7/7 Footage mentioned on BBC News 24

[WyldeChylde]

In a report covering the current trial of the three muslims who supposedly conducted 'hostile reconaissance' in London in December 04, the reporter alluded to CCTV footage from 7/7 showing Tanweer entering a train on the underground, apparently at Liverpool Street. Moments later smoke is seen eminating from the tunnel. In another sequence, it reportedly showed Hussain getting on the no. 30, then the bus going past a camera, moments later people run from the direction, covering their ears.

It'd be interesting to see whether this footage gets released to the public.

[karlos]

It will also be important for the sake of justice for the whole footage to be disclosed.
Showing an edited montage which implies something occured is not evidence.
However, most of these duty solicitors will persuade their clients to cop a plea rather than challenge the validity of the video highlights.

I noticed the julyseventh website has not been updated for a month+
does that mean they have pulled the plug as well?

[Prole]

[TonyGosling]

Was actual footage shown?

Who was the reporter?

When was the broadcast?

[goldenballs]

I heard on the radio tonight that 2 previously unseen images "of the moment the bombs were detonated" in the presenters words, had been released to the public. not surprisingly the news 30 minutes later had a story about m&s chocolate cakes instead of the trivial matter of this trial.

[TonyGosling]

It seems it has been shown in court but we can't see it - bizzare

Is the film genuine and really filmed on the day?
Why have the Met kept this evidence from the public and victims' families for two and a half years?

[paul wright]

It's absolutely bizarre, Tony
Until we see te supposed evidence with our own eyes, we cant believe a word of the reportage
I've seen a short video of the other guy's supposed suicide statement
This is becoming too mix 'n' match
There's supposed also to be Siddique Khan's video of farewell to his daughter
Too much in the way of bizarreness until they release this stuff

[GazeboflossUK]

I was just checking out Sky News and the report mentioned that there is some more detailed footage of the explosions "that is too disturbing, we cannot show you here".

Ok, well they should release it and let ourselves decide what we can and can't handle.

Hopefully it will make its way online soon.

[goldenballs]

From The Daily Mail:

[karlos]

[TonyGosling]

yup,

It seems the Met may be afraid that the jury won't believe the 7/7 myth so they've 'cooked something up' for them. We'llhave to see, if we are allowed to.

Hey. maybe the BBC will be given 'exclusive' access to this footage to break it to the public in a 7/7 Conspiracy Files special! Thereby reinforcing the lies.

[Rachel]

For goodness, sake, how can you call yourselves truth seekers and demand the evidence if you then proceed to ignore the evidence and refuse to look at the truth, as presented in a public court?


1. This was the first day of the trial and was the prosecution's opening statement. It is an overview of the Crown's case. You can expect to see more evidence presented - and challenged in much more detail later.


2. To make the case against the 3 men in the dock, the CPS have to

a) prove that MSK, Tanweer, Lindsey, Hussein bombed London with home-made bombs on 7/7 as per.

b) that the 3 men in the dock conspired to help them do so, which includes showing their links with the 7/7 bombers, their association and mindset and sympathies, as well as evidence linking them to attack-planning and reconnaissance.

Please note *deep breath*.

The men in the dock who knew and were close to MSK et al, and their defence team

are NOT challenging that MSK etc bombed London as per a) .They accept a).

They will argue b), the CPS have said as much.

Got it? They are not challenging that part of the CPS argument, the evidence ( forensic and CCTV) which shows the 7/7 bombers did it.

That means that they accept it as true. Truthful. Factual. A Fact.


Do you not think, if you were facing 30 years for participating in a bomb blot and helping bombers - who were innocent and who never bombed London because the bombs were in fact a dastardly plot by Jews/Mossad/M15/Illuminati/whoever to discredit Islam -

do you not think you might mention it and run it as part of your defence?

The defendants are being represented by

Joel Bennathan, QC, Martin Husseyn, Junior Counsel
http://www.tooks.co.uk/people/bennathan_j.htm

Andrew Hall QC and Neam Mian JC
http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/andrew_hall_qc.cfm

Michael Wolkind QCand Danny Friedman JC
http://www.chambersaob.co.uk/uk/PersonProfile.aspx?aid=234008&fid=1043 5&solbar=2

Hardly 'duty solicitors'. They are some of the best, most fearless, most experienced lawyers in the business.

Why don't you get yourselves down to Kingston and see for yourselves?

The CCTV has been kept as evidence for this trial, because that is what you do with evidence you are using in court - you wait until the proper time to show it to the jury in public court, not release it all over the internet. You need to make sure that the evidence is presented fairly, and that the defence have the opportunity to challenge it fairly, and that the jury are shown it fairly so they can keep an open mind.

The press have made an application to see everything shown in court, and they will likely get permission to have it, once it has been shown in court.

Ever heard of sub judice, contempt of court and the preservation of evidence?

[numeral]

Rachel said:

[Prole]

[numeral]

Rachel, on your blog you wrote:

[Rachel]

Why don't you come to Kingston and watch the trial for yourselves?

You have, after all, been asking for the 'release of the evidence' and 'it to be shown in a public court' for quite some time now.

Then you can see with your very own eyes.

[Rachel]

[numeral]

[Rachel]

The media have out in requests for everything shown during the trial and they will likely get it, once it has all been shown in evidence, which is unlikely to be after day one, a third or half-of the way into the opening speech, is it?.

So I am sure you will see it in the end. You will have to wait, unless you come to the trial.

There has been a great deal of '#Release the evidence!' and 'Show it in court!' said on this forum. Now you see that it has been released quite properly to a jury and the defence team first. You do not have the 'right' to see it on the internet if it is evidence, needed for a trial by the Crown.

The prosecution continues Monday with the detail about Pakistan and who went where when and why and with whom to do what.

Barbar should be on Thursday.

I won't be there every day after next week, because I do have to work, but the opening of the prosecution's speech was always, obviously, going to be important -

because of the making of the case that MSK & friends bombed London on 7/7 ( whch the defendants are not contesting)

and then ( next week) the CPS will be making their best case for the defendants having the association, sympathy, mindset, friendship with the bombers that they knew what they were planning, and agreed with it, and on 16 Dec 2004 travelled to London from Leeds for 2 days reconnaissance - with their friend Hasib Hussein - and the places they visited 'bore a 'striking similarity' to the locations of 7/7, and that during this trip they also spent time with Germaine Lindsey.

And the defence will say Wahid was visiting his sister, that they visited the Nat His Museum, Aquarium & London Eye as tourists, that their friendship with the bombers was entirely innocent and they knew nothing of their beliefs or intentions to bomb London on 7/7 - they do not contest that they did bomb London on 7/7.


This was all said in court on Thursday.


It is my understanding that the CPS gave the defence FULL disclosure of their case that the 7/7 bomber bombed London before the trial starts. This is what always happens - the CPS has to hand over all their evidence for the defence to pick holes in.

Forensic evidence as well as CCTV was used to make the case.

The defence, having seen this are not disputing it.

By the way - Brian Paddick mentions a little about forensic evidence in hs new autiobiog. When one of the bomber's bodies ( not intact) was found, it was 'fully shaved'. This is what suicide bombers do before martyrdom ( traditionally)

This was in the early days of the forensic examination of the sites.

This is one of the things that told the police they were looking at suicide bombings early on; amongst other things.

This is the sort of forensic evidence that would be presented - shaved body parts with blast injuries commensurate with being the closest to the bomb, that was DNA-identified as being the bombers, along with CCTV footage of them going to the stations, forensics froim the cars and bomb factory at Alexander Grove, and martydom videos and wills ( MSK's will was shown and read in court), evidence of training to be a shadid in Malakand etc.

Distressing eh?

There is a great deal of this sort of stuff that would not go in day one of an opening speech, it may not even need to be shown to the jury if the defence had accepted it as left it unchallenged - but we will see during the course of the trial.

[BBC5.tv]

I'm going to go to the trial with some of the London lot I reckon. In my opinion it's a sham, logic tells me so. Be good to see some of you guys there. This revolution is coming thick and fast and we need to mend some bridges with our Muslim brothers to show a united front.

The Muslims in this country have been demonised enough, it's time to show some solidarity with those guys who get searched under section 44 of the terrorism act practically everyday according to some guys we spoke to yesterday on Oxford Street. Reminds of what happened to the Jews in Germany in the 1930's.

Also another note, everything thats transpires has to be taken with the big picture in view, with that said, it's bloody blatant. To view each event as seperate you miss the modus operandi.

The Muslims are not our enemies, the NWO is.

Peace out.

scott.

[numeral]

Rachel wrote:

[Rachel]

Are you reading what I am writing?


I am reporting back ( for the nth time) on what was said on the first day of the trial by the prosecution.

As in, what they said they were going to say. That is how an opening speech works. They tell you what they are going to tell you, give an outline, and also tell the jury what the defence's position is, very briefly - whether they are contesting all or part of their prosecution case.

When it is the defence's turn, they will make their case.

It is not difficult to grasp! I do not see why you have decided to leap in and try to guess what the defence will be at this stage. All you can do when a trial is going on is to report what was said & shown in court.

*sigh*

[numeral]

Rachel said:

[Rachel]

[numeral]

[numeral]

[Rachel]

Yeah, because it was a long clip, he was on his own in a deserted forecourt, and I was only looking at him. The others were in the car

Trying to follow 4 people simultaneously on a short clip in a rush hour crowd is quite a different matter, even with red, green, blue and turquoise arrows helpfully placed over their head so you can keep track of them. They were 4 people moving in a crowd of dozens.

[TonyGosling]

Actually I think it'll be more like a Civil War.
One thing's for sure though - the lies have not worked and the perpetrators will be getting extremely worried.
I'm increasingly thinking that they actually want Civil War and that 7/7 etc were part of the run-up to that.
They have positions of power but surrounded by civil servants who won't play ball they are realising, increasingly, that the only power they have is the power to kill.

[karlos]

[Newspeak International]

Rachael said