Monday, 20 December 2010

Jermaine Lindsay, a circuit board and plastic bottles

It appears that the King's Cross and Russell Square scene evidence will finish without examining any forensic or pathology evidence for the presence of Jermaine Lindsay on the Piccadilly line train between King's Cross and Russell Square. This evidence was read for both Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, not so for Lindsay. Instead, we are offered the following identifying documents as listed by DI Brunsden in his evidence on 17th December.

Let's work our way through this evidence by examining DI Brunsden's testimony during Hugo Keith's questioning:
Q. I want to ask you, please, about some exhibits that you found in area Z at the end of the first carriage. Could we have please on the screen [INQ10164-2]? Is this a plan that you made of the first carriage showing the zonal areas for the purposes of the searching?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. On the far right of the plan towards the rear of the first carriage, can we see that you marked area Z?
A. Yes.

As we can see from the zonal plan above, area Z is by the single door at the very rear of carriage 1, some way from the blast site which was by the second set of double doors further down the carriage.
Q. In that area, area Z, you did you find a plastic bottle destroyed in the blast?
A. Yes, that's what it looked like to me.
Q. Why did that bottle seem to you to be out of place?
A. Obviously in the Anti-terrorist Branch we learn a reasonable amount about explosives, and we were very conscious of the fact that explosives can be made from peroxide-based materials, and peroxide can be contained in plastic bottles, and so I was concerned that this may have something to do with that.
Q. Was that bottle found in the near vicinity of a male body to whom you formally gave the exhibit JB3?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. Was that person given a disaster victim identification number, for temporary purposes, 60022242?
A. I'm sorry, sir, I haven't got that record.
Q. Will you take it from me, then, on this occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that person, JB3, turn out subsequently to be the bomber --
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. -- Lindsay?
A. Jermaine Lindsay.
So Lindsay's body was recovered some distance from the actual blast, although it may be fair to presume at this stage, despite the absence of a pathology report, that he hadn't suffered the almost complete disintegration, as described in evidence, of Shehzad Tanweer or Mohammed Sidique Khan.

Despite Brunsden's attempts to conflate a plastic bottle apparently 'destroyed in the blast' with peroxide-based explosives, even Brunsden would be aware that the plastic bottles in which peroxide is contained is, in and of itself, useless as an explosive material. Furthermore, whether hydrogen peroxide based explosives were something a policeman would be conscious of in July 2005 is highly unlikely, particularly given the opinions of explosives experts at the Ministry of Defence research centre at Fort Halstead:
Until July 2005 the scientists at Fort Halstead in Kent had never seen a hydrogen peroxide bomb.

Despite 130 years' experience gathering information on home-made and military bombs from across the world they had yet to come across the type used in the attacks in London on July 7 and 21.

Perhaps they should have asked DI Brunsden, who would appear to have been aware of hydrogen peroxide explosives just by dint of finding a plastic bottle!

We have been shown various types of containers in connection with the events of 7/7, none of which appear even to hint at the use of plastic bottles. Quite how a plastic bottle survived the initial explosion might also take some explaining.

Q. When the body was moved, did you find a piece of circuit board attached to his body and also attached to his body another piece of plastic bottle which, again, had had a segment cut from it?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. So in very close proximity to his body?
A. Yes.
No date is given for the body removal although the Intelligence and Security Committee report claimed that the pathology on Lindsay was carried out on 10 July, along with Hussain and Khan. The ISC report also claims that Lindsay became a suspect due to the viewing of the Luton CCTV on 12 July, although we now know that the viewing of Luton station CCTV took place some two days prior to that, on 10 July.

Jermaine Lindsay's home at 10 Northern Rd Aylesbury was searched on 13 July, after his wife, Samantha, reported him missing. No mention is made during the inquest hearings of finding identification documents on the Piccadilly line train prior to this raid on his home, which would have led to Lindsay being identified swiftly, as appears to have been the case with both Tanweer and Khan. On the contrary, we wouldn't expect much paper ID to survive the blast.

What about the circuit board 'attached' to Lindsay's body? In what way was it attached? What type of circuit board was it? What is it alleged that the circuit board was for?

As the precise nature of the explosives alleged to have been used on 7 July has never been revealed, the requirement for a circuit board of any sort is implicit, rather than explicit. Further, with mobile phones, laptops, iPods, etc. on each and every passenger-filled tube train, so too are there circuit boards a-plenty, even without the presence of an implied suicide bomber.

Perhaps the reference to the circuit board is an allusion to the notion of a suicide bomber with explosives primed and strapped to the body. If so, this is incredibly misleading. The official narrative holds that all the explosions on trains on 7 July 2005 occurred on the floors of the carriages, which is at variance with the modus operandi of 'suicide bombers'.

During the trial of the men accused of a similar attempt 'to bomb the tube' on 21 July, all of whom had the conspiracy to cause explosions charges against them quietly dropped (due to the evidence of expert witness, Professor Hans Michels who claimed that the mixture they used was incapable of exploding) it was claimed that these hydrogen peroxide explosives and their detonation method were similar to that used on 7 July. There was no mention of circuit boards, just tubes and wires, bulbs and 9-volt batteries. Remnants of a 'circuit board' and wires were apparently also found via x-ray embedded close to Mohammed Sidique Khan's lumbar spine.
Q. Subsequently, on 17 July -- and you may find a reference to this on page 4 of your statement, if it's the same typed statement as us, at the bottom, Detective Inspector -- did you recover from the same area, area Z, an envelope addressed to Mr Lindsay which you produce as exhibit 1116?
A. That is correct.
Q. That is the envelope. You also found an exhibit JB117,our INQ8818, please, a driving licence -- no that's 117. Could we have 117 which is 8818, I think, please, unless I have my reference wrong. It may be it's not on Trial Director. I'm afraid I think the envelope is on Trial Director, but not the content. In any event, it was a counterpart driving licence in the name of Jermaine Lindsay, was it not?
A. I certainly found some correspondence in that name.
Q. Could we try 8818 one more time? No, don't worry, that's the envelope rather than the contents. In any event, it was a driving licence counterpart in his name. The following day, on 18 July, did you recover from the floor area, area Z, another piece of plastic that appeared to have been cut from a bottle?
A. Yes, correct, sir.
Q. In the same place, did you also find an exhibit JB123, a passport, a United Kingdom passport, in the name of Jermaine Lindsay?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Could we have INQ8816 [INQ8816-2], please? We can see at the bottom there the remains of that passport, JB123.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The exhibit had a number of different items in it. Split from it, did you also produce a certificate of mobile phone insurance, again in the name of Mr Lindsay?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. Our INQ8815 [INQ8815-2], please. A certificate of mobile phone insurance, there we are. If we could just enlarge the number on the top left-hand corner --
A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
Q. -- we should see the name and address, and also split from that exhibit JB123, did you find a handwritten document, a Department of Work and Pensions letter, dated 9 May 2005?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Our INQ8814 [INQ8814-2], please. Could you just enlarge the top right-hand segment of that document, please? The significance of that a document addressed to him, but it contained handwriting on it, did it not?
A. Yes, it did, sir.
Q. On that front page, there was a reference there, wasn't there, to "one minute per train"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the reverse side -- which should be the next page in the exhibit [], if you could enlarge the top half first, please -- there were a number of days in the week set
out, as well as journey times, making references to "Holborn", "West", possibly Westminster, "Paddington", "Oxford Circus"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the bottom half of the page, if you would rotate it, please, days of the week with more detailed explanations of distances and times from certain London Underground
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could we perhaps return one more time -- I feel my luck might be better this time -- and try INQ8817 [INQ8817-2], please, for the DVLA letter, if it could be rotated -- I'm very grateful to Mr Suter -- there is the counterpart driving licence with the name Mr Lindsay.
A. Yes, I do recall it.
MR KEITH: Thank you very much, Officer, those are all the questions I have for you.
To summarise, and to ask the questions that are not asked by Counsel to the Inquests, Lindsay's body with circuit board and plastic bottle was discovered in area Z, some distance from the blast, despite the explosives being apparently manually detonated and occurring on the floor of the carriage. Lindsay's body was subjected to a pathology test on 10 July. His home was raided on 13 July, a day after the raids in Leeds, and then on 17 & 18 July, some 10 and 11 days after the event, identification documents are found in precisely the same area that Lindsay was recovered from, despite this not being the location of the blast. Is DI Brunsden questioned on why it took so long to discover these documents? Or how they ended up in the same area as Lindsay despite being separated from him?

Nobody has explained either why Jermaine Lindsay, if he were indeed intent on committing an act of suicide-bombing on 7/7 would think to spend £30 on insurance for his mobile phone on 24 June 2005, just 13 days prior to 7 July. Note also that the address is 10 Meadow Way not 10 Northern Road - the address that Hugo Keith claimed the police drove past after the apparent robbery on 27 May 2005, when Lindsay's red Fiat Brava was said to have been involved and this address traced via registration details. [See Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango].

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Any questions? Mr Patterson?
Questions by MR PATTERSON
MR PATTERSON: Just one or two additional exhibits, please, Officer. I think there were other similar peroxide bottles that were found on the train that appeared to have the neck cut off them, rather like the one that you've already mentioned.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I think there was one JB228, which was at area Y, so at that rear part of the carriage but --
A. On the other side.
Q. -- on the other side, exactly. There was a Nokia mobile phone, JB41, that was found in that first carriage near seat D --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- which was later examined and found to be a phone that had text messages consistent with having been used by the bomber, Jermaine Lindsay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In addition, another document rather like the one that we've just looked at, which showed handwritten notes about Underground stations, there was another one, JB265, which was a Tube map which had ringed Underground stations including King's Cross, Bond Street, Oxford Circus and so forth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So a similar document to the one we've looked at?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Finally, this: I think there were also assorted pieces of rucksack that were found in different areas, also in that carriage, which were later considered by the scientist Mr Clifford Todd?
A. We did find a number of items of that description, yes.
MR PATTERSON: Thank you very much. That's all I ask.
Questions by MS GALLAGHER
MS GALLAGHER: Just one very brief matter. We've looked at on screen JB125, so the Department of Work and Pensions letter which has the times written on it. Can we go -- I'm not sure if it's on Trial Director -- it's [INQ9644-3]. Yes, it is. At the very top box there, it just confirms that the handwriting is definitely Jermaine Lindsay. Just for completeness, my Lady, I thought it appropriate to raise that at this stage.

More debris, again from another area at the rear of the carriage. opposite to where Lindsay's body is claimed to have been recovered, rather than under the train or around the blast site.

The damage to the Piccadilly line train and the area where the explosion occurred (note the lifting up of the carriage floor around the bottom left corner in this image). Area Z would be somewhere around the yellow and blue poles at the rear of the carriage near the middle left of this image and area Y on the opposite side.

The 7/7 Inquests have some explaining to do as the official story continues to fall apart.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammad 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 28.

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:

One passenger, Elizabeth Owen, questioned where she was placed on this diagram and claimed that she was actually seated in 29 or 30 which would have placed her in very close proximity to Khan if indeed he was in seat 28 as shown in this diagram. [Transcripts 10 November p57: 21]

Whether passengers saw Khan or not, he was certainly not seen or mentioned after the explosion by any of the emergency services, paramedics or police, except by one PC Geoffrey Potter of the British Transport Police, who claims he was told that there were seven fatalities on his arrival at Edgware Road, at approx 09.45, before being sent down to the train by DI Dave Dickason of the BTP.

PC Potter claims not to remember who precisely gave him this information which is surprising as there had been no evidence of seven fatalities up to the point of his arrival:
Q. Did you receive any information, as you entered the station, as to whether or not there were fatalities on the train and, if so, how many?
A. Yes, sir, I was informed, and I can't recall who by now, but that there were at least seven dead.

This number of fatalities is evidenced in his log book which was adduced into evidence:

The variation in the writing of this 7 next to fatalities differs somewhat from the style used to write the number 7 in the date and time at the top of the page.

By 09.50.40, so very shortly after his arrival, PC Potter felt confident enough of the information he had to call the Major Incident Control Centre as evidenced by this BTP call log:

Who had confirmed the 7 fatalities? It wasn't from Potter's own assessment of the scene, his own diagram varied in relation to other diagrams and from the final assessment of the positions of the deceased after the incident. Yet PC Potter identifies only six fatalities, five in the carriage and one on the track:

PC Potter places all the fatalities around the blast centre and there is noticeably absent a seventh. In his witness testimony he is questioned on each of these:
Q. We can see from your plan that you've noted the presence of four people, 1, 2, 3 and 4 round the crater.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Inside the crater, you've marked on the plan number 6.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was number 6?
A. Number 6 was what I took at the time to be the centre of the explosion, I took him to be the bomber.
Q. Obviously, and there's obviously no question about it, that's quite wrong, but that was what it appeared to be?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he inside the hole or beneath the hole?
A. He was through the hole, yes, he was on the floor underneath the train.
Q. From where you could see, was the debris in the hole such that the bottom of the train had been blown down on to the tracks?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was all intermingled with the track itself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you able to say anything about or to see anything of his age or the clothing that he was wearing?
A. I've said that he -- I guessed him to be about 5' 10" tall, but he didn't have a full body, I'm afraid, he had torso, head and basic limbs, but, again, his legs were severed around the knees.
Q. All right. He had severe injuries also to his hands?
A. Yes.
Q. Could we enlarge, please, the map? You've told us about 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect where number 5 was or who number 5 was?
A. Yes, sir, that's the lady that I described as being the one at the front of the train that I'd seen initially on my arrival.
Q. If we look at the left-hand side of that page, you've attempted to draw there "location of two trains"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do we see very faintly number 5 being a person lying on the track in front of that eastbound train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that is the person, as you've told us, you've described earlier. Once you'd made a note or asked the officer to write down everything that you'd called out, did you then leave the train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go Paddington way or back towards Edgware Road?
A. Back to Edgware Road.
Q. Had the train cleared by then?
A. By the time we did the notes, yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect how much time passed while you were in the train?
A. I think it was about an hour, sir, an hour and a half.
Q. You've recorded in your statement how, at 10.55, you passed the information from the assessment to the chief inspector, Mr Dickason?
A. Yes, sir

Is the picture becoming clearer? Has it sunk in? Six fatalities, not the seven he reported to the MICC and the sixth, the man in the hole, suspected of being the 'bomber'? Why would there be any suspicion of a 'suicide bomber' on this train? Weren't the events of 7 July the first incidence of 'suicide bombings' in the UK? Would that be a policeman's first guess, rather than, say a package left on the train? What information did PC Potter possess to enable such an assessment of the sixth fatality? Perversely, but unsurprisingly, these were not questions which bothered Hugo Keith QC.

PC Potter then effectively prevents a further examination of the carriage by a paramedic who had been tasked with checking 'life extinct' then, despite carrying out checks outside the carriage and on the tracks, does not conclude that there were any further fatalities :
Q. Were there some concerns about the state of the tunnel itself?
A. Yes, sir, I had a report that the tunnel walls, from a member of staff, had cracks in them, and that they were concerned about the strength of the tunnel.
Q. Did there come a time when a paramedic called Graham Card approached you and he explained that he had been asked to attend the scene to again check or verify --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- that life was extinct in relation to the persons who had died on the train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that then require you to go through the train again with him?
A. He was -- I gave him an account of what we'd done on the trains and he was satisfied that the inside of the trains had been checked, and we went all the way around the outside of the trains checking everywhere to make sure that we hadn't missed anybody.
Q. On that second occasion, did you stop to take any further details about the persons whom you had originally checked?
A. Yes, sir, I believe I did.
Q. Did you take further details of the debris and the state of play surrounding the train in the near vicinity of the crater?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it apparent that there was a considerable quantity of human debris, parts of human bodies, near the bombsite outside the train?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. Did you and Mr Card check carefully round that area to make sure there was nobody else there, firstly, alive --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- and, secondly, to see whether or not there were any other deceased passengers in that near vicinity?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But there weren't?
A. No.
Despite checking "everywhere outside of the train" Khan's body or his remains appear to have been 'missed'. The number of fatalities remain at six, not the seven reported by PC Potter.

'Life extinct' pronounced on six persons by Dr Morgan Costello on behalf of the MPS was then carried out in the early hours of 8 July as previously detailed here

The debris on the tracks and the position of the blast

The debris on the tracks referred to by Hugo Keith 'existing under the blast site and mangled with the tracks' is also rather odd as the explosion on Circle Line train 216 was said to have occurred some two carriages further back towards Edgware Road. Presumably around the same area that both Danny Biddle and Jenny Nicholson along with the doors from this carriage were found, rather than under the final position that carriage two of this train came to a halt.

NB: The information on the above plan states: This drawing is based on measured laser scan data captured on 10/07/2005. The carriage detonation position was determined from pitting on the tunnel ceiling caused by primary fragmentation and additional damage to the side tunnel caused by the impact of the carriage doors.

In which case it would be expected that if Khan had 'disappeared down the blast hole', his remains would be found further back along the track.

Pathology and identification

The process of both body removal and identification of the victims, issues which have caused the bereaved families deep distress, confusion and anger, have been deemed outside the scope of these proceedings. Hugo Keith again issued a warning to the families legal representatives before calling DC Wilson from the Anti-Terrorist branch of New Scotland Yard, the forensics scene examiner and exhibits officer who gave testimony to the Inquests on 24 November.

DC Wilson first describes the amount of trampling around the crime scene and the delays that occurred before any forensic investigation was carried out:
Q. Was concern expressed about the state of two iron beams that traversed the roof of the tunnel?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What were you told?
A. I was told that from the position that they were, it was impossible for them to say 100 per cent, but they did have concerns, because of the age of the tunnel, and needed equipment to be brought to the scene so it could be erected so they could have a closer look at those beams.
Q. Was there some difficulty encountered in getting the necessary equipment to Edgware Road?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Did it, in fact, take some hours to get it there?
A. Yes, it did, sir, some considerable hours.
Q. Did that delay the forensic examination of the scene in any way?
A. Yes, it did. It meant in general terms, other than the initial recovery we had to make, that no one could enter the tunnel during that period.
Q. Did you, amongst your first decisions, decide that, because of her location, the young lady Jennifer Nicholson should be formally identified and removed from where she lay at the front of the eastbound train?
A. Yes, I did, sir. I was aware other people would have to attend and obviously wanted to remove her from that environment to a location onto platform 4.
Q. Later on 7 July, indeed not until the early evening, did asbestos testers then arrive in order to monitor the tunnel to see whether or not there were levels of asbestos that made it dangerous for you and your officers to continue working?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Did that, therefore, also contribute to a delay before the forensic examination could start?
A. There was a slight delay in that equipment arriving, being set up and us giving the all clear to commence work.
Q. Then to compound the situation, was the station then evacuated due to a possible gas leak that evening as well?
A. Yes it was, that is correct.

At approx 06.00 am on 8 July the forensic examination of the scene proceeds and the remains of a body later identified as Khan and identification documents in his name are recovered:
Q. Throughout the time that you were there, did you keep, and did you instruct your officers to keep, a record of every single significant find made in the tunnel?
A. Yes, that was kept by myself, sir, yes.
Q. Was one such find, what is known as exhibit MW84 -- and I don't refer to that exhibit in any way in a disrespectful way, but it was a technical exhibit given to human remains found on the westbound line of the track?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were those remains, MW84, the remains from which a muscle sample, RW58, was taken?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Was that muscle sample then dispatched for DNA examination?
A. It was.
Q. Were those remains, MW84, also the remains that were examined by Dr Djurovic in her post-mortem on 10 July 2005?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Were they subsequently identified as those of Mohammed Sidique Khan?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. The remainder of the victims of the bomb were themselves recovered in addition, of course, to Jennifer Nicholson whom we've already addressed. Were they recovered formally on Saturday, 9 July at the times at which you record in your statement?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Each was given, for the purposes of identification a number and the DVI team then pursued what they had to do in relation to identification?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Once the deceased had been formally removed from their locations, was a credit card found in the near vicinity of the underneath of the westbound train under the blast hole?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Was that a visa card, MW85, in the name of Mr S Khan?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. The card was entangled with human debris near the location of the explosion?
A. That is correct.
Q. Was it immediately identified by you as being a significant find?
A. It was significant in so much as it was an ID of some description so, therefore, needed to be rung out to the investigation team.
Q. Did you contact the investigation team at Scotland Yard to pass on the fact that you had found that card?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Also, that there was more human debris found in the near vicinity of that card?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Each day and each night the scene was -- each night and each day that the scene was closed and then opened, and that process continued throughout the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday the following week?
A. That is correct.
Q. On the Wednesday, was a further exhibit found: namely, a Halifax debit card in the name of Khan, on the floor of the inside of the second carriage?
A. That is correct.
Q. On Thursday, 14 July, was the search of the track completed up to the point of the second carriage?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. At that point, therefore, were you able to arrange for some of the carriages of the westbound train to be removed from the scene?
A. The last four were winched back during the course of the night, yes, sir.
Q. To Edgware Road station?
A. Yes, into the platform itself, yes.
Q. Did that then allow you to carry out further forensic searches of both the carriage itself and the underneath of the train?
A. That is correct.
Q. As a result of that, on Thursday, 14 July, did you find further exhibits relating to Sidique Khan: namely, a Leeds City Council permit and an insurance card?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were they found inside the bombed carriage?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. The scene was closed on the Thursday night and open again on the Friday, and so the process continued through the Saturday, Sunday. I think on the Sunday night, London Underground, yourselves and the Metronet team worked through the night?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Then, on the Sunday, was the second carriage wrapped in order to facilitate its removal from the scene?
A. That is correct.
Q. On Tuesday, 19 July -- so some ten or eleven days later -- did the point then arise at which it was possible to make arrangements for the lifting of the second carriage from the tracks?
A. That was correct, yes, sir.
Q. Was it then winched towards -- or taken away from the scene to a storage depot?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You then handed over the scene formally to British Transport Police and the London Underground network on Wednesday, 20 July when your officers left the scene?
A. That is correct, sir, yes.
Q. The exhibits that you discovered in the course of your and your officers' examination of the scene were all sent to Scotland Yard for the purposes of the
A. They were probably sent to laboratories, the majority of them, direct from the scene under escort with another officer.

Although Hugo Keith fails to establish the date that the human remains identified as MW84 were found, it is established that the credit card, MW85 - obviously the next ID number in the sequence - was found after the removal of the bodies on 9 July.

Not for the first time has there been a discrepancy between evidence from the Inquests and the ISC report into the London bombings. In this instance, the credit card (MW85) which DC Wilson claimed was discovered under the hole left by the blast after the removal of the deceased on 9 July was, according to the ISC report, found on the 8 July; a message to this effect received by the MPS at 19.50. Rather than these Inquests providing us with the truth of the events of 7 July we are finding more and more inconsistencies - inconsistencies which frankly should not exist if what happened is actually what happened. Only the truth will stand up in the face of scrutiny.

The remains identified as MW84 were examined by pathologists at the Resilience Mortuary set up in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company, as early as 11 am on 10 July. Hugo Keith read the following gruesome pathology report:
My Lady, I now turn to the report from a consultant forensic pathologist, Dr Djurovic, on the post-mortem examination of the remains identified as being those of Mohammed Sidique Khan.
My Lady, parts of the statement are extremely delicate in the way in which they refer to the remains and I therefore don't intend to read out the entirety of the statement, but to paraphrase where appropriate.
MR KEITH: It reads:
Statement of DR VESNA DJUROVIC read
"Post-mortem examination."
The report is dated 4 June 2007 and it relates to human remains numbered 60021456.
My Lady, those are the human remains exhibited as MW84 taken from the westbound track by Mr Wilson:
"Date and time of examination: 10 July 2005, 11.25.
The remains were subsequently identified as Mohammed Khan.
"Place of examination: The London Resilience Mortuary.
"Pathologist: Dr Djurovic."
Then Dr Djurovic lists the persons present and states that the post-mortem was carried out under the authority of the then coroner Dr Paul Knapman.
"Fluoroscopy: fluoroscopy was undertaken at 11.05 on Monday, 10 July and showed the following:
"What appeared to be a circuit board close to the lumbar spine.
"Wire fragments at the level of the torso.
"A metal mesh, several studs and a curved fragment of wire near the top of the torso.
"Metal fragments near the top of the spine.
"Wire and metallic objects, including studs, screws and a bolt lower down at the level of the torso.
"Further metallic objects, including coins, wire and metal fragments at the top right section of the torso.
"Further fluoroscopy ..."
And I interpose simply to say examination to see whether or not there is the presence of metallic objects.
"... was undertaken on 15 July and found a small metallic fragment in the region of the left shoulder,a T-shaped metallic fragment below into the right of the previous item, glass fragments and further small metal debris.
"External examination:
"Inside the bag marked 60021456 was a further bag marked MW84 ..."
Which is the exhibit number given formally to the remains by Mr Wilson.
"... containing severely damaged and fragmented parts of what appeared to be the body of a young adult male appearing well built. These consisted of the following:
"Most of the scalp tissue ... but separated into two larger fragments. Attached to this part of the scalp tissue were several large fragments of broken vault of skull. The other part of the scalp originated from the back and right side of the head including the right parietal region."
My Lady, the upper right parietal region is the upper posterior part of the head:
"The lower edge showed marked blackening and superficial and deep vertical lacerations. There was parchmenting and blackening of the skin on both sides of the neck. The facial skeleton was absent. There were multiple fractures on the base of the skull. The upper segment of the spinal column was present."
She then lists the disruption to the top of the larynx and the bones in the trachea and the cartilage thereto:
"Attached were remains of strap muscles ..."
Those are the neck muscles:
"... the manubrium and upper part of the body of the sternum ..."
The manubrium is the upper part of the sternum bone.
"[Attached also were] carotid arteries ...
"The spine was separated at the level of the upper thoracic spine."
That's to say the upper back:
"Attached to the back of the neck was a large fragment of the skin of the back of the torso. There was a further large fragment of skin, probably part of the lower part of the back and the upper buttock. There was a separate large fragment of skin. There were several fragments of soil tissue ... there was a large section of spinal column with the sacrum [which is a bone at the bottom of the spine] consisting of the lumbar and most of the thoracic spine up to the fifth thoracic vertebra ...
"Removed from the body were fragments of newspaper, metal from the railway, pieces of cardboard, seat fragments, circuit board, pieces of wire, card, coins and white metal fragments and miscellaneous debris.
"A re-examination was carried out on 15 July when further fragments of wire, glass, plastic and fabric were removed from the body."
My Lady, on the next page, page 5, there is then a list of those fragments removed from the remains of Mr Khan, including on that page RW58, which is significant because that is the muscle sample examined by the previous witness Timothy Clayton. RW58, a piece of deep muscle for DNA examination from the spinal column:
"Clinicopathological correlation:
"The remains were those of a young adult male showing severe disruptive injury. Preserved were large fragments of the skin of the back of the head, neck and torso, parts of base and vault of skull, some neck structures, a large section of the spinal column with the sacrum and parts of the intestine. The nature and extent of damage is consistent with the deceased being in the immediate proximity of the explosive device. A more detailed interpretation of the mechanism of injury may be possible after further body parts are recovered."
Indeed, further examination was carried out, which will form part of the forensic evidence which my Lady has directed will be heard in February.

When Keith referred to 'further examination being carried' out is he referring to the second post-mortem requested by Khan's family? When the Inquests examine the further forensic evidence in February 2011, so will J7.

The very few remains of the person identified as Khan do not include any of the old-fashioned forms of identification such as hands and fingers for fingerprinting, a face, or teeth, leaving DNA identification as the only method by which an identification of any sort could be assigned.

DNA, that magical laboratory feat, was carried out on a sample taken from the muscle sample RW58, as identified by DC Wilson and the pathology report. Timothy Clayton wrote the following forensics report which was read to the Inquests by Hugo Keith:
My Lady, the next statement is that of Timothy Clayton, a forensic scientist dated 20 July 2005.
Statement of MR TIMOTHY CLAYTON read
"I am a senior forensic scientist employed by the Home Office Forensic Science Service based at the Wetherby Laboratory. I am a registered forensic practitioner and have been a forensic scientist since 1990. I specialise in forensic biology. I have participated in the research, development and validation of DNA profiling techniques currently in use by the Forensic Science Service and have been involved in the implementation of these systems for use in forensic casework and the National DNA Crime Intelligence Database in England and Wales.
"I have conducted many examinations of the type detailed in this statement and have provided evidence for the Court of Appeal, Crown Courts, Magistrates' Courts, Coroners' Courts and courts outside the British jurisdiction. I am the co-author of several scientific publications on the subject of DNA profiling.
"From information received with this case, I understand that it is alleged that the unidentified muscle sample RW58 is from Mohammed Sidique Khan."
My Lady, muscle sample RW58, as we'll see in a moment from another statement, is a sample of muscle taken from an exhibit MW84. MW84 is an exhibit exhibited by Mr Wilson, from whom we'll hear in a moment, and it comprises human remains taken from the Edgware Road tunnel identified by the number 60021456.
"I understand that Tika Khan and Mamida Begum are the biological parents of Mohammed Sidique Khan and that all three are of Asian descent ...
"Purpose of examination:
"The above items have been analysed by DNA profiling to determine whether or not there is any scientific support for the assertion that the muscle sample RW58 is from a biological son of both Tika Khan and Mamida Begum.
"The DNA profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum have been established under their respective reference samples under the instruction of my colleague Mr Chapman of the Forensic Science Laboratory, London. I have been supplied with copies of these profiles together with a profile obtained from the muscle sample.
"DNA profiling reveals bands, half of which a child inherits from its biological mother and half of which it inherits from its biological father. In this case, all of the bands present in the profile from the muscle sample RW58 are represented in the combined profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum. This is what I would expect to find if the unidentified sample was from a biological son of theirs.
"In carrying out a statistical evaluation of these results, I have considered the following alternative propositions for the results obtained. Either the unidentified muscle sample RW58 originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum or the unidentified muscle sample is from an unknown Asian man who is unrelated to them. Using data available for the Asian population in the United Kingdom, a figure has been calculated called a likelihood ratio. This is a numeric evaluation of the strength of the DNA evidence. In this case, the figure is 170 million. That is, the results showed that the DNA profile obtained from the muscle sample RW58 is approximately 170 million times more likely to have originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum rather than an unknown Asian male unrelated to them.
"It should be stressed the above statistical evaluation does not take into account any possibility that the unidentified muscle sample originated from another close male relative of them.
"In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the unidentified muscle sample originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum."
Lady, in accordance with the usual practice, he then lists the levels of certainty from limited support -- from no support to extremely strong support, so the conclusion that he reaches is the highest order of certainty in that list.

Paraphrasing the process described above: With "information received with this case" Clayton was told he had been delivered a DNA profile from "the unidentified muscle sample RW58 [..] from Mohammed Sidique Khan". The unidentified muscle sample is first unidentified as Mohammed Sidique Khan, however Clayton had no immediate method at his disposal to independently establish that he actually had a DNA profile from a muscle sample from Khan. Clayton understands the no-brainer, "that Tika Khan and Mamida Begum are the biological parents of Mohammed Sidique Khan and that all three are of Asian descent". Clayton is then given "copies" of the DNA profiles of Khan's parents as verified by Mr Chapman of London, again with no independent method by which to confirm that that is indeed what he was given. He then compares the "copies of these profiles" with the profile apparently taken from the muscle sample, RW58, that which was unidentified as Mohammed Sidique Khan.

Why Khan had to be identified using Tika and Mamida's DNA is unclear and whether it is good practice to receive the information on the person being tested before the examination is carried out is also questionable. Shouldn't such tests be 'blind' samples to ensure that there is no ability to pre-judge or arrive at a pre-determined outcome?

One last vexing question: Was Mamida actually Khan's mother or was she his step-mother? Two journalists, Ian Herbert and Shiv Malik, have both written that Mamida was in fact Khan's step-mother. J7 are currently attempting to check this information so will update this when we have further evidence one way or another.

Then, in 2001, in a last desperate attempt to get his youngest son to obey his wishes, Tika Khan decided to move to Nottingham with Hanif, his daughter Nafiza and his second wife, also called Mamida Begum. (Tika’s first wife, the mother to his four children, had died a few years before; it is not known how badly Sidique had been affected.)

Khan clearly became disenchanted with the modest form of Islam practised by his father, Tika Khan, and stepmother, Mamida Begum.

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

7/7 Inquests: Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango

We have already examined the fact that CCTV from Luton station car park was not being viewed on 12 July 2005, as stated in the sworn witness testimony of Metropolitan Police Detective Inspector Kindness. CCTV from Luton station car park was being viewed at least as early as 10 July. The 7/7 Inquest was then informed that Jermaine Lindsay's Fiat Brava, after being issued a parking ticket at 5.53 am on 7 July was towed away that same evening:
Q.[HUGO KEITH] Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. [DI KINDNESS] 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.
Q. Were there any difficulties associated with the CCTV viewing in relation to the Luton car park?
A. The Luton car park, the cameras on the car park were on a high gantry. The quality wasn't great, and the -- the weather was quite inclement that morning, it was quite dark when they arrived, so we did have some initial difficulties. The sizes of the images were very, very small in the car park and unclear to make out exactly what was going on.
Q. When you viewed the CCTV for Luton car park, did you discover that one of the cars had then subsequently been towed away?
A. Yes, it had been.
Q. Which car was that?
A. That was the Brava, sir.
Q. Had it, in fact, been towed away on the evening of 7 July 2005?
A. Yes, we were able to view the CCTV and see that happening.
Q. In fact, did subsequent enquiries show that there had been a parking ticket in the Fiat Brava up to 23.59 on the evening of that Thursday?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. But the other car, the Nissan Micra, was still there, and could you still see it in the continuing CCTV?
A. Yes, we could.
Q. As a result of you discovering the location of those cars, did officers then attend to look at, in particular, the Nissan Micra in the car park?
A. Yes, indeed.

Although the testimony of the parking attendant was read to the 7/7 Inquest [page 57 line 24 on] a copy was never released onto the evidence section of the Inquest website.

As J7 had noted in Mind The Gaps, the towing away of cars was not specified in the parking regulations at Luton station car park, instead wheel clamping and the payment of parking fines before exiting the car park were the method used:

Hugo Keith informed the Inquests on 12 October that CCTV showing the removal of the Fiat Brava on 7 July 2005 existed, but this footage wasn't shown amongst the various CCTV clips shown at the Inquest and has yet to be released into the public domain.
Q. It wasn't played yesterday, but is it right that there does exist uninterrupted footage showing that Brava from its arrival at 5.07 right through the morning?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Presumably, that has been viewed to see if there were any people coming and going from the Brava?
A. Yes, well, when viewing of the Brava resulted in its eventual identification on the -- you know, its removal later on in the day.
Q. So we do see the person who appears to be Jermaine Lindsay coming and going from that car and I think we've discovered today that we also see the person who is believed to be the parking attendant --
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. -- who issued the ticket. Can we take it, therefore, that there were no other people coming and going from that car?
A. From my understanding, absolutely not. There was only Jermaine Lindsay.

The registration number for a Fiat Brava apparently registered to Lindsay was entered into the Police National Computer after a suspected robbery on 27 May 2005 although, once again, Lindsay was apparently never apprehended despite the car being registered in his name to his home address:
[HUGO KEITH] On 27 May, just five weeks before, Luton police received a call from a man to the effect that there was a gunman in his flat. When armed police arrived, neither the owner of the flat, presumably the person who called, nor the gunman were there. All had fled. Then a member of the public called in to say he had seen three males, two black and one Asian, wearing balaclavas and running down the road and he saw one of them holding a handgun. They got into a car and he managed to the a [sic] note of the car registration number, and it was a Fiat, R662 DSF. Lindsay's car. The police marked on the police national computer an interest in the car and requested that it be stopped if it was sighted. They then also went to the address of the registered keeper, Lindsay's address in Aylesbury that we've seen on the map, but there was no reply. A crime report was filed and an investigation commenced. They did a silent drive-by past the address again that night, but the car wasn't seen and was not subsequently traced. They drove past again the following day, but the investigation went nowhere, I think primarily because the victim of the armed robbery, or whatever it had been, could neither be identified nor traced, and the red Fiat Brava was not seen again until it was found in the Luton car park after 7 July 2005.

For the purposes of brevity we shall ignore the rather fantastical sounding and seemingly unsolved "armed robbery, or whatever it had been" crime, in which it appears that the police have been unable to locate either the victim who "could neither be identified nor traced" or the apparent perpetrator(s), despite having the registration plate of the car in which the three apparent perpetrators made their getaway, and the address to which the car was registered. We shall also ignore that the police "did a silent drive-by past the address again that night" but didn't think to stop and make a second house call.

Seemingly, all the police did glean from this odd sounding incident, was the number of a car registered to Jermaine Lindsay and an address, 10 Northern Road, Aylesbury. It may be opportune to note that "The police marked on the police national computer an interest in the car and requested that it be stopped if it was sighted" and that Hugo Keith states quite clearly "the red Fiat Brava was not seen again until it was found in the Luton car park after 7 July 2005". However, the official 'narrative' version of events holds that the Brava was indeed used if not 'seen' again at least at Luton station car park, and at least on 28 June 2005, possibly alongside a Jaguar that also appeared in Luton station car park on both of these dates. The Police National Computer and the Automated Number Plate Recognition system, while very good at detecting and penalising the owners of uninsured vehicles, appears to be not so good at finding owners of cars involved in apparent real crimes.

A few seconds of CCTV claiming to be Lindsay's Brava being driven from Dunstable to Luton Station and in the car park on the morning of 28 June 2005 was shown at the Inquest on 13 October and released into evidence:

Lindsay's Fiat Brava in Dunstable from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

The precise date that Lindsay had moved to Aylesbury with his wife, Samantha Lewthwaite and their child is unclear, with media reports citing anything from three to seven weeks before 7 July 2005. The Inquests could produce evidence on when Lindsay purchased the Fiat Brava and the date that Lindsay and his family rented this property in Aylesbury, and if it was before he moved to Aylesbury, on what date he registered it in his new address.

The Fiat Brava is assessed to have contained everything from quantities of HMTD, a handgun and bullets to Tanweer's white jogging bottoms. The search of the Fiat Brava is said to have been carried out on 12 July 2005, although the reading out of the times from the following statement make it impossible to ascertain whether the times indicate activity that morning or in the evening:
[HUGO KEITH] Andrew Donaldson, a police officer. He provides a statement dated 20 October 2005. My Lady, this witness attends upon the motor car, the maroon-coloured Fiat Brava which you will recall was towed away from the railway station in Luton. He provides a very long witness statement detailing everything that was found in that car, and I propose just to make reference to one or two of the exhibits that were found.

Statement of ANDREW DONALDSON read
"I am the above-named detective constable. On Tuesday, 12 July, I was requested to go from London to Luton, Bedfordshire where two motor vehicles had been located at Luton railway station and which were suspected of being connected to the bomb attacks in London on 7 July.
"I arrived at Luton police station at 6.00 and liaised with other officers.
"At about 8.00 I travelled to a recovery compound arriving at about 8.30. I liaised with other officers already present, including an explosives officer, Dave Williams, who carried out safety search procedures on the car assigned to me to examine and search which was present here having been recovered from Luton railway station. Mr Williams had to force entry into the vehicle in order to conduct his procedures as the doors were locked and there were no keys present with the car. This entailed a front window being smashed.
"The car was a burgundy-coloured Fiat Brava. The safety search conducted by Mr Williams revealed no explosive devices present, but there was a handgun firearm located in the boot of the car together with a number of live rounds of ammunition which were with the gun but not in it. No other dangerous hazards were found in this initial safety check procedure. The firearm and ammunition was made safe by an authorised firearms officer. The motor car was then photographed by a Bedfordshire police photographer. It was then initially examined by a fingerprint officer whilst under cover inside a building.
"An initial search of the car was then conducted commencing at 9.15. I, as the scene examiner and exhibits officer, commenced and maintained contemporaneously an exhibit search logbook. The search was conducted with other anti-terrorist branch officers.
I list below all the items found and seized during the course of this search."
This fits with the narrative of viewing the CCTV on 12 July 2005, but not if the cars were identified in Luton station car park when the CCTV was viewed as early as 10 July 2005.

Mr Donaldson enters the Brava by smashing the front window, whereas the Nissan Micra is entered via a controlled explosion.

Whatever the correct dates of identifying the accused on CCTV the actual raid on 10 Northern Road, Aylesbury did not occur until around 7.00pm on Wednesday 13 July, a full 36 hours after the Leeds homes were raided.

One of the four Leeds addresses raided in the early hours of 12 July was the family home of Ejaz Fiaz, the man initially named as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line explosion. It is reported that Ejaz had in fact moved to Luton. His brother, Naveed Fiaz, was the only person to be arrested under the Terrorism Act but he was released without charge on 22 July, and no further details about his arrest were provided by the police.

According to this Guardian report, 10 Northern Road was under surveillance for at least 24 hours before the raid on 13 July with neighbours commenting that the family had moved in three weeks earlier. The report also includes an apparent sighting of Jermaine Linsday on Friday 8 July 2005, the day after he is alleged to have committed suicide on the Piccadilly Line between King's Cross and Russell Square:
Aylesbury house is searched in effort to find associates
The Guardian, Thursday 14 July 2005 03.36 BST

The search for potential associates of the London bombers turned last night to Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, where police raided a house.

More than 50 officers - many armed - sealed off Northern Road at around 7pm before entering the house.

No arrests were made but Scotland Yard confirmed that the raid, which was conducted jointly with Thames Valley police, was connected to last week's bombings in London.

Aylesbury is about 20 miles from Luton, Bedfordshire, where a vehicle thought to be linked to the attacks was towed away yesterday.

The raid focused on a house at the far end of Northern Road.

A resident of the street said a man in his 20s had moved in to the cottage three weeks ago, and that the house had been under surveillance for almost 24 hours before last night's raid.

"I knew something was going on earlier because I noticed a suspicious-looking van parked in the road and reported its number to the police," said Daphne Sibley, the road's Neighbourhood Watch coordinator. "They told me that it was a plain clothes surveillance officer."

Another resident, Paul Chilton, saw the police arriving as he left home to take his daughters off to a school disco.

"I noticed a Land-Rover which looked like an armed response vehicle and I thought that was a bit strange," said Mr Chilton, 40. "I dropped the girls off and set out for a Neighbourhood Watch meeting when, lo and behold, I saw about 30 or 40 police.

"Some were in plain clothes and some were in uniform and had guns, shields, and bulletproof vests. They were around number 10. I don't know the people who live there, but I don't think they were there when the police came."
It also emerged that the occupant of the house was last seen by neighbours on Friday - the day after the bombings - loading items into the boot of his red car, which was parked in Northern Road.
The naming of Jermaine Lindsay as a suspect was first made public on Wednesday 13 July by Nicolas Sarkozy, the then French Foreign Secretary, after an EU meeting. Lindsay was further named as 'Lindsey Germaine' by unnamed "American law enforcement officials" on Wednesday 15 July 2005:
On Wednesday, several American law enforcement officials identified one of the suspected suicide bombers as a Jamaican-born British resident named Lindsey Germaine.
Source: New York Times
The story of Jermaine Lindsay and the Fiat Brava makes even less sense if an article from Lindsay's local paper, The Bucks Herald, is accurate:
Published on Tue Oct 25 13:49:38 BST 2005

(TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25) Aylesbury was just 30 minutes away from a full evacuation following the July 7 bombings when anti-terrorism police first connected the town to the terror attacks in London, The Bucks Herald can reveal.

New details emerged last week about the immediate threat police believed Jermaine Lindsay posed to the public after the suicide bombings on London's transport network rocked the capital.

A day after the attacks Chief Superintendent Simon Chesterman, the most senior police officer in Bucks, arrived at his office at Aylesbury Police Station to be confronted by Scotland Yard's counter terrorism unit.

Detectives believed that Lindsay, the Kings Cross bomber who killed 26 people, was, in fact, a fifth bomber, was still alive and posed an immediate threat to public safety.

Officers had discovered the car of Germaine Lindsay, who lived in Northern Road, abandoned at Luton train station, where he travelled to London with three other bombers.

What followed, said Chief Supt Chesterman, was the biggest police operation he had ever witnessed in 22 years on the force.

He said: "On July 8 I arrived in my office to be confronted by a team from the anti-terrorist squad."

The questions are piling up for the 7/7 Inquests to answer in relation to the four accused and the events in London on 7 July 2005. To the ever growing list of hitherto unanswered questions we can now add:
  • Was Lindsay suspected of being a fifth bomber and being sought in Aylesbury on 8 July 2005?
  • When and why was the Fiat Brava towed from Luton Station car park?

Monday, 22 November 2010

The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?