PDA

View Full Version : 7/7 Inquest shows official narrative falling apart at seams



Paul Rigby
10-27-2010, 11:53 AM
Important questions raised by testimony so far:


Bullshit-Detector | 26.10.2010 23:46 | Analysis

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466884.html

Very startling revelations of major discrepancies in the official 'narrative' of what happened in London on the morning of July 7th 2005 taken from evidence submitted to the Inquest into 7/7 as revealed and elucidated upon by the July 7th Truth Campaign on their blog on the 7/7 Inquest, at:
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

Five main areas identified of special interest by the July 7th Truth Campaign:
1). Curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on the morning of 7/7/2005
2). The curious case of the Jaguar at Luton station car park on both the 28th June and 7th July 2005
3). The 5th (and 6th) man/men
4). How and why did police commence investigation of Luton CCTV footage before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station and the reasons why Luton was first identified as significant in investigation
5). Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion

In detail (below), as taken from http://77inquests.blogspot.com:

1). Curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on 7/7:

On the fourth day of the inquests, it became apparent that a set of images of the four accused bombers disembarking from a Thameslink train (with date and time blanked out), and a further one of them entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink are the only CCTV images captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. No other footage exists, we are told, that shows the movements of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after the King's Cross Thameslink was captured.


J7:
An exchange between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, [on the afternoon of 14th October] has revealed that a temporary system" of 76 cameras installed at King's Cross malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. The one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station.

This means that:

* There is no CCTV footage from the underground showing Hasib Hussain allegedly on the Northern Line,
* There is no CCTV footage showing the "iconic" but never seen image of the four men hugging euphorically (as given in evidence under oath by a member of the travelling public that morning - Joseph Martoccia)
? There is no CCTV from the ticket gates, subways or platforms showing any of the four accused at King's Cross.
? As well as that, no cctv images recorded where Hasib Hussain entered into McDonalds in Kings Cross or where is alleged to have boarded the 91 and 30 buses, but most significantly, at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005 (see below).

Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/final-curtain-cctv-rich-to-cctv-fail.html

2). Jaguar at Luton station car park

At the 7/7 Inquest, cctv footage from 28th June 2005 and 7th July 2005 was shown (28th June 2005 is when the alleged bombers allegedly conducted a dummy run on the LU tube network).

Footage from Luton station car park were observed from both dates.
View here: http://vimeo.com/16127256

At 08.08:42, police have identified on cctv footage Khan and Tanweer walking towards Luton station on the right-hand side of the station carpark (on the road approach leading to the station). At exactly the same time, a dark-coloured Jaguar can be observed parked at the bottom of the car park. One of the two alleged bombers can be observed to to turning back as they both walk ahead side-by-side, looking in the direction of this Jaguar.

Then on the morning of 7th July 2005, the same cctv camera has recorded footage of the same Jaguar parked in exactly the same location in the car-park at 06.52:03, two and a half minutes after Jermain Lindsey arrives in his Fiat Brava (at 06.49:28). There is an 88-sec gap in the cctv footage in which time the Jaguar must have entered the car park and parked (missing footage between 06.50:11 & 06.51:39). Then , within 2 minutes of the Jaguar arriving, Tanweers blue Nissan Micra enters the car park at 06.52:12, and at exactly the same time, the Jaguar starts up, moves off and does a 360 degree turn from where it is parked at the bottom of the car park and travels back up the car park. As it travels up the car park, the Nissan Micra parks ahead of it on the right-hand side of the car-park next to Jermain Lindseys Fiat Brava at 06.52:38. At this point, there is a gap of 76 seconds in the cctv footage. When the cctv resumes at 06.53:59, the Jaguar is not mobile. However, a newly parked car can be observed next to the Nissan Micra. Could this be the same mysterious Jaguar?

J7:
Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything sinister about the coincidental movements of a dark-coloured Jaguar at Luton station on the mornings of both 28 June 2005 - the 'rehearsal' - and 7 July 2005, there is plainly evidence of more than a lack of 'recording continuously'.

What is evident is the editing of the CCTV footage at significant moments, which begs the questions:

What precisely is being cut from this footage, and Why?

Bridget Dunne, 10/24/2010
Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/search/label/Jaguar

3). The 5th (and 6th) man/men:

In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, witnesses claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man.
Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html

The witnesses in question include Sylvia Waugh, who believes she saw the men outside the flat in Alexandra Grove, Leeds where it is claimed the bombs allegedly used on July 7th 2005 were manufactured. There is also Susan Clarke, who believes she saw the men in the car park at Luton Station. Joseph Martoccia was the witness whose statement to the police in July 2005 regarding his believed sighting of the men at King's Cross station was mutated by the media into a CCTV image, so successfully, that even a former newspaper editor appeared to believe he had actually seen such an image. Yet, as detailed in this previous post, no such image ever existed. This however hasn't stopped it being described as "iconic" and even the Press Complaints Commission agreed that an image that doesn't exist and hasn't been seen by anyone is still perfectly entitled to be described as an "iconic image".

Sylvia Waugh, who says she saw the men in the early morning of 7 July 2005 in Leeds, gave four witness statements to the police. Under oath at the Inquest, Mrs Waugh claimed that she regularly saw at least 6 people entering and leaving 18 Alexandra Grove. Significantly, Mrs. Waugh states that she finds it difficult to discern differences between 'coloured people'. Indeed, after stating on four occasions during her testimony that Jermaine Lindsay, who was, according to mobile phone evidence and the official 'narrative', some 160 miles away at the time, this difficulty does seem to be the case. However, despite this, it seems reasonable to assume that Mrs. Waugh is able to count:

Q. You remember a white car. Might that have been car B that you put on the map for the police?
A. It could have been.
Q. What about the other car, what colour was the other car?
A. Like a bluey colour.
Q. There were a group of men. Can you help us as to how
many you think you saw?
A. At least six.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 69, lines 1-8

A few moments later, Mrs. Waugh is reminded that she told police she had seen four men getting into what seems to be the Nissan Micra in which Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain travelled to Luton from Leeds. She recalls seeing six men in total, and two cars. The other car, according to Hugo Keith, counsel to the inquest, has never been traced. Mrs. Waugh's testimony is very confused; on more than one occasion she denies what she had said in her police statements and at one point she denies something she was recorded as saying several minutes previously whilst under oath. However, her claim to have seen four men getting in the Micra, and six men in total, is interesting when compared to the statement Susan Clarke gave to the police in July 2005, which was read out in part whilst she was questioned under oath during the inquests:

Q. [Mr Patterson] "One car had one or two males in it. The other, a lilac-coloured Nissan, had four males leaving it, all carrying rucksacks. When asked, she described all the males as not white."
A. [Susan Clarke] He then goes on to say that you handed him the piece of paper that you've told us about.
Q. So pausing there, is that an accurate note of what you told the officer on that Tuesday?
A. As far as I remember, yes.
Q. So although today you've told us that you thought that it was four, possibly five, men associated with those two cars, within days of the incident, the very first time you spoke to the police you were saying that it was two men from one of the cars, four men from the other car, all carrying rucksacks?
A. Yes.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 18, lines 24 on

Joseph Martoccia, a commuter who believes he saw the accused at King's Cross mainline station on the morning of 7th July 2005, also said he saw six men:

Q. Have you marked X as the spot where you came across a group of men?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Yes. At the time, I said between four and six.
I wasn't entirely certain of the number.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon Session Lines 39-40

Interestingly, although Mr. Martoccia contacted the police the following day, he was not asked to identify the men from photographs until almost a year later, a somewhat odd approach in what was termed by Sir Ian Blair as "the largest criminal inquiry in English history". When shown a picture of Jermaine Linsday during his testimony to the Inquests, Martoccia stated that he did not remember seeing him. Moreover, Martoccia said that the man he saw heading towards the Piccadilly line who, one would presume on the basis of the official 'narrative', would be most likely to be Lindsay, who stands accused of causing the explosion on the Piccadilly line train was instead Hasib Hussain; the man accused of being responsible for the number 30 bus incident.

Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command gave an intriguing response when specifically questioned by Mr. Gareth Patterson, representing four bereaved families, over the number of men witnessed:

Q. You're probably aware, Inspector, of why I'm asking you these questions. Presumably you were told that there's a witness, Susan Clarke, who told the police quite early on that there may have been more than four people in and around those two cars. Were you aware of that? Did you look for the number of people around those cars?
A. Yes, at the time, when we were viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there and that we'd managed to track them to the position where we got decent CCTV images that we could say, yes, there are that number of people.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 50 on

Shortly after this, Mr. Patterson is interrupted by Hugo Keith QC, who expresses concern over his questions because they do appear to me to be designed to leave the impression that either there was another person at large or that in some way the investigation has been inadequate or has not properly pursued leads available at the time. After further admonishment by both Mr. Keith and Lady Justice Hallet, Mr. Patterson is able to continue:

MR PATTERSON: If we pause it now, perhaps. Can we see four figures walking off, Inspector?
A. Yes, we can, yes.
Q. Is there a figure who hovers and lingers between the two cars for a period of time?
A. Yes, there is a person there, yes. I think that's the person that exited that vehicle that just arrived.
Q. Was that something that was investigated and looked into to see where that additional fifth person --
A. The individuals around the car were -- their movements were assessed, yes.
Q. Is that something that you dealt with or that somebody else dealt with?
A. I didn't personally follow this individual away, no.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 55 on

More evidence revealed from transcripts relating to questioning conducted by Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families at: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html

4). How and why did police commence investigation of Luton CCTV footage before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station and the reasons why Luton was first identified as significant in investigation:

During the morning session of Wednesday 13 October 2010, the Inquest heard from Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command. After being sworn, DI Kindness was questioned by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith, and stated for the record that the identification of the four accused at King's Cross Thameslink, and thus the link made to the Luton and Bedford areas, occurred on 11 July 2005:

Q. Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 6, lines 12-25

Under further questioning by Mr Keith, DI Kindness explains the manner in which Luton was discovered as the point at which the four accused met and travelled to London:

Q. Did you then concentrate your examination upon CCTV relating to the railway network to the north of London?
A. Indeed, sir, yes, and we were looking at the route of the -- the Thameslink route up through Bedford and Luton and looking for fast-time CCTV recovery of those stations to see where the bombers had access to rail network.
Q. Were you able to access CCTV relating to, not just the stations, but the car parks at those stations, the entry points and the foyers?
A. Yes, we were, sir.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We were able to identify that the individuals had arrived at Luton underground station earlier that morning and boarded a train to London.
Q. Can you recall when it was that you discovered that they had boarded the railway network at Luton?
A. I think it was on the 12th, sir.
Q. So the Tuesday?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of that process, how many of the men were you able to identify initially as having used the Luton railway station?
A. We were able to identify all of the men had accessed -- the four men had accessed via Luton railway station.
Q. Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 10, line 19 on

The Home Office narrative suggests that Luton was chosen due to the witness sighting of four men putting on rucksacks at Luton station, as received on the 12 July 2005. This witness, Susan Clarke, gave her evidence to the Inquest during the afternoon session of 13 October 2010. She describes handing a note of the cars she had seen at Luton station on the morning of the 7 July to a British Transport Police officer at St. Pancras station. This note was handed over on Tuesday 12 July 2005. [Transcript, 13 October 2010, afternoon session - page 14, line 14 on]. Officers attended her place of work at 11.45am on 12 July 2005 and Ms Clarke was interviewed for two and a half hours at Holborn police station.

So this would appear to be how the Luton station CCTV came to be favoured and examined over and above seven other possible stations of focus. Or, at least it would be if either the narrative or DI Kindness were actually relating the facts of the matter. Fortunately for the bereaved and the wider public, the carefully plotted course of Mr Keith's questioning was exposed by further questions interjected by Mr Patterson and Ms Gallagher, the counsels for the bereaved.

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 65, line 15

This leaves the one crucial and compelling question: Why were the police reviewing CCTV footage from Luton station and car park on 10 July 2005, when the accused apparently weren't identified on King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until a day later, 11 July 2005?

More importantly, why has it been deemed necessary to concoct the story about the discovery of CCTV at Luton on 12 July 2005?

The Inquests now need to scrutinise the actual manner in which the four accused were identified, and re-examine how, when and why the link to Luton station was made and how, when and why the CCTV was recovered, as the evidential log shows, by 10 July 2005.

Bridget Dunne, 10/16/2010
Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/cctv-fuss-about-nothing.html

5). Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion

Mr Hugo Keith QC, Counsel to the Inquests, has maintained that Circle Line train 204 from Liverpool St to Aldgate East underwent a power-surge related to an explosion at 08.49 mins on 7/7/2005.
Mr Hugo Keith QC: "... and would explain that the times referred to are approximate times recorded by the power control operation in the handwritten logs. The times I have referred to are the actual times extracted from the power system computerised event logs. "In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King's Cross/Russell Square."
Source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning Session, page 9, Lines 6-19

J7 from their inquest blog:
Curiously, the Trackernet images from Aldgate on 7 July 2005 doesn't appear to have made it into the Inquest bundle of evidence, or at least not yet, although the Trackernet images of Edgware Road have. A trackernet image of the time of the explosion has been annotated by J7 using the Working Time Table for the London Underground, which the J7 Truth Campaign have obtained through a Freedom of Information Request. Published on their website ( http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/behind-scenes-of-aldgate-explosion-it.html?showComment=1288100317841#c555801840911184 5030 ).

All other trains in this image are also in their correct places, according to the Working Timetable, if the time of this explosion is 08.46.30, the time that train 204 was in transit to Aldgate, not 08.49.

Furthermore, you can observe in the cctv footage of train 204 at Liverpool St departing the eastbound platform at Liverpool Street at 08.45:41 (ref: http://vimeo.com/13185022 - the cctv shows the time of 07.45 which is taken to be a result of the time settings of that camera having not been adjusted for GMT). Then, from a camera on the westbound platform adjacent to the one just mentioned on the eastbound platform, large billows of smoke can be observed to emerge at 08.46:40, indicating the explosion occurred less than a minute after Train 204 departed the Liverpool Street eastbound platform to Aldgate East station.

Peter Lemkin
10-27-2010, 12:35 PM
It simply follows the pattern of Dallas and 9-11 and so many other covert ops...they can't get all the details 'right'; as they were lies and deceptions to begin with....

David Guyatt
10-27-2010, 03:08 PM
An exchange between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, [on the afternoon of 14th October] has revealed that a temporary system" of 76 cameras installed at King's Cross malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. The one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station.

Odd that CCTV malfunctioned - leaving no evidence. Curiously, the exact same thing happened in the Paris road CCTV system on the night (and at the exact time and location) that Princess Di was killed.

Peter Lemkin
10-27-2010, 04:23 PM
An exchange between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, [on the afternoon of 14th October] has revealed that a temporary system" of 76 cameras installed at King's Cross malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. The one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station.

Odd that CCTV malfunctioned - leaving no evidence. Curiously, the exact same thing happened in the Paris road CCTV system on the night (and at the exact time and location) that Princess Di was killed.

As did the DPD communications network and the USG secure phone lines on 11-22-63.....quite a pattern!
:joyman:

Christer Forslund
10-27-2010, 06:50 PM
From the TERROR ON THE TUBE site.
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/10/22/new-support-for-canary-wharf-story/
New support for Canary Wharf story (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/10/22/new-support-for-canary-wharf-story/)

October 22, 2010

On 11th October (the day the 7/7 Inquest began), Huggles recalled (http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/2010/10/77-inquests.html)how he had been at Kings Cross station when it all happened:
I was in Kings Cross right after the Piccadilly line blast and there was no problem calling into work to tell my boss that I would be late [a propos of whether mobile phones were working]. I then went into cafe to wait for the hubbub to die down. Over the radio we discovered that it was more than one bomb.
Just over an hour and a half later, there was a report on Radio 5 that some of the bombers were shot by armed response units in the Docklands. When I got home that evening, the news reports said that all the bombers died in the explosions.
The site owner Kevin Boyle (http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/2010/10/77-inquests.html)asked him whether he had personally heard that Radio 5 news announcement, and Huggles replied:
Kevin,
I heard it on the radio but when I got home and I sat in front of the tv for the rest of that evening, it was not repeated. It was in the cafe I heard the news report.
Is this the first mention of a Radio 5 news-announcement, on the 11 oclock news that morning, of this shooting, at Canary Wharf in the Docklands, of maybe three young men? For comparison, British philosopher Rory Ridley-Duff (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/a-philosopher-compares-two-narratives/)at Sheffield compiled 17 accounts from the media (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/77-ripple-effect-exposing-false-flag.html) of this event at Canary Wharf having happened. In addition there are a few more in Appendix 3 of my book. Does anyone else recall such a news-announcement that morning?
If youre new to the Canary Wharf story, maybe watch the fifth chapter of MuadDibs Ripple Effect. (http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/) The story often comes with dramatic accounts of how the entire Wharf was locked down and 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10334992). By the evening the police were trying to dismiss the whole thing.
For comparison, here is a fairly well-known version of the story, reported Down Under:
A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).
If it happened, it was an operation Kratos job (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=21850), whereby certain senior police officers are (shockingly) permitted to shoot a member of the public in the head, if they are deemed to be a suicide bomber and about to blow themselves up. Thus the above report has the two people shot because they were wearing bombs that judgement is necessary for a Kratos shooting to take place compare the De Menezes shooting where early accounts had him with a bulging raincoat as if they were trying to make out they thought he might be wearing bombs as their excuse for shooting him in the head on 22 July 2005 at Stockwell tube station.


Comments to the above

Written by graeme about 2 days ago. I can confirm that I heard suicide bombers had been shot by anti-terrorist police at Canary Wharf on 7 July 2005. It was announced on BBC 24 Hour News. I cannot remember the exact time, but it was one hour either side of noon. ( note;- suicide bombers definitely plural).
I have studied the recent CCTV footage released from Luton Station and Kings Cross. A blurred man enters Luton Station just ahead of the four so-called bombers. He is seen again inside the station, holding a large mobile-phone with an aerial. At Kings Cross a different man with a blurred head, and hands in pockets, walks alongside the four young men interesting/suspicious ?


Written by andy about 1 day ago. I also heard on bbc news that marksmen had shot 3 or 4 terrorists by canary wharf if ican remember it was about an hr after the bombings 11ish and then the story vanished down the memory hole


Written by John D about 22 hours ago. I was working in New York that day. I was walking through the office reception when I noticed a crowd of people watching the big TV. I noticed that it was about a terrorist attack in London, but it went to a live report talking of terrorists running around Canary Wharf being chased by armed police. One of the terrorists was shot according to the reporterit scared me a lot. I definately believe these guys were employed by our government, understood their situation when they missed the trains and then fled for safetyour armed cops were there to stop them from speaking. Sad story


Written by Sharon B (http://www.tpuc.org/) about 10 hours ago. I remember the day with extreme clarity (one of my daughters was working in Central London and I lost contact with her around 9am that morning) and I sat by the TV and flicked channels all morning. My daughter eventually phoned from a landline.
Whilst watching the BBC news I saw the report coming in of 3 suspects having been neutralized by police at Canary Wharf, they then confirmed 3 men had been shot. We were promised more updates on that breaking news story but none were forthcoming.
It appears Winston Smith is still working for BBC!


Written by Eamonn Monaghan about 5 hours ago. Hello Sharon and the previous posters,
I work at London University and I can confirm that I saw the same broadcast about suspected terrorists being taken out or neutralised near Credit Suisse and HSBC in that area.
One of my friends worked at Credit Suisse, an IT DBA, at the time and was not allowed near windows or leave the building for several hours after.


Written by Sylvie about 3 hours ago. I was driving and heard over the radio that suspected bombers had been neutralised at Canary Wharf. Later that evening there was nothing else said about it on the evening news, which made you start to wonder if youd imagined it, so never thought about after.

Christer Forslund
10-27-2010, 08:59 PM
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/77-practice-makes-perfect/

7/7: Practise Makes Perfect (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/link.asp?ID=13692&URL=http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/77-practice-makes-perfect/)

Most of us who have been paying attention have known for some time that there were two drill- type events associated with the 7/7 London bombings.
The first was the Panorama programme of May 2004 during which one overground and 3 underground explosions take place over a short space of time during the morning rush hour.
The second was the famous drill revealed by Peter Power (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070705peterpower) on the day of 7/7 itself when he said that drills were taking place in the same 3 stations and at the same time as the bombs actually went off.
For many, including this author, these were coincidences beyond all reason.
However, astonishingly, it has been revealed to the 7/7 Inquest, in minor documents presented to the court last week (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/77-practice-makes-perfect/www.julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/05.Explosions_Immediate_Aftermath.pdf), that there were at least two other separate drills in London prior to 7/7 that used as their template the same 3 underground bombs scenario.
We now have a group of public services practicing FOUR TIMES for the exact circumstances that prevailed on the terrible morning itself.
Does it not eventually become reasonable to suppose that those that organised ALL THESE VERY SIMILAR DRILLS also organised THE IDENTICAL EVENT ITSELF?
The media, as usual, has failed to report these staggering facts but let us appeal to them right now.
All the anomalous evidence in this Inquest points in the direction of 7/7 being a classic false-flag state-sponsored attack. The evidence that supports the official narrative is dubious and much of the evidence nailing the new (twice-altered) timeline has not been seen before this Inquest.

Here is a detailed run-down of the drills:

1. The Panorama Program
BBCs Panorama (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3686201.stm) ran what looked like a management training exercise on screenfourteen months before 7/7. Present round the studio table were various leaders of government, public and police services, including the Conservative ex-minister Michael Portillo and Peter Power, head of Visor Consultants.
The crisis scenario hadthree blasts on the central London underground, around 8.20 am, and one above ground an hour later.
Thisprogram made the then-fictional events seem like real news: The headlines at 9 oclock. In the past hour there have been three major explosions on the London underground. It added, The Home Secretary has said the attacks bear the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda, (A year later on the day of 7/7 we heard Jack Straw intoning the same phrase, The attacks bear the hallmarks of al-Qaeda.)
Panorama also used the memorable phrase, The fictional day of terror unfolds through the immediacy of rolling news bringing the catastrophic attack into our living rooms; adding a bit too knowledgeably that the event was Set in the future - but only just.
Lets here quote Webster Tarpley:
No terrorist attack would be complete without the advance airing of a scenario docudrama to provide the population with a conceptual scheme to help them understand the coming events in the sense intended by the oligarchy. (9/11 Synthetic Terror, (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf) 2008, p.408).
Tarpley here alludes to the seemingly unthinkablelarge-scale state-sponsored terror. Such events are, he demonstrates, not at all uncommon over recent nor distant history.

2. The contemporaneous 7/7 drill
On 7/7 itself Peter Power conducted a terror drill that shadowed the cataclysm as it happened over the same three tube stations at more or less the same time.
On the afternoon of 7/7 he was interviewed on Radio 5s Drivetime programme:
POWER: at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!
3. Atlantic Blue
The massive-but-totally-secret Atlantic Blue exercise was held over 5-8 April, 2005. All echelons of government participated in this big, international terror-drill. Walking wounded were taken into hospitals etc, and its difficult to ascertain how far this was really happening on the pavement etc versus being on a video screen. Two thousand Met police were involved, plus 14 different government departments, the NHS etc. It involved terrorist attacks upon UK transport networks that coincided with a major international summit. Visor Consultants were involved, in co-ordination with the US department of Homeland Security. It was co-ordinated from Hendon, the same place that Gold Command police acted from once 7/7 started to happen (It thus had a connection with the Northern line of the London Underground). Total secrecy was imposed upon the British media. The Observer was able to publish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/10/july7.uksecurity2) a brief outline of what had happened in the UKs Atlantic Blue exercise, but only from Washington sources: it revealed that this had been the biggest transatlantic counter-terrorism exercise since 9/11 and that it included bombs being placed on buses and also explosives left on the London underground.
After July 7th, the Independent, carried out an hour-by-hour analysis of the catastrophe, and made the following comment (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/77-practice-makes-perfect/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thursday-minute-by-minute-the-horror-emerges-498281.html)upon what had happened at 9.10 am:
By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London.
What a surprise, the top London Ambulance Service experts were all gathered together on the morning of 7/7, and they just happened to be reminiscing about a game-simulation they had been involved in three months earlier i.e., Atlantic Blue. We would like to be told exactly when the four mock-bombs went off, during the Atlantic Blue terror-game.
Londons mayor Ken Livingstone was over in Singapore on the day of 7/7 to celebrate Britains being awarded the Olympic Games for 2012, the day before and in giving his evidence to the July 7th Review Committee he recalled the Atlantic Blue exercise a few months earlier:
I said from Singapore that we had actually done an exercise of multiple bomb attacks on the Underground as one of the exercises
That is almost the only British statement about Atlantic Blue! America and Canada also participated in the event, which overall was called Global Shield. The US exercise was called TOPOFF3. (alluding to Top Officers, and 3 as the 3rd such event) The latter had an intriguing Red Team which generated the enemy simulation

4. Operation Hanover
Londons police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill practice, called Operation Hanover. On 2005 it just happened to be held on 1-2 July. Its game-plan was threefold: three simultaneous bomb attacks on three underground stations. The police have been reticent about discussing this astounding precursor event, mere days before 7/7, only revealing it (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)in 2009:
226. The Metropolitan Police Service told the Committee that they had, in the past, run exercises with scenarios similar to what actually happened on 7 July 2005. Since 2003, they have run an annual exercise known as Operation HANOVER which develops different scenarios for attacks on London and rehearses how the Metropolitan Police Service would respond. By coincidence, their 2005 exercise, run by the Security Co-ordinators office in the Anti-Terrorist Branch, took place just a few days before the attacks on 12 July. The office-based scenario for this exercise was simultaneous bomb attacks on three London Underground trains at Embankment, Waterloo and St Jamess Park stations. Once again, the scenario is quite similar to what actually took place, and the fact that it took place so close to the actual attacks is an interesting coincidence.
We do need to know the time for that Operation Hanover simultaneous-bomb mock-event.

Questions for the Inquest
If the Inquest wants to find out the cause of death of 52 Londoners, then the most important and crucial questions which Lady Justice Hallett could possibly ask the Met, concern these four terror-drills:


Concerning the Panorama program, to the producers of the program: From where did they get the idea?
Concerning the Atlantic Blue terror-drill: What were the times and locations of the four bombs in the game? Were they three on tubes and one on a bus? We would also like full disclosure concerning the whole event.
Likewise for Operation Hanover, let the Met state times and locations of the tube bombs in the exercise.
Likewise Peter Power should be asked for the exact times and locations of the four bombs imagined in the Visor terror-drill that morning.

The coincidences we have here looked at go astronomically beyond what is feasible. These impossible coincidences point to the startling fact, that these terror-drill rehearsals are clearly the design of the 7/7 event itself. Most of the participants may have been quite unaware of this. The gestation of the 7/7 event has to be via this sequence of drills we have just reviewed.
It is not in any way reasonable to suppose that this sequence of central-London imaginary-drill events be a mere coincidence!

Peter Power and the Gennifer Flowers defense
There was much head-scratching as to why a participant at the very centre of the 7/7 drills would decide to go public about these exercises, immediately, on that same day.
Gennifer Flowers came forward during Bill Clintons 1992 presidential Campaign alleging that she had had a twelve-year relationship with him. There were rumours (at the very least) that some of Clintons ex-lovers were proving to be very unlucky young women. It was widely speculated that Flowers decided to get it out there so that any future accident that might befall her would act against, rather than in favour of, the Clinton interests. She was, it seems, very interested in staying alive.
Likewise, this is the most obvious explanation for Powers seeming faux-pas. He knew he held very dangerous information and feared this made him a possible target of the dark forces of the state.and this is a man who really understands just how dark those forces can beso he got the facts out there, pronto!

David Guyatt
11-03-2010, 03:22 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683413


November 2010 Last updated at 14:14
Coroner rejects 7/7 inquest closed session request
The coroner hearing the inquests for the 7/7 bombings has ruled against holding closed sessions to hear secret intelligence material.
Lady Justice Hallett rejected arguments by MI5 lawyers that she was able to exclude bereaved families from hearings to examine highly sensitive documents.
The information would damage national security if made public, MI5 had said.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David, 22, was killed at Edgware Road, said he was "delighted" by the decision.
Lady Hallett said the secret evidence could be edited to remove names of sources and other confidential information.
'National security'
The coroner said: "I am still hopeful that with full co-operation 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."
Lawyers for the home secretary have been given seven days to appeal.
The attacks on a bus and three Tube trains on 7 July 2005 left 52 people dead.
Suicide bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay had been planning the attacks for months.
Lawyers for the 7 July families want to question MI5 officers about why Khan and Tanweer, who had been under surveillance 17 months earlier, were not on the security service's "radar" at the time of the bombings.
MI5 has argued that it cannot give answers without disclosing information from top-secret intelligence files.
Lady Justice Hallett, who is sitting without a jury, ruled on Wednesday that she had powers under Rule 17 of the Coroners' Rules 1984 to exclude the public from the inquest if it was in the interests of national security.
But she ruled that this did not allow her to hold a secret inquest without key interested parties - such as lawyers for the bereaved families - being present.
The row echoes the case of Azelle Rodney, who was shot dead by police who said they were acting on intelligence.
The police refused to allow that intelligence to be heard in an open inquest and, after a protracted legal saga, the circumstances of his death are now being heard by a special public inquiry.
Lady Justice Hallett suggested that if ministers were unhappy with her ruling, they could transform part of the inquest into a public inquiry, to examine secret documents in closed hearings.
But the coroner warned this would lead to a lengthy delay which would further add to the suffering of the 7 July families.
She said: "The bereaved families and survivors have waited over five years since the bombings and I have promised them an end to these proceedings by next spring.
"Many witnesses have been through the ordeal of giving evidence, and I am sure would not wish to repeat that experience.
"The families have had to suffer the distressing experience of hearing witnesses speak of the deaths of their loved ones in all-too-graphic terms. They would not wish to relive that experience."
Mr Foulkes, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester, said the ruling would "make it more difficult" for MI5 to avoid public scrutiny.
He said: "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. The basic argument I have is that they said in 2005 that Sidique Khan was only known to them on the periphery of their investigation and he was not a major player.
"But they say they can't open their files about him because they are so sensitive they threaten national security.
"The ruling she's given makes it very hard for them to maintain that position," he added.
A Home Office spokesman said: "The government has made clear that it welcomes the coroner's inquests. We hope that they will allow the families of the victims to get to the bottom of the tragic events of July 7 2005.
"We will consider the coroner's ruling carefully."
'I'm sorry'
Later the inquests heard from a paramedic who tried to treat Carrie Taylor, a 24-year-old from Essex, who died of her injuries.
Alan Treacy said: "She was gravely ill and she was in an unusual position where she was more or less wrapped around a handrail that was, if I recall, bent over as well.
"She was lying across the laps of a couple of people and I think there might have been another female helping her or holding her."
Miss Taylor's father John asked him what he did to try to save her.
Mr Treacy said she had no pulse but he decided to use a defibrillator to test for heart activity.
"Because Carrie was so young I decided to go further and see if there was any possibility of a pulse, but unfortunately there was nothing," he said.
Mr Taylor thanked him for his efforts and he replied: "I'm sorry I couldn't be more useful."

Paul Rigby
11-03-2010, 10:08 PM
Important questions raised by testimony so far:


Bullshit-Detector | 26.10.2010 23:46 | Analysis

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466884.html

* There is no CCTV footage from the underground showing Hasib Hussain allegedly on the Northern Line,
* There is no CCTV footage showing the "iconic" but never seen image of the four men hugging euphorically (as given in evidence under oath by a member of the travelling public that morning - Joseph Martoccia)
? There is no CCTV from the ticket gates, subways or platforms showing any of the four accused at King's Cross.
? As well as that, no cctv images recorded where Hasib Hussain entered into McDonalds in Kings Cross or where is alleged to have boarded the 91 and 30 buses, but most significantly, at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005 (see below).

Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/final-curtain-cctv-rich-to-cctv-fail.html



There appears to be more & better footage of Roshonara Choudhry stabbing Labour MP Stephen Timms than there is of the alleged 7/7 bombers. Odd, that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/03/stephen-timms-attack-sentencing

Peter Presland
11-15-2010, 07:55 AM
There's been a lot of stuff flying under the radar from the 7/7 inquest hearings this past month or so.

There's a couple of items from Nick Kollerstrom's blog posted above by Christer F but all of the J7 Inquest briefings section is worthy of study. As Paul says above the official narrative really is coming apart at the seams - mthough you would never guess so from the MSM.

This article by a retired Aussie cop is a good example of the other stuff. Headed "The last Minutes of Hassib Hussain (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/the-last-minutes-of-hasib-hussein/)":




By Andrew S. MacGregor

It is a privilege to post this article offered by Andrew MacGregor, a retired Australian policeman, on this site.
I am taking it for granted that the two journalists, Caroline Grammell and Duncan Gardham are competent journalists and that their article 7/7 Inquest shown last minutes of London bus bomber Hasib Hussain (The Telegraph, 14th Oct) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8064846/77-inquests-shown-last-minutes-of-London-bus-bomber-Hasib-Hussain.html) is quite accurate. It concentrates on the areas of Kings Cross Station and the route taken by the bus to Tavistock Square. We quote here from that article. It begins:http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HH.bmp (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HH.bmp)
For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside Kings Cross, clearly unsure about what to do.
Now this is odd. The inquest has already been informed that these men actually made a dummy run prior to the 7th of July 2005, and if this was the case, then Hasib Hussain would have been well aware of what he had to do and when to do it. Please understand this point. If what the inquest has already been informed of, that is that the four men accused of being terrorist bombers, had made dummy runs prior to the actual attack, then Hasib Hussain would have been very well aware of what he was required to do, and his actions would not have been; clearly unsure about what to do.
He frantically rang his co-conspirators, only to find he couldnt get through.
We are supposedly talking about a teenager who, along with three other co-conspirators had planned a suicide attack on the London Subway. Why would this teenager try to contact his fellow co-conspirators, who he supposedly knew would have been by that time be dead?
If Hasib Hussain had been a suicide-bomber as charged by the police, then he would have been aware that his three fellow co-conspirators were also suicide-bombers and that they were to die in three simultaneous detonations within the subway. If the four conspirators were to die in four simultaneous detonations, then Hasib would have died as required, or as soon as possible afterwards.
If however, there were supposedly, no suicide attacks, then Hasib would have been able to contact his fellow conspirators, by mobile telephone, and endeavouring to contact his co-conspirators via mobile telephones would be perfectly natural.
Now again, at Kings Cross Station, there would have been evidence that the train services were in disarray. To a suicide-bomber this would have been sufficient evidence that his co-conspirators had successfully detonated their bombs, so again, why did Hasib Hussain endeavour to contact his dead co-conspirators?
The only reason would have been is that Hasib Hussain did not realise that his co-conspirators were dead.
Rightio, Hasib Hussain has just tried to ring his three co-conspirators who he does not believe to be dead, but couldnt get through to them. So who then did he ring? This is extremely important.
Things have gone wrong, and that is why Hasib Hussain has tried to call his co-conspirators but has been unable to contact them. Hasib Hussain is at Kings Cross Station, but is supposed to have been somewhere else. The trains didnt run on time, he hasnt arrived at his proper destination, and so he tries to get some advice from his co-conspirators. That hasnt worked as their phones are not functioning, and so what does he now do? He rings somebody else, the person who organised this event. The question is; did Hasib Hussain ring Peter Power, or somebody else from Visor Consultants?
before digging around in his own rucksack containing his homemade bomb.
Is this for real?????? Please, homemade bombs are notoriously unstable, and the last thing a suicide-bomber would ever want to do would be to interfere with the bomb in his rucksack. That could so easily cause to bomb to detonate. Unless of course, there was no bomb in the rucksack, then it would be perfectly natural to rummage about in your rucksack.
What Hasib Hussains rummaging about or digging around in his rucksack tells us quite clearly was that Hasib Hussain was not concerned about the presence of a bomb in his rucksack, for the simple reason there was no bomb there.
CCTV footage piecing together his every movement after separating from Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay was shown on the fourth day of the inquest.
The CCTV videos capture the four co-conspirators together in the tunnel as they walked towards Kings Cross Station. Det. Insp. Ewan Kindness states that of the 76 CCTV cameras positioned throughout Kings Cross Station only this camera was actually filming for a period between 8.30am and 8.50am, but the single shot of the four men carrying rucksacks was taken at 08.26.32 hours, which is 3 minutes prior to that stated time.
And now we are told that this same CCTV video camera system pieced together his every movement after separating from his companions. But that is not true. There is actually no CCTV videos of any of the supposed four co-conspirators after 08.26.32 on the 7th July 2005 at Kings Cross Station.
There is no CCTV video footage of Hasib Hussain or any of the other three supposed co-conspirators at Kings Cross Station [prior to 8.54am], and that cannot be coincidental.
Then we are told that:
For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside Kings Cross.
Again, this is not true; it is a total fiction. There is absolutely no CCTV evidence from inside Kings Cross Station for the entire period of time that Hasib Hussain entered the railway station, until 28 minutes later when he was evacuated from the station along with the rest of the general public. If this is the only CCTV footage, presented to this Inquest, which Hasib Hussain appears on then there are major problems with the government line.
What has happened to the CCTV footage taken from inside Kings Cross Station, from shortly after 8.30am until 8.54am? Deputy Chief Constable Andy Tanner stated on the 11th July 2005, the very same day that Det Insp. Ewan Kindness found the video clip from which the photo of the four suspects that, The underground network is a CCTV rich environment. This suggests that the CCTV evidence existed, so why has it not been presented to the Inquest? The only reason is that this evidence conflicts with the government line.
Det Insp Ewan Kindness should at some stage remember that the oath of office that he took was to protect the Crown, not the government. He should also consider just exactly what constitutes the felonies of perjury (15 years), perverting the course of justice (15 years) and being an accessory to murder after the event (20 years) times the number of murdered. One may feel safe in London, but there would be a different situation if a trial was held in The Hague. Never forget what happened to General Pinochet.
At 8.45am on July 7, Janice Stephens nearly fell over Hussain, who was sitting on a bench on the northbound Northern line, as she hurried to catch a train to work. He was very far forward on the chair, sitting on the front edge of the chair with his elbows on his knees, she said.
So did the CCTV videos capture Janice Stephens almost falling over Hasib Hussain as he was seated on a bench on the northbound Northern Line, at 8.45am? If so was Hussain seated on a bench, or as Miss Stephens claimed, a chair? If not, does this really matter or is it to put a human face on security? Or has this evidence been presented to cover for the missing CCTV evidence and thus pervert the course of Justice?
CCTV footage taken nine minutes after he was seen by Miss Stephens showed Hussain dressed in pale t-shirt, jeans and jacket emerging from a bustling Kings Cross Station. He [Hasib Hussain] alongside hundreds of others, was evacuated following the detonation of Jermaine Lindsays bomb just outside the station on the Piccadilly Line.
Do you understand what you are being told here? Firstly, Hasib Hussain did not move to the outside of Kings Cross station under his own volition; he was moved out when the station was evacuated. We are told that he was moved to the outside of Kings Cross Station by 8.54am, which is 9 minutes after he supposedly was seen on the bench by Janice Stephens.
Now, if Hasib Hussain had been a suicide-bomber in a pact with his three co-conspirators, then at this stage, Hasib Hussain, would have been very well aware that his co-conspirators were dead. End of story!!! Have you ever thought of telephoning a dead friend???
So why this?
Hussain then dawdled around Kings Cross, tried to ring each of his fellow bombers in turn, twice, between 8.58am and 9.19am. At 9am, he made a decision. Shrugging his large rucksack off his shoulders, he dropped it to the ground in the doorway of WH Smiths within the station. For two and a half minutes, Hussain was seen bent at the hip, rifling around in the dark blue Sherpa rucksack, only yards from a security guard.
Rightio, now Hasib Hussain, an 18 year old youth from Leeds, would know London just as well as I do since the last time I was in London was 1975. Can you comprehend this? Hasib Hussain is in unknown waters, and is unable to follow the instructions he has been given for his task on this day.
So what is the first thing he does? He calls his mates to get some advice, but his mates are not answering their mobile telephones. Does this mean anything to Hasib Hussain? No, because he tried to ring them over a period of 21 minutes! Does Hasib Hussain believe that his friends are dead? No!!! Absolutely not, because he spent 21 minutes trying to contact them, and he wouldnt have done that if he believed they were dead as a result of bomb detonations.
Now let us compare two different descriptions of the same event.
He frantically rang his co-conspirators, only to find he couldnt get through Hussain then dawdled around Kings Cross, tried to ring each of his fellow bombers in turn, twice, between 8.58am and 9.19am.
Can you see the deception? The adjectives frantically and dawdled have virtually opposite meanings.
Then there was the other little piece of deception:
For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside Kings Cross, clearly unsure about what to do.
What this piece did not inform you of was that Hasib Hussain had been evacuated from Kings Cross Station with every other member of the public who was present at that time.
So after being evacuated from Kings Cross Railway Station and being a stranger in this part of England, Hasib Hussain has tried to contact his fellow travellers but to no avail as they are dead. Hasib Hussain also opens up his rucksack and searches within it, and it is almost a certainty that there was no bomb inside the rucksack as homemade bombs are extremely unstable and any such treatment would certainly have caused a detonation. Mind you, for a terrorist attack, the detonation of such a bomb at the entrance of Kings Cross Station would have been more successful than the explosion of the bomb on a bus at Tavistock Square. Now this belief that homemade bombs are extremely unstable is not just my belief:
Hugo Keith QC, counsel for the inquest, said: He spent a very significant amount of time rooting around in a rucksack containing a highly unstable cooled explosive.
Again, this tells us that Hasib Hussain was not knowingly carrying a homemade bomb. Had Hasib Hussain been aware of the device he was supposedly carrying, he would never have opened his rucksack, let alone drop it on the ground, as either action could have triggered a detonation of the device. In simple words, Hasib Hussain was not carrying a bomb.
So lets go back to the times that Hasib Hussain has endeavoured to contact his dead co-conspirators via his mobile telephone, that is between, 8.58am and 9.19am. We are already aware that Hasib Hussain has been evacuated from the Kings Cross Railway Station.

Timeline


8.54am: Hasib Hussain first appears on CCTV video outside Kings Cross Station
8.58am: he must make his first mobile telephone call to the dead.
9.am: he drops his rucksack onto the ground in the doorway of WH Smiths, and starts searching through the contents of the rucksack.
9.02.30am: Hasib Hussain finalises his search through his rucksack.


After adjusting the straps as he placed it back on his shoulders, Hussain walked into WH smiths and purchased a single Duracel plus 9 volt battery, at a cost of 4.49 In the shops footage he was seen handing over a 5 note to the cashier, who was oblivious to its later deadly use.
Are we supposed to be stupid? Hasib Hussain paid 4.95 for a Durocel plus 9 volt battery? Not really. How about the fact that since Hasib Hussain has been unable to contact his mates, that he suspects that his mobile phone is out of credit and so he purchases some credits for his phone?
At 9.07am, Hussain dived into a nearby McDonalds emerging eight minutes later. (9.15am)
And Hasib Hussain still has four minutes to go until he stops trying to contact his three other co-conspirators who, as per the government theory, Hasib knows are already dead because of the Kings Cross railway Station evacuation.
So, what happened between 9.15am and 9.22am? We know that Hasib Hussain is a stranger to London. We know that he has certain instructions to follow, in either theory, be he a suicide-bomber as per the government or a patsy as per the opposing belief. We are also aware that the initial train that the four supposed bombers were to catch did not run on the day and that other trains were delayed making the government theory in regard to the other three suicide-bombers an actual impossibility.
It was these train schedules that were interrupted that would have also confused Hasib Hussain in that he couldnt catch his train from Kings Cross Station to Euston Square Station, and then board the Route 30 bus at Euston Square. This results in Hasib Hussain loitering at Kings Cross Station, trying to contact his co-conspirators in an effort to find out what he now has to do. We know his last effort to contact his co-conspirators was at 9.19am, which was still unsuccessful, so what happened next to explain this?
The last pictures of Hussain were at 9.22am as he walked past Burger King and Barclays Bank, still on only a few metres from Kings Cross He stepped onto the Route 91 bus which soon parked in Euston Square, before boarding the Route 30, alongside scores of innocent passengers.
So something occurred that put Hasib Hussain back on track to allow the final bomb attack to take place. This event occurred between 9.19am and 9.22am, when Hasib Hussain started to make definite acts towards the final bombing event. Did Hasib Hussain receive a telephone call on his mobile telephone, perhaps from somebody from Visor Consultants, or was it somebody like a Richard Jones, actually speaking personally to Hasib Hussain to direct him in the right direction?
There are now three items I would like to touch upon. The first is:
Hugo Keith QC counsel to the inquest, said: He was plainly trying to contact them to see whether or not they had carried out their act. Det Serg Mark Stuart, in charge of telecommunications, said: It would appear so, sir.
Now this question and answer is in regard to Hasib Hussains actions after he was evacuated from Kings Cross Railway Station, and it is obvious the Hugo Keith QC has made a presumption of which there two possible answers. If Hasib Hussain was on an actual terrorist action, then the fact that the public were being evacuated from Kings Cross Station would have been a sufficient indicator that the terrorist actions had been completed, and thus there would have been no reason to endeavour to contact the suicide-bombers as they would all be dead.
However, if it was supposedly a drill as per the Visor Consultants plan, then it would be perfectly normal for Hasib Hussain to believe that his three co-conspirators were still alive and able to answer their mobile telephones.
As for Det Sgt Mark Stuarts reply, it is only a belief and there has been no evidence that can support such a belief. Furthermore there is no evidence that this witness is an expert in terrorist mindset, as he is only O.C. telecommunications. Only an expert can give an opinion, and only within his area of expertise.
The second Item I wish to touch upon is:
May we presume during that time that he put the battery he purchased into the bomb? asked Mr Keith. Absolutely, replied Det Insp Ewan Kindness, who was responsible for accumulating the CCTV footage.
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HH-at-KsX.jpg (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HH-at-KsX.jpg)Hasib Hussain at King's Cross

Have you ever heard of putting the horse before the cart? All the CCTV footage shows Hasib Hussain searching through his rucksack, which is claimed to be holding a homemade bomb, closing the rucksack, and then putting the rucksack back upon his shoulders and then purchasing the battery. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the rucksack was then removed from Hasib Hussains shoulders, opened and the purchased battery being fitted to a bomb.
Again, there is no evidence that Det Insp Ewan Kindness is a bomb expert, and so he is not competent to answer this question.
And Finally, is it suggested that the bombs carried by these so-called suicide-bombers were deficient in that they needed to fit batteries to the bombs they carried before they were able to detonate them? Is there any evidence that the other suicide-bombers also were required to purchase batteries so as to activate their bombs. Is there any evidence to demonstrate that this teenager was a competent bomb maker in that he was able to deduce that his bomb wasnt working due to a faulty battery, and so bought a replacement battery, but was never seen to attach that battery to a bomb?
Please, this line is absolutely ludicrous. However, there is also this line:
Police believe he (Hussain) was supposed to detonate his bomb on the Northern line, but was thwarted by delays on the line and a problem with his explosives.
Exactly what or who is meant by the name, Police? That the bomb Hasib Hussain was purported to have been carrying was supposed to have exploded on the Northern line is irrelevant simply because the explosion took place on a Route 30 bus. Again, the supposed problem with his explosives is seen to be supported by the purchase of the Duracel 9 volt battery.
Alright; just for one moment, let us consider that Hasib Hussain has determined that he has a problem with the bomb that he was supposedly carrying in his rucksack. Just how would have Hussain determined that he had such a problem? There is only one method that Hussain would have used to determine that his bomb was faulty. The only way that Hasib Hussain would have found out that his bomb was faulty was if he had tried to detonate that bomb, and the only place he could have tried to detonate that bomb was in Kings Cross Station. If the problem with this supposed bomb had been a battery, and Hasib Hussain determined that, then he would have purchased the required battery as alleged, and then immediately detonated the bomb as required.
The actual fact that after purchasing the Duracel battery, there is no hint at all that Hasib Hussain even tried to place the battery in the bomb he was supposedly carrying in his rucksack can only mean that there was no bomb, there was no problem with the bomb, and the Police beliefs are not factual.
The third item I would like to address is this:
The bus (Route 30) bore an advertising poster for The Descent, a horror film about a caving expedition which went disastrously wrong It was this advert that made it easier for the Met Police team reconstructing the journey to track the buss final movements before Hussain detonated his bomb. As it crossed Euston Road into Upper Woburn Place, heading towards Tavistock Square, CCTV from other buses showed its last moments A camera on the upper deck of a busy Route 59 travelling in front of the No 30 showed people clambering on board, again oblivious to the horror which was about to unfold . One couple, who were standing, laughed and chatted as they sipped their take-away coffees . The horror on their faces was instant as the bus behind them exploded, ultimately killing 13 people.
Was this adverting poster for The Descent on the Route 30 bus meant to be a sign for Hasib Hussain to identify the actual bus that he was to board? Forget about the talk the Met Police used this advert to make it easier to track the buss final movements as the police already had the CCTV from the Route 59 bus in front of the Route 30 bus.
Again we are aware that the Route 30 bus had been redirected away from its original route, which again simply means that whatever authority caused this and any other buses to be redirected would also have been in place to assist the Met Police with their investigation, though I doubt if the police will be advertising that assistance.
And of course there will be no mention whatsoever of the former Head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, and his article in the Jerusalem Post on the 7th of July 2005, that had been mostly written prior to the event, and his specific mention of Russell Square which is adjacent to Tavistock Square, and the First Prime Minister of Israel, Dr Chaim Weizmann, nor would there be any mention of the non-warning that the Israeli Financial Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu received prior to the actual bombing on the day.
And of course there will be no mention of the witness Richard Jones who stated that he had been on the bus, and seated next to the bomber, and was the first and only witness to state that the bomber was wearing a rucksack. It was only because of what Richard Jones stated in regard to the rucksack that the police were able to confine their search for men carrying rucksacks, and that the bombers were actually suicide-bombers.http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/RichardJones.jpg (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/RichardJones.jpg)
But Richard Jones was a far more important player than what our media have told us. Richard Jones had stood in a queue with Hasib Hussain, boarded the Route 30 bus at the same time, and whilst claiming that he was seated next to the suicide-bomber was actually seated in the bottom section of the bus whilst Hasib Hussain was seated upstairs. But of most importance was the claim by Richard Jones that what annoyed him so much that he had to get off the bus was the fact that Hasib Hussain was continually fidgeting with his rucksack.
Two girls were reported (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161924,00.html) as witnessing Hasib Hussain blowing up, saying that this guy came in and sat down and that he exploded. (The girls were being treated for shock at University College Hospital: were not told whereabouts they had been, only that they were involved in the bus bomb.) The girls totally missed the rucksack. The perpetrators couldnt rely on normal witnesses to convey their required message. That is why Richard Jones had to drip-feed the media with the story of the suicide-bomber carrying a rucksack.
The first thing we realise from Richard Jones statements to the media is that he was an Intelligence Officer, with the task of being the Professional witness. The second thing we realise from Richard Jones statements is that he was also Hasib Hussains Minder, that is an Intelligence Officer whose job it is to see the patsy gets to the right place at the right time. The third and final task that Richard Jones would have been required to do was, once everything was in the right place, to detonate the bomb in the bus, because believe me, MI5 would never have trusted the likes of Hasib Hussain to carry their bomb for them.
Now do you understand why there is so much CCTV footage no longer available to the general public? The footage would also feature Richard Jones just where he was not supposed to be.
Why am I reminded of the Lusitania, and the Sea Lord, Winston Churchill?
8/11/2010
.
There is one other article of his (http://100777.com/node/1547) relevant, which evaluates the role of Richard Jones on the 30 bus in Tavistock Square, as possibly being HHs minder.
He has also commented upon Halevis foreknowledge of the 7/7 event, (http://www.coffinman.co.uk/who_rules_the_world.htm) as shown by the use of the word yesterday in his Jerusalem Post article, published on the afternoon of 7/7: yesterdays attacks upon..

Peter Presland
11-15-2010, 08:10 AM
The Irish High Court (http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/131110-court-complicit-77-coverup-%E2%80%94-muaddib-extradition-approved-irelands-highest-court) has finally rejected Muad'Dib's appeal against extradition to the UK on allegations of attempting to pervert the course of Justice. (note the customary Orwellian Inversion of meaning).

This guy had sent 20 copies of his "Ripple Effect" DVD in a single package and addressed to the Clerk of the Court, requesting that both the judge and jurors watch it as evidence in support of the alleged accomplices to the 7-7 bombing perpetrators during their trial. All the UK MSM alledge - shock-horror - he had sent the DVD's to individual jurors in an attempt to subvert their consideration of properly presented evidence. He is already guilty in their eyes.

He has already spent 3 months in prison in Ireland - plus a couple of years on remand with onerous conditions. There is little doubt he can now look forward to further time in prison.

BTW thanks to Jim Fetzer on this who published details on his US blog before anyone in the UK!

Paul Rigby
11-15-2010, 07:00 PM
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
11-15-2010, 08:24 PM
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
11-15-2010, 08:45 PM
Fascinating thread. Such a crock of lies.

Peter Presland
11-17-2010, 09:22 AM
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 (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/11/10/j7-as-totally-clueless-shock/) 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 (http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/77-inquests-open-justice-or-no-justice.html) 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 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gGFc8JwBKLoe6si-xxiVAeBk3XLg?docId=B2921011289572723A00)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 (http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/25022010pm.htm)] ) - 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 (http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2008/12/release-evidence-petition-update.html) after another (http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-miscarriage-of-justice-averted.html):
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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11721640)
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1667079,00.html) 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 UKs 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 (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented? (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269860/July-7-ringleaders-fingerprints-held-years-attacks-just-discovered-police.html)

"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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11721640)
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8107791/July-7-inquest-MI5-forced-to-answer-questions-in-front-of-families.html)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 (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/). 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 (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/the-fate-of-khan/)is particularly rich in its potential to flatten the official narrative - but it is only one of many.

Magda Hassan
11-17-2010, 09:51 AM
Peter, why are the bombers families not represented?

Peter Presland
11-17-2010, 10:03 AM
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
11-17-2010, 10:08 AM
Source: Intelligence and Security Committee (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented? (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/210852/20090519_77review.pdf)
[/INDENT]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.
[INDENT]
Source: Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269860/July-7-ringleaders-fingerprints-held-years-attacks-just-discovered-police.html)

Am I missing something or are the police trying to suggest that their large collection of fingerprints isn't centrally digitized (as in the central fingerprint database IDENT1 using the Automated Fingerprint Identification System AFIS search engine housed and maintained by the NPIA)?

The picture presented in my bolded section of the foregoing article creates the impression that after the call from the Yard, some junior forensic assistant had to visit the cellars and dust down cardboard boxes and then manually search them alphabetically for the letter "k" for "Khan" before mouthing the word "bingo! and dashing back upstairs to his Guv'nor, his smile suitably gleaming"?

The reality would be that the Yard simply queried the IDENT1 database from their own in-Yard computer terminals and the word "bingo!" appears on screen - along with a voucher for five pints of lager and a bag of pork scratchings at the local pub.

David Guyatt
11-22-2010, 03:51 PM
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
11-22-2010, 08:13 PM
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
11-22-2010, 10:17 PM
More illogical weirdness at the Inquest:


Monday, November 22, 2010

The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/conspirators-and-conspiracy-phones.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?

Paul Rigby
12-03-2010, 07:47 PM
...a patsy to a piece of deep state terrorism


Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammed Sidique Khan was identified on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road.

In much the same way as Shehzad Tanweer apparently all but 'disintegrated' on the Aldgate train a similar story emerged in relation to Khan.

Apart from Danny Biddle, whose testimony we analysed here, none of the 23 passengers from carriage 2, that gave testimony or had statements read to the Inquests, mentioned seeing Khan. Despite many having been on the train for the five stops between King's Cross and Edgware Road, Khan wasn't seen. Nor was there any mention of an Asian man wearing a white baseball cap sitting in seat 27.

The Inquests were shown a diagram of the probable positions of passengers before the explosion which strangely has Khan sitting alone in a bank of four seats:

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/identification-of-mohammed-sidique-khan.html

David Guyatt
12-04-2010, 10:10 AM
...a patsy to a piece of deep state terrorism


Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammed Sidique Khan was identified on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road.

In much the same way as Shehzad Tanweer apparently all but 'disintegrated' on the Aldgate train a similar story emerged in relation to Khan.

Apart from Danny Biddle, whose testimony we analysed here, none of the 23 passengers from carriage 2, that gave testimony or had statements read to the Inquests, mentioned seeing Khan. Despite many having been on the train for the five stops between King's Cross and Edgware Road, Khan wasn't seen. Nor was there any mention of an Asian man wearing a white baseball cap sitting in seat 27.

The Inquests were shown a diagram of the probable positions of passengers before the explosion which strangely has Khan sitting alone in a bank of four seats:

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/identification-of-mohammed-sidique-khan.html

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXeGqaAw8Nrm_TX88RBtnUBee7Os-_cyIJfrYAU0s9xzlsJF9E

Someone must have seen them...

Peter Presland
12-04-2010, 10:32 AM
...a patsy to a piece of deep state terrorism


Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammed Sidique Khan was identified on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road.

In much the same way as Shehzad Tanweer apparently all but 'disintegrated' on the Aldgate train a similar story emerged in relation to Khan.

Apart from Danny Biddle, whose testimony we analysed here, none of the 23 passengers from carriage 2, that gave testimony or had statements read to the Inquests, mentioned seeing Khan. Despite many having been on the train for the five stops between King's Cross and Edgware Road, Khan wasn't seen. Nor was there any mention of an Asian man wearing a white baseball cap sitting in seat 27.

The Inquests were shown a diagram of the probable positions of passengers before the explosion which strangely has Khan sitting alone in a bank of four seats:

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/identification-of-mohammed-sidique-khan.html
Paul - all

I had quite a little spat with Bridget Dunne on Nick Kollerstrom's blog here (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/11/10/j7-as-totally-clueless-shock/) a couple of weeks ago. It made me take care in preparing a comment for the piece you excerpt above, the burden of which was that, in spite of our spat, to thank her for her impressive analysis and to ask if she agreed that it had finally tipped the balance of probability in favour of the explosions having been caused by something other than "4 suicide bombers" for her.

When I came to post the comment I found I wasn't signed in to blogger so, without thinking, I auto-signed in though my own blog on another tab then refreshed the comment page tab. BANG ! - carefully prepared comment vanished. Couldn't summon the energy to redo it.

It's a long post but anyone reading it all - together with several other analyses of the earlier Inquest evidence sessions on both the J7 and NK's blogs can be left in little if any doubt that there were no suicide bombers in London on 7 July 2005; Patsies? - maybe - determined homegrown murderous suicide bombers? With similar probabilitiy to the moon being made of green cheese.

The diagrams supplied by the Met; the data from London Transport automated reporting systems; the evidence about operational and personal phones; consistent evidence about the number of dead bodies at each location from both the police and others - and a host of other damning details really do blow the official narrative away.

It is little wonder that our shiny new Coalition are furiously backpedaling in their pre-election commitment to a proper inquiry. It's pretty clear that they will have very serious problems fixing even a "Proper" Inquiry.

David Guyatt
12-04-2010, 11:25 AM
Peter, I wonder if her so very defensive behaviour is motivated by a fear that you might be an agent provocateur for HM spooks? Just a passing thought.

But on the broader point you make, I agree that the official 7/7 narrative is completely buggered.

Peter Presland
12-04-2010, 01:29 PM
Peter, I wonder if her so very defensive behaviour is motivated by a fear that you might be an agent provocateur for HM spooks? Just a passing thought.

But on the broader point you make, I agree that the official 7/7 narrative is completely buggered.
"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us" eh?

Never thought of that.

I guess, from A N Other's perspective I could be. Spooky!

I reckon the subject would make for a good thread. How can any of us be sure that anyone here is not working for the Spooks?

David Guyatt
12-04-2010, 02:23 PM
I'm not. :dontknow::angel::questionmark:

Magda Hassan
12-04-2010, 02:36 PM
Been having a chat today about Assange and Wikileaks with a friend whose dad was 'in that line of work'. His dad referred to that 'community' as the secret squirrel 'community' and said they were all idiots. Been laughing all day at that.

Magda Hassan
12-04-2010, 02:37 PM
A bit off topic sorry. :goodnight:

Peter Lemkin
12-04-2010, 03:20 PM
I'm not. :dontknow::angel::questionmark:

If I am I want my long overdue back pay [and flashy women and cars a la Bond 007]! [No Gareth Williams North Face Bags, Please!]

But seriously, it seems to me while both the 911 Truth and 7-7 Truth movements have had a hard time due to official opposition; MSM blackout and the 'average Joe and Jane's' incredulity that their own loverly Nation could do such a thing......it seems to me that the 7/7 affair, being smaller and easier, IMO, to prove the lie would be the place to put the lever and apply pressure...for if it opened up and the Big Lie were exposed, the larger [on all levels] Bigger Lie of 9-11 would fall like a house of cards....

Magda Hassan
12-04-2010, 11:50 PM
Back pay with interest. :beerglass:

You are right Peter that 7/7 is smaller and perhaps easier to expose. A weaker link in the chain. Some very pertinent things have already been exposed. These need to get more traction.

David Guyatt
01-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Whoops...

PII = Public Interest Immunity submission made by a minister of state arguing that disclosure of certain information would be damaging to the public interest (i.e., layered British mandarin-speak for the "state").

Security forces = military intelligence --- possibly the forerunner unit of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the "14 Det" or "14 Int" (14 Field Security and Intelligence Company), which are thought in some quarters to have a long and ugly history in false flag operations. All members of the force retain a right of immunity from prosecution.

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/21122010am.htm


21 December 2010 - Morning session

1 Tuesday, 21 December 2010
2 (10.00 am)
3 Directions hearing re PII
4 (In open session)
5 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr O'Connor?
6 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Good morning, my Lady.
7 My Lady, there is one main item on this morning's
8 agenda and that is for you to hear submissions on
9 a PII hearing that has been made by the Secretary
10 of State for the Home Department, Mr Garnham is
11 here to address you on that.
12 There are, I imagine, also a number of other
13 ancillary matters that the Bar may wish to raise,
14 relating to outstanding directions and so on.
15 My Lady, we think that insofar as the PII
16 claim is concerned, the logical order of things
17 would be for you to have an open hearing now, so
18 that you can hear submissions from Mr Garnham and
19 from those acting for the other interested
20 persons about the general principles that are to
21 be applied.
22 Once you have heard submissions on those, you
23 will then need to go into a closed session to
24 hear more detailed submissions. My Lady, the
25 question of whether you hear submissions on the

1

1 other ancillary matters at the same time as the
2 open submissions on the PII claim or whether you
3 think it more appropriate to hear open
4 submissions on the PII claimed, then closed
5 submissions, then come back for another open
6 hearing to hear any other matters, my Lady, is
7 really a matter for you.
8 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: What is the present
9 estimate for the length of time the closed
10 hearing will take, and how long will we be
11 keeping Ms Gallagher -- who I gather has had to
12 step into the breach -- and others waiting, if we
13 go open, closed, open?
14 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Mr Garnham is saying two
15 hours.
16 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Well, I am not going
17 to keep them hanging around for two hours, so
18 let's do everything open that we can, whilst we
19 are in open session, and then go into closed.
20 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, yes.
21 Perhaps, then, I think really it's probably
22 for Mr Garnham to make his submissions on the PII
23 claim, and perhaps those others here can make
24 their submissions in response to the PII claim
25 and any other ancillary matters they wish.

2

1 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Very well. Yes,
2 Mr Garnham?
3 MR GARNHAM: My Lady, as you know, this is my
4 application to order from this court that the
5 material contained in what has been called
6 bundle A is protected from disclosure to both the
7 PIPs and the public, as a result of public
8 interest immunity.
9 As Mr O'Connor has indicated, it is
10 anticipated you will hear opening submissions
11 from all of us now and then there will be closed
12 submissions from me subsequently.
13 You, my Lady, and all of my learned friends
14 have seen the certificate signed by Theresa May,
15 the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
16 The certificate speaks for itself, and I don't
17 propose to read it all out, but this is a public
18 hearing and I ought, perhaps, to summarise the
19 effect of what the Home Secretary says.
20 The Secretary of State refers to documents
21 contained in what she calls bundle A. The nature
22 of those documents cannot be described in open
23 session without damaging the very interests this
24 application seeks to protect.
25 You will see that the bundle contains

3

1 information falling into three loose categories.
2 First, material you have identified as relevant
3 through your counsel; secondly, information which
4 those advising the Secretary of State believe is
5 likely to become relevant; thirdly, information
6 potentially relevant to the issue whether you can
7 properly and fairly make any ruling on particular
8 subissues.
9 I should make it clear, my Lady, that I will
10 not be inviting you in open or closed sessions
11 today to make any ruling or give any indication
12 one way or the other about that latter matter.
13 Whether that would be appropriate, in fact, will
14 be for another occasion. But information that
15 may be relevant to that issue is a part --
16 a relatively small part, but a part
17 nonetheless -- of what I propose showing you in
18 closed, and we took the view that it was right
19 that the existence of such potentially relevant
20 material -- reference to it should be made
21 openly.
22 The Secretary of State makes clear in
23 paragraph 6.1 of her certificate that attempts
24 have been made to agree a gist -- in other words,
25 a summary -- of the information contained in the

4

1 closed material that could be made public without
2 damaging national security.
3 At the time of the certificate, those
4 attempts have not been successful. I can tell
5 your Ladyship that those efforts have continued
6 and I will be able to tell you in closed where
7 they have got to. If a gist can be agreed which
8 meets with the court's approval, that, of course,
9 would then be made public and made available to
10 the PIPs.
11 The Secretary of State sets out in the
12 certificate the approach she has taken following
13 the House of Lords' decision in R v H and the
14 Divisional Court's decision in Binyam Mohamed.
15 She identifies a three-stage test. Put
16 shortly, first, relevance; secondly, does it
17 attract PII in principle; and, thirdly, the
18 balancing exercise. My Lady, largely familiar
19 stuff, save in one respect. The one, somewhat
20 novel issue is how the balance should be struck,
21 or conducted, in the case of an inquest.
22 Self-evidently, we would submit, it is not
23 precisely the same issue that arises in
24 proceedings in the usual criminal or civil
25 proceedings that most of us are more familiar

5

1 with. The Secretary of State sets out the advice
2 that we have given her, which she explains that
3 she has followed, and that is in paragraph 12.
4 In essence, she has accepted advice that the
5 balance here should be between the interests of
6 national security, on the one hand, and, on the
7 other, the public interest in this being an open
8 and effective inquiry, which inquiry pursues the
9 objectives of an inquest identified in what we
10 would submit is the most authoritative statement
11 from the House of Lords in the speech of
12 Lord Bingham in the Amin case.
13 It perhaps is right that I read the relevant
14 quotation, because it sets in context all that
15 follows. This is from paragraph 12 of the
16 certificate, from Amin:
17 "In this country, effect has been given to
18 the duty to investigate for centuries by
19 requiring such deaths to be publicly investigated
20 before an independent judicial tribunal with an
21 opportunity for the relatives of the deceased to
22 participate. The purposes of such an
23 investigation are clear: to ensure, so far as
24 possible, that the full facts are brought to
25 light, that culpable and discreditable conduct is

6

1 exposed and brought to public notice, that
2 suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing, if
3 unjustified, is allayed, that dangerous practices
4 and procedures are rectified and that those who
5 have lost their relatives may at least have the
6 satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from
7 his death may save the lives of others."
8 Our submission is that that is the correct
9 approach to the public interest in open
10 proceedings' side of the balance.
11 The Secretary of State then explains that she
12 has personally examined the documents and
13 satisfied herself that they attract PII. She
14 then sets out in general terms, deliberately
15 general terms, the reasons she says that PII
16 applies -- that's in paragraphs 13 and 17 --
17 those amount to the familiar descriptions of why
18 documents may create a risk to national security.
19 In essence, she says that their disclosure
20 would damage national security. As you will
21 appreciate, my Lady, it's not possible for me to
22 say, nor for her to say in her certificate in
23 open surroundings, which of those categories the
24 material in bundle A relates to, because doing so
25 would itself cause damage to national security.

7

1 The detail, however, is set out in a schedule to
2 the certificate, which has been disclosed to you,
3 my Lady, and to your counsel, but not to the
4 properly interested persons.
5 The Secretary of State then describes the
6 balancing exercise she has performed and gives
7 her opinion that the material ought not to be
8 disclosed. In paragraph 21 of that certificate,
9 she acknowledges that the final decision is not
10 hers, but yours and, my Lady, you will have seen
11 that she has said at paragraph 8 that she has
12 made the certificate for the purpose of assisting
13 the court in coming to this decision in PII.
14 My Lady, I think that is all I need to say in
15 open.
16 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much.
17 Ms Gallagher, are there any submissions you wish
18 to make at this stage?
19 MS GALLAGHER: Yes, just to ensure I'm on the
20 correct microphone?
21 Could I just begin by apologising for
22 Mr Patrick O'Connor, Queen's Counsel's, absence.
23 He was taken ill this morning, so I'm appearing
24 and making these submissions very much in
25 understudy role, although, of course, as you are

8

1 aware, there is also Mr Patterson, so there are
2 two of us representing the bereaved families
3 before you here today.
4 What I intend to do is very briefly make some
5 general observations in relation to the
6 applicable principles and then make some general
7 observations in relation to the certificate
8 itself.
9 I will be brief, as is inevitable, because
10 my Lady, of course the decision on PII, as is
11 recognised by the Home Secretary in paragraph 21
12 of the certificate, and by Mr Garnham QC in his
13 submissions just now, is in your hands and, of
14 course, post-Wiley, it is evident that striking
15 the balance is going to depend very much on the
16 specific context of bundle A. Me, myself, and
17 Mr Patterson and the other interested parties not
18 involved in the closed proceedings have seen the
19 context, so we are disabled from making effective
20 representations under the Wiley test; all we can
21 do is make these general observations.
22 Could I start firstly by just dealing with
23 what the issue of presumption is in this context?
24 We agree with Mr Garnham that, in the inquest
25 context, the balance that you need to strike is

9

1 not necessarily the same as the balance you will
2 strike in a criminal context. This relates to
3 the issue he raised at paragraph 12 of the
4 certificate, quoting from Lord Bingham. However
5 we would say that the presumption in favour of
6 disclosure in an inquest context is a strong one
7 and it's not equivalent to civil proceeding. It
8 is well known that the presumption in favour of
9 disclosure in a criminal context is more emphatic
10 than in a civil context where ultimate risk is
11 failure of a potential private claim.
12 In this particular context, there is a number
13 of reasons why we say there is a strong
14 presumption in favour of disclosure.
15 The first is a general one which simply is
16 echoing what Lord Bingham said in the context of
17 Article 2 in the Amin case, that one of the
18 principle purposes of an inquest is, of course,
19 to assuage public anxiety and hold those
20 responsible to account. That's an argument, in
21 our submission, for there to be a greater need
22 for public scrutiny than there may be in other
23 civil contexts. There are also some issues very
24 specific to this case, which we have raised, and
25 three in particular.

10

1 Firstly, my Lady, we would refer to
2 paragraph 111 of your ruling of May 2010. I
3 don't intend to go to it in any great detail, but
4 that's the paragraph, my Lady, where you make
5 clear that an inquest isn't limited to being the
6 last link in the chain, and the new events in the
7 spring of 2004 and in the wider lead-up to 2005
8 may be relevant and, quoting from you, because we
9 now know two of those to do with the police have
10 attributed responsibility for the bombings were
11 not only on MI5's radar but were seen with
12 a terrorist and a known bomb expert.
13 If that is correct, to my mind that seems far
14 from remote. I am satisfied that to embark on
15 a consideration of the bombers' backgrounds to
16 this extent, if it proves possible, would be in
17 accordance with my duty to ensure that the
18 details of the catastrophic events of 7 July 2005
19 are to adopt the term employed in Jamieson
20 "fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated" and
21 that, of course, was your current intention at
22 the time, if proved possible.
23 Secondly, we would emphasise the importance
24 of the preventability issue to the bereaved
25 families. We noted in April that, amongst those

11

1 who responded to Dr Reid's questionnaire, the top
2 three issues which were identified as requiring
3 investigation at that stage were interrelated and
4 all related to reasonable preventability by state
5 agencies.
6 They were, my Lady, number one, level of
7 intelligence or knowledge of pre-attack; number
8 two, possible prevention of an attack; number
9 three, failings and accountability of the state.
10 The importance of that issue to the families
11 has been echoed since then. As we know, at the
12 April hearing, and continuing until today, there
13 has been unanimity from the bereaved families in
14 terms of the importance of that issue, and that
15 is a very powerful factor.
16 The third factor we would highlight is the
17 wider -- again, using your phrase from the
18 judgment in May, albeit in a slightly different
19 context -- obviously, it is a judgment of public
20 interest beyond the bereaved families themselves
21 in this issue being fully and appropriately
22 investigated.
23 So for all those reasons, my Lady, we would
24 say there is a strong presumption in favour of
25 disclosure.

12

1 There's two other general matters which I
2 would note. I'm not going to, for obvious
3 reasons, go through Wiley and what the relevant
4 factors are, but we would draw your attention to
5 the decision of Silber J in the High Court in
6 June of this year. I do have copies of it. It's
7 just a small point. It's simply the reference
8 that was made to the test on public interest
9 immunity being best supplied at the end of the
10 disclosure exercise.
11 We are very conscious in this case that,
12 because of disclosure being a rolling process,
13 a decision on bundle A is potentially being made
14 now before the disclosure process has been
15 completed and that obviously makes it more
16 difficult for Mr Patterson and I and the other
17 bereaved families to make full submissions. We
18 find it difficult to make full submissions
19 anyway, given how general the information in the
20 certificate is, but in the absence of further
21 disclosure, we are also restricted somewhat. So
22 we just echo what was said by Silber J in that
23 case. I do have copies, if needed.
24 We would also draw your attention to the case
25 of Orr v Kenneth Johnson where the Court of

13

1 Appeal set out what the minimum evidential
2 requirements were for PII in an observation-type
3 case, and that was in a criminal context.
4 We, of course, don't know how much, if any,
5 of bundle A relates to observation-type issues,
6 but again we would think that may be relevant to
7 your consideration. I do have copies of the
8 judgment and also there's a brief summary at
9 Archbold paragraphs 12 and 37. Again, I can make
10 that available, if it's of relevance.
11 My Lady, could I also make just a number of
12 brief observations in respect of the certificate
13 itself. Mr Garnham said that the certificate
14 speaks for itself and, of course, to a certain
15 extent that's true, but for those of us outside
16 the closed process, it stills remains
17 a relatively impenetrable document.
18 We recognise the inevitability of that, at
19 this stage, so we are not making any criticism,
20 but we must note it, simply because it's
21 difficult for us to make meaningful submissions
22 in that context.
23 There's numerous headings of national
24 security interest which are given that are
25 described in relatively vague terms and it's

14

1 quite difficult for us to engage in any
2 meaningful way, given that context, my Lady.
3 We would note that from the certificate it
4 doesn't appear that any reference is made to
5 whether any of the material in bundle A is
6 already within the public domain. We would
7 assume it isn't, but of course, a highly relevant
8 factor will be whether any of this material was
9 touched upon in Crevice or Theseus or elsewhere
10 and it is not clear from the face of the document
11 that that is the case.
12 We do also note there is a reference at
13 page 6, paragraph 15A, the security forces -- as
14 distinct from the Security Services -- and we
15 were unclear whether that was a typographical
16 error or deliberate, but again, we were surprised
17 to see the reference to security forces in this,
18 and we simply note that.
19 My Lady, we recognise it is a matter for you
20 and we are very much in your hands. We emphasise
21 the presumption in favour of disclosure, the
22 importance to all the families of ensuring that
23 this issue is fully, fairly and fearlessly
24 investigated, and we hope that our submissions
25 can be borne fully in mind when you consider this

15

1 issue.
2 Unless I can assist you further, my Lady?
3 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: No. Very helpful
4 indeed. Thank you very much. Mr Patterson?
5 MR PATTERSON: My Lady, may I echo what has
6 been said by Ms Gallagher and, in summary, the
7 essential points I would make are, first, when it
8 comes to the ex parte Wiley balancing exercise
9 I know that the families that I represent, and
10 I'm confident that those represented by other
11 counsel not present today, would agree that we
12 have absolute confidence in your Ladyship,
13 assisted by your team of counsel, and we are very
14 grateful for the hard work that has been clearly
15 put into this exercise already. We've absolute
16 confidence in the striking of the balance in the
17 right place.
18 The families that I represent simply want
19 proper answers to the questions that you listed
20 in that list of factual issues some six months
21 ago and sometimes it is the case that, with the
22 passage of time, the acute desire for an answer
23 diminishes, but for many of the families, as has
24 been said, preventability is the big issue and
25 I know that they are keen to embark upon that

16

1 exercise with your Ladyship in six weeks or so.
2 The coronial process has had an impact
3 already in a whole host of respects. Your
4 Ladyship has inquired very thoroughly and very
5 robustly into issues already, such as possible
6 delays, protocols that may have hampered the
7 emergency responders on the day, and we are
8 confident that the exercise, in terms of
9 preventability, will be as thorough and robust,
10 not only in ensuring transparency and
11 accountability for those who are entrusted with
12 protecting national security and the safety of
13 the public, but also in terms of identifying
14 lessons to be learned.
15 The threat from terrorism, as we see, sadly,
16 in the papers most days, is as pressing as ever.
17 Your Ladyship plays a very important role on
18 behalf of the public, so yes, it is not
19 a criminal prosecution and, yes, the liberty of
20 the individual isn't at stake in that respect,
21 however the competing public interests are such
22 that there is a very pressing need for your
23 Ladyship to enquire thoroughly into what went on
24 and to ensure that the questions listed in the
25 factual issues are fully and fearlessly

17

1 investigated.
2 That's all I say, my Lady, in relation to the
3 certificate.
4 In terms of the timeliness of disclosure,
5 your Ladyship knows there are a lot of people
6 eager to get started on the exercise and we all
7 have competing demands in January in other
8 issues. Unless I can assist further, those are
9 my submissions.
10 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much
11 indeed, Mr Patterson.
12 Right, Mr O'Connor, well I have the
13 submissions as far as the public interest
14 immunity is concerned. Are there any other
15 matters we can deal with in open court, or need
16 to deal with, which involve the other advocates?
17 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, as far as PII
18 is concerned, I think Mr Garnham may wish to
19 reply to some of the points made by my learned
20 friends. Before he does so, may I briefly make
21 some submissions on three points relating to PII.
22 We can then perhaps move to the ancillary points
23 and --
24 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: It seemed to me there
25 wasn't a great deal of conflict between people.

18

1 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: There wasn't. I don't
2 think there is a great deal, my Lady.
3 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: But there are nuances.
4 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: May I just make three
5 points?
6 The first, which is the point which has been
7 touched on by all of those that have spoken so
8 far is the question of how to approach and how to
9 formulate the considerations that you need to
10 take into account in performing the balancing
11 exercise, and in particular what goes into the
12 mix, as it were, on the open justice side of the
13 balance.
14 My Lady, we endorse the approach taken by
15 Mr Garnham and I think this is probably common
16 ground at a high level of generality that the
17 considerations are those referred to in
18 paragraph 12 of the certificate and the points
19 made by Lord Bingham in the Amin case.
20 Ms Gallagher says that those are strong
21 considerations in favour of openness and we would
22 also endorse that.
23 As far as her submission that they are
24 stronger considerations than the considerations
25 which apply in civil proceedings, we would submit

19

1 that it may be that there is little to be gained
2 from trying to establish some sort of rank here
3 as between criminal PII, civil PII and inquest
4 PII, when, as the case makes clear, the whole
5 process is fundamentally a fact-specific one and
6 different criminal cases will give rise to
7 different considerations of openness. The same
8 is true of civil proceedings and the same is
9 clearly true of inquest proceedings. So we
10 accept that they are strong considerations but we
11 would submit that really the matter needs to be
12 taken no further than that at this level of
13 principle.
14 My Lady, could I, for the second and third
15 points I want to make, ask you to turn to
16 paragraph 10 of the certificate?
17 You will see at paragraph 10 -- and
18 Mr Garnham has already taken you to this -- three
19 steps identified which are the conventional and
20 broad steps that any court needs to take when
21 considering a PII claim: first of all, relevance;
22 secondly, harm; thirdly, the balance.
23 May I add two factors for you to consider,
24 and they are factors which have been referred to
25 in the cases which Mr Garnham has referred to at

20

1 paragraph 9 -- or which are referred to at
2 paragraph 9 of the certificate. The first of
3 those two factors slots into the mix between (ii)
4 and (iii) and that is that if you are satisfied
5 that the material is relevant and, if you are
6 satisfied that disclosing it would cause harm,
7 you must then consider whether it is possible to
8 make limited disclosure of the information in
9 question without causing the harm that would be
10 caused by disclosing the material in its entirety
11 in open. There are at least two ways in which
12 that can be done.
13 The first is by gisting the material. That
14 is a process that Mr Garnham has already referred
15 to. The second is by making the material fully
16 disclosed, but by doing it in a process that is
17 less open than fully open proceedings.
18 My Lady, one matter of which we are now fully
19 informed is that under rule 17 of the
20 Coroner's Rules you have a power to conduct
21 proceedings in camera and there may be some
22 circumstances -- I put it no higher than that at
23 this stage -- whereby at least some of the harm
24 that would be caused by disclosing material that
25 has been made subject the claim of a PII would be

21

1 ameliorated simply by disclosing the material,
2 not in the full, normal way in public, but by
3 disclosing it within in camera proceedings.
4 So those are two different types of
5 procedures which would achieve the same end.
6 They are to be considered as part of this process
7 and we consider it very much part of our role to
8 have in mind the possibility of those two
9 things: first of all, attempting, as far as
10 possible, to gist the material so that the
11 interested persons can see it and, secondly,
12 always keeping in mind the consideration of
13 having proceedings that are less than fully
14 public, but which, as we now know, interested
15 persons can attend and see the material.
16 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As a last resort.
17 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Certainly a last resort
18 but one that is very much to be borne in mind
19 when these issues are in play.
20 My Lady, that was the first of the final two
21 points I wanted to make.
22 The second point, it may provide some sort of
23 answer to the issue raised by Ms Gallagher about
24 the observations of Silber J in the Al Rawi case
25 to the effect that disclosure or PII issues are

22

1 best dealt with at the end of the disclosure
2 process. My Lady, so far as Al Rawi is
3 concerned, you will know that was a case of
4 really exceptional difficulty when it came to
5 disclosure and it would be difficult to read too
6 much into an observation made in the very
7 particular factors of that case.
8 But a better answer, my Lady, may be found in
9 the case of R v H, which is one of the cases that
10 the certificate refers to at paragraph 9.
11 My Lady, I don't ask you to look at this case now
12 but, at paragraph 36 of that case, Lord Bingham
13 identified a number of steps that the court must
14 consider in analysing a PII claim, and the final
15 point he makes is that, if the answer, at the end
16 of the process, is that the PII claim is
17 essentially a good one and that the disclosure
18 cannot be made, the question the court must ask
19 itself is: does that remain the correct answer as
20 the trial unfolds, evidence is adduced and the
21 defence advanced?
22 It's important that the answer that the court
23 gives to the PII claim should not be treated as
24 final, once and for all -- should not be treated
25 as a final once and for all answer, but

23

1 a provisional answer which the court must keep
2 under view. My Lady, that applies no less in
3 these proceedings.
4 For reasons of convenience, you are asked to
5 determine the PII claim or hear submissions on it
6 today. Of course, that doesn't mean to say that
7 any answer you give will be a final answer. With
8 this claim, just as with any other, the matter
9 will be kept under review and the keeping of it
10 under review, again, is one of the functions that
11 we can perform as the process unfolds.
12 My Lady, those are the submissions I wish to
13 make, I'm grateful.
14 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr Garnham?
15 MR GARNHAM: There is only one matter upon
16 which I wish to make reply, my Lady and that
17 arises out of Ms Gallagher's submissions about
18 the existence of a presumption. We submit there
19 is no presumption on a PII certificate at all.
20 It's a question of properly identifying the
21 factors in the balance. Here, as Ms Gallagher
22 rightly acknowledges, the proper consideration is
23 an importance of an inquest in the Amin sense and
24 that is what you have to set against national
25 security considerations. There is no

24

1 presumption, we would submit, either in favour of
2 disclosure or in favour of national security.
3 It's a pure balancing exercise with those matters
4 in mind.
5 Lastly, we would respectfully agree with what
6 Mr Andrew O'Connor says about Al Rawi and that
7 the proper approach is not to put off the
8 decision, but to keep the result under review
9 whichever way it goes.
10 Thank you, my Lady.
11 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much.
12 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, may I now
13 return to the question you asked me about other
14 matters? The position -- and perhaps I can
15 explain, as everyone in court is aware, this has
16 been a long-running and not without difficulty
17 disclosure exercise. You have now conducted more
18 than one hearing. We are confident that
19 a tranche of disclosure will be made available to
20 the interested persons by way of Lextranet in the
21 next week or so -- and I apologise I can't be any
22 more precise than that, but that is the stage we
23 have reached -- but there are a number of pieces
24 of disclosure that will be being made
25 available: some redacted documents relating to

25

1 the Crevice inquiries, some further material
2 relating to Mr Gilbertson, we very much hope,
3 also, what is now a very extensive gist of the
4 minutes of the ELG meetings, and I can say that
5 the current draft of that gist runs to some 60 or
6 more pages.
7 That is to be -- there will also be further
8 disclosure from the Metropolitan Police, a lot of
9 the internal documents created during the course
10 of Operation Crevice and after. So those are the
11 matters that are very much in play. Christmas
12 has been treated as something of a deadline,
13 there are meetings that will take place later on
14 today, we are very much optimistic that
15 a quantity of that material will be made on
16 Lextranet towards the end of this week and that
17 is the position.
18 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr O'Connor, I know
19 a huge amount of work has been going on behind
20 the scenes and I'm very grateful for that work,
21 which has led us to a position of being able to
22 disclose as much information as possible before
23 Christmas.
24 Right, anything else we need to deal with in
25 open session? Ms Gallagher?

26

1 MS GALLAGHER: My Lady, can I deal briefly
2 with a number of matters?
3 The first issue is there is a PII scheduled
4 for 10 January. This may be our error, but we
5 are not aware of a timetabling place in terms of,
6 if there is a certificate, when it is to come, if
7 there is a particular date in January by which we
8 will get submissions from the Secretary of State.
9 It would be helpful to have an indication, if
10 that occurs over the Christmas break and helpful,
11 not only for my legal team, but other legal teams
12 who are affected during the Christmas break and
13 so on.
14 That is the first matter.
15 The second matter just relates to disclosure
16 and, could I just say, I think my Lady is aware
17 that there has been interaction between the legal
18 teams for the five legal teams for the bereaved
19 families and we are grateful for all the work
20 that has been done and we are very conscious that
21 the team has done a huge amount and made Trojan
22 efforts to make information available to us.
23 We are grateful for the indication
24 Mr O'Connor has given you about Christmas being
25 treated as something of a deadline. As was

27

1 alluded to by Mr Patterson, January is a very
2 busy month for those of us involved in
3 Tavistock Square and, also, immediately after
4 Tavistock Square we are going to be dealing with
5 other generic issues, and we've arrangements with
6 the Legal Services Commission, we've divided
7 those issues up between us. We all have quite
8 substantial responsibilities.
9 I accept, as was said on the last occasion,
10 that Mr O'Connor, QC, does not have those
11 commitments but of course he does have other
12 commitments. We are very grateful for the
13 indication that material is going to be made
14 available in the next week or so and any
15 criticism that has been made of slippage in the
16 timetable is certainly not a criticism of your
17 inquest team, we are very conscious how much work
18 has been going on behind the scenes and the
19 documents that have been referred to will be
20 extremely helpful.
21 Reference was made to further information by
22 Mr Gilbertson. We haven't received information
23 about Mr Gilbertson, but I assume that's
24 a reference to the statements. You know there
25 was some difficulty with disclosing the

28

1 statements with redactions and that has led to
2 some further behind-the-scenes work.
3 Then could I just deal very, very briefly
4 with some matters that came up in submissions
5 from Mr O'Connor and also from Mr Garnham. It
6 seems, as you indicated, my Lady, there's very
7 little between the parties for the open session
8 in respect of the principles to be applied. That
9 is plainly a terminology distinction, but that
10 terminology distinction is evident from the case
11 law too and, in the criminal context, you quite
12 often see references to presumption or the golden
13 rule and so on, but in reality, it's all talking
14 about, as Mr O'Connor and Mr Garnham have said,
15 a simple application of the balancing exercise.
16 There's just two issues which Mr O'Connor
17 referred to with which we respectfully agree and
18 I just wanted to raise those.
19 Firstly, in making the reference earlier to
20 the distinction between inquest proceedings,
21 criminal proceedings and standard civil
22 proceedings, I certainly wasn't intending to
23 suggest a league table of sorts and I apologise
24 if that impression was given. I simply was
25 raising the fact that an inquest -- generally,

29

1 there are certain applicable principles which we
2 add into the mix and also there are particular
3 issues in this particular inquest which we add
4 into the mix and certainly they are powerful
5 factors, but we certainly weren't intending to
6 suggest there was any form of league table.
7 Secondly, we strongly agree with the
8 references made by Mr O'Connor to alternative
9 mechanisms, intermediate options, and in terms of
10 disclosure, obviously the ideal outcome from the
11 point of view of the families, if security
12 allows, is to have full disclosure, but we agree
13 with, to use your phrase, my Lady, the last
14 resort approach and, to borrow from the language
15 of the human rights world, the least restricted
16 means approach, and gisting or redaction or any
17 other more creative methods which have been used
18 in other cases, as was highlighted in the
19 materials put before the court in the judicial
20 review proceedings, my Lady, by inquest, liberty
21 and justice, we would strongly be in favour of
22 any of those alternative methods being used, if
23 at all possible, and PII being very much the last
24 resort.
25 I will just check with my solicitor if

30

1 there's any further. Nothing further, my Lady,
2 thank you.
3 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you
4 Ms Gallagher, Mr Patterson, is there anything you
5 wish to raise?
6 MR PATTERSON: Nothing further, my Lady.
7 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr Garnham, is there
8 anything you wish to raise in open submissions?
9 MR GARNHAM: Only on the question of
10 timetabling, my Lady. May I suggest that is
11 dealt with initially in the closed session at the
12 end of the PII application and then arrangements
13 are made through Mr Smith to ensure that
14 Ms Gallagher is aware of what the timetabling is?
15 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Certainly.
16 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady that is
17 precisely the point I was going to suggest. It
18 may be that the detail of what can or can't be
19 achieved on 10 January becomes clearer during the
20 closed hearing and Mr Smith will be able to write
21 to all persons informing them what is to take
22 place and providing material.
23 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you. Do you
24 need me to retire to go into closed session?
25 MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, we would be

31

1 grateful for you to retire. I understand there
2 is a process which takes five or ten minutes to
3 alter some of the technology for us to go into a
4 closed hearing.
5 MR GARNHAM: My Lady, it would, in fact, be
6 useful for us to have five minutes, because we
7 need to speak to West Yorkshire Police on the
8 telephone. So, my Lady, if you were to say ten
9 minutes and come back at five to, that would be
10 likely to be profitable.
11 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you.
12 Ms Gallagher, can you send a message to
13 Mr O'Connor saying I hope he gets better soon?
14 MS GALLAGHER: Of course, my Lady. Thank
15 you.
16 (10.43 am)
17 (The open session concluded)
18

32

© Judicial Communications Office

My bolding

Peter Presland
01-12-2011, 01:35 PM
Whoops...

PII = Public Interest Immunity submission made by a minister of state arguing that disclosure of certain information would be damaging to the public interest (i.e., layered British mandarin-speak for the "state").

Security forces = military intelligence --- possibly the forerunner unit of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the "14 Det" or "14 Int" (14 Field Security and Intelligence Company), which are thought in some quarters to have a long and ugly history in false flag operations. All members of the force retain a right of immunity from prosecution.

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/21122010am.htm



It's all so wearyingly predictable isn't it?

The glaring anomalies and inconsistencies revealed at the inquest to date (with its crass fawning anachronisms of 'my Lady this' and 'my Lady that'), would actually have the Mandarins worried if the public weren't so damned gullible. Even so there will have been a degree of fluttering in the dovecots over in-your-face confirmations of the sheer absurdity of the established 'Official Narrative'. They are clearly determined not to let matters slip still further.

Both the J7: 7/7 Inquests (http://77inquests.blogspot.com/) and Nick Kollerstrom's 'Terror on the Tube' (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/) Blogs are worth following on all of the above.

Meanwhile poor old Anthony John Hill (aka Muad'Dib) of Ripple Effect fame, continues to rot in Wandsworth prison after extradition from Ireland for having had the temerity to send a dozen copies of his video to 'The Clerk of the Court' in the trial of the 6 alleged 7/7 accomplices who were found not-guilty anyway. The charge - Attempting to pervert the course of justice! - I kid you not. He has now served over 5 months in prison plus two years on extradition remand in Ireland.

You just couldn't bloody well make this up could you?

He's pretty well penniless - surviving on a State Pension and now stands to lose his council owned home in Ireland as well. It makes me sick and I mean SICK SICK SICK when I contemplate what this oh so superior democracy of ours is capable of. They've found somebody else to persecute and by God they're damn well going to persecute him

David Guyatt
01-12-2011, 03:02 PM
Muad' Dib (http://mtrial.org/):

The arrest warrant (honest!):

http://mtrial.org/sites/mtrial.org/files/aw01.jpg

The latest (honest!):


16.12.10 Bail hearing - Bail for Assange but no bail for Muad'Dib!
created 16.12.2010 - 15:19, updated 23.12.2010 - 21:26
This just in - Muad'Dib has today been denied bail, shortly after Julian Assange's bail was granted.
Before the bail-hearing, the courtroom was cleared of all members of the public and anyone else that was not "legally" participating in the case. This is something known as having a hearing “in chambers”, though, in practice, people don't actually goto the judge’s chambers. The courtroom is cleared of anyone the judge doesn't want there instead.
So, no friends of Muad'Dib were able to be in the courtroom and witness first-hand what actually occurred and they were only informed after the court-hearing by a lawyer in the hallway.

Based upon what was reported back by the lawyer present, the judge’s main issue was that Muad'Dib would “re-offend” by contacting other people while on bail. The judge made specific note of the 7/7 inquest going on (which is a show "trial" where the criminals "investigate" themselves). There was apparently other things shared in court which could have been easily responded to by any of us that know what is really going on out in the world, but that is probably why the judge kicked everyone who knew anything about Muad'Dib and his situation out of the courtroom. The lone lawyer handling the case, who has never even spoken with Muad'Dib, nevermind knows anything about him, was therefore ill-equipped to handle the situation. The fact that Muad'Dib had already been out on bail for about a year and a half and had not "re-offended" made no difference to the judge. Logic and sensibility are not aspects of modern-day British "justice".

How dare a resident of Paddyland send videos to Her Majesty's Court of the Clerk. I mean, really!

The 7/7 Ripple Effect doco can be viewed HERE (http://mtrial.org/ripple).

Paul Rigby
01-23-2011, 12:07 PM
Latest blog from the J7 team:

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/01/corporate-spookdom-plausible.html

Extract:


In the closing minutes of Friday's open hearing, after some time-wasting by Hugo Keith (whose own legal career in representing the interests of State, wealth and power is in direct contrast to O'Connor's), O'Connor made this strong argument against 'Witness G' being called as the lone 'corporate' witness for the Security Services:


"My Lady, on the question of adequacy of Witness G, I can literally do, in two or three minutes, what our thoughts are at the moment. There is, of course, no objection to Witness G being called at all. He is a well-positioned witness to talk about systems and resources.

However, he has absolutely no history of -- absolutely no involvement in any of these investigations by way of operational involvement or supervision. Secondly, he has, it seems, a complete absence of any involvement in any kind of Islamic terrorism investigations. Again, operationally or in a supervisory capacity. That is a very striking contrast, if we may say so, with the witnesses put forward by the Metropolitan Police Service -- Mr Prunty and Mr Clark -- who could not be better positioned to talk about the relevant issues, as well as Mr Parkinson from West Yorkshire Police. Slightly different, but similarly, very well qualified. We simply are puzzled by the fact that, for instance, an obvious witness would be the actual supervising manager of the desk officers concerned in 2003 to 2005, of these particular investigations, who had hands-on experience, and can actually answer real questions beyond the documents. That supervising manager will have been responsible for all the responses to the Intelligence and Security Committee. No question. So he or she will already have been deeply and profoundly involved in an accountability exercise which happened twice and lasted over some considerable time." [p77:20]

Reassuring to see MI5 has nothing to hide or fear from open hearings and the questioning of relevant personnel.

Peter Lemkin
01-23-2011, 12:25 PM
Muad' Dib (http://mtrial.org/):

The arrest warrant (honest!):

http://mtrial.org/sites/mtrial.org/files/aw01.jpg

The latest (honest!):


16.12.10 Bail hearing - Bail for Assange but no bail for Muad'Dib!
created 16.12.2010 - 15:19, updated 23.12.2010 - 21:26
This just in - Muad'Dib has today been denied bail, shortly after Julian Assange's bail was granted.
Before the bail-hearing, the courtroom was cleared of all members of the public and anyone else that was not "legally" participating in the case. This is something known as having a hearing “in chambers”, though, in practice, people don't actually goto the judge’s chambers. The courtroom is cleared of anyone the judge doesn't want there instead.
So, no friends of Muad'Dib were able to be in the courtroom and witness first-hand what actually occurred and they were only informed after the court-hearing by a lawyer in the hallway.

Based upon what was reported back by the lawyer present, the judge’s main issue was that Muad'Dib would “re-offend” by contacting other people while on bail. The judge made specific note of the 7/7 inquest going on (which is a show "trial" where the criminals "investigate" themselves). There was apparently other things shared in court which could have been easily responded to by any of us that know what is really going on out in the world, but that is probably why the judge kicked everyone who knew anything about Muad'Dib and his situation out of the courtroom. The lone lawyer handling the case, who has never even spoken with Muad'Dib, nevermind knows anything about him, was therefore ill-equipped to handle the situation. The fact that Muad'Dib had already been out on bail for about a year and a half and had not "re-offended" made no difference to the judge. Logic and sensibility are not aspects of modern-day British "justice".

How dare a resident of Paddyland send videos to Her Majesty's Court of the Clerk. I mean, really!

The 7/7 Ripple Effect doco can be viewed HERE (http://mtrial.org/ripple).

I was unaware of this horrible development and travesty of 'justice' until now! I see the UK has sunk to the same lowest level of Dante's Inferno as the USA. How could sending an attempt at investigative research put into a film be a crime?! I guess most of us on this Forum could also be convicted of similar attempts to enlighten the criminals of State. http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/12/08/i-visit-muad’dib-in-jail/#more-1754 Knowledge of and speaking about the 'Unspeakable' is now officially a crime....hmmmm......:hitler:

Addendum....can someone try to explain the fascist logic of his 'crime'?!

David Guyatt
01-23-2011, 12:28 PM
Luvely-jubely.... send the building caretaker in to answer questions he knows nothing about.

Secret state dodge book chapter 15 - "How to Sucker an Official Inquiry".

Paul Rigby
01-23-2011, 12:51 PM
Luvely-jubely.... send the building caretaker in to answer questions he knows nothing about.

Secret state dodge book chapter 15 - "How to Sucker an Official Inquiry".

My all-time favourite variant on this ancient dodge was the deployment of an incomprehensible Glaswegian historian in a BBC programme - fronted, I dimly recollect, by David "Dismal" Taylor - on the British employment of Nazis post-WWII.

In the absence of subtitles, the historian's responses amounted to a "See you, Jimmy," from British intelligence.

David Guyatt
01-23-2011, 04:12 PM
Did he argue that they were "conscientious workers"?

Paul Rigby
01-23-2011, 05:28 PM
Did he argue that they were "conscientious workers"?

He was in the "extraordinary powers of concentration" camp.

Least, I think he was.

Paul Rigby
02-06-2011, 07:22 PM
The phrase "bang to rights" sprang to mind as I reading the following. Anyone with any doubt as to the dishonesty of the official case is vindicated:


Saturday, February 5, 2011
SIMply wrong

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/02/simply-wrong.html#comments

Back in October 2010, when DS Stuart first gave sworn testimony to the 7/7 Inquests (J7 analysis here) he told us that a phone belonging to MSK was found at Edgware Road:


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 --

Source: Transcripts 14th October 2010 morning page 3 lines 2 - 7

DS Stuart then discussed the calls made and received on this 'phase 4 operational phone' produced in a schedule entitled 'Draft schedule of all calls between MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay attributed phones 270605 - 070705, and all calls in the same period to/from phones used by the four on 070705'.

The details for the phone used by Khan and described as 'a phase 4 operational phone' ends with '254'. Its recovery and connection to Khan was described to Hugo Keith QC by DS Stuart:


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.

Source: ibid page 12 lines 6 -14

DS Stuart then claims that previous operational phones contained no suspicious contacts, preferring to claim that each of the 4 phase 'operational phones' were only called by the 4 accused in connection to each other, the caveat to that being calls to car hire companies and the 3 men that were tried in the Theseus trial. Answering question from Mr Patterson QC, we gather that:


Q. Have you, Sergeant, analysed the contacts made between the earlier phones and numbers being used by the four men and other people outside that group of four?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did those enquiries lead you to any suspicions as to other contacts that might have led to suggestions that other people were involved or assisting the four men?
A. There have been prior court cases in relation to that, sir, yes.
Q. I'm aware of that, and three individuals in particular, but focusing just on the days leading up to 7/7, any suspicious contacts in any of the telephones in that period of time?
A. No, this is an accurate schedule of that, of all the contacts.
Q. Yes. That's not quite an answer to my question. One issue that arises is whether there's evidence that the four bombers were assisted in any way, either on the 7th itself or in the days leading up, and one way we can analyse that question is by focusing on telephone contact. Any suspicious contacts on the 7th or in the days leading up with others outside of the group of four?
A. No, sir, not that I'm aware of, no, sir.

Source: ibid page 21 lines 25 on

This point is further confirmed by counsel to the MPS, Max Hill, in his questioning of DS Stuart:


Q. Then just looking at the entirety of this schedule, so the period from 27 June to 7 July, are you saying that this is a complete operational picture in terms of telephones in the hands of all four bombers throughout the period 27 June to 7 July?
A. Operational, yes, sir.
Q. In answer to earlier questions from Mr Patterson, it is right that at an earlier stage there was what might be called some operational telephone use connected to those who became the subject of the Theseus trials.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The three men who stood trial in 2008 and 2009.

Source: ibid page 31 lines 13 on

To sum up what we knew in October 2010, a single phone, Khan's 'phase 4 operational phone 254', was found at the Edgware Road site, the phone had no recoverable data, the schedule released shows all calls made and received on operational phones between 27/08/05 and 07/07/05. The only suspicious calls made and/or received on operational phones were those connected to the two Theseus trials held in 2008/09.

J7 contacted the Inquests to clarify some of these details when we became aware that DS Stuart would return to give further testimony to the 7/7 Inquests on 2nd February 2011. One of the issues we asked for clarification on was: During the questioning of Detective Sergeant Mark Stuart, in sworn testimony, he stated that there was no recoverable data from a phone 'determined to belong' to Mohammad Sidique Khan:

However, news articles covering the first and second trials of the accused Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and Mohammed Shakil claim that a phone recovered from Edgware Road contained phone numbers attributable to the accused and a text message sent from Waheed Ali to Khan:

Flewitt said the strength of Ali's relationship to Khan was demonstrated by a text message Ali sent to the July 7 ringleader on December 7 2003.

It read: "Gates of memories I will neva (sic) close. How much I will miss you no one knows. Tears in my eyes will wipe away but the love in my heart for you will always stay."

In the remains of Khan's mobile telephone, recovered from the debris at Edgware Road, were numbers "attributable" to Shakil, saved as "SHAXMOB",and Saleem, saved as "Sads", the jury was told.
Source: Guardian 10/04/2008

Evidence in the trial included details of the remains of Mohammad Sidique Khan's phone, found amid the wreckage of his Edgware Road blast that killed six people. His phone included a number tagged "SHAXMOB", attributable to Mohammed Shakil, and another entry, "SADS", referring to Sadeer Saleem.

Source: BBC 01/08/2008

He was so close to Khan a text message was found on the suicide bomber's mobile phone in the rubble of the Edgware Road blast. It read: “Gates of memories I will neva (sic) close. How much I miss you no one knows.Tears in my eyes will wipe away, but the love in my heart for you will always stay.”

Source: This is London 28/04/2009

When DS Stuart's returned to give further evidence on Wednesday 2nd February he was asked the following by Hugo Keith:


Q. May I, before I move away from Khan's operational phones, address one particular point? An organisation that has been following this issue has expressed a certain degree of confusion as to which phones were recovered where, and perhaps I could just clear up that particular confusion, if it exists. In relation to MSK's phone, 826, the handset and SIM were found, were they not, inside the tunnel at Edgware Road?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the third phone on the page?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of the SIM card being found, was it possible to retrieve any of the data on that phone?
A. There was no data that could be recovered. Although it was sent off for examination, they couldn't extract any data for it.
Q. What about in relation to the last operational phone, 254, which was also, I think you told us last year, recovered from Edgware Road --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- or at least certainly the handset was recovered and I think you told us that it was damaged beyond repair?
A. It was, sir, and for the same reason, they couldn't extract any data from it either.
Q. Where Khan sent or received texts, therefore, particularly at the time of the use of the last operational phone, how were you able to retrieve data evidencing the sending or receipt of texts?
A. The actual sending would come from the call data. The context or the content, we would rely on downloads for whichever phone it was sent to or received from.
Q. So are there a number of routes by which data can be retrieved, even if you don't have the original SIM card?
A. Yes, sir.

Source: Transcripts 2nd February 2011 morning page 6 lines 7 on

Not only did Keith take this opportunity to claim that not only 'a phone' was found at Edgware Road, as stated by Stuart on 14th October, but in fact, two phones were found in the tunnel. Khan's phase 3 & 4 operational phones, 826 & 254 respectively. Yet it seems that only the handset and not the SIM of the 'phase 4 operational phone', the sole phone described in the schedule discussed when Stuart gave his original testimony, was recovered. No reason is given for Khan's missing SIM card.

Ms Gallagher, counsel for the bereaved, also questions DS Stuart on the question J7 posed in relation to the data extracted from Khan's phone that was referred to in the Theseus trials:


... Could I just start by dealing with this issue of confusion? Mr Keith, when questioning you, referred to an organisation having expressed confusion about your statement on 14 October about there being no readable data from the phone at Edgware Road that was recovered at Edgware Road, and you were taken to those two phones. It's [INQ11176-2]. So both the phone number ending 826 that was recovered inside the tunnel at Edgware Road --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and I think you've said the SIM card was found and sent off but there was no readable data?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And phone number 254 also recovered from Edgware Road mentioned at the bottom of that page and you said, for the same reason, no data was recoverable there?
A. The handset was recovered and it was -- no data could be --
Q. Mr Keith said, "Well, how do we have information about the exchange of text messages?", and you made reference to obtaining call data. So it's possible to obtain information about text messages without extracting it from the hardware itself, from the SIM card of the telephone?
A. Yes, there will be a record of the sending of the text on the call data that we can recover from the phone companies.
Q. But Detective Sergeant, that's just information about the sending and receipt of texts. It's not information about the content?
A. The content you would only get if the phone that either received or sent the text to the damaged phone was itself recovered and examined and we could derive data from it.
Q. So the comms data can't give you the content, that's only possible from hardware of one or other phone. So it's not possible to recover information such as contact details, so telephone numbers that are saved and so on, through comms data?
A. No, that's correct.
Q. Detective Sergeant, I think the difficulty is that your answers won't have cleared up the confusion, because the reason that the confusion has arisen is that there were a number of news articles, public at the time of the Theseus trial, which referred to the actual content of text messages recovered from one of those phones and, indeed, I think publicly there's some information with links to those news articles. But, in fact, we can go one step further because, of course, we've got the opening from counsel in the Theseus trial -- the reference is [INQ105680-12]. It's paragraph 64 and it says: "Among the debris at the scene of the Edgware Road bombing the police found part of a mobile telephone belonging to MSK. In the memory of that mobile phone was recorded a mobile telephone number attributable to Shakil ... and a ... number attributable to ...Saleem ..." Then paragraph 65, I don't think we need it on screen, but for your reference, my Lady, that includes the content of a particular text, also recovered from that.

Source: ibid page 34 lines 21 on

There is then some discussion on how the texts between Lindsay and Khan were recovered and it is established that these were accessed from Lindsay's phone, then continues:


Q. The reason it's important to do this, obviously, is, as you're aware, a number of people are following these proceedings very closely. There's been some concern expressed about this issue, so it seems sensible to just put it to bed. If there's a simple answer, let's just have it and it will be on the public record.
A. Yes, not at all. [ibid p35:5 on]
-------------
Q. Detective Sergeant, just to clarify it, if we could go back to [INQ105680-12] at paragraph 64 , when, in the opening to the Theseus trial, as was widely reported, it stated there that this information was recovered from that mobile phone found at Edgware Road, is that simply wrong?
A. Yes. [ibid p39:22 on]

Simply wrong? We can add this 'simply wrong' to the litany of errors anomalies and inconsistencies that J7 have detailed, so far, over the 15 weeks of the 7/7 Inquests. The fact that 'simply wrong' evidence can be used in an attempt to convict 3 men, all found innocent, who faced up to 40 years in prison isn't just 'simply wrong' it's 'simply appalling'.

More 'simply wrong'

The first page of a schedule detailing purchases from hydroponics shops was released, beginning on 22nd February 2005, claiming that Tanweer contacted Huddersfield Hydroponics on a phone 'atributed to him' which was cell sited within a 2km radius. Keith claims that 'operational phone usage begins around the time that hydrogen peroxide purchases are made'. [ibid p15:9 on] Yet DS Stuart gives the precise date and time for the first use of an operational phone (phase 1) for Tanweer as 25 March at 18.06, over a month after the supposed first purchase of hydrogen peroxide [ibid p11:14 on]. Simply wrong.

Pakistan calling

After claiming that no 'suspicious calls' were made to or from operational phones in DS Stuart's original testimony, the updated schedules show calls made to Khan's 'operational phones' from various phone kiosks in Pakistan, mainly from the Rawalpindi district. 'No suspicious calls' (simply wrong?) transforms into 'so many suspicious calls':


.. question of calls from Pakistan, if we just screen down, please, to page 11 [INQ11177-11] of the exhibit, we can see in the bottom half of the page there a number of calls from Pakistan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In particular from Rawalpindi, so 9 May, 10 May. Over the page to 12 May, page 12 [INQ11177-12] of the document. Then moving forward to 14 May on page 14 [INQ11177-14] , there were a great deal many calls from Rawalpindi on that day, we can see there, all to MSK, the original schedule is in red, and I needn't go through the schedule to the later dates, but are there further calls on 19 May, 31 May and 2 June?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There appeared to be a substantial number of calls in that period from the middle of May to the beginning of June, and then, again, were there further calls from Pakistan, right at the very end, just a matter of days before the bombs are detonated on 7 July, on 2 July in fact?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you assess that these calls, therefore, were probably connected to some guidance or some means of communicating information concerned with the manufacture of the bombs and then, ultimately, their detonation?
A. Yes, I think they had to be, sir. [ibid p20:1 on]

Not just suspicious calls but apparently 'bomb-making suspicious calls' - did DS Stuart think these unworthy of mention during his first appearance at the 7/7 Inquests? Perhaps the testimony given by Clifford Todd, principal forensic investigator at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory the previous day, contains the reason:


Q. The technical expertise required to construct either the initiating device or the main explosive device, was that of a particularly high order, or could those four men -- none of whom it seems had any particular skills in chemistry -- have carried that out under a certain degree of guidance or instruction themselves?
A. Yes, they would have needed some -- certainly initial guidance or instruction, I believe. I don't think that -- my comment about them dealing with this and doing this in isolation is intended to make a distinction between four people with no experience of bomb-making, suddenly between themselves, and only between themselves, deciding to come up with a bomb plot such as this, make the devices, and go and set them off, certainly without extensive practice themselves. That's not really feasible. They would need some detailed instruction and some practice, almost certainly, at doing this. So that's what I was trying to get at in my comment about having some outside help. There must have been something more, some -- they must, at some point, have had some advice.
Q. Once the instructions or the guidance had been provided, and perhaps alongside a certain degree of training, perhaps abroad, would they have required there to have been a specialist bomb-maker or a chemist present in Alexandra Grove for bringing their plot to fruition?
A. No. I should also perhaps say that these were -- these devices were entirely unique. Certainly the hydrogen peroxide mixed with a fuel such as pepper were entirely unique within the UK for sure and, as far as I know, worldwide as well. At the time, there would have been plenty of information on the internet about how to make bombs of various descriptions, and certainly now, if you were to look, probably you will find information about devices of this particular type. But at that time, if it was the case that four people just decided to do this with no prior experience, they probably could have got enough information off the internet, but it would be extremely unlikely they would have come up with this particular design. They would have most likely come up with a design already known and spoken about on the internet, which, to the best of my knowledge, that wasn't there at that time.
Q. So this supports your overall view that the construction of these devices could only have been undertaken with guidance and instruction from elsewhere --
A. Yes, correct.
Q. -- and obviously persons unknown. The process is not, regrettably, hugely complex, but it is quite a sensitive process, is it not, in terms of getting the ratios and the mixtures right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your view that the paraphernalia in Alexandra Grove indicate that a great deal, unfortunately, of time and effort appears to have been dedicated to getting the ratios right and to making these devices work?
A. Yes, both the time and effort has been taken and the understanding there of what they need to do to get it right.

Source: Transcripts 1st February 2011 afternoon page 66 lines 22 on

The 'suspicious Pakistan phone calls' may go some way to answer Clifford Todd's amazement that the 4 accused were able to construct viable devices, of the like never seen before or since, without considerable expertise. What it doesn't answer is: How did they know which of the devices were viable and which were 'simply wrong'?

David Guyatt
02-14-2011, 09:42 AM
Who would've thunked it -- free after 4.5 years of a 70 year sentence? And one of those throw-away-the-keys "terrorists" to boot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/jihadi-train-7-7-bomber-freed


Jihadi who helped train 7/7 bomber freed by US after just five years
Exclusive: Release prompts claim Islamist was US informant while assisting London terrorist

Shiv Malik
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 February 2011 22.00 GMT
Article history

Interviewed by ITN in 2001, Mohammed Junaid Babar insists he would defend Muslims if the US invaded Afghanistan Link to this video

An American jihadist who set up the terrorist training camp where the leader of the 2005 London suicide bombers learned how to manufacture explosives, has been quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence, a Guardian investigation has learned.

The unreported sentencing of Mohammed Junaid Babar to "time served" because of what a New York judge described as "exceptional co-operation" that began even before his arrest has raised questions over whether Babar was a US informer at the time he was helping to train the ringleader of the 7 July tube and bus bombings.

Lawyers representing the families of victims and survivors of the attacks have compared the lenient treatment of Babar to the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Babar was imprisoned in 2004 – although final sentencing was deferred – after pleading guilty in a New York court to five counts of terrorism. He set up the training camp in Pakistan where Mohammad Sidique Khan and several other British terrorists learned about bomb-making and how to use combat weapons.

Babar admitted to being a dangerous terrorist who consorted with some of the highest-ranking members of al-Qaida, providing senior members with money and equipment, running weapons, and planning two attempts to assassinate the former president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf.

But in a deal with prosecutors for the US attorney's office, Babar agreed to plead guilty and become a government supergrass in return for a drastically reduced sentence.

The Guardian has obtained a court document which shows that on 10 December last year – six years after his initial arrest and subsequent guilty plea – he was sentenced to "time served" and charged $500 (£310) by the court in a "special assessment" fee. The document also reveals that Babar had by then spent just over four years in some form of prison and more than two years free on bail.

Graham Foulkes, a magistrate whose 22-year-old son David was killed by Khan at Edgware Road underground station in 2005, said: "People get four and a half years for burglary. They can get more for some road traffic offences. So for an international terrorist who's directly linked to the death of my son and dozens and dozens of people to get that sentence is just outrageous."

Fifty-two people were killed and 784 injured on 7 July 2005 when four suicide bombers detonated rucksacks filled with explosives and nails on London's transport system in the morning rush hour.

The lawyer representing the families of the dead and survivors, Clifford Tibber of the law firm Anthony Gold, said they would be devastated to learn that Babar had served only a small proportion of his possible sentence.

"Babar admitted setting up and funding training camps attended by the 7/7 bombers," Tibber said. "When the British government released Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber who received a life sentence, on compassionate grounds after eight years the Americans were furious. Imagine how the bereaved and the survivors will feel about [Babar's] paltry sentence."

A remark from the sentencing judge that Babar "began co-operating even before his arrest", has raised the possibility, supported by other circumstantial evidence obtained by the Guardian, that he may have been an informant for the US government before his detention by the FBI in April 2004.

Babar facilitated the London bombers' knowledge of bomb-making when he invited around a dozen British jihadists to attend a camp that he had helped set up in north-west Pakistan in the summer of 2003.

In a debriefing with US law enforcement agents in 2004, Babar told US prosecutors about Khan, whom he knew as "Ibrahim". British terrorism investigators showed Babar an unclear surveillance photo of Khan in August 2004, but Babar failed to identify him.

He has said that when he saw pictures of Khan in newspapers after the bombings he alerted the US authorities straight away: "I told them [the American authorities] that was the person that was Ibrahim. I had mentioned Ibrahim before July 2005."

After his guilty plea in 2004, Babar spent a good proportion of his four and a half years outside the regular prison system. He flew to testify in trials in the UK and in Canada and met law enforcement officers from around the world.

In 2008 he was granted bail awaiting final sentencing, after being warned by a judge that his conviction on five terrorism offences carried a maximum 70-year term.

Although a probation report dated 9 July 2010 recommended that Babar remain in jail for another 30 years, the US attorney's office submitted their own report to the New York court, known as a 5K1, which praised Babar's work.

One extract read out in court stated: "Over the last six and a half years the level of assistance provided by Babar to both the United States government and foreign governments has been more than substantial. It has been extraordinary."

Speaking in court about Babar's role in helping to jail British, Canadian and American terrorists, the assistant US attorney Brendan McGuire described Babar's co-operation as exceptional, and he recommended that he be given a significantly reduced sentence.

Babar's defence lawyer, Daniel Ollen, told the court that during the two years his client had been out on bail, he had "paid his debt to society" and had settled into a new life with his wife and daughter.

Ollen said the government's positive statements on behalf of Babar in court spoke volumes about his "hugely successful" actions, and that in 30 years he had never seen a more positive 5K1 report from the government.

Speaking for the first time about the case, Ollen told the Guardian that in court "the government went to bat for him. They used words like 'extraordinary' and 'unprecedented'. Babar's co-operation really was spectacular when you get down to it."

When sentencing Babar, the judge, Victor Marrero, praised his work, describing the sentence of four years and eight months as "reasonable and appropriate".

"The court takes note that the government has evaluated Mr Babar's cooperation to be significant, truthful, complete, and liable.," Marrero said.

"[He] worked with the FBI and foreign governments to assist in investigations of terrorism organisations, including al-Qaida, and of terrorist activities such as the London bomb plot."

"Taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence and the history and characteristics of the defendant ... the court finds that a sentence of time served is reasonable and appropriate and that such a term is sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the proper objectives of sentencing," Marrero said.

A law enforcement agent who arrested Babar and spent more than 500 hours debriefing him said he believed Babar was selfish.

The officer, who wished to be known as agent A, said: "Babar wasn't a hero. He didn't look at the American flag and suddenly become all patriotic. When his back was against the wall he did what was right for him ... he was selfish."

Further inquiries uncovered allegations from a top US terrorism lawyer who has reviewed sealed evidence in the case which suggests Babar could have been working for the US authorities before his arrest in April 2004.

Having reviewed the court transcript himself, bereaved father Graham Foulkes said: "There's a hint from one or two of the sentences [in the transcript] that do strongly suggest [Babar's] co-operation was going well beyond his official arrest. And it looks as if the Americans may well have known in detail what Babar was up to in Pakistan [at the time] and that is a very, very serious matter."

When judge Marrero's office was asked to clarify the remarks, his office declined to comment. The US attorney's office declined to comment on whether Babar had been working with US agencies before his arrest.

The law enforcement officer involved in Babar's arrest and debriefing also refused to discuss the allegations.

Freed from prison and no longer in the witness protection scheme, it is not known where Babar is currently living. Visiting Babar's childhood home in the Jamaica area of Queens, New York, the Guardian was told that Babar's mother was on holiday in Pakistan. The woman who answered the door and identified herself as Babar's cousin did not know where Babar was living and refused to comment further.

Ed Jewett
02-14-2011, 11:07 PM
Jihadi Who Helped Train 7/7 Bomber ‘May’ Have Worked for U.S. Intelligence Before His Arrest, Freed After Serving Only Four and a Half Years in Prison (http://cryptogon.com/?p=20491)

February 14th, 2011 ‘May’ have worked for U.S. Intelligence…
British Intelligence Had 7/7 Ringleader Under Surveillance Since 2003 (http://cryptogon.com/?p=222)
Terror Exercise Held on the Same Morning as the London 7/7 Bomb Attack (http://cryptogon.com/2005_07_10_blogarchive.html#112131056478325410)
Netanyahu Changed Plans Due to Warning (http://cryptogon.com/2005_07_03_blogarchive.html#112075841387226648)
Italian Intelligence Questions Claim of Responsibility (http://cryptogon.com/2005_07_03_blogarchive.html#112076580323251705)
London Bombers Claim Responsibility; On Bush Connected Server in Houston?! (http://cryptogon.com/2005_07_10_blogarchive.html#112112086277567870)
Kingstar Company Van Near London Bus (http://cryptogon.com/2005_07_17_blogarchive.html#112164883632326853)
The “Magic Bomb” Theory (http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1040.html)
And now…
Via: Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/jihadi-train-7-7-bomber-freed):
An American jihadist who set up the terrorist training camp where the leader of the 2005 London suicide bombers learned how to manufacture explosives, has been quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence, a Guardian investigation has learned.
The unreported sentencing of Mohammed Junaid Babar to “time served” because of what a New York judge described as “exceptional co-operation” that began even before his arrest has raised questions over whether Babar was a US informer at the time he was helping to train the ringleader of the 7 July tube and bus bombings.
Lawyers representing the families of victims and survivors of the attacks have compared the lenient treatment of Babar to the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Babar was imprisoned in 2004 – although final sentencing was deferred – after pleading guilty in a New York court to five counts of terrorism. He set up the training camp in Pakistan where Mohammad Sidique Khan and several other British terrorists learned about bomb-making and how to use combat weapons.
Babar admitted to being a dangerous terrorist who consorted with some of the highest-ranking members of al-Qaida, providing senior members with money and equipment, running weapons, and planning two attempts to assassinate the former president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf.
But in a deal with prosecutors for the US attorney’s office, Babar agreed to plead guilty and become a government supergrass in return for a drastically reduced sentence.
The Guardian has obtained a court document which shows that on 10 December last year – six years after his initial arrest and subsequent guilty plea – he was sentenced to “time served” and charged $500 (£310) by the court in a “special assessment” fee. The document also reveals that Babar had by then spent just over four years in some form of prison and more than two years free on bail.
Graham Foulkes, a magistrate whose 22-year-old son David was killed by Khan at Edgware Road underground station in 2005, said: “People get four and a half years for burglary. They can get more for some road traffic offences. So for an international terrorist who’s directly linked to the death of my son and dozens and dozens of people to get that sentence is just outrageous.”
Fifty-two people were killed and 784 injured on 7 July 2005 when four suicide bombers detonated rucksacks filled with explosives and nails on London’s transport system in the morning rush hour.
The lawyer representing the families of the dead and survivors, Clifford Tibber of the law firm Anthony Gold, said they would be devastated to learn that Babar had served only a small proportion of his possible sentence.
“Babar admitted setting up and funding training camps attended by the 7/7 bombers,” Tibber said. “When the British government released Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber who received a life sentence, on compassionate grounds after eight years the Americans were furious. Imagine how the bereaved and the survivors will feel about paltry sentence.”
[B]A remark from the sentencing judge that Babar “began co-operating even before his arrest”, has raised the possibility, supported by other circumstantial evidence obtained by the Guardian, that he may have been an informant for the US government before his detention by the FBI in April 2004.
Babar facilitated the London bombers’ knowledge of bomb-making when he invited around a dozen British jihadists to attend a camp that he had helped set up in north-west Pakistan in the summer of 2003.

Having reviewed the court transcript himself, bereaved father Graham Foulkes said: “There’s a hint from one or two of the sentences [in the transcript] that do strongly suggest [Babar's] co-operation was going well beyond his official arrest. And it looks as if the Americans may well have known in detail what Babar was up to in Pakistan [at the time] and that is a very, very serious matter.”
When judge Marrero’s office was asked to clarify the remarks, his office declined to comment. The US attorney’s office declined to comment on whether Babar had been working with US agencies before his arrest.
The law enforcement officer involved in Babar’s arrest and debriefing also refused to discuss the allegations.
Posted in Atrocities (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=18), COINTELPRO (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=36), Covert Operations (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=27), Dictatorship (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=22), False Flag Operations (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=14)

Carsten Wiethoff
05-19-2011, 06:31 AM
Meanwhile poor old Anthony John Hill (aka Muad'Dib) of Ripple Effect fame, continues to rot in Wandsworth prison after extradition from Ireland for having had the temerity to send a dozen copies of his video to 'The Clerk of the Court' in the trial of the 6 alleged 7/7 accomplices who were found not-guilty anyway. The charge - Attempting to pervert the course of justice! - I kid you not. He has now served over 5 months in prison plus two years on extradition remand in Ireland.

You just couldn't bloody well make this up could you?

He's pretty well penniless - surviving on a State Pension and now stands to lose his council owned home in Ireland as well. It makes me sick and I mean SICK SICK SICK when I contemplate what this oh so superior democracy of ours is capable of. They've found somebody else to persecute and by God they're damn well going to persecute him

From http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/



Jury Rejects State Charges against 7/7 Ripple Effect’s Muad’Dib (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/)

May 12, 2011



At 4pm on Thursday 12th May at Southwark Crown Court the jury returned and declared Muad’Dib (Anthony John Hill) innocent of attempting to ‘pervert the course of justice’.
Mr. Hill has spent 151 days incarcerated in Wandsworth prison over the past few months and this verdict spared him, mercifully, a sentence of up to 20 years in jail.
His offence? He had sent six DVD copies of his film ‘7/7: The Ripple Effect’ to various persons at the time (in 2008) of the trial in Kingston of three ‘terror’ suspects, alleged co-conspirators with the London ‘suicide bombers’. The DVD’s were intercepted and never reached their targets. The Kingston suspects were found innocent (only to later be retried for the same offences, but that’s another story).
Muad’Dib’s trial started on Monday 9th May, with a challenge to the monarchy and, hence, the authority of the court. This was ruled ‘out of order’ by the judge. On Tuesday a jury were sworn in.
On Wednesday they watched all of his film, ‘The Ripple Effect’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7PQG5weeHk), in open court.
Over the Tuesday and Wednesday the jury heard in-depth discussions of both 7/7 and 9/11, with Mr Hill laying out clearly, and at his own leisurely pace under cross-examination, the reasons he believes that both these ‘attacks by terrorists’ were, in fact, false flag attacks by agencies of the state against its own people carried out with the purpose of providing a pretext for invasion of innocent countries in the middle east in order to control their natural resources.
This was surely the first ever fully-explored set of such allegations of false flag terror made against any state before an ordinary collection of the citizens of that state.
It is also clear from the verdict that, when such information is placed before such ordinary citizens the majority of them ‘get it.’ The jury had announced that it could not be unanimous, so the judge allowed a ‘majority verdict’, i.e. ten or more of the 12.
It is surely not unfair to deduce that Southwark Crown Court’s jury of ordinary persons did not reject Muad’Dib’s false-flag narrative as outrageous or even necessarily untrue. One wonders how many of that jury have now themselves been converted into active ‘troofers’?
During the trial (on Wednesday) JAH/Hill/Muad’Dib was asked why he moved to Ireland: “To pursue my study of the lost Ark of the Covenant” was his reply. Here is a character, both serious and refreshing, who brings a mythic dimension into life. Onlookers were impressed by the way he was able to conduct himself without fear in the witness-box, sometimes pausing 5-10 seconds to reflect, before replying. A group of up to 25 supporters attended the four days of the trial, a couple travelling from as far afield as Finland and the state of Montana.
Let’s hope that will be the end of the persecution of Mr JAH by the British state – and, that he soon starts on a 2nd edition of his Ripple Effect.
It’s the opinion of Sheffield University social-sciences professor Ridley-Duff (http://www.shu.ac.uk/sbs/research/organisational-development/sp_rory_ridley_duff.html), that Mr Hill’s Ripple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible and better fits the facts than did the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7_Ripple_Effect)‘ program. His well-referenced study focussed (http://www.roryridleyduff.com/What%20Happened%20At%20Canary%20Wharf%20on%207th%2 0July%202005.pdf) very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet. The new 3rd edition of my book Terror on the Tube endorses this view. In contrast, the so-called ‘July 7th Truth Campaign’ has scoffed at the Ripple narrative (http://julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html)calling it ‘evidence-free conjecture,’ a quite breathtaking (and very revealing) remark.

:rocker::rocker::rocker:

Carsten Wiethoff
05-19-2011, 06:40 AM
Gordon Duff of Veterans Today also has some comments on this here (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/18/suppressed-news-false-flag-whistleblower-acquitted-in-britain/).


After 151 days in dismal Wandsworth Prison, much of it in solitary confinement, John Anthony Hill is finally free. The crime he was accused of was the mailing of a “7/7 truther” DVD from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Yes, you are hearing me right, he was extradited from Ireland for sending a copy of the film, “Ripple Effect,” which outlines complicity by the Blair government in terror attacks that killed 56 back in 2005, including 4 “suicide bombers” now believed by many to have been murdered in a bizarre plot.
More frightening still is the idea that mailing a DVD, available worldwide on Youtube to anyone, could be considered “perverting the course of justice.”




Hill was found not guilty, not because his actions were considered legal but rather because his testimony made a powerful case against the British government. The jury was pressed to convict Hill but refused. The 10 members who sided with Hill and refused the instructions of the Crown did so, out of utter shock at the powerful case Hill made demonstrating that, not only 7/7 was an “inside job” but 9/11 as well. Hill took on both attacks and 10 of 12 jury members sided with what has been often called “conspiracy theory.”


What Britain has done or has tried to do is beyond draconian. By the standards that Britain is calling “justice,” their reach has no end and their arrogance no limits.
Nothing said, nothing written, nothing filmed, perhaps even nothing “thought’ is protected, any place on earth.
If a case can be made to put Bush and Blair on trial for terrorist acts, Britain’s actions against Anthony John Hill makes that case.


:cheer:

Tracy Riddle
06-17-2015, 01:36 PM
We're coming up on the 10th anniversary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyzpzEgUWE

Tracy Riddle
06-22-2015, 01:18 AM
I'm reading Nick Kollerstrom's book TERROR ON THE TUBE (new edition). It's very good (reminds me a lot of Tarpley's SYNTHETIC TERROR). I highly recommend it.

Anthony Thorne
06-22-2015, 02:47 AM
Kollerstrom's book has now (IMO) been superseded by Secker's book, discussed and linked below. Not doubting the sincerity of Kollerstrom's work, but Secker raises a lot of compelling factual issues with it, while still demolishing the official story.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11894-SECRETS-SPIES-AND-7-7-by-Tom-Secker#.VYd2zFIvkZg

Tracy Riddle
06-24-2015, 02:27 PM
Kollerstrom's book has now (IMO) been superseded by Secker's book, discussed and linked below. Not doubting the sincerity of Kollerstrom's work, but Secker raises a lot of compelling factual issues with it, while still demolishing the official story.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11894-SECRETS-SPIES-AND-7-7-by-Tom-Secker#.VYd2zFIvkZg

Thanks. Looks like you can download a free PDF of the book at the link.

Tracy Riddle
07-07-2015, 09:00 PM
I didn't know there was a UK version of Huffington Post, but they are actively swatting down conspiracy theories about 7/7 today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/04/77-conspiracy-theories-july-7-attacks_n_7663148.html

Peter Lemkin
07-08-2015, 04:33 AM
We're coming up on the 10th anniversary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyzpzEgUWE


This film absolutely destroys the official version. Long and detailed, it is well worth watching and perhaps downloading. The BBC won't be broadcasting it!

David Guyatt
07-08-2015, 07:03 AM
I love the official version of events that was shredded at the trial - i.e., the so called bombers arrived at the station in London from a train (video evidence, I think it was) that was actually cancelled on the day (the next arriving train arrived in London after the bombing took place as I recall).

This inconvenient fact was not allowed into evidence by the judge at the trial.

Obviously, therefore, they're guilty.