by Home home
Neither the white vehicle nor its occupants were ever
pursued or traced. Corroborating testimony from another
two independent witnesses soon emerged, again suggesting
more were involved.
228
A Dangerous Ideology
Susan Clarke was disgruntled because the men had parked
in her usual parking bay at Luton train station. She gave a
statement to the police on the 12th that she saw four men,
not three, in the lilac Nissan Micra and two men in the red
Fiat Brava, which supposedly Jermaine Lindsay was driving
alone. She didn't positively identify any of the men, saying
she saw them only as “shadow figures.”
By the time of the inquests her original statement had
changed to testimony which matched the official story
exactly. However, under questioning, she confirmed that her
sighting was of six men, not four.[29] Her recollection had
not changed. It isn't clear why she temporarily adapted her
account to fit the state's narrative.
Joseph Martoccia was the witness who had seen the men
hugging at Kings Cross. However, his statement to police
was that he too had seen four to six men. He thought they
could have been a cricket team. After being shown
photographs of the suspects, he stated two were in the group
he saw. However, he described Hasib Hussain with shaved
hair and Tanweer as being noticeably shorter than the
others. This didn’t match with either men’s appearance.
As is the way with these things, Martoccia's statement was
leapt upon both by conspiracy theorists, in the 'alternative
media,' and the MSM. For conspiracy theorists it was 'proof'
of a wider plot and for the MSM, in the absence of any CCTV
footage, it 'proved' the terrorists were suicidal maniacs.
In fact, the MSM got so carried away, Martoccia's eyewitness
account was reported as a photograph. Renowned journalist
and former newspaper editor, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne,[30]
later wrote:
“...I cannot help recalling those pictures a
year ago of the suicide bombers at King's
Cross looking so serene and happy, without
a care in the world.....For the expression on
their faces was not in the least diabolical,
but rather innocent and happy...”
In reality, no such image existed. However, this didn't stop
the MSM from describing it as 'iconic.'[31] This prompted
229
A Dangerous Ideology
complaints to the UK's Press Complaints Commission who,
in a bizarre decision, stated that it was perfectly acceptable
to describe a photograph that didn't exist, never seen by
anyone, as an 'iconic image.'
The press focussed upon Martoccia's recollection that the
men he saw were 'euphoric.' Bolstering the perception of
their fanatical delight at the prospect of martyrdom. The
MSM were far more muted about his claim of seeing more
than four men.[32]
For example, on the 11th of July 2006, the BBC reported
that “CCTV images at King's Cross station appear to show the
four men hugging and in a happy mood.” There were no such
CCTV images. Today some might call this 'fake news.'[94]
Ultimately Martoccia's eyewitness testimony doesn't 'prove'
anything. It was merely one piece of evidence among
thousands. The men he saw may not have been the alleged
terrorists. Perhaps his initial impression was correct.
Nonetheless, at least three, independent eyewitnesses saw
more than four men, with each seeing this larger group at
three different locations. Mrs Waugh saw 'six' men in Leeds,
Sue Clarke saw 'six' men in Luton and Joseph Martoccia saw
four to 'six' men at Kings Cross. You might think that finding
these other men was a priority for the investigation but there
is no record of any investigator making an attempt to track
them down.
The CCTV footage of the car park in Luton, where the
terrorists supposedly met, also suggested the possible
involvement of others. Jermaine Lindsay parked his red
Brava a little after 05:00 on Thursday the 7th July. At 06:50,
for unknown reasons, he moved the Brava, swinging into a
parking bay on the right, in the shown footage. At the
moment he parked the car, the CCTV footage cut out for 88
seconds. Coincidentally, at that instant, a black Jaguar
arrived and parked at the other end of car park. When the
footage resumed the Jaguar was visible, its entry into the car
park and interim movements hidden by the 88-second cut.
[33]
Shortly afterwards, the light purple Micra arrived. As the
230
A Dangerous Ideology
Nissan entered the car park, the black Jaguar turned on its
lights, did a U-turn, and drove back towards the incoming
Micra and Lindsay's Red Brava. Rather than drive up the
central lane of the car park, motioning to leave, it stayed to
the left, as if allowing room to swing into parking bay on the
right. It looked like a possible rendezvous. At the precise
moment the vehicles converged, the footage, coincidentally,
cut out again. This time for 76 seconds. When the CCTV
restarted, the Jaguar appeared to have either exited the car
park or was possibly parked a couple of spaces up from the
Micra. The indistinct CCTV footage made this difficult to
establish.
There was no proof that a meeting had occurred, only that
the possibility existed. However, this wasn't the only time a
black Jaguar was in the car park at the same time as the
alleged suicide bombers.
Station and underground CCTV footage taken on Tuesday
the 28th June, 9 days before the attack, showed three of the
four terrorists undertaking, what was reported to be, a dry
run. However, other than Kings Cross, none of them visited
any of the attack sites. So it certainly didn't appear to be
much of a rehearsal.
Coincidentally, an identical looking black Jaguar was again
captured on CCTV, in the same spot, while the bombers were
seen at Luton. This time on Tuesday the 28th June.
Furthermore, in the 7/7 clip, due to the subsequent U-turn,
the occupant (or occupants) appeared to be waiting in the
vehicle, rather than parking.
On Thursday the 7th of July, the Jaguar may have left Luton
station car park at approximately 06:54, during the cut in
the CCTV recording. On the 28th June, it was still in the
same spot at 08:05. On two different days, at two different
times, the black Jaguar was in Luton station car park with
the terror suspects. The 7/7 Luton CCTV suggested a
possible meeting.
Despite this presumably important coincidence, there was
no mention of the Jaguar during either the investigation or
inquest. No records exists of it being ruled out of inquiries.
231
A Dangerous Ideology
What's more, the blatant cuts, which precisely coincided
with the movements of the Jaguar, were not shown in the
CCTV given to the
inquest. Footage from another camera was
inserted, obscuring both the Jaguar’s movements and the
edits.
There appears to have been two distinct attempts to hide this
'unimportant' vehicle from the inquest. Firstly, the edits and
next the addition of footage to obscure those cuts.
Independent researchers, and some in the alternative media,
have repeatedly highlighted these anomalies. This is not
something discussed in any of the extensive mainstream
media's coverage of 7/7.
Another oddity is the dearth of CCTV footage. According to
police reports, they seized thousands of video recordings. For
three years, a total of three stills were the only released
images of the alleged attackers. The MSM ran repeated clips
of the footage taken on the 28th June, often while neglecting
to mention it wasn't filmed on 7/7.
Unfortunately, on 7/7, for the vital 20 minutes (08.30 –
08.50 approximately,) while the alleged bombers were
supposed to be moving through the underground network,
the CCTV cameras, functioning perfectly on the 28th, were
all broken. A temporary system had recently been installed,
but this had malfunctioned, with one exception, during the
crucial timeframe.
The train’s internal CCTV would have potentially shown the
movements of the bombers inside the carriages. However no
footage or images have been released and no stills or clips
from inside the trains were evidenced at the inquests.
Perhaps they weren’t working either?
No images, placing the alleged terrorist on any of the tube
trains, or even in the underground network, have ever been
produced. Only one camera, at the Kings Cross Thameslink
tunnel entrance, was working. This recorded the four men at
08:26.[98] on 7/7. There was no photographic evidence of
them getting on, or travelling in, the trains they allegedly
blew up.
In another unfortunate coincidence, the cameras in the
232
A Dangerous Ideology
McDonald's restaurant, where Hasib Hussain spent about
quarter of an hour, weren’t working either. This is where he
supposedly fitted the battery to his malfunctioning device. As
an Islamist fundamentalist on a suicide mission, popping
into McDonald’s for breakfast seems unlikely. So it’s
regrettable that staff decided to switch off the CCTV at
09.06, just as he entered the restaurant.
Similarly, while there was footage of both the No91 and No30
buses he apparently used, there was none of him getting on
either of them. Just like the Kings Cross CCTV and the
McDonald's CCTV, the buses security systems weren’t
functioning at the most critical moment of their existence. All
of which raises some interesting questions.
According to the Home Office, the suspects were first
identified on the 12th from the only functioning Kings Cross
CCTV camera. If the police only had a 20-minute segment of
footage from a single working camera to review, why did it
take them 5 days to analyse it?
Detective Inspector Kindness told the inquests that an ex-
military investigator first drew attention to the four, after
reviewing the Kings Cross CCTV, on the 11th. The
investigator was suspicious because the men were seemingly
moving in a ‘2 by 2’ military formation. Consequently, they
were formally identified as the main suspects on the 12th.
DI Kindness stated that Luton was of particular interest as a
result of 'information received' on the 11th of July. After
being shown the viewing log, which indicated the review had
occurred on the 10th, D.I. Kindness corrected his testimony
and confirmed CCTV from Luton had been checked on the
10th. This made no logical sense.
Why were the police reviewing the Luton CCTV at least a day
before receiving any information that Luton was of interest?
The inquest was told that investigators had traced the
possible connections back to Luton. Why Luton? They were
yet to identify the suspects, so how did they know they met
there? No explanation was offered.
Nor was the inquest informed of the apparent fact that police
233
A Dangerous Ideology
had amassed in Luton, and cordoned off the car park, on the
afternoon of day of the attack. The inquest heard that
Lindsay’s red Fiat Brava was towed away on 7/7. The reason
for this was not made entirely clear but it was suggested the
Brava’s parking ticket was invalid.
It was also revealed that Lindsay’s car was suspected of
being used in an aggravated burglary. Police had supposedly
discovered this, after the car had been removed. It was not
the suggested reason for the vehicle’s recovery. DI Kindness,
speaking about the car being towed away for a possible
parking violation, said CCTV would be submitted to the
inquest showing the removal of the car. It wasn’t.
The inquest didn’t know that the car park’s Automatic
Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera had apparently
alerted Bedfordshire Police about the Brava on the 7th.
Vehicle recovery worker, Derek Allison,[130] was sent to
collect it, the same day, by the police. He was required to
provide a statement about the recovery in May 2006. This
was available to the inquest but wasn’t offered into evidence.
Nor was the apparent real reason for the Brava’s removal
clarified.
Mr Allison was accustomed to recovering ‘Used In Crime’
(UIC) vehicles. He was surprised by the number of police
gathered in Luton on the 7th. The Road leading to the station
had been closed, there were at least two police vans, and
several police officers were securing the car park. He had not
encountered such a large police presence for a UIC vehicle
recovery before.
‘Conspiracy theorists’ ask if video of the Brava’s recovery was
withheld from the inquest because it showed a police
response utterly incongruous with the suggested account.
The vehicle wasn’t towed away because it breached parking
rules, it was recovered because it was potentially used in the
commission of a crime. According to witness statement, that
crime appeared to be far more significant than a common
burglary. Did it record police in Luton guarding evidence
relating to a major incident, on the day of a large scale
terrorist attack, long before investigators supposedly had any
idea who the suspects were, or where they came from?
234
A Dangerous Ideology
At the inquest, Lady Justice Hallett decided questions about
when and why the investigation reviewed the Luton CCTV
were all “a fuss about nothing.”
************************
235
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 12
No Witnesses to a Forensic Mess.
The picture which emerged from the inquests did not
support the official account. There were grounds for further
inqu
iry which both the investigation and the inquest ignored.
Was this simple oversight, or could there be other reasons
why the establishment apparently shied away from certain
issues?
The inquests failed to provide any substantive evidence
placing the four alleged suicide bombers at the scenes. The
lack of CCTV footage, and contradictory witness statements,
meant their connection to the bombings was primarily
established through forensic evidence. This supposedly
linked the four to the bomb factory in Alexandra Grove, the
bomb making equipment in the Nissan and the detonations.
Upon closer scrutiny, this proof appears to be extremely
weak or non-existent.
Initially it was widely reported the explosive used had been
military grade plastic explosives. Possibly RDX (Hexogen) or
C4. Christophe Chabauud, head of the French Anti-
236
A Dangerous Ideology
Terrorism Coordination Unit, brought in to assist the
investigation, stated the bombs were of 'military origin.'[35]
Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian
Paddock offered corroboration:[37]
“All we are saying is that it is high
explosives, that would tend to suggest that it
is not home-made explosive. Whether it is
military explosive, whether it is commercial
explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we
do not want to say at this stage.”
The statements were fairly unequivocal at the time. Traces of
military explosive were apparently found at all four bomb
sites. This was widely reported in the MSM. The
international news agency United Press International (UPI)
stated:[38]
“Traces of the explosive known as C4 were
found at all four blast sites, and The Times
of London said Scotland Yard considers it
vital to determine if they were part of a
terrorist stockpile. Forensic scientists told the
newspaper the construction of the four
devices detonated in London was very
technically advanced, and unlike any
instructions that can be found on the
Internet.”
This was expanded upon by then French Interior Minister
Nicolas Sarkozy who informed an emergency European
summit the explosives may have come from illicit military
stockpiles in the Balkans . [39] Then British Home Secretary
Charles Clarke responded with 'bewilderment.' However,
given that all reports were consistent with the use of military
