/** Tools */

28 April 2009

Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

From J7....

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."

-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.



steve said...

Good post. This show trial it seems to me was another excuse to remind of reinforce in people's minds, the official explanation of 7/7. The 'guilt by association' assumes the guilt of the alleged bombers. And their guilt is still a moot point...

The Antagonist said...

Moot point indeed, although the media still seem content with presuming guilt without any sort of judicial scrutiny.

And watch for all those calling for an 'independent inquiry' instead of an 'independent PUBLIC inquiry'. Marvel at what their agendas might be.

Meanwhile, Arsonofabitch spews forth:

9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet

Lightly touching on the small issue of 7/7 with customary, er, panache and almost ignoring entirely the still excellent Ludicrous Diversion.

Sinclair said...

It is worth noting that the original charge levied against Ali, Shakil & Saleem (as detailed in the Metropolitan Police Service Press Statement of Saturday, April 7, 2007) was:
Waheed ALI [23 years] [formerly known as Shipon Ullah], recently living in Tower Hamlets Mohammed SHAKILl [30 years] from Beeston, West Yorkshire Sadeer SALEEM [26 years] from Beeston, West Yorkshire appear at City of Westminster Magistrates Court at 10:00 on 7/4/07 charged: = between 1.11.04 - 29.6.05 unlawfully and maliciously conspired with Mohammed Siddique KHAN, Shezhad TANWEER, Jermaine LINDSAY, Hasib HUSSEIN and others to cause by explosive substance on the Transport for London system and/or tourist attractions in London of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. Contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. '

Note that the dates cited did not include the 7th July 2005, nor did this original charge include any reference to 'conspiracy to attend training camps' (allegedly the offense which led to their arrest at Manchester Airport in March 2007!) and the charge under which 2 of the 3 have now been found guilty.

A FOI Request to the Met Police revealed that the end-date quoted in the single charge was then changed from the 29th June 2005 to the 8th July 2005 at a subsequent Court hearing at the request of the CPS.

In Trial No. 1, the charge on the court indictment was:
conspiracy to cause by explosive substance an explosion to endanger lives, or likely to cause serious injury to persons or damage property in the UKOn 1st August 2008, the jury (after 14 days of deliberations) were unable to reach a verdict, even after being allowed to return a majority verdict).

A re-trial then ensued, commencing in January 2009, with the following court indictment charges:

'conspiracy to cause an explosion of a nature likely to endanger lives, or cause serious injury to persons or damage property in the UK'&

'conspiring to attend a place used for terrorist training, knowing or believing that instruction or training would be provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism'
It seems that the CPS were hell-bent in prosecuting these 3, but that they went about it in a cack-handed way.

Anonymous said...

A triumph for the jury system.

How long will it be before they scrap it, citing an 'overloaded' and 'expensive' judicial process?

'Hey Justice is too slow and costs money, let's bin it'

Have J7T thought about venturing into the documentary side or does LD do the job?

Re: 'independent inquiry' instead of an 'independent PUBLIC inquiry' I would guess for most, for whom this issue is a concern, the latter is lazily implied in the former.

It would be interesting to hear of their opinions on the supposed MI5/MI6 'liaison' links to the 'islamists' (ridiculous phrase I know).

The Antagonist said...

@lwtc247 - Like this, you mean?

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back jury-less fraud trials

lwtc247 said...


More than 37,000 exhibits were forensically examined, 4,700 telephones seized and 24,000 people eliminated from inquiries by an army of police and MI5 investigators. The total cost of the two trials is likely to exceed £5 million.

All that and all they can do is get the testosterone camp conviction: "Both Ali and Shakil had admitted attending terrorist training camps in the past, before it had been made an offence."

Terrorist laws are retrospective? wow. I see many parliamentarians hanging from the gallows then.

lwtc247 said...

4 got source for above...


lwtc247 said...

Yeah, just like that. Stepwise procession (occasional leap included) towards secret political trials.

When will the cry be heard: Were all Winston Smiths now

The Antagonist said...

There's a story doing the rounds about how Shakil and Ali tried to board a flight to Taliban / al Qaeda (seemingly interchangeable terms) terror headquarters in Pakistan while carrying knives, which seems a little 'obvious'.

Then again, as everyone knows, you can't get knives at Taliban terror headquarters in Pakistan. Only beheading cutlasses. And rucksacks and black pepper and chapati flour.

The Antagonist said...

@Sinclair - Thanks for the timely reminder of all that information.

lwtc247 said...

But not sugar apparently (Tate & Lyle being the most deadly - of course)

Sinclair said...

The total cost of the two trials is likely to exceed £5 million.Small change to the £76.7 Million spent by the Met Police from (the MPA were told) 7th July 2005 to 6 October 2005.

Anonymous said...

What about the new CCTV?

Doesn't really show anything does it? So why the secrecy?

The Antagonist said...

What about the new CCTV?

Doesn't really show anything does it? So why the secrecy?

I think you've just answered your own question there.

Egy Azziera said...

This post is a great resource for anyone who wants to start a discussion on the issue. Police officers did not have sufficient training to tackle public disorder on the scale of the G20 protests. Authorities will be paying for police officers to protect delegates attending the September summit and to monitor protesters who could spawn violence.

The Antagonist said...

I think that comment was meant for this post here.

Video evidence seems to suggest the majority of the violence wasn't by protesters, but instead by the police.

As Max Weber advised a long time ago, it is the State that legislates itself the right to the legitimate use of violence and that's what peaceful protesters experienced, with fatal consequences.

The Antagonist said...

That said, the man killed at the G20, Ian Tomlinson, wasn't even a protester.

The Antagonist said...

Any further comments on G20 police violence and Ian Tomlinson here, please.