Like many, my first thought at the interview of Boshirov and Petrov – which apparently are indeed their names – is that they were very unconvincing. The interview itself seemed to be set up around a cramped table with a poor camera and lighting, and the interviewer seemed pretty hopeless at asking probing questions that would shed any real light.
I had in fact decided that their story was highly improbable, until I started seeing the storm of twitter posting, much of it from mainstream media journalists, which stated that individual things were impossible which were, in fact, not impossible at all.
The first and most obvious regards the weather on 3 and 4 March. It is in fact absolutely true that, if the two had gone down to Salisbury on 3 March with the intention of going to Stonehenge, they would have been unable to get there because of the snow. It is therefore perfectly possible that they went back the next day to try again; and public transport out of Salisbury was still severely disrupted, and many roads closed, on 4 March. Proof of this is not at all difficult to find.
This image is from the Salisbury Journal’s liveblog on 4 March.
Those mocking the idea that the pair were blocked by snow from visiting Stonehenge have pointed to the CCTV footage of central Salisbury not showing snow on the afternoon of 4 March. Well, that is central Salisbury, it had of course been salted and cleared. Outside there were drifts.
So that part of their story in fact turns out not to be implausible as social media is making out; in fact it fits precisely with the actual facts.
The second part of their story that has brought ridicule is the notion that two Russians would fly to the UK for the weekend and try to visit Salisbury. This ridicule has been very strange to me. Weekend breaks – arrive on Friday and return on Sunday – are a standard part of the holiday industry. Why is it apparently unthinkable that Russians fly on weekend breaks as well as British people?
Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site. I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop’s Palace, and then the winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury Cathedral.
There seems to be a racist motif here – Russians cannot possibly have intellectual or historical interests, or afford weekend breaks.
The final meme which has worried me is “if they went to see the cathedral, why did they visit the Skripal house?” Well, no evidence at all has been presented that they visited the Skripal house. They were captured on CCTV walking past a petrol station 500 yards away – that is the closest they have been placed to the Skripal house.
The greater mystery about these two is, if they did visit the Skripal House and paint Novichok on the doorknob, why did they afterwards walk straight past the railway station again and head into Salisbury city centre, where they were caught window shopping in a coin and souvenir shop with apparently not a care in the world, before eventually returning to the train station? It seems a very strange attitude to a getaway after an attempted murder. In truth their demeanour throughout the photographs is consistent with their tourism story.
The Russians have so far presented this pair in a very unconvincing light. But on investigation, the elements of their story which are claimed to be wildly improbable are not inconsistent with the facts.
There remains the much larger question of the timing.
The Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals’ doorknob before noon at the earliest. But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras. Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught frequently on CCTV on arriving.
The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital.
So even if the Skripals made an “invisible” trip home before being seen on Devizes Road, that means the very latest they could have touched the doorknob is 13.15. The longest possible gap between the novichok being placed on the doorknob and the Skripals touching it would have been one hour and 15 minutes. Do you recall all those “experts” leaping in to tell us that the “ten times deadlier than VX” nerve agent was not fatal because it had degraded overnight on the doorknob? Well that cannot be true. The time between application and contact was between a minute and (at most) just over an hour on this new timeline.
In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast “Petrov and Boshirov” managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.
This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals’ location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.
I shall write a further post on these timing questions shortly.
Here is a version of the interview that is 8 minutes longer than the one you’ve embedded in your article. This one has an English voice over, rather than subtitles. You may find content in this video that is not in the other one.
https://youtu.be/-W8MqMzkwuU
I don’t know why RT put out so many different versions of this interview, but I think that just about covers all the versions.
Very interesting. So they came to London to party and decided to make a daytime visit on Saturday to Salisbury which they had heard so much about, but were snowed off and tried again on Sunday.
So what were they doing in London on Friday and Saturday and nights? They insisted they are straight. They are quite well turned out and presentable but would not discuss what they have in common. Maybe they entertain older ladies?
Still baffled as to why the UK security services should finger them if they are operating with their own identities. And plant Novichok agent? . But this is the Met police we are talking about. The ones who killed the innocent Jean Charles de Menezez
on defective information. So who knows.? ( Sigh,,).
Shoddy cover up. 123 m spire? A few, oddly rehearsed trivial facts. Craig, give up on this one, or you’ll lose all credibility.
Equally it could simply just be their way, under the pressure of the whole situation, of trying to to prove that they were genuinely interested in the Cathedral. Watching the whole interview it did strike me that they seemed to become genuinely enthused and animated when they spoke about the sites they had been interested in seeing in and around Salisbury.
>>Maybe they entertain older ladies?
Worth considering. They look ok but are no match for the Chippendales in terms of chick magneticity. The plot here does resemble that of American Gigolo (1980) with Richard Gere cast as a decadent but vulnerable male gigolo who is being framed for a murder …
“Gere makes a lucrative living as an escort to older women in the Los Angeles area. He begins a relationship with Michelle, a local politician’s wife, without expecting any pay. One of his clients is murdered and Detective Sunday begins pumping him for details on his different clients, something he is reluctant to do considering the nature of his work. Julian begins to suspect he’s being framed. Meanwhile Michelle begins to fall in love with him.”
I realized the same. There are, no, obviusly there were two versions. In that one which Craig has em-beded, the interviewer could be seen all the time. She appears to be as incompetent as arrogant, de-monstrated in particular by her body language. What is wrong with RT ?
This video “now removed by User”!
It says video removed by user…..
The thing about the interesting clock in the cathedral – now that bit at least is somewhat plausible.
Anders, could you convince me that your wife has recovered from your beatings?
I spend quite a lot of time on the BBC Sports HYS – especially the rugby. Craig’s threads are – in comparison to those discussions – extremely civilised. But very occasionally someone surfaces whose aim is to be as offensive as he or she can. I doubt if this one is from the government but you never know.
I dare say I am typical of a number of people here. I was so shocked by the blatant, shameless lies May and Johnson told back in March – and they didn’t care what whether we, their constituency, believed them or not – that I started casting around on the internet and found this and other sites.
I see a great similarity between this and the Iraqi WMD stuff. It’s driven from Washington and our politicians would MUCH prefer to be SEEN to be lying than to disobey Washington. It destroyed Blair’s reputation and will destroy May’s. It’s like their hands are tied – and who knows whether we would not have to succumb equally in their place.
They never said they went to Stonhenge..only that is wasa consideration. stonehengwe last ticket was 3pm on 4th was shut the day before Could it be these two blokes are gay..& as such are in fear of their safety in their own country if they admit they were ‘together’ on that trip as a couple? Both Russia & UK Gov are using them!
When it comes to gays in Russia, it’s not so much the lack of physical safety as it is the social ostracism. Their fitness coaching business could lose 95% of male clients and 50% of female clients if they admitted they’re a gay couple (which they seem to be).
As a closeted bisexual living in Russia, I would much prefer occasional crazy religious fanatics yelling at me and assaulting me to the constant smirks, denigration, and dehumanization that ordinary, otherwise good people around me do when they discuss gays. It really wears you down. There are many false accusations against Russia, but the one about homophobia is true.
Evidence it’s called.
Btw., shouldn’t you be doing your homework?
Your needle appears to have got stuck.
Your question: “I’m still waiting on any of the doubters to explain what would convince them of ill-doing by these two chaps?”
Jack’s answer: “Evidence”, i.e. evidence of ‘ill doing by these two chaps’.
There is no such evidence, thus people are not convinced of any evil doing on their part. it’s not up to Jack or any other doubter to produce it either. It’s up to those making the accusation (of evil doing) to substantiate it.
Next?
Who knows? My take is that they are minor operatives, not polished and experienced enough to lie convincingly.
Maybe they were in Salisbury on a job from some Russian non-state player involved in a Trump dossier – Steele – Skripal – Clinton corruption conspiracy. Lots of factions in Russia, lots of money in the Clinton corruption sphere, lots of fear in Britain of Trump separating US from Europe/UK.
As you state ‘strange’ . The interview with this pair was, long, extended and by the looks of things, improvised. Were they GRU you’d expect a short terse, denial statement prepared in advance.
It would look like the Julia Skripal statement.
They may well be lying?
But they looked fed up and uncomfortable answering all the questions. You’d think it’d be unusually disrespectful for a spy agency – the GRU , to put it operatives through trial by media like that?
That’s what I thought. They may not lie convincingly (and i’m not convinced they’re lying but maybe bending the truth), but they look afraid convincingly. The sort of people who do “to order” killings would be much more composed and much more unlikely to put themselves in front of media. Those types (hitmen) are famously reclusive and awkward socially. They avoid the spotlight at all costs. Which is another nub in the story – if they were who they were supposed to be, it would be far less risky to do the op in the dead of night. Hide your identity, hire a car with false identities, travel at night so that CCTV would get much poorer images, and you would stand a chance of being undetected whilst you smear Novichok on a door handle. It would have made much more sense for these guys to arrive at the door of Skripal in the dead of night, wear baggy hoodies, and smear it then, ready for them to touch as they left in the morning. How did they have the intelligence for instance that the skripals wouldn’t be at home when they walked up to their house in the middle of the day to do the deed?
Standard criminals who rip off convenience stores take more effort to conceal themselves than these guys did.
Except their hair is rather short, not fit for purpose of shampoo commercial.
To be clear: absolutely NO evidence has been published to show that Boshirov and Petrov are serving in the GRU or that they are officers in it. That allegation is as solid as the “45 minutes” British government lie about Iraq: it is stated by politicians on the basis of “intelligence” that they won’t reveal.
If the mainstream British media had any journalists who weren’t gutless, they would put that point to Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt, and Sajid Javid. Ditto if there were a parliamentary opposition that was more independent of the government.
Meanwhile, WW3 looms. What can we call mainstream journalists other than amoral lickspittles?
As for the statement that Boshirov and Petrov are “intelligence officers” in the GRU, I wonder whether those who make that statement have a clue about what an intelligence officer actually does.
Were they tourists? Well, even if they were, the job of taking a document or a small item across a border can often be done by people who are in fact actually tourists and who know little or nothing about what the item is for.
This is presumably why they said what they said about the perfume bottle – to make the point that if you wanted someone to carry such a bottle for you, you would get a woman to do it, or at least a man who had a girlfriend or wife in the destination country. They’re right. You would.
Margarita Simonyan’s interview was not especially helpful, but then someone does not reach or stay in her position by getting on the wrong side of the FSB. She could have asked whether it is true that Boshirov and Petrov bought two return tickets, perhaps in the context of asking whether there is anything in the Fontanka article that is mistaken. After all, they have corroborated Fontanka’s statement that they visited a number of European countries outside of Russia, including Switzerland. So what about the statement about the return tickets? Is it true or false?
What city do they live in?
I would like to know more about their international sports nutrition business. Where is it registered? In what countries does it keep an office? How many employees does it have?
Oh – and why might employees be endangered, or customers or clients take their business elsewhere, simply because two of its directors (owners?) have been falsely accused by a foreign government that doesn’t even consider its own case to be solid enough to apply for extradition?
Last question:on which day did they go shopping in Oxford Street? Early Saturday morning? In that case the police statement that they travelled from Bow to Waterloo that morning has a big gap in it. Or was it during one of the time periods that the police have appealed for information about, namely 2pm and 4.30 pm on Saturday?
And the British police statement that it is “likely” that Boshirov and Petrov are false names has not been corroborated and seems itself to be false. This is unless these two guys have made a much-watched media appearance under those two names and yet they are known to family and friends and in their passports under different names, which, though just about possible, strikes me as unlikely.
Good point. If you’re an alias, you know it will fall under pressure – if you make a media appearance the people who actually know you will now know a) your real name and b) now know the alias you operated under. Those that don’t like you might want to reveal that. “Yeah I went to school with X, he was a dick, and Petrov is not his real name”.
It is blowing your own cover.
False identities are fragile – to put yourself in a media spotlight under false identity is to ask for trouble.
I haven’t seen the full interview yet.
Did she ask if they brought smartphones?
For some reason I’m not getting this video to download, although I’ve tried several Youtube downloaders.
Use Youtube-DLG.
It is probably the kind of business conducted in gyms and clubs by mobile phone rather than Holland & Barrett
Yup and yet again we have a trial by media.
Leveson’s lessons have not been learned at all.
It is left to independent journalists like Craig Murray to ask the obvious questions.
The Cluedo commentators here are either agitprop or not-helping.
In the transcript of the interview on RT Petrov and Boshirov talk about the shoes Boshirov bought. They say this was on the Saturday, after they returned from Salisbury:
“PETROV: Here you’re wearing the shoes you bought in Oxford Street, if my memory serves me right…
BOSHIROV: Yeah, I did, and it was on the third, by the way…
PETROV: Because when we got wet on the third…
BOSHIROV: We got wet on the third…
PETROV: We got back to London and did bit of shopping…
BOSHIROV: Yeah, we got new shoes. I went and bought new shoes and the next day I was wearing a different pair.”
https://www.rt.com/news/438356-rt-petrov-boshirov-full-interview/
However, the Met has put out CCTV pics of the pair at Salisbury station on 03/03 at 16:11:
http://news.met.police.uk/images/cctv3-equals-image-of-both-suspects-at-salisbury-train-station-at-16-11hrs-on-03-march-2018-1407993
From this coming Saturday’s schedule, there is a train leaving at 16:21 which gets into Waterloo at 17:49. There again, it may not have been running on 3 March due to weather and, anyway, the pair said they spent 40mins having a coffee at the station, which may or may not have been before the CCTV image.
So, by the time they got to Oxford Street, it looks like an evening shop for shoes.
Craig, I think this is the best version of the interview. You may want to replace the one you currently have in your blog piece with this one. It is more complete, and just better all round
https://youtu.be/Ku8OQNyI2i0
Decent link Danny. 27 minutes by far the longest. Could be new clues in there, have you a link to a full transcript, russian preferably? Google translate isn’t perfect but it retains amusing local expressions like any beaver would know the editor’s cell number. They don’t even say that in Canada.
Anyone who thinks that all this Sergei Skripal nonsense is not directly related to what’s going on in Syria has got a screw lose.
https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-corps-f-35-aircraft-carrier-syria/
Russia now has major forces in the area, and the only thing which will prevent a major conflict is if the USUK psychopaths back down.
Don’t hold your breath on that one (because they know that most of you still buy into the total bullshit that they peddle).
Oh well, we’ve all got to die sometime; but perhaps dying in complete ignorance is the worst way to go.
Trump refused to play with the neocon project.
I think their performance in the interview is less compatible with them being agents than tourists, if I had to choose. I mean, if you are a tourist traveling with someone, there is always spontaneity involved: “f**k, it’s freezing, let’s get back to the hotel and return tomorrow”, “I need to find a mini bank before going to the cathedral”, “didn’t we pass a shop like that a couple of blocks ago”, etc. Almost any behavior can be cast as suspicious in a proper context. What I find almost inconceivable is that these two poised on smuggling a nerve agent would pick a woman’s perfume bottle as container (pointed out earlier in a comment by someone). What possible reasoning could lead to such a choice?
They are not GRU as the military would forbid them from talking much as Defence Intelligence does in UK
Still waiting to see the UK evidence.
The Uk Government continues to make stuff up and hurl accusations around but has to present any evidence.
Yup.
The more I see about these two patsies the more I am convinced that the establishments narrative is made up. Anyone who served in HM Forces during the cold war especially in BAOR (Germany) received chemical and nuclear weapons training that warned us that nerve agents killed very quickly. Added to that we were told a drop the size of a pinhead would cause death unless you managed to clean the skin with fullers earth or were injected with an antidote such as Atropine within minutes. Frankly I don’t think there was any nerve agent was involved in the Skripals incident, this whole event stinks to high heaven of a psyop creating an atmosphere that blames Russia for everything. After all it was Putin that sent the snow here, the beast from the east came directly from Siberia. Whatever next 🙂
i agree with yaggi. i don’t know why anyone would continue to talk about the ‘nerve agent’. i’ve seen nothing convincing on that point. in fact, all the available evidence points against it.
Yesterday in the HoC
The Salisbury Incident
1.42pm – 5.10pm
Note the warning from Madam Deputy Speaker at the start.
‘Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister to open the debate, it might be helpful if I remind the House that although the Salisbury incident is not at this stage sub judice, Members should nevertheless exercise discretion and avoid saying anything that might prejudice a future trial. I am sure that Members are well aware of that and will show the customary and appropriate constraint.’
Wonder who HMG is planning to charge? 🙂 What a cartload of well rotted horse manure.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-09-12/debates/0D3B07E2-FD1A-42C5-810D-9E805AD9E820/SalisburyIncident
I have just seen an interview on Channel 4 News (7pm ) with a Russian former Lieutenant General who is now in a think tank called PIR. I did not catch his name. When asked about the timing of the alleged attack, he mentioned how many CCTV cameras that here are in and around London, and said that he knew that there was a camera on the house opposite that f Sergei Skripal. He wondered why we have never been shown any video or photos from that camera. He also poured scorn on the idea that anyone would decant novichok into a perfume bottle in their hotel bedroom. Both seems to em to be salient points.
Well put Craig.
The home office spokesperson and the English state compliant media, will continually play down and twist round anything the Russian chappies say, regardless of what appears to be
A genuine trip.
John le Carré couldn’t write a better story the way the English state are unfolding this one.??
So we’re to believe these GRU guys
Travel around Europe using their real names*
Don’t adopt disguises
Make no attempt to avoid CCTV
Out themselves as soon as they get “caught” rather than going underground…
*Sure you might say, maybe these still aren’t their real names, these guys just have a front identity – but if that were true, your front identities would be via disguises and you’d abandon them as soon as they were “hot” and gain new identities, disguises.
And why do they look so stressed out if they are GRU and are just going along with a hoax for Putin? Is this any way to reward your hit men to make them play themselves on national TV? Surely you’d reward them with plenty of cash and a set of new identities.
They are looking nervous because there is a chance they would be questioned by FSB….as Putin instructed that a criminal investigation case be opened to try and discover the truth of affaire Skripal……hence the two asking for “protection”……
This video with Maria Zakharova on Vesti arguing the points is a pretty concise summation of what’s wrong with the current British narrative.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0DKkuMGa4
No fair!
I’d believe Maria anytime over Hicky Nail.
I don’t mean to be pedantic Craig, but I was on Russian social media last week and the Russians were smirking at the name “Boshirov”. Most Russians are familiar with Latin script and were commenting that the Cyrillic should been translated as “Bashirov”. This seems to be as obvious an error to Russians as “Marray” might be to a Scotsman.
Except that Boshirov was born in Tajikistan. And Tajikistan is the only Muslim country where the popular name Bashar/Bashir is written as Boshar. Similar to how Ukraine is the only country where the popular name Alexander/Aleksandr/Alexandru/Alessandro is written as Oleksandr.
I am certain that the timing of the announcement by the Government on the two Russians was not co-ordinated with and has absolutely nothing to do with boosting the case for this by the US. The following is from the thread today at ZH
In the latest salvo meant to convince Mueller that Trump is not a pawn of the Kremlin, a State Dept official said on Thursday that the US plans a second round of “very severe” sanctions on Russia over use of nerve agent. The stated reason: Russia has not allowed on-site chemical weapons inspections, nor has it provided reassurance that it won’t use nerve agents against its own people, says Manisha Singh, Asst. Sec. for bureau of economic and business affairs
“We are looking at this November deadline” under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, Singh said, adding that “we plan to impose a very severe second round of sanctions.”
The sanctions will kick in some time in November, presumably just after the November midterms, if Moscow does not take steps in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom, Assistant Secretary of State Manisha Singh said on Thursday.
“We have indicated to them that they can evade, they can make themselves not subject to these sanctions if they allow the onsite inspections, if they give us a verifiable assurance that they will not use these nerve agents against their own people again,” Singh said. “They have not done so so far, so to that extent, we are looking at this November deadline as absolutely, we plan to impose a very severe second round of sanctions under the CBW [Biological Weapons and Warfare Elimination Act].”
While US sanctions on Russia are hardly new, what is surprising this time is that the new round will include not only defense procurement and aid, but also target the country’s increasingly unstable banking sector. Quote Sing: “It’s going to include banking sanctions, prohibition on procurement of defense articles, aid money — it’s a laundry list of items that will penalize the Russian government.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-13/us-impose-very-severe-sanctions-russia-over-skripal-case
Yes, increasingly bizarre how various functionaries in the State Dept have taken it upon themselves to issue draconian independent policy statements without consulting the Executive Branch to which they report, or taking note of contradictions with policies announced by the White House. Ditto that dragon lady at the UN, not staying on the same page as the guy who appointed her.
I noticed this early on with the expulsion of diplomats, overwhelmingly out of the US. Such a list would take many many months to derive and gain approval yet it happened within days of the false flag. What if the rest of the world expelled US diplomats every time the US assassinated someone or started a war or shelled non-combatants with white phosphorus again? This sustained righteous indignation about obscure goings-on of foreigners across the pond is scarcely credible.
It’s the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to fret about Russian chemical weapons, when Russia has completed the destruction of its CW stockpile a year ago, in September 2017, while the U.S. has shifted its deadline again, this time to 2023.
It’s surreal, it’s like we’re all living in some kind of elaborate Aesop’s fable, with a fox complaining about hen’s evil intentions.
there’s a longer 25 minute interview video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcoEjwQ-jQg
In the RT interview the 2 russians said they used the ‘same corridor’ at Gatwick. This is entirely consistent with the photos published by the UK Police, if you flip, rotate and align one of the images. Improved version here https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/
I think the images support what they say in the interview. The implication is that the images showing them with the same time stamp is fabrication by the UK police.
There is every reason to believe these guys are completely innocent, and the UK police had better come up with something credible, or else they become the prime suspects themselves.
norwegian… i think you are right to point to the fabrication with the time stamp… that in itself hasn’t been addressed by the uk and leads one to believe the uk story has been falsified.. until they straighten that out, all input from the uk is suspect..
Yes – excellent work, Norwegian! I think you’ve pointed out a crucial flaw which needs a lot of explaining by the police!
If our media was even half decent it would be already probing this discrepancy.
I think it has been established that the “red box” is only on the lhs as you exit the channel, suggesting it can’t have been flipped, unless that was switched in the photoshopping. But then you have to ask why go to that length……if they both passed through the channels why fabricate the time stamp?
One possible explanation is that the video recording system used at the airport doesn’t embed the timestamps in the video, so they had to add them manually and made a mistake while doing so.
thanks craig… the uk side of the story is still full of holes with no sign of the uk plugging them anytime soon…
Another poisoning in Russia underway. Traitors will kick the bucket.
So there are no murders in other countries, even by poison? I knew someone was going come out with this cr*ppy suggestion. The Russophobes must have their say, and their weird conspiratorial theories.
Da, da ,dah! So the evil Russians are now poisoning people. It just gets more and more bizarre, particularly since the British intelligence agencies are completely owned by the American intelligence agencies.
Do you want me to change your nappy and explain to you what treason is?
Do you want me to explain to you what being a patriot is?
Do you want me to explain how you lot will all eventually be put on trial?
“Do you want me to explain how you lot will all eventually be put on trial?”
And then? Tell us the next bit, Rob, you know! Go on.
You may have seen Wednesday’s “Libération” interview of Jean-Marc Rouillan where he says that to express regret for the assassinations he carried out with Action Directe would be disrespectful of his victims. (This reminded me of Couthon refusing to employ aristocratic prisoners as free labourers under the Terror for the similar reason of respecting their social condition.)
You could find the graphic descriptions in Rouillan’s memoirs (which are about to be published) very instructive for the next phase of your long announced project.
Unlike some other observers I do not have a theory about the poisonings in Salisbury. However for the first time I am starting to have confidence that we may be getting nearer to the truth about what happened.
It’s even possible that some journalist may even take on the task of investigating the affair.
Having read An Inconvenient Death by Miles Goslett I have had some confidence restored, that there are some journalists prepared to undertake a thorough job (and produce an excellent book along the way).
So if there is a Woodward or Bernstein out there, now is your chance. Go for it.
John Rothery (Tauranga)
Mi6’s Mark Urban and Luke Harding have Skripal books on the way I believe. Truly a golden age of investigative journalism, holding lying government to account.
Harding will make a killing.
One man’s death is another man’s bread.
“Mi6’s Mark Urban and Luke Harding have Skripal books on the way I believe. Truly a golden age of investigative journalism, holding lying government to account.”
Ouch! Now that’s what I call satire.
!
“I do not have a theory about the poisonings in Salisbury.”
Nor did I until an hour ago.
“if there is a Woodward or Bernstein out there, now is your chance. Go for it.”
I’m not even a journalist, so no Pulitzer or Peabody, but here goes:
‘Lock, Stock and Two smoking perfume bottles’
For starters there are just one or two ‘givens’. None of the four (Sergei, Yulia, Charlie and Dawn) were suicidal, hence none of them would knowingly have self-administered a fatal toxin. Charlie R. is/was a small time drug peddler, who would not have speculated a monkey plus (£500+) on an untried chemical from the orient. Neither Charlie nor dawn was in the pay of Mi5, the CIA or whatever the Russians call the GRU nowadays. Those agencies are just a touch more scrupulous as regards recruitment. So……
CR was an opportunist who’d make a buck if the occasion arose. DS was quite possibly his courier. We have been led to believe that Charlie chanced upon some perfume on 27 June and presented it to his paramour with fatal consequences. Just bad luck really, and Charlie was no less a victim, hence neither of them had any involvement in the Salisbury incident several months earlier. But what if that wasn’t Charlie’s first find? What if he’d previously found something similar on 4 March while out walking in Salisbury?
Dawn has the ‘swag’ in her red bag. They happen to meet a family couple not long afterwards. “Is this your daughter? Would you like to buy her some Nina Ricci perfume – only a tenner”? (It would be more rather expensive in Russia). And the deal is done after looking in the bag (Charlie knows about CCTV – no revealing the merchandise) which stays behind with its contents. C&D exit the scene, but Yulia can’t wait to sample the fragrance and pandemonium ensues.
Some time thereafter there is a heated conversation between the intending purchaser of some ‘A’ grade ‘smack’ and the importer: “What happened to my consignment?” “I don’t know. I left it where we’d agreed.” Well I looked for it and it wasn’t there. What you gonna do?” “Well these things take time. You’ll have to be patient. I’ll see what can be arranged.”
They say lightning never strikes in the same place twice. But Charlie did. This time he took the perfume home with him. And the rest, as they say, is history.
… with DS Nick Bailey gathering up the victims belongings, notably Yulia’s red purse which would have been shortly stolen had he not — photos show it was not taken by the paramedics — getting exposed himself and necessitating six months and counting of virtual ‘house arrest’ lest he tell the press he never set foot at Skripal’s residence.
Up-forum, someone put out the idea of the perfume getting retrieved early on, then sitting around on a garage shelf, but eventually falling victim to spring cleaning and ending up in the wheelie bin. That would explain the long delay, bins being emptied weekly yet retaining the perfume box, backup team waiting months for a second shot before giving up, and so forth. Problem with that is: the bin was not in a residential area but rather in back of a car park and downtown restaurant. Cleaning out a garage –> junk goes right to the kerb.
Yulia may have been gifted an early box of this dodgy perfume. Indeed that was considered at day three by Met. So much has been held back since it was decided to re-purpose the incident. But gifting a second bottle? That makes little sense from the recipient’s perspective. Yulia’s employment history (temp at Pepsi etc etc) rules out any deep state conspiracy with her. Yet why was she targeted, what was the motivation?
“Yet why was she targeted, what was the motivation?”
Frivolity aside, I don’t believe she was, at least not in the deliberate sense of intending harm.
@Tom Smythe.
Forgot to add that I had overlooked DS Bailey. Your correction is a perfect fit.
James Ball at CNN writes “To anyone sensible, this story is laughably thin and deeply unconvincing, especially when contrasted with the unusual volume of evidence that the UK is providing to support its case against the two men.”
The only “evidence” that the poshboy regime has provided against the two men is photographs of them at a railway station, an airport, and in Salisbury, none of which they deny. Their account is wholly compatible with this “evidence”, which from a legal point of view does not even constitute a prima facie case.
Britgov has published no evidence whatsoever that they are serving in the GRU or that they committed a crime.
Of course, for those who believe everything Theresa May says…
Not all evidence is actually compatible. Messieurs Highly and Likely have protested against Met’s airport picture with them being at same time at parallel corridors. See, they walk in one corridor, with better English speaker slightly behind to help with enquiries.
“the unusual volume of evidence that the UK is providing to support its case against the two men.”
Unusual in its diminutive size, perhaps?
Two more victims. Two more lives ruined. No way are they guilty of the ridiculous charges against them.
This has been a trial by media from the start, and it is fair to assume the government has never expected any of their assertions to be tested in a courtroom. The alleged smearing of the door lever with nerve agent is a phantom event – there is no proof it ever happened and the lethal properties of the alleged nerve agent strongly indicate that it did not in fact happen. The alleged possession by these two men of a perfume bottle loaded with nerve agent is equally a phantom. There is zero evidence to associate these men with such an item. Depressing to witness so many journalists rush to judgment based on absurd assertions, and have allowed a clearly manipulated storyline overwhelm their professional standards.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, these men, who appear to have enjoyed frequent short trips to cities in Europe as tourists, have had that taken away from them by reckless assertions by a hysterical entity. It is tempting to recommend they call the government’s bluff, but the ill treatment of the gun advocate in the equally hysterical USA suggests that a very unpleasant experience would await.
>>equally hysteric prosecution in the US of Maria Butina, Russian gun-rights advocate
That case is dead for all practical purposes after the prosecution publicly libelled her as a sex spy based on some joke email she sent an established boyfriend. Still, if I were Assange, Snowden, Putin, Petrov or Bashirov, I would not turn myself into authorities expecting a fair trial to clear my name.
The US legal system distinguishes defamation, slander and libel. Defamation provides a civil remedy when someone’s inaccurate statements cause harm to reputation or livelihood. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement, while slander is defamation that is spoken by the defendant and heard by two or more parties. However very few parties ever obtain satisfaction. The UK system can yield compensation when diligently pursued, though long afterwards , without ever undoing the initial damage. Libel in Parliament seems protected. Someone like Basu may also be able to dissemble at will. Surely there is a ‘national security’ exemptions.
What exactly is National Security?
This trial by media is egregious. We need an urgent judicial inquiry, err again!
1. How did they have get perfume onto the plane? (Can’t even get a bottle of water on)
2. How on earth would Novichok traces be left at hotel?
3. Why was the hotel not made unsafe? Skripals house still is!
4. Why is the British Government not letting the Skripals speak about EXACTLY what happened? Why have they been taken into ‘hiding’?
There is far more to this – the Russian government will no doubt ask the British police for ‘evidence’ knowing full well, that the evidence won’t be given as it would implicate the British government in some way.
Perhaps the questions that needs to be asked are WHY were the Skripals targeted? Was it a coincidence that Julia was here? Why didn’t the British government let Julia’s cousin come to the UK when she wanted to?
Why rely in British transport for a ‘hit’?
If they didn’t carry the substance in, why didn’t the person who presumably gave them the perfume sort out transport for them?
Very sloppy spycraft.