Each section in the last chapter produced a verdict; in this chapter we draw them altogether. We will also review the narrative using the solutions to the unknown factors, introduced first in Chapter Ten, we have since been discovered. It should become clear that Adebolajo and Adebowale have a defence by dint of a number of broken causal chains between events and endings – a number of impossibilities. In turn another line of defence emerges from that evidence – that Adebolajo and Adebowale were framed; that there was a conspiracy against them to frame them for a murder someone else committed. As fantastical as the idea sounds, claiming being “fitted-up” is a reasonable counter to a charge; it is a legitimate line of defence to take – and having the means to demonstrate certainly helps. In the case of the Rigby murder trial, such means were abundant.
On 22nd May 2013, a Vauxhall Tigra hit Lee Rigby at 27mph, or 24mph, depending on whether or not the car accelerated or decelerated between points D and E on the landscape of Artillery Road according to our model. [in other words, these two numbers are the outlining parameters of the possible speed], and then mounted the kerb onto the pavement, manoeuvred to straighten up, and then hit the stanchion of a road sign at 25mph or 21mph – that’s if no brakes were applied. The behaviour of Lee Rigby in flight suggests that the car was constantly decelerating – meaning that the driver would merely have to stop accelerating for the slope of the hill and gravity to slow the car. Rigby continued on a trajectory that was not deflected too much by further contact with the bonnet of the car, and landed with his feet pointing up the road, lying against a wall next to the pavement. Lee Rigby appears to have been deposited in a plausible position, and it is likely that he would have sustained serious injuries from the Tigra travelling at the speed we’ve now discovered for the impact – but his injuries suggest that he was in a different sort of traffic collision.
Whereas there is no evidence to suggest that Adebolajo and Adebowale were in the car before the incident, and though they did not suffer any injuries – suggesting that they were not in the car when it crashed into the road sign stanchion – witnesses saw them exiting the vehicle to perform the next phase of the attack. Therefore, due to witness testimony, we are forced to assume, without any other proof, that the two Michaels were in the car when it hit Rigby.
Secondly, we can say with some certainty that, given the more realistic speed that has been here calculated, a driver of standard skill could control the car so that it navigated the street furniture and other obstacles until it came to the road sign stanchion. While the damage to the Tigra was plausible at the newly found slower speed, its final resting place had a very high chance of being incongruous – the Tigra perhaps should have been wrapped around the post rather than sitting clear of it, there not being enough force in the crash to throw it back.
Having resolved these matters, it means that we now have three anomalies that suggest a mystery: 1) that Rigby received wounds that cannot be attributed to the collision with the Tigra; 2) that Adebolajo and Adebowale cannot be placed in the car before the attack and did not receive any injury during it – suggesting they weren’t in the car; and 3) that the Tigra did not finish in the place it might normally have ended up in after it had driven at Rigby. What does all this say in a single summarised sentence? Answer: the Tigra didn’t hit Rigby, the two Michaels weren’t driving in any case, and the Tigra didn’t crash.
As far as the defence of Adebolajo and Adebowale goes, that there are these conclusions that are catastrophic a prosecution case against them, it doesn’t matter in respect of their defence if they represent a mystery that cannot be solved. If the physical evidence points to another a situation whereby Adebolajo and Adebowale are not responsible for running down Rigby, then it points to them being innocent. It’s rather like this: if the wounds of a murder victim are consistent with the blows from a baseball hat, the suspect thought to have carried out the attack with a hammer is not guilty. Moreover, whoever else could have killed Rigby is not on trial, and we don’t have to convict them.
That being said, the reader has had forewarning that later in this book we are going to go beyond understanding the guilt or otherwise of the two Michaels, and we are going to discuss a conspiracy to make it appear as if the two Michaels committed a crime. If that seemed ridiculous coming cold to the subject, and the prospect of it a wild leap away from reality, how ironic that the evidence that we have been asked to have faith in to prop up a media headline narrative about Rigby’s death actually leads us straight in this direction.
To illustrate, let us here reintroduce the mystery of Rigby’s rucksack. To make its final position on the crime scene consistent with the narrative, we have to rationalise missing detail – like someone picking the rucksack up from where it had been flung and placing it, or one of the attackers taking it off before setting about Rigby. However, there is no witness evidence whatsoever that makes any room for the latter option. And incidentally, let’s not forget that we do not see any directly quoted testimony that tells of a witness seeing the Tigra crash into the stanchion – we are also left to make the assumption that it happened because we are presented with a crumpled Tigra in front of a road sign.
As we will see, the witness evidence all tells of the two men getting from the car and starting on Rigby directly – straight away. That leaves someone else placing the rucksack after it had been flung away. Who could possibly have done this? The attackers did not do it – they were intent on attacking Rigby. So, we are left with having to make suppositions, based on no plausible possibilities that we know of, to rescue the narrative. For instance, we have to say that a passer-by, which no witness reported as being aware of in the scene, picked up the rucksack from whence it had landed – or even detached it from Rigby’s body, for that matter – and placed in neatly at the end of Artillery Place. The trouble is, if the witnesses didn’t report a passer-by, why should we imagine that there was one? We do it because we feel compelled to compensate. We want the apparent contradiction can be resolved? Likewise, we want the Tigra to have crashed into the stanchion because we have seen it sitting in front of the stanchion all crumples. Back to the rucksack, and one of the only logical explanations is that there were people on the scene who rearranged it – people who, for some reason, the witnesses could or would not observe (as unusual as that sounds), or could or would not talk about in their testimony.
Surprisingly, there is supporting evidence for the notion of “helper elves” that rearrange the crime scene, and it comes from the conclusions we must make about how the two Michaels did not suffer any injury. That particular outcome is very strong evidence to suggest that either:
a) the car was going much slower than even our model shows.
b) that the two Michaels were not in the vehicle.
c) the Tigra did not crash into the stanchion.
We don’t think a) is true because of how the control car that Tigra was tested against appeared to yield results that we would expect; in that case, our calculations for the Tigra were reasonable. However, if one wants to argue that our calculations are wrong, we are still left with the relative effect on Rigby – to wit – that he would have been hit at a slower speed also. The question will become, at what point does the speed not justify his having any injuries at all?
With the cases b) and c), and in the face of their apparent ridiculousness, we have to remind ourselves that we are only being led where logic dictates. As stated above, if the evidence points away from one possibility to another, then the other possibility is going to be the more likely. Of course, these conclusions are very challenging – they go against what witnesses maintain and what we seem to have seen with our own eyes. We want to think the two Michaels were in the car, because that is what incontrovertibly appeared to happen – according to witnesses. As mentioned above, we want to think the Tigra was in a crash because it appeared to be damaged. Again and again we are forced to make assumptions to save the narrative. This is not what is required in a proper investigation, and instead of doing that, we must ask questions that actually the evidence begs: with respect of b) could the witnesses have been mistaken, and c) was the Tigra switched out for another car?
None of this should be too hard a step to take; we have already considered the possibility of other people being on scene that the witnesses could not talk about for some reason that we may never know. Perhaps these people switched the Tigra out with another one out from which the two Michaels stepped [we’ll explore how they must have knowingly participated in a scheme to frame them later in the book]? This would solve the mysteries of how the Tigra does not appear to be in the correct place for the crash it was supposed to have, and of how the two Michaels could get out of a car that should have injured them when they crashed it.
Coming to this conclusion from the evidence takes us along a route into the realms of there being other people – and we’re not even talking about “helper elves” who moved things around at this stage – who used the two Michaels as cover to take the fall for the murder of Lee Rigby. Let’s consider more evidence to understand where this conspiracy could be coming from, and who could be involved. We saw that there is no evidence that proves beyond doubt that the car at the petrol pump shown in one particular image is the same one involved in the incident. This particular failure raises some serious questions. This was a perfect opportunity for the link to be established between Adebolajo and the car used to run down Rigby – but the Metropolitan Police used evidence that couldn’t strictly do it. This looks like trying to build associations where none exist – or framing.
There is another example. As stated above, the backpack of Rigby’s was photographed on the crime scene after having been moved. The reason that in-situ photos are taken is because they are records for forensic examination of a scene, not necessarily the objects contained within. If the people collecting this evidence turned the sack around, then it indicates that they didn’t care about what the position and the attitude of the sack had to tell them with regards to the crime scene. Furthermore, because the back of the rucksack supposedly had Rigby’s military ID printed on it, it seems that the priority was to produce material that could reinforce the linkage of Rigby’s name to the victim. This sort of evidence suggests that the Metropolitan Police were interested in incriminating the two Michaels ahead of investigating an organic crime.
Consider where else we have found an effort to incriminate Michael Adebolajo. We found that a Daily Mirror story told of an unnamed neighbour who was very accommodating in letting the world know that Adebolajo was trying to sell his car. This story enables readers to rationalise to fill in the narrative gaps – Adebolajo must have bought a new car – the Tigra – because he was trying to sell his old one. This might have sufficed in the effect it was designed to have, but notice that the story also tells us that the neighbour had seen Adebolajo pacing up and down in the street, and we are told that this was taken to mean that he was troubled in mind. How many people really pace up and down when they are contemplating a troubling issue that they have to face? How many do it outside of their houses? This sort of thing suggests the far reaching scope of the conspiracy to make it look as if the two Michaels had killed Lee Rigby.
Just like we don’t need to convict any other people who would be responsible for Rigby’s death in a defence of the two Michael’s, we don’t need to name conspirators in a particular line of defence that claims the two being victims of an effort to frame them. All we need to do is show that things happened that were beyond their powers to make happen; we only have to show that the hand of an outside agent was at work. In this part of the work, we showed by various anomalies – the non-equivalences in the formula start + event = ending – that the two Michaels could not have done what they were accused of doing. We showed that the appeal to assumption by all the agents of the prosecution to force the narrative – instead of the use of real evidence – indicated an attempt to incriminate. This in itself should have formed a line of defence; but in fact that no serious attempt to defend the two Michaels took place again suggests how far the conspiracy reached.