Published On: Sat, Jan 18th, 2020

London Bridge Inquests; Part Nine: the railway bridge brawl; one cop spoils the plan (Sub-part B)

Share This
Tags

In Sub-part A of this Part Nine of FBEL’s series on the 2017 London Bridge attack, there was a focus on the testimony of Wayne Marques, which was called the “control sample”. The appellation is appropriate because it is going to be compared with other evidence, presented at the Inquest into the attack, which was used to smooth over the difficult contradictions to the official narrative produced by Marques’ experience. Marques’ account was singular in contrast to the consensus, but nevertheless quite the most authentic. It was never challenged by the QC who examined him, because to do so would be to draw attention to the danger it presented to the narrative. Instead, the Inquest merely tried to stitch Marques’ account into the orthodoxy by interpretation of other witness testimony and physical evidence – and this is easier to demonstrate than explain, so examples will be given. To this end, the author believes, the Inquest even used witnesses who were “got at”, meaning that they were induced to produce an account of their experience whereby Marques’ activity could be married to the official narrative.

Police Constable Leon Mcleod was Wayne Marques’ colleague. He accompanied Marques to the location where Richard Livett collapsed from a knife injury. When Marques sprinted off northwards under the railway bridge in Borough Market to deal with a knifeman attacking Oliver Dowling, Mcleod remained where he was. Mcleod didn’t notice Marques’ going, and his have been gone did not seem to register with Mcleod for quite the while. It can be ascertained from Mcleod’s testimony that Marques had probably drawn all of his three opponents to him by the time Mcleod noticed that his fellow patrol member was in a scrap: not only did Mcleod see Marques surrounded by a “crowd”, Marques had manoeuvred from the wall against which he had previously cornered one of his opponents. It means that Marques had moved into the position where he would have his standoff with three men. This is confirmed by Mcleod, who explained how, on reaching Marques, he arrived in a standoff situation. The problem with this account, however, is how Mcleod implies that Khuram Butt was one of Marques’ opponents, when it clearly was not the case. The following is taken from columns 68 to 72 of the transcript from Day 10 of the Inquests, and constitutes an extract from Mcleod’s testimony without the interjections from the questioning QC. It is abridged.

[Marques] would have been approximately 15 metres away from me in the direction of London Bridge… he had his back kind of to the wall, so facing the road. It looked like he was trying to break up a fight…  There would have been a crowd of people [around him] but I don’t remember anyone particularly at that point… As I got to where he was, he had sort of circled round so that he was facing the wall… Again, I assumed he was still sort of breaking up a fight. I don’t know…

As I got there, I remember seeing he had his baton out. I know Wayne well, that he wouldn’t rack his baton and have it out unless there was a reason, so I assumed he had seen something I hadn’t and I done the same, I racked my baton… So as I racked my baton, I looked up and in front of me was a gentleman with a knife… I vaguely remember thinking he had shorts on. The only thing that sort of stuck in the back of my head was that, I don’t really know how I picked it up, but it was like a football shirt, an old Arsenal shirt, that I picked up on… at that stage we just kind of had a stand off…

I had my baton racked and I remember me and Wayne were shouting something like “drop it”, so there was probably a bit more swearing going on, I imagine, and he… just looked at us and then stepped towards us… myself and PC Marques were both stood next to each other [in the road], he was just to my left, and… as he stepped towards us we both moved back… I remember I ran back into the road and at that split second there’s actually traffic , so I remember shouting something at this taxi – – again , I can’ t remember what it was — and as I said that, he said ”run away” or something, and then they – – I sort of turned around and they ran off.

The first thing that anyone would have to say about this evidence is that there is an element in it that makes it all worthless: the espying of Butt’s Arsenal jersey – the “uniform” which he would be wearing when he later appeared in national newspapers covering the moment of his demise at culmination of the terror attack. This football shirt was supposedly concealed under a red top at this particular point. It is the author’s opinion, after considering the evidence, that no one genuinely saw an attacker at Boro Bistro in a top that could be recognised as a football jersey. As such, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that anyone genuinely saw this article of clothing being worn by an attacker under the railway bridge. So, the author’s opinion is this: either Mcleod was compensating for the fact that he didn’t get involved when Marques was outnumbered in a fight, and thus invented evidence that he thinks shows that he must have faced-off with the people officially responsible for the terror, or someone put him up to lying.  Any way you want to look at it, Mcleod is not reliable – but there is more by which we could decide that he is not honest.

If we recall Marques’ testimony, he said that when he had manoeuvred onto the road, he swung at three opponents like a “crazy person”, and he believed this to be the reason why he caused them to retreat into a standoff situation (before withdrawing completely). It would be this same standoff situation, presumably, that we are meant to believe that Mcleod arrived into. Thus, it is highly unbelievable that Mcleod could misinterpret Marques’ activity at that time as anything mundane as breaking up a bout of fisticuffs. If Mcleod approached Marques as he said he did, he would have seen a serious situation. It is just unbelievable that Mcleod could be prompted to “rack” his own baton only after he had moved to Marques position. From any distance, Marques’ attacking should have been obvious as vigorous and indicative of a perilous situation.

The author would argue that the motive for downplaying what Marques was doing was to save the narrative: to make it seem that he had not been involved in confronting terrorists until Mcleod had arrived with him – if that is indeed what Mcleod did, because at no time until after his opponents had fled did Marques notice Mcleod. But in fact, the truth of Mcleod’s conduct is irrelevant in respect of reducing the significance of Marques’ performance; when Mcleod says he joined Marques in a standoff, and it being accepted as official by the Inquest, and then, by bringing Butt into that shared experience with his colleague, Mcleod transforms Marques’ fight into one where, if he had indeed been fighting terrorists, he must have been dealing with the official culprits.

Ultimately, however, Mcleod’s failure to describe the people who Marques was really fighting (e.g. “I don’t remember anyone particularly at that point”) is an omission that, i) is hard to believe could be made, and ii) is made in support of what is a gross misrepresentation of Marques’ accomplishment. We can therefore deduce that the deception created by Mcleod’s witness was one deliberately made. Given that it was done to save the narrative, we can assume Mcleod did not do it off his own bat (and he would have had no reason to).

Indeed, we could go so far as to accuse the Inquest of using Mcleod’s account to substantiate an interpretation of certain footage that could support the Inquest’s bias. The CCTV footage in question was described as showing the following:

…the attackers move on while Ignacio lies wounded on the pavement…[and after a moment when a bus obscures the view] Ignacio…  roll[s] on the ground for a few seconds before he then ceases to move and lies still… [meanwhile] the attackers move south while PCs Marques and McLeod were both a little in the road, as they described.

[10/10/3-17]

Here we are no doubt supposed to picture Marques and Mcleod side by side in the latter’s version of Marques’ standoff. As such, the attackers who are making their escape appear to us, in our picture, to be the ones who injured and killed Ignacio; i.e. Redouane and Zaghba, and by extension Butt. However, does the CCTV really show that? We should note that the CCTV does not appear to show Mcleod running to a taxi and speaking to its driver, which is what he said he did prior to Butt making his escape. If the CCTV doesn’t reflect Mcleod’s experience, it can’t reflect what he claims to have shared with Marques.

Moreover, can we be sure that Mcleod and Marques were the only uniformed police in the area by this time, and thus does the CCTV even show either one of them? Does the CCTV footage permits its viewer to discern no more than the apparent fact that two people are wearing uniforms? One of the friends of Ignacio, a Guillermo Sanchez-Montisi, who was with him at the incident, testified in a written statement that he saw “a policeman walking towards the group but when he reached them, he was hit once in the neck by one of the attackers and he fell straight to the floor” and “As he fell his helmet came off.” [10/20/6-9]. If this is right, then this is an officer additional to Mcleod and Marques (who the Inquest does not appear to try and account for). So, does the CCTV actually show Mcleod in the vicinity of Butt et al, but also in the proximity of an officer other than Marques, taxi or no taxi? Crucially, the public cannot see the CCTV footage, and must form an impression about its content from how it is described by people who have been exposed as having an agenda to misrepresent it. Hence, what we are told is in the CCTV footage is not to be trusted.

And the prime example of this is the moment that is said to show Marques pulling Metropolitan Policeman, Charles Anthony John Guenigault, away from Butt, who is supposedly “stabbing Charles Guenigault repeatedly” [10/15/3]. This is an incident that neither man can recall ever happening. In fact, we can be sure it never happened. Marques’s testimony just doesn’t allow for it, and besides which, as we will see from Guenigault’s own account, there may have been too much distance between them. For Guenigault appears to indicate that Marques was in a northerly position in relation to him, and to his “far left”.

For his own part, the author believes that Marques was involved in a separate situation than the one Guenigault finally succumbed to. There is an account, by Sanchez-Montisi, of a “ tall blonde male who was running up and down the road and he was screaming like he was nervous, and I remember that he was stabbed as well, and on his way down I think he was trying to warn people but he got involved in the attack.” [10/22/16-20]. The thing is, the author seriously doubts that Guenigault got involved in a fight, because (as we are about to see) he provides absolutely no detail of being in one. However, he does offer a fully rounded description of being a knifing victim. While pictures of him on the internet do not suggest he is blonde, one could certainly call him fair. The author wonders if the behaviour of Sanchez-Montisi’s “blonde male” is perhaps that of one who considers himself an authority figure. Remember, Guenigault was off-duty, and not in uniform.

In any case, here follows an abridged version of Guenigault’s testimony to the Inquest; again, the interjections of the questioning QC have been left out. It is taken from columns 153 to 163 of the transcripts from Day 9 of the Inquests. We should note that where this account leaves off, Guenigault can do nothing but wait to receive medical assistance, so by his account too, there is no interaction between him and Wayne Marques. The account opens with Guenigault with Richard Livett, along with the other two policemen:

I then saw to my left, so the north side, I saw what I believed at the time to be six or seven people having a fight … I would say probably about 15 to 20 metres [away]… So from my memory, I see them [Marques and Mcleod] running towards the fight going on, while I stayed where I was with the injured gentleman on the floor… I then saw, again from memory, what I saw was both the police officers being attacked, and that’s when I decided to run towards it… It was difficult to see how many were attacking the officers, exactly. It would have been more of a case they were just involved in this scrap, trying to – – again, at the time thinking they were just trying to break this fight up… Again, it was probably just more of – – rather than, say, getting a baton out at that stage, I don’t remember seeing a baton at that stage , but what appeared again to be trying to break the fight up…

So, as I – – I would say pretty much sprinted over towards them, I’ve just thrown myself into this bundle of people. I sort of remember pushing people away [using open hand, palms, and body weight]. And if I’m honest, after that point, it’s sort of – – in terms of the scrap, it’s pretty unclear to me what happened there…

The next thing I know is I’m now faced with three people in vests with knives looking in my direction [3 or 4 feet away]… So if you take like an original Met Police vest, probably a bit thinner than that, covering more their belly side, black, and what really looks like to me still is either flour or a sort of chalky colour strapped to them… I ’ ve never seen a suicide vest , it didn’t look like one to me… Maybe body armour…

[At this point] I do remember seeing who I believe would be Wayne Marques in the far left of my direction, looking north on Borough High Street… [the moment of standoff was broken when] one of them made stabbing motions towards me… I believe it was two [attackers] headed towards my direction while another went off in another direction, to my right…

…one attacker who was to my left -hand side. He got me in the back, one stab to the back. Then, from memory, I believe it was the second attacker, who was more positioned to my right, had stabbed me on the top left forehead side of my head and had quickly then done the right eye, and then the one on the left had then stabbed me again in the back…

So after being stabbed in the back a second time, that’s when I remember collapsing to the floor and almost like my body giving up on me, so my legs collapsing underneath me. I then fell onto my back… laid my arms out flat, turned my head to the left and pretty much played dead… I sort of can remember very, very — sort of seeing people running away. I could hear screams sort of resonating a bit more at that point, and, you know, I didn’t see them run away. I didn’t see them go off somewhere else. It just felt like they weren’t there any more. So that’s why I then started to move…

So I rolled over to my belly, which basically exposed the wounds on my back, and then obviously the wounds I had on my head, the blood would sort of fall out as you would, say, a nose bleed, the same sort of thing. Just so when someone did arrive they could see my wounds, obviously gravity acting in a way, blood, I was hoping, wouldn’t pump out of the back that much.

Again, just as with Mcleod’s account, there is no sense from Guenigault that he actually saw the same fight that Marques was involved in. Again, we know that Marques had “racked” his baton before he engaged his opponents, and used it, at times furiously, throughout the entire incident. So, it defies belief that Guenigault could not see a baton being used – but then, by Guenigault’s own admission, Marques was “far” away. In fact, what with his apparent ignorance, except generalities, regarding the details of his own experience in a brawl, Guenigault gives a strong impression that he, like Mcleod, wasn’t in a fight either. In fact, the author tends to believe that he was Sanchez-Montisi’s nervous “blonde male” who ran up and down trying to make sure that the general public, who are of course always in need of protection from the police, should not get involved – that is, of course, until he was stopped from doing it.

And what should we make of Guenigault’s claim that he saw both Marques and Mcleod run towards a confrontation, and then maintain the untruth by claiming he saw both of them being attacked? Well, perhaps he saw Sanchez-Montisi’s other uniformed policeman and thought it was Mcleod. The blame for not ensuring that he was not mistaken lies squarely on the shoulders of those people with an agenda driving the inquest; their purpose being to place Marques and Mcleod together in a fight and support the effort to “normalise” Marques’ experience, and bring it into the confines of acceptable narrative. And yet there is a good chance that Guenigault was another “got-at” witness who was very much in on the effort. For consideration of this possibility, we return to the infamous CCTV footage said to show Gueniagault and Marques together. The extract involves a QC discussing the clip with a representative of the police:

Starting in real time, 22.09.15.

Correct , sir .

The attack on Ignacio is taking place off screen to our left?

That’s correct.

We’ll see, I think, Butt come into view of the camera, stabbing Charles Guenigault repeatedly?

That’s correct.

We’ll see then PC Wayne Marques pulling Charles Guenigault away?

We will, sir.

We’ll see Butt and Redouane just following the attack on Ignacio walking south, gesticulating with knives?

That’s correct, sir.

And then Zaghba following at a jog?

That’s correct, sir.

Again, the purpose of showing this footage is abundantly clear. We know from Guenigault’s account that he was involved in a standoff, and then he was stabbed, and then the attackers went away. We know that Marques was in a standoff, and then the attackers fled. By giving the impression that Marques and Guenigault were together when the attackers fled, we are supposed to conflate two entirely different standoffs as one – hence, we are supposed to think that Marques had been fighting Butt et al, and forget about the mystery man in the grey tracksuit.

The author is of the considered opinion that Guenigault had not much option to deny any knowledge of contact with Marques because of how it so blatantly could not have happened – not by Marques’s account, and not by Guenigault’s –  and to claim that it did would be to signal too clearly that his testimony in part was dishonest – meaning, potentially, none of it was to be believed. Meanwhile, he still gives the Inquest what it wants by contributing to the downplaying of the incident (with police merely peacemaking: breaking up a fight) until such time there was a standoff with knives. And if we say that his story of both Marques and Mcleod running into battle was not a mistake, but a deliberate untruth, then the scales of judgement begin to tip towards his being a willing tool of cover up. In more support of this, he fails quite singularly to give a credible description of three attackers except to convey a sense of their being evil-looking cardboard cut-outs, with the details to be filled in by each recipient of his news. Of course, the intention would be to let those recipients – mostly the corporate-media in exercises of obedient stenography – project the three official culprits onto those cut-outs. Only now, of course, corporate-media would have the opportunity to report the sighting of each terrorist wearing a suicide belt, because of the suggestion of one in Guenigault’s testimony.

In the end, of course, it didn’t matter to the Inquest if neither Guenigault or Marques would not corroborate the CCTV supposedly showing their interaction, because of the simple deployment of some damage limitation by the QC who was holding court during analysis. The Inquest’s method of dealing with this failure of witnesses to corroborate CCTV footage was to declare that the witnesses just didn’t understand what was going on. Of course, if that were really the case, no inquest would ever get held. Nevertheless, this is what was asserted:

So just one final point: …some of the witnesses who give evidence, including some of the officers, understandably weren’t aware of what was happening to others close to them at the time that they were involved in events… So for that reason, the CCTV is an important record of everything that’s going on at the same time.

In truth, CCTV of the quality used by the Inquest (and please see Sub-part A for an example) is not factual while it is open to all kinds of interpretation. All things being equal, if the Coroner’s Inquest into the London Bridge terrorist attack of 2017 wasn’t a monumental cover-up for state crime, it would be a huge failure to regard grainy video footage as fact contrary to a set of witness testimony that verified itself. This approach, of course, is purposefully perverse for the benefit of the agenda of those who utilise it. Conversely, if the London Bridge Inquest faithfully pursued the witness evidence to wherever it may lead, its official narrative would not survive. Take, for example, the failure to register the apparent corroboration, by Andrew Morrison, of a piece of evidence provided by Guenigault (so we might surmise, as a result, that his testimony was at least partially true).

At the time of the brawl under the railway bridge, Morrison found himself further to the south down Borough High Street. In fact, it is on the record at the Inquest that he was “in the area of the scaffolding, just on the south side of Bedale Street” [11/13/9-10] – please see the map published on this page. Here is an extract from his written statement read out to the Inquest:

I barely took five steps, ducking under and weaving around the scaffolding poles as I looked back at the scuffle again. I still saw a person lying on the ground, police backing up with their batons drawn, yelling commands at the attackers to ’Drop it’. As I quickly moved around one of the scaffolding poles near the corner of the alleyway opposite the train station, and while I was still looking at the brawl, all of a sudden, I came face-to- face with a guy who stood about 2 or 3 metres from me. This guy was a dark Middle Eastern, Islamic appearance, 6-foot tall, athletic build , in his 20s to 30s, dark short light beard, not fully grown, with a shaved buzz cut, a number 2 cut , short hair all over and wearing military style clothing. I would describe his clothes he was wearing as a grey bulletproof vest over a short-sleeved shirt and camouflage pants, holding an everyday household kitchen carving knife, or I would describe as a chef’s knife , in his right hand that was about 30 centimetres in length , standing right in front of me… Then he proceeded in a swinging motion from his right hip and swung the knife up towards my face in a thrusting action and stabbed me between my left jaw, or it is more like my chin and left cheek.

[11/7&8/11-20]

The knifeman of Morrison’s account could very well be wearing the same sort of vest that Guenigault was trying to describe. If we want to be conservative, and limit the number of attackers that were involved in this operation, we would strongly suspect that this man was the same who attacked Guenigault. Whether that is true or not, the one thing that is certain is that here is yet more solid evidence of at least one more assailant than Butt et al. Moreover, Marques gave very good descriptions of three men – two of which could not be any of the three official terrorists. That means, being conservative, that there were at least six attackers involved in the initial post-Boro Bistro phase of the London Bridge attack.

The really useful thing about Morrison’s statement is that it offers yet further conformation about how the operation was generally executed, with a party of attackers always ahead of the location where a reaction was taking place to a murderous spree that had already happened. This answers the question as to why the standoffs described by Marques and Mcleod concluded with a retreat by the attackers, and it’s simple: with the momentum of the attack having moved past the particular location, the narrative could not survive further reports of injury or killing in other places other than the focal point of the terror. Indeed, we can be almost certain that some of these teams surrendered to police when the hotspot had passed beyond their area of jurisdiction, because there were in fact images in social media and corporate-media of arrests being made. Of course, the final proof of London’s police forces being in cahoots with the intelligence agencies (who we must surmise would ultimately be responsible for the attack) would be how there were no criminal prosecutions. When Butt et al were shot, the culprits had been dealt with – and, of course, come the Inquest, the witness testimony that attested to many more culprits who had not been dealt with would just be ignored by the whores of the corporate-media – and there would be no risk of exposure from the controlled alternative media either, which would have its audience distracted with 5G, Julian Assange, Epstein (as the latest vehicle for elite paedophilia hysteria), and the threat of war. The London Bridge terror attack proclaims itself a false flag in the transcripts of the Inquest into it, and “alternative media” is not interested.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.