London "Suicide Bomber": Cross-Examining the Witness
Faulk | 29.07.2005 01:57
London "Suicide Bomber": Cross-Examining the Witness
by Mark Faulk
Okay, first of all there's this guy.......Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire. And then there's.......um, there's.....well, there's these two girls who told someone at some hospital that they saw a guy "blow up". Names? NO, we didn't get THEIR names, or their stories, and we don't actually HAVE any other witnesses......but we've got Richard Jones!
l
by Mark Faulk
Okay, first of all there's this guy.......Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire. And then there's.......um, there's.....well, there's these two girls who told someone at some hospital that they saw a guy "blow up". Names? NO, we didn't get THEIR names, or their stories, and we don't actually HAVE any other witnesses......but we've got Richard Jones!
l
London "Suicide Bomber": Cross-Examining the Witness
by Mark Faulk
It was trumpeted in newspaper article after newspaper article around the world: "Witnesses Suspect Suicide Bomber."
The Fox News version also cited multiple witnesses, and there seemed to be no question about it: "Some witness accounts suggested the bus bomber may have blundered, blowing up the wrong target and accidentally killing himself."
The UK Sun said that, "Shocked survivors told how they saw a 'suicide bomber' on board the double-decker bus destroyed in yesterday’s terrorist outrage." Other reports referred to "accounts from eyewitnesses on the No. 30 bus" that "raise the spectre of a suicide bomber."
So there you have it. Case closed. According to almost every major news report, not only did investigators find "some of his property on the double-decker bus in which 13 died", but they apparently had multiple reliable witnesses who actually saw the bomber enter the bus with his bomb, and lived to tell about it. Granted, the alleged bomber himself was blown to bits, but who cares, because "WE'VE GOT EYEWITNESSES!"
Justice prevails again. Or does it? Let's take a look at the list of witnesses that have come forward to corroborate the "official version" of the story as it was so dutifully reported by the press.
Okay, first of all there's this guy.......Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire. And then there's.......um, there's.....well, there's these two girls who told someone at some hospital that they saw a guy "blow up". Names? NO, we didn't get THEIR names, or their stories, and we don't actually HAVE any other witnesses......but we've got Richard Jones!
Luckily, Jones' story is so detailed, and his account is so reliable, that we don't NEED any other witnesses. I mean, everybody has heard his saga by now.....haven't they? Well, if you haven't, don't worry, we'll tell you his story right now. Because Jones SAW THE BOMBER!
Let's start with what we know "for certain" (Why? Because Richard Jones told us!): He was on the bus just seconds before it blew up, saw the bomber with the bomb, and miraculously, got off just in the nick of time.
First, let's hear what Jones had to say about the bomber:
The UK's Sunday Mail said that Jones "revealed how he came face-to-face with one of the London bombers" and that Jones said that the bombing suspect "was right in my face." Then, in the same interview, Jones also said that "He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the driver's side."
The Associated Press version quotes Jones from the BBC interviews as saying, ""Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag."
But then, in an article in the UK's Sun, Jones had this to say: "I did not see his face because he was constantly looking down."
And in another interview he said it this way: "I didn't actually see his face but he was becoming more and more anxious."
Then, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, Jones said: "he kept pushing almost his bottom into, into my, my, my face."
"Face-to-face with the bomber"....."right in my face"....."I did not see his face"...."Standing with his back to me"...."pushing his bottom into my face."
Huh? Well, at least his description of the bomb was accurate:
From the BBC News: "He was standing next to me with a bag at his feet and he kept dipping into this bag and fiddling about with something."
Yahoo News: " an agitated man fiddling suspiciously with a paper sack."
In the Sunday Mail: "he only got off because he was so annoyed by the man next to him fiddling with a rucksack"
The interview with ABC's Charles Gibson:
Jones: " It was a, obviously, a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles."
Gibson: "The police have said that they have seen these fellows arriving at King Cross Station (sic) in a closed-circuit television, one of those security cameras, and that they had knapsacks, rucksacks, backpacks on. Is that what this looked like?" (Editor's note: Is that what they call "leading the witness?")
Jones: "That's correct, well, it, it would be something, it wasn't like a large sports bag which protruded beyond his ankles. So that would be consistent."
"A paper sack"....."a small bag"....."fiddling with a rucksack"...."knapsack, rucksack, backpack"....."it wasn't like a large sports bag."
etc
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/CommentaryToo/1037.html
by Mark Faulk
It was trumpeted in newspaper article after newspaper article around the world: "Witnesses Suspect Suicide Bomber."
The Fox News version also cited multiple witnesses, and there seemed to be no question about it: "Some witness accounts suggested the bus bomber may have blundered, blowing up the wrong target and accidentally killing himself."
The UK Sun said that, "Shocked survivors told how they saw a 'suicide bomber' on board the double-decker bus destroyed in yesterday’s terrorist outrage." Other reports referred to "accounts from eyewitnesses on the No. 30 bus" that "raise the spectre of a suicide bomber."
So there you have it. Case closed. According to almost every major news report, not only did investigators find "some of his property on the double-decker bus in which 13 died", but they apparently had multiple reliable witnesses who actually saw the bomber enter the bus with his bomb, and lived to tell about it. Granted, the alleged bomber himself was blown to bits, but who cares, because "WE'VE GOT EYEWITNESSES!"
Justice prevails again. Or does it? Let's take a look at the list of witnesses that have come forward to corroborate the "official version" of the story as it was so dutifully reported by the press.
Okay, first of all there's this guy.......Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire. And then there's.......um, there's.....well, there's these two girls who told someone at some hospital that they saw a guy "blow up". Names? NO, we didn't get THEIR names, or their stories, and we don't actually HAVE any other witnesses......but we've got Richard Jones!
Luckily, Jones' story is so detailed, and his account is so reliable, that we don't NEED any other witnesses. I mean, everybody has heard his saga by now.....haven't they? Well, if you haven't, don't worry, we'll tell you his story right now. Because Jones SAW THE BOMBER!
Let's start with what we know "for certain" (Why? Because Richard Jones told us!): He was on the bus just seconds before it blew up, saw the bomber with the bomb, and miraculously, got off just in the nick of time.
First, let's hear what Jones had to say about the bomber:
The UK's Sunday Mail said that Jones "revealed how he came face-to-face with one of the London bombers" and that Jones said that the bombing suspect "was right in my face." Then, in the same interview, Jones also said that "He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the driver's side."
The Associated Press version quotes Jones from the BBC interviews as saying, ""Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag."
But then, in an article in the UK's Sun, Jones had this to say: "I did not see his face because he was constantly looking down."
And in another interview he said it this way: "I didn't actually see his face but he was becoming more and more anxious."
Then, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, Jones said: "he kept pushing almost his bottom into, into my, my, my face."
"Face-to-face with the bomber"....."right in my face"....."I did not see his face"...."Standing with his back to me"...."pushing his bottom into my face."
Huh? Well, at least his description of the bomb was accurate:
From the BBC News: "He was standing next to me with a bag at his feet and he kept dipping into this bag and fiddling about with something."
Yahoo News: " an agitated man fiddling suspiciously with a paper sack."
In the Sunday Mail: "he only got off because he was so annoyed by the man next to him fiddling with a rucksack"
The interview with ABC's Charles Gibson:
Jones: " It was a, obviously, a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles."
Gibson: "The police have said that they have seen these fellows arriving at King Cross Station (sic) in a closed-circuit television, one of those security cameras, and that they had knapsacks, rucksacks, backpacks on. Is that what this looked like?" (Editor's note: Is that what they call "leading the witness?")
Jones: "That's correct, well, it, it would be something, it wasn't like a large sports bag which protruded beyond his ankles. So that would be consistent."
"A paper sack"....."a small bag"....."fiddling with a rucksack"...."knapsack, rucksack, backpack"....."it wasn't like a large sports bag."
etc
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Faulk
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Same old same old...
29.07.2005 06:22
A
Sigh
29.07.2005 09:04
Are we now assuming that the capitalist tabloid sensationalist media now report 100% accurately what people have said? Or that they ask the right questions?
Are we now assuming that newspaper reporters automatically get access to every possible eyewitness and publish unedited every interview?
Are we now assuming that every eyewitness has instant and accurate recall of everything they saw and that therefore any inconsistencies must be proof of lying? Or do we more reasonably listen to more than one eyewitness and see if the testimony supports one theory over another?
The suicide bomber theory was hardly rushed into. For several days, police statements said they had no evidence as yet that suicide bombers were involved. This is consistent with evidence building up as a result of investigation.
chatterton
Eh?
29.07.2005 09:28
Alec
confused, anyone?
29.07.2005 09:57
to appear very normal?
or, did someone blow THEM up?
what we havent seen [not yet anyway] is the video often recorded in advance by suicide bombers.
the 2nd bombings - the bombers lay across their rucksacks we are told.
Comissioner Blair has said they made 'one' mistake
well may have been more than one but-
did someone adulterate their explosive?
not social services, probably...
enginer
ah hah: an interesting observation for a change
29.07.2005 16:16
Assuming this is true, it may have been to avoid suspicion as you say.
Until the suicide bomber theory became the dominant one, the notion they had return tickets was indeed used in the newspapers to support the idea that maybe the bombers were duped.
See for example:
>>what we havent seen [not yet anyway] is the video often recorded in advance by suicide >>bombers.
This is an interesting observation. It is usual in suicide bomber cases for the bombers to record a message of some kind, but none have so far come to light. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just might not have been found. Or that we haven't been told about them. What it might mean if they never turn up is more difficult to know.
Maybe, as Jason Burke has pointed out, we're into a more fractured situation now, where groups appear with much less ideological coherence than the original networks. So usual practices are set aside.
But it's good to see an intelligent observation for a change. Thank you.
chatterton
IMC the alternative version or WOT ?
29.07.2005 17:32
I was under the impression that IMC was set up to allow Joe Public to publish alternative version of news and articles relating to current events in the UK.
It would be good if say in the case of this posting other people added links to exactly to quotes from witnesses to the bombongs, as some of these people were out of towners they quite probably made statements to local news media in where ever it was they lived. So by collecting as many as possible it might well be possible to get a better idea of how much the corporate media invented.
IMC is a site where I expect to see the other side of the coin articles that criticise the governments / Police /
main stream media's version.
It's pretty obvious that any posting that is anti Israel will attract a lot of flak from irate israeli supporters who are pissed off that they only manage to keep the lid on 99% of the media and have hordes lobbyists who can take time off from writing 40.000 letters of complaint to the BBC to hastle IMC.
What exactly do Alec and A expect from IMC, a slightly left of centre version of the corporate media or something similar ? . I wonder if these people are not cops or frustrated civil servants.
I can't see that the 00.01% of the public that tune into IMC are going to make the slightest difference to their game plan to continue to wage war on the worlds poor and reap the huge benefits, it's a compliment to IMC if these people really are spooks but I find it hard to believe.
surely the IMC admin should censor any comments that are basically one line personal opinions which are basically irrelevant to the original posting, which in this case wasn't exactly news and couldn't really be used by anyone researching what witnesses said due to the lack of source links.
It would be very interesting to collect as many statements made by witnesses and compare them to see just
how much old bull old bill has thrown in ..
Media Mente
Oi!
29.07.2005 17:56
That was uncalled for!
Alec
Were ther any suicide bombers?
30.07.2005 00:28
'The explosion happened just after Mr Lait and Ms Main, 23, got on the train at Liverpool Street on their way to the South Bank for a rehearsal.
He recalled that the carriage had about 20-25 people in it, from all walks of life, and aged from their teens to over 60.
"I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me," he said.
"We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said.
The impact of the blast made him pass out. As he came to, he wondered whether he was alive or dead.
"We were right in the carriage where the bomb was. I was knocked out. I did not know what was going on.
"I wondered if I was dead or not. I said to myself, you can't be dead because your brain is having conscious thoughts, so concentrate hard. I was telling myself 'wake up Bruce, wake up'."
Royal visit: At Royal London Hospital
Disorientated, he only gradually realised where he was and what had happened.
"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal.
"She was okay but she was in shock because she was trying to deal with the person on top of her who had massive head injuries. We have just found out that this person died," said Mr Lait, who lives in Suffolk.
He too was afraid to move because there was a seriously injured woman lying on top of him.
"I realised someone was lying on top of me. I tried not to move her because I didn't know if she was still alive, or I could have made it worse. This person also died, while on top of me."
At the same time, he slowly tried to work out whether he or Crystal had been injured.
"I thought if I can wiggle my toes I'm okay, and I could, and I asked Crystal to do the same."
Describing the scene as they waited for help, he said: "It was just the most awful scene of death and there were body parts everywhere. There was something next to me. I was trying not to look. I couldn't figure out what it was."
When paramedics arrived, they confirmed that the woman on top of him was dead and carefully moved her body. Mr Lait said the middle-aged woman had blonde curly hair, was dressed in black, and could have been a businesswoman.
He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums.
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.
etc
brian
Media Mental
30.07.2005 06:58
What does Media Merte expect? A temporary suspension of healthy cynicism as other theories dip a toe into the wonderful word of social paranoia?
Boab
Two legs good
30.07.2005 22:48
A-a-a-a-h, thanks Boab. At least I give my real name.
MM's post has set me thinking. I am a little bit concerned that someone claiming to be upholding the principles of IndyMedia should then talk about censoring alternate opinions. In the short time I have been lurking here, I have been reminded more of 'Animal Farm' than I care to be.
THUS SPAKE MEDIA_MERTE ==> I find very, very interesting, almost mind boggling, the amount of negative comments which are added to certain articles posted on IMC UK.
These "negative" comments, I am afraid, are well-deserved repostes to frankly bonkers pieces which require almost mind-boggling suspensions of disbelief from my willy to be taken seriously. (For a moment I thought you were talking about the standard accusations of troll-dom, or comparisons with Nazi Germany.) There is a wide gulf between not believing everything our Beloved Leader tells us, and the quasi-religious levels of credulity required to accept the above suggestion.
==> IMC is a site where I expect to see the other side of the coin articles that criticise the governments
Which we get in abundance. The right to be heard does not, however, necessarily include the right to be taken seriously.
IMC is one source of news. For all the interesting articles I have read, I have still detected the information contained therein by careful reading of the 'corporate' media. IMC gives it in more detail. Do not flatter yourselves by implying owt else.
==> I can't see that the 00.01% of the public that tune into IMC
A highly self-depreciatory remark. It sits in very odd juxtaposition, though, with your attitude that dissenting voices (irony fully intended) should be editted out.
Frustated Civil Servant