05 February 2011

Simply Wrong

The J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog has just released the following utter and complete shocker from,

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/02/simply-wrong.html

"Q. Detective Sergeant, just to clarify it, if we could go back to [INQ105680-12] at paragraph 64 , when, in the opening to the Theseus trial, as was widely reported, it stated there that this information was recovered from that mobile phone found at Edgware Road, is that simply wrong?

A. Yes. [ibid p39:22 on]"

"Simply wrong? We can add this 'simply wrong' to the litany of errors anomalies and inconsistencies that J7 have detailed, so far, over the 15 weeks of the 7/7 Inquests. The fact that 'simply wrong' evidence can be used in an attempt to convict 3 men, all found innocent, who faced up to 40 years in prison isn't just 'simply wrong' it's 'simply appalling'."

5 comments:

  1. Thanks for the link and the comment on the blog. Do you feel competent in commenting on the testimony of Clifford Todd on the nature of the explosives? If so, J7 could do with some insight into this. Please contact us at:

    julyseventh[at]fastmail.net

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't have any expertise of explosives.

    All of my experience is and has been towards avoiding explosions when doing chemistry either in the laboratory or on a plant.

    I'ves spent the afternoon reading Todd's evidence p38 line 7 onwards. He seems to be as surprised as I am that the bombs were able to be prepared by these four people.

    See for example, p66 line 22 to p67 line 18.

    I will blog my thoughts on the matter as time permits (later this week?) but don't expect any novel revelations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks - how about concentrating 17.5% Hydrogen Peroxide by boiling in small metal saucepans?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It shouldn't have worked.

    But without repeating what they did, it is difficult to give a definitive statement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's an example of the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I say that it shouldn't have worked.

    175 Times. And Then the Catastrophe.

    The same process was run on a plant 175 times before the disaster. It shouldn't have worked the first time that they did it.

    ReplyDelete