Five years after the event, we have a judgement from Britain’s High Court:
- The 7/7 killings were ‘unlawful.’ Uh-huh.
- Nobody was to blame, except the wicked Four who are dead.
- A public enquiry into 7/7 would not be a good idea.
- There is no need for an Inquest into the Four alleged perpetrators.
- No ‘conspiracy’ would have been possible
We should here remind ourselves, as to the proper purpose of an inquest.
An inquest is meant to come to a judgement concerning cause of death.
In the very strange circumstances of the 7/7 Inquest, Lady Justice Hallett could not do this because no post-portems had been performed upon the 52 dead bodies.
Instead she has produced a rather long judgement proceeding from the unproven assumption that the Four were guilty of the crime. She has chosen elements of the evidence presented to fit in with this erroneous assumption.
Bearing in mind her Ladyship’s overall approach one might fairly protest that criminal guilt is not the business of an Inquest. It is the business of a criminal court where adversarial lawyers representing two opposing viewpoints grill witnesses, enabling one of their competing narratives to gain an ascendancy.
As in any murder trial, the Inquest should have first considered whether any of the Four owned a weapon that would have been capable of perpetrating the crime. Can it be shown that any of them had a ‘bomb’? I believe it cannot. If they bought 30% peroxide from a hydroponics shop, then what? If there is no murder weapon, there is no criminal guilt.
Then the Inquest has to show that the Four were up in King’s Cross station that morning by 8.30 am at the latest. I believe the weight of evidence is massively against this.
The Inquest should have been able to show that credible CCTV evidence existed of the Four in London on that morning. They have surely failed in this respect - they have produced no such credible evidence. One excellent justification for the holding of a public enquiry would be to ascertain why the most CCTV-rich environment on planet Earth could not produce one single credible CCTV image of the Four in London on the morning of 7/7.
A proper Inquest should have asked if the pattern of damage of the coaches – in the shape of the holes in the floor & the distribution of dead bodies & the sitting positions of persons who had legs and feet blown off – were at all concentric, around alleged positions of the rucksacks? I believe we have seen abundant evidence that this was not the case & that fatalities were spread in a more elongated shape along the central axes of the carriages. In the case of the Edgware Road blast, the carriage had three big holes in the floor, one some fifteen feet from the other two, and was lifted clean off the rails! No person capable of rational thought could suppose a rucksack on the floor did that.
Has not the suicide-bomber hypothesis been conclusively refuted by such factual and scientific evidence? In a normal court of law it is such physical evidence that would carry the greater weight.
While the Inquest heard from literally hundreds of witnesses, how is it that it could not find one single credible witness who saw any of the Four on the train coaches or on the number 30 bus? Yes it produced Mr Danny Biddle (‘I saw Khan’) and Lisa French on the 30 bus; but I suggest any psychologist would conclude that these witnesses were not reliable: Mr Biddle’s testimony has flipped about like a flag on a pole while Ms French only acquired her ‘memory’ of seeing Hasib Hussein some years after the event. Both had been put, I suggest, under enormous pressure to produce their ‘eyewitness’ evidence.
Instead of attempting to dismiss ‘conspiracy theories’ on its last day, the Inquest should have started off with certain facts that would surely act as starting points for an entirely different conspiracy theory:
1) the fact that three coaches (and maybe also the 30 bus) were kept hidden then destroyed after the first year of the Met’s investigation (‘Operation Theseus’): this is the primary evidence at the scene of the crime.
2) the fact that no post-mortems were conducted on any victims,.
3) The fact that so much of the CCTV that must have existed of the day of the Four …. cannot be shown.
Answering the question, ‘Is an Inquest into the deaths of the Four necessary?’, Lady Justice Hallett states,
I can find no cause whatsoever to resume the inquests into the deaths of the four men. None of the families have sought to argue that any of these inquests should be resumed.
One is puzzled by that silence – given that members of two of the families appealed to be allowed to give evidence at the Inquest but were refused.
The reliable website ‘Official confusion’ states that at least some of the bodies of the Four were handed back to the families intact. We want to hear the view of the families as to whether or not this is the case. Was the cause of death a bullet through the back of the head, or a rucksack blowing up?
There has been an enormous lack of testimony from Pakistan from the relatives of the Four. There have been repeated allegations that the Four attended Jihad or terror-training camps. Is this true or were they simply visiting their families? We need to hear the families’ responses to these assertions.
Item 63 of the Verdict:
On the evidence, 18 Alexandra Grove was the main bomb factory from its acquisition until the bombers’ departure on the morning of 7/7. It was rented by a man called Samir Alani who returned to Iraq and left the keys with a relative. He in turn rented it out to Jermaine Lindsay (calling himself “Jamal”).
Mr Alani left for Baghdad a couple of months before – however the flat was then rented out to Leeds PhD chemist Magdy Al-Nashar, who was a friend of Jermaine Lindsey, it certainly was not rented to Lindsay. El-Magdy flew off to Cairo (with a return ticket) days before 7/7.
The Unthinkable ‘Conspiracy theory’ - Lady Justice Hallett, paragraph 9:
‘To argue or find to the contrary [ie that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service [MI5]. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.’
It happened that this verdict immediately followed the farcical pretence that Osama Bin Laden had just been shot (May 1st) when he’d actually been dead for many years – it made front page headlines everywhere, with no peep of protest from the British media. Does not this rather undermine the claim that no large number of people can be involved in a ‘conspiracy?’ globally, the only national TV station (that I could see) to cast doubt upon the official story of Bin Laden was the Iranian Press TV.
Every Bin Laden video and tape since 2001 has been faked – and not a single British media outlet can allow itself to contemplate this possibility: it would mean the ‘War on Terror’ was totally and horrifically bogus.
Let’s here quote from Michael Ruppert’s 600-page masterpiece ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ about who did 9/11. How many might have had foreknowledge of the event? ‘The number of people with complete foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11th would likely not exceed two dozen.’ (p.3)
National Security is a terrible concept, and what lurks behind the veils of secrecy?
The deaths are real, but the story is bogus.