At the end of Part Two we came to the conclusion that the evidence lead us to 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; and 3) that the Tigra did not finish in the place it might normally have ended up in after it had driven at Rigby. These anomalies were generated by evidence that suggested that the two Michaels could not be found guilty of the offence of crashing into Lee Rigby with a car, and actually in themselves represented irrefutable evidence of a concocted narrative.
Now at the end of Part Three, there are some more anomalies to add to the list. Firstly, if we lay aside the mystery surrounding the coroner’s verdict where Rigby’s cause of death cannot be identified, but where his dental records were needed to identify him because of the wounds, we do have an official version of a knife attack that sounds as if it feasibly describes the consequences of a real attack with knives. This version corroborates witness accounts. However, these two sources do not match the visual evidence available to anyone in the film footage in respect mostly to the body of Lee Rigby. This film footage shows no evidence of the damage described by the coroner or implied by most witnesses’ descriptions of the attack.
There is other evidence in the film footage that contradicts the coroner/witness versions, and that is the amount of blood on the scene, and the fact that it appears to have appeared in a non-organic way. There is a problem with the expected dissemination of blood reflected by the appearance of the two assailants who, despite leaving DNA samples on knives, still cannot be convicted in terms of the judgements we are able to make because of a lack of information. We can only take the authorities’ word for it that particular knives that the two Michaels are seen holding in footage are the ones used to stab Rigby with, and are the ones found to harbour DNA from both Rigby and the assailants. And in fact, even this circumstantial evidence that isn’t supported by any other.
Rigby is adjudged by a coroner to have been killed by knives, the two Michaels are witnessed killing Rigby, but they cannot have engaged in the action of killing him the way that the coroner or the witnesses tell of because of the lack of blood and the anomalies in its patterning, both as it appears on the scene and on the persons of the two Michaels. To cap it all, when we try to understand where the witnesses were in the visual landscape of the footage available to us, the claims of a brutal and sustained murder become implausible. Furthermore, the goings-on around the coroner’s report were suspicious. So, to summarise, anomaly 4) is this: Rigby died of knife wounding, which, when it was being carried out, could not have been witnessed on the scene. Its results, in terms of bodily injury, should not have been apparent to a coroner – as they were not apparent to the video footage. In terms of remnants on the landscape of the crime scene, what we therefore know of the attack tells us that there shouldn’t have been any.
Although we can’t conclude anything definite regarding the behaviour of the traffic in response to the attack on Rigby, we find that only one vehicle in many others that didn’t carry a named witness reacted to the circumstances. It supports the notion that the body on the scene was not being attacked in the way we are supposed to have believed, and it begs the question – if something very different was happening to Rigby, or nothing at all, so that so many people would not register any interest in it, why are there very florid witness accounts? Well, the answer to this is that these witness accounts cannot be correct, because so many witnesses just could not have seen what they claimed to have. The witnesses did not seem to be relating a central truth about the manner of the attack, and this circuitously supports the notion that something else was happening.
Secondly, it is highly strange that the arrival of the white lorry cannot be accounted for satisfactorily. It was stated above that it’s important that this white lorry’s organic appearance into the scene be established so that we can discount the idea that a stage had been set for the next phase of the incident. This can’t be done; the idea of a conspiracy to frame the two Michaels that was introduced at the end of Part Two looms large as a real possibility as a consequence – of this, and all the other anomalies. This conspiracy was broached initially because of the possibility of additional people being on the scene whom the witnesses could not or would not speak about. These people also seemingly arranged the lorry – for what purposes we don’t know. In fact, if one studies the imagery, on can see from the position of its front wheels that it looks as if it had been reversed from the Army barracks – otherwise, if it had been coming down Artillery Place it would have had to have been on the pavement before it returned to the road to stop.
Here we get into why the witnesses supported the official narrative regarding what they reported in their testimony regarding the attack on Rigby. It’s the same reason why they don’t see the outside help enacting the conspiracy; this is not to equate them with the conspiracy – it relies on wrong-footing and fooling witnesses in the same way that the general public must be fooled. So, why is an easy question to answer – how the witnesses see things that aren’t there, and don’t see things that are, is one that is another matter altogether – we don’t know the secrets of a magician’s tricks when he performs them.
One of the strongest indicators of an elaborate illusion is the phenomena of the blood. Although it appears to be on the knives – and so the two Michaels appear to have been caught literally red handed – there aren’t any satisfactory indications that it came from Rigby’s body. This mystery would be solved in the context of a hoax. It was said during the course of our investigation that the blood on Adebolajo’s clothes suggested that Rigby bled uniquely onto his hands, and the material was spread elsewhere by touch. If the “blood” was introduced artificially to the hands, as this observation surely suggests, and it was also introduced artificially to the landscape of the murder, then it is clearly reasonable to suppose that it was also introduced artificially to the knives.
This would mean that the conspiracy would involve the two Michaels; would they really take part in a scheme to incriminate themselves? Perhaps in their right minds they wouldn’t – and this is crucial point: one of them was obviously mentally ill, the other suggested in his evidence that he had episodes of remoteness from reality during the incident. Now, ask yourself again, would they take part in a scheme to incriminate themselves?
Stepping back for a moment from the topic of the conspiracy as a form of defence, let’s just focus strictly on whether or not the evidence is enough to have convicted the two Michaels. First of all, we found that the prosecution’s attempt to establish the two Michaels in the car before the attack was weak. The very fact that the Tigra hit Rigby could have been contested using the physical evidence. This would have brought the witness testimony into doubt. The defence teams would then have been justified in trying to establish the reliability and integrity of certain key witnesses. They could have discredited witnesses and had their accounts struck from consideration. The very fact that the Tigra had hit the stanchion could have been brought into doubt, thus opening up the possibility of a conspiracy against the two men. Into the knife attack, and by using the visual evidence of the body on the scene, the coroner could have been shown to have been wrong (and forced to explain himself), the witnesses to the knife attack that corroborated the coroner could have been called into question – if they hadn’t already been discredited. Blood and DNA on the scene and on the knife counts for nothing if the body it is supposed to have come from is obviously pristine, so with a coroner and supporting witnesses having been successfully challenged, it in fact becomes evidence for a conspiracy. The two Michaels were convicted on the evidence of witness accounts, and especially Michael Adebolajo’s – and yet, any challenge of these accounts could have brought about enough doubt to make any conviction unsecure.
We consider these things now, and the question as to why the two Michaels’ defence teams did not defend them as robustly as they really could have is self-evident. The conspiracy was all encompassing, and we’ve hinted at the necessity of collaboration with certain agencies throughout this volume. As for conspirers in the legal and judicial branches of the Establishment, we can’t be sure to what extent they were knowing participants. They could have been well meaning people who were faced with restrictions ordered imposed upon them that we don’t know about, and which made the trial, as Gottleib said, anything but a Sunday outing.