J7 Response to the Provisional Index of Factual Issues – Provisional Index of Factual Issues – Issue 7 & 8
Forensic issues regarding the bombs and the bodies of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay
7. The likely components, manner of construction and mode of operation of the explosive devices.
8. The likely involvement of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay in the development and assembly of the explosive devices.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES
Immediately after the events of 7th July 2005 all the news reports that mentioned the kind of explosive used stated that high grade explosives, as typically used by military forces, were responsible. While much of this may be dismissed as media speculation, the police authoritatively confirmed this on the record:
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick: "All we are saying is that it is high explosives. That would tend to suggest that it is not home-made explosive. Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we do not want to say at this stage."1
Assistant Police Commissioner Andy Hayman:"Initially, the forensic investigation suggests that each device used had less than 10 pounds of high explosives"2
Expert scientists Hans Michels and Neil Fisher also confirmed this opinion.3
|Clearly the early forensic evidence from the blast sites indicated that high explosives had been used. Why has this evidence been set aside?|
______________________________________________________________1WorldTribune.com: Advanced bombs were so powerful that none of 49 dead have been identified - http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W...rror_07_11.html
3Plastic explosives seen as most likely material | UK news | The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/terrorism.july72
_____________________________________________________________HOME MADE ORGANIC PEROXIDE EXPLOSIVES NOT CAPABLE OF EXPLODING
The evidence presented by Clifford Todd, at the trials of those cleared of conspiring with the alleged perpetrators of the July 7th 2005 explosions, was that the main explosive charge was a mixture of highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide and ground black pepper.
Giving evidence at the trial for the 21st July 2005 incidents, explosives expert Professor Hans Michels stated that those devices were "not capable of exploding"4
. His evidence was so compelling that the prosecution dropped the charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life5
The devices allegedly used on 7th July 2005 were essentially the same (using pepper instead of flour) as those which a court of law has revealed to be "not capable of exploding".
|No credible explanation has been given of how they were capable of causing the explosions that occurred on 7th July 2005.|
NO EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE FOUND AT THE SITES
Although, as stated above, Clifford Todd gave his expert opinion that the main explosive charge was peroxide and organic material, he also stated that the investigation had failed to find any trace of the main explosive charge at the sites.
|In the absence of these traces, what is the evidential basis for his opinion that the main explosive charge was peroxide and organic material given that by his own admission such a device would be "unique in the UK and possibly the whole world"?6|
Explosions caused by some kind of electrical failure would also leave no residue.
|How have electrical explosions on the Underground trains (perhaps amplified by the detonation of tunnel dust) been ruled out, given the early reports of power surges and eye witness accounts of the train floor being raised up as if the explosion had originated underneath it78.|
________________________________________________________________4BBC NEWS | UK | 21/7 suspect's claim 'is amazing' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6545597.stm
5BBC NEWS | UK | 21/7 accused are 'plainly guilty' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6730953.stm
6Details of July 7 'bomb factory' disclosed - Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/192...-disclosed.html
7CEN News : Region-wide : "I was in tube bomb carriage - and survived" - http://www.veronicachapman.com/archive/83e...86926f9.lpf.htm
8Guardian audo stream - http://stream.guardian.co.uk:7080/ramgen/s...sbaum_070705.ra
_________________________________________________________________DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEVICES FOUND IN THE NISSAN MICRA
The devices reported to have been found in the boot of the Nissan Micra parked at Luton Station were of a different kind.
|How has it been determined that the explosions were not caused by devices similar to those found in the car boot?|
|Why is it that the devices reported to have been found in the car boot do not resemble the material shown in the pictures released of the Alexandra Grove flat? Is there any forensic evidence of where and when these other devices were made and stored?|
The detonators used have never been officially identified, even though it has been reported that the toggle switch of one was recovered from Louise Barry.9
CNN reported that, “Investigators believe they found fragments of timing devices in the train attacks, but none on the bus. Some have speculated the bus might have been a target at all, suggesting that bomb could have gone off accidentally as it was being taken somewhere else.”10 Worth noting is that the unintended, accidental, spontaneous explosion of devices on a bus in London is not without precedent.11
|Has it been confirmed that the item recovered from Louise Barry was part of a detonator, and if so what does it reveal about the detonation mechanism? In particular, does it confirm either manual detonation or timed detonation?|
|How has timed detonation been ruled out, given that the Underground explosions have come to be described as near-simultaneous (though contrary to the earliest reports), and that the New York Police Department claimed that it had been informed that timing devices had been used?12|
|Has it been confirmed that the item purchased by Hasib Hussain at Kings Cross station was a 9V battery? Is there any forensic evidence that such a battery was used in|
The Healing Foundation – Press Release - http://www.thehealingfoundation.org/images...ressrelease.pdf10
CNN.com – Transcripts, Police Give Update on London Terror Attacks; London Terror; Interview With Rudy Giuliani - http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/08/se.01.html11
A case of mistaken identity - Opinion - The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/a-cas...ty-1320757.html12
'Military quality' bombs in London - The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/world/eu...ondon.html?_r=1
|any of the explosions?|
CHAPELTOWN ROAD SITE
The first purchases of hydrogen peroxide by the alleged perpetrators were made months before the Alexandra Grove flat was rented. A flat in Chapeltown Road has also been stated to be an alleged bomb factory, but much less information has been released about it compared to Alexandra Grove.
|What, if any, forensic evidence of bomb making was found at Chapeltown Road? When was it identified?|8. The likely involvement of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay in the development and assembly of the explosive devices.INADEQUATE EXPERTISE AND EQUIPMENT OF THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS
It requires great expertise to produce highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide. It is not possible to do this by simply heating dilute hydrogen peroxide solutions (which are readily available commercially) on a kitchen stove. If that is attempted the hydrogen peroxide decomposes into water and oxygen. More sophisticated methods of distillation are extremely hazardous: concentrated hydrogen peroxide vapour is liable to detonate explosively.
No credible explanation has been given of how the alleged perpetrators, given their lack of expertise and equipment, produced concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Nor, given the apparent absence of refrigerator units in the alleged bomb factory at Alexandra Grove, has any explanation been given of how the concentrated hydrogen peroxide was stored.
Maintaining the concentration of the peroxide is difficult as it decomposes relatively easily. Even if the concentration was maintained, it would then be difficult to prevent the peroxide from igniting the pepper. That these difficulties were overcome by using bags of ice on a journey of about 200 miles in summer stretches credulity.UNIQUENESS OF THE DEVICES
Given that Clifford Todd, a senior forensic investigator at Fort Halstead forensic explosives laboratory, said in open court that the devices were "unique in the UK and possibly the whole world"13
it is imperative to understand exactly who is alleged to have been involved with the manufacture of such unique and never-before-seen devices.
Details of July 7 'bomb factory' disclosed - Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/192...-disclosed.html
|If the contention is that the devices were manufactured by any number of the four accused, then what evidence suggests any of the four were technically capable of producing them? How, when and where did they gain the expertise and training in order to develop such unique devices?|
|Any novel product has to undergo rigorous testing before it is used in real-world applications, so if the four accused are alleged to have constructed these unique devices unassisted, where was the methodology developed for so doing? Where did they conduct tests of these new devices before deciding on the unique, never-before-seen and highly unstable explosives alleged to have been used on 7/7 as the method of choice?|
NO EVIDENCE OF BLEACHED HAIR IN PUBLISHED CCTV PICTURES
There is no evidence of the hair of the alleged perpetrators being bleached in the very limited CCTV footage released.
|Is there any forensic evidence that confirms this?|
ALTERNATIVE USES OF PEROXIDE
Much of the material found at Alexandra Grove could be put to use in producing illicit drugs, an activity which would require the alleged perpetrators to act in a somewhat secretive manner. One neighbour, Sylvia Waugh, testified that she suspected such activity.
|Is there forensic evidence that rules out this alternative?|
RENTAL OF ALEXANDRA GROVE
Although it has been reported that Lindsay rented Alexandra Grove, the description of the man who rented the property does not match Lindsay.14
|Is there any documentation of the rental agreement, and if so who does it state was renting the flat?|
______________________________________________________________14EXCLUSIVE: THE 4TH BOMBER - mirror.co.uk - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2...15875-15738480/
J7 Response to the Provisional Index of Factual Issues – Provisional Index of Factual
Issues – Issue 9
Forensic issues regarding the bombs and the bodies of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay
9. The presence at the scenes of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay, and their
proximity to the explosions.
THE IDENTITIES OF THE ALLEGED BOMBERS
The names of the alleged bombers were released by the Metropolitan Police on the
following dates: Tanweer & Hussain on 14th July 20051, Khan & Lindsay on 16th July
20052. It should be noted that the name of 'Mohammed Sadique Khan' was being
mentioned as being a 'suspect' in newspaper reports on 13th July 2005
|We would request upon what information was the identity of the 'alleged bombers'|
It is noted that Metropolitan Police statements announcing the identities of the 'alleged
bombers' confirmed that (for instance with respect to Shehzad Tanweer) the MPS ”have
not yet been able to gather forensic evidence to confirm that he died in any of the
It is noted that on 18 July 2005 a Freedom of Information request (Reference: FS50097905)3
was submitted to the Cabinet Office, requesting whether they held information of the
following description:• Information concerning the identification of Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shezad
Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay as among the dead of the London
bombings of July 7 2005, including any documents from the Identification
The FOI submission further requested, if available:• A copy of the information
_______________________________________________________________1 Press conference - pictures of Hasib Hussain released - Metropolitan Police Service -
2 Police investigation continues into the 7/7 bombings - Metropolitan Police Service -
3 FOI Reference FS50097905, Information Commissioner's Office -
_________________________________________________________________• An opportunity to inspect the record
• A summary of the information’
On 26 August 2005 the Cabinet Office responded to the complainant and informed him
that it held information related to the subject of his request but refused to disclose the
information. However, it did not hold any information or documents from the
From paragraph 18 of the FOI response (of 9th March 2009):18. Disclosure of the requested information would reveal the exact nature of the
evidence collected about the bombers along with when, and how, this
evidence was collected. If this information were disclosed, this could
highlight the strengths and weaknesses of police and the security services
investigatory efforts into combating terrorist activities. This information
could be used by perpetrators, facilitators and supporters of terrorist acts in
the future leading to the authorities’ ability to both prevent and detect crime,
and apprehend potential terrorists, being harmed.
|We would suggest that the exact nature of the evidence collected about the bombers|
along with when, and how, this evidence was collected requires to be known/
investigated by the current Coroner's Proceedings.
In paragraph 27 of the FOI response:
27. The Commissioner also believes that the public interest in relation to
securing the correct identification of the four bombers had been met by the
due process of the Identification Commission and the Coroner’s Court.
|We would suggest that the Coroner should confirm in the current Coroner's|
Proceedings to all assembled/interested parties whether she believes that the 'nature of
the evidence collected' and 'how the evidence was collected' and any
evidence/information from the Identification Commission does satisfy the following
a) The due coroners process applicable at the time4 the revised process enacted under
b) The assigned Properly Interested Persons within the current Inquest Proceedings.
c) The Public Interest.
_________________________________________________________________4 Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13) - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880013_en_1.htm
5 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25) - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_1
|Furthermore we would request an explanation of the term 'securing the correct|
identification', and whether this term is usual inquest terminology.
|We would request that the Coroner confirms the dates on which the Inquests into the|
four 'alleged bombers' were opened.
|We would request that the Coroner considers the investigation relating to the|
Travelcard in the name of 'Tyrone Smith' (MPS Evidence article RJB 179), including
determining where/when it was found.
|We would request that the Coroner investigates why the name of 'Germaine Lindsay'|
was apparently publicly identified6 by the French minister Nicolas Sarkozy at a
briefing given by the British government in Brussels on 14th July 2005. Sarkozy also
remarked to the effect that the 'alleged bomber[s]' were "a part of the team" arrested in
March 2004, under the Crevice operation7. See also the notes below relating
specifically to the identification of Lindsay.
|We would request that the Coroner confirms the date on which DNA analysis was|
completed with respect to each of the 4 'alleged bombers'. Was the assigned coroner
contemporaneously informed of the results of this DNA analysis?
|We would request that the Coroner investigates the process whereby the DNA of the 4|
'alleged bombers was reportedly separated from the other deceased at the scenes, and
given priority in DNA analysis. How did the forensic scene investigators determine
which samples were to be taken and segregated at each of the incident scenes?
Early in the investigation it was reported8 that:
Meanwhile experts at Qinetiq, the government's former research agency, are
to begin creating computer simulations that will show the locations of where
the bombs were planted and the directions of the blast.
|Were these computer simulations ever carried out and will they be available to the|
________________________________________________________________6 rmfr.com: July 2005 Archives - http://www.rmfr.com/archives/2005/07/index.html#000255
7 Security services 'failed to arrest bomber last year' – The Scotsman - http://tinyurl.com/38onsq2
8 Massive global manhunt builds picture of killers | UK news | The Observer -
_________________________________________________________________ISSUES RELATING TO “APPARENT BOMBER” LINDSAY GERMAINE
Despite Tanweer and Hussain being identified by the 14 July, Lindsay's name is not
released until the 16 July: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 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 attack9.
Before Lindsay was named, newspaper reports were carrying stories of a very different
suspect, Ejaz Fiaz, in connection with this explosion. It was not until after his wife,
Samantha Lewthwaite, contacted the police on 13th July to report her husband missing
and a subsequent police search carried out on her home, that Lindsay's property is
reportedly found at the scene and his name is given to the press:13 July Jermaine Lindsay’s wife informs police that he is missing.
Police search Lindsay’s home in Aylesbury.
15 July Property belonging to Lindsay found at Russell Square.
16 July The police publicly confirm the names of Khan and Lindsay.10
The Home Office report claims that on the 12th July police were aware of two cars at
Luton via an eye-witness report, which is how the journey from Luton to King's Cross was
apparently discovered. A controlled explosion is carried out on one of the cars and it's
claimed that the red Fiat Brava, towed away through lack of a parking ticket11
registered to Lindsay and being sought from an earlier aggravated burglary in which a
hand-gun had been used. Yet Lindsay is not identified on the 12th July:12 July By lunchtime, police working on the theory that there is a
King’s Cross link to the 3 train bombs, all being broadly equidistant
from there at the time of the explosions, identify a CCTV image of 4
men with rucksacks at King’s Cross. They recognise Tanweer first
from a DVLA photograph.
_______________________________________________________________9 Police investigation continues into the 7/7 bombings - Metropolitan Police Service -
10 p.11 Report of the official account of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005 - http://www.officialdocuments.
11 J7: Mind the Gaps - Part 2 - Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far -
_________________________________________________________________The police identify CCTV images of the same 4 at Luton Station.
The Micra is found at Luton and examined. 9 controlled explosions
were carried out on material found in it. The Brava, which had been
towed away because it did not have a parking ticket is later traced
to Lindsay. There had been a report on the Police National
Computer that the Brava may have been used in an aggravated
burglary (see paragraph 69) and Lindsay was named as the
registered keeper for the car.
Nor was the CCTV of Lindsay arriving in Luton Station car park and collected by the MPS
on 11th July used to identify Lindsay:73. The next that is known of Khan, Tanweer and Hussain is the
CCTV image of the Nissan Micra leaving Leeds on the morning of 7
July; and of Lindsay, the CCTV image of the Fiat Brava arriving at
Luton Station car park an hour or so later.
As newspapers reported12
on 15th July 2005:
Alone among European media outlets, Libération identified
Germaine as the fourth bomber yesterday morning. At that time,
most British newspapers and even many police officers believed the
fourth bomber to have been another Leeds man of Asian origin.
Germaine's identity was only established yesterday afternoon after
forensic experts matched DNA samples from a house in Aylesbury,
Buckinghamshire, to shreds of tissue retrieved from the Piccadilly
Line train that exploded near Russell Square.
The Home Office report claims that he was identified on 15th July by property found at
the scene. One of these was apparently this travel card in the name, not of Germaine
Lindsay, but instead Tyrone Smith:
_______________________________________________________________12 Security services 'failed to arrest bomber last year' - Scotsman.com News -
An identity document that Forensics expert Clifford Todd described, during the so called
“7/7 helpers” trial of three men that were acquitted of any involvement in the events of 7th
July:"It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal
materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.
"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that
would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack,
suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance
from the actual explosion."13
|What remains unexplained and deeply disturbing in the case of the identity of|
Germaine Lindsay as a 'suicide-bomber' responsible for the explosion on the Piccadilly
Line train is: How was it remotely possible for him to enter a crush-capacity train and,
within seconds, scatter his ID “some distance” away around the carriage, and then
manoeuvre a large rucksack to the floor in order to detonate it?
______________________________________________________________13 July 7 bombers 'left clues to martyrdom' - Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895690/July-7-