Published On: Thu, Jan 2nd, 2020

London Bridge Inquests; Part Six: hiding the two-team matter of fact with Alexandre Pigeard (Sub-part B)

Share This
Tags

On 3rd June, 2017, two teams of men, with three operatives known for sure to be in one, and with at least one operative, but perhaps two others in the other team, executed an attack on people going about their business in the vicinity of Boro Bistro, a restaurant set at basement level off the Southwark’s Borough High Street. In fact, there may have been more than two teams because whoever was operating the van that crashed into railings above the restaurant (to signal the second team, most likely already stationed down in Green Dragon Court, to commence its operation) appears to have nothing to do with the first team (who would be the official culprits) which made its entrance on street level – starting its spree there – and descended stone steps into the main killing zone.

The inquest into the incident (held in May and June, 2019), evidently worked to select evidence that was best suited for being perverted so that a completely different narrative could be recorded into history. Moreover, it came out during the inquest that the effort to rig the evidence began as police were gathering it. Key witness Helen Kennett revealed that she was recovering from a knife wound to her neck, and was being medicated, when she gave a statement. In fact, she was unable to speak – meaning it is quite possible that police invented her account, with Kennett perhaps, upon her recovery, having to take the police on their word regarding what she (God knows how) communicated to them. When Kennett appeared at the inquest, she obviously felt that she had to stick by her statement – and this is perhaps why she comes across as if she experienced the Boro Bistro attack as if in a dream. However, when she challenges her statement as being illogical, the interrogating QC gives her short shrift, wanting her to stick to her statement. At stake is nothing less than the inquest’s entire credibility.

The problem for the inquest comes when Kennett was questioned for the first time by Hough, QC. The pertinent extract is copied below verbatim from the transcript, and as he reads it, the reader is asked to remember how the inquest wants Kennett to place Boro Bistro waiter and stabbing victim, Alexandre Pigeard,  at the steps that are located inside the archway that is mentioned. Kennett, even if she wants to please the inquest, cannot comply:

May we look at another photograph, {DC7283/100}. Now, you have indicated that you moved towards the wall. We can see where the wall curves around the corner.

Yes.

Were you near the corner or were you further towards the archway?

I wouldn’t be able to say for sure, but I would say I was further than the corner but not at the archway, I would say I was probably somewhere in between.

As you stood there, you could view the archway and the steps.

Yes.

Did you look in that direction?

I glanced and I saw people running down the steps, three men. And, again – –

Could you see anything about them, about those three men, before you saw the injured man?

They looked frantic. They looked frantic but I just presumed that they were part of the car accident and I presumed that they’d come down looking for us to go and help them. That’s just the immediate conclusion I came to, and I didn’t give it any more thought than that. I thought: oh, they’re coming for help.

You were then going to tell us that you saw an injured man?

So I glanced back the other way, and then I glanced again, and I saw an injured man.

Where was he when you first saw him?

I would guess not quite at the blood area, but maybe on the corner.

So where had he come from?

I hadn’t seen him before. He wasn’t in my mind before. I hadn’t seen him before. I’d just noticed – – the first time I noticed him was when I saw him bleeding a lot, and that the attacker was standing behind him.

Okay. What did you initially think had happened to him?

I thought that he had been involved in the car crash and that the man that was standing behind him had dragged him down the steps so that we could help him. I still considered it, even at that point, to be an innocent situation, an accident.

[8/57&58/7-22]

Before we deal with the obvious issue, we should note that Kennett does not mention Sébastien Bélanger, who fought the three men coming down the steps, and who had to be finished off before they could progress into the Green Dragon Court (this fact can be established by the testimony of witness Dervish Gashi – see Part Two of this series – and from the testimony of Jack Baxter, which will be being looked at in Part Seven). Depending on her viewpoint, Kennett may well have been able to see three men on the road level fixing to come down the steps, or she might have even had the information suggested to her by the police, but the fact is that she couldn’t have seen these men emerge into Green Dragon Court if she did not see Sébastien Bélanger.

Be that as it may, it still does not alter the fact that Kennett says that she saw Pigeard – for this is who the injured man was – in the location where he would die. Moreover, she says that this location was on her other side from the steps as she stood half way between them and the corner (where Green Dragon Court extends along its “bottom” into an L-shape) on the Southwark Cathedral side. She evidently had to rationalise that Pigeard had been dragged down from the road to explain his being where she saw him – but this, of course, would have been impossible.

So this was a big problem that the other questioning QC, Patterson, tried to smooth over. A lot of pressure was put on Kennett to conform to her dubiously obtained witness statement, but in the end, after being embarrassed by the exposure of dodgy practice – and an example that suggests that no witness statement should automatically be regarded as being reliable – the inquest had to back off and concede that Pigeard was “wherever” Kennett now said he was. (Incidentally, in the extract below, the reference in Kennett’s statement to “two guys running down closest to the bridge”, appears to be mention of the other members of the covert team; this is a topic for Part Seven of this series):

And in your statement which you made within a few weeks, on 19 June, so 16 days afterwards, you said this – – and do you have it with you there in the witness box?

Yes.

I would just like your help, please, in terms of the waiter and the waiter’s positioning. You said at the bottom of page 2: “There were two guys running down closest to the bridge …”

Yes.

Do you see that? So you’ve described – – just above that you’ve described three guys running down the steps?

Yes.

That’s these steps, isn’t it?

Yes.

“… a short distance away, I [don’t] recall knives… two guys running down closest to the bridge so to my left as I faced the steps from the bar.” Then you said this: “…there was one guy higher on the steps than one of the victims, the waiter I helped.”

Yes.

“The guy was one or two steps behind the victim.”

Okay.

Then you go on to describe how the victim was bleeding profoundly and the injury to the throat and so forth. So, just help me with where the waiter was when you first saw him: was he on those steps that we can see in this picture?

I think – – no, I don’t think he could have been. I know I said that, but I just got in my memory that he was one or two steps higher than me. It could have just been a variance in the pavement. I just had in my mind that he was higher than me. But I don’t think, logically, he could have been that far, but it’s hard to – – I wouldn’t … I mean, logically he wouldn’t have been that far away because the bar boundaries ended there.

If I may say so, please don’t worry about logically or whatever, we’ve had other evidence that at one stage he was over at those steps.

Okay.

We’ve also had other evidence that later he was down on the pavement close to you. So…?

He may have been, then. Like I said, all I can remember was that he was one or two steps higher than me. I remember looking up to him, but whether that’s a trick of my memory, I don’t know.

Yes. At any stage, did you go along the pavement towards the archway and towards those steps?

I definitely walked towards him but I wouldn’t be able to tell you whether that was three steps or 3 metres, I don’t know, but I saw him and I thought “I want to help him” and I walked towards him.

Of course. I’ll come on to what happened at the moment, but do you think you ever got as far as the archway?

I wouldn’t be able to say for sure.

You appreciate that in your statement you seem to have him on those stairs?

I know, but in my statement it also says that it was taken whilst I was still in hospital and still heavily medicated, and I couldn’t actually talk at the time, I had a trachea in so you can appreciate that there is going to be some variance.

Absolutely, please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not in any way being critical.

Okay.

His family simply are trying to learn as much as they can as to his positions and whether at one stage he got on to those steps. We’ve had evidence that he was at the bottom of the steps – –

Yes . That could well have been where I went to help him.

But in any event, the attacker was just behind him.

Yes.

So wherever he was, he would have the attacker just behind him and when you first see him he is already bleeding profoundly to the neck; is that right?

That’s correct.

[8/69-72/8-10]

Clearly, what is going in here is that Kennett knows, by deduction, that she must have seen Pigeard on the pavement that runs down by the wall that separates Green Dragon Court from the Cathedral, and not at the steps. However, she is still somewhat constrained by her statement – and compelled to be so by her corrupt interrogator. Even so, what we learn from Kennett’s testimony is invaluable despite the best efforts of overpaid scum to cover up state crime. In fact, it is bombshell material – and it is not alone.

First and foremost, when Kennett first saw Pigeard, the significant attack on him had already happened and is finished. He had acquired more wounds than the one to the neck. We also know that Kennett was then stabbed in the neck herself – and this is an incident that was seen by the witness Andzelika Abokaityte, who also saw Pigeard being stabbed twice in a way that could have produced his most significant wounds – which would mean that none of the attack on Pigeard happened on the steps. Moreover, from Kennett’s testimony, we learn that it happened before Sébastien Bélanger was attacked. But this is a huge problem, because by the official narrative, there could not be an assailant in the courtyard at this time to attack Pigeard.

In her testimony, Kennett does not clearly indicate any timings for experiences, except that she seemed to react reasonably quickly to the crashing van by moving from her seat in the Boro Bostro al fresco dining area to take up the position she reports being in when she saw Pigeard for the first time. Supporting evidence for the fact that Kennett was attacked very soon after the commencement of the incident is from Robin Colleau who, when running in the opposite direction to Sébastien Bélanger (who confronted the three attackers coming down from street level) does not mention seeing Kennett when he comes across Pigeard. Evidently, she has already made her escape to a place where she will later find timely medical attention. And it is from Robin Colleau’s associate, Alexandre Colou, who also had just entered Green Dragon Court when the van crashed above Boro Bistro, that we have another witness account that confirms that there was a lone knifeman in the exterior grounds of the restaurant from the very start of the incident.

While Colleau detected blood on folk ahead of him as he fled away from the official three attackers, Colou pinpoints where the screaming came from as people were confronted with the danger of a knifeman in their midst, as the following exchange during his appearance at the inquest shows:

I heard people screaming and running everywhere, which was when I decided myself I wanted to start running.

Pause there. You waited where you were on that pavement pathway leading into the restaurant.

Yes.

And then you heard some screaming. Where was that coming from?

From the courtyard.

From all around you?

Yes , yes, from the Boro Bistro .

[9/44/2-11]

It is very important to notice from the above extract how the questioner – in this case it was Hough, QC – wanted to produce a certain effect from the testimony: that the screaming was ubiquitous. In fact, one becomes aware from reading the transcript that the inquest was quite happy to have one witness after another talk about screaming coming from all around. The reason for allowing this impreciseness should be obvious: it makes absolutely no sense, if the attackers are supposed to be threatening life and limb up on the road level, for the screaming to start in the Boro Bistro al fresco dining area, as Colou clearly said it did. On the contrary, what Colou does is to confirm that there were attackers already at sub-street level when the van crashed. In fact, he was able to see one, and again, places him in a location that is incredibly damaging in terms of the survival of the official narrative:

I do remember Robin saying that something bad just happened, and then — so as I started to run, I do remember seeing a shadow of someone that I think to be one of the attacker with the knife , I think it was in his right hand, waving it that way (indicates ). It was, yes, still very shady.

So you have a shadowy memory of someone you think was one of the attackers holding up a knife.

Correct.

As far as you can recall, where was that person when you first saw them?

I think in the middle of the courtyard, Boro Bistro.

[9/45/3-14]

So, when running towards Boro Bistro with the steps at his back, and the three assailants there having to deal first with Sébastien Bélanger (who had just been with this witness, but had departed in the opposite direction), Colou saw a man with a knife in the vicinity of the Boro Bistro al fresco area. Moreover, through Colou we are at last able to establish that the man who attacked Pigeard, potentially, was right handed, so that we don’t have to assume it when considering Andzelika Abokaityte’s testimony. Indeed, through the combined evidence supplied by Abokaityte, Kennett, Colou and Colleau, there can be constructed a joined-up and realistic picture regarding Alexandre Pigeard’s murder. And while this picture puts an end to the use of Pigeard as a disguise for and an obliterator of the actual methodology of the attack, it is not alone in doing it. In the next part of this series, we will see that another witness saw another victim, Kirsty Boden, being killed by a lone knifeman, and that this attack happened early on in the incident too.

 

 

Note: the featured image is taken from the Metro, and is captioned “Alexandre Pigeard told Helen Kennett to run when she tried to help him after he was stabbed by an attacker on London Bridge (Picture: EPA/ITN)”

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

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>