‘The results of the 7/7 inquest, which is shortly to resume, were announced by the BBC in Friday evening’s news: it was suicide bombers. They told us that when the widow of one of the suicide bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, had been refused legal aid at the inquest. The prejudging of the outcome of the inquest must give cause for concern.’                   – Ian Fantom, Berkshire 911 truth newsletter, August 2010

The families of the victims have asked for a more wide-ranging inquiry than the usual inquest, partly to make up for the refusal of the authorities to grant a public inquiry, which again makes the issue rather delicate. A couple of hundred witnesses are due to be called.  We’ve been given an outline of the issues to be covered. It starts 11th October. Here is the somewhat sceptical view of  7/7 expert, Adrian Connock, on his ‘Official Confusion’ site:

The Public Interest Immunity law is to be used to withhold the disclosure of any information that is assessed to be a risk to national security. In conclusion, it seems that the inquest is being stage-managed in a way that will result in barely any critical inquiry, no surprise witness revelations, a limited disclosure of new information relevant to the case against the four men and the wider investigation, and no thorough scrutiny of MI5 or the police with regards to preventability or involvement.

On 27 February 2010, at the Royal Court of Justice, there was anger as Hugo Keith QC alluded to the ‘apparent bombers.’ The lawyer Imran Khan, who was representing the families of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Hasib Hussain, chose his words carefully: ‘Whatever involvement my clients have in these proceedings, we will try our utmost to ensure that it is done with sensitivity and deference to the wishes of the bereaved families.’

This was a pre-pre-inquest hearing; the next pre-inquest hearing being due on 26th April: a decision will then be made, whether to separate the ‘terrorist’ inquests or try to mix them in with the 52 others. The authorities may not want to have the four deaths discussed separately – a whole can of worms might then emerge – but, on the other hand, victims’ families will be continue to be outraged if they are put together with those for whom they grieve.

The story is that the cases had to be ‘adjourned until the end of criminal cases linked to the bombings.’ But, as the ‘July 7 blog’ points out, an inquest should have been possible since April 2009, at the conclusion of the second ‘friends of the four’ trial at Kingston (Ch 13 of ToT describes the first of these held in 2008) – which, again, failed to convict anyone for the crime of the London bombings. But, just around this time, the ‘Coroners and Justice Bill’ was going through the Commons, which allowed secret inquests to be held. We may guess that, after waiting five years, the whole thing will be wrapped up secrecy ‘for national security reasons’.

Intact Bodies?

A couple of 7/7 investigators (A.C. and T.G.) spent some days in the Beeston area (of South Leeds) in 2006 and were able to speak to members of the families and those who knew them. Two friends of the Tanweer family related the astonishment which the latter experienced, upon being given back the body of Tanweer, and finding it ‘relatively intact.’ (In October 2005 Tanweer’s body was buried in Chotian Kota, Pakistan,  where family relatives live; the burial was attended by some two hundred people, including Tanweer’s father Mumtaz and his uncle, Tahir Pervaiz) These two investigators also heard a similar story concerning the body of Hasib Hussein.

Let’s suppose that all four of the young men were shot, how and where we may never know, but not at the four sites associated with the 52 victims, murdered in London on that day. How now can an Inquest be held? No wonder the event keeps being postponed – for five whole years.

On 12th of July 2005, it was reported that the remains of Mohammed Sid Khan had been identified at two different locations: Aldgate East tube station and Edgware Road; then  on the 14th more remains and/or ID were found at Tavistock Square (ToT, p.148). It is one thing for Britain’s creduous and amnesiac media to report the finding of his remains in three different locations, without querying it: but quite another for the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, to risk having questions on such an issue put by the capable and respected human-rights lawyer Imram Khan.

The Death of Myriam Hyman

If I were the coroner, the case I’d be most nervous about would be the enigmatic death of Myriam Hyman, a Jew who campaigned on behalf of Palestine. Her name is on the plaque at Tavistock Square. In the first week after 7/7 her family put up posters around the King’s Cross area, and asked in local hospitals, if anyone knew of her whereabouts – and, whether she was dead? Her distraught Mother was interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle to this effect. My book analysed her emergence from the tube at King’s Cross station that morning, amidst all the chaos, and her phoning her father at 09.45 – remember that time – from King’s Cross station. I could not find what she had done next, but she did have a lunch appointment at Canary Wharf, where she worked for a publishing firm doing photographic image work.

Euston station where the 30 bus stopped, the one that blew up in Tavistock Square, is about ten minutes’ walk due West from King’s Cross: while MH’s scheduled journey out to Canary Wharf was due East from King’s Cross. That 30 bus stopped at Euston at around 09.30.

The Coroner therefore needs to ask the question: is there any way that Myriam Hyman could have been at Euston station at 09.30 that morning? If there isn’t – then she did not die on the bus.

There is a further logistical problem – which a coroner’s court might feel at liberty to ignore – as to why M.H. would have struggled through the crowds to get to Euston, and then get onto a bus that was going straight back to where she had just come from, i.e King’s Cross: passengers getting onto the bus at Euston had no way of knowing it was going to be diverted into Upper Woburn Place, towards Tavistock Square, instead of its usual route.

The bus blew its top at 09.47. A Coroner’s inquest should surely take on board the public statements which the father of MH chose to make – as to why his daughter could not possibly have been on board. The International Herald Tribune took him seriously enough to quote what he had told them, as follows:

She [Myriam Hyman] was not wounded when she left the Underground. She was not on the bus because the bus exploded at about the time he was on the phone with her. Soon after, she called her workplace [i.e., at Canary Wharf], and was told not to bother to come in. That was at 10 a.m., after the attacks, he [the Father] said. “I don’t see how she could have got into the bus that exploded,” he said. “And the route makes no sense, whether she’s going to work or home.” Her cellphone goes unanswered. Hyman’s friends have papered the town with her image and raced to hospitals. (11)

That was published on Monday the 11th so that statement could have been made on, say, Saturday 9th. Even more definitely, the Jewish Chronicle affirmed: ‘Miriam Hyman, 32, a freelance photo editor, called her father, John, from King’s Cross Station at 9:45 a.m. Thursday to say she was all right. That was the last anyone has heard from her.’ (Its 15 July edition) so, two newspapers carried the same story.

I phoned up the father, to agree with him and offer him support, and could hardly believe my ears when he told me, no, all that was mistaken – somehow – and his daughter died at Tavistock Square. Her name is on that plaque, after all. In that case, I replied, how come she was not identified at once, as she would have had enough ID with her travelling to work? Her body had been found lying on the pavement next to the bus – so the family had been told. The Inquest might like to consider this. I scrutinised all of the pictures of the bus and can state that no body was lying on that pavement by the bus, after the blast. Its hard to find more than about three dead bodies around that bus in the aftermath – which was, as Daniel Obachike points out, the number reported in the immediate news broadcasts that morning.

I took the liberty of phoning him up a second time, to see whether he would confirm that time when his daughter phoned him from King’s Cross, i.e. 9.45am – as some were suggesting that he might have got confused about this, about that last message he ever received from his daughter – and, yes, he did so. I reported this, and was then universally condemned in newspapers and blogs for having contacted a ‘victim family.’ That lying snake Rachel North accused me of ‘harassing victims’ families.’ But, heck, I was researching a book on the subject. I never quite saw what was meant to be so wrong about this. I tried to contact everyone of relevance to do that book. I had asked quite politely, and the father gave me permission to query him. The sister of Myriam Hyman then told me I had caused distress to the family. Well excuse me but this event has caused distress to all Londoners – nobody has a monopoly on it. And it was not me who chose to put the story in the public domain. I suggest that Truth is here more important than anything else, and our attempt to reach that needs to be unconditional: we will all suffer lasting damage, in my view, if we do not find it.

The submission to the 7/7 inquest made by the July 7th Truth Campaign has much of interest concerning anomalies in the stories about those killed. But, I’m rather gobsmacked by a claim they make, that: ‘ Photographic evidence from the scene of the number 30 bus explosion would appear to show a clearly identifiable Miriam Hyman.’ They don’t explain how they get this! Also of interest is their quote: ‘ On 10th July 2005 the Observer reported that “Police have put a tracking device on Miriam’s phone so that if it is activated they will be able to find her.”‘ This indicates (I suggest) that they then did not know where she was, but surmised she might be still alive – or at least, were giving the Hyman family that impression.

Update January 13th 2011: the Inquest ducked all of these issues, merely having the sister Esther Hyman commenting on Myriam H’s life. (Jan 12th am para 22)

Pre-inquest Hearing, April 2009

At the Royal court of Justice, for three days April 26-28, the coroner listened to lawyers representing the survivors’ familes, concerning what sort of Inquest – later this year – they wanted to have. The stress these families had been through meant, we gathered that it would be too distressing for them to have to watch a lawyer repesenting the alleged four bombers, in the same court.

Their frustration at the absence of any inquiry over the event took the form of their asking for eg details of what MI5 knew in advance of the event – not something one would normally expect at an inquest. Or, they requested an account of whether medical facilities had been unduly delayed in reaching the wounded at the Edgware road blast site (Here the police detonated a mystery ‘second explosion’ in the station, which might have had the function of keeping the media away from the scene for a while, for whatever reason, but might also have led to some extra deaths).

On the last day, the coroner revealed that ‘she had been onto the internet to read conspiracy theories about the July 7 2005 attacks on London’ – whoa madam, steady on!

May 21: it was announced that the forthcoming Inquest this October ‘will scrutinise alleged failings by police and the security services.’ Inquests into the deaths of the four suicide bombers will be held separately, and for this she will sit without a jury. The judge Lady Hallett added, “To my mind it is not too remote to investigate what was known in the year or two before the alleged bombings.” Survivors will not have “interested person status,’ in this hearing, only victim-families and members of the emergency services will have that. Sitting without a jury, she explained, would mean sensitive intelligence material could be “more effectively examined”.

But, that does not mean the Court will hear evidence concerning how the Four died. O no!

A decision on whether inquests will be held into the deaths of the four bombers will be adjourned until the question over whether their families should receive legal aid is answered.

The Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations at the time of the bombings, Andy Hayman, has called for an independent public inquiry:

“Incidents of less gravity have attracted the status of a public inquiry — train crashes, a death in custody, and even other terrorist attacks. How can there not be a full, independent public inquiry into the deaths of 52 commuters on London’s transport system? …There has been no overview, no pulling together of each strand of review, no one can be sure if key issues have been missed.”     – The Terrorist Hunters.

Identity problems

The ‘quiet and gentle’ William Wise had commuted from his home in Notting Hill, west London, to Liverpool Street station for 10 years. He had the habit of arriving bright and early at Liverpool Street station, where he would join the early morning regulars at a Belgian chocolate shop for a double espresso at 8.30am. Then, after half an hour quietly listening to others holding forth, he would stroll over to his office.

He was last heard of – the Independent told its readers – at 0930 BST on 7 July, taking a bus from Euston towards King’s Cross.

Like Myriam Hyman, his name is on the Tavistock Square plaque. Like Myriam Hyman, he could not possibly have been there.

Why not? Well, see if you can spot four or five impossible elements in this story.

For a start, his daily journey from Notting Hill tube must have involved getting the Central line, straight to Liverpool Street: not via Euston.

But, supposing he had gotten the urge to step onto the Circle line and travel via Euston? Remember he normally gets there by 8.30 am: you can ‘t have him travelling an hour later that morning, because by then the Edgware Road explosion would have blocked the Circle line train. Not the least problem with this scenario, is that the Circle line does not stop at Euston…. So basically it won’t work. He was not there.

Source: The Guardian, Saturday 13 August 2005. I got this story from: September Clues, (go to Forums, The Big Ones, then 7/7)

Jenny Nicholson – Edgware Road victim. Her Mother Julie Nicholson was a priest at St Aidan and St George church in Bristol before 7/7 is supposed to have caused her loss of faith. Her fresh-off-the-press book A Song for Jenny tells the story, and let’s hope it covers the way her daughter was unequivocally travelling on an Eastbound train coming from Paddington into Edgware Road. She phoned her boyfriend from Paddington, that’s the last record of her life (see ToT p.100 for details). Some have doubted the priest story,and Jenny Nicholason’s name is given as a contact for the Theatre Arts Project, a Theatre Arts initiative for the Diocese of Bristol.


Lee Harris and Samantha Badham:  Piccadilly line blast victims Acording to the BBC News,The 30-year-old was in a coma for eight days and died on 15 July, a day before his girlfriend’s body was pulled from the wreckage of the mangled train.”

Would the inquest kindly confirm that the body of Samantha Badham was not rescued until 16th July, nine days after her death? Would they explain why this took nine days? And, that Lee Harris did not die until 15th July? If that is so, where did the figure of 52 dead come from, announced on 11th July?

Sam Ly ‘the only Australian victim of the London Bombings’ died from the Tavistock Square blast, on 14th July. He dies in hospital, with his father and nephew by his bedside. – reported the BBC.

So now its getting worse: by 11th of July when the final figure of 52 was anoounced, there should have been only 49 dead – not 52!

A big problem here, is that Australia’s Prime minister John Howard made the statement July 8 at 8 amGMT that “52 people had died” in the London bombings, according to Der Spiegel. That was before rescue workers had even begun to pull out bodies from the Russell Square (Piccadilly line) blast. Surely the inquest will want to consider this prescient insight by Mr Howard. Here’s how La Repubblica reported it, on 8th July:

According to Australian prime minister John Howard, the death-toll of yesterday’s bombings is 52, including 7 Australians. The figure provided by Howard clashes with that provided by the London police (37) but the prime minister has not disclosed to the press the sources of this information.

We apreciate why there will be no jury at this Inquest – no jury member would ever believe this story, whereaby a pre-ordained total of 52 is announced, on July 11th, when two of these 52 are still alive and a third has not yet been discovered.

Victim familes have so far received 11 million pounds in compensation from the Government – it’s big business. See also, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).

Anthony Fatayi-Williams, who died in the Tavistock Square blast: The Guardian reported on 11th July, ‘his mother Marie Fatayi-Williams, said she had not heard from her son aged 26 since Thursday (…) but it is feared he took the No 30 bus to work after stopping to help tube passengers caught up in the confusion… Mobile phone records show Mr Fatayi-Williams contacted his employer, oil group Amec, at 9.41am but it is feared he took the No 30 bus to work after stopping to help tube passengers caught up in the confusion. The bus bomb exploded at 9.47am.’

‘It is feared…’? How could his mother not have been notified after four days – when (one gathers) there was only one black man who died on the 30 bus blast? He must surely have been carrying ID. This presumably has to be the figure who was seen lying down on the lower deck seen by b us survivor Regina Friel – we would like the Inquest to clarify this issue. I’d like to watch the film ‘The Homefront’ made by Anthony Fatayi-Williams if I could get a copy, see what angle this takes.

We are startled to hear that mobile phone records could be identified amidst the chaos of that morning, while whole networks were crashing out and then coming back again.

Trusts: The Myriam Hyman Memorial trust – Raises money for the Miriam Hyman children’s eye care centre in India; plus an annual series of Miriam Hyman memorial discussions featuring well-known pundits and broadcasters such as Rabbi Julia Neuberger (on radio alot), Sue Macgregor (BBC radio presenter) and Shami Chakrabarti (director of civil rights group Liberty). (source: Tim Murphy of September clues). plus also the The Miriam Hyman Research Grant, ‘funded by people who have given donations and raised money from events around the country. This grant is given in memory of Miriam Hyman, a Myeloma UK volunteer and fundraiser who so tragically lost her life in the July 7 London bombings in 2005.’ There are considerable sums of money involved in these trusts, twenty-eight of them on one estimate.

I Disagree

People come up to me talking about ‘sims’ or ‘vicsims’ as if constructed identities had been given to victims, and as if some of the people didn’t really die. I’m not at present accepting this view. For example, on 17 July, ten days after the event, John Taylor from Billericay, Essex, was told that his 24-year-old daughter Carrie had died at Aldgate in the London bombings. The accounts show Mr Taylor with his daughter. But, another image of his ‘beautiful’ daughter has caused some concern, with some averring that it does not look like the same person. But surely, this is just her a few years earlier?

Or, to give another example, a Mr Timothy Murphy is alleging that ‘Myriam Hyman’ is a fake identity and she did not really live or die – well excuse me, I spoke to her father, her sister, and friends of hers at UCL which was my college, and she was a real person.

Whether she is really dead – ah, now there’s a question…