Thursday, May 25, 2017



(Holmes Pub, Northumberland)--Now that all the cards are on the table surrounding the appearance of photos in the New York Times of the bomber backpack, shrapnel, battery and trigger; agencies squabble on how the media acquired the photos.
The pictures appeared a day after the bomber's name was briefed to the US media against the wishes of Greater Manchester Police, and just hours after Home Secretary Amber Rudd issued a plea to US authorities not to leak material about the atrocity.
The paper described them as "law enforcement images" but did not make clear how they had been obtained.

One article, probably the one in question,  appeared in the Times on May 24, by CJ Chivers--

Lag time between approximate time photos were taken, late Monday night or early Tuesday, to publication of the photos on Wednesday nearly a full day.  Since the Times didn't disclose who sent them the photos, then it's a presumption that they were acquired from a US source.

A senior Whitehall source said: “These images from inside the American system are clearly distressing to victims, their families and other members of the public. Protests have been lodged at every relevant level between the British authorities and our US counterparts. They are in no doubt about our huge strength of feeling on this issue. It is unacceptable.”
Whitehall sources reported a sense of deflation among UK security staff at the amount of detail coming out of America. The UK had shared the material with US police and intelligence in the expectation it would remain secret. The amount released is hampering at least part of the investigation, they believe.

There is no expectation here of anything at all. An expectation vs an outright assurance the photos and map would remain secret, classified, stamped with the appropriate markings and handed over to those with the proper clearances might have guaranteed the docs would remain in the files instead of all over the news.

It is premature for British intelligence to lay the blame on the American community without an investigation into how the photos were obtained by the Times and if the Yanks were involved at all; it may have happened before they were even sent to America,