7/7: Top-witness Richard Jones can NEVER have seen alleged bomber Hussain!

[John Doe II]

Here is an extensive account of the top-witness Richard Jones.
He was sitting in bus 30 (got off by just before the explosion). He's sitting opposite a guy with a backsack that keeps looking into his backsack. In short: Richard Jones is everywhere presented as the top-witness who saw alleged bomber Hussain face to face.
Now, read his account:

He said the bomber was around 6ft tall, in his mid-twenties, clean-shaven and smartly dressed. He kept reaching into the bag at his feet, thrusting his backside towards Richard's face every time. Richard said: 'I thought he was maybe playing with an iPod. But every time he bent over, he was right in my face. 'He was becoming more and more agitated and kept reaching down but didn't take anything out of the bag.' The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top. It's a strange thing to remember but he was right in my face.
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html

Now, read the description of the suspect again:
The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top.

Ok.
Now, check out this photo of Hussain from 7/7.
Do you see white pants with a red band on top?



Maybe you have better luck with this photo:


Whoever was sitting in front of Richard Jones is NEVER the same Hussain we see in this photos.

[smurfygirl]

1. interesting

I kept telling hubby something was fishy with all of this. Most britons I have spoke with think something is strange too. I was waiting for something like this to come out before evenm putting it further in my thoughts.

[Roland99]

2. I was taking "pants" to mean undewear. Hence the "band" at the top.

Pants don't have "bands", eh?

[fob]

3. Is there a place where he could have changed outfits with something

in the backpack? A bathroom or whatever? Otherwise there's a huge problem with this guy's story.

[pk_du]

4. Ummm....in the UK "Pants" is underwear....hence he only saw

this guys when he bent over.

[Maple]

5. Fawn colored TROUSERS

his underwear isn't in question...his trousers are.

Also well dressed, jersey top and clean shaven.

[hack89]

6. Is fawn the same as brown? n/t

[Igel]

7. If the poster in #4 is right, it makes sense.

"The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top."

Trousers were mentioned; underwear was mentioned: both are in the verbal context. "Designer" frequently entails "expensive". I don't have the same implication for "hipster-style" (which is meaningless to me). Pants = underwear isn't how my American ears would have understood it, but if #4 contains accurate information, the discourse is coherent, and cohesive.

So the question is: Does the word 'pants' possibly or preferentially equate to 'underwear', or can it mean only 'trousers'?

On edit:
I'll side with #4:
"British usage of pants is quite different from the North American. On the right side of the pond, pants is used to refer to underwear. British usage dates to, 1880."
http://www.wordorigins.org/AWWW/Vol04/AWWW031805.html

[Maple]

8. It says fawn colored TROUSERS

thats beige or light brown...THEN it mentions his white underwear (pants) with a red band being exposed when he kept bending over

[Igel]

9. Yes.

But unless you know pants = underwear, you don't know if he's jumping over the jersey and referring back to the underwear, or jumping back over the jersey and underwear and referring to pants.

The confusion's understandable. But it's still confusion.

[Maple]

11. It's not at all confused

it clearly says fawn TROUSERS.

The pants are irrelevant.

And in either case...not what the men are wearing in the photos.

Neither fawn nor white.

[Igel]

13. I can't comment on the shirt.

It looks more like a rugby shirt to me, but my perspective isn't from behind him.

I do consider his hair and face, however: they're bluish-purple. This strikes me as unlikely colors for his hair and face. There's a strong bias towards blue in that picture.

http://www.basics4baby.co.uk/NewPages/Boys/Boys4-7yUsed.htm interestingly has a blue and fawn checked shirt which could possibly, given the bad color correspondences, match what he's wearing. In any event, the checks are obscured in the photo, which would argue (if it is the same guy) for them not being bright red/fawn checked. It rather depends what the fawn trousers are checked with. There's a solid fawn shirt, and fawn pants. I wouldn't have expected the color to be a light greyish brown, but that turns out (according to one website) to be "average fawn". Other things I've turned up described as "fawn" have come out to be a rather light, yellowish brown (all of those were in the US).

I'm not prepared to conclude that the picture supports the conclusion, which was phrased negatively: the picture proves it can't be the same person described. If somebody said it's difficult for the picture to prove it was the same person, I'd agree. But they're different things.

[spooked911]

10. "fawn-checked", whatever that means in Britain

I assume it means a checkered pattern which I certainly don't see.

The pants COULD be fawn-colored, it is an ill-defined color. It sounds like the red band on the white pants IS for the underwear.

Thus the anomalies are the checks and the clean-shavenness.

Clean-shaven is not how I would describe Hussain, although granted the picture does not have great resolution of his face.

[Maple]

12. Also no jersey

and not 'smartly dressed' either

[mrfrapp]

16. Not really true

While pants can refer to underwear, I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the UK ever employ that particular meaning. In fact, the only time I've ever heard anyone use the word pants to mean underwear is in US sitcoms. I distinctly remember being puzzled the first time I heard this and assumed it must be a US idiom.

[Nihil]

17. Difference of opinion

I have heard many people refer to male underwear as "pants"
(e.g., "standing there in his vest & pants").

Maybe it's a regional thing?

:shrug:

[Tom Bombadil]

19. In the UK pants=underwear.

It has no other meaning. Period (as an American might say).

[mrfrapp]

20. Disagree

I've lived in the UK for 30 years and I've never heard of this definition. I'm tempted to believe that it's a regional thing as Nihil suggested but it's just plain wrong to say that it only ever refers to underwear.

[John Doe II]

21. Thanks everybody for the discussion of the meaning of the

word "pants". I admit this is my fault.
For everybody who has no problem to see the described "hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top" I like to point out that the general impression Jones had of Hussain's clothers, the fact that he was supposed to be clean shaven and especially the bag Jones described suffice to prove that he can't have seen Hussain in any way. Please check out post 15.

[Tom Bombadil]

25. I accept it might be regional.

It's probably a bit old fashioned as well. The American 'pants' meaning trousers certainly does not apply in Britain.

Interested to hear where you live in UK that doesn't call underwear pants? London?

[mrfrapp]

26. This is bizarre.

"The American 'pants' meaning trousers certainly does not apply in Britain."

I have to disagree. Where I come from, the only meaning of the word "pants" is "trousers". I must have asked a dozen or more people today what they considered "pants" to mean and everyone said "trousers". Not one said "underwear". In fact, I'm sure one or two people thought I might be not quite right in the head for even asking the question.

This entire conversation is insane ;-) I can't believe I'm debating the meaning of the word "pants".

"Interested to hear where you live in UK that doesn't call underwear pants? London?"

Liverpool.

[lockdown]

28. Bizarrer and bizarrer, lol

Same here in Tyneside, pants means trousers and always has. I've lived in other parts of the country but, sadly, I'm struggling to recall any exiled discussion of pants, and I'm not making long-distance calls at 4am to check. :D

I thought it was probably regional or generational, but I think it might actually be a class thing... working class say pants, the bourgeoisie say trousers. One way to spot them. }(

[Tom Bombadil]

39. Totally bizarre.

Are you sure it's not an americanisation that has crept into English use over the last 30 years or so? I was born in the north-west, lived in the midlands and now live in the south and I'm sure I've never heard trousers referred to as pants.

ps. love talking about pants in the 9/11 forum.

[lockdown]

40. It's not a recent thing

I'm 37 and the meaning hasn't changed. Parents and others older than me always meant it that way too, but sure enough my British dictionary says undergarments in UK, trousers in US. I'm surprised I've never noticed the variance, but I suppose keks don't crop up much in conversation. At least not in mine it seems! I love these regional quirks... Liverpool and Newcastle are very similar cities, but I can't imagine the areas sharing a definition that isn't used anywhere else. My last post was mainly in jest but class is actually the best explanation I can come up with.

Sorry all for the continued pants theme, should fork to the UK forum. It's just as well pants weren't referenced in the DSM ("The intelligence is pants"), the confused flames would've made the "fixed" thing look sensible!

[John Doe II]

41. But what do you think all of post 15

and in view of all details that don't fit.
Does anybody consider the possibility that Jones actually saw Hussain?

[lockdown]

45. fwiw I don't think he saw the bomber,

whoever the bomber was. Besides anything else, the person he's on about was downstairs, but the explosion was upstairs wasn't it?

[John Doe II]

49. Downstairs

Good point!

According to his own words he was indeed downstairs. Well, he believes himself that the explosion was downstairs too
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html

but I think neither the photos nor the official explanation say this. I believe officially the bomb exploded in the upper part tearing of the roof.
Does anybody have a source that the explosion happened in the upper part?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

27. I live in Co. Durham, I've never heard a Brit call trousers "pants"

[philb]

31. So what does pants mean to you?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

34. underwear n/t

[janedoe]

14. Police suspect bombers were tricked

Police suspect bombers were tricked http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15960660%255E954,00.html

[John Doe II]

15. No way he saw Hussain ...

Clothes
The differences between the clothes Hussain is wearing on the CCTV photos and the ones described by Richard Jones has already been pointed out.
Let’s add that Jones in several accounts stated that the alleged bomber was “very very well dressed” http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007216&docId=l:295395745&start=5
This of course corresponds also to the expensive clothes Hussain is supposed to wear : “The pants looked very expensive” http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html
I don’t want to comment on the probability that a fundamentalist suicide bomber wears “very expensive” clothes and “designer underwear” on his last mission. But let’s ask simply: Does Hussain looks “very very well dressed” or “smartly dressed”?
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html

While Jones gave the description of Hussain’s clothes as:
The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: ', they were white with a red band on top.
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html
and:
He described the man as being about 6-feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing tight, light brown trousers and a light brown top.
http://www.herald-sun.com/nationworld/international/23-625888.html

Look again at the photos and take your guess. Doesn’t it look much more like a jeans?
CCTV pictures show him at Luton station at 7:20am. With his three fellow killers and possibly a fifth terrorist, he travelled from there to King's Cross, where the suicide mission began.
Casually dressed in jeans and a jacket, like any ordinary teenager, he was unlikely to attract attention from busy commuters on the Thameslink train
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1398122005

And « any ordinary teenager » is certainly not the description of somebody « ver very well dressed » …..

Well, but maybe he changed his clothes in the famous 81 minutes?
Maybe he had stuffed his teenager clothes in his backsack?

Clean shaven
Richard Jones describes the alleged bomber always as clean shaven. Yet, he certainly doesn’t look like clean shaven in the photos. And for everybody he wants to comment on the quality of the photo. Here how Hussain looked like before 7/7. Doesn’t this correspond to the photos and isn’t this certainly not clean shaven?



http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,213600,00.jpg


Well, maybe he followed the famous al Qaeda advice to shave before his death and he forgot it and shaved after he changed his clothes…

Bag
Who still believes that Richard Jones has seen Hussain will be badly disappointed now:
This is what Jones has to say about Hussain’s bag:
“It was a - obviously, a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles.”
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007216&docId=l:295395745&start=5

And now look at the bag in this photos :




Does this bag that is supposed to contain deadly material look like:
“a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles.”??

The top-witness hasn’t seen Hussain.

[Nihil]

18. Any single point would be questionable but in toto ...?

Whilst there could be debate over the hue imparted by a cheap security
video camera, the thing that clinches it for me is the description of
the bomber's bag.

There is no way that the bag clearly shown on Hussain's back could be
described as "a small bag".

Definitely something to make you go "hmmm?" ...

[spooked911]

22. So instead of a plane-swap, as in 9/11, we have a BOMBER-SWAP?

[doublethink]

23. Okay I'm gonna chime in here with a few questions on this .....

1. Has there been any 'pictures' released to the general public of the bombers whereabouts in LONDON? Isn't the London rail system armed to the teeth with camera security systems? The Cross Station maybe? The only pics I've seen of these guys have been in LUTON where they apparently caught a train to London. What if these guys never made it to London? (speculate here) ................. ?
2. Why early on ... were these guys identified by only their ID's being found at the crime scenes? And yet some other 50 something victims were reported 'missing' for days, or needed to be identified through DNA? No ones else was carrying I.D. that day? and I've seen a couple of story's where 'belongings' to one of the suspects were found at two of the 4 crime scenes. WTF?
3. The bus cameras weren't working .... no questions here. Okie dokie.
4. This bus witness Richard Jones sounded fishy to me from day one when he said something like the bus was caught in traffic, he pounded on the door to get off (so I guess he could walk) and about 11 other people got off with him.... then the bus blew up behind him. I know I read that story somewhere. And other statements by him seem to be changing or conflicting with the identity of the bus bomber. Where are the other 11 people who got off the bus? Have they come forward to say anything on this or are they too busy? hmmmmmmmmm........
5. What happened to the 5th suspect seen in LUTON with the other 4 before they apparently got on the train .... ?
6. Don't they have any decent Portrait Photographers out of the Middle East? Why do all 'terrorist suspects' have crappy, grainy pictures released of them every fucking single time??? This one is really beginning to bug me, is this a psy-ops technique to demonize immediately these people? Or don't they sell good cameras over there? Just curious on this one.
7. Any comments or answers to this post would be appreciated, I've been away from the DU for a few days and maybe have some catching up to do. Peace. :)

[spooked911]

29. Several good points-- although I'm not sure what you are referring to

in 6 about the photos.

[doublethink]

35. ............

The portrait on the right was done in 1930 something, the other is of some terror suspects which is the pretty typical 'image quality' of pictures usually released in the MSM of terrorists. I du-know ...... I do some portraiture for a living too and maybe I'm being too critical on this one. :) Peace.

[spooked911]

38. Maybe they blur the pictures on purpose for "national security" reasons?

I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that.

Of course blurry pictures helps the government in every way-- gives them more leeway in matching suspects to the pictures and so forth.

Have you seen the shot of "Hani Hanjour" from the video footage supposedly from Dulles on the morning of 9/11?

[doublethink]

47. You mean this guy?

[John Doe II]

32. Very good points

I'll come back to some later.

There is again and again the talk of the CCTV from King's Cross showing all four at 8:20. Yet, it was never published.
Then there is one photo showing Hussain alone. Why are there no more photos showing the other three in a close up?

2. Tanweer was only identified due to forensic evidence ....!?

4. You're right:
Check out: "As he and another dozen frustrated passengers who had also abandoned the bus began to walk away"
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721018&method=full&siteid=86024&headline=7-7-london-the-witness--i-thought-bomber-on-my-bus-was-only-playing-with-ipod--name_page.html

"We banged the back of the bus and the driver then let us off," he said, adding that between 12 and 20 others had joined them."
http://www.herald-sun.com/nationworld/international/23-625888.html

[doublethink]

36. Thanks for the links .......

The one photo of Hussain alone ..... it's 'cropped' in tight, maybe to eliminate the rest of his surroundings from the shot? And we can't really tell where it was taken without any more identifying characteristics of a wider shot. Like the shot of all 4 suspects together .... we can see the building, street, the ground is wet, and can conclude where it was taken. Not so in the picture of Hussain alone. Of course this may be an innocent attempt to zoom in on Hussain in the shot to identify closer characteristics of him alone. But I doubt we can conclusively prove just where along his route that day that this picture was taken. Not without a wider shot. :) Peace.

on edit: there is a 'frame' maybe hanging on the wall behind Hussain in this shot. He's coming around a corner, with a wall made of paver's behind him. Wish I knew someone in Luton or London who could go down to the two stations in question and see which place has something similar. Then again maybe more pics will be released soon to answer all this. :shrug:

[doublethink]

24. Okay one more question I have .....

and maybe it's just the way things are done when someone is under investigation ....(their info not released?) but....
If you go back to ALL the articles of 'the missing' people from 7/7 when they were started to be reported on in the press, NONE of the 4 'suspects' show up in any of the articles. Pictures and stories of quite a few other people. Unsolved whereabouts, as the remains of the victims were being identified day to day, confirmation of the deceased if possible.
But the first we hear the names of these 4 guys is the day they are convicted by authorities, (12th or 13th of July) in the press as being the culprits. Even though Husain's mother reported him missing on the night of the 7th.
See if they were all 4 early on really 'suspects' and not known to have actually died in the bombings, (missing like everyone else was presumed till identified) wouldn't their names, have been released to the public earlier .... to help apprehend them by chance they got out alive?
Again maybe it's just the way the investigative authorities work in this kind of crime, or maybe their names were being witheld purposefully with other intent. I du-know?

:tinfoilhat: :freak: :dunce: Peace.

[philb]

30. Is the color not true here? Jacket looks blue? seems thats something

that would be remembered. I can't tell the color of pants from photo but I don't see any checks. Or a matching jersey styled top?

Even the shirt doesn't seem to fit this description, even though hidden by jacket.

[John Doe II]

33. Anybody here who claims

that Jones saw Hussain?
Care to explain the described clothes, the bag etc etc?

[Kevin Fenton]

37. Eyewitnesses are crap

and are completely unreliable on everything.

"At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.

"These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

This is quite funny:
"In July 1998, the CBS newsmagazine “48 Hours” aired an episode titled “Eyewitness”. The program featured a segment that chronicled a staged crime experiment enacted before a group of law students. During a lecture, a man entered the room, grabbed a briefcase from a desk, and ran back out. The professor then informed the students that the scene they had witnessed was staged. During the subsequent discussion, he offered his account of the “crime”. “All I saw”, he said, “is a guy walking in…it looked like he had an earring on…he looked like he had an extraordinarily large chin…”.

Later, the students were interviewed about what they saw by Dr. Solomon Fulero, a lawyer, Professor of Psychology, and expert on eyewitness testimony. The students were shown a “lineup”, which consisted of six photos of men similar in appearance to the “perpetrator”. The six wore the same color shirt, had similar hairstyle and length, and were photographed against the same background. When the results of the experiment were given, the students and prospective lawyers were surprised to find that 80% of them had picked the wrong man. They were similarly shocked to learn that the real “criminal” had not been in the photo lineup at all.

Another lineup was arranged, and this time the real suspect was included. Only 8 out of 35 students fingered the right man. Thirteen of the students picked the man in the number five position in the lineup. When quizzed as to what feature made them focus on this particular subject, one student offered, “his chin”. The student was then shown a video clip of the Professor’s “extraordinarily large chin comment” made just after the event. While his fellow students laughed, the embarrassed young man had to admit that he might have been influenced by the comment. Fulero then observed, “This is fairly typical of the kinds of post-event information effects that we see. People may remember the information, but not remember how they got it - but now it’s a part of their memory”.
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/h&l1.htm#_ednref8

There are a million articles on the internet all disparaging eyewitness testimony. My opinion of eyewitness reliability is such that I'm amazed the guy remembered he was on a bus at all.

[John Doe II]

42. The suspicion about eyewiynesses

is as old as the old Greeks at least.
Sure thing.
The central question is: Is Jones a reliable testimoney. In my point of view defintitely not. This leaves me a bit stunned as there doesn't seem to be any other eyewitness who actually saw any of the four alleged bombers on their last way. In view of the fact that all three tubes and especially the bus were packed this is certainly something to point out.
I don't draw any conclusion. But it is a very very strange thing at least.

[Kevin Fenton]

43. Reliability

Did Jones see the bomber?
Yes, it seems he did.

Can he positively identify him as the person the police claim was the bomber?
No. He's an eyewitness and therefore unreliable.

"This leaves me a bit stunned as there doesn't seem to be any other eyewitness who actually saw any of the four alleged bombers on their last way. In view of the fact that all three tubes and especially the bus were packed this is certainly something to point out."
I wouldn't care if there were 200 eyewitnesses who claimed they saw the bombers. I don't believe eyewitness testimony if it is uncorroborated by forensic evidence (and neither should anybody else). If the tubes and the bus were packed, how can lots of people have seen the bombers? Surely the bombers were surrounded by other people, blocking the view of passengers some way away from them. The people standing next to the bombers were probably killed when the bombs exploded.

[John Doe II]

44. Why does it seemed he did? n/t

[Kevin Fenton]

46. He was sitting very close by (n/t)

[John Doe II]

48. Close by to whom?

Excus me: But Richard Jones certainly sat close by to somebody. But how can you assume that it seemed he witnessed the alleged bomber?