7/7 Inquest shows official narrative falling apart at seams

[Paul Rigby]

Why would this teenager try to contact his fellow co-conspirators, who he supposedly knew would have been dead by that time?

Here endeth HMG's credibility. Not that you'd know it, from the silence of Britain's leading "dissidents."

Great find, Pete, keep them coming.

[Peter Lemkin]

Great thread....though lost in the UK MSM completely [not by accident!] and somewhat ignored by even those who should know better, because it is only 'little-sister' to 9-11. But taken together [along with the Anthrax attacks, the first WTC bombing, Oklahoma City bombing and a few dozen others I could name form an interesting whole....and that whole is a frighting look into the Alice's Adventures In Hell we have all been invited to with the Mad Hatters - and no way to get out but by forcing the truth on the Sheeple who'd just rather not 'go there'...:listen:

[Magda Hassan]

Fascinating thread. Such a crock of lies.

[Peter Presland]

I have issues with Bridget Dunne, the Eminence grise of the J7 site. They involve a syndrome that we are all familiar with - viz reflex mind-closing - evidenced by indignant withering dismissal of the suggestion that our Security Services could be anything more sinister than incompetent, compounded by dishonest in their use of 'National Security' to cover up such alleged incompetence. I have a bit of a spat going with her on Nick Kollerstrom's blog right now in fact.

That said, she's has an eye for detail and is a bit of a terrier when it comes to dissecting evidence; her knowledge of the whole 7/7 affair is also encyclopedic. In short a combination that makes most of her stuff (ie whenever she isn't being censorious about the very thought of MIHOP by elements of the State) worth reading. The latest J7 blog post is a good example reproduced here in full:

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 UK’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

Damning evidence that 7/7 was indeed an inside job continues to stream from the Inquest hearings - but with victims families (including the 4 "Bombers") unrepresented - multiple glaring evidence inconsistencies go unchallenged and obvious awkward lines of questioning are not pursued. And naturally enough the MSM remain purblind.

Nick Kollerstrom's 'July 7 Inquest Briefings are a gold mine. My guess is that, no matter the inevitable victory of HMG in the Appeal Court tomorrow, which will allow MI5/6 evidence to be heard 'in Camera' etc etc. They are going to have very serious problems dealing with what has come out so far when many other intelligent, knowledgeable people have finished shredding it. The alleged use of alleged multiple 'operational' and personal mobile phones is particularly rich in its potential to flatten the official narrative - but it is only one of many.

[Magda Hassan]

Peter, why are the bombers families not represented?

[Peter Presland]

Peter, why are the bombers families not represented?

They applied for the same facilities - including legal aid - through the same channels as the other victims families but were declined. There was also an almighty ruckus at the suggestion that the "Bombers" be referred to as "Alleged perperators" when the preliminary hearings to decide these issues were held back in June - the MSM were leading the outraged charge (it rather reminded me of all those outraged citizens attacking the house of a pediatrician because "pediatrician/pedophile its all the same innit?" a couple of years ago - pig bloody ignorant IOW.

The guilt of those "Bombers" now has the status of revealed truth and anyone who dares question it had better watch his back big-time. As with David Kelly, never mind that the requirement for an Inquest before guilt can be assumed or imputed, is not some esoteric debating point; it is the law of the land.

But since when did the law mean diddly squat when Deep State Interests as grave as this are at stake?

[David Guyatt]

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

[David Guyatt]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6AL32L20101122

Government loses bid to keep 7/7 evidence secret

LONDON | Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:20pm GMT

(Reuters) - Home Secretary Theresa May has lost a legal bid to force the inquest into the 2005 London bombings to hear secret evidence behind closed doors.

Justice Heather Hallett, who is overseeing the inquests into the deaths of the 52 people killed in the suicide attacks, ruled earlier this month that she could not hear evidence detailing sensitive intelligence material in closed session.

She concluded that even if the public could be excluded, "interested parties," such as relatives of the victims, could not.

May mounted a legal challenge to that decision, arguing that disclosing secret information could put Britain's national security at risk.

However, the High Court upheld the coroner's decision.

"It is right that those who lost their loved ones should be able to see and hear all the evidence," said lawyer Clifford Tibber whose firm is representing relatives of six victims.

"It is difficult to understand what information, six years on, is so sensitive and so critical that it can not be made available to the families in some form."

A Home Office spokeswoman said the government was committed to co-operating fully with the coroner.

"Along with many victims' families, we believe a closed hearing for a small part of the July 7 inquests would be the best way for the coroner to consider as much information as possible," the spokeswoman said.

"The court has decided this is not possible and we will consider the judgement carefully."

Hallett said when she made the ruling that she hoped a deal could be reached that allowed the material to be made public.

"I am still hopeful that, with full cooperation on all sides, 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," she said.

"I repeat, sources may be withheld, redactions made. I do not intend to endanger the lives of anyone."

The material in question is likely to centre on what the police and MI5 knew about the bombers before the attacks and whether more could have been done to prevent them.

Evidence given at court cases since 2005 has shown that two of the bombers were photographed, recorded and followed by intelligence operatives several times in early 2004 in the company of plotters later jailed for planning attacks using fertiliser-based bombs.

However, previous parliamentary reports have said the security services could not have done more to stop the bombings.

[Peter Lemkin]

Those black pens, paper shredders and other such tricks must be working overtime.....as they simply can NOT tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...it would call for the collapse of the government [not just this one....any!]....a total loss in public confidence in the Government as an entity...the exact same as would happen should the truth of 9-11 come out in the USA. They'll find a way to not present the best bits, twist the truth, redact the important information, pick only certain facts and witnesses, etc...but they are definitely painting themselves and HMG and its 'noble' police and intelligence services into a rather uncomfortable corner!!!! :tee:

[Paul Rigby]

More illogical weirdness at the Inquest:

Monday, November 22, 2010

The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/c...hones.html

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 7th July 2005

The 'careful use of the mobile phones' was explored on the 4th 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 6th July, during a game of cricket.

However, DS Stuart confirms that a call was made at 00.03.59 on July 7th 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 6th ; 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 7th July, despite the fact that his rental agreement was until 8th 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 7th 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 7th, 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?