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.


  1. So numerous identifying cards were found for Khan. We need to have some context for this. What identifiyng cards were found for other casualties? If none, is it not remarkable that the only cards found were those of the alleged bomber? Aren't those the least likely to be found?

  2. The question of identification of any of the victims have been deemed 'outside of the scope of these proceedings' so we'll never know what id was found for them. It's worth bearing in mind that Clifford Todd said none of the id of the 4 accused showed signs of being on the body or in the bags at the time of the explosions and had been scattered at some distance.

    This issue we included in our submissions to the Inquest:

    Forensic issues regarding the bombs and the bodies of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay

  3. ^ I made this point on the Tanweer post (this was form an earlier hearing where the families were arguing for these issue to be included in the Inquests):

    20 For example, the family of Lee Baisden, who was
    21 sadly killed at the Aldgate bombing, were not aware that
    22 in fact Mr Baisden was standing directly next to the
    23 bomber when the bomb went off, and this assisted them in
    24 understanding why identification of the body was
    25 difficult and why no personal possessions were ever
    1 returned to them.

    Yet Tanweer's wallet was found?

  4. I'm no handwriting expert, but I think that a comparison of the three sevens on that piece of paper would lead anybody to doubt that they were by the same hand.

    Two clearly are by the same hand, one is large, the other small, but both are formed in the same way, with a curve, and with no tendency to form a right pointing tail on lifting the pen. The third seven, however, is not formed with a curve, but with an acute angle, and there is a trace of a tail to the right when lifting the pen.

  5. To be fair, the 5's in the times of the policeman's notes are more different than the 7's are. If mine is anything to go by, writing can vary substantially, especially when done in a hurry.

  6. Upon such vagaries, the officisl story depends on.

    Well done for the exposing the non-existant foundation upon which the 'official story' rests upon.