The Home Office finally responded this week with some answers to FOI requests made by J7 researchers for an explanation as to why the erroneous train time in the Official Report, acknowledged by the then Home Secretary John Reid on the 11th of May 2006, had not been amended in the Report.
J7 also sought an explanation as to how this error occurred in the first place, and at which time the four suspects actually entered Luton station, since the Official Report appears to imply that the men entered the station twice.
On January 10th 2007, a J7 researcher asked of the Home Office:
A response was received the following day, stating:
J7 also sought an explanation as to how this error occurred in the first place, and at which time the four suspects actually entered Luton station, since the Official Report appears to imply that the men entered the station twice.
On January 10th 2007, a J7 researcher asked of the Home Office:
1. We would like to know why the train time of 7.40 has not been amended in the Official Report.
2. We would like to know if a full report has been received from the police explaining how this discrepancy came about.
3. We would like to know when this information will be made public.
A response was received the following day, stating:
Dear The July 7th Truth Campaign,
Thank you for your e-mail of 10/01/2007 1:07:06 PM asking questions about the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
With regard to the 3 questions you asked:
1: A correction slip is awaiting final approval to be sent to the printers.
2 A report has been received from the police.
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
J7 responded, asking for further clarification to this somewhat confusing reply:
Thank you for the prompt response to our FOI request ref: T1131/7.
Unfortunately your response was not readable within the email, but we managed to decipher what it said.
We asked when the Home Secretary will be explaining how the error in the train time occurred, you responded:
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
We appreciate that the document may not be published. We are asking for an explanation of how the error occurred, now that you have the police document to explain this.
We are also concerned that the Official Report claims:
07.15: Lindsay, Hussain, Tanweer and Khan enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together.
Yet the only CCTV image published of the 4 together, to date, shows them entering Luton station at 7.21.54.
We therefore make the following FOI requests:
1. Could you please clarify whether the 4 entered Luton station at 7.15 or 07.21.54.
2. Now that the internal police document explaining the discrepancy in the time the train left Luton has been made available to the Home Secretary, could we now have an explanation of how this error occurred.
Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign
After seven months of interim responses, persistence and complaints from J7, the answers eventually arrived on August 23rd:
Dear the July 7th Truth Campaign ,Thank you for your e-mail of 13/03/2007 4:28:26 PM seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act about the Official Account of the 7 July 2005 Bombings in London in which you requested an explanation of how the error in the Official Account of the July 7 Bombings occurred and also asking for clarification as to what time the 4 bombers entered Luton Station. Your request was handled in accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I apologise for the delay in replying to your information request. After having carefully considered your request and having examined the information that you requested in your letter I am pleased to be able to disclose the following information that you requested.
About your first query, how the error in the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July occurred, I am able to inform you this discrepancy was due to human error. The relevant part of the police report to the Home Secretary explaining how the error occurred says:
“It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train’s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.”
With regard to your second query asking for clarification as to the time the bombers entered Luton station, I can inform you that a correction to the Official Account has been made. As the Official Account is a Parliamentary publication a correction slip has been entered in the Parliamentary library. This correction has also been published on the Home Office official website. A copy of the correction slip is attached.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review any aspect of our handling of your application. During the internal review the department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. An internal review can be requested by submitting you complaint, within 2 months of the date of this letter quoting reference 5642 to:
Information Policy Team
Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act
Yours faithfully
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
HC 1087 Session 2005-2006
ISBN 0 10 293774 5
CORRECTIONS
1. Page 4. The time of 07.15 should be changed to 07:14 and the text should read
“Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.”
2. Page 4. The time of 07.40 on the left side of the page immediately preceding the paragraph that commences, “The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station”. The time of 07.40 is incorrect and should be replaced by 07.25 which is the correct time.
August 2007
LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Please see the July Seventh People's Independent Inquiry Forum for the full details and discussion of these requests and responses from the Home Office.
This response has not addressed the specific questions submitted by J7 in the original FOI request.
The Home Office have explained, that the incorrect train time was given due to "human error" based on "what were later found to be conflicting witness statements" - it appeared not to have occurred to investigators to check which trains were actually running that morning, electing instead to base their findings on witness statements and absolutely no other evidence. J7 pointed out in the FOI requests that there is an internal police document, which the Home Secretary was given, explaining how this error occurred, yet this is ignored in the reply.
The response also has still not stated at what time the four suspects entered the station, despite J7's very clear question, as to whether it was at 07:15 or 07:21:54.
Correction 1 in the response above, in fact makes the Official Report even more nonsensical when inserted into the correct section.
With this correction in place, the amended section of the official Home Office narrative now reads:
This response has not addressed the specific questions submitted by J7 in the original FOI request.
The Home Office have explained, that the incorrect train time was given due to "human error" based on "what were later found to be conflicting witness statements" - it appeared not to have occurred to investigators to check which trains were actually running that morning, electing instead to base their findings on witness statements and absolutely no other evidence. J7 pointed out in the FOI requests that there is an internal police document, which the Home Secretary was given, explaining how this error occurred, yet this is ignored in the reply.
The response also has still not stated at what time the four suspects entered the station, despite J7's very clear question, as to whether it was at 07:15 or 07:21:54.
Correction 1 in the response above, in fact makes the Official Report even more nonsensical when inserted into the correct section.
With this correction in place, the amended section of the official Home Office narrative now reads:
05.07: A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton station car park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone in this car. During the 90 minutes or so before the others arrive, Lindsay gets out and walks around, enters the station, looks up at the departure board, comes out, moves the car a couple of times. There are a handful of other cars in the car park. A few more arrive during this period.
06.49: The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.
One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks. It is not clear what they were for, but they may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey given their size; that they were in the car rather than the boot; and that they were left behind. Also left in the Micra were other items consistent with the use of explosives. A 9mm handgun was also found in the Brava. The Micra had a day parking ticket in the window, perhaps to avoid attention, the Brava did not.
07:14: Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.
So, having put on their rucksacks at 6:49, the men apparently do so again at just after 7:14, with Lindsay checking the departure board again at this time, having done so previously at 05.07.
1. Did Lindsay enter the station and look at the departure board during the 90 minutes whilst waiting for the others to arrive and then again at 7.14?
2. Did they put their rucksacks on at 6.49 or after 7.14?
J7 will be asking these questions in our response to this rather absurd 'clarification' from the Home Office.
1. Did Lindsay enter the station and look at the departure board during the 90 minutes whilst waiting for the others to arrive and then again at 7.14?
2. Did they put their rucksacks on at 6.49 or after 7.14?
J7 will be asking these questions in our response to this rather absurd 'clarification' from the Home Office.
16 comments:
Well done and thanks Bridget, for putting together all those requests, responses and complaints !
There's more about this on cmain's blog here. He makes the very valid point:
"For ordinary members of the public "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court". If we apply the same standard to the Home Office ..."
Bridget has more on how the story unfolded, and the absurdity of the amendment that has been made to the narrative.
The 9mm. handgun is a nice touch, but it seems a little outré to me. Why is it supposed to have been there?
Hi Rowan
There is also mention of a handgun on p24 of the Official Report in relation to Lindsay and the Fiat Brava:
He began associating with petty criminals.
Police investigated a report of an aggravated burglary on 27 May involving Lindsay’s Fiat Brava at which one of the group was alleged to have been carrying a handgun. Police inquiries at the time failed to track the vehicle or the occupants. Indeed the injured party at the scene of the aggravated burglary made off and has never been identified. So the motivation of the attack remains unknown.
Which is odd given that the car was registered to Lindsay and presumably traceable.
p10 :
There had been a report on the Police National Computer that the Brava may have been used in an aggravated burglary (see paragraph 69) and Lindsay was named as the registered keeper for the car.
Rowan, good question!
Unfortunately, over two years on, the most basic of facts are nigh-on impossible to establish so I think there's a bit of time required before anyone figures out what the stylistic flourishes such as the 9mm handgun and the "explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks" are all about.
In fact, one of the better synopses of this dire situtation was written as follows:
"....but it is only those who know little about the humble awkward facts in this case who can be confident about what happened, while those like my investigator friends who now run Julyseventh.co.uk, who know most about what happened, are the ones who are least sure of what happened!"
In other words, everyone knows what happened on 7/7, except those have bothered to do some research and find that the basic 'facts' established by the official story simply don't stack up.
Having said that, it was widely reported that the alleged perpetrators planned to create a "burning cross" in London, yet the notion of a "burning cross" has a very definite association, albeit one not usually linked to the Muslim community.
And the last series of bombs to hit London, prior to 7/7, with which there may be political "burning cross" parallels, were attributed to whom?
“It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train’s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.”
With all respect:
Since when are train departure times based on witnesses? Didn't you guys obtain the real departure time table from Luton? Shouldn't have been too difficult for the Mets to ask it, too...
John Doe II
Hi John Doe II,
It's entirely crazy that the official government report about the events of 7th July 2005 is reliant on "conflicting witness statements" and not cold, hard, tangible facts. If they can't get such basic and easy to verify facts like train times right, what hope is there that the remainder of the story bears any resemblance to the truth?
J7 did indeed obtain the actual Luton - King's Cross Thameslink timetable for the day and it beggars belief that the government don't appear to have bothered to have done the same. What's more, when John Reid acknowledged the accused weren't on the 7.40, worse still, it transpired that the government's version of events wasn't obtained from the police either.
If you also factor in that, in any criminal inquiry in which there exists real evidence to corroborate a hypothesis, eye witness accounts are generally discounted and ignored because of many well-documented, weaknesses in such accounts, particularly in instances of heightened trauma, such as the events of 7/7, then the Home Office report becomes an even greater insult to the intelligence of everyone and further proof, as if it were needed, of the contempt the hereditary ruling classes have for everyone that is 'other'.
The far-right, NATO, Gladio terrorists massacred 38 people in Turkey in 1977, 491 people in Italy between 1969 and 1980, and 28 people in Belgium in 1983-85. They assisted coups in France in 1958 and 1961, in Greece in 1967 and in Turkey in 1960, 1971 and 1980. They carried out the assassinations of Eduardo Mondlane, the leader of Mozambique's national liberation movement, in 1969, and of Aldo Moro, who had been Prime Minister of Italy, in 1978.
Despite all this, Gladio has never been mentioned in the British parliament yet, notably, several European countries have held full parliamentary inquiries into such issues.
When Churchill established the Special Operations Executive with the intention of "setting Europe ablaze", I have a sneaking suspicion he was aware that the continent of Europe includes the British Isles.
Hi Antagonist,
I agree on all points. And the more I look the more Gladio is the clue (did you watch "Timewatch" on google. An award winning three-parter by BBC on Gladio). The European Parliament did issue a resolution on Gladio demanding its members to do investigations. Only Italy and Beligum did (and Suisse).
I did work quite a lot on this and other officially ackonwledged false flag and covert operations. Hope to publish an article on the net soon.
Best regards and keep up the great work,
John Doe II
Hi John Doe II,
I believe your analysis of Gladio being a large part of the key is correct.
Vincenzo Vinciguerra gave a lot of it away when he said of the strategy that underpins NATO's far-right, stay-behind networks:
"You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
This differs little from what happened on 11/9, 11/3, 7/7, in Bali, the Samarra Mosque, and rather too many others to mention.
The repeated absence of public scrutiny of such events and issues by those tasked with the job of serving the general public in the UK gives still more cause for concern.
This is further compounded by the interesting characters that appear immediately one starts researching the 7/7 accused. For example, within minutes of commencing research one stumbles upon Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, ex-Special Boat Services (elite squadron of operatives) and James 'Mohammed Yacoub' McClintock, an ex-Mujahideen fighter dubbed 'The Tartan Taliban', both of whom have, to all intents and purposes, disappeared off the radar.
Be sure to let know when your article is published, I very much look forward to reading it.
In solidarity, for truth and justice,
Ant.
PS: Have you read Gianfranco Sanguinetti's On Terrorism and the State? There's precious little that's not covered in his insightful treatise.
There was also an interesting follow up to Sanguinetti's article here.
does the online narrative (pdf) as linked to by the bbc,etc. contain the corrections?
Hi Anonymous,
As far as I'm aware, the original 'narrative' has not been amended and is still published featuring the erroneous train time.
The amendment was issued as a separate document by the Home Office on Friday 10th August 2007, along with an introduction stating, "This document updates the Official Account of the 7 July London Bombings".
A copy of the Home Office amendment can be downloaded as a PDF here.
Hello, I thought you were a bit hard in your comments about the Ripple Effect. I think it would have been better if they had prefaced it, with (As a result of the refusal of the governent to release the information they had promised to release notably cctv images they claim they have we have doubts about ht egoverment story. we present here another possible story)
This film what ever its faults helps to keep the story alive and inform more people who may migrate to the 7/7 truth site for more information.
The story they put together was quite good. The Idea that a plan to have 3 tube bombs and one truck bomb had been formulated as shown in the film and then put into action.
One wonders why the media have not highlighted the possibility of the bombers copying to plan and some how gaining knowledge of the planed operation for the day and using it as cover.
But then again thet do not seem to want to talk about the planned and pre-planned operation.
As with any story the film is not without its faults.
Hello, I thought you were a bit hard in your comments about the Ripple Effect. I think it would have been better if they had prefaced it, with (As a result of the refusal of the governent to release the information they had promised to release notably cctv images they claim they have we have doubts about ht egoverment story. we present here another possible story)
This film what ever its faults helps to keep the story alive and inform more people who may migrate to the 7/7 truth site for more information.
The story they put together was quite good. The Idea that a plan to have 3 tube bombs and one truck bomb had been formulated as shown in the film and then put into action.
One wonders why the media have not highlighted the possibility of the bombers copying to plan and some how gaining knowledge of the planed operation for the day and using it as cover.
But then again thet do not seem to want to talk about the planned and pre-planned operation.
As with any story the film is not without its faults.
Sorry you got my ast post twice.
I was watching again some of the youtube posts on 7/7,
The SKY helicopter at 10am where they are still talking about power surges over one hour after the first explosion and of more than 4 explosions. Then thinking why more has not been made of this. It is hard to judge what should be highlighted over some over fact. I read with intrest the police media communications that 7/7 truth have had rellease under FOA (well done) What is the official reason for evacuating canary wharf (hoax?). The Kings cross CCTV paid such an important part in the early identification ? why add this to the storyine if it could not be produced. Maybe on review there was something wrong with it. Although what that could not be fixed.
The number arrested and later released is also highlighted. Some charged for Hoax or having terrorist material(yuk) but not directly linked to 7/7. Let us hope this year will bring more progress.
Post a Comment