Читать книгу The London Transport Bombings of July 2005 - Elias Davidsson - Страница 4

Powerful explosions rocked three underground trains in London on the morning of July 7, 2005. Another explosion occurred a short while later on a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people reportedly died in the explosions and over 700 were wounded. Numerous individuals lost limbs in the explosions. The deadly operation manifested careful planning and coordination. Four young British Muslims were named as the suicide-bombers.

British media began immediately to promote unsubstantiated, unverified and unverifiable allegations regarding their alleged radicalisation, relying almost entirely on unidentified security sources. A typical example of such coverage was “Britain’s Enemy Within” by Scotland on Sunday of July 17, 2005. Apart from attributing the crime unreservedly to these four young Muslims who have not been found guilty by any judicial authority, the authors cited “some friends”, unidentified “Pakistani intelligence officials” or “US investigators” as sources for their allegations and used repeatedly phrases such as “X is believed to” or “Y is understood to” to establish their narrative. Throughout their piece they attempted to make the point that ordinary, nice, friendly young British Muslims are capable of concealing within their hearts murderous intentions and a willingness to carry out these intentions against random citizens that might include Muslims.

While the official account on the events of September 11, 2001 became etched in stone within 24 hours and has remained unchanged ever since, the official account on the London bombings (hereafter 7/7) was settled only after numerous modifications.

Persistent questions surrounding the events of 7/7, including suspicions of official cover-up, or even complicity, finally prompted public officials, including the leading counsel of the belated Inquest, Mr. Hugo Keith, to acknowledge these suspicions on the very first day of the Inquest:

"I have mentioned this evidence because a number of unlikely conspiracy theories have been aired in the press and on the internet. One particular campaigning group has submitted voluminous submissions to the Inquest team, and the submissions reflect long-held views expressed on the website, that website, to the effect that there are a large number of anomalies that merit detailed attention.[...] The law does not oblige you to conduct an inquisition into every stated rumour and suspicion. There must be a reasonable basis in evidence for such a suspicion before any coroner can be expected to conduct an inquisition into it. There is no evidence at all that we have seen to suggest that the bombers were duped in some way so that they did not know that they were going to die or, even more absurdly, that they did not know that they were carrying explosives at all. Indeed, such claims run entirely contrary to all the evidence that I have summarised so far."

The British authorities accused four young men of having perpetrated the mass-murder of 7/7. These four young men have not been seen since. Their guilt was not determined by due process. The British authorities claim they died in the mass-murder by blowing themselves up while causing the deaths of 52 other persons and wounding hundreds others. Yet the British authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for the truth, also in promoting the war of aggression against Iraq. In their book on Criminal Evidence, Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman remind us that

… in a well-functioning democracy, criminal censure and punishment are imposed in the name of the people, and all citizens are morally implicated in the truth, or falsehood, of official determinations of guilt.{1}

To the extent that criminal censure is imposed in the name of the citizenry, citizens are entitled to scrutinise official allegations against innocent individuals{2} and should do so with great circumspection.

Part I below might be regarded as an attempt to provide a belated defence to the four accused, whom the British government designated guilty of mass-murder without any due process. Such defence will be constrained, necessarily, by three major handicaps: (a) Lack of access to government-suppressed documents; (b) Impossibility of cross-examining witnesses and government officials; and (c) Lack of resources. Despite these handicaps, the study demonstrates that committed citizens can, even with modest means and relying solely on public documents, effectively challenge official allegations. It is the hope of the author that this demonstration will produce in the minds of unprejudiced readers (the jurors) reasonable doubt about the guilt of the four suspects, sufficient to clear them and their families of a terrible blame.

As will be shown, the accusations against these four young men were unsubstantiated: the British authorities failed to prove that the four young men were present at the sites of the bombings on the morning of 7/7; they failed to prove that these four young men possessed a motive to kill themselves and murder ordinary passengers (including Muslims); they failed to prove that the four young men possessed the skills necessary to fabricate bombs capable of causing the observed harm. I submit that an impartial judge, if presented with such a case, would immediately throw out the case for lack of merit. The question then arises who actually perpetrated the mass-murder, how it was perpetrated and why it was perpetrated. Part II begins by briefly reviewing the reluctance of the British authorities to carry out a public inquiry into the mass-murder and their swift determination to attribute the events to Islamic terrorists. It will then proceed by listing numerous puzzling circumstances and coincidences that were not investigated. It will be shown that the British authorities possessed motive, opportunity and means to carry out the crime. Circumstantial evidence is presented that suggests official complicity in the crime. While falling short of attributing to individual British or foreign officials direct complicity in the mass-murder, the accumulated facts are more than adequate to justify a reasonable suspicion that the then British government had instigated and authorised this mass-murder, as well as a reasonable suspicion regarding the participation of various public and private officials in covering up the crime. It is the burden of the public authorities, under law, to prove beyond reasonable doubt criminal accusations, and do so according to the standards of criminal justice. The British authorities have not discharged this burden and will therefore remain suspects for the mass-murder until they do.

I divide my conclusions into three categories: indicative, tentative and definite conclusions. By an indicative conclusion I refer to a reasonable suspicion that requires further research. By a tentative conclusion I mean one based on the preponderance of the evidence. Such a conclusion is usually sufficient for adopting policies but is insufficient for convicting a defendant. By a definite conclusion, I mean one that appears to be unassailable. It may be compared to “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, the highest standard of evidence in criminal law.

I consider the following conclusions of the present study as definite:

1. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove the participation of the four alleged attackers in the London bombings.

2. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove that the numerous deaths resulted from home-manufactured explosives.

3. The UK authorities have displayed reluctance to properly investigate the attacks of 7/7.

4. The UK authorities have failed to establish a definite tally of 7/7 fatalities.

5. The UK authorities have failed to explain the sudden failure of CCTVs on 7/7 that would have recorded the movements of the alleged attackers.

The following conclusions are indicative:

1 An unexplained connection appears to exist between the attacks of 7/7 and the terror exercise conducted by Visor Consultants on the morning of 7/7.

6. Several persons appear to have been shot by police or by an army unit at the Wharfs on the morning of 7/7

The present study draws heavily on original research carried out by the July 7th Truth Campaign. Among citizen investigators, a few persons should be particularly highlighted for the quality of their research: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, David Minahan, Tom Secker and Nick Kollerstrom. While guided by their diligent efforts, I bear the entire responsibility for selecting and checking the enclosed facts and interpreting them.