"“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” "

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao 12th March 2009

""We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system."

Timothy Geithner US Secretary of the Treasury, previously President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.1/3/2009

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

No identifiable evidence that 21/7 bombs were intended to explode - Prof. Hans Michels

Hans Michels, is the Professor of Safety Engineering at Imperial College London . He made a presentation to the court today in the case of the alleged 21/7 "bombers."

His presentation was entitled "Is there any conclusive scientific or technical evidence related to an intentional major explosive objective? None that I have been able to identify."

Stephen Kamlish QC, on behalf of Mr Ibrahim's co-accused Manfu Kwaku Asiedu, asked Prof Michels: "It's the main question in this case, do you understand?"

Prof Michels answered: "I do understand."

Mr Kamlish replied: "And you can't answer it."

During the events of 7th July 2005 and the following three weeks, Professor Michels gave over 25 live or recorded interviews in front of the cameras of the BBC, Channel 4, Sky News and ITV. He also wrote eight press releases, spoke to journalists from most UK broadsheets and gave radio interviews over the 'phone to a variety of stations around the world.

Could perfume have made the London bombs more dangerous? asked journalist Alok Jha in the Guradian Thursday July 21, 2005

He had also previously commented on the 21/7/2005 bombs in print suggesting that blasting caps had been used, and that the explosive had degraded so the "bombs" failed to detonate.

He told the Times " it was ''extremely improbable'' that all four devices would have failed to explode. ''It may be that the object this time was not to kill people but to cause chaos,''

Readers are reminded that one of the accused Ibrahim Said, was known to the Home Office and particpated in interviews with the authors of a Home Office report on the Qat drug trade in the UK prior to the 21/7 bombing.

Readers will remember that the activities of the "bombers" as described by witnesses were not inconsistent with the "bombers" having been under the influence of psychotropic drugs at the time.

1 comment:

Sinclair said...

Not that you'd know from the papers/web (who are so keen to splurge Press Association tales of this case all over their pages), but the 'conspiracy to cause explosions' charge has now been dropped.

From this BBC Report of 15 January 2007, the original charges against the 6 men were as follows:

1. That, between 1 Jan and 30 July 2005, the men conspired together "and with other persons unknown to murder other persons"

2. That they "maliciously conspired together" to cause "explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property"

Note now that the second charge of conspiracy to cause explosions has been dropped. This would appear to appear to be as a result of court testimony from Professor Hans Michels.

The dropping of the explosive charge off the indictment has only been reported by the BBC, on 12 June 2007:

"A further charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life, previously faced by each man, has now being (sic) left off the indictment."

Now if the 'conspiracy to cause explosions' charge has now been dropped, how can the other charge of 'conspiracy to murder' still stand?

Another misscarriage of justice in the making methinks....

(C) Very Seriously Disorganised Criminals 2002/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 - copy anything you wish