The Sturgess Inquest is back on

Home Forums Discussion Forum The Sturgess Inquest is back on

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #48435 Reply

    In other news, a new date for the Sturgess Inquest is announced. The must be a chance now, if the MSM does its job, that the Government is going to bitterly regret linking these two events so closely.

    This is from John Helmer, the first 5 paras of his article.

    Under threat of formal investigation for breaking the law and lying to the press, David Ridley (lead image), the English county coroner in charge of investigating the alleged Novichok poisoning death of Dawn Sturgess, has announced a new inquest hearing. This week through the coroner’s office in Salisbury, a new date was confirmed: the next court session is scheduled to take place on February 18, 2020. Sturgess died on July 8, 2018.

    Asked to explain his reason for another four months of delay, Ridley refused to say that fresh evidence in the case has been found, or is expected to be uncovered by continuing police investigation. Instead, he has asked the press spokesman for the Wiltshire County Council to claim on his behalf that there is “complex legal argument in respect of which the Senior Coroner needs to give appropriate and careful consideration to before handing down a written ruling”.

    The coroner’s silence signals that after fifteen months of investigation by one of the largest police, military and intelligence service operations in recent British forensic history, the allegation that there was a Russian chemical warfare attack in England last year cannot be substantiated in a court of law.

    The story of British Government allegations that a Russian military intelligence service (GRU) operation with nerve agent Novichok was responsible for the poisoning death of Sturgess was last reported on October 14. This revealed that the county coroner in charge of the inquest into the cause of Sturgess’s death was lying to the press in an attempt to postpone the inquest indefinitely.

    That in turn was necessary because Ridley, Senior Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon, appears to have concluded, but cannot acknowledge in court, that police evidence, if revealed on oath, would fall short of confirming that Novichok was the cause of death. The domino effect of this was also exposed: insufficient evidence and no ruling in the Sturgess case means insufficient evidence in the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, allegedly attacked by the same Russian assassins with the same Novichok, on March 4, 2018.

    The allegation that the Skripal and Sturgess cases were directly connected to the same perpetrators and the same Russian plot, was made by then-Prime Minister Theresa May (right) on September 5, 2018. May told the House of Commons “hard evidence has enabled the independent Crown Prosecution Service to conclude they have a sufficient basis on which to bring charges against these two men for the attack in Salisbury. The same two men are now also the prime suspects in the case of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley too. There is no other line of inquiry beyond this. And the police have today formally linked the attack on the Skripals and the events in Amesbury – such that it now forms one investigation.”

    #48656 Reply

    The Powers, AKA the ¨Realm¨, The Deep Lobbying State incorporating the MSM will be desperately working overtime to:
    Pressure this regional Coroner to toe the official line.
    Limit the scope of the Coroner´s investigation.
    Find State friendly experts to counter the evidence so far, including that 4 of 5 victims of a supposedly acutely virulent, deadly nerve agent rose from their beds and walked out of their hospitals within a short period of days.
    Submit or relay secret evidence into the proceedings.
    Come up with distracting new anything to smoke screen the public when the verdict is announced.
    De-bunk the premise that an inconclusive verdict weakens the case against the Russians-did-it narrative.
    Delay the inquest further.

    Where are the Skripals? Why haven´t they been allowed to contact their friends, fiance or family? What are they not allowed to say?
    How did the Skripals leave their deadly nerve agent contaminated house on Sunday morning, drive to town, go feed ducks, eat pizza at a restaurant, have drinks down the pub, walk to a bench before succumbing simultaneously to said agent?
    Why did the Skripal case, taken samples come back from the OPCW lab with such notably unadulterated levels of nerve agent when the victims themselves were alive and quickly well.
    Where was the bottle that contaminated the Sturgesses between the two incidents? If it was in the rubbish or in a drop off bin, how was that receptacle not cleared in those weeks?
    Why was that bottle sealed when found, if it had been used once before on the Skripals?
    Why was the Sturgess perfume bottle not noticed in the police search of their house when it was later found in plain sight in the kitchen?

    No wonder they have delayed or dispensed with a court hearing which requires public airing of proper facts and evidence.

    #49289 Reply
    John Pretty

    Regarding the Skripals, I have never believed that “Novichok” or any other nerve agent was involved in their poisoning. Initial reports suggested Fentanyl and that still seems the most likely poison to me.

    Yulia Skripal, when interviewed after the poisoning had a tracheostomy scar. This is not consistent with nerve agent poisoning. Nerve agents are extremely toxic chemicals which poison by (paraphrasing wikipedia now) “disrupting the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages”. So you can be asphyxiated by the action of a nerve agent simply because your chest muscles are unable to move. The muscles can only move in response to nerve impulses which are blocked. A tracheostomy is not going to get rigidly paralysed chest muscles moving. The antidotes to nerve agent poisoning are other chemicals, not surgery. And they must be administered very quickly.

    I have an unusual theory – and I want to stress that it is nothing more than that – that Yulia Skripal herself might have been the poisoner.

    To me it makes no sense at all that a third party would carry out an assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal’s life while Yulia was visiting him. Yulia could alert her father if someone was seen approaching. She herself could be an unintended victim – and complication. (As she apparently is, of course). Any serious assassin would surely wait until she went home to Russia before making an attempt on Sergei Skripal’s life.

    The fact that there are no leads other than these two Russian men is also suspect IMO. They don’t look like professional hit men to me, they looked terrified when interviewed by RT and they were never seen anywhere near the Skripals. Their story of wanting to visit Salisbury is almost too ludicrous not to be true! A professional hit squad would surely have had a better cover story.

    Why would Yulia want to kill her father? Her mother and brother are both dead. Her father was a respected military man who brought great shame on his family when he was unmasked as a traitor. Russians are extremely proud of their country. I think Yulia would have suffered greatly due to her father’s fall from grace.

    I am only speculating that it was her, but I feel that it is possible that she intended to kill her father and then herself. This may also explain why she was tight lipped about the circumstances of the poisoning in her interview. The poison may have been administered at the bench in Salisbury city centre shortly before they were found. If the British military were following then it may be that they had reason to suspect that Yulia was planning something like this.

    Personally I think that Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley had nothing to do with it. They and everything that has happened since 4th March 2018 has IMO been a smokescreen to divert the public’s attention away from the scene of the poisoning, which I believe was the bench in the centre of Salisbury where the Skripals were found.

    In my opinion this event has been a convenient way for the British Government to blame Russia, which it apparently wants us to view as the enemy. I believe that the official version of events at Salisbury is a pack of lies. I have long been a Russophile and I refuse to go along with it.

    #49290 Reply
    John Pretty

    And just to add a few points to the above:

    1. Sergei Skripal came to the UK as part of a “spy swap” in 2010. I am quite sure that the Russian Federation would have wanted to ensure that the agreement was honoured and that Skripal and the other people who were exchanged would be left alone.

    2. That is to say, I am suggesting that Yulia Skripal – if it was her – was not acting on behalf of the Russian Government who would have tried to prevent her from carrying out the poisoning had they known about it. She was acting alone. (The timing of the poisoning so close to the World Cup being hosted in Russia would also make it extremely unlikely to have anything to do with Russia, given the political ramifications of such an action.)

    3. I have mentioned that Yulia’s mother and brother are dead. They are buried in a Salisbury cemetery. If Yulia died with her father in Salisbury then she would be buried with her family.

    4. It would have been easier certainly – if it was Yulia – for her to have done this when she was with her father in the house alone. However, it would be an emotional decision and she may have been hesitant. As long as they were alone and she was confident that the poison would act fast enough to ensure they were dead (or terminal) before anyone found them then the poisoning could be carried out anywhere. She had spent the day with her father, perhaps she felt the time was right.

    5. The British military may have followed the Skripals as a matter of course anyway.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
Reply To: The Sturgess Inquest is back on
Your information: