7/7 Ten Years On - An indictment of the State and the state of investigative journalism

As the tenth anniversary of 7th July 2005 materialises much will be written and broadcast around the official 'narrative' of what happened that fateful day. Ten years on and you might think that there would not be much more that could be learned about what happened. Yet, on 6^th July 2015, we learn from the former head of the Counter Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard between 2002 and 2008, Peter Clarke, that:

I spent the weekend before the London bombings of July 7 2005 with my colleagues in the anti-terorism branch, working through our response to the most difficult scenario we could think of. The one we came up with was multiple simultaneous attacks on the Tube. Four days later, our musings became a dreadful reality.

How prescient a scenario this was, mirroring as it did a Panaroma 'documentary' from 2004, as well as crisis management exercises that were running on the day of 7^th July 2005 that were also operating around a similar scenario. The idea of a series of explosions across the underground network seems to have been very common currency for quite some time among the anti-terror brigades.

J7 have received the usual barrage of requests for comment in recent weeks from various media organisations who are forced to care, for a brief time at least, about the events of 7/7 by dint of the fact that an anniversary is on the cards. Some requests have provided questions to which they would like responses from the J7 team of researchers. One such journalist is Jack Sommers of the Huffington Post. In response to his questions and those of other journalists asking for comment on similar issues, J7 offers the following.

Do you regard the official version of events of what happened, on the balance of probabilities, as the most plausible? If not, what version of events do you find most plausible

It's not up to J7 to provide plausible explanations of what happened; our job is to ask the right questions and try to elicit truthful or revealing answers from the authorities. There still exists the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore the burden of proof is on the State to prove its case for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.  Ten years on the State has provided no evidence, other than that which is purely circumstantial, speculative or presumed that would secure a successful conviction of the four accused.  It took almost 4 years for the authorities to fudge a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted 13 days after 7th July 2005 requesting the basis of how the alleged bombers' ID was apparently determined.

Has the momentum behind J7 grown or shrunk in recent years since the inquest into the 52 people killed? Why?

The same momentum will always be there in a search for the truth of what happened. 7/7 is not unique in this regard. The same momentum and movement for truth as possessed by the grand-daughter of Alice Wheeldon who is still pursuing justice after the setting-up of her grandmother in 1916 by MI5. Records and information was hidden behind official secrecy as part of a concerted State cover-up that ran for over 80 years. The same momentum as the relatives of the 21 killed during the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, who have never even had an inquest into the deaths of their loved ones, while the state incarcerated innocent people for over 16 years, as a government 75 year ban on disclosure of relevant material to the case continues.

Truth is a powerful thing and those who seek truth and justice are persistent in their quest and, as history as shown, that quest is passed down through the generations.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

What aspect of the official narrative do you find least convincing and does this make you doubt the narrative overall?

The official narrative is a deeply flawed document and has been amended as a result of information uncovered by J7. Secret and in camera hearings during the Inquest by a specially appointed privy councillor judge cast further doubt on the transparency of the process and the veracity of the story told in the 'narrative'. It is worth remembering that the definition of a narrative is this: "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious." We believe that a story that might be truthful or fictitious is not sufficient explanation for an event the magnitude of 7/7, nor is it sufficient to convict the accused without trial.

Why is an inquest into the 4 men accused of carrying out 7/7 important? Why do you think they have they not happened?

It is not only important, it is a requirement of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. J7 are still waiting for investigative journalists imbued with the tenacity to uncover the facts around quite why the State has failed to conduct an inquest into the deaths of the accused, as well as all the other issues that exist around the truth of what happened on 7/7.  J7 submitted a request for a resumption of the inquests into the deaths of the 4 accused to Lady Justice Hallett during the 7/7 Inquests proceedings.

The inquests into 52 of the deaths on 7th July 2005 commenced over five years after the deaths occurred and only after the government tried to implement the power to use ‘suitably trained and cleared coroners and counsel’ to undertake inquests without juries. André Rebello, Coroner for the City of Liverpool, honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society and the executive officer of the Coroners’ Society confirmed that there had been no consultation with the coroners themselves and was asked in 2008, "What is your view of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State?"  His response is telling:

"I am very uncomfortable about that. I think that it drives a coach and horses through the separation of powers. If a suitably qualified or specially ticketed coroner needs to be brought in, it certainly cannot be any part of the Executive that appoints the coroner. Well, it could be, but our rule of law would be going out the window."

The measures incorporating secret juries and specially appointed coroners passed through Parliament by a slim majority of only eight votes, on Thursday, 12 November 2009. The process was assisted no less by a procedural farce engineered by Jack Straw. The procedural farce included a reported number of Labour MPs who apparently voted the wrong way by mistake.

How do you respond to those who say the promotion of alternative theories has been upsetting for survivors of the attacks? What about those who have attacked those survivors personally? (Such as this: rachel-north-liar-and-charletane.blogspot.ie/)

J7 has always walked the fine line between the official doctrine contained in the narrative and those who ostensibly question the official story but posit their own evidence-free pet theories about what happened.  J7 research and writings are based on facts that we have established through continued research, endless FOI requests, and information placed into the public domain by the authorities along the way.

Have you ever received support from either survivors of 7/7 or the relatives of those killed? If so, what was it?

Yes. Overwhelmingly the feedback we have received from those directly affected by 7/7 have been supportive of our quest to get the truth of what actually happened. Further evidence of this can be seen from the many occasions when J7's research was cited or used during the course of the 7/7 Inquests and presented before the court by the representatives of the bereaved. Survivors and relatives also want to know the truth about what happened and their loved ones. If anything, the truth about what happened is vastly more important to them than it is to those of us who do not accept the official narrative for the reasons we have carefully and painstakingly documented in depth over the last decade.

Ten years on from the events in London on July 7^th 2005, what we know about them remains exactly as it was at the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests back in 2011, which we highlighted again on the 6^th anniversary. Just some of these are mentioned below for anyone that might think an event of the significance of 7/7 should be justly and judiciously investigated to uncover the truth about what happened and how it happened.

Without a full and independent Public Inquiry, held outside of the restrictive remit of the Inquiries Act 2005, it remains the case that:

• The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the 'LifeExtinct' 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 recorded 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, a temporary CCTV system was installed at King's Cross underground and malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30am and 8.50am. Additionally, there is no CCTV footage showing the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence places three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
• No CCTV from pre-incidence 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 carriages they are alleged to have boarded.  Why has it not been released? 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 fact that no internal post mortems of the victims were conducted; the lack of post mortems itself being a jarring anomaly.
• No CCTV exists from McDonald's showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb.  It was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV footage actually turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
• No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the two 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 of the buses.
• 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.  Clearly, not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet about a significant aspect of 7/7.
• 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 British and American Intelligence, one of whom served an insanely short period of time in a US prison, before being quietly released, for crimes far greater than the crimes of those his testimonies put behind bars for far longer sentences.

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

Without a doubt the State itself will never provide answers to these questions without the dogged persistence of independent researchers in their quests for truth, nor until investigative journalists – if such beings still exist – have the courage to honestly start examining the many unanswered questions that exist and those which are raised by the complete lack of conclusive evidence produced in the story (for that is what a 'narrative' is) so far. Until then we'll all have to put up with the 'churnalism' of official State-dictated 'narratives' that we have all come to know and despise.

Meanwhile, J7's quest for the truth about what happened on the day of 7th July 2005 continues.

New 7/7 Video by Tom Secker, 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

A recently released film about the subject of 7/7, based on the researches and investigations of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, which includes details of the British State's history of collusion and complicity in previous terrorist attacks, coverage of related news and stories, as well as information about the proceedings that took place at the 7/7 Inquests:

A brand new investigative and analytical documentary from the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. It explores the 7/7 cold case via new evidence from the recent inquests and discusses the war on terror in the context of numerous miscarriages of justice and acts of violence committed by the state.

The first section of the film examines the history of the British state's use of double agents, from the Victorian Anarchists through WW2 to the war in Northern Ireland. It concludes by examining contemporary cases of injustice and violence carried out as part of the war of terror against Muslims. 

The second section of the film is a multi-dimensional study of the new evidence made available at the recent inquests. It looks at the evidence of a wider conspiracy and the fundamental flaws in the official narrative and the police investigation. It also discusses why the dialogue about 'intelligence failures' itself fails to address the very real possibility of state involvement in the attacks. 

The final section of the film returns to the Anarchists and the case of Martial Bourdin, Britain's first suicide bomber, in 1894. The mythology surrounding Bourdin is used as a foundation for examining the numerous films, tv shows training exercises and real life events that either predicted 7/7 or were influenced by the attacks. The question of conspiracy theories is addressed through an original analysis unique to this film. 

7/7 Crime and Prejudice combines a presentation of the cutting edge of July 7th research with a deeply contextual analysis that casts light on largely unexamined aspects of the war on terror. 

For further information about 7/7 please visit the website of the July 7th Truth Campaign and their dedicated 7/7 Inquests blog:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/
 

7/7: Crime and Prejudice from Tom Secker on Vimeo.

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

A cat amongst the [stool] pigeons - Mohammed Junaid Babar

An article in today's Guardian asks some of the questions that J7 posed to the 7/7 Inquests when we sent our submission on Preventability to the coroner and counsel in July 2010.

In light of the Guardian series of articles regarding this issue, we reproduce below our submission listing the serious issues that arise from the role that Mohammed Junaid Babar has played in the events of not only 7th July 2005 but also the so-called 'fertilizer bomb plot', apparently scuppered by Operation Crevice, and also the incarceration of Fahad Hashmi:

CREVICE TRIAL

Without the testimony of 'Supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar at the Crevice trial, would there have been enough evidence against these men to merit the 40 year life sentences they received? Especially given the statement read on behalf of these men at the end of the Crevice trial explicitly denied that there was any plot to attack the UK:

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims."⁹

WIDER CONNECTIONS

The section in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues entitled “Preventability” comprises by far the bulk of the index. Further, the bulk of areas outlined in points 13-23 relate directly to just two of the accused, Khan and Tanweer, and their interactions with others connected to Operation Crevice, notably, and mostly, Omar Khyam. There are wider connections over and above those between Khan (now deceased) and Khyam (serving a life sentence, received in no small part due to the testimony of the prosecution's 'star witness'¹⁴ Junaid Babar), featuring individuals that appear to create and facilitate links between disparate individuals and groups across continents, and we outline these for informational purposes below. Many of these individuals appear to have protected status in that they have either never been arrested or have miraculously evaded prosecution over a period of time when many lesser figures were rendered to the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.

Much is made of the failings of West Yorkshire police and the security services to properly investigate and/or assess Khan and Tanweer, particularly in the two years prior to 7th July 2005. However, there is an important question to be asked here:

How would Khan and Tanweer have known that they were not under investigation given the following facts:

29 March 2004: Momin Khawaja was arrested in Canada in the culmination of what was reported as a “a month long sting operation”

30 March 2004: Eight arrests were made of men who were known to Khan and Tanweer as part of Operation Crevice.

June 2004: news broke that the FBI had been holding Mohammed Junaid Babar in custody in New York since April 2004. It was reported that he was negotiating a plea bargain with the authorities.

Junaid Babar, a US citizen had being widely reported since November 2001, declaring support for the 9/11 attacks and announcing he was recruiting fighters to fight against US forces in Afghanistan:

As the TV camera rolled Mohammed Junaid Babar’s eyes shone indignantly behind nerdish glasses: “There is no negotiation with the Americans. I will kill every American that I see in Afghanistan, and every American I see in Pakistan.”¹⁵

Jon Gilbert, who conducted interviews with Junaid Babar, later mused:

“The conundrum still remains, though. Why did Babar talk to me so willingly in the first place? It’s a question that I’ve been asking myself for more than six years. Some suggest that he may have already been an FBI agent.“¹⁶

Despite making inflammatory and widely publicised pronouncements about being an Islamic warrior, despite seemingly declaring war on Americans, and despite his being a key facilitator in the alleged “terror training camps” in Pakistan (akin to the U.K equivalent of 'Q', Mohammed Quayyum Khan, also a part-time taxi driver), Junaid Babar appears to have been allowed to travel freely between Pakistan and the UK, as shown by the Operation Crevice timeline compiled by the Metropolitan Police¹⁷.

2001-2004
· Pakistani-born Mohammed Junaid Babar leaves his home in the USA, just days after 9/11 and travels to Pakistan to live

Spring 2003
· Mohammed Junaid Babar meets Omar Khyam and Waheed Mahmood in England.

January 2004
· Mohammed Junaid Babar travels to England and subsequently meets Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar and Anthony Garcia

The results of a joint BBC Radio 4 File on 4 and Newsnight investigation also revealed that, “We understand that Siddique Khan was also seen with this man [Junaid Babar] in Leeds in 2003.”¹⁸

Hassan Butt, who first facilitated Junaid Babar's stay in Pakistan¹⁹, describes a meeting between Babar and Khan in Leeds, held after attending a barbecue to raise money for 'training camps' which is attended by a number of prolific propagandists and provocateurs for 'extremist' 'Islam'.

Butt reveals that after the jihadist barbecue he drove to Khan’s home near Leeds with another guest, Mohammed Junaid Babar, who would shortly become a supergrass. Babar’s testimony helped to secure the conviction last week of five members of the Crevice gang, who had planned to blow up — among other targets — the Bluewater shopping mall in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

Although Babar describes the barbecue in his testimony, he does not refer to the drive north, nor to some of the guests named by Butt.
...
The host was a long-standing activist of Al-Muhajiroun, the group set up by Sheikh Omar Bakri in 1996
...
The guest list included men who were later to become notorious. Among them, claims Butt, was Mohammed Quayyum Khan, a part-time taxi driver from Luton who is alleged to have sent Mohammad Sidique Khan to the Malakand training camp on behalf of Al-Qaeda.
…
Butt, who had borrowed his brother’s navy blue Audi TT to get to the party from his home in Manchester, decided it was time to head back north. Babar asked to be dropped off near Leeds. ..

As the sun rose, Babar directed Butt to a terrace house in Batley, West Yorkshire, 15 minutes from the M1. A man in pyjamas came out to greet them. It was Mohammad Sidique Khan.

Butt had met Khan before. Babar had introduced them in 2002 at a gathering at Butt’s flat in Islamabad. Khan now recognised Butt and asked him if he wanted to come in.²⁰

How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile? Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent? How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?

FOI requests to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office submitted by J7 have been refused in respect of attempts by independent researchers to assess this information.

On Babar's second visit to Britain, he stayed with Fahad Hashmi in London and left behind some waterproof socks and a pair of night vision goggles. Junaid Babar went on to become the State's star-witness for the prosecution in the Crevice and Khawaja trials, and his testimony also resulted in a 15 year sentence for Syed Fahad Hashmi, who had previously been extradited to the US from the UK on the basis of the “glorified camping equipment”²¹ that Babar had left at Hashmi's residence. This was then reported as:

Hashmi, who moved to Britain from Queens in 2003, allegedly allowed his London flat to be used to store supplies and money that Babar was shipping to Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, then head of al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.²²

Hashmi spent over 3 years under SAMS, extreme measures which included total isolation whilst facing a life sentence for this 'crime'.

Babar was also the source for the aluminium powder which featured in the Crevice trial.

The government would further prove that the defendant purchased and attempted to purchase the aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate that he knew would be used in explosive devices in the bombing plot in the United Kingdom, and that he did this throughout from December 2002 through March of 2004²³.

On 6th April 2004, Babar returned to the US but was not arrested or detained until 10th April 2004 when he was picked up by the FBI whilst on his way to a 'taxi school' in Queens, NY.

This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done? How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?

Footnotes

9 J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign - The People's Independent Public Inquiry into 7/7 - http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/crevice/crevice-imran-khan-statement-for-defendants.html

13 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v MOHAMMAD MOMIN KHAWAJA [2007 FC 490] Ottawa, Ontario, May 7, 2007 [PDF]- http://www.icj.org/IMG/Khawaja-Evidence.pdf

14 Canada's anti-terror legislation vs. Ottawa's Momin Khawaja - http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=1bc4587f-748c-45be-8668-116fdb57619b

15 The supergrass I helped to create - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1737411.ece

16 Ibid.

17 OPERATION CREVICE, Timeline and facts and figures - Metropolitan Police Service - http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/MPS_OpCreviceTimeline.pdf

18 BBC - Press Office - Newsnight/File on 4 investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/25/khan.shtml

19 Was CBS Duped by Radical Islamist? - http://www.aim.org/guest-column/was-cbs-duped-by-radical-islamist/

20 The jihadi house parties of hate - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1752338.ece

21 U.S. student pleads not guilty in terrorism case - World news - Terrorism - msnbc.com - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923836/38180585

22 Focus: Is the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun waiting to strike again? | World news | The Observer - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/06/terrorism.jamiedoward

23 http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/853.pdf

To reiterate some of the questions that J7 posed to the Coroner that now require urgent answers if we are to understand what truly happened on 7 July 2005, how it happened, why it happened, and who made it happen:

• How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile?
• Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent?
• How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?
• [Babar entered the US] This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done?
  
• How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?
  

Ms Gallagher has raised some of the issues presented in the Guardian articles during this morning's Inquests hearings. She spoke on behalf of Mr Foulkes, father of David Foulkes, who was interviewed by the Guardian and quoted as saying "the terms of reference of the inquest are too narrow to deal with such questions and thinks that it should be suspended while they are re-evaluated":

.. He's asked me to make clear that his concern is not that scope is too narrow and, indeed, the scope ruling fully encompasses the issue of preventability and it's going to be explored next week, but what he does want to ensure is that the inquest has all relevant information and is in a position to fully explore this issue, including the potentially new information referred to in the article and the material that he's seen. Mr Foulkes is, of course, aware that there are PII materials which we haven't seen. It may be that this wasn't a new issue to the Inquest team and to you, my Lady. It may be that this is covered in bundle A and bundle B, which the legal teams and the families haven't seen. But Mr Foulkes' concern is this: he wishes to ensure that the Security Services give a clear statement to the inquest: (a) that they're not aware of any basis for the suggestion that Babar had been an informant for the authorities for any country prior to his detention in New York City in April 2004; and (b) that they've provided to the Inquest team and the coroner all information which they have in respect of Babar and US/UK communications in respect of him, and Mr Foulkes' comment to the press --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As relevant to these proceedings.
MS GALLAGHER: Precisely. Mr Foulkes' comment to the press was intended to suggest that, if the Inquest team didn't have those assurances, then suspension might be required, and it's an understandable and defensible comment which he made at the time in those circumstances.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 14 February 2011 morning page 50 lines 22 on

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

7/7 Inquests: Danny Biddle, the Rucksack on the Lap - and the Explosion on the Floor

Yesterday, 8 November, saw Danny Biddle as the opening witness at the 7/7 Inquest with regard to the Edgware Road incident (Factual Issue 3: Circumstances at each of the four scenes immediately following the explosions).

As the only witness to ever publicly claim to have actually seen Mohammed Sidique Khan on Circle Line train 216 at Edgware Road the media paid close attention to his testimony. Today's headlines scream out:

• "Daniel Biddle: I was just 6ft from 7/7 bomb as it maimed me"
• "7/7 survivor describes moment he saw terrorist leader detonate bomb on London tube"
• "London bombings survivor saw bomb detonated"

However, there is more to the headlines than meets the eye, and more than might be gleaned from the media reports of Mr Biddle's testimony.

J7 have previously highlighted the many inconsistencies in Mr Biddle's accounts in our Edgware Road analysis on the July 7th Truth Campaign website. We also included this information in our submissions to the Inquests in the J7 response to factual issue 2. The many and varied accounts of Danny Biddle, as reported in the media, were referenced by Hugo Keith as Danny Biddle gave his testimony:

A.[DANIEL PAUL BIDDLE] No, I mean, there was nothing about him that made me think he was dangerous in any way or anything like that. If there would have been, I would have got off the train and got help. I mean, he was just a -- he looked like a normal guy going to work within London, whatever he did, and there was nothing that he did that made him stand out different to anybody else at that particular moment in time.
Q. [MR KEITH] Do you recollect him carrying anything?
A. He had a rucksack, like a small, black camping rucksack.
Q. Was he holding it or carrying it in a particular way that you can recall?
A. I remember it being on his lap.
Q. Mr Biddle, not unsurprisingly, the story of how you survived the bomb at Edgware Road has been widely reported in the press and around the world and a number of reports have purported to give accounts of your experience and memories of that day, and in those accounts there are repeated references to the possibility that the man might have been wearing a rucksack on his back, and that is what you recollect.
A. I've said all the way along from the very first statement I gave to the police he had it on his lap.
Q. Did he have one rucksack or two, or one or two bags? Was there anything else that he was carrying?
A. No, I just saw one rucksack.

Q. Can you tell us a little bit more, if you can, about the size of it?
A. I would say it would be about so big. It wasn't -- it was one of those sort of small camping rucksacks that you often see people that are going hiking would carry, so it wasn't like a full-sized camping rucksack, it was just a small to medium-sized camping rucksack. As I say, so big. [p31, 18 on]

Mr Biddle then continues with his testimony which, as noted above, has been widely and unquestioningly reported as an apparent confirmed witness account of Mohammed Sidique Khan allegedly detonating a suicide bomb at Edgware Road:

[MR BIDDLE] The train entered the Tube tunnel, I looked round, as I looked round, he looked up, I just saw a quick movement, then there was just a big, white flash, the kind of noise that you get when you tune a radio in, that kind of white sound, and it just felt like the carriage I was standing in filled -- just expanded at such a vast rate and contracted quickly and, with that, it blew me off my feet and through the carriage doors into the tunnel.
Q.[MR KEITH] When you say you saw a quick movement, what do you think was the movement that you saw? Was it some part of his body, or was it a movement in the bag?
A. It was his arm, he did that with his hand in the rucksack and the next thing --
Q. Because these proceedings can't record what you've shown us, did you just demonstrate that you saw an arm move somewhere near the rucksack?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you see what precisely moved or whether there was any movement in the rucksack itself?
A. Literally, as soon as his arm moved, I was outside the carriage.
Q. Do we take it from what you've said that the rucksack was still on his lap, or was it on the ground?
A. When he made the arm movement, the rucksack was still on his lap.
Q. Were you able to discern any sort of expression or any sort of look on him at that moment?
A. I mean, before he set device off, he looked up and along the carriage and then he just looked down. He didn't say anything, he didn't shout anything that I can
remember hearing. He just put his head down, moved his arm and, the next thing, I'm outside the train.
Q. What was your first conscious thought after that?
A. I'd fallen out the train. [p33, 8 on]

Later in the proceedings Mr Biddle is questioned by Mr Saunders, representing some of the bereaved:

MR SAUNDERS: Mr Biddle, I will be equally short. You have described to Mr Keith seeing Khan's arm moving quickly. In your statement in December I think you gave a little more detail where you thought you'd seen him with a white cord at the rucksack?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's what you thought was being pulled?
A. That's what it looked like. As he pulled his arm, that's what it looked like he was holding, but I couldn't ascertain if that was from inside the bag or part of the bag. [p44, 21]

Source: Hearing Transcripts 8 November 2010, Morning session

As J7 noted some time ago in our analysis of the various statements of Danny Biddle reported in the media, the Metropolitan Police have always maintained that the explosions occurred on the floors of the train carriages. This means that, according to the Metropolitan Police, the explosion at Edgware Road also occurred on the floor of the carriage:

At this stage, we do believe, however, that each device that was put onto the tube trains was likely to be on the floor of the carriage. [DC Andy Hayman, 8 July 2005]

Source: J7 'The suicide-bomber theory gestates'

That the explosions occurred on the floors of the trains was further confirmed during the trial of Waheed Ali, Mohammed Shakil and Sadeer Saleem when the testimony of Fort Halstead Forensics expert, Clifford Todd, was reported:

The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard.

The details emerged for the first time as a forensics expert's evidence was read at the trial of three men accused of helping to plan the atrocity.

Jurors were told the "unique" bomb mixture was made up of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide, which was put into ordinary plastic bags alongside ice-packs to cool the volatile material.

The bombers were not wearing the rucksacks at the time of the explosions, but had instead put them down on the floor of the bus and Tube trains, it was claimed.

Neil Flewitt, QC, prosecuting, said that expert Clifford Todd had examined the wreckage of the bomb sites.

He said: "It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.

"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."

Source: The Telegraph

The problem that the Inquest now has is that of squaring the testimony of Mr Biddle -- an eye-witness sighting of a detonation by pulling "a white cord" on "a small, black camping rucksack", of which Mr Biddle remembers "it being on his lap" -- with the official version of the story that states the explosion occurred on the floor of the carriage.

On the floor of the carriage some distance from where this diagram and Biddle have placed Khan in a seat:

EnlargeProbable position of passengers

This graphic shows that Khan was allegedly in the seat marked 28 and the blast site at a position to the right of seat 27:

Enlarge

Position of Deceased

No doubt Mr Biddle's testimony will be forgotten by the media once the Inquests move on to discussing matters pertaining to the forensics at the scenes, the types of explosives used, and the method of detonation.

Until then, caution should be exercised with regard to any evidence that attempts to prove that the damage to the Edgware Road train, seen in the image below, was caused by mixing Hydrogen Peroxide with black pepper/masala spice.

A comment on this image can be read here.