Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."

-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.

Mind (Plug?) the Gaps

Following the selection of the jury of 12 from 150 potential jurors, and some technical hitches the trial of R v Waheed Ali (aka Shipon Ullah), Sadeer Saleem & Mohammed Shakil at Kingston Crown Court began. The three men are accused of one charge of conspiring with the four bombers and others unknown to cause explosions between Nov 17, 2004 and July 8, 2005.

Reports emerged (BBC & Telegraph) at lunchtime on 10th April 2008 of CCTV footage from the 7th July 2005 being shown in court. The Guardian report of 10th April failed to mention CCTV, however as noted here, the fullest account of the CCTV shown in court was provided by Rachel "North" in her blog post on the evening of 10th April.

The next morning J7 submitted a FOI request to the Metropolitan Police to determine if the CCTV evidence material shown in court would be made available for public scrutiny. After all there is, to date, no CCTV or photographic evidence in the public domain showing the 4 accused in London on 7th July 2005.

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:42 AM
From J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To Neil Smith
Subject Release of 7/7 CCTV footage under FOI

Dear Mr Smith

Now that the CCTV footage from 7th July 2005 has been shown during the current trial in Kingston Crown Court can we be assured that this footage will now be released and made available to the public?

As you are undoubtedly aware, the July 7th Truth Campaign has been very concerned over the lack of evidence in the public domain since the events in London on 7/7.

Regards,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Ten days later we received a response (emphasis added):

21st April 2008

Dear J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

As you know the 7/7 trial is ongoing. It would be premature for me to release further footage under FOIA at this stage, but I feel sure that more material will become available once the trial is over.

We understand your organisation's concerns as to the lack of evidence in the public domain pre-trial. The UK judicial system demands that all accused receive a fair trial. If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence'. At trial, that 'evidence' may or may not be established. All the authorities, including the Police, are bound to respect the needs of the Court, therefore release of evidence pre-trial has to be subject to strict limitations. In due time I hope we will be in a position where all the public, and especially the families of those killed or injured, are fully appraised of what happened on the 7th July 2005.

Whilst we have not communicated for some time, I express the thanks of the CT Command for drawing attention to some issues in the official account that required clarification. Whilst is might not always be apparent from our replies, your scrutiny is seen as helpful rather than inconvenient.

Regards,

Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
SO15 (Counter Terrorism Command)

While the response did not directly answer the question we submitted, whether the footage shown in court will be released and made available to the public, we have been told that [possibly] more material will become available once the trial is over. (Off the shelf Panorama programmes at the ready?)

Regarding the statement that 'If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence' - is that not what has happened in court, directed by the prosecution, without the scrutiny of the media/public at large?

Whether any media organisations are interested enough to demand the release of any of the CCTV evidence shown in court, remains to be seen. On 9th April, the Metropolitan Police released a statement to the media:

'During the trial the media may apply for material which has been relied upon by the Crown as part of its prosecution. The request will be considered by prosecuting Counsel, Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service.

Defence counsel will be advised of the request and will have the opportunity to raise any issues with the judge, who will make a final decision on whether the material can be released.

Whether any applications have been made and/or refused remains to be seen, however to date no CCTV footage has been released to the general public, nor have any additional still photos been publicly released.

Note the acknowledgement from Detective Inspector Neil Smith of Counter Terrorism Command that J7's scrutiny of the official account, and our ongoing Freedom of Information requests endeavouring to establish the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005, are "drawing attention to some issues in the official account which require clarification" and such queries are "seen as helpful rather than inconvenient".

To date J7 have submitted many FOI requests to the Metropolitan Police with limited success in terms of requests that have resulted in the disclosure of useful information. It would be infinitely more helpful if requests for information were met with the release of the information being requested.

We would like to see the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Judge/judicial system being 'helpful' to the British Public by releasing the CCTV evidence.

J7 looks forward to the release of the CCTV footage shown during the trial, and to any other evidence material, in order that further scrutiny can be carried out and the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005 can be coherently established.