The police claim that DNA found at the scene o the 7/7 bombings (let’s concentrate on the real deal and not be distracted by the sand-in-the-eyes of 21/7) proved the original suspects were guilty.
Weren’t the suspects “cleanskins”? No prior record? So how did they match the DNA? They wouldn’t have anything to compare it with.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
lordmlard 07.29.05 at 5:35 pm
Could they compare it against DNA evidence in their homes, or that of their parents to confirm identity?
Could they compare it against samples taken from the car in Luton and the flats where they found explosives / bomb making equiment to prove a link?
Stef 07.29.05 at 6:42 pm
@lml:
Yes, certainly
Yes, maybe
Shahid 07.29.05 at 6:56 pm
Yes, but the point is, they wouldn’t be able to do a DNA match until they were suspects in the first place. How did they become that?
lordmlard 07.29.05 at 7:20 pm
By the patterns of their injuries on the train.
I saw Trauma London last night where one of the doctors said when he first saw the carriage where the bomb had gone off, he thought that the injuries to one person indicated a “suicide bomber”.
At the very least it must be obvious that they can tell who was closest and approximately how close. In a suicide bomber hypothosis this would make the very close people lead suspects. Following up the leads on the suicide bomber hypothosis might match the DNA to explosives away from the scene, and so discount that they were ‘accidentally’ near the bomb.
This to my mind would prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual was responsible for bringing the bomb onto the train.
You need to take further steps to distinguish between a suicide bomber and a person transporting explosives.
Shahid 07.29.05 at 8:01 pm
The pattern of injuries doesn’t suggest suicide bombing. It suggests a bomb very close to the person. To imply “suicide” is a big step.
No witness heard “Allahu-Akbar” (God is great) which is shouted by suicide bombers elsewhere before detonation.
No suicide notes or tapes or videos have ever been found.
Suicide bombers don’t tend to leave young families behind.
The suspects were carrying rucksacks, not the usual modus operandi of a suicide bomber. Rucksacks were used in Madrid, all the bombers got away.
“We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers,” a Scotland Yard spokesman said. “It is possible that they did not intend to die.”
The above was recorded in The Mirror and The Telegraph (at least) quite recently.
Stef 07.29.05 at 8:42 pm
@lml: read this Aldgate survivor interview?
http://tinyurl.com/c3mym
Shahid 07.29.05 at 8:58 pm
Well spotted Stef, I had written about this earlier too, but I think lordmlard doesn’t find this witness credible.
As I asked yesterday I think it was, where are all the witnesses? Did they get spirited away or something?
Where are all those people who were standing on top of the bus after it blew up with the van next to it from the company that specialises in special fx explosions?
lordmlard 07.29.05 at 9:37 pm
Sha, I don’t say that they were suicide bombers in my reply - I explicitly state you need to go further to establish this.
I say simply that you could, 1) relatively easily determine that the people were very close to the bomb (by pattern of injuries), and then 2) link them to another scene (e.g. car with explosives) through forensic / DNA means, and that 3) taken together these would demonstrate that the people transported the explosives onto the trains.
Do you disagree that this is a possibility? That, if the police did their job properly, they couldn’t reach this conclusion with high confidence? Surely its not *impossible* that this happened?
I think the above is key to establish, rather than to focus on what one witness of many says he saw in such an amazingly traumatic situation (ignoring the doctor-witness who said he thought it was a suicide bomb). Or why police wouldn’t release witness statements in an ongoing criminal case. Or why those caught up wouldn’t want or be able to relive the events to the media. Or that such an amazing conspiracy has been put together, but they’re so incompetent that they advertise their special effects agency in a key piece of propoganda (I can’t resist raising these points, but honestly, I’d like to identify where, if anywhere, the disagreements are in assesment.)
Shahid 07.29.05 at 10:03 pm
I’m not disagreeing with you per se, more trying to figure out why everyone in the media and support groups wants to jump on the ’suicide bomber’ bandwagon when even the Met sheepishly admit that it was not likely.
1) Yes, one could establish fairly easily who was close.
2) Yes one could link those people to another scene.
But your conclusion 3) is entirely circumstantial and would be laughed out of a court of law. Unforturtunately for the truth, and fortunately for those whose life is made easier, the guys in question are (probably) dead.
As for whether conclusion 3) is impossible, of course not, of course it’s a possibility. I’m just against jumping to conclusions and sensationalist media propaganda that has turned much of the nation against me, my colour, my creed and my kind. The PM has done the same with his natty new slogan “ideology of evil” and the press are all after blood “kill all the bombers” and “one down three to go” in response to the execution of de Menezes.
Here’s my argument again:
1) Why should I believe Tony Blair ever again? He is a proven liar and he has an agenda based on lies. He cannot be trusted and took us to war on lies. A million of us marched against his cunted up logic and his unpardonable hubris. Our soldiers and Iraqis paid in blood and now our civilians too. That he refuses to link the two is the height of self-deceit and superciliousness.
2) Why should I believe Sir Ian Blair? He is under the Home Secretary who liaise with MI5. He has changed his mind over and over. He is reponsible for the execution of an innocent man under false pretences. He is not to be trusted.
3) Why should I believe the press? They make money out of the misery of those who survived 7/7 and those who died and the families of those who died. They make money out of the alienation and demonisation of an entire sector of society for no reason other than profit.
The record of this country against Muslims here and abroad doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. Therefore I am not inclined to trust the fuckers who are out to nail pakis for a dangerous agenda based on global brinksmanship.
I say, let’s establish the truth. Trust nothing. Be suspicious but not stupid. Don’t buy into any story until you’re 100% satsified. Once that’s accomplished, then I will be happy to begin a dialogue on other matters.
In the meantime, I refuse to be an apologist like all those so called “leaders” of Muslims in this country who went to appease Blair so quickly before establishing the truth.
There are still way too many inconsistencies, too many lies, too many twists, too little real evidence and one, big solid agenda against Muslims.
It’s hard to see it unless you’re a Muslim, specifically paki, simply because you don’t have to. You simply could not begin to understand what it’s like to be on a bus like I was yesterday and have the feeling that you were a minute away from a lynching (practically) if I had said one wrong thing. I’m not a fucking infidel, this is my fucking home. Until all this bullshit clears, I refuse to have a dialogue on the whys and wherefores. Even ground, even footing first. Then I talk about what Islam is and isn’t, and what is and isn’t defensible.
And it’s not an ongoing criminal case. We are already guilty, remember?
“UPROOT THIS EVIL IDEOLOGY”
“KILL THEM ALL”
“ONE DOWN, THREE TO GO”
“SEND HIM BAK”
“SEND THEM BACK”
“THE FACES OF EVIL”
“BURN IN HELL”
And the men are dead, the case is closed.
de 07.29.05 at 10:28 pm
As the suspects had id on their person, I assume DNA eveidence is just confirming their identities. I also assume not enough of their jaw is left for dental records.
Again, just lighweight flak thrown around by media as if they are scared the story will go away.