Monday, March 07, 2011

When is an Inquest not an Inquest? pt2

The answer to the question 'What costs eight pounds fifty and is full of more holes than a string vest?'

There was already a long list of unanswered questions arising from the the Official 7/7 Narrative before the 7/7 Inquest commenced. Whilst I, personally, did not expect that the Inquest would answer, or even address, the majority of these questions I did expect that the Inquest would at least attempt to describe the composition and design of the explosive devices used on 7/7

Given that inquests are usually held to establish the how, when and where of unnatural deaths it was reasonable to expect that the 7/7 Inquest would at least pretend to offer plausible answers to these questions in the context of 7/7

Silly me

Rather than simply parroting other people's observations about the farce that is the 7/7 Inquest, I strongly recommend listening to 7/7 researcher and film-maker Tom Secker's recent interview with James Corbett here... well as revisiting the J7 7/7 Inquest blog, particularly the entry covering the failure to carry out proper post-mortems on the 7/7 victims, here...

James Corbett has been one of the very few relatively high traffic alternative media personalities to give the Inquest anything like the treatment I believe it deserved. His interview with Tom Secker was part of an overview of the 7/7 Inquest which Corbett released as a podcast last Sunday. It is well worth a listen...

Abstracts of the almost overwhelming number of contradictions, unanswered questions, acts of misdirection and sins of omission that peppered the 7/7 Inquest will doubtlessly follow, hopefully on this blog as well as other sources, once the proceedings have formally closed. But, f*** me, even by the standards of past whitewashes this inquest has set some kind of new benchmark. It can only have been pulled off in the sloppy way that it has with a prior expectation by the perpetrators of total media complicity

There has been one small aberration in the total media complicity which
, as sure as night follows day, accompanied the 7/7 Inquest and that took place in the Guardian...


However, welcome as this aberration is, it barely scratches the surface of the flaws in the Official 7/7 Narrative and does not even start to address the fact that the Official Narrative of what happened that day is now even less well supported by anything that approximates to admissable evidence than it was *
before* the inquest started

There is a very strong possibly, now verging on a certainty, that person or persons unknown are being allowed to literally get away with murder



MerkinOnParis said...

Great article Stef.

Anonymous said...

No surprises here!they were never going to convict themselves now were they?
It will all be a hazy memory soon enough and maybe in 100 years the big book of what really happened will be published.
We can rest easy however knowing we were not fooled.
The family's of the atrocity are the ones who will have to live out the rest of their days with that uneasy feeling of being shafted.

StefZ said...

Personally speaking, that warm fuzzy glow that comes from believing that you know something that the majority of people do not know eludes me

But, sadly, I have to concur with the sentiment of your comment

I've been humming this song to myself a lot lately

Anonymous said...

no fuzzy glow.Just hard reality.

the song sums it up.

Bridget said...

Hi Stef - Good to have you back and posting again.

A rather strange exchange at the Inquests hearing today between Ms Gallagher representing the bereaved families and the Coroner. Why can't they and we know why the decision not to conduct internal post mortems was taken? In my experience, families are never given the option in the case of a violent or unnatural death:

19 MS GALLAGHER: Finally, my Lady, I'm dealing with internal
20 post-mortems. It's recommendation (v), and it's at
21 paragraph 3.96 of our submissions. For those who don't
22 have access to the text, the families seek the following
23 recommendation, and this is unanimously sought by the
24 families:

25 It is recommended that consideration be given to (a)
1 whether coroners should receive guidance as to whether
2 to direct that internal post-mortem examinations should
3 be carried out in circumstances where, even though the
4 cause of death is known, there's a possibility that
5 survivability issues might arise at an inquest, such as
6 to lead to verdicts involving contributory neglect; and
7 (b) whether the families of deceased persons have
8 a sufficient opportunity to make recommendations to
9 coroners if it's intended not to carry out an internal
10 post-mortem examination.
11 The key evidence which we've referred to, my Lady,
12 is that of Colonel Mahoney, not just on 1 February, in
13 fact on both days, and I've given you fuller references
14 at page 112 of the transcript onwards.
15 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Ms Gallagher, you acknowledge in your
16 submissions on this recommendation that there's at least
17 one significant problem, which is that it's outside my
18 ruling on scope,
but isn't there another problem as
19 well, that I have not heard evidence as to the basis for
20 the decision being taken?

21 So what you're inviting me to do is to -- by
22 implication, and even if it's not included as a specific
23 recommendation, you're suggesting I can conclude it as
24 Sir Michael Wright did, but what you are inviting me to
25 do is to say by implication this decision was wrong,
1 when I don't know, because I haven't heard evidence, the
2 basis for it, and I'm troubled by that.
3 MS GALLAGHER: Yes, we're very conscious of that, my Lady.
4 You will see that in paragraph 3.101 we've all included
5 emphasis that no criticism whatsoever of Dr Reid is
6 intended by the recommendation. We very much take the
7 point that, in seeking the recommendation, it may appear
8 that there's some implied criticism.
9 It's a hugely important issue to a lot of the
10 families.
It's one on which all five teams were united,
11 my Lady, in putting it forward, as indeed we were in all
12 recommendations, and we recognise the difficulties.
13 In respect of the issue about your scope ruling, we
14 don't seek to go behind the reason that Dr Reid didn't
15 undertake internal post-mortems,
indeed we are all aware
16 of the difficulties with the Marchioness disaster and
17 particular sensitivities there.

Anonymous said...

George Carlin might say something like this

YouTube - George Carlin comments on 9/11 Truth and the NWO