John Howard: "I cannot precisely source that advice."

Volunteer your time and efforts to show media fakery what-for! Conversations with suspicious types? Freedom of Information adventures? Post here!
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

John Howard: "I cannot precisely source that advice."

Unread post by timothymurphy »

Simon sketched out some questions for LA REPUBBLICA and DER SPIEGEL and the Australian government.

The question is why John Howard announced on July 8 2005 that there were 52 victims of 7/7, at a time when the UK police had still not announced anything more than 37 victims.

John Howard had beaten the BBC to the 52 figure by about 3 days.

Newspapers like to get their timelines for major events right. After all, they will constitute major resources for furture historians.

Anway, this is the letter that will be sent out to:
Der spiegel
la reppublica
australian government

maybe the UK's Media Standards Trust
(who have a particular concern with accountability for internet-based news)


Any criticisms or additions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:
The Australian Prime Minister's July 8 statement on the 7/7 bombings


Sirs,

This letter describes an incongruity in two newspapers' official 7/7 timelines. Therein, Australian Prime Minister John Howard appears to be credited with supernatural foreknowledge:


On the official timelines for July 8 2005, DER SPIEGEL and LA REPPUBLICA cite statements by the Australian government and the Australian Prime Minister about the London Bombings.

In these statements, a death toll of 52 is reported:

DER SPIEGEL
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 53,00.html

July 8:

+++ Number of Deaths climbs to 52 +++
(5:33 a.m. CET) According to statements made by the Australian government, the number of dead has risen to 52. Further deaths are feared, said Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard. In Great Britain, 37 deaths have so far been confirmed.


LA REPUBBLICA
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/g/dirette ... ref=search

July 8 :

08:09 Premier australiano: "I morti sono 52"
Secondo il primo ministro australiano John Howard, il bilancio delle vittime ? di 52 persone, di cui 7 cittadini australiani. La cifra fornita da Howard contrasta con quella ufficiale della polizia londinese (37) ma il premier non ha spiegato ai giornalisti da dove provengano le sue informazioni.


However, the previous evening, the BBC had reported a death toll of only 37 victims:


BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4694069.stm


The known death toll at the end of the first day is 37 with more than 700 injured.


In fact, the first BBC report to mention a death toll of 52 was not released until three days later, on July 11:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4694069.stm


The first victim of the London bombings is named as the confirmed number of dead reaches 52.


John Howard did not just beat the BBC to the 52 figure. He also beat the UK police, emergency services, coroners and forensic experts who still had much work to do on the morning of July 8:

According to the LA REPPUBLICA timeline, only later, at 12.10 CET the UK police announced that there were more than 50 victims.


12:10 Polizia: pi? di 50 i morti
La polizia metropolitana comunica che i morti sono pi? di 50. E precisa che ? ancora impossibile stabilire il numero esatto delle vittime perch? ci sono ancora corpi nelle gallerie della metropolitana e sui bus. I feriti sono 700


Why would John Howard in Australia be allowed to know, and to announce this information, before the UK police?

Moreover at 13.42 CET, 8 hours after Howard’s statement, LA REPUBBLICA reports that the Russell square carriage has still not been reached:


Nessun ferito nel vagone di Russell Square: La polizia non ? ancora riuscita a raggiungere il vagone della metro rimasto intrappolato nei pressi della stazione di Russell Square, ma ? escluso che nei sotterranei ci possano ancora essere dei feriti intrappolati. Lo ha chiarito il capo della polizia della capitale britannica, Ian Blair.

It happens that the Russell Square bomb claimed the largest number of victims (26). Without the Russell square carriage having been reached, it was impossible for John Howard to know the total of 7/7 victims. But not only did he claim knowledge of the death toll, he picked the correct final figure ? 52

It is implausible for John Howard to know this figure at the time of his statements.

The timelines constructed by LA REPPUBLICA and DER SPIEGEL imply that John Howard in Australia had more information than the UK police. Therefore his statements do not make sense in the context of those timelines.


Howard does mention his expectation for the death toll to rise.
Indeed, after excavation of the 26 Russell Square dead, and after the deaths of victims from their injuries in subsequent days (Sam Ly and Lee Harris on July 14 and July 15 respectively according to the BBC), the death toll will eventually rise to 56 including the bombers.

But why did John Howard, on the morning of July 8, have more information than the UK police,?and why does he prophetically choose the figure that is now emblematic of the tragedy of 7/7 ? 52 - the figure that is enshrined in the 7/7 memorial and in most reflections upon that day?



We demand a joint clarification from Der Spiegel, La Repubblica and the Australian government, of John Howard’s prophetic statement, and its incongruous place within the official London Bombings timelines of these two respected European newspapers.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv »

Timothy, as I ws reading that it occured to me that the "later casualties" may have been simply added to accommodate Howard's [blunder] statement!! Isn't it a bit convenient that the exact number of as yet un-found dead just happened to tally up to Howard's 52 of July 8th!?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7258
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

Excellent work, Timothy.

This thread will keep track of any future developments of/and due responses to this matter.
http://www.septemberclues.info
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

update...

e mails sent to:

-Vittorio Zucconi, editor of La Reppublica online - [email protected]

-Der Spiegel's online corrections / politics form
http://www1.spiegel.de/active/kontakt/f ... rmail.fcgi

-Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, W European department [email protected]

(Australia's in transition right now, so no PM to write to!)


Also, just to reach out to cultivate some fellowship with like-minded (?) individuals:

-Martin Moore at the Media Standards Trust [email protected]


Hi Martin,
Because of your interest in accountability for internet-based news, I enclose a copy of a query I have sent to Der Spiegel, La Republica and the Australian government.

Basically, the two newspapers' timelines for the London Bombings include a statement by the Australian Prime Minister on 8 July 2005. The PM announces that there were 52 victims of the bombings. However, he makes this announcement when, according to the time-lines, the Russell Square carriage has still not been excavated (site of 26 deaths).
Indeed, the BBC does not announce a figure of 52 dead until 11 July.

So, the Australian PM appears credited with supernatural foreknowledge.
It seems unlikely that the premier of a sophisticated country would brandish a fantasy death-toll for a tragic international event (52 on 8 July)
So the timelines published by those two online papers must be inaccurate or nonsensical.
Or there is some other explantion altogether.

Either way, I share my demand for accountability to these online sources of news:

*quote of email to la reppubica etc.*
antipodean
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Unread post by antipodean »

The silence is deafening over at the 9/11oz forum, about John Howard's advanced 7/7 knowledge.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8252
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Nice letter.

I would almost be tempted to ask brianv's question - did you change the number to 52 because of Howard's seer-like prediction? - but I feel that might be giving them too much to play with. Let's see what they come up with and how well they are at coordinating their stories, eh?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7258
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

I am writing my own letter (in Italian) to Vittorio Zucconi - the director of the Repubblica online edition (and veteran US/foreign affairs correspondent).
http://www.septemberclues.info
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

I've written directly(ish) to John Howard.

It will be interesting to see his perspective on his 8 July statement.
(will he blame his researchers?)

My letter is addressed to the speakers agency he is connected with - The Washington Speakers Bureau (same one as Tony Blair etc.) - as I don't know where he lives.



Dear Mr Howard,

I trust you are well and that this letter will find you. Since you travel a lot, I felt this address was as good as any!

I hope that you can comment on something that impressed me a lot, in reviewing the media archives for the 2005 London Bombings:

There is an article on the ABC, also alluded to in La Reppublica, and Der Spiegel, containing an announcement you made on 8 July 2005.

Well before noon GMT on 8 July, you announced that there were 52 victims of the attacks. That is remarkable because the BBC did not announce the figure of 52 until 11 July. In fact, one of the trains had still not been excavated when you made your statement.

Could you share the source of information for your statement on 8 July? Is it possible that it was just a lucky guess?

Your appearance of supernatural foreknowledge has been preserved for posterity by internet and newspaper archives, leaving quite a puzzle.

How did you know that there would eventually be 52 victims in the 7/7 attacks?

There are many people interested in hearing your perspective on this conundrum, so I hope you can offer a response.

Yours sincerely,



edit:

Jazza nudged me to say that John Howard's home address is:

19 Milner Crescent, Wollstonecraft 2065, Sydney, New South Wales.

So the letter has gone to that address instead, and JH can read the letter over his eggs and bacon, at home.
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

Image

Anyone else had any responses?

I'm gonna tell him it's ok if he "approximately" sources the advice.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv »

"I'm sorry that I cannot precisely source that advice".

Tim, I think he's telling you that he's not telling you, not that he doesn't know. That information would be a matter of Parliamentary record wouldnt it? His office would also have it on record!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7258
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

Timothy,

As I read Howard's letter, an Italian friend was sitting next to me. He asked me to translate this sentence - and convey its full meaning - in Italian:

"I'm sorry that I cannot precisely source that advice"


I tried. And tried. And gave up. :lol:
http://www.septemberclues.info
brianv
Member
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv »

Not saying that it's not and not saying that it is...

ImageImage

I'm out for a few hours, but if someone wants to have a look here in the meantime!

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explor ... x#personal
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

I like your idea. Keep at it. It should be a matter of public knowledge.
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

brianv 4 Sep 3 2010, 06:20 PM wrote: I'm out for a few hours, but if someone wants to have a look here in the meantime!

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explor ... x#personal
brilliant resource, Brian!

Using that as a starting point, I found the transcript of the infamous Howard press conference on 8 July 2005:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... ombings%22

...He really loves the word "advice"

Image


And gives signs of being a question-dodging ninja...

Image

PS.
Yes Simon, his one sentence reply to me could mean so many different things.

It would be nice if he could say
"I can't remember who told me,"
or
"I can't tell you that for security reasons."

But the words "source" and "advice" are slippery and flexible so that I don't know what the heck he is trying to say.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7258
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

timothymurphy wrote:
Yes Simon, his one sentence reply to me could mean so many different things.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

We can all learn from the master con-artists of this world. The next time your wife asks you if you have shagged another woman, all you have to answer is:

Image

"I'm sorry that I cannot precisely source that advice"
http://www.septemberclues.info
Post Reply