tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post2959056074981923401..comments2023-06-09T21:14:27.204+01:00Comments on J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: A CCTV Fuss About Nothing?The Antagonisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-72624138174715890322010-10-29T01:10:11.528+01:002010-10-29T01:10:11.528+01:00Note Max Hill QC [on behalf of the Metropolitan Po...Note Max Hill QC [on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service] confirms (<i>after serving a pacifier to DI Kindness</i>) that <b>there was a prearranged, preset CCTV seizure strategy in operation</b>:<br /><br /><a href="http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/7_july_inquests_2010-10-14_pm-session.pdf" rel="nofollow">Hearing Transcripts 14/10/2010, pm</a> (page 43, lines 16-22):<br /><br /><i>[MAX HILL] Although a detective inspector -- <b>not yet a superintendent, although I'm sure that day will come</b> -- Detective Inspector Kindness responded to tasking. It's quite clear from the scheme of his statements -- and there's more than one statement -- that he was responsible for carrying out <b>a prearranged, a preset CCTV seizure strategy</b></i>.<br /><br />No further questions are asked of DI Kindness as to from whom, and how, the conceived prearranged, preset CCTV seizure strategy originated.<br /><br />The line of questioning by Gareth Patterson (Lovells LLP on behalf of 4 bereaved families), which was interrupted by Max Hill, then gets kicked into the ‘preventability – closed sessions’ long grass of 2011.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-13302463991296225082010-10-24T01:44:54.692+01:002010-10-24T01:44:54.692+01:00Mr. Gareth Patterson (Lovells LLP on behalf of 4 b...Mr. Gareth Patterson (Lovells LLP on behalf of 4 bereaved families) asks of DI Ewan Kindness (page 37 Line 7):<br /><i>Q. So the investigation, as you outlined yesterday, began, as you said, with focusing on documents that were found at the bomb scenes in the names of Tanweer, Khan and Hussain?<br /><b>A.</b> That's correct.</i><br /><br />Hugo Keith then objects to the line of questioning (line 12):<br /><i>My Lady, I'm sorry for rising to my feet. I'm not entirely sure where my learned friend is going with this line of examination...</i><br /><br />Gareth Patterson is trying to examine the Luton connection, however Hugo Keith intercedes with:<br /><i>"...questions concerning the investigation itself, as opposed to CCTV, they may be better put to the senior police officer</i>" that the coroner will call in 2011...<br /><br />Gareth Patterson then tries to continue (on page 42, Line 6), with the important line of inquiry into how 'Luton' perchance came into the investigation equation, but Max Hill (for the Met Police) then intercedes (on Page 43, line 12) with a nod to the promotion of Inspector Kindness to Superintendent (line 16/17).<br /><br />Gareth Patterson's line of inquiry then gets thwarted, with the coroner then asking (Page 46, line 14) 'What is the purport of the questions? Where are we going?<br /><br /><br />It's an inquest, that's where we should be going, but the questions of how the 'Luton connection' arose have not been satisfactorily answered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-91577230894577246752010-10-19T23:55:17.770+01:002010-10-19T23:55:17.770+01:00This is staggering. What an unholy situation. What...This is staggering. What an unholy situation. What an astounding revelation.<br /><br />It's a kangaroo court for crying out loud!sifrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-3233819005881158692010-10-17T23:23:49.709+01:002010-10-17T23:23:49.709+01:00Just for completeness, the 'Intelligence' ...Just for completeness, the 'Intelligence' and 'Security' Committee (the 'committee' aspect being the only bit not in quotes because it's the only bit that's not highly questionable) also championed the 12th July fabrication in their "<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34644544/2009-05-CM7617-ISC-Could-77-Have-Been-Prevented-Review-of-the-Intelligence-on-the-London-Terrorist-Attacks-on-7-July-2005-20090519-77review" rel="nofollow">Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?</a>" report, subtitled, "Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005". <br /><br /><b>- 12 July, 13:00 – KHAN, TANWEER and HUSSAIN are identified from CCTV at King’s Cross.</b><br /><br />They also have the insightful leap from London to Luton on the same day:<br /><br /><b>– 12 July – Checks of CCTV from Luton railway station point to the involvement of Jermaine LINDSAY. He becomes a key suspect.</b>The Antagonisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-34922724251282406112010-10-17T21:10:52.968+01:002010-10-17T21:10:52.968+01:00How many days so far? And what? They are already c...How many days so far? And what? They are already cracking. Good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-37809669833597132472010-10-17T11:09:32.779+01:002010-10-17T11:09:32.779+01:00It's worth quoting DI Kindness' sworn test...It's worth quoting DI Kindness' sworn testimony in answering the coroner to realise just how serious a cover-up this is: <br /><br />A [DI Ewan Kindness]. <b>The information -- Luton and Bedford was seized, my Lady, as a result of the sighting at -- as a result of the sighting at King's Cross Thameslink which had been generated by the CCTV viewing by the CCTV team.</b> So it was natural that we would follow the route up the line. <b>It's as simple as that.</b><br />LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I think this is a fuss about nothing, Mr Hill, with respect.Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-69585315435018764502010-10-17T10:45:33.524+01:002010-10-17T10:45:33.524+01:00Yes, actually viewing the Luton CCTV on the 10th J...Yes, actually <i>viewing</i> the Luton CCTV on the 10th July - and knowing what they were looking for. How? Why? When was the CCTV actually recovered from Luton? Why concoct the 11th/12th July story? <br /><br /> Day 4 and this Inquest leaves more questions than answers.Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-39373828658831341222010-10-17T03:29:53.466+01:002010-10-17T03:29:53.466+01:00OK, in a nutshell. The Met did not view the King&#...OK, in a nutshell. The Met did not view the King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until 11-JUL-2005 but had possession of the Luton CCTV on the the 10th July. Therefore, unless they were capable of time travel, they could not have worked back from the Kinh's Cross Thameslink footage to Luton.Numeralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10524375540498868004noreply@blogger.com