Published On: Thu, Jul 18th, 2019

Salih Khater: convicted for having a spasm whilst driving

Just over a week after it started, the jury at the Salih Khater trial retired at 11.50 am on Tuesday 16th July to consider its verdict, and came back the next morning to find the defendant guilty on two counts of attempted murder. If more than two days had been spent in the previous week trying Khater, it certainly was not reflected in corporate-media (as noted in the previous FBEL article, Somewhat on the quiet, the Salih Khater trial starts at the Old Bailey).

When the incident for which Khater was convicted took place nearly a year ago, it was instantly framed as a terror attack – and as we will see, the Crown Prosecution Service continued to promote terror as the nature of the crime, even though Khater was not being tried for that sort of thing. As seasoned event sceptics will know, it is unusual in the aftermath of what the Government calls a terror attack for any small detail concerning the incident itself or its perpetrator to be hidden under a bushel. However, the silence in this case is deafening – and for good reason. It is blatantly obvious why the British Government would want to dispose of the Salih Khater case as soon as possible, and then sweep it under the carpet, so that it escapes as much notice as it possibly can: the whole episode has been an embarrassment from beginning to end. Without a doubt, the shabbiness of the trial, and the extent to which it has been an obvious travesty, is a direct consequence of what was an evidently badly bungled false-flag attack (as explained at the time at FBEL in the article, The Westminster car crash deemed a terror attack: Britain’s Finest have their dopiest escapade yet).

The author is of the opinion that Salih Khater can be differentiated from Julian Assange in one important way: while both are intelligence assets (why this applies to Khater is about to be explained), the public should only get exercised about the perceived injustice meted out to the latter. This is for the purpose of having large amounts of people being engaged in redirected behaviour – that is to say, to have them expend any energy generated by concern about societal ills into avenues by which it is diffused, and there can be no materialisation of any means to affect change. Likewise, “Tommy Robinson”: if there were crowds outside the Old Bailey to protest against the jailing of an “innocent” who was “convicted for journalism” (as the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex fantasises), then why wasn’t there a mob to protest for Khater who was “convicted for having a spasm whilst driving”? In fact, the precedent that Khater’s case sets – at least on the face of it – creates such scope for the criminalisation of a set of circumstances that lots of people might commonly encounter that there is more than ample reason for great public interest. Thanks to Khater’s convictions, it would appear that anyone driving a car that has an accident which collaterally and detrimentally affects bystanders may be inferred by the State as being a terrorist.

That is, of course, if Khater’s was an organic case – which it was not. This outcome of this trial can set no precedent in law, because it was conducted within the confines of legal-non-reality that the State uses to deal with the psychological operations that it has unleashed itself. As has been explained at FBEL before, the Old Bailey is “a black hole of justice, where the State can write its crime into the record books as that performed by a patsy”. Indeed, the author can confidently make an assertion about Khater’s being a showtrial, not only because of the way that the State incriminated itself in the execution of the false-flag for which Khater would take the rap, but exactly because of the absurd, straw-clutching, and frankly unsound way that Khater was prosecuted at the Old Bailey; (that his defence counsel was rubbish is also an fail-safe indicator).

To summarise before getting into a more detailed treatment, Khater had his own reasons for being in London (get a visa), and he had his own reason for why the crash happened (had a spasm). So, with the absence of any other evidence, it all boiled down to his word against that of the prosecution’s. However, the prosecution could not establish a motive for why Khater would attempt to murder pedestrians and cyclists, and policemen stationed at an entrance to Parliament. As such, with the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt being a defining article of common law and supposed British justice, Khater should not have been found guilty of attempted murder. Moreover, the fact that the prosecution could only construct guilt upon a motive of terrorism – which is a crime that Khater had not been charged with – and was even allowed to do it, was a travesty and a disgrace, and sure fire sign that Khater’s was a showtrial.

If the reader goes back and looks at the first article on Khater’s trial that was published while it was still ongoing, he will see that the author commented on what appears to have been an opening statement by the prosecution to the jury, and expressed certainty that it was beyond the parameters of material that could be considered in the court: it wasn’t admissible. Again, Khater was not being tried as a terrorist, and yet prosecuting QC, Alison Morgan, told the jury:

By targeting Parliament Square, by targeting people that he did not know, and ultimately by attacking police officers guarding the Palace of Westminster, the defendant had a terrorist motive.

That is to say that he intended to use serious violence to pursue a religious, political or ideological cause. The prosecution allege that this is the obvious inference from what he did, where he did it and how he did it.

On hindsight it can be seen that this was not actually for the jury, but was instead intended as an exercise in damage limitation aimed at the public who might come across corporate-media reportage. It is not inadmissible in a court that is only a mockery of the real thing. In fact, there was a doubling down for the benefit of public scrutiny (in case there was any):

After the guilty verdicts the Crown Prosecution Service’s counter-terrorism division said it was reasonable to assume he had a terrorist motive because he chose an iconic site of national importance that had been previously attacked by terrorists.

Jenny Hopkins, from the CPS, said: “It was only quick reactions and good luck that stopped Salih Khater killing anyone when he drove his car into cyclists and police officers outside Westminster. Whatever his motives, this was not an accident. It was a deliberate attempt to kill and maim as many people as possible.”


Not only does the CPS admit that Khater had not motive by which to commit the crime, but it tries to rationalise the absence of any death or serious injury as being other than evidence to suggest that Khater was not in fact attempting to cause any of these things. Dear reader, the absurdity becomes total when one appreciates how exactly the CPS deemed that Khater had a terrorist motive. Again, the seasoned event sceptic will know that terror suspects are usually taken to court framed with an assortment of incriminating material – whether it be “radicalising” documents obtained from the internet, or affiliations with dubious people. None of this was the case with Khater. The following is from the Guardian article linked to above:

But Whitehall sources say they are not classing it as a terrorist attack and Khater had no extremist propaganda in his home or on his electronic devices such as his phone, which is highly unusual for a jihadist.

A Whitehall source said: “He was not known to the security services and there is no indication of an extremist mindset.”

And as for the grounds for inferring that Khater had a terrorist motive?

Evidence from his mobile phone revealed he had searched for 10 Downing Street and Westminster maps on the internet as potential “deliberate targets”.


Khater, in defence: “I did want to find somewhere that I’m familiar with because I’m not familiar with London. I thought Croydon or Westminster or the area where I knew.” So, it was a matter of navigation?

Guilt was supposedly also implied by behaviour – at least, if one believes that it is Khater, driving the vehicle or otherwise, that is being shown in the imagery (from the Sky News article linked to above):

CCTV captured Khater arriving in Parliament Square just before 1am and driving around Westminster, allegedly checking the layout for the attack.

He then parked up for four-and-a-half hours in Windmill Street in Soho before returning to Parliament Square for further reconnaissance, it was claimed.

Khater allegedly went on to do four laps of the square before launching the rush hour attack.

Khater’s defence: “I was just lost. I was just lost in London.” Having arrived at 1am, one might reasonably assume that the parking up was for having a kip. Khater’s defence counsel, typically, was absent presumed missing.

The astute reader will no doubt have been reminded, when reading this detail, of Darren Osborne, or as FBEL termed him, the least convincing patsy in the history of patsies. Most significantly, both Osborne and Khater were ridiculed by their respective accusers for implying contact with shadowy individuals in relation to the incidents for which they were convicted. While Osborne was clearly too confused (to even be on the stand) so that his helpers didn’t get identified as such, Khater was more explicit and claimed that intelligence agency operatives had stalked him. While Khater came across as a victim of this contact, the author thinks that he omitted one very important detail in its regards, which was that of his actual recruitment.

Nearly a whole year ago, in the FBEL article, Praetorian pantomime: inevitably, the likelihood of Salih Khater being the driver becomes an issue of doubt, the author expressed his doubt at the fact that Khater, a Sundanese, had claimed asylum when coming from Libya in 2010. Given the UK’s imminent ruination of Gaddafi’s country at that time, and now Khater’s participation in a clear false-flag attack, the circumstances of his being in Britain are very suspicious. The British Government’s enterprise in Syria has afforded us an understanding as to how British military intelligence recruits abroad, and then has its assets come in as refugees. Khater, at 29 years old now, was prime military age when he arrived on these shores. As the author wrote last year:

Who knows who in British Government has had a word in Khater’s ear, issued what threats – and one wonders, when arrangements whereby an immigrant gets to live in a country appear to defy common sense, what deals to be revoked for non-compliance are in place between the likes of Khater and the British Government.

Working on the basis that Khater is an  asset, his mention of being troubled by intelligence operatives at his hearing becomes about setting false bait for conspiracy theorist chatter. At the same time, when the prosecution implies that Khater is a paranoid delusional, this is meant as a message for a wider audience: if you think that this was a false-flag attack, you too have a mental disorder.

With Khater as willing accomplice, it would explain his readiness to identify himself, under questioning, as the driver of the car as it manoeuvred in the way shown on CCTV footage. The Metropolitan Police may well have, at last, released footage of Khater being removed from the vehicle, but the author’s observation made last year still stands:

Given that at the time of the arrest of Khater (as it is being represented in the imagery) there had been a police cordon already in place at both ends of the street in which it took place, it is possible that the Sudanese immigrant had not been driving the vehicle at all. The information suggests that there may have been time to introduce him at the scene so as to be in position for the arrival of the armed response.

There is no filmic evidence that the author can find that shows continuous coverage between the time of the crash and the time of the production of Khater from the car. Moreover, the above extract reminds of an objection made at the time regarding the plausibility of an immigrant living in the Midlands, attempting to drive around central London. Native born Britons living in provinces wouldn’t quite readily do it.

The author is of the considered opinion that it is quite possible that Khater wasn’t even driving the vehicle, and notices that where the corporate-media does quote witness testimony – principally Sky News – there is nothing that definitively places him as the wheel of the car:

A pedestrian who was crossing the road, Paul Brown, said Khater’s car “came out of nowhere” and hit him, causing bruises and grazes.

The court also heard how cyclists Krystof Tokarski and Anya Breen were on their way to work and were waiting at traffic lights when Khater revved his engine and knocked them down.

Mr Tokarski suffered a broken little finger while Ms Breen fractured her collar bone after being thrown over the bonnet.

Other victims were trapped under their bikes, with some screaming in pain, jurors were told.

This stuff, which the author has no good reason to understand as being other than written testimony (and not given in person), is why the following was written in the previous article:

The single way that an audience of corporate-media’s reporting of the trial… can understand who was driving the car is to infer that it was Khater by the way he answered certain questions put to him.

Of course, it might be argued that Khater had no option but to identify himself as the driver in court, given that an assumption, reinforced by images of his being bundled from the car, was so deeply embedded as fact that it could not reasonably be questioned. But if Khater was willing to appear ridiculous by talking about the involvement of an intelligence agency in the first place, why not go the whole hog, deny everything, and claim a defence that resided in his total patsy-hood? The answer, of course, is because it is his job to take the rap. That is what patsies do. The institution that is currently swarming with similar examples of his type, Belmarsh, now awaits too for Khater?

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image