tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post3437710011870443827..comments2023-06-09T21:14:27.204+01:00Comments on J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: 7/7 Inquests: Danny Biddle, the Rucksack on the Lap - and the Explosion on the FloorThe Antagonisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01459201402366077472noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-56579487679496182582010-11-10T12:28:34.634+00:002010-11-10T12:28:34.634+00:00And if we add into the mix this letter from John R...And if we add into the mix this letter from John Reid, the Home Secretary at the time, dated 24 August 2006:<br /><br />Those who attended the Edgware Road meeting believed that there was a possibility of a second error in the Official Account. They said that Mohammed Sidique Khan was by the second set of double doors in the tube carriage at the time of the attack, whereas the Official Account states that Khan was ''most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors.''<br /><br />My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. <b>The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. </b><b>This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly the bomb exploded has yet to be established.</b> The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation.<br /><br />The wording in the Official Account therefore accurately reflects the police's understanding of the initial examination of the scene. The preface of the Official Account makes it clear that ''the evidence is not yet the full picture'' because it was known at the time of writing that more evidence might emerge from the ongoing police investigation. To date, none of the forensic evidence suggests that the Official Account is incorrect in stating where Khan was ''most likely'' to have been located prior to the explosion. Should the police revise their initial conclusions in the light of further information, an update will be issued.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br />John Reid<br /><br /><a href="http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html" rel="nofollow">Edgware Road survivors question the Home Office report</a><br /><br />How was this possible?Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-83751295390512575522010-11-10T11:42:10.508+00:002010-11-10T11:42:10.508+00:00If we momentarily ignore the oddity of the two inq...If we momentarily ignore the oddity of the two inquests evidence graphics above placing the "approximate position" of the blast in two different locations, Khan is at the epicentre of neither one. If it follows that Mr. Biddle is correct that Khan, 3 months away from his 31st birthday and at least four years older than Mr. Biddle who was 26 at the time, <i>was</i> the "young Asian guy" that he saw, the "approximate position" of the blast site should be at seat 28. Just how "approximate" should it be, when there is photographic evidence of a very specific hole in the carriage floor?Kierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12236507389155398693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-89130740666453827402010-11-10T11:27:29.568+00:002010-11-10T11:27:29.568+00:00I was sent some information regarding Danny Biddle...I was sent some information regarding Danny Biddle's journey that morning:<br /><br /><i>On 8th November, Hugo Keith QC asked Danny Biddle to confirm arriving at Liverpool Street overground station on his train from Romford at 8:40 am.<br /><br />Hugo Keith QC on 8th November:<br />7 Q. So the journey was both delayed and took longer than<br />8 usual and you didn't arrive to Liverpool Street until<br />9 about 8.40?<br />10 A. Yes, there or thereabouts.<br /><br />Source: July 7th Inquest Transcripts, 8 November 2010 - Morning Session, page 27 Lines 7-10.<br /><br />After running from his main line train, Danny Biddle arrives at the underground Circle Line platform and then ignores an overcrowded Circle Line train, preferring to wait for the next.<br /><br />Danny Biddle on 8th November:<br />13 A. My normal routine would have been to get a drink and<br />14 something to eat and then go down to the Underground<br />15 platform, but because I was running late, I literally<br />16 got off the train, ran through the station, down on to<br />17 the Circle Line platform. When I arrived at the<br />18 platform, there was a train there that was already<br />19 packed with people. I thought, well I'm late anyway, so<br />20 I let it go, and got on the next train that came along.<br /><br />Source: July 7th Inquest Transcripts, 8 November 2010 - Morning Session, page 27 Lines 13-20.<br /><br />A question for Mr Keith QC and his team:<br /><br />How is it that Danny Biddle, disembarked from a main line train that, in your own words, arrived at Liverpool Street at 8:40 am or as confirmed by Mr Biddle, "there or thereabouts", then made his way along the platform, across the concourse, down the steps to the underground ticket barriers, through the ticket barriers and eventually onto the the Circle Line platform, ignore an overcrowded train and wait for the next Circle Line train, and then travel eight stops including Edgware Road on a Circle Line train in under 10 minutes on 7th July 2005 ?</i><br /><br />From the Inquests own exhibit of the journey of train 216 we can see that it left Liverpool Street at 08.33<br /><br /><a href="http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/evidence/docs/INQ8450-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">INQ0850-2: tracketnet logs</a>Bridgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220942517267393608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350827144131011460.post-92066182717027847912010-11-10T10:52:40.088+00:002010-11-10T10:52:40.088+00:00There are other parts of Danny Biddle’s account th...There are other parts of Danny Biddle’s account that do not make sense. I have already highlighted discrepancies in his Inquest account, by reference to the damage on the floor of the Edgware Road train. DB is assumed to have been blown out of the train and into the (very) adjacent tunnel wall that is lined with cables and sharp support brackets. In doing so, he lost an eye. From there, he must have dropped onto the track bed, where he discovered that his legs were damaged.<br /><br />The problem that I have is that there are Inquest witness reports of fire travelling along the tunnel wall, past the third carriage, and possibly the fourth. If the source of the fire (ball?) had been the explosion somewhere near the trailing end of the leading bogie on Car 2, Danny Biddle must have dropped through that fireball. Yet he appears to have sustained no skin burning and peeling of the severity that might have been expected from being enveloped in intense fire. That is a miracle in itself. So how did Danny get from the carriage to the side of the track?<br /><br />Another curiosity:<br /><br />http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/08112010am.htm<br /><br />is that, while he was lying by the track in the semi-darkness, trapped under a piece of metal (Page 35):<br /><br />I pulled my arms out from underneath it, and<br />5 there was, like, a bluish flame on both my arms and my<br />6 hands which, it went out on its own, it was like a flash<br />7 flame, it just went over my body and went out, and it<br />8 extinguished on its own. I didn't do anything.<br /><br />Then, on the same page:<br /><br />10 Q. One of your arms, or perhaps both of your arms, began to<br />11 swell. Did you have to do something to your watch in<br />12 order to --<br />13 A. Yes, my -- I had a metal-linked watch on, and as my arm<br />14 started to swell, the watch was really hot, and as it<br />15 started to swell, it started to cut into my wrist, so I<br />16 just took the watch off and threw it.<br /><br />There is something odd here. What was the bluish flame that he saw that, had it been from normal combusting material, would have left him with severe burns? His watch, he said, was really hot, indicating the absorption of considerable heat energy from an intense source – the shorter the exposure the more intense the source for the same degree of heating. However, the damage to the adjacent skin, which does not possess the same heat-sinking qualities would have been very severe, and deep. It is almost as if the watch had been subject to induction heating, ‘impossible’ in the normal course of events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com