Monday, 3 October 2011

New 7/7 Video by Tom Secker, 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

A recently released film about the subject of 7/7, based on the researches and investigations of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, which includes details of the British State's history of collusion and complicity in previous terrorist attacks, coverage of related news and stories, as well as information about the proceedings that took place at the 7/7 Inquests:
A brand new investigative and analytical documentary from the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. It explores the 7/7 cold case via new evidence from the recent inquests and discusses the war on terror in the context of numerous miscarriages of justice and acts of violence committed by the state.

The first section of the film examines the history of the British state's use of double agents, from the Victorian Anarchists through WW2 to the war in Northern Ireland. It concludes by examining contemporary cases of injustice and violence carried out as part of the war of terror against Muslims. 

The second section of the film is a multi-dimensional study of the new evidence made available at the recent inquests. It looks at the evidence of a wider conspiracy and the fundamental flaws in the official narrative and the police investigation. It also discusses why the dialogue about 'intelligence failures' itself fails to address the very real possibility of state involvement in the attacks. 

The final section of the film returns to the Anarchists and the case of Martial Bourdin, Britain's first suicide bomber, in 1894. The mythology surrounding Bourdin is used as a foundation for examining the numerous films, tv shows training exercises and real life events that either predicted 7/7 or were influenced by the attacks. The question of conspiracy theories is addressed through an original analysis unique to this film. 

7/7 Crime and Prejudice combines a presentation of the cutting edge of July 7th research with a deeply contextual analysis that casts light on largely unexamined aspects of the war on terror. 

For further information about 7/7 please visit the website of the July 7th Truth Campaign and their dedicated 7/7 Inquests blog:

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Murdoch phone hacking and 7/7 Investigation

From: "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign"
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011

To the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee

The revelations of phone hacking by News International calls into question the role of the police and the Murdoch press during the investigation into the London Bombings on July 7th 2005.

A Times report written by Daniel McGrory and dated 25/08/2005:
The youngest of the July 7 bombers, he made three desperate telephone calls begging for help from the other members of the terror cell minutes before he blew himself up on a London bus.

The frantic last messages are seen by Scotland Yard as vivid proof that the British-born Muslim extremists intended to die in the attacks.

Knowing that all four men were supposed to synchronise the timing of the explosions, Hussain ran out of King’s Cross Underground station and tried to reach his accomplices by mobile telephone.

It was just before 9am, but by then all his fellow bombers were already dead. The other three had triggered their devices within seconds of one another at 8.50am.

Hussain is believed to have first called Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, the alleged leader of the group, saying: “I can’t get on a train. What should I do ?” Then in quick succession he left the same message for Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay as, clearly agitated about his next move, he hurried away from the station.

A police source who has heard the telephone calls said: “His voice was getting more and more frantic with each call.” Investigators could tell from his breathless voice that Hussain was walking fast as he made these calls.

These messages were not played nor even were they claimed to exist during the recent 7/7 Inquests.

We need to know:

Did the Times hack the phone messages of the 4 accused of 7/7?

Who was the ‘police source’ who gave this information to the Times?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not have an opportunity to hear these messages?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not refer to these messages?


J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign

Thursday, 7 July 2011

6th Anniversary of 7/7

On the 6th anniversary of 7/7, J7 are once again forced to reiterate our demand for a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005.

At the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests, Lady Justice Hallett named the 4 accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay as the perpetrators of the events of 7/7, despite the clear legal constraints that apply to Coroners and their ability to apportion guilt. Hallett concluded the inquest proceedings by refusing to resume the Inquests into the deaths of the 4. As part of our efforts to get to the truth of 7/7, J7 submitted a clear, detailed and reasoned submission to the inquests outlining why the resumption of these Inquests was imperative. J7's submission for resumption can be read here

As we stated in our submission:
  • The lack of representation of the families of the 4 men allowed any and all of the evidence presented to go unchallenged, meaning no witnesses called to the inquests were cross examined on behalf of the families of the accused.
  • The Inquests sat without a jury.
  • The Metropolitan Police investigation, Operation Theseus, was deemed to be outside the scope of the Inquests and thus the entire investigation behind Ian Blair's "largest criminal inquiry in English history" remains unexamined and unquestioned.
  • The Inquests for the 4 accused, in which a verdict of suicide would require a criminal standard of proof, were not resumed.
There are many glaring holes in the evidence that was presented to the Inquests, as detailed on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog which we set-up specially to report on the inquests, yet these potential showstoppers for the official narrative of events went unreported in the mainstream media. The absolute pressing necessity for a fully independent Public Inquiry is now greater than ever in order to enable anyone to have any confidence in the evidence by which the guilt or innocence of the four accused might be established. To date there has been no proper legal scrutiny of this evidence. Furthermore, in cases of alleged suicide, the intent to commit suicide must be proven and this burden of proof has not yet been met.

Without a full Public Inquiry, it remains the case that:
  • The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the 'Life Extinct' body counts carried out on 7th July by Dr Morgan Costello.
  • The police viewing of the Luton Station CCTV footage was conducted as early as 10th July, despite the official account clearly stating that the men were identified on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink on 11th July, and that it was this discovery that led the investigation to Luton as a possible site of interest.
  • There exist no sightings of three of the men, Khan Tanweer and Lindsay, after the footage from King's Cross Thameslink, some way from the Underground tube network. Apparently the temporary CCTV system that was installed at King's Cross underground malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30 and 8.50. Additionally, there are no recordings of the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence that shows three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
  • No CCTV from the pre-explosion tube carriages has been released, despite this CCTV apparently existing, and despite it being crucial evidence which could confirm or deny that three of the men boarded the carrriages they are alleged to have boarded. This CCTV should also have been made available to Colonel Mahoney when the expensive modelling of likely injuries sustained by the deceased was conducted to make up for the lack of any internal post mortems on the victims.
  • No CCTV exists from McDonald's showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb, as it was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV (oh the irony) turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
  • No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the buses he is alleged to have boarded. There is no footage of Hussain aboard the number 91 bus, nor the number 30 bus he is alleged to have destroyed, nor is there any street or traffic camera footage showing him boarding either bus.
  • There is a huge discrepancy between the explosives allegedly used, as given in sworn evidence to the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest, and the evidence that Clifford Todd gave to the 7/7 Inquests.
  • There is strong evidence in the public domain to suggest that at the heart of the story behind 7/7 lay at least three operatives for both the British and American Intelligence services, one of which served an insanely short period in a US prison, for greater crimes than those his testimony put behind bars for far longer terms, before being quietly released.
These questions and many more can be found on the 7/7 Inquests blog.

Six years on from an event with the largest single loss of life in London since the blitz can the Metropolitan Police, with it's long track record of complicity in facilitating Miscarriages of Justice -- and given the recent revelations that it is implicated in the Murdoch News of the World phone hacking scandal -- be allowed to offer a 'narrative' which is so deeply flawed and suspect? How about a 'narrative' which has remained unexamined and unchallenged except by J7? A 'narrative' that has ascribed guilt to four men without their families having the opportunity and legal representation to question, particularly when the four accused have been denied their own Inquest proceedings? Or a 'narrative' deemed outside the scope of inquiry by the 7/7 Inquests, and a 'narrative' which has led to the demonisation of the Muslim population? This is the same flawed and unproven narrative that has been the basis for the questioning of multi-culturalism and a 'narrative' which has done much to fuel the race-hate and bigotry of the far-right neo-fascist organisation, the EDL.

Current Prime Minister, David Cameron, has announced not one but two inquiries into the ongoing criminal exploits and activities of the press and police, just as news was breaking that the families of 7/7 victims were also victims of phone hacking at the hands of Murdoch media. This means that, as if we woke to find outselves in the midst of a Kafka novel, it is apparently right and proper to investigate whether or not the families of 7/7 victims had their mobile phones hacked, but it is not right and proper to have a full, in-depth, independent public investigation into how those same families of the 7/7 victims lost their loved ones.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign continue to say NO! This will not stand! Only a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005 has the vaguest chance of getting to the truth behind the 'narrative' of 7/7.

J7 will be writing again in the near future to ask for your continued support in our joint campaign for the truth about 7/7, and we will provide a few suggestions for ways you can help us pressure the government into commissioning an independent public inquiry.

For truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

A Nissan Micra Tardis?

The official narrative would have us believe that three of the 7/7 accused, Khan, Tanweer and Hussain, left Leeds in the early hours of the morning of 7th July 2005 after visiting 18 Alexandra Grove (the apparent 'bomb factory') and loading a rented Nissan Micra with home-made explosives of the type shown here:

The quantity of 'bulk explosives' claimed to have been found at 18 Alexandra Grove

According to the testimony of senior forensic investigator, Clifford Todd, only one of these substances was shown to be potentially viable as an explosive.
Q. Were there different types of sludge at the address?
A. Yes, there were two types. One was much darker than the other. One was a fairly light, sandy, yellow-brown colour. The other type was a much darker brown colour.
Q. Was there a difference between them, their effects?
A. Yes. The darker brown material, after various tests done at the laboratory, was found not to be energetic, so would not work as an explosive. The lighter, sandy-coloured material, that was shown, in at least one specific case, to be a high explosive.
That none of these containers could be forensically linked by either DNA or fingerprints to any of the four accused is an area which received no scrutiny or examination when DC Reynolds, of SO15 Counter-terrorism Command forensic management team, gave his testimony. Hussain's fingerprints were apparently found on only one plastic container which it was claimed contained HMTD. [1/02/2011 p13 13-15]

So, after collecting approx 40Kg of a light brown sludge that in "at least one specific case" could potentially possess explosive properties, the three men drove off in the rented Nissan Micra. Of note is that any less than "at least one specific case" would in fact mean that the sludge was potentially explosive in exactly "no specific case".

Despite much discussion of counter-surveillance methods by the use of 'operational phones' solely for use between the four accused, Shehzad Tanweer appears to have been quite content to give his 'operational phone' number on the rental agreement for the hired Micra. We know this because it is claimed that the car hire company called this phone on 7th July at 14.58, although, perhaps a little strangely, this was before the end of the rental period and we can only wonder what might have prompted this contact. This point was also contradicted by the statements from the car hire company read to the Inquests on 14/10/2010. [See pages 44 & 47]

A Nissan Micra is a very small car with a very limited boot capacity - yet it contained three men, two cool boxes, 40Kg of bulk explosives, five large rucksacks and a variety of other items, as shown in the picture below:

The items that were forensically linked to Khan, we are told, did not include the rucksack left behind in the Micra, nor the cool boxes which presumably contained the explosive substance, but  were  instead innocuous everyday items to which everyone can be forensically linked at a moment's notice: carrier bags, biros, sweet wrappers, etc.

According to the read statement of Sarah Lancaster, a Senior Case Officer in the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, also contained within the Micra must have been freezer ice blocks:
Based on my observations at the scene, my subsequent examination of the items submitted to this laboratory and in conjunction with the police photographs provided, it is my opinion that the damage in and around carriage 6713 of the Circle Line Underground train was consistent with a detonation of several kilograms, probably in the order of 10 kilograms, of a high explosive substance. [2/02/11 p46:6]

... exhibits which were reassembled to demonstrate that they were part of the freezer ice blocks and packs wrapped around the bomb. She concluded: "The use of freezer ice blocks and packs primarily suggests that it was necessary to keep a component of the IED cool. [ibid p50:15]

No explanation is given for the contents of the black bags in the right hand cool box - what did they contain?

After arriving at Luton station car park, and parking next to Lindsay's Fiat Brava, we presume that the men stood at the boot of the Micra and assembled their explosive devices - if they were already packed, primed and ready to go inside the rucksacks there would have been little need for the ice packs inside the cool boxes. It is also hard to see where five rucksacks already packed with explosives would have fitted into the Micra along with the three men as the boot was already full with the cool boxes.

Would any serious 'terrorists' with murder on their minds choose to park at a busy commuter station next to a pay and display machine and adjacent to an exit from the car park - in the position that the two blue cars can be seen in the image below - during the early morning rush hour if they were intending to construct these devices, packing them with ice packs and inserting initiating devices of wires, light bulbs and batteries? Standing at a boot of a car at a busy commuter station on the outskirts of London during one of its busiest times, in broad daylight, all watched over by CCTV machines of convenient fail?

Luton Station car park showing the area where the Brava and Micra parked

Is it even vaguely credible that the scenario described above is actually what really happened on the morning of the 7th July 2005?


Friday, 6 May 2011

7/7 Inquests: The 7 July Inquest Verdict

At the start of the 7 July Inquests process, J7 wrote:
From the outset, it must be understood that the State cannot in any way find itself to be culpable for anything that would reflect badly upon it, and history is littered with countless examples of the State absolving itself of responsibility, illegality, or immorality in all degrees.
Sure enough, this is precisely what has happened. Today, Lady Justice Hallett has returned her verdict of unlawful killing and has absolved the corporate State and Security Services of any blame or responsibility. The Rule 43 report can be read here [PDF].

While we analyse the contents of the report in detail, it is initially important to seize on the following paragraphs taken from the Introduction to the report:
8. It is not generally a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper function of a Coroner to express opinions in the verdicts returned. The Rules are clear and I have not strayed from those restrictions in the verdicts I have delivered. However, the exceptional circumstances of these Inquests mean that it is appropriate to name the bombers within this Rule 43 report, which is not subject to the same constraints. There are three principal reasons: the bombers are dead. There can be no question of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings against them and I cannot defame them. Further, I cannot consider the issue of preventability, one of the most important of the issues I have set, without stating in positive terms that they were the bombers. Finally, the evidence is utterly overwhelming.

9. To argue or find to the contrary [i.e. that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.
We will gloss over, for the moment, the fact that there was no need to fabricate CCTV evidence for the simple reason that there was no CCTV evidence at all of three of the accused on the London Underground on the morning of 7 July 2005, however the fact that the police lied about when they viewed some footage from Luton is certainly noteworthy.

Much of paragraph 9 is the standard fare of objections trotted out routinely by official 'conspiracy theorists', in a not fantastically intellectually clever way, to quiet the objections raised by those who suspect something is not quite right with whatever story the general public are being fed. Similar methods were used to try and suppress the questioning of those who suggested that Colin Powell's cartoon evidence of Saddam Hussein's vast caches of 'weapons of mass destruction' (which he would have acquired from Western-sources) was largely fabricated. That evidence would also "have cost millions of pounds to fabricate", yet that is indeed what happened.

Conspiracies to "falsely implicate" individuals and groups of individuals that are "Simply unthinkable in a democratic country" are in fact quite routine and commonplace in democratic countries. The British State has a particularly exemplary history of "conspiracy to falsely implicate" through "independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service." We need not look terribly far back in history to find the cases of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Danny MacNamee, Judith Ward, and many others of Irish descent against whom the State conspired for its own politically expedient gains. Countless similar examples exist. Just to state the proposition (that the aforementioned were falsely implicated) was also dismissed as absurd at the time.

That the inquests did not uncover any such conspiracy comes as no surprise, for the function of an inquest is to determine how an individual died, where they died and when they died. The function is most certainly not that of a criminal investigation, in much the same way as the function of an inquest -- as re-stated both by Hallett and her Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith QC -- is most certainly not "to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals". Yet, in both instances of improper function of an inquest, this is what has occurred and the inquests have masqueraded as a legitimate form of investigation, trial and prosecution of four unrepresented men accused of a heinous crime.

Instead of "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot... of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country" that "would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service" and "cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence", what the public are left with is the same tidy, if inconsistent, unsubstantiated and unproven, 'narrative' that we started with and a proxy investigation, trial, prosecution, and judgement "that cost millions of pounds" that "involved hundreds of ordinary people... families, their friends...independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service."

The very same process succinctly described by Lady Justice Hallett outlining why "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in a murder plot" could not have occurred, is exactly the process by which the four accused have indeed been implicated, accused, tried and found guilty.

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, courtesy of Newsnight

Franz Kafka would have been justly proud of such a convoluted and contorted conclusion to the 7 July Inquests process.

Meanwhile, on the subject of the resumption of the inquests into the four accused:
The only submissions I have received have come from an organisation calling itself the July 7th Truth Campaign. I have considered those submissions, but in the light of all the evidence I have heard during the 52 inquests, I consider they have not provided any sufficient reason to resume the inquests into the four bombers.

One would hope, therefore, that these proceedings will be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7.
The inquests may well be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7 as far as the State is concerned, but the vast number of testimonies and evidential submissions generated by the inquests are just the beginning of the investigation of what happened on 7/7 for those who desire to know the truth.

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

The Perjury of Martin Gilbertson

When Martin Gilbertson gave his witness testimony to the 7/7 Inquest, under questioning from Hugo Keith, he merely repeated the same lies he had told to various media outlets when interviewed in June 2006.
September 11th, 2001: in front of a television set a computer shop in Beeston, Leeds - where I was working - aghast at the news, watching the Twin Towers fall. I will never forget, as the second plane crashed into the World Trade Centre's South Tower, the cheers of the people in the room around me. I was horrified by what I saw, while they screamed their hoorays. Next day, September 12th, with details coming out about the connections to al-Qaida, the owners of the shop and some of their 'brothers' from the area held a celebration party: drinking pop, passing round crisps - cheering, shouting their delight at what they saw as an attack on the infidel, Satanic USA.

Source: Martin Gilbertson interview, The Guardian 24 June 2006
J7 Forum copy (original no longer on the Guardian website)

Q. [Hugo Keith QC] In September of that year, did you come across an organisation called Technology Bits and Pieces in Dewsbury Road in Beeston?
A. [Gilbertson] Yes.
Q. Did you start working there after a fashion?
A. Yes, I started doing work there.
Q. When did you start working there?
A. In the summer of that year -- was it 2001? -- I think, 2001.
Q. Was Technology Bits and Pieces in essence a computer shop?
A. It was a Learn Direct centre which also built and sold computers.
Q. A subsequent interview that you gave reveals that you were working there at the time of the terrorist attacks in the United States of America, 9/11.
A. That's correct.
Q. What was the atmosphere like in that shop, Technology Bits and Pieces, when it became apparent what had occurred in the United States?
A. They were happy, they were basically cheering it and laughing that such a gross attack could be perpetrated on America.
Q. Were you shocked or surprised by that?
A. I was shocked and surprised, but not as surprised as I could have been, to be honest.
Q. Why was that?
A. I'd had many discussions in there about Islam and, as an atheist, I don't believe in God, so that was causing me some personal problems with them.
Q. Was there anything about their general approach that indicated, at that stage, a level of extremism?
A. Not too much, no. It was just the fact that I was an atheist, it was rubbing them the wrong way to a point.
Q. The following day, were you in the computer shop, 12 September?
A. Yes, I was there to repair a computer for them.
Q. Was the atmosphere similarly jovial the following day?
A. Yes, they were having a party.

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police knew that these claims were a lie - the shop Gilbertson claimed these 'celebrations' had taken place, Idoo PC, was raided in September 2005 .

By the time of the Inquests: Imran Bham, the owner of Idoo PC had his home and businesses searched, computers seized and was put out of business by the claims of Martin Gilbertson and the actions of the West Yorkshire and Metropolitan Police in the 'Operation Theseus' investigation:
Bomb police raids killed off business

Two months after the initial raids in Leeds, police staged a fresh wave of searches – this time storming a computer shop in Beeston and a training centre in Sheffield.

The Idoo PC shop on Dewsbury Road in Beeston was raided on September 13 and its sister business IT2 Home, in the Darnall area of Sheffield, was raided three days later.

All computer equipment was seized from both properties because it was believed the bombers could have had access to them.

The owner of the Beeston enterprise, Imran Bham, is known to have been friends with those who ran both the Iqra and the Hamara Youth Action Point.

Mr Bham's home on Bridge Street in Batley was also raided.

No charges have arisen from the operation, but again, officers say the investigation is ongoing. Idoo PC's management tried to keep the business open in the wake of the raids, but finally closed the shop for good a month later.

Staff claim that although police have never found any evidence of criminal activity, customers stayed away because of its association with the terror inquiry.

One member of staff, who did not wish to be named, told the Yorkshire Post: "We were put out of business by what happened last year.

"We tried to get the computers back from the police but we weren't able to. We can't even get an audit of what they took. They took every single computer – customers' machines, and even the dummy one which we kept on display with flashing lights.

"People didn't want to touch us after that."

He said Learn Direct, the Government backed organisation which funded the Sheffield business, had also cut ties with the business since the police raids.

He added that when officers raided Imran Bham's home address, the bomb squad was brought in to test large plastic containers which turned out to be full of holy water.

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police had taken two statements from Martin Gilbertson, the first in July 2005 over a period of two days in a hotel as Gilbertson claimed 'he feared for his safety'. This was arranged with WYP by the Daily Mirror after Gilbertson contacted them and been interviewed. His second statement, amounting to 29 pages, was taken in June 2006. His testimony above was adduced from these statements.
MR BEGGS: Mr Gilbertson, it comes to this, that from 7 July, and the 18th or 19th, you somehow couldn't contact the West Yorkshire Police, but you did manage to contact the Daily Mirror?
A. Yes, I did, yes.
Q. Is that because, Mr Gilbertson, the sad truth is that you are an egocentric self-publicist, a fantasist, exaggerator, speculator, irresponsible individual?
A. No, I would --
Q. Well, explain to her Lady how it is that you struggled to pick the telephone up to the police on your doorstep, being an internet expert yourself, and yet you were able to contact the media? [ibid 72:13-25]
By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police and the Metropolitan Police Service knew that Gilbertson had not been at a Learn Direct centre, or indeed any shop owned by Imran Bham, in September 2001 'celebrating 9/11' as they were in possession of the leaseholder's statement proving that the business didn't exist in September 2001. The lease for the shop had not been signed until May 2002:

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire police were well aware of the nature of Gilbertson's false allegations against the Muslim community in Beeston, allegations that went as far as claiming he had been asked to make DVDs containing images of the murder of Ken Bigley. Easily shown to be false as Gilbertson once again hoists himself by his own petard with the claim that he had left the Iqra bookshop in July 2004. Beggs, the QC for WYP, still had to ask:
Q.[Mr Beggs] If you turn back a couple of pages, please, to page 18, you suggest in the second paragraph of the version for the court with the inquest number on it, you say: "On another occasion whilst at Iqra, it was shortly after the news broke regarding the execution of Ken Bigley." You go on to describe an incident at the bookshop, don't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr Bigley was murdered on 7 or perhaps 8 October 2004. That's a matter of public record. Do you understand, Mr Gilbertson?
A. Yes, I understand. It must have been later than July that I left.
Q. Well, or is it perhaps the case that you simply have no regard to accuracy whatsoever?
A. As far as I'm aware, all the statements I made were true and accurate.
Q. That one can't be, can it, because we've just established on your account you'd left Iqra and yet you're able, you say, to relate an incident that you couldn't have been present at. Do you see?
A. Yes, I agree, yes. There is that there.
Q. Do you agree with me that the truth, Mr Gilbertson, is you have no real regard for accuracy and fact, do you?
A. I would disagree with that. I've made an error and --
Q. Let's see if another incident is an error or, again, your self-publicity, because -- [ibid p75:18on]
By the time of the Inquests: Questions in relation to Gilbertson's statements had even been raised in Parliament:

By the time of the Inquests: Martin Gilbertson had not been charged with giving false evidence or wasting police time. Yet Imran Yaqub Patel was prosecuted and jailed for lying about information concerning the events of 7/7 which caused a wasteful diversion of police resources in investigating his bogus claims.

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police had spent tens of thousands of pounds and hundreds of man hours investigating Gilbertson's claims that he had posted disks to them in an attempt to warn them of the extremism in the community prior to 7/7 - all expended to protect their reputation against his allegations, whilst caring nothing about the impact of his lies on the wider community and Imran Bhan in particular.
MR BEGGS: No, of course, certainly not. But it will be understood, of course, that West Yorkshire Police incurred tens of thousands of pounds of money chasing down the false hares. [ibid 76:23]
Q. You know, don't you, I think, that there was an extensive investigation led by a detective superintendent from West Yorkshire Police who advanced 12 distinct and, again, extensive lines of enquiry to see whether there was any truth in the suggestion that you had posted something?
A. I did not know that, no.
Q. You see, I wonder whether you can account for the fact that, despite deploying phenomenal resources and numbers of detectives, not a single jot of evidence, not one jot of evidence, came to light to support your assertion, not even one thing supported it. [ibid 87:22]
By the time of the Inquests: the only people to have been charged and imprisoned in any connection to Operation Theseus - the investigation into the events in London on 7th July 2005 - were not 'Islamic radicals' but two police officers investigating the Beeston community; including the Metropolitan Police officer who executed the search warrant for Idoo PC, DC Darren Pooley.

A copy of Imran Bham's Witness Statement to the 7/7 Inquests can be downloaded here.

Monday, 25 April 2011

The Bodies On The Line

by David Minahan*

Documentation produced by the authorities during the inquest indicates that the bodies of six of the victims of the Piccadilly Line bombing were found outside the train, presumably having been blown from the first carriage by the force of the explosion.

Mihaela Otto is shown as having been found on the platform side with Inhab Slimane, Lee Harris, Samantha Badham, Arthur Frederick and Karolina Gluck located on the opposite side in the narrow space between the train and the tunnel wall.

This in itself seems surprising. Given that the explosion took place near double doors on the platform side of the carriage it would surely have been more likely for the majority of the bodies to have exited there?


There is no doubt whatsoever that the carriage was packed and congested. Many passengers testified to this in their statements.

Sharon Broome, a senior forensic case officer submitted a written report as an expert witness which was read to the court on the 2nd February. In this [page 54:25] she confirmed that “the explosion occurred within a packed commuter train” and that “The relatively localised nature of the damage observed within the carriage is due in part to the explosive force having been absorbed by the people present at the site of the explosion”. [55:9-12]

The schematic diagram (INQ10283-10) confirms that every seat in the carriage was occupied with seven survivors identified from the passengers who were standing in the area between double doors D5 and D6.

Tragically many others who were standing in that location did not survive. It is apparent that there must have been a large number of passengers located between the bomb and D6 and that they would have caught the full effects of the explosion. Yet, if the official version is correct, D6 must have been so damaged that the five mentioned above were blown out through it. Admittedly many of the windows may have been blown out but it seems highly improbable that the victims would have been catapulted out of these over the heads of the seated passengers!

The Doors

David Boyce, a station supervisor at Russell Square, giving evidence on the 1st December described entering the train and the scenes that he encountered. Despite it being put to him by Hugo Keith QC that “The doors had been blown away by the force of the explosion had they not?” [120:17] he maintained that the doors were there, but that they were buckled.

Patrick Barnes, a passenger, gave a statement on the 25th November 2005 which was read to the inquest on the morning of the 6th December. He described making his way to the front of the carriage as “There was no way of getting out either side as they were closed”. [110:3-5]

A witness to the London Assembly Review Committee, 'George', who was also a passenger in the carriage stated “There were people saying get the doors open. We will smash the doors. Somebody tried to get the door open where I had my back up against but they soon gave up because I think the pressure was still on the actual door mechanism, and they gave up.” [page 128]

Late Evidence

In a statement that was read to the Inquest on the 17th January, a month after the Piccadilly Line evidence had been concluded, Peter Sanders, who was a group station manager based at Kings Cross, recalled going into “what I thought was the front car. I could see a door had been blown off and the other one was hanging loose, I assisted in removing this door.”[54:14-16] This certainly seems to have been a remarkable demonstration of concern for his employer's property given that the the carriage was devastated by the effects of the bomb, in semi-darkness and strewn with dead bodies and body parts!

Possibly the explanation is that Mr Sanders was describing another carriage. A colleague of his, Simon Cook, recalled during his evidence on the 6th December, that he had had a meeting with him “in the area of the crossover”. Then when asked if he recalled. “any other London Underground staff other than yourself and Mr Chaudhury” being in the first carriage, not the remainder of the train or the crossover, Mr Cook replied “I don't recall any other underground staff being in the first carriage, no”.[48:23-24]

The Crossover

It seems that when the stricken train stopped, carriages three and four were in a position straddling the crossover between the east and west bound lines. The significance of this is that the space at either side of the carriages, particularly on the platform side, is wider there than in the normal tube tunnel. For it to have been possible for the six deceased to have ended up in the area between the train and the tunnel wall, they must have fallen out of the first carriage as it went past the crossover and not before it, where the explosion took place, or after it where carriage one finished up, as both those points are in the narrow tunnel [diagram INQ10283-12] where there would not have been enough space for the bodies to land.

Interestingly another witness to the London Assembly Review Committee 'Ian' described being blown out of the carriage but hitting the wall of the tunnel and bouncing back in. This can be read on page 179.
Richard Barnes (Chair) So, you were almost blown out of the carriage?

Ian “I was; I was blown out and then back in. There are electric cables running along the tunnel, and that is what I hit.”
[Editor's Note: Interestingly there was no testimony from 'Ian' to the 7 July Inquests proceedings and there is no 'Ian' included in the diagram of survivors from the carriage provided by the MPS.]


So the official theory presented to the Inquest is that the blast took place whilst still in the narrow part of the tunnel but that the train moved forward past the point of the explosion eventually stopping as outlined above.

Diagram INQ10283-12 does show all six of the passengers lying beside the fourth carriage in the crossover area and Mr Keith and his team helpfully produced a photograph (INQ10340-1) which is said to show a pair of surgical gloves which were used in the treatment of the stricken passengers as the lay between the train and the tunnel wall. (It has to be said that, at least to the naked eye, there doesn't appear to be any sign of broken glass or other debris from the explosion).

There doesn't seem to have been any expert evidence produced to explain how the direction of the explosion blew out five people from the far side of the carriage.

Admittedly there have been reports from other locations of train doors opening and closing again as a result of mechanisms being affected by the explosions. This could have happened here and the five passengers may have been pressed up against the door due to the crowded conditions. In that case there certainly would have been many passengers located between them and the bomb which might have been expected to 'cushion' it's effects, but the injuries sustained appear to have been caused by the explosion rather than just the consequences of falling from the train.

Also, if the door was buckled as Simon Cook reported (or hanging loose), it is difficult to envisage how it would have shut again?

Being as objective as possible it could be said the official version of events is just about possible; but is it really probable?

*David Minahan was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors in which David gained experience of "forensic" matters. David was also the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus). David researched and wrote the London Bombings Dossier published on the J7 website and says he is convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about the events of 7/7.

Thursday, 7 April 2011

The Lynton House Mystery

by David Minahan*

Reva Cope and Regina Friel both featured in an article in the Sunday Times Magazine on the 4th December 2005 titled 'The Survivors'. They each recalled how after managing to get off the Number 30 bus after the explosion they went to Lynton House where they were looked after by office staff.

Regina Cope is number 14 and Regina Friel number 10 in this diagram

Curiously neither of these passengers were called to give evidence, nor were witness statements from them read out! Nor were any witnesses from Lynton House who aided the survivors called or had statements read and Lynton House is hardly mentioned during the 7/7 Inquests!

One of the passengers who did give evidence Gary O'Monaghan recalled how after getting off the bus “I landed on my feet and just started to run” [14 Jan p36:13] and “This is perhaps why I ran away fearing it would explode again” [p36:21]. He is, however, almost certainly the 'Gary' who appeared at The London Assembly 7th July Review Committee in 2006 and stated (page 202) that he had gone into the 'E.C.Harris Building' (which is Lynton House) and then declared (page 208) “I was staggered when I left. The whole foyer of the building was full with people on trolleys like that, all bandaged up”.

Interestingly another witness at the GLA Inquiry 'Beverli' who wasn't on the bus but worked in Lynton House for a consultancy firm that was involved with Olympic delivery recounted how she and her colleagues “were told as staff, that we were banned from talking to anyone - particularly the press, which was an immediate dismissal offence - police, or anything regarding the experience”(page 35).

An official reference to Linen(sic) House does appear in the document INQ10129-2 which was called up by Mr Andrew O'Connor QC on the morning of 19th January [p12:16]. This is a copy of a police log which, timed at 10:10:55, states “have 10 inj'd persons at Linen Hse 7-12 Tavistock Sq, WC1”. Possibly by coincidence, possibly not, Mr O'Connor a short while later [p36:21] whilst questioning WPC Kerslake, states incorrectly “The BMA building is where you see the words Lynton House, that's the name of the BMA Building”!!

A not dissimilar exchange can be found in the transcript for the afternoon of the 19th January, Michelle Du-Feu: ”At the time he (the security guard) was actually in the building immediately before that. I think its called Lynton House or something” [p6:22]. Mr.Andrew O'Connor: “I see. In any events the BMA building's on that side of the pavement. We know where the bus was just opposite” [p6:24].

[Editor: Lynton House was presented with a plaque from the Metropolitan Police almost immediately after, this report is date 19/07/05: "The lobby of Morley’s building, Lynton House, became a makeshift hospital for the wounded immediately after the attack. Some of the firm’s own first aiders were among the first on the scene after the bus was devastated by the bomb. At least another 20 businesses occupy space in Lynton House, and the Metropolitan police has presented a plaque for the building’s lobby area commemorating the help given by staff working in the building." source]

We can only speculate at the reason for all the official coyness. Could it be the numbers involved?

'Jaki Turner' wrote on the BBC London blog 'BBC London Bombings - 7 July: One year on': “Last year at this time I was working at Tavistock Square when the bus went up next door and we the first aiders at Lynton House dealt with some 35 people hurt on the bus”.

If we add those 35 to the casualties dealt with in the BMA Building and the County Hotel as well as the BTP Headquarters, Great Ormond Street Hospital, The Tavistock Hotel, Tavistock Court and the offices of the Rev Deborah Hodge, the three who PC Walker put into civilian vehicles and the five who Walter Hayden set off to UCL Hospital with and then factor in the “at least 13 patients” that Ambulance Officer Williamson had at Tavistock Square south and “the number of people with minor cuts and injuries” Dr David Tovey reported as being outside the back of the BMA building there will be a total considerably in excess of the 47 non-fatalities on the bus!

Which in turn raises other interesting questions!!

*David Minahan was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors and has experience of "forensic" matters. David was also the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus). David researched and wrote the London Bombings Dossier published on the J7 website and says he is convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about the events of 7/7.

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

You Couldn't Make It Up!

by David Minahan*

Twenty five of the passengers who survived the explosion in the first carriage of the Piccadilly line train have given evidence, either in person or writing, to the 7/7 Inquest. This reveals that 12 of them actually entered the train at King's Cross, five of whom, Tracey Brade, Gillian Hicks, Garri Hollness, Paul Mitchell and Philip Patsalos recall getting on through double door 5 i.e. near where the explosion subsequently took place. Paul Glennerster was uncertain if in his case it was door 3 or door 5.

None of these witnesses had any recollection of seeing Germaine Lindsay!

Olawale Akarele, who entered through door 5 but further up the line at Turnpike Lane, indicated in his evidence on the morning of 1st December that he may have seen him. However his testimony was far from convincing and he admitted when questioned by Mr. Keith that he hadn't mentioned this in a statement made four weeks after the event, going on to say “Don't know for sure, just in the picture triggered”.[p69:7]

Later he revealed to Ms Gallagher that his recollection was of a big Afro Caribbean man wearing a yellow or green T-Shirt and no baseball cap![p90:2]

What no one disputes is the crowded conditions of the platform and the train.

Raymond Wright, the London Underground driver who travelled in the cab alongside Tom Nairn and assisted with the evacuation of many of the passengers, told how when he arrived at the platform the barrier was closed as a result of this overcrowding, and he was only allowed through because he was wearing his uniform.[p2:18] (It is perhaps worth reflecting that this would make it unlikely that Germaine Lindsay could have hurried on to the platform “at the last minute” after rushing across from the Thameslink Station. The scenario we were expected to accept at least until “the goal posts were changed” and he and his companions were “placed” by the Inquest, on the earlier 7.25am train from Luton).

It is surely surprising that somebody squeezing on to the train, encumbered by a large rucksack, (”very large, about waist height” according to Julia Roberts the forensic scientist [1st Feb pm 87:6]) didn't attract attention!

The forensic evidence given by Clifford Todd, the principal Forensic Investigator from the Forensics Explosives Laboratory, on the 1st February, is extremely interesting. The prognosis being that the explosions were ignited by a charge from a battery source or other electrical supply acting as a trigger for a small amount of the highly volatile substance HMTD, which in turn set off the the main “mix” of up to 10 kilograms of hydrogen peroxide/piperine!

Simply a matter of activating a snap connector or just attaching the leads to the battery in order to complete the circuit the court was told.[p45:25]

Quite how simple it would have been to carry out this task rummaging in a rucksack whilst standing up in a crowded train only seconds after it had pulled out of the station is perhaps open to conjecture!

Surely more significant, however, is the revelation made by Mr. Todd [p48:29] that at Russell Square no traces of HMTD, nor the hydrogen peroxide/piperine homemade explosive or indeed any other explosive was found! Nor indeed was there any trace of an initiator. [p55:12]

Apparently the strength of the explosion was such that all were obliterated. [p49:13]

This of course prompted the question as to how pieces of the identification documents, passport, addressed envelope etc. which Germaine Lindsay, and his three co-conspirators, had obligingly brought with them, had survived?

With commendable candour Mr Todd reflected “that whilst it is always possible that there could be some circumstances where they might survive in a fairly undamaged state, maybe at one scene, but the fact these were found in all 4 scenes, at least to some extent, in this state does quite strongly suggest to me that somehow or other they weren't actually on the person or in the rucksack”! [p59:14]

The implications of this seemed to send the inquest temporarily into some kind of legal “la la land”!

Lady Hallet put forward the suggestion that there might be an indication of “a concerted effort to ensure identification” (presumably she meant by the “bombers” rather than the authorities?). Whilst Mr Keith. although “not wishing to set any hares running” wondered if there might have been somebody else at the scene carrying this documentation” (a sort of suicidal equerry?).[p61:6]

Eventually it was agreed that the most plausible explanation was of the documentation probably being carried by the deceased in something like a plastic bag rather than in the actual rucksack and, therefore, being shielded somewhat from the effects of the explosion!

Plausible or not this quite overlooks the problem that Germaine Lindsay's body was apparently moved post explosion to an area at the end of the carriage where, according to Det. Insp. John Brunsden giving evidence on the morning of 17th December, most of the remains of the documentation were also found!


Documents were recovered from area Y

Perhaps, therefore, we should speculate whether Lindsay had some kind of pre-death premonition that his body was to be moved and left the plastic bag there before returning to the area where the explosion was to take place? Perhaps the bag was by his side all the time but miraculously the contents were blown over the other passengers to settle in the area where the body was eventually placed?

The phrase “You couldn't make it up” would seem to be appropriate!

Except that somebody apparently did!

*David Minahan was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors and has experience of "forensic" matters. David was also the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus). David researched and wrote the London Bombings Dossier published on the J7 website and says he is convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about the events of 7/7.

Monday, 21 March 2011

J7 Submission for Resumption of Inquests into the four

Following an order by Lady Justice Hallett requesting representations regarding the resumption of inquests into the deaths of the four, subsequent to the conclusion of the hearings in relation to the inquests of the 52 deceased, J7 issued the following.

Note: Footnotes in the original document have been converted to direct links.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
Submission for Resumption

Further to Lady Justice Hallett's order dated 11th March 2011, which reads as follows:

1. Any person wishing to make representations to the Coroner as to whether or not any or all of the inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Siddique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain should be resumed must notify the Solicitor to the Inquests in written submissions by 4.00 p.m. on Friday 18th March 2011.

2. Any such written submissions must identify in full the grounds on which the person on whose behalf they are filed claims to have an interest in the relevant inquest(s) and the grounds upon which it is said the inquests must be resumed.
With regard to the issue of the legality of not resuming the Inquests into the deaths of the four accused, we submit that the legal right to an Inquest where no Inquiry is held overrides all other considerations:
The right to an inquest

An inquest must be held in those circumstances where a Coroner is informed that the body of a person is lying within his or her district and there is reasonable cause to suspect that the individual died:

A violent or unnatural death or
A sudden death of which the cause is unknown or.
In prison or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act.

The Coroner only has a right to hold an inquest if one of these conditions is satisfied. Conversely, the Coroner cannot decide not to hold an inquest if one of the conditions is satisfied.
The pressing need to resume the inquests into the four accused is further compounded by the magnitude and significance of the circumstances in which it is alleged the deaths occurred.

The Inquests into the 52 cannot stand instead of, nor can they be considered as a substitute for, Inquests into the deaths of the four accused; as stated by Hugo Keith QC on many occasions these proceedings omitted the relevant facts:
6 My Lady, in the light of the fact that these
7 inquests are not concerned with Hussain, I have no need
8 to read out the cause of death, but it is obvious.
23 … We're not, of course, concerned with
24 their inquests and so I needn't read out the full detail
We respectfully suggest that a jury be empanelled at the resumed Inquests and that all the circumstances surrounding these deaths be thoroughly examined and explored.

If full arguments are deemed necessary by the Deputy Coroner, then J7 submit the following in favour of resumption of the Inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain

J7 Interest in the Inquests

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign is comprised of ordinary members of the public concerned that a fully independent public inquiry, particularly one held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, was refused twice by the government. Over 3,400 people have signed the J7 petition calling on the government to release the evidence they claim to have in support of the story outlined in the meagre 'Report of the official account of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.

Our tireless campaigning and research over the last five years, much of which has involved doggedly pursuing responses to Freedom of Information requests, has led to the accumulation of a vast body of knowledge regarding the events of 7th July 2005, contained on our People's Investigation Forum. Our analysis is published on our main web site at:, much of which had been further compiled in order to produce our Submissions to the Inquests. Further, our work was repeatedly, albeit indirectly, referenced throughout the course of proceedings, with the Inquests' own council choosing to mention our 'voluminous' submission as part of his opening statement.

The inquest proceedings transcripts have made reference to J7 as 'a group following the proceedings closely', so our interest in the events of 7 July 2005 and our continued work in this area are well known by all involved and, we submit, part of the grounds on which we should be considered a Properly Interested Party. Our initial submissions certainly provided the basis for some of the lines of enquiry for the inquests of the 52, even if these lines of enquiry were not duly explored.

Concerned at the absence of a jury at the resumed Inquests into the 52 deaths, J7 undertook the role of carefully watching these proceedings and examining the evidence released throughout. J7 wrote to the Deputy Coroner with many of the issues that arose during proceedings and on occasion, questions posed by J7 were put to witnesses. Many of the outstanding questions that arose are documented on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

Despite a mass of evidence adduced before the Inquests into the deaths of 52 people on 7th July 2005, J7 are concerned at the refusal by the Legal Services Commission to grant legal aid for representation at the Inquests to any of the families of the four accused, thus preventing them from making submissions. J7 wrote to the Coroner expressing these concerns in an email dated 25th April 2010:
Our concern is that it has recently been announced that two of the families of the accused men are to be refused legal aid to be represented at the Inquests. Given the immensity of the crimes alleged against them, and the history of miscarriages of justice in the British courts when 'fighting terrorism', as happened in the cases of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 etc, we believe that the families of the accused must be given access to justice and representation at the forthcoming Inquest. Without this, British justice remains skewed in favour of the State and will only lead people, especially Muslims, to question whether justice is available to them.
Legal aid at Inquests can be granted in exceptional cases if "there is a wider public interest or it aids the coroner’s investigations". It is most certainly in the wider public interest that legal aid is granted in this case, and we are hopeful that you can, as the coroner, request that the Ministry of Justice review their decision in this matter. We understand that an inquest verdict of suicide requires a criminal standard of proof. Representation of the families would be of great assistance to the inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict is justified.
The arguments for the families of the four to be represented at the Inquests and for resumption are set out in the judicial review dated 27th August 2010 which include the following relevant and important points:
21. On 23 April 2010 the claimant’s solicitor wrote to Mr Martin Smith, Solicitor to the Inquests, to inform him that, “had there been funding”, counsel would have made submissions to the effect that:

(1) the Inquests should be resumed;
(2) the Inquests should be joined; and
(3) his clients should be made Interested Persons in the Inquests of some of the deceased.
And at point 24:
"i) Effective participation would enable them to discharge their right to put questions and explore issues as an interested party. Additionally their participation may help other parties to explore issues thereby having the potential to produce real benefits for the other Interested Parties;
ii) The proceedings are on any view ‘significant’;
iii) Well-documented campaign to establish the full extent of the knowledge of the security services;
iv) [The claimant] is in a ‘unique position’ as the wife of the alleged ring-leader and her association with the other perpetrators and others. It is difficult to envisage other individuals who could assist the inquest to the same extent;
v) [The claimant] equally anxious to explore the true extent of the knowledge of the Security Services;
vi) Analysis of the intelligence failings may reveal that the atrocity was entirely preventable and the lives of the victims and perpetrators may have been saved;
vii) Volume of material. Extraordinary and unreasonable to expect [the claimant] to deal with by way of legal help; and
viii) No legitimate distinction between those granted funding and [the claimant]"
The families of the 52 expressed their objections to the Inquests to be joined and with regard to the families of the four accused having representation. Although this was their right, the families of the four men also have rights as bereaved family members; these same rights apply equally to the public – and especially the Muslim community, who bear the brunt of anti-terror legislation – to examine the evidence that would need to be presented to the inquests proceedings. This was denied them by the withholding of legal aid for representation – a very blunt and unsubtle tool by which to suppress the right of the families of the accused to legal representation at the Inquests into the 52.

We submit that the arguments forwarded by the families at the judicial review still hold true and that by granting them PIP status at resumed Inquests into the deaths of their loved ones could trigger legal aid being granted by the Legal Services Commission. After all, many public bodies used public funds for representation at these Inquests, the London Fire Brigade, West Yorkshire Police, Metropolitan Police Service, etc. all of whom are funded from the public purse. The public interest argument for these Inquests to be resumed would also be addressed by granting PIP to the families of the four.

It is the lack of challenge or questions that J7 are concerned with and so we ask to be also considered as PIPs in these proceedings, with this submission and our previous works and researches as the justifications for so qualifying. J7 have contacted the office of the Official Solicitor on the basis that, if there is to be no submission for resumption because legal aid has not been made available to any of the families of the four, and nor has PIP status been granted to them, then the State has a duty to represent the interests of Justice by ensuring these Inquests are resumed, and the evidence adduced and questioned accordingly.

Grounds upon which the Inquests must be resumed

(1) As detailed above, J7 are most concerned that the Catch 22 situation of refusing legal aid to allow submissions for resumption of the Inquests into the 4 deaths is being used to prevent the families from asking questions or, potentially even challenging the evidence adduced. This is both unfair and unjust. Justice in this case not only needs to be seen to be done, it must in fact be done.

(2) To date, there have been no proceedings at which the full 'Operation Theseus' evidence has been examined or challenged. The two trials at which this evidence was first submitted for public scrutiny was unable to question or challenge the evidence, the motivation, or the means and methods of the four men, as the accused had no knowledge of these events. Further, and most significantly given the degree with which the State pursued prosecutions against them, Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem, and Mohammed Shakil, they were found not guilty, on both separate occasions that the State endeavoured to prosecute them, of all charges connected to the Operation Theseus investigation. Therefore the evidence did not come under the detailed scrutiny required in a criminal trial, as it would have had the alleged perpetrators lived. (q.v. Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny McNamee, etc.)

(3) We understand and would like to highlight and reiterate that an inquest verdict of suicide requires a criminal standard of proof with regard to establishing definite intent to commit suicide. The representation of the families will be of great assistance to the Inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict is justified. Without a resumption of the Inquests into the four, this finding cannot be legally made.

(4) We understand that the four cannot be named as the perpetrators of the 52 deaths in any narrative verdict available to the Deputy Coroner in these proceedings.

(5) J7 argue that the evidence for the Theseus investigation was considered outside of the scope of these proceedings, yet evidence adduced during these proceedings has shown cause for concern over the accuracy of this evidence. One instance, for example, occurred on 2nd February 2011, while DS Stuart was under questioning from Ms Gallagher QC:
Q. Detective Sergeant, just to clarify it, if we could go back to [INQ105680-12] at paragraph 64 , when, in the opening to the Theseus trial, as was widely reported, it stated there that this information was recovered from that mobile phone found at Edgware Road, is that simply wrong?
A. Yes.
(6) The identification of 'Conspiracy Theories' as one of the raison d'etres for the resumption of the Inquests into the 52 was stated by Hugo Keith QC in his opening statement on 14th October 2011:
12 ….. Thus it is
13 to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and
14 distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering
15 the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours
16 and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists.
17 I'll return a little later to the question of
18 whether there is, in truth, any basis for some of the
19 theories that have been canvassed in the press and on
20 the internet.
Whilst J7 would take issue with the apparent pejorative use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' given the multiplicity of well documented anomalies, inconsistencies and falsehoods contained in the official narrative (as outlined in our detailed submissions to the Inquests) and the questions that have subsequently arisen from Inquest evidence and testimony, and given the fact that it is, as a point of fact, the State itself that most frequently uses and abuses the charge of 'Conspiracy' in its prosecutions, we are aware that, without resumption of the Inquests into the four, the many further questions regarding the evidence that have arisen during the Inquest proceedings will continue to remain unanswered.
Some of these questions are detailed below:

(i) The Inquests have already heard that a report into the bombings by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, the only public body to which the security service reports, contained "many many mistakes and inaccuracies" in its account of the intelligence service's conduct before the attacks.

(ii) There is the significant issue of the requirement to prove intent to commit suicide in cases where suicide is suspected. In cases of suspected suicides inquests will be held, but the victim's intention to commit suicide must be definitely proven; here-in lies the burden of proof. In the absence of any clear proof of intent, the verdict is unlikely to be suicide, but rather 'death by misadventure', 'accidental death', or there will be an 'open' verdict. There are in existence two alleged “martyrdom videos”; one of which appears to show Khan and the release of which called an end to all lines of questioning of the official story that were being pursued by the media, and the second, cunningly released on the first anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, appears to show Tanweer. It is worth noting that throughout the contrived and stilted rhetoric in each video, no mention is made by either Khan or Tanweer regarding any intention to commit suicide. Further, there is no mention in either video of any attacks on London, or London's transport infrastructure. Indeed there are no references to the launching of any attacks at all, suicide or otherwise. There has also been no mention at all of Tanweer, Hussain or Lindsay leaving last wills and testaments, despite this being a requirement in Islam. This leaves all four suspected suicides for which the burden of proof of intent to commit suicide has not yet been addressed in anything other than loosely circumstantial way, much less has that standard of proof been met.

(iii) Testimony given by DI Kindness on 14th October 2010 calls into question, once again, aspects of the government narrative and further errors in Theseus evidence:
MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.
This evidence was further contradicted by DCS McKenna on the closing day of evidence when he stated:
1 You've already outlined, I think, most of the main
2 threads of investigation that led to us Luton railway
3 station and it's -- it was a fortuitous coincidence
4 that, on the day that we had discovered the CCTV from
5 Luton railway station, we, of course, were assisted by
6 the coming forward of some witnesses from Luton, from
7 whom you have heard, who raised with us the suspicious
8 activity they'd seen in relation to the cars that
9 morning.
In fact the only witness to the cars at Luton that gave evidence was Susan Clarke and she only contacted the police on the morning of 12th July according to her testimony. Ms Gallagher had previously adduced that the viewing logs from Luton station were dated 10th and 11th July.

(iv) The missing CCTV evidence from the day gives cause for concern. No explanation was given for the failure of the CCTV at King's Cross underground station, ticket barriers or platforms, nor CCTV shown of Hasib Hussain's apparent re-entry to the mainline station from the Northern Line platform as asserted in evidence and in the government narrative. There is a major discrepancy between the timings of the CCTV shown from WH Smiths and the time on the receipt of a purchase of a battery. There is also missing CCTV from Woodall Service Station of nearly 15 minutes between exiting and rejoining the motorway. Strange and unexplained cuts in the CCTV shown from Luton Station car park. The removal of the Fiat Brava CCTV was not shown, nor was an explanation given for why Bedfordshire Police requested its removal. No explanation was given for the turning off of CCTV at McDonald's prior to Hasib entering, nor was the time of this incident given. No explanation for the lack of CCTV from the 91 bus was adduced, nor was a reason why this bus halted and emptied its passengers at Euston Station. No CCTV from the trains prior to the explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite a claim by Rachel North regarding a discussion held in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid:
The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images 'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality.
The public have been shown CCTV evidence from the Operation Vivace (21 July 2005) trial of the men on CCTV from the train carriages which were of good quality, we suggest similar evidence could and should be shown to the Inquests as the presence of those accused of the underground incidents has only been shown as far as King's Cross Thameslink. It should also be able to show the presence of MSK and Tanweer for a considerable length of time on journeys away from King's Cross, and also the entry of three accused onto the carriages from King's Cross.

This lack of evidential continuity between all of the 4 accused and the actual scenes is very concerning. This sentiment was expressed to survivors by 'C', DCI SO15:
One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit.
(v) No 'life extinct' pronounced at either Tavistock Square, nor the Piccadilly Line train. The numbers pronounced for life extinct at Aldgate and Edgware Road by Dr Morgan Costello were both one less than would account for the presence of either Mohammed Sidique Khan or Shehzad Tanweer at the respective locations they are alleged to have been at.

(vi) The types of explosives allegedly used differed between Clifford Todd's testimony and the sworn testimony adduced during the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest. Clifford Todd stated HMTD was found in Alexandra Grove, in the cars, with further traces found at the scenes.
2 A. Well, from just those results, clearly we wouldn't have
3 been able to say that, but the conclusion that it's
4 likely that it was HMTD and hydrogen peroxide and pepper
5 comes from the accumulation of all the other evidence
6 from Alexandra Grove and the various components that
7 were physical items that were actually found from
8 Russell Square and, indeed, the other scenes.
'Codename Neil', the forensics officer at the scene claims TATP was found in both the Micra and Alexandra Grove.
4 them in the car and take them with them. Once again,
15 there was evidence of TATP explosive at the bomb-making
16 factory in Leeds.
23 cable, they found flash bulbs which will be a typical
24 igniter for, as it was, TATP explosives.
DAC McDowall, the gold command for Operation Theseus:
12.... In the bomb factory in Leeds that was
13 discovered, we found TATP literally sprayed around the
14 premises and on the floor. If I can say that that
15 explosive will detonate if trodden on
19 A. That was a distinct possibility, yes, particularly
20 given, perhaps I should amplify, the amount of explosive
21 left behind, if I can use that expression, by the 7 July
22 bombers was of a very great magnitude. Certainly
23 a bathful and more of the main charge, and as I said
24 yesterday, a very substantial quantity of the
25 excessively volatile TATP on 7 July.


1 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: This was all in the Yorkshire bomb
2 factory, this is what you found and presumably
3 neutralised?
DIC Purser, describes 'brown sludge' as 'not explosives' and only describes this as being only in the bath at Alexandra Grove:
15 Q. Did you go on to tell them that further enquiries had
16 taken you to West Yorkshire, you gave a particular
17 address in Leeds, and you said that that was discovered
18 to be the bomb factory?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. Did you tell them that examination of that scene was
21 ongoing, but that a brown sludge had been found in the
22 bath? Examination indicated that it was not explosives.
23 Porton Down had indicated that it was not a biological
24 substance but they weren't sure what it was, and had
25 said it might be some kind of insecticide?
J7 can provide many more examples of areas of questioning that a resumed Inquest into the four should examine to ensure that it is possible for a true and accurate account of the events in London on 7th July 2005 to be placed before the public.

For truth and justice

“To the living we owe respect,
but to the dead we owe only the truth.”
- Voltaire