- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for those links LA.
If this is indeed the case and the police did take the red bag away for forensic examination, then at some point that bag has been transferred from the woman’s arm on the CCTV to the ground beside the Skripal bench.
I haven’t search the inquiry transcripts fully, but I have yet to find any mention of a red bag or what it might have contained.
Yulia Skripal seems to have indicated (with her blinks) that she was sprayed with something. She also indicated that this occurred in Zizzis, but none of the staff mention any spraying in their witness statements.
My belief is that she was sprayed while sitting, most likely while on the bench – but due to her memory assumes it was Zizzis as that is the last place she can remember being seated.
My other belief is that whatever she was sprayed with was being carried in the red bag, and this was left at the bench while the perpetrators walked away. If DS Bailey later investigated the bag and accidentally sprayed himself, this would explain why he was seriously affected and others were not.
I realise this theory of mine will be demolished phrase by phrase by others who rarely produce anything constructive in their posts; but I enjoy logic and my explanation is the most logical I can think of.
I don’t believe there was ever any Novichok.
No scientist has ever said categorically that Novichok was involved. In fact the only groups who have broadcast this information are two of the biggest liars in the UK; i.e. the MSM and Tory MPs.
What better way to get the propaganda across to the people?
The only photographs of the Skripal house I have seen with a police guard, show the central heating to be on (steam/vapour coming from the roof flue) and the small upstairs windows to be open. If the police had been in there to secure the property, they would have turned off the boiler and shut the windows; plus have taken the cat and the guinea pigs to an animal shelter. None of this was done.
I believe the only reasons the police guarded the property was to prevent opportunist burglars from breaking in, konwing the occupants were in hospital; and to prevent nosey media folk from discovering the sophisticated electronic transmission/receiver equipment which had been installed in Sergei’s loft.
Hence the elaborate charade of removing the roof.
The manageress, a customer and two of the waiters inside Zizzis have their names printed in full in the transcripts. However a third waiter/waitress has their name redacted.
Lapsed Agnostic, thanks for the link to The Standard article showing the photo from Solent News.
A couple of things I notice about the article.
First, the image caption says “Police put a red bag inside a police evidence bag”. But the photo does not show anyone handling the bag. The photo does show what appears to me to be an orange Sainsbury’s bag about 3-4 feet away from the policeman. The policeman is crouched down, such that in this position he would not be able to reach over to pick up the bag. The policeman does not appear to be doing anything with the red bag. If the police did in fact load the red bag shown in the photo, then this photo does not show them doing so. Are there are other photos which show the red bag being picked up and placed into the evidence bag?
Second, the article does not mention the red bag at all: it is only the image captions that refer to the red bag. It is very poor reporting to have images in the article and no further explanation.
Third, the blown-up image with the caption “The police officer investigating the red bag at the scene” seems to show the person squatting next to a beige backpack, not the red bag. Was the beige backpack at the scene, or was it a police item?
Forth, if this red bag was indeed at the scene, then it would appear in the list of items seized and tested for novichok. The inquiry website has several documents with the items tested and the results (search for documents with SAMPLE in the name on the inquiry website). I’ve looked at the six results, but none of them mention a red bag. But then, none of them mention Skripal’s wallet, which we know was retrieved from his jeans and seized at the bench scene. So perhaps there is a “sample results” document that I’ve not found on the website, or the sample results documents that are on the website have omitted the pages that contain the mention of the wallet and red bag. I’ve noticed that some of the sample results documents are not the full document with only a subset of pages, as evident from the page numbering.
In fact, the backpack in The Standard/Solent News photo looks greyish-khaki green. Suspiciously like the backpack that the Russian suspects were carrying, as this CCTV shows.
https://youtu.be/W2fs5edncFg?t=5I wonder what to make of this?
Fat Jon, you mentioned a Telegraph article where Freya Church refers to seeing a red bag at the Skripal’s feet. Good memory! The article is here. It doesn’t appear to be behind a firewall for me, so hopefully everyone can view it.
Here is another Solent News photo from the bench scene. It shows an orange bag being deposited into a metal bucket, very similar in size and colour to the one seen in the previous The Standard article above.
In this article below, the image caption is “An Incident Response team to decontaminate the area in Salisbury”. So perhaps the red/orange bag in both these photos was simply a bag used when the scene was decontaminated.
“So perhaps the red/orange bag in both these photos was simply a bag used when the scene was decontaminated.”
Perhaps it was, but it doesn’t explain why the couple walking past the shopping centre CCTV were carrying a red bag, and a red bag was described by Freya Church as being at Yulia Skripal’s feet when she passed them on the bench.
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the photo of the perfume bottle was redacted with a black box, and I questioned why a redaction was necessary. This photo came up again in the hearings of 25 Nov, and they explained the redaction was done because “the level of liquid in the bottle at that time is something that is covered by a Restriction Order by the Chair.”
This raises the question: why is the level of liquid so important to keep secret? I suspect that the photo shows that the level would be too high to fit Charlie’s statement that he spilled a lot on his hands.
Interesting bottle found outside Zizzi’s (from Phillip Murphy’s witness statement).
On 24 July 2018, a member of the public, Philip Squires, stated that on 5 March 2018, he saw a small tester size perfume bottle was seen on the floor outside Zizzi’s restaurant, Salisbury [IN0004882]. This was not of any particular significance, particular as Zizzi’s was not the scene of the Skripals’ exposure.
If the Skripals were sprayed at the restaurant then the attackers might have dropped the bottle right there, and this could be what Squires saw.
For those of you that read John Helmer’s blog, please take his claims with a huge grain of salt. Helmer is often simply wrong. Here is a recent example:
In his article LORD HUGHES IS EITHER THE MOST CORRUPT JUDGE IN ENGLAND, OR THE STUPIDEST Helmer claims:
Hughes has not asked for the reason [for Charlie Rowley not appearing in the inquiry to give oral evidence]; his lawyers have announced none. The British press reporting the hearings have failed to notice that Rowley is missing…He has failed to explain his reason for preventing Rowley from testifying, and for substituting MET Commander Murphy in his place.
This is completely false. On 15 Nov 2024 Lord Hughes published a ruling on Charlie Rowley. In this ruling he gives the reasons given for Rowley to not appear, and summarises in paragraph 10:
In those circumstances, with some reluctance I indicated to Core Participants on 11 November my provisional conclusion that it would be disproportionate to insist on Mr Rowley attending to give oral evidence to the Inquiry, and moreover that it was very unlikely that he could be expected to provide any reliable evidence on the two principal topics
identified above. Core Participants were provided with an opportunity to provide representations on this provisional view. None having done so, I therefore accede to this application made on Mr Rowley’s behalf to excuse him from giving evidence.So be very careful of anything that John Helmer claims.
I have heard many people ridicule the suggestion made of the odficial narrative that the suspects used a portable heat sealer to re-seal the perfume bottle. “How on earth could they carry such a device around? There is no such device. It is not possible.”
Well all a plastic heat sealer does is apply a heat to two straight edges and allow them to be brought into contact under gentle pressure. It is not rocket science. For example, here is one you can buy from Amazon for £28. Weighs 1kg and would easily fit inside a backpack. You can be certain there would be hundreds of different types, and would not be difficult to build or adjust one for one’s own specific needs.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/MOGOULUA-Sealer-Portable-Temperature-Household/dp/B0B2LKR64Z
The censoring and redaction of the streamed procedings and the documents is fascinating. For example, the stream for 30 Oct censored the witness (Dr Haslam) when he talked about the results of the blood tests recevied back from the Birmingham laboratory.
It starts at about the results at about 1:08:00, then his voice is censored a minute later for several sentences. He continues to talk about poisoning advice and treatment. He begins to speak about researching nerve agents in order to assist in treating the specific toxicology symptoms the Skripals were presenting. He said “I was suspecting nerve agents by Monday [5 March 2018] nighttime” and then the live feed was cut.
At 1:11:50 O’Conner says “I wonder if I could ask you to stop the feed, please”. The chair agrees, and the feed is cut for 20 minutes until 1:33:13.
The transcript shows pages 165, 166, and most of 167 are redacted. But curiously the index at the end of the transcript shows that the phrase “restriction order” appears on page 166. So part of the censored discussion was the subject of a restriction order. I would like to know which one!
I was curious about this but I think it may simply have been because of her age at the time – given as 17 years so name protected as being under 18.
I was curious about this but I think it may simply have been because of her age at the time – given as 17 years so name protected as being under 18.
Crispa, who and what are you referring to?
I think we have to accept that this is an Inquiry conducted in secret with just enough information leaked to the public to reinforce and amplify the underlying idea that this is all about big bad Russia. The public part of the Inquiry as been carefully choregraphed and managed to this end from start to finish. It seems pointless to speculate much more about what actually happened as we can only rake over the information that we are allowed to read, which seems a lot from the number of Inquiry documents but all the essential information is withheld.
I tend to look at it in terms of Norman Cohn’s work on demonisation which begins with the construction and then activation of a phantasy that people in the mass buy into and then behave in line with it to hunt down witches or whatever. I don’t think the phantasy in this case was pre-scripted as something clearly happened to the Skripals, possibly as a result of something planned going horribly wrong. As far as I can tell phantasy construction started at the point at which Dr Cockcroft discovered from an internet search that Skripal was a Russian spy which was before being told by the police. That information changed the whole line of medical and police enquiry allowing the involvement of MI5, Porton Down and the rest and the fanning of the phantasy by way of Boris Johnson, Theresa May and the later Sedwell letter.
The inspector in charge of the forensic investigation said in his witness statement that he only knew about the “novichok” on March 13th following Johnson / May’s announcement, pre-empting anything he could possibly come up with. No scientific testing process could have come up with such definitive conclusions in that short space of time.
However, once the phantasy had been created narrative construction followed with evidence found to fit its development and to maintain the fiction and poor Dawn Sturgess a sacrificial lamb.
Hughes said in his concluding remarks about his report
“I imagine most of you will understand that there remain considerable additional processes that have to be gone through before it or a revised version of it can be published. Accordingly, I cannot tell you, though I would like to be able to, when it will be. What I can tell you is that as far as I’m concerned it will be done as soon as
it is humanly possible to do and it will certainly be done within the course of the next year and I hope to improve on that, but whether history allows me to do it or not remains to be seen”. He is admitting here that he will never be able to tell the truth or anything like it. Only the phantasy will be allowed.I was just scrolling through and it was meant to be a reply to David Warriston on November 18 about the redaction of the third Zizzi waitress’s name from a witness statement.
The heat sealer you linked to comes replete with a mains cable, Fortnite, so can’t really said to be portable. You can buy ones powered by alkaline – or even lithium – batteries, but I doubt they would generate enough heat to seal the fairly thick plastic described by Charlie Rowley. Safe to say I don’t buy the portable heat sealer theory – though, unlike Timmy, don’t have the time or inclination to satirise it through the medium of song (with a bit of help from AI by the looks of it):
https://x.com/timtron2020/status/1864222907997802995
——
Dr Crockroft testified that he was first advised to google the name Sergei Skripal by a police officer, Crispa. Provided you had a blood sample and a well-equipped lab, it would be possible to identify whether a Novichok agent had been used to poison someone in a couple days at the most. It would be an involved process, but these days a lot of the individual steps can be automated.
——
I’ll try to address other points made on this forum of late when I get more time. In addition, now that the Inquiry is over (or at least its open sessions are; the closed ones are just beginning, because the taxpayer-funded multi-million pound legal grift must go on), I’ll also try to see if I can treat you all to some of my Inquiry-informed ideas about what actually went on in Salisbury in early March 2018, and in Amesbury in late June 2018. Pointless speculation or not, for anyone who’s interested, it might be worth looking out for – and it’ll be exclusive to Craig Murray’s blog.
Lapsed Agnostic, you are right that the portable heat sealer I linked to requires mains power. The point I was making is that portable heat sealers do exist. So when people claim that there is no such thing as a portable heat sealer and that they do not exist, the link I provided shows those claims are simply wrong. Heat sealers are not rocket science. I think it entirely feasible for a state organisation such as the GRU to either modify an existing product to use a battery, or make one. Or they could just buy a portable heat sealer off the shelf that is battery powered. For exmple this one here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/comeder-Handheld-Adjustable-Portable-Rechargeable/dp/B0D93TCYKG
To make one would also be straightforward, For example, this web page from at least 13 years ago descibes how to make one. Again, anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics could modify this design to use a battery. Motorcycle batteries hold a fair amount of energy easily fit inside a backpack.
https://www.instructables.com/How-to-Make-a-Heat-Sealer/I agree with many on this forum that there are some very questionable things in the story and the inquiry, but I don’t think the heat sealer is one of them. Of greater concern to me are things like:
Why can we not see the CCTV of the Skripals from when they sat on the bench to when they were placed in the ambulence? We know it exists.
Why was Dr Cockroft not questioned in detail about what he asked Yulia and her responses.
Why was Dr Blanchard not questioned about why she removed Dr Cockroft from the Skripals’ care and whom instructed her to do so?
Why were most of the key primary witnesses not appearing (Yulia, Sergei, Rowley, Alison McCourt). The reasons given by the inquiry should be robustly challenged.The reasons given by the inquiry are basically “National Security”, which we cannot challenge without being arrested for potential crimes against the state.
The real reason we cannot force witnesses to testify is most likely because they have refused to lie.
This whole nonsense of an inquiry has descended into another pack of lies, in order to cover up the original lies given to the public in 2018, and then changed when anyone questioned them.
Presumably Sergei Skripal’s secret activities in the UK had angered his former employers, and the rumour that someone was out to silence him had reached the western security services. They cooked up a plan to get both Sergei and Yulia out of the countryt, via a secure spell in ICU where they could not be attacked easily. And this is what happened.
The nerve agent used was powerful enough to render the Skripals comatose, and therefore would be ambulanced away; and to make sure they didn’t come to any extra harm, the chief Army nurse was detailed to be in close proximity at the time (wandering around the shopping centre after lunch at Nandos). When the Skripals were sprayed with whatever level of fentanyl they had decided, she would get a short text and immediately cut short her aimless shopping expedition and make her way to the bench to check that nothing unpredictable had happened, and then just melt away into the dark evening.
Yulia was getting married, and brought a safe passage pass for her Father to attend, which spooked MI6 because Sergei was heavily involved in the Steele Document, and they were afraid he would disclose it to the Russian FDA. Couldn’t risk that so used this opportunity to fake an attack. It was BZ an hallucinogenic found in their blood by the Spietz Lab, Sturgess was a convenient drug addict stooge who died of Fentanyl overdose. Boyfriend paid well to keep quiet, but ran out of money and started blabbing again, hence the his enquiry created to keep him quiet. Who would be believed? A drug addict or the Government?
There is no antidote to NOVICHUCKLE BUT THERE IS TO FENTANYL WHICH WAS WHAT THE PARAMEDIC THOUGHT SKRIPALS WERE SHOWING SIGNS OF? Because there was a Fentanyl drug epidemic in Salisbury at the time, and PARAMEDICS KNOW THE SIGNS….. and carry the antidote.
Fentanyl overdoses can be reversed with the same antidote that is used to treat other opioid overdoses — a drug called NALOXONEAnd what happened to the lad who Skripal gave bread too to feed the ducks? Or the chap who sat opposite them in Zizis and took photographs?
Margaret Elaine Phelan,
interesting ideas, some of which I have heard, some I have not. Could you please post links to the source articles where you found each of these claims? That will help all of us on the forum read all the details and get up top speed. Or if some of those ideas are you own, please post detailed reasoning for how you came to those conclusions.
