Elias Davidsson

The London Transport Bombings

of July 2005

Unsolved Crime

ISBN:

Copyright: Elias Davidsson 2019

Key words:  False-Flag, Presumption of Innocence, Right to the Truth, MPS, Criminal disposition, Terror exercise, Canary Wharf

Author’s websites: www.aldeilis.net / www.tonar-og-steinar.com

Author’s email address: eliasdav@t-online.de

Cover design: Bus No. 30 at Tavistock Square immediately after the explosion that allegedly exploded on the upper deck and caused the deaths of 13 persons.

Elias Davidsson was born in Palestine in 1941. His Jewish parents were born in Germany but moved to Palestine due to the Nazi persecution of Jews. Davidsson settled in Iceland in 1962 and worked for 21 years as computer programmer and systems engineer. In 1983 he left the computer field and began a second career in music. He has managed a music school and worked as a church organist and choir master, teacher, composer and arranger. His educational compositions are widely used in Europe and Australia.

Parallel to his professional activities, Davidsson has involved himself since the 1970s in activism and research for social and global justice, peace and human rights. He was co-founder of the Association Iceland-Palestine and remains a supporter of a democratic State in the whole of historic Palestine. His writings include articles on multinational corporations, the World Bank, the Palestine question, Zionism, economic sanctions and international law. Some of his writings have appeared in law journals. In 2002, Davidsson began researching the events of September 11, 2001. This work resulted in the publication of several books dealing with the phenomenon of covert state terrorism. Davidsson now lives in Germany.

Introduction

Powerful explosions rocked three underground trains in London on the morning of July 7, 2005. Another explosion occurred a short while later on a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people reportedly died in the explosions and over 700 were wounded. Numerous individuals lost limbs in the explosions. The deadly operation manifested careful planning and coordination.  Four young British Muslims were named as the suicide-bombers.

British media began immediately to promote unsubstantiated, unverified and unverifiable allegations regarding their alleged radicalisation, relying almost entirely on unidentified security sources. A typical example of such coverage was “Britain’s Enemy Within” by Scotland on Sunday of July 17, 2005. Apart from attributing the crime unreservedly to these four young Muslims who have not been found guilty by any judicial authority, the authors cited “some friends”, unidentified “Pakistani intelligence officials” or “US investigators” as sources for their allegations and used repeatedly phrases such as “X is believed to” or “Y is understood to”  to establish their narrative. Throughout their piece they attempted to make the point that ordinary, nice, friendly young British Muslims are capable of concealing within their hearts murderous intentions and a willingness to carry out these intentions against random citizens that might include Muslims.

While the official account on the events of September 11, 2001 became etched in stone within 24 hours and has remained unchanged ever since, the official account on the London bombings (hereafter 7/7) was settled only after numerous modifications. 

Persistent questions surrounding the events of 7/7, including suspicions of official cover-up, or even complicity, finally prompted public officials, including the leading counsel of the belated Inquest, Mr. Hugo Keith, to acknowledge these suspicions on the very first day of the Inquest:

"I have mentioned this evidence because a number of unlikely conspiracy theories have been aired in the press and on the internet. One particular campaigning group has submitted voluminous submissions to the Inquest team, and the submissions reflect long-held views expressed on the website, that website, to the effect that there are a large number of anomalies that merit detailed attention.[...] The law does not oblige you to conduct an inquisition into every stated rumour and suspicion. There must be a reasonable basis in evidence for such a suspicion before any coroner can be expected  to conduct an inquisition into it. There is no evidence at all that we have seen to suggest that the bombers were duped in some way so that  they did not know that they were going to die or, even more absurdly, that they did not know that they were carrying explosives at all. Indeed, such claims run  entirely contrary to all the evidence that I have  summarised so far."

The British authorities accused four young men of having perpetrated the mass-murder of 7/7.  These four young men have not been seen since. Their guilt was not determined by due process. The British authorities claim they died in the mass-murder by blowing themselves up while causing the deaths of 52 other persons and wounding hundreds others. Yet the British authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for the truth, also in promoting the war of aggression against Iraq. In their book on Criminal Evidence, Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman remind us that

… in a well-functioning democracy, criminal censure and punishment are imposed in the name of the people, and all citizens are morally implicated in the truth, or falsehood, of official determinations of guilt.{1}

To the extent that criminal censure is imposed in the name of the citizenry, citizens are entitled to scrutinise official allegations against innocent individuals{2} and should do so with great circumspection.

Part I below might be regarded as an attempt to provide a belated defence to the four accused, whom the British government designated guilty of mass-murder without any due process. Such defence will be constrained, necessarily, by three major handicaps: (a) Lack of access to government-suppressed documents; (b) Impossibility of cross-examining witnesses and government officials; and (c) Lack of resources. Despite these handicaps, the study demonstrates that committed citizens can, even with modest means and relying solely on public documents, effectively challenge official allegations. It is the hope of the author that this demonstration will produce in the minds of unprejudiced readers (the jurors) reasonable doubt about the guilt of the four suspects, sufficient to clear them and their families of a terrible blame. 

As will be shown, the accusations against these four young men were unsubstantiated: the British authorities failed to prove that the four young men were present at the sites of the bombings on the morning of 7/7; they failed to prove that these four young men possessed a motive to kill themselves and murder ordinary passengers (including Muslims); they failed to prove that the four young men possessed the skills necessary to fabricate bombs capable of causing the observed harm. I submit that an impartial judge, if presented with such a case, would immediately throw out the case for lack of merit. The question then arises who actually perpetrated the mass-murder, how it was perpetrated and why it was perpetrated.  Part II begins by briefly reviewing the reluctance of the British authorities to carry out a public inquiry into the mass-murder and their swift determination to attribute the events to Islamic terrorists. It will then proceed by listing numerous puzzling circumstances and coincidences that were not investigated. It will be shown that the British authorities possessed motive, opportunity and means to carry out the crime. Circumstantial evidence is presented that suggests official complicity in the crime. While falling short of attributing to individual British or foreign officials direct complicity in the mass-murder, the accumulated facts are more than adequate to justify a reasonable suspicion that the then British government had instigated and authorised this mass-murder, as well as a reasonable suspicion regarding the participation of various public and private officials in covering up the crime. It is the burden of the public authorities, under law, to prove beyond reasonable doubt criminal accusations, and do so according to the standards of criminal justice. The British authorities have not discharged this burden and will therefore remain suspects for the mass-murder until they do.

I divide my conclusions into three categories: indicative, tentative and definite conclusions.  By an indicative conclusion I refer to a reasonable suspicion that requires further research. By a tentative conclusion I mean one based on the preponderance of the evidence. Such a conclusion is usually sufficient for adopting policies but is insufficient for convicting a defendant. By a definite conclusion, I mean one that appears to be unassailable. It may be compared to “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, the highest standard of evidence in criminal law.

I consider the following conclusions of the present study as definite:

1. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove the participation of  the four alleged attackers in the London bombings.

2. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove that the numerous deaths resulted from home-manufactured explosives.

3. The UK authorities have displayed reluctance to properly investigate the attacks of 7/7.

4. The UK authorities have failed to establish a definite tally of 7/7 fatalities.

5. The UK authorities have failed to explain the sudden failure of CCTVs on 7/7 that would have recorded the movements of the alleged attackers.

The following conclusions are indicative:

An unexplained connection appears to exist between the attacks of 7/7 and the terror exercise conducted by Visor Consultants on the morning of 7/7.

6. Several persons appear to have been shot by police or by an army unit at the Wharfs on the morning of 7/7

  The present study draws heavily on original research carried out by the July 7th Truth Campaign. Among citizen investigators, a few persons should be particularly highlighted for the quality of their research: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, David Minahan, Tom Secker and Nick Kollerstrom. While guided by their diligent efforts, I bear the entire responsibility for selecting and checking the enclosed facts and interpreting them. 

Part I: The Forensics

1. No wish for a public inquiry

It will be recalled that the British government and mass media designated the London bombings as the first case of a suicide-attack committed in Europe. The nature of the event and the fact that British intelligence apparently had no clue about its planning cried out for a public inquiry.

Yet against all expectations, the British government led by Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected from the outset a public inquiry of the London bombings as a “ludicrous diversion”.{3} Sir Ian Blair, London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner, later revealed that the Government had consulted with the police before deciding not to proceed with an inquiry into the July 7 bombings.{4}

The decision to avoid an independent investigation into the mass-murder was not accepted silently. Survivors, victims' relatives, MPs and Muslim Groups openly demanded such an investigation, but to no avail.{5}

As a placebo, the government staged a series of inquiries managed by government appointees. The first of these efforts was an internal inquiry by anonymous officials of the Home Office, who released in May 2006 their "Report of  the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005". Shortly thereafter, on June 1, 2006, a report was issued by another secretive entity, named the “7 July Review Committee”.

None of these reports were intended to replace a proper police investigation or a public inquiry. Finally, inquests were conducted from October 2010 until May 2011{6} concerning the deaths that occurred in the London bombings.{7}

The purpose of an inquest was described by Bingham MR in R v North Humberside Coroner, ex p Jamieson [1995] 1 QB 1, as

a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a coroner, with or without a jury, to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions. The first of these relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of his death, the third to the time of death. In most cases these questions are not hard to answer but in a minority of cases the answer may be problematical. The fourth question, and that to which evidence and inquiry are most often and most closely directed, relates to how the deceased came by his death.{8}

Far from providing reliable answers to these questions, the inquests of 7/7 represented a concerted effort to legitimise the government’s accusations against the four deceased accused, who could not defend themselves. Disregarding the presumption of innocence of the accused, Lady Hallett, acting as coroner, and her legal team{9}, conducted the inquests on the assumption of the suspects’ guilt.

In order to determine the exact cause of deaths, as required after acts of murder, the authorities should have carried out comprehensive post-mortem examinations of the victims’ bodies, including assessments of internal damage. Mr. Patterson, representing the families of the deceased persons, revealed at the Inquest in 2010 that no internal examinations [of the deceased’ bodies] had been performed.{10} He wondered: “[W]hy was the decision taken that there would be no internal examinations? Although the cause of death was clearly the explosions, the precise mechanism of death was not explored.”{11} His question was not answered.  Or consider the following exchange that took place at the Inquest between Dr. Awani Kumar Choudhary, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and Andrew O’Connor, of the Inquest legal team, regarding one of the fatalities of 7/7:

AKC: [...] I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere … So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprise [...]

AO’C:  Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, they don’t –

AKC: [...] I’m absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I’m absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.

AO’C: Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.

AKC:  Sorry.

AO’C:  I was simply informing you so that we didn't chase any red herrings, but we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter.{12}

Let the last sentence melt on our tongue! If it is of no concern to an inquest how a victim died, what then is the concern of the inquest?

In view of official reluctance to establish the truth on 7/7, a citizens’ investigation, already mentioned earlier, was initiated shortly after the events.{13} The high quality of this citizens' initiative was reflected in government reactions, including amendments made to the official narrative and the release of some suppressed information. Yet, crucial findings by this citizens’ initiative were ignored by the Inquest and continue to be disregarded by established media and the legal profession. These findings will be reviewed henceforth.

2. When did bombs explode?

One would assume that officials of the Transport for London and of the London Metropolitan Police had no difficulty determining almost immediately the precise times of the explosions on the underground trains. During the 1990s the London Underground network embarked upon a program of installing CCTV coverage across its 250 odd stations. Before 2002 CCTVs were also installed on trains.{14} In September 2004, Metronet Rail selected the Israeli company Verint Systems to install its networked video solution in Underground stations, in order to “enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track.”{15} All these devices automatically imprint a time stamp on security video recordings that permit one to determine the precise time and location of incidents. Clocks are found in virtually every office and virtually every person carries a watch. In addition, computer systems, including those monitoring the underground train network, automatically log transactions with the precise time, down to the second.

It is, therefore, startling and remains unexplained why it took 48 hours to publicly acknowledge the quasi- simultaneous occurrence of the explosions.

On July 7, The Associated Press issued a timeline of the explosions, quoting Brian Paddick, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The published timeline was intended to demonstrate the staggered nature of the explosions:

8:51 a.m. - London Underground train explodes 100 yards into a tunnel near the financial district.

8:56 a.m. - Explosion near the King's Cross station in north London.

9:17 a.m. - Explosion near Edgware Road station.

9:47 a.m. - Double-decker bus explodes near Tavistock Square.

The staggered timeline gave rise to the initial theory that a single bomber was involved, moving from site to site to plant his bombs and then escaping.

Two days later, the account changed drastically. On July 9, "police revealed that, contrary to earlier reports, the bombs on the underground had not occurred over a 30-minute period as had been previously thought...After analysing technical data provided by the London Underground, the police confirmed the three devices detonated within moments of each other."

Strangely, the official Home Office report itself does not list specific times for the bombings. It states, rather, that “[a]t about 8:50 am” there were 3 almost simultaneous explosions at three underground locations.

It remains a mystery why it took two full days to publicly acknowledge the near simultaneity of the explosions, what prompted the dissemination of a precise, but false, timeline earlier on and why the British authorities failed to disclose the precise times of the underground  explosions.

3.  Where exactly did bombs explode?

Initially, around noon on July 7th,  the Metropolitan Police “confirmed” that explosions had occurred “in at least three London buses” and that “six explosions in London buses and subway stations” had taken place, as “confirmed” by Scotland Yard.  One hour later, British police confirmed that there were “at least six explosions in the London Underground and at least one bus.”  One hour later, British Interior Minister Charles Clarke revised the number down to “four explosions, three of which occurred in underground stations and a fourth in a bus.”{16} This was to remain the official position.  It was not revealed why the Police and Scotland Yard had initially “confirmed”  at least six explosions on at least three buses.

According to the official account, the explosions were caused by bombs that the four alleged bombers carried in “large and full” rucksacks{17} and detonated at the bombing sites. It is not widely known that the precise locations within the trains where the explosions occurred remain in dispute.

3.1   Did the bomb  explode near the first or the second set of doors?

The Home Office report of 2006 suggested that “Mohammad Sidique Khan was in the second carriage from the front, most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors. He was probably also seated with the bomb next to him on the floor. Shortly before the explosion, Khan was seen fiddling with the top of the rucksack.”{18} Note the tentative language used. Is it plausible that forensic investigators had for 10 months been unable to determine the precise location of the detonation? Or were there other, unstated, reasons for such equivocation? Years later, at the inquests, the Metropolitan Police claimed the detonation occurred near the second set of doors.  

3.2  Were bombs placed below the floor of the carriage?

Anita Kinselley, 29, a survivor from the Edgware Road bombing site, told The Guardian: "The tiles on the floor of my carriage suddenly shot up. The next thing I knew there was an almighty crash and the train filled with smoke."{19}  Sean Baran, a 20-year old student and survivor from that same site, similarly told the Guardian that a “gentleman” had told him “the floor of the train had blown up.”{20}

Bruce Lait, a survivor from the Aldgate bombing site, said shortly after the events that when he and his partner Crystal Main made their way out from the carriage, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been: "Mind that hole, that's where the bomb was”. Lait added: “The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag”.{21}

It was reported both in media and at the Inquests that an unusually large number of victims suffered severe leg injuries or had their legs amputated in the explosions. Tourniquets were applied to at least a dozen victims because of such injuries. These injuries indicate that the bombs exploded either at floor level or from below the floor, as suggested by some survivors.

In his book The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry, Ahmed concludes with a typical understatement: “[I]f the bombs were in fact planted underneath the carriages […], rather than on top of the floors, the official police depiction of the bombers’ (sic) activities is flawed.”{22} [Emphasis added.]

3.3   Were there multiple explosions on the same train?

Evidence of holes in the floor of the bombed carriages at the Edgware Road and Aldgate sites were already mentioned above. One of the holes at the Aldgate site was also designated as a ravine or a cleavage.{23}

Some witnesses testified, however, to having perceived more than one hole in the floor of the carriage at the Edgware Road site. John (family name initially not disclosed) described  his ordeal in March 2006. He said that when moving toward the blast scene he "walked into an unknown hell". At the centre of the carriage he fell through a hole and dangled above the live rail. Another passenger pulled him out. He said a seriously injured commuter called Stan had fallen through another hole: "Stan was calm and conscious and he was looking at me. I repeatedly told him not to worry and that help was on its way. He never shouted out or cried. He knew he was dying. He remained calm and peaceful."{24}

John – who was identified at the Inquest with the family name McDonald – confirmed that he fell into a hole in the carriage that was not at the epicentre of the explosion.{25} Asked how extensive the crater was into which Michael (“Stan”) Brewster fell, John said: “That was completely different...the hole in which Mr. Brewster had been blown into was massive. It occupied the whole area where the double door platform was and it went into the area of the central aisle...I would say perhaps it was about a third of the width of the carriage.”{26}

Daniel Belsten, a survivor from the Edgware Road blast, told the Inquest about his experience of falling into a hole:

Q:  What do you recollect of the explosion itself?

A: I just felt a whack to the side of my head and just a big white flash, a big whack to the side of my head and — I don’t know, just everything was in slow motion. I just felt everything was just going in slow motion and I just felt like I was falling through the floor of the carriage, and I could feel — you know, I could smell all hot metal burning and felt like I was being electrocuted, you know….

Daniel Belsten sat in seat no. 2 in the second carriage.  The hole he mentioned must, therefore, have been in the front of the carriage, representing a second (or third) hole in that carriage. He was then led out via the first carriage, where he discovered further holes in the floor:

Q. Did you stay in the first carriage for a bit or –

A. No, there was — all the manholes in the bottom of the carriage were blown out, but I couldn’t stay on my feet, you know, I was falling on my feet, and Susanna and this other bloke, you know, helped me up and kept saying “Watch the holes in the floor”, so we was like — but it was like other people all sat there, you know, knocked unconscious or whatever, I don’t know, but we just got to the end of the carriage and there was, like, some ladders, wooden steps, to bring you onto the track.’

No explanation has been provided for these multiple holes, including in the first carriage, which – according to the official account – was not affected by the explosion.

How did the Inquest deal with the evidence of multiple holes? Determining the precise location of the holes should not have been difficult, yet for unexplained reasons, the authorities were reluctant to settle the matter, as manifested in the Inquests. In spite of testimonies referring to multiple holes, which would suggest multiple explosions, these facts were glossed over in the Inquests.

4.  How many people died?

If we find the vagueness surrounding the times and locations of the explosions odd, what are we to make of the failure of the British authorities to conclusively determine the number of fatalities?

On July 8th 2005, Sir Ian Blair made the following statement in a press conference: "There is a great difficulty in deciding how many fatalities or determining how many fatalities there are because two of the scenes are very difficult in terms of recovery. One is the bus, which is taking some time because of the nature of the explosion.”

After severe floods or earthquakes, it may indeed be difficult to determine with precision the number of victims. But was there any particular reason why determining the number of fatalities of the bus explosion that occurred in daylight was so difficult?

Surprisingly, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, had it all right on the early morning hours of July 8th. He stated in a press conference at the time that according to the “latest advice” he was given, “the death toll is currently 52.”{27} This was, indeed, the final official number released later by the British authorities, after some victims had died in hospital from their injuries after July 7. But how would PM Howard know that number in advance? Who informed him of this final figure at this point in time? These are, indeed, highly disturbing questions.

This “final” number of fatalities was only confirmed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on July 14, 2005. According to a press release of that date from the MPS,{28} the break-down of the 52 fatalities was as follows:

7 from the Liverpool Street/Aldgate incident

7 from the Edgware Road incident

25 from the Kings Cross/Russell Square incident

13 from the bus

But even that break-down was not final: In the final tally, the number of fatalities from Kings Cross/Russell Square was increased from 25 to 26, whereas those from Edgware Road was reduced from 7 to 6.{29} Was one body moved from the Edgware Road site to that of the Kings Cross/Russell Square site, or were bodies mixed up at the Mortuary?

Lee Harris and his girlfriend Samantha Badham, who were in the train carriage at Aldgate, died in hospital on July 16, 2005.{30} They could not have been included, therefore, among the 52 fatalities mentioned by Australia’s Prime Minister on July 8th, or among those 52 fatalities mentioned by the MPS on July 14. Does that mean that the ultimate number of fatalities exceeded 52?

Did the New York Times of July 10, 2005 perhaps provide a clue? According to the newspaper, the four explosions in London left at least 49 dead, but "20 to 50 people remain unaccounted for by hospitals, coroners, friends and relatives."{31} Going by these figures, it appears that the number of fatalities exceeded what the British authorities have acknowledged.  If this was the case, the question would arise why this fact was being suppressed?

Yet another figure was given by the Washington Post on July 15, 2005. According to the Post the “suspected bombers […] killed at least 54 people in coordinated suicide attacks on London's public transport system.”{32}

Witnesses from the scene at Tavistock Square (the site where bus no. 30 exploded), differed significantly in their estimates of the number of fatalities (see table below), though none of the estimates reached the official number of 13.

Even the following diagram prepared by the MPS for the inquest did not indicate more than six fatalities attributed to bus no. 30, in addition to the alleged bomber.

Diagram produced by the Metropolitan Police in 2010

Paul Gibson, an Ambulance Operations Manager of the London Ambulance Service (LAS), wrote in his Incident Report (LAS698-2) that “it appeared that we had an incident that had readily accessible casualties with rich medical resources balanced by few LAS resources but no officers.”{33}  This meant that there was no difficulty accessing the casualties (and counting them) and that before LAS personnel came, numerous medical staff were at hand at the site. What made the counting of fatalities at that site so difficult? Gibson mentioned only three dead casualties and “other limbs and body tissue” of unstated quantity.

The following photograph taken of bus no. 30 immediately after the explosion shows passengers still standing upright on the top deck and preparing to go down. None of the ten passengers on that photograph appears seriously injured. Who were they and what were their testimonies? Who are the other persons shown on this photograph?

No explanation has been provided to the public for (a) the initial determination of 52 fatalities; (b) the widely differing estimates of fatalities from Tavistock Square; and (c) the alleged difficulty in counting the fatalities from that site.  Is there any relation between these puzzling facts and the mysteries below?

4.1  The mystery of Miriam Hyman

Miriam Hyman, 31, is officially listed as one of the fatalities from the explosion of bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square. She was, according to her father, on her way to work at Canary Wharf.{34}  Nick Kollerstrom lists three major reasons why Hyman could not have been on that bus{35}:

• According to Miriam's father, quoted by the Observer,{36} Something Jewish,{37} the Jewish Journal{38} and the  Guardian{39}, she called him at 9:45 from King's Cross station.{40} She told him she was sitting on the pavement outside King’s Cross.{41} Her father suggested she find a coffee shop and wait until things calmed down.{42} A bomb on bus no. 30 exploded two minutes later at Tavistock Square. Assuming that Miriam’s father provided an approximately correct time for her call, she could not have reached Tavistock Square at 9:47.

• Soon after the call to her father, Miriam reportedly called her workplace. She was told not to bother to come in. Her father said to the Independent on Sunday of 10 July 2005 before being informed of her death: “[H]er office phoned her at about 10 am, which was about 10 minutes after the explosion to say 'don't come in'“.{43} Miriam’s mother also told the Jewish Journal: "She phoned work to say she was going to be late. She was still obviously determined to get in. I think she didn't understand the seriousness of what was going on."{44}

• Miriam’s father told the Independent that the “only other possibility, apart from a road accident, is if she was on the bus that was blown up. The reason we think that is unlikely is because it wouldn't make sense for her to take that route.”{45}

No mention was made by the police of having found Miriam’s mobile phone in the wreckage of bus no. 30. Yet that mobile phone might have revealed when her calls were made. In the trial of Mohammed Shakil, Waheed Ali and Sadeer Saleem, the jury was told that Mohammed Sidique Khan’s mobile telephone was recovered from the debris at Edgware Road, and could be examined for numbers called.{46} Is it plausible that Miriam’s mobile phone was not found at the bombing site while that of Khan, whose body was not sighted at the bombing site, was found and could be read?

In attempting to assess whether Miriam Hyman could have made it to Euston Station in order to board bus no. 30, I discovered that the precise time at which this bus took on passengers at Euston has not been formally determined. Neither the driver of bus no. 30 nor surviving passengers who boarded the bus at Euston station and testified at the inquest were asked for that information. The failure to determine this time, compounded by the failure to determine the times of Miriam’s phone calls, made it possible for the authorities to maintain the theory that she succeeded in reaching Euston in time to board bus no. 30 (although this still leaves out the question why she would go to Euston in the first place).

  The disappearance of Miriam Hyman on July 7th prompted her family and friends to search all London hospitals and put posters around King's Cross and St. Pancras, asking if anyone knew what had happened to her. Her family was only informed on July 11th that Miriam's body had been found.{47} According to the authorities, it was found near bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square. Yet no reliable evidence supports this claim.

Michelle Du-Feu, a medical doctor, stated in March 2006 that on the morning of 7/7 she had treated a person lying at the rear of bus no. 30 on the road at Tavistock Square.{48} She described that person as a middle-aged Middle-Eastern or Asian-looking woman.{49} In 2010 she was shown a photo of Miriam Hyman and was told that this was the person she had treated.  At the Inquest in January 2011, she said that, after having been shown the photograph, she got very confused, "because things obviously weren't how I had remembered them."{50} By subtle questioning, lead counsel Hugo Keith attempted during her testimony to have her admit that she had treated Miriam Hyman. But she stood her ground. Ms. Gallagher, counsel for Miriam Hyman’s family, acknowledged that Dr. Du-Feu was “not so sure” of having treated and seen Miriam.{51}

Dr Michael David Peters, who ran a support service called Doctors for Doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA), was also invited to testify at the Inquest in the hope he could confirm having seen the body of Miriam Hyman. He said that when he came out from the BMA building he saw a torso: "There was a sort of mass of sort of tissue, red, about one metre by a metre there. And then, on the other side, to the left as I was looking from the square in, there was a body of, I think, a black woman who was wearing a dress. The body seemed to be swollen, motionless, and I presumed she was dead."{52} Upon this description, Hugo Keith tried to convince Dr. Peters that he may actually have seen Miriam Hyman, but Dr. Peters held his ground, insisting that the woman he saw was black.

Clive Featherstone, a web designer at the British Medical Association, whose office is at Tavistock Square, testified at the inquest. He said he came out as soon as he heard the explosion and said he saw several victims. He said he knelt down beside a “young woman with very dry, matted hair”, who was lying on the pavement.{53}  He said she “kind of moved to try to lift herself up or towards me” and had open eyes.{54} After about a couple of minutes, he said, a doctor whom he had not seen before came over, felt her pulse and said “She’s gone, there’s nothing there.”{55} He said he didn’t want to believe that, so he carried on holding her hand for a bit longer and then went away. When he returned to her shortly later, he said, “I thought she did move slightly again for a second time...That’s what I felt and that’s what I remember.”{56}  It is not known who took the pulse of the victim and determined her life extinguished. The Inquest’s counsel told him that the person he had seen was Miriam Hyman.

Miriam Hyman's case raises disturbing questions. First, it is difficult to reconcile her boarding bus no. 30 with the fact that she made a phone call from King’s Cross Station at 9:45 and another call at 10:00, after the bomb exploded on the bus and she was supposed to be dying. But even if her father had been wildly mistaken about the times of the calls, the question remains why Miriam would walk to Euston station to catch a bus that she could have caught where she was.

According to the Telegraph, inquests were opened on 13 July 2005 into the deaths of Miriam Hyman and others. According to the coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, most victims – including Miriam Hyman – were identified by dental records. These could only have been obtained via her parents.{57} Dr. Reid then adjourned the inquests until after the end of police investigations.

4.2 Other mysterious deaths

Shahera Akther Islam, 20, is another perplexing case. According to The Guardian, she tried to call her uncle at 9:45 am on the morning of July 7th.{58} Her uncle, Nazmul Hasan, 25, told the newspaper that he led the search for Shahera. He said he and her family searched more than ten hospitals and had police officers looking for her as well.{59} Other families, too, were searching for their next-of-kin for days until told that they had perished in the bombings. What prevented the authorities from inviting families to identify their loved ones at the mortuary?

Sam Ly, the only Australian fatality of the London Bombings, died on 14th July in hospital, with his father and nephew by his bedside, as reported by the BBC.{60} He could not have been included either in the count of fatalities reported on July 8th by Australia's Prime Minister.

The authorities also claim that Anthony Fatayi-Williams died in the Tavistock Square blast. The Guardian reported that his mother, Marie Fatayi Williams, “flew in from Nigeria to try to find her son.” She said she had not heard from him since Thursday: “As only one black man is said to have died on the 30 bus blast, why did it take four days to identify him?”{61} Anthony’s cousin, Yomi Williams, said to The Independent on Sunday: “We sent his pictures to the newspapers, posted them on the internet. We did a lot of TV interviews, we’ve put posters everywhere, checked all hospitals about for or five times and still didn’t get anything...I haven’t eaten or slept for two days.”{62} Anthony’s family held a press conference in London on 11 July appealing for information about what happened to him because they had heard nothing from or about him since the attacks. It was only the next day that the police announced he had been killed in Tavistock Square.{63}

According to the Home Office report of May 2006, the explosion on bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square killed 14 people and injured 110. Yet according to the driver of the bus, 30 to 50 passengers disembarked before the explosion.{64} This was confirmed by Daniel Obachike, who said he survived the bombing of that bus. In his book he writes that while the bus was “creeping it’s way down Tavistock Square,” it was “half empty” with only him, the driver and “a handful of people seated towards the rear remaining on its lower deck.”{65} Survivor Tania Calabrese also said that “[t]here were a lot of people getting off [the bus] just before [the explosion] happened.”{66} Survivor Louise Barry similarly said that “[a]ll the people standing were gone” before the bus had reached Tavistock Square.{67} A survivor from bus no. 30, designated by initial M., testified to the London Assembly: “There was a mass exodus off of our bus, as things were still coming to the ground and bits were flying everywhere.”{68} It is, therefore, a mystery how the official account arrived at the figure of 110 wounded from the explosion of bus no. 30.{69} The following diagram, produced by the London Metropolitical Police, indicates that at the time of explosion there were, in addition to the driver, 60 passengers on the bus.{70} Assuming that 14 of them had died and not everyone had been injured, the number of wounded passengers could hardly have exceeded 40. 

It is known from an email of July 10, 2005 from Roger Chapman to Peter Holden released by the Inquest that “visiting RLH HEMS crew” did the formalities of confirming some deaths at the Tavistock Square site while the “rest of the deaths were formally confirmed by a police surgeon attached to the forensic team”.{71} The identity of that police surgeon was not revealed, nor were the identities of those whose deaths he confirmed and the exact time he did so. The decision to have a police surgeon confirm death was made by Peter Holden. He explained this decision as follows: “I avoided any of you [BMA medics] having to attend various judicial proceedings in the future merely because you had confirmed a death.”{72} Was this decision in conformity with existing regulations? 

A doctor from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS), Tim Richard Harris, was actually prevented from confirming death by the police. He was told that "the area within the cordon was not declared safe [...] to enter [...] to assess the bus or the area immediately around the bus" due to the fear of a secondary device.{73}  Were the police attempting to suppress facts?

Several articles in Spanish newspapers expressed their surprise at the length of time it has taken for information on the number and names of the dead from the London bombings to come out: “Twenty-four hours after the train bombings in Madrid in 2004, Spaniards knew at least 190 people had died. And by then most of the bodies had also been identified. Most were buried within three days of the attacks.”{74} Considering that the bombs which exploded on the Madrid trains were far more powerful and caused far more body fragmentation than in the London incidents, the public is owed a frank explanation by the British authorities why it took many more days to identify the 50 odd London victims than in the case of the 192 victims of the Madrid bombings. One cannot escape the suspicion that the delays in the London body identifications were related to a criminal cover-up or worse.

It is most likely that most passengers on bus no. 30 carried personal documents, such as credit cards, and a mobile phone. It is inconceivable that all these items were destroyed in the explosion because readable documents belonging to the alleged bombers were found and led to their identification.  Why did it take almost a week to identify the bodies from that site?

It took the police a full week to identify Laura Webb's body. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, Laura's two older brothers and her friends went searching for her at every hospital in London while Webb and her husband sat at home, "with the TV on 24/7 in case there was any news, always listening for the phone". It also took a week for Michael Brewster’s family to find him.

The parents of Carrie Taylor, who died at the Aldgate site, endured a 10-day wait before they were informed of her identification.{75}  What caused such a long waiting period?

5.  What caused the deaths and injuries?

The first indications that something went wrong in London on the 7th of July were reports by British Transport Police that incidents on underground trains were the result of a power surge.{76} Indeed, several survivors from the Aldgate site said they felt they had been electrocuted.{77} Their descriptions suggest that injurious power surges may have occurred on the morning of 7/7, in addition to the detonation of bombs.

Attributing the incidents solely to power surges changed after 10:00 am. The news media began reporting that bombs had exploded on underground trains and on at least one bus in London.

On July 8, 2005, ABC News cited British police to the effect that they had recovered from the bombing sites what they believed to be remnants of timing devices, leading the police to believe they were not suicide bombs but explosives planted in packages or bags and left behind.{78} Although terrorist bombs are constructed in different ways, the timers and detonators usually survive the explosion – with the result that, normally, three-quarters of a bomb can be recovered from the scene.{79}

On July 9, 2005 Andy Hayman, in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs detonated in London each contained less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material. Scotland Yard DAC Brian Paddick told a news conference on the same day that these had been "high explosives...Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we do not want to say at this stage."{80}

On July 11, 2005, the World Tribune cited unnamed officials to the effect that the "bombs were so powerful that none of the 49 known dead had been identified over the weekend." On the same day The Observer wrote: “ It is now accepted that the type of explosives used were not amateur or hand-made, but small 10 lb commercial high explosives linked to a timing device.”{81}

On July 13, 2005, an unnamed senior European-based counterterrorism official told The New York Times that the bombs were "technically advanced." He added: "There seems to be a mastery of the method of doing explosions. This was not rudimentary. It required great organisation and was well put together." British investigators contacted by the newspaper reportedly believed "that the bombs [...] contained 'military quality' high-grade explosives."{82}  Investigators were so convinced that the explosions were caused by military-grade bombs that British intelligence officials "asked their counterparts elsewhere in Europe to check military stockpiles and commercial sites to determine for missing explosives.{83} 

Then, suddenly, the story changed. On July 15, 2005, The New York Times wrote that "a new theory emerged about the nature of the explosives in the bombings. A senior American official and two senior European officials [unidentified], helping in the inquiry, said investigators [unidentified] had discovered evidence of a low-grade, homemade explosive material in the case." The unidentified officials said material found in a private home in Leeds was TATP, a highly volatile explosive. Expressing doubt on this theory, one unidentified British explosives expert said to the London Times: "Frankly, I wouldn't like to be wandering around with 10 lb of TATP on my back." According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “production [of TATP] is extremely dangerous” and “extreme care should be taken during transport because of sensitivity to heat, shock, and friction.”{84}

Officials thereupon changed their story again, now insisting that the explosives were composed of HMTD (Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine), a similarly unpredictable high explosive organic compound. In a statement by Sarah Lancaster, an explosive expert, read at the Inquest, it was suggested that “the damage in and around carriage 6713 of the Circle Line Underground train was consistent with a detonation of several kilograms, probably in the order of 10 kilograms, of a high explosive substance.”{85} Lancaster mentioned that: "[t]races of the improvised primary high explosive HMTD were found on the damaged remains of a grey and black striped wallet contained within item AM/11 and indicated, but not confirmed, on a piece of black-coloured material bearing an Adidas logo” and added that HMTD "is a very sensitive and hazardous primary high explosive which can be detonated by, for example, heat, flame, impact or friction. It is not used or produced commercially as its storage qualities are poor and it is too sensitive for safe use."{86}

According to a Homeland Security document, HTMD “maintains its explosive power for between 7-10 days before decomposition becomes noticeable.”{87} What implications does this fact have in relation to the alleged preparation of the bomb?

Dr. Niels Harrit, professor emeritus of chemistry from the University of Copenhagen, confirmed Sarah Lancaster's testimony in an email to me. He wrote that organic peroxides are highly explosive but that one never knows when or why they detonate because they are unstable. He cites permanent precautionary rules in his laboratory to prevent accidents when handling such materials. According to him, "the unpredictable nature of organic peroxides would have made their use in the London bombings highly unlikely."

Yet The Scotsman informed the public that according to unnamed detectives from the United States (!), the "four suicide bombers [...] made their deadly backpack bombs using ordinary products such as hair bleach and a food preservative." The details, disclosed by The Scotsman, emerged during a briefing to city business leaders working in the security field by Ray Kelly, New York's police commissioner.{88} Mr Kelly said "investigators" believe the bombs were made using a peroxide-based explosive called HMTD. 

Note the following exchange regarding the presumed capabilities of the accused:

I should also perhaps say that these were -- these devices were entirely unique. Certainly the hydrogen peroxide mixed with a fuel such as pepper were entirely unique within the UK for sure and, as far as I know, worldwide as well...

Q. So this supports your overall view that the construction of these devices could only have been undertaken with guidance and instruction from elsewhere --

A. Yes, correct.

Q. -- and obviously persons unknown. The process is not, regrettably, hugely complex, but it is quite a sensitive process, is it not, in terms of getting