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?

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

The Perjury of Martin Gilbertson

When Martin Gilbertson gave his witness testimony to the 7/7 Inquest, under questioning from Hugo Keith, he merely repeated the same lies he had told to various media outlets when interviewed in June 2006.

September 11th, 2001: in front of a television set a computer shop in Beeston, Leeds - where I was working - aghast at the news, watching the Twin Towers fall. I will never forget, as the second plane crashed into the World Trade Centre's South Tower, the cheers of the people in the room around me. I was horrified by what I saw, while they screamed their hoorays. Next day, September 12th, with details coming out about the connections to al-Qaida, the owners of the shop and some of their 'brothers' from the area held a celebration party: drinking pop, passing round crisps - cheering, shouting their delight at what they saw as an attack on the infidel, Satanic USA.

Source: Martin Gilbertson interview, The Guardian 24 June 2006
J7 Forum copy (original no longer on the Guardian website)

Q. [Hugo Keith QC] In September of that year, did you come across an organisation called Technology Bits and Pieces in Dewsbury Road in Beeston?
A. [Gilbertson] Yes.
Q. Did you start working there after a fashion?
A. Yes, I started doing work there.
Q. When did you start working there?
A. In the summer of that year -- was it 2001? -- I think, 2001.
Q. Was Technology Bits and Pieces in essence a computer shop?
A. It was a Learn Direct centre which also built and sold computers.
Q. A subsequent interview that you gave reveals that you were working there at the time of the terrorist attacks in the United States of America, 9/11.
A. That's correct.
Q. What was the atmosphere like in that shop, Technology Bits and Pieces, when it became apparent what had occurred in the United States?
A. They were happy, they were basically cheering it and laughing that such a gross attack could be perpetrated on America.
Q. Were you shocked or surprised by that?
A. I was shocked and surprised, but not as surprised as I could have been, to be honest.
Q. Why was that?
A. I'd had many discussions in there about Islam and, as an atheist, I don't believe in God, so that was causing me some personal problems with them.
Q. Was there anything about their general approach that indicated, at that stage, a level of extremism?
A. Not too much, no. It was just the fact that I was an atheist, it was rubbing them the wrong way to a point.
Q. The following day, were you in the computer shop, 12 September?
A. Yes, I was there to repair a computer for them.
Q. Was the atmosphere similarly jovial the following day?
A. Yes, they were having a party.

Source: Hearing Transcripts 16 February 2011 afternoon page 20 lines 4 on

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police knew that these claims were a lie - the shop Gilbertson claimed these 'celebrations' had taken place, Idoo PC, was raided in September 2005 .

By the time of the Inquests: Imran Bham, the owner of Idoo PC had his home and businesses searched, computers seized and was put out of business by the claims of Martin Gilbertson and the actions of the West Yorkshire and Metropolitan Police in the 'Operation Theseus' investigation:

Bomb police raids killed off business

Two months after the initial raids in Leeds, police staged a fresh wave of searches – this time storming a computer shop in Beeston and a training centre in Sheffield.

The Idoo PC shop on Dewsbury Road in Beeston was raided on September 13 and its sister business IT2 Home, in the Darnall area of Sheffield, was raided three days later.

All computer equipment was seized from both properties because it was believed the bombers could have had access to them.

The owner of the Beeston enterprise, Imran Bham, is known to have been friends with those who ran both the Iqra and the Hamara Youth Action Point.

Mr Bham's home on Bridge Street in Batley was also raided.

No charges have arisen from the operation, but again, officers say the investigation is ongoing. Idoo PC's management tried to keep the business open in the wake of the raids, but finally closed the shop for good a month later.

Staff claim that although police have never found any evidence of criminal activity, customers stayed away because of its association with the terror inquiry.

One member of staff, who did not wish to be named, told the Yorkshire Post: "We were put out of business by what happened last year.

"We tried to get the computers back from the police but we weren't able to. We can't even get an audit of what they took. They took every single computer – customers' machines, and even the dummy one which we kept on display with flashing lights.

"People didn't want to touch us after that."

He said Learn Direct, the Government backed organisation which funded the Sheffield business, had also cut ties with the business since the police raids.

He added that when officers raided Imran Bham's home address, the bomb squad was brought in to test large plastic containers which turned out to be full of holy water.

Source: Yorkshire Post 5th July 2006

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police had taken two statements from Martin Gilbertson, the first in July 2005 over a period of two days in a hotel as Gilbertson claimed 'he feared for his safety'. This was arranged with WYP by the Daily Mirror after Gilbertson contacted them and been interviewed. His second statement, amounting to 29 pages, was taken in June 2006. His testimony above was adduced from these statements.

MR BEGGS: Mr Gilbertson, it comes to this, that from 7 July, and the 18th or 19th, you somehow couldn't contact the West Yorkshire Police, but you did manage to contact the Daily Mirror?
A. Yes, I did, yes.
Q. Is that because, Mr Gilbertson, the sad truth is that you are an egocentric self-publicist, a fantasist, exaggerator, speculator, irresponsible individual?
A. No, I would --
Q. Well, explain to her Lady how it is that you struggled to pick the telephone up to the police on your doorstep, being an internet expert yourself, and yet you were able to contact the media? [ibid 72:13-25]

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police and the Metropolitan Police Service knew that Gilbertson had not been at a Learn Direct centre, or indeed any shop owned by Imran Bham, in September 2001 'celebrating 9/11' as they were in possession of the leaseholder's statement proving that the business didn't exist in September 2001. The lease for the shop had not been signed until May 2002:

Enlarge

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire police were well aware of the nature of Gilbertson's false allegations against the Muslim community in Beeston, allegations that went as far as claiming he had been asked to make DVDs containing images of the murder of Ken Bigley. Easily shown to be false as Gilbertson once again hoists himself by his own petard with the claim that he had left the Iqra bookshop in July 2004. Beggs, the QC for WYP, still had to ask:

Q.[Mr Beggs] If you turn back a couple of pages, please, to page 18, you suggest in the second paragraph of the version for the court with the inquest number on it, you say: "On another occasion whilst at Iqra, it was shortly after the news broke regarding the execution of Ken Bigley." You go on to describe an incident at the bookshop, don't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr Bigley was murdered on 7 or perhaps 8 October 2004. That's a matter of public record. Do you understand, Mr Gilbertson?
A. Yes, I understand. It must have been later than July that I left.
Q. Well, or is it perhaps the case that you simply have no regard to accuracy whatsoever?
A. As far as I'm aware, all the statements I made were true and accurate.
Q. That one can't be, can it, because we've just established on your account you'd left Iqra and yet you're able, you say, to relate an incident that you couldn't have been present at. Do you see?
A. Yes, I agree, yes. There is that there.
Q. Do you agree with me that the truth, Mr Gilbertson, is you have no real regard for accuracy and fact, do you?
A. I would disagree with that. I've made an error and --
Q. Let's see if another incident is an error or, again, your self-publicity, because -- [ibid p75:18on]

By the time of the Inquests: Questions in relation to Gilbertson's statements had even been raised in Parliament:

Enlarge

Source

By the time of the Inquests: Martin Gilbertson had not been charged with giving false evidence or wasting police time. Yet Imran Yaqub Patel was prosecuted and jailed for lying about information concerning the events of 7/7 which caused a wasteful diversion of police resources in investigating his bogus claims.

By the time of the Inquests: West Yorkshire Police had spent tens of thousands of pounds and hundreds of man hours investigating Gilbertson's claims that he had posted disks to them in an attempt to warn them of the extremism in the community prior to 7/7 - all expended to protect their reputation against his allegations, whilst caring nothing about the impact of his lies on the wider community and Imran Bhan in particular.

MR BEGGS: No, of course, certainly not. But it will be understood, of course, that West Yorkshire Police incurred tens of thousands of pounds of money chasing down the false hares. [ibid 76:23]

Q. You know, don't you, I think, that there was an extensive investigation led by a detective superintendent from West Yorkshire Police who advanced 12 distinct and, again, extensive lines of enquiry to see whether there was any truth in the suggestion that you had posted something?
A. I did not know that, no.
Q. You see, I wonder whether you can account for the fact that, despite deploying phenomenal resources and numbers of detectives, not a single jot of evidence, not one jot of evidence, came to light to support your assertion, not even one thing supported it. [ibid 87:22]

By the time of the Inquests: the only people to have been charged and imprisoned in any connection to Operation Theseus - the investigation into the events in London on 7th July 2005 - were not 'Islamic radicals' but two police officers investigating the Beeston community; including the Metropolitan Police officer who executed the search warrant for Idoo PC, DC Darren Pooley.

Enlarge

A copy of Imran Bham's Witness Statement to the 7/7 Inquests can be downloaded here.