Even those who know him well are unsure whether the Londoner is the man shown presiding over murder in the latest propaganda video

Friends, family and associates are divided over whether a 32-year-old Muslim convert who skipped bail from London to head to Syria is the jihadi behind the mask who presides over the murder of five men in the Islamic State video released over the weekend.

Abu Rumaysah fled Britain in September 2014 shortly after he was arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism and being a member of the proscribed group al-Muhajiroun. He was able to do so because his passport was not taken away from him after he was released on police bail.

But those who know the Londoner – who was born Siddhartha Dhar and changed his name after converting from Hinduism to Islam – struggle to agree on whether he can be identified as Isis’s latest propaganda figure. That has not prevented some media organisations confidently describing him as the “prime suspect”.

The home secretary, Theresa May, answering questions in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon over why he was able to skip abroad while on bail, refused to confirm whether he was the masked man in what she described as “a barbaric and appalling video”.



The shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, pressed May on why the police had not taken his passport from him on the day he was released and described this as a security lapse. May described decisions on bail as a matter for the police.



A few hours after the latest Isis video appeared, Abu Rumaysah was named as a potential candidate in the media scramble to identify the masked jihadi. On Monday, comparisons were made with footage of him on the Vice website taken before he fled the UK. But with so little to go on – the eyes behind a mask and a British-sounding accent – few could be sure.



His sister Konika said the man in the video sounded just like her brother but admitted she was not sure. She said: “I think the voice sounds a bit like him, but it could be someone else, but he could have helped with a voiceover, but I have no idea.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Abu Rumaysah (ringed), in 2010 with Anjem Choudray (closest to camera) in London after the government announced that the Islamist group Islam4UK would be banned. Photograph: PA Video

The police visited the family home in north London. This could be interpreted as evidence that the security services regarded him as a suspect but it is understood the police visit was mainly about protecting the family given the extent of media interest rather than as part of an investigation.

Citing his sister’s words, several papers, including the Sun and Telegraph, ran front-page stories identifying Abu Rumaysah as the masked man. But the BBC ramped the story up on Tuesday morning when it reported on the Radio 4 Today programme: “The main suspect in the latest propaganda video by so-called Islamic State is thought to be British man Siddhartha Dhar, the BBC understands.”

The BBC added: “An official source told the BBC Mr Dhar was the focus of investigations into the video, which purports to show the killing of five men IS says were spies.” It quoted a source saying: “A lot of people think it is him.”

The story had impact not only because the BBC is normally cautious about such things but because it tends to have good intelligence sources.

As the day went on some doubts began to creep in, with some people beginning to row back and others insisting it was not him.

Tasnime Akunjee, a solicitor who had represented Abu Rumaysah, was adamant he was not the man in the video. “To the best of my knowledge it is not him. It’s not his voice. It’s not his demeanour. It’s not his eyes,” said Akunjee, who last saw him 18 months ago.



Documentary-maker Robb Leech, who has known Abu Rumaysah since 2009 and last saw him a few months before he skipped bail, said he thought it was him but was not sure. “When I first saw the video I instantly recognised something about the voice,” Leech said. “If I were to say one way or another, I would say yes it is him, but it is speculation. It’s so hard to tell.”

Abu Rumaysah once worked in Boots before running a business renting out bouncy castles to children’s parties. Those who know him say he began to change when he was about 16, after his father died.

After converting he attended the controversial Finsbury Park mosque and began to follow the teachings of the radical preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad in recent years.

Then, in September 2014, Abu Rumaysah was arrested for alleged terrorism offences on 25 September 2014 by Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command. He was interviewed and his home address searched.

On 26 September 2014, officers decided he should be released on police bail because of the stipulations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which governs how long suspects can be kept in custody. But his passport had not been taken from him, making it easy for him to leave the country.

He is believed to have escaped soon after with his family, taking a coach from London, which went across the Channel via ferry, then into France. From there he got to Syria and posted a picture taunting the UK authorities, with his baby in one hand and an AK-47 in the other.

The government’s independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation, David Anderson QC, told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One: “There are hundreds of people who have managed to get out of this country – people who were already known to the security service – and ended up in Syria associated with Isis.



“I stress that I can’t confirm that this is Siddhartha Dhar or not, but if we assume for a moment that it is, what is unusual about this case is that he managed to make that journey despite being subject to the criminal justice process, despite having been arrested and placed under police bail.”

Anderson played down suggestions that security agencies should have been monitoring him, saying: “There are thousands of people who are subjects of interest. I don’t know how high up the list this person was – I suspect not very near the top.”

Downing Street said the intelligence agencies had completed an initial assessment of the identity of the masked man, without elaborating on what that meant. A spokeswoman said the agencies would not be confirming or denying names mentioned in the media.



She declined to say whether David Cameron would authorise the killing of the man if he were identified, as was the case with Mohammed Emwazi, dubbed Jihadi John in the media, who was killed in a drone strike in November.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Abu Rumaysah is shown with a boy, believed to be his son, Siddhartha. Photograph: Pixel8000

If the identity were established, the next step would be for the intelligence agencies to locate him and track him. Cameron would have to authorise his killing. It would be for the UK or US military to conduct the strike, or the CIA which also controls drones.

Raffaello Pantucci, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said: “To me the picture is very confusing. His sister has just come out and said she thinks it’s him, and then no it isn’t. But actually family aren’t always as reliable as we think. There have been families in the past who think they have identified their children in these videos and it’s turned out to be wrong. It’s very difficult to tell. These are unreliable.”

Pantucci added: “The style of delivery is very similar to how al-Muhajiroun guys talk. It’s very to the screen, it’s very aggressive, it’s confrontational, talking about UK foreign policy in that way. All that is reminiscent of the al-Muhajiroun guys.”

Pantucci had been cited the previous day as being among those who thought Abu Rumaysah may have been the man in the mask. He said on Tuesday he had been misquoted. “I didn’t specifically say I think it’s him,” he said.