by Home home
seeing any of this.
Lindsay's body reportedly underwent pathology tests on the
10th of July. He wasn't declared dead at the scene, and his
body wasn't listed among those recovered from the carriage.
His home was subsequently raided on the 13th of July.
Despite having already removed his body, the documents
found close to the location of his corpse weren't discovered
until 17th of July, ten days after the attacks and four days
after the raid on his house.[109]
The evidence related to Edgware Road was also bizarre. The
highly speculative official account given was that
Mohammad Sidique Khan was 'most likely' near the standing
area by the first set of double doors and was 'probably'
seated with the bomb next to him on the floor. However,
while the police drawing showed the bomb exploding by the
first double doors, Khan is said to have been sitting a few
feet away from it. Suggesting he left his rucksack and then
sat down, or pushed it away from him, before detonation.
This implied that Khan's bomb wasn't detonated manually.
245
A Dangerous Ideology
Repudiating all official accounts.
If survivor eyewitness statements are in any way to be
believed, the location of the bomb was not clearly defined
either. Both Ray Whitehurst, and a passenger Danny
Belsden, described seeing a hole near the front of the
carriage. John McDonald testified he had fallen down
another hole, further towards the rear of the carriage, as he
moved forward to assist survivors. He also sketched ripped
metal and another hole in the door near the standing area.
These were not where the police diagram indicated the bomb
to have been. Clearly this inferred the single device caused
multiple craters, in different locations.
A noted witness was Professor John Tulloch, who was
interviewed by the BBC. Like McDonald, Tulloch stated that
he saw a hole further towards the centre of the carriage,
away from the area indicated by the police. At the inquest
Tulloch was presented with a diagram where 'x' marked the
spot of the explosion. Tulloch questioned this location. In
reply the examining barrister said:
“Professor, don't worry about the 'x',
because we have heard evidence from some
witnesses which suggests that there's other
disruption and potentially other holes in the
floor as well as the bomb crater.......”
Needless to say, this wasn't consistent with a single home-
made device detonating in one rucksack. Most of the
identified craters prohibited the possibility of Khan manually
triggering the bomb. The only reason the police speculated
where Khan may have sat, contrary to even their own
location for bomb, was due to the statement of Danny
Biddle.
Biddle claimed he saw Khan fiddling with his 'main'
rucksack on his lap whereas, according to the police
account, he only had a single rucksack and it was on the
floor. Khan couldn't have reached it from where Biddle
alleged he was seated.
Lawyers were also forced to rely upon Biddle's testimony
because he was the only witness who claimed to have
246
A Dangerous Ideology
identified Khan in the carriage. In fact, after seeing Khan on
TV following a 5 month long coma, Biddle was the only
witness, out of hundreds of survivors, to claim to have
positively identified any of the bombers on any of the trains.
Further disparities emerged in regard to Hasib Hussain's
alleged bombing of the No30 bus. The official account
records him sat at the rear of the upper deck with the bomb
between his feet, or in the isle next to him. Richard Jones
was one of the named witness who claimed to have seen
Hussain on the No30. As we have discussed, there were
considerable problems with his account.
Hussain supposedly caught the No91 bus before changing
onto the No30 at Euston. Two witnesses described a 'lost
and anxious' man, broadly fitting Hussain's description,
acting oddly on the No91 bus.
Apart from Jones the only other witness who placed Hussain
on the No30 bus was Lisa French. Yet her description of
Hussain didn't correspond to the description of the man on
the No91 bus. French stated the man was acting courteously
and removed his bag to avoid hitting her with it. The
witnesses on the No91 bus said the man was barging into
people with his bag. Exhibiting different behaviour.
Lisa French said the man walked past her and sat in the
centre of the back row of seats. This is not where the police
placed Hussain. They put him two rows forward in the aisle
seat. However, another man, Prevshan Vijendran, whose
bore some physical similarities to Hussain, was recorded by
police as sitting in the seat mentioned by French. This led to
the possibility the person French saw was Vijendran, not
Hussain, but this wasn't questioned at the inquest.
Ultimately French didn't positively identify Hussain either.
She described a man with a big backpack but later said it
was a laptop bag, carried on one shoulder. What's more, in a
later interview with the BBC, French, who had suffered with
post-traumatic stress disorder following the attacks said:
“I don't really have any recollection of the
blast myself because I was knocked
unconscious so....um....my recollection of
247
A Dangerous Ideology
events really start when I regained
consciousness on the wreck of the bus.”
None of the witnesses who the police listed as sitting closest
to Hussain had any recollection of him at all.
Consequently, with confusing or notably absent testimony,
analysis of the remains of the four alleged terrorists was
crucial to establishing their presence at the scenes of the
explosions. However, once again, the story surrounding the
pathologist's examination raised questions.
The inquest heard the bodies of Tanweer and Khan were
practically obliterated. All that was found was some tissue
and pieces of vertebrae. These underwent DNA analysis to
prove they were the bombers’ remains.
Shehzad Tanweer was not listed among the seven people
killed at Liverpool Street. DNA, extracted from the fragments
of his body parts, was cross matched with swabs previously
taken during his arrest for a minor public order offence in
2004. Khan was also reportedly blown to pieces, apparently
leaving just tissue samples to enable identification via DNA
analysis.
The terrible reality is that six people were pronounced 'life
extinct' at Edgware Road. Dr. Costello (who was a consultant
psychiatrist) was tasked with making this decision, and
identified five bodies inside and one outside the carriage.
Khan was not among them.
There was no evidence the bombs all detonated with perfect
radial blast patterns. However, in the case of T
anweer, the
man immediately to his left (Lee Baisden) sadly died. Mr
Baisden lost his legs below the knee and suffered facial and
neck burns.[105] The man immediately to Tanweer's right
(William Walshe) was mercifully spared any life threatening
injuries. Though burned, he managed to climb out of a
window after the explosion and cut his leg in the process.
In Khan's case four people were said to be closer to the blast
than he was. Sadly three died (Laura Webb. Jonathan
Downey & Michael Brewster) but one (Catherine Al-Wafai)
escaped serious physical injury, returning home on the day
248
A Dangerous Ideology
of the explosion.[106]
No remnants of Tanweer were discovered until Saturday 9th
July when a section of spinal column was found embedded
in the back of a seat by Detective Constable Meneely. When
asked why he thought this was significant DC Meneely
stated:[107]
“Because all of the bodies I'd seen so far
had no real upper body trauma to that
degree. Obviously there was a lot of injuries,
but everybody was relatively intact in
relation to the upper body.”
This was consistent with bombs placed either at ground level
or beneath the carriages. Though the possibility of them
being under the carriages was never broached at the inquest.
The lack of upper body trauma enabled 'life extinct'
determinations to be made for all the deceased at both
Edgware Road and Liverpool Street, apart from Khan and
Tanweer.
Mohammad Sidique Khan was formerly identified from tissue
DNA analysis completed on the 20th July. Having already
identified Khan from CCTV, and the documents he provided
at three of the bomb sites, his DNA was matched with that of
his father Tika Khan and mother Mamida Begum.
No evidence was presented to explain how, given the spread
pattern of injuries, Khan and Tanweer were totally
disintegrated. All that can be said, with any certainty, is that
their bodies were not initially identified at the scenes of the
explosions. Rather they were later identified through
laboratory testing. This was presumably necessary because
no identifying features such as fingers (prints), teethe (dental
records) or facial features were found for either men.
However, the inquest testimony of forensic anthropologist
Dr. Julie Anne Roberts contradicted the notion that no larger
body parts were found. She stated that she had received a
larger section of Tanweer's front torso and his lower jaw and
forearms above the wrists. She said the parts of the body
that were entirely missing were the cranial vault and facial
bones, both wrists and hands, the breast bone and the
249
A Dangerous Ideology
bottom half of the pelvis on both sides.
In regard to Khan she stated that parts that were completely
missing were the upper and lower dentition, the left forearm,
wrist and hand, the lower half of the pelvis on the right and
the left sides, and those parts that were almost entirely
missing were the right and left upper jaw, the right-hand,
except for one hand bone, the left knee, the lower half of the
right and left lower leg, and the left foot, apart from one toe.
[108]
Dr. Roberts expressed an opinion that these injuries were
consistent with the bodies being in close proximity to a
bomb. The Blast trajectory appeared to be from the ground
upwards. She also informed the court that she was not
qualified in blast analysis. Nor did she play any part in
identifying the the deceased. Their names had been given to
her with each set of remains, following their earlier DNA
identification. Dr. Roberts stated:
“....this was a chance to perhaps try to
provide some physical evidence to support
various interpretations”
Yet her testimony completely undermined that of DC
Meneely and the determinations of 'life extinct' at the scenes.
The inquest revealed all the deceased, except three, died at
the scenes. All were killed at the sites of the Edgware Road
and Liverpool Street bombings. It was also known, according
to DC Meneely (among others,) that the victims were
“relatively intact in relation to the upper body.” Hence, his
explanation of the additional significance he gave to the
spinal section found in the seat.
So why did the police not find the discovery of all the upper
body parts they gave to Dr. Roberts 'significant?' surely
Tanweer's vertebrae were amongst the least significant of his
remains, given that they had found his jaw, most of his front
torso and forearms.
The same can be said for the discovery of most of Khan's left
leg, his entire right leg above the shins, his upper pelvis, his
right foot, his torso, his right arm and the upper half of his
250
A Dangerous Ideology
skull. Why wasn't this sufficient for his body to be
determined as 'life extinct' at the scene?
The bodies of Hussain and Lindsay were also allegedly found
at the scenes.[41] Dr. Roberts examined these remains
having been told they were those of the bombers. She found
that they were far more complete than those of Khan and
Tanweer so why weren't they declared 'life extinct' at the
scenes either? Unfortunately we will never know because
Lady Justice Hallett had already ruled this “outside the
scope” of the coroner's inquests.
In summary, there was no CCTV evidence placing the alleged
terrorists on any of the trains or the bus.
There was no DNA or fingerprint evidence linking any of
them to the bomb making containers or the bomb
paraphernalia found in the Micra. Nor was there any
evidence that the alleged home-made explosives were used in
any of the bombings.
There was no evidence the bombs had a manual trigger
mechanism (no evidence of suicide.) The locations of the
bombs on the trains was extremely vague, with evidence of
bomb damage inconsistent with single, home-made rucksack
bombs. The locations of the alleged bombers was equally
obscure, and inconsistent with manual detonation of the
devices.
Only one witness positively identified one of the alleged
bombers at one of the scenes, and there were considerable
evidential problems with his testimony as it contradicted
forensic and physical evidence.
None of the alleged bombers were declared dead at the
scenes, despite significant remains being found which
entirely contradicted the claim they were 'vaporised.'
In addition, there was evidence that suggested the possibility
of a wider plot. Three independent witnesses, in three
different locations described a larger group. CCTV footage
showed the presence of another vehicle which possibly met
with the bombers in Luton on two separate occasions, on
two different days at two different times. The footage
251
A Dangerous Ideology
appeared to have twice been edited to hide this vehicle's
movements. This wasn't even mentioned at the inquest.
There were a number of consistent reports, both in the UK
and internationally, some at the highest level, that military
explosive’s residue was found at the site of every bombing.
There was physical and witness evidence suggesting devices
were possibly placed underneath the carriages.
It is difficult to understand why Lady Justice Hallett judged
the evidence as being supportive of the official account.
Equally confusing, is why she effectively found the four
alleged bombers 'guilty.' Establishing guilt is not a function
of a coroner's inquest, yet she did.
The coroner felt the evidence presented at the inquests gave
rise to concerns that there was a risk of possible future
harm, or further deaths occurring. Seeing as the alleged
bombers were the only possible remaining inquest subjects,
were supposedly working alone and were obviously dead, it
wasn't really clear what further threat they posed.
Notwithstanding, under Rule 43 of the 1984 Coroners Rules,
Lady Justice Hallett decided she was able to speak about
their guilt. In her Rule 43 report she said:[24]
“For the purposes of this report I can say
without a shadow of a doubt that the four
men who detonated the bombs and
therefore murdered the fifty two innocent
people were Mohammad Sidique Khan,
Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and
Hasib Hussain.........
… ......It is not generally a proper function of
an inquest to attribute blame or apportion
guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper
function of a Coroner to express opinions in
the verdicts returned........I cannot consider
the issue of preventability, one of the most
important of the issues I have set, without
stating in positive terms that they were the
bombers. … ......the evidence is utterly
overwhelming...... To argue or find to the
252
A Dangerous Ideology
contrary [i.e. that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein
and Lindsay were not the bombers] would
be irrational.......
......Had there been a conspiracy falsely to
implicate any of the four in the murder plot,
as some have suggested, it would have been
of such massive proportions as to be simply
unthinkable in a democratic country.......