In my last post I set out the official Government account of the events in the Skripal Case. Here I examine the credibility of this story. Next week I shall look at alternative explanations.
Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs.
The only backing for this statement by Boris Johnson is alleged “intelligence”, and unfortunately the “intelligence” about Russia’s secret novichok programme comes from exactly the same people who brought you the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programme, proven liars. Furthermore, the question arises why Britain has been sitting on this intelligence for a decade and doing nothing about it, including not telling the OPCW inspectors who certified Russia’s chemical weapons stocks as dismantled.
If Russia really has a professional novichok assassin training programme, why was the assassination so badly botched? Surely in a decade of development they would have discovered that the alleged method of gel on doorknob did not work? And where is the training manual which Boris Johnson claimed to possess? Having told the world – including Russia -the UK has it, what is stopping the UK from producing it, with marks that could identify the specific copy erased?
The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously.
It seems remarkable that the chosen target of an attempt that would blow the existence of a secret weapon and end the cover of a decade long programme, should be nobody more prominent than a middle ranking double agent who the Russians let out of jail years ago. If they wanted him dead they could have killed him then. Furthermore the attack on him would undermine all future possible spy swaps. Putin therefore, on this reading, was willing to sacrifice both the secrecy of the novichok programme and the spy swap card just to attack Sergei Skripal. That seems highly improbable.
Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals.
The nub of the British government’s approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the “novichok” class of nerve agents, the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility in Uzbekistan in 2002.
Furthermore, it was the USA who decommissioned the facility and removed equipment back to the United States. At least two key scientists from the programme moved to the United States. Formulae for several novichok have been published for over a decade. The USA, UK and Iran have definitely synthesised a number of novichok formulae and almost certainly others have done so too. Dozens of states have the ability to produce novichok, as do many sophisticated non-state actors.
As for motive, the Russian motive might be revenge, but whether that really outweighs the international opprobrium incurred just ahead of the World Cup, in which so much prestige has been invested, is unclear.
What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia.
There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal’s MI6 handler Pablo Miller’s work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump.
Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia had the motive, are massive lies on both counts.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow.
In an effort to shore up the government narrative, at the time of the Amesbury attack the security services put out through Pablo Miller’s long term friend, the BBC’s Mark Urban, that the Russians “may have been” tapping Yulia Skripal’s phone, and the claim that this was strong evidence that the Russians had indeed been behind the attack.
But think this through. If that were true, then the Russians deliberately attacked at a time when Yulia was in the UK rather than when Sergei was alone. Yet no motive has been adduced for an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone. Furthermore, it is pretty natural that Russian intelligence would tap the phone of Yulia, and of Sergei if they could. The family of double agents are normal targets. I have no doubt in the least, from decades of experience as a British diplomat, that GCHQ have been tapping Yulia’s phone. Indeed, if tapping of phones is seriously put forward as evidence of intent to murder, the British government must be very murderous indeed.
Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International Space Station. They can kill an old bloke in Salisbury. Why did the Russians not know that the dose from the door handle was not fatal? Why would trained assassins leave crucial evidence lying around in a public place in Salisbury? Why would they be conducting any part of the operation with the novichok in a public area in central Salisbury?
Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours, and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknob, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again? If Rowley and Sturgess had direct contact straight from the container, why did they not both die quickly? Why had four months searching of Salisbury and a massive police, security service and military operation not found this container, if Rowley and Sturgess could?
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British government and its corporate lackies.
My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.
I look forward to your further comments. Assuming the chemical was contained in a perfume bottle, and that it is not Novichok (a few microns of which causes immediate incapacitation and death), it now seems more plausible that Yulia Skripal smuggled this compound back from Russia and then administered it to herself and her father before dumping the bottle in Salisbury. DNA evidence on the perfume bottle should support or deny this theory – I wonder whether we will be provided with the results of such DNA testing…
https://news.sky.com/story/amesbury-novichok-victim-dawn-sturgess-suffered-damage-to-hands-and-face-11440565
“The woman who died after the novichok poisoning in Amesbury suffered damage to her hands and face, Sky News understands.”
That’s ‘hands’ plural.
“Within their complex investigation, detectives are looking at the possibility that Ms Sturgess tested the spray on her face and hands, believing it to be perfume.”
But hasn’t Charlie already told his brother she tested it on her wrists, which is what a lady would typically do?
I wonder……
Yulia Skripal was clearly not ‘damaged’ in the same fashion. Should we suppose she was more discrete in her usage of perfume?
Please treat that last sentence of mine with discretion. Yulia may have been more discreet.
You don’t spray perfume on your face, your neck maybe. I read initially they thought she had hurt her face falling on the bath.
“I read initially they thought she had hurt her face falling on the bath.”
Well that story seems to have gone by the board.
“You don’t spray perfume on your face”. Not on your own face perhaps.
Another relevant comment earlier:
Patrick Mahony
July 13, 2018 at 20:02
Don’t forget bus checked – no traces of novichok. C and D supposedly had it on one hand each. CCTV on bus could pinpoint what they touched.
One hand each does not compute with ‘the woman…. suffered damage to her hands”, i.e. both of them. The report reads as if we should infer the damage was caused by whatever was sprayed.
Charley’s story thus far is seriously inconsistent. If I were Wiltshire CID I’d be giving some thought at least to a rather more obvious way in which Dawn’s face and both hands might have been injured, and it wouldn’t be through sampling a perfume.
Pardon any confusion but PM’s quote above ends with ‘what they touched’. What follows are my thoughts not PM’s.
If she sprayed it on the back of her hand (and wrist) then she could still touch things without contaminating them. Then Charlie may have held her by the hand after they got off the bus.
And the other hand?
I haven’t seen anything in the media suggesting that any of them had it on both hands. “On their hands” could well mean that just one had of each one was contaminated.
See my comment at top of page (July 18, 2018 at 15:33)
https://news.sky.com/story/amesbury-novichok-victim-dawn-sturgess-suffered-damage-to-hands-and-face-11440565
“The woman who died after the novichok poisoning in Amesbury suffered damage to her hands and face, Sky News understands.”
OK, this is new. But it just as well allows for the bus remaining uncontaminated and Charlie getting his dose from gripping her wrist.
Mary , the bath has to go to the archives of oblivion . Sure enough , if baby wipes get rid of novichok , imagine what a bath ,soap and shampoo could do . Woosh novichok , neutralised by L’Oréal because you’re worth it …
Just read . Thanks for posting link ., So she is thought to have sprayed perfume on her face according to sky article … I don’t think I know a single person who sprays perfume on their face … besides , in this manner she would have died immediately ( think of Kim Jong’s brother with less potent VX who died within one hour and despite receiving an atropine shot within 15 minutes ).
Damage to face , sounds more like an acid attack .
This is sounding more and more in the realms of fantasy by the minute .
“sounds more like an acid attack”
Actually alkaline if ammonia was in any way involved. Surprisingly there is a recent precedent: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/man-jailed-for-ammonia-attack-and-sexual-assault-on-expartner-36890795.html
I had forgotten about that case .
“The woman who died after the novichok poisoning in Amesbury suffered damage to her hands and face, Sky News understands.”
OK, this is a vague and unsourced piece of information so could be totally inaccurate. However there is another interpretation, which is that Dawn had lesions on her hands and face before the incident. This damage then may have made her exposure more deadly, as the poison could enter her bloodstream more easily.
If Dawn had had lesions on her hands and face, would they not have been visible in the CCTV images of her captured shopping in Salisbury the day before? I don’t see them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961781/Female-assassin-carried-perfume-bottle-containing-Novichok.html
Strange. Another story featured in the same ‘edition’ seems to have disappeared since. Might that be because a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent is odourless and colourless?
Never mind. Let’s refer to a more reliable publication instead:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/novichok-victim-says-perfume-bottle-smelt-of-ammonia-cdsrdc69p
“Novichok poisoning victim says perfume bottle ‘smelt of ammonia’”
Now call me unsophisticated, but isn’t the smell of ammonia likely to indicate the presence of, let me see…..ammonia?
And let’s not overlook where Dawn’s partner claims she sprayed herself: “The novichok victim Dawn Sturgess died after spraying the nerve agent on her wrists having found a discarded perfume bottle containing the liquid, her partner had said.”
I’m getting a bad feeling about this.
Apologies peeps. That second DM article is still ‘on air’. It’s just no longer among the optional links at the head of the first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5963815/Novichok-victim-Dawn-Sturgess-sprayed-poison-perfume-bottle-wrists.html
“Novichok victim Dawn Sturgess died after spraying perfume laced with the nerve agent onto both her wrists, her boyfriend, who was also exposed to the deadly substance, has revealed.”
Did he see her do it then? I thought he only went into the bathroom after he’d heard a ‘thud’ and found Dawn prostrate on the floor.
“Matthew Rowley, who lives in Warminster, Wiltshire, told MailOnline: ‘My brother told me that he remembered that Dawn had sprayed the perfume on both her wrists.
‘He doesn’t recall much of what happened afterwards but that particular detail is stuck in his mind.
‘He also mentioned that he vaguely recollects there being an odd ammonia-type smell from the perfume.
‘We don’t know yet if he had direct contact with the nerve agent like Dawn appears to have done or whether it was after he had touched her.”
It wasn’t mistaken for aftershave then?
I assume if she used it as a perfume, it was in a branded bottle with a well known name.
If…..if…..if.
The source of the perfume bottle story is Charlie Rowley, who is specifically quoted as saying that Dawn sprayed both her wrists. How did he know, unless he saw her do so the day before when in Salisbury? In which case, how come she did not fall ill until the following morning? Or did Charley observe Dawn while she was in his bathroom at Amesbury? If that’s where she sampled the fragrance, it would have been after she’d taken her bath, not before. But Rowley is said to have heard a thud (presumably as Dawn hit the floor), which alerted him to her collapse. She has not once been described as clutching a perfume bottle in her hand while unconscious. It’s also been mooted that Charlie told police where to find the suspicious bottle.
Charlie appears to know rather more than circumstances would allow.
“Now call me unsophisticated, but isn’t the smell of ammonia likely to indicate the presence of, let me see…..ammonia?”
Might be a OH&S issue – if you smell ammonia there has been a leak. The British public service is fixated with OH&S issues these days, we shouldn’t expect Vauxhall to be any different: “Just because its a novichok that doesn’t mean you can skip filling out the workplace hazard risk mitigation assessment form.”
That might seem to undermine the likelihood of the victim using it – but in my view it was never intended to be used. British police were going to plant it in Yulia’s luggage when they gained access to the house.
I wonder if the environmental traces discovered previously showed traces of ammonia or an ammonia-like compound – or if anyone looked?
If they don’t, that would be a delightful whoopsie!
Ammonia has a very strong smell, as any cat owner knows full well.
Having sprayed the equivalent of cat urine on one wrist I think it highly unlikely that the next action would be anything other than an urgent desire to wash it off.
I think the best course of action would be that the government announce that since the Skripals it’s all been a very bad dream and now that we’ve all woken up, could we please forget that any of it ever happened.
I thought the original Sergei doornob novichok was in a gel form . Now it’s capable of being sprayed through an atomiser so must be liquid.
Kinda blows the official theory that the original perpetrator discarded the bottle in Lizzy Park before making his way back to Moscow.
The late Ben Bradlee, once Executive Editor of the Washington Post, has been quoted as saying: “We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us.”
and
“It is my experience that most claims of national security are part of a campaign to avoid telling the truth.”
Nothing’s changed in either regard.
Gel format was a special boutique edition of novichok ..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5590067/Nerve-agent-used-poison-Russian-spy-designed-4-hours-work-allow-culprits-flee.html
Has The Blogmire been taken down? I cannot access it. Must have been getting to near the truth.
No, it remains active: http://www.theblogmire.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-44872639
“Amesbury poisoning: Experts begin testing for Novichok”
“The scientists are trying to determine whether the Novichok that poisoned the couple was from the same batch used in the attempted murder of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March.”
Ahem….any determination of ‘batch’ supposes the nature of the chemical to be a ‘given’, in which case the experts should be ‘testing the Novichok’ not testing ‘for’ Novichok.
I would be surprised if editors at the BBC did not realize the difference.
Quite.
Just as an aside.
I’ve just seen the Youtube video of Yulia at the airport in Russia.
In the video (3/3/18) she appears to have light red hair – not blonde.
Which again begs the question as to the colour of the hair of the woman on the bench with
what is assumed to be Mr Skripal.
Anyone know if the hospital staff, first responders etc described the female patient on the day as having
blonde hair or reddish hair.
The only picture I can find of Yulia with blonde hair is when she has a rounder face and a bit heavier . I’m assuming she was a bit younger as the blonde. At the airport she looks a similar size to what she was when doing the Reuters video. She certainly is not a bit chubby in the airport video.
If she was blonde on the 4/3/18 when entering hospital then she must have bleached her hair on the 3rd or on the morning of the 4th.
Anyone got any info or theories in respect of that?
fair hair can look reddish in some artificial lighting.
@ MaryPaul July 18, 2018 at 23:39
And a total BS story can appear true if uncritically repeated ad nauseum by the MSM and government ‘officials’.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salisbury-novichok-attack-skripal-russian-suspects-poisoning-police-investigation-a8453931.html
“It is understood Ms Sturgess was exposed to at least 10 times the amount of nerve agent the Skripals came into contact with”.
“The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, declined to comment”.
No surprises there.
With all the online speculation that Rowley and Sturgess were the couple seen in the Skripal CCTV video, suddenly the authorities are certain they have identified them and that they are RUSSIAN and entered and departed this country through an airport.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/19/skripal-novichok-suspects-identified-cctv-cameras/
Just what I predicted: the second incident is being used to link Skripals to Russia based on CCTV of some Russians in locations of interest. The “motive” meets “evidence”, and no risk of this being tested in court because it’s against the Russian law to extradite own nationals. Case closed.
So now we have the “link” between the two cases and back to the breaking story prior to Amesbury,
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/suspected-perpetrators-of-skripal-novichok-at/
I wonder if our corrupt UK establishment is borrowing a technique from the US, where their lies about Russian hackers include releasing the names of Russians who cannot be forced into US courts to defend themselves against the allegations, and that refusal to appear in court is said to prove their guilt.
Now Yahoo News UK says British police have identified some Russians as guilty of these poisonings. I suspect they’ll release the names of Russians who will refuse to appear in a British court to disprove the allegations against them, therefore proving their guilt and reinforcing the “Russia did it” lie.
\this story about the Russian hit squad, is as full of unanswered questions as all the rest of this farrago. You have a Russian group with false passports arriving at an unnamed British airport on a flight. (It is not stated, as far as I know, whether commercial or private.) If the authorities recognised the passports as fake why did they not arrest them on the spot, or at the very least have them followed to see what they were up to? If they did not recognise that the passports were fake how did they know subsequently (presumably after the hit squad had left the country) that the passports were fake?
This country is full of cctv cameras and yet we have no pictures of this alleged hit squad.
https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2636298/amesbury-novichok-victim-suffered-damage-to-hands-and-face/
Yesterday Charlie’s brother explicitly said “Charlie remembers GIVING the perfume to Dawn”.
This makes the PA story a spoof as it has Dawn finding the spray.
A source close to investigation ( how convenient as usual ) says they believe they identified 6 suspects via cctv (!!!) and crossed it with airport arrivals . They are sure they are Russians . And here arrive the US security officials . How very convenient . The official narrative will persist and these lunatics will find a way to incriminate Russia one way or another .
“According to reports from US security officials, police have recovered grainy CCTV images of persons who inadvertently killed Dawn. ”
Meanwhile the OPCW has collected samples and sent them to labs . They were called ion July 13th and have now returned to The Hague .
Interesting (suspicious?) contrast between the two ‘novichock’ poisonings. From the start of the second incident, we’ve had various people associated with Dawn and Charlie telling us how they were/are faring and giving us snippets of information about the possible source of the poison. Contrast with Sergei from whom we’ve had not a glimpse nor heard a single word, and Yulia who made one phone call on an apparently borrowed phone and later gave a brief scripted statement before disappearing again.
I cannot believe that “officially-authorised” Russian assassins would dump a liquid form of novichok, stored in a fake perfume bottle, in the bushes in public park in Salisbury. At the very least they would surely have thrown it into a public wastebin on their way out of the country. And a waste bin in Salisbury is where Dawn Sturgess found it, how did it stay there for 4 months, uncollected,?. Also why were the assassins disposing of a liquid Novichok, in a fake perfume bottle, when we are told it was applied to the Skripals’ door handle as a gel?
* where Charlie Rowley or Dawn Sturgess found it
MaryPaul, you and I both know that those questions will never be asked in our MSM.
Most of our papers are talking about “several” Russians being involved.
This whole fiasco insults the intelligence.
In terms of people being on the same page when it comes to fabricat….er, telling this story, they’re like airline pilots desperate to avoid a crash and fighting over the operations manual in mid-air.
From Martin Fricker and Adam Aspinall of the Mirror (5 July) we learn: “Amesbury couple poisoned by deadly Novichok ‘found syringe stashed in bag during trip to park'”
Really? Who said so? The headline ‘quote’ is never attributed.
However, “Sam, who called an ambulance as he saw Charlie “turn into a zombie”, said: “Dawn was being taken out in stretcher, Charlie said she was foaming at the mouth.“Then he just turned into a zombie, rocking his head against the wall and sweating and hallucinating.
The punctuation is exactly as employed by the Mirror. It’s interesting because it gives the impression of a sloppy edit immediately prior to Charlie’s turning into a zombie. Strangely, a similar experience can be had from video recordings of Sam’s story-telling, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tHIm5pWz3A.
The big question though concerns when, exactly, Charlie Rowley fell ill. Was it immediately after Dawn was taken from the flat in the morning, as Sam appears to have suggested, or five hours later?
The MIrror again (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/amesbury-poisoning-dramatic-moment-paramedics-12855819):
In a press statement this evening (4 July), Mr Basu said…
“At approximately 10.15am on June 30, the South West Ambulance Service was called to a residential address in Amesbury, where a 44-year-old woman had collapsed. She was subsequently taken to hospital.
“At around 3.30pm that day, the ambulance service was called back to the same address, where a 45-year-old man had also fallen ill. The man was taken to hospital and Wiltshire Police were informed.”
Or was it eight hours later? (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/amesbury-novichok-poisoning-detectives-release-12868444)
A spokesman for Wiltshire Police said:
“From their enquiries to date, detectives have been able to piece together the following timeline of the man and woman’s movements prior to them falling ill on Saturday, 30 June.”
‘Saturday, 30 June:
‘At 10.15am, the South West Ambulance Service are called to an address on Muggleton Road, where the 44-year-old woman had been taken ill, and she was subsequently taken to hospital. The man was also present at the address at this time.
‘At 6.20pm the South West Ambulance Service are called back to the address on Muggleton Road and the man is also taken to hospital.’
@Doodlebug, there has been an enormous amount of conflicting/contradictory information being released by the police, Salisbury NHS, the government, the MSM over the past four to five months, so much so that nobody knows where the truth begins and the lies end.
First the Novichok was in the car’s air conditioning system, then it was applied in gel form to the doorknob, now it appears it was dispensed in aerosol/mist form from a perfume bottle.
Now there are up to six suspects, who I suppose all travelled back to mother Russia – HOW MANY TRAINED OPERATIVES DOES IT TAKE TO CARRY OUT A NON LETHAL ATTACK NOWADAYS?
Our politicians and their media stooges have serious mental issues, they are stark raving bonkers!
“Our politicians and their media stooges have serious mental issues, they are stark raving bonkers!”
They are also public servants paid by the Exchequer, which entitles we rational members of the public to question their competence and their motives. It does not entitle them to lie to us.
well the Wiltshire police statement tallies with other accounts including the pastor at the Baptist church. Sam H said on Saturday after Dawn collapsed and was taken to hospital with suspected drug overdose, they to Boots to collect Charlie’s methadone and on to the Baptist church’s afternoon BBQ. BBQ. The pastor there said he was concerned about Charlie who seemed dishevelled and unwell and tried to get him to eat something. Sam H was quoted as saying they went back to Charlie’s later in afternoon to sort out some things to take to Dawn in hospital and it was then Charlie collapsed.Later that evening the police and authorities arrived at Charlie’s and closed off his flat and the street, letting neighbours think it was gas leak.
“well the Wiltshire police statement tallies with other accounts including the pastor at the Baptist church.”
I think you’re missing the point, which is not what, exactly, Charlie did in Sam’s company that afternoon but the (deliberate?) inaccuracies in the media’s reporting of a fairly straightforward series of events (Woman taken ill in the morning – taken to hospital. Man taken ill in the afternoon – taken to hospital). The published contradictions are absolutely childish. Even the police cannot agree between themselves it would appear.
What is the date for the start of the silly season?
Latest “official” reason why it was Russia (on the BBC): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44883803
This is an interesting snippet from the article:
“An inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess was opened and adjourned on Thursday. Coroner David Ridley said the cause of death would not be given until further tests are completed.”
The inquest was adjourned until January!!!
Maybe by then they will have concocted a coherent story!
@CraigMurrayOrg
Unnamed source close to unnamed British police officers tells unnamed Press Association journalist Britain knows the unnamed Russian agents who attacked the Skripals’ doorknob with gel filled perfume bottle then went to central Salisbury to leave it in a park. Totally convinced.
1:02 am – 19 Jul 2018
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1019854966327005184
Thanks Sharp Ears. And to Craig for highlighting this on-going absurdity.
Would a perfume bottle be able to dispense a gel, given that they are atomisers and a gel would be too viscous?
If it was a gel, are we seriously considering the “fact” that a woman would spray both wrists and her “face” with it?
This account in today,s Telegraph (19 July) by “Telegraph reporters” :
“…….It is understood Ms Sturgess was exposed to at least 10 times the amount of nerve agent the Skripals came into contact with.
Investigators are working to a theory that the substance was in a discarded perfume bottle found by the couple in a park or somewhere in Salisbury city centre, and Ms Sturgess sprayed Novichok straight on to her skin, the source said.
Mr Rowley’s brother Matthew, who lives in nearby Warminster in Wiltshire, told MailOnline how Ms Sturgess sprayed the perfume on both her wrists and that it gave off the smell of ammonia.
It is not clear how Mr Rowley, who is still fighting for his life in hospital, came to be exposed to the nerve agent, though his brother suspects he touched Ms Sturgess after she sprayed what she thought was perfume from the bottle.
The Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation, declined to comment.”
Mary Paul, regarding your user name and avatar picture, I believe you’re a woman? Sorry if this question is impolite, but it refers to my following :
– if a perfume bottle comes to you from unknown source, I mean, you haven’t tried a tester in the shop before purchase, just obtaned a bottle somewhere. Is it true, that you would want to smell it before applying on your body?
– if you smell it and it is ammonia-like, would you applay it on your body?
– how likely is that you find a bottle and spray your first wrist and then change hands and spray the second wrist, despite of strange ammonia-like smell?
For me it is totally unbelievable, that a woman could do so, because ammonia is the smell of urine, not roses or vanilla.
And if an ammonia smell…would you not wash it off or try to wipe it off asap?
Unbelievable indeed. I think it worth bearing in mind that the source of all these twists and turns is Charlie Rowley himself (as reported by his visiting brother), which rather begs the question as to why he should appear to be making it up as he goes along.
A story predicated upon a genuine memory of events would at least be consistent. In terms of what has so far appeared in the media we have syringe versus bottle, liquid versus gel, perfume versus aftershave, fragrance versus ammonia, application to wrists versus damage to both hands and face, etc.
Since every detail is completely negated, the only admissible conclusion is that things did NOT go down that way.
I suspect most of these stories have come through Matthew Rowley, a game of Chinese whispers. I wouldn’t put much faith in them.
“I wouldn’t put much faith in him”.
None in fact.
Naturally you would smell it first. If it was a well known brand, it would come in a very distinctive bottle and I suppose you might apply it directly but if it was found, lying around somewhere. you would be careful to smell it first as you would not want to get any nasty surprises. I suppose if Dawn had been drinking she might take it for granted it was OK if it was a familiar brand and bottle.Perfumes come in different forms, depending on the concentration of perfume they contain. Stronger perfume you only need a few drops, generally applied by tipping out of a glass bottle with a very narrow neck, onto your fingertips, and applying directly, onto pulse points on your inner wrists, base of your throat, behind your ears. Or you can use an atomiser and spray it . No way would either form be in a gel.
In normal circumstances no-one would apply perfume smelling of ammonia but as above, maybe Dawn’s sense of smell was defective. I am still waiting for a reporter to query how the gel applied to Mr Skripal’s door handle, turned into a liquid in a branded perfume bottle to be randomly discarded in Salisbury and equally randomly found, several months later.i.
5 people affected by stinky perfume. Hospital staff. Paramedics. Policemen.
Charlie is the first to mention strange smell.
just to add that some perfume bottles have a stopper cap with a shaped glass end inside the bottle, which can be used as an applicator.
Mary Paul
In reply to your hair colour thought I’m afraid I can’t agree.
Red hair – Ginger hair – call it what you will is distinguishable from blonde hair.
Particularly in reference to the CCTV couple.
It is reasonably clear in the Russian airport CCTV footage that Yulia has red ( reddish) hair.
It is also clear in my view that Yulia’s weight and stature is not disimilar to her weight and stature in the Reuters interview.
Here’s the info that I’m after:
What colour of hair did Yulia have when she arrived in hospital on the 4/3/18 and did any of the hospital staff/police and other people who assisted the Skripals comment on the colour of hair of the young woman? In fact when Yulia was in hospital ( as a blonde ) did her hair grow back
to its natural colour. Surely the staff would notice that?
One witness from the fitness club described the woman being attended to on the bench as ” blonde and pretty ”
One witness described the woman has having her parka hood up. Parkas have a furry outer appearance round the edge of the hood. Was she mistaking the fur for hair?
As an aside ( and coincidence ) if Yulia did dye her hair blonde she would have used peroxide.
Peroxide stinks of ammonia.
I certainly agree with you that Dawn Sturgess would not spray stinking ammonia more than once.
This begs another question for the people more expert than me:
If ammonia is mixed with a nerve agent or other poison does it affect the efficacy of the contents of the bottle?
Dawn is portrayed as being so addled by alcohol and drugs that she was incapable of thinking straight. Such characters are a dream for a scriptwriter because he can attribute to them any behaviour, no matter how weird, if it suits the latest narrative.
Those characters are not restricted by social norms, they do things that ‘normal’ people don’t do. They go binning, they pick up unusual objects that are lying on the street, they look for discarded syringes and drugs stashes in parks.
If we believe the media reports of the autopsy results, Dawn even sprayed (or maybe daubed) the ammonia-smelling perfume on her face (as well as both hands). Hey, that’s just the crazy kind of thing that an alcoholic might do.
Charlie’s reaction to the discovery of the strange odour of the perfume also seems irrational. It’s very likely that he hid the bottle, as can be deduced from the public statements by the police.
The police said that they did not find the perfume bottle in Charlie’s house until a week after the search started. That means that Charlie must have hidden it fairly well where the guys in hazmat suits could not find it. They must have been told to look out for any perfume bottle, considering that Frank Gardner had guessed that the Novichok might be stored in such a container. Gardner pointed to that possibility on 6 July, five days before the police found it.
But why would Charlie hide it if he and Dawn were innocent victims who were handling a bottle of what they had thought was just perfume? The fact that it turned out to be something with a dodgy ammonia smell wasn’t their fault – they just picked it up somehere, right?
The paramedics must have asked Charlie about what might have caused Dawn to collapse. He had several hours to realise that he should tell the hospital about that substance, but he chose to hide it instead.
Just like the strange way that Dawn applied the pungent perfume, Charlie’s inexplicable decision to hide it can conveniently be put down to drug abuse. Alternative explanations are not necessary.
Alternative explanations may not be necessary for the ranks of the Russophobes, but there is no doubt in my mind that one at least is nearer the mark than any of the nonsense we’ve been fed so far (see my 17:49 comment up-thread).
Charlie’s drip-fed details are all very well, but they are not what one might consider to be mutually supportive. His friend Sam is perhaps not quite the upstanding citizen he appears either.
I wonder if the Met. will allow Wiltshire Constabulary to do their job?
Ammonia can cause burns…..hmm…
The story that ‘several Russians have been identified as carrying out the Salisbury attack’ has been slammed by security minister Ben Wallace:
https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1019906962786484225
‘I think this story belongs in the “ill informed and wild speculation folder”’
said the minister. Along with all the others to date I might add.
It looks as if someone sent out a message like “C’mon guys, you can’t just recycle the same story over and over again”. There was a similar story months ago:
“Police identify key suspects in nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal”
20 April 2018
“The Telegraph has been told that the criminal inquiry, expected to take many more months, is understood to have made a major breakthrough in identifying key people over the nerve agent attack.
It is thought that a search of flight manifests in and out of the UK has yielded specific names in the hunt for the Skripals’ would-be assassins.”
Yup same pattern….say something speculative…then set up false proofs later…same as Russian hacking/ election…first and second poisening… Syrian chemical attacks with white helmets….etc etc
After all, I wonder where is “plan B” from Putin?
If he ordered to kill a spy in Britain with chemical weapon, so he must for sure have a credible explanation in case everything goes wrong.
I see the Scripal case is a big surprise for him.
Especially after Litvinenko case, I think russians should have ‘plan B’
Patrick Mahony said the following in response to my post:
You are ignoring the Public Health England advice issued last week that said the delay to the onset of symptoms after exposure is a MINIMUM of 3 hours. They left their house at 1p.m. collapsed at 4 p.m.
So they were exposed on leaving the house or PHE are lying.
(Ends)
As far as I’m aware – and I’ve never heard anything different – it was widely reported in March that Sergei Skripal’s car was seen near the cemetary at around 9.15am on that Sunday, and then there was nothing until about 1.30pm when it was seen – presumably on CCTV that the police checked – travelling towards the town centre, and then shortly afterwards, seen parking in the car-park at Sainsburys I think it was. So where did you find/see this info about them leaving the house at 1.00pm?
The very fact that I am having to ask this question – and this is addressed to everyone reading and commenting on this thread – begs the question: Why aren’t we being informed about what the Skripals themselves have told the police about their movements that day – ie whether or not they went back to the house after they visited the cemetry that morning before later going into town for a drink and then some lunch, for example. Why would the police have any reason NOT to divulge such information….. but then if they DID, that would put an end to much of the speculation going on on websites like this AND bring an end to some of the ridiculous and absurd scenarios being posted which, I have no doubt – and much the same as in the aftermath of 9.11 – are being posted by shills to try and muddy the waters and divert attention from the KEY disparities and implausibles in the (official) story.
And do we know for a fact that the widely published photos of the the two of them in a restaurant was taken in Zizzi’s, and if it WAS, that it was taken on the day they were alledgedly poisoned.
As previously explained, the Met police (who are leading the investigation) construct their own version of events and a narrative to go with it, then issue press releases ( or not! ) based on this. There are lots of examples of high profile investigations where they have issued press releases which are simply untrue – the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is one example, the newspaper seller who died after being duffed up by a
policeman while on his way home during a G20 demo (the Met version was only proved false when an American banker posted on line footage he had taken of the incident on his mobile phone.) These days, after being caught out several times like this, they proceed on a need-to-know basis, the basis being that the public need to know nothing. Sometimes their manipulation of the facts is blatang. In the case of Dawn and Charlie, why did they put out. press statement saying he was taken to hospital in an ambulance at 15:30pm (something they could confirm with the ambulance service) when he was seen at the Baptist BBQ in the afternoon and even talked to the Pastor who later described this. And actually went later, around 18:30pm. I am afraid we will get very little useful info from them. Wiltshire Police seem more straightforward but are under the control of the Met on this.
The most likely and obvious reason is that Skripal’s testimonies would make it difficult or impossible to construct a believable narrative implicatng Russia. Faulure to prove or “prove” allegations against Russia will be an epic, unprecedented PR and diplomatic disaster, undermining international credibility of the UK in the long term. It was a goverment’s mistake to risk it in the first place, but not to try and do everything to avert it would be a mistake too.
Afterthought: And do we know exactly what day it was when the police or whoever found the pets (which of course would mean entering the house AND for the first time). And how does THAT fit with the fact that we were only being told on March 28th that Novichok had been found on the handle of the front door (and THAT was how all three of them came to be contaminated).
Not that I believe for one millisecond that the forensic and chemical weapons experts wouldn’t have been at the house within a few hours of it being established that the Skripals had been poisoned with a nerve agent, and they would obviously check the door handle first before entering the house. Well THAT’S how it would have happened in the Real World of course!
I just this minute did a search so as to ascertain when the media were first reporting about the pets, and it was April 6th. The following is from the article in The Independent:
A British government spokesperson said the property in Wiltshire was “sealed as part of the police investigation”.
They said: “When a vet was able to access the property, two guinea pigs had sadly died. A cat was also found in a distressed state and a decision was taken by a veterinary surgeon to euthanise the animal to alleviate its suffering. This decision was taken in the best interests of the animal and its welfare.”
(Ends)
So a government spokesperson said it was “sealed as part of the police investigation”. So HOW does sealing the house become part of the police investigation?! And then just leaving it sealed – whatever THAT means – for around three weeks. The most obvious thing in the world under the circumstances would be for the investigaters to want to get inside the house to see if there are any clues or evidence that may help with their investigation, and of course they WOULD’T be able to do THAT until the place had been given the all-clear by the forensic and chemical weapons experts. And yet we’re supposed to believe that the police WERE’NT that interested in checking the house out (and having the experts check it over first), and just “sealed” it up “as part of the investigation”. And as I’ve said before, they also expect us to believe – regardless of the police investigaters wanting to get in there as soon as possible (which is how it would be in the real world of course) – that the forensic and chemical weapons experts didn’t think to go to the house and check everything for Novichok traces and residues as soon as it was established the Skripals had been poisoned with a nerve agent, but instead left it for some three weeks before they DID.
It is ALL too preposterous for words, and totally inconceivable and implausible. But of course the scriptwriters realised that they needed time to ‘drum’ the story home so that it was deeply embedded in peoples’ minds,and so they had the novichok discovered on the handle of the door some three weeks after the poisoning. And I bet they couldn’t stop laughing for days when one of them came up with a reason why the house – beginning with the door handle – wasn’t checked until three weeks later:
Because the house was sealed up as part of the investigation!
My thoughts exactly…!
Hard to take the door handle theory seriously anyway after this ventilation theory was officially cicrulated previously:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/18/ex-russian-spy-may-have-been-poisoned-by-cars-ventilation-says-us-media
If there were traces on their hands (from the door handle), the ventilation theory would not even come to investigator’s minds.
It just occured to me to do a search to ascertain when the media first reported that Sergei Scripal’s house had been sealed up, so I put the following into a search-engine (duckduckgo): >Sergei Skripal’s house sealed up<. and ALL the results came up with story about the pets on April 6th! So if that WAS thr first time it was being reported (that the house had been sealed up…… as part of the investigation!), then hats off to the scriptwriters to think to throw it in in an emotive story – albeit a fairy-story – about the pets, They obviously realised that they had to leave it for as long as possible before mentioning it – and mention it just in passing when they eventually DID – otherwise it was likely to occur to more than a few people that it doesn't make sense that the investigaters would think to seal the house up as part of the investigation.
Anyway, one of the results that came up when I did the search was a wikipedia article about the 'Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal', so I thought I'd have a quick look to see what it had to say in relation to the pets, and this is what it said:
On 17 March 2018, The Sun reported that the Skripals' vet had contacted the police on 4 March regarding the Skripals' pet cat and two guinea pigs and said the "cat and the guinea pigs were removed from the house and taken away to be assessed."[39] On 5 April 2018, British authorities said that inside Sergey Skripal's house, which had been sealed by the police, two guinea pigs were found dead by vets, when they were allowed in, along with a cat in a distressed state.[40] The guinea pigs were reported to have died of thirst; the cat was taken for testing to the Porton Down chemical weapons facility, where all three bodies were incinerated.
(Ends)
Alice In Wonderland has got nothing on this! Only THIS is farce on steroids!!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5833121/russian-sergei-skripals-pet-cat/
Did the cat have a flea collar? Some varieties have been associated with organophosphate poisoning, which is well known to the vets who have to treat the unfortunate animals. Anyone on here a vet?
The animals died of starvation and dehydration . ( the cat has to be put down because of that ) . The animals were not contaminated . Which in itself shows that there was no contamination inside the house and that it wasn’t searched because nobody saw the need , as they knew there was no novichok or similar there .
Why do you completely ignore the Sun article Isa? Have you nothing to say about it?
True Alan , my apologies .
It makes everything even stranger that this is on paper on March 17th , gives the idea that no one went inside the house and then the same after the embassy asks about the pets much later in April . So the house was not entered by the police which is totally mad . Thank you for posting the article link .
Thank you for this post Allan. I’d forgotten about the Sun article (not being a regular reader). So the pets were BOTH (a) removed from the house on or around 17 March, AND (b) found dead or dying in the house on 4 or 5 April. It all makes perfect sense and demonstrates the coherence of the “official” story.
A cat that has been shut in without food or water for 2 weeks would probably not need to be put down. We once accidentally shut a neighbour’s cat in our garden shed for a fortnight when going on holiday. When released, the cat showed its displeasure with us but was otherwise none the worse. I doubt that a cat would survive for 4 weeks though.
No John, the animals were NOT taken away on or around the 17th (the 17th – of March – is the day the article was published). The article doesn’t specify WHEN they were taken away, but it DOES say that Sergei Skripal’s vet contacted the police “on day one”, so I think we can assume that they were taken away shortly after he phoned the police…….. the next day at the very latest I would have thought.
Just to be clear, in the article it says: The spy’s vet contacted police immediately after hearing he had collapsed along with his daughter Yulia on March 4.
So given that the Skripal’s were named a couple of days later and it was all over the media, I think we can safely assume that THAT is when his vet learned that it was Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) and that THAT is when he phoned the police, and surely that is what he means when he says that he contacted the police “on day one” – ie he contacted the police on the day they were first named.
Correction: It was in fact the very next day – on March 5th – that Sergei Skripal was first named, as this article posted on The Independent’s website at 19.10 shows:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wiltshire-critically-ill-unknown-substance-salisbury-former-russian-spy-a8241121.html
No doubt his name – and revealing that he was “a former Russian spy” – was timed to catch the 6 o’clock news……
So I think we can be 99.9% certain that his vet phoned the police that evening, and the animals were retrieved by the next day at the very latest. That said, in the real world investigaters and forensics would have been in the house by the Monday morning, and the animals already been removed BEFORE the vet phoned the police to offer his help.
Excuse my poor English, but since yesterday almost all “quality media” in Germany once again excited the again almost confirmed suspicion that the Russians were picked up, I found it appropriate to publish a post.
You can find it here: https://invalidenturm.eu/2018/07/von-der-insel-nix-neues-skripal/
And take note of the pictures in the article in the Sun (and the caption to the second one in particular), and what it says – ie what someone close to the Skripals is quoted as saying:
A source close to the family said: “Nobody has seen the poor pets since the poisoning…..”.
The picture is of Yulia holding the cat (presumably in the back garden), and if no-one had seen the cats “since the poisoning”, it of course implies that the cat was NOT an indoor cat, and was free to go out when it wanted, and that there was more-than-likely a catflap. Yes, I realise that maybe he/they always got the cat in before he/they went out AND locked the catflap as such, but Sergei’s house was in a cul-de-sac, and so relatively safe in terms of traffic. No doubt some of the neighbours would know one way or the other. But the main point is that the Sun ran the story on March 17th, and Sergei Skripals vet contacted the police about his pets “on day one”. All of which implies that the scriptwriters………….. no, sorry, my brain just imploded! Manana.
I just did a search of the Daily Mirror’s webite re the pets, and there was an article from April 3rd (some two weeks AFTER the Sun article) entitled:
Family of poisoned ex-spy Sergei Skripal want Britain to explain ‘why pets didn’t die during nerve agent attack’
Well, to state the obvious, the “Family” WOULDN’T be asking said question unless they knew – somehow – that the pets were alive. But the bizarre thing about the article is that one of the pictures in the article – the fifth one down – is of the black long-haired cat and the guinea pigs AND with the caption: ‘Cats and guinea pigs were reportedly taken from the property’, and THEN, in brackets, it says ‘Image: Facebook’, but the article itself doesn’t say anything in relation to it. And Yes!, just to confuse us even further, it refers to ‘cats’, and quotes Yulia’s cousin Viktoria as saying: “They had a cat, Masyanya, from Russia and one more cat from a shelter. Then there were two guinea pigs….”.
The picture of the cat and the guinea pigs cage was taken in exactly the same spot and location as the picture in the Sun article (which says Facebook in the bottom left-hand corner), and was obviously taken by the same person at the same time. So if indeed these photos WERE taken from Facebook (by the Mirror and the Sun), who on Earth posted them on there, and WHEN.
No wonder the British ‘authorities’ refused to issue Viktoria with a visa!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-poisoned-ex-spy-sergei-12296589
And what’s even more bizarre is that just THREE days later on April 6th it is being widely reported in the MSM that the two guinea pigs were found dead, and the cat in such bad shape that it had been put to sleep.
And it’s interesting to note that when the Mirror enquired about the pets the Met Police wouldn’t tell them anything:
‘A Met Police spokeswoman told Mirror Online police would not be commenting.’
Now why would you have any reason not to answer any questions about something as innocuous as the pets. Unless you had something to hide of course!
Now if you bear in mind that it was widely reported in the MSM on April 6th that the guinea pigs were found dead etc, implying of course that the police and/or whoever had only recently entered the house (which had been “sealed up” by the police “as part of their investigation”), then how does THAT square with the following two articles (which I’ve just come across in the past thirty minutes or so), the first of which was in the Evening Standard on March 8th (and posted at 09.52), and the second of which was in the Daily Express on March 11th. The article in the ES is entitled (headlined):
Russian spy nerve agent ‘plot’: Investigators begin fingertip search of Russian spy Sergei Skripal’s home
And the article begins as follws:
Investigators began a fingertip search of Russian spy Sergei Skripal’s home in Salisbury today as new details emerged of the possible nerve agent used in the assassination plot.
Forensic scientists were seen bringing in equipment to scour the former double agent’s semi-detached home in a cul-de-sac, as hundreds of detectives and analysts worked on reconstructing the movements of Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia before they collapsed on Sunday.
(Ends)
And the article in the Express was entitled (headlined):
Russian spy attack: Sergei and Yulia Skripal ‘poisoned by parcel’ – Graveyard sealed off
And in the article it says the following:
Sources close to the investigation have told the Sunday Express that the theory is being actively investigated by senior counter-terrorism officers.
Crucially, neighbours have told police they saw a delivery being made at the detached property last weekend.
All letters and parcels found at the home have been taken away for analysis at the Government’s top secret laboratories at Porton Down, near Salisbury.
A source said: “There are a couple of major leads and the packages he received are a significant part of the inquiry.”
(Ends)
My oh my, what a muddle ‘they’ have got themselves in!
PS And also bear in mind that it wasn’t until March 28th that the MSM are first reporting that Novichok had been found on the handle of the front door!
My apologies, I forgot to put links to the two articles (and no doubt there are plenty more which contradict the line about the police having sealed the house up “as part of their investigation”):
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/russian-spy-nerve-agent-plot-police-officer-talking-to-investigators-in-hospital-as-sergei-skripal-a3784531.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/930018/Russian-spy-attack-Sergei-Skripal-Yulia-victims-poisoned-parcel-investigation-nerve-agent
A thought – is it possible someone gave Charlie the perfume for “services rendered”, to give to his girlfriend ?. And maybe he delayed giving it to Dawn for some reason. Latest accounts say she dabbed it on her wrists. And interesting that the suspect Russians are now being “identified”. Maybe the link in all this is Charlie?
or indeed that Dawn did not find it but was given it! Perhaps the assassin’s came equipped with a couple of alternate delivery methods depending on which presented the best opportunity They did indeed use the gel and then had to dispose of the perfume bottle afterwards.
Yup…always have a back up plan….BTW I would have thought an escape route wouldbe more likely to be Bournemouth or Southampton airport being much closer and a quicker flight abroad for the supposed assassins…in recent days
media talk is only of a couple of people rather than the 6-8(I cannot imagine GRU making a block booking …and too obvious for a Rusdian GRU to use Aeroflot too?…..all travelling in bulk by train or by hiring cars that surely has been investigated….) in rhe rehashed March speculations…..maybe Craig could interview John le Carre…in his book Secret Pilgim he seemed to give the impression of disenchantment with UK intelligence services so might be sympathetic to revealing more about spycraft perhaps( anyone else?)….as UK establishment seems to be still living in cold war mentalities…..
“If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again?”.
What makes you think it disappeared?
“My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.” – nope? I didn’t think so.
The sealed container does seem to have disappeared from the official press releases . Possibly because Charlies brother keeps blabbing to everyone about a perfume bottle …. which obviously contradicts the ‘FSB assassins handbook’ gel on doornob masterclass.
If Craig Murrays viewpoint is not to your liking perhaps the BBC’s Mark Urbans new book ‘ The Skripal Files ‘ ( now available on Amazon) might be of interest . https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skripal-Files-Life-Death-Russian-ebook/dp/B07F6XH92V/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1532120866&sr=8-6&keywords=novichok
“Where there’s muck there’s money” .
Nah you are alright thanks Urban can GTF.
The assassin’s handbook does discuss use of a diluted spray rather than a gel. Gel acts too quickly and doesn’t allow time to escape the scene should it kill quickly. His assertion that MI5 has said “only russians can make Novichok” is bogus. The Russians have motive and means, the question is why would the UK try to construct this story, not clean it up correctly and what has it gained from this? Distrust in Russia? Cancelling the World Cup? Distrust has existed for decades, unless you are Trump, so this narrative is a complete distraction from what is going on in Estonia, Norway et al.
IMO, the story was poorly constructed because of urgency. At the time the UK goverment was led to believe (probably by some groups in the US) that a major military escalation in Syria, likely involving Russia, is imminent. The UK would then be expected to take military steps that require stronger public and/or parliamentary support . Note the language initially used by May and Johnson (“act of war”, “military grade”) short deadlines set for Russia, baseless claims that poison used is of Russian origin. This was all obviously rushed with the idea that the details will soon become insignificant. But the war was a false alarm, and now the narrative has to be maintained simply because retracting it became too politically expensive.
Well, one thing’s for sure, the story WAS poorly constructed! But I think the reasoning behind it all is answered with the question: Who benefits? Cui Bono? Certainly not ‘Russia’ or Vladimir Putin, let alone doing it just a couple of days before the pre-planned events to celebrate 100 days to go to the World Cup football or just a few months before the high-profile showcase event itself AND using a chemical weapon – a nerve agent – that could potentially kill dozens of other people. It is of course absurd and inconceivable that Vladimir Putin would jeopardise the World Cup Football Tournament AND bring the wrath of the international community down upon his head (even though they knew of course that ‘Russia’ and Putin had nothing to do with it) AND at a time when relations with the West were already approaching an all-time low AND further sanctions potentially etc, etc, and all for the sake of bumping off a former Russian intelligence officer. And it is also absurd and inconceivable that a hit job would be planned and carried out in such a haphazard way, dependent on so many imponderables, and the success or the failure of the operation dependent on whether it rains or not. But from the West’s perspective, there was much to gain!
I’m sure, like myself, that many people who visit this website have come across Comments sections on numerous occasions where posters who question the official narrative about various events, like chemical weapons attacks in Syria being blamed on Assad, are then dissmissed by another poster as a Kremlin stooge or whatever……. in other words, it serves to undermine and invalidate and close down free-thinkers – critical thinkers – who see through the propaganda. And it also serves to deter people from checking out RT, and as we know, has led to many people being reluctant to appear on Going Underground or The Sputnik (with George Galloway) etc, because they fear the fallout, and so a medium whereby they could get their message and point of view out has been closed down. And then there’s the industrial military complex of course! So it’s gain, gain, gain for the British Establishment and their minions; and I don’t think President Putin would NOT have forseen such an eventuality. Of course he would!
Charlie Roley has left hospital, so we may receive more information soon
“Lorna Wilkinson, from Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, confirmed Mr Rowley had left hospital”
Just three weeks after exposure to a substance 10 times the strength of whatever afflicted the Skripals, and which allegedly led to the death of his partner.
Strong constitution our Charlie.
You must be gutted to have run out of ideas this early Doodlebug,
10 times the strength of a lethal nerve agent that failed to kill it’s intended targets. Dilute Novichok engineered to be weak enough to allow the targeter time to flee the scene. Spray it like perfume and it probably is more lethal don’t ya think?
@Mary Paul
July 19, 2018 at 13:45
This account in today,s Telegraph (19 July) by “Telegraph reporters” :
“…….It is understood Ms Sturgess was exposed to at least 10 times the amount of nerve agent the Skripals came into contact with.”
I’ll leave the ideas to you.
The use of much weaker “exposed” rather than “affected” in the context of Amesbury incident is an interesting development.
Or indeed ‘came into contact with’.
We may also infer that the reason Yulia Skripal’s cousin Viktoria was denied access to her relatives had nothing to do with any invalid passport, or even fear of contamination, since the Amesbury toxin was ’10 times’ the strength of that associated with the Salisbury incident, yet, besides detectives, Charlie Rowley’s brother was allowed close enough to enter into conversation with him.
Which rather suggests that the prohibition order had more to do with potential information transfer than it did contamination.
Even his brother now admits Charlie was ‘stronger than he thought’. And the perfume bottle? Well that splintered in Charlie’s hand apparently after Dawn had used it, ‘as if spraying perfume’ by all accounts.
Which tells us it wasn’t a perfume bottle after all, and would not therefore have been picked up as such by either party, nor for similar reasons ‘given’ by one to the other.
It’s always nice to get a few noodles of actual information, even if served up in a kettle of bubbling, steaming misinformation.
But I doubt if it will be from Charlie. So far, none of the principals in the Skripal/Amesbury caper have come to the mass-media center stage for the familiar “victim” celebrity tour.
I expect that Charlie will get the same one-way ticket to Neverland as the Skripals, all expenses paid.
What self respecting assassin leaves behind the (attempted) murder weapon? Second rule of assassin club. First rule-no one talks about assassin club(unless it is uk authorities diseminating bs about assassin club.)
Someone who wants the world to know that the death wasn’t caused by natural causes? Of course the Polonium in the tea was recovered and wasn’t detected by anyone was it?
Why all of them go to UK to die of deadly russian poisons? There must be a lot of ex-spies living in Australia, USA, Germany, France, all over the world… but nothing like Litvinenko or Scripal cases ever happened outside this deadly attractor Britain!
A sudden death of a Russian ex-spy with obvious symptoms of poisoning would not be assumed to be from natural causes.
Just discovered ukcolumn.org and a very interesting deep background on Skripal, PD, UK-Intel, Pablo Miller, Steele, etc. etc. I need to read it again with more time but very interesting.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/skripal-russian-web-or-rusi-web
As you say, very interesting. The information has broader implications than Salisbury/Amesbury. Thank you for sharing the link.
That was a great read and very helpful . Thavk you .