View Full Version: CCTV information

July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum > J7 Information, Research & Analysis > CCTV information


Title: CCTV information


curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 02:59 PM (GMT)
This extract is from a private survivor/bereaved notice board whereby survivors/bereaved can talk to police about the investigation and share info and support.

'S' is a survivor
'T' is a Met officer and the site owner
'C' is a DCI on Operation Theseus in S015 ( created when SO12 and SO13 merged in October)
'J' was bereaved on July 7


As I said, I have a friend who uses the board. Names of those discussing have been hidden for privacy. As I have said, I do not agree with the practice of publishing the names of survivors or bereaved who may then be contacted by members of the public and asked intrusive questions...

Curious Piglet

(1) CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: 'S' 04/12/2006 - 11:29:32
Updated By: 04/12/2006 - 11:39:08

Dear SO13, To date the public have only been shown one grainy image of the bombers entering Luton station.

But there are thousands of CCTV cameras all over London, and images of
three of the bombers doing a'practice run' before 7/7/ and buying tickets on
the Underground have been shown - and are of a high quality.
Unfortunately the lack of images placing the bombers in London, rather than
Luton, has led to widespread 'conspiracy theories'. The Government's official narrative giving a non-existent train that never ran as the one the bombers caught from Luton to Kings Cross made things worse and I have come across people saying that there is some kind of cover up.
Checking out internet message boards, it seems these doubts are becoming widespread particularly amongst some young Muslims and these bizarre conspiracy theories are gaining in popularity. I think this increasing denial of the culpability of the bombers ( the attitude of 'there's no proof they were even there') is unhelpful for police/community relations and surely we need good intelligence and good relations to prevent future attacks
This site may give you an idea of how determined some people are to query
the official account -
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/
there are many similar sites and more spring up all the time.
I have little time for paranoid conspiracy theories but even I am puzzled as to why no evidence placing the bombers in London has ever been shown. I can see that images of them boarding the tubes with other commuters
could be distressing, but is there any CCTV of them at Kings Cross
Thameslink, or Kings Cross mainland station, or on their way to the tubes
that could be produced? I'm sure this would stop a lot of the odd rumours
which are doing the rounds

Many thanks, I am very grateful for your help.
Kind Regards
'S'

(2) Re CCTV Created By: T 13/12/2006 - 10:47:52
Updated By: 'T' 13/12/2006 - 10:49:15

Response to: CCTV placing bombers in London by S
Dear 'S',
I passed this to SO13 when you PM'd me a couple of weeks ago and I await a reply.
I will forward this one to them too,
regards
'T'

(3) Re: Re CCTV Created By: S 14/12/2006 - 11:44:59
Updated By: S 14/12/2006 - 11:45:31

Response to: Re CCTV by
Thank you 'T'. I have had an email response from a DCI who has said he hopes to get back with some news this week.
Best wishes
'S'

(4) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: C 16/12/2006 - 11:07:17
Updated By: C 16/12/2006 - 12:53:11


Response to: CCTV placing bombers in London by S
Thank you for your question regarding CCTV images collected in the Op Theseus investigation. In any investigation, material is gathered and decisions made about the potential significance of the material with respect to legal procedures. These decisions are made for reasons considered to be appropriate at the time.
I'd like to reassure you that there is an active criminal investigation seeking to identify others who may, or may not, have a criminal liability for the atrocities. Because of this investigation, there remain issues which are subject to investigation, and cannot be disclosed at this time. Also, there is an investigation being conducted in support of the Coroner, and we wouldn't want to do anything that might compromise the proceedings.
Having said all that, circumstances change as the investigation progresses. It's right to say that we have identified a large number of CCTV images of the bombers on the 7th July, and of the earlier trip to London on the 28th June. It's also right to say that there will be gaps in this coverage for both days. Whilst there are a large number of CCTV cameras in public places, there are obviously many factors that affect their operation. with respect to 'conspiracy theories', if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view.
It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media. One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit. Normal everyday problems affect the operation of CCTV systems, and can lead to gaps that can be exploited by those who wish to do so. I hope that exotic speculations are balanced against the fact that CCTV systems are operated by people just doing their jobs, they are collected by people just doing their jobs, and they are viewed by people just doing their jobs. The process yields incredible results, but they are genuine results. For example, I remember the moment when David Copeland, the London Nail Bomber was first identified - our first breakthrough in that case.
In addition to this, CCTV cannot be viewed in isolation - many strands of investigation are brought together to get the greatest evidential value from the images. Images of people entering a station are worked in reverse to find the vehicles they arrived in, potential routes are traced and images viewed to see whether the vehicles can be seen in other places, and so on, to the start of a journey. Financial and general enquiries can give insight into ownership, or hiring. Forensic work is used to add or detract from other findings. Documentary, technical and witness accounts are also added to lead to a formidable account of events.
Release of CCTV imagery in isolation will show what police say it shows. It would have to be accompanied by explanation and a sequence of events, involving other strands of the enquiry to enable those viewing the images to recognise their significance. This explanation and corroboration could amount to much of the material to be used in the Coroner's court. This may lead to intense media speculation, and the Coroner's inquest being conducted in advance by our rightly vigilant, necessarily intrusive, but sometimes speculative media. It may also compromise the criminal investigation. We have to take immense care with this.
It is not an easy decision to make. The needs of: the families, friends and loved ones of the deceased; families of others involved in the bombings; yourselves; the Coroner; and the criminal investigation, all have to be balanced. Difficult, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that there may be great benefits to those whose lives were deeply touched by the atrocities of 7/7, and who may wish to see the images.
I've consulted with the Senior Investigating Officer, and the decision to withhold access is being re-examined. We also have another meeting with the Coroner in mid January, and will raise the issue of CCTV product at that meeting. I will write to this forum again about this issue. Hope this helps.
'C', DCI SO15

(5) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: S 18/12/2006 - 14:18:43
Updated By: S 18/12/2006 - 14:19:23.
Response to: Re: CCTV placing bombers in London by C
Thank you very much for your response, C,
I will wait for further updates
best wishes
'S'

(6) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: J 19/12/2006 - 09:26:12
Updated By: 'J' 19/12/2006 - 09:35:36


Response to: CCTV placing bombers in London by S
Dear 'C',
The victims of the bombing were identified by either DNA samples, Finger Prints or from Dental records i believe.
Can you confirm this was also the case for the bombers.
Like S, i have no time for conspiracy theories and the likes.
If they did not travel on the trains, who's remains were taken to Pakistan to be buried as a martyr.
Thanks 'J'

(7) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: C 08/01/2007 - 09:37:11
Updated By: C 08/01/2007 - 09:39:05


Response to: Re: CCTV placing bombers in London by J
Thanks for your question. Sorry for the delay in responding, I've only just seen this one. I will get back to you with the best answer I can as quickly as I can.
Best wishes
'C '

edited to italicise my intro

curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 03:15 PM (GMT)
14 views and no responses?

This is data direct from the investigating team!

Bridget - January 8, 2007 03:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 03:15 PM)
14 views and no responses?

This is data direct from the investigating team!

Thanks cp for posting this it is very informative.

It also shows that survivors are concerned with the lack of evidence, which is what unites us fundamentally. The julyseventh truth campaign was correct about the cancelled train and the flaw in the official report concerning this matter. I wonder if your friend knows whether John Reid has explained this error yet? We also note that despite his saying that the official report will be amended that, to date, this has not happened. The Home Office site still links to the original pdf. Just has the same whiff of contempt for the facts, the evidence, the victims & survivors and their families and loved ones, and the rest of the British public.

Bridget - January 8, 2007 03:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media

Was the DCI referring to us?

truthseeker - January 8, 2007 03:38 PM (GMT)
Thank you CP, useful stuff.

Bridget - January 8, 2007 03:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
I've consulted with the Senior Investigating Officer, and the decision to withhold access is being re-examined. We also have another meeting with the Coroner in mid January, and will raise the issue of CCTV product at that meeting.

This sounds hopeful.

It would be good to know who the coronor is as I intend to write to him/her about Jenny Nicholson and Christian Small.

curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 04:03 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media

Was the DCI referring to us?

Yes. Also here

QUOTE
with respect to 'conspiracy theories', if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view. It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media. One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit. Normal everyday problems affect the operation of CCTV systems, and can lead to gaps that can be exploited by those who wish to do so. I hope that exotic speculations are balanced against the fact that CCTV systems are operated by people just doing their jobs, they are collected by people just doing their jobs, and they are viewed by people just doing their jobs.

Kier - January 8, 2007 04:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 03:15 PM)
14 views and no responses?

This is data direct from the investigating team!

Hi CP

Regarding views vs responses, I would say that sometimes people view a thread and don't respond right away, sometimes it's better to take it all in and formulate a response before posting.

Thanks very much for coming to post this; it's really interesting. Most people who know me on here would probably be aware that I've also taken issue on other boards (along with others who I know have a genuine concern with this issue rather than trying to prove a theory) with the CCTV images being analysed incorrectly on the basis of supposition without having the correct facilities or knowledge to apply any degree of expertise on the matter - as opposed to our members here.

I've seen some very poor examination of the Luton image, and every time I see people nimming about 'white hat man' and pointing out various anomalies that do have a very reasonable explanation it makes me cross. There are anomalies in this image that do warrant closer analysis but this should always be done objectively.

What people need to be aware of, is that the Luton image is a compressed image, which at present is all we are allowed to see. Furthermore, the image has been through a photoshop process with no clarification or explanation as to why this happened. Whatever the reason for the poor quality of the image, it's also not unreasonable to ask what could possibly be the purpose of releasing such an image as 'evidence' - since it's clear that's what it's purpose was - when three of the faces in it are completely unidentifiable, and one person in it has been documented as wearing different clothing in an earlier image - which was never released.

I appreciate the issue of not wishing to prejudice investigations, but the explanations don't seem to be consistent. An image of Hasib Hussain was released three months after the event, with the police saying they hoped it would jog the memories of potential witnesses. If this is the case, then in a similar vein to programmes such as 'Crimewatch', where CCTV is shown in as much detail as possible, it's absurd that they would expect one single image to do this. If, three months after the event, the police have insufficient witnesses to attest to the presence of Hasib Hussain in London, they should be releasing more than one image of him. I understand that the police don't want to 'lead' people, but if they do want more witnesses, they need to be doing more.

Not one credible witness is on public record stating that they definitely saw Hussain, either at Luton, Kings Cross or the No. 30 bus. Lisa French, who was on the bus, says she believes she saw Hussain because a man got on with a rucksack and pushed passed her on the bus. She did not see his face and seems to have based her account on being told later that the 'bomber' had a rucksack. Yet there were plenty of other people on that bus with rucksacks, as the many photos of the immediate aftermath of the explosion illustrate. Richard Jones did not see Hussain. The bus driver says he didn't see Hussain. Daniel Obachike, who was on the lower deck of the bus from Euston station says Hussain did not board the bus after he did. The Official Report cannot state where Hussain boarded the bus and the CCTV of the bus was not working. If Hussain was on the Euston Road and boarded that bus, as suggested by the Official Report, then even the law of averages states that someone should have seen him. Yet nobody apparently did.

This is why CCTV is so important, as it can either back up witness statements, or override the need for them in certain situations. Hussain might have gone to another location where someone may have seen him but because it's suggested that he stayed in the vicinity of Kings Cross, they might have disregarded seeing someone who fitted his description. If CCTV footage was released, showing him at several angles, this would 'jog the public's memories' more effectively.

I appreciate this is an on-going investigation, but since the media have already acted as judge, jury and executioner, we feel it's important to point out that there is insufficient evidence for convictions here. If these men were in the dock now, and the prosecution used those three images for evidence, they would not be sufficient evidence. Hussain leaving Boots at Kings Cross does not prove he boarded a No.30 bus and bombed it, killing himself and 12 other people. Four men outside Luton station only proves they were at Luton station, and doesn't even completely prove that since the image is so poor. The image of Hussain inside Luton station only throws up more questions, since it shows him mounting the stairs to the ticket hall, in contradiction to the Official Report that stated the men went straight through the barriers in the entrance hall at the station, bypassing the stairs to the ticket hall completely. Why would Hussain, or any of them, be taking the stairs, when the reports says they went straight through to the platforms having already purchased tickets?

If these images are intended to back up the Official Report, then they do a lame job of it. Yesterday was exactly 18 months since the London bombings and we seem no closer to official answers now than we were back then.


As to the comment about 'conspiracy theorists', that "if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view" - nobody needs to be a conspiracy theorist to have views about less than transparent inquiries. You just need to have read the Hutton report, or alternatively go back through history and look at the many convictions based on false or misleading evidence, such as the many jailed for being 'IRA bombers' when they were no such thing.

Being a 'conspiracy theorist' is not synonymous with not trusting your government or police force, and anyone who thinks this is the case is being obtuse. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone in this world willing to believe and put unconditional trust in groups of people who've been proven to lie. This is just common sense. To be a 'conspiracy theorist, you need a theory.

Bridget - January 8, 2007 04:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 04:03 PM)
QUOTE
It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media

Was the DCI referring to us?

Yes. Also here

QUOTE
with respect to 'conspiracy theories', if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view. It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media. One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit. Normal everyday problems affect the operation of CCTV systems, and can lead to gaps that can be exploited by those who wish to do so. I hope that exotic speculations are balanced against the fact that CCTV systems are operated by people just doing their jobs, they are collected by people just doing their jobs, and they are viewed by people just doing their jobs.

Need I even bother to say that the more exotic conspiracy theory in the case of July 7th is the official one?

matt - January 8, 2007 04:25 PM (GMT)
hey Curious, i'd like to add my thanks - i think the slow replies were just people wanting to take it all in :)

QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 04:04 PM)
...with respect to 'conspiracy theories'...

...most of us have theories, but i think i can speak for most of us when i also say that you could define 'theory' here, as 'just thinking out loud' as opposed to 'i know what happened'...floating a theory around the mind has brought many advances in all fields of human endeavor - but they do not constitute proof, i know that, as i'm sure do others...what we share is a fundamental lack of evidence*, and that's why we're here

*evidence which doesn't have anomalies or issues is, well, would it be going too far to say non existent ?

once again, many thanks for taking the effort to share the above with us

curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 04:26 PM (GMT)
I think the DCI has given a reasonable explanation of why they didn't release more at the time, states that they DO have CCTV and that they are looking into releasing more.

QUOTE
there is an active criminal investigation seeking to identify others who may, or may not, have a criminal liability for the atrocities. Because of this investigation, there remain issues which are subject to investigation, and cannot be disclosed at this time. Also, there is an investigation being conducted in support of the Coroner, and we wouldn't want to do anything that might compromise the proceedings


QUOTE
Release of CCTV imagery in isolation will show what police say it shows. It would have to be accompanied by explanation and a sequence of events, involving other strands of the enquiry to enable those viewing the images to recognise their significance. This explanation and corroboration could amount to much of the material to be used in the Coroner's court. This may lead to intense media speculation, and the Coroner's inquest being conducted in advance by our rightly vigilant, necessarily intrusive, but sometimes speculative media. It may also compromise the criminal investigation. We have to take immense care with this.


She or he is saying that a lot of info will come out in the Coroner's court.

Then there is the issue of future trials, and other suspects.

curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 04:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
It is not an easy decision to make. The needs of: the families, friends and loved ones of the deceased; families of others involved in the bombings; yourselves; the Coroner; and the criminal investigation, all have to be balanced. Difficult, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that there may be great benefits to those whose lives were deeply touched by the atrocities of 7/7, and who may wish to see the images.
I've consulted with the Senior Investigating Officer, and the decision to withhold access is being re-examined. We also have another meeting with the Coroner in mid January, and will raise the issue of CCTV product at that meeting. I will write to this forum again about this issue


Looks hopeful though; they might release the evidence!

Kier - January 8, 2007 04:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 04:26 PM)
QUOTE
there is an active criminal investigation seeking to identify others who may, or may not, have a criminal liability for the atrocities. Because of this investigation, there remain issues which are subject to investigation, and cannot be disclosed at this time. Also, there is an investigation being conducted in support of the Coroner, and we wouldn't want to do anything that might compromise the proceedings



So with specific regard to the CCTV, if 'others' who are suspects are shown in the unreleased footage from Kings Cross (for example), they're not going to release it on that basis. That doesn't make much sense to me. If they haven't caught them by now, they should be releasing it and asking for the public's help in providing information, as they do with all other crimes and murder investigations. And indeed terrorism investigations.

The images from the 21st of July show that it's likely all background people can be removed from images where the authorities only want certain people identified. Unless it really is true that in the middle of the day in London, one can catch an empty bus :blink:

curiouspiglet - January 8, 2007 04:36 PM (GMT)
They might already know who the suspects are and be tracking them to see if they lead to further intel....


...in which case, letting it be known that they have them on CCTV and are watching them isn't sa good idea.

Bridget - January 8, 2007 05:18 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 04:36 PM)
They might already know who the suspects are and be tracking them to see if they lead to further intel....


...in which case, letting it be known that they have them on CCTV and are watching them isn't sa good idea.

Well they should certainly be watching Aswat as they've had him locked up and ready for extradition on far lesser charges to the US for nearly 18 months now. Interesting how he isn't being accused of being the mastermind anymore.
QUOTE
Bombing mastermind

Meanwhile, a British Al Qaeda suspect wanted in connection with the London suicide bombings and reportedly the mastermind behind the attacks has been arrested, it was claimed today. Haroon Rashid Aswat, who grew up in West Yorkshire, was detained last week in Zambia and is being held for his alleged role in setting up a terror camp in Oregon, according to the Los Angeles Times.

He had reportedly been in London for two weeks before the attack and had apparently fled just hours before the explosions.

He is also reportedly wanted by police in Britain after making some 20 calls from his mobile phone to two of the four suicide bombers.

From one of many reports that Aswat was the mastermind

And if the reports from Operation Crevice are to be believed, it might be a bit of a mistake to trust the security services are keeping watch on other susoects.

numeral - January 9, 2007 07:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 02:59 PM)

(4) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: C 16/12/2006 - 11:07:17
Updated By: C 16/12/2006 - 12:53:11

Response to: CCTV placing bombers in London by S 
Thank you for your question regarding CCTV images collected in the Op Theseus investigation. In any investigation, material is gathered and decisions made about the potential significance of the material with respect to legal procedures. These decisions are made for reasons considered to be appropriate at the time.
I'd like to reassure you that there is an active criminal investigation seeking to identify others who may, or may not, have a criminal liability for the atrocities. Because of this investigation, there remain issues which are subject to investigation, and cannot be disclosed at this time. Also, there is an investigation being conducted in support of the Coroner, and we wouldn't want to do anything that might compromise the proceedings.
Having said all that, circumstances change as the investigation progresses. It's right to say that we have identified a large number of CCTV images of the bombers on the 7th July, and of the earlier trip to London on the 28th June. It's also right to say that there will be gaps in this coverage for both days. Whilst there are a large number of CCTV cameras in public places, there are obviously many factors that affect their operation. with respect to 'conspiracy theories', if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view.
It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media. One of the many things that police have to prove is the 'evidential continuity' of exhibits, sometimes even from before they become significant as exhibits. This continuity is an issue which is subject of detailed scrutiny in legal proceedings. The whole process is carefully documented, and any break in this documentation immediately devalues the exhibit. Normal everyday problems affect the operation of CCTV systems, and can lead to gaps that can be exploited by those who wish to do so. I hope that exotic speculations are balanced against the fact that CCTV systems are operated by people just doing their jobs, they are collected by people just doing their jobs, and they are viewed by people just doing their jobs. The process yields incredible results, but they are genuine results. For example, I remember the moment when David Copeland, the London Nail Bomber was first identified - our first breakthrough in that case.
In addition to this, CCTV cannot be viewed in isolation - many strands of investigation are brought together to get the greatest evidential value from the images. Images of people entering a station are worked in reverse to find the vehicles they arrived in, potential routes are traced and images viewed to see whether the vehicles can be seen in other places, and so on, to the start of a journey. Financial and general enquiries can give insight into ownership, or hiring. Forensic work is used to add or detract from other findings. Documentary, technical and witness accounts are also added to lead to a formidable account of events.
Release of CCTV imagery in isolation will show what police say it shows. It would have to be accompanied by explanation and a sequence of events, involving other strands of the enquiry to enable those viewing the images to recognise their significance. This explanation and corroboration could amount to much of the material to be used in the Coroner's court. This may lead to intense media speculation, and the Coroner's inquest being conducted in advance by our rightly vigilant, necessarily intrusive, but sometimes speculative media. It may also compromise the criminal investigation. We have to take immense care with this.
It is not an easy decision to make. The needs of: the families, friends and loved ones of the deceased; families of others involved in the bombings; yourselves; the Coroner; and the criminal investigation, all have to be balanced. Difficult, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that there may be great benefits to those whose lives were deeply touched by the atrocities of 7/7, and who may wish to see the images.
I've consulted with the Senior Investigating Officer, and the decision to withhold access is being re-examined. We also have another meeting with the Coroner in mid January, and will raise the issue of CCTV product at that meeting. I will write to this forum again about this issue. Hope this helps.
'C',  DCI SO15


It's right to say ... This is a weakening of the plain statement "we have identified a large number of CCTV images of the bombers on the 7th July"

Do I detect an edging away, a preparing of the ground for the disclosure of the weakness of the CCTV evidence?

truthseeker - January 9, 2007 09:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (numeral @ Jan 9 2007, 07:09 AM)
It's right to say ... This is a weakening of the plain statement "we have identified a large number of CCTV images of the bombers on the 7th July"

Do I detect an edging away, a preparing of the ground for the disclosure of the weakness of the CCTV evidence?

I think so indeed, a kind of, well we haven't got any images of them here, here and here because in the first instance the CCTV camera wasn't working, in the second a pigeon was standing in front of it, in the third the tape wasn't inserted, in the fourth we accidentally erased the tape....

But hey, remember we're all just humans it's no surprise the evidence is so flimsy. But we have got this highly compressed image of them entering Luton station... oh you want the uncompressed one... um no, we think that would be harmful, the public just aren't ready to handle the steely, uncaring and focussed facial expression of the dedicated jihadist.

postman - January 11, 2007 02:24 PM (GMT)
Numeral

Item 4 was written (if it is a genuine inter office Police document) for a wider audience than the recipient. It has many hallmarks (as has been pointed out) of a Civil Service arse coverer. (Amusing to see how Home Office Ministers have been kebabbed as Neil Kinnock would say, by the cops "suggesting" that the Minister might see this ....Known in the Civil Service as OU .. Onward & Upward, in the full knowledge that so much paper snow lands on the Ministers desk he has to be very smart not to realise that at some future date that a lowly civil servant (NOT SO LOWLY ACPO GUY) will pop out of his cubicle to say " But surely Minister I sent a memo on ..v..)

It would be nice to think any cynicism regarding the source and reason for this disclosure to this audience is wrong - apparently we can get brilliant CCTV on our TV screens of Urinal stealers, Ipswich prostitutes simply travelling on a train and easily identifiable (however distressing that might be to friends, family etc., Mrs Resz who was killed in her house (Ditto friends / family) .. and the further process of th4e case, chance that the offenders will leg it, etc.,

Anyway what is the problem with pixilating folks' face out of the frames etc., Personally I don't buy this but will be totaslly overjoyed to be proved wrong by the release of dcent CCTV footage - Christ we have been told they have looked at 10,000 hrs of the stuff, Shirley there is something there for us all to look at.

The louder the silence the bigger the bang.

Kier - January 11, 2007 02:50 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (postman @ Jan 11 2007, 02:24 PM)
The louder the silence the bigger the bang.

Ah.....but it's the fear of the bang that 'terrorism' relies on ;)

Just ask Peter Power, the expert.

numeral - January 11, 2007 04:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (postman @ Jan 11 2007, 02:24 PM)
Numeral

Item 4 was written (if it is a genuine inter office Police document) for a wider audience than the recipient.

Postman
curiouspiglet started this thread

The bit I quoted is an SO15 officer's reply to a question by a survivor.

Kier - January 11, 2007 08:58 PM (GMT)
With consideration to the explanation given at the start of this thread, it's worth bearing in mind this from the J7 Site

QUOTE
As a brief aside, a J7 researcher highlighted the following:

        An interesting exercise is to compare two completely different investigative approaches. Contrast the information released in the quest for July 7th eye-witnesses with the appeals after the shooting of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. In the latter case, precise details were given of times and locations as well as specifics about the car alleged to have been used, right down to the number plate. Rewards of 50,000 were offered for information about those responsible.

        In the case of July 7th, J7 researchers have been advised by a Detective Inspector at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of Scotland Yard that, with regard to July 7th, 'preciseness is not in the public interest'!

        Hard to believe, perhaps, in 'the largest criminal inquiry in English history', but here is the full quote:

            You refer to the witness appeal process being aided by precise times.

            In fact were we to follow that process, we would potentially lose witnesses who might for example think they had nothing to contribute as they caught the 0841, not the 0843. Similarly we could be said to be 'influencing' witnesses by providing details which could then be incorporated into their accounts. The witness evidence gathering process is intended to be as neutral and uninfluenced as possible. For example, if a police appeal said 'we are looking for a blue car' when later events showed it to be green, 'preciseness' would have been extremely unhelpful and 'not in the public interest'.

        Offers of a 50,000 reward for information and full disclosure of information in the hunt for the killers of one policewoman, yet no rewards for information, nor anything that vaguely resembles full disclosure of information - apparently because it is not in the public interest - when it concerns the deaths of 56 people and the injury of over 700. How strange.

This, like many aspects of 7/7, is extremely illogical and the July 7th Truth Campaign continues to call on the government and the authorities to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE which conclusively proves the story outlined in the Official Report.

numeral - January 13, 2007 06:49 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (curiouspiglet @ Jan 8 2007, 02:59 PM)
This extract is from  a private survivor/bereaved notice board whereby survivors/bereaved  can talk to police about the investigation and share info and support.

'S' is a survivor
'T' is a Met officer and the site owner
'C' is a DCI on Operation Theseus in S015 ( created when SO12 and SO13 merged in October)
'J' was bereaved on July 7


....

(6) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: J 19/12/2006 - 09:26:12
Updated By: 'J' 19/12/2006 - 09:35:36


Response to: CCTV placing bombers in London by S 
Dear 'C',
The victims of the bombing were identified by either DNA samples, Finger Prints or from Dental records i believe.
Can you confirm this was also the case for the bombers.
Like S,  i have no time for conspiracy theories and the likes.
If they did not travel on the trains, who's remains were taken to Pakistan to be buried as a martyr.
Thanks 'J'

(7) Re: CCTV placing bombers in London Created By: C 08/01/2007 - 09:37:11
Updated By: C  08/01/2007 - 09:39:05


Response to: Re: CCTV placing bombers in London by J 
Thanks for your question. Sorry for the delay in responding, I've only just seen this one. I will get back to you with the best answer I can as quickly as I can.
Best wishes
'C '

curiouspiglet

Has there been a reply to this query yet?

Tanweer was buried in Pakistan, Hussain in Yorkshire.
For over a year since then I have seen no reports of the burials of Khan or Lindsay.

The police do not say how the four were identified but the narrative claims it was by DNA.
"DNA has identified the four at the four separate bombsites. The impact on their bodies suggests that they were close to the bombs"
QUOTE
18 July 2005
Detectives from the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch, supported by police from a number of forces across the country, are continuing the lengthy and painstaking investigation into the detail of the attacks in central London on July 7.

The police investigation into the four bombings has led to the discovery of a substantial amount of information and many leads are being actively progressed. We are determined to follow the evidence wherever it takes us as our understanding of what happened on that morning grows.

The police continue to conduct searches at a number of addresses. We have now executed search warrants at a total of ten addresses in West Yorkshire and a further address in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. Searches have now been completed at three of the addresses in West Yorkshire, but the remainder are still ongoing. Any items found will be carefully assessed and investigated.

Police have been granted a warrant of further detention at Bow Street MC for a 29 year old man arrested on July 12 in the West Yorkshire area on suspicion of the commission, instigation or preparation of acts of Terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000. The man can now be detained until Tuesday 19.7.05, and he continues to be interviewed at a central London police station.

We have also taken more than 800 witness statements and have received 3,500 calls from the public through the anti-terrorist hotline. We are analysing more than 6,000 CCTV tapes and this number is still growing dramatically. Together with the material being gathered from examination of the explosion scenes and the other searches being conducted this is providing us with a large amount of information. Further detailed analysis will take many months of intensive and detailed investigation.

After continued forensic work we now believe we have identified the four men who travelled from Luton and were later seen on CCTV at King's Cross shortly before 8:30am on Thursday 7th July.

We can now confirm the identity of a third man who travelled from West Yorkshire and who died in the explosion at Edgware Road. He was Mohammed Sidique Khan, aged 30. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

We can also now confirm the identity of a fourth man who arrived in London with the three men from West Yorkshire and then died in the explosion between King's Cross and Russell Square underground stations. He was Germaine Lindsay, aged 19. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

We have previously named Hasib Hussain, aged 18, who died in the explosion on the bus in Tavistock Square, and Shahzad Tanweer, aged 22, who died in the explosion at Aldgate. We believe that they were responsible for carrying out these respective attacks.

Formal identification for all of these people is a matter for the Coroner.

DAC Peter Clarke, head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch, said today:

"The investigation continues on many fronts, but we have been very grateful for the contribution made by the public in response to our previous appeals. However we still need to find out more about these four men and their movements, both on the morning of the bombings, and in the days and weeks beforehand.

"We are this evening releasing a CCTV image showing the four men at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am. We know they travelled together from here on a Thameslink train to King's Cross in central London.

"I would like to appeal to anyone who may have information that could prove useful to the investigation to contact us. Did you see these four men together travelling between Luton and King's Cross on 7th July? Did you see these four men together in the days before the attack? Do you have information on any of these four men?"

Anyone who has information that could help the investigation is asked to contact police on the confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321, or electronically online via www.police.uk

Kier - January 15, 2007 11:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
New CCTV unit tackles UK crime
[13 Jan 2007] [BBC News, news@cctvinfo.com]

Viido is being tested in Southwark, London

A new police unit is radically improving the way that CCTV footage is processed.

The eventual aim is to turn the gathering of video evidence into a third forensic specialism alongside DNA analysis and fingerprinting. There are 4.2 million cameras in the UK but until now there has been no dedicated police unit to deal with the collection and dissemination of CCTV evidence.

If the new Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office (Viido), based at Southwark Police Station, is judged to be a success it could soon lead to the development of specialist CCTV units across the country.

Viido has a small team made up of police officers, civilian staff and members of the public drawn from a Metropolitan Police volunteering scheme. Although it was only set up in September, Deputy Chief Inspector Mick Neville, who heads the unit, is pleased with its progress.

He says: "We have produced more images of street robbers in one-32nd of Metropolitan Police than the whole force put together"

Although gathering CCTV might appear no more difficult than programming the video recorder, obtaining images can require specialist knowledge.

DCI Neville explains: "With all CCTV it is not as simple as an officer grabbing a tape. If it's not a simple VHS player they may have to get CDs, or even worse, a hard-drive has to be recovered. Often footage is in multiplex format where there'll be 12 or 20 cameras on the same tape"

New CCTV systems on buses which store images on hard drives have been particularly problematic, and the Viido team has significantly increased the use of this material.

According to Mr Neville there have even been issues with playing evidence gathered via CCTV in court: "DNA was funded end-to-end with scientists and police officers trained. With CCTV the vast majority of the funding went on producing images and there was very little equipment in the courts. We've now received Home Office funding and to put additional DVDs and CD players in court"

CCTVInfo


keith mothersson - January 16, 2007 12:00 AM (GMT)
Regarding the reasons for the non-publication of [the?] CCTV images, we should bear in mind that the argument about not alerting hitherto unrecognised plotters and assistants is not only bizarrely at odds with normal police practice IMO, but whether valid re Kings Cross evidence or not can't apply to justify non-release of the Tavistock traffic cam - one frame of which was shown I understand (so it must be working).

I am just so curious about that Kingstar van - when precisely it turned up so very, very close to the seat of the explosion.

Or maybe the reasons about not alerting and revealing hitherto unrecognised plotters and assistants do make perfect sense?! ;)




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards