Showing posts with label Germaine Lindsay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germaine Lindsay. Show all posts

Saturday, 5 February 2011

SIMply wrong

Back in October 2010, when DS Stuart first gave sworn testimony to the 7/7 Inquests (J7 analysis here) he told us that a phone belonging to MSK was found at Edgware Road:
Q. In particular, investigators found in the wreckage a phone subsequently determined to belong to Khan?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. When that phone was examined, did it have any readable data on it?
A. No, sir, it was damaged beyond --

DS Stuart then discussed the calls made and received on this 'phase 4 operational phone' produced in a schedule entitled 'Draft schedule of all calls between MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay attributed phones 270605 - 070705, and all calls in the same period to/from phones used by the four on 070705'.

The details for the phone used by Khan and described as 'a phase 4 operational phone' ends with '254'. Its recovery and connection to Khan was described to Hugo Keith QC by DS Stuart:
A. The handset for that phone was discovered at the Edgware Road scene where Mohammed Sidique Khan's body was recovered. DNA from Mohammed Sidique Khan was recovered from the handset as well. The phone was routinely cell-sited in and around his home address. It was cell-sited in Luton on the 7th where we know from CCTV Mohammed Sidique Khan was. It only ever rang the other three. It was never rung by another number attributed to Mohammed Sidique Khan.

DS Stuart then claims that previous operational phones contained no suspicious contacts, preferring to claim that each of the 4 phase 'operational phones' were only called by the 4 accused in connection to each other, the caveat to that being calls to car hire companies and the 3 men that were tried in the Theseus trial. Answering question from Mr Patterson QC, we gather that:
Q. Have you, Sergeant, analysed the contacts made between the earlier phones and numbers being used by the four men and other people outside that group of four?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did those enquiries lead you to any suspicions as to other contacts that might have led to suggestions that other people were involved or assisting the four men?
A. There have been prior court cases in relation to that, sir, yes.
Q. I'm aware of that, and three individuals in particular, but focusing just on the days leading up to 7/7, any suspicious contacts in any of the telephones in that period of time?
A. No, this is an accurate schedule of that, of all the contacts.
Q. Yes. That's not quite an answer to my question. One issue that arises is whether there's evidence that the four bombers were assisted in any way, either on the 7th itself or in the days leading up, and one way we can analyse that question is by focusing on telephone contact. Any suspicious contacts on the 7th or in the days leading up with others outside of the group of four?
A. No, sir, not that I'm aware of, no, sir.


This point is further confirmed by counsel to the MPS, Max Hill, in his questioning of DS Stuart:
Q. Then just looking at the entirety of this schedule, so the period from 27 June to 7 July, are you saying that this is a complete operational picture in terms of telephones in the hands of all four bombers throughout the period 27 June to 7 July?
A. Operational, yes, sir.
Q. In answer to earlier questions from Mr Patterson, it is right that at an earlier stage there was what might be called some operational telephone use connected to those who became the subject of the Theseus trials.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The three men who stood trial in 2008 and 2009.


To sum up what we knew in October 2010, a single phone, Khan's 'phase 4 operational phone 254', was found at the Edgware Road site, the phone had no recoverable data, the schedule released shows all calls made and received on operational phones between 27/08/05 and 07/07/05. The only suspicious calls made and/or received on operational phones were those connected to the two Theseus trials held in 2008/09.

J7 contacted the Inquests to clarify some of these details when we became aware that DS Stuart would return to give further testimony to the 7/7 Inquests on 2nd February 2011. One of the issues we asked for clarification on was:
During the questioning of Detective Sergeant Mark Stuart, in sworn testimony, he stated that there was no recoverable data from a phone 'determined to belong' to Mohammad Sidique Khan:

However, news articles covering the first and second trials of the accused Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem and Mohammed Shakil claim that a phone recovered from Edgware Road contained phone numbers attributable to the accused and a text message sent from Waheed Ali to Khan:

Flewitt said the strength of Ali's relationship to Khan was demonstrated by a text message Ali sent to the July 7 ringleader on December 7 2003.

It read: "Gates of memories I will neva (sic) close. How much I will miss you no one knows. Tears in my eyes will wipe away but the love in my heart for you will always stay."

In the remains of Khan's mobile telephone, recovered from the debris at Edgware Road, were numbers "attributable" to Shakil, saved as "SHAXMOB",and Saleem, saved as "Sads", the jury was told.

Evidence in the trial included details of the remains of Mohammad Sidique Khan's phone, found amid the wreckage of his Edgware Road blast that killed six people. His phone included a number tagged "SHAXMOB", attributable to Mohammed Shakil, and another entry, "SADS", referring to Sadeer Saleem.


He was so close to Khan a text message was found on the suicide bomber's mobile phone in the rubble of the Edgware Road blast. It read: “Gates of memories I will neva (sic) close. How much I miss you no one knows.Tears in my eyes will wipe away, but the love in my heart for you will always stay.”

When DS Stuart's returned to give further evidence on Wednesday 2nd February he was asked the following by Hugo Keith:
Q. May I, before I move away from Khan's operational phones, address one particular point? An organisation that has been following this issue has expressed a certain degree of confusion as to which phones were recovered where, and perhaps I could just clear up that particular confusion, if it exists. In relation to MSK's phone, 826, the handset and SIM were found, were they not, inside the tunnel at Edgware Road?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the third phone on the page?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of the SIM card being found, was it possible to retrieve any of the data on that phone?
A. There was no data that could be recovered. Although it was sent off for examination, they couldn't extract any data for it.
Q. What about in relation to the last operational phone, 254, which was also, I think you told us last year, recovered from Edgware Road --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- or at least certainly the handset was recovered and I think you told us that it was damaged beyond repair?
A. It was, sir, and for the same reason, they couldn't extract any data from it either.
Q. Where Khan sent or received texts, therefore, particularly at the time of the use of the last operational phone, how were you able to retrieve data evidencing the sending or receipt of texts?
A. The actual sending would come from the call data. The context or the content, we would rely on downloads for whichever phone it was sent to or received from.
Q. So are there a number of routes by which data can be retrieved, even if you don't have the original SIM card?
A. Yes, sir.

Not only did Keith take this opportunity to claim that not only 'a phone' was found at Edgware Road, as stated by Stuart on 14th October, but in fact, two phones were found in the tunnel. Khan's phase 3 & 4 operational phones, 826 & 254 respectively. Yet it seems that only the handset and not the SIM of the 'phase 4 operational phone', the sole phone described in the schedule discussed when Stuart gave his original testimony, was recovered. No reason is given for Khan's missing SIM card.

Ms Gallagher, counsel for the bereaved, also questions DS Stuart on the question J7 posed in relation to the data extracted from Khan's phone that was referred to in the Theseus trials:
... Could I just start by dealing with this issue of confusion? Mr Keith, when questioning you, referred to an organisation having expressed confusion about your statement on 14 October about there being no readable data from the phone at Edgware Road that was recovered at Edgware Road, and you were taken to those two phones. It's [INQ11176-2]. So both the phone number ending 826 that was recovered inside the tunnel at Edgware Road --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and I think you've said the SIM card was found and sent off but there was no readable data?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And phone number 254 also recovered from Edgware Road mentioned at the bottom of that page and you said, for the same reason, no data was recoverable there?
A. The handset was recovered and it was -- no data could be --
Q. Mr Keith said, "Well, how do we have information about the exchange of text messages?", and you made reference to obtaining call data. So it's possible to obtain information about text messages without extracting it from the hardware itself, from the SIM card of the telephone?
A. Yes, there will be a record of the sending of the text on the call data that we can recover from the phone companies.
Q. But Detective Sergeant, that's just information about the sending and receipt of texts. It's not information about the content?
A. The content you would only get if the phone that either received or sent the text to the damaged phone was itself recovered and examined and we could derive data from it.
Q. So the comms data can't give you the content, that's only possible from hardware of one or other phone. So it's not possible to recover information such as contact details, so telephone numbers that are saved and so on, through comms data?
A. No, that's correct.
Q. Detective Sergeant, I think the difficulty is that your answers won't have cleared up the confusion, because the reason that the confusion has arisen is that there were a number of news articles, public at the time of the Theseus trial, which referred to the actual content of text messages recovered from one of those phones and, indeed, I think publicly there's some information with links to those news articles. But, in fact, we can go one step further because, of course, we've got the opening from counsel in the Theseus trial -- the reference is [INQ105680-12]. It's paragraph 64 and it says: "Among the debris at the scene of the Edgware Road bombing the police found part of a mobile telephone belonging to MSK. In the memory of that mobile phone was recorded a mobile telephone number attributable to Shakil ... and a ... number attributable to ...Saleem ..." Then paragraph 65, I don't think we need it on screen, but for your reference, my Lady, that includes the content of a particular text, also recovered from that.

There is then some discussion on how the texts between Lindsay and Khan were recovered and it is established that these were accessed from Lindsay's phone, then continues:
Q. The reason it's important to do this, obviously, is, as you're aware, a number of people are following these proceedings very closely. There's been some concern expressed about this issue, so it seems sensible to just put it to bed. If there's a simple answer, let's just have it and it will be on the public record.
A. Yes, not at all. [ibid p35:5 on]
-------------
Q. Detective Sergeant, just to clarify it, if we could go back to [INQ105680-12] at paragraph 64 , when, in the opening to the Theseus trial, as was widely reported, it stated there that this information was recovered from that mobile phone found at Edgware Road, is that simply wrong?
A. Yes. [ibid p39:22 on]

Simply wrong? We can add this 'simply wrong' to the litany of errors anomalies and inconsistencies that J7 have detailed, so far, over the 15 weeks of the 7/7 Inquests. The fact that 'simply wrong' evidence can be used in an attempt to convict 3 men, all found innocent, who faced up to 40 years in prison isn't just 'simply wrong' it's 'simply appalling'.

More 'simply wrong'

The first page of a schedule detailing purchases from hydroponics shops was released, beginning on 22nd February 2005, claiming that Tanweer contacted Huddersfield Hydroponics on a phone 'atributed to him' which was cell sited within a 2km radius. Keith claims that 'operational phone usage begins around the time that hydrogen peroxide purchases are made'. [ibid p15:9 on] Yet DS Stuart gives the precise date and time for the first use of an operational phone (phase 1) for Tanweer as 25 March at 18.06, over a month after the supposed first purchase of hydrogen peroxide [ibid p11:14 on]. Simply wrong.

Pakistan calling

After claiming that no 'suspicious calls' were made to or from operational phones in DS Stuart's original testimony, the updated schedules show calls made to Khan's 'operational phones' from various phone kiosks in Pakistan, mainly from the Rawalpindi district. 'No suspicious calls' (simply wrong?) transforms into 'so many suspicious calls':
.. question of calls from Pakistan, if we just screen down, please, to page 11 [INQ11177-11] of the exhibit, we can see in the bottom half of the page there a number of calls from Pakistan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In particular from Rawalpindi, so 9 May, 10 May. Over the page to 12 May, page 12 [INQ11177-12] of the document. Then moving forward to 14 May on page 14 [INQ11177-14] , there were a great deal many calls from Rawalpindi on that day, we can see there, all to MSK, the original schedule is in red, and I needn't go through the schedule to the later dates, but are there further calls on 19 May, 31 May and 2 June?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There appeared to be a substantial number of calls in that period from the middle of May to the beginning of June, and then, again, were there further calls from Pakistan, right at the very end, just a matter of days before the bombs are detonated on 7 July, on 2 July in fact?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you assess that these calls, therefore, were probably connected to some guidance or some means of communicating information concerned with the manufacture of the bombs and then, ultimately, their detonation?
A. Yes, I think they had to be, sir. [ibid p20:1 on]
Not just suspicious calls but apparently 'bomb-making suspicious calls' - did DS Stuart think these unworthy of mention during his first appearance at the 7/7 Inquests? Perhaps the testimony given by Clifford Todd, principal forensic investigator at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory the previous day, contains the reason:
Q. The technical expertise required to construct either the initiating device or the main explosive device, was that of a particularly high order, or could those four men -- none of whom it seems had any particular skills in chemistry -- have carried that out under a certain degree of guidance or instruction themselves?
A. Yes, they would have needed some -- certainly initial guidance or instruction, I believe. I don't think that -- my comment about them dealing with this and doing this in isolation is intended to make a distinction between four people with no experience of bomb-making, suddenly between themselves, and only between themselves, deciding to come up with a bomb plot such as this, make the devices, and go and set them off, certainly without extensive practice themselves. That's not really feasible. They would need some detailed instruction and some practice, almost certainly, at doing this. So that's what I was trying to get at in my comment about having some outside help. There must have been something more, some -- they must, at some point, have had some advice.
Q. Once the instructions or the guidance had been provided, and perhaps alongside a certain degree of training, perhaps abroad, would they have required there to have been a specialist bomb-maker or a chemist present in Alexandra Grove for bringing their plot to fruition?
A. No. I should also perhaps say that these were -- these devices were entirely unique. Certainly the hydrogen peroxide mixed with a fuel such as pepper were entirely unique within the UK for sure and, as far as I know, worldwide as well. At the time, there would have been plenty of information on the internet about how to make bombs of various descriptions, and certainly now, if you were to look, probably you will find information about devices of this particular type. But at that time, if it was the case that four people just decided to do this with no prior experience, they probably could have got enough information off the internet, but it would be extremely unlikely they would have come up with this particular design. They would have most likely come up with a design already known and spoken about on the internet, which, to the best of my knowledge, that wasn't there at that time.
Q. So this supports your overall view that the construction of these devices could only have been undertaken with guidance and instruction from elsewhere --
A. Yes, correct.
Q. -- and obviously persons unknown. The process is not, regrettably, hugely complex, but it is quite a sensitive process, is it not, in terms of getting the ratios and the mixtures right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your view that the paraphernalia in Alexandra Grove indicate that a great deal, unfortunately, of time and effort appears to have been dedicated to getting the ratios right and to making these devices work?
A. Yes, both the time and effort has been taken and the understanding there of what they need to do to get it right.

The 'suspicious Pakistan phone calls' may go some way to answer Clifford Todd's amazement that the 4 accused were able to construct viable devices, of the like never seen before or since, without considerable expertise. What it doesn't answer is: How did they know which of the devices were viable and which were 'simply wrong'?


J7 will return to analysing the vast amount of evidence released over the last week in relation to Alexandra Grove and bomb making. In the meantime..

As Hugo Keith and Ms Gallagher correctly described J7, we are an organisation that is keeping a close eye on these proceedings. In the absence of a jury to ask questions, to note the many inconsistencies, it is up to we the ordinary people who are not following these proceedings for catchy headlines to sell newspapers, to examine the evidence presented to the 7/7 Inquests and ensure that we are all informed when this evidence is 'simply wrong'.
Posted by at 12 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan

Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammad Sidique Khan was identified on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road.

In much the same way as Shehzad Tanweer apparently all but 'disintegrated' on the Aldgate train a similar story emerged in relation to Khan.

Apart from Danny Biddle, whose testimony we analysed here, none of the 23 passengers from carriage 2, that gave testimony or had statements read to the Inquests, mentioned seeing Khan. Despite many having been on the train for the five stops between King's Cross and Edgware Road, Khan wasn't seen. Nor was there any mention of an Asian man wearing a white baseball cap sitting in seat 28.

The Inquests were shown a diagram of the probable positions of passengers before the explosion which strangely has Khan sitting alone in a bank of four seats:

One passenger, Elizabeth Owen, questioned where she was placed on this diagram and claimed that she was actually seated in 29 or 30 which would have placed her in very close proximity to Khan if indeed he was in seat 28 as shown in this diagram. [Transcripts 10 November p57: 21]

Whether passengers saw Khan or not, he was certainly not seen or mentioned after the explosion by any of the emergency services, paramedics or police, except by one PC Geoffrey Potter of the British Transport Police, who claims he was told that there were seven fatalities on his arrival at Edgware Road, at approx 09.45, before being sent down to the train by DI Dave Dickason of the BTP.

PC Potter claims not to remember who precisely gave him this information which is surprising as there had been no evidence of seven fatalities up to the point of his arrival:
Q. Did you receive any information, as you entered the station, as to whether or not there were fatalities on the train and, if so, how many?
A. Yes, sir, I was informed, and I can't recall who by now, but that there were at least seven dead.

This number of fatalities is evidenced in his log book which was adduced into evidence:

The variation in the writing of this 7 next to fatalities differs somewhat from the style used to write the number 7 in the date and time at the top of the page.

By 09.50.40, so very shortly after his arrival, PC Potter felt confident enough of the information he had to call the Major Incident Control Centre as evidenced by this BTP call log:

Who had confirmed the 7 fatalities? It wasn't from Potter's own assessment of the scene, his own diagram varied in relation to other diagrams and from the final assessment of the positions of the deceased after the incident. Yet PC Potter identifies only six fatalities, five in the carriage and one on the track:

PC Potter places all the fatalities around the blast centre and there is noticeably absent a seventh. In his witness testimony he is questioned on each of these:
Q. We can see from your plan that you've noted the presence of four people, 1, 2, 3 and 4 round the crater.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Inside the crater, you've marked on the plan number 6.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was number 6?
A. Number 6 was what I took at the time to be the centre of the explosion, I took him to be the bomber.
Q. Obviously, and there's obviously no question about it, that's quite wrong, but that was what it appeared to be?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he inside the hole or beneath the hole?
A. He was through the hole, yes, he was on the floor underneath the train.
Q. From where you could see, was the debris in the hole such that the bottom of the train had been blown down on to the tracks?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was all intermingled with the track itself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you able to say anything about or to see anything of his age or the clothing that he was wearing?
A. I've said that he -- I guessed him to be about 5' 10" tall, but he didn't have a full body, I'm afraid, he had torso, head and basic limbs, but, again, his legs were severed around the knees.
Q. All right. He had severe injuries also to his hands?
A. Yes.
Q. Could we enlarge, please, the map? You've told us about 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect where number 5 was or who number 5 was?
A. Yes, sir, that's the lady that I described as being the one at the front of the train that I'd seen initially on my arrival.
Q. If we look at the left-hand side of that page, you've attempted to draw there "location of two trains"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do we see very faintly number 5 being a person lying on the track in front of that eastbound train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that is the person, as you've told us, you've described earlier. Once you'd made a note or asked the officer to write down everything that you'd called out, did you then leave the train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go Paddington way or back towards Edgware Road?
A. Back to Edgware Road.
Q. Had the train cleared by then?
A. By the time we did the notes, yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect how much time passed while you were in the train?
A. I think it was about an hour, sir, an hour and a half.
Q. You've recorded in your statement how, at 10.55, you passed the information from the assessment to the chief inspector, Mr Dickason?
A. Yes, sir

Is the picture becoming clearer? Has it sunk in? Six fatalities, not the seven he reported to the MICC and the sixth, the man in the hole, suspected of being the 'bomber'? Why would there be any suspicion of a 'suicide bomber' on this train? Weren't the events of 7 July the first incidence of 'suicide bombings' in the UK? Would that be a policeman's first guess, rather than, say a package left on the train? What information did PC Potter possess to enable such an assessment of the sixth fatality? Perversely, but unsurprisingly, these were not questions which bothered Hugo Keith QC.

PC Potter then effectively prevents a further examination of the carriage by a paramedic who had been tasked with checking 'life extinct' then, despite carrying out checks outside the carriage and on the tracks, does not conclude that there were any further fatalities :
Q. Were there some concerns about the state of the tunnel itself?
A. Yes, sir, I had a report that the tunnel walls, from a member of staff, had cracks in them, and that they were concerned about the strength of the tunnel.
Q. Did there come a time when a paramedic called Graham Card approached you and he explained that he had been asked to attend the scene to again check or verify --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- that life was extinct in relation to the persons who had died on the train?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that then require you to go through the train again with him?
A. He was -- I gave him an account of what we'd done on the trains and he was satisfied that the inside of the trains had been checked, and we went all the way around the outside of the trains checking everywhere to make sure that we hadn't missed anybody.
Q. On that second occasion, did you stop to take any further details about the persons whom you had originally checked?
A. Yes, sir, I believe I did.
Q. Did you take further details of the debris and the state of play surrounding the train in the near vicinity of the crater?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it apparent that there was a considerable quantity of human debris, parts of human bodies, near the bombsite outside the train?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. Did you and Mr Card check carefully round that area to make sure there was nobody else there, firstly, alive --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- and, secondly, to see whether or not there were any other deceased passengers in that near vicinity?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But there weren't?
A. No.
Despite checking "everywhere outside of the train" Khan's body or his remains appear to have been 'missed'. The number of fatalities remain at six, not the seven reported by PC Potter.

'Life extinct' pronounced on six persons by Dr Morgan Costello on behalf of the MPS was then carried out in the early hours of 8 July as previously detailed here

The debris on the tracks and the position of the blast

The debris on the tracks referred to by Hugo Keith 'existing under the blast site and mangled with the tracks' is also rather odd as the explosion on Circle Line train 216 was said to have occurred some two carriages further back towards Edgware Road. Presumably around the same area that both Danny Biddle and Jenny Nicholson along with the doors from this carriage were found, rather than under the final position that carriage two of this train came to a halt.


NB: The information on the above plan states: This drawing is based on measured laser scan data captured on 10/07/2005. The carriage detonation position was determined from pitting on the tunnel ceiling caused by primary fragmentation and additional damage to the side tunnel caused by the impact of the carriage doors.

In which case it would be expected that if Khan had 'disappeared down the blast hole', his remains would be found further back along the track.

Pathology and identification

The process of both body removal and identification of the victims, issues which have caused the bereaved families deep distress, confusion and anger, have been deemed outside the scope of these proceedings. Hugo Keith again issued a warning to the families legal representatives before calling DC Wilson from the Anti-Terrorist branch of New Scotland Yard, the forensics scene examiner and exhibits officer who gave testimony to the Inquests on 24 November.

DC Wilson first describes the amount of trampling around the crime scene and the delays that occurred before any forensic investigation was carried out:
Q. Was concern expressed about the state of two iron beams that traversed the roof of the tunnel?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What were you told?
A. I was told that from the position that they were, it was impossible for them to say 100 per cent, but they did have concerns, because of the age of the tunnel, and needed equipment to be brought to the scene so it could be erected so they could have a closer look at those beams.
Q. Was there some difficulty encountered in getting the necessary equipment to Edgware Road?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Did it, in fact, take some hours to get it there?
A. Yes, it did, sir, some considerable hours.
Q. Did that delay the forensic examination of the scene in any way?
A. Yes, it did. It meant in general terms, other than the initial recovery we had to make, that no one could enter the tunnel during that period.
Q. Did you, amongst your first decisions, decide that, because of her location, the young lady Jennifer Nicholson should be formally identified and removed from where she lay at the front of the eastbound train?
A. Yes, I did, sir. I was aware other people would have to attend and obviously wanted to remove her from that environment to a location onto platform 4.
Q. Later on 7 July, indeed not until the early evening, did asbestos testers then arrive in order to monitor the tunnel to see whether or not there were levels of asbestos that made it dangerous for you and your officers to continue working?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Did that, therefore, also contribute to a delay before the forensic examination could start?
A. There was a slight delay in that equipment arriving, being set up and us giving the all clear to commence work.
Q. Then to compound the situation, was the station then evacuated due to a possible gas leak that evening as well?
A. Yes it was, that is correct.

At approx 06.00 am on 8 July the forensic examination of the scene proceeds and the remains of a body later identified as Khan and identification documents in his name are recovered:
Q. Throughout the time that you were there, did you keep, and did you instruct your officers to keep, a record of every single significant find made in the tunnel?
A. Yes, that was kept by myself, sir, yes.
Q. Was one such find, what is known as exhibit MW84 -- and I don't refer to that exhibit in any way in a disrespectful way, but it was a technical exhibit given to human remains found on the westbound line of the track?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were those remains, MW84, the remains from which a muscle sample, RW58, was taken?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Was that muscle sample then dispatched for DNA examination?
A. It was.
Q. Were those remains, MW84, also the remains that were examined by Dr Djurovic in her post-mortem on 10 July 2005?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Were they subsequently identified as those of Mohammed Sidique Khan?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. The remainder of the victims of the bomb were themselves recovered in addition, of course, to Jennifer Nicholson whom we've already addressed. Were they recovered formally on Saturday, 9 July at the times at which you record in your statement?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Each was given, for the purposes of identification a number and the DVI team then pursued what they had to do in relation to identification?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Once the deceased had been formally removed from their locations, was a credit card found in the near vicinity of the underneath of the westbound train under the blast hole?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Was that a visa card, MW85, in the name of Mr S Khan?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. The card was entangled with human debris near the location of the explosion?
A. That is correct.
Q. Was it immediately identified by you as being a significant find?
A. It was significant in so much as it was an ID of some description so, therefore, needed to be rung out to the investigation team.
Q. Did you contact the investigation team at Scotland Yard to pass on the fact that you had found that card?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Also, that there was more human debris found in the near vicinity of that card?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Each day and each night the scene was -- each night and each day that the scene was closed and then opened, and that process continued throughout the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday the following week?
A. That is correct.
Q. On the Wednesday, was a further exhibit found: namely, a Halifax debit card in the name of Khan, on the floor of the inside of the second carriage?
A. That is correct.
Q. On Thursday, 14 July, was the search of the track completed up to the point of the second carriage?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. At that point, therefore, were you able to arrange for some of the carriages of the westbound train to be removed from the scene?
A. The last four were winched back during the course of the night, yes, sir.
Q. To Edgware Road station?
A. Yes, into the platform itself, yes.
Q. Did that then allow you to carry out further forensic searches of both the carriage itself and the underneath of the train?
A. That is correct.
Q. As a result of that, on Thursday, 14 July, did you find further exhibits relating to Sidique Khan: namely, a Leeds City Council permit and an insurance card?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were they found inside the bombed carriage?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. The scene was closed on the Thursday night and open again on the Friday, and so the process continued through the Saturday, Sunday. I think on the Sunday night, London Underground, yourselves and the Metronet team worked through the night?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Then, on the Sunday, was the second carriage wrapped in order to facilitate its removal from the scene?
A. That is correct.
Q. On Tuesday, 19 July -- so some ten or eleven days later -- did the point then arise at which it was possible to make arrangements for the lifting of the second carriage from the tracks?
A. That was correct, yes, sir.
Q. Was it then winched towards -- or taken away from the scene to a storage depot?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You then handed over the scene formally to British Transport Police and the London Underground network on Wednesday, 20 July when your officers left the scene?
A. That is correct, sir, yes.
Q. The exhibits that you discovered in the course of your and your officers' examination of the scene were all sent to Scotland Yard for the purposes of the
investigation?
A. They were probably sent to laboratories, the majority of them, direct from the scene under escort with another officer.

Although Hugo Keith fails to establish the date that the human remains identified as MW84 were found, it is established that the credit card, MW85 - obviously the next ID number in the sequence - was found after the removal of the bodies on 9 July.

Not for the first time has there been a discrepancy between evidence from the Inquests and the ISC report into the London bombings. In this instance, the credit card (MW85) which DC Wilson claimed was discovered under the hole left by the blast after the removal of the deceased on 9 July was, according to the ISC report, found on the 8 July; a message to this effect received by the MPS at 19.50. Rather than these Inquests providing us with the truth of the events of 7 July we are finding more and more inconsistencies - inconsistencies which frankly should not exist if what happened is actually what happened. Only the truth will stand up in the face of scrutiny.

The remains identified as MW84 were examined by pathologists at the Resilience Mortuary set up in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company, as early as 11 am on 10 July. Hugo Keith read the following gruesome pathology report:
My Lady, I now turn to the report from a consultant forensic pathologist, Dr Djurovic, on the post-mortem examination of the remains identified as being those of Mohammed Sidique Khan.
My Lady, parts of the statement are extremely delicate in the way in which they refer to the remains and I therefore don't intend to read out the entirety of the statement, but to paraphrase where appropriate.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you.
MR KEITH: It reads:
Statement of DR VESNA DJUROVIC read
"Post-mortem examination."
The report is dated 4 June 2007 and it relates to human remains numbered 60021456.
My Lady, those are the human remains exhibited as MW84 taken from the westbound track by Mr Wilson:
"Date and time of examination: 10 July 2005, 11.25.
The remains were subsequently identified as Mohammed Khan.
"Place of examination: The London Resilience Mortuary.
"Pathologist: Dr Djurovic."
Then Dr Djurovic lists the persons present and states that the post-mortem was carried out under the authority of the then coroner Dr Paul Knapman.
"Fluoroscopy: fluoroscopy was undertaken at 11.05 on Monday, 10 July and showed the following:
"What appeared to be a circuit board close to the lumbar spine.
"Wire fragments at the level of the torso.
"A metal mesh, several studs and a curved fragment of wire near the top of the torso.
"Metal fragments near the top of the spine.
"Wire and metallic objects, including studs, screws and a bolt lower down at the level of the torso.
"Further metallic objects, including coins, wire and metal fragments at the top right section of the torso.
"Further fluoroscopy ..."
And I interpose simply to say examination to see whether or not there is the presence of metallic objects.
"... was undertaken on 15 July and found a small metallic fragment in the region of the left shoulder,a T-shaped metallic fragment below into the right of the previous item, glass fragments and further small metal debris.
"External examination:
"Inside the bag marked 60021456 was a further bag marked MW84 ..."
Which is the exhibit number given formally to the remains by Mr Wilson.
"... containing severely damaged and fragmented parts of what appeared to be the body of a young adult male appearing well built. These consisted of the following:
"Most of the scalp tissue ... but separated into two larger fragments. Attached to this part of the scalp tissue were several large fragments of broken vault of skull. The other part of the scalp originated from the back and right side of the head including the right parietal region."
My Lady, the upper right parietal region is the upper posterior part of the head:
"The lower edge showed marked blackening and superficial and deep vertical lacerations. There was parchmenting and blackening of the skin on both sides of the neck. The facial skeleton was absent. There were multiple fractures on the base of the skull. The upper segment of the spinal column was present."
She then lists the disruption to the top of the larynx and the bones in the trachea and the cartilage thereto:
"Attached were remains of strap muscles ..."
Those are the neck muscles:
"... the manubrium and upper part of the body of the sternum ..."
The manubrium is the upper part of the sternum bone.
"[Attached also were] carotid arteries ...
"The spine was separated at the level of the upper thoracic spine."
That's to say the upper back:
"Attached to the back of the neck was a large fragment of the skin of the back of the torso. There was a further large fragment of skin, probably part of the lower part of the back and the upper buttock. There was a separate large fragment of skin. There were several fragments of soil tissue ... there was a large section of spinal column with the sacrum [which is a bone at the bottom of the spine] consisting of the lumbar and most of the thoracic spine up to the fifth thoracic vertebra ...
"Removed from the body were fragments of newspaper, metal from the railway, pieces of cardboard, seat fragments, circuit board, pieces of wire, card, coins and white metal fragments and miscellaneous debris.
"A re-examination was carried out on 15 July when further fragments of wire, glass, plastic and fabric were removed from the body."
My Lady, on the next page, page 5, there is then a list of those fragments removed from the remains of Mr Khan, including on that page RW58, which is significant because that is the muscle sample examined by the previous witness Timothy Clayton. RW58, a piece of deep muscle for DNA examination from the spinal column:
"Clinicopathological correlation:
"The remains were those of a young adult male showing severe disruptive injury. Preserved were large fragments of the skin of the back of the head, neck and torso, parts of base and vault of skull, some neck structures, a large section of the spinal column with the sacrum and parts of the intestine. The nature and extent of damage is consistent with the deceased being in the immediate proximity of the explosive device. A more detailed interpretation of the mechanism of injury may be possible after further body parts are recovered."
Indeed, further examination was carried out, which will form part of the forensic evidence which my Lady has directed will be heard in February.

When Keith referred to 'further examination being carried' out is he referring to the second post-mortem requested by Khan's family? When the Inquests examine the further forensic evidence in February 2011, so will J7.

The very few remains of the person identified as Khan do not include any of the old-fashioned forms of identification such as hands and fingers for fingerprinting, a face, or teeth, leaving DNA identification as the only method by which an identification of any sort could be assigned.

DNA, that magical laboratory feat, was carried out on a sample taken from the muscle sample RW58, as identified by DC Wilson and the pathology report. Timothy Clayton wrote the following forensics report which was read to the Inquests by Hugo Keith:
My Lady, the next statement is that of Timothy Clayton, a forensic scientist dated 20 July 2005.
Statement of MR TIMOTHY CLAYTON read
"I am a senior forensic scientist employed by the Home Office Forensic Science Service based at the Wetherby Laboratory. I am a registered forensic practitioner and have been a forensic scientist since 1990. I specialise in forensic biology. I have participated in the research, development and validation of DNA profiling techniques currently in use by the Forensic Science Service and have been involved in the implementation of these systems for use in forensic casework and the National DNA Crime Intelligence Database in England and Wales.
"I have conducted many examinations of the type detailed in this statement and have provided evidence for the Court of Appeal, Crown Courts, Magistrates' Courts, Coroners' Courts and courts outside the British jurisdiction. I am the co-author of several scientific publications on the subject of DNA profiling.
"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.
"It should be stressed the above statistical evaluation does not take into account any possibility that the unidentified muscle sample originated from another close male relative of 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."
Lady, in accordance with the usual practice, he then lists the levels of certainty from limited support -- from no support to extremely strong support, so the conclusion that he reaches is the highest order of certainty in that list.

Paraphrasing the process described above: With "information received with this case" Clayton was told he had been delivered a DNA profile from "the unidentified muscle sample RW58 [..] from Mohammed Sidique Khan". The unidentified muscle sample is first unidentified as Mohammed Sidique Khan, however Clayton had no immediate method at his disposal to independently establish that he actually had a DNA profile from a muscle sample from Khan. Clayton understands the no-brainer, "that Tika Khan and Mamida Begum are the biological parents of Mohammed Sidique Khan and that all three are of Asian descent". Clayton is then given "copies" of the DNA profiles of Khan's parents as verified by Mr Chapman of London, again with no independent method by which to confirm that that is indeed what he was given. He then compares the "copies of these profiles" with the profile apparently taken from the muscle sample, RW58, that which was unidentified as Mohammed Sidique Khan.

Why Khan had to be identified using Tika and Mamida's DNA is unclear and whether it is good practice to receive the information on the person being tested before the examination is carried out is also questionable. Shouldn't such tests be 'blind' samples to ensure that there is no ability to pre-judge or arrive at a pre-determined outcome?

One last vexing question: Was Mamida actually Khan's mother or was she his step-mother? Two journalists, Ian Herbert and Shiv Malik, have both written that Mamida was in fact Khan's step-mother. J7 are currently attempting to check this information so will update this when we have further evidence one way or another.

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.)

Khan clearly became disenchanted with the modest form of Islam practised by his father, Tika Khan, and stepmother, Mamida Begum.
Posted by at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 22 November 2010

The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"

This previous post raises an interesting question regarding quite how the four accused men had avoided detection to such an extent that the security services had no idea of their alleged plans. What with travel tickets, handwritten documents laying their plans bare and receipts recovered both from the homes of the accused and the Alexandra Grove 'bomb factory', their behaviour suggests that these men were not in the least bit concerned about their alleged plans being discovered yet the narrative tells us 'Khan was worried about being under surveillance during this time.

'This time' plainly refers to the supposed planning of the events of 7/7, since just above this statement, it is also written,
Other things suggest discipline and meticulous planning with good security awareness including careful use of mobile phones and use of hire cars for sensitive activities associated with the planning of the attacks.

The 'careful use of the mobile phones' was explored on the 4th day of the inquests during the testimony of DS Mark Stuart of Counter-terrorism command. DS Stuart confirmed that 'a certain number' of phones were recovered. What we also discover from DS Stuart, is that the police referred to the phones the accused men were using that day as 'operational phones' (as opposed to their personal phones) - which Mr. Hugo Keith QC later interchanges with the intriguing term 'conspiracy phones'.

These phones are claimed by DS Stuart to have been a way to 'avoid detection' by being changed on several occasions:
A. [DS Stuart] There were a series of operational phones. The earliest operational phones began in May, the middle of May, 2005, sir.
Q. [Hugo Keith QC] How many times were the phones switched or how many times were a new set of operational phones introduced into their usage?
A. For three of the subjects, four times, you're looking at data for the last, fourth, operational phone. For Lindsay, there were three, sir.
DS Stuart confirms later in the proceedings that the total number of 'conspiracy' phones used by the men was 15. One could argue that if a phone is changed four times, as three of the men are alleged to have done, this equates to five phones in total each - meaning that with Lindsay's four phones, the total amount of changes stated equates to 19 phones. This may seem a trivial point, but it is indicative of the confusing nature of DS Stuart's testimony. Another example of this is his account of the recovery of Khan's 'conspiracy' phone:
Q. In particular, investigators found in the wreckage a phone subsequently determined to belong to Khan?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. When that phone was examined, did it have any readable data on it?
A. No, sir, it was damaged beyond --
Q. Officer, could I ask you to keep your voice up a bit?
A. Sorry. No, it was too damaged to recover data from.
Q. So when that phone was examined, it wasn't possible to extract any relevant information from it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there also recovered from the Russell Square tunnel a phone subsequently determined to belong to Lindsay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When that phone was recovered, was it found to have information on it?
A. It was, sir, yes.

So very early on, we find that no data could be extracted from Khan's phone, which was recovered from the Edgware Road site, due to the damage it sustained. The implication thereafter is that the only way any data relating to Khan can be examined is through looking at incoming calls or texts on the other phones recovered from the day, in particular, the phone attributed to Lindsay, from which information had been extracted. However, a little later in his testimony, DS Stuart seems to contradict his earlier statement:
Q. Could I just run very briefly through why you are so sure that these phones relate to these people? In relation to Khan and his operational phone ending 254, were there a number of pieces of evidence which demonstrated that that phone was indeed his?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you very briefly, please, summarise why that conclusion was reached?
A. The handset for that phone was discovered at the Edgware Road scene where Mohammed Sidique Khan's body was recovered. DNA from Mohammed Sidique Khan was recovered from the handset as well. The phone was routinely cell-sited in and around his home address. It was cell-sited in Luton on the 7th where we know from CCTV Mohammed Sidique Khan was. It only ever rang the other three. It was never rung by another number attributed to Mohammed Sidique Khan. That was the principal evidence, sir.

How could this data regarding Khan's phone be known if it wasn't extracted from the phone which DS Stuart had earlier stated 'was too damaged to extract data from'? DS Stuart does not enlighten us to any alternative method used to gain access to the phone's data.

Curiously, DS Stuart never states whether or not Shehzad Tanweer's phone was also recovered in the same way as the other three, at the scene of the explosion at Aldgate. We should note claims by both the narrative and Hugo Keith QC in his opening speech to the Inquests, that Tanweer had lost his mobile phone on the evening of 6th July, during a game of cricket.

However, DS Stuart confirms that a call was made at 00.03.59 on July 7th 2005, from Khan to Tanweer. If Khan's phone is too damaged, then we must assume that this particular data came from Tanweer's phone. But Tanweer lost his phone on the evening of July 6th ; we cannot know if it was his personal or 'conspiracy' phone, we cannot know if he or someone else - found it, and cannot know if a phone attributed to him was found at Aldgate. We further cannot know from which phone this information was extracted as we are not privy to the contact schedule cited by DS Stuart.

When explaining how the 'operational' number for Tanweer was attributed to him, DS Stuart tells Mr. Keith:
This was a number which was provided by Shehzad Tanweer on the rental agreement for the Nissan Micra subsequently left at Luton train station. Again, it was only rung by the other three and not by Tanweer himself. Generally cell-sited in the area of his home address.

So in contrast to the identification of the other three phones, which occurred due to their being recovered from the respective blast sites, Tanweer's 'conspiracy' phone number is identified because he provided it to the car hire company which supplied the Nissan Micra. Why should this be?

The car hire company provides another example of contradicting the idea that attempts were made by the men to avoid detection; Tanweer provided the First 24-Hour Car Rentals Limited with his family home address, confirmed in the statement of an employee of the company who called round to the Tanweer home when the car had not been returned as agreed.
By today, Tuesday, 12th, I was very concerned at the whereabouts. I decided to visit his home address and I went to the vicinity of the address and I saw a police cordon. Having explained why I was there I then provided the rental agreement.

In another statement, it is revealed to the Inquests that another First 24-Hour Car Rentals employee had attempted to contact Tanweer on 7th July, despite the fact that his rental agreement was until 8th July. Why would the car hire company attempt to contact Tanweer the day before he was due to return the car? Again, this is not revealed. The statement from the car hire company contradicts Hugo Keith's claim that they rang Tanweer's phone on 7 July, although the unreleased schedule showed this call:
[First 24-Hour Car Rentals] "Following 8 July, when the vehicle had not been returned as agreed, I rang the mobile number given by him on at least two occasions. However, the phone was off. I can only say, if I saw the man again, I would definitely recognise him."
[Hugo Keith] My Lady, we know that the last entry on the schedule prepared by Mr Stuart at your direction is that there was a call on 7 July, in fact, two minutes to 3 from First 24-hour Car Rentals to Tanweer's number.

Neither was the cell siting for Tanweer's mobile phone disclosed, which would have identified whether this phone was at Aldgate or, if lost, at least identified the location.

DS Stuart had also disclosed that the contact schedule only relates to calls made from 27 June 2005 onwards:
Q. Notwithstanding the fact that there were many thousands of calls made to and from any number of potentially relevant phone numbers, you prepared a schedule showing all the calls between the four men from 27 June onwards?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. In essence, the most relevant days leading up to the events of 7 July?
A. Yes, sir.

It isn't stated at which point the accused are supposed to have switched to their final set of 'conspiracy phones'; only that this occurred in the last few days before 7/7. Later in the proceedings, Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing bereaved families, pushes for analysis of all the 'conspiracy' phones. DS Stuart may yet be called back to give further testimony on these, and we may yet receive clarification regarding how (or even if) Tanweer's phone was recovered.

Germaine Lindsay was said to have purchased and originally registered the phones, then transferred them to each of the others at a later time. DS Stuart makes it clear in his answers that although there was 'some slight mixing' in the use of the 'operational' phones, in that personal phones may have been used to ring an 'operational' phone number, by the time the accused were using their final set of phones, they were used solely for 'operational' purposes or calls to service providers.

Again, the implication is that this, along with clarification by DS Stuart that the use of the phones showed that the men were taking care over communications by buying prepaid unregistered phones and changing them regularly. Yet strangely, the behaviour of Hasib Hussain regarding his phone contradicts this assertion. Having earlier described how the top-up card for his 'operational phone' was found at his home address and the SIM card holder in a bag upon which Hussain's fingerprints were found, under questioning by Max Hill QC, DS Stuart details how the police knew about Hussain's personal phone:
Q. Secondly, in relation to Hasib Hussain, you analysed data relating to mobile number ********805, and two points again in relation to that. Firstly, that number was not used by Hussain on 7 July?
A. No, sir.
Q. But, secondly, through analysis of items recovered, including a SIM card, a mobile phone SIM card, found at Tavistock Square where Hussain's body was found, a download -- in other words, interrogation of the information held within that SIM card -- showed the 805 number saved within the SIM card under the title "My number"?
A. Yes, I believe that's the case.
Q. That goes towards attribution of that as a personal phone for Hussain, but one that you can say was not used on 7 July?
A. Correct, sir, yes.

If Hasib Hussain was only using this phone in the 'last few days' leading up to 7th July, then why take the trouble to program in his own personal number? Why would someone trying to 'avoid detection' do this anyway? Moreover, Hussain's personal phone was found by his brother, Imran, to contain not only Lindsay's number, but that of the keyholder for 18 Alexandra Grove, Dr Shakir Al Ani. Why program these numbers into his personal phone, if he was also in possession, at various times, of four (or more) 'conspiracy' phones. When asked by Lady Justice Hallet how the police were able to distinguish between the personal phones belonging to each men and the 'conspiracy' phones, in terms of usage, DS Stuart responds:
There was a distinct difference between the usage of the two types of phone. The personal phones all appeared to be unrelated, a lot of different people rung by them, but the enquiry showed that they were people that were known, historical friends and family. So that's why I can't remember there being anything which jumps out as being operational from a non-operational phone, my Lady.

If this is the case, why did Hussain have the 'operational' numbers found on his 'non-operational' phone by his brother, which in turn, according to the Daily Mirror, led him straight to the Alexandra Grove 'bomb factory' If Hussain was seriously trying to cover his tracks, he had made a pretty poor fist of it.

In summary, we've learned the following from DS Stuart's testimony regarding what Hugo Keith prefers to call the 'conspiracy' phones:
  • Khan's 'conspiracy' phone was too damaged to extract data from, yet counter-terrorism investigators appeared to have managed to do just that.
  • We do not know whether Tanweer had a 'conspiracy' phone with him on July 7th, because although DS Stuart mentioned calls being made from other phones to the phone attributed to Tanweer, he never mentions calls being made from that phone, nor does he mention that his phone was found at the Aldgate scene in the same way that the phones attributed to the three other men were found at the other blast sites.
  • We know that Tanweer lost his phone on 6 July but we do not know whether this was his personal phone or 'conspiracy' phone, or whether he found it before the next day. The cell siting of the car hire company call on either the 7 July according to the schedule or the 8 July according to the car hire company, would reveal the location of this phone but was not disclosed to the Inquest.
  • The four accused were trying to avoid detection to such an extent that they routinely left incriminating evidence, either in their own homes or the Alexandra Grove flat, provided a genuine address even when using a 'conspiracy' phone to arrange car hire and Hussain in particular, found a way of leading detectives straight to his personal number from his 'conspiracy' phone.
  • There may have been 15 or 19 'conspiracy' phones in total, but we have only been provided with testimony with the final 4 phones used. We were not allowed to see the contact schedule; this was "not for publication".
  • DS Stuart defines the "trade craft" use of the "conspiracy phones" thus: "Taking care over your communications, buying prepaid unregistered phones, changing them regularly to avoid detection ultimately" yet later states that Tanweer's phone, at least, was purchased, and registered, by Lindsay using a false name. Why would Lindsay go to the trouble of registering the phone at all, when an unregistered phone could so easily be purchased with a pre-paid SIM?
Posted by at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)