Showing posts with label Luton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luton. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

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 7th 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:

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.
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 7th 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]



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:


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.

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?

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 7th July 2005?

Really?
Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

7/7 Inquests: Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango

We have already examined the fact that CCTV from Luton station car park was not being viewed on 12 July 2005, as stated in the sworn witness testimony of Metropolitan Police Detective Inspector Kindness. CCTV from Luton station car park was being viewed at least as early as 10 July. The 7/7 Inquest was then informed that Jermaine Lindsay's Fiat Brava, after being issued a parking ticket at 5.53 am on 7 July was towed away that same evening:
Q.[HUGO KEITH] Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. [DI KINDNESS] Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Were there any difficulties associated with the CCTV viewing in relation to the Luton car park?
A. The Luton car park, the cameras on the car park were on a high gantry. The quality wasn't great, and the -- the weather was quite inclement that morning, it was quite dark when they arrived, so we did have some initial difficulties. The sizes of the images were very, very small in the car park and unclear to make out exactly what was going on.
Q. When you viewed the CCTV for Luton car park, did you discover that one of the cars had then subsequently been towed away?
A. Yes, it had been.
Q. Which car was that?
A. That was the Brava, sir.
Q. Had it, in fact, been towed away on the evening of 7 July 2005?
A. Yes, we were able to view the CCTV and see that happening.
Q. In fact, did subsequent enquiries show that there had been a parking ticket in the Fiat Brava up to 23.59 on the evening of that Thursday?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. But the other car, the Nissan Micra, was still there, and could you still see it in the continuing CCTV?
A. Yes, we could.
Q. As a result of you discovering the location of those cars, did officers then attend to look at, in particular, the Nissan Micra in the car park?
A. Yes, indeed.

Although the testimony of the parking attendant was read to the 7/7 Inquest [page 57 line 24 on] a copy was never released onto the evidence section of the Inquest website.

As J7 had noted in Mind The Gaps, the towing away of cars was not specified in the parking regulations at Luton station car park, instead wheel clamping and the payment of parking fines before exiting the car park were the method used:




Hugo Keith informed the Inquests on 12 October that CCTV showing the removal of the Fiat Brava on 7 July 2005 existed, but this footage wasn't shown amongst the various CCTV clips shown at the Inquest and has yet to be released into the public domain.
Q. It wasn't played yesterday, but is it right that there does exist uninterrupted footage showing that Brava from its arrival at 5.07 right through the morning?
A. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q. Presumably, that has been viewed to see if there were any people coming and going from the Brava?
A. Yes, well, when viewing of the Brava resulted in its eventual identification on the -- you know, its removal later on in the day.
Q. So we do see the person who appears to be Jermaine Lindsay coming and going from that car and I think we've discovered today that we also see the person who is believed to be the parking attendant --
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. -- who issued the ticket. Can we take it, therefore, that there were no other people coming and going from that car?
A. From my understanding, absolutely not. There was only Jermaine Lindsay.

The registration number for a Fiat Brava apparently registered to Lindsay was entered into the Police National Computer after a suspected robbery on 27 May 2005 although, once again, Lindsay was apparently never apprehended despite the car being registered in his name to his home address:
[HUGO KEITH] On 27 May, just five weeks before, Luton police received a call from a man to the effect that there was a gunman in his flat. When armed police arrived, neither the owner of the flat, presumably the person who called, nor the gunman were there. All had fled. Then a member of the public called in to say he had seen three males, two black and one Asian, wearing balaclavas and running down the road and he saw one of them holding a handgun. They got into a car and he managed to the a [sic] note of the car registration number, and it was a Fiat, R662 DSF. Lindsay's car. The police marked on the police national computer an interest in the car and requested that it be stopped if it was sighted. They then also went to the address of the registered keeper, Lindsay's address in Aylesbury that we've seen on the map, but there was no reply. A crime report was filed and an investigation commenced. They did a silent drive-by past the address again that night, but the car wasn't seen and was not subsequently traced. They drove past again the following day, but the investigation went nowhere, I think primarily because the victim of the armed robbery, or whatever it had been, could neither be identified nor traced, and the red Fiat Brava was not seen again until it was found in the Luton car park after 7 July 2005.

For the purposes of brevity we shall ignore the rather fantastical sounding and seemingly unsolved "armed robbery, or whatever it had been" crime, in which it appears that the police have been unable to locate either the victim who "could neither be identified nor traced" or the apparent perpetrator(s), despite having the registration plate of the car in which the three apparent perpetrators made their getaway, and the address to which the car was registered. We shall also ignore that the police "did a silent drive-by past the address again that night" but didn't think to stop and make a second house call.

Seemingly, all the police did glean from this odd sounding incident, was the number of a car registered to Jermaine Lindsay and an address, 10 Northern Road, Aylesbury. It may be opportune to note that "The police marked on the police national computer an interest in the car and requested that it be stopped if it was sighted" and that Hugo Keith states quite clearly "the red Fiat Brava was not seen again until it was found in the Luton car park after 7 July 2005". However, the official 'narrative' version of events holds that the Brava was indeed used if not 'seen' again at least at Luton station car park, and at least on 28 June 2005, possibly alongside a Jaguar that also appeared in Luton station car park on both of these dates. The Police National Computer and the Automated Number Plate Recognition system, while very good at detecting and penalising the owners of uninsured vehicles, appears to be not so good at finding owners of cars involved in apparent real crimes.

A few seconds of CCTV claiming to be Lindsay's Brava being driven from Dunstable to Luton Station and in the car park on the morning of 28 June 2005 was shown at the Inquest on 13 October and released into evidence:

Lindsay's Fiat Brava in Dunstable from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.

The precise date that Lindsay had moved to Aylesbury with his wife, Samantha Lewthwaite and their child is unclear, with media reports citing anything from three to seven weeks before 7 July 2005. The Inquests could produce evidence on when Lindsay purchased the Fiat Brava and the date that Lindsay and his family rented this property in Aylesbury, and if it was before he moved to Aylesbury, on what date he registered it in his new address.

The Fiat Brava is assessed to have contained everything from quantities of HMTD, a handgun and bullets to Tanweer's white jogging bottoms. The search of the Fiat Brava is said to have been carried out on 12 July 2005, although the reading out of the times from the following statement make it impossible to ascertain whether the times indicate activity that morning or in the evening:
[HUGO KEITH] Andrew Donaldson, a police officer. He provides a statement dated 20 October 2005. My Lady, this witness attends upon the motor car, the maroon-coloured Fiat Brava which you will recall was towed away from the railway station in Luton. He provides a very long witness statement detailing everything that was found in that car, and I propose just to make reference to one or two of the exhibits that were found.

Statement of ANDREW DONALDSON read
"I am the above-named detective constable. On Tuesday, 12 July, I was requested to go from London to Luton, Bedfordshire where two motor vehicles had been located at Luton railway station and which were suspected of being connected to the bomb attacks in London on 7 July.
"I arrived at Luton police station at 6.00 and liaised with other officers.
"At about 8.00 I travelled to a recovery compound arriving at about 8.30. I liaised with other officers already present, including an explosives officer, Dave Williams, who carried out safety search procedures on the car assigned to me to examine and search which was present here having been recovered from Luton railway station. 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.
"The car was a burgundy-coloured Fiat Brava. The safety search conducted by Mr Williams revealed no explosive devices present, but there was a handgun firearm located in the boot of the car together with a number of live rounds of ammunition which were with the gun but not in it. No other dangerous hazards were found in this initial safety check procedure. The firearm and ammunition was made safe by an authorised firearms officer. The motor car was then photographed by a Bedfordshire police photographer. It was then initially examined by a fingerprint officer whilst under cover inside a building.
"An initial search of the car was then conducted commencing at 9.15. I, as the scene examiner and exhibits officer, commenced and maintained contemporaneously an exhibit search logbook. The search was conducted with other anti-terrorist branch officers.
I list below all the items found and seized during the course of this search."
This fits with the narrative of viewing the CCTV on 12 July 2005, but not if the cars were identified in Luton station car park when the CCTV was viewed as early as 10 July 2005.

Mr Donaldson enters the Brava by smashing the front window, whereas the Nissan Micra is entered via a controlled explosion.

Whatever the correct dates of identifying the accused on CCTV the actual raid on 10 Northern Road, Aylesbury did not occur until around 7.00pm on Wednesday 13 July, a full 36 hours after the Leeds homes were raided.

One of the four Leeds addresses raided in the early hours of 12 July was the family home of Ejaz Fiaz, the man initially named as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line explosion. It is reported that Ejaz had in fact moved to Luton. His brother, Naveed Fiaz, was the only person to be arrested under the Terrorism Act but he was released without charge on 22 July, and no further details about his arrest were provided by the police.

According to this Guardian report, 10 Northern Road was under surveillance for at least 24 hours before the raid on 13 July with neighbours commenting that the family had moved in three weeks earlier. The report also includes an apparent sighting of Jermaine Linsday on Friday 8 July 2005, the day after he is alleged to have committed suicide on the Piccadilly Line between King's Cross and Russell Square:
Aylesbury house is searched in effort to find associates
The Guardian, Thursday 14 July 2005 03.36 BST

The search for potential associates of the London bombers turned last night to Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, where police raided a house.

More than 50 officers - many armed - sealed off Northern Road at around 7pm before entering the house.

No arrests were made but Scotland Yard confirmed that the raid, which was conducted jointly with Thames Valley police, was connected to last week's bombings in London.

Aylesbury is about 20 miles from Luton, Bedfordshire, where a vehicle thought to be linked to the attacks was towed away yesterday.

The raid focused on a house at the far end of Northern Road.

A resident of the street said a man in his 20s had moved in to the cottage three weeks ago, and that the house had been under surveillance for almost 24 hours before last night's raid.

"I knew something was going on earlier because I noticed a suspicious-looking van parked in the road and reported its number to the police," said Daphne Sibley, the road's Neighbourhood Watch coordinator. "They told me that it was a plain clothes surveillance officer."

Another resident, Paul Chilton, saw the police arriving as he left home to take his daughters off to a school disco.

"I noticed a Land-Rover which looked like an armed response vehicle and I thought that was a bit strange," said Mr Chilton, 40. "I dropped the girls off and set out for a Neighbourhood Watch meeting when, lo and behold, I saw about 30 or 40 police.

"Some were in plain clothes and some were in uniform and had guns, shields, and bulletproof vests. They were around number 10. I don't know the people who live there, but I don't think they were there when the police came."
----------------
It also emerged that the occupant of the house was last seen by neighbours on Friday - the day after the bombings - loading items into the boot of his red car, which was parked in Northern Road.
The naming of Jermaine Lindsay as a suspect was first made public on Wednesday 13 July by Nicolas Sarkozy, the then French Foreign Secretary, after an EU meeting. Lindsay was further named as 'Lindsey Germaine' by unnamed "American law enforcement officials" on Wednesday 15 July 2005:
On Wednesday, several American law enforcement officials identified one of the suspected suicide bombers as a Jamaican-born British resident named Lindsey Germaine.
Source: New York Times
The story of Jermaine Lindsay and the Fiat Brava makes even less sense if an article from Lindsay's local paper, The Bucks Herald, is accurate:
AYLESBURY WAS '30 MINUTES FROM EVACUATION'
Published on Tue Oct 25 13:49:38 BST 2005

(TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25) Aylesbury was just 30 minutes away from a full evacuation following the July 7 bombings when anti-terrorism police first connected the town to the terror attacks in London, The Bucks Herald can reveal.

New details emerged last week about the immediate threat police believed Jermaine Lindsay posed to the public after the suicide bombings on London's transport network rocked the capital.

A day after the attacks Chief Superintendent Simon Chesterman, the most senior police officer in Bucks, arrived at his office at Aylesbury Police Station to be confronted by Scotland Yard's counter terrorism unit.

Detectives believed that Lindsay, the Kings Cross bomber who killed 26 people, was, in fact, a fifth bomber, was still alive and posed an immediate threat to public safety.

Officers had discovered the car of Germaine Lindsay, who lived in Northern Road, abandoned at Luton train station, where he travelled to London with three other bombers.

What followed, said Chief Supt Chesterman, was the biggest police operation he had ever witnessed in 22 years on the force.

He said: "On July 8 I arrived in my office to be confronted by a team from the anti-terrorist squad."

The questions are piling up for the 7/7 Inquests to answer in relation to the four accused and the events in London on 7 July 2005. To the ever growing list of hitherto unanswered questions we can now add:
  • Was Lindsay suspected of being a fifth bomber and being sought in Aylesbury on 8 July 2005?
  • When and why was the Fiat Brava towed from Luton Station car park?
Posted by at 7 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 24 October 2010

The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime

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

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

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

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

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

66. Other things suggest discipline and meticulous planning with good security awareness including careful use of mobile phones and use of hire cars for sensitive activities associated with the planning of the attacks. There are some indications that Khan was worried about being under surveillance during this time.

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

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

In his Opening Statement to the Inquests, Mr Hugo Keith QC, felt the need to mention Conspiracy Theories that have arisen around the lack of released CCTV footage and the quality of the footage that had. He continued:
[MR KEITH] Turning to the CCTV which appears to be the object of the substantial bulk of the claims, there is nothing to suggest that, where there is CCTV missing, this reflects anything other than the fact that many CCTV systems do not continuously record.

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

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

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


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



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

Update: The graphic below shows:
  1. The last frame of CCTV footage before the cut,
  2. The first frame of CCTV footage after the cut,
  3. An animated panel that cycles through images 1 & 2.
Graphic showing the CCTV frames before and after the cut
Posted by at 15 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 18 October 2010

Don't Mention The Fifth (or Sixth?) Man

The Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, published on 11th May 2006 (hereafter known as The Narrative), made it abundantly clear that the public should consider media reports regarding the so-called “fifth man” groundless. It stated:
“There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.”

In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, we have heard from the witnesses mentioned above who claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man - and the Home Office Narrative's claim that the man was a “regular commuter” seem odd at best – and misleading at worst.

The witnesses in question include Sylvia Waugh, who believes she saw the men outside the flat in Alexandra Grove, Leeds where it is claimed the bombs allegedly used on July 7th 2005 were manufactured. There is also Susan Clarke, who believes she saw the men in the car park at Luton Station. Joseph Martoccia was the witness whose statement to the police in July 2005 regarding his believed sighting of the men at King's Cross station was mutated by the media into a CCTV image, so successfully, that even a former newspaper editor appeared to believe he had actually seen such an image. Yet, as detailed in this previous post, no such image ever existed. This however hasn't stopped it being described as "iconic" and even the Press Complaints Commission agreed that an image that doesn't exist and hasn't been seen by anyone is still perfectly entitled to be described as an "iconic image".

Sylvia Waugh, who says she saw the men in the early morning of 7 July 2005 in Leeds, gave four witness statements to the police. Under oath at the Inquest, Mrs Waugh claimed that she regularly saw at least 6 people entering and leaving 18 Alexandra Grove. Significantly, Mrs. Waugh states that she finds it difficult to discern differences between 'coloured people'. Indeed, after stating on four occasions during her testimony that Jermaine Lindsay, who was, according to mobile phone evidence and the official 'narrative', some 160 miles away at the time, this difficulty does seem to be the case. However, despite this, it seems reasonable to assume that Mrs. Waugh is able to count:
Q. You remember a white car. Might that have been car B that you put on the map for the police?
A. It could have been.
Q. What about the other car, what colour was the other car?
A. Like a bluey colour.
Q. There were a group of men. Can you help us as to how
many you think you saw?
A. At least six.

A few moments later, Mrs. Waugh is reminded that she told police she had seen four men getting into what seems to be the Nissan Micra in which Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain travelled to Luton from Leeds. She recalls seeing six men in total, and two cars. The other car, according to Hugo Keith, counsel to the inquest, has never been traced. Mrs. Waugh's testimony is very confused; on more than one occasion she denies what she had said in her police statements and at one point she denies something she was recorded as saying several minutes previously whilst under oath. However, her claim to have seen four men getting in the Micra, and six men in total, is interesting when compared to the statement Susan Clarke gave to the police in July 2005, which was read out in part whilst she was questioned under oath during the inquests:
Q. [Mr Patterson] "One car had one or two males in it. The other, a lilac-coloured Nissan, had four males leaving it, all carrying rucksacks. When asked, she described all the males as not white."
A. [Susan Clarke] He then goes on to say that you handed him the piece of paper that you've told us about.
Q. So pausing there, is that an accurate note of what you told the officer on that Tuesday?
A. As far as I remember, yes.
Q. So although today you've told us that you thought that it was four, possibly five, men associated with those two cars, within days of the incident, the very first time you spoke to the police you were saying that it was two men from one of the cars, four men from the other car, all carrying rucksacks?
A. Yes.

Joseph Martoccia, a commuter who believes he saw the accused at King's Cross mainline station on the morning of 7th July 2005, also said he saw six men:
Q. Have you marked X as the spot where you came across a group of men?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Yes. At the time, I said between four and six.
I wasn't entirely certain of the number.

Mr. Martoccia goes on, however, to say that the men caught his attention because they were in a huddle. It was this behaviour that led him to initially deduce they were probably a sports team.

Interestingly, although Mr. Martoccia contacted the police the following day, he was not asked to identify the men from photographs until almost a year later, a somewhat odd approach in what was termed by Sir Ian Blair as "the largest criminal inquiry in English history". When shown a picture of Jermaine Linsday during his testimony to the Inquests, Martoccia stated that he did not remember seeing him. Moreover, Martoccia said that the man he saw heading towards the Piccadilly line – who, one would presume on the basis of the official 'narrative', would be most likely to be Lindsay, who stands accused of causing the explosion on the Piccadilly line train – was instead Hasib Hussain; the man accused of being responsible for the number 30 bus incident.

Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command gave an intriguing response when specifically questioned by Mr. Gareth Patterson, representing four bereaved families, over the number of men witnessed:
Q. You're probably aware, Inspector, of why I'm asking you these questions. Presumably you were told that there's a witness, Susan Clarke, who told the police quite early on that there may have been more than four people in and around those two cars. Were you aware of that? Did you look for the number of people around those cars?
A. Yes, at the time, when we were viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there and that we'd managed to track them to the position where we got decent CCTV images that we could say, yes, there are that number of people.

Shortly after this, Mr. Patterson is interrupted by Hugo Keith QC, who expresses concern over his questions “because they do appear to me to be designed to leave the impression that either there was another person at large or that in some way the investigation has been inadequate or has not properly pursued leads available at the time.” After further admonishment by both Mr. Keith and Lady Justice Hallet, Mr. Patterson is able to continue:
MR PATTERSON: If we pause it now, perhaps. Can we see four figures walking off, Inspector?
A. Yes, we can, yes.
Q. Is there a figure who hovers and lingers between the two cars for a period of time?
A. Yes, there is a person there, yes. I think that's the person that exited that vehicle that just arrived.
Q. Was that something that was investigated and looked into to see where that additional fifth person --
A. The individuals around the car were -- their movements were assessed, yes.
Q. Is that something that you dealt with or that somebody else dealt with?
A. I didn't personally follow this individual away, no.

Later that same session, Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families, continues a similar line of questioning:
Q. You said in your evidence earlier: "At the time of viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there." That's for your reference, my Lady, page 180 of the
transcript today, lines 10 to 14. That was referring to that footage of Luton rail station that we've referred to earlier. Can you just go to page 2 of this document, Inspector?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you see the entry at 7.19 about halfway down the page? This is an entry by DC Stephen Bain who was viewing it on 10 or 11 July. Can you see at the end of that entry at 7.19, after he describes four persons at the rear of the vehicle, he says: "Fifth person remains at vehicle, movement between both, fifth person towards Luton station, distant view." Then a little further down the page, 7.23: "Fifth male through ground level barriers from car park", and there's continued references to the fifth male there, so two more entries at 7.23. So did you discuss with DC Stephen Bain the fact that, on viewing the footage, he had originally thought there were five males at the car?
A. I think the footage that you are referring to is what we have just played on the screen. What he has sighted is the fifth man and what he has done, quite rightly, ishe's tracked the movements from small image to Luton where you can get the big image and you can identify the person and the relationship with the other four. So for me, yes, we did discuss it at the time, definitely, because we needed to identify -- when I say that we were happy with four, by the time they got to the station, there was a group of four that we felt were -- we were comfortable that those were the four that were going to be engaged -- that were engaged in the activity. So it's right that he's identified it, because we've
seen when we've viewed it that there is a fifth person that arrives. The officer has noted it in his log and he's tracked him to the station.
Q. But you were satisfied at that time, and you discussed with DC Stephen Bain that, in fact, the fifth person was unconnected to those four males, or is that a view
you've come to subsequently?
A.I can't recall if we discussed it in those terms, but we were certainly looking at the movements around the vehicle and identifying fully how many people of relevance to us were there and, certainly, others who were sighted we were looking to eliminate in terms of movements with the four bombers.

In his opening statement to the inquest, Hugo Keith QC confirmed that a rucksack containing “four further improvised explosive devices” was found in the Nissan Micra, plus eight other devices. Why were devices put into a rucksack if not to be carried by somebody? This question, and the question as to why all three witnesses who claim to have seen the men at various stages en-route to London numbering between four and six men each time, it appears, are not of concern to the counsel to the inquest. Indeed, both Hugo Keith QC and Lady Justice Hallet's attitude to Mr. Patterson's questioning regarding the matter, gave the sense that suggesting that any more than the four men were involved is a subject completely untouchable by the inquest.

The Narrative claimed in 2006 that “there is no evidence of a fifth bomber”. In fact, as shown by the evidence given under oath to the Inquests, there is "evidence of a fifth bomber". But, much like “the war” in Basil Fawlty's hotel, nobody is allowed to mention it.
Posted by at 7 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 16 October 2010

A CCTV Fuss About Nothing?

All witnesses to the Inquest take an oath. The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but...

12 July In the early morning, the police search premises in the West Yorkshire area, including the homes of Khan, Tanweer and Hussain and 18 Alexandra Grove.

Report received that 4 people by two vehicles were seen putting on rucksacks at Luton Station car park. One of the vehicles was now missing but one remained in the car park.

By lunchtime, police working on the theory that there is a King’s Cross link to the 3 train bombs, all being broadly equidistant from there at the time of the explosions, identify a CCTV image of 4 men with rucksacks at King’s Cross. They recognise Tanweer first from a DVLA photograph.

The police identify CCTV images of the same 4 at Luton Station. The Micra is found at Luton and examined. 9 controlled explosions were carried out on material found in it. The Brava, which had been towed away because it did not have a parking ticket is later traced to Lindsay. There had been a report on the Police National Computer that the Brava may have been used in an aggravated burglary (see paragraph 69) and Lindsay was named as the registered keeper for the car.
During the morning session of Wednesday 13 October 2010, the Inquest heard from Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command. After being sworn, DI Kindness was questioned by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith, and stated for the record that the identification of the four accused at King's Cross Thameslink, and thus the link made to the Luton and Bedford areas, occurred on 11 July 2005:
Q. Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Under further questioning by Mr Keith, DI Kindness explains the manner in which Luton was discovered as the point at which the four accused met and travelled to London:
Q. Did you then concentrate your examination upon CCTV relating to the railway network to the north of London?
A. Indeed, sir, yes, and we were looking at the route of the -- the Thameslink route up through Bedford and Luton and looking for fast-time CCTV recovery of those stations to see where the bombers had access to rail network.
Q. Were you able to access CCTV relating to, not just the stations, but the car parks at those stations, the entry points and the foyers?
A. Yes, we were, sir.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We were able to identify that the individuals had arrived at Luton underground station earlier that morning and boarded a train to London.
Q. Can you recall when it was that you discovered that they had boarded the railway network at Luton?
A. I think it was on the 12th, sir.
Q. So the Tuesday?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of that process, how many of the men were you able to identify initially as having used the Luton railway station?
A. We were able to identify all of the men had accessed -- the four men had accessed via Luton railway station.
Q. Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.

Note that DI Kindness is neither asked for, nor offers, any explanation for why Luton was chosen from at least eight possible stations that the 07.00 Bedford - Brighton Thameslink train would have stopped at on the morning of 7 July. Any investigation looking for potential al Qaeda "suicide bombers" would perhaps concentrate their efforts instead on Luton Parkway station, with its links to Luton Airport, and one stop closer to London than is Luton station. Eight stations would have furnished a lot of CCTV footage to examine within a maximum of 24 hours between the identification of the four men on the 11 July 2005 and the Luton link on the 12 July 2005.

One theory, indeed the one favoured by the Home Office narrative, is that Luton was chosen due to the witness sighting of four men putting on rucksacks at Luton station, as received on the 12 July 2005. This witness, Susan Clarke, gave her evidence to the Inquest during the afternoon session of 13 October 2010. She describes handing a note of the cars she had seen at Luton station on the morning of the 7 July to a British Transport Police officer at St. Pancras station. This note was handed over on Tuesday 12 July 2005. [Transcript, 13 October 2010, afternoon session - page 14, line 14 on]. Officers attended her place of work at 11.45am on 12 July 2005 and Ms Clarke was interviewed for two and a half hours at Holborn police station.

So this would appear to be how the Luton station CCTV came to be favoured and examined over and above seven other possible stations of focus. Or, at least it would be if either the narrative or DI Kindness were actually relating the facts of the matter. Fortunately for the bereaved and the wider public, the carefully plotted course of Mr Keith's questioning was exposed by further questions interjected by Mr Patterson and Ms Gallagher, the counsels for the bereaved. However, nobody would be aware of this through reading any of the press reports covering the inquest proceedings.

A CCTV viewing log was discovered in evidence that had shortly before been posted on the Lextranet system that the Inquests are utilising to share evidence between the counsel and interested persons. Mr Hill, representing the Metropolitan Police Service, attempted an objection to this line of questioning and Judge Hallett compounded the issue by reiterating the evidence so far:
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Strict rules of evidence, you're obviously right, Mr Hill. Do I take it, to try to cut this short, Mr Kindness, that essentially you were responding to somebody -- somebody else has got information and they've said, "All right, Detective Inspector Kindness, off you go, we want you to look at Luton and Bedford", is that really -- or did the information come to you personally?
A [DI Ewan Kindness]. The information -- Luton and Bedford was seized, my Lady, as a result of the sighting at -- as a result of the sighting at King's Cross Thameslink which had been generated by the CCTV viewing by the CCTV team. So it was natural that we would follow the route up the line. It's as simple as that.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I think this is a fuss about nothing, Mr Hill, with respect.

Here's the kicker:
MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] 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. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

This leaves the one crucial and compelling question: Why were the police reviewing CCTV footage from Luton station and car park on 10 July 2005, when the accused apparently weren't identified on King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until a day later, 11 July 2005?

More importantly, why has it been deemed necessary to concoct the story about the discovery of CCTV at Luton on 12 July 2005?

The Inquests now need to scrutinise the actual manner in which the four accused were identified, and re-examine how, when and why the link to Luton station was made and how, when and why the CCTV was recovered, as the evidential log shows, by 10 July 2005.


On the fourth day of the inquests we learn that this one image of the four accused entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink is the only CCTV image captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. More to follow...
Posted by at 8 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)