7/7 Inquests: The 7 July Inquest Verdict

At the start of the 7 July Inquests process, J7 wrote:

From the outset, it must be understood that the State cannot in any way find itself to be culpable for anything that would reflect badly upon it, and history is littered with countless examples of the State absolving itself of responsibility, illegality, or immorality in all degrees.

Source: 7 July Inquests: It's A Conspiracy, Stupid!

Sure enough, this is precisely what has happened. Today, Lady Justice Hallett has returned her verdict of unlawful killing and has absolved the corporate State and Security Services of any blame or responsibility. The Rule 43 report can be read here [PDF].

While we analyse the contents of the report in detail, it is initially important to seize on the following paragraphs taken from the Introduction to the report:

8. It is not generally a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper function of a Coroner to express opinions in the verdicts returned. The Rules are clear and I have not strayed from those restrictions in the verdicts I have delivered. However, the exceptional circumstances of these Inquests mean that it is appropriate to name the bombers within this Rule 43 report, which is not subject to the same constraints. There are three principal reasons: the bombers are dead. There can be no question of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings against them and I cannot defame them. Further, I cannot consider the issue of preventability, one of the most important of the issues I have set, without stating in positive terms that they were the bombers. Finally, the evidence is utterly overwhelming.

9. To argue or find to the contrary [i.e. that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.

We will gloss over, for the moment, the fact that there was no need to fabricate CCTV evidence for the simple reason that there was no CCTV evidence at all of three of the accused on the London Underground on the morning of 7 July 2005, however the fact that the police lied about when they viewed some footage from Luton is certainly noteworthy.

Much of paragraph 9 is the standard fare of objections trotted out routinely by official 'conspiracy theorists', in a not fantastically intellectually clever way, to quiet the objections raised by those who suspect something is not quite right with whatever story the general public are being fed. Similar methods were used to try and suppress the questioning of those who suggested that Colin Powell's cartoon evidence of Saddam Hussein's vast caches of 'weapons of mass destruction' (which he would have acquired from Western-sources) was largely fabricated. That evidence would also "have cost millions of pounds to fabricate", yet that is indeed what happened.

Conspiracies to "falsely implicate" individuals and groups of individuals that are "Simply unthinkable in a democratic country" are in fact quite routine and commonplace in democratic countries. The British State has a particularly exemplary history of "conspiracy to falsely implicate" through "independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service." We need not look terribly far back in history to find the cases of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Danny MacNamee, Judith Ward, and many others of Irish descent against whom the State conspired for its own politically expedient gains. Countless similar examples exist. Just to state the proposition (that the aforementioned were falsely implicated) was also dismissed as absurd at the time.

That the inquests did not uncover any such conspiracy comes as no surprise, for the function of an inquest is to determine how an individual died, where they died and when they died. The function is most certainly not that of a criminal investigation, in much the same way as the function of an inquest -- as re-stated both by Hallett and her Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith QC -- is most certainly not "to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals". Yet, in both instances of improper function of an inquest, this is what has occurred and the inquests have masqueraded as a legitimate form of investigation, trial and prosecution of four unrepresented men accused of a heinous crime.

Instead of "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot... of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country" that "would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service" and "cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence", what the public are left with is the same tidy, if inconsistent, unsubstantiated and unproven, 'narrative' that we started with and a proxy investigation, trial, prosecution, and judgement "that cost millions of pounds" that "involved hundreds of ordinary people... families, their friends...independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service."

The very same process succinctly described by Lady Justice Hallett outlining why "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in a murder plot" could not have occurred, is exactly the process by which the four accused have indeed been implicated, accused, tried and found guilty.

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, courtesy of Newsnight

Franz Kafka would have been justly proud of such a convoluted and contorted conclusion to the 7 July Inquests process.

Meanwhile, on the subject of the resumption of the inquests into the four accused:

The only submissions I have received have come from an organisation calling itself the July 7th Truth Campaign. I have considered those submissions, but in the light of all the evidence I have heard during the 52 inquests, I consider they have not provided any sufficient reason to resume the inquests into the four bombers.

One would hope, therefore, that these proceedings will be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7.

The inquests may well be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7 as far as the State is concerned, but the vast number of testimonies and evidential submissions generated by the inquests are just the beginning of the investigation of what happened on 7/7 for those who desire to know the truth.

Corporate Spookdom, 'plausible deniability' at the 7/7 Inquests

"The very grave danger is really as follows, entirely contrary to the interests of justice, that, as soon as any real probing questions are asked of this witness about what happened when -- which is not actually apparent and spelt out on the documents -- he or she will simply say that the witness does not know."

Patrick O'Connor, QC - 7/7 Inquests 21/01/2011

An order for anonymity was granted to 'Witness G' by Lady Justice Hallet on 21st January 2011. He or she (although probably a 'she' judging by Hugo Keith's opening statement when he made reference to a 'she' page 1: 17 ) will not be named and will be screened from the press and public.

'Witness G' will be appearing for the Security Service, MI5, as a 'corporate witness' to give evidence around the issue of 'Preventability', the issue that so vexes the bereaved families and survivors. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign's questions and issues around 'Preventability' are included in this detailed submission placed before the 7/7 Inquests back in July 2010.

Mr Hall, counsel for the Security Services, described 'Witness G' and his/her exceptional requirement for anonymity and screening - that would bar even the families from seeing this witness - in the following terms:

... a senior member of the Security Service with approximately 20 years' service. As a member of the Security Service, he represents an organisation which is uniquely identified with countering the terrorist threat, and he is therefore, as are all members of the Security Service, subject to particular threat personally and, as a senior member, may be an attractive target to a terrorist organisation, if identified.

Source: Transcripts, 21/01/2011. Page 3 Lines 20 on

None of the bereaved families nor the press had objected to anonymity for 'Witness G', what the families did object to was the need to screen him/her from them. Mr Hall conjured up the following bizarre scenarios to make his case for the need for 'Witness G' to be hidden from them:

Can I give you two examples? Firstly, a properly interested person recognises Witness G on a train, for example. They are both travelling on the same train together, and either advertently, or -- and this is a particular risk which, with respect, your Ladyship hasn't considered -- inadvertently, gives away who he is. Another person who regularly travels on the same train as Witness G and is of either hostile intent or has hostile intentions, overhears.

The second possibility is, if Witness G is deployed in a covert role against security-hardened and hostile targets. Again, a properly interested person, advertently, or inadvertently, gives away either who Witness G is, or that they recognise Witness G, and that allows the target to become aware either that Witness G is a member of the Security Service, or that he is not the person he is covertly deployed as. [ibid p12:4]

The brilliant Patrick O'Connor QC. representing many of the bereaved families, tore Mr Hall's arguments to shreds:

"Now, what we know about Witness G from his or her -- I must say for a long time I was saying "him", but we don't know -- Witness G's statement about his or her experience is as follows, and this is highly relevant to the assessment of risk: that he or she has been a member of the Security Service since 1991. Most significantly, for these purposes, since late 2005 -- so for the last five years -- has been the Chief of Staff for the Director General, giving policy advice, and being involved with the management of important strategic plans of important strategic significance. Now, not an unreasonable inference that Witness G has plainly been in Thames House for the vast majority or his or her time over the last five years and, since late 2000 -- so we are now covering back ten years -- between late 2000 and early 2004, certainly was a manager in the section dealing with international terrorism, though significantly not Islamist terrorism, and international terrorism, by the way, excludes Northern Ireland.

Now, we respectfully submit, therefore, that the possibility, which has been ventilated, of this witness being deployed in a covert role on the Falls Road or in the bandit country of south Armagh is, frankly, unrealistic. This is a witness who has moved beyond direct operational involvement where he may be recognised by targets or those hostile to him, whilst engaged in his or her work. Now, it may be there is more and contrary information in the closed material placed before you, but we submit that, on what we know, it really doesn't reflect very well on the reality of the submissions made in support of this application that possibilities should be conjured up which are as unreal as that.

Now, that's the position of Witness G and, my Lady, two further aspects of his or her personal situation. Again, the possibility that the witness may be recognised whilst commuting has been raised. I do not know if you have any material before you to show that actually Witness G does commute by public transport. This is the failure to engage with the individual facts of the case. Does he or doesn't he? Frankly, if he commutes by bicycle, or if he commutes by car -- we will put aside chauffeur-driven car -- it's not right that these possibilities should be placed before you in theory, when actually they are contradicted by the facts."

Source: Ibid Page 33 Lines 13 on

It would be fair to assume that the State has much to fear from Patrick O'Connor QC, judging by his very distinguished legal career which includes acting on behalf of the accused in many leading 'miscarriage of justice' appeals:

• the 'Guildford Four', for Gerry Conlon and his father, Giuseppe
• the 'Birmingham Six'
• the 'Carl Bridgewater' case, for Jimmy Robinson
• the 'M 25' appeal, for Raphael Rowe
• Andrew Evans, released after 25 years in prison for murder:
• Robert Maynard in the 'headless torso' case from the 1970s.

In several Privy Council death penalty appeals O'Connor has acted on a pro bono basis: Stanley Abbott, in 1976, authority on duress in murder, and 'Farrington', 1996, and 'Higgs', 1999.

He has acted for the defence in many high profile political and 'terrorist' criminal trials, including the 'Bradford 12', the Orgreave miners, the Harrods bombing and in 2003, the 'Real IRA' BBC and Ealing bombings: and the first major Islamic terrorism trial, 'Operation Crevice'.

He has defended in many murder trials, and prosecuted a high profile corporate manslaughter case. He acted for the DPP in the prosecution against BNP leaders for 'incitement to racial hatred' arising out of an undercover BBC operation.

For 20 years, he has pursued actions against the police, including:

• record damages in Rupert Taylor v CMP, 1988
• the first damages award for police 'torture', Treadaway v CC West Midlands, 1994
• the 2004, appeal Paul v CC Humberside, on the trial role of judge and jury
• the 2009 appeal Clifford v CC Herts Police, overturning the findings of fact of the Trial Judge.

The machinations of the Security Services and the Home Secretary Teresa May in delaying the release of documents, attempting to have all the 'Preventability' issues heard behind closed doors, and now putting forward what is essentially a completely useless corporate witness to face, but probably not answer, the questions to which the bereaved families, survivors and the general public want answers, are certainly not lost on Patrick O'Connor QC.

In the closing minutes of Friday's open hearing, after some time-wasting by Hugo Keith (whose own legal career in representing the interests of State, wealth and power is in direct contrast to O'Connor's), O'Connor made this strong argument against 'Witness G' being called as the lone 'corporate' witness for the Security Services:

"My Lady, on the question of adequacy of Witness G, I can literally do, in two or three minutes, what our thoughts are at the moment. There is, of course, no objection to Witness G being called at all. He is a well-positioned witness to talk about systems and resources.

However, he has absolutely no history of -- absolutely no involvement in any of these investigations by way of operational involvement or supervision. Secondly, he has, it seems, a complete absence of any involvement in any kind of Islamic terrorism investigations. Again, operationally or in a supervisory capacity. That is a very striking contrast, if we may say so, with the witnesses put forward by the Metropolitan Police Service -- Mr Prunty and Mr Clark -- who could not be better positioned to talk about the relevant issues, as well as Mr Parkinson from West Yorkshire Police. Slightly different, but similarly, very well qualified. We simply are puzzled by the fact that, for instance, an obvious witness would be the actual supervising manager of the desk officers concerned in 2003 to 2005, of these particular investigations, who had hands-on experience, and can actually answer real questions beyond the documents. That supervising manager will have been responsible for all the responses to the Intelligence and Security Committee. No question. So he or she will already have been deeply and profoundly involved in an accountability exercise which happened twice and lasted over some considerable time." [p77:20]

State lackey Hugo Keith, counsel to the Inquests, had previously made it clear that this wouldn't meet with his paymasters' approval:

"I'm bound to say that we have quite substantial objections to any application to my Lady that the Security Service be directed to put up another witness, for all sorts of obvious reasons." [p76:14]

The 'obvious reasons' alluded to but not defined by Keith remain a mystery. Meanwhile, the reasons given by O'Connor for the need for a witness that actually had oversight or ran the 'intelligence' officers in this case, and who might actually be able to answer the questions posed, are plain and obvious to all who want the truth; to whatever extent the 7/7 Inquests are capable of delivering any truth.

If Lady Justice Hallet truly wants these Inquests to meet the needs of the bereaved families that O'Connor represents, and if she intends to delve beneath the surface veneer of any MI5 and intelligence 'narrative' then we hope she will heed the wise words of Patrick O'Connor:

"... we specifically raised the fear that it would be a chosen witness who actually had no experience of the relevant times and the relevant operation. We feared that because that is something that's happened in other cases involving MI5.

This has to have been a deliberate choice, and I dare say that the relevant witnesses are in Thames House now. They may be in a different role. They may be promoted, but they are there. They have already gone through a number of accountability exercises, and they would be the critical witnesses, we submit. So we express grave reservations about the choice that has been made by the Security Service."

Patrick O'Connor QC - 7/7 Inquests 21/01/2011

Something is happening here & you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?

Richard Jones gave testimony under oath to the 7/7 Inquests on the afternoon of 12th January 2011. As J7 had previously noted, here, it was Mr Jones' many media appearances and accounts which helped propagate the 'suicide bomber' meme with regard to the Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square.

Mr Jones acknowledged during his testimony that he hadn't actually seen the man later identified as Hasib Hussain on this bus, as Hugo Keith was at pains to point out:

A. I mean, at no stage have I ever said that I actually saw the bomber. Right?
Q. No.
A. All I've ever, ever said was that somebody was acting unusually and annoying me on the bus.
Q. But I hope we've established, Mr Jones, that there appears to be no connection with the bomber and nor that that particular gentleman was doing anything other than acting as an ordinary member of the public, a passenger on the bus?
A. Correct.
Q. But your statement, I'm afraid, has been open to conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain.
A. Yes, I know.

Source: Transcripts 12th January 2011 pm page 23 lines 11-25

"All I've ever, ever said was that somebody was acting unusually and annoying me on the bus", claims Mr Jones. The fact he said this on so many news channels and in the press when interviewed on the day and afterwards, was a point that Richard Jones and Mr Keith both chose to ignore; an oddity perhaps, given that Jones' various 'eye-witness' accounts were so widely publicised in the days after 7/7. In fact, during his many media appearances Mr Jones never once contradicted the suggestions that he did in fact see 'the suspect'.

Richard Jones CBS interview from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Instead, the claim is made by Hugo Keith that Jones' many statements have 'been open to conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain'. This statement is interesting as the claim can be laid squarely, and solely, with the Government and the Home Office's Official Account of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, (the 'narrative'), a report whose anonymous author(s) state, 'summarises what the police, intelligence and security agencies have so far discovered about the bombers' and of which the then PM Tony Blair claimed: "We will bring together all the evidence that we have and we will publish it so that people, the victims and others, can see exactly what happened".

Of the 7 points made in the official narrative as "the key evidence indicating that these were co-ordinated suicide attacks by these 4 men", point 5 is:

Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks shortly before the explosions.

If the anonymous author(s) compiling the State's narrative actually had sight of the police and intelligence service evidence, rather than just media reports, how could they possibly have come to this conclusion? Is point 5 of only 7 points of key evidence merely 'conjecture and surmise'?

As for Richard Jones' diagram of the passengers on the lower deck of the Number 30 bus which he drew for the police on 9th July 2005, it is clear that he only had eyes for the 'Asian passengers' present. Apart from Male A the two other passengers he appears to have noticed, or at least the only two passengers he seems to have highlighted for the police, are both Asian females. What are we to learn from this about the racial prejudices and proclivities of Reuters' employee Richard Jones?

Enlarge

INQ10040-3: Drawing of Lower Deck of No. 30 Bus by Richard Jones

As J7 asked in our submission to the 7/7 Inquests - has the man who Mr Jones' describes as 'Male A' ever been identified? There appears to be no male of Mediterranean appearance, and fitting the descriptions given by Richard Jones in his interviews, in this diagram of passengers on the Number 30 bus prepared for the 7/7 Inquests:

Enlarge

INQ10285-6: Probable position of passengers at time of explosion (No. 30 Bus)

What else in the State's official narrative - amended twice since its publication - is also based on such shoddy and unsubstantiated evidence as that given by Richard Jones? How much of the remainder of the narrative is actually based on 'conjecture and surmise in the way of these things in the public domain'?

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:

Enlarge

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.

Source: Transcripts 22 November morning session Page 41 Lines 11-15

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

Enlarge

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:

Enlarge

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:

Enlarge

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

Source: Transcripts 22 November morning session Page 59 Lines 15 on

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.

Enlarge

Enlarge

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.

Source: Transcripts 24 November morning session page 73 Lines 13 on

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.

Source: Transcripts 24 November morning session page 79 Lines 2 on

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.

Enlarge

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.

Source: Transcripts 24 November morning session page 62 lines 15 on

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.

Source: Transcripts 24 November am, page59 line 8 on

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.)

Shiv Malik Prospect Magazine

Khan clearly became disenchanted with the modest form of Islam practised by his father, Tika Khan, and stepmother, Mamida Begum.

Ian Herbert The Independent

The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime

Two weeks into the 7/7 Inquests and we've heard about the strange lack of CCTV footage of any of the four accused from the day, the even stranger account of the police investigation which led to the car park in Luton before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station, the lack of interest in pursuing and interviewing a 'fifth man' and now we have the strange case of a Jaguar at Luton that seems to appear there at the same time as the accused on both 28 June 2005 and 7 July 2005.

Before the Inquests started no CCTV footage had been released showing how three of the accused, Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, made their journey to Luton Station on 28 June 2005, a journey touted as a dummy run or rehearsal for 7/7.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by J7 asking for precisely these details was refused by the Home Office.

The Official Home Office report into the events of 7/7 (the "narrative") states:

Other aspects of the planning

65. There appears to have been at least one recce visit to London on 28 June by Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, but not Hussain. They made a similar journey from Luton to King’s Cross early in the morning and travelled on the underground. They are picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time. Lindsay was later found to have a chart of times taken to travel between stations which he might have written during this recce. Tickets found at 18 Alexandra Grove also suggest visits to London in mid-March.

66. 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. There are some indications that Khan was worried about being under surveillance during this time.

Source: Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005

At some point in early 2011, the Inquests will hear the evidence regarding how the events of 7 July 2005 were investigated, so it might be worth bearing in mind events that occurred in Luton car park on these two days.

Perhaps the Inquests will also help explain why men so 'worried about being under surveillance' would hang on to their tickets from a journey to London in mid March, and also how these tickets came to be found in 18 Alexandra Grove, the alleged 'bomb factory', a location that apparently wasn't used until June 2005, some three months later.

In his Opening Statement to the Inquests, Mr Hugo Keith QC, felt the need to mention Conspiracy Theories that have arisen around the lack of released CCTV footage and the quality of the footage that had. He continued:

[MR KEITH] Turning to the CCTV which appears to be the object of the substantial bulk of the claims, there is nothing to suggest that, where there is CCTV missing, this reflects anything other than the fact that many CCTV systems do not continuously record.

Source: Transcripts 11 October 2010
Afternoon session, page 7, line 25 on

Where there is CCTV missing, Mr Keith? Such as King's Cross underground station, the McDonalds visited by Hasib Hussain, the number 91 and 30 buses that Hussain is alleged to have boarded, as well as at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005.

Whilst we have no evidence to suggest that there is anything sinister about the coincidental movements of a dark-coloured Jaguar at Luton station on the mornings of both 28 June 2005 - the 'rehearsal' - and 7 July 2005, there is plainly evidence of more than a lack of 'recording continuously'.

What is evident is the editing of the CCTV footage at significant moments, which begs the questions:

What precisely is being cut from this footage, and Why?

Jaguar at Luton station car park from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

Update: The graphic below shows:

1. The last frame of CCTV footage before the cut,
2. The first frame of CCTV footage after the cut,
3. An animated panel that cycles through images 1 & 2.

Click to Enlarge & Animate

Graphic showing the CCTV frames before and after the cut

Behind the Scenes of the Aldgate Explosion, at 11 minutes to 9

So we can say with confidence that the explosion at Aldgate occurred at that moment, 08.49.00

Source: Hugo Keith, Opening Statement
11 October 2010, page 16 Lines 3 -5

J7's submission to the Coroner, detailing questions and anomalies that have arisen regarding this event, can be downloaded here. and our analysis of the events at Aldgate can be viewed on the J7 website here.

Week Two of the 7/7 Inquests has concentrated on the issue outlined in the Provisional List of Factual Issues as:

The explosions and the immediate aftermath
3. Circumstances at each of the four scenes immediately following the explosions

The first scene under scrutiny is Aldgate.

Compared to the first week of the inquests, this second week has been particularly harrowing, hearing the reports about those who died and the stories of others who were severely injured. Tales of humanity and heroism have also emerged, along with inspirational accounts of overcoming horrendous injuries.

Mr Hugo Keith QC, Counsel to the Inquests, opened the proceedings by reading a statement which has not yet been released onto the Inquest website. Reading statements to the Inquests presupposes that none of the information it covers is contentious and the author will not be open to questioning. This following statement was prepared by Mr John Porter, a London Underground power control room manager, written on 26 July 2005, and followed by a supplementary statement dated 29 September 2010:

"When the device on the train between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations exploded, it damaged three power assets, an 11-kilovolt feeder cable number 642", which is the feeder cable to which I made reference in my opening "running along the tunnel wall and its associated pilot cable, pilot number 62, and a signal main cable between Moorgate and Tower Hill which provided the power for the signal supplies between Moorgate and Aldgate. "The danger to the number 642 feeder cable caused the 11-kilovolt electrical feeder to trip at Moorgate substation at 08.48.40. This in turn caused the 22-kilovolt coupling transformers, which supply the Mansell Street distribution network, to trip at 8.49.02. This caused widespread power disruption to a significant area of the London Underground network."

Source: Transcripts, 18 October

Morning session, page 4, lines 6 on

To illustrate the widespread disruption caused by the loss of power at Mansell Street. this image was shown and released as evidence:

Click to Enlarge

We'll let Mr Keith off with the 20 seconds between the "11-kilovolt electrical feeder tripping at Moorgate substation at 08.48.40" to allow him to remain confident of his opening statement, after all, what's 20 seconds in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps he has a pressing need for this first event on 7 July 2005 to have the significance of occurring at 11 minutes to 9?

Keith reiterates the 08.49 timing:

"... and would explain that the times referred to are approximate times recorded by the power control operation in the handwritten logs. The times I have referred to are the actual times extracted from the power system computerised event logs. "In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King's Cross/Russell Square."

Source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010

Morning Session, page 9, Lines 6-19

London Underground runs a train monitoring system called Trackernet. TrackerNet is one of London Underground's key operational systems that monitors the whereabouts of every single underground train on the network. The system received a lot of coverage earlier this year when TfL lifted all restrictions on the commercial use of its data and provided access to real-time train information.

Tim O'Toole, the Managing Director of London Underground at the time of the events of 7 July 2005, released a series of Trackernet images at a press conference on July 9th, saying:

"You can see what has happened is the track circuits on all of those other lines, you can see the orange lines indicate that an event has occurred to trip out the power system. And that was almost certainly the blast. And this software allows us to confirm the timings."

Copies of these Trackernet images can be viewed on the J7 website and were included in our Submission to the Coroner. Curiously, the Trackernet images from Aldgate on 7 July 2005 don't appear to have made it into the Inquest bundle of evidence, or at least not yet, although the Trackernet images of Edgware Road have. Over to Hugo:

My Lady, we don't have, in fact, a trackernet image for the eastbound Circle Line train, but in respect of train 216, its last movement was timed at approximately 8.49.46 and we have a trackernet image for that train.

source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning, page 11. Lines 9-12

Quite what the Trackernet image for train 216 at Edgware Road has to do with the Provisional List of Factual Issues, 3 and the "Circumstances at Aldgate immediately following the explosions" only Keith knows.

After five years of dedicated and dogged research J7 might hazard a guess that the reason for this could perhaps be that the explosion didn't actually occur at Aldgate at 08.49, despite all Mr Keith's efforts to make it so.

This Trackernet image of the time of the explosion has been annotated by J7 using the Working Time Table for the London Underground, which we obtained through a Freedom of Information Request. The information it contains may well be the reason Mr Keith hasn't shown any Aldgate Trackernet images at the 7/7 Inquest.

Click to Enlarge

Circle Line train 204 has left Liverpool Street and is in the tunnel on its way to Aldgate station. All other trains in this image are also in their correct places, according to the Working Timetable, if the time of this explosion is 08.46.30, the time that train 204 was in transit to Aldgate, not 08.49. Unless all these trains were running late on the London Underground, Circle Line train 204 would have been in transit between Aldgate and Tower Hill at 08.49. Train 204 appears to have been running on time; a FOI Request to TfL, asking for the time that it was at King's Cross received the response of 08.35 - corresponding to the timetable.

The time of 08.46.30 is also confirmed by the only CCTV footage that has been released to date from any of the stations that were affected that morning, showing Liverpool Street station as Circle Line train 204 arrives and leaves, and the moments when smoke billows from the tunnel whilst commuters run back along the platform in reaction to the noise:

7th July 2005 CCTV of explosion at Liverpool Street station from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

As Circle Line 204 was due into Liverpool Street at 08.44 and the CCTV footage is showing a timestamp of 07.44.20, it is likely that this footage is one hour out due to the adjustment for British Summer Time rather than the time being out by the odd figure of 1 hour and 3 minutes claimed by DI Kindness in an exchange with Mr Keith:

A. [DI KINDNESS] This footage will show the frontal view of the 204 train number, Circle Line train pulling into Liverpool Street station, and it's coming towards the camera at the moment.
Q.MR KEITH] Officer, this is Liverpool Street. It stands to reason that the bomb, if it entered the train at King's Cross, is already on that train.
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. As is the bomber.
A. That's correct. This image shows the last -- the first carriage of the train.
Q. The timing in the top left-hand corner, although the CCTV itself shows 07.44, did your researches show that, in fact, the CCTV system itself was one hour and three minutes slow?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. So we mustn't be misled by that timing. The timing of this is, in fact, 08.47 or thereabouts?

Source: Transcripts 14 October 2010

Afternoon session, page 9, Lines 5-24

Incorporating the adjustment for British Summer Time, Circle Line train 204 leaves Liverpool Street at 08.45.40, and the explosion happens (according to the smoke & passengers running) at 08.46.35. (Note: There are 39 seconds of footage missing). This is exactly the time estimated by J7 for this explosion according to the Trackernet image, evidence which Mr Keith has chosen not to exhibit.

To ensure that even the British Transport Police officer, DI Baker, present at Aldgate on 7 July 2005, has got his timings wrong, and to ensure Mr Keith can maintain his confidence in his and the narrative's timing of 08.49, there is also this exchange during the Inquests:

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Sorry, can we just go back? The time of this second call?
MR KEITH: According to the transcript, my Lady, it's 08.52.40. There has been a certain degree of confusion, I think, in the past as to whether or not that time indicates the beginning or the end of the call. These transcripts have been revised now a number of times to reflect the accurate time of each call. My learned friend Mr Gibbs might be able to assist in relation to whether or not that time indicates the beginning or the end of the call now.
MR GIBBS: It indicates beginning of the call.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Right, so it indicates that a call is made by Mr Baker at 08.52.40 and a second or two into
MR GIBBS: That's right. Whether that timing is accurate is a matter still of some conjecture, but that is the timing that we have.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Well, Mr Baker, on the question of timing, given we know what time the explosion occurred, does 08.52.40 seem to be about right for when you made the second call?
A. [DI BAKER] It does. We were there pretty much instantly and trying to ascertain what was going on, so it was merely a few minutes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you.
MR KEITH: My Lady, if it assists, may I just refer you to the Aldgate time line, which is at INQ10426 [INQ10426-1]? The first entry you may recall from the opening is at 08.47.38, which is a BTP call from London Underground, but we know from the absolute time at which the explosion occurred, which was 08.49.00, that that call, which is taken from the same exhibit, BTP167 must therefore be about one minute and 40 seconds out, and that is our best estimate as to the accuracy of those transcripts.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: So if that was right then this call is about 08.54?
MR KEITH: Absolutely.

Source: Transcripts 20 October 2010

Afternoon session, Page 60, Lines 11 on

Editing transcripts? Adjusting CCTV timings? Withholding Trackernet images? All to make the 08.49 timing fit? Fixing the evidence to fit predetermined facts? Whatever next?

This is insulting to the bereaved and survivors who deserve the truth, and is not the role of the Inquests which, if it is to fulfill the proper function of an Inquest, should be examining the evidence to uncover the facts, particularly when one fact, based on the available evidence is:

The explosion at Aldgate on Circle Line Train 204 DID NOT occur at 08.49. It occurred between 08.46.30 and 08.47.

After just two weeks into a five month hearing, can anyone have any faith in this Inquest process?

Accounts of power surges and electrocution and whether Shehzad Tanweer was actually sighted on train 204 to follow.