Luton Station car park - recovering the truth

Every now and then J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign is contacted by ordinary people who have a need to tell their side of the 7/7 story. More often than not it is precisely these accounts and voices that are absent from the major media coverage, perhaps because their stories often contradict the official 'narrative' and inquest versions of events. We would all do well to bear in mind that, as is so often the case, the real stories of events like 7/7 are the stories of ordinary people, going about their ordinary daily business - the 99% - from the commuters and workers who were initially attacked, right through to the ordinary workers who set about finding, treating and rescuing the injured and those others who assisted with picking up the pieces; train drivers, station staff, paramedics, emergency services personnel, hospital workers; the list goes on.

The Vehicle Recovery Worker's Story

Recently, we were contacted by a vehicle recovery worker, Mr Derek Allison, who, after reading J7's coverage of the 7/7 inquest proceedings, felt moved to recount his version of events with regard to the Fiat Brava that was removed from Luton Station car park on 7^th July 2005.

Derek Allison worked for J & K Recovery as a recovery driver and received a call to attend Luton Station car park at 5.30pm on 7^th July. A lot of vehicle recovery work was undertaken on behalf of Bedfordshire Police and he was informed that the vehicle to be collected was a UIC (Used In Crime) vehicle, a red Fiat Brava, although no further details were provided.

Allison was surprised on his approach to Luton Station when he found that Station Road had been cordoned off and there were at least two police vans and several police officers present. Still more police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the Fiat Brava that Derek had been instructed to collect. He noticed that the Brava's passenger side front window was open about an inch. Under normal circumstances this would usually enable him to either push the window further down to gain access, or to use a lock-out kit to open the door and release the handbrake. However, the window wouldn't open and he didn't have his lock-out kit with him. He noted that there was a pay and display ticket on the car valid until 23.59 on 7^th July and a valid road tax disc displayed. Allison, however, didn't see any parking ticket attached to the windscreen and, generally speaking, any vehicles that had transgressed Luton Station car park regulations would end up being clamped, rather than towed.

Beause of the height restriction of the car park barrier, Derek's own recovery vehicle was unable to enter to collect the Brava directly. A second, smaller recovery vehicle was called for and the Brava was transferred onto Derek's vehicle outside the car park, and then driven to J & K Recovery's vehicle compound in Leighton Buzzard. Derek then used a forklift truck to lift the Brava and place it in the area of the compound reserved for cars picked up on behalf of the police.

View Larger Map

The car remained in the same position in the compound from the evening of 7^th July right the way through until 12^th July. Despite the car being identified as UIC, no representatives of Bedfordshire police attended to carry out forensics inspections on it.

At 8pm on Tuesday 12^th July, Derek received a phone call asking him to attend the vehicle compound in Leighton Buzzard. That day he had been watching news reports of controlled explosions on a Nissan Micra at Luton Station. When he arrived at the J & K Recovery compound he was greeted by officers from the bomb squad and SO13 and was asked to move the Fiat Brava into the covered garage for the forensics. This was done using a fork lift truck and he then used a lock-out kit to open the door for the forensics team to investigate the interior of the car. Allison was then present whilst items were removed from the Brava, and he recalls that these items included a pile of clothes, boxes, which may have been cool boxes, a gun, ammunition and a great deal of paperwork.

What concerned Derek is that his experience of the Fiat Brava aspect of the story directly contradicts sworn testimony given to the 7/7 Inquests, the self-styled 'final words' on the story of 7/7 as far as the State is concerned.

The 7/7 Inquest Version of the Fiat Brava Story

During the opening week of the 7/7 Inquests, Hugo Keith QC read from the statement of DC Andrew Donaldson describing events around the Fiat Brava:

Mr Williams had to force entry into the vehicle in order to conduct his procedures as the doors were locked and there were no keys present with the car. This entailed a front window being smashed.

Source: 14 October am page 51 line 6

Derek Allison knows this to be untrue. The front window of the Brava was not smashed and the explosives officer, Mr Williams, did not force entry to the car. On the contrary, Derek Allison was asked to use the lockout kit to open the door, which is precisely what he did. This information would have been available to the inquest teams as Allison gave a statement in May 2006 after being contacted by DS Richard de Cadenet [brother of Amanda de Cadenet] to give a statement. An interesting aside, particularly for anyone unfamiliar with the outstanding success of arrests related to the Operation Theseus investigation, and in a similar way to the investigating officers in the case of Imran Bham, Richard de Cadenet was himself later arrested and imprisoned for fraud.

J7 have been studiously submitting Freedom of Information requests since the inquests into the 52 ended to enable us to examine the many further anomalies that have arisen during these proceedings. One Freedom of Information request was sent to Bedfordshire Police asking why the Brava had been towed from Luton Station on 7^th July 2005. This had not been explained during testimony or cross examination.

During his testimony to the inquests DI Kindness stated that the removal of the Brava was captured on CCTV and that this CCTV would be shown during the inquest proceedings, but this never happened. Certainly the cordoning off of the entire station car park and the number of police officers present at Luton Station on the day absolutely requires some explanation. Given the official investigation timeline, it is hard to imagine quite what it was that had inspired the police to cordon off the entire car park and maintain such a heavy police presence for what nobody would have suspected to be any other than an ordinary Used in Crime car recovery situation.

The response to the J7 FOI request from Bedfordshire Police was refused and they instead replied with a link to a publicly available statement by Bedfordshire Police issued in February 2011, which states:

Weeks later, the tragic and terrible events of 7 July prompted an immediate national police response. In Bedfordshire that included using 'Automatic Number Plate Recognition' (ANPR) technology on the evening of July 7 to locate suspicious vehicles in the county's railway car parks. The Fiat Brava was found in the Luton railway car park because it was identified as a vehicle used in the previous aggravated burglary. It was immediately removed to a secure garage for subsequent forensic examination in relation to the May offence, and regarded as a break in the Luton investigation. Clearly, once the Met Police had examined the CCTV footage from the car park, it quickly became apparent that the Fiat Brava was also significant to the 7/7 Bombing investigation. The car was then handed over to the Met Police for further investigation.

An open vehicle compound can hardly be described as 'a secure garage' and no explanation is offered for why 'no subsequent forensics' on the Brava were carried out in connection to the burglary until the events of 12^th July. Did other police forces also carry out searches for 'suspicious vehicles in their railway car parks' on 7^th July and why was this considered necessary? What would a 'suspicious vehicle' look like? Derek is not aware of a higher than normal number of vehicles being removed that day and given that the Brava exhibited a pay and display ticket issued that morning would it not have made better policing sense to monitor the car to see who returned to it in the few hours that remained until the pay and display ticket expiry time of 11.59pm?  Why did the 7/7 Inquest hear that the Brava was entered by smashing a front window which Derek knows is a lie? And why, so far, has no official body had the temerity to explain quite what the pressing need was to cordon off all of Luton Station for a routine vehicle recovery in the early evening of 7^th July 2005?

Murdoch phone hacking and 7/7 Investigation

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

To the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Times 25th August 2005

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

We need to know:

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

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

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

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

Regards

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign

6th Anniversary of 7/7

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

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

As we stated in our submission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Nissan Micra Tardis?

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

Enlarge

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

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

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

1/02/2011 p40 15-24

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

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

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

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

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

Enlarge

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

Enlarge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enlarge

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

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

Really?

The Bodies On The Line

by David Minahan^*

Documentation produced by the authorities during the inquest indicates that the bodies of six of the victims of the Piccadilly Line bombing were found outside the train, presumably having been blown from the first carriage by the force of the explosion.

Enlarge

INQ10283-12.pdf

Mihaela Otto is shown as having been found on the platform side with Inhab Slimane, Lee Harris, Samantha Badham, Arthur Frederick and Karolina Gluck located on the opposite side in the narrow space between the train and the tunnel wall.

This in itself seems surprising. Given that the explosion took place near double doors on the platform side of the carriage it would surely have been more likely for the majority of the bodies to have exited there?

Overcrowding

There is no doubt whatsoever that the carriage was packed and congested. Many passengers testified to this in their statements.

Sharon Broome, a senior forensic case officer submitted a written report as an expert witness which was read to the court on the 2^nd February. In this [page 54:25] she confirmed that “the explosion occurred within a packed commuter train” and that “The relatively localised nature of the damage observed within the carriage is due in part to the explosive force having been absorbed by the people present at the site of the explosion”. [55:9-12]

The schematic diagram (INQ10283-10) confirms that every seat in the carriage was occupied with seven survivors identified from the passengers who were standing in the area between double doors D5 and D6.

Enlarge

INQ10283-10.pdf

Tragically many others who were standing in that location did not survive. It is apparent that there must have been a large number of passengers located between the bomb and D6 and that they would have caught the full effects of the explosion. Yet, if the official version is correct, D6 must have been so damaged that the five mentioned above were blown out through it. Admittedly many of the windows may have been blown out but it seems highly improbable that the victims would have been catapulted out of these over the heads of the seated passengers!

The Doors

David Boyce, a station supervisor at Russell Square, giving evidence on the 1^st December described entering the train and the scenes that he encountered. Despite it being put to him by Hugo Keith QC that “The doors had been blown away by the force of the explosion had they not?” [120:17] he maintained that the doors were there, but that they were buckled.

Patrick Barnes, a passenger, gave a statement on the 25^th November 2005 which was read to the inquest on the morning of the 6^th December. He described making his way to the front of the carriage as “There was no way of getting out either side as they were closed”. [110:3-5]

A witness to the London Assembly Review Committee, 'George', who was also a passenger in the carriage stated “There were people saying get the doors open. We will smash the doors. Somebody tried to get the door open where I had my back up against but they soon gave up because I think the pressure was still on the actual door mechanism, and they gave up.” [page 128]

Late Evidence

In a statement that was read to the Inquest on the 17^th January, a month after the Piccadilly Line evidence had been concluded, Peter Sanders, who was a group station manager based at Kings Cross, recalled going into “what I thought was the front car. I could see a door had been blown off and the other one was hanging loose, I assisted in removing this door.”[54:14-16] This certainly seems to have been a remarkable demonstration of concern for his employer's property given that the the carriage was devastated by the effects of the bomb, in semi-darkness and strewn with dead bodies and body parts!

Possibly the explanation is that Mr Sanders was describing another carriage. A colleague of his, Simon Cook, recalled during his evidence on the 6^th December, that he had had a meeting with him “in the area of the crossover”. Then when asked if he recalled. “any other London Underground staff other than yourself and Mr Chaudhury” being in the first carriage, not the remainder of the train or the crossover, Mr Cook replied “I don't recall any other underground staff being in the first carriage, no”.[48:23-24]

The Crossover

Enlarge

INQ10283-8.pdf

It seems that when the stricken train stopped, carriages three and four were in a position straddling the crossover between the east and west bound lines. The significance of this is that the space at either side of the carriages, particularly on the platform side, is wider there than in the normal tube tunnel. For it to have been possible for the six deceased to have ended up in the area between the train and the tunnel wall, they must have fallen out of the first carriage as it went past the crossover and not before it, where the explosion took place, or after it where carriage one finished up, as both those points are in the narrow tunnel [diagram INQ10283-12] where there would not have been enough space for the bodies to land.

Interestingly another witness to the London Assembly Review Committee 'Ian' described being blown out of the carriage but hitting the wall of the tunnel and bouncing back in. This can be read on page 179.

Richard Barnes (Chair) So, you were almost blown out of the carriage?

Ian “I was; I was blown out and then back in. There are electric cables running along the tunnel, and that is what I hit.”

[Editor's Note: Interestingly there was no testimony from 'Ian' to the 7 July Inquests proceedings and there is no 'Ian' included in the diagram of survivors from the carriage provided by the MPS.]

Probable?

So the official theory presented to the Inquest is that the blast took place whilst still in the narrow part of the tunnel but that the train moved forward past the point of the explosion eventually stopping as outlined above.

Diagram INQ10283-12 does show all six of the passengers lying beside the fourth carriage in the crossover area and Mr Keith and his team helpfully produced a photograph (INQ10340-1) which is said to show a pair of surgical gloves which were used in the treatment of the stricken passengers as the lay between the train and the tunnel wall. (It has to be said that, at least to the naked eye, there doesn't appear to be any sign of broken glass or other debris from the explosion).

Enlarge

INQ10340-1.pdf

There doesn't seem to have been any expert evidence produced to explain how the direction of the explosion blew out five people from the far side of the carriage.

Admittedly there have been reports from other locations of train doors opening and closing again as a result of mechanisms being affected by the explosions. This could have happened here and the five passengers may have been pressed up against the door due to the crowded conditions. In that case there certainly would have been many passengers located between them and the bomb which might have been expected to 'cushion' it's effects, but the injuries sustained appear to have been caused by the explosion rather than just the consequences of falling from the train.

Also, if the door was buckled as Simon Cook reported (or hanging loose), it is difficult to envisage how it would have shut again?

Being as objective as possible it could be said the official version of events is just about possible; but is it really probable?

---

^*David Minahan was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors in which David gained experience of "forensic" matters. David was also the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus). David researched and wrote the London Bombings Dossier published on the J7 website and says he is convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about the events of 7/7.

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

Jermaine Lindsay, a circuit board and plastic bottles

It appears that the King's Cross and Russell Square scene evidence will finish without examining any forensic or pathology evidence for the presence of Jermaine Lindsay on the Piccadilly line train between King's Cross and Russell Square. This evidence was read for both Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, not so for Lindsay. Instead, we are offered the following identifying documents as listed by DI Brunsden in his evidence on 17th December.

Let's work our way through this evidence by examining DI Brunsden's testimony during Hugo Keith's questioning:

Q. I want to ask you, please, about some exhibits that you found in area Z at the end of the first carriage. Could we have please on the screen [INQ10164-2]? Is this a plan that you made of the first carriage showing the zonal areas for the purposes of the searching?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. On the far right of the plan towards the rear of the first carriage, can we see that you marked area Z?
A. Yes.

Enlarge

As we can see from the zonal plan above, area Z is by the single door at the very rear of carriage 1, some way from the blast site which was by the second set of double doors further down the carriage.

Q. In that area, area Z, you did you find a plastic bottle destroyed in the blast?
A. Yes, that's what it looked like to me.
Q. Why did that bottle seem to you to be out of place?
A. Obviously in the Anti-terrorist Branch we learn a reasonable amount about explosives, and we were very conscious of the fact that explosives can be made from peroxide-based materials, and peroxide can be contained in plastic bottles, and so I was concerned that this may have something to do with that.
Q. Was that bottle found in the near vicinity of a male body to whom you formally gave the exhibit JB3?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. Was that person given a disaster victim identification number, for temporary purposes, 60022242?
A. I'm sorry, sir, I haven't got that record.
Q. Will you take it from me, then, on this occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that person, JB3, turn out subsequently to be the bomber --
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. -- Lindsay?
A. Jermaine Lindsay.

So Lindsay's body was recovered some distance from the actual blast, although it may be fair to presume at this stage, despite the absence of a pathology report, that he hadn't suffered the almost complete disintegration, as described in evidence, of Shehzad Tanweer or Mohammed Sidique Khan.

Enlarge

Despite Brunsden's attempts to conflate a plastic bottle apparently 'destroyed in the blast' with peroxide-based explosives, even Brunsden would be aware that the plastic bottles in which peroxide is contained is, in and of itself, useless as an explosive material. Furthermore, whether hydrogen peroxide based explosives were something a policeman would be conscious of in July 2005 is highly unlikely, particularly given the opinions of explosives experts at the Ministry of Defence research centre at Fort Halstead:

Until July 2005 the scientists at Fort Halstead in Kent had never seen a hydrogen peroxide bomb.

Despite 130 years' experience gathering information on home-made and military bombs from across the world they had yet to come across the type used in the attacks in London on July 7 and 21.

Source: 'We've never seen a bomb like 21/7 devices' Telegraph 11/07/07

Perhaps they should have asked DI Brunsden, who would appear to have been aware of hydrogen peroxide explosives just by dint of finding a plastic bottle!

We have been shown various types of containers in connection with the events of 7/7, none of which appear even to hint at the use of plastic bottles. Quite how a plastic bottle survived the initial explosion might also take some explaining.

Enlarge

Q. When the body was moved, did you find a piece of circuit board attached to his body and also attached to his body another piece of plastic bottle which, again, had had a segment cut from it?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. So in very close proximity to his body?
A. Yes.

No date is given for the body removal although the Intelligence and Security Committee report claimed that the pathology on Lindsay was carried out on 10 July, along with Hussain and Khan. The ISC report also claims that Lindsay became a suspect due to the viewing of the Luton CCTV on 12 July, although we now know that the viewing of Luton station CCTV took place some two days prior to that, on 10 July.

Jermaine Lindsay's home at 10 Northern Rd Aylesbury was searched on 13 July, after his wife, Samantha, reported him missing. No mention is made during the inquest hearings of finding identification documents on the Piccadilly line train prior to this raid on his home, which would have led to Lindsay being identified swiftly, as appears to have been the case with both Tanweer and Khan. On the contrary, we wouldn't expect much paper ID to survive the blast.


What about the circuit board 'attached' to Lindsay's body? In what way was it attached? What type of circuit board was it? What is it alleged that the circuit board was for?

As the precise nature of the explosives alleged to have been used on 7 July has never been revealed, the requirement for a circuit board of any sort is implicit, rather than explicit. Further, with mobile phones, laptops, iPods, etc. on each and every passenger-filled tube train, so too are there circuit boards a-plenty, even without the presence of an implied suicide bomber.

Perhaps the reference to the circuit board is an allusion to the notion of a suicide bomber with explosives primed and strapped to the body. If so, this is incredibly misleading. The official narrative holds that all the explosions on trains on 7 July 2005 occurred on the floors of the carriages, which is at variance with the modus operandi of 'suicide bombers'.

During the trial of the men accused of a similar attempt 'to bomb the tube' on 21 July, all of whom had the conspiracy to cause explosions charges against them quietly dropped (due to the evidence of expert witness, Professor Hans Michels who claimed that the mixture they used was incapable of exploding) it was claimed that these hydrogen peroxide explosives and their detonation method were similar to that used on 7 July. There was no mention of circuit boards, just tubes and wires, bulbs and 9-volt batteries. Remnants of a 'circuit board' and wires were apparently also found via x-ray embedded close to Mohammed Sidique Khan's lumbar spine.

Q. Subsequently, on 17 July -- and you may find a reference to this on page 4 of your statement, if it's the same typed statement as us, at the bottom, Detective Inspector -- did you recover from the same area, area Z, an envelope addressed to Mr Lindsay which you produce as exhibit 1116?
A. That is correct.
Q. That is the envelope. You also found an exhibit JB117,our INQ8818, please, a driving licence -- no that's 117. Could we have 117 which is 8818, I think, please, unless I have my reference wrong. It may be it's not on Trial Director. I'm afraid I think the envelope is on Trial Director, but not the content. In any event, it was a counterpart driving licence in the name of Jermaine Lindsay, was it not?
A. I certainly found some correspondence in that name.
Q. Could we try 8818 one more time? No, don't worry, that's the envelope rather than the contents. In any event, it was a driving licence counterpart in his name. The following day, on 18 July, did you recover from the floor area, area Z, another piece of plastic that appeared to have been cut from a bottle?
A. Yes, correct, sir.
Q. In the same place, did you also find an exhibit JB123, a passport, a United Kingdom passport, in the name of Jermaine Lindsay?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Could we have INQ8816 [INQ8816-2], please? We can see at the bottom there the remains of that passport, JB123.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The exhibit had a number of different items in it. Split from it, did you also produce a certificate of mobile phone insurance, again in the name of Mr Lindsay?
A. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Q. Our INQ8815 [INQ8815-2], please. A certificate of mobile phone insurance, there we are. If we could just enlarge the number on the top left-hand corner --
A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
Q. -- we should see the name and address, and also split from that exhibit JB123, did you find a handwritten document, a Department of Work and Pensions letter, dated 9 May 2005?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Our INQ8814 [INQ8814-2], please. Could you just enlarge the top right-hand segment of that document, please? The significance of that a document addressed to him, but it contained handwriting on it, did it not?
A. Yes, it did, sir.
Q. On that front page, there was a reference there, wasn't there, to "one minute per train"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the reverse side -- which should be the next page in the exhibit [], if you could enlarge the top half first, please -- there were a number of days in the week set
out, as well as journey times, making references to "Holborn", "West", possibly Westminster, "Paddington", "Oxford Circus"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the bottom half of the page, if you would rotate it, please, days of the week with more detailed explanations of distances and times from certain London Underground
stations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could we perhaps return one more time -- I feel my luck might be better this time -- and try INQ8817 [INQ8817-2], please, for the DVLA letter, if it could be rotated -- I'm very grateful to Mr Suter -- there is the counterpart driving licence with the name Mr Lindsay.
A. Yes, I do recall it.
MR KEITH: Thank you very much, Officer, those are all the questions I have for you.

To summarise, and to ask the questions that are not asked by Counsel to the Inquests, Lindsay's body with circuit board and plastic bottle was discovered in area Z, some distance from the blast, despite the explosives being apparently manually detonated and occurring on the floor of the carriage. Lindsay's body was subjected to a pathology test on 10 July. His home was raided on 13 July, a day after the raids in Leeds, and then on 17 & 18 July, some 10 and 11 days after the event, identification documents are found in precisely the same area that Lindsay was recovered from, despite this not being the location of the blast. Is DI Brunsden questioned on why it took so long to discover these documents? Or how they ended up in the same area as Lindsay despite being separated from him?

Enlarge

Nobody has explained either why Jermaine Lindsay, if he were indeed intent on committing an act of suicide-bombing on 7/7 would think to spend £30 on insurance for his mobile phone on 24 June 2005, just 13 days prior to 7 July. Note also that the address is 10 Meadow Way not 10 Northern Road - the address that Hugo Keith claimed the police drove past after the apparent robbery on 27 May 2005, when Lindsay's red Fiat Brava was said to have been involved and this address traced via registration details. [See Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango].

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Any questions? Mr Patterson?
Questions by MR PATTERSON
MR PATTERSON: Just one or two additional exhibits, please, Officer. I think there were other similar peroxide bottles that were found on the train that appeared to have the neck cut off them, rather like the one that you've already mentioned.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I think there was one JB228, which was at area Y, so at that rear part of the carriage but --
A. On the other side.
Q. -- on the other side, exactly. There was a Nokia mobile phone, JB41, that was found in that first carriage near seat D --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- which was later examined and found to be a phone that had text messages consistent with having been used by the bomber, Jermaine Lindsay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In addition, another document rather like the one that we've just looked at, which showed handwritten notes about Underground stations, there was another one, JB265, which was a Tube map which had ringed Underground stations including King's Cross, Bond Street, Oxford Circus and so forth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So a similar document to the one we've looked at?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Finally, this: I think there were also assorted pieces of rucksack that were found in different areas, also in that carriage, which were later considered by the scientist Mr Clifford Todd?
A. We did find a number of items of that description, yes.
MR PATTERSON: Thank you very much. That's all I ask.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Ms Gallagher?
Questions by MS GALLAGHER
MS GALLAGHER: Just one very brief matter. We've looked at on screen JB125, so the Department of Work and Pensions letter which has the times written on it. Can we go -- I'm not sure if it's on Trial Director -- it's [INQ9644-3]. Yes, it is. At the very top box there, it just confirms that the handwriting is definitely Jermaine Lindsay. Just for completeness, my Lady, I thought it appropriate to raise that at this stage.

Source: 7/7 Inquests Transcripts, 17 December 2010, am, p 132, lines 10 on

Enlarge

More debris, again from another area at the rear of the carriage. opposite to where Lindsay's body is claimed to have been recovered, rather than under the train or around the blast site.

Enlarge

The damage to the Piccadilly line train and the area where the explosion occurred (note the lifting up of the carriage floor around the bottom left corner in this image). Area Z would be somewhere around the yellow and blue poles at the rear of the carriage near the middle left of this image and area Y on the opposite side.

The 7/7 Inquests have some explaining to do as the official story continues to fall apart.