First, a jury concluded that a local child-like-fantasist-nutter probably wasn't responsible for the perfectly executed public execution of Jill Dando
- the lack of any reliable evidence whatsoever probably helped
Second, another Jury decided that 20 years to Life was probably not an appropriate punishment for visiting the London Eye and Natural History Museum on a day trip
which possibly explains why the establishment is so keen to do away with jury trials, having to decide what to charge people with when they are arrested and the right of the accused to know the identity of their accusers
The 7/7 related trial which finished yesterday was an especially curious affair. Much of the 'evidence' presented at the start of the trial, and faithfully repeated by the mainstream media, had nothing to do with the guilt nor innocence of the accused
What it was was a mishmash of inconclusive material relating to 7/7 which was described as being conclusive evidence of the four alleged 7/7 bombers' guilt but was nothing of the sort
Unfortunately, because it didn't relate to the charges being heard, this mishmash wasn't challenged in court
This was a dishonest attempt to put circumstantial toss into the public domain without it being subject to any critical rigour
However, amongst all that circumstantial 7/7-related toss, one absolutely gobsmacking revelation was made by the prosecution and it deserves repeating because none of the mainstream media have asked the obvious questions and have quietly forgotten about it...
July 7 bombers 'left clues to martyrdom'
"Neil Flewitt, QC, prosecuting, said that expert Clifford Todd had examined the wreckage of the bomb sites."
“The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard.”
" It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers. Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."
It's well worth spending a minute or two thinking about the possible implications, as opposed to the establishment interpretation, of that evidence - because you're not supposed to