File:7-7 Inquest Report.pdf

File contents

The official report of the Coroner Lady Justice Hallett into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005.
Published on 6 May 2011

In Summary

• The 7/7 killings were ‘unlawful.’
• Nobody was to blame, except the wicked Four who are dead.
• A public enquiry into 7/7 would not be a good idea.
• There is no need for an Inquest into the Four alleged perpetrators.
• No ‘conspiracy’ would have been possible

So, as expected by connoisseurs of official inquiries into ANYTHING with the potential to seriously embarrass (or worse) the pre-agreed official narrative - EXACTLY as expected with ZERO surprises

Coroners Inquest into the London bombings of 7 July 2005

Preamble

1. Fifty two members of the public were killed as a result of four bombs being detonated on London’s transport system on 7th July 2005 (“7/7”). The names of the deceased are set out at Annex A to this report. I heard the evidence in these inquests in the capacity of Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London, from 11th October 2010 to 3rd March 2011. I sat without a jury and have given verdicts of unlawful killing, with the medical cause of deaths recorded as “injuries caused by an explosion”, in respect of each of the deceased.
2. Where a Coroner is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur or continue to exist in the future, and is of the opinion that action should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such circumstances, she may report the circumstances to a person whom she believes has power to take action. announced in court on 11th March 2011 that I was proposing to make such a report under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 (“the Rules”).

Preventability

Introduction

7. For the purposes of this report I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the four men who detonated the bombs and therefore murdered the fifty two innocent people were Mohammed Siddique Khan (“Khan”), Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain.

8. It is not generally a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper function of a Coroner to express opinions in the verdicts returned. The Rules are clear and I have not strayed from those restrictions in the verdicts I have delivered. However, the exceptional circumstances of these Inquests mean that it is appropriate to name the bombers within this Rule 43 report, which is not subject to the same constraints. There are three principal reasons: the bombers are dead. There can be no question of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings against them and I cannot defame them. Further, I cannot consider the issue of preventability, one of the most important of the issues I have set, without stating in positive terms that they were the bombers. Finally, the evidence is utterly overwhelming.

9. To argue or find to the contrary would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.