicly heard, he said. Uh-huh.
Timing of the Bombs
Exact times were ascertained (on 11th October 2010, pm) of the initial explosions, the first being at Aldgate. It was given as being ‘at precisely 08.49.00.’ That time given to the nearest second is indeed of interest. Barrister Mr Keith added, ‘it seems that the bombers intended to explode all four bombs at the same time, namely, 49 minutes past the hour.‘ That is a highly synchronised event – in no way to be expected from three separate suicide bombers – at a rather significant moment. It indicates a link to the earlier false-flag terror event of 9/11. For that time is 11 minutes to 9. The English date ‘9/11’ would be ‘11/9,’ for Britons put the day first before the month. I suggest that that looks Kabbalistically chosen – rather like the date for the Madrid bombings being 911 days after 9/11.
Conspiracy Theories Dismissed
For what little it may be worth, here is Barrister Mr Keith dismissing non-Muslim guilt claims:
‘The activities of the bombers, though superficially out of place, are in our view entirely consistent of course with their apparent determination to conceal their activities. The rental of the Nissan Micra for four days from the 4th to the 8th and the purchase of return tickets, if that is indeed what they bought, are further examples. Nor have we seen anything to support the notion that the plot was monitored by one or more domestic or foreign secret services, and was allowed to happen in order for such agencies to exploit the situation politically. More prosaically, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the explosions were connected to any sort of power surge — that the Aldgate explosion caused extensive power cuts is an issue that I will return to shortly — or that the explosions took place under the trains and thus had nothing to do with the bombers, or that they were connected to fictional events aired on a Panorama programme in May 2004, or to a fictional terrorism training exercise that had been carried out apparently that same morning by a private crisis management company. The suggestion in some quarters that the explosions may have been caused by some sort of electrical failure is contrary to the injuries, the forensic evidence and the obvious fact that there were four connected explosions, of which one of which occurred on a bus, nowhere near any electrical source in plain sight of those around it. 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. Hence, there is no mystery in the fact that the CCTV at Woodall Services is not continuous or that the CCTV at Luton railway station appears superficially to cut part of Lindsay’s leg off or that several frames appear to place the railings outside the station in front of Tanweer. What would, we rhetorically ask, be the point in anybody fabricating CCTV evidence showing them at Luton when later CCTV evidence, not apparently fabricated or challenged, proves them to be at King’s Cross?’
This isn’t justice – its police storytellers let loose, knowing that no-one will challenege anything they say – because any ‘other side’ has not been allowed. Here are just two examples of the rather half-baked narrative that is now emerging.
* Loads of alleged phone calls made to ‘hydroponics’ shops – to get hydrogen peroxide! Hydroponics is a way of growing crops using only water not earth – such shops won’t sell hydrogen peroxide in large quantities. They may sell small amounts for disinfection.
“Between 22 February and 22 15 June 2005, there were 41 telephone contacts between mobile phones attributed to Tanweer, Khan and Lindsay and hydroponic outlets, that is to say places selling hydrogen peroxide. Hussain’s computer at college revealed the names of two particular shops for which he had searched online, and business cards and other literature found at Alexandra Grove related to other such similar shops.
* Hasib Hussein wasn’t at college. Business cards at 18, Alexander Grove? (the so-called ‘bomb factory’ – to which no journalists were allowed access) – do me a favour! ‘Literature’ found at 18, Alexander Grove - O yeah? These are mere police pipedreams, made knowing no-one will contradict them. Why were these alleged mobile phone calls to ‘hydroponic outlets’ not mentioned at the 2008 ‘July 7 trial’ at Kingston? Or earlier? Its a bit late now to be bringing out brand-new ‘evidence’ – evidence that no-one else is allowed to see.
Ripple Effect Story Remains Intact
I’ve been rather sceptical over whether the Four really were in London that morning. But, on the afternoon of Thursday 13th October, all of the CCTV showing Hasib Hussein at King’s Cross was shown at the Inquest. There was a lot. Its clear that he was really there – I was convinced at last. From 8.55 to 9.22 he was shown pottering about with his big rucksack.
I suggest this makes it unlikely that the Four had caught the 07.25 train from Luton, arriving at 8.23 – in that case he would have appeared on film a lot earlier. No, Let’s say they got the 7.42 (actually the delayed 7.30) which arrived in King’s Cross 8.39 – that would fit better with his appearance on the CCTV at 8.55 in the main King’s Cross station area.
It gets better. On the day before the Wednesday the Met at last released their non-pixellated images of entry into Luton station, so the times could be read. On the earlier visit of 28 June, (three of them – no Hasib Hussein) it took five minutes from the car-park door of Luton through the station and down onto the platform – which seems about right:
08.10.07 Enter Luton, 08.14.26 Go through barriers, 08.15.07 Enter platform
Various people have tried doing this, and generally reached a similar estimate. Now, on the morning of 7/7, we are given:
07.21.54 Enter Luton, 07.22.29 Ticket hall, 07.22.43 Go through barriers, 07.23.27 On platform, 07.24.47 Train arrives, 07.24.56 Board, 07.25.36 Train leaves
7.22 they enter, and a minute and a half later they are on the platform. No way!
They cannot take only half the time carrying big, deadly rucksacks. Don’t forget, for a whole year all the media and the Met were singing from the same hymn-sheet, all saying that they had gotten onto the 7.40. Don’t forget, even Andy Hayman’s 2009 book on the whole subject had still said they got the 7.40 – this would be unthinkable if they really had had all of the CCTV they are now pretending to have, showing the Four caught the 7.25. (Credit to Bridget Dunne for this vitally important insight)
Plus, they are now pretending to have witnesses on the 7.25 train who noticed them – just as in the 2006 Official Report they had witnesses on the 7.40 train who recognised them. It’s baloney.
I suggest we are obliged to conclude, that if they really did enter Luton station at 7.22, as the famous (fiddled-with) picture shows, then they had absolutely no intention of catching the 7.24.
So, this takes us right into the Ripple Effect story, whereby the Four ‘missed their train’ or at any rate more or less caught the 7.40 they had intended to catch (the 7.42, arriving 8.39), and arrived too late to participate in the terror-drill that morning – which was what they came for.
That I suggest is the only story now left standing.
Lindsay at King’s Cross
But, what about the other three? Here’s a brief glimpse of Germain Lindsay. A Customer Service Assistant by the name of Fayaz Patel gave a witness statement back in April 2006, concerning a man resembling Jermaine Lindsay who approached him ‘on the gate line’ at Kings Cross, adamantly asking to ‘speak to a duty manager’ about “something very important.” Let’s listen carefully to his testimony given on October 14th:
The guy was tall, male, black, short hair, I wouldn’t say dressed — he wasn’t wearing a suit, but he was dressed quite smart, and –Q. In what way, a jacket of some sort or — A. Just wearing a shirt tucked in, smart trousers and it’s very strange for a passenger to ask for the duty station manager. That’s not really — it seems as if — a passenger wouldn’t know — wouldn’t refer to the person in charge of the station as the duty station manager, that’s more for staff.
Mr Patel went to get the duty station manager, but by that time Linsay had gone. He was confident of recognising Lindsey. The time he estimated as between around 8.15 and 8.40 – i.e. shortly before the bombs went off. Source: Sinclair of the 7/7 team, or checkout October 14 transcripts, para 65. I commented more on this story here.
Bruce Lait: Memory Erasure?
Every 7/7 buff knows the story of Bruce Lait. With his dancing partner Crystal, he was on the Aldwich line when the train blew up – supposedly sitting right next to where the bomb went off:
I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me…We’d been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now…We were right in the carriage where the bomb was … The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag.
The blast came from below – with not a Muslim or a rucksack in sight.
So, I made sure I was there at the Inquest on the afternoon of 19th October. But, the whole content of that paragraph seemed to have been deleted …. he was just talking about which bodies were where. So, let’s summarise key points of his testimony.
- The floor was ripped upwards – as other witnesses eg PC Lizzie Kenworthy also commented.
- No Muslims or rucksacks were visible to him before the explosion.
Then, hardly of less interest, the sound which he can never forget:
… like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now.
The testimony of Crystal his partner was in accord with Mr Lait’s: she described people around her just before the blast – with no Muslim alluded to – and then the weird electrical-surge effect that so many on the Aldgate line recalled:
I had my eyes closed for about 20 seconds and all of a sudden I felt as if I [was] having a fit and couldn’t control myself. I slipped to the side. It was as if I had been electrocuted and thousands of volts were going through me.
Alas, this all vanished from the Inquest! Instead, Bruce Lait just described in gruesome detail how and where various bodies were lying, adding this about his partner: ‘her head was up here towards the door behind her and her feet were lying kind of diagonally across the carriage towards roughly where the bomber was standing.’ (19th pm 32:2-5)
Uh-huh. On oath, he did not say that he had or had not seen ‘the bomber’ that was supposed to be there – he merely alluded to the spot where he had been told the bomber would have been standing. He had accepted the consensus reality.
What are MI5 Afraid of?
MI5′s application for secret hearings at the Inquest has been turned down by Lady Justice Hallett, insisting that the court has to remain open with victim-family relatives etc hearing everything. The Home Office is now seeking a judicial review to try and overturn this decision, on the grounds that ‘national security’ would be threatened.
MI5 initially described the Four as ‘clean skins’ and since then has revealed very considerable (alleged) tracking of three of the Four, especially Khan. How could their position have changed so greatly? MI5 has put out a detailed account of the links it allegedly found between the ‘Crevice’ plot and 7/7. Would it be embarassed at having to describe how its view changed so greatly?
Or, were there deeper levels of involvement of British intelligence, in making this event happen?
We must be grateful, that Lady Hallett has put her foot down rather firmly in response to the Home Office’s response, indicating that the entire Inquest might grind to a halt – and need someone else to restart it not her! So with a bit of luck we might see MI5 squirming under the unwelcome light of public scrutiny – and about time too.
Numbering the dead
An important point has been made by the intrepid J7 team, concerning the number of dead bodies identified at two of the crime scenes - the two which the Inquest has so far covered, namely Aldgate and Edgware Road. From the two helpful diagrams which the Met has supplied to the Inquest:
- the Edgware Road coach has 7 dead bodies - 6 victims in red plus ‘Khan’ in blue
- the Aldgate coach shows 8 dead bodies - 7 victims in red plus ‘Tanweer’ in blue.
Dr Morgan Costello told the Inquest about how he was asked to checkout the crime scenes. (Nov 3rd pm) He was known to the police because he had assisted them in ‘providing medical services and medical assistance… in relation to deaths in custody.’ He visited the Edgware Road crime scene at midnight 7th/8th July, where he counted six dead bodies. Then he went onto the Aldgate scene at 8 am that same morning – and counted altogether seven dead bodies. He was asked to do nothing except count the dead, he explained. For both of the sites, a police officer guided him.
When he was counting these bodies, no-one had any idea about ‘suicide bombers’ nor had any bodies been identified. The difficult circumstances did not prevent him from ‘reaching firm conclusions,’ concerning the count he was asked to perform (2:24). He was legally obliged to carry out this task properly.
These diverging counts can be reconciled, by suposing that the two ‘terrorists’ were not in fact present in the coaches.
We are told that Tanweer’s rucksack was put down in the corner, in which case one would hardly expect him to be blown into about 50 little pieces (11:7) – that is how the Inquest explained, why he was omitted from Dr Costello’s count. We are told that around ‘Tanweer’ were found various bits of ID, (such as a receipt of hydrogen peroxide he had purchased from Greenthumbs Hydroponics shop, Wakefield) – whereas his body was so blown to bits that the police’s professional expert counting the dead, did not notice him…
One way of clarifyineng the matter, would be to ask the victim-familes who were given back the bodies of their young men: when the burial of Tanweer took place in Pakistan, in what form was the body?
For my discussion of how six dead bodies were found at the Aldgate coach, as if Tanweer were not there, see here. For the J7 team’s comments on how seven dead bodies were found at the Edgware Road coach, as if Khan were not there, see here.
How were 52 dead announced on July 11th?
Did the authorities have a crystal-ball, to tell them that the total deaths resulting from the London bombings would add up to 52, a mere four days after the event? That number was announced officially on the 11th July – although the Australian Prime Minister had come out with it on the 8th!
The Inquest has heard about Lee Harris, in the coach at Aldgate, who died in hospital on the 15th July: ‘My Lady, he remained at Royal London Hospital for just over a week and we’ll hear evidence about the intensive treatment that he received there. Sadly, that treatment was to no avail and he died on 15 July 2005.’ (Oct 12 pm, 32:6-10) Being in a coma, why was he numbered amongst the dead? We await the Inquests’s comment upon his girlfriend’s body Samantha Badham only being found on the 16th, so the total on the 11th should have been 50.
On the 11th July, names of the dead began to be released: The Guardian reported, ‘”The names of two women who died in last week’s London bombings were made public today, as the confirmed death toll from the attacks rose to 52.” But, it also added, ‘Police believe all the bodies have been recovered from the Piccadilly line tube train under King’s Cross, but said the confirmed number of dead could rise to 60.’ It seems rathe strange that the final total should remain fixed at the first-announced number – especially when that number was announced the day after, on the 8th.
Can 52 be counted?
We’ve seen how 6 and 7 are the totals of dead bodies counted at Aldgate and Edgware Road, and there are 13 names written on the Tavistock Square plaque. There are meant to be 26 dead at Russell Square.
Consulting the diagram of the dead at Russell Square ie the Piccadilly line blast, suppied by the Met for the Inquest, we notice a total of 17 dead, on a diagram entitled: ‘Positions of Deceased in 1st carriage at the commencement of recovery process.’ That is a cryptic title. That could allude to, only the dead remaining after other (9?) bodies have been carried off.