- This topic has 32 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(edited version of piece I originally posted under The Sturgess Inquest is Back On)
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. I first formulated this idea in the Summer. Respectful discussion of the issues raised is requested.
I have never believed that “Novichok” or any other nerve agent was involved in the poisoning of the Skripals. 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.
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 refuse to go along with it.
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.
John
I haven’t read the rest of your post but must correct a misconception on your part:A tracheostomy is not going to get rigidly paralysed chest muscles moving.
The purpose of the tracheostomy is to introduce a tube into the trachea which will enable a machine to pump air intermittently through the trachea and bronchi into the lung in the presence of muscle paralysis as a result of a nerve agent or induced medically.
Thank you SA.
However, this does not explain why it would be necessary to perform a trachoeostomy in the first place.
Why not simply insert a tube into the mouth?
And muscle paralysis due to nerve agent poisoning is not the usual purpose of performing a tracheostomy.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/tracheostomy/
What is your view on my theory?
There are many medical reasons for performing a tracheostomy.
The presence of a tracheostomy scar does not prove nerve agent poisoning.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/how-defeat-nerve-agent
Even 3 decades later, Seyed Naser Emadi’s first encounter with nerve agents haunts him. In 1987, as a soldier fighting for Iran in its war with Iraq, he came across a hillside strewn with comrades killed by an Iraqi nerve agent, perhaps tabun or sarin. Unable to breathe, the victims had clawed at their necks to try to open a hole in their throats, recalls Emadi, now a dermatologist in Tehran. In fact, their windpipes were clear; the nerve agent had shut down control of breathing in the central nervous system. They “had no choice except death,” he says.
When someone’s chest wall muscles are paralysed they cannot breathe and they die very quickly. Whatever the cause of this the first step is to get oxygen into their blood by assisted breathing. At the scene, in an emergency a rube an be passed down the mouth and a manual pumping of air is carried out. If the paralysis is prolonged, as in the case of say a nerve agent, it becomes inefficient to continue to do this. A ventilator is then used, a machine that intermittently pumps oxygen into the lungs. A tracheostomy is necessary for a number of reasons as it is more efficient and associated with less problems. This part of the story cannot be disputed.
As to the rest of the theory I find that it introduces more difficulty in explaining. Motive wise I am not sure that Nulia Skripal would have done that given that it would be very upsetting for the grandmother. Yes their are cultures where ‘honour killing’ because of the stain on the family is practiced but I am not sure it is that strong in Russia. Moreover honour killings are usually a male macho thing although in some cultures women may also be involved in planning.
Whatever the motive and whoever did it we still remain with the question ‘what was the poison used’. The elaborate story about novichok is the bit here that suggests a state actor or at least a higher organisation able to elaborate further and manage the narrative. The accusations against Russia and out very soon after tge event and before any facts were verified and were done by a master liar who can mumble nonsense and be believed as we have seen recently. Remember also that nearly at the same time another Russian was also murdered in England. It not much fuss was made. Why did this receive such a high profile and the other didn’t suggests some manipulation. Other events such as the miraculous presence of the army’s chief medical officer at the scene, the lack of any other person at the scene being contaminated etc. Point out to one direction. Have you read tge blogmire? It is tge site to go to for detailed information and analysis.First of all: a great many thanks for taking the trouble to read my theory. I am not sticking rigidly to it, just trying to get it out there for people to think about.
y thesis is that the British government have cynically exploited this incident in order to demonise Russia. I do not believe that the Russian government had anything to do with it.
Regarding the tracheostomy. I disagree. Nerve agents will also paralyse the heart. So oxygen administration may not be enough anyway. And I would respectfully suggest that without the ability for the chest to expand and collapse in the usual way simply pumping oxygen into the lungs will be ineffective. The body also has to expel CO2 when you breathe out.
Furthermore, nerve agents do not block airways, so a tube could just be put down the throat. Though as I say, I question whether it would be effective anyway.
Nerve agent poisoning is extremely rare. These chemicals are illegal. And the antidote is the immediate administering of drugs to neutralise the agent. I have a degree in chemistry SA. I have some knowledge of biochemical processes.
—
I’m not saying this was an honour killing! I’m saying she may have acted entirely alone. I’m suggesting that it could have been a crime of passion – an attempted suicide and murder – carried out by a woman who had suffered the ignominy of being the daughter of a disgraced army officer and who was brokenhearted at the loss of not only her mother, but also her brother – both of whom are buried in Salisbury. People will commit suicide without even leaving a note.
Your point about the grandmother may be a valid one, but I’m not sure that would have prevented her. Suicidal people do not usually consider the feelings of all of their relatives.
As I’ve said, my thesis is that the British government have cynically exploited this incident in order to demonise Russia.
As I’ve also said, the presence of the chief army officer at the scene not long after the poisoning suggests that the British military were following the Skripals. I would think that might be normal procedure.
—
I am not aware of the other death of a Russian. Perhaps you could tell me more about that.
Thank you.
And just to add:
My thesis is that Yulia loved her father very much, but also hated him for the shame he brought upon her family and felt that she could not live with it any longer after the deaths of her mother, and especially her brother.
Re Tracheostomy. You have to believe what I say because I know. Please do not complicate a story that is already complicated by introducing red herrings.
With great respect SA I disagree with what you say about this.
Nevertheless I still very much appreciate that you have taken the time and trouble to consider my analysis.
Thank you SA. I think this one passed me by. There seems to be no doubt as to the cause of Glushkov’s murder. The only question seems to be who carried it out and why.
Quoting from the Guardian piece:
“In 1999, Glushkov was charged with money laundering and fraud. He spent five years in jail and was freed in 2004. Fearing further arrest, he fled to the UK and was granted political asylum.”
He is a very different sort of a character from Skripal who was a military man and double agent working for the British. And moreover, Skripal was exchanged in a “spy-swap”, which I am sure that the Russians would have wanted to ensure was honoured. If they murdered Skripal it would compromise the possibility of future exchanges of agents.
It is noteable that the Guardian piece on Glushkov is co-written by Luke Harding, who is a notorious Russophobe. He is most famous for writing a book called “Collusion” in which he claims that Moscow helped Trump get into the White House. He has also famously written the article about Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange, which is widely believed to be at best a fabrication on his part. Harding is the worst sort of mainstream journalist IMO.
The Russian Embassy has this to say:
“Russia has repeatedly asked for, and been denied, access to join the British investigation into Nikolay Glushkov’s death.”
Ich finde diese Theorie interessant, aber meiner Meinung nach ist sie nicht zielführend. In solchen Fällen beobachte ich immer die zeitlichen politischen Abläufe und versuche sie in einen Zusammenhang zu bringen. I.e. für mich war der zeitliche Zusammenhang die Fussballweltmeisterschaft, die unser “Wertewesten” gerne so sanktioniert hätte, dass westlichen Ländern empfohlen wäre, nicht an der Weltmeisterschaft teilzunehmen?
Das nächste Ereignis, der veröffentlichte Mord in Berlin. Auch hier gibt es einen zeitlichen Zusammenhang mit der Fertigstellung der Nordstream 2 Pipeline, die man ebenfalls verhindern möchte. Auch hier hatte man nichts eiligeres zu tun gehabt, den Russen diese Tat dafür verantwortlich zu machen. Man ordnete sogar Sanktionen an, bevor man die Russische Föderation um Rechtshilfe bat. Ein unmöglicher Vorgang!
Also immer wieder: Cui bono?
“Freiheit für Julien Assenge”
—
[ I find this theory interesting, but in my opinion it is not useful. In such cases, I always observe the temporal political processes and try to connect them. I.e. for me was the temporal context of the World Cup, which our “Western values” would have liked to sanction so that Western countries would be advised not to take part in the World Cup?The next event, the published murder in Berlin. Here, too, there is a temporal connection with the completion of the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which you would also like to prevent. Here, too, there had been nothing in a hurry to blame the Russians for this. Sanctions were even ordered before the Russian Federation was asked for legal assistance. An impossible process!
So again and again: Cui bono?
“Freedom for Julian Assange” ]
I looked for a correction button, but I couldn`t find one. But I think You understand my text.
All best wishes for 2020 to all!
Thank you for considering my theory.
With respect though I wonder if you have misunderstood it a little. In fairness it is quite complex.
The theory does not blame Russia, I think however that the incident has been cynically exploited by our government to demonise Russia.
I am strongly in favour of the completion of Nordstream 2.
I also strongly oppose all sanctions against Russia.
Ich habe durchaus die Kommlexität der Ereignisse und auch die Ihrer Theorie verfolgt und verstanden. Für mich jedenfalls ist die “Selbstmordtheorie” nicht plausibel, da meiner Meinung nach die Russen anders als wir im Westen, sehr, sehr familienbezogen sind. Das zeigt auch der Anruf (mit einem geliehenen Handy) bei der Kousine anläßlich des Geburtstages der Großmutter, die sie bestimmt gerne persönlioch gesehen hätte.
Für uns wird es immer schwer bleiben den letzten “Beweis” zu finden gegen die MSM, aber ich helfe mir mit der Plausibilität, die – zweifelsohne subjektiv ist. Wenn Berichte mehr Fragen aufwerfen als sie von Journalisten beantwortet werden, dann habe ich große Plausibilitäts-Zweifel. Mein Vater lehrte mich, immer genau hinzuhören “was nicht gesagt wird, und das habe ich bis heute praktiziert.
Wir alle sollten sehr wachsam sein, dass uns unsere Regierungen nicht belügen!
Alle Gute für 2020
—
[ I have followed the complexity of the events and also understand your theory. In any case, the “suicide theory” is not plausible to me, because in my opinion the Russians, unlike us in the West, are very, very family-oriented. This is also shown by the call (with a borrowed cell phone) to the cousin on the occasion of the birthday of the grandmother, whom she would have loved to have seen personally.It will always be difficult for us to find the last “proof” against the MSM, but I console myself with the possibility that is – no doubt subjective. If reports raise more questions than are answered by journalists, then I have great doubts about their plausibility. My father taught me to always listen carefully “to what is not said”, and I have practised that to this day.
We should all be very vigilant that our governments are not lying to us!
All the best for 2020 ]
I’m a little late to the party here, but:
“The two Russian men … were never seen anywhere near the Skripals” can be disputed insofar as CCTV footage shows them at the intersection of Fisherton and Summerlock at 13:08 (and with a backpack on one of them), looking north as if considering walking north to the Sainsbury parking lot a few minutes walk, where the Skripals arrived at 13.40. There is an apparent coincidental but curious intersection between the walking tour of these fellows and the movements of the Skripals about the same time; the Russians seem to do a loop, walking too far along Fisherton (13:05), returning and then heading north on Summerlock at 13:08, then later proceeding west, with CCTV of them looking in the window of the coin shop at 13:48 while on the way to the train station. The Skripals were in the Avon playground at about 13:45, feeding ducks, not far away (verified by witnesses, police reports, the boys that helped feeding the ducks, and unreleased but alleged CCTV) – the coin shop is only a couple of minutes walk from there. Both parties could have been in the playground at the same moment.
This is not to infer that the Russian fellows had anything to do with the ‘attack’ which took effect some two hours later, about 16:00, while the Russians were at the train station (CCTV 13:50, and still with the backpack) and after the Skripals had done many things, (eating, visiting a tavern, etc) ; after all, many dozens of people were also in the same area. Just an unfortunate set of coincidences for all present.
As a side note, it would be interesting to know where the Skripals are. They’ve been ‘disappeared’ coming on two years.Yes, it would be an excellent fit for fentanyl, the side effects seem to fit perfectly. When I read your theory on Yulia’s potential culpability I think to myself it COULD be true. But when I EVER say that to myself I doubt a ‘could be’ It’s overly convoluted for a murder/suicide and, as far as I know, she had maintained contact with him since he first was outed as a spy. Why NOW and why transport a highly illegal drug via an international airport – I’m making the assumption she would have not had contacts in UK who could have supplied it to her. There are too many other easier ways to poison someone without THAT level of effort, planning and risk. There are plants growing commonly in the wild in the UK who’s sap can be added to food, for example, that would produce the effect of a heart attack. That’s but one example.
Skripal himself has not been seen, nor heard of, since the ‘poisoning’ What of him? Is he STILL so unwell he cannot release a statement, why is no one asking? Is HE the leverage on HER to have read out the prepared statement in which she turned her back (allegedly) on Russia? Is she scared for him rather than scared of further Russian action?
There has been a common theme of incompetence in a string of assassinations over a number of years now. To my mind you should do your job swiftly, efficiently and without fuss. This meets none of the criteria. Not even ‘first day on the job’ covers this debacle. Reminds me of ‘spy in the suitcase’ where an obviously ludicrous reason was given to and worse, accepted, by the public. The ONLY conclusion I can possibly come to is that we are being handed an explanation by the perpetrators themselves. If the UK government didn’t do this it was complicit in allowing it. It must be harder to make such a mess than to kill them instead – seriously!
I have heard that the poisoning of Litvinenko was a conspiracy between UK, French and other Intel agencies with Putin opponents within Russian government. This is just as likely as Yulia being responsible if not moreso.
Imagine poisoning someone with Novichok and failing to kill them, no, I don’t believe it. But then neither do I believe Yulia transported a highly illegal drug through TWO international airports to get the dosage wrong and FAIL at the last hurdle either. The fatal dose is so low you couldn’t mess it up…
My grateful thanks to you Roberto for giving my theory your consideration. Not late by any means! I think there are still some who post regularly to Mr Murray’s board who have not yet seen it.
I agree, my assertion “The two Russian men … were never seen anywhere near the Skripals” is a rather sweeping statement.
As you point out though, the two men were at the station when the Skripals were taken ill. And there is no evidence to connect them directly to the Skripals. There is no evidence that they met with the Skripals.
I think their story is plausible as visiting Stonehenge (which they said to have wanted to do, but were prevented by the weather) is something that any visiting tourist to the UK might want to do.
Thank you Gary for giving me your thoughts on my theory. As I said, I offer it only as a possibility as to me it seems to fit in a way that other theories do not and I have not seen it discussed anywhere else.
Regarding your comment:
“But then neither do I believe Yulia transported a highly illegal drug through TWO international airports to get the dosage wrong and FAIL at the last hurdle either.”
One thing I have not as yet a clear idea on is who may have supplied Yulia Skripal and at what point she was given the poison. It need not have been brought with her, but could it have been planned in the UK? I don’t have an answer to that as yet. It seems more likely (given the difficulties you imply) that she would have obtained it here.
“Why now?” is something that I feel on safer grounds with. It is a question that you would have to ask of any would-be assassin anyway! But Yulia (my theory goes) was suicidal and decided that she wanted to die and be buried with her family. Her 43 year old brother died in 2017 and is buried in Salisbury with her mother. The Skripal poisoning occurred less than a year later.
It has been reported that Yulia was engaged to be married, but again I don’t think this necessarily negates my theory, especially if it was an engagement that she secretly wanted to break off, but felt unable to do so. If she had an inner conflict about this, again, it could have contributed to her (in my theory) distressed emotional state.
That the poison was carried in a perfume bottle (as has been claimed) fits perfectly with the poisoner being a woman and a woman who could get close enough to Sergei Skripal without being pushed away. The idea that these two butch Russian gentlemen were carrying a perfume bottle to administer the poison doesn’t stack up to me at all!
If this perfume bottle was recovered at the scene MI6 may have had one of their lackeys “lose” the – inconvenient for the government – evidence, which was then picked up by an unsuspecting Rowley and Sturgess. Again, this is something where I have uncertainty, but this uncertainty does not negate my theory.
Regarding the current whereabouts of the Skripals. John Helmer’s blog claims they are being held by the Americans at RAF Fairford.
Some further thoughts on this. Up to now in my theory I have tried to avoid implicating the two Russian men Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Bashirov.
However, and while I still do not think they were the poisoners, it occurs to me that they could have been the people who supplied Yulia with the drug (Fentanyl) and that they could have left it at a designated spot on 4th March 2018 for Yulia to pick up. (No questions asked). She then put it in a perfume bottle she had in her handbag.
They told RT about their occupation in their famous interview with Margarita Simonyan in September 2018:
“In short, it’s the fitness industry, it is about sports nutrition, vitamins, proteins, microelements,” the men claimed. The pair added they would rather not elaborate on the details for one reason – to protect their clients from unwanted attention.”
Their description does suggest they would have had detailed knowledge of drugs and where to obtain them. Their coyness might be an indication that they are a bit dodgy and prepared to supply illegal drugs to customers if the price is right. They could have supplied the Fentanyl to Yulia without having any idea what the drug was going to be used for and may still have been very shocked when they found out about the poisoning.
I want to express my strong doubts about this new theory of yours: Why should the Skripals be rescued in the hospital? Exactly their survival is a problem. If novichok is proved, which is in the official narrative, there would be not so much questions if they would have died. Furthermore if UK secret services knows that Yulia planned a suicide and they rescue both there is always the danger, that Yulia might expose this truth. So the question is: Why did they survive, at least first hand? Even if a non letal poison like Fentanly was used in fact and novichok added as a wrong trace towards Russia, one could have murdered them easily in hospital in a professional way…
I want to point to this article in moon of alabama:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/opcw-manipulation-of-its-douma-report-shines-new-light-onto-the-skripal-novichok-case-.html@Gary “Is HE the leverage on HER to have read out the prepared statement in which she turned her back (allegedly) on Russia? Is she scared for him rather than scared of further Russian action?”
This is a very good thought in my opinion! Both(!) Skripals survived but suffered severly, to make clear, that if one of them father or daughter will tell their story (about what? this dossier?) both or the other will not survive it.
So one could also say: SHE is the leverage for the Father, to be quiet like a grave.But why not kill them both in hospital? This would have strengthened the novichok claim.
All theories about the Skripals do not make sense. Yulia was involved for some reason, not by accident.
Thank you Martin for considering my idea. I do not present it as truth, but merely as what I consider to be a plausible idea for others to consider.
I do not suggest that the security services knew that Yulia planned a suicide.
Any sort of attempt at murder by poison is not guaranteed to work. Yulia failed because she was not a professional assassin, but even professional assassins fail.
Fentanyl is not a non-lethal poison. It is an extremely dangerous and very toxic drug. But it does not act in the way that a nerve agent would.
John Helmer, who is based in Moscow, has highlighted on his blog the fact that the the British defence ministry are not able to provide a genuine chain of custody for the Skripals blood samples from the hospital to the Porton Down lab and that therefore their assertions regarding the agent that poisoned the Skripals are entirely worthless.
