Friday 18 February 2011

McDaid Who?

"McDaid who?" would be the majority of people's response if you mentioned the name McDaid in connection with the events in London on 7th July 2005. Yet Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid is a name that has emerged recently at the 7/7 Inquests. Due in no small part to the following section of the submission on 'Preventability' that J7 prepared and dispatched to the Inquests' coroner and counsel:

A former Hell's Angel who worked at the Iqra bookshop in Leeds, Martin Gilbertson, claims that the most vocal of all those he worked with was not any of the four accused but a white convert to Islam; ex-SBS soldier and anti-terrorist operative Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. Gilbertson said,
“Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid did most of the talking, most of the ranting and raving; and as an ex-Marine, he knew about matters military.”24
Given his background, McDaid has featured surprisingly little in connection with the story of 7/7. McDaid's apparent volte-face conversion from one of the highest levels of Defence of the Realm to 'radical Islamism', is still something of an unexplained and largely uninvestigated mystery. Also in close proximity to the four accused is another white convert to Islam, James McLintock, also with links to the Iqra bookshop. McLintock is a former fighter with the Mujahideen, also known by the Islamic name Mohammed Yacoub/Yaqub, and who has been arrested on separate occasions “on suspicion of terrorist activities”25, usually in the vicinity of Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

Have any of these individuals been questioned by police in connection with 7/7?

Gilbertson told a Guardian journalist,
“I spent a lot of time repairing their PCs, and clearing viruses they had picked up from Jihad websites, put there, I think, by the Americans. When the Jihad sites were closed down, they were often replaced by pornographic sites, again - I think - by the Americans. At one point, the police took McDaid's Laptop computer and stripped it down - I had to repair it. Naveed also had his home computer taken by the police, and I helped him build a new one.”26
In a separate interview with BBC Newsnight's Richard Watson, Gilbertson revealed that the seizure of computers happened in early 2004.27

Why has there never been any mention of the police seizure of computers from the Iqra in early 2004? When did this raid take place? What prompted the raid? What information and data was garnered from these computers and how was it acted upon?

24 'When I heard where the bombers were from I felt sick' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
25 Profile: James McLintock - Times Online
26 'When I heard where the bombers were from I felt sick' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
27 YouTube - 7.7 London Suicide Bombers

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid

Martin Gilbertson's claim that he was so concerned about the goings-on at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston -- a claim which played out in the media to include Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer -- that he contacted West Yorkshire Police in 2003 was thoroughly discredited by counsels to the Inquests, the bereaved and West Yorkshire Police. Gilbertson's statements to the police, one of which was taken over two days in a hotel because Gilbertson 'feared for his safety', and his testimony to the Inquests, came under close scrutiny and sustained attack until he was eventually asked by Mr Beggs, counsel for West Yorkshire Police:
Q. Is that because, Mr Gilbertson, the sad truth is that you are an egocentric self-publicist, a fantasist, exaggerator, speculator, irresponsible individual?

Whether Gilbertson did or did not attempt to warn West Yorkshire Police in 2003 about the Iqra bookshop in Beeston is truly a red herring, particularly if information revealed to the Inquests during his testimony is correct. Hugo Keith informed Gilbertson and the public of the following:
Q. It's a significant issue, Mr Gilbertson, you must be aware, because although it's perhaps less important now because my Lady and the parties in these proceedings are now aware that McDaid was known to the Security Service and West Yorkshire Police since at least 1998, and suspected of being involved in extremist activities since then, you have alleged repeatedly, outside these proceedings, to the press and elsewhere, that you attempted to bring your concerns about radical extremism to the attention of the police.[ibid p52:8]
West Yorkshire Police and the 'Security Services' knew all about Martin McDaid and Iqra, so why the need for this farce? Instead of the media covering Gilbertson's 'warning West Yorkshire Police' over the 5½ years since 7/7, why haven't we been hearing about what they already knew and what they had apparently known for some 7 years before 7th July 2005?

When the BBC's Richard Watson was interviewing Martin Gilbertson for one of Watson's regular 'jihadi network' Newsnight pieces, why wasn't he asking about McDaid or at least contacting West Yorkshire Police or his many contacts inside MI5 to ask them what was already known? Why the cover-up and why the secrecy?

Martin Gilbertson interviewed on Newsnight. from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Richard Watson reporting on BBC Newsnight 9th May 2007.

Mark Hargreaves, a youth worker who gave evidence to the Inquests prior to Gilbertson, described how he began working with Martin McDaid in 2001, as well as a previously unmentioned individual, Max Gillespie also known as Abdul Rahman:
Q. In your statement to the police, you describe how, when you did start to work with them at Tempest Road, you worked in a room in the rear of the building and you saw hateful, deeply offensive pictures and videos, and these were shown to you by the person you knew to be called Martin McDaid. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see where this material was coming from or where it was going?
A. As far as where it came was concerned, I have no idea, but there were a number of times when they told me they were travelling of a weekend to other cities to distribute this material to other Iqra bookshops indeed.
Q. When you say they told you, who were they?
A. That would be Martin McDaid and Max Gillespie, who was also known as "Abdulraqman"*.
Q. Did you gain any understanding of where precisely the material was being distributed, which parts of the country, for example?
A. Two that I recall clearly. One was Glasgow and the other one was Birmingham. [ibid p6:16]

Q. In summary, you describe in your statement how it was obvious to you that this individual, McDaid, was whipping up hatred. Is that a view that you adhere to now, you're still of that view, that that was what was being done?
A. Yes, definitely. [p13:4]
* the name given by Hargreaves was definitely Abdul Rahman
Rewind to the outlining of Preventability issues at the Inquests and Martin McDaid's name is first mentioned in connection with Beeston and Iqra by Hugo Keith on 2 February 2011:
My Lady, may I now turn to the issue of preventability? This issue concerns whether the atrocities on 7 July could reasonably have been prevented by way of some sort of intervention by the Security Service or the police, in essence the state. [p88:20]

.... West Yorkshire Police to a number of people, including a suspected extremist called McDaid on account of their joint attendance at a training camp in the Lake District in January 2001. Mohammed Sidique Khan had also attended the camp and a photograph was taken of him but a source to whom West Yorkshire Police subsequently showed the photo failed to recognise or identify him. Some time after the camp, in April 2003, McDaid was seen briefly to get into a car that subsequent checks established was a car registered to a Mr Sidique Khan of 11 Gregory Street. [p98:1]
This at least fills in some of the redactions (perhaps) in the ISC II report:

A joint West Yorkshire Police and MI5 operation named Operation Warlock was active in the area from at least January 2001. Although McDaid was known to MI5 and West Yorkshire Police as far back as 1998, the two people we can surmise from Inquests evidence that were under surveillance were Tafazal Mohammed and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. This is the same Tafazal Mohammed that set up and ran the Iqra bookshop and learning centre at which ex-SBS McDaid was 'whipping up hatred'. Did West Yorkshire Police and MI5 really need Gilbertson's DVDs and evidence to know what was going on there?

According to the ISC timeline above, checks were carried out on Khan's BMW on 16 April 2003 after he was seen giving a lift to the 'known extremist' McDaid. Khan was assessed as having no significance following a two day joint West Yorkshire Police/MI5 surveillance operation, Operation Honeysuckle, which ran on 14/15 April 2003. By coincidence. or perhaps not, the very same date a camping trip run by Max Gillespie/Abdul Rahman, and attended by at least Tafazal if not McDaid also, took place:

Were photographs taken of this camp in the same way that they were during the 'Operation Warlock' Lake District camp in 2001? Note that Operation Warlock apparently failed to identify Mohammed Sidique Khan, despite the image below, seemingly excised from video surveillance footage captured on a 3-hour long tape.

Information garnered during 'Operation Honeysuckle' was adduced in a summary prepared for the Inquests by West Yorkshire Police. The summary identifies 49 Bude Road, the Iqra bookshop and charity, and shows the association with McDaid is clearly known:

The West Yorkshire Police summary also highlights that the charity registration details and the trustees of the Iqra charity were investigated. Mohammed Sidique Khan was an Iqra trustee in 2003, so once again his name was also known:

Information passed to J7 revealed that the 'security services' tipped off a newspaper in 2002 with information about Martin McDaid. Although the original article is not available online, it was referenced in a Times article of June 2006 which examined Gilbertson's story:
Contrary to the government’s claims, this hotbed of extremism had not gone unnoticed by MI5. In early 2002 a source within the security services was sufficiently concerned about McDaid to tip off a journalist on this newspaper about him. The source alleged that young Muslims were being taken on outdoor pursuits courses as part of training for possible terrorist attacks. Inquiries were made but nobody in the local community was willing to talk.
The tip-off was that McDaid, the ex-Special Boat Service soldier cum 'radical' 'extremist' convert to Islam, was training people in the countryside. However, the security services refused to provide a picture of McDaid to accompany the story, suggesting that the security services were happy for the legend about a 'Muslim' 'extremist' "training for possible terrorist attacks" to be known, but without anyone being able to identify him by appearance. J7's source believes that McDaid's name (without an accompanying identifying photograph) was only passed to the newspaper to provide cover and credibility for McDaid within the local community.

From the ISC report we also note that between Operation Warlock (2001) and Operation Honeysuckle (2003) another operation began in late March 2003. This was Operation Crevice, which was to lead, a year later, to the arrests and prosecution of the 'fertiliser bomb plot', a prosecution in which Mohammed Junaid Babar played a central part by testifying against the accused. At around the same time (Spring 2003 according to the Metropolitan Police Service) Mohammed Junaid Babar was engaged in his second trip to the UK during which he apparently met with Mohammed Sidique Khan in Leeds. This was in April 2003 according to Hassan Butt. Who else did Mohammed Junaid Babar travel to Leeds to meet? Was Babar in the locality around the time of Operation Honeysuckle, the 14-15 April 2003?

Operation Crevice was initially and apparently an investigation into Mohammed Quayyam Khan aka 'Q'. J7 also highlighted the dubious credentials of 'Q' in our submission to the Inquests regarding issues of Preventability:
During the 2007 trial of the Crevice suspects, it was claimed that the mysterious figure known as 'Q'7, later identified as Mohammed Quayyum Khan, had recruited both Mohammad Sidique Khan and Omar Khyam; the latter of whom is the alleged ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot investigated via Operation Crevice. Questions were asked after the Crevice trial regarding why 'Q' was not arrested along with the others.

BBC Panorama reporter, Peter Taylor, challenged DAC Peter Clarke with the following questions during an episode entitled 'Real Spooks'8, broadcast in May 2007:
TAYLOR: Why was 'Q' never arrested?
CLARKE: Decisions are made during the course of investigation based upon the evidence that's available, and the decision as to who should be arrested is based entirely upon what evidence is available at the time.
TAYLOR: Was 'Q' not arrested possibly because he was working for you or MI5?
CLARKE: I'm not prepared to comment on any speculation like that. It's pure speculation.
TAYLOR: Where is 'Q' now?
CLARKE: I said I'm not prepared to talk about 'Q'.
A simple, “No.” from Clarke might have sufficed if indeed it was the case that 'Q' had no connection to the police or security services.

Was Mohammed Quayyum Khan ever questioned or investigated in connection to 7th July? Why wasn't he included on the blacklists of al-Qaeda financiers

7 Bomb plotters' al-Qa'eda 'link' still in Britain - Telegraph
8 BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Real Spooks: transcript
Information about Operation Crevice contained within the ISC report directly linked Mohammed Sidique Khan to 'Q' through a number of July 2003 phone calls to a phone registered in Mohammed Sidique Khan's name to 49a Bude Road. 49a Bude Road is of course the address of the Iqra bookshop of which, in 2003, Mohammed Sidique Khan was a trustee.

So, the ISC's seemingly direct link may not be as direct as they suggest. The phone may well have been used as an all purpose phone on the Iqra premises, rather than a 'personal' phone used solely by Mohammed Sidique Khan. Khan may well have just happened to be the person who registered the phone on behalf of Iqra and the calls could have been received by anyone on the premises. Despite MI5's claims that the name Sidique Khan didn't match any on file -- even though his car registration was noted and traced to him on 16 April 2003 -- the 'Security Services' would certainly have known about and been interested in the address of the Iqra bookshop, particularly if they had been monitoring McDaid since 1998, and as a result of the names of the registered charity trustees they garnered from Operation Honeysuckle.

Did the running of two separate operations, Crevice and Honeysuckle, preclude the ability for either single operation to comprehend the bigger picture, or perhaps allow for State assets to operate effectively in the shadows of each surveillance operation? With all the various individuals apparently under surveillance as far back as 7 years before July 2005, yet none of them apprehended in time to prevent the events of 7/7, this would appear to be the case.

The Inquests will need to fill in some of the other redacted information in relation to 'Q' especially if this leads back to Junaid Babar or indeed Martin McDaid:

Mohammed Junaid Babar - an FBI/CIA asset; 'Q' - an MI5 asset, and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, an ex-Special Boat Service anti-terrorist operative and 'convert' to Islam that MI5 were happy to tip off The Times about, all just one step removed from those accused of perpetrating the attacks of 7 July 2005... well, figure it out for yourself.

When considering the information above, it is worth bearing in mind that the Secret Services honed their modus operandi in the 6 counties of Eire. It is now known that many in the Provisional IRA leadership were in fact British agents. A previous Special Boat Service operative (the SBS being an elite regiment of 250 of the Queen's finest, in the same mode as the SAS) was John Joe Magee - the IRA's 'Angel of Death'.

As Gilbertson found out to his cost, 'only the truth stands up under scrutiny'. The same goes for MI5 when their chosen Corporate Spook is called to give testimony next week.

Rest assured, J7 will be subjecting their testimony to scrutiny!

"Truth does not fear investigation."


  1. Bridget

    I notice that you still utterly refuse to address the physical evidence that directly links the 4 accused to the bomb sites - DNA from human remains, personal effects etc. Will you please explain to the sheep how a piece of Tanweer's shinbone become lodged in a survivor's eye if Tanweer was not present in the carriage? Or, if he was present, how he was persuaded to stand in a particular place in a particular carriage in the rush hour right on top of a bomb planted under the floor? Please also provide any credible evidence WHATSOEVER that the bombs were underneath the carriages. Or that a bomb was hidden somewhere inside the bus.

    1. so they were there so what?
      its now clear they probably did do SOME of the dirty work or at least were
      agent provacateur
      black ops
      read up and get informed

  2. Peter Clarke to Peter Taylor, about Q, as quoted above:

    "Decisions are made during the course of investigation based upon the evidence that's available, and the decision as to who should be arrested is based entirely upon what evidence is available at the time."

    Peter Clarke likes to do things a little differently on occasion. Clarke again, on the subject of Dhiren Barot:

    "It is no exaggeration to say that at the time of the arrest there was not one shred of admissible evidence against Barot. The arrest was perfectly lawful - there were more than sufficient grounds, but in terms of evidence to put before a court, there was nothing. There then began the race against time to retrieve evidence from the mass of computers and other IT equipment that we seized. It was only at the very end of the permitted period of detention that sufficient evidence was found to justify charges. I know that some in the media were sharpening their pencils, and that if we had been unable to bring charges in that case, there would have been a wave of criticism about the arrests. Barot himself of course eventually pleaded guilty last year and received a 40-year sentence."

    So, which is it; evidence or no evidence? Or either, depending on whichever happens to be the most politically expedient?

    Mr Clarke is due to appear at the inquests on Thursday of next week.

  3. @ Anonymous

    Why ask me to defend statements that I or J7 have never made?

    As for your accusation that we have failed to examine the evidence that links the 4 men to each of the scenes perhaps you could take some time to read these posts for starters.:

    7/7 Inquests: The Disintegration of Shehzad Tanwer

    7/7 Inquests: The Alleged Identification of Shehzad Tanweer

    July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'?

    The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

    It is not for J7 to 'prove' any narrative it is for the State to prove theirs.

  4. It's good to see some detailed examination of what may or may not have been happening in Beeston. A lot of those examining "alternative" accounts of what happened on 7/7 seem to have largely ignored or dismissed this area, presumably on the basis that the Official Account rested here essentially on a summary of police views, and was therefore automatically suspect. At least we are now seeing direct witness evidence, mostly under cross-examination about what was going on in Beeston. Admittedly the quality of the witnesses aren't good - some seem to be trying to avoid making any meaningful statement on any subject and Gilbertson is hardly very reliable, even though he must have had some core of knowledge about the place. But even with the difficulties we are starting to get direct evidence on the record about the Iqsa bookshop and the associated groups in Beeston, who was involved, what sorts of things they were doing or saying - as opposed to the second or third hand reports of what anonymous sources are said to have said we've had till now

    As far as the other issues go (perhaps best discussed under posts relevant to the scenes but still) I'm not aware J7 have claimed bombs were under the tube trains (though Nicholas Kollerstrom has) or that a bomb was somehow built into the bus. That idea is very hard to sustain given that the bomb seems to have exploded in the middle of the aisle on the upper deck.

    The physical evidence for Tanweer's presence at Aldgate is clearly the sketchest of the 4 scenes. Most alternative accounts of 7/7 have largely focussed on Aldgate and Edgeware Rd, and mostly ignored the Piccadilly line bomb and Tavistock Sq, assuming that doubts about one scene can simply be read across to all the others - "if Aldgate wasn't nor were Kings Cross and Tavistock Sq" . But you can run that logic the other way - "if Hussain was at Tavistock Sq then Tanweer must have been at Aldgate". The standard showstopper - "the train didn't run" doesn't work for either the Piccadilly bomb or Tavistock Sq - especially if you accept the evidence putting Hussain at King's Cross around 9 am, as most people critiquing the official account seem to do in practice. So more focus on discussing the Piccadilly bomb and Tavistock Sq is needed to establish what really happened

    As far as proof is concerned, there is never going to be a criminal trial unless someone can prove beyond reasonable doubt a narrative in which the bombing were carried out by someone other than Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussain. Effectively we're in the realms of history,where balance of probability applies and the standard defence advocate's principle "it's not for the defence to prove it's case, it's for the Crown" doesn't

  5. @Bridget

    So you accept that the bombs were in rucksacks and that MSK, Hussein, Tanweer and Lindsay were in close proximity when they exploded?

  6. Anonymous@1558 - If you wish to reduce the conversation to simple, polar debate about basics, it might be sensible to start at the beginning, and from a point which doesn't assume unproven things as given.

    So, for example, when you refer to 'bombs', to what is it exactly that are you referring? Particularly as, thus far, nobody appears to have been able to quite pin down the exact nature of the unique and never-before-or-since-seen explosives allegedly used in the alleged 'bombs'.

  7. Anonymous@1315 said...

    Effectively we're in the realms of history,where balance of probability applies and the standard defence advocate's principle "it's not for the defence to prove it's case, it's for the Crown" doesn't

    Thank you for your considered comment. That final point is possibly one on which people will have to agree to disagree.

    The burden of proof lies with those making the allegations. To date, the narrative has yet to be proven and, if anything, the selective release of evidence during the inquests has, as highlighted in the posts on this blog, further undermined the case for what is alleged in the narrative.

    You're right that there will probably never be a criminal trial.

    But then the avoidance of criminal trials, miscarriages of justice, and locking innocent people up for the best part of 20 years for crimes they didn't commit, has been facilitated brilliantly by the invention of the 'suicide bomber'.

  8. Antagonist said: The burden of proof lies with those making the allegations.

    There still exists an blog in your name which alleges that the Tavistock Sq passengers were actors in a security exercise, but you have sidestepped any burden of proof there. J7 have repeatedly insinuated that witnesses are lying at the inquest.

  9. @Antagonist 7.04

    I've been waiting for J7 Truth to have their '9/11 no planes' moment - and here it is. There were no bombs. Brilliant. But please answer the question - on what grounds do you doubt the DNA identification of remains found at the scenes? The Argument from Incredulity is not good enough.

  10. @Anonymous 9.33

    During the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest the evidence was that the devices found in the Nissan Micra were TATP and TATP was found 'all over Alexandra Grove', you can read the discussion on this here:

    Node in the Noosphere: Pepper and Hydrogen Peroxide Bombs?

    TATP has transmogrifyed into HMTD according to Clifford Todd at the 7/7 Inquests.

    @ Anonymous 9.31

    Truth is a process - all knowledge is dialectical and these Inquests have been the first opportunity to actually see and hear the evidence against the 4 accused.

    As for 'insinuating that witnesses are lying' Gilbertson was directly accused of lying by counsel when he gave evidence. The opening to the Theseus trial was 'simply wrong' and DI Kindness claimed CCTV from Luton was being viewed on 12/07/05 until Ms Gallagher produced a viewing log dated 10/07/05.

  11. At all Anonymous' that claim J7 hold any theory or narrative in the mode of 7/7 Ripple Effect - we don't. We are a truth campaign and truth is our goal.

  12. @Anonymous - As you appear to be a keen reader, you will no doubt have read that I wrote, "with hindsight, I don't believe anyone on the bus was an actor".

    With regard to any insinuations that witnesses are lying at the inquests, witnesses give their testimonies. Often, testimonies will contradict either each other, themselves, or other evidence in the public domain. Pointing out these discrepancies is not insinuating anyone is lying but rather highlighting that discrepancies exist and the points of contention need further examination.

    Your question about DNA identification starts at the end of the story.

    When trying to understand the who/what/when/why and how of 7 July 2005, a preferred starting point would be the beginning.

  13. @Antagonist 10.11 PM

    The fact that you wrote it all gives a fairly clear idea of your 'preferred starting point'. Why is physical evidence from the scenes not a good starting point?

  14. ^ Anonymous.

    The Physical evidence from the scenes I presume includes the type of explosive used?

    22 A. At Russell Square, none was found, no traces of HMTD or
    23 TATP or, indeed, any other explosive was found.
    24 Q. Was that significant or inconclusive in relation to the
    25 overall conclusion that the device at Russell Square was


    1 plainly an HMTD hydrogen peroxide/piperine bomb?
    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.
    9 Q. The fault is mine, I put the question badly. On the
    10 premise that the explosive device at Russell Square was
    11 a combination of an HMTD initiator and
    12 a piperine/hydrogen peroxide mix, could the explosion
    13 itself have destroyed signs that HMTD was the initiator?
    14 A. Absolutely, yes.
    15 Q. As we'll see in a moment, traces of HMTD were found at
    16 the other scenes.
    17 A. Yes.
    18 Q. Can an explosive trace remain, because even though the
    19 device itself explodes entirely, there may be traces of
    20 the explosive material on the clothes or the possessions
    21 of the bomber?
    22 A. Yes, that's correct. You can get post-explosion
    23 residues. When a high explosive detonates, not
    24 100 per cent of it will be consumed in that detonation,

    25 and very small traces are generally left. They are


    1 vanishingly small amounts.
    2 In this particular case, the other possibility,
    3 which is perhaps more likely, with the HMTD, the HMTD is
    4 only a very small part of the whole device. Now, it is
    5 actually very unlikely that any of that HMTD from the
    6 initiator would survive these blasts. It's more likely
    7 that the HMTD that was found there was already on the
    8 material that -- where it was found.

    Not a single trace of the explosive (approx 10kg of hp + piperine) was found at any of the sites and the HMTD (a few grammes) that was said to be present in trace amounts on the items found was concluded to have been on the items prior to the explosions.

    Todd's conclusion on the type of explosives used was reached simply by working backwards from Alexandra Grove - working backwards was the only option.

    J7 have yet to unpick the evidence that was presented which claimed to link the 4 accused and the explosives used. Suffice to say the items that were shown to link MSK to Alexandra Grove did not include any of the explosive containers etc. But more on this when J7 have a chance to examine this evidence.

    We all do well to remember that there is no jury to examine the evidence and ask questions - nor have the families of the 4 accused been granted legal aid to be represented and thus challenge or question the evidence or witnesses. This makes the Inquests a very one-sided affair - which is why J7 undertake this task.

  15. Anonymous-9.33 wrote "But please answer the question - on what grounds do you doubt the DNA identification of remains found at the scenes?"

    The inquest transcript for the morning of 24 November page 59 line 8 reads:
    My Lady, the next statement is that of Timothy Clayton, a forensic scientist dated 20 July 2005.
    Statement of MR TIMOTHY CLAYTON read
    "From information received with this case, I understand that it is alleged that the unidentified muscle sample RW58 is from Mohammed Sidique Khan."
    My Lady, muscle sample RW58, as we'll see in a moment from another statement, is a sample of muscle taken from an exhibit MW84. MW84 is an exhibit exhibited by Mr Wilson, from whom we'll hear in a moment, and it comprises human remains taken from the Edgware Road tunnel identified by the number 60021456.
    "I understand that Tika Khan and Mamida Begum are the biological parents of Mohammed Sidique Khan and that all three are of Asian descent ...
    "Purpose of examination:
    "The above items have been analysed by DNA profiling to determine whether or not there is any scientific support for the assertion that the muscle sample RW58 is from a biological son of both Tika Khan and Mamida Begum.
    "The DNA profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum have been established under their respective reference samples under the instruction of my colleague Mr Chapman of the Forensic Science Laboratory, London. I have been supplied with copies of these profiles together with a profile obtained from the muscle sample.
    "DNA profiling reveals bands, half of which a child inherits from its biological mother and half of which it inherits from its biological father. In this case, all of the bands present in the profile from the muscle sample RW58 are represented in the combined profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum. This is what I would expect to find if the unidentified sample was from a biological son of theirs.
    "In carrying out a statistical evaluation of these results, I have considered the following alternative propositions for the results obtained. Either the unidentified muscle sample RW58 originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum or the unidentified muscle sample is from an unknown Asian man who is unrelated to them. Using data available for the Asian population in the United Kingdom, a figure has been calculated called a likelihood ratio. This is a numeric evaluation of the strength of the DNA evidence. In this case, the figure is 170 million. That is, the results showed that the DNA profile obtained from the muscle sample RW58 is approximately 170 million times more likely to have originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum rather than an unknown Asian male unrelated to them.
    "In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the view that the unidentified muscle sample originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum."
    However, it has been reported by Shiv Malik that Khan's biological mother had died some years before 2005:

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

    Prospect Magazine

  16. Anonymous-Feb18-9.25 said:

    "Will you please explain to the sheep how a piece of Tanweer's shinbone become lodged in a survivor's eye if Tanweer was not present in the carriage?"

    Philip Duckworth said this:

    5 Q. Finally, may I ask you this: some press accounts have
    6 spoken of how you sustained an injury to your left eye.
    7 A. Yes.
    8 Q. Could you tell us, please, something about that?
    9 A. Yes, I -- well, I've lost my left eye, I've got
    10 a prosthetic eye in at the moment, which by all accounts
    11 looks very realistic, I'm quite pleased with that, but,
    12 yes, I mean I know what happened to -- do you want all
    13 the details? It's --
    14 Q. Could you please tell us in rough outline?
    15 A. It was a fragment of the bomber's shinbone went into my
    16 eye and, I mean, I wasn't aware of this at all, but,
    17 yes, it's -- that's what's made me blind in that eye.
    18 Q. The reason that I ask, Mr Duckworth, is this: on account
    19 of your knowledge of that, of the injury you sustained
    20 from that piece of bone, in hindsight, does it now seem
    21 to you that you may, in fact, have been very much closer
    22 to the bomber and the bomb, who happened to be located
    23 at one end of the carriage rather than the middle doors
    24 where you thought you entered and, indeed, you may have
    25 been standing in the standing area by the doors on the


    1 other side of the carriage from the bomb?
    2 A. That could very possibly be the case. I mean, I am
    3 personally very interested in finding that out, but,
    4 yes, that's possible.
    5 Q. And the act of the bomb in blowing open the doors caused
    6 you to be expelled out of the train at the same time?
    7 A. Yes, yes.

    That appears to be all there is. If you can find an exhibit number for the fragment of shinbone and a forensic report on it. please let us know.

  17. Anonymous, your gleeful declaration "I've been waiting for J7 Truth to have their '9/11 no planes' moment" sheds a lot of light on your rather absurd comments on this article. Your personal starting point, clearly, is that we are a bunch of tin foilies desperately trying to find a conspiracy, when the only conspiraloonery being expressed on this thread is contained solely within the comments authored by yourself.

    It will be obvious to any objective reader of this blog, is that we are doing nothing more than point out the massive discrepancies and gaps in the narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Much like we've done from the start.

    The challenging, authoritative tone of your comments suggests that you've been following the Inquests as closely as J7, so I'm rather at a loss to see how you've not only managed to read all those transcipts every day since October 2010 and not seen one single contradiction that demands closer scrutiny but also come out with the comments above which belie any informed knowledge you might have of these issues.

  18. @numeral 1.05

    So you're saying that MSK's biological mother died years ago, that the DNA reference sample was taken from the wrong Mamida Begum, and that the resulting DNA comparison somehow produced a match probability of 170 million to one? And your conclusion is drawn from one sentence in an article in Prospect Magazine with no source given for the piece of information? Do you not think it remotely possible that some fibs were told to reporters to keep the press (and vigilantes) away from his family? I note from the article that its author and MSK's own brother do not doubt his guilt, and that the brother followed the body parts to Pakistan for burial. He clearly believes they are genuine.

  19. @Anonymous 5.17

    Many things are remotely possible. It is possible that Mamida Begum, the biological mother of Khan, is not dead and is the current wife of Tikka Khan. It is also possible that Mr Clayton found what he [was] expected to find. Confirmation bias is pernicious.

    Rather then speculate about fibs, the scientific approach would be to press the inquest to establish the facts. This is what we have done.

  20. Newsnight interviews Mark Hargreaves re McDaid here: