Monday, 17 January 2011

Something is happening here & you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?

Richard Jones gave testimony under oath to the 7/7 Inquests on the afternoon of 12th January 2011. As J7 had previously noted, here, it was Mr Jones' many media appearances and accounts which helped propagate the 'suicide bomber' meme with regard to the Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square.

Mr Jones acknowledged during his testimony that he hadn't actually seen the man later identified as Hasib Hussain on this bus, as Hugo Keith was at pains to point out:
A. I mean, at no stage have I ever said that I actually saw the bomber. Right?
Q. No.
A. All I've ever, ever said was that somebody was acting unusually and annoying me on the bus.
Q. But I hope we've established, Mr Jones, that there appears to be no connection with the bomber and nor that that particular gentleman was doing anything other than acting as an ordinary member of the public, a passenger on the bus?
A. Correct.
Q. But your statement, I'm afraid, has been open to conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain.
A. Yes, I know.

"All I've ever, ever said was that somebody was acting unusually and annoying me on the bus", claims Mr Jones. The fact he said this on so many news channels and in the press when interviewed on the day and afterwards, was a point that Richard Jones and Mr Keith both chose to ignore; an oddity perhaps, given that Jones' various 'eye-witness' accounts were so widely publicised in the days after 7/7. In fact, during his many media appearances Mr Jones never once contradicted the suggestions that he did in fact see 'the suspect'.

Instead, the claim is made by Hugo Keith that Jones' many statements have 'been open to conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain'. This statement is interesting as the claim can be laid squarely, and solely, with the Government and the Home Office's Official Account of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, (the 'narrative'), a report whose anonymous author(s) state, 'summarises what the police, intelligence and security agencies have so far discovered about the bombers' and of which the then PM Tony Blair claimed: "We will bring together all the evidence that we have and we will publish it so that people, the victims and others, can see exactly what happened".

Of the 7 points made in the official narrative as "the key evidence indicating that these were co-ordinated suicide attacks by these 4 men", point 5 is:
Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks shortly before the explosions.
If the anonymous author(s) compiling the State's narrative actually had sight of the police and intelligence service evidence, rather than just media reports, how could they possibly have come to this conclusion? Is point 5 of only 7 points of key evidence merely 'conjecture and surmise'?

As for Richard Jones' diagram of the passengers on the lower deck of the Number 30 bus which he drew for the police on 9th July 2005, it is clear that he only had eyes for the 'Asian passengers' present. Apart from Male A the two other passengers he appears to have noticed, or at least the only two passengers he seems to have highlighted for the police, are both Asian females. What are we to learn from this about the racial prejudices and proclivities of Reuters' employee Richard Jones?

As J7 asked in our submission to the 7/7 Inquests - has the man who Mr Jones' describes as 'Male A' ever been identified? There appears to be no male of Mediterranean appearance, and fitting the descriptions given by Richard Jones in his interviews, in this diagram of passengers on the Number 30 bus prepared for the 7/7 Inquests:

What else in the State's official narrative - amended twice since its publication - is also based on such shoddy and unsubstantiated evidence as that given by Richard Jones? How much of the remainder of the narrative is actually based on 'conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain'?


  1. Excellent post, Bridget. Many thanks.

    So Jones is now denying he saw the "suspect", despite having given every indication in numerous interviews that he had?

    How many "eye witnesses" to the "bombers" are there now? Just Danny Biddle and the (recently new to me) Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer?

  2. ^ Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer describes a man on the Number 91 bus rather than the Number 30. Although the images that have been released show Hasib's backpack as obviously black her statement said:

    18 Q. The backpack that he was carrying, you've described how
    19 full and heavy it was. It was, again, a dark blue-grey
    20 colour
    that you described in your statement?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. I think earlier, when answering questions, you
    23 demonstrated with your hands that he had the belt
    24 fastened around his waist?

    25 A. Yes, he had his strap on and that's why I think it was


    1 very heavy, because I used to use a backpack myself and,
    2 every time it was really heavy, I put it on to help me
    3 with carrying that.

    We have yet to see the CCTV of Hasib in the Euston Road before allegedly boarding the Number 91 bus - although it was shown at the Inquests - so whether it was strapped around his waist we'll see. It certainly wasn't in images released from outside KX station:

    CCTV Hasib exiting KX at 09.05

  3. "How many "eye witnesses" to the "bombers" are there now?"

    Perhaps we ought to include Michael Henning's sighting of an 'Asian man' (a term, incidentally, also used by a bus survivor to describe a Vietnamese passenger) wearing "light coloured clothing" in the adjacent carriage to Mr. Henning's on the Aldgate train. This was eagerly seized upon by Hugo Keith as a sighting of Shehzad Tanweer, despite the vague & generalised ethnic description and the fact that Tanweer was wearing a dark jacket & trousers.
    It's as good a 'sighting' as any so far.

  4. For anyone unfamiliar with Jones' statements prior to the inquests, see here. Found via this 7/7 Inquests blog post.

  5. Indeed. If you include all "Asian-looking" males wearing rucksacks in the general vicinity of the bombings the number of eye witnesses is startlingly low!

  6. How likely is it that we would get direct eyewitness accounts of the blasts anyway? In a bus with the seats facing forward , only those behind and beside (though they'd be looking forward and away) could see the bomb detonate. In the case of Tavistock Square most of the people that covers died. The row of seats behind 53 (where the bomb's said to have been) faced backwards, so Camille Scott, Sapna Khimani and Jennifer Adlan couldn't see. That leaves just Conor Delany, whose read testimony today says:

    17th am - p28
    21 the journey was very stop and start. I continued to go
    22 into a bit of a trance because I was tired. I sat in
    23 the seat with my head down.
    24 "The next thing I remember is my ears going.


    Prevshan Vijendran ( read statement, 17th PM p28)

    12 "To travel this short distance took about ten
    13 minutes. All of a sudden, I felt a warm blast of air in
    14 my face. I don't recall any noise. The next thing
    15 I knew, I was lying in the road. I tried sitting up and

    With the Piccadilly tube bomb, there's obviously no chance of an eyewitness to the detonation: the carriage was crush-loaded with tightly packed standing passengers and only those standing next to the blast would have had any chance to see anything. With 26 dead,clearly nobody that close was going to be a survivor.

    Even with Aldgate and Edgware Road , it would require someone close enough to see, who was paying attention, wasn't killed and didn't black out with concussion. Sightings of the alleged bombers at the seat of the blasts were always going to be pretty difficult to come by....

  7. Sightings of the alleged bombers at the seat of the blasts were always going to be difficult to come by... are sightings of the alleged bombers anywhere else other than Luton, King's Cross Thameslink and milling about outside King's Cross station.

    And that includes CCTV 'sightings'.

  8. Could anyone help with the facts -- or the actual interview where Mr Jones' reported that he and approximately 12 other passengers alighted the bus, then walked to the front where he heard a scream and felt and heard the subsequent explosion?
    If you go to 2:45 of this video you will see CCTV footage of the number 30 bus passing the camera seconds before it explodes. In fact it is only 5 seconds from when the bus is in motion to when it explodes.
    CCTV clock captures bus passing at 9:42:11 and
    pedestrians reacting to the blast at 9:42:16.
    How could the bus (as reported by Jones) come to a halt and allow 12 passengers to alight and walk to the front in only 5 seconds?

    Here's the link to the video: You have to forward to 2:42 to see the CCTV footage.

    1. Voyager, your account does not square with Jones's story below, Bridget 24 January 2011, which quotes Jones as saying he left the bus with 12 others, then stood for a few minutes before the bus blew up.

      I cannot see the CCTV clock clearly to verify your claimed time stamps.

      Jones is said to have given several mutually conflicting accounts.

  9. Jones is liar. He was spotted on video at Russell Square walking behind someone being interviewed by the media.

  10. It is not much point to continue debating the case of the bomb on the number 30 bus without the sobering realisation that either the Guardian's video is a fake or we are hearing pure conjecture or fabrication from many witnesses.

  11. @ Voyager

    The video that you are referring to is taken from the BMA wheareas the bus stopped prior to this outside of or near to a hotel which would be further to the right of this entrance to the BMA.

    This footage released from the Inquests shows the CCTV from the Ambassador Hotel (the 1st in the list):

    Jones's testimony is that he alighted close to a hotel then walked back towards Euston Road:

    1 A. Well, very, very fortunately, a gentleman around me,
    2 whether he was sitting or whether he was standing
    3 I can't remember, said, "Well, we're now gridlocked.
    4 This is going nowhere. I might as well walk", and
    5 I thought, "Walk, that's a good idea", and at that
    6 stage, the driver was letting people off at the front of
    7 the bus. We weren't at a bus stop, we were in front of
    8 the hotel there, and the driver was letting people off
    9 at the front, and myself and the gentleman and a few
    10 others moved to the back and banged on the back door.
    11 Eventually, the driver noticed and opened the door
    12 and I would think about half a dozen of us got off the
    13 bus.
    14 Q. Did you have to go past the man with the bag to leave
    15 the bus?
    16 A. Yes, I had to walk round him.
    17 Q. Can you finally tell us any more about the nature of the
    18 bag as you walked past?
    19 A. No, no, I didn't pay any attention --
    20 Q. Was it a rucksack, can you recall, or not?
    21 A. The dimensions of the bag didn't go outside of his feet,
    22 right, so it must have been only about 18 inches wide.
    23 Q. So fairly small?
    24 A. Yes.
    25 Q. You left the bus, and in which direction did you go?

    1 A. Well, I sort of stood for a few minutes deciding,
    2 because I was now trying to work out where the bus had
    3 turned and what direction I was at and I decided that
    4 there was a small pathway or lane which apparently was
    5 running in parallel with Euston Road, so I stepped into
    6 that and the bus blew up.
    7 Q. So the bus was facing southwards --
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. -- in Tavistock Square --
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. -- having gone through Woburn Place?
    12 A. Yes, it moved possibly 20, 25 yards away.
    13 Q. You were, by that stage, behind it, trying to work your
    14 way eastwards towards King's Cross and Angel?

  12. Thanks very much for clarifying that Bridget,

    I presume are you pointing out that the movement of the bus in the BMA video is actually after Jones alighted? Is this the 15 yards (now augmented to 20-25 yards in his January 2011 testimony)that Jones told 'Good Morning America' that the bus moved after he alighted?

    So he says in his Jan 2011 testimony that he stepped into a small pathway or lane running parallel to Euston Rd. I can only see Endsleigh Court, which is (by Google measurement) 102 yards from where the bus blew up (just south of the zebra crossing).

    Can anyone elaborate?


  13. @ Voyager

    Yes my point is that Jones says he alighted before the BMA video footage.

    If the Ambassador hotel, just past the bus stop on Upper Woburn Place, is approx where Jones alighted, then there is a small lane called Woburn Walk which does run parallel to Euston Road. This places Jones at a fair distance from the BMA - maybe 100 yds.

  14. So Mr Jones is in Woburn Walk and he hears an unforgettable scream that emanates from inside a moving bus that is the length of a football field away, which rises above the ambience of London traffic. Wonder what Lady Justice Hallett thinks of that?

  15. Does Mr Jones really matter any more? The authorities aren't relying on his testimony to show anything, and there's another witness (Camille Scott) who claimed to have seen someone fiddling with a rucksack - this time on the top deck, and who told a policeman (PC Mitchell) immediately after the blast:

    (19th Jan AM , p5 - PC Michell's evidence)
    18 A. She said there was somebody on the back of the bus that
    19 was fiddling with something, she wasn't happy with
    20 a package on the back of the bus where she was sat.
    21 Q. The words you used in the statement that you made at the
    22 time was that she said that there was a package on the
    23 back of the bus. Was that something along the lines of
    24 what she said?
    25 A. That is correct, my Lady, yes.


    1 Q. When Camille Scott gave evidence a few days ago, she
    2 remembered seeing a box which we subsequently know to
    3 have been a box with a microwave oven in it. She said
    4 that, as she had got on the bus earlier that morning,
    5 for some reason she thought that perhaps it was a bomb.
    6 Do you think that that may have been what she was
    7 saying to you a few minutes later as she lay in the road
    8 or are you not sure?

    That resulted in PC Mitchell radioing "Suicide bomber ... This is believed to be a suicide bomber" (see INQ 10129-1 which is linked to the transcript)

    The man has been identified in the inquest as Conor Delany, a survivor who has been cross-examined. It's much more likely the Official Account is referencing Camille Scott not Richard Jones when it refers to witnesses at two scenes seeing someone rummage in a rucksack

    As Richard Jones' man was still on the bus when it exploded, he ought to be one of the people shown as being located on the lower deck...

    Much more significant than Richard Jones is the evidence from quite a lot of witnesses about the mutilated torso found in front of the BMA. Everyone keeps sliding away from talking about this in detail - except for the garralous Richard Collins who let slip that it's supposed to be Hussain. If it isn't , of course, we need to identify who it actually was

  16. Richard Jones told the recent 7/7 inquest that he worked for Reuters (see transcripts), and that his son (whom he rang a short time after the number 30 bus explosion) worked as a contractor with the Metropolital Police. In Jones' media statements, including worldwide television, in the immediate aftermath of 7/7, he referred to a person fiddling with a bag on the bus as "the suspect".
    The media, including Reuters--whom Jones testified that he telephoned immediately after the blast to call in late--then spun out a massive campaign based on a suicide bombing 'suspect' that Jones had identified.
    The inquest and Jones are now harmoniously distancing themselves from that "suspect", who is now referred to as "an ordinary member of the public, a passenger on the bus".
    Since Jones' description was completely dissimilar to the alleged bomber shown on CCTV, it is inconceivable that Jones would not provide his news service employer Reuters(it is understood he works in IT) with the facts to quickly dispel the myth. Or since he acted on advice from his son contracted to the Metropolitan Police force as to how he could clarify that his eyewitness account was merely one of an "ordinary person, a passenger on the bus" who didn't fit the discription of the CCTV suspect.
    The obvious question is: why instead of grilling Jones for the blaring discrepancies in his narration (the 15 yards distance from the bus, that he augmented to 25 yards and now appears to be 100 yards--for instance) does Mr Keith appear to be 'leading' the witness?

    Transcript Jan 2011:

    Q (MR KEITH): I should make plain, quite properly and very sensibly, given that you had seen something that had caused you a certain degree, but a very modest degree, of concern when you were on the bus?
    A (RICHARD JONES): I mean, at no stage have I ever said that I actually saw the bomber. Right?
    Q. No.
    A. All I've ever, ever said was that somebody was acting unusually and annoying me on the bus.
    Q. But I hope we've established, Mr Jones, that there appears to be no connection with the bomber and nor that that particular gentleman was doing anything other than acting as an ordinary member of the public, a passenger on the bus?
    A. Correct.
    Q. But your statement, I'm afraid, has been open to conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain.
    A. Yes, I know.
    MR KEITH: Thank you, Mr Jones. There may be some more questions for you from my colleagues.
    LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Any questions for Mr Jones?
    It looks as if there aren't any questions for you, Mr Jones. You're another passenger who, as you know, had an extraordinarily close shave and must count your blessings an awful lot of times.
    A. Yes. Okay, thank you.
    LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much indeed for coming to help.
    A. Thank you very much.

    Transcript Ends.

    Coming to help? Help who?

  17. Still on Richard Roy Jones:

    Jones testified that he was attempting to get to Angel via Kings Cross along Euston Road -- he even checked bus routes 30 and 205 before walking to a nearby stop on Euston Road where he boarded the ill-fated number 30.
    The journey is a straight line to the north east, but the bus turns south into Upper Woburn Place. So Jones gets off the bus:

    "Well, I sort of stood for a few minutes deciding, because I was now trying to work out where the bus had turned and what direction I was at and I decided that there was a small pathway or lane which apparently was running in parallel with Euston Road, so I stepped into
    that and the bus blew up."
    It is established that the "lane" is 'Woburn Walk', which is only some 90 yards south from where the bus turned off at Euston Road. One right-hand turn and 90 yards down the road, and Jones is lost like a 4-year-old in the Australian outback. In fact the entire 12 passengers that Jones originally testified got off the bus with him must have also been totally mystified by this labyrinthine detour.

    In summary: Of course a complete skeptic could speculate that these minutes that Jones stood drawing upon his orientation skills would give the bus enough time (hypothetically) to travel to Tavistock Square -- you know, so he could be a reliable witness to the explosion before he disappeared into Woburn Walk.
    After the explosion Jones makes 2 phone calls (his police contracting son, and his Reuters employer). Then he proceeds down Woburn Walk and enters the BMA via the rear where he encounters a police officer to whom he gives his statement.

    The Bizarre:
    Jones is aproximately 100 yards from a bus that he was travelling on when he hears it explodes and sees the aftermath. Acording to his testimony he doesn't proceed any further down Upper Woburn Place towards Tavistock Square but simply stands back and in the following minutes witnessing the aftermath and subsequent emergency services and police arriving. He suddenly decides to call in late to Reuters -- before deciding that he is going to give a statement to police. He then phones his son at Kings Cross Metropolitan Police where he gets advice to go back and give a statement.
    So instead of walking back down Woburn Place he ducks around the back of Woburn Walk and finds a rear entry to the BMA--the orientation seems to have worked--where he meets a policewoman in the course of the BMA evacuation.
    Remember his initial statement to the media is that he was only 15 yards from the bus -- but he decides to navigate via Woburn Walk (100 yards away) to the rear of the BMA.

  18. Voyager - yes Jones' testimony was crucial in getting the 'suicide-bomber' meme into the public arena. Yet his deeply flawed account is treated with a respect that is not shown towards Richmal Oates-Whitehead who has had her reputation smeared and her statement to the Inquests treated with utter contempt. (25/01 pm)

    Again we ask: Who was the man Jones claims to have seen as there is no obvious man fitting that description among the passengers on the No 30 bus. What did the MPS do to try and track this person?

  19. @ Anonymous ^^^

    The witness sightings of Hasib Hussain are analysed here:

    J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: The notable absence of Hasib Hussain

    Conor Delaney, the only other passenger seated at the back of the bus who would have had full view of the upper deck, along with Prevshan Vijendran, was not called to give testimony. They both had their witness statements read. Neither idenitfied Hasib Hussain.

    Emma Plunkett who places herself and Shahara Islam across the aisle from Hasib did not identify him either.

    Yes, we have yet to hear about the headless torso although there appears to be a few in that area.

  20. Cheers Bridget,

    I did some reading last year about Richmal Oates-Whitehead. It's difficult to garner the complete facts, but a couple of things struck a chord immediately: Oates-Whitehead was working as a journalist/online editor for the BMA. The media played on the fact that the general public doesn’t understand that the world’s largest publishers employ a plethora of journalists to write and edit medical journals in 'B2B' (Business to Business) or 'Trade Press' publications -- they are rarely qualified as doctors, nor do they have to be. In fact you can legitimately write for and edit an online or 'print' medical publication without any qualifications whatsoever. Journalism is simply having a basic understanding of a subject (sometimes none) but getting to the right sources, trade shows and having relationships with the correct pharmaceutical companies etc. --and getting the relevant people and press releases into print.
    It does appear that Oates-Whitehead had a number of qualifications and a wealth of experience. It hasn’t been confirmed if any of her academic achievements earned her a doctorate of any kind: a doctorate or doctor’s degree can be academic, honorary or, in the case of a medical practitioner, a degree.
    There are all sorts of people calling themselves 'doctors' in the world: doctor of philosophy, psychology etc. I have not read that Oates-Whitehead actually ever practiced medicine or even that she falsely represented herself as a medical practitioner. Of course the media just says that she wasn't qualified as a 'doctor' -- so we are immediately to think 'medical practitioner', and subsequently publications like ‘The Telegraph’ label her a ‘bogus doctor’. The media also made a big deal about the fact that she carried a stethoscope in her handbag, but failed to mention that stethoscopes aren't restricted to qualified medical practitioners; in fact nurses, paramedics and even medical students carry stethoscopes.
    I don't think anyone would be checking credentials if a person with some medical expertise who carried a stethoscope saved their life in an emergency.
    The public is supposed to latch onto the media spin that Oates-Whitehead had some delusionary experiences -- possibly even when she related witnessing police carry out a controlled detonation of a secondary explosive device on the number 30 bus. But what seems to have made Oates-Whitehead quite a dangerous person is that she was a journalist and an editor, and some consider the keyboard to be a more powerful weapon than the cruise missile.

  21. So has Daniel Adigwe/Obachike become the elephant in the room? The inquest puts him on the bus but doesn't want to talk to him...and he has his detractors in some 'truth' forums.
    He's done some interviews for the alternative media -- but some of the footage has gone missing. And his website doesn't seem to have been updated for some time.
    What's going on here?
    From what I can gather, Adigwe seems to have some kind of photographic memory and an incredible eye for detail -- but chose not to talk to police or media at the Tavistock scene.
    He approaches police at a later date, but they have no interest in his story. He further relates that the media did't want his story unless he could identify Hussain on the bus.
    From there on it's a B-Grade movie with real-life spooks all over him. Are we now going to have to suffer through Adigwe, like David Shayler, descending into dressing in drag or claiming he's Jesus Christ, or is this man a critical witness?

  22. Looks like ol' Daniel is not a pandemic subject.

  23. Voyager, J7 examined Daniel Obachike/Adigwe's book 'The 4th Bomb' back in September 2007. You can read this review here.

    J7's conclusion: 'Overall, the discrepancies in "The 4th Bomb" are of such a magnitude that Obachike's main claims must be regarded as unsubstantiated.'

  24. Thanks again Bridget,
    My reason for stirring the pot regarding Mr Obachike/Adigwe is that he certainly shouldn't be discounted by either the inquest or those seeking other than a whitewash.
    So here we have in Mr Obachike/Adigwe both a victim and an eyewitness with an apparant photographic memory. This is a police investigator's dream -- but they don't want anything to do with him -- and it appears neither does the inquest. So if you take the antitheses, that he has fabricated an account of the most serious terrorist attack ever unleashed on UK soil, then surely he is serously up the tributary without any means of locomotion. But apart from his reported harrasment by police and MI5 there is no investigation of him and no official procedings against him. And the media, who love this sort of thing (imagine the ratings), don't want a bar of it. You can actually draw a parallel here with Wendy Scurr, who, although not wounded, was one of the victims of Australia's Port Arthur massacre in 1996. This lady, a trained nurse fought off the sheer terror (including wetting her pants) whilst shots flew -- even around her head--rather than flee, chose to stay and attend to the wounded and ushered potential victims to safety while shots still rang out in the single largest massacre by an individual in history. She is a true hero who has suffered for her truthful account of the shootings. But not only were the police not interested in her account, but she was written to by the court and told that her testimony wouldn't be required -- and there is a vitrual media black-ban on her; so much so that most Australians don't even know who she is.
    My point is that there is something awry with the Obachike/Adigwe contingency, which needs to be investigated.
    One question that springs to mind is his account of the driver specifically stopping the bus and opening a specific door to let out one passenger, when the driver testifies to letting out several passengers; and Jones' account that 12 got off somewhere around Woburn Walk. So why doesn't the inquest want to establish all the stops the bus made, where they were and how many people got off -- and where are they today?

    And has the 'bandaged man' ever come forward? And are these sleeveless padded jackets that the 'bandaged man' and the M15 guys wear a big fashion item during London summers?

  25. 'Bandage man' is certainly present in Brunswick Square & was likely from the Russell Square incident, there is no evidence that he was in Tavistock Square that morning - despite Daniel's claims.

    Daniel has been uncommonly silent since the Inquests began.

  26. Voyager I'm not sure that Daniel's account of the bus diversion from Euston Station holds up under scrutiny. He claims it travelled 150 metres up Euston Road before being diverted right into Upper Woburn Place. If the CCTV released to the Inquests is genuine the 30 bus was diverted as it left Euston Station into Eversholt Street and crossed the Euston Road into Upper Woburn Place:

    No 30 Bus

  27. Sorry Bridget but I don't get this. The map shows Eversholt changing into Upper Woburn Place -- and then, of course, Tavistock Sq. So I imagine it would be very common to refer to the south side of Eversholt as Upper Woburn Place or even Tavistock as they are all the same street. This is a little bit like the spurious witnesses that claimed to have seen the plane impact the Pentagon. At least two key witnesses claimed they were on the 110 highway when in fact the 110 is on the eastern side of the Pentagon and the impact was on the west side -- so they couldn't have seen it. But it was later established that a lot of motorists actually call the short stretch on the west side the "110" because it joins the 110 after it passes the Pentagon. This of course doesn't lessen the fact that their testimony was unscrupulous. Just a matter of pedantics.


  28. Voyager, I think we have to apply the same level of analysis to Daniel's testimony that you employed with Richard Jones. Daniel claimed that the No 30 bus exited Euston Station onto Euston Road via the same exit that the bus enters from - not onto Eversholt Street. (The usual journey for the No 30 would be to exit via Eversholt Street and cross into Churchway - see diagram here.)

    Daniel's claim is that after exiting onto the Euston Road and travelling 150 yards it was prevented from continuing and instead turned right into Upper Woburn Place. You claimed he had an amazing eye for detail and this is an important detail - I think Daniel would know the difference between Eversholt Street and Euston Road, given that the Euston Road is a major thoroughfare through London. J7 have also discussed the detail of the bus diversion with Daniel on the J7 forum.

  29. Well, I'm really confused now! I thought (probably from listening to Daniel's account) that the bus did indeed simply turn from Euston Rd into Upper Woburn Pl. This simplification was enhanced by the coincidence that the Google Satellite map has actually caught a bus making that kind of turn (Mar 2006).
    Of course the bus driver George Psaradakis' has probably cleared everything up in one of his carefully prepared statements -- or even one or two of the 50 people that he claims got off the bus moments before it exploded could maybe help.

  30. Voyager many buses travel along the Euston Road and there is a right turn into Upper Woburn Place. The route of the number 30 bus as it exits Euston Station though is across Eversholt Street into Grafton Place, where it would join the Euston Road at a left turn. It was prevented by a cordon from entering Grafton Place and instead travelled along Eversholt Street across the Euston Road into Upper Woburn Place.

    Aside from this, his account of being 'the only male passenger on the lower deck of the bus' where only a handful of people remained in the rear [p220 The 4th Bomb] is hardly borne out by the accounts of Sam Ly and other passengers on the lower deck.

  31. There were 4 male fatalities on the lower deck (Sam Ly, Phillip Russell, Anthony Fatayi-Williams, William Wise) not to mention Mark Beck, a severely injured survivor who gave evidence under cross examination and spoke of a number of people getting off just before the explosion (17th Jan am p45), and Tad Griglewicz (also cross-eaxmined). The people getting off are confirmed by Louise Barry as well.

    Not to mention his account of a meeting with Rachel 'North', when Rachel 'North' has vehemently denied on the J7 site ever meeting him, and described Daniel's account as an offensive fabrication

    At that point Daniel Adigwe is no longer a 100% reliable witness.

    To be honest "The 4th Bomb" looks very like an attempt to put forward a theory about the 7/7 bombings by "sexing it up" into the form of a"non-fiction novel" with the author as hero

    As far as the course of the bus is concerned, it now looks certain that it was travelling from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick on the return leg of its journey, and Margaret Majewska's statement explicitly states " The bus didn't stop on the
    concourse but carried on across Euston Road and down the street opposite with the church on the corner." (She then goes on to report a conversation which Emma Plunkett recalls as being between herself and one of those killed)

    The bus driver said that his duties included checking the bus for any suspicious package before starting his first journey and at each terminus, and he saw nothing. This means the bomb must have been carried onto the bus by someone after it left Marble Arch on the fatal journey. Which is essentially the theory in "The 4th Bomb", whether or not you accept his ideas about who that was. The idea some people have put forward that the bomb was somehow built into the bus in the night doesn't work if the bomb exploded on the floor in the middle of the top deck - there's nowhere to build a bomb into. And how could anyone predict beforehand exactly where that bus would be at 9:47am? It wasn't supposed to be anywhere near Tavistock Square