Advertisement
CheckTheEvidence Mentioned in UK Daily Telegraph PDF Print E-mail
Here is the article which mentions it - below that is the "my side" of my part of the story and the e-mail sent to Duncan Gardham.

See update at bottom!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/15/nterror315.xml

It's all a government plot, say internet 'truth activists'


By Duncan Gardham
Last Updated: 2:24am BST 16/08/2006

Almost as soon as the alleged plot to blow up aircraft was announced, the conspiracy theories began.

The internet is alive with claims that it is all a diversion created by politicians.

"No one has been killed. No bombs have gone off. No one was caught with actual bombs," one e-mail claims. Revealing a knowledge that might be envied by most journalists, it says there is "no evidence" for a "supposed terrorist plot" and accuses reporters of participating in propaganda.

advertisement

Thousands of copies have arrived at in-boxes since the arrests on Thursday, sent by those on the internet styling themselves "truth activists".

The missive has been forwarded not by an Islamic community in denial, but by people such as Bill Boggia, 40, an engineer from Aberdeenshire, and Penny Pullen, a retired teacher from Cumbria.

The original was posted on a website called Iran Solidarity, run from a flat in Glasgow by Colin Buchanan. That in turn was sent to him by Andrew Johnson, 41, a software developer from Borrowash, Derbyshire.

On his website, Check the Evidence, Mr Johnson also suggests that man may not have landed on the Moon and UFOs really do exist. More seriously, he claims that the September 11 and July 7 attacks were part of a larger government conspiracy; the World Trade Centre was blown up without any involvement from Muslims and, despite forensic evidence to the contrary, the London Tube bombers "could have been going on a hiking trip in France".

He adds: "The media is brainwashing people about the Muslim terrorist threat."

At his website The Truth Seeker, Rixon Stewart, from Wiltshire, quotes neighbours who said those arrested were "very friendly to everyone" as proof that they are innocent.

Ignoring the fact that British media are banned from reporting evidence against individuals before they are brought to trial, he adds: "Not a single shred of hard evidence has been produced to substantiate police claims."

Paul Watson, an internet blogger at Prison Planet, writes: "Only through a massively increased counter-propaganda effort on behalf of all truth activists can we prevent an imminent cataclysmic horror show."



Duncan Gardham rang me up after I had started an e-mail campaign (see here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=60) to reject the fake airline terrorism story in the summer. He asked why I thought it was a fake. I told him about 9/11 and WTC 7 (as well as Forest Gate etc and the general lack of any real evidence as a basis for the story). He asked me about details about myself. He said "and your wife is a nurse, yes?" I confirmed that, asking him where he got this information "companies house" he said (I have a limited company, but not a large amount of money in it). He obviously had the facility to do research.

When he published the article, he mentioned my Website (
http://www.checktheevidence.com/), which I never even mentioned or discussed with him on the phone (I didn't even realise he knew it was mine, for example). He mentioned that my website "suggests men did not go to the moon". This statement is false. My website mentions the words of Neil Armstrong's 25th anniversary address at the Whitehouse (and includes a video clip of that address, so the evidence can be verified).

In other words, he wrote a hit piece and ignored the evidence I described to him personally - he didn't print Neil Armstrong's words either (which are also listed on a government website, linked on the same page of my website). This is the way the press work on issues of the greatest importance.

Below is the response I sent to Duncan Gardham, on the day the article was published.

From: Andrew Johnson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >
To: Duncan Gardham <Duncan This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Date: 15 Aug 2006 - 8:44a.m.

Re: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/15/nterror315.xml

Duncan,

Thanks for the article. I am glad you mentioned other people and the numbers of messages you received.

As regards what you wrote about me, it would've been fairer to include the words of Neil Armstrong from 1994 (not very long) and it would also have been fairer to include the words of Gordon Cooper, if you were determined to bring in such topics. You also omitted the "smoking gun" of WTC 7 that we did discuss.

I shall be advising my friends of these omissions, so that they know the balance of the article has been changed from what we discussed (i.e. we didn't discuss other items on my website, so I was not given the opportunity to highlight their importance and validity).

Thanks and regards

Andrew Johnson



Well, it seems that the Jury rejected the idea that one of "Liquid Bombers" was a real threat.

Needless to say, Duncan Gardham has not written and apologised....


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public_law/article4710879.ece

Police in crisis after jury rejects £10m terror case

Analysis: how the plan was put together | The eight in the dock | Liquid restrictions to remain in place | Why the surveillance society works |

Police and prosecutors were locked in crisis meetings last night after what they believed to be the strongest terrorism case ever presented to a court was rejected by a jury.

At the end of a £10 million investigation and trial lasting more than two years, jurors were unable to decide whether or not a group of British Muslims were part of a plot to blow transatlantic airliners out of the sky.

The outcome of the case - which featured al-Qaeda-style martyrdom videos made by six defendants - will be seen as a severe blow to Britain’s anti-terrorist effort.

Three men were convicted of conspiracy to murder, but the jury was deadlocked on the central allegation, that terrorists planned to use liquid bombs to destroy aircraft en route from Heathrow to cities in the United States and Canada.

The jury’s indecision in the face of a detailed Crown case raises questions about the public perception of the terror threat that could undermine government attempts to introduce further security legislation.

The Crown Prosecution Service indicated that it was likely to seek the retrial of seven men in an attempt to prove that there was a plan to attack aircraft and kill thousands of people.

The discovery of the plot, in August 2006, led to a global security clamp-down at airports that paralysed international travel.The alert resulted in restrictions on carrying liquids in cabin baggage that remain in force and are unlikely to be relaxed.

Retrials are being sought even though the jury at Woolwich Crown Court convicted three of the eight defendants of conspiracy to murder.

Prosecutors met to discuss their options amid concern that the jury could not decide on a separate charge specifying that airliners had been the targets of that conspiracy.

The jurors also failed to reach verdicts on serious terrorist charges against four other men, who had recorded al-Qaeda-style suicide videos and admitted charges of conspiring to cause a public nuisance.

Another defendant, described in court as a shadowy figure with terrorist connections, was acquitted of all charges and cannot be retried.

The jurors deliberated for 52 hours, but their discussions were disrupted by a two-week holiday, frequent sickness breaks and other commitments.

Scotland Yard refrained from comment last night, but the senior officers of their disappointment over the outcome of the case.

Andy Hayman, former assistant commissioner for special operations, said: “This was one of our strongest cases – there will have to be an intensive debrief. But now is not the time for that, now is the time to prepare for retrials.”

A CPS spokesman said: “The jury found there was a conspiracy to murder involving at least three men but failed to reach a verdict on whether the ambit of the conspiracy to murder included the allegation that they intended to detonate IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on transatlantic airliners in relation to seven of the men. It is therefore incorrect to say that the jury rejected the airline bomb plot.”

The men convicted of conspiracy to murder were Ahmed Abdulla Ali and Tanvir Hussain, both 27 and from Walthamstow, northeast London, and Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. The four men on whom the jury failed to reach verdicts were Ibrahim Savant, 27, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, Waheed Zaman, 24, and Umar Islam, 30.

Mohammed Gulzar, 27, from Birmingham, was acquitted on charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiring to murder by blowing up aircraft. He had vigorously denied any involvement. The Crown had alleged that Mr Gulzar, who arrived in Britain using a false name during July 2006, was a key figure in the alleged airline plot but the jury rejected that case.

It is expected that he will be questioned by police in connection with a serious criminal offence committed in Birmingham in 2002. Another key figure in the plot, Rashid Rauf, is on the run in Pakistan after escaping from custody.

Four further trials related to the alleged airline plot are pending.


Maybe the media won't bother reporting the verdicts on the other defendants.

 
< Prev   Next >