[Chapter Three]
One of the big mysteries of the London Bridge and Borough Market “terror” incident of 2017 is the death of James McMullan. In truth, the inquest of May and June of this year into the deaths of the victims didn’t account for it satisfactorily. In fact, if the inquest had been legitimate, it might even have ruled that McMullan’s death couldn’t be explained, except that there had been foul play, and without ruling out that it might not have been connected to the so-called “terror” at all.
The point being made is that it was convenient for the sake of explaining McMullan’s death that there had been a supposed terror attack, because it provided an easy option. The Metropolitan Police and the Queen’s Counsels who drove the inquest duly wove McMullan into the terror narrative. Now, while the police are generally low-IQ, their learned and expensive friends are not, and should have known better. That these eminent people went along in the charade is the sure tell that all are corrupt. But then, in Post-Normal and Post-Truth Britain, there should be no surprise that there wasn’t anyone in the justice system who didn’t conceive that McMullan’s death could have been a coincidental, separate murder, and have plod conduct a separate investigation. Of course, that’s not to say for certain that McMullan’s death was any such thing. The point is, the determination of the inquest to make the evidence fit the desired narrative when it is so evidently incongruous to the extent that it does look suggestive of a separate crime is such a great failure that it cannot be organic.
There are two things that are “known” about James McMullan regarding his whereabouts on the night of the rampage of knife attackers on Boro Bistro, Saturday, June 3rd, 2017. The first: that before the attack he was in the Barrow Boy & Banker public house that overlooks the Boro Bistro restaurant terrace area. The second: that after the attack he was essentially dead and laying in the corner of Green Dragon Court that is more or less directly underneath where the “terrorist’s” van collided into railings. Everything else that happened in between is not known. In fact, the absence of a middle part of McMullan’s story means that the end part is not necessarily trusted either: is not, in fact, known (hence the quotation marks before). The police who gave him first aid never identified him at that time – the body they were working on could have been anybody’s. A member of the public examining inquest transcript can only suppose it was the same body that was presented to the man performing the autopsy, a Dr Robert Chapman, who agreed with the Queen’s Counsel questioning him at the inquest that there were “No fractures to the skull or to any of the bones of the body at all that might have been caused by a fall down on to that hard ground below”. Chapman: “No, I saw no such bony injuries, no.” [19/18/17-20].
On the other hand, PC Stephen Attwood, who performed CPR on McMullan, said that the body “appeared maybe to have a wound to the back of his head, more sort of related to blunt force trauma rather than a stab wound.” [8/160/9-11]. Presumably, because this head wound did not get a mention during Chapman’s questioning, it didn’t feature in the post-mortem report.
Another anomaly was abrasions in various places on the front of the body indicative, agreed the questioner and the questioned, of falling face-forward – forgetting that Police Constable Miah had found McMullan face upwards, as shall soon be detailed. And there was a major case of trying to have cake and eat it too. While the interrogating lawyers would earlier insinuate that an “oriental guy” seen by Dusan Trivic running into Green Dragon Court must have been McMullan, with Chapman on the stand, everyone agreed that such was the catastrophic nature of McMullan’s injury, that he “stagger[ed]… down the steps… [to go]… a further distance of around 25 to 30 metres or so”. [19/11/20-22]. Not so much a gazelle-like flight, but the last blunderings of a wildebeest – all unseen, incidentally, by any CCTV or human witness.
In fact, the author feels that given the exact nature of McMullan’s injury, Chapman’s depiction of McMullan as spritely for a little while, newly-headless-chicken-esque, requires a second opinion. The doctor reported that a stab wound to McMullan’s chest was the only “sharp force injury” he detected, and was delivered close to the sternum (cutting it), and into the chest cavity, and then pierced the victim’s heart:
The knife passed into “the right side of the heart, the right main pumping chamber of the heart, the right ventricle. Thereafter through the base of the aorta, the main blood vessel issuing from the left side of the heart, the main arterial vessel of the body. And then through part of the left ventricle, the left main pumping chamber of the heart.
[19/4/10-16]
If the reader perceives that a great deal of energy must have been used in such a devastating single blow, Chapman would supply proof to the affirmative:
The fatal injury would be, in my opinion, regarded as a severe force injury on a scale of mild, moderate and severe.
[19/7/24-25 & 19/8/1]
And while Chapman’s opinion was that loss of blood into McMullan’s chest cavity from the heart caused cardiac arrest, so that “collapse is likely to have been rapid and probably, I would say, within a minute, that sort of timescale, with death supervening shortly thereafter” [19/9/1-3], the author wonders if McMullan, with his most vital organ popped like a balloon, should not have fallen down and died where he was attacked.
No wonder Chapman found signs of McMullan having been carried: abrasions to McMullan’s left arm near the armpit, indicative of a handgrip, and therefore of him being lifted at that point. This, of course, was excused as first-aiders coping without a stretcher when McMullan was taken out of Green Dragon Court. Although always remaining suspicious, at least that explanation is more plausible than the one for the knife injury where a group of happy-hacker garden-shed and gas-cooker amateur terrorists know how to land the perfectly efficient killing-blow.
In any case, for argument’s sake, and in order to make headway, it is assumed here that the body found on the scene and examined by Chapman was one and the same, and was McMullan’s.
According to the official narrative, James McMullan left the Barrow Boy and Banker at 22.04.16 – minutes before the van supposedly transporting the terrorists arrived. He had been on a night out with at least three others, one of which gave evidence. John Dowd told the inquest that he and McMullan took several trips outside the pub for cigarettes during the course of the evening. The last of these was one shortly before Dowd and McMullan were filmed on CCTV inside the pub leaving its toilet facilities at 22.03.24.
After that, McMullan is supposed to have left the pub directly, apparently to smoke again, but this time without his smoking buddy. Having not been allowed back in the pub, McMullan walked along Borough High Street towards the steps that descend into Green Dragon Court, where he phoned John Dowd’s friend, Andrew Byers (one of the party back in the Barrow Boy and Banker), to tell them that he would meet them at Boro Bistro.
There are several problems. One of the Barrow Boy and Banker door staff was questioned at the inquest, and he said even at the time of the attack, there were Barrow Boy and Banker patrons outside the pub smoking. Rasak Kalenikanse even asked them to return to the pub as the terrorist incident began to unfold. In this case, was it reasonable that McMullan was not allowed back inside the Barrow Boy and Banker? On what grounds had he been refused entry? Kalenikanse wasn’t asked about it at the inquest, and also not about whether he’d seen McMullan. While a CCTV still released to the corporate-media shows McMullan on the pavement outside the pub and supposedly leaving, there is none of him discovering that he is not permitted to re-enter, nor of him remonstrating about that decision.
In fact, the inquest relied on a couple of clips that could be got from surveillance equipment onboard passing buses. These showed for a few seconds McMullan apparently moving away from the pub towards the direction of the stone steps to Boro Bistro. There is, however, no uninterrupted coverage of McMullan taken up a position where he would be stabbed. Instead, if the reader can believe it, in London, the most surveilled city in the world outside China, McMullan has to be caught on yet another irregular bus-mounted camera standing in the approximate position required for the narrative. Except, there is no way of knowing for sure that the figure shown is McMullan: Hough, the questioning QC, and Detective Constable Alistair Hutchison, of the SO15, the Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police, outright declared it a matter of faith, not science, as the following interchange between them shows.
And we’ll see on the footage, I think, a figure circled at the top of the stone steps leading down into the Boro Bistro courtyard?
That’s correct, sir, yes.
And that’s the figure you believe to be James?
[7/89/12-16]
The proof is in a number of things, apparently. Firstly, this figure is approximately in the same area where McMullan would be expected to be. Secondly, the figure is wearing a t-shirt that, with its “distinctive logo” on the chest area, looks like the top McMullan was wearing (“although it ’s a grey T-shirt, often under the lighting in the footage it appears to be white, really, in colour” [7/95/5-7]). Thirdly, the figure has his hand to his head as if using a phone, and the time stamp on the footage correlates with the hour of the clock when Andrew Byers received a telephone message regarding proceeding to Boro Bistro.
The problems with this supposed proof are as follows: 1) without a clear image of McMullan at the top of the stone steps – and there isn’t one – and without continuous footage demonstrating him arriving, merely supposing that he is where the narrative would have him is not acceptable; 2) as well as the figure’s t-shirt appearing the wrong colour, its jeans possibly don’t appear light enough if they are meant to be the light blue variety (consider the trousers of the other people in the image – below); 3) if there is a distinctive logo on the figure’s t-shirt then, where it was centrally placed before, it is now shifted to feature towards the left of the shirt – in fact, it looks like it could be a shadow cast by the figure’s phone-holding arm.
Moreover, between 22.04.21, and 22.05.15, which is the time shown on the bus-camera footage timestamp, when has McMullan had time to have a cigarette, return to the pub to be denied entry, and then wandered back to the stone steps to make a phone call? In fact, there is a strong chance that the phone call story is a complete fairy tale. Consider what John Dowd says about the central plank upon which it all rests:
I had heard – – I believe he called my friend, Andrew Byers, and mentioned that he was unable to get back into the pub and so he would meet us downstairs at a separate bar.
[7/101/8-11]
It’s clear, then: Dowd doesn’t know there was a phone call. He only believes there was one. He was told that there was one – but, when? This, of course, is not discoverable. Moreover, if Dowd was McMullan’s smoking buddy, then why did he not receive the telephone call himself? Why did McMullan call someone who Dowd described as “my” friend rather than “our” friend”? Maybe it’s all because there was not a telephone call.
Back on the street, yet another clip obtained from a bus-mounted camera shows a figure at 22.05.34, which is deduced to be McMullan because, as the inquest was told, “from the previous clip, if you remember, there was only really one person stood in that recess at the top of the stairs” [7/91/4-7]. If the reader doesn’t quite follow: between a break in the coverage, a figure appearing in the newer clip is stood in the same place as “McMullan” was in the older one. Of course, it is not sound evidence at all, and proves nothing. However, it is this figure that is associated with a man that witness Erick Siguenza reports seeing being attacked at the same time as Sara Zelenak – always in terms of “believing” his testimony to be factual, and thinking into fact things that he didn’t see, it should be noted. Indeed, the following exchange between Siguenza and Patterson, QC, is most interesting:
And then he had been on his feet trying to pull her up, then the terrorists arrived. Did he go to the ground or did he remain on his feet, or what?
I think he remained on the ground. I can’t remember exactly.
Can you help us with the position that he was in when he suffered that blow to the left of his chest?
I think as soon as he got stabbed I think he might have fallen backwards or onto the ground, but I don’t remember seeing that itself.
You think he was upright when he was — struck
He was definitely upright when he took a hit – – but after that, I can’t recollect exactly what —
You can’t help us with precisely his movements after that – –
No.
– – whether he went to the ground or whether he was able to keep moving or…
I can’t recollect exactly what happened to him after that.
[5/39/5-25]
Maybe Siguenza only believes this man was struck because he was told so, perhaps in the same way that Dowd believes McMullan called Andrew Byers?
As well as there being serious doubt about McMullan’s location before the attack took place, there is the same regarding his location at its cessation (and his whereabouts during the attack are a mystery). Andrius Vorobjovas became a kind of freak-show witness in corporate-media because of the remarkableness of his tale. On finding a place to hide, Vorobjovas reported
I nearly stepped on a person who was laying on his belly. I was very shocked and amazed to see someone there because I couldn’t figure out how someone could end up there.
[7/125/5-8]
Vorobjovas had evidently discovered the body of McMullan where it would eventually be found – and note how he thinks the place an unusual one for a victim of the attack that he saw. Unfortunately, he did not think to check the victim’s condition (or, at least, he wasn’t talking about it). While it’s difficult to tell how much time had elapsed at that point since the start of the attack, we can note that Vorobjovas hid for 30 seconds, and then ran to the stone steps and out of Green Dragon Court; “it was empty by that time” he reports [7/128/15], as well as “I was the only one in the courtyard” [7/128/23-24]. This would indicate that Vorobjovas found the body at the end of the incident in Boro Bistro.
On the other hand, the witness Mauro Galluzzo escaped while the courtyard had people in it being menaced by a figure in a grey t-shirt. Moreover, he appears to have escaped the same way as Vorobjovas did; i.e. running alongside the wall where McMullan was – or rather, should have been. Galluzzo did not notice the body; and he was specifically asked if he encountered anyone [8/88/11-12]. Does this suggest that McMullan was moved to his final location between Galluzzo and Vorobjovas?
For the sake of interest, if the reader recalls from a previous part in this series, while witnessing the attack, Mauro Galluzzo saw a man collapse who was then “crowded” by two pursuers; an occurrence that seemed to happen quite soon into the broader incident. When asked what the man looked like, Galluzzo said “All I saw was he had a white top on and he had blood over his top.” [8/81/16-17]. On further questioning, it was discovered that the blood was staining the victim’s top in the tummy area. The inquest suggested that this individual was Alexandre Pigeard, but there is evidence to the contrary that shows it could not have been.
Now consider the inquest testimony of PC Stephen Attwood, who entered Green Dragon Court in the aftermath via the stone steps. Attwood reports that he saw bodies more obviously visible than McMullan’s that still had not been attended to, and yet he found what appears to be a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) policeman with McMullan. PC Suial Miah was also called a “crime squad officer” by a uniformed PC Wallis – the third person to eventually give McMullan first aid – who recognised him as such. Miah very likely was the “special police” that witness Dervish Gashi referred to in his testimony (see below).
As a matter of exact fact, Attwood appears to have been approached by Miah and asked to provide assistance (or perhaps be a witness to McMullan’s situation?) It’s an important little detail for reasons that will become clear, but it’s not clarified in the testimony if Attwood got involved with assisting Miah with McMullan because he noticed them himself, or entirely because Miah drew his attention to them; Attwood reports that “it was very dark down there” [8/159/17] where McMullan was.
This darkness is a vital fact about the situation on the ground. In spite of it, Miah appears to say that he saw McMullan immediately and from the opposite corner of the courtyard. He also did not see any other victims, presumably to help a hearer of his story understand why he seemingly made a beeline for McMullan. Here are some pertinent moments in an exchange between him and a questioning QC:
This is a view from the bottom of the steps looking towards the archway through which the Boro Bistro courtyard is. Did you reach that position and look towards that archway?
Yes, that ’s correct.
What did you find there?
I could see someone’s body on the floor, on their back.
Was that person being looked after?
No, they were alone…
So you went through the archway into this area, did you?
Yes.
Did you see anything as you went through the archway, anybody being worked on there?
No.
As you came through into this area, we know that there are pathways on both sides. Here on the left, where we can see a pathway very clearly, and another pathway over on the right, which we see at {DC7283/102 [a reference to an image]}. Did you look down that way?
Yes.
What could you see in this courtyard first of all as a whole and secondly, in the direction down that pathway?
There were sort of tables and chairs, trellises. It was really dark, so I couldn’t initially see properly, and it took a few seconds for my eyes to adjust and then I could see a body on the floor, someone’s body on the floor.
If we could bring up another photograph {PH0615/1}. We looked at this with the last witness. We’re now looking at the very far corner at the end of that passageway. Did you go as far as to look towards that corner?
I didn’t go all the way to the end where the air conditioning unit is. The person’s body was there.
So you came across a person’s body on that pathway towards the corner?
Yes.
Can you describe the person you found there?
At the time I remember they looked Asian, similar to my skin colour. They had a goatee, black hair, short black hair, Nike trainers on, a white T- shirt. I believe they had grey jeans or grey chinos, some sort of bottoms on.
How was the person lying, in what position?
They were on their back, facing up. I can’t remember the position of their arms or legs.
[7/143/5-13 & 7/144/5-25 & 7/145/1-15]
Of course, the really sensational item of information is that McMullan has managed to turn over since Vorobjovas supposedly saw him. Naturally, the expensive lawyers asking the questions never raised the matter.
That Miah is a crime squad policeman on the scene of a terrorist incident might be unusual in itself. He claims that he was called out with a colleague in uniform, a PC Almy, but after being driven to the scene by this individual, Miah makes him (or her) disappear completely from his testimony. Subsequently, then, it’s probably no wonder that the inquest went to the trouble of producing records of call signs and radio transmissions directing “‘MD16 to Southwark Cathedral’ at 22.12.59” [7/140/4]. Supposedly referencing Miah’s personal call sign, it should be noted that Almy was driving the vehicle when, en route, the above message was received.
Miah also would not himself volunteer a time when he arrived with McMullan. The questioning QC suggested 20 minutes past, and Miah assented to it. If there is only Miah’s word to go on, there s no telling how long he was with McMullan before Attwood arrived with them at 22.23.
And then there is the way that Dervish Gashi, the employee at neighbouring Café Brood, when the subject turned to McMullan, firmly detached himself from a first response effort that he had otherwise been very much involved in:
You said you found a further casualty?
No.
When the policeman came and you accompanied the policeman?
No, when the policeman came it was on the other side of the Boro Bistro. Just where the car crashed, like, down there, it was, like, down there.
Ah, right, so directly below where the van had crashed?
Below.
We know that James McMullan —
Yes.
– – was found and was treated by a police officer there in that corner. So you were over with him at one stage, were you?
No, I wasn’t with him when he was treated.
But you saw him?
Yes, I saw him when the special police came and looked up, you know, and he looked – – that’s when I saw James for the first time.
Were you involved in any way in what happened with James?
No.
In assisting or treating with him?
No, I don’t know if he fell down or if he, like, kind of moved, fighted, same as Sébastien, and saw a dead end. I’ m not sure how did he end up there.
Can you help with his movements? Did you see him at any stage before he collapsed?
No, no, no, I didn’t. I only saw him when the police, you know, came, and pretty much we left, we left together. He was searching(?).
[6/108/16-25 & 6/109/1-21]
Whether Gashi meant to finish on such a cryptic note, or whether he was cut off by Patterson, QC, is not known. And yet, this part of Gashi’s testimony is also entirely mystifying, with nothing of his account of whatever it is that “special police” did being the faintest bit understandable. Gashi’s is an account of the discovery of McMullan that doesn’t explain how it happened, with no attempt by the inquest to probe into it. That, with the whole involvement of the “see-in-the-dark” and “making-a-beeline” CID officer, makes the issue of McMullan’s final location something to be suspicious about.
Indeed, there is nothing concrete about McMullan’s place in the London Bridge terror incident except that he exited the Barrow Boy and Banker pub just before it happened. That the inquest certified McMullan’s death into the record books using the terror incident as cover, rather than rule that it could not be explained by the given evidence, only suggests Government malfeasance. Indeed, this in itself would provide explanation: there were more attackers on the ground on the night of the incident than the narrative (which is a cover-up) would have, and there was a Government hand in putting them there. But, of course – and as FBEL readers already know – the police and justice system does not exist to investigate, expose, and punish any of that.