J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Submission for Resumption

Further to Lady Justice Hallett's order dated 11th March 20011, which reads as follows:

IN THE INNER WEST LONDON (WESTMINSTER) CORONER’S COURT

CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO
THE LONDON BOMBINGS OF 7 JULY 2005
_____________________________________________

ORDER
_____________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Any person wishing to make representations to the Coroner as to whether or not

any or all of the inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Siddique Khan, Shehzad
Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain should be resumed must notify the
Solicitor to the Inquests in written submissions by 4.00 p.m. on Friday 18th March
2011.

2. Any such written submissions must identify in full the grounds on which the
person on whose behalf they are filed claims to have an interest in the relevant
inquest(s) and the grounds upon which it is said the inquests must be resumed.

With regard to the issue of the legality of not resuming the Inquests into the deaths of the
four accused, we submit that the legal right to an Inquest where no Inquiry is held
overrides all other considerations:

The right to an inquest2

An inquest must be held in those circumstances where a Coroner is informed that

the body of a person is lying within his or her district and there is reasonable cause
to suspect that the individual died:

A violent or unnatural death or

A sudden death of which the cause is unknown or.

In prison or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act.

1 http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/docs/orders/order-11032011.pdf
2 Your rights - Inquests - http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/rights-of-the-bereaved/investigations-into-
deaths/inquests.html
 The Coroner only has a right to hold an inquest if one of these conditions is
satisfied. Conversely, the Coroner cannot decide not to hold an inquest if one of
the conditions is satisfied.

The pressing need to resume the inquests into the four accused is further compounded by
the magnitude and significance of the circumstances in which it is alleged the deaths
occurred.

The Inquests into the 52 cannot stand instead of, nor can they be considered as a substitute
for, Inquests into the deaths of the four accused; as stated by Hugo Keith QC on many
occasions these proceedings omitted the relevant facts:

6 My Lady, in the light of the fact that these

7 inquests are not concerned with Hussain, I have no need
8 to read out the cause of death, but it is obvious.

Further:

23 … We're not, of course, concerned with

24 their inquests and so I needn't read out the full detail3

We respectfully suggest that a jury be empanelled at the resumed Inquests and that all the
circumstances surrounding these deaths be thoroughly examined and explored.

If full arguments are deemed necessary by the Deputy Coroner, then J7 submit the
following in favour of resumption of the Inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Sidique
Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain:

J7 Interest in the Inquests

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign is comprised of ordinary members of the public
concerned that a fully independent public inquiry, particularly one held outside of the
constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, was refused twice by the government. Over 3,400
people have signed the J7 petition4 calling on the government to release the evidence they
claim to have in support of the story outlined in the meagre 'Report of the official account
of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.

Our tireless campaigning and research over the last five years, much of which has
involved doggedly pursuing responses to Freedom of Information requests, has led to the
accumulation of a vast body of knowledge regarding the events of 7th July 2005, contained

3 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-01-24-28-week-14/7_july_inquests_2011-01-26_pm-
session.pdf
4 J7: Release the Evidence Petition - http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/petition.html
on our People's Investigation Forum5. Our analysis is published on our main web site at:
http://julyseventh.co.uk, much of which had been further compiled in order to produce
our submissions to the Inquests 6. Further, our work was repeatedly, albeit indirectly,
referenced throughout the course of proceedings, with the Inquests' own council choosing
to mention our 'voluminous' submission as part of his opening statement.

The inquest proceedings transcripts have made reference to J7 as 'a group following the
proceedings closely', so our interest in the events of 7 July 2005 and our continued work in
this area are well known by all involved and, we submit, part of the grounds on which we
should be considered a Properly Interested Party. Our initial submissions certainly
provided the basis for some of the lines of enquiry for the inquests of the 52, even if these
lines of enquiry were not duly explored.

Concerned at the absence of a jury at the resumed Inquests into the 52 deaths, J7
undertook the role of carefully watching these proceedings and examining the evidence
released throughout. J7 wrote to the Deputy Coroner with many of the issues that arose
during proceedings and on occasion, questions posed by J7 were put to witnesses. Many
of the outstanding questions that arose are documented on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog 7.

Despite a mass of evidence adduced before the Inquests into the deaths of 52 people on 7 th
July 2005, J7 are concerned at the refusal by the Legal Services Commission to grant legal
aid for representation at the Inquests to any of the families of the four accused, thus
preventing them from making submissions. J7 wrote to the Coroner expressing these
concerns in an email dated 25th April 2010:

Our concern is that it has recently been announced that two of the
families of the accused men are to be refused legal aid to be
represented at the Inquests. Given the immensity of the crimes alleged
against them, and the history of miscarriages of justice in the British
courts when 'fighting terrorism', as happened in the cases of the
Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 etc, we believe that the families of the
accused must be given access to justice and representation at the
forthcoming Inquest. Without this, British justice remains skewed in
favour of the State and will only lead people, especially Muslims, to
question whether justice is available to them.

Legal aid at Inquests can be granted in exceptional cases if "there is a

wider public interest or it aids the coroner’s investigations". It is
most certainly in the wider public interest that legal aid is granted in
this case, and we are hopeful that you can, as the coroner, request that
the Ministry of Justice review their decision in this matter.

5 July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum - http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/

6 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/
7 J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog - http://77inquests.blogspot.com/
 We understand that an inquest verdict of suicide requires a criminal
standard of proof. Representation of the families would be of great
assistance to the inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict
is justified.

The arguments for the families of the four to be represented at the Inquests and for
resumption are set out in the judicial review dated 27 th August 20108 which include the
following relevant and important points:

21. On 23 April 2010 the claimant’s solicitor wrote to Mr Martin Smith,

Solicitor to the Inquests, to inform him that, “had there been funding”, counsel
would have made submissions to the effect that:

(1) the Inquests should be resumed;

(2) the Inquests should be joined; and
(3) his clients should be made Interested Persons in the Inquests of some of
the deceased.

And at point 24:

"i) Effective participation would enable them to discharge their right to put
questions and explore issues as an interested party. Additionally their participation
may help other parties to explore issues thereby having the potential to produce
real benefits for the other Interested Parties;
ii) The proceedings are on any view ‘significant’;
iii) Well-documented campaign to establish the full extent of the knowledge of the
security services;
iv) [The claimant] is in a ‘unique position’ as the wife of the alleged ring-leader and
her association with the other perpetrators and others. It is difficult to envisage
other individuals who could assist the inquest to the same extent;
v) [The claimant] equally anxious to explore the true extent of the knowledge of the
Security Services;
vi) Analysis of the intelligence failings may reveal that the atrocity was entirely
preventable and the lives of the victims and perpetrators may have been saved;
vii) Volume of material. Extraordinary and unreasonable to expect [the claimant] to
deal with by way of legal help; and
viii) No legitimate distinction between those granted funding and [the claimant]"

The families of the 52 expressed their objections to the Inquests to be joined and with
regard to the families of the four accused having representation. Although this was their
right, the families of the four men also have rights as bereaved family members; these
same rights apply equally to the public – and especially the Muslim community, who bear
the brunt of anti-terror legislation – to examine the evidence that would need to be
8 Patel, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor [2010] EWHC 2220 (Admin) (27 August 2010) -
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2220.html
presented to the inquests proceedings. This was denied them by the withholding of legal
aid for representation – a very blunt and unsubtle tool by which to suppress the right of
the families of the accused to legal representation at the Inquests into the 52.

We submit that the arguments forwarded by the families at the judicial review still hold
true and that by granting them PIP status at resumed Inquests into the deaths of their
loved ones could trigger legal aid being granted by the Legal Services Commission. After
all, many public bodies used public funds for representation at these Inquests, the London
Fire Brigade, West Yorkshire Police, Metropolitan Police Service, etc., all of whom are
funded from the public purse. The public interest argument for these Inquests to be
resumed would also be addressed by granting PIP to the families of the four.

It is the lack of challenge or questions that J7 are concerned with and so we ask to be also
considered as PIPs in these proceedings, with this submission and our previous works and
researches as the justifications for so qualifying. J7 have contacted the office of the Official
Solicitor on the basis that, if there is to be no submission for resumption because legal aid
has not been made available to any of the families of the four, and nor has PIP status been
granted to them, then the State has a duty to represent the interests of Justice by ensuring
these Inquests are resumed, and the evidence adduced and questioned accordingly.

Grounds upon which the Inquests must be resumed

(1) As detailed above, J7 are most concerned that the Catch 22 situation of refusing legal
aid to allow submissions for resumption of the Inquests into the 4 deaths is being used to
prevent the families from asking questions or, potentially even challenging the evidence
adduced. This is both unfair and unjust. Justice in this case not only needs to be seen to be
done, it must in fact be done.

(2) To date, there have been no proceedings at which the full 'Operation Theseus' evidence
has been examined or challenged. The two trials at which this evidence was first submitted
for public scrutiny was unable to question or challenge the evidence, the motivation, or the
means and methods of the four men, as the accused had no knowledge of these events.
Further, and most significantly given the degree with which the State pursued
prosecutions against them, Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem, and Mohammed Shakil, they were
found not guilty, on both separate occasions that the State endeavoured to prosecute them,
of all charges connected to the Operation Theseus investigation. Therefore the evidence
did not come under the detailed scrutiny required in a criminal trial, as it would have had
the alleged perpetrators lived. (q.v. Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny
McNamee, etc.)

(3) We understand and would like to highlight and reiterate that an inquest verdict of
suicide requires a criminal standard of proof with regard to establishing definite intent to
commit suicide. The representation of the families will be of great assistance to the
Inquest's task of determining whether such a verdict is justified. Without a resumption of
the Inquests into the four, this finding cannot be legally made.

(4) We understand that the four cannot be named as the perpetrators of the 52 deaths in
any narrative verdict available to the Deputy Coroner in these proceedings.

(5) J7 argue that the evidence for the Theseus investigation was considered outside of the
scope of these proceedings9, yet evidence adduced during these proceedings has shown
cause for concern over the accuracy of this evidence. One instance, for example, occurred
on 2nd February 2011, while DS Stuart was under questioning from Ms Gallagher QC:

Q. Detective Sergeant, just to clarify it, if we could go back to [INQ105680-12] at

paragraph 64 , when, in the opening to the Theseus trial, as was widely reported, it
stated there that this information was recovered from that mobile phone found at
Edgware Road, is that simply wrong?
A. Yes.10

(6) The identification of 'Conspiracy Theories' as one of the raison d'etres for the
resumption of the Inquests into the 52 was stated by Hugo Keith QC in his opening
statement11 on 14th October 2011:

12 ….. Thus it is
13 to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and
14 distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering
15 the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours
16 and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists.
17 I'll return a little later to the question of
18 whether there is, in truth, any basis for some of the
19 theories that have been canvassed in the press and on
20 the internet.

Whilst J7 would take issue with the apparent pejorative use of the term 'conspiracy
theorists' given the multiplicity of well documented anomalies, inconsistencies and
falsehoods contained in the official narrative (as outlined in our detailed submissions to
the Inquests12) and the questions that have subsequently arisen from Inquest evidence and
testimony13, and given the fact that it is, as a point of fact, the State itself that most
frequently uses and abuses the charge of 'Conspiracy' in its prosecutions, we are aware
that, without resumption of the Inquests into the four, the many further questions
regarding the evidence that have arisen during the Inquest proceedings will continue to
9 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-
session.pdf
10 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-01-31-2011-02-04-week-15/7_july_inquests_2011-02-
02_am-session.pdf
11 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-01-31-2011-02-04-week-15/7_july_inquests_2011-02-
02_am-session.pdf
12 J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign - J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests - http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-
Submission/
13 J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog - http://77inquests.blogspot.com/
remain unanswered.

Some of these questions are detailed below:

(i) The Inquests have already heard that a report into the bombings by the parliamentary
intelligence and security committee, the only public body to which the security service
reports, contained "many many mistakes and inaccuracies" in its account of the
intelligence service's conduct before the attacks.14

(ii) There is the significant issue of the requirement to prove intent to commit suicide in
cases where suicide is suspected. In cases of suspected suicides inquests will be held, but
the victim's intention to commit suicide must be definitely proven; here-in lies the burden
of proof. In the absence of any clear proof of intent, the verdict is unlikely to be suicide,
but rather 'death by misadventure', 'accidental death', or there will be an 'open' verdict.
There are in existence two alleged “martyrdom videos”; one of which appears to show
Khan and the release of which called an end to all lines of questioning of the official story
that were being pursued by the media, and the second, cunningly released on the first
anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, appears to show Tanweer. It is worth noting that
throughout the contrived and stilted rhetoric in each video, no mention is made by either
Khan or Tanweer regarding any intention to commit suicide. Further, there is no mention
in either video of any attacks on London, or London's transport infrastructure. Indeed
there are no references to the launching of any attacks at all, suicide or otherwise. There
has also been no mention at all of Tanweer, Hussain or Lindsay leaving last wills and
testaments, despite this being a requirement in Islam. This leaves all four suspected
suicides for which the burden of proof of intent to commit suicide has not yet been
addressed in anything other than loosely circumstantial way, much less has that standard
of proof been met.15

(iii) Testimony given by DI Kindness 16 on 14th October 2010 calls into question, once again,
aspects of the government narrative and further errors in Theseus evidence:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of
information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. 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

14 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/7-july-bombings-mi5-recommendations
15 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/12.Accused_Backgrounds.pdf
16 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2010-10-11-14-week-01/7_july_inquests_2010-10-14_pm-
session.pdf
 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. That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

This evidence was further contradicted by DCS McKenna 17 on the closing day of evidence
when he stated:

1 You've already outlined, I think, most of the main

2 threads of investigation that led to us Luton railway
3 station and it's -- it was a fortuitous coincidence
4 that, on the day that we had discovered the CCTV from
5 Luton railway station, we, of course, were assisted by
6 the coming forward of some witnesses from Luton, from
7 whom you have heard, who raised with us the suspicious
8 activity they'd seen in relation to the cars that
9 morning.

In fact the only witness to the cars at Luton that gave evidence was Susan Clarke 18 and she
only contacted the police on the morning of 12 th July according to her testimony. Ms
Gallagher had previously adduced that the viewing logs from Luton station were dated
10th and 11th July.

(iv) The missing CCTV evidence from the day gives cause for concern. No explanation was
given for the failure of the CCTV at King's Cross underground station, ticket barriers or
platforms19, nor CCTV shown of Hasib Hussain's apparent re-entry to the mainline station
from the Northern Line platform as asserted in evidence and in the government narrative.
There is a major discrepancy between the timings of the CCTV shown from WH Smiths
and the time on the receipt of a purchase of a battery. There is also missing CCTV from
Woodall Service Station of nearly 15 minutes between exiting and rejoining the motorway.
Strange and unexplained cuts in the CCTV shown from Luton Station car park 20. The
removal of the Fiat Brava CCTV was not shown, nor was an explanation given for why
Bedfordshire Police requested its removal. No explanation was given for the turning off of

17 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_pm-
session.pdf
18 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2010-10-11-14-week-01/7_july_inquests_2010-10-13_pm-
session.pdf
19 J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: The Final Curtain - "CCTV rich" to "CCTV FAIL!" -
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/final-curtain-cctv-rich-to-cctv-fail.html
20 J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Daytime -
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/curious-case-of-jag-that-parked-in.html
CCTV at McDonald's prior to Hasib entering, nor was the time of this incident given. No
explanation for the lack of CCTV from the 91 bus was adduced, nor was a reason why this
bus halted and emptied its passengers at Euston Station. No CCTV from the trains prior to
the explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite a claim by Rachel
North21 regarding a discussion held in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the
then Home Secretary, John Reid:

The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell Square who
wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers on the trains, and
whether he could see the last minutes of his loved one. The Counter
Terrorism representative said that there were, but they had not been released,
as the post-bomb CCTV images 'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to
investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown
privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of
good quality.

The public have been shown CCTV evidence from the Operation Vivace (21 July 2005) trial
of the men on CCTV from the train carriages which were of good quality, we suggest
similar evidence could and should be shown to the Inquests as the presence of those
accused of the underground incidents has only been shown as far as King's Cross
Thameslink. It should also be able to show the presence of MSK and Tanweer for a
considerable length of time on journeys away from King's Cross, and also the entry of
three accused onto the carriages from King's Cross.

This lack of evidential continuity between all of the 4 accused and the actual scenes is very
concerning. This sentiment was expressed to survivors by 'C', DCI SO15:

One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of
exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This
continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole
process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately
devalues the exhibit.22

(v) No 'life extinct' pronounced at either Tavistock Square, nor the Piccadilly Line train.
The numbers pronounced for life extinct at Aldgate and Edgware Road by Dr Morgan
Costello23 were both one less than would account for the presence of either Mohammed
Sidique Khan or Shehzad Tanweer at the respective locations they are alleged to have been
at.

(vi) The types of explosives allegedly used differed between Clifford Todd's testimony 24

21 http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/05/meeting-new-home-secretary.html
22 http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=1294&view=findpost&p=11729950
23 J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'? - http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/july-7th-inquests-
life-extinct.html
24 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-01-31-2011-02-04-week-15/7_july_inquests_2011-02-
01_pm-session.pdf
and the sworn testimony adduced during the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest. Clifford
Todd stated HMTD was found in Alexandra Grove, in the cars, with further traces found
at the scenes.

2 A. Well, from just those results, clearly we wouldn't have

3 been able to say that, but the conclusion that it's
4 likely that it was HMTD and hydrogen peroxide and pepper
5 comes from the accumulation of all the other evidence
6 from Alexandra Grove and the various components that
7 were physical items that were actually found from
8 Russell Square and, indeed, the other scenes.

'Codename Neil', the forensics officer at the scene claims TATP was found in both the
Micra and Alexandra Grove.

4 them in the car and take them with them. Once again,
15 there was evidence of TATP explosive at the bomb-making
16 factory in Leeds.25

and:
23 cable, they found flash bulbs which will be a typical
24 igniter for, as it was, TATP explosives.[ibid]

DAC McDowall26, the gold command for Operation Theseus:

In the bomb factory in Leeds that was

13 discovered, we found TATP literally sprayed around the
14 premises and on the floor. If I can say that that
15 explosive will detonate if trodden on
and:
19 A. That was a distinct possibility, yes, particularly
20 given, perhaps I should amplify, the amount of explosive
21 left behind, if I can use that expression, by the 7 July
22 bombers was of a very great magnitude. Certainly
23 a bathful and more of the main charge, and as I said
24 yesterday, a very substantial quantity of the
25 excessively volatile TATP on 7 July.
157
1 SIR MICHAEL WRIGHT: This was all in the Yorkshire bomb
2 factory, this is what you found and presumably
3 neutralised?27

25 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest/de-menezes-inquest-transcripts/nov_07.pdf
26 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest/de-menezes-inquest-transcripts/sep_24.pdf
27 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest/de-menezes-inquest-transcripts/sep_25.pdf
DIC Purser, describes 'brown sludge' as 'not explosives' and only describes this as being
only in the bath at Alexandra Grove:

15 Q. Did you go on to tell them that further enquiries had

16 taken you to West Yorkshire, you gave a particular
17 address in Leeds, and you said that that was discovered
18 to be the bomb factory?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. Did you tell them that examination of that scene was
21 ongoing, but that a brown sludge had been found in the
22 bath? Examination indicated that it was not explosives.
23 Porton Down had indicated that it was not a biological
24 substance but they weren't sure what it was, and had
25 said it might be some kind of insecticide? 28

J7 can provide many more examples of areas of questioning that a resumed Inquest into
the four should examine to ensure that it is possible for a true and accurate account of the
events in London on 7th July 2005 to be placed before the public.

For truth and justice

28 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest/de-menezes-inquest-transcripts/oct_16.pdf
 “To the living we owe respect,
but to the dead we owe only the truth.”
- Voltaire