Having watched and read pieces from just about every channel and media outlet related to Saturdays attack at London Bridge and Borough Market, it seems to me that there’s a whole heck of a lot that doesn’t add up about this latest terrorist incident… although nobody else seems to have noticed.

I realise that witnesses are inherently unreliable and pretty much make up their own reality; that’s been proven beyond doubt. I am sure that they think they are telling the truth. Apart from that obnoxious ‘geezer’ they’ve been dragging up on all the news reports who seems desperate to make the world believe he’s some kind of hero (Hint: heros are invariably the ones who just dismiss their actions by saying ‘I was just doing what anyone else would do’ while doing something extraordinary that is the polar opposite of what anyone else would do).

The thing that concerns me is the way that all the media outlets are just regurgitating verbatim the timeline and nature of the events pieced together from these eye witness reports in such a matter of fact way, when actually doing so raises a lot of questions that nobody seems to be asking, let alone answering.

For a start, several reports claim ‘three suspects jumped out of the back door’. Considering that people who had narrowly avoided being mown down by the van stated that there were three men in the front seat who exited after crashing it, that doesn’t even seem to make sense. Video footage taken seconds after the van came to a halt shows both front doors open as well as both back doors open. So exactly many people really got out of that van? Who exited front, and who exited back?

Several reports tell of a man in a red tracksuit ‘calmly stabbing people’. No mention whatsoever of a suicide vest, fake or otherwise – just a man in a tracksuit. You would think that if they could describe his clothing, the first thing they’d say is that he was wearing a vest or belt made of weird ass canisters, which apparently all three suspects that were shot were wearing. As evidenced in lots of other witness quotes; ‘I can’t remember anything more about what they were wearing. I saw these kind of bombs. That was the only thing that caught my attention.’

Pictures of all three suspects lying shot on the ground show that none of them were wearing a red tracksuit. So, uh, who was mr stabby red tracksuit guy? Why hasn’t more been made of this?

Witnesses heard – and news programs reported – that two of the three were killed with six shots from police; ‘‘They were all shot dead in a matter of seconds, bang, bang, bang.’ amid plenty of people calling what they saw ‘precise’ and ‘professional’. Conversely, it’s also reported that eight officers fired an ‘unprecedented’ hail of 50 rounds. Sometimes in the very same somewhat schizophrenic headlines… ‘I saw three jihadis shot dead – bang, bang, bang’: Dramatic pictures taken by eyewitness who was just yards away capture moment eight police cut down terrorists in a hail of 50 bullets’ (Daily Mail, obvs).

So was it a nice clean precision ‘bang, bang, bang’, or were three men cut down by eight armed policemen firing apparently indiscriminately (which seems fair to say, given a bystander was apparently shot in the head…)

At least two sets of eyewitness statements that were featured in bulletins and articles stated that shooting had started 10 minutes BEFORE the incident on London Bridge started. But again, rather than questioning it, the news just reported it.

I can’t help thinking that there’s either a LOT more to this incident than the official version that we’re being told, including an exchange of gunfire prior to the van incident even happening, possibly more suspects than we’re being told, and how they were taken out.

And whether I’m right or wrong, why are we getting such apparently conflicting reports with no one really questioning why that should be?

Or could it just be that everyone in the media is just tripping over themselves to spew as much wordage about the incident as they can without any fact checking (or indeed spell checking) or any thought about what they’re actually saying?

What I really hate is how news media no longer seem to stand by their reporting any more; I’d have cited several of the articles I’m drawing from here as evidence of the many apparent inconsistencies I’m highlighting… if only those articles even existed any more.