Lady Justice Hallett, the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, WC2.
(this letter plus book was personally delivered on 18th October, and she acknowledged it)
Dear Lady Justice Hallett,
Concerning the 7/7 Inquest:
On the 4th October (at the preliminary hearing), you were advised by Barrister Mr Keith that a “core tension is obviously between, on the one hand, a trying to ensure, if at all possible, that the trier of fact — namely, yourself in this context — does not reach decisions on matters as important as whether or not the Security Service were involved in a causative sense in the 7/7 bombings…” (37:7-12)
One is disturbed that this Inquest has been pressurised, a priori, to avoid what should be an absolutely central question relating to the 7/7 bombings. I wrote a book (here enclosed) arguing that the security services were indeed ‘involved in a causative sense’ in the events of 7/7. I respectfully submit the following few observations and comments, mainly concerning the first day of this Inquest, 11th October 2010 (references are to this day, unless stated otherwise).
Your Inquiry is prohibited under Section 11 of the Coroners Act and rule 42 in the Coroners Rules from ‘the framing of the verdict in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability.’(Oct 11, 13:9-12) You could use this Rule, not to accept what you will be repeatedly told throughout this Inquest, that: ‘…the perpetrators are, of course, dead.’ (14:1) I urge you not to view this as self-evident.
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.
Hydroponics is a way of growing things in water not earth: small quantities of peroxide could be used as a disinfectant, but no hydroponics shop is going to sell large quantities, because it kills growing plants. I doubt whether anyone could buy tens of litres of strong peroxide unless registered as an industrial company – these lads weren’t. That is surely why, in 2005, the 7/7 ‘peroxide allegations’ against the accused all had as the peroxide source, hair-bleach lotions. If the police reckon they have these phone links, I suggest you ask them to reveal the shop(s) where the peroxide was purchased, and see if any owner(s) will testify to selling tens of litres of strong peroxide to a young Muslim? It is quite unlikely!
* Hasib Hussein was not at college. He had just got his GCSEs and was about to start at Leeds Business College.
* What business cards were found at 18, Alexander Grove? (the so-called ‘bomb factory’ – to which no journalists have ever been allowed access).
* What ‘Literature’ was found at 18, Alexander Grove? Please bear in mind, concerning this new and suspect evidence, that that flat was never occupied or rented by any of the Four.
Regarding the CCTV and mobile phone evidence of the ‘reconnaissance mission’ on 28 June 2005, given as the second most important piece of evidence given, concerning the guilt of the Four: this visit to London featured eg Sid Khan photographed eating ice-cream in front of Madame Tussauds. The tube stations that the photographs show they visited do not bear a great resemblance to the ones which got blown up a week later, e.g. Baker St Tube for Madame Tussauds.
Documents or items belonging to Khan were found:
1) In the carriage at Edgware Road
2) In the carriage at Aldgate.
3) In Tavistock Square.
4) In the tunnel between Kings Cross and Russell Square (59:20-23).
Is this ‘finding’ of Khan’s remains in FOUR different places really acceptable as evidence for his presence in London? He had allegedly been blown into little pieces in a tunnel near Edgware Road station but some unburnt ID documents in his possession are strangely preserved; his wallet (with ID) was given to Hasib Hussain to leave at Tavistock Square; and now we hear that his intact mobile phone, was recovered from the remains of the blasted Piccadilly Line carriage. How strange that Kahn’s intact mobile phone – far from where he died – should have recoverable phone messages from that morning, and how odd that this has not hitherto been mentioned over the previous five years!
Mr Keith told you that he had seen no evidence
that the explosions took place under the trains, nor that they were connected to fictional events aired on a Panorama programme in May 2004, nor to a fictional terrorism training exercise that had been carried out apparently that same morning by a private crisis management company.
I would be happy to provide the court with plenty of such evidence, for explosives having been under the trains. Nor can the Panorama program of May 2004 possibly be described as ‘fictional’ – it (amazingly) presented an identical template to the actual bombings fourteen months later. Nor can Peter Power’s ‘terror drill’ which exactly synchronised in time and space (in his own words, “the very same stations”) with the actual event that morning be described as ‘fictional.’
There was ‘no mystery’ Mr Keith assured your Court in the fact that “several [CCTV] frames appear to place the railings outside the [Luton} station in front of Tanweer.” He meant Khan not Tanweer; and - yes, there is quite a mystery here. It has clearly been ‘photoshopped’. The railings should be behind those Four and cannot be in front of them.
Mr Keith continued:
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? (7:10-13)
That King’s Cross CCTV is a blurred and dark image where no faces can be recognised, and why was it only produced three years later, at the 2008 Kingston Trial? A lot can happen in three years. Far from this being ‘not challenged,’ I find that informed sources view its authenticity as dubious.
In the ‘dry run’ on 28th June, with no rucksacks, the four are photographed entering that station at 8.10 am. They had to buy tickets, walk up across a platform up some stairs, cross the railway lines and go down the steps to the platform where they caught the train. The CCTV images together prove that THIS ALL TOOK 5 MINUTES, as one might reasonably expect. (Video footage shown on 13th am):
08.10.07 Enter Luton station (and buy tickets), 08.14.26 Go through barriers, 08.15.07 Enter platform.
On 7/7, however, the four arrive with their heavy rucksacks at 07:22, buy their tickets (three-day returns) and catch the King’s Cross train in one and a half minutes. The evidence of the dry run shows THEY COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE DONE THIS. With heavy, liable-to-explode rucksacks they would have had to move more slowly.
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.
I suggest, Lady, that they missed that train. When the train-times evidence from Luton to King’s Cross on 7/7 was uncovered (I found this information from the official British Rail records of the day and put it in the public domain), John Reid, the then-Home Secretary altered the government narrative to fit the new facts. But, Inspector Andy Hayman in his book, “The Terrorist Hunters”, still has the four on the 7:40, not the 7:25 train. For a whole year all government sources were claiming that the Four caught the 7.40 train and arrived in King’s Cross at 8.23. Then I showed that train was cancelled and they may have caught the 7.42 (the delayed 7.30 train) from Luton, which only got into London at 8.39. All the CCTV photos of Hasib Hussein in King’s Cross that morning (shown Oct 13th, pm) start at 8.55 am, which supports this more plausible narrative.
It appears that whoever is building the government case has come to realise that what were the established and accepted facts of the movements of the four on the morning of 7/7 make it physically impossible for them to have been anywhere near the places where the underground bombs exploded.
Lady, please consider that these men got to London too late for the terror-drills they thought they were participating in. That, in the view of an increasingly large number of people, is the key to making sense of this story.
75: 2-20: You heard two witnesses, describing the Four on the 07.24 Thameslink train from Luton to King’s Cross – reminding one of the Official Report of 2006, which had two witnesses likewise describing the Four on the 07.40 train that morning. Following my discovery that the 07.40 train had not run, were these two ‘witnesses’ simply shifted back to the earlier train? If the two witnesses were as clear as your Inquest heard, how come all official sources believed the Four had travelled on the 7.40 for a whole year? There has to be something bogus about this testimony.
You heard on the morning of 11 October from Mr Keith that
During his first conspiracy trial, Waheed Ali accepted that he travelled to Pakistan with Khan in 2001 and that he, Ali, had received terrorist training when there.
I query whether your barrister has the right to slander a man who has been judged innocent by a jury of charges of terrorism. Waheed Ali (Kingston 2008 trial) categorically denied any association with terrorism, insisting his training was by way of defending the independence of an Islamic nation - mainly Kashmir - and that this was regarded as quite OK under Islamic ethics. I heard him give this testimony. Yes it was military training, but of a kind approved by Beeston’s Islamic community.
62: 2-5 Hugo Keith reaffirmed the story of the main explosive used being black pepper and peroxide: ‘several kilograms of HMTD [at Alexander Grove] as well as containers containing mixtures of pepper and hydrogen peroxide’- the main explosive mix that the HMTD detonators were supposedly designed to explode.
We heard how “at least 34 milk pans had been used to boil and concentrate the hydrogen peroxide. All that remained, however, were the labels, because the pans had been presumably destroyed by the harshness of the process.” (64:6-9) Boiling hair-bleach, or any other form of hydrogen peroxide in milk-pans would not concentrate it – quite the contrary – nor would it destroy milk-pans! Complicated, low-pressure, fractional-distillation apparatus would be required to concentrate it, up to the 70% level that is explosive. To suggest that those four lads knew how to handle liquid oxygen, or to write out chemical equations, or to compute the density of hydrogen peroxide (62:13-15) is to approach quite extreme limits of absurdity: your Inquest should call witnesses who knew them, before such claims are to be made. Perhaps a team of experts, from the ‘Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine’ might be asked to testify on this matter – I surmise they would have difficulty in keeping a straight face if they are expected to support this comical narrative! Black pepper and peroxide mixture does not really explode – and will certainly not lift a train carriage off the rails.
You will be hearing testimony from the top forensics expert at the Government’s explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead, Clifford Todd. Do ask him, concerning the deadly explosives allegedly found by the police at 18 Alexander Grove and at Luton car-park – and in Tanweer’s car, etc – please ask him, can he produce any analysis signed and warranted by a professional chemist, plus a signed affidavit of where they were taken from? I predict that he cannot.
Lady, if there is no murder weapon, then there is no criminal guilt. If your Inquest is telling you that the Four went down to London with black pepper and peroxide in their rucksacks, then that is about as dangerous and frightening as the Chappati-flour and peroxide ‘bombs’ which went off phut two weeks later, on 21st July.
It would be relevant to try and call for evidence Leeds university PhD chemist Magdy al-Nashar, who was renting the flat at 18, Alexander Grove. He left for Egypt on 5th July: the police might not like his testimony, but at least it would be the truth. Al-Nashar was arrested in Cairo and then released with no charges, though he only left that flat in the week before 7/7. Had the flat really contained all the equipment the police are now claiming – for distillation, heating, cooling, filtering etc, with kilograms of TATP and HMTD etc, plus notes showing plans to blow up the Underground etc – he would now most definitely be in jail.
Apart from the over-riding fact that the descriptions by survivors of the explosions on 7/7 indicate very strongly that it was military-grade ‘C4’ that was used, the other explosives ‘evidence’ implicating the four Muslims is ridiculous and simply unbelievable.
We will hear evidence being read from a parking attendant who recounts how he saw a Fiat Brava parked in the station car park [at Luton] with its driver, a black male, asleep in the front seat. The parking attendant issued a parking fine at about 05.53 that morning but didn’t want to waken the man as he was on his own and feared being attacked.
Are we to believe that Lindsay Germain arrived early, driving from Aylesbury, for his final suicide mission, anxiously waiting to meet his colleagues and be given his dreadful backpack – and he nods off? Can the story get more absurd? One cannot help noticing that all photos of the Four have them looking quite relaxed and happy.
Moving briefly onto the 14th, your Inquest heard of how Germain Lindsey appeared in the main King’s Cross concourse somewhere between 8.20-8.40, demanding from a platform assistant to speak to the Duty Manager, adding ‘It’s something very important’ (67:19-20). Does that sound to you like a suicide bomber? From that same testimony (Mr Fayaz Patel) we gather that “the entire Tube gate line area was congested and we’d implemented a station control to try and minimise the flow of passengers.” This involved shutting escalators off, shutting the main entrance and exit points and then periodically opening them as and when appropriate. Therefore unusual controls were being imposed on the main concourse at King’s Cross. Passengers were being delayed and, as Mr Patel says later, getting angry and “abusing” staff. Mr Patel replied to Lindsay, “Well, we’re quite busy at the moment because of, obviously, with the station control.” So the stressful situation of managing the ‘station control’ was ‘obvious.’ This was before the bombs had gone off. In addition, various police community officers were coming, and note carefully Mr Patel’s answers:
Q. Do you know why they were there? A. I believe they were just passing through or they were going to a training course or something, and they heard about — and they came to help.
Q. What had they heard about? A. They had just heard that there’s some kind of problem or some kind of power failure or — at King’s Cross.
Permit me to suggest, madam, that this was deeply related to the terror-drill that morning, alluded to by Peter Power. I suggest that Lindsay could not help noticing such unusual turbulence and ‘control’ – ghastly possibilities started to dawn upon him. He had agreed to participate in what he thought was a fairly innocuous terror-drill. It was indeed ‘something very important’ that he wished to raise with the Duty Manager; but, in the end, he was too frightened to stay.
Madam, the British justice system is traditionally adversarial, where two opposite views can be expressed, prior to judgement. That has been prohibited from happening at this Inquest. For example, you will be hearing comments about ‘Mohammed Siddique Khan’s goodbye video which came into their [two witnesses] possession through Hasina Patel,’ (Oct 4th, 23:1-2) but your Inquest has refused permission for Hasina Patel to give testimony concerning her husband. Permit me to remind you that no-one has ever questioned the integrity or innocence of Hasina Patel – though she has been jailed and roughly handled by the police. Clearly her testimony concerning this video (made in the closing of 2004 before Khan’s prolonged visit to Pakistan) would be of more value than anyone else’s.
While admiring the fairness of your conduct of this Inquest, I believe that you are in essence listening to police storytelling – however much credence you may wish to give to it – and will hear much more of the same during the next five months.
I humbly offer my service should comments upon any aspect of the 7/7 narrative be desired, from the ‘unacceptable’ point of view of defending the innocence of British Muslims and especially concerning the improbable chemistry that was allegedly used by the four Muslims on 7/7.
I am, yours etc.