Ten main areas of interest written up by the July 7th Truth Campaign which I highlight here of particular special interest (I have not had time to explore J7’s investigatory reporting about discrepancies between the official account and where explosions took place on the 3 trains (ie: discrepancies between the location of where the alleged bombers were located on each of the trains, the location of the blasts and the presence of holes oin the floor indicating the blasts happened on the floors of the train, such as with the evidence of witness Danny Biddle who claims Mohammed Sidique Khanhad his rucksack resting on his legs as he was sat with two people sitting opposite him apparantly surviving the blast).

The 10 main areas:

1). Martin “Abdullah” McDaid
2). Why did £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?
3). The curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on the morning of 7/7/2005
4). Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion
5). How and why did police commence investigation of Luton CCTV footage before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station and the reasons why Luton was first identified as significant in investigation:
6). The mysterious curious case of the Jaguar at Luton station car park on both the 28th June and 7th July 2005
7). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)".
8). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, get away with having given a very misleading description of the bomber for so long?
9). Questions over eye witness accounts of Hasib Hussain on No.30 bus on 7/7:
10). Who was/were the 5th (and 6th) man/men?



In detail, source of this information taken from  http://77inquests.blogspot.com .. (and has been partially re-scribed by myself mainly for the purposes of shortening it):

1).
(i). McDaid Who?
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/02/mcdaid-who.html

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid is a name that has emerged recently at the 7/7 Inquests.


Some of the following information was presented as evidence for submission on 'Preventability' to the Inquests' coroner and counsel by the July 7th Truth Campaign:


Anti-war activist Martin Gilbertson who worked at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston, Leeds in regard to council-funded projects within which 7/7 bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were actively involved, claims that the most vocal of all those he worked with was not any of the four accused but a white convert to Islam; ex-SBS soldier and anti-terrorist operative Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. Infact, McDaid was known to MI5 and West Yorkshire Police as far back as 1998.

Gilbertson has said of McDaid:
“Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid did most of the talking, most of the ranting and raving; and as an ex-Marine, he knew about matters military.”[1]

A joint West Yorkshire Police and MI5 operation named Operation Warlock was active in the Beeston area of Leeds from at least January 2001. As part of this undercover investigation, 40 individuals were surveillanced taking part in an outdoor expedition in the countryside organised by “two known Islamist sympathisers” (quoted from the ISC II Report) assumed to be Tafazal Mohammed and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. Tafazal Mohammed set up and ran the Iqra bookshop and learning centre.

Mohammed Sidique Khan had also attended the camp and a photograph was taken of him but a source to whom West Yorkshire Police subsequently showed the photo failed to recognise or identify him. Some time after the camp, in April 2003, McDaid was seen briefly to get into a car that subsequent checks established was a car registered to a Mr Sidique Khan of 11 Gregory Street. Khan was assessed as having no significance following a two day joint West Yorkshire Police/MI5 surveillance operation, Operation Honeysuckle, which ran on 14/15 April 2003. This was the very same date a camping trip run by Max Gillespie/Abdul Rahman, and attended by at least Tafazal if not McDaid also, took place (Pakistani Rahman was the first person in Britain to be convicted of a charge of disseminating terrorist information in Nov 2007).

Given his background, McDaid has featured surprisingly little in connection with the story of 7/7. McDaid's apparent volte-face conversion from one of the highest levels of Defence of the Realm to 'radical Islamism', is still something of an unexplained and largely uninvestigated mystery. Also in close proximity to the four accused is another white convert to Islam, James McLintock, also with links to the Iqra bookshop. McLintock is a former fighter with the Mujahideen, also known by the Islamic name Mohammed Yacoub/Yaqub, and who has been arrested on separate occasions “on suspicion of terrorist activities”[2], usually in the vicinity of Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Richard Watson broadcast on 9th May 2007, Martin Gilbertson reveals that after viewing a propaganda video produced by people involved in activities organised within the Iqra bookshop – including Mohammed Sidique Khan (shortly after having returned from a trip to Pakistan) – a video which Gilbertson considered was inflammatory and concerning, he secretly produced copies of the film and alerted the police. Sometime after this in early 2004, West Yorkshire police raided the Iqra bookshop and seized the computers. [View Watson’s interview with Gilbertson on Newsnight broadcast on 9th May 2007 here: ]

Why has there never been any mention of the police seizure of computers from the Iqra in early 2004? When did this raid take place? What prompted the raid? What information and data was garnered from these computers and how was it acted upon?

Martin Gilbertson's claim that he was so concerned about the goings-on at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston - a claim which played out in the media to include Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer - that he contacted West Yorkshire Police in 2003 was thoroughly discredited by counsels to the Inquests, the bereaved and West Yorkshire Police. Gilbertson's statements to the police, one of which was taken over two days in a hotel because Gilbertson 'feared for his safety', and his testimony to the Inquests, came under close scrutiny and sustained attack at the 7/7 Inquest.


Information passed to J7 revealed that the 'security services' tipped off a newspaper in 2002 with information about Martin McDaid. Although the original article is not available online, it was referenced in a Times article of June 2006 which examined Gilbertson's story:

Contrary to the government’s claims, this hotbed of extremism had not gone unnoticed by MI5. In early 2002 a source within the security services was sufficiently concerned about McDaid to tip off a journalist on this newspaper about him. The source alleged that young Muslims were being taken on outdoor pursuits courses as part of training for possible terrorist attacks. Inquiries were made but nobody in the local community was willing to talk.

The tip-off was that McDaid, the ex-Special Boat Service soldier cum 'radical' 'extremist' convert to Islam, was training people in the countryside. However, the security services refused to provide a picture of McDaid to accompany the story, suggesting that the security services were happy for the legend about a 'Muslim' 'extremist' "training for possible terrorist attacks" to be known, but without anyone being able to identify him by appearance. J7's source believes that McDaid's name (without an accompanying identifying photograph) was only passed to the newspaper to provide cover and credibility for McDaid within the local community.


From the ISC report we also note that between Operation Warlock (2001) and Operation Honeysuckle (2003) another operation began in late March 2003. This was Operation Crevice, which was to lead, a year later, to the arrests and prosecution of the 'fertiliser bomb plot', a prosecution in which Mohammed Junaid Babar played a central part by testifying against the accused (Mohammed Junaid Babar – who set up the terrorist training camp where Mohammed Sidique Khan learned how to manufacture explosives, became an FBI/CIA asset at some point between mid 2003 and March 2004, hence why he was quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence in Nov 2010). At around the same time that Operation Crevice began (Spring 2003 according to the Metropolitan Police Service) Mohammed Junaid Babar was engaged in his second trip to the UK during which he apparently met with Mohammed Sidique Khan in Leeds. This was in April 2003 according to Hassan Butt. Who else did Mohammed Junaid Babar travel to Leeds to meet? Was Babar in the locality around the time of Operation Honeysuckle, the 14-15 April 2003?

References:
[1]. 'When I heard where the bombers were from I felt sick' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
NO LONGER AVAILABLE ONLINE
[2]. Profile: James McLintock - Times Online
Ref:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6121318.ece


J7 report that Operation Crevice was initially and apparently an investigation into Mohammed Quayyam Khan aka 'Q'. J7 say it highlighted what they say are the dubious credentials of 'Q' in their submission to the Inquests regarding issues of Preventability:

During the 2007 trial of the Crevice suspects, it was claimed that the mysterious figure known as 'Q' [3], later identified as Mohammed Quayyum Khan, had recruited both Mohammad Sidique Khan and Omar Khyam; the latter of whom is the alleged ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot investigated via Operation Crevice. Questions were asked after the Crevice trial regarding why 'Q' was not arrested along with the others.

BBC Panorama reporter, Peter Taylor, challenged DAC Peter Clarke with the following questions during an episode entitled 'Real Spooks' [4], broadcast in May 2007:

TAYLOR: Why was 'Q' never arrested?
CLARKE: Decisions are made during the course of investigation based upon the evidence that's available, and the decision as to who should be arrested is based entirely upon what evidence is available at the time.
TAYLOR: Was 'Q' not arrested possibly because he was working for you or MI5?
CLARKE: I'm not prepared to comment on any speculation like that. It's pure speculation.
TAYLOR: Where is 'Q' now?
CLARKE: I said I'm not prepared to talk about 'Q'.

A simple, “No.” from Clarke might have sufficed if indeed it was the case that 'Q' had no connection to the police or security services.

Was Mohammed Quayyum Khan ever questioned or investigated in connection to 7th July? Why wasn't he included on the blacklists of al-Qaeda financiers

Footnotes
3. Bomb plotters' al-Qa'eda 'link' still in Britain – Telegraph
Ref:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550210/Bomb-plotters-al-Qaeda-link-still-in-Britain.html
4. BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Real Spooks: transcript
Ref:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6692741.stm


Information about Operation Crevice contained within the ISC report directly linked Mohammed Sidique Khan to 'Q' through a number of July 2003 phone calls to a phone registered in Mohammed Sidique Khan's name to 49a Bude Road. 49a Bude Road is of course the address of the Iqra bookshop of which, in 2003, Mohammed Sidique Khan was a trustee.

So, the ISC's seemingly direct link may not be as direct as they suggest. The phone may well have been used as an all purpose phone on the Iqra premises, rather than a 'personal' phone used solely by Mohammed Sidique Khan. Khan may well have just happened to be the person who registered the phone on behalf of Iqra and the calls could have been received by anyone on the premises. Despite MI5's claims that the name Sidique Khan didn't match any on file -- even though his car registration was noted and traced to him on 16 April 2003 -- the 'Security Services' would certainly have known about and been interested in the address of the Iqra bookshop, particularly if they had been monitoring McDaid since 1998, and as a result of the names of the registered charity trustees they garnered from Operation Honeysuckle.

Did the running of two separate operations, Crevice and Honeysuckle, preclude the ability for either single operation to comprehend the bigger picture, or perhaps allow for State assets to operate effectively in the shadows of each surveillance operation? With all the various individuals apparently under surveillance as far back as 7 years before July 2005, yet none of them apprehended in time to prevent the events of 7/7, this would appear to be the case.

Mohammed Junaid Babar - an FBI/CIA asset; 'Q' - an MI5 asset, and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, an ex-Special Boat Service anti-terrorist operative and 'convert' to Islam that MI5 were happy to tip off The Times about, all just one step removed from those accused of perpetrating the attacks of 7 July 2005... well, figure it out for yourself.

[See also: the case of the case of Bisher al-Rawi & Jamil el-Banna in relation to Abu Qatada and the creation of previously untraceble links between Al-Qaeda and Hamas
Ref: ].






2). Why did £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?

According to 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 supposedly used in the attacks in London on July 7th 2011 and attempted to have been used on July 21st 2011, which is meant to have consisted of mixing Hydrogen Peroxide with black pepper/masala spice.

.







3).
Curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on 7/7:
On the fourth day of the inquests, it became apparent that a set of images of the four accused bombers disembarking from a Thameslink train (with date and time blanked out), and a further one of them entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink are the only CCTV images captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. No other footage exists, we are told, that shows the movements of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after the King's Cross Thameslink was captured.


J7:
“An exchange between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, [on the afternoon of 14th October] has revealed that a “temporary system" of 76 cameras installed at King's Cross malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. The one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station.”

“This means that:

* There is no CCTV footage from the underground showing Hasib Hussain allegedly on the Northern Line,
* There is no CCTV footage showing the "iconic" but never seen image of the four men hugging euphorically (as given in evidence under oath by a member of the travelling public that morning - Joseph Martoccia)
 There is no CCTV from the ticket gates, subways or platforms showing any of the four accused at King's Cross.
 As well as that, no cctv images recorded where Hasib Hussain entered into McDonalds in Kings Cross or where is alleged to have boarded the 91 and 30 buses, but most significantly, at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005 (see below).

Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/final-curtain-cctv-rich-to-cctv-fail.html




4).
Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion

Mr Hugo Keith QC, Counsel to the Inquests, has maintained that Circle Line train 204 from Liverpool St to Aldgate East underwent a power-surge related to an explosion at 08.49 mins on 7/7/2005.
Mr Hugo Keith QC: "... and would explain that the times referred to are approximate times recorded by the power control operation in the handwritten logs. The times I have referred to are the actual times extracted from the power system computerised event logs. "In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King's Cross/Russell Square."
Source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning Session, page 9, Lines 6-19

J7 from their inquest blog:
“Curiously, the Trackernet images from Aldgate on 7 July 2005 doesn't appear to have made it into the Inquest bundle of evidence, or at least not yet, although the Trackernet images of Edgware Road have. A trackernet image of the time of the explosion has been annotated by J7 using the Working Time Table for the London Underground, which the J7 Truth Campaign have obtained through a Freedom of Information Request.” Published on their website ( http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/behind-scenes-of-aldgate-explosion-it.html?showComment=1288100317841#c5558018409111845030 ).

“All other trains in this image are also in their correct places, according to the Working Timetable, if the time of this explosion is 08.46.30, the time that train 204 was in transit to Aldgate, not 08.49”.

Furthermore, you can observe in the cctv footage of train 204 at Liverpool St departing the eastbound platform at Liverpool Street at 08.45:41 (ref:  http://vimeo.com/13185022 - the cctv shows the time of 07.45 – which is taken to be a result of the time settings of that camera having not been adjusted for GMT). Then, from a camera on the westbound platform adjacent to the one just mentioned on the eastbound platform, large billows of smoke can be observed to emerge at 08.46:40, indicating the explosion occurred less than a minute after Train 204 departed the Liverpool Street eastbound platform to Aldgate East station.

Re: the tming of theses explosions, on the day of the attacks, Efraim Halevi, the ex-Mossad Chief, who had an article published in the Jerusalem Post on the same day, shockingly entitled, 'Rules of Conflict for A World War' claimed:

“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.

There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.”

Halevi's article also contains this chilling statement:

It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.

Halevi, the ex-Mossad chief who happens to be a member of the Clove Club Old Boys Association for former pupils of Hackney Downs School, alongside Lord Levy who has twice been arrested in connection with the Labour Party's cash-for-honours scandal, reaches these startlingly conclusions:

Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.

Compare Halevi's analysis and insight into the “near perfect execution” of “multiple, simultaneous, explosions”, an article written and published on 7th July 2005, with the comment by The Guardian correspondent Rosie Cowan in an article for PR Week on 29th September 2005, 7 July: Putting crisis into practice (now hidden behind a paid-for subscription service):

More problems developed when the authorities ran out of answers. Journalists were frustrated by apparent inconsistencies in statements, another fuel for conspiracies. 'I still can't understand why it took them [TfL and the Met] days to tell us that all the Tube bombs went off virtually simultaneously,' says The Guardian crime correspondent Rosie Cowan.

In March 2005, Efraim Halevi had been appointed to the Advisory Board of Quest, a UK based Risk Management & Investigation company. The Chairman of Quest is Sir John Stevens, ex-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the first person to claim that the 7/7 attacks were carried out by British citizens in his column for the News of The World on 10th July, 2 days before the first raids were carried out in West Yorkshire.




5).
How and why did police commence investigation of Luton CCTV footage before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station and the reasons why Luton was first identified as significant in investigation:

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 6, lines 12-25

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 10, line 19 on


The Home Office narrative suggests 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.

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 65, line 15

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.

Bridget Dunne, 10/16/2010
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/cctv-fuss-about-nothing.html



6). The case of the mysterious Jaguar at Luton station car park and the inexplicable disappearance of cctv footage at critical times throughout the early morning of 7th July 2005 at Luton Station carpark:

At the 7/7 Inquest, cctv footage from 28th June 2005 and 7th July 2005 was shown (28th June 2005 is when the alleged bombers allegedly conducted a ‘dummy run’ on the LU tube network).

Footage from Luton station car park were observed from both dates.
View here:  http://vimeo.com/16127256

At 08.08:42, police have identified on cctv footage Khan and Tanweer walking towards Luton station on the right-hand side of the station carpark (on the road approach leading to the station). At exactly the same time, a dark-coloured Jaguar can be observed parked at the bottom of the car park. One of the two alleged bombers can be observed to to turning back as they both walk ahead side-by-side, looking in the direction of this Jaguar.

Then on the morning of 7th July 2005, the same cctv camera has recorded footage of the same Jaguar parked in exactly the same location in the car-park at 06.52:03, two and a half minutes after Jermain Lindsey arrives in his Fiat Brava (at 06.49:28). There is an 88-sec gap in the cctv footage in which time the Jaguar must have entered the car park and parked (missing footage between 06.50:11 & 06.51:39). Then , within 2 minutes of the Jaguar arriving, Tanweer’s blue Nissan Micra enters the car park at 06.52:12, and at exactly the same time, the Jaguar starts up, moves off and does a 360 degree turn from where it is parked at the bottom of the car park and travels back up the car park. As it travels up the car park, the Nissan Micra parks ahead of it on the right-hand side of the car-park next to Jermain Lindsey’s Fiat Brava at 06.52:38. At this point, there is a gap of 76 seconds in the cctv footage. When the cctv resumes at 06.53:59, the Jaguar is not mobile. However, a newly parked car can be observed next to the Nissan Micra. Could this be the same mysterious Jaguar?

J7:
“Whilst there is 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?”

Bridget Dunne, 10/24/2010
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/search/label/Jaguar



7).
Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)".

Taken from :  http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-30-bus-tavistock-square.html

New Zealander, Richmal Oates-Whitehead, died alone in her London flat, just weeks after the events in London on 7th July 2005. As a clinical editor for BMJ Evidence, an online edition of the British Medical Journal. Richmal was working in the BMA building in Tavistock Square when the number 30 Bus explosion occurred.

She rose to prominence and the attention of the public as a “heroine of the July 7 bombings” in the wake of the number 30 bus explosion outside her offices at BMA House when she recounted her story of assisting in the recovery operation to the New Zealand Herald. Ms Whitehead told of how she was asked by firefighters to assist before being asked to move away from the scene as police conducted a second explosion on a suspect package identified on the lower deck of the number 30 bus, described as a 'microwave box'.

J7 included Richmal's account of the number 30 bus explosion in our submission to the 7/7 Inquests. We wrote:

A second controlled explosion which was denied by Scotland Yard, has since been confirmed in reports. The denial came in a report of a young woman, Richmal Oates-Whitehead, who helped at the scene of the bus and who was soon after found dead in her flat. She was then accused of being a fantasist:

"She later told the Weekend Herald, a New Zealand paper, that she had been helping the injured in a makeshift hospital set up in a hotel next door to the BMA when two fire-fighters approached her for help. "They needed one doctor to assist as firemen cut two badly injured people out of the wreckage. Would she come? They would understand if she declined," the front page article said. It reported Ms Oates-Whitehead as saying: "There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do." Her account included a controlled detonation of a second bomb. "Outside, there was another enormous bang as police detonated the 'bomb' - which turned out to be a false alarm."

The veracity of Ms Whitehead's story was originally called into question by the fact that Scotland Yard claimed to have no record of a second explosion at Tavistock Square. However, in the months that followed it was to be Scotland Yard's denial of a second explosion in Tavistock Square that was later proven to be false, not Ms Oates-Whitehead's account of a second explosion, a fact that raises further questions about the strange life and death of someone originally hailed as a “heroine of the July 7 bombings”.


According to 7/7 Truth, reports of the controlled explosion were also confirmed from a witness report of a London firefighter - Toby Keep of Holloway Blue Watch, PC Robert Crawford and the driver of the bus, George Psaradakis.

On 25 January 2011, a statement that Richmal had provided to the police, dated 14/07/05, was read out at the 7/7 Inquests. The most absurd discussion ensued where Richmal's evidence was thrown into disrepute on the basis of a plan of the number 30 bus which she had marked. Not a plan she had drawn herself, but in fact a plan provided for her by a DC Perry, the investigating officer who took her statement:

"A police officer then approached me and requested I assist with evacuating the wounded from the bus as there may be another bomb. The urgency was such that these people had to be moved regardless of injury. I approached the bus from the rear nearside. There appeared to be a big gap, then just seats. The entire back of the bus had gone. I could see organ and body parts on the footway. I remember seeing clearly a whole liver and what I believed to be four right arms.I stood on the bottom deck of the bus entering from the middle doors. I could see a male on the left-hand side of the bus in a seat. DC Perry has shown me a diagram of the bus and I have placed a letter D where I believe his location was."
My Lady, could we have on the screen [INQ8952-2]? My Lady, just pausing in the statement for a moment, you will see that this is a plan of the upper deck of the bus. Notwithstanding that, the D that you'll see there would appear to be consistent with the position of Sam Ly or certainly insofar as it was on the nearside of the bus. As you will recall from the other plan, he was, in fact, sitting several seats further to the rear of the lower deck of the bus.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Sorry, just a minute.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: Perhaps we could have the other plan?
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Is this consistent? There's obviously a question mark as to how much reliance I can place on any of this, but: "I stood on the bottom deck, having entered from the middle doors. I could see a male on the left-hand side."
That, if she's come in the middle doors and on the left-hand side, is either likely to be looking down the bus towards the rear at the offside or it's on the left-hand side and going towards the driver. I'm not sure that it is consistent with Mr Ly, is it?
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: My Lady, if one starts with the plan --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Leaving aside she's got the wrong deck.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: The deck is wrong, that's the first point, although, as we've seen from the photographs, by this time, certainly towards the rear, the top and bottom deck had collapsed into each other. If one looks at the position D, what one can say is that it is on the correct side of the bus to be Sam Ly. It is two or three seats too far forward. In fact, it's three seats too far forward to be Sam Ly, but it is on the correct side of the bus and it is next to the window. As far as the left side of the bus, my Lady, from where she entered the bus, as you say, it would have been on the right. He was sitting on the left-hand side of the bus as one looked in the direction of travel.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: But this plan, because it's the upper deck, has no middle doors.
MR ANDREW O'CONNOR: No, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I don't feel I can place any reliance upon that observation at all.



Reports of secondary explosions were also reported at Holborn and at Edgware Road. CNN International were the only channel to report that the police carried out a controlled explosion at Edgware Road station, and as the reporter says, “of course hampering the operation to collect evidence”. View Utube link to this news report as it went out live on the day here:
 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html






8). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, get away with having given a very misleading description of the bomber for so long?

Richard Jones gave testimony under oath to the 7/7 Inquests on the afternoon of 12th January 2011. As J7 has noted, it was Mr Jones, who received widespread media exposure, whose many media appearances and accounts helped propagate the 'suicide bomber' observation with regard to the Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square. He quoted at the time as describing the bomber as:
"[A] man [who] was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top."
BBC broadcast an episode of Real Story with Fiona Bruce, "Terror Comes to London", broadcast on BBC1 on Monday 11 July, 2005, which gave considerable time to the eye-witness testimony of Richard Jones. Richard said: "The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top. It's a strange thing to remember but he was right in my face. I thought he was a real pain in the a**e". He described how “[He] sat next to the disabled area of er.. the London bus towards the back, but what actually I noticed was that a young lad had got on. About 25 years old erm.. thin, six foot, erm.. olived skinned. Very well dressed. And a ... he was shoved towards me and he put a bag at his feet and off the bus went.”
[source:  http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-30-bus-tavistock-square.html#richardjones ].

Mr Jones acknowledged during his testimony on 12/01/11 that he hadn't actually seen the man later identified as Hasib Hussain on this bus.


Of the 7 points made in the ‘official narrative’ - the Home Office's Official Account of the 7 July 2005 London bombings - as "the key evidence indicating that these were co-ordinated suicide attacks by these 4 men", point 5 is:
“Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks shortly before the explosions.”

If the anonymous author(s) compiling the State's narrative actually had sight of the police and intelligence service evidence, rather than just media reports, how could they possibly have come to this conclusion? Is point 5 of only 7 points of key evidence merely 'conjecture and surmise'?



9).
Questions over eye witness accounts of Hasib Hussain on No.30 bus on 7/7:

In the opening week of the Tavistock Square evidence at the 7/7 Inquests, Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer was questioned by Hugo Keith QC regarding the man she saw on the No.91 bus:

A. Yes, in particular I remember this Asian-looking, tall guy with the big backpack, which was then found as this bomber.
Q. Can I ask you, please, what was it about him, if anything, that made you notice him? Presumably the bus was quite crowded.
A. Yes, exactly. We boarded the bus and he stands at the entrance of the first pole with his big backpack, and he didn't let people in, really, and then he started moving
sides, nervously, with his backpack and this bad manner really made me look at him.
Q. Was it obvious to you that, because he was moving around with his big rucksack, that other people around him were being inconvenienced and were also aware of him?
A. Yes. Well, I don't think he was aware of that. People were already passed on the bus and, you know, someone punching them all the time with the backpack, that was really bad manner. Everyone was in a hurry to work or whatever, and we're already inconvenienced because we couldn't take a Tube and so on. Everyone was nervous.
Q. Can you recall anything about the clothes that he was wearing?
A. Well, he was wearing jeans and I think it was a blue, light T-shirt, definitely light in colour, and then he had a jumper with a zip and a hood, a dark colour, dark blue.
Q. So he had a shirt, a T-shirt and, over the top of that, there was a jacket of some kind with a zip and a hood?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall whether he was wearing glasses of any kind?
A. Yes, he did have the glasses, like small -- like, looking a bit like techno kind of style, reflecting glasses as well, black reflecting glasses.
Q. You've referred to the rucksack as being quite big.
A. It was big and heavy -- sorry?
Q. Please continue, yes.
A. Yes, it looked very heavy and very properly packed, like full. I think around 60 litres, and, like, he -- and it had to be heavy, because he had a strap on, so that -- to carry the whole thing. Also, he, himself, looked very exhausted and he had sweating going on his chin, and that was also horrible to look at.

60 litres. A surprising thing to say….

The evidence of Lisa French is particularly interesting, since - as J7 noted in our Submission to the Inquest - Ms. French appeared to have made a giant leap from a previous sighting simply of a man with a rucksack who passed her as she boarded the No.30 bus to a positive identification of Hasib Hussain when she gave evidence in 2008.

Lisa goes on, after prompting from Hugo Keith QC, to describe in more detail the bag carried by the man. Note how Mr. Keith continues to place the bag on the man's back, despite Lisa French repeatedly saying the man was carrying it on one shoulder:

Q. I ask -- and the fault may not be yours at all; it may just be the way in which your statement was taken -- but your statement said you caught a glimpse of the bag on his back?
A. At the top of the stairs he put it back on his shoulder again.
Q. Did you see him do that?
A. I think sort of as I turned the top corner of the stairs and climbed the last two or three stairs, he was at the top -- then on the middle of the bus, up the stairs, just putting it back on one shoulder of his back.
Q. Can you help us with your impression -- and I appreciate it's a very long time ago -- of the rucksack and whether or not it appeared to you to be very bulky, very heavy, very large, did it stick out a lot? Was it long in terms of the distance from the neck to the bottom of the bag?
A. It was quite large, but at the time I thought it was probably a laptop rucksack, and I do have a little bit of a habit of checking out people's laptop bags carrying one myself. So at the time I thought it was just a big laptop rucksack that you could get plenty of other bits and pieces in, really. But it was quite large, sort of square, so I think that's why I thought it was a laptop bag rather than a camping rucksack because it was still quite square for being a rucksack.


10). The 5th (and 6th) man/men:
In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, witnesses claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man.
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 69, lines 1-8

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 18, lines 24 on

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.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon Session Lines 39-40


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.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 50 on

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.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 55 on

More evidence revealed from transcripts relating to questioning conducted by Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families at:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html