Contrary to how anyone who has doubts about the Official Narrative of 7/7 is being depicted by the mainstream media and other bloggers, I do question my own scepticism
Maybe things really did pan out on 7/7 the way we are being told they did - plus or minus some human error and a little arse-covering in the retelling
At this stage I think that's unlikely but it is possible
I doubt the Official Narrative for a whole pile of reasons. One of which, though it's nowhere near the only reason, has been the paucity of relevant CCTV footage released into the public domain
That lack of relevant CCTV material appears to be being addressed during the current trial of three men accused of assisting the alleged 7/7 bombers
Headlines like this, for example, appear to indicate that definitive CCTV evidence of a bomber actually setting off one of his bombs has now been made available...
CCTV footage of 7/7 explosion shown in court
CCTV images showing one of the three July 7 bombers setting off his bomb as a tube train pulled out of Liverpool Street Station have been shown in court
And, honestly, when I first the ran the clip I was perfectly prepared to seriously modify my view about the flaws in the 7/7 Official Narrative
Silly me
Given that the prosecution in the current case has already revealed that the alleged bombers conveniently weren't carrying the bombs (or their ID) and therefore couldn't be shown 'setting off' the bombs', I should have realised the headline was going to be deceptive bollocks
And, lo, it was so - the clip does not show anyone setting off anything; unless you're the kind of prick who enjoys playing lawyers' tricks with the English language
If fact, all of the 'evidence' released in recent days is either circumstantial or inconclusive and, I strongly suspect, extremely selective
but, of course, that hasn't stopped the mainstream media and other bloggers trying to pass it off as a something which it is not
Whilst deceitful wordplay and misdirection are not direct evidence of establishment deceit over 7/7, it does suggest someone is trying to obscure something
And no, I don't believe that any of the videos or stills released so far have been photoshopped to be more incriminating. They would be a lot more convincing if they had. Someone might be pissing around with the times and dates claimed for certain clips but that's a different game
Maybe something more convincing will be presented as the trial progresses; at least one psychic blogger out there appears to think so. Maybe I and others who try their best to be open-minded will be less sceptical as a result
but that still wouldn't explain WTF any of this has to do with the current trial
This material has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. In a very real sense this appears to be a show trial which has been hijacked for the purposes of state propaganda. Quite unashamedly so
Why is the defence team letting this continue?
and I'm no lawyer and I may very well be missing something, but how can you try and potentially convict three people for allegedly helping four alleged bombers who themselves have not been found guilty by any form of judicial process - be it a trial, an inquest or an inquiry?
Wouldn't the current trial only make sense after the people the defendants are accused of conspiring with have been formally found guilty of something?
Is that what all this seemingly irrelevant, bollocks 'evidence' is about? A half-arsed attempt at a short-cut around due process and probity?
WTF is going on with the country's system of justice?
.
21 comments:
Here's what Lord Diplock had to say about the admissibility of evidence in R v Sang [1979] UKHL 3, "A fair trial according to law involves, in the case of a trial upon indictment, that it should take place before a judge and a jury; that the case against the accused should be proved to the satisfaction of the jury beyond all reasonable doubt upon evidence that is admissible in law; and, as a corrollary to this, that there should be excluded from the jury information about the accused which is likely to have an influence on their minds prejudicial to the accused which is out of proportion to the true probative value of admissible evidence conveying that information. If these conditions are fulfilled and the jury receive correct instructions from the judge as to the law applicable to the case, the requirement that the accused should have a fair trial according to law is, in my view, satisfied; for the fairness of a trial according to law is not all one-sided; it requires that those who are undoubtedly guilty should be convicted as well as that those about whose guilt there is any reasonable doubt should be acquitted. However much the judge may dislike the way in which a particular piece of evidence was obtained before proceedings were commenced, if it is admissible
evidence probative of the accused's guilt it is no part of his judicial function to exclude it for this reason."
What's supposed to happen is that there should've been a voir dire (some say that this is French for jury rigging) which is a trial within a trial. During this part of the process the jury are excluded and the two parties (prosecution and defence) argue the toss as to what should be and shouldn't be admitted as evidence. They do this on the basis of the "... prejudicial to the accused which is out of proportion to the true probative value ..." part of Diplock's speech.
Next there is the weight of evidence. This is up to the court to decide. Evidence may be given which has very little weight but that's for the jury to decide. (Problems are usually seen in this aspect of the trial when expert opinion evidence is given: sometimes extra weight is given to expert opinion evidence than should be, this is usually obvious in hindsight).
Straying off topic here, but imho, the UK's evidential rules are undergoing a crisis at the moment. In R v Hoey, Weir J, obiter, called for (begged even?) for something akin to Daubert to be introduced because of the extremely poor state of current affairs. The problem is, if you bring in Daubert, S A Cole follows him and that's fingerprint evidence gone. (Apologies for the digression, Steph. Will elaborate in other posts, no doubt. I appreciate that the latter part is arcane etc ...).
After reading my post above, I realised that I hadn't said anything about hearsay.
Links, here and here and a good one, here. I'd be interested in reading legal opinion on the matter.
The attitude of the defence to the CCTV / home videos shown in court is puzzling.
From this distace it is impossible to see how any of the "evidence" so far introduced has any probative value whatever.
It appears that the defence has accepted that the alleged Leeds 4 7/7 bombers were the bombers - which hands a massive advantage to the prosecution.
Maybe they have a cunning plan but it is difficult to see how the defence is best served by dishing up all this irrelevant information.
Judging by press reports it appears that eye witnesses who tstified they saw the bus bomber on the 2 buses he travelled on were not challenged.
All very odd.
This is a PR campaign, not a trial. The adverserial format of our justice system certainly seems to have been set aside.
Its entire purpose is to generate headlines which reinforce the narrative. The drip of amazing new 'facts' does not seem to support those headlines. But that's unimportant, you just have to string things along, keep the official show on the road. Sow doubt by promising the 'next revelation'.
People remember the 'Ricin plot' not that it didn't actually happen.
Its like the invisible man doing the dance of the seven veils.
"It appears that the defence has accepted that the alleged Leeds 4 7/7 bombers were the bombers - which hands a massive advantage to the prosecution."
The prosecution seems to be basing guilt on association with the modern equivalent of the Guildford four or the Birmingham six. Weird.
On a related note, if the Guildford four or Birmingham six had been killed in action (for want of a better phrase), would we still be labouring under the impression that they were guilty?
the prosecution in the current case has already revealed that the alleged bombers conveniently weren't carrying the bombs (or their ID) and therefore couldn't be shown 'setting off' the bombs',
Yes! That's what we want to see! The men detonating the bombs! Right next to all the people they killed and maimed! All their last moments and terrible deaths should be put up on the internet and made into DVDs to pore over and discuss on blogs and forums.
And - let's see what happened straight after the bombs too! Let's see how big the craters were, how many people blew out of the train, how many were trapped inside. Let's see it all! Let's watch them die!
Let's all call together - Release The Evidence!
I can't think of any reason why anyone could have any problem with this! At all!
Can you?
I do not want to see anyone die
If I were sitting on a jury hearing a case against alleged bombers I would, however, expect to be shown such footage if it existed and if it demonstrated the guilt of the accused, unpleasant as it would be
I would not expect, or call for, such footage to be released into the public domain without suitable edits
I would however call for edited footage which placed the bombers in the trains/ bus to be released
This is not unreasonable, insane, ghoulish or insensitive
The footage that has been shown in court and released into the public domain...
1. Does not show what it was reported as showing
2. Does not appear to be relevant to the case being heard
There's a basic point here which no amount of smearing or innuendo from the mainstream press, other bloggers or commentators can obscure
The act of not trusting establishment claims about any particular event does not make you a bad, insane or wicked person
There are certainly bad, insane or wicked persons who may share some of my views
but I equally damned sure that there are plenty of bad, insane or wicked people who disagree with me completely
anonymous, I hope that was your attempt at some kind of irony, but either way you come across as unbalanced.
As such, I can't take any point you might have been trying to make seriously.
"Release the evidence but in someone else's trial and with timestamps all over the place if they're not blurred" would make a rubbish slogan.
In addition to the unbalanced irony observation, here's some balanced irony as a counterweight.
Yes! That's what we want to see! The men detonating the bombs! Right next to all the people they killed and maimed! All their last moments and terrible deaths should be put up on the internet and made into DVDs to pore over and discuss on blogs and forums.
And - let's see what happened straight after the bombs too! Let's see how big the craters were, how many people blew out of the train, how many were trapped inside. Let's see it all! Let's watch them die!
Exhibit A: New York, 11th September 2001 Part 1
Exhibit B: New York, 11th September 2001 Part 2
Exhibit B was broadcast 'live' on just about every TV channel in the world all day on 11th September 2001. Exhibit A appeared alongside Exhibit B the following day. Both bits of footage, as well as many other bits of footage showing the incident demonstrated in Exhibit B, have been repeatedly broadcast around the world by mainstream media channels, ad nauseam, for propaganda purposes ever since.
Exhibit C: Madrid, 11th March 2004
Exhibit D: London, 7th July 2005
Exhibit E: London, 7th July 2005
Exhibit F: London, 7th July 2005
Spot the difference?
The very thing that you endeavour to portray as outrageously hysterical with regard to 7/7 just happens to be the de facto standard for related incidents which have gone before it.
I can't think of any reason why anyone could have any problem with this! At all!
Can you?
QED, no.
Compare the publishing of CCTV footage with the Pentagon attack on 9/11. We've been getting a few 'no bombers' and 'no train' theories creeping into the debate. All of this is mixed in with other disinfo to keep a lid on more serious research imho.
Anon 17:59 "Let's see how big the craters were, how many people blew out of the train, how many were trapped inside. Let's see it all! Let's watch them die!
Let's all call together - Release The Evidence!
I can't think of any reason why anyone could have any problem with this! At all!"
One of the victims reported that the bomb in his train was underneath the floor of the train. The crater formed was of metal that was bent upwards. How could one of the bombers as described in the official narrative have planted the bomb, as implied by this evidence, underneath the train? Further, after planting the bomb underneath the train, why did he get back on the train; stand above the bomb, and kill himself?
I appreciate your criticisms re morbidity, insensitivity etc but the official narrative doesn't stack up, such that 'official' is becoming to be a synonym for 'lying'.
The only thing I'm personally sure of with any degree of confidence is that there is absolutely no reason to trust the government, security services and media which lied us into a war, lied about the execution of JCdM and continues to lie about so many other things any more than you would trust any other proven liar
@anon 13:52
the survivor in question is Bruce Lait
and his account does have peculiar elements which don't fit well with the official narrative...
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.
"Out of that whole carriage, I think Crystal and I were the only ones who were not seriously injured, and I think we were nearest the bomb."
odd as it is, it is a single piece of (I think) uncorroborated testimony and I personally wouldn't hang anything off it
Further, after planting the bomb underneath the train, why did he get back on the train; stand above the bomb, and kill himself?
I don't pretend know where the bombs were but even the authorities now admit that they weren't attached to the alleged bombers
this is no small thing as suicide bombers ordinarily adopt suicidal tactics because they are the only means open to them to deliver their bombs
clearly this wasn't the case on 7/7 - the bombers could have walked away
on top of that, how many people are going to seriously buy into the idea that the alleged 7/7 bombers went around tossing their ID all over the carriages before setting off their devices?
total f**king nonsense
oh, and not that I'm about to start advocating any conspiracy theories to compete with the official one but you wouldn't have to get off a tube carriage to plant a bomb underneath the floor...
7/7 Attacks Not "Suicide Bombings"?
A brief point that should be made with regard to eye-witness testimonies is that they are generally regarded as unreliable owing to many factors, particularly in events involving high degrees of trauma.
In cases where real, tangible evidence exists, from which a picture of what happened can be built, eye witness testimonies are entirely ignored.
Still, this won't stop some people making a living from their eye witness stories, like fake 9/11 "survivor" Tania Head.
For an introduction, see the BBC piece, The problem with eyewitnesses.
/ big Kurosawa fan
Seen 'the bad sleep well'? As father ted would say, it really is top notch stuff
With so much riding on it they needed to make sure everything went to plan. Like the 9/11 planes being remotely controlled, the idea that the 7/7 tube trains and bus were not bombed by the supposed bombers (ie Khan et al) is credible imho. There's a story somewhere about a mysterious visit to a London bus depot which supports this theory.
"And, honestly, when I first the ran the clip I was perfectly prepared to seriously modify my view about the flaws in the 7/7 Official Narrative"
- That's pretty close as to what was going through my mind as I admittedly, slightly uneasily located the videos on the beeb and played them.
Afterwards I was absolutely fuming! They were utter CRAP! They showed nothing! Nothing at all!
NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!
RN, DESPITE also seeing NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING other than the terrorist activity known in certain circles as commuting, shrieked aloud as if all of the questions, all of the research and proven falsehoods uncovered by J7 were irrelevant, and the case was closed.
What an utterly scummy position to make.
What a zero this woman is. Sorry, but it has to be said.
Post a Comment