Four years, 52 dead, £100m - no convictions

[jimmy olsen]

Man, how awful, how could the British not be able to field a winnable case?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/29/july-7-london-bomb-trial

Four years, 52 dead, £100m - no convictions

• Police say further 7/7 charges unlikely
• Security officials say little chance of 7/7 bombing charges as three cleared

    * Sandra Laville, Rachel Williams and Richard Norton Taylor
    * The Guardian, Wednesday 29 April 2009

Edgar Hernandez Hernandez, the earliest recorded survivor of the swine flu

Edgar Hernandez Hernandez, aged five, of La Gloria, Mexico, is currently the earliest recorded survivor of the swine flu. Photograph: Alexandre Meneghini/AP

Senior security officials conceded last night that it is likely no one will be brought to justice for the 7 July bombs that killed 52 people in London in 2005, despite their belief that more than 20 people were involved in the attacks.

The admission came shortly after the only three men to be charged in connection with the suicide bombings were acquitted yesterday.

After a £100m criminal investigation, the biggest police inquiry in modern times, the trio were cleared by a jury at Kingston crown court of helping to plan the attacks by carrying out a reconnaissance mission with two of the bombers.

The men, Waheed Ali, 25, Mohammed Shakil, 32, and Sadeer Saleem, 28, had already been tried once last year, when a jury failed to reach a verdict.

Peter Clarke, former head of the Metropolitan police's anti-terrorism branch, who led the inquiry until his retirement last year, told the Guardian: "Every possible line had been followed and there didn't seem to be any fresh new lines. The core of the investigation was the people that were in court over the last few weeks."

Another senior source said the investigating officers were now at a loss where to turn. The Guardian understands that counter-terrorism officials believe around 20 people were involved, from those associated with the bombers to those who helped them plan the attacks.

The three men acquitted yesterday became "persons of interest" when officers discovered DNA and fingerprints linking them to the two bomb factories in Leeds. Detectives first realised they had been to London with bombers Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay while scrutinising the details of 4,700 phone numbers and 90,000 calls. Cell site analysis, pinpointing the location of a mobile phone when a call is made, revealed that all five men had been in the capital on 16-17 December.

But during the trial they insisted that they had been on a sightseeing trip, visiting the London Eye, the London Aquarium and the Natural History Museum, and were opposed to suicide bombings. No CCTV of the visit remained. At least 10 sets of fingerprints found at the bomb factories have never been identified.

The verdict opens the way for fresh and highly damaging disclosures by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) about how MI5 and West Yorkshire police missed opportunities to follow - and possibly stop - two of the 7 July suicide bombers.

A report by the ISC, which the Guardian has been told describes in detail how MI5 and West Yorkshire police failed to intercept the attackers, was withheld in case it prejudiced the trial but will be released next month. Campaigners said it had been described to them as "devastating".

More intelligence is also believed to have emerged about what the security and intelligence agencies knew about the training camps in Pakistan, the number of people connected with the 7/7 bombers who visited them and how many times.

The Guardian understands the ISC report details how MI5 officers monitored four meetings in early 2004 between Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer - the ringleaders of the 7/7 attacks - and Omar Khyam, the ringleader of a plot to blow up shopping centres and nightclubs who was jailed for life in 2007. Ali was also at some of the meetings.

Crucial questions that have not been answered include:

• Why MI5 and police did not take more urgent steps to identify Khan and Tanweer, whom they had photographed and bugged.

• Whether Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch or MI5 alerted West Yorkshire police about everything they knew.

• Has the ISC now been given all the new evidence, including about links between the plotters here and camps in Pakistan?

Survivors and family of those who died stepped up calls for an independent inquiry, saying that if the report fails to answer "key questions" they will push ahead with a judicial review into the government's refusal to order one. They called for inquests to be arranged as soon as possible, and voiced fears the hearings could be held in secret under the coroners and justice bill going through parliament.

Robert Webb, whose 29-year-old sister Laura died in the Edgware Road bombing, said: "The trial ... raises again the awful question of whether the bombings could have been prevented."

Saleem, 28, spoke outside court to say he was "totally innocent" yesterday. "I have lost over two years of my life which I will never get back," he said.

Ali and Shakil were convicted of planning to attend a terrorist training camp, charges added at the retrial. They were arrested on their way to Manchester airport to fly to Pakistan in March 2007.

[Barrister]

Man, how awful, how could the British not be able to field a winnable case?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/29/july-7-london-bomb-trial

Hey - have you ever tried to present a case for the prosecution?

Have you ever tried to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

The phrase "it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted" is absolutely true in fact.  The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt means that 100s of guilty men are let free by our courts every single day.

[Siege]

Justice doesn't work anymore.

[Barrister]

Justice doesn't work anymore.

It's not that it doesn't work.

It's that we have chosen that 100 guilty men should go free, for risk that one innocent man be convicted.

Once we have decided that the risk of an innocent man being convicted is worth such a price (and you can certainly see why we would value it so highly) that is the price that must be paid.

[Admiral Yi]

Timmy: what makes you say the case was winnable?

Beeb: the way I learned it "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to 95% confidence, i.e. 19 guilty men go free for every one convicted.

[Barrister]

Timmy: what makes you say the case was winnable?

Beeb: the way I learned it "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to 95% confidence, i.e. 19 guilty men go free for every one convicted.

No percentage has ever been attached (in a legal judgment) to the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[jimmy olsen]

Timmy: what makes you say the case was winnable?

Beeb: the way I learned it "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to 95% confidence, i.e. 19 guilty men go free for every one convicted.

I meant a winnable case in general, that the Brits weren't able to catch anybody involved in this attack and convict them is very disheartening.

[BVN]

The real question is: how are Edgar Hernandez and the swine flu related to the case about the 7/7 bombings.

:sherlock:

[Caliga]

It's not that it doesn't work.

It's that we have chosen that 100 guilty men should go free, for risk that one innocent man be convicted.

Once we have decided that the risk of an innocent man being convicted is worth such a price (and you can certainly see why we would value it so highly) that is the price that must be paid.

Democracy just doesn't work.

[Neil]

It's not that it doesn't work.

It's that we have chosen that 100 guilty men should go free, for risk that one innocent man be convicted.

Once we have decided that the risk of an innocent man being convicted is worth such a price (and you can certainly see why we would value it so highly) that is the price that must be paid.

Democracy just doesn't work.

I've been saying it for years:  Democracy can't cope with a modern world.  Democracy was the best system for organizing people for total war, but in a world where total war is impossible, there's no need to burden ourselves with it anymore.

[Caliga]

I just think people are generally stupid and need to be told what to do.  With as little government intervention and taxation as possible. 

[Neil]

I just think people are generally stupid and need to be told what to do.  With as little government intervention and taxation as possible. 

People are too stupid to not have the government intervene.  They are too stupid not to be heavily taxed.

[ulmont]

It's that we have chosen that 100 guilty men should go free, for risk that one innocent man be convicted.

Blackstone said 10.  Benjamin Franklin said 100.  Aristotle said 1.  See generally "n Guilty Men."
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

[DontSayBanana]

Ah, Benjamin Franklin- a copyright lawyer's worst nightmare.

[Warspite]

Timmy: what makes you say the case was winnable?

Beeb: the way I learned it "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to 95% confidence, i.e. 19 guilty men go free for every one convicted.

I meant a winnable case in general, that the Brits weren't able to catch anybody involved in this attack and convict them is very disheartening.

Let's perhaps remember that the direct culprits blew themselves up, and it is difficult to prosecute a corpse.

And, rightly, proving conspiracy to commit a crime is harder than proving guilt of committing a crime.

Maybe we should wait and see what the public enquiries turn up first eh?