The Trial: Lee Rigby Killing

Nick Kollerstrom — Terror on the Tube Dec 2, 2012

Old Bailey Trial

The public can sit in the gallery of this trial, as I did today Tuesday 2nd December. Its quite a gripping experience, with the two accused sitting in a huge glass cage and various testimonies being read out or spoken, about what witnesses saw at 2.15-2.20 pm in that street, Artillery Place. Their accounts started off with their seeing a ‘crashed car’ and the two black men outside the car, plus a dummy-like figure on the pavement, who initially had his back against the wall . (NB you may wish to check over my original story here). They then saw both of these men hack the body with knives, ‘frenzied stabbing,’ one with a butcher’s cleaver.
No sound came from the victim. We never heard whether he was alive or dead.
Quite a crowd of people gathered round and were filming on their mobile phones (peculiar that we have not seen any of these pictures?)
Gill Hicks saw the car crashed into a road sign. That was the initial setup, I did not gather that  any witness claimed to have seen it happen.
One witness, while stopping to see this horror, noticed a ‘line of traffic behind him in the rear-view mirror.’  That is what one would expect on this busy road, but my impression was an absence of traffic in all pictures of that event.
A witness described seeing a lot of blood on the pavement – as one would expect. Again, there was a problem with ground-shot images failing to show any trace of blood. (See eg first image here, or first image here)
Mr Gary Perkin described how a brave woman tried to ‘comfort’ Lee Rigby while he was lying in the road. One would have thought he was beheaded (and therefore thoroughly dead) by then, so this is straining our credulity. No one questioned Mr Perkin to clear up this most obvious anomaly. It should be further noted that no adversarial questioning of any witness took place at this trial today

Moving the Goalposts?

The goalposts seems to have moved since the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby was reported back in May – suggesting a different location of the death. Media-amnesia seems to be prevailing at this Old Bailey trial, in relation to the original version.

The new story (30th November) has DLR hit just as he is crossing the road, adjacent to the Royal Artillery Barracks to which he was returning, after (we were told) a visit to the Tower of London where he was interviewing/recruiting new army employees. (notice how deep British resonances are built into this story)
We can list the things wrong with this picture. Firstly, he is crossing the road the wrong way, away from the barracks – but he was supposedly going towards them. Here is another image of that same road (taken a year ago) to help you picture it.

Click to enlarge

(You may need to click on this image to see it all) This view is in the other direction, and you can compare the two pics by the street bollard on the right-hand side of the 2nd image. All along the left-hand side of this image, is the big wall of the Royal Artillery Barracks. Why would he cross over away from that? (NB there is an entrance to the army barracks along this wall, hardly visible in this pic)
Second, where is all of the traffic? You can wait for hours midday on this busy street and I’ll wager you will never see it so empty.
Third, notice how blurred is the video-sequence of  ’DLR’ crossing the road released at the trial. It could be anyone.* Whereas, in contrast, the CCTV images of the schoolchildren at the scene are bright and crisp.
The car has just crossed over the traffic lights, is driving up a hill, has managed to get into the right-hand lane, and is unlikely to be able to manage more than 20 mph: not 30 0r 40 mph as the court was told.
But, if you believe it was just driving up the hill, straight over the traffic lights, there IS NO WAY the driver could have known DLR would have chosen to be crossing the road (the wrong way) at just this moment. In other words, the event would have had to be unplanned.
There is no way the car driver could have waited around anywhere, until DLR was spotted, then revved up and driven out to hit him.
This alleged crime was unplannable, especially given that the two perpetrators were both in the car.
If this is unclear to you, I recommend a visit to the site in Woolwich (or, here is a video of me with two of the Kent Freedom Movement checking it out).
But, even if that impossible sequence had somehow happened, it leaves DLR lying down in the middle of the road, where he has his head hacked off:
‘The defendants chose to mutilate the soldier in the middle of the road, just yards from a primary school, so people could watch, the court was told.’
This is a good ten-fifteen yards away from where we had earlier been told he had his head hacked off: on the pavement, under some trees, behind a big signpost (which you can see to the far-left in the first image). We were never shown any trace of blood in the road - nowhere in the road!
There was a whole load of ‘blood’ shown on the pavement, behind the big signpost, from an overhead air photo you may recall. (you might want to scroll down to the 3rd image of my earlier post to see this)
So the ‘beheading’ is nowhere near the ‘pool of blood.’
Then what happened to the car? After knocking down DLR, did it drive right over him? (1) The car – on the earlier story – has to keep going, mount up onto the pavement, then drive along and HIT the large signpost. We are shown oil leaking out as it screeched to a halt – or whatever is supposed to have happened, and one wheel removed somehow from the impact. None of that would have happened just from hitting DLR in the middle of the road.
To quote from the court hearing:
The video showed a Vauxhall Tigra knocking the soldier down before crashing into a road sign.
Is that supposed to mean, that the car drove right over DLR in the road, to (inexplicably) mount up onto the pavement then drive along it and crash into a street sign?
That could not possibly have happened – because of the huge rucksack he was carrying. Whatever was in it would have been all over the road had the car driven over him.
To remind you, the original story about why the car mounted up onto the pavement, and hit the road sign, was because DLR was walking along the pavement, and the car, in order to hit him, could not avoid also hitting the road-sign.
You might want to check out the rucksack in the original version of the story, which was left under the trees on the pavement (see first picture of my earlier post)

Flung onto the bonnet?

The Daily Mail helpfully resolved this dilemma:
…flinging him on to the bonnet before it smashed into a sign post.
Uh-huh. So, do you want to believe that the car impacted DRL in the middle of the road and did not knock him down, but instead had him flung up on the car bonnet, then the car kept on driving, bumping up onto the pavement and then swerving round (presumably still driving at 30-40 mph?) – all the time keeping DLR balanced on the bonnet, until it hit the sign  post? (2)
The story gets madder and madder with each new twist.
Readers will surely not need reminding that the sign post in question showed no sign of having been hit. The buckled-up car next to it was just a stage-prop, presumably lifted out from the big, white lorry parked nearby then put back in again when the day was over.

DLR at the DLR

Here is Drummer Lee Rigby coming out the Woolwich station of Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and whoops the date-stamp has alas cut off the date, but we can see it’s 2 pm in a May day of 2013. It would have been nice to have had his feet included, just to make sure they were properly on the platform and that his shadow was falling in the right direction.
The story has got badly twisted-up, and whichever way you try to spin it, it cannot ever make sense now.
The basic purpose of this trial is a War-of-Civilization message. One of the two accused at the Old Bailey was holding a copy of the Koran, thereby  giving the impression that the Koran condones such acts: which it certainly does not.
Recommended
* ANTISLAVEBOY’S videos, and here.
Chris Spivey’s ‘Drummer Man
*  There is a statute for CCTV to be admissable in a court of law ( BS8495) and it stipulates:
‘Its weight and admissibility as evidence can be influenced by:
  • Whether the image’s audit trail from the digital recording device to the court is robust
  • Whether the integrity of the image can be proven
It is at the court’s discretion whether the evidence is deemed admissible.’ I would have thought that was hardly the case for this new video, of ‘DLR’ crossing the road.
1. This is what Amanda Vincent told the Court on 2nd December: “ The car sped up and went straight towards the young man… After he was run over, she said that she rushed toward him. ”
2. ‘Eyewitness’ Amanda Vincent also told that story to the Court on 29 November: “ Amanda Bailey saw the events from inside her Peugeot 206, the jury heard. She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign. ’The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car,’ Mr Whittam said.”

Source

Nick Kollerstrom

Nick Kollerstrom academic, researcher and author of such varied titles as ‘Gardening and Planting by the Moon 2007: Higher Yields in Vegetables and Flowers’ and ‘Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7, an Investigation’.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.