Court case of controversial conspiracy "Ripple Effect" DVD this Thursday

Run_to_da_hills

Court case of controversial conspiracy "Ripple Effect" DVD Thursday 19 March 1.30PM.

EDITED: MODS, I Meant this for the CT Forum, if you could transfer much appreciated.


Extradition is sought by UK authorities of a man alleged of sending a controversial DVD allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It was sent to the Judge and jury foreman during a trial relating to bomb attacks in London in July 2005 but according to reports the DVD never made it that far..

Sheffield-born Anthony John Hill (60) was arrested by gardaí at his home in Carrick Street, Kells, early yesterday morning on foot of a European Arrest Warrant, Mr Justice John MacMenamin was told.

Mr Hill’s extradition is being sought in relation to his alleged actions during the trial of several people on conspiracy charges related to the attacks on July 7th, 2005, that took place on the London underground and a London bus.

It is alleged that, in May and June 2008, Mr Hill sent several copies of a DVD entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect to the judge and the foreman of a jury at the trial at Kingston Crown Court of people allegedly involved in assisting the 2005 bombings.

7/7 Ripple Effect is a film, available on the internet (Link below), which claims people accused of involvement in the bombings are innocent and that the bombings were an “inside job”, perhaps involving state intelligence agencies in either Britain or Israel.

The maximum sentence on the warrant is Life Imprisonment in England. John had his computer and other property siezed by Gardai (At the request of UK Authorities) which is why he requested other people to help him as he is not able to defend him self properly as a result.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931721.html

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=830

The Controversial Video in Question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A&feature=related

Wossack

silly boy

Nodin

..in the old days, of course, Cadburys used bake them and cover them in chocolate.

Zillah

Life Imprisonment seems a little harsh

meglome

I'm trying to understand your point here Rtdh. Do you think it's a good idea for someone to send info to jury remembers to influence their decisions?

And no matter how much Mr Hill believed that this was a good idea its very much illegal and rightly so IMO. And seriously there isn't even one shred of evidence that the British security forces were involved in the London bombing and even less so that the Israelis were.

dr.bollocko

Moved to CT

meglome

And that video is fantasy bull****. London has been bombed before and was under threat of new attacks so they know quite a lot about it. So for the BBC to put out a programme about a possible attack isn't even remotely surprising.

And just so I'm clear the powers that be told the public what they were going to do and how they were going to do it, in advance, in detail, on television? How would that make a lick of sense?

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

I'm trying to understand your point here Rtdh. Do you think it's a good idea for someone to send info to jury remembers to influence their decisions?

I agree It was foolish of him to send any material whether conspiracy or not.

meglome wrote: »

And no matter how much Mr Hill believed that this was a good idea its very much illegal and rightly so IMO. And seriously there isn't even one shred of evidence that the British security forces were involved in the London bombing and even less so that the Israelis were.

I haven't looked at it yet but im sure the case is giving the DVD plenty of publicity.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I agree It was foolish of him to send any material whether conspiracy or not. I haven't looked at it yet but im sure the case is giving the DVD plenty of publicity.

Ah okay. But what point were you trying make then?

Guy does something illegal and gets arrested, end of. Right?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

meglome wrote: »

And that video is fantasy bull****. London has been bombed before and was under threat of new attacks so they know quite a lot about it. So for the BBC to put out a programme about a possible attack isn't even remotely surprising.

And just so I'm clear the powers that be told the public what they were going to do and how they were going to do it, in advance, in detail, on television? How would that make a lick of sense?

Did you actually watch the DVD? Doubt it...

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Ah okay. But what point were you trying make then?

Guy does something illegal and gets arrested, end of. Right?

I think the case it is a bit heavy handed, IE using a sledge hammer to crack an egg. It also gives us an idea of the powers of European Extradition Warrents and what to expect in the Future.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think the case it is a bit heavy handed, IE using a sledge hammer to crack an egg. It also gives us an idea of the powers of European Extradition Warrents and what to expect in the Future.

Attempted Jury tampering is taken very seriously in most countries. So are you okay with having wanted people hanging around Ireland who cannot be extradited as they haven't broken our laws? This is just one example but it could be any serious crime they are wanted for. What about Irish criminals in other countries? Why is it bad there would be European extradition warrants? Why is it heavy handed, did he get a very long sentence?

Ariadne Acidic Lip wrote: »

Did you actually watch the DVD? Doubt it...

Unfortunately I've already wasted ten minutes watching the first part. Wherein I'm expected to believe the British government went on TV and told everyone about this secret operation they were going to run in advance. Just so they could fool everyone. Maybe someone could explain how that would make sense as I don't see it.

And feel free to put forward the other points he makes in the video and I'll be happy to discuss them.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Attempted Jury tampering is taken very seriously in most countries. So are you okay with having wanted people hanging around Ireland who cannot be extradited as they haven't broken our laws? This is just one example but it could be any serious crime they are wanted for. What about Irish criminals in other countries? Why is it bad there would be European extradition warrants? Why is it heavy handed, did he get a very long sentence?.

It will come a time when you could be extradited to a country like Spain or Italy on some petty charge that is renowned for corrupt policing.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will come a time when you could be extradited to a country like Spain or Italy on some petty charge that is renowned for corrupt policing.

You honestly think any police force is going to go to the trouble and expense of extraditing someone on a petty charge? And what about the rest of my questions.

1. So are you okay with having wanted people hanging around Ireland who cannot be extradited as they haven't broken our laws?
2. This is just one example but it could be any serious crime they are wanted for. What about Irish criminals in other countries?
3. Why is it heavy handed, did he get a very long sentence?

DubTony

meglome wrote: »

You honestly think any police force is going to go to the trouble and expense of extraditing someone on a petty charge?

meglome, this is possibly one of the stupidest questions ever asked on this forum. The petty charge relates to something "they can get you on". A charge that is an extraditable offence. In the future this could be anything that any European government decides it is as long as they can get the proper legislation through. In Britain you can be fined for putting your bin out on the wrong day. It's not an extraditable offence but can you say it won't be in the future?

So a cop in Italy gets the bit between his teeth because while you were on holiday you did something that you would regard as petty (maybe you dropped a sweet wrapper). He challenges you, and because you've been on the sauce all day you insult him and his mother. He arrests you for abuse and drags you back to the station. After he fingeprints you, his boss finds out about this nonsense, orders him to let you go and reprimands him. He gets seriously pissed off about this reprimand and because he can't do anything about it, and his pride is hurt, he decides to blame someone. YOU. He then goes to his brother in the Italian DPP's office (whatever that's called) and tells the brother that you insulted their mother. Now Italian boys love their mammys and won't have anyone insulting them. So his brother talks to his cousin in the Italian FBI (whatever that's called) about you and because you insulted his mothers sister he gets all hot under the collar. You see he loves his Auntie Maria very much as she looked after him when his widowed mother was in full time rehab for 3 years for that valium addiction, and so he decides to stitch you up. He gets back to the guy who arrested you and asks him if he has your fingerprints on anything. The guy tells him you had a glass of water and it hasn't been washed yet and the cousin says get it for me. He then goes to the scene of a murder before CSI Roma (whatever that's called) gets there and leaves the glass. The glass is found and because the corrupt cop who didn't like you has already put your prints on the system they get a match. So, because you've travelled to Naples and Venice thay can't find you and you leave the country on a train to France without incident and arrive on the ferry in Rosslare and go home. There's a Garda car outside your house and the cops arrest you on suspicion of murder in Italy, and you get extradited. Your world has just been turned upside down.

meglome wrote: »

You honestly think any police force is going to go to the trouble and expense of extraditing someone on a petty charge?

Just because you think nobody would ever do such a thing doesn't mean that nobody ever would. WAKE UP.

Or maybe dropping a sweet wrapper will become an extraditable offence. Who knows?

bonkey

DubTony wrote: »

So a cop in Italy gets the bit between his teeth because while you were on holiday you did something that you would regard as petty (maybe you dropped a sweet wrapper). He challenges you, and because you've been on the sauce all day you insult him and his mother. He arrests you for abuse and drags you back to the station. After he fingeprints you, his boss finds out about this nonsense, orders him to let you go and reprimands him. He gets seriously pissed off about this reprimand and because he can't do anything about it, and his pride is hurt, he decides to blame someone. YOU. He then goes to his brother in the Italian DPP's office (whatever that's called) and tells the brother that you insulted their mother. Now Italian boys love their mammys and won't have anyone insulting them. So his brother talks to his cousin in the Italian FBI (whatever that's called) about you and because you insulted his mothers sister he gets all hot under the collar. You see he loves his Auntie Maria very much as she looked after him when his widowed mother was in full time rehab for 3 years for that valium addiction, and so he decides to stitch you up. He gets back to the guy who arrested you and asks him if he has your fingerprints on anything. The guy tells him you had a glass of water and it hasn't been washed yet and the cousin says get it for me. He then goes to the scene of a murder before CSI Roma (whatever that's called) gets there and leaves the glass. The glass is found and because the corrupt cop who didn't like you has already put your prints on the system they get a match. So, because you've travelled to Naples and Venice thay can't find you and you leave the country on a train to France without incident and arrive on the ferry in Rosslare and go home. There's a Garda car outside your house and the cops arrest you on suspicion of murder in Italy, and you get extradited. Your world has just been turned upside down.

But in this case, you'd be extradited for being a murder suspect, which isn't "something petty" like dropping a sweet wrapper. Sure, you've been framed to look like a murder suspect, but the grounds for extradition are still "murder suspect".

For teh counter-example, if you opposed such things, take someone who gets a gun, shoots up a mall full of people and is seen on camera doing so. This event happens close to a national border, which the suspect then walks across.

Is it a bad idea to allow the extradition of murder suspects? Because if it is, then this mass murderer walks free. If its not, then your "framed by a corrupt police force in Italy" guy could stand for extradition. In both cases, the evidence would be reviewed in Ireland, by the Irish to determine if there was a real case.

Or maybe dropping a sweet wrapper will become an extraditable offence. Who knows?

Do you think that the European governments will push it through, so that the Italian police don't have to frame people for murder to get them for insulting their mothers after dropping a sweet wrapper?

DubTony

Who knows? It really depends on how laws are created in the future. I read in the Daily Express the other day that the EU will start to fine countries for sending rubbish over an agreed amount to landfill. So this becomes law and the government reaction may be to fine people for putting too much in their rubbish bins. When people refuse to pay those fines, what will happen to them? A nice little jail term perhaps? How long before the fine for sending too much stuff to landfill becomes an EU directive to fine people massively for littering (based on the suggestion that the litter will go to landfill instead of being recycled because street sweepers don't distinguish between recyclable waste and other waste). How long before people spend time in jail for that exact crime becasue they wouldn't pay the exhorbitant fine? And how long before one state asks another to send that guy back to do his time because he refused to pay and pissed off home? All this based on an EU law?

As I mentioned it's already illegal to put your bin out on the wrong day in England. Some laws are strange. I believe we can expect a lot more strange laws in the future. Who's to say what might be extraditable. And who's to say that a Europewide extradition directive won't be forced in for all those petty crimes?

My point was to help meglome to open his mind a little bit to the possibilities. There are too many people on this forum who seem to want everyone else to do their thinking for them. I think it's called spoonfeeding. Open wide

bonkey

DubTony wrote: »

Who knows? It really depends on how laws are created in the future.

Not really.

I would argue, for example, that your series of "how long" questions ignore that along the way, it would be required that littering cease to be a misdemeanour and instead become a serious crime.

At that point, the question (which you dismissed as stupid) regarding someone being extradited on a petty charge ceases to apply.

Lets not lose sight of the argument here. RTDH expressed concern that people would be extradited on petty charges. Meglome asked if that was really likely. You called such a question stupid, but your example is about someone who could be extradited on a charge that wasn't petty when the offence was comitted.

My point was to help meglome to open his mind a little bit to the possibilities.

Fair enough...but so far you seem to be only painting scenarios which support his having asked that "stupid" question....because you're arguing that people could be extradited for charges that are far from petty in the system you describe.

You seem to be arguing that he needs to open his mind to consider scenarios that support his position.

You may wish to argue that littering is petty today so your example holds. The reality is that what is petty today may not be petty tomorrow. We can look back through history and come up with any number of things which would (rightly) be considered today to be major offences which weren't even considered petty offences at the time...which were in fact perfectly legal to the point of being "business as usual". We can therefore only meaningfully judge what is a petty crime by the standards of the day.

There are too many people on this forum who seem to want everyone else to do their thinking for them.

It seems to me that meglome has thought his position through, and concluded that misdemeanours are not likely to lead to extradition.

You claim that he needs to open his mind. To this end, you've offered two scenarios of people facing extradition for serious charges based on the rules of the day.

If the question was so stupid, and you've done the thinking on the whole "petty charge extradition" thing, why is it apparently not simple to give an example?

Run_to_da_hills

I watched this video last night for the first time, It was long winded nevertheless it contained some very interesting points that could raise eyebrows.

Would it be in the interest of the UK authorities to dismiss this case on the grounds that making an example against Anthony Hill would only raise further interest in the content of the tape with the possibility of opening up an independent inquiry?

Many have never even heard of the "Ripple Effect" or Anthony Hill until now. If the US Authorities were to lockup Alex Jones under some charge it would not be a very clever move.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I watched this video last night for the first time, It was long winded nevertheless it contained some very interesting points that could raise eyebrows.

I can't bring myself to watch any more of it. Will you list the stuff off please?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Would it be in the interest of the UK authorities to dismiss this case on the grounds that making an example against Anthony Hill would only raise further interest in the content of the tape with the possibility of opening up an independent inquiry?

Attempted Jury tampering is a very serious offence in most countries. I'd imagine he's going to jail. Exactly what grounds would there be for this independent inquiry? And if the guy running this inquiry owned a hamster that was bought in pet shop that is on the same street as Scotland yard would there still be a conspiracy?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many have never even heard of the "Ripple Effect" or Anthony Hill until now. If the US Authorities were to lockup Alex Jones under some charge it would not be a very clever move.

Alex Jones would love to get locked up. And in many countries in Europe he might for some of the things he's said. I'd see that as a positive thing when it comes to him, I wouldn't be a fan.

Nick_oliveri

meglome wrote: »

Alex Jones would love to get locked up. And in many countries in Europe he might for some of the things he's said. I'd see that as a positive thing when it comes to him, I wouldn't be a fan.

Locking people up for stuff they said isnt indicative of a "democracy" (or the predifined illusion of a "free" society). Its stifling alternative or controversial ideas by force. I hate loudmouth Jones, but I love his right to say anything he wants. This applies to all opinions across the board of controversies.

We all knew where the case was going and what the outcome would be, conspiracy or not. I believe what he sent did **** all to influence this decision. This is bull**** TBH.

Edit: pervert the course of justice, lol, he should have just sent a picture of his junk.

meglome

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Locking people up for stuff they said isnt indicative of a "democracy" (or the predifined illusion of a "free" society). Its stifling alternative or controversial ideas by force. I hate loudmouth Jones, but I love his right to say anything he wants. This applies to all opinions across the board of controversies.

I agree with you but I really dislike it when people use race or religion to push their agenda and play to people's fears.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

We all knew where the case was going and what the outcome would be, conspiracy or not. I believe what he sent did **** all to influence this decision. This is bull**** TBH.

Edit: pervert the course of justice, lol, he should have just sent a picture of his junk.

Well that may well be true but it's clearly understood that attempting to tamper with Juries is a serious offence. He knew this presumably as he was hiding out in Ireland. I can't see him getting much of a sentence given what he did but I personally wouldn't fancy being on trial for something serious if it was open season on Jury tampering, especially if I didn't do it.

Nick_oliveri

meglome wrote: »

I agree with you but I really dislike it when people use race or religion to push their agenda and play to people's fears.

Yes, inciting hatred is a part of that, but we must question why they are doing it and debate all possibilities rather than resorting to locking someone up because they dont hold the same opionion. It is a horrible negative to the supposed right of "freedom of speech", but we should not make that freedom a grey area.

Well that may well be true but it's clearly understood that attempting to tamper with Juries is a serious offence. He knew this presumably as he was hiding out in Ireland. I can't see him getting much of a sentence given what he did but I personally wouldn't fancy being on trial for something serious if it was open season on Jury tampering, especially if I didn't do it.

Well im going to be honest here and tell you that I originally interpreted the OPs article that the man was of Irish citizenship. Given the fact hes "Shefield born" doesnt really change my opinion that the jury or judge shouldn't be looking or taking into account something that is not considered or put forth as valid evidence during the trial.

If he was doing it in personal vocal terms with the Jury or Judge or offering a bribe then thats when things get dicey... Really this so called Perversion is nothing more than something which can be easlily dismissed. Also i dont see the point in taking possession of his computer or extraditing it and him to England to face a farce trial and sentance.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Also i dont see the point in taking possession of his computer or extraditing it and him to England to face a farce trial and sentance.

Why would it be a farce?

Are you suggesting that he didn't break the law, but would be found guilty?

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

I can't bring myself to watch any more of it. Will you list the stuff off please?

You have to

Basically the 7/7 Ripple is insinuating that the people accused of involvement in the bombings are innocent and that the bombings were an “inside job”, perhaps involving state intelligence agencies in either Britain or Israel.

It goes into detail about surveillance footage, Israeli owned security companies, coincidences, timing of events, the connection and coincidences between a previous mock terrorist event which also involved three tube trains and a road vehicle. The video was very well documented and shows footage of various events, everything is backed up with source links etc. [/QUOTE]

meglome wrote: »

Attempted Jury tampering is a very serious offense in most countries. I'd imagine he's going to jail. Exactly what grounds would there be for this independent inquiry? And if the guy running this inquiry owned a hamster that was bought in pet shop that is on the same street as Scotland yard would there still be a conspiracy?

He may go to jail and as you say jury tampering may be the charge to silence him. Nevertheless people will want to know why he was so determined to get the DVD to the attention of the courts. The guy wasn't stupid, he knew his rights, EU law and the possible consequences. I believe he did this intentionally to get the video publicized. As I said before loads of people other than those into CT have never heard of the video until now.

meglome wrote: »

Alex Jones would love to get locked up. And in many countries in Europe he might for some of the things he's said. I'd see that as a positive thing when it comes to him, I wouldn't be a fan.

I would regard his site as the MC Donald's of CT sites and he is a bit too commercial for my liking , there are other sources besides him.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote: »

Why would it be a farce?

Are you suggesting that he didn't break the law, but would be found guilty?

The application of the misdemeanor in question is a farce. The contents of the DVD obviously were not taken into account by either the Jury or Judge. It is not valid evidence put forward by the defence. They werent bribed or had opinions shoved down their necks in conversation.

By this application, anyone outside the courthouse being vocal with a megaphone or even protesting would be perverting justice. The same rule would apply if a rabid mob was outside a courtroom demanding justice for a yet to be convicted or cleared supposed pedophile, citing the events/case in question in their protestations.

I dont care about the questionable nature of the DVD or the opinion of the man that sent it, I dont believe we should lose sight of how this was handled. There was no direct perversion of justice IMHO. If the contents, cover or even the thought of the packages sent were not taken into account, then there was no perversion.

Run_to_da_hills

The European Arrest Warrant Act states no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments about the term “freedom of expression”.

If John is sent to prison in the UK this could set a new precedent taking away even more little freedoms we have left. If that happens why would it not apply to emails with links to documentaries or news articles? That is what’s at stake on the European level and on a local level it’s the dismantling of the Irish Constitution.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=839

amcalester

Slightly off topic but related to the extradition issue if I remember correctly you can only be extradited from a county if the alleged crime is an offence in both countries.

Also you cant be extradited from Ireland (and other signatories of the Europen Convention on Human Rights) if the punishment for the alleged offence contravenes the convention. This means, for example, you cant be extradited to the States on a murder charge if the death penalty applies.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The European Arrest Warrant Act states no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments about the term “freedom of expression”.

If John is sent to prison in the UK this could set a new precedent taking away even more little freedoms we have left. If that happens why would it not apply to emails with links to documentaries or news articles? That is what’s at stake on the European level and on a local level it’s the dismantling of the Irish Constitution.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=839

What has his political opinion got to do with his extradition? He tried perverting the course of justice, a crime in Ireland and the UK. If John is sent to prison it's his own fault for being a gobsh*te. The only problem is that he will no doubt refuse to admit he's in the wrong and claim to be a martyr against a police state.

Gordon

There's an interesting BBC iPlayer vid on the ripple effect here (sorry, you have to be in GB to view it though!), it's quite interesting, delves into the Ripple Effect facts/conjectures and compares it with other evidence. It also shows this British guy that is being extradited from Ireland "Muad'Dib", I wonder if he was a CT forum regular in the past!

Well worth a watch, the iPlayer mov.

Nick_oliveri

Possible workaround if the beta keys are still working
http://twitter.com/blackVPN

(advanced)

DubTony

There's an interesting piece about 10 minutes in, where the film maker claims that the bombers were actually a part of the training exercise that was taking place at the time. As far as they were concerned they were actors.

This sort of ties in with the Alex Jones documentary TerrorStorm. At 23 minutes in while talking about the diverted No. 30 bus that was stopped at the corner of Woburn Sq., he claims that people "on the bus were listening to radio reports stating that eye witneses were reporting explosions and that the supposed bomber on the bus, with a rucksack, became panicked and began looking in his rucksack in what, witnesses said, was a confused and frightened manner."

edit: But later claims in Ripple Effect say that the guy wasn't on the bus at all. So ... pffft .... who knows?