7/7 Inquests: The 7 July Inquest Verdict

The alleged J7 Tube train bombers

By CanSpeccy

At the 7/7 Inquest Blog, the Antagonist provides a swift demolition of the principal conclusion of Lady Justice Hallet's verdict.

Beginning with a quotation from the Introduction her ladyship's report:

To argue or find to the contrary [i.e. that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.

The Antagonist comments:

We will gloss over, for the moment, the fact that there was no need to fabricate CCTV evidence for the simple reason that there was no CCTV evidence at all of three of the accused on the London Underground on the morning of 7 July 2005, however the fact that the police lied about when they viewed some footage from Luton is certainly noteworthy.

And

Conspiracies to "falsely implicate" individuals and groups of individuals that are "Simply unthinkable in a democratic country" are in fact quite routine and commonplace in democratic countries. The British State has a particularly exemplary history of "conspiracy to falsely implicate" through "independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service." We need not look terribly far back in history to find the cases of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Danny MacNamee, Judith Ward, and many others of Irish descent against whom the State conspired for its own politically expedient gains. Countless similar examples exist. Just to state the proposition (that the aforementioned were falsely implicated) was also dismissed as absurd at the time.

That the inquests did not uncover any such conspiracy comes as no surprise, for the function of an inquest is to determine how an individual died, where they died and when they died. The function is most certainly not that of a criminal investigation, in much the same way as the function of an inquest -- as re-stated both by Hallett and her Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith QC -- is most certainly not "to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals". Yet, in both instances of improper function of an inquest, this is what has occurred and the inquests have masqueraded as a legitimate form of investigation, trial and prosecution of four unrepresented men accused of a heinous crime.

Instead of "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot... of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country" that "would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service" and "cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence", what the public are left with is the same tidy, if inconsistent, unsubstantiated and unproven, 'narrative' that we started with and a proxy investigation, trial, prosecution, and judgement "that cost millions of pounds" that "involved hundreds of ordinary people... families, their friends...independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service."

The very same process succinctly described by Lady Justice Hallett outlining why "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in a murder plot" could not have occurred, is exactly the process by which the four accused have indeed been implicated, accused, tried and found guilty.

There is more, and the commentary deserves reading in its entirety. There are also some interesting readers' comments, including this by Bridget:

J7 [Truth] have always maintained it is the State that must prove its narrative not ours to construct alternatives. As there must be a mass of evidence not adduced to the Inquests nor released to the public it remains impossible to offer an alternative hypothesis that we can credibly construct. Therefore we call on our supporters and the wider public to continue to campaign for the release of the evidence. If the State has the evidence to support it's narrative then that shouldn't be a problem. ...

As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account.

This remains true. A people who question the State are far more empowered and dangerous imo than those who shift attention away from it.

In relation to the J7 inquest, Stef Zucconi has a good post about disinformation, distraction and defamation in the manipulation of public perception such as is required in the concealment of state crimes against democracy.

Such manipulation is undertaken via both the mainstream media and the alternative media. In this context, it is of interest to remember that during WW1, President Wilson set the Committee for Public Information, headed by former newspaper man George Creel.

According to Wikipedia:

The purpose of the CPI was to influence American public opinion toward supporting U.S. participation in World War I via a prolonged propaganda campaign. ...

The committee used newsprint, posters, radio, telegraph, cable and movies to broadcast its message. It recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," volunteers who spoke about the war at social events for an ideal length of four minutes..."

Which leads one to ask whether Cass Sunstein's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is anything other than an Internet-age incarnation of George Creel's Committee of Public Information? If so, 75,000 operatives working an eight hour day could surely transform the Internet consensus on anything of government concern. And remember the government shills use software that enables them to operate under multiple personalities. So 75,000 shills might look like 37.5 million.

In understanding the manipulation of public perception it is also necessary to take account of the difficulty most people have in entertaining a hypothesis as opposed to a definite assertion. This has important practical implications for those who seek publicly to question an official narrative.

Without a thorough forensic investigation, which only the state can undertake, the public will always have to deal with uncertainty about many political events including possible state crimes. This in turn means that most people will either reject conspiracy theories out of hand in preference for the definitive official storys or they will adopt the conspiracy theory without noting the uncertainties relating to it, thereby entering the realm of irrational certainty where they can be singled out and ridiculed by advocates of the official view. Moreover, the defenders of the official story can create their own conspiracy nuts, the easier to dismiss all conspiracy theorists as lunatics.

Thus to expect either truth or rationality in Internet discussion of critical events such as 9/11, 7/7 forums would be a triumph of hope not only over experience, but also of logic.