Five years after the event, we have <\/span>a judgement <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>from Britain\u2019s High Court:<\/span><\/p>\n We should here remind ourselves, as to\u00a0the proper purpose of an inquest.<\/span><\/p>\n An inquest is meant to come to a judgement concerning cause of death. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In the very strange circumstances of the 7\/7 Inquest, Lady Justice Hallett could not do this because no post-portems<\/span><\/strong><\/a> had been performed<\/em> upon the 52 dead bodies.<\/span><\/p>\n Instead she has produced a rather long judgement proceeding from the unproven assumption that the Four were guilty of the crime. She has chosen elements of the evidence presented to fit in\u00a0with this erroneous assumption.<\/span><\/p>\n Bearing in mind her Ladyship\u2019s overall approach one might fairly protest that criminal guilt is <\/strong>not the business<\/strong><\/em> of an Inquest.<\/strong> It is the business of a criminal court where\u00a0adversarial lawyers representing two opposing viewpoints grill witnesses, enabling one of their competing narratives to\u00a0 gain an ascendancy.<\/span><\/p>\n As in any murder trial, the Inquest should have first considered whether any of the Four owned a weapon that would have been capable of perpetrating the crime. Can it be shown that any of\u00a0 them <\/span><\/strong><\/span>had a \u2018bomb\u2019<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>? I believe it cannot. If they bought 30% peroxide from a hydroponics shop, then what? If there is no murder weapon, there is no criminal guilt.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Then the Inquest has to show that the Four were up in King\u2019s Cross station that morning <\/span>by 8.30 am at the latest<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span><\/a> I believe the weight of evidence is massively against this.<\/span><\/p>\n The Inquest should have been able to show that credible CCTV evidence existed of the Four in London on that morning. They have surely failed in this respect –\u00a0\u00a0they\u00a0have produced no such credible evidence.<\/em> One excellent justification for the holding of a public enquiry would be to ascertain why the most CCTV-rich environment on planet Earth could not produce one single credible CCTV\u00a0 image of the Four in London on the morning of 7\/7.<\/span><\/p>\n A\u00a0 proper Inquest should have asked if the pattern of damage of the coaches \u2013 in the shape of the holes in the floor & the distribution of dead bodies & the sitting positions of persons who had legs and feet blown\u00a0off \u2013 were at all concentric, around alleged positions of the rucksacks? I believe we have seen abundant evidence that this was not the case & that fatalities were spread in a more elongated shape along the central axes of the carriages. In the case of the Edgware Road blast, the carriage had <\/span>three big holes in the floor<\/span>,<\/a><\/strong> one some fifteen feet from the other two, and was lifted clean off the rails! No person capable of\u00a0rational thought could suppose a rucksack on the floor did that.<\/span><\/p>\n Has not the suicide-bomber hypothesis\u00a0been conclusively refuted <\/strong>by such factual and scientific evidence? In a normal court of law it is such physical evidence that would carry the greater weight.<\/span><\/p>\n While the Inquest heard from literally hundreds of witnesses, how is it that it could not find one single credible witness who saw any of the Four on the train coaches or on the number 30 bus? Yes it produced Mr Danny Biddle <\/span>(\u2018I saw Khan\u2019<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>) and <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Lisa French<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>on the 30 bus; but I suggest any psychologist would conclude that these witnesses were not reliable: Mr Biddle\u2019s testimony has flipped about like a flag on a pole while Ms French\u00a0only\u00a0acquired her \u2018memory\u2019 of seeing Hasib Hussein some years after the event. Both had been put, I suggest, under enormous pressure to produce their \u2018eyewitness\u2019 evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n Instead of attempting to dismiss \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019 on its last day,\u00a0the Inquest should have started off with certain facts <\/em>that would surely act as starting points for an entirely different conspiracy theory:<\/span><\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the fact that three coaches (and maybe also the\u00a030 bus) were kept hidden then destroyed\u00a0after the first year of the Met\u2019s investigation (\u2018Operation Theseus\u2019): this is the primary evidence<\/em> at the scene of the crime.<\/span><\/p>\n 2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0the fact that <\/span>no post-mortems were conducted<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>on any victims,.<\/span><\/p>\n 3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0The fact that so much of the CCTV that must have existed of the day of the Four \u2026. cannot be shown.<\/span><\/p>\n Answering the question, \u2018Is an Inquest into the deaths of the Four<\/span> necessary?\u2019, Lady Justice Hallett states, <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI can find no cause whatsoever to resume the inquests into the deaths of the four men. None of the families have sought to argue that any of these inquests should be resumed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>One is\u00a0puzzled by that silence \u2013 given that members of two of the families appealed to be allowed to give evidence at the Inquest but were refused. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>The\u00a0reliable website \u2018Official confusion\u2019\u00a0states that at least some of the bodies of the Four were handed back to the families intact.<\/em> We want to hear the view of the families as to whether or not this is the case. Was the cause of death a bullet through the back of the head, or a rucksack blowing up?<\/span><\/p>\n There has been an enormous lack of testimony from Pakistan from the relatives of\u00a0 the Four. There have been repeated allegations that the Four attended Jihad or terror-training camps. Is this true or were they simply visiting their families? We need to hear the families\u2019 responses to these assertions.<\/span><\/p>\n Item 63 of the Verdict:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cOn the evidence, 18 Alexandra Grove was the main bomb factory from its acquisition until the bombers\u2019 departure on the morning of 7\/7. It was rented by a man called Samir Alani who returned to Iraq and left the keys with a relative. He in turn rented it out to Jermaine Lindsay (calling himself \u201cJamal\u201d)\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Mr Alani left for Baghdad a couple of months before \u2013 however the flat was then rented out to <\/span>Leeds PhD chemist<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/a> <\/span>Magdy Al-Nashar<\/span><\/strong>,<\/span><\/a> who was a friend of Jermaine Lindsey,\u00a0it certainly was not rented to Lindsay. El-Magdy flew off to Cairo (with a return ticket) days before 7\/7.<\/span><\/p>\n The Unthinkable \u2018Conspiracy theory\u2019<\/strong> – Lady Justice Hallett, <\/span>paragraph 9<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2018To argue or find to the contrary [ie that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. 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. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers\u2019 families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service [MI5]. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>It happened that this verdict immediately followed the farcical pretence that Osama Bin Laden had just been shot (May 1st<\/sup>) when he\u2019d actually <\/span>been dead for many years<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>\u2013 it made front page headlines everywhere, with no peep of protest from the British media. Does not this rather undermine the claim that no large number of people can be involved in a \u2018conspiracy?\u2019 globally, the only national TV station (that I could see) to cast doubt upon the official story of Bin Laden was the Iranian Press TV.<\/span><\/p>\n\n