There are a lot of issues around the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal which, at the time of writing, are very unclear and rather odd. There may well be good and innocent explanations for some or even all of them. Then again there may not. This is why it is crucial for questions to be asked where, as yet, there are either no answers or deeply unsatisfactory ones.

Some people will assume that this is conspiracy theory territory. It is not that, for the simple reason that I have no credible theory — conspiracy or otherwise — to explain all the details of the incident in Salisbury from start to finish, and I am not attempting to forward one. I have no idea who was behind this incident, and I continue to keep an open mind to a good many possible explanations.

However, there are a number of oddities in the official narrative, which do demand answers and clarifications. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or a defender of the Russian state to see this. You just need a healthy scepticism, “of a type developed by all inquiring minds!”

Below are 30 of the most important questions regarding the case and the British Government’s response, which are currently either wholly unanswered, or which require clarification.


1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

2. Are they still alive?

3. If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?

4. In a recent letter to The Times, Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, wrote the following:

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14) may I clarify that no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.”

His claim that “no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” is remarkably odd, as it appears to flatly contradict the official narrative. Was this a slip of the pen, or was it his intention to communicate precisely this — that no patients have been poisoned by a nerve agent in Salisbury?

5. It has been said that the Skripals and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey were poisoned by “a military grade nerve agent”. According to some claims, the type referred to could be anywhere between five and eight times more toxic than VX nerve agent. Given that just 10mg of VX is reckoned to be the median lethal dose, it seems likely that the particular type mentioned in the Skripal case should have killed them instantly. Is there an explanation as to how or why this did not happen?

6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before Public Health England issued advice to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to the public?

7. In their advice, Public Health England stated that people who had visited those places, where traces of a military grade nerve agent had apparently been found, should wash their clothes and:

“Wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in the bin (ordinary domestic waste disposal).”

Are baby wipes acknowledged to be an effective and safe method of dealing with objects that may potentially have been contaminated with “military grade nerve agent”, especially of a type 5-8 times more deadly than VX?

8. Initial reports suggested that Detective Sergeant Bailey became ill after coming into contact with the substance after attending the Skripals on the bench they were seated on in The Maltings in Salisbury. Subsequent claims, however, first aired by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Ian Blair on 9th March, said that he came into contact with the substance at Sergei Skripal’s house in Christie Miller Road. Reports since then have been highly ambiguous about what should be an easily verifiable fact. Which is the correct account?

9. The government have claimed that the poison used was “a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia”. The phrase “of a type developed by Russia” says nothing whatsoever about whether the substance used in the Salisbury case was produced or manufactured in Russia. Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals and DS Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?

10. The former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has claimed that sources within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have told him that scientists at Porton Down would not agree to a statement about the place of origin of the substance, because they were not able to establish this. According to Mr Murray, only under much pressure from the Government did they end up agreeing to the compromise wording, “of a type developed by Russia”, which has subsequently been used in all official statements on the matter. Can the FCO, in plain and unambiguous English, categorically refute Mr Murray’s claims that pressure was put on Porton Down scientists to agree to a form of words and that in the end a much-diluted version was agreed?

11. On the occasion that the FCO did attempt to refute Mr Murray’s claims, the wording they used included a straightforward repetition of the same phrase – “of a type developed by Russia”. Is the FCO willing and able to go beyond this and confirm that the substance was not only “of a type developed by Russia”, but that it was “produced” or “manufactured” in Russia?

12. Why did the British Government issue a 36-hour ultimatum to the Russian Government to come up with an explanation, but then refuse their request to share the evidence that allegedly pointed to their culpability (there could have been no danger of their tampering with it, since Porton Down would have retained their own sample)?

13. How is it possible for a state (or indeed any person or entity) that has been accused of something, to defend themselves against an accusation if they are refused access to evidence that apparently points to their guilt?

14. Is this not a clear case of the reversal of the presumption of innocence and of due process?

15. Furthermore, why did the British Government issue an ultimatum to the Russian Government, in contravention of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) rules governing such matters, to which both Britain and Russia are signatories, and which are clearly set out in Article 9, Paragraph ii of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

16. Given that the investigation, which has been described by the man leading it as being “an extremely challenging investigation” and as having “a number of unique and complex issues”, and given that many of the facts of the case are not yet known, such as when, where and how the substance was administered, how is it possible for the British Government to point the finger of blame with such certainty?

17. Furthermore, by doing so, haven’t they both politicised and prejudiced the investigation?

18. Why did the British Government feel the need to come forward with an accusation little more than a week into the investigation, rather than waiting for its completion?

19. On the Andrew Marr Show on 18th March, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, stated the following:

“And I might just say in response to Mr Chizhov’s point about Russian stockpiles of chemical weapons. We actually had evidence within the last ten years that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination, but it has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok.”

Where has this intelligence come from and has it been properly verified?

20. If this intelligence was known before 27th September 2017 – the date that the OPCW issued a statement declaring the completion of the destruction of all 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons possessed by the Russian Federation – why did Britain not inform the OPCW of its own intelligence which apparently contradicts this claim, which they would have had a legal obligation to do?

21. If this intelligence was known after 27th September 2017, why did Britain not inform the OPCW of this “new” information, which it was legally obliged to do, since it allegedly shows that Russia had been lying to the OPCW and had been carrying out a clandestine chemical weapons programme?

22. Also on the Andrew Marr show, Mr Johnson made the following claim after a question of whether he was “absolutely sure” that the substance used to poison the Skripals was a “Novichok”:

“Obviously to the best of our knowledge this is a Russian-made nerve agent that falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia, and just to get back to the point about the international reaction which is so fascinating.”

Is the phrase “to the best of our knowledge” an adequate response to Mr Marr’s request of him being “absolutely sure”?

23. Is this a good enough legal basis from which to accuse another state and to impose punitive measures on it, or is more certainty needed before such an accusation can be made?

24. After hedging his words with the phrase, “to the best of our knowledge”, Mr Johnson then went beyond previous Government claims that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia”, saying that it was “Russian-made”. Have the scientists at Porton Down been able to establish that it was indeed “Russian-made”, or was this a case of Mr Johnson straying off-message?

25. He also went beyond the previous claim that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia” by saying that the substance involved in the Skripal case “falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia”? Firstly, is Mr Johnson able to provide evidence that this category of chemical weapons was ever successfully synthesised in Russia, especially in the light of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board stating as recently as 2013, that it has “insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of ‘Novichoks“?

26. As Craig Murray has again pointed out, since its 2013 statement, the OPCW has worked (legally) with Iranian scientists who have successfully synthesised these chemical weapons. Was Mr Johnson aware that the category of “Novichok” chemical weapons had been synthesised elsewhere when he stated that this category of chemical weapons is “made only by Russia”?

27. Does the fact that Iranian scientists were able to synthesise this class of chemical weapons suggest that other states have the capabilities to do likewise?

28. Is the British Government aware that the main plant involved in attempts to synthesise Novichoks in the 1970s and 1980s was based not in Russia, but in Nukus in Uzbekistan?

29. Does the fact that the US Department of Defence decontaminated and dismantled the Nukus site, under an agreement with the Government of Uzbekistan, make it at least theoretically possible that substances or secrets held within that plant could have been carried out of the country and even back to the United States?

30. The connection between Sergei Skripal’s MI6 recruiter, Pablo Miller, who also happens to live in Salisbury, and Christopher Steele, the author of the so-called “Trump Dossier”, has been well established, as has the fact that Mr Skripal and Mr Miller regularly met together in the City. Is this connection of any interest to the investigation into the incident in Salisbury?


If there are any journalists with integrity and inquisitive minds still living in this country, I would be grateful if they could begin doing their job and research the answers to these sorts of questions by asking the appropriate people and authorities.


I have now written a further 20 questions, which you can read here:


 

19 thoughts on “30 Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

  1. I read one artical where an author stated that close friends of the victim confirmed that Skripal was in contact with Russian government on his come back. Might be the reason why MI6 didn’t want to this happen

  2. Rob, after the anthrax scare in the US after 9/11, we found out that chemical weapons and nerve agents have DNA and when tested it tells where it came from identifying who may have distributed it. With wrongful accusations of Bin Laden and the Taliban, we found out that it came from a high-security US military base. Why has it not been tested for a DNA marker?

    1. Indeed John. Daniel McAdams got in contact with me and asked if they could republish it. And then I saw the Liberty Report yesterday and heard the mention. I’m glad it has resonated.

      Now if only we can get the Americans to pronounce Salisbury as it should be pronounced — “Souls-bree” rather than “Salliss-bury” — we might get somewhere 😉

      Rob

    1. Hi Luisa,

      Thanks very much for doing this. I’m glad you got the interpretation of point 6 sorted out.

      Best wishes,

      Rob

  3. Dear Sir,

    No need to answer my previous question because I have seen where my interpretation was wrong.
    Being so I have translated it this way:

    6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, the same incident happened almost a week before Public Health England issued advice …”
    in Portuguese, of course.

    Thanks once again for this report.
    Respectfully,
    luisa

  4. Dear Mr. Slane,
    Thanks for this article. I am a professional retired translator and I am just translating it in my native language (Portuguese) as I am tired to read a lot of nonsense at the Portuguese media.
    I have a doubt and I kindly ask you to clarify it :

    6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before Public Health England issued advice to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to the public?
    My doubt:
    ….” it was a week before this incident that Public Health England issued advice to…? How did they know it? It seems logical to me that I should read:
    …”it was a week after this incident that the Public Health England issued advice to…”
    Please let me know if i am wrong or right, because I want to translate it without the slightest doubt, doing it with the needed accuracy and conciseness”
    Many thanks in advance for your clarification.

    Respectfully,
    luisa

  5. I find it curious that a Detective Sergeant was first on the scene when Skripal and his daughter were found on the park bench. Surely uniformed(for some reason I had an urge to write “uninformed” here) officers would have been there first, even paramedics. Although if he was exposed whilst searching Mr Skripal’s home then that might account for it. I don’t remember seeing any news articles mentioning this angle though.

  6. The government (incl Porton Down) have no proof novichok was used: a cautious and not even cynical interpretation of the Court of Protection judgment regarding evidence in the Skripal case points to bluffing on the side of May, Johnson and Williamson. It all comes down to the use of the word “related” and the words “closely related”.

    According to the judgement, the Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst provided following evidence:

    “Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
    findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound.”

    “The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely
    related agent.”

    The quotes are from paragraph 17 in Mr Justice Williams’s judgement issued 22 March 2018.

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sshd-v-skripal-and-another-20180322.pdf

    Macron, Merkel and Trump now weigh extradition of Russian diplomats based on the UK government’s hasty conclusion that novichok was used.

    Please also note that the formula for novichok can be found in Mirzayanov’s book that you can buy on the US site of Amazon. I was able to see the formula in the Appendix via amazon’s browsing facility (chemical A-232).

  7. Some more questions:
    Why was there no massive police “national manhunt” after the event?
    A person or persons armed with “the deadliest nerve agent known to man” had just carried out a botched attempted murder on the streets of an English town and was presumably still at large. He/she/they had failed in their task and was/ were presumably desperate and on the run. Did they still carry the lethal substance? Were they perhaps infected themselves? Were they a danger to other Russian dissidents, police or members of the public?
    So why does there appear to have been little or no attempt to identify, find and arrest them? Why no request for anyone witnessing anything suspicious or warnings not to approach anyone behaving strangely?
    Also, why are journalists not behaving the way journalists do in such circumstances? Why are Mr Skripals Salisbury friends not being door-stepped to ask about what he is like, whether he ever talks about his past, his family or his hopes for the future. Why are they not asking his neighbours about the sort of people, if any, come and go at his house. He seems to have been a friendly, gregarious chap who often drank with friends at the local pub. What did the bar staff and the other regulars make of him?
    And what about the “shouting” incident in the restaurant? One member of staff appears to have reported “He started screaming. He just didn’t look right.’ Where are the media interviews with staff and diners to expand upon this? Why are the UK media and police acting so unlike the UK media and police normally act after such incidents?
    I am no conspiracy theorist and I do not believe that any government could successfully “silence” hundreds of police officers and journalists even if one wanted to. It may be that the UK authorities know exactly what happened and are playing a long, waiting game. But the utterances of May, Johnson and co suggest otherwise. It may be that the OPCW will clarify everything but Johnson’s utterances about the substance being proved to be a novichok and that only the Russians can make it are false and demonstrably so the public’s confusion can only continue.

    1. Thanks Stewart. These are very good questions. The ones regarding the lack of “manhunt” are especially good and to the point. I am thinking of a follow-up set of questions, and if you don’t mind, I might use this one (accredited to you, of course).

      Like you, I am no conspiracy theorist, but there is something extraordinary about the facts (or lack of them) in this case, that really don’t add up.

      Best wishes,

      Rob

  8. Another inconsistency is that there are many pictures showing police and others running around in Hazmat suits together with f.ex the fire brigade that clearly do not. Shouldn’t they all wear such suits? Even May were strutting around with no protection at all…

    If a military grade nerve agent was used everybody in the vicinity of the attack, including the murderer should have died and the entire town evacuated

  9. Buy the same logic Russia is guilty because they developed the chemical weapon 30 years ago, then England is guilty of the murder of Kin Jong Un’s half brother by VX in Malaysia because it was developed in England.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.