It was trumpeted in newspaper article after newspaper article around the world: "Witnesses Suspect Suicide Bomber."
The Fox News version also cited multiple witnesses, and there seemed to be no question about it: "Some witness accounts suggested the bus bomber may have blundered, blowing up the wrong target and accidentally killing himself."
The UK Sun said that, "Shocked survivors told how they saw a 'suicide bomber' on board the double-decker bus destroyed in yesterday's terrorist outrage." Other reports referred to "accounts from eyewitnesses on the No. 30 bus" that "raise the spectre of a suicide bomber."
So there you have it. Case closed. According to almost every major news report, not only did investigators find "some of his property on the double-decker bus in which 13 died", but they apparently had multiple reliable witnesses who actually saw the bomber enter the bus with his bomb, and lived to tell about it. Granted, the alleged bomber himself was blown to bits, but who cares, because "WE'VE GOT EYEWITNESSES!"
Justice prevails again. Or does it? Let's take a look at the list of witnesses that have come forward to corroborate the "official version" of the story as it was so dutifully reported by the press.
Okay, first of all there's this guy.......Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire. And then there's.......um, there's.....well, there's these two girls who told someone at some hospital that they saw a guy "blow up". Names? NO, we didn't get THEIR names, or their stories, and we don't actually HAVE any other witnesses......but we've got Richard Jones!
Luckily, Jones' story is so detailed, and his account is so reliable, that we don't NEED any other witnesses. I mean, everybody has heard his saga by now.....haven't they? Well, if you haven't, don't worry, we'll tell you his story right now. Because Jones SAW THE BOMBER!
Let's start with what we know "for certain" (Why? Because Richard Jones told us!): He was on the bus just seconds before it blew up, saw the bomber with the bomb, and miraculously, got off just in the nick of time.
First, let's hear what Jones had to say about the bomber:
The UK's Sunday Mail said that Jones "revealed how he came face-to-face with one of the London bombers" and that Jones said that the bombing suspect "was right in my face." Then, in the same interview, Jones also said that "He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the driver's side."
The Associated Press version quotes Jones from the BBC interviews as saying, ""Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag."
But then, in an article in the UK's Sun, Jones had this to say: "I did not see his face because he was constantly looking down."
And in another interview he said it this way: "I didn't actually see his face but he was becoming more and more anxious."
Then, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, Jones said: "he kept pushing almost his bottom into, into my, my, my face."
"Face-to-face with the bomber"....."right in my face"....."I did not see his face"...."Standing with his back to me"...."pushing his bottom into my face."
Huh? Well, at least his description of the bomb was accurate:
From the BBC News: "He was standing next to me with a bag at his feet and he kept dipping into this bag and fiddling about with something."
Yahoo News: " an agitated man fiddling suspiciously with a paper sack."
In the Sunday Mail: "he only got off because he was so annoyed by the man next to him fiddling with a rucksack"
The interview with ABC's Charles Gibson:
Jones: " It was a, obviously, a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles."
Gibson: "The police have said that they have seen these fellows arriving at King Cross Station (sic) in a closed-circuit television, one of those security cameras, and that they had knapsacks, rucksacks, backpacks on. Is that what this looked like?" (Editor's note: Is that what they call "leading the witness?")
Jones: "That's correct, well, it, it would be something, it wasn't like a large sports bag which protruded beyond his ankles. So that would be consistent."
"A paper sack"....."a small bag"....."fiddling with a rucksack"...."knapsack, rucksack, backpack"....."it wasn't like a large sports bag."
This is not looking good for the prosecution. Be honest with me here. How many of you out there wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a paper sack and a backpack? That's what I thought. Okay, let's move on to the bomber's appearance:
In the News Observer: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top."
The Sunday Mail: "The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top.'"
Associated Press: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top."
But then, on July 15, newspapers and TV stations around the world carried pictures of 18 year old Hasib Hussain....the bus suicide bomber, taken by closed circuit television cameras just two and half hours before he allegedly blew up London Bus No. 30. The Age online newspaper ran a picture of Hussain, and said that "The image is grainy but stubble is visible on his face. He is wearing a dark jacket and dark trousers and his carrying a backpack."
"Hipster-style fawn checked trousers and a matching jersey-style top"...."olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top"....
And the real bombing suspect? "stubble visible on his face.....wearing a dark jacket and dark trousers." And correct me if I'm wrong, but in the picture, his dark jacket, dark trousers, and shirt all appear to be blue....not "fawn checkered....not "light brown".
Oh.....and he's "carrying a backpack"....not a "paper sack"....not a "small bag".
Moving on....Our expert eyewitness then got off of the bus because.....well, we'll let him tell you why he got off of the bus:
Remember the Sunday Mail? "he only got off because he was so annoyed by the man next to him fiddling with a rucksack."
From the Reuters version: "Richard Jones jumped off his bus when he realised it wasn't following the usual route."
Associated Press: "Jones decided to join another passenger who said he was going to walk instead."
Back to the ABC News interview:
Gibson: "Now, I understand you got off just before the explosion because the bus had been re-routed and, and really wasn't getting anywhere."
Jones: "Correct. I was then able to go out the back door, the rear door of the bus."
And finally, lets go back to the UK Sun article: "Richard stepped off the bus at his destination."
Wait, there's one more. From the Independent: "Mr Jones got off the bus - he did not know why - and started walking."
"Wasn't following the usual route"...."decided to walk"...."wasn't getting anywhere"...."annoyed by the man with the rucksack"...."reached his destination"...."got off the bus-he did not know why."
And that's not all. In several versions, Jones said that he exited out "the back door, the rear door", (ABC interview), and that "we banged the back of the bus and the driver then let us off," (Associated Press), but then, in the Sunday Mail version, he said, "I had to bang on the front door and shouted something like, 'Come on, Jimmy, we want off.' About half a dozen got out the back door just before us and the same number, including me, left by the front."
"Banged the back of the bus"...."banged on the front door"....went out "the back door, the rear door"...."left by the front."
While Richard Jones "expert testimony" was used to supposedly "identify" Hasib Hussain as the London Bus bomber, and whose story, excuse me.....stories.....have been repeated around the world, ad nauseam, a witness who was on one of the London train carriages has been largely ignored. 32 year-old dance instructor Bruce Lait, who was in the carriage where the bomb went off (and has the injuries to prove it), said that "the metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train,"and "they seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."
Whether Richard Jones is a sick publicity hound who is trying to cash in on the tragedies of the London bombings, a pathological liar who has either gradually embellished his story or cut it out of whole cloth, or was in fact planted by "someone" to corroborate the official story, one thing is certain. His story is not credible, and is so full of holes that anything he says should be discounted as unreliable. And other than Jones, authorities have singled out NO EYEWITNESSES WHATSOVER to the bus bombing, and public officials and the media have once again perpetuated a story that just doesn't hold up to close examination.
April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City.....9/11/2001, New York City......and now, July 7, 2005, London......Three tragedies, three cities, and an entire world still waiting for the truth.
(Editor's note: A special thanks to Faulking Truth reader Chris Day, who contributed much of the research that made this article possible.)
Mark Faulk
back to witnesses section | back to 77 index