London bombing: The strange identification of the four alleged bombers

[John Doe II]

Identification of the culprits :

Like in 911 this could turn out to be one of the central questions about the investigation.
Let’s have a look how the four alleged bombers have been identified:

Mohammad Sidique Khan : ID found at Edgware Road blast site.
Hasib Mir Hussain : ID found in No 30 bus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4689739.stm#

But besides the fact that IDs were found (which of course could have been planted – at least one has to consider this possibility) do we have any other proof that theses two were indeed in the tube/bus at the moment of the blast? No. Because the only eyewitness Richard Jones certainly doesn’t have seen Hussain.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x48120 (post 1 and 15)

That’s all for theses two. Nothing more, nothing less. So, let’s wait what the forensic analysis will bring.
Before we turn to the other two alleged bombers let’s have a quick look at the progress of identifying victims of 7/7:
In fact the identification is extremely difficult:
“The commission will oversee a painstaking and complex identification process using fingerprints, dentistry and DNA to conclusively identify the victims. Experts said that it may take weeks to identify some of the bodies.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525246,00.html
And on July 10 it is reported:
“The explosions were so powerful that none of the 49 known dead has been identified yet. Forensic experts were relying on fingerprints, dental records and DNA analysis to identify the victims. To help with DNA matches, police were asking for hair samples from those believed to be family members of some victims.”
(Atlanta-Journal, 7/10/05)
Only on July 11 is the first victim identified.
And on the following day all in all four are identified.
And yet they managed the very same day to present three of the four alleged bombers.
Besides Khan and Hussain (as shown based on IDs) also Tanweer. But he didn’t leave any paper trail. He was identified based on “strong forensic evidence”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4693001.stm

How is this possible so quickly?
How did the investigators find anything to compare with?
As far as I know it was the van found on the very same day that led to Tanweer as well.

Even more bizarre is the identification of Lindsay as the fourth bomber.
“Germaine Lindsay (above): Jamaican-born man living in Buckinghamshire. Believed to have carried out King's Cross attack.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4689739.stm#

“Scotland Yard said that forensic material had been recovered in the painstaking underground operation going on beneath King’s Cross.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693739,00.html

But nowhere it is written that he was identified on forensic evidences.
Strange, too, that so far no contact to the other alleged bombers have been presented (so far no travel to Pakistan is known). Only that he is “believed to have lived for short periods at one of the properties being searched in Leeds”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693739,00.html
which doesn’t say really a lot.
So, actually based on what was he identified as the fourth alleged bomber?
What did I miss? Where is any sort of evidence?
And not very surprisingly this is what his wife has to say and that in any case underlines that there is NO proof that Lindsay even sat in the tube on 7/7 not to mention that he had the bomb in his backsack:
“Samantha Lewthwaite, the wife of the Jamaican suspect, told The Sun newspaper she refused to believe her husband was among the bombers ‘until they have his DNA.’”
http://heraldsun.com/nationworld/14-624577.html

[Medium Baby Jesus]

Not this shit again

:boring:

[imenja]

2. no kidding

Evidently there isn't enough lousy stuff going on in the world for some people so they have to invent more.

[imenja]

1. they have explained this

they have television cameras stationed all over the city. They saw them entering the train stations on video. And the police did not identify the bombers the next day. They didn't identify them until they had searched their homes and found explosives, which was a few days later.

[bmcatt]

4. Tinfoil hat time...

Ok, first off, I'm not paranoid, but I can occasionally fake it. This is, to a certain extent, Devil's Advocacy.

With the above caveat firmly in mind - So they have cameras that took pictures of the suspects. Great... How did they then get from there to the names and home addresses of the suspects?

Did they have a complete camera trail from when they entered the trains/bus to the point where they left their house? Or do they have complete physical image biometric identity information on everyone who's in the UK (both citizens and non-citizens)?

I think there's a valid point hiding in the question. It's not just enough to have a picture of someone. Think about, in this country, how long it can take the police to go from "here's a picture of a criminal taken from a security camera" to actually having even a name to go on, never mind finding where that person lives?

[imenja]

6. it began with a call from one of the suspects mother

who reported her son as missing. I suppose they profiled him ethnically, since he had a Pakistani name. It may also have seem strange to him that he traveled down from Leeds. They then worked from that guy outward. They no doubt interviewed his family and neighbors to see who he spent time with. They searched the homes and found evidence that led them to the other guys.

They spied three guys with identical, HUGE, military style backpacks entering the trains. Probably stood out on the tapes, don't you think?

The cameras are all over the city, in train stations, on the street, everywhere. They did not follow them from their home in Leeds but they have enough of them to work backward from the tube stations to figure out where they came from.

I guess you don't read many mystery or spy novels, or watch CSI?

As for figuring out who was the bomber, they go to the bomb site, are able to tell where the blast emanated from (evidently the bomber's feet area) and certainly did DNA checks on the bombers before anyone else.

You are mistaking what the police release to the public and what they actually know. The British police are far more cautious in giving details than are the newspapers and tv stations. That's why so much reported in the early days was only speculation.

As you may know, four more bombs went off today, but evidently misfired. They will have more to work from this time.

Perhaps you're simply not used to the idea of having competent investigative authorities, given how bad the FBI and Justice
Department has been in tracking down terrorists in the US.

[linazelle]

11. CSI? Spy novels? They're fiction, which is what these bombings

are turning out to be. There's too much of a similarity to previous ruses and then today's mention of the bombings along with "suspicious white powder" basically put this over the top for me.

As the terror rises, who benefits is the question. They also ask this during CSI and other televised investigations. That question is not being asked at all in London.

The bottom line is: they want us scared. Very scared.

I am not. I won't be.

Fuck them.

[imenja]

20. you obvious will believe whatever you want

as a question of faith rather than evidence. Simplistic conspiracy theories are comforting because they imagine a few nefarious individuals are responsible for all evil that besets the world. Then you don't have to think about the complex factors that give rise to terrorism or think about why we are so despised by many in the world.

[imenja]

25. self delete

[bmcatt]

27. Who exactly is displaying faith?

And who said anything about "simplistic conspiracy theories"?

Please note that I wasn't offering a counter to the "accepted theory". What I was expressing was what I consider to be healthy skepticism that the "accepted theory" developed so fast and with (seemingly) so few mis-steps.

By the same token, you seem to accept the simplistic notion that solely because "we are despised" is sufficient for 4 (now 8? or more?) Britons to decide to throw away their lives.

I claim that *you're* just as much relying on faith in the simplistic *answers* rather than displaying ongoing curiosity and skepticism and being willing to continue asking questions.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that the world is a complex place. I believe I made that point below in my point about politicians (not) showing a willingness to change their minds. I'm happy to change my mind 10 times before breakfast if I'm shown data that indicates I was not correct.

Why is it that you're not willing to display *any* level of skepticism?

Or, perhaps, (and, yes, I'm going to draw on 9/11/01 events) you are perfectly happy believing that kerosene is sufficient to melt steel, provided you have enough of it. Or maybe, that it's acceptable to believe that an airplane can down a building that was pretty much designed to withstand exactly that event, even though such an event had never happened before and has never happened since? Or that it's possible for an airplane to fly into a building and utterly vanish, leaving absolutely no debris, nor even any divots on the lawn?

I don't claim to know the answers. But I'm always going to claim that I have the right to ask the questions.

[imenja]

28. skepticism is good

Paranoia is another thing. If you are going to dismiss all evidence as
"convenient" that suggests to me you aren't interested in evidence or facts at all. Imagining all terrorist acts around the globe are carried out by the CIA is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

There is nothing simple about Islamicist hatred toward the West. They believe strongly enough in their cause that they give their lives for it. Evidently you have trouble understanding that kind of commitment.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

26. As for who benefits?

reaction is Britain is hostility to Blair because of British involvement in the Iraq war. They are talking about how to change their policy toward the Islamic world? So who does this benefit? Who has made clear they hate Westerners with homicidal fury? Who has made clear their intend to kill as many of us as possible?

[linazelle]

34. Who needs to change the American conversation and distract

them from a growing web of publicized corruption?

Who needs to avoid having attacks in their own country because it would not fit their agenda of being "saferer"?

What country is more closely tied to this one than Britain in terms of being allies and in terms of its citizenry and government being very much like our own--thereby generating more sympathy for such an attack, than, say...Canada? Would we be as sympathetic if the bombings occurred in Australia? Would we be perpetrating fear mongering and locking down the NYC subways then?

[imenja]

37. oh yeah it's all about us

we're the center of the universe. Nothing else matters but what appears on your TV set. How self centered can you get. I guess the rest of the world is right when they say Americans are the most self absorbed people on the planet

[linazelle]

38. It really is about us. We are the most powerful country in the world

in case you didn't know it.

[bmcatt]

13. Regarding mystery novels and CSI

Um... I guess you haven't read any of the articles (sorry - citation unavailable) from *real* forensics techs who've basically said that CSI is great television but lousy reality? Similarly, I'm not about to take works of FICTION as the basis for understanding how real criminal investigations work.

Instead, I'd rather go based on simpler things, like, say, watching major crime coverage on local television. I *know*, from watching local cases unfold, that it can take literally weeks for any real suspects to develop beyond "this guy looks like <X>".

I'll grant that, in this case, they may have multiple pictures of 3-4 guys wearing big rucksacks. Super! Good thing there wasn't a whole contingent of college students from around the world hiking their way through England at the time and passing through London because they wanted to hit the pub, hm?

So now let's throw in profiling, you say? Ok. So now we've got arabic-looking men with big rucksacks on tape! A-ha! Lovely... Now, can you explain how you get from what's probably a relatively low-definition picture to *hard* names and addresses in significantly less than a week?

Someone called in and said that someone was missing? So? I'm pretty sure that in the US, at least 24 hours have to pass before someone can actually be listed as "missing" from a police perspective.

Also, if they *were* suicide (homicide) bombers, then who set off the bombs today? A follow-on attack, 14 days later, certainly calls into question the extent to which the suspects for 7/7 were truly guilty and complicit. After all, if the police were absolutely positive of the identities of the suspects from 7/7, wouldn't they be intensely observing known friends and acquantances of the bombers? How did 4 more bombs get built, distributed and (improperly) exploded?

(And, of course, let's not forget that there was a terror drill happening on 7/7...)

To put my personal views into perspective - I'm really *not* that much of a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, following the evidence from 9/11/01 leads to some interesting unanswered questions. I hate for my coincidences to coincide too often, is all I'm saying.

[imenja]

19. Your point about the follow up bombs

is an odd one. If there were more bombers today, then the other's couldn't have been guilty? Why? Does the universe allow for only four bombers in any given country? Couldn't this have been an entirely separate cell? Or even a copy cat attack? If this is related to Al Quaeda or another islamicist jihadi group, they tend to operate in separate cells with each individual knowing very little about the larger network, such as it is.

I've also watched and read non-fictional accounts of crime investigations. You didn't point out anything far fetched in my discussion of how I imagine the criminal investigation must have went.
It's pretty standard police procedure. Remember they can also check credit cards, phone records, immigration records, records from British Rail, and the suspects computers. The suspects likely left a significant paper trail.

There are certainly lots of unanswered questions. The investigation has hardly begun, and suddenly they have more bombings. I myself see no reason to assume the British police are lying. I don't see what motivation they would have in doing so. But just because we don't know all the details doesn't mean there is something nefarious in terms of a grand public deception.

The fact is we in the West are hated, and for lots of good reasons. It would be nice to imagine that Bush and a few CIA agents were all we had to fear. But it seems that many thousands of people on this planet hate us with homicidal fury. They have made that quite clear in their public statements. I take them at their word. They want us out of the Islamic world at all costs. They see us as less than human, as infidels whose lives have no meaning. That's the way it is. There are a lot of ways to deal with the problem, most of which the Bush administration has ignored. But pretending it's not a problem does not help the situation, though I suppose it makes some people feel safer to imagine we aren't despised.

[linazelle]

29. Guess what? We are hated by BushCo and the Regressives as well.

They have as much reason to perpetrate this kind of act as do the terrorists. The Regressives are terrorists.

They hate the truth. They have cultivated hate in order to create worldwide chaos so they can continue to dupe the public.

[imenja]

30. yeah, Bush bombed London to get the Brits to withdraw from Iraq

that makes a lot of sense.

And they say Americans are over medicated. :shrug:

[linazelle]

31. Let me guess...

You are somehow vested in keeping the illusion of credibility going by vouching for an administration that has lied to the citizens of this country over and over again.

Why is that? What is your interest?

[imenja]

36. reason, education, evidence

I have no respect for disregard of evidence, reason, or common sense. So Bush bombed London to get the Brits to pull out of Iraq? To undermine Britan's alliance with the US? Your paranoid delusions don't even make sense. But evidently they make you happy, so knock yourself out. Your simple little view of the world leaves nothing messy or complicated. And you obviously have managed to avoid thinking about much of anything. One man or a single cabal is responsible for all ill on the planet. The bogeyman. It would be nice if things were so simple as you pretend, but nothing is. All we have to do is get rid of one presidential administration and the all global threats end. And of course no one had problems before 2000.

You know doubt think there is something radical about your ideas. Of course it's not in the slightest. Yet you attribute social evil to one group, rather than the far more complex and insidious divisions of class, Industrialized West and the developing world, and other complex factors that contribute to international terrorism and social inequality more generally. It's all Bush's fault. Not global capitalism. Not the legacy of post Ottoman colonialism. I guess you don't bother to pay attention to what Al Quaeda and other groups say. In that respect you share a lot in common with your bete noir, George W: Self centered Americans who are incapable of thinking about anything in the world beyond their own petty squabbles and desires. It's all about American self interest. What else could possibly matter.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[linazelle]

32. You draw your own conclusions . . . however misguided they may be. nt

[newyawker99]

9. Hi bmcatt!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[John Doe II]

10. Sorry, indeed

I overlooked that!
Welcome bmcatt!

:party: :party: :party:
:toast: :toast: :toast:
:beer: :beer: :beer:

[John Doe II]

5. Really?

They have television cameras stationed all over the city.

True. But then why only one photo from Luton (the often talked about photo from King's Cross has never been shown. And why only one other photo of Hussain? And btw. what does this photo actually prove? How can you identify on the group photo more than two?

hey saw them entering the train stations on video.
Not correct. At least what they have presented in public is only Luton and NOTHING else.

They didn't identify them until they had searched their homes and found explosives, which was a few days later.

Again, not correct. They found explosive in the appartement of el-Nashar.
And btw very strangely: Till today they haven't been able to say actually what the explosives were made of.

So, excuse me: I'm asking: How did they manage to identify?
How did they identify Lindsay? How Tanweer?

You answered so fast you can'' possible have read the thread. Maybe do it first and I'd love to discuss the details.

[imenja]

7. how do you know they have only one photo?

cause that's all you've seen on TV? What they have is public is not everything they have. I wrote a thread below that gives my take on what they did, based on basic deductive reasoning based on what I know about investigations.

You also are mistaking what you read in the press from with what the police know and what they release to the public. These are not the same. When there are trials the evidence will become public. Until that point you only know bits of it. I guess if you're determined to create a conspiracy theory you will but then you don't need evidence for that.

[John Doe II]

8. I'm raising a question

I didn't say it's impossible that they did it.
Just strange that they managed already on July 12 to identify Tanweer based on forensic evidences. The very same day they only found the van that means went to Luton. The very same day they identified the other two.
Lindsay is the stranged case because so far nothing as far as I can see has been published that shows any connection between Lindsay and the other three. And Lindsay isn't even identified on forensic evidences. That means actually it's only a guess nothing more but nothing less.
And if you talk about the investigation:
Yes, I'm critical cause of 911 and yes, I hope the Brits do it better.
But seeing that within two weeks they come up with four different guesses what the explosives were made of only to end up admitting that they have no clue is strange to say the least.
And that everywhere Richard Jones is present as top-witness although it is very obvious he didn't see Hussain speaks for itself as well.

But this is no judgement. You're right (and I pretend not otherwise) that I'm not in a position to judge for the moment. But certainly I'm in a position to raise critical questions. And sometimes a critical public opinion helps the quality of the investigation ....

Btw: What evidences were found in the homes of the four alleged bombers??

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Lindsey Germaine was traced via a car at Luton station

A hire car found at Luton train station's car park was found containing explosives. A red Fiat, also containing explosives, was found at the station and traced to Germaine Lindsay, 19, from Northern Road, Aylesbury.

http://www.aylesburytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=789&ArticleID=1091686

[John Doe II]

14. Thanks for that one!

I didn't know that.
So both cars contained explosives.
Why?
Why leave the traces. This is like 911 leaving the Corans everywhere.
Lindsay is supposed to have stored nine bombs in a hired car.
What's the sense of this?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/london-bomber-slipped-the-net-twice-before/2005/07/17/1121538868658.html

[bmcatt]

15. If I'm building a bomb, I don't need *all* the explosives...

so I'm going to leave the excess behind in a car that was rented in my name.

Tongue semi-firmly planted in cheek for this.

But I *am* suspicious.

Leaving explosives behind at home because they didn't fit into my backpack? Um... Ok.

Leaving them behind in the car? Um... Why were *extra* explosives in the car in the first place? Was I expecting some random stranger to come up to me at the train station and offer to carry my other bag?

[imenja]

23. how about this

you plan to build a bomb. You buy more than you think you need in case you get some wet or you're not sure exactly how much you need. You mix the explosives and pack the bomb. You have some left over. Where will you put it? In the trash for the garbage man to discover and turn you in? No, you keep it close so that it won't be discovered by others. You're going to die anyway, so you don't care if police find it later.

If something is important to you, you always make sure you have plenty of what you need. I would assume they would buy extra. They were obviously very dedicated to their cause.

[imenja]

21. again, you're going on press accounts

rather than what comes from the police. Four different accounts are what has been reported in the papers. Journalists will say anything to sell a paper. When they don't have information, they speculate. I don't take anything as solid unless I hear it out of the mouths of the police themselves. In the news conference today, Sir Ian Blair cautioned against exactly that sort of thing.

You'll have to check out the police briefings to see what particular evidence was found. They may have info on their home page.

Today's bombings evidently left significant forensic evidence and possibly eye witness testimony of the bombers. They will be able to find out more from this.

[beam me up scottie]

3. How conveeeeenient.

[bmcatt]

16. Why are reasonable questions dismissed as "conspiracy theorems"?

This is sort of a meta-question, based on some of the points raised...

Why is it that we (seemingly collectively) are happy to pounce on the current US administration as lying to us consistently but when *any* effort is made to analyze and examine the evidence of current attacks, such effort is rousingly dismissed with hand-waving about "conspiracy theories"?

[John Doe II]

17. I really don't understand this term

conspiracy theory?
It's asking questions. In order to find out what happened.
But people don't like to ask questions.
Btw: good point on the car. But the SMH said he didn't leave explosives in the car. He left nine bombs. So, why produce them in the first place? Why leave them? So they defintitely find you? Your family (wife and child)?
And sorry, even this wouldn't be considered a proof by everyone who alreday heard the term "planted evidence".

[bmcatt]

18. As I understand it...

It's a phrase used to dismiss in-depth questions that try to discuss / undermine the foundations of timelines/descriptions of events.

Also, I don't think it's that people don't like asking questions. Rather, I think that people don't like asking *hard* questions (or having them asked). For some reason, subtlety and uncertainty are so far out of "vogue" that even a hint of either makes most people turn rabid.


1) "I don't know the answer to that, but I'll do some research and let that inform my decisions"

2) "I know it seems like 'flip-flopping' to you, but the reality is that I held one opinion then. Between then and now, though, I received new information that led me to believe that I was wrong and I've since changed my mind. Sometimes, learning something new can do that."

Any time that someone even comes close to "changing their mind", they're either pilloried by the other side or back-pedal so fast, explaining that they've *always* held the current view and why would you think otherwise?]

[bribri16]

22. Were any other ID's found? Who said explosives were not planted?

Our side is good at that kind of thing. You know, "fixed intel."

[goforit]

35. Bada Bing......By golly, we have an inquiry!!!

Thankyou JD II!!!

This is outstanding!!!

[The Magistrate]

40. Locking

This has degenerated into a flame-war.