7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Yossarian said:
Nope I'd wager.
Logically I don't think you can accuse BK of fighting a battle. She's got the greatest incentive anyone can have to find out the truth behind the attacks, not some dogmatic belief that conspiracies are everywhere.
The fact that she doesn't to associate herself with such irrational, intolerant conspiracy-fanatics should be no surprise, particularly given the treatment she's suffered. There is no battle to fight. One person wants the truth, the other group wants to feed their fantasies in the main.
Was this not worthy of comment?
Basic investigative procedure one would have thought.
As for the importance of the correct train time fron Luton:
this was one of the reasons I began to research these events. In the quest for witnesses the train time from Luton would be crucial if they had met someone en route. Another fact about Luton Thameslink trains is that some stop at Luton Airport (7.24) some don't (7.48) likewise with other stops enroute. I live near a Thameslink station and the crime poster did not specify the time of the train, so how was anyone to know if they had travelled on the same train?
Basic investigative procedure one would have thought.
My earlier version of the post was "sometimes you defeat your enemy by not fighting it".tarannau said:
Indeed there is no battle to fight here. No-one is asking BK to associate herself with conspiracy theories. All she has to do is accept that they are around and it is the responsibility of public inquiries to settle them. Launching into attacking the sceptics serves no purpose other than to provoke attacks in return.
Prole said:
What like the one which establishes the bombers were (a) on the trains/bus (b) were very close to the explosions, if not right next to them (c) had left a bomb filled house (d) left a car with bombs in Luton (e) had links with a global terror organisation (f) dissappeared sometime during 7/7 never to be seen again.
Who do you think did it...?
I don't know who did it, but until I see conclusive evidence that these 4 young men are guilty I will continue to ask questions. It is not for me or anyone else to prove their innocence it is for the state to prove their guilt.
One CCTV image 30 miles from London (compared to the quantity of images from 28/6 & 21/7) is not enough evidence to convict them.
I am still waiting for someone to comment on this:
One CCTV image 30 miles from London (compared to the quantity of images from 28/6 & 21/7) is not enough evidence to convict them.
I am still waiting for someone to comment on this:
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Prole said:
Well that CCTV isn't the only evidence though is it? there's the DNA and personal effects found at the scenes of crime, there's Khan's video confession...
As far as the 7.24/7.48 train confusion goes, I think those who argue for a 7.48 train are mistaken, but didn't you say that it wasn't the police themselves saying that, rather, media sources and Rai's book...
scalyboy said:
Indeed! And when that came out I suggested it had been heavily edited and couldn't be taken seriously as evidence, to general ridicule. This is well worth noting.
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Jazzz said:
Well yes it has been edited, but it is still him speaking quite lucidly and cogently about his aims and motivation. He doesn't appear drugged or coerced into making the statement.
But, ah, with respect Jazzz, this is a problem I have with the sceptics - any evidence that emerges, and which doesn't fit the sceptical version of events, is deemed to be faked - eg. the Khan video, the Luton station CCTV image. However, other evidence used in favour of their arguments (eg. witnesses report explosion below the carriages) is taken as gospel...
No. Just a suggestion that you actually post something that actually means what you mean it to mean.Prole said:
Well you'd think wrong (speaking as a Consultant Investigator and trained police Senior Investigating Officer).Prole said:
There are any number of factors to take into consideration when deciding what to put on an appeal poster (or any other media release of information). Less is often more, as you often don't know what you are looking for at the early stages of an investigation and you don't want people going "Oh, I wasn't on that train so I can't have seen anything important".
(And, unlike you, you do not take every piece of evidence and either (a) twist it until it fits your theory or (b) discard it. You collect (and test / assess) everything and constantly review the possible hypotheses, comparing each against what is known, not discarding any until it is disproven.)
Thanks for that information, perhaps you could enlighten me on the following:detective-boy said:
When I check the MPS website and it states the following:
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major..._attacks/one_week_anniversary_bombings_appeal
Then I read that BK says that the bomb was at the back of the first carriage, and not by the first set of double doors, do we assume that:
1. The police do not know where the bomb was?
2. They 'just made a mistake'?
3. It isn't in the public interest to know the actual facts?
4. It is a deliberate mistake?
5. It doesn't matter, we know it was somewhere?
I personally have a problem with how few of the facts are either a) correct or b) in the public domain.
editor
hiraethified
Well, riddle me this conspiraloons.
If the suspected bombers didn't plan the bombs:
1. Who did?
2. Who installed the bombs?
3. How come no LT staff/maintenance crew noticed?
4. How come not one accident investigator have said that a bomb has been planted?
5. Who put the bomb on the bus?
6. What happened to the people accused of the bombings? Where are they?
Naturally, I'll expect credible evidence to accompany your answers because I'm not interested in wild, fact free web-loon-scoops.
If the suspected bombers didn't plan the bombs:
1. Who did?
2. Who installed the bombs?
3. How come no LT staff/maintenance crew noticed?
4. How come not one accident investigator have said that a bomb has been planted?
5. Who put the bomb on the bus?
6. What happened to the people accused of the bombings? Where are they?
Naturally, I'll expect credible evidence to accompany your answers because I'm not interested in wild, fact free web-loon-scoops.
I wondered where you were Ed, I always know I've hit a nerve when you appear.editor said:
It is not for me to provide an alternative theory or prove these 4 young men's innocence, it is the job of the state to prove their guilt. That I assume includes motive.
If I had been allowed to ask Milan Rai a question it would have been:
'What do you believe these men hoped to achieve by these acts?'
Can you answer that?
I have no idea. To establish where it was I would expect to gather:Prole said:
(i) all witness accounts
(ii) all scene examination reports
(iii) the reports of appropriate experts
(iv) photographs, plans, video footage, etc.
I would then establish what was consistent and what was not. With regard to what was not, I would then ask "How reliable is this piece of information?", compared with the pieces with which it did not agree. And I would then make a decision as to whether or not the inconsistent piece could be disregarded (without necessarily establishing why it was inconsistent, though it would be nice if I could). If I could not disregard any inconsistent pieces of evidence, then I would ask how important it was that I established the particular fact with more precision. If it were important, I would seek more information. But I would do so knowing that sometimes you simply will never know for sure.
My guess would be a mistake, in a press release made within a week of the incident. "The first" set of doors is eminently confusable. And the text of the release is highly unlikely to have been proof-read by anyone who actually knew. And it is NOT intended as a definitive statement of fact anyway.
As for your final comments, (b) is a legitimate point of view. But (a) is bollocks. You have absolutely no idea whether or not any particular fact is correct or not. Largely because of (b).
If they were being prosecuted then, yes, the State would have an obligation to prove the allegation against them. But they are not being prosecuted.Prole said:
The State has an obligation to provide evidence to a Coroner, both in relation to their death and the death of the other people who died. I don't recall the inquests being held yet. Did I miss something? Or should we perhaps wait and see what evidence the State provide at that time? And, before you get too carried away, the Coroner's enquiry is restricted to the identification of who the victims are; where and when they died and how they came to die to some extent (e.g. whether or not they were unlawfully killed or took their own life or whatever) so there will NOT be a full revelation of ALL the evidence involved in the case, just that which the coronoer considers appropriate to deciding the issues before them.
Apart from that, the State has NO obligation to PROVE anything. It may choose to reveal some or all of the evidence at some stage. It may be well-advised to do so, at some stage. But it has no obligation to do so.
And as for motive, I think you've been watching too many American cop shows. Motive is not essential to anything. It is always nice to know. And
as an investigation progresses it may be useful to guide the enquiry. But frequently it is not known. Regularly it only becomes apparent during interview (so it won't be happening here). Often it is NEVER established (I have even met offenders that genuinely don't know why they have done somethig themselves).
But if you're worried about it, try this one: Disaffected Asian men decide to strike a blow against the nasty UK State, who are behaving badly in Iraq and elsewhere, by making the tube go bang in a big way. Sounds as good as any to me.
Similar threads
- Locked
