In a previous post we examined the alleged 'disintegration' of Shehzad Tanweer in the explosion on Circle Line train 204 at Aldgate/Liverpool Street, and the way in which the number of deceased at the location was consistently numbered as 7, a figure that didn't include the alleged perpetrator as one of the deceased.
It is also worth noting the following information in relation to the identification and naming of Tanweer as the alleged perpetrator of this explosion.
It is also worth noting the following information in relation to the identification and naming of Tanweer as the alleged perpetrator of this explosion.
Source: p15-16 Intelligence and Security Committee
Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?
Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005
As we can see from the timeline above, the Pathologist report into the 'spine' was carried out on 11 July 2005. This was mentioned by pathologist Nathaniel Cary in his testimony, although during this testimony to the inquest no date was given for this examination. [Transcripts p16 lines 8]
Forensic scientist Andrew McDonald did give a date for his examination of the alleged remains of Tanweer when he noted that he had received:
Forensic scientist Andrew McDonald did give a date for his examination of the alleged remains of Tanweer when he noted that he had received:
"Between 13 July 2005 and 28 July 2005, 80 recovered body part samples associated with the bombings of a London Underground Tube train at Aldgate on 7 July 2005 together with 20 reference control samples from individuals known to have been present at the time of the explosion were received at the laboratory. All items were received in sealed packages.
"I was asked to carry out STR profiling tests to determine whether any of the recovered body part samples received in this case could have originated from Shehzad Tanweer. STR profiling is a sensitive DNA analysis technique. An STR profile obtained from a human body fluid, such as blood or saliva, or human body tissue can be compared with an STR profile of a given person. If the profiles are different, then the body fluid or body tissues cannot have originated from the person in question.
This ties in with the timeline given in the ISC report above -- although we now know that the viewing of the accused on CCTV at Luton station occurred some time before 12 July 2005 -- which states that the DNA analysis confirmed all four accused on 13th, 15th & 16th July.
So, let's presume that the person identified by DNA on 13 July 2005 was Shehzad Tanweer, although we cannot be certain of this, and ask ourselves how the following statement given at a press conference by Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan Police, could have been made a day earlier:
So, let's presume that the person identified by DNA on 13 July 2005 was Shehzad Tanweer, although we cannot be certain of this, and ask ourselves how the following statement given at a press conference by Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan Police, could have been made a day earlier:
Tuesday July 12, 2005
17.47
'As regards the man who was reported missing, some of his property was found on the Route 30 bus in Tavistock Square.
'Property in the name of a second man was found at the scene of the Aldgate bomb. And in relation to a third man property in his name was found at the scene of both the Aldgate and the Edgware Road bombs.
'We also have very strong forensic and other evidence, that it is very likely one of the men from West Yorkshire died in the explosion at Aldgate. This, of course, is subject to formal confirmation by the Coroner.
Sources: Timed press release shown above
'One week anniversary' bombings appeal - Metropolitan Police Service
'One week anniversary' bombings appeal - Metropolitan Police Service
What forensic evidence did the Metropolitan Police Service obtain to confirm the presence of Shehzad Tanweer by 15.47 on 12 July if, as demonstrated above, the forensics were only just beginning to be carried out a day later on 13 July 2005?
That's yet another good question.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for all your work on this and the J7 site.
According to The Narrative, the 4 conspirators carried out what was in effect a military operation with a 100% success rate from start to finish. This implies they were likely very skilled (or less probably, very lucky).
ReplyDeleteAssuming it was their tradecraft that prevailed, it would be contradictory that at least one of the men had apparently informed members of their family (i believe parents?) that the group were travelling to London that day. This apparently childish breach of operational security does not seem consistent with the results of their alleged operation.
….also interesting… is Hussain’s family members apparent assertion that he & two others travelled on the previous day, the 6th July. If correct, this might have a bearing on the paucity and quality of CCTV footage so far released. It would be nice to have this confirmed or denied.
Logically , the presence or otherwise of an 8th fatality at Aldgate is a seperate question from whether that 8th person was Tanweer and indeed whether that 8th person was a suicide bomber. Perhaps one approach is to argue independently forward from the evidence rather than focus on the Official Narrative. If we accept the evidence of DI Kemp and DC Meneely that a piece of spine was recovered and that it was clearly not from the 7 identified victims - then there was an 8th person, who needs to be identified. There seems little room for the two policemen to be mistaken about where the spine came from, so if we reject their testimony that implies fabrication (although if you were fabricating testimony about an 8th body , you might perhaps claim to have found rather more of it) . I think Brigit in a previous post questioned the validity of DNA profiling - that would remove the evidence linking the spine to Tanweer, but the spine would still belong to somebody, who could be almost anyone. The disappearence of Tanweer is a genuine issue, and removing him from the scene at Aldgate does not solve that part of the problem. Nobody as far as I know has any evidence for him (or Khan, Hussain or Lindsay) being alive on 8th July 2005 or after so presumably, like Lord Lucan , they are dead. We have independent evidence that Tanweer, Khan, and Hussain were alive on 6th July and intended to go to London. The only evidence for their whereabouts on 7th July comes from the Narrative and all of it seems to be disputed by someone - the only exception is the fact that Hussain's family tried to contact him repeatedly and couldn't. So presumably he was dead by that point? The Narrative could produce no evidence of Lindsay's whereabouts from the point when his wife threw him out some days previously until police evidence put him in the car park at Luton on the morning of 7/7 so strictly speaking, he disappears some days earlier. Whether or not we accept his presence on the Aldgate train (which would not automatically make him a suicide bomber)Tanweer does seem to evaporate on 7/7 if not at Aldgate then somewhere else. The Narrative disposes of the two problems of the 8th body and Tanweer by asserting they are one and the same. If we reject that linkage we then need to explore alternative identities for the 8th body and a scenario for Tanweer's disappearance
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Hussain and his family's attempts to contact him, and also the "tradecraft" mentioned two comments up, according to DS Stuart, who was questioned on 14th October, the men were using 'operational' phones on 7th July 2005. He also stated they had been using these for many weeks leading up until that day, changing the phones and SIMs many times in order to avoid detection. Hussain left his personal phone at home for his brother to find, who discovered Jermaine Lindsay's number listed along with the number of the keyholder of the Alexandra Grove "bomb factory". In Hussain's 'operational' phone, found in the wreckage of the bus, he had put his personal number in the phone book under the contact name "My number". This behaviour isn't very consistent with somebody trying to avoid detection.
ReplyDeleteCuriously, Tanweer's phone was not mentioned by DS Stuart as being recovered from the Aldgate site in the same way that the phones attributed to the other three accused men were.