Murdoch phone hacking and 7/7 Investigation

From: "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign"
To: homeaffcom@parliament.uk
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011

To the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee

The revelations of phone hacking by News International calls into question the role of the police and the Murdoch press during the investigation into the London Bombings on July 7^th 2005.

A Times report written by Daniel McGrory and dated 25/08/2005:

The youngest of the July 7 bombers, he made three desperate telephone calls begging for help from the other members of the terror cell minutes before he blew himself up on a London bus.

The frantic last messages are seen by Scotland Yard as vivid proof that the British-born Muslim extremists intended to die in the attacks.

Knowing that all four men were supposed to synchronise the timing of the explosions, Hussain ran out of King’s Cross Underground station and tried to reach his accomplices by mobile telephone.

It was just before 9am, but by then all his fellow bombers were already dead. The other three had triggered their devices within seconds of one another at 8.50am.

Hussain is believed to have first called Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, the alleged leader of the group, saying: “I can’t get on a train. What should I do ?” Then in quick succession he left the same message for Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay as, clearly agitated about his next move, he hurried away from the station.

A police source who has heard the telephone calls said: “His voice was getting more and more frantic with each call.” Investigators could tell from his breathless voice that Hussain was walking fast as he made these calls.

Source: The Times 25th August 2005

These messages were not played nor even were they claimed to exist during the recent 7/7 Inquests.

We need to know:

Did the Times hack the phone messages of the 4 accused of 7/7?

Who was the ‘police source’ who gave this information to the Times?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not have an opportunity to hear these messages?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not refer to these messages?

Regards

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign

6th Anniversary of 7/7

On the 6^th anniversary of 7/7, J7 are once again forced to reiterate our demand for a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005.

At the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests, Lady Justice Hallett named the 4 accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay as the perpetrators of the events of 7/7, despite the clear legal constraints that apply to Coroners and their ability to apportion guilt. Hallett concluded the inquest proceedings by refusing to resume the Inquests into the deaths of the 4. As part of our efforts to get to the truth of 7/7, J7 submitted a clear, detailed and reasoned submission to the inquests outlining why the resumption of these Inquests was imperative. J7's submission for resumption can be read here

As we stated in our submission:

• The lack of representation of the families of the 4 men allowed any and all of the evidence presented to go unchallenged, meaning no witnesses called to the inquests were cross examined on behalf of the families of the accused.
• The Inquests sat without a jury.
• The Metropolitan Police investigation, Operation Theseus, was deemed to be outside the scope of the Inquests and thus the entire investigation behind Ian Blair's "largest criminal inquiry in English history" remains unexamined and unquestioned.
• The Inquests for the 4 accused, in which a verdict of suicide would require a criminal standard of proof, were not resumed.
  

There are many glaring holes in the evidence that was presented to the Inquests, as detailed on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog which we set-up specially to report on the inquests, yet these potential showstoppers for the official narrative of events went unreported in the mainstream media. The absolute pressing necessity for a fully independent Public Inquiry is now greater than ever in order to enable anyone to have any confidence in the evidence by which the guilt or innocence of the four accused might be established. To date there has been no proper legal scrutiny of this evidence. Furthermore, in cases of alleged suicide, the intent to commit suicide must be proven and this burden of proof has not yet been met.

Without a full Public Inquiry, it remains the case that:

• The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the 'Life Extinct' body counts carried out on 7th July by Dr Morgan Costello.
• The police viewing of the Luton Station CCTV footage was conducted as early as 10th July, despite the official account clearly stating that the men were identified on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink on 11th July, and that it was this discovery that led the investigation to Luton as a possible site of interest.
• There exist no sightings of three of the men, Khan Tanweer and Lindsay, after the footage from King's Cross Thameslink, some way from the Underground tube network. Apparently the temporary CCTV system that was installed at King's Cross underground malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30 and 8.50. Additionally, there are no recordings of the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence that shows three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
• No CCTV from the pre-explosion tube carriages has been released, despite this CCTV apparently existing, and despite it being crucial evidence which could confirm or deny that three of the men boarded the carrriages they are alleged to have boarded. This CCTV should also have been made available to Colonel Mahoney when the expensive modelling of likely injuries sustained by the deceased was conducted to make up for the lack of any internal post mortems on the victims.
• No CCTV exists from McDonald's showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb, as it was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV (oh the irony) turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
• No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the buses he is alleged to have boarded. There is no footage of Hussain aboard the number 91 bus, nor the number 30 bus he is alleged to have destroyed, nor is there any street or traffic camera footage showing him boarding either bus.
• There is a huge discrepancy between the explosives allegedly used, as given in sworn evidence to the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest, and the evidence that Clifford Todd gave to the 7/7 Inquests.
• There is strong evidence in the public domain to suggest that at the heart of the story behind 7/7 lay at least three operatives for both the British and American Intelligence services, one of which served an insanely short period in a US prison, for greater crimes than those his testimony put behind bars for far longer terms, before being quietly released.
  

These questions and many more can be found on the 7/7 Inquests blog.

Six years on from an event with the largest single loss of life in London since the blitz can the Metropolitan Police, with it's long track record of complicity in facilitating Miscarriages of Justice -- and given the recent revelations that it is implicated in the Murdoch News of the World phone hacking scandal -- be allowed to offer a 'narrative' which is so deeply flawed and suspect? How about a 'narrative' which has remained unexamined and unchallenged except by J7? A 'narrative' that has ascribed guilt to four men without their families having the opportunity and legal representation to question, particularly when the four accused have been denied their own Inquest proceedings? Or a 'narrative' deemed outside the scope of inquiry by the 7/7 Inquests, and a 'narrative' which has led to the demonisation of the Muslim population? This is the same flawed and unproven narrative that has been the basis for the questioning of multi-culturalism and a 'narrative' which has done much to fuel the race-hate and bigotry of the far-right neo-fascist organisation, the EDL.

Current Prime Minister, David Cameron, has announced not one but two inquiries into the ongoing criminal exploits and activities of the press and police, just as news was breaking that the families of 7/7 victims were also victims of phone hacking at the hands of Murdoch media. This means that, as if we woke to find outselves in the midst of a Kafka novel, it is apparently right and proper to investigate whether or not the families of 7/7 victims had their mobile phones hacked, but it is not right and proper to have a full, in-depth, independent public investigation into how those same families of the 7/7 victims lost their loved ones.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign continue to say NO! This will not stand! Only a fully Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005 has the vaguest chance of getting to the truth behind the 'narrative' of 7/7.

J7 will be writing again in the near future to ask for your continued support in our joint campaign for the truth about 7/7, and we will provide a few suggestions for ways you can help us pressure the government into commissioning an independent public inquiry.

For truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

A Nissan Micra Tardis?

The official narrative would have us believe that three of the 7/7 accused, Khan, Tanweer and Hussain, left Leeds in the early hours of the morning of 7^th July 2005 after visiting 18 Alexandra Grove (the apparent 'bomb factory') and loading a rented Nissan Micra with home-made explosives of the type shown here:

Enlarge

The quantity of 'bulk explosives' claimed to have been found at 18 Alexandra Grove

According to the testimony of senior forensic investigator, Clifford Todd, only one of these substances was shown to be potentially viable as an explosive.

Q. Were there different types of sludge at the address?
A. Yes, there were two types. One was much darker than the other. One was a fairly light, sandy, yellow-brown colour. The other type was a much darker brown colour.
Q. Was there a difference between them, their effects?
A. Yes. The darker brown material, after various tests done at the laboratory, was found not to be energetic, so would not work as an explosive. The lighter, sandy-coloured material, that was shown, in at least one specific case, to be a high explosive.

1/02/2011 p40 15-24

That none of these containers could be forensically linked by either DNA or fingerprints to any of the four accused is an area which received no scrutiny or examination when DC Reynolds, of SO15 Counter-terrorism Command forensic management team, gave his testimony. Hussain's fingerprints were apparently found on only one plastic container which it was claimed contained HMTD. [1/02/2011 p13 13-15]

So, after collecting approx 40Kg of a light brown sludge that in "at least one specific case" could potentially possess explosive properties, the three men drove off in the rented Nissan Micra. Of note is that any less than "at least one specific case" would in fact mean that the sludge was potentially explosive in exactly "no specific case".

Despite much discussion of counter-surveillance methods by the use of 'operational phones' solely for use between the four accused, Shehzad Tanweer appears to have been quite content to give his 'operational phone' number on the rental agreement for the hired Micra. We know this because it is claimed that the car hire company called this phone on 7^th July at 14.58, although, perhaps a little strangely, this was before the end of the rental period and we can only wonder what might have prompted this contact. This point was also contradicted by the statements from the car hire company read to the Inquests on 14/10/2010. [See pages 44 & 47]

The Metropolitan Police diagram of a Nissan Micra adduced in evidence to the 7/7 Inquests

A Nissan Micra is a very small car with a very limited boot capacity - yet it contained three men, two cool boxes, 40Kg of bulk explosives, five large rucksacks and a variety of other items, as shown in the picture below:

Enlarge

The items that were forensically linked to Khan, we are told, did not include the rucksack left behind in the Micra, nor the cool boxes which presumably contained the explosive substance, but  were  instead innocuous everyday items to which everyone can be forensically linked at a moment's notice: carrier bags, biros, sweet wrappers, etc.

Enlarge

According to the read statement of Sarah Lancaster, a Senior Case Officer in the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, also contained within the Micra must have been freezer ice blocks:

Based on my observations at the scene, my subsequent examination of the items submitted to this laboratory and in conjunction with the police photographs provided, it is my opinion that the damage in and around carriage 6713 of the Circle Line Underground train was consistent with a detonation of several kilograms, probably in the order of 10 kilograms, of a high explosive substance. [2/02/11 p46:6]

... exhibits which were reassembled to demonstrate that they were part of the freezer ice blocks and packs wrapped around the bomb. She concluded: "The use of freezer ice blocks and packs primarily suggests that it was necessary to keep a component of the IED cool. [ibid p50:15]

No explanation is given for the contents of the black bags in the right hand cool box - what did they contain?

After arriving at Luton station car park, and parking next to Lindsay's Fiat Brava, we presume that the men stood at the boot of the Micra and assembled their explosive devices - if they were already packed, primed and ready to go inside the rucksacks there would have been little need for the ice packs inside the cool boxes. It is also hard to see where five rucksacks already packed with explosives would have fitted into the Micra along with the three men as the boot was already full with the cool boxes.

Would any serious 'terrorists' with murder on their minds choose to park at a busy commuter station next to a pay and display machine and adjacent to an exit from the car park - in the position that the two blue cars can be seen in the image below - during the early morning rush hour if they were intending to construct these devices, packing them with ice packs and inserting initiating devices of wires, light bulbs and batteries? Standing at a boot of a car at a busy commuter station on the outskirts of London during one of its busiest times, in broad daylight, all watched over by CCTV machines of convenient fail?

Enlarge

Luton Station car park showing the area where the Brava and Micra parked

Is it even vaguely credible that the scenario described above is actually what really happened on the morning of the 7^th July 2005?

Really?

J7 Submission for Resumption of Inquests into the four

Following an order by Lady Justice Hallett requesting representations regarding the resumption of inquests into the deaths of the four, subsequent to the conclusion of the hearings in relation to the inquests of the 52 deceased, J7 issued the following.

Note: Footnotes in the original document have been converted to direct links.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Submission for Resumption

Further to Lady Justice Hallett's order dated 11th March 2011, which reads as follows:

IN THE INNER WEST LONDON (WESTMINSTER) CORONER’S COURT CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO THE LONDON BOMBINGS OF 7 JULY 2005

_____________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________
IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Any person wishing to make representations to the Coroner as to whether or not any or all of the inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Siddique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain should be resumed must notify the Solicitor to the Inquests in written submissions by 4.00 p.m. on Friday 18th March 2011.

2. Any such written submissions must identify in full the grounds on which the person on whose behalf they are filed claims to have an interest in the relevant inquest(s) and the grounds upon which it is said the inquests must be resumed.

With regard to the issue of the legality of not resuming the Inquests into the deaths of the four accused, we submit that the legal right to an Inquest where no Inquiry is held overrides all other considerations:

The right to an inquest

An inquest must be held in those circumstances where a Coroner is informed that the body of a person is lying within his or her district and there is reasonable cause to suspect that the individual died:

A violent or unnatural death or
A sudden death of which the cause is unknown or.
In prison or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act.

The Coroner only has a right to hold an inquest if one of these conditions is satisfied. Conversely, the Coroner cannot decide not to hold an inquest if one of the conditions is satisfied.

The pressing need to resume the inquests into the four accused is further compounded by the magnitude and significance of the circumstances in which it is alleged the deaths occurred.

The Inquests into the 52 cannot stand instead of, nor can they be considered as a substitute for, Inquests into the deaths of the four accused; as stated by Hugo Keith QC on many occasions these proceedings omitted the relevant facts:

6 My Lady, in the light of the fact that these
7 inquests are not concerned with Hussain, I have no need
8 to read out the cause of death, but it is obvious.

Further:

23 … We're not, of course, concerned with
24 their inquests and so I needn't read out the full detail

We respectfully suggest that a jury be empanelled at the resumed Inquests and that all the circumstances surrounding these deaths be thoroughly examined and explored.

If full arguments are deemed necessary by the Deputy Coroner, then J7 submit the following in favour of resumption of the Inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain

J7 Interest in the Inquests

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign is comprised of ordinary members of the public concerned that a fully independent public inquiry, particularly one held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, was refused twice by the government. Over 3,400 people have signed the J7 petition calling on the government to release the evidence they claim to have in support of the story outlined in the meagre 'Report of the official account of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.

Our tireless campaigning and research over the last five years, much of which has involved doggedly pursuing responses to Freedom of Information requests, has led to the accumulation of a vast body of knowledge regarding the events of 7th July 2005, contained on our People's Investigation Forum. Our analysis is published on our main web site at: http://julyseventh.co.uk, much of which had been further compiled in order to produce our Submissions to the Inquests. Further, our work was repeatedly, albeit indirectly, referenced throughout the course of proceedings, with the Inquests' own council choosing to mention our 'voluminous' submission as part of his opening statement.

The inquest proceedings transcripts have made reference to J7 as 'a group following the proceedings closely', so our interest in the events of 7 July 2005 and our continued work in this area are well known by all involved and, we submit, part of the grounds on which we should be considered a Properly Interested Party. Our initial submissions certainly provided the basis for some of the lines of enquiry for the inquests of the 52, even if these lines of enquiry were not duly explored.

Concerned at the absence of a jury at the resumed Inquests into the 52 deaths, J7 undertook the role of carefully watching these proceedings and examining the evidence released throughout. J7 wrote to the Deputy Coroner with many of the issues that arose during proceedings and on occasion, questions posed by J7 were put to witnesses. Many of the outstanding questions that arose are documented on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

Despite a mass of evidence adduced before the Inquests into the deaths of 52 people on 7th July 2005, J7 are concerned at the refusal by the Legal Services Commission to grant legal aid for representation at the Inquests to any of the families of the four accused, thus preventing them from making submissions. J7 wrote to the Coroner expressing these concerns in an email dated 25th April 2010:

Our concern is that it has recently been announced that two of the families of the accused men are to be refused legal aid to be represented at the Inquests. Given the immensity of the crimes alleged against them, and the history of miscarriages of justice in the British courts when 'fighting terrorism', as happened in the cases of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 etc, we believe that the families of the accused must be given access to justice and representation at the forthcoming Inquest. Without this, British justice remains skewed in favour of the State and will only lead people, especially Muslims, to question whether justice is available to them.

Legal aid at Inquests can be granted in exceptional cases if "there is a wider public interest or it aids the coroner’s investigations". It is most certainly in the wider public interest that legal aid is granted in this case, and we are hopeful that you can, as the coroner, request that the Ministry of Justice review their decision in this matter. We understand that an inquest verdict of suicide requires a criminal standard of proof. Representation of the families would be of great assistance to the inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict is justified.

The arguments for the families of the four to be represented at the Inquests and for resumption are set out in the judicial review dated 27th August 2010 which include the following relevant and important points:

21. On 23 April 2010 the claimant’s solicitor wrote to Mr Martin Smith, Solicitor to the Inquests, to inform him that, “had there been funding”, counsel would have made submissions to the effect that:

(1) the Inquests should be resumed;
(2) the Inquests should be joined; and
(3) his clients should be made Interested Persons in the Inquests of some of the deceased.

And at point 24:

"i) Effective participation would enable them to discharge their right to put questions and explore issues as an interested party. Additionally their participation may help other parties to explore issues thereby having the potential to produce real benefits for the other Interested Parties;
ii) The proceedings are on any view ‘significant’;
iii) Well-documented campaign to establish the full extent of the knowledge of the security services;
iv) [The claimant] is in a ‘unique position’ as the wife of the alleged ring-leader and her association with the other perpetrators and others. It is difficult to envisage other individuals who could assist the inquest to the same extent;
v) [The claimant] equally anxious to explore the true extent of the knowledge of the Security Services;
vi) Analysis of the intelligence failings may reveal that the atrocity was entirely preventable and the lives of the victims and perpetrators may have been saved;
vii) Volume of material. Extraordinary and unreasonable to expect [the claimant] to deal with by way of legal help; and
viii) No legitimate distinction between those granted funding and [the claimant]"

The families of the 52 expressed their objections to the Inquests to be joined and with regard to the families of the four accused having representation. Although this was their right, the families of the four men also have rights as bereaved family members; these same rights apply equally to the public – and especially the Muslim community, who bear the brunt of anti-terror legislation – to examine the evidence that would need to be presented to the inquests proceedings. This was denied them by the withholding of legal aid for representation – a very blunt and unsubtle tool by which to suppress the right of the families of the accused to legal representation at the Inquests into the 52.

We submit that the arguments forwarded by the families at the judicial review still hold true and that by granting them PIP status at resumed Inquests into the deaths of their loved ones could trigger legal aid being granted by the Legal Services Commission. After all, many public bodies used public funds for representation at these Inquests, the London Fire Brigade, West Yorkshire Police, Metropolitan Police Service, etc. all of whom are funded from the public purse. The public interest argument for these Inquests to be resumed would also be addressed by granting PIP to the families of the four.

It is the lack of challenge or questions that J7 are concerned with and so we ask to be also considered as PIPs in these proceedings, with this submission and our previous works and researches as the justifications for so qualifying. J7 have contacted the office of the Official Solicitor on the basis that, if there is to be no submission for resumption because legal aid has not been made available to any of the families of the four, and nor has PIP status been granted to them, then the State has a duty to represent the interests of Justice by ensuring these Inquests are resumed, and the evidence adduced and questioned accordingly.

Grounds upon which the Inquests must be resumed

(1) As detailed above, J7 are most concerned that the Catch 22 situation of refusing legal aid to allow submissions for resumption of the Inquests into the 4 deaths is being used to prevent the families from asking questions or, potentially even challenging the evidence adduced. This is both unfair and unjust. Justice in this case not only needs to be seen to be done, it must in fact be done.

(2) To date, there have been no proceedings at which the full 'Operation Theseus' evidence has been examined or challenged. The two trials at which this evidence was first submitted for public scrutiny was unable to question or challenge the evidence, the motivation, or the means and methods of the four men, as the accused had no knowledge of these events. Further, and most significantly given the degree with which the State pursued prosecutions against them, Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem, and Mohammed Shakil, they were found not guilty, on both separate occasions that the State endeavoured to prosecute them, of all charges connected to the Operation Theseus investigation. Therefore the evidence did not come under the detailed scrutiny required in a criminal trial, as it would have had the alleged perpetrators lived. (q.v. Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny McNamee, etc.)

(3) We understand and would like to highlight and reiterate that an inquest verdict of suicide requires a criminal standard of proof with regard to establishing definite intent to commit suicide. The representation of the families will be of great assistance to the Inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict is justified. Without a resumption of the Inquests into the four, this finding cannot be legally made.

(4) We understand that the four cannot be named as the perpetrators of the 52 deaths in any narrative verdict available to the Deputy Coroner in these proceedings.

(5) J7 argue that the evidence for the Theseus investigation was considered outside of the scope of these proceedings, yet evidence adduced during these proceedings has shown cause for concern over the accuracy of this evidence. One instance, for example, occurred on 2nd February 2011, while DS Stuart was under questioning from Ms Gallagher QC:

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.

(6) The identification of 'Conspiracy Theories' as one of the raison d'etres for the resumption of the Inquests into the 52 was stated by Hugo Keith QC in his opening statement on 14th October 2011:

12 ….. Thus it is
13 to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and
14 distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering
15 the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours
16 and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists.
17 I'll return a little later to the question of
18 whether there is, in truth, any basis for some of the
19 theories that have been canvassed in the press and on
20 the internet.

Whilst J7 would take issue with the apparent pejorative use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' given the multiplicity of well documented anomalies, inconsistencies and falsehoods contained in the official narrative (as outlined in our detailed submissions to the Inquests) and the questions that have subsequently arisen from Inquest evidence and testimony, and given the fact that it is, as a point of fact, the State itself that most frequently uses and abuses the charge of 'Conspiracy' in its prosecutions, we are aware that, without resumption of the Inquests into the four, the many further questions regarding the evidence that have arisen during the Inquest proceedings will continue to remain unanswered.

Some of these questions are detailed below:

(i) The Inquests have already heard that a report into the bombings by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, the only public body to which the security service reports, contained "many many mistakes and inaccuracies" in its account of the intelligence service's conduct before the attacks.

(ii) There is the significant issue of the requirement to prove intent to commit suicide in cases where suicide is suspected. In cases of suspected suicides inquests will be held, but the victim's intention to commit suicide must be definitely proven; here-in lies the burden of proof. In the absence of any clear proof of intent, the verdict is unlikely to be suicide, but rather 'death by misadventure', 'accidental death', or there will be an 'open' verdict. There are in existence two alleged “martyrdom videos”; one of which appears to show Khan and the release of which called an end to all lines of questioning of the official story that were being pursued by the media, and the second, cunningly released on the first anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, appears to show Tanweer. It is worth noting that throughout the contrived and stilted rhetoric in each video, no mention is made by either Khan or Tanweer regarding any intention to commit suicide. Further, there is no mention in either video of any attacks on London, or London's transport infrastructure. Indeed there are no references to the launching of any attacks at all, suicide or otherwise. There has also been no mention at all of Tanweer, Hussain or Lindsay leaving last wills and testaments, despite this being a requirement in Islam. This leaves all four suspected suicides for which the burden of proof of intent to commit suicide has not yet been addressed in anything other than loosely circumstantial way, much less has that standard of proof been met.

(iii) Testimony given by DI Kindness on 14th October 2010 calls into question, once again, aspects of the government narrative and further errors in Theseus evidence:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

This evidence was further contradicted by DCS McKenna on the closing day of evidence when he stated:

1 You've already outlined, I think, most of the main
2 threads of investigation that led to us Luton railway
3 station and it's -- it was a fortuitous coincidence
4 that, on the day that we had discovered the CCTV from
5 Luton railway station, we, of course, were assisted by
6 the coming forward of some witnesses from Luton, from
7 whom you have heard, who raised with us the suspicious
8 activity they'd seen in relation to the cars that
9 morning.

In fact the only witness to the cars at Luton that gave evidence was Susan Clarke and she only contacted the police on the morning of 12th July according to her testimony. Ms Gallagher had previously adduced that the viewing logs from Luton station were dated 10th and 11th July.

(iv) The missing CCTV evidence from the day gives cause for concern. No explanation was given for the failure of the CCTV at King's Cross underground station, ticket barriers or platforms, nor CCTV shown of Hasib Hussain's apparent re-entry to the mainline station from the Northern Line platform as asserted in evidence and in the government narrative. There is a major discrepancy between the timings of the CCTV shown from WH Smiths and the time on the receipt of a purchase of a battery. There is also missing CCTV from Woodall Service Station of nearly 15 minutes between exiting and rejoining the motorway. Strange and unexplained cuts in the CCTV shown from Luton Station car park. The removal of the Fiat Brava CCTV was not shown, nor was an explanation given for why Bedfordshire Police requested its removal. No explanation was given for the turning off of CCTV at McDonald's prior to Hasib entering, nor was the time of this incident given. No explanation for the lack of CCTV from the 91 bus was adduced, nor was a reason why this bus halted and emptied its passengers at Euston Station. No CCTV from the trains prior to the explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite a claim by Rachel North regarding a discussion held in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid:

The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images 'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality.

The public have been shown CCTV evidence from the Operation Vivace (21 July 2005) trial of the men on CCTV from the train carriages which were of good quality, we suggest similar evidence could and should be shown to the Inquests as the presence of those accused of the underground incidents has only been shown as far as King's Cross Thameslink. It should also be able to show the presence of MSK and Tanweer for a considerable length of time on journeys away from King's Cross, and also the entry of three accused onto the carriages from King's Cross.

This lack of evidential continuity between all of the 4 accused and the actual scenes is very concerning. This sentiment was expressed to survivors by 'C', DCI SO15:

One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit.

(v) No 'life extinct' pronounced at either Tavistock Square, nor the Piccadilly Line train. The numbers pronounced for life extinct at Aldgate and Edgware Road by Dr Morgan Costello were both one less than would account for the presence of either Mohammed Sidique Khan or Shehzad Tanweer at the respective locations they are alleged to have been at.

(vi) The types of explosives allegedly used differed between Clifford Todd's testimony and the sworn testimony adduced during the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest. Clifford Todd stated HMTD was found in Alexandra Grove, in the cars, with further traces found at the scenes.

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.

'Codename Neil', the forensics officer at the scene claims TATP was found in both the Micra and Alexandra Grove.

4 them in the car and take them with them. Once again,
15 there was evidence of TATP explosive at the bomb-making
16 factory in Leeds.

and:

23 cable, they found flash bulbs which will be a typical
24 igniter for, as it was, TATP explosives.

DAC McDowall, the gold command for Operation Theseus:

12.... In the bomb factory in Leeds that was
13 discovered, we found TATP literally sprayed around the
14 premises and on the floor. If I can say that that
15 explosive will detonate if trodden on

and:

19 A. That was a distinct possibility, yes, particularly
20 given, perhaps I should amplify, the amount of explosive
21 left behind, if I can use that expression, by the 7 July
22 bombers was of a very great magnitude. Certainly
23 a bathful and more of the main charge, and as I said
24 yesterday, a very substantial quantity of the
25 excessively volatile TATP on 7 July.

157

1 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: This was all in the Yorkshire bomb
2 factory, this is what you found and presumably
3 neutralised?

DIC Purser, describes 'brown sludge' as 'not explosives' and only describes this as being only in the bath at Alexandra Grove:

15 Q. Did you go on to tell them that further enquiries had
16 taken you to West Yorkshire, you gave a particular
17 address in Leeds, and you said that that was discovered
18 to be the bomb factory?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. Did you tell them that examination of that scene was
21 ongoing, but that a brown sludge had been found in the
22 bath? Examination indicated that it was not explosives.
23 Porton Down had indicated that it was not a biological
24 substance but they weren't sure what it was, and had
25 said it might be some kind of insecticide?

J7 can provide many more examples of areas of questioning that a resumed Inquest into the four should examine to ensure that it is possible for a true and accurate account of the events in London on 7th July 2005 to be placed before the public.

For truth and justice

“To the living we owe respect,
but to the dead we owe only the truth.”
- Voltaire

Tavistock Square & the second controlled explosion... of Richmal

New Zealander, Richmal Oates-Whitehead, died alone in her London flat, just weeks after the events in London on 7th July 2005. As a clinical editor for BMJ Evidence, Richmal was working in the BMA building in Tavistock Square when the number 30 Bus explosion occurred.


J7 included Richmal's account of the number 30 bus explosion in our submission to the 7/7 Inquests. We wrote:

A second controlled explosion which was denied by Scotland Yard, has since been confirmed in reports. The denial came in a report of a young woman, Richmal Oates-Whitehead, who helped at the scene of the bus and who was soon after found dead in her flat. She was then accused of being a fantasist:

"She later told the Weekend Herald, a New Zealand paper, that she had been helping the injured in a makeshift hospital set up in a hotel next door to the BMA when two fire-fighters approached her for help. "They needed one doctor to assist as firemen cut two badly injured people out of the wreckage. Would she come? They would understand if she declined," the front page article said. It reported Ms Oates-Whitehead as saying: "There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do." Her account included a controlled detonation of a second bomb. "Outside, there was another enormous bang as police detonated the 'bomb' - which turned out to be a false alarm."

The problem was twofold. Police had no record of a controlled explosion in Tavistock Square; moreover she was not a doctor. Her name does not appear on either the UK or New Zealand medical council registers."

As at the Edgware Road site, why was this controlled explosion carried out and how did it affect the collection of evidence, forensic or otherwise? Why did Scotland Yard deny Richmal's account, which was patently true? If the police have no record of a controlled explosion on the bus, who conducted the controlled explosion? How did the controlled explosion on the bus impact the collection of evidence from the scene?

Controlled explosions were given as an explanation by the MPS for the 3 bus explosions which had originally been reported:

"There was only one bus that was involved. The other explosions around buses were controlled explosions by our explosives officers. So there were three attacks on tubes and one on a bus".

Another controlled explosion which has since come to light via FOI requests, led to the evacuation of Holborn police station, central to these sites, at 10am on the morning of July 7th.

Where did these other controlled explosions take place? What was subjected to controlled explosions? What prompted the conducting of these explosions and what purpose did they serve? Did these other explosions in any way hamper the emergency service response?

Source: J7 Response to the Provisional Index of Factual Issues: Issue 3

On 25 January 2011, a statement that Richmal had provided to the police, dated 14/07/05, was read out at the 7/7 Inquests. The most absurd discussion ensued where Richmal's evidence was thrown into disrepute on the basis of a plan of the number 30 bus which she had marked. Not a plan she had drawn herself, but in fact a plan provided for her by a DC Perry, the investigating officer who took her statement:

"A police officer then approached me and requested I assist with evacuating the wounded from the bus as there may be another bomb. The urgency was such that these people had to be moved regardless of injury. I approached the bus from the rear nearside. There appeared to be a big gap, then just seats. The entire back of the bus had gone. I could see organ and body parts on the footway. I remember seeing clearly a whole liver and what I believed to be four right arms.I stood on the bottom deck of the bus entering from the middle doors. I could see a male on the left-hand side of the bus in a seat. DC Perry has shown me a diagram of the bus and I have placed a letter D where I believe his location was."
My Lady, could we have on the screen [INQ8952-2]? My Lady, just pausing in the statement for a moment, you will see that this is a plan of the upper deck of the bus. Notwithstanding that, the D that you'll see there would appear to be consistent with the position of Sam Ly or certainly insofar as it was on the nearside of the bus. As you will recall from the other plan, he was, in fact, sitting several seats further to the rear of the lower deck of the bus.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Sorry, just a minute.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Perhaps we could have the other plan?
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Is this consistent? There's obviously a question mark as to how much reliance I can place on any of this, but: "I stood on the bottom deck, having entered from the middle doors. I could see a male on the left-hand side."
That, if she's come in the middle doors and on the left-hand side, is either likely to be looking down the bus towards the rear at the offside or it's on the left-hand side and going towards the driver. I'm not sure that it is consistent with Mr Ly, is it?
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, if one starts with the plan --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Leaving aside she's got the wrong deck.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: The deck is wrong, that's the first point, although, as we've seen from the photographs, by this time, certainly towards the rear, the top and bottom deck had collapsed into each other. If one looks at the position D, what one can say is that it is on the correct side of the bus to be Sam Ly. It is two or three seats too far forward. In fact, it's three seats too far forward to be Sam Ly, but it is on the correct side of the bus and it is next to the window. As far as the left side of the bus, my Lady, from where she entered the bus, as you say, it would have been on the right. He was sitting on the left-hand side of the bus as one looked in the direction of travel.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: But this plan, because it's the upper deck, has no middle doors.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: No, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I don't feel I can place any reliance upon that observation at all.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 25 January 2011 afternoon page 3 lines 8 on

Richmal not only names some of those that she helped that day, including Emma Plunkett who had given evidence that morning, but also describes what she was wearing:

My Lady, she then goes on to describe what she was wearing as: "One black jacket, a pink top, purple skirt and a pair of red shoes and a green stethoscope. I wore all of these items when treating people from the bus." She then gives a little further information which is not relevant for present purposes.

Source: Ibid page 8 lines 6-12

Was Emma asked if she had seen Richmal at the scene? No:

Q. As you say, you were taken into the courtyard of the BMA building.
A. Yes.
Q. We've heard evidence about how all the casualties on the road, including you, were taken there. You were treated by paramedics and the BMA doctors for a while?
A. Yes.
Q. Then I think you were taken by ambulance to St Thomas's Hospital --
A. Yes.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 25 January 2011 morning page 16 lines 10 -19

In this testimony given by Dr Tovey, the Editorial Director of BMJ Evidence and Richmal's boss, he confirms that Richmal had aided in the assessment and treatment of another casualty and how she had recounted entering the bus:

Q. ... Was it while you were in the courtyard at around this time that you met up again with Richmal Oates-Whitehead?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with her?
A. Yes. I mean, in the courtyard at that time there were relatively few people that I actually knew, so -- Richmal being one of them, so we did talk during that morning, yes.
Q. You'd been separated from her for how long at that point?
A. I would guess 30, 35 minutes.
Q. Did she tell you about what she had been doing for that time that you'd been apart?
A. She did.
Q. What did she say?
A. What she said was that she had gone into the County Hotel, which is the hotel next to BMA House, that she'd been asked -- she'd been asked to see some people, she'd seen a gentleman, a man who had an enucleated eye, she said, and then somebody had approached her and asked if she would go on to the bus to help there, and that -- but that it could be dangerous, there could be a second device, and all she told me was that she'd been on the bus and that it was pretty terrible, and that's the only detail that I can remember that she said.
Q. You said that she told you that someone had approached her. Did she tell you who it was?
A. Sorry, a police officer.
Q. I think that, at around the time you met her, you were involved in assisting a different patient, a female patient?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Richmal Oates-Whitehead, in fact, assist with that patient or --
A. She did. I think that we were both -- I think this was back in the Hastings room. I think it started to rain and people had been moved back into the Hastings room and, whilst we were in the Hastings room, there was this young woman who broadly fits the description. All I remember of her was that she had some blood in her eye, I think in the anterior chamber of her eye, but possibly around the conjunctiva, and I remember Richmal saying, "I'm worried about her because her abdomen is swelling and she may have a ruptured spleen, we should get her urgent medical attention", and I think that we then -- or she then contacted a -- somebody in a high visibility jacket, possibly, possibly, with "Doctor" on the back and arranged an evacuation -- an early evacuation of that woman.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 25 January 2011 afternoon page 26 lines 7 on

This image confirms that Richmal was at the scene as the injured are being hurriedly removed from the road and into the courtyard of the BMA. She is in the company of a policeman. She could well be moving towards the bus. Sam Ly has yet to be evacuated from it. For completeness and accuracy J7 have sent this image to the Coroner:


Richmal's untimely death on 17th August 2005, within a week or so of the start of an investigation by the BMJ into her medical qualifications, was deemed to have resulted from natural causes, and on this basis no Inquest was held. The cause of death was given as Pulmonary embolism and Bilateral calf deep vein thrombosis. A tad strange perhaps, given that Richmal had collated information on pulmonary embolisms as part of her medical work for the Cochrane Institute (as cited in this Parliamentary paper) and would likely have been aware of possible warning signs before the condition became fatal.

Richard Jones who gave many media interviews in which he gave utterly false accounts of witnessing the 'suicide bomber' on the 30 bus was never subjected to the gross media character assassination meted out to Richmal and had his testimony to the Inquests treated with some respect.

Second Controlled Explosion/s

Richmal was certainly correct about the second controlled explosion on the 30 bus - although there is confusion from witness testimony with regard to whether one or two controlled explosions were conducted. By the time the Tavistock Square evidence ended we were no clearer on the matter. Precisely why Scotland Yard denied Richmal's account of a controlled explosion remains a mystery.

One of the controlled explosions can be heard in this clip from the day:

BBC News report of a controlled explosion at Tavistock Square from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

An interesting fact that emerged is that an EXPO officer was withdrawn from Tavistock Square and sent to Holborn police station, resulting in the evacuation of Holborn police station and a controlled explosion at 10.00 that morning, as mentioned in our submission to the Inquest. This appears doubly strange as another EXPO officer, Richard Travers, who had carried out a search of the train at Aldgate for secondary devices also claims to have been tasked to this incident before returning to Aldgate. [03/11/2010 p48:5] Holborn police station was central to three of the affected sites that morning.

According to a Times newspaper report, two explosives teams did indeed turn up at Holborn police station:

One street away, Graham Morley was standing outside, Theobald's, a butchers he runs on Theobald's Road opposite Holborn police station which responded first to the explosions at Russell Square.

"It's hard to put it into words really, it's hard to think who would have done this. I thought all of these things were over, you know?"

Mr Morley first heard about the explosions on Taverstock Square when two police bomb disposal teams pulled up outside his shop and ambulances started pouring up Lambs Conduit Street. He had just sent out his deliveries for the morning.

"Before I knew it they started to cordon this all off," he said. "They told us to evacuate but we had an 82-year-old woman in here. She said 'I've seen it all, I'm not going anywhere.' So we stayed with her."

"It's chaos really," he said.

Source: The Times 07/07/2005

It is difficult to make sense of the many and varied accounts of EXPO officers, sniffer dogs and controlled explosions in evidence adduced at the Inquests. We'll attempt to examine this by working through the witness testimony starting with Superintendent Summers of the MPS Holborn, Silver Command at Tavistock Square. Before we begin, readers should be aware that Superintendent Summers' log files from the day have apparently gone missing:

Q. The evidence we've heard is that there were, as it were, two phases or at least two phases. The first phase, if you like, was a sniffer dog officer who went on board the bus --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and performed a search?
A. Yes.
Q. It was some time after that that other explosives officers arrived and carried out a controlled explosion?
A. It was the sniffer dog officer who informed me that, on his experience and from his information, the bus was not considered as safe, and at that stage, I -- you know, I had been close enough to be aware of the fact that there were people -- who they were I don't know, but attending injured parties on the bus, and that officer said, in view of the fact that this is not safe, you know, we should withdraw. By the time I stepped away, I had already seen two casualties being removed from the bus.
Q. You say you didn't go into the courtyard, but I take it you were aware that there were casualties in the courtyard and that they were being treated?
A. Yes, clearly I was aware of the fact that casualties had been taken into there, and obviously knowing what the building was, you know, believed that that was a safe place for them to be, and I was also made aware of the fact that there were a number of people being cared for within the hotel next door as well.
Q. Yes. Some time after your arrival -- in fact, we think the time was about 10.40 or thereabouts, so getting on for an hour after the explosion -- there was a controlled explosion, as I've mentioned. Were you aware that that was going to happen before it did take place?
A. I was aware -- well, as you see from the statement, the sequence of events was that I was aware that an explosives officer had been deployed and then actually withdrew quickly because he was then deployed to Holborn police station where there was a suspect package. But then I was met by Mr Clarke, and I don't actually recall him saying that he was going to conduct a controlled explosion and whether it was him or somebody else informed me that that was going to take place. But then, as my statement explains, he then came to give me a bit more of a briefing as to what was on the bus and what he found.
Q. Before the controlled explosion took place or after?
A. No, I think I mention that it was after.
Q. It was after?
A. You have to forgive me because, if that information had been given to me, obviously it's not reflected in my statement, but it may well have been logged by my loggist and I don't have access to my log.
Q. Sure. One of the things it's easy to forget in our position, with hindsight, is that there was, of course, a possibility that there was another device on the bus,and that, when the controlled explosion took place, there would have been a very large explosion. That was a real possibility at the time, wasn't it?
A. Sorry, can you just say that -- run that again?
Q. The controlled explosion, the purpose of it, was to detonate a device or -- I'm sorry, an object, as to which there were suspicions that it might be another bomb.
A. Yes, well, we knew -- yes, I mean, I knew that one of the concerns that the sniffer dog officer had said to me was the fact that, you know, there was a -- an item on the bus that they hadn't been able to identify --
Q. Yes.
A. -- and they were treating that as suspicious.
Q. Perhaps it was a very obvious point I was making, but the point was just this: that, although we now know that, when the controlled explosion took place, it was a relatively modest explosion, which didn't do any great damage --
A. No.
Q. -- around it, it was, of course, possible that it would have been a much larger explosion if there had been an explosive device on the bus at the time?
A. Indeed.
Q. It follows from that that before a controlled explosion like that is conducted, it is, of course, necessary to make sure that there was no one in the vicinity who could be injured?
A. Yes.
Q. Also -- isn't this right -- it's important to inform other emergency services of what is taking place so that they understand and don't react in the wrong way to hearing that explosion?
A. Yes, that would be the case, yes.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 28 January 2011 morning page 103 lines 3 on

This statement from one of the sniffer dog handlers, PC Hesketh, dated 9 July 2005 was read but contains no timings:

With my dog, I began to search the bus. We found a microwave oven box on the parcel package area close to the driver's cab. My dog showed no indication of another device. I opened the box and I could see a microwave inside. I did not open the microwave itself.
"During my inspection of the bus, I was aware of many screams for help. After the search, I tied my dog to a nearby lamp post and went back to the bus to help the casualties. I enlisted the help of two London Fire Brigade officers, I believe they were from the Soho fire station. With the two firemen, we began to help the injured people on the bus. I pointed out to the two firemen that I could not guarantee their safety. I was unaware if there was another device on board.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 24 January 2011 morning page 84 lines 5 on

Two sniffer dogs and their handlers can be viewed in this footage from the scene:

Bus explosion aftermath from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Inspector Ellis of the London Fire Brigade was responsible for extracting the remaining survivors from the bus and claims in this report that, "Secondary devices were suspected later in the incident and controlled explosions carried out. I had informed LFF Drew that this was about to happen and ensured crew safety at all times". Ellis was not questioned on this when he gave his witness testimony on 24 January.

No pronouncements of life extinct were carried out on the bus, and a HEMS doctor [Tim Harris 28/01/11] was prevented from going onto the bus by police at the cordons who feared a secondary device and the senior London Ambulance Service officer [Williamson 28/01/11], who arrived after and in response to, the second controlled explosion, was also prevented from approaching the bus to check the scene by police who claimed the area 'still wasn't safe'.

The number of controlled explosions becomes no clearer, as evinced by Justice Hallett's comment at the end of the read statement from EXPO officer Clarke, the explosives officer who carried out a controlled explosion on the microwave. He was presumably not the first explosives officer at the scene as that officer left to attend to a suspect package at Holborn police station, as Supt. Summers testified.

It's a statement dated 6 August 2010. Statement of MR JONATHAN CLARKE read Martin Ferguson from the 7 July Inquest team attended my offices to take a statement. I am an explosives officer with the Metropolitan Police and have over 30 years' experience in ammunition and explosives. This statement refers to my deployment and subsequent actions taken on 7 July 2005. This statement is in addition to two statements I have previously made."

My Lady, I won't be reading those statements simply because this statement includes all the detail in those statements and a little bit more as well:
"I was tasked to Woburn Place WC1 along with my colleague PC Kubanski. I arrived on scene at 10.24 hours. I initially reported to a member of the traffic police who briefed me as to what had happened."
My Lady, presumably Inspector Perry:
"Also on scene were a number of emergency personnel from the Metropolitan Police, London Ambulance Service, London Fire Brigade, as well as members of the public and persons I later learnt to be from the BMA. The scene was chaotic on arrival. My main concern was the preservation of life, securing and preserving the scene and public safety of persons such as the LAS and BMA personnel who were assisting with triage on the injured persons, on receiving information about a possible secondary device. My main priority was to move people away from it. I established there were no critical or injured persons left within the cordon area. The dead bodies had been covered up. Critically injured persons had been moved away from the scene and other injured parties taken to hospital.
"I approached the bus and entered it through the front doors. On the nearside parcel shelf as I walked in there was a large cardboard box with wires coming out of the top. There were a number of emergency personnel on scene. I cleared the area and established a cordon. I carried out normal EOD actions (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). The item was made safe and found to be false, it was a microwave oven. I subsequently examined all left luggage around the bus and on the bus to establish if there were any other hazards. After the controlled explosion, I made an assessment of the bomb damage on the bus. I then reported to the Incident Commander and handed the scene over to DC Chris Davidson."
My Lady, there is also a document from this witness. I wonder if we could, for completeness, very briefly look at it? It is [INQ10245-3].
My Lady you'll see an explosives officers call-out form. The top right-hand corner we see it's dated 7 July 2005. My Lady, you will see that the time apparently of the call-out was 09.49, so approximately two minutes after the explosion. You will recall various evidence we've heard about the police officers who were on scene that quickly being concerned about an explosive device. It would appear that the call for explosives officers was made at 9.49 and, my Lady, I think perhaps, if we just look over the page, the next page [INQ10245-4], simply for the sake of clarification, you'll see the damage caused. The microwave in the suspect package was destroyed, so it is clear that that was, as it were, the focus of the controlled explosion.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much. The fact that Mr Clarke faces danger or possible danger on a regular basis, in my view, his courage should not go unremarked. There was one witness, Mr O'Connor, who thought they heard two explosions. That was a mistake, was it?
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, it may be that we have further evidence about that. Certainly I think -- it may be that there was evidence that there was a late, perhaps much later explosion, but the evidence we've heard is clear, that this particular explosion was at 10.43.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: That's the impression I'd had.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: There was only, I think, one explosion at that time.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you.

The microwave box on the luggage rack

Calling an an EXPO officer to the scene just two minutes after the bus explosion is extremely quick thinking by someone. However, it doesn't concur with Inspector Perry's account:

Q. That puts you arriving there about ten minutes or perhaps a little more --

A. That would fit.
Q. -- after the time of the bomb. You described being concerned about the microwave, the box, the microwave oven. Did you understand from Inspector Dermody that the sniffer dogs had already checked the bus and checked the microwave oven?
A. The sniffer dogs checked it after I had arrived and after Mr Dermody had handed it over.
Q. I see, I see. Do you know whether anyone had summoned the sniffer dog officers or whether they just --
A. I called for the standard explosives officer response to a suspect device. I presume they would have either attended on their own initiative or responded to that, but they were there a few minutes after I'd called for EXPO for the microwave box.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 18 January 2011 morning page 134 lines 19 on

Further on in Inspector Perry's testimony:

MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Mr Perry, before lunch, I was asking you questions about the microwave oven.
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. You were describing your concerns about it, and you had said that you had made a radio call asking for some assistance in dealing with it. Perhaps we could look at document [INQ10121-1]. Mr Perry, this is the CAD that we were looking at earlier. If we look at the entry for it, it would seem exactly 10.00. There again we see your call sign. It's another one of those messages of which only part seems to have been recorded, but again, the message is fairly clear. Is that the call that you made about the microwave oven and asking for EXPO, that is explosives officers, to attend?
A. Explosives officers, yes, ma'am.
Q. On your understanding, was it as a result of that call -- you're not sure of the mechanics of it, but probably as a result of that call that the two officers with sniffer dogs attended?
A. I couldn't honestly tell you why they attended. I was very grateful that they did.
Q. Yes.
A. But they work on a different working channel to me. So I can only assume that they picked up that there had been this incident on their working channel on the radio. It wouldn't have been directly as to what I was saying, so it would either be assigned through a control room because of this CAD or they would have picked up on it on another channel.
Q. But it was shortly after you sent that message that they arrived?
A. A very few minutes, yes.
Q. We've heard from Inspector Dermody that they did a pass through, as it were, of the bus, including the box with the microwave oven in it --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- and declared it, as far as they could, not to be a risk. You heard what Mr Dermody said to the effect that, although it provided some level of comfort that the sniffer dogs hadn't picked anything up, you couldn't assume that there was no problem at all.
A. Exactly so. There are some explosives, I believe, that have very limited odours and some that the dogs just aren't trained in, and I believe home-made explosives are one of the ones that dogs aren't trained in. But that's -- I couldn't -- you'd have to ask someone from the explosives side about that.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 18 January 2011 afternoon page 14 lines 22 on

Sniffer dogs had indicated that the microwave box was safe, but Perry, who admits to no expertise in explosives, posited the idea that he believed these could be 'home-made explosives'. We can only wonder on what basis Perry might have thought this.

Inspector Perry arriving with two Diplomatic Protection Group officers*

Let's go back a step and see what Inspector Dermody of the British Transport Police, the first officer on the scene, has to say about the microwave box and controlled explosions. Dermody gave his evidence prior to Inspector Perry:

Q. I want to ask you about the casualties that you saw in a moment, but, before I do, I take it that your concern about secondary explosions and the danger of that was still present at this time?
A. That's correct.
Q. Had it been increased by anything that you saw on the bus when you had gone on at that moment?
A. There was a period after that that did increase my awareness of a secondary -- the possibility of a secondary device, which was a microwave.
Q. Yes, the microwave oven. Was that something that you saw when you first went on to the bus or was it something that you became aware of later?
A. It was something I became aware of later.
Q. Well then, we'll return to it in due course. Were you doing anything at this point about secondary explosions; for example, trying to contact or obtain sniffer dogs or anything of that nature?

Source: Hearing Transcripts 18 January 2011 morning page 22 lines 8 - 25

Q. What was your reaction to seeing it?

A. I didn't -- I wasn't comfortable with that item on the bus, I was quite -- bearing in mind my initial concerns about secondary devices, it gave me a more heightened sense that it possibly might be something that I need to deal with.
Q. What did you do to deal with it?
A. There was two ex-employee search dogs on the scene for the Metropolitan Police and I ushered them over and briefed them as to what I wanted done, simply to clear the bus and that particular box.
Q. As you say, they'd been on the scene. That's why I asked you earlier whether you'd called for them in any way?
A. No, I didn't call for them, they were on the scene.
Q. They simply appeared, did they?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Did you ever find out if they'd been summoned or whether they simply arrived by good chance?
A. I never found out.
Q. But they, in any event, swept the bus, did they, with the sniffer dogs to --
A. They swept the bus with the two dogs and then I asked them to sweep the cordons.
Q. The cordons?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did that process take?
A. Not very long, a matter of minutes, I guess.
Q. The result was negative, they indicated that they hadn't found any trace of any further explosives?
A. Yes, they came back to me later and reported that it seemed okay [page 40:24]

Q. Yes. Could we look at one more document, please, BTP152-40? That doesn't seem to be the right ... I'm grateful to Mr Gibbs. Could we try [BTP153-40]? Yes, thank you. Here, Inspector, is another call that you made a few minutes later, timed at 10.00 possibly a minute or so after that. You say:
"I've just had at Tavistock on the bus, I've just had EXPO round with dogs ..."
That's the sniffer dogs, is it?
A. That's correct.
Q. " ... to check the bus out because there was a box we weren't sure about. It seems to be clear, we've just got to move everybody back now, move people out of the way." [page 42:14]

Q. Yes. Could we look, perhaps, at one more document, please -- almost finished -- [BTP154-74]? So here we have a call timed at 10.22, so some time later.
A. Yes.
Q. Do we take it, then, that when Inspector Perry arrived and took over the role of Silver Commander, you didn't leave, you stayed there for some time?
A. I stayed there for some time after, yes.
Q. Half an hour?
A. Probably less than that, I would imagine.
Q. In any event, you were still there at around 10.22 when this message was sent:
"Just a quick sit rep from Tavistock Square. Most of the people have been removed off the bus. The dead and dying have been removed into [that's presumably the British Medical Association] building." You then say this: "There's a briefcase on the bus which EXPO are going to check out and then the scene should be fairly clear." This is something different from the microwave oven, is it?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you remember about the briefcase?
A. I believe when the gentleman I referred to earlier with the olive skin and the dark hair was removed off the bus there was a black briefcase or attache case on the top of the bus which was a concern, again, in a similar fashion to the microwave oven.
Q. Would that not already have been checked by the sniffer dogs when they went on earlier, or could you not be sure of that?
A. The dogs wouldn't have gone up to the top deck, because it was a mangled wreckage and it would have been very dangerous to go up there and run the dogs round it, so they would have cleared the bus from the ground level, I believe.
Q. I see. Now, it may be that we can ask others about this, but when you say that EXPO are going to check it out, do you know what happened? Did they, in fact, try to get the sniffer dogs to check that briefcase out or was a different means of securing that danger adopted?
A. Before I left the scene, myself and another BTP colleague had a brief conversation with an explosives officer from the Metropolitan Police and my colleague was -- had some expertise in BTP in dealing with sort of suspicious items, and we had a quick conversation and, from what I've been told, there was a controlled explosion on that item after I'd left the scene.
Q. We'll hear a little more about that in due course, but your understanding before you left was that that was something that was being considered to deal with this second issue?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. The briefcase.
A. Yes. [page 45:22]

What does PC Mitchell, one of the first officers to the scene, have to say about the controlled explosions and whether it was a briefcase or a microwave or both:

Q. We've heard some evidence already in the last day or so about what was understood to be a risk of a secondary device in a briefcase on the bus and the fact that a controlled explosion was undertaken in response to that risk. We see here two messages that you sent, which appear to be one sent just before the controlled explosion and one just after, which enables us to identify quite closely the time at which it took place as being at about 10.43. Is that an accurate assessment of what these two messages are?
A. That is correct, my Lady, yes. Basically, at that time the EXPO officer coming to the courtyard had said there was going to be a controlled explosion. I put that up on to the radio to make officers aware in the immediate vicinity that there was going to be another loud bang and then there was.
Q. In fact, if we look two entries down at 10.47, so a few minutes later, there's one further message from you indicating in substance what you have just described, the fact that there was one deceased in the courtyard and another in the basement. Was that around the time that you then went down to the basement to investigate the other body in the way that you've described?
A. That would be correct, yes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Do I take it that the controlled explosion would not have taken place until all the living survivors had been removed from the bus?
A. I would like to think so, my Lady. Looking at my statement, being that it was made shortly after and, obviously, due to traumatic events, my mind wasn't -- I think, if I recall my statement, it seems to be that we were still moving casualties out, but I'm sure we moved all casualties and then the controlled explosion took place.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 19 January 2011 morning page 12 lines 21 on

Another officer who was first to the scene, PC Barkhouse, had his statement dated 12/07/05 read and was therefore unavailable to answer questions on his account of hearing two explosions:

I then spoke to [another police officer] who identified himself as an EXPO officer. He said that he was happy that there were no secondary devices on or around the bus. My main concern now was to free the male in the pinstriped suit and to get him off the bus. The EXPO officer went to the front door of the bus and got on to see if he could free the male from inside. I clambered on to the side of the bus, which had been blown outwards and was leaning at a 45-degree angle against the bus.
"I tried again to shout to the male but got no reply. The EXPO officer returned from the inside of the bus and said, 'He's fading, we're going to lose him if we don't get him out'. He then climbed up on to the bus and started to try to rouse the trapped male. At this point, an inspector asked me why the engine of the bus was still running and if there were any secondary devices on scene. He also asked me if EXPO had searched the vehicle. I then asked the EXPO officer to confirm who he was and then I said to the inspector, 'The officer here is EXPO and he says there are no secondary as far as he knows'.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 19 January 2011 afternoon page 65 lines 9 on

I then took blankets to the courtyard of the BMA building and, once there, helped to move the injured from the courtyard into a conference room on the east side of the BMA. I then heard two controlled explosions at the scene. These were about 30 minutes apart. When I was at the scene, I did not notice any suspect or any suspicious packages, other than the holdall previously mentioned in this statement. [ibid p67:3]

The next statement was also read, that of PC White dated 9/07/05:

"There were screams of pain from some of the injured in that courtyard. Also, some of those carried into the courtyard had died at this point. I then began to take some details of the injured and the helpers in the area but, before long, we had to move all the surviving casualties into the back of the courtyard, as a controlled explosion was about to take place. Once this had been done, I heard a loud explosion.
"After this, we again moved the wounded into a conference room in the main building of the BMA. Once we had done this, I resumed the taking of names of as many people as I could, 42 names in all, mostly doctors on scene or civilian volunteers and witnesses of the explosion.
"After the wounded had either died or been ferried to hospital, PC Abomeli and I decided to return to the bus to see if there was anything else we could do. As of this point, we did not know how many explosions had taken place. [ibid p71:7]

Nor do we know 'how many explosions had taken place', even after 3 weeks of evidence. If it was one controlled explosion on the lower deck, the microwave, and one on the upper deck, the briefcase, how did this affect the victims who remained in situ at the time, and the evidence that was subsequently subjected to forensics analysis? Even if only one explosion had taken place, its effects on the immediate environment and on any evidence collected need to be examined. If two or more "controlled explosions" occurred, then the pressing need to examine the effects of such actions increases further.

The expensive MOD modelling of the blast sites did not include modelling of the bus incident. Was this as a result of controlled explosions, and/or the fact that survivors who were extremely close to the blast did not suffer 'blast lung' as had been described as the cause of death of many of the tube victims?

Q. There was no complex modelling for Ms Hartley or, indeed, for any of the deceased victims from the bus bomb?
A. [Colonel Mahoney] No, there isn't. The difficulty we were faced with with the bus bomb is that Porton felt it was modelling they could do, but it would have taken a long time. In fact, it would have taken them well into February. The difficulty being is for them trying to work out at what point the bus broke up, because when the structure breaks up, a lot of the explosive products are vented, which is why you have people with amazing stories of survival from the bus, because it was vented and they were not subject to the blast effects.

Source: Hearing Transcripts January 31 2011 afternoon page 50 lines 4 -16

Perhaps no modelling was done because computer modelling requires a foundation of modelling data upon which to base its model and the unique, never before seen, nature of the alleged explosives apparently used on 7/7 meant there was no data available from which to create those models? This fundamental lack of empirical data for what were at the time unknown explosives would also apply with regard to the computer modelling of the incidents underground. Further, determining the nature of the data on which any models were built might be an interesting exercise.

As for Richmal, she deserves respect for the assistance she provided on the day, assistance which, as shown in the testimony from her colleague and cited above, may well have helped save some of the lives that were saved. She, like the rest of us, also deserves the truth of the events on 7th July to be known.

* The DPG officers in this photo from the morning of 7 July 2005 were likely attending the scene to usher out government ministers from a boardroom on the first floor of Lynton House, where a meeting was taking place in respect of security issues following London's successful Olympics bid. J7 received this information from a source who was placed on a gagging order by her employer and was subjected to over 36 hours of interviews by counter-terrorism officers. Lynton House has not been mentioned during the many hours of witness testimony in relation to Tavistock Square despite it being used extensively on the day of 7/7.